XXX Chats

galaxy s3 email not updating

Accommodating science fahnestock

Last class meeting we discussed discourse communities and what John Swales claimed the 6 criteria were to be considered a discourse community.

With Swales article still in mind I thought it was similar to someone in a discourse community trying to relay information to someone that wasn’t in the same community.

Fahnestock continues to talk about scientific accommodators which try to bring information from the expert scientist to a common reader.

On page 334 she talks about the “wonder” and “application” appeals that correspond to deontological and teleological arguments.

I found it pretty interesting that she said without these two appeals scientific subjects would most likely not be able to reach a wider audience, which I definitely agree with.

I feel like there is a gap between the expert scientific discourse community and all other communities and it’s the Science accommodators that bridge that gap by using the wonder and application appeals to reach other audiences.

In one of the sections entitled “The Changes in Information” Fahnestock explains how accommodation is essential In order for any other audience to care about or even understand what the experts are trying to say.

The example she gives with the Bee is a perfect instance where because the discourse community (Bee Experts)uses specific lexis in their writing it is automatically difficult for someone who’s not in that discourse community to relate.

In turn Fahnestock shows how changes in the information and changes in specific terminology are necessary for accommodation.

For example mandible becomes jaw and masticate becomes chew.

Jeanne Fahnestock’s Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts (1998) is a comparative study which describes the changes in genre and information that take place when accommodating scientific texts to lay audiences.

Comments Accommodating science fahnestock