UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Reading medical prose as rhetoric : A study in the rhetoric of science Segal, Judith Zelda 1988

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1988_A1 S43.pdf [ 11.09MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098335.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098335-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098335-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098335-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098335-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098335-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098335-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098335-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098335.ris

Full Text

READING MEDICAL PROSE AS RHETORIC: A STUDY IN THE RHETORIC OF SCIENCE by JUDITH ZELDA SEGAL M.A., The U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia, 1975 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming t o the r e q u i r e d standard. THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA June, 1988 @ J u d i t h Z. S e g a l , 1988 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of <5 A,«^ / / Srty The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date i i Abs trac t Rhetor i c , as the theory and p r a c t i c e of the d i s c u r s i v e means of human in f luence , and sc ience , as the observat ional study of the p h y s i c a l world, have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been considered to e x i s t i n separate realms. In the past t h i r t y years , however, t h e o r e t i c a l convergences i n the philosophy of r h e t o r i c and the philosophy of science have y i e l d e d a d i s c i p l i n e i n the r h e t o r i c of science—a d i s c i p l i n e concerned with the d i s c u r s i v e aspects of knowledge product ion and reproduct ion i n the sc iences . Rhe tor i ca l theory has argued conv inc ing ly i n t h i s century that a l l language i n use i s language for use and i s therefore , to vary ing degrees, persuas ive . The r h e t o r i c of science begins from the assumption that persuasion i s a fac tor i n the cons truc t ion of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge, and from the b e l i e f that members of s c i e n t i f i c communities ( r h e t o r i c a l communities i n every sense) advocate vers ions of r e a l i t y which are based i n theory, formed i n language, and dependent on the agreement of other s c i e n t i s t s for t h e i r v a l i d a t i o n . This present pro jec t contr ibutes to l i t e r a t u r e i n the app l i ed study of r h e t o r i c of science by ana lyz ing , from a r h e t o r i c a l perspect ive , t h i r t y - f i v e s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e s publ ished i n the l a s t s i x years i n major medical journa l s . ( A l l of the a r t i c l e s are on the subject of primary—or functional—headache.) The projec t uses a methodology based on c l a s s i c a l and contemporary theories of r h e t o r i c to d i scover persuasive s trateg ies i n these s c i e n t i f i c t e x t s . I t poses questions about how a u t h o r i a l in tent ions are a c t u a l i z e d i n s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , how s c i e n t i f i c texts have e f fec t s on readers , and how the texts a f fec t the s i tua t ions in to which they are introduced. While s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , l i k e l i t e r a r y t ex t s , could be analyzed from a v a r i e t y of t h e o r e t i c a l perspect ives , r h e t o r i c a l theory provides a p a r t i c u l a r l y appropriate h e u r i s t i c model for analyz ing "real world" t e x t s . The r h e t o r i c a l analys i s (which includes both an overview of the complete sample and three case studies) begins by quest ioning the extent to which the conventions of s c i e n t i f i c prose ( for example, use of the pass ive , of nominal i z at ions , of complex sentence s t ruc ture ; use of s t a t i s t i c a l reasoning and arguments from authori ty) a c t u a l l y produce a prose that i s ob jec t ive and d i s i n t e r e s t e d i n keeping with t r a d i t i o n a l i d e a l s of sc ience . The analys i s shows that medical authors i n fac t use a v a r i e t y of persuasive s tra teg ies i n t h e i r a r t i c l e s ( s trateg ies which may be c l a s s i f i e d according to the c l a s s i c a l canons of r h e t o r i c ) , and that the w r i t i n g i n medical j o u r n a l s , i s not simply objec t ive and d i s i n t e r e s t e d , although on i n i t i a l reading , because of i t s impersonal s t y l e , i t may appear to be so. The r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s demonstrates that the use of t ex tua l features promoting an appearance of n e u t r a l i t y i s i t s e l f a r h e t o r i c a l s trategy which argues for i v the acceptance of p a r t i c u l a r claims i n s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e s . The r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s i s s i g n i f i c a n t for the theory and p r a c t i c e of sc ience , for the d i s c i p l i n e of r h e t o r i c of sc ience , and for the d i s c i p l i n e of r h e t o r i c i t s e l f . The ana lys i s describes the complex r h e t o r i c of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g as a genre, probes the assumptions that under l i e i t s conventions, and argues that s c i e n t i f i c texts must be read c r i t i c a l l y , as r h e t o r i c . To read s c i e n t i f i c texts as r h e t o r i c i s to locate t h e i r arguments, s c r u t i n i z e t h e i r forms, judge t h e i r authors, and evaluate t h e i r e f f e c t s . The r o l e of the r h e t o r i c i a n i s to urge such reading , and everywhere to promote d i scuss ion of the ways of inf luence exerted e s p e c i a l l y by texts which appear at f i r s t not to be r h e t o r i c a l . V Table of Contents Abstrac t i i Introduct ion 1 Chapter One. The T h e o r e t i c a l Basis for the R h e t o r i c a l Ana lys i s of S c i e n t i f i c Texts 20 Chapter Two. A Methodology for the Rhetor i ca l Ana lys i s of S c i e n t i f i c Texts 68 Chapter Three. The Rhetor i ca l Analys i s of Medical Journal A r t i c l e s Part One. Rhetor i ca l Overview of the Texts 107 Part Two. Rhetor i ca l Readings of Whole Texts: Three Case Studies . . . .167 Chapter Four . On Science, Rhetoric of Science, and Rhetoric 204 Bib l iography A. Primary B. Secondary 239 243 1 Introduct ion The t r a d i t i o n a l separat ion between rhe tor i c—the study of the d i s c u r s i v e means of human influence—and science—the observat iona l study of the p h y s i c a l world—has been reconsidered i n the l a s t t h i r t y years and t h i s recons idera t ion has y i e l d e d a d i s c i p l i n e i n the r h e t o r i c of sc ience . Writ ings i n that d i s c i p l i n e have been l a r g e l y t h e o r e t i c a l , ^ although a few authors have concerned themselves with analys i s of s c i e n t i f i c texts .2 The present study, an analys i s of se lected medical journa l a r t i c l e s , focuss ing on t h e i r r h e t o r i c a l ( in f luenc ing or persuasive) features , i s intended to further p a r t i c u l a r i z e and extend the study of the r h e t o r i c of sc ience . I t w i l l argue that there are convincing t h e o r e t i c a l grounds for reading science as r h e t o r i c , and that r h e t o r i c a l theory provides an appropriate model for analyz ing s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s . I t w i l l proceed to probe the nature of s c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c with reference to p a r t i c u l a r persuasive s trateg ies i s o l a t e d w i th in the se lected medical l i t e r a t u r e . I t w i l l end with a d i scuss ion of the genera l i zab le f indings of the discourse ana lys i s and the impl i ca t ions of those f ind ings . The quest ion which prompted the study i s t h i s : to what extent do the conventions of s c i e n t i f i c writ ing—use of the pass ive , of nominal izat ions , complex sentence s t r u c t u r e , and L a t i n a t e words^—actually y i e l d a prose that i s not 2 r h e t o r i c a l , but d i s i n t e r e s t e d l y r e p o r t o r i a l , v o i d of p e r s o n a l i t y , innocent of value? Such a prose has been the goal of the i d e a l s c i e n t i f i c w r i t e r , based on seventeenth-century s t y l i s t i c p r e s c r i p t i o n s , and cons is tent with the normative ethos of science—an ethos of un iversa l i sm, communalism, d i s in teres tedness , and skept ic i sm.