due 9/9/14 by 2:00 p.m., posted to YOUR OWN blog
The Assignment
In preparation for our discussion of what characterizes scientific and technical writing as discourse, and how it gets publicly mediated, I’d like you to consider the definition of several key concepts. For this short assignment, please select Option 1 or Option 2
Option 1: Deep Analysis of 1 Text in a Public Genre
For this option, select one of the following genres for your deep analysis:
- “The Future of Reading” by Jonah Lehrer, The Frontal Cortex Science Blog (8 Sep 2010)
- “The Green Apple: How Can Cities Adapt to Climate Change?” by David Biello, Scientific American (16 Jun 2010)
- “The Right to Be Forgotten” by Dennis Baron, The Web of Language (24 Aug 2014)
- “'Uncertain’ Science: Judith Curry’s Take on Climate Change” by Richard Harris, NPR (22 Aug 2013)
Drawing on Grant-Davie and either Porter or D’Angelo, discuss the “rhetorical situation” of your chosen text and describe how it functions as an “intertext,” or how it could be justified as acting intertextual. In other words, I invite you to show me how well you can synthesize the critical texts in order to discover something insightful or particular about how your public genre (the sci/tech blog) works as mediated discourse. Be sure to employ Grant-Davie’s, Porter’s, and/or D’Angelo’s terms where they apply, and provide clear examples of them in your public genre. However, be sure that your discussion is also guided by some kind of thesis statement (i.e., some statement that answers the “so what?” or “why does this matter?” or “why should I care?” questions).
You probably won’t use all of the main concepts in Grant-Davie’s, Porter’s, and/or D’Angelo’s essays. Select the principal concepts that help you best demonstrate your genre’s effectiveness for a particular audience or context, then provide as strong a justification for them as you can. Please write enough to demonstrate this well.
Option 2: Comparative Analysis of 2 Blog Posts
For this option, check out the following blogs:
- Jonah Lehrer's blog on Wired.com (a compilation of some of his technical blog posts prior to 2012)
- David DiSalvo’s The Daily Brain (a compilation of all of his sci/tech pieces that are published in other media)
Find any 2 posts (1 from each blog) that interest you, and be sure they are full-length, as opposed to abstracts or interviews. Pay attention to how each writer develops his ideas by drawing on experience and evidence, and by bumping into other people’s ideas, published articles, and scientific studies. Also, pay attention to how they comment (or don’t comment) on the information in those articles or studies, and how they interact with other sources, their readers, and their histories.
Then, write a comparative analysis of the 2 blogs, based on the 2 posts you have read. As part of your analysis, you should plan to discuss the “rhetorical situation” of each blog, and how the posts function as “intertexts,” or how they could be justified as acting intertextual. Be sure to employ Grant-Davie’s, Porter’s, and/or D’Angelo’s terms where they apply, and provide clear examples of them in your chosen posts. However, be sure that your discussion is also guided by some kind of comparative statement (i.e., some statement that answers the “so what?” or “why does this matter?” or “why should I care?” questions). In other words, while I do want you show me your strength at conducting rhetorical analysis by applying critical terms to a sci/tech blog, I also want to see how well you can synthesize the critical texts in order to discover some insightful or particular difference between the 2 blogs. Please write enough to synthesize well.
Evaluation Criteria
The goal of this assignment is twofold: you want to demonstrate and justify your understanding of Grant-Davie, Porter, and/or D’Angelo; you also want to apply that understanding to your own coherent discussion of a public genre. You may organize your analysis however you like, but please keep in mind the following criteria:
- Content/Argument – your analysis brings your public genre(s) into conversation with Grant-Davie’s, Porter’s, and/or D’Angelo’s principles
- Coherence – your analysis is guided by a thesis statement or a comparative statement that demonstrates the complexity of your argument and acts as a “thread” for your claims
- Depth – you write enough to demonstrate or synthesize well (1-2 screens’ worth)
- Evidence and Justification – your analysis provides specific examples from your public genres to illustrate the points you make about constituents, exigence, intertext, etc.
- Clarity – your paragraphs are well focused, your sentences grammatically sound
- Blogging Guidelines – your follow these and use them to your advantage. See especially #2, 4, 5, 6, and 8.
