This article argues that an understanding of professional and popular science writers' goals provides a basis for both explaining and evaluating their language use. Rhetoricians fault scientists for unnecessarily stilted language; scientists fault popularists for inaccuracy and sensationalism. Although these charges are sometimes justified, they deflect attention from the obstacles writers face and the ways in which they use language to overcome these obstacles.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
JournetD.Parallels in Scientific and Literary Discourse: Stephen Jay Gould and the Science of Form, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 16:4, pp. 299–310, 1986.
2.
HalloranS. M. and BradfordA. N., Figures of Speech in the Rhetoric of Science and Technology, in Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse, ConnorsR. J.EdeL. S., and LunsfordA. A. (eds.), Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale, pp. 179–192, 284–286, 1984.
3.
FahnestockJ.Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts, Written Communication, 3:3, pp. 275–296, 1986.
4.
BradfordA. N. and WhitburnM. D.Analysis of the Same Subject in Diverse Periodicals: One Method for Teaching Audience Adaptation, The Technical Writing Teacher, 9:2, pp. 58–64, 1982.
5.
CampbellP. N.The Personae of Scientific Discourse, Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61:4, pp. 391–405, 1975.
6.
OveringtonM. A.The Scientific Community as Audience: Toward a Rhetorical Analysis of Science, Philosophy and Rhetoric, 10:3, pp. 143–164, 1977.
7.
GrossA. G.The Form of the Experimental Paper: A Realization of the Myth of Induction, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 15:1, pp. 15–26, 1985.
8.
GoodellR.Problems with the Press: Who's Responsible?, Bioscience, 35:3, pp. 151–157, March 1985.
9.
TrachtmanL. and StarryA.Science in the Press: Black and White or Gray All Over?, Scientific Research, 4, pp. 29–32, March 3, 1969.
10.
DowdyD.Rhetorical Techniques of Audience Adaptation in Popular Science Writing, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 17:3, pp. 275–285, 1987.
11.
Bar-HillelY., Language and Information, Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts, 1964.
12.
KinneavyJ., A Theory of Discourse, W. W. Norton, New York, 1971.
13.
SearleJ. R., Speech Acts: An Essay in the Philosophy of Language, Cambridge, London, 1969.
14.
BlumA.Science Magazines for Youth in Five Countries—Different Approaches, International Science Education, 65:1, pp. 65–70, 1981.
15.
BatesB. J., The Role of Theory in Broadcast Economics: A Review and Development, Communication Yearbook, McLaughlinM. L. (ed.), Sage, Newbury Park, California, pp. 146–171, 1987.
16.
DunwoodyS., An Editor's Comment, Sciphers (publication of the Science Writing Educators Group, School of Journalism, University of Columbia, Missouri), 7:2, pp. 1, 8, 1986.
17.
FieldT.WoodsonR.GreenburgR., and CohenD.Discrimination and Imitation of Facial Expressions by Neonates, Science, 218:4568, pp. 179–181, October 8, 1982.
18.
GarfieldE.Science Revisited: Another Centenary of Citation Classics, Current Contents, 19:32, pp. 3–13, 1987.
19.
Baby Faces: Those First Impressions, Science82, 3:10, p. 6, December 1982.
20.
MeltzoffA. N. and MooreM. K.Imitation of Facial and Manual Gestures by Human Neonates, Science, 198:4312, pp. 75–78, 1977.
21.
FriedrichO.GalvinR. M., and LudtkeM.What Do Babies Know?, Time, 122:7, pp. 52–59, August 15, 1983.
22.
MeyersJ. A.A Letter From the Publisher, Time, 122:7, p. 3, August 15, 1983.
23.
Webster's New World Dictionary, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1986.
24.
KiesD.Some Stylistic Features of Business and Technical Writing: The Functions of Passive Voice, Nominalization, and Agency, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 15:4, pp. 299–308, 1985.
25.
BostianL. R. and TheringA. C.Scientists: Can They Read What They Write?, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 17:4, pp. 417–427, 1987.
26.
RowanK. E.A Contemporary Theory of Explanatory Writing, Written Communication, 5:1, 1988.
27.
RowanK. E., Oral Communication, in Business Writing: Strategies and Samples, HalpernJ.KilbornJ., and LokkeA. (eds.), Macmillan, New York, pp. 547–570, 1988.
28.
RowanK. E.No-Ideas Students Learn How to Find, Research Stories, Journalism Educator, 42:4, 1988.
29.
RowanK. E. and BurlesonB. R.Are Social-Cognitive and Narrative Writing Skill Related? A Response to Rubin et al., Written Communication, 2:1, 1985.
30.
RowanK. E.The Implicit Social Scientist and the Implicit Rhetorician: An Integrative Theory for the Introductory Communication Course, Communication Education, 33:4, 1984.