^ S t i l l , can any prose be n o n - r h e t o r i c a l or i s n o n - r h e t o r i c a l prose a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n terms; might i t not be more v a l i d to say of s c i e n t i f i c prose that part of i t s r h e t o r i c (and part of i t s persuasive agenda) i s to create the impression of the d i s i n t e r e s t e d , impersonal, va lue - free s c i e n t i s t ? Rhe tor i ca l ana lys i s of s c i e n t i f i c prose begins, then, with the hypothesis , e s tab l i shed through the t h e o r e t i c a l l i t e r a t u r e i n science and r h e t o r i c (See Chapter One), that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s n e c e s s a r i l y r h e t o r i c a l — t h a t , as Wayne Booth has suggested with respect to f i c t i o n , the quest ion to b r i n g to the prose i s not whether i t i s r h e t o r i c a l , but how i t i s so.^ The value of r h e t o r i c a l analys i s of s c i e n t i f i c texts i s twofold? f i r s t , i t spec i f i e s and i l luminates the nature of s c i e n t i f i c texts i n ways that can be usefu l for the wr i ters and readers of those texts ; secondly, i t r e in forces and expands the r h e t o r i c i a n ' s understanding of r h e t o r i c as the inescapable cond i t ion of language i n use, the process through which, as Booth says, we are , each of us , made i n symbolic interchange.6 By analyzing r h e t o r i c a l s tructures i n 3 p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , i t i s poss ib le not only to show  that these texts work to persuade readers to regard r e a l i t y i n a p a r t i c u l a r way or to regard a p a r t i c u l a r set of constructs as r e a l i t y , but a lso to show how a u t h o r i a l dec i s ions with respect to Invention (the development of arguments), Arrangement ( the i r d i s p o s i t i o n ) , S t y l e , and Presentat ion , i n s t a n t i a t e d i n t ex t s , do t h e i r work on readers . The goal of discourse ana lys i s here i s d e s c r i p t i o n and p r e d i c t i o n . In t ex tua l a n a l y s i s , r h e t o r i c a l s trateg ies are i s o l a t e d and descr ibed, and r e c u r r i n g s tra teg ies are abstracted and general ized , then used to p r e d i c t the s t ruc ture of r h e t o r i c a l composition of other t ex t s . The present study uses a comparatively large s e l e c t i o n of a r t i c l e s ( t h i r t y - f i v e rather than one or two), and t h i s underl ines the p r e d i c t i v e p o t e n t i a l of the r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s . P o l i t i c a l discourse provides a use fu l analogue to s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g with reference to the r a t i o n a l e for the study. The case that p o l i t i c a l discourse i s r h e t o r i c a l was made long ago, before A r i s t o t l e formalized the d i scuss ion of "del iberat ive"—or p o l i t i c a l — r h e t o r i c . Knowing that the discourse i s r h e t o r i c a l i s a s t a r t i n g place for r h e t o r i c i a n s . The knowledge creates for the r h e t o r i c i a n the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of penetrat ing the r h e t o r i c a l s tructure of p a r t i c u l a r p o l i t i c a l texts i n order to make genera l i za t ions and pred ic t i ons about p o l i t i c a l r h e t o r i c that are use fu l to 4 c i t i z e n s . The purpose of discourse ana lys i s i s d e s c r i p t i o n and p r e d i c t i o n ; the goal of the exerc ise i s to make a more c r i t i c a l and more l i t e r a t e p u b l i c . To say that the analys i s of the r h e t o r i c of s c i e n t i f i c texts expands our understanding of r h e t o r i c as the inescapable cond i t ion of language i n use i s to take up the contemporary view of r h e t o r i c which argues that human beings are "essent ia l ly r h e t o r i c a l " (Booth, MD 126) and that "rea1ity=shared meanings" (Brummett 34)—and to r e i n f o r c e the general argument with the p a r t i c u l a r case. I t i s poss ib le to argue deduct ive ly that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g must, by v i r t u e of i t s being language i n use, be r h e t o r i c a l . ( A l l language i n use i s r h e t o r i c a l . S c i e n t i f i c discourse i s language i n use. Therefore , s c i e n t i f i c discourse i s r h e t o r i c a l . ) However, to be convinc ing , the case must a lso be made i n d u c t i v e l y , by demonstrating r h e t o r i c a l s trateg ies at work i n p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s . Once the demonstration i s made, i t w i l l be evident not only that s c i e n t i f i c discourse i s r h e t o r i c a l , but that (as A r i s t o t l e would argue, what i s shown to be true i n the l e a s t l i k e l y instance i s a f o r t i o r i true i n more l i k e l y instances) a l l d i scourse , as the r h e t o r i c i a n would argue, i s r h e t o r i c a l . As science has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been separate from r h e t o r i c , s c i e n t i f i c discourse has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been separate from pub l i c d i scourse . S c i e n t i f i c discourse has been seen as discourse r e l a t e d to s p e c i a l i z e d content i n 5 matters p e r t a i n i n g to the natura l world; pub l i c d iscourse has been seen as r e l a t e d to matters of general i n t e r e s t p e r t a i n i n g to pub l i c l i f e and s o c i a l in tercourse . The nature of the separat ion i s such that pub l i c discourse has been considered to be i n the realm of r h e t o r i c , while s c i e n t i f i c d i scourse , r e p o r t o r i a l on matters non-negotiable , i s not . A r i s t o t l e formalized the d i s t i n c t i o n with t h i s : [R]hetoric i s appl ied to recognized subjects of d e l i b e r a t i o n . I t has to do with things about which we commonly de l iberate—things for which we have no s p e c i a l a r t or science; and with hearers who cannot grasp many points i n a s ing le view or fo l low a long chain of reasoning. . . . [ I ] f we l i g h t upon true s c i e n t i f i c p r i n c i p l e s , the a r t i s no longer D i a l e c t i c or Rhetor i c , but i s the d i s c i p l i n e based upon those p r i n c i p l e s . (12,14) The separat ion of r h e t o r i c and science was r e i n f o r c e d i n the p a r a l l e l evo lut ion of the two d i s c i p l i n e s . Rhetor i c , i n the s ix teenth-century , became divorced from Logic and assoc iated e x c l u s i v e l y with the in teres t s of S t y l e . 7 The seventeenth-century saw the development of a "reformed" language and an a n t i - r h e t o r i c , as the concerns of r h e t o r i c were seen to be a n t i t h e t i c a l to the goals of u t i l i t a r i a n i s m and o b j e c t i v i t y and to the "naked" t r u t h of science.** Science, for i t s p a r t , was dedicated to the study of an externa l universe , revealed through language as through a 6 pane of g lass .