Thursday, September 25, 2014
Thursday, September 11, 2014
Written Communication
In Fahnestock's publication "Written Communication", we see the effects rhetorical discourse has on science journals. Fahnestock discusses how the formation of the reports and research changes from 'one discourse to another... under the pressure of genre shift from forensic to epideictic.' The reason being to appeal to audiences outside the scientific fields. I for one have no background in scientific studies, although I occasionally read a science blog or article to further my knowledge and understanding of the world around me. I may not be able to understand most of what the original article is trying to convey, but with the changed format, it makes it easier to understand.
Fahnestock goes further to even claim that the information is distorted when the formation changes. As for the researches report, they try their best to keep as close as possible to the original information when writing their thoughts on the research or experiment. And I have to agree. Through the many examples Fahnestock gives in the article, the first always covers the information meticulously. In the second, corners are cut and words are changed in order to meet the needs of the new audience.
As far as the disadvantages are concerned, I feel the information is construed and no longer valid as presented by the researcher. The article discussing the bees is prime example of this: In the first article is states that "no other protein sources are used by T. hypogea, and pollen transporting structures have been lost making this species an obligate necrophage." This is then changed to "Though other bees have teeth, this is the only species that cannot carry pollen"
Although the second article explains it in a way that a different audience may be able to understand it, I feel a lot of the original structure of the piece is lost.
-D
Fahnestock, Jeanne Written Communication
Fahnestock goes further to even claim that the information is distorted when the formation changes. As for the researches report, they try their best to keep as close as possible to the original information when writing their thoughts on the research or experiment. And I have to agree. Through the many examples Fahnestock gives in the article, the first always covers the information meticulously. In the second, corners are cut and words are changed in order to meet the needs of the new audience.
As far as the disadvantages are concerned, I feel the information is construed and no longer valid as presented by the researcher. The article discussing the bees is prime example of this: In the first article is states that "no other protein sources are used by T. hypogea, and pollen transporting structures have been lost making this species an obligate necrophage." This is then changed to "Though other bees have teeth, this is the only species that cannot carry pollen"
Although the second article explains it in a way that a different audience may be able to understand it, I feel a lot of the original structure of the piece is lost.
-D
Fahnestock, Jeanne Written Communication
Tuesday, September 9, 2014
Lehrer Vs. DiSalvo
In Lehrer's blog post "The Benefits of Being Bilingual" he discusses the differences in how the mind works when using two or more languages. He takes his lead from multiple surveys and studies that demonstrate this theory. He starts his post by looking back at an example of how someone uses their bilingual knowledge to write what are being called his greatest works. Lehrer is a master of using past experiences to draw the reader in. Although he rarely uses his own experiences, the use of bringing the past into the present to further his case has proved to draw the audience in.
The first study he uses to back up his claim of bilingual benefits is that of Samuel Beckett, and how he wrote his articles in french, and then translated back to english in order to get away from the 'style crutches' he had used for so long. This practice led him to be able to unpack his thoughts and allow him to "reflect on what he actually wanted to express...". Lehrer also quotes a paper, published at the University of Chicago, that states "forcing people to rely on a second language systematically reduced human biased". He doesn't talk about his own opinions until the end of the post, probably to continue his theme of being unbiased. As we know he is still trying to earn his readers respect back from previous claims of untrustworthy writing.
In David DiSalvo's "Why Our Brains Love the Curve", he discusses the new technology of curved television screens. Although this is a fairly new design to us, he says that researchers have known for a while that "people consistently show a preference for curves over hard lines and angles." He talks about the other advantages of the curved screen beyond aesthetic pleasure. He says that "we subjectively see sharp, hard visual cues as red flags... curves take the perceptual edge off."
The same as Lehrer, DiSalvo uses links and quotes his material, to give us the facts of this scientific survey. He even lists the results to some extensive experiments that explain why we like the curve. He even goes as far to say the old flat screened televisions will "go the way of the rotary dial phone'.
At first glance, I notice that DiSalvo's post is much shorter than Lehrer's, giving me the impression of less research and less evidence for his argument. Although, upon further reading, I get the feeling that I trust DiSalvo over Lehrer. Im sure that it has everything to do with the past allegations of his plagiarism. DiSalvo uses his knowledge of technology to give us the best analysis of curved screens I've heard thus far.
DiSalvo was a more interesting read in my opinion. I enjoyed his style of writing and his discourse. I feel Lehrer is more harsh with his tone and less friendly. DiSalvo also uses examples from todays world, and even incorporates new and old technology to interest the reader beyond the post. After reading his article, i feel more inclined to give the curved television a chance, as before i thought it was a ridiculous notion.
In short, Lehrer has a way to go before I believe readers will trust him again. As for DiSalvo, I look forward to reading more of his work in the future. I value his opinions and insight to the technological world.
-Lehrer, Jonah "The Benefits of Being Bilingual" http://www.wired.com/2012/05/the-benefits-of-being-bilingual/
-DiSalvo, David "Why Our Brains Love the Curve" http://www.daviddisalvo.org/the-daily-brain
The first study he uses to back up his claim of bilingual benefits is that of Samuel Beckett, and how he wrote his articles in french, and then translated back to english in order to get away from the 'style crutches' he had used for so long. This practice led him to be able to unpack his thoughts and allow him to "reflect on what he actually wanted to express...". Lehrer also quotes a paper, published at the University of Chicago, that states "forcing people to rely on a second language systematically reduced human biased". He doesn't talk about his own opinions until the end of the post, probably to continue his theme of being unbiased. As we know he is still trying to earn his readers respect back from previous claims of untrustworthy writing.
In David DiSalvo's "Why Our Brains Love the Curve", he discusses the new technology of curved television screens. Although this is a fairly new design to us, he says that researchers have known for a while that "people consistently show a preference for curves over hard lines and angles." He talks about the other advantages of the curved screen beyond aesthetic pleasure. He says that "we subjectively see sharp, hard visual cues as red flags... curves take the perceptual edge off."
The same as Lehrer, DiSalvo uses links and quotes his material, to give us the facts of this scientific survey. He even lists the results to some extensive experiments that explain why we like the curve. He even goes as far to say the old flat screened televisions will "go the way of the rotary dial phone'.
At first glance, I notice that DiSalvo's post is much shorter than Lehrer's, giving me the impression of less research and less evidence for his argument. Although, upon further reading, I get the feeling that I trust DiSalvo over Lehrer. Im sure that it has everything to do with the past allegations of his plagiarism. DiSalvo uses his knowledge of technology to give us the best analysis of curved screens I've heard thus far.
DiSalvo was a more interesting read in my opinion. I enjoyed his style of writing and his discourse. I feel Lehrer is more harsh with his tone and less friendly. DiSalvo also uses examples from todays world, and even incorporates new and old technology to interest the reader beyond the post. After reading his article, i feel more inclined to give the curved television a chance, as before i thought it was a ridiculous notion.
In short, Lehrer has a way to go before I believe readers will trust him again. As for DiSalvo, I look forward to reading more of his work in the future. I value his opinions and insight to the technological world.
-Lehrer, Jonah "The Benefits of Being Bilingual" http://www.wired.com/2012/05/the-benefits-of-being-bilingual/
-DiSalvo, David "Why Our Brains Love the Curve" http://www.daviddisalvo.org/the-daily-brain
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)