How the Language of Science Changes with Changes in Audience Purpose and Mode - Term Paper Example

How the Language of Science Changes with Changes in Audience Purpose and Mode Essay Name ....................................... Linguistics ............................... Professor ............................... April 16, 2014 Table of Contents Table of Contents 2 Introduction 4 Text 1: 4 Ancient European hunter-gatherer was a blue-eyed boy 4 Genre 4 Technical language 5 Lexical density 6 Nominal groups and nominalisation 6 Information organisation 6 Relationship between writer and readers 7 Use of visuals 7 Text 2: 8 Hunter-gatherer European had blue eyes and dark skin 8 Genre 8 Technical language 8 Lexical density 8 Nominal groups and nominalisation 9 Information organisation 9 Relationship between writer and readers 10 Use of visuals 10 Text 3: 10 Derived immune and ancestral pigmentation alleles in a 7,000-year-old Mesolithic European 10 Genre 10 Technical language 11 Lexical density 11 Nominal groups and nominalisation 11 Information organisation 12 Relationship between writer and readers 12 Use of visuals 12 Identifying changes in the texts from Text 1 to text 3 12 References 13 Introduction Halliday (1998) has defined the language of science as "several forms of discourse which communicate activities of 'doing science'. Halliday propounds a systematic functional approach that says that science can be communicated differently for different audiences. In other words, the tone and purpose of the language changes on the basis of the audiences it is supposed to address. The resulting discourse as created by textual differences is brought about by grammar which acts as an interpersonal and ideational tool (Hyland, 2009). It is the grammar that renders scientific text its meaning as befits a given type of audience (Eger, 1993). Then there is nominalisation that gives text its taxonomising potential. Considered to be everyday language's feature, different taxonomies provide scientific language specific relevance for a given audience (Halliday and Martin, 1993). The trend is not evident only in scientific writing but also reflects in how English language is used from early to late secondary and then tertiary level studies. Text 1: Ancient European hunter-gatherer was a blue-eyed boy (New Scientist, 26 January by Catherine de Lange) Genre In order to establish genre for this text, it is important to understand where it has appeared (Derewianka, 2003). The New Scientist that has carried it is a science magazine of international repute, which carries non-peer-reviewed articles and news. It gives a weekly commentary on current scientific developments, reviews and anything related to science of now and then. It even carries speculative articles and has editions published simultaneously from Australia, the United States and the UK. New Scientist sells either through subscription or through retail outlets for coverage that is relevant to the laymen. Technically, scientific writing adheres to its own rhetorical genres (Veel, 1997) even though it might be difficult for readers to get even a whiff of it. The idea behind use of each genre is to attain a certain persuasive punch. In that context this text falls into the commentary genre that triggers further discussion. It stands on a previous work or discovery that craves for more light to be shed upon it. If the same is explained in terms of academic language, the text is a "recount" and even a “narrative” – it tells what happened; it is an orientation of evaluative remarks interspersed from beginning to end of the piece (Hyland, 2004). Technical language The idea of New Scientist is to make available scientific articles of interest to everyday lives of people interested to what has or is happening in the world. New Scientist caters to the sheer inquisitiveness of general readers and that is what this text also accomplishes. As a result of this the text does not stick to a seriously technical language because it does not intend to teach language or scientific terms to the audience, chunk of which is common readers. Its intention is to communicate a recent finding that must evince huge reader response on account of bearing an imprint from the past. The interest is evinced in the first paragraph itself when the text says that hunter-gatherer of 7000 years ago had surprisingly the same genome as that of today's human beings. Lexical density This is a written rather than spoken text so would have a lexical density greater than the latter. The 288-word text has a complexity factor or lexical density of 66 percent, with number of different words at 190. Readability according to the Gunning-Fog Index is 8.6 (6 easy and 20 hard). Total number of characters is 2924, and characters without spaces are 1794, sentence count 27, average sentence length (in words) is 17.81 and maximum sentence length (in words) is 40. Minimum sentence length is 2 and readability (alternative) beta is 100 easy, 20 hard; optimal 60-70. Hunter and farming are the top words with a rank of 1 and frequency of 2.4 percent. These are followed by fox, Lalueza, evolved, genome, genes, gatherer, spread and diseases. Nominal groups and nominalisation The text is replete with nominal groups thus allowing it to pack a lot of information in a relatively short space. Few examples are: "has a genome surprisingly similar to modern humans", "that were thought to have evolved later, and "it will help us to understand". Information