^ The s p l i t between r h e t o r i c and sc ience , and between publ i c d iscourse and s c i e n t i f i c d i scourse , became a commonplace by the twent ieth-century, but now the s p l i t i s by no means unproblematic. Chaim Perelman, a r h e t o r i c i a n w r i t i n g i n t h i s decade, proclaims the d i v i s i o n between science and r h e t o r i c , arguing that to r h e t o r i c belongs "every discourse which does not c la im an impersonal v a l i d i t y . . ." ( Realm 162). The realm of r h e t o r i c i s e s tab l i shed against the realm of sc ience , to encompass whatever i s not "object ive ly and ind i sputab ly v a l i d " (TNR_512). Yet the nature of the d i v i s i o n , as Perelman represents i t , i s ambiguous. Perelman's c la im to a separate realm of r h e t o r i c i s contradic ted by h is statement that "the Newtonian formula of u n i v e r s a l a t t r a c t i o n , which was be l ieved to be unshakable, was breached when people were given s u f f i c i e n t reasons to modify i t " (Realm 160)—for he suggests here that even Newton's physics i s not exempt from the e f fec t s of persuasion. Perelman even states that axioms i n the mathematical sc iences , "considered at f i r s t to be s e l f - e v i d e n t , " have subsequently been shown to be "conventions of language" (Realm 158). Perelman's l a t t e r statements argue that s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s i t s e l f subject to r h e t o r i c a l process , and obviate the s c i e n c e / r h e t o r i c s p l i t on which, at f i r s t , h i s t r e a t i s e appears to be based. A s i m i l a r c o n t r a d i c t i o n appears i n the w r i t i n g of r h e t o r i c i a n Richard Weaver. Weaver defines a realm of 7 r h e t o r i c separate from sc ience , and he decr ies the a p p l i c a t i o n of the methods of the second i n matters belonging to the realm of the f i r s t . However, while Weaver opposes "scientism"—"the a p p l i c a t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c assumptions to subjects which are not wholly comprised of n a t u r a l i s t i c phenomena" ("Sermonic" 203)— he does not oppose the a p p l i c a t i o n of r h e t o r i c a l p r i n c i p l e s to na tura l or s c i e n t i f i c subjects . He argues that a l l discourse i s n e c e s s a r i l y suasive or "sermonic," a l l language being f u l l of value and tendency. He w r i t e s , "there are degrees of o b j e c t i v i t y , and there are var ious d i s c i p l i n e s which have t h e i r own ru les for expressing t h e i r laws or t h e i r content i n the most e f f e c t i v e manner for t h e i r purpose. But even t h i s expression can be seen as enclosed i n a r h e t o r i c a l intent ion" ("Sermonic" 222). The apparent c o n t r a d i c t i o n wi th in Weaver's v i s i o n can be resolved by p o s i t i n g a p i c t u r e of two concentr ic c i r c l e s — t h e l a r g e r one conta in ing r h e t o r i c and the smaller one, sc ience . Then science and r h e t o r i c are separate—but while science i s w i th in the realm of r h e t o r i c , r h e t o r i c i s not w i th in the realm of sc ience . The image of concentr ic c i r c l e s i l l u s t r a t e s that d i s t i n c t i o n s between science and r h e t o r i c , and, more genera l ly , between the c e r t a i n and the contingent are by no means c l ear .10 The ambiguity i n matters of boundaries—as between science and r h e t o r i c , the c e r t a i n and the cont ingent—is c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of contemporary i n t e l l e c t u a l thought. Despite 8 the sa l i ence of the s c i ence -rhe tor i c s p l i t , many contemporary t h e o r i s t s , e s p e c i a l l y i n the context of an emerging i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y i n t e r e s t i n s o c i a l construct ionism, have begun to argue that s c i e n t i f i c d i scourse , no less than other d i scourse , i s informed by va lue , i s f u l l of tendency, and i s , there fore , r h e t o r i c a l . S c i e n t i f i c theor i e s , i n t h i s view, are "symbolic representat ions of x nature ' whose r e a l i t y only comes about i f t h e i r propounders can persuade enough people to regard them as r e a l " (Kelso, 19). S o c i a l construct ionism i s described s u c c i n c t l y i n a recent a r t i c l e by composition t h e o r i s t Kenneth Bruf fee , as the "posi t ion i n any d i s c i p l i n e [which] assumes that e n t i t i e s we normally c a l l r e a l i t y , knowledge, thought, f a c t s , t ex t s , se lves , and so on are constructs generated by communities of l ike-minded peers . S o c i a l cons truct ion understands r e a l i t y , knowledge, thought, f a c t s , t ex t s , se lves , and so on as community-generated and community-maintained l i n g u i s t i c e n t i t i e s — o r , more broadly speaking, symbolic e n t i t i e s — t h a t def ine or x c o n s t i t u t e ' the communities that generate them" ( 7 7 4 ) . 1 1 S o c i a l construct ionism implies a place for r h e t o r i c i n any d i s c i p l i n e . Rhetoric here i s the d i s c u r s i v e process by which minds are formed and changed, the process by which the consensual agreement necessary to the establishment of r e a l i t y i s accomplished. The r h e t o r i c of science i s no more and no less than t h i s process as i t perta ins to the realm of sc ience . The emergence i n the l a s t severa l years of a 9 d i s c i p l i n e i n the r h e t o r i c of science s igna l s recogn i t ion of the b l u r r i n g of boundaries on two f r o n t s . F i r s t , with reference to science and r h e t o r i c , the r h e t o r i c of science recognizes that the process of producing, and winning adherence t o , s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s not d i f f e r e n t from the process of producing, and winning adherence t o , other kinds of knowledge, i n c l u d i n g even a x i o l o g i c a l knowledge—and that the process i s r h e t o r i c a l . Secondly, with reference to s c i e n t i f i c discourse and publ i c d i scourse , i t recognizes that s c i e n t i f i c d i scourse , inso far as i t perta ins to matters a f f e c t i n g the p u b l i c good and the welfare of c i t i z e n s , i s p u b l i c d i scourse . Both these ins ights inform, for the student of the r h e t o r i c of sc ience , the study of s c i e n t i f i c prose . The r h e t o r i c of sc ience , as the study of the d i s c u r s i v e means of inf luence i n matters p e r t a i n i n g to sc ience , has both i n t e r n a l and external dimensions. I n t e r n a l l y , i t per ta ins to s c i e n t i f i c texts made and rece ived wi th in p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c communities; e x t e r n a l l y , i t perta ins to s c i e n t i f i c texts which act i n the l a r g e r community. The l a t t e r inc ludes the work of "science writers"—as opposed to " s c i e n t i f i c writers"—from book-length popular iza t ions of sc ience to j o u r n a l i s t i c reports on science i n the mass media. The externa l dimension of s c i e n t i f i c discourse i s r e a d i l y seen as p u b l i c d i scourse , e s p e c i a l l y i n a contemporary context i n which laypeople i n c r e a s i n g l y r e l y on f i l t e r e d 10 science to make dec is ions a f f e c t i n g t h e i r well-being—when sc ience , as r h e t o r i c i a n Michael Ha l loran exp la ins , "serves as warrant for many of the arguments about t r a d i t i o n a l l y non-s p e c i a l i z e d , c i v i c questions—war and peace, ways and means for promoting the pub l i c welfare" ("Molecular Biology" 81). Increas ing ly , our we l l -be ing requires an understanding of such " s c i e n t i f i c " phenomena as a c i d r a i n , t o x i c waste, nuclear r a d i a t i o n , sexual ly - transmit ted diseases . Increas ing ly , i