Is “the writer's audience always a fiction,” as Walter Ong contends, even when the writing is not poetry or fiction but scientific prose? To demonstrate the usefulness of Ong's approach to audience for analysts of nonfiction prose and for those who wish to empower student writers, we consider from a reader-response perspective two scientific articles on the same general topic written for the same discourse community in the same year. The authors of the two essays (prestigious scientists) directed their readers into two radically different roles. One makes his readers not only into “conventional” scientists but into willing novices who take note of his presentation but who do not take issue with it; the other creates disciplinary nonconformists, inquistive skeptics who have the perspectives necessary to understand the limits of scientific thought. The analysis elaborates the rhetorical nature of scientific discourse, demonstrates that even within the constraints of the journal article scientists have considerable freedom to exercise choices, and explicates how writers use cues to direct readers into fictional roles.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bazerman, C.
(1981). What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11, 361-382.
2.
Bazerman, C.
(1984). The writing of scientific non-fiction: Contexts, choices, constraints. Pre/Text, 5, 39-74.
3.
Black, E.
(1970). The second persona. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 56, 109-119.
4.
Black, M.
(1983). Models and metaphors. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
5.
Booth, S.
(1969) An essay on Shakespeare's sonnets. New Haven: Yale University Press.
6.
Booth, W.
(1961). The rhetoric of fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
7.
Campbell, P.
(1975). The personae of scientific discourse. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61, 391-405.
8.
Council of Biology Editors Style Manual Committee
. (1983). CBE style manual (5th ed.). Bethesda, MD: Council of Biology Editors, Inc.
9.
Darwin, C.
(1872). The origin of species. London: John Murray.
10.
Dillon, G.
(1981). Constructing texts: Elements of a theory of composition and style. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
11.
Eagleton, T.
(1987). Literary theory: An introduction. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
12.
Eco, U.
(1979). The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
13.
Ede, L.
, & Lunsford, A. (1984). Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communications, 35, 155-171.
14.
Eldredge, N.
, & Gould, S. (1988). Punctuated equilibrium prevails. Nature, 332, 211-212.
15.
Ellstrand, N.
(1983). Why are juveniles smaller than their parents?Evolution, 37, 1091-1094.
16.
Fish, S.
(1980). Is there a text in this class? The authority of interpretive communities. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
17.
Foucault, M.
(1979). What is an author? In J. V. Harari (Ed.), Textual Strategies (pp. 146-154). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
18.
Geertz, C.
(1988). Works and lives: The anthropologist as author. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
19.
Gibson, W.
(1950). Authors, speakers, readers, and mock readers. College English, 11, 265-269.
20.
Gould, S. J.
(1981). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.
21.
Gould, S. J.
, & Lewontin, R. C. (1979). The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: A critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, B: Biological Sciences, 205, 581-598.
22.
Halloran, S. M.
(1984). The birth of molecular biology: An essay in the rhetorical criticism of scientific discourse. Rhetoric Review, 3, 70-82.
23.
Halloran, S. M.
, & Bradford, A. (1984). Figures of speech in the rhetoric of science and technology. In R. Connors, L. Ede, & A. Lunsford (Eds.), Classical rhetoric and modern discourse. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
24.
Hirsch, E. D.
(1967). Validity in interpretation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
25.
Iser, W.
(1974). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
26.
Kinneavy, J.
(1971). A theory of discourse. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
27.
Kinneavy, J.
(1983). Writing across the curriculum. Profession 83 (pp. 13-20). New York: MLA.
28.
Kuhn, T.
(1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Lewontin, R. C.
(1974). The genetic basis of evolutionary change. New York: Columbia University Press.
30.
Long, R.
(1980). Writer-audience relationships: Analysis or invention?College Composition and Communication, 31, 221-226.
31.
Maynard Smith, J.
(1978). Optimization theory in evolution. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 9, 31-56.
32.
Maynard Smith, J.
(1987). Darwinism stays unpunctured. Nature, 330, 516.
33.
Maynard Smith, J.
(1988). Punctuation in perspective. Nature, 332, 331-312.
34.
Mayr, E.
(1983). How to carry out the adaptationist program?The American Naturalist, 121, 324-334.
35.
Myers, G.
(1985) The social construction of two biologists' proposals. Written Communication, 2, 219-245.
36.
Ong, W.
(1975). The writer's audience is always a fiction. PMLA, 90, 9-21.
37.
Overington, M.
(1977). The scientific community as audience: Toward a rhetorical analysis of science. Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10, 143-164.
38.
Park, D.
(1982). The meanings of “audience.”College English, 44, 247-257.
39.
Park, D.
(1986). Analyzing audiences. College Composition and Communication, 37, 478-488.
40.
Preston, J.
(1970). The created self: The readers' roles in eighteenth-century fiction. London: Heinemann.
41.
Prince, G.
(1973). Introduction to the study of the narratee. Poetique, 14, 177-196. [reprinted in Tompkins, 1980].
42.
Scholes, R.
(1985). Textual power: Literary theory and the teaching of English. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
43.
Sherbo, A.
(1969). “Inside” and “outside” readers in Fielding's novels. In Studies in the Eighteenth-Century English Novel (pp. 35-37). East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.
44.
Simons, H. W.
(1980). Are scientists rhetors in disguise? An analysis of discourse processes within scientific communities. In E. F. White (Ed.), Rhetoric in transition (pp. 115-130). University Park: Penn State University Press.
45.
Tompkins, J.
, (Ed.). (1980). Reader-response criticism: From formalism to post-structuralism. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
46.
Wander, P. C.
(1976). The rhetoric of science. Western Speech Communication, 40, 226-235.