organisation Even as this a scientific text but it does not flow in the standard IMRAD structure, which is introduction first, then methods and materials, followed by results and finally discussion. It is because it because the genre is not academic writing but one that is based on a commentary. However, the text accomplishes some unique feats. One, even though a formal introduction is missing, it is successful in putting the core information in its opening paragraph - a 7000-year-old remains of a hunter-gatherer found in a cave in Spain having a genome matching modern humans. He had blue eyes and host of immunity genes. Then it talks about the evolution brought about by farming and variations in diet over several hundred years. This is an important twist in the organisation because had the text continued with the revelation it started in the beginning, reader's interest must have diluted somewhere midway through the text. At the same time, however, the text does not forget being concise and do away with extraneous information. It is crisply presented, has precise action verbs, avoids adjectives or intensifying adverbs and steers clear of hedging words. Relationship between writer and readers In a scientific text the relationship between a writer and the readers is determined by the type of text that is in focus and the genre that it follows. This piece of text is a general informative article from a popular science magazine, so the relationship between the writer and the reader is unlike the one that is established between a science book writer or an academic article writer. The audience of this text is general so the relationship between the two is casual with science binding both as a point of common interest. Use of visuals This is plain vanilla text though powerful in content and context. Any visual element could have added another dimension to it but then lack of the same does not even seem to be doing any major damage. The story dates back to 7000 years, so even if there would have been a visual, it would have been only representative. It could have shown the European's skeletal remains but not conveyed the genomic side of it. The text, thus, is able to stand alone and on its own. Text 2: Hunter-gatherer European had blue eyes and dark skin (BBC World Service, by Rebecca Morelle, Science Reporter) Genre This text, documented by BBC World Service, is a typical science report, peer-reviewed to some extent. It is unlike the Text 1 because if that was keeping common reader in mind, this one aims at an audience which has a relatively scientific temperament relying on evidence-based reporting. This text is authoritative in the sense that it quotes authoritative figures of scientific standing from universities of repute (Chang and Schleppegrell, 2011). So this follows a research genre which is combined with an academic tone. The thrust on genetics is more pronounced in this text and attempts to prove by way of scientific sources the claims it reports. Technical language Since the text is attempting to be evidence-based, one can see liberal use of technical language in the same. Like La Brana 1 and 2, DNA, and foraging to farming, Lexical density This text has a lexical density of 67.2 percent on a total word count of 311 with 209 as number of different words. Readability on Gunning-Fog Index is 10.2 with 6 easy and 20 hard words. Total number of characters is 3318 and number of characters without spaces is 2001. Average syllables per word are 1.71, sentence count 29, average sentence length 19.5, maximum sentence length is 44 and minimum sentence length is 2. Readability (alternative) beta 100-easy 20-hard, optimal 60-70 is 42.2. Skin is the top word occurring 9 times with a frequency of 2.9 percent and rank 1. This is followed in order by early, Europe, genome, dark, very, across, years, ancient and European. Nominal groups and nominalisation Owing to the depth of knowledge the text conveys the use of nominal groups and normalisation is on the higher side. Few example include "it has surprised scientists, who thought that the early inhabitants of Europe were fair", "were remarkably well preserved", "the team found that the early European was most closely genetically related to people in Sweden and Finland". Information organisation This text delves a little deeper into the report than the Text 1 and tries to substantiate its reportage with evidence gathered from various sources, including Nature journal in which the findings first appeared. The text focuses more on the genetic side of the story and how it has surprised scientists. It offers a comparative and even goes to link the findings with not only the Scandinavian part but also with other scientific aspects like UV radiation and vitamin D synthesis. The organisation, in other words, is better and balanced. Relationship between writer and readers The relation the writer develops with the audience is more on the academic than the article side. Although it is poles apart from the relationship that could be developed by reading a text book account on the same findings. This writer relates with the audience differently by providing more inputs to readers to satiate their hunger for more information. The writer in this case seems to be an authentic point of contact on this matter. The writer reveals little bit of authority and persuades readers to assume strength of their position. The writer does so by relating the research in the text with the research done