t i s important to understand the ways i n which s c i e n t i f i c discourses inf luence what people be l i eve and how they a c t , to revea l the means of s c i e n t i f i c inf luence by i d e n t i f y i n g , and probing the functions of , r h e t o r i c a l s t ra teg ie s i n s c i e n t i f i c t e x t s . ^ The present pro jec t i s a r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s of a body of " internal" s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e — b y and for medical researchers and p r a c t i t i o n e r s . The projec t was undertaken to p a r t i c u l a r i z e the d i scuss ion of the r h e t o r i c of sc ience , a d i s cus s ion which, so f a r , has been more abs tract than concrete , more general than p a r t i c u l a r . Much of the work to date i n r h e t o r i c of science has focussed more on arguing that s c i e n t i f i c d iscourse i s r h e t o r i c a l (persuasive, cons t i tu t ive ) than on i l l u s t r a t i n g how—in the s p e c i f i c case—it i s so. Fol lowing the s o c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t argument i n the phi losophy of sc ience , most notably i n the work of Thomas Kuhn, a l i t e r a t u r e has grown up i n the theory of s c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c . Recent t h e o r e t i c a l contr ibutors to the emerging f i e l d inc lude Paul Newall Campbell on the personae of s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , Walter Weimer on science as r h e t o r i c a l t r a n s a c t i o n , Michael Overington on the s c i e n t i f i c community as an incarnat ion of r h e t o r i c ' s "audience', James Kelso on the relevance of ana lys i s of s c i e n t i f i c arguments, and James Zappen on p l u r a l i s m and the r h e t o r i c ( s ) of sc ience . Andrew Weigart has wr i t t en on the "immoral r h e t o r i c of science"; Cox and Roland have argued that ". . .Rhetor ic Confuses S c i e n t i f i c Issues," and Herbert Simons has queried i f S c i e n t i s t s are "Rhetors i n Disguise ." Although a theory i s now i n place that j u s t i f i e s the c l o s e , r h e t o r i c a l reading of s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , few tex tua l studies have a c t u a l l y been done. Those that are now a v a i l a b l e f a l l i n t o four ca tegor ie s . The f i r s t i s the l i n g u i s t i c study which i s o l a t e s l e x i c a l , s y n t a c t i c , and semantic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , without, however, connecting i t s e l f to any theory that would account for the a u t h o r i a l choices represented by those l i n g u i s t i c features . An example i s S c h i n d l e r ' s "Why Engineers and S c i e n t i s t s Write as They Do— Twelve C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of The ir Prose," which, despite i t s t i t l e , i s e s s e n t i a l l y d e s c r i p t i v e . The three remaining types of analys i s are t h e o r e t i c a l l y -impe l l ed , and can be c l a s s i f i e d according to the kinds of texts they analyze. Joseph G u s f i e l d ' s "The L i t e r a r y Rhetoric of Science: Comedy and Pathos i n Drinking D r i v e r Research" i s of ten c i t e d as the paradigm a r t i c l e i n the r h e t o r i c a l 12 ana lys i s of s c i e n t i f i c d i scourse , demonstrating that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g neces sar i ly incorporates r h e t o r i c a l elements, aimed at persuasion. However, l i k e Debra Journet 's "Rhetoric and Sociobiology" G u s f i e l d ' s a r t i c l e deals with sof t ( soc ia l ) sc ience , and thus t rea t s mater ia l which has t r a d i t i o n a l l y been recognized as contingent and therefore considered wi th in the realm of r h e t o r i c i n the f i r s t p lace . T h i s , despi te the asp ira t ions of the s o c i a l sciences to the status of "pure" sc ience . The second kind of t ex tua l ana lys i s focusses on the ex terna l discourse of sc ience , the discourse of popular sc ience . The value of t h i s k ind of study i s ev ident , given the c e n t r a l i t y of " f i l t e r e d science" to p u b l i c d e c i s i o n -making; and more studies are needed. Examples inc lude Randal l Bytwerk's "The SST Controversy: A Case Study i n the Rhetoric of Technology" and Steven Del Sesto's "The Science J o u r n a l i s t and E a r l y Popular Coverage of Nuclear Energy." The nature of the discourse s tudied here, however, i s not sc ience qua sc ience , but science qua journal i sm. The t h i r d k ind of discourse study takes the discourse of hard science ( inc lud ing the p h y s i c a l and l i f e sciences) as i t s subject and analyzes texts wr i t t en by s c i e n t i s t s for s c i e n t i s t s . In doing so, i t seeks to revea l what meaning i s i m p l i c i t i n s c i e n t i f i c discourse by v i r t u e of the choices s c i e n t i f i c wr i t er s make i n composing t e x t . A few recent s tudies o f f e r t h i s k ind of treatment, and the present projec t 13 i s meant to be a c o n t r i b u t i o n to t h i s body of l i t e r a t u r e . Work on the r h e t o r i c a l analys i s of hard science has been done by Michael Ha l loran ( e s p e c i a l l y , "Molecular B io logy") , John Angus Campbell , Steven Year ley , Charles Bazerman ("Written Knowledge" and "Modern Evo lut ion") , G. N i g e l G i l b e r t and Michael Mulkay (Pandora's Box), and Greg Myers ("Two B i o l o g i s t s ' Proposals") . The present study d i s t ingui shes i t s e l f by us ing a comparatively large sample of w r i t i n g i n a p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c f i e l d , and therefore e s t a b l i s h i n g a c l a i m to some g e n e r a l i z a b i l i t y of f indings and p r e d i c t i v e p o t e n t i a l with respect to other w r i t i n g , at l eas t w i th in that f i e l d , and even wi th in other s c i e n t i f i c f i e l d s . The genera l i zab le f indings of the study w i l l r evea l aspects of the nature of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g and suggest the impl i ca t ions of the nature of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g for the theory and p r a c t i c e of sc ience , for the study of the r h e t o r i c of sc ience , and for the study of r h e t o r i c i t s e l f . T h e present study w i l l i d e n t i f y and discuss persuasive s trateg ies o c c u r r i n g i n a r t i c l e s se lected from current (post-1982) issues of mainstream medical journals on the subject of headache. A r t i c l e s were chosen to form a s ing l e body of l i t e r a t u r e , c o n s t i t u t i n g a coherent pro fes s iona l conversat ion w i t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r d i s c i p l i n e . Medical science was chosen because i t represents a c l e a r set of i n t r a - d i s c i p l i n a r y va lues , so i t s assumptions are der ivab le and i t s nature, descr ibab le . Modern (post-1850) 14 Western medicine can be defined as a s c i e n t i f i c d i s c i p l i n e i n contras t to pre-modern Western medicine and i n contrast to non-Western medicine.13 Modern Western medicine has an e s s e n t i a l l y i n t e r v e n t i o n i s t program, with treatment occurr ing not prevent ive ly but u s u a l l y i n the symptomatic stages of d isease . Doctors r e l y on d iagnost ic instruments and "objective" tes t s (x-rays , blood analys i s ) and on chemical therapies and other intervent ions which have normally been tes ted i n c o n t r o l l e d studies and which are exp l i cab le i n terms of r e l i a b l e cause and e f f ec t r e l a t i o n s . Experiments are performed; methods are recorded for r e p l i c a t i o n ; r e s u l t s are observed, q u a n t i f i e d , and analyzed. Most important ly for the present study, the program i s s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l