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As far as the disadvantages are concerned, I feel the information is construed and no longer valid as presented by the researcher.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