elsewhere. Use of visuals The text is accompanied with one visual; which is the mangled skeleton of the 7000-year-old man discovered in a Spanish cave. This visual adds credence to the text, though, it cannot be expected to attain anything else. But the visual reinforces a level of flashpoint for the reader who might very well be compelled to think on how that man must have looked like. Text 3: Derived immune and ancestral pigmentation alleles in a 7,000-year-old Mesolithic European (Inigo Olalde, et al. Nature (2014)) Genre This text is, in fact, the original work of this study that has been reviewed in the Text 1 and 2 above. As is clear from the title itself, the audience of this text is not the same as those in previous ones. This is a research report and has researchers on its mind. As a result of this the text falls within the report genre and follows a strict guideline of a report format. It is hardcore scientific reading fit to be used by scholars and scientists working in this field or interested in further work on the topic. Or how else would a text as this be supported by 30 references, with due acknowledgements to several research centres, contributors and other support people. Technical language Being an in-depth scientific report, it could not have done with highly technical and domain-specific language both in text and figures. Audiences for Text 1 and 2 may actually find themselves out of place when confronted with this text. Lexical density Given the extent of the text in this scientific report, its lexical density on account of the complexity of the format and language used in greater than the texts analysed above. Nominal groups and nominalisation Nominal groups and normalisation in this text yield coherence in its structure and produce summarisation in the most effective manner (Myers, 2009). Nominal groups in this text provide a dual function. This can be put as nominal groups plus theme plus coherence equals to summarisation. Nominal groups in this text are not supposed to provide a numerical function but are meant to present a unique essence in its relationship. Research has suggested that nominal groups in a scientific paper as this are yielded by its dominant lexicogrammatical structure. This text is replete with both disciplinary content phrases and research process as it offers an ease to express most complex terms and expressions in a concise manner. Information organisation This is a scientific report and the flow of information adheres to the standards as proposed by IMRAD structure. Relationship between writer and readers This text transmits a scientific understanding on part of the writer(s) to readers who, by all virtue, hail from the same community. So in that sense it is an academic exercise that binds the two with each other. Use of visuals In a text as this, visuals are not as important as are graphical representations. These help the audience, who are readers with scientific bent of mind, go to the core of the findings being delivered to them. Identifying changes in the texts from Text 1 to text 3 It is not that the changes took place because Text 1 and 2 came first. This thought can be taken in reverse, and that is to say that Text 1 and 2 are simple derivates of Text 3. If Text 3 would not be there, 1 and 2 would not have been possible. But since these texts have appeared in reverse here; what can be clearly deduced is that Text 1 conveys a layman's approach to this 7000-year-old finding. Text 2 adds on more information to Text 1 and both 1 and 2 seem to be miniscule portions of what Text 3 actually is. The audience in all is different and it is interesting to note how these texts modulate language so as to serve the purpose of different audiences via different modes (Wright, 2008). References Chang, P & Schleppegrell, M. (2011). Taking an effective authorial stance in academic writing: Making the linguistic resources explicit for L2 writers in the social sciences. Journal of English for Academic Purposes. 10, 140-151. Derewianka, B. (2003). Trends and Issues in Genre-Based Approaches. RELC Journal, 34 (2) 133 – 154 Eger, M. (1993). 'Hermeneutics and the New Epic of Science' in M.W. Mcrae (ed) The Literature of Science: Perspectives on popular scientific writing. Athens: University of Georgia Press. Hyland, K. (2004). Genre and Second Language Writing. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chapter 2: Perspectives on genre. Halliday, M.A.K. and Hasan, R. (1985). Language, text and Context. Geelong, Victoria: Deakin University Press. Hyland, K. (2009). Academic discourse. London/New York: Continuum. Chapter 7 – Popular Discourses. Halliday M.A.K. (1998). Things and relations. Regrammaticising experience as technical knowledge. In Martin J. R. and Veel R. (eds). Reading Science. Critical and functional perspectives on discourse of science. London and New York: Routledge. Halliday M. A. K., Martin J. R. (1993). Writing Science: Literacy and discoursive power. London and Washington: Falmer. Myers, G. (1991). Lexical cohesion and specialized knowledge in science and popular science texts. Discourse Processes, 14 (1), 1-26. Veel, R. (1997). Learning how to mean – scientifically speaking: apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In F. Christie, F. and J. Martin. Genre and Institutions. London: Cassell. Wright, L. (2008). Writing science and objectification: Selecting, organizing, and decontextualing knowledge. Linguistics and Education 19: 265–293. Read More