y s c i e n t i f i c . With in the context of contemporary medical sc ience , the subject of headaches was chosen for t h i s study because a p r e l i m i n a r y review suggested much of the l i t e r a t u r e was penetrable and comprehensible. In order to increase both comprehension and the p o s s i b i l i t y of coverage w i th in a s p e c i f i c subject area , the study of journa l a r t i c l e s on headaches was further reduced to the study of a r t i c l e s on "functional" headaches, headaches which do not o r i g i n a t e i n a s p e c i f i c p a t h o l o g i c a l process . (Migraine and tension headaches are considered "funct ional"; headaches due to b r a i n tumour, c r a n i a l i n f e c t i o n , or other s p e c i f i c pathology are considered "organic") The study was further r e s t r i c t e d to 15 those a r t i c l e s which had, as t h e i r designated audience, the general p h y s i c i a n . From an i n i t i a l resource of approximately 350 a r t i c l e s , approximately one hundred were found to be s u i t a b l e for a n a l y s i s . Approximately o n e - t h i r d or t h i r t y - f i v e of these were se lec ted at random for s p e c i a l study. The study of a u t h o r i a l cho ice , of persuasive s tra teg ies i n these i n d i v i d u a l texts w i l l ind ica te r h e t o r i c a l p r i n c i p l e s which can be used to revea l the nature of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g . The nature of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g can then be s tudied to disambiguate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r h e t o r i c and science and to i l l u m i n a t e the nature of r h e t o r i c i t s e l f . The r h e t o r i c a l analys i s w i l l be the subject of Chapter Three. Chapter One w i l l describe i n more d e t a i l the t h e o r e t i c a l underpinnings of a r h e t o r i c of sc ience , while Chapter Two w i l l develop the r h e t o r i c a l model to be appl ied i n the a n a l y s i s . Chapter Four w i l l review the f indings of the ana lys i s and discuss the s i g n i f i c a n c e of these f indings for the d i s c i p l i n e s of sc ience , r h e t o r i c of sc ience , and r h e t o r i c . 16 Endnotes 1. See, f or example, Ha l loran ("Technical W r i t i n g and the Rhetoric of Science") , Ke l so , O r r , Overington, Wander, Bazerman ("Li terate Acts and the Emergent S o c i a l Structure of Science"), and Zappen ( " H i s t o r i c a l Perspectives on the Philosophy and the Rhetoric of Science: Sources for a P l u r a l i s t i c Rhetor ic") . 2. For a d i scuss ion of various attempts at t ex tua l a n a l y s i s , see pp. 11-12 below. 3. That these are the conventions of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s , of course , v e r i f i a b l e from the primary t ex t s . However, the prevalence of these features has a l so been documented i n Aaronson, Barber, Gopnick, Savory, Schindler and others . 17 4. S o c i o l o g i s t of Science Robert K. Merton, describes four hallmarks of an ethos of sc ience . They are 1) un iversa l i sm, the subjec t ion of t ruth-c la ims to "preestablished impersonal c r i t e r i a " ; 2) communism, the ownership of the f indings of sc ience by the p u b l i c ; 3) d i s interes tedness , the personal noninvolvement of the s c i e n t i s t ; and 4) organized skept ic i sm, the temporary suspension of the s c i e n t i s t ' s judgment and the detached s c r u t i n y of b e l i e f s . 5. The o r i g i n a l quotat ion i s "The author cannot choose whether to use r h e t o r i c a l heightening. His only choice i s of the k ind of r h e t o r i c he w i l l use" (ROF 119). 6. See Modern Dogma, e s p e c i a l l y pp. 101-139. 7. The h i s t o r y of Rhetoric pays s p e c i a l a t t e n t i o n to the e f f ec t of Ramus (1556) and the "Ramistic s p l i t " which separated the realm of Rhetoric from the realm of L o g i c , a t t r i b u t i n g to Logic the c l a s s i c a l r h e t o r i c a l canons of Invention and Arrangement, l eav ing to Rhetoric the canons of S t y l e , Memory, and D e l i v e r y . 8. Franc i s Bacon, i n The Advancement of Learning , writes of the "naked" t r u t h of sc ience , i n i t s p l a i n e s t form, a v a i l a b l e only to the "sons of sc ience ." His r e j e c t i o n of any form of embellishment i n the presentat ion of science was i n s t i t u t i o n a l i z e d by the Royal Society and recorded by Thomas Sprat i n h i s H i s t o r y of the Royal Soc ie ty . Sprat i s we l l known for advocating a s t y l e of "primit ive p u r i t y , and shortness, when men d e l i v e r ' d so many things almost i n an equal number of 18 words" (113). The Royal Soc ie ty , which d i d not see t h i s s i m p l i c i t y as i t s e l f a form of r h e t o r i c , recommended the banishment of r h e t o r i c i a n s from the i d e a l soc i e ty . 9. Useful d iscuss ions of t h i s h i s t o r y are found i n the works of A d o l f , Andrews, F inocch iaro , Jones, Stephens, Franc i s  Bacon and the S ty l e of Science and Zappen ("Science and Rhetoric from Bacon to Hobbes"). 10. In f a c t , Weaver, i n an e a r l i e r a r t i c l e , "The Concealed Rhetoric of S c i e n t i s t i c Sociology," seems to argue that Science and Rhetoric are , and should be, e s s e n t i a l l y d i s t i n c t . "Rhetorical presentat ion ," he says "always c a r r i e s perspect ive . The s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r e r , on the other hand, i s merely not ing things as they e x i s t i n empir i ca l connection. He i s not pass ing judgment on them because h i s presentment, as long as i t remains s c i e n t i f i c , i s not supposed to be anything more than c l a s s i f i c a t o r y " (141). ("Sc i en t i s t i c Sociology" appeared i n 1959; i n "Language i s Sermonic," which appeared i n 1963, Weaver would argue that no language can "merely not[e] things as they e x i s t i n e m p i r i c a l connection.") 11. Note, however, that s o c i a l construct ionism does not name a u n i f i e d body of theory; rather i t r e f er s to c e r t a i n r e l a t e d a n t i - p o s i t i v i s t or a n t i - a b s o l u t i s t epistemologies . A good d i s cus s ion of t h e o r e t i c a l d i f ferences w i t h i n s o c i a l cons truc t ion theory appears i n O r r . 12. For further d i scuss ion of Science and Publ ic Discourse , see Wander. 19 13. Michel Foucault claims that modern medicine was born i n the l a s t years of the e ighteenth-century, when doctors began to apply reason, rather than imagination, to what l a y beneath the thresho ld of v i s i b i l i t y . However, even as l a t e as the second h a l f of the nineteenth-century, the profess ion had l i t t l e c l a i m to "science." Infect ious diseases remained uncontro l l ed and therapeutic intervent ions were u n r e l i a b l e . Louis Pasteur's d iscovery of b a c t e r i a s i g n i f i c a n t l y changed the r e l i a b i l i t y and p r e d i c t a b i l i t y of treatment, and by the end of the century, the development of d iagnost ic instruments such as the stethoscope and the laryngoscope "scientized" medical p r a c t i c e by reducing the phys i c ian ' s dependency on the subject ive report of the pat ient i n d iagnos i s . L a t e r , the use of the microscope, the x - r a y , and other d iagnost ic technology reduced the phys i c ian ' s dependency on h i s own subject ive response, and permitted several phys ic ians simultaneous access to d iagnost ic evidence. T r a d i t i o n a l Chinese Medicine, s t i l l p r a c t i c e d by o n e - t h i r d of doctors i n China, a l so defines modern Western s c i e n t i f i c medicine by contras t . I ts underly ing p r i n c i p l e s are not those of sc ience but of holism and phenomenology. Diagnosis i s performed by a phys i c ian who "reads" the tongue and the twelve pulses i n the p a t i e n t ' s w r i s t . Treatment i s often a matter of the a p p l i c a t i o n of acupuncture, sometimes i n v o l v i n g a lso the use of therapeut ic breathing techniques and the p r e s c r i p t i o n of s p e c i f i c herbal preparations (See a lso Eisenberg and S t a r r ) . 