In contrast to the literary artist we expect the scientist-writer to transmit information to the intended audience as accurately and clearly as possible. Nevertheless, a few scientists have managed to slip into their prose such rhetorical devices as anagram, acrostic, pun, metaphor, litotes, and neologism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KoestlerA., The Watershed: A Biography of Johannes Kepler, Doubleday and Company, Inc., New York, p. 200, 1960.
2.
BirdR. B.StewartW. E., and LightfootE. N., Transport Phenomena, John Wiley and Sons, New York, pp. 712–713, 1960.
3.
AlpherR. A.BetheH., and GamowG., The Origin of Chemical Elements, Physical Review, 73:7, p. 803, 1948.
4.
LewisG. N. and RandallM., Thermodynamics, 2nd edition, revised by PitzerK. S. and BrewerL., McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York, p. v., 1961.
5.
BatesM. and HumphreyP. S. (eds.), The Darwin Reader, Charles Scribner's Sons, New York, p. 433, 1956.
6.
PattersonJ. S., Darwin and Style, Technical Communication, 31:4, p. 64, 1984.
7.
WatsonJ. D. and CrickF. H. C., A Structure for Deoxyribose Nucleic Acid, Nature, 171, p. 737, 1953.
8.
Gell-MannM., A Schematic Model of Baryons and Mesons, Physics Letters, 8:3, p. 214, 1964.
9.
Metaphor in Science Writing, Technical Communication, 32:1, 1985.
10.
Defining the Specialized Audience for Technical Publications, Proceedings of 33rd International Communication Conference, Detroit, Michigan, May 11–14, 1986.