Lexical density This is a written rather than spoken text so would have a lexical density greater than the latter. The 288-word text has a complexity factor or lexical density of 66 percent, with number of different words at 190. Readability according to the Gunning-Fog Index is 8.6 (6 easy and 20 hard). Total number of characters is 2924, and characters without spaces are 1794, sentence count 27, average sentence length (in words) is 17.81 and maximum sentence length (in words) is 40. Minimum sentence length is 2 and readability (alternative) beta is 100 easy, 20 hard; optimal 60-70.

Hunter and farming are the top words with a rank of 1 and frequency of 2.4 percent. These are followed by fox, Lalueza, evolved, genome, genes, gatherer, spread and diseases. Nominal groups and nominalisation The text is replete with nominal groups thus allowing it to pack a lot of information in a relatively short space. Few examples are: "has a genome surprisingly similar to modern humans", "that were thought to have evolved later, and "it will help us to understand".

Information organisation Even as this a scientific text but it does not flow in the standard IMRAD structure, which is introduction first, then methods and materials, followed by results and finally discussion. It is because it because the genre is not academic writing but one that is based on a commentary. However, the text accomplishes some unique feats. One, even though a formal introduction is missing, it is successful in putting the core information in its opening paragraph - a 7000-year-old remains of a hunter-gatherer found in a cave in Spain having a genome matching modern humans.

He had blue eyes and host of immunity genes. Then it talks about the evolution brought about by farming and variations in diet over several hundred years. This is an important twist in the organisation because had the text continued with the revelation it started in the beginning, reader's interest must have diluted somewhere midway through the text. At the same time, however, the text does not forget being concise and do away with extraneous information. It is crisply presented, has precise action verbs, avoids adjectives or intensifying adverbs and steers clear of hedging words.

Relationship between writer and readers In a scientific text the relationship between a writer and the readers is determined by the type of text that is in focus and the genre that it follows. This piece of text is a general informative article from a popular science magazine, so the relationship between the writer and the reader is unlike the one that is established between a science book writer or an academic article writer. The audience of this text is general so the relationship between the two is casual with science binding both as a point of common interest.

Use of visuals This is plain vanilla text though powerful in content and context. Any visual element could have added another dimension to it but then lack of the same does not even seem to be doing any major damage. The story dates back to 7000 years, so even if there would have been a visual, it would have been only representative. It could have shown the European's skeletal remains but not conveyed the genomic side of it. The text, thus, is able to stand alone and on its own. Text 2: Hunter-gatherer European had blue eyes and dark skin (BBC World Service, by Rebecca Morelle, Science Reporter) Genre This text, documented by BBC World Service, is a typical science report, peer-reviewed to some extent.

It is unlike the Text 1 because if that was keeping common reader in mind, this one aims at an audience which has a relatively scientific temperament relying on evidence-based reporting. This text is authoritative in the sense that it quotes authoritative figures of scientific standing from universities of repute (Chang and Schleppegrell, 2011). So this follows a research genre which is combined with an academic tone. The thrust on genetics is more pronounced in this text and attempts to prove by way of scientific sources the claims it reports.

Read More