20 Chapter One. The Theore t i ca l Basis for the R h e t o r i c a l Ana lys i s of S c i e n t i f i c Texts The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to e s t a b l i s h the t h e o r e t i c a l bas i s for the r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s of s c i e n t i f i c t e x t s . In the past t h i r t y years , the philosophy of r h e t o r i c has expanded the realm of r h e t o r i c , beyond the ground of the obvious ly op in ionable , and has focussed a t t en t ion on the u b i q u i t y of r h e t o r i c and the c o n s t i t u t i v e nature of symbolic interchange. In doing so, i t has probed the processes of consensual agreement and the "advocacy of r e a l i t i e s " (Bruromett 31) . At the same time, the philosophy of science has focussed a t t ent ion on the s o c i a l nature of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge and has described the conceptual and d i s c u r s i v e conventions of s c i e n t i f i c communities. I t has a l so concerned i t s e l f with the processes of consensual agreement and the advocacy of r e a l i t i e s . In the convergence of theory i n science and r h e t o r i c are the t h e o r e t i c a l underpinnings of the r h e t o r i c of science and the argument for the r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s of s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s . A d i s c i p l i n e i n the r h e t o r i c of science i s very young, and aspects of i t s t h e o r e t i c a l base remain unexamined. A few r h e t o r i c a l t h e o r i s t s — p a r t i c u l a r l y Michael H a l l o r a n , James Ke l so , Michael Overington, P h i l i p Wander, Stephen Year ley , and Charles Bazerman—have noted the s i g n i f i c a n c e of recent theory i n philosophy of science ( e s p e c i a l l y the work of 21 Thomas Kuhn) for the study of s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s . However, none of these c r i t i c s has undertaken to a l i g n the two bodies of theory ( i n r h e t o r i c and sScience) sys temat ica l ly to a r t i c u l a t e the f u l l t h e o r e t i c a l argument for a r h e t o r i c a l view of sc ience . Such i s the i n t e n t i o n of the fo l lowing d i s c u s s i o n . S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s chapter uncovers the connections between the theories of Chaim Perelman, Kenneth Burke, and Wayne Booth i n the philosophy of r h e t o r i c and the theories of Thomas Kuhn, Michael P o l a n y i , and John Ziman i n the phi losophy of sc ience .^ The d i scuss ion points to fundamentally compatible views i n philosophy of r h e t o r i c and phi losophy of sc ience , views which argue together that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s r h e t o r i c a l . In summary, philosophy of r h e t o r i c maintains that a l l language i n use (ergo even s c i e n t i f i c language) c a r r i e s b ias and tendency and i s therefore persuasive; philosophy of science maintains that s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y i s to some extent contingent (owing to a v a r i e t y of factors from the theory-ladenness of s c i e n t i f i c observat ion to the p o l i t i c s of funding and publ i ca t ion) and that s c i e n t i s t s argue to win the adherence of t h e i r peers to p a r t i c u l a r vers ions of s c i e n t i f i c t r u t h . A review of se lected l i t e r a t u r e i n the emerging f i e l d i n the r h e t o r i c of science concludes the chapter, s p e c i f i c a l l y that l i t e r a t u r e which sets the stage for an analys i s of s c i e n t i f i c texts informed by a coherent r h e t o r i c a l theory. 22 For A r i s t o t l e , r h e t o r i c i s the "faculty of d i scover ing i n the p a r t i c u l a r case what are the a v a i l a b l e means of persuasion" (7) and i t perta ins to subject matters "about which we commonly de l iberate" (12). A r i s t o t l e ' s d e f i n i t i o n i t s e l f points to some of the main features of h i s theory—his emphasis on persuasion as the goal of r h e t o r i c ; h i s focus on the p a r t i c u l a r case, the s i tua t ions and audiences which guide the r h e t o r i c a l act ; and h is p r i v i l e g i n g of the d i scover ing aspect of r h e t o r i c , that i s , the process of invent ing or f i n d i n g the most appropriate arguments i n the p a r t i c u l a r case. In formal i z ing a theory of r h e t o r i c a l d iscourse based on t h i s d e f i n i t i o n , A r i s t o t l e created a terminology and e s tab l i shed a framework that has shaped, d i r e c t l y or i n d i r e c t l y , every subsequent theory of r h e t o r i c . A r i s t o t l e discusses r h e t o r i c under three major heads: Invent ion, Arrangement, and Sty le (the l a s t subsuming the subject of D e l i v e r y ) . ^ Matters p e r t a i n i n g to the "invention" of arguments are most prominent i n the d i s c u s s i o n . Under t h i s head, A r i s t o t l e develops h i s theory of the "enthymeme" ("the very body and substance of persuasion" [1] ) , the r h e t o r i c a l counterpart to d i a l e c t i c ' s sy l l og i sm. The enthymeme truncates the sy l log i sm, l eav ing out whatever premise the rhetor ascerta ins already has the status of common knowledge i n the audience addressed; enthymemes are "demonstrative" (based on cons is tent p r i n c i p l e s ) or "refutative" (based on incons i s tent p r i n c i p l e s ) . A l so under 23 the head of Invention, A r i s t o t l e compares enthymemic arguments to arguments from example ( d i a l e c t i c ' s deductive and induct ive reasoning) and contrasts invented, " a r t i s t i c " proofs to found, " i n a r t i s t i c " proofs such as those based on evidence or a u t h o r i t y . (These d i s t i n c t i o n s w i l l be important to the r h e t o r i c a l analys i s of s c i e n t i f i c texts i n which, for example, arguments from evidence and author i ty are seen to be valued more h igh ly than arguments A r i s t o t l e would consider " a r t i s t i c " ) With reference to Invention, A r i s t o t l e a l so i d e n t i f i e s p a r t i c u l a r topoi or places to d i scover arguments (arguments from d e f i n i t i o n and from consequences are two examples of topo i i n use); and es tabl i shes the three p i s t e i s or modes of proof . Ethos describes the argument from the character of the speaker ("as a r u l e we t r u s t men of p r o b i t y more, and more q u i c k l y , about things i n genera l , while on points outs ide the realm of exact knowledge, where opinion i s d i v i d e d , we t r u s t them absolutely" [8]); pathos describes the appeal through the audience's emotions ("we give very d i f f e r e n t dec is ions under the sway of pa in or joy , and l i k i n g or hatred" [9]); and logos describes the appeal from the argument proper ("when we demonstrate the t r u t h , r e a l or apparent, by such means as inhere i n p a r t i c u l a r cases" [9]). Throughout the Rhetor ic . A r i s t o t l e ' s d i scuss ion i s organized around general p r i n c i p l e s adapted to the p a r t i c u l a r case: r h e t o r i c i s of p a r t i c u l a r kinds for p a r t i c u l a r 24 occas ions—it i s d e l i b e r a t i v e , f o r e n s i c , or e p i d e i c t i c (ceremonial)—and i t i s for p a r t i c u l a r audiences. These p r i n c i p l e s of p a r t i c u l a r i t y are no less c e n t r a l to A r i s t o t l e ' s treatment of Arrangement and S ty l e than they are to h i s treatment of Invention. The r i g h t d i s p o s i t i o n of arguments depends both on occasion and audience; S ty l e as w e l l must be appropriate to both. A r i s t o t l e ' s d i scuss ion of metaphor, for example, underl ines the r e l a t i o n s h i p between S t y l e and audience. A r i s t o t l e ' s metaphor i s c l e a r l y a truncated analogy, much as the enthymeme i s a truncated s y l l o g i s m , and i t s success depends on the extent to which an understanding of the second term of the metaphor i s part of the common knowledge of the audience. That i s , A r i s t o t l e describes a mult i -d imensional r h e t o r i c a l ac t , c a l l e d f o r t h i n a p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n for a p a r t i c u l a r audience. Given a r a t i o n a l audience and a rhetor who understands i t s needs and b e l i e f s , that act w i l l be successful (persuasive) as long as the rhetor uses a l l "the a v a i l a b l e means of persuas ion." His text marries theory and p r a c t i c e . Some debate has occurred recent ly about the extent to which c l a s s i c a l r h e t o r i c , s p e c i f i c a l l y A r i s t o t e l i a n r h e t o r i c , i s d i f f e r e n t from, or not d i f f e r e n t from, contemporary r h e t o r i c . Some t h e o r i s t s argue that A r i s t o t l e ' s r h e t o r i c i s based on an a d v e r s a r i a l model, i s manipulat ive , and aims at u n i d i r e c t i o n a l persuasion, while others argue tha t , l i k e contemporary r h e t o r i c , A r i s t o t e l i a n r h e t o r i c i s conceived 25 w i t h i n the context of rhetors and audiences sharing community membership, i s more construct ive than manipulat ive , and aims more at consensus than persuasion.3 While the debate may cont inue , i t i s c l e a r that A r i s t o t e l i a n r h e t o r i c does provide a s t a r t i n g place for r h e t o r i c a l d i scuss ion and suggest a model for understanding various kinds of t ex t s . A r i s t o t l e ' s r h e t o r i c was modified by Cicero and Q u i n t i l i a n i n the Roman p e r i o d , d i r e c t e d to the sermon by S t . Augustine i n the 4th century, narrowed to p a r t i c u l a r app l i ca t ions i n the Middle Ages, truncated by Peter Ramus i n the 16th century, redef ined by Bacon i n the 17th century, v a r i o u s l y r e i n t e r p r e t e d by the S c o t t i s h scholars of the 18th century, renewed by Chaim Perelman and others i n t h i s century; nevertheless A r i s t o t l e ' s r h e t o r i c i s i n t a c t and s t i l l v i a b l e as a theory of d i scourse . In f a c t , i t i s the theory against which other theories are defined and evaluated.* Scholars may plumb the nature of r h e t o r i c only by understanding both i t s c l a s s i c a l roots and i t s contemporary d e s c r i p t i o n s . Chaim Perelman i s the contemporary r h e t o r i c i a n whose work i s most c l o s e l y based on the wr i t ings of A r i s t o t l e — a n d although Perelman (poss ib ly because of h i s a l l eg iance to A r i s t o t l e ) i s ambiguous on the nature of s c i e n c e / r h e t o r i c connections (see Introduct ion above), c a r e f u l reading of h i s 1969 and 1982 works on Rhetoric (The New Rhetoric and The  Realm of Rhetor i c , respect ive ly ) does y i e l d a c l e a r sense of what, for Perelman, r h e t o r i c i s and what i t does. For 26 Perelman, whose i n t e r e s t i n r h e t o r i c comes from an i n t e r e s t i n forens ic argumentation, r h e t o r i c i s the d i s c u r s i v e means of winning ("inducing" or "increasing") the adherence of an audience "to the theses presented for i t s assent" (TNR 4) . Despite i t s forens ic b i a s , Perelman's theory i s expansive: i t i s not r e s t r i c t e d to formal s i t u a t i o n s , i t i s not r e s t r i c t e d to o r a l presentat ion , and, i n terms of subject matters , i t i s not r e s t r i c t e d to such subjects as A r i s t o t l e might have considered contingent . "The theory of argumentation," Perelman w r i t e s , "conceived as a new r h e t o r i c or d i a l e c t i c , covers the whole range of discourse that aims at persuasion and c o n v i c t i o n , whatever the audience addressed and whatever the subject matter" (Realm 5) . Two c e n t r a l elements of Perelman's theory of r h e t o r i c are d i r e c t l y connected to elements of theory i n the r h e t o r i c of sc ience . The f i r s t i s h i s emphasis on audience as the prime cond i t ion ing fac tor i n the r h e t o r i c a l e n t e r p r i s e ; the second i s h i s view of language as s e l e c t i v e , emphatic, and non-neutra l . Perelman's r h e t o r i c i s by d e f i n i t i o n "addressed" and he describes three kinds of audience to which i t appeals . The f i r s t , the p a r t i c u l a r audience which the rhetor wishes to inf luence by the discourse p a r a l l e l s the audience of t r a d i t i o n a l r h e t o r i c . Perelman adds, however, an audience of the s e l f (expanding the realm of r h e t o r i c to inc lude s e l f -d e l i b e r a t i o n ) and the "universal audience." The un iversa l 27 audience i s a c o l l e c t i v e of re levant judges—on some matters, a c o l l e c t i v e of a l l reasonable beings—and the value of arguments i s measured against i t s standard. The concept of u n i v e r s a l audience resonates with other r h e t o r i c i a n s ' concepts of r h e t o r i c ' s r e c i p i e n t s - p a r t i c i p a n t s ; i t a l so resonates with concepts of communities of re levant judges i n the l i t e r a t u r e of the philosophy of sc ience . The purpose of the t h e o r e t i c a l construct i n Perelman's case, and e f f e c t i v e l y i n every other , i s to create a p u b l i c and a system for v a l i d a t i n g or not v a l i d a t i n g "facts ." For Perelman—and t h i s i s t i e d to h i s notions of audience—there are no f a c t s , only propos i t ions which, because of general adherence to them, have the feature of having "fact s ta tus . The feature , having the status of f a c t , i s won i n the process of r h e t o r i c , a process through which reasonable people are convinced that some propos i t i on i s worth adhering t o . For example, i n Perelman's terms, "the good i s des irable" would have the adherence of the u n i v e r s a l audience and there fore , s trong f a c t - s t a t u s , while " l i f e i n any form i s good" would have the adherence of only part of that audience, incarnated i n p a r t i c u l a r audiences, and there fore , weaker f a c t - s t a t u s . The not ion of communities of experts as a r b i t e r s of the f a c t u a l i s c e n t r a l a l so to the theories of Kuhn, P o l a n y i , and Ziman (see the d i scuss ion of the philosophers of science below). Another aspect of Perelman's study of audience re levant 28 to the d i scuss ion of science i s h i s understanding of the points of departure for arguments—the understanding that a l l argumentation must be based on theses to which audiences a lready adhere: "In fac t ," Perelman says, "the aim of argumentation i s not , l i k e demonstration, to prove the fact of the conc lus ion from the premises, but to t r a n s f e r to the conc lus ion the adherence accorded to the premises" (Realm 21). The concept i s e s s e n t i a l l y A r i s t o t e l i a n and recurs i n some form i n the theories of r h e t o r i c i a n s Kenneth Burke and Wayne Booth; i t a l so emerges as c e n t r a l to theory i n the phi losophy of science—where i t i s acknowledged that s c i e n t i f i c communities, the communities i n which s c i e n t i f i c discourse takes p lace , not only share a means of d i scourse , but are i d e n t i f i e d by the body of assumptions they hold i n common—that i s , by the s t a r t i n g place for t h e i r s c i e n t i f i c conversat ion . The concept of moving forward from a shared base which, by that moving forward, increases , i s e s s e n t i a l to contemporary theories of science.** Perelman's theory a lso in tersec t s with theory i n the phi losophy of science at the point of d e s c r i p t i o n of language i n use. For Perelman and for the philosophers of science (as w e l l as f or Burke and Booth), verba l language i s not n e u t r a l , no author i s merely a repor ter , and the c la im to pure o b j e c t i v i t y i n texts i s not supportable . Moreover, the value-ladenness of language i s complicated by the theory-ladenness of percept ion . That i s , what i s seen and 29 "reported" i s as subject to unar t i cu la t ed presupposit ions as the language used to "report" i t . So, Perelman says, "the very same a c t i o n can be described as t i ghten ing a b o l t ; assembling a v e h i c l e ; earning a l i v i n g ; a s s i s t i n g the product ion of a favorable balance of trade" (Realm 41). To make the same p o i n t , he c i t e s A r i s t o t l e ' s statement that Orestes i s v a r i o u s l y described as "the murderer of h i s mother" and the "avenger of h i s father" Realm 45). With respect to s c i e n t i f i c accounting, Perelman's most s i g n i f i c a n t statement about the factors in f luenc ing language use and the consequent inf luence of language use appears at the end of The New Rhetor ic : A l l language i s the language of a community, be t h i s a community bound by b i o l o g i c a l t i e s , or by the p r a c t i c e of a common d i s c i p l i n e or technique. The terms used, t h e i r meaning, t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n , can only be understood i n the context of the h a b i t s , ways of thought, methods, external circumstances, and t r a d i t i o n s known to the users of those t e r m s . . . . Adherence to p a r t i c u l a r l i n g u i s t i c usages normally expresses the e x p l i c i t or i m p l i c i t adoption of c e r t a i n d e f i n i t e pos i t ions which are ne i ther the r e f l e c t i o n of an objec t ive r e a l i t y nor the manifes tat ion of i n d i v i d u a l a r b i t r a r i n e s s . . . . An agreement on the use of terms, no less than an agreement about the conception of r e a l i t y and the 30 v i s i o n of the world, even though i t may not be d i sputed , i s not ind i sputab le ; i t i s l i n k e d to a s o c i a l and h i s t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n which fundamentally condi t ions any d i s t i n c t i o n that one might wish to draw between judgments of r e a l i t y and value judgments. (TNR 513) Perelman's r h e t o r i c then, bound to the context of audience, formed w i l l y - n i l l y i n a language of some commitment, i s a r h e t o r i c which subsumes s c i e n t i f i c accounting as that accounting i s described i n the theories of Kuhn, P o l a n y i , and Ziman. Kenneth Burke's r h e t o r i c i s a lso d i r e c t l y per t inent to the d i scuss ion of the philosophy of sc ience . L i k e Perelman, Burke o f f er s a contemporary philosophy of r h e t o r i c — i n t h i s case, one that both r e p l i c a t e s and departs from A r i s t o t e l i a n theory. In A Rhetoric of Motives, Burke defines r h e t o r i c as an a r t of inf luence—"the use of words by human agents to form a t t i tudes or to induce act ions i n other human agents" (ROM 41). "It i s rooted," he says, i n "an e s s e n t i a l funct ion of  language i t s e l f . . . the use of language as a symbolic means  of inducing cooperation i n beings that by nature respond to  symbols" (ROM 43). The goal of Burke's r h e t o r i c i s ac t ion (an a t t i t u d e , he says, i s an " inc ip ient act" [ROM 42]) and i t s means i s language i t s e l f , by i t s nature symbolic as opposed to simply representa t iona l . Burke says that while the key term for r h e t o r i c , t r a d i t i o n a l l y , was "persuasion," the key term for a new r h e t o r i c i s " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . " He exp la ins : [W]e might we l l keep i t i n mind that a speaker persuades an audience by the use of s t y l i s t i c i d e n t i f i c a t i o n s ; h i s act of persuasion may be for the purpose of causing the audience to i d e n t i f y i t s e l f with the speaker's i n t e r e s t ; and the speaker draws on i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of in t eres t s to e s t a b l i s h rapport between himself and his audience. So, there i s no chance of our keeping apart the meanings of persuasion, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ( v c o n s u b s t a n t i a l i t y ' ) and communication (the nature of r h e t o r i c as addressed). (ROM 46) In "consubstant ia l i ty ," Burke names the goal of r h e t o r i c a l process—the act of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n i t s e l f i n which rhetor and audience, having overcome the fact of t h e i r " d i v i s i o n , " act  together, having "common sensations, concepts, images, ideas , a t t i tudes . . . " (ROM 21). This understanding of r h e t o r i c as i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , and of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n as the s t a r t i n g p lace , the means, and the goal of d iscourse a l igns Burkean r h e t o r i c with theory i n phi losophy of sc ience . P a r t i c u l a r l y per t inent to the d i s cus s ion of theories of science are Burke's concepts of "tribe" and t r i b a l membership and h i s views on the non-n e u t r a l i t y of percept ion and of the language i n which i t i s 32 rehearsed. Burke says, i n Language as Symbolic A c t i o n , that "the human animal , as we know i t , emerges in to p e r s o n a l i t y by f i r s t mastering whatever t r i b a l speech happens to be i t s p a r t i c u l a r symbolic environment" (53). With t h i s he summarizes both h i s sense of the context of community i n which r h e t o r i c as i d e n t i f i c a t i o n takes place and h i s sense of language as the cond i t ion ing feature of community membership and the acts which are motivated by i t : "[0]nce an animal comes in to being that [has an apt i tude for language] the var ious t r i b a l idioms are unquestionably developed by t h e i r use as instruments i n the t r i b e ' s way of l i v i n g " (LASA 44). S c i e n t i f i c communities, as they are described by Kuhn, P o l a n y i , and Ziman, are p a r t i c u l a r i z e d incarnat ions of Burkean t r i b e s . As Burke suggests, the r e l a t i o n s h i p of language to s c i e n t i f i c communities i s no d i f f e r e n t from the r e l a t i o n s h i p of language to other communities: The dramat i s t i c view of language, i n terms of "symbolic a c t i o n , " i s exercised about the neces sar i l y suasive nature of even the most unemotional s c i e n t i f i c nomenclatures . . . . Even i f any given terminology i s a r e f l e c t i o n of r e a l i t y , by i t s very nature as a terminology i t must be a s e l e c t i o n of r e a l i t y ; and to t h i s extent i t must funct ion a lso as a d e f l e c t i o n of r e a l i t y . (LASA 45) Burke here e f f e c t i v e l y a r t i c u l a t e s the p o s i t i o n v i s - a - v i s 33 n o n - n e u t r a l i t y that i s found e s p e c i a l l y i n those theor i s t s who w i l l be described below as the We 11 ans c hauung phi losophers of science (Polanyi i s one). The Weltanschauung phi losophers see a l l percept ion and experience as being constra ined by a "world view" cons t i tu ted of a t a c i t system of conceptual and l i n g u i s t i c se ts . The sense of a powerful but u n a r t i c u l a t e d s t a r t i n g place for a l l experience i s a fundamental concept for a new view of sc ience , s ince i t argues the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of theory- free or un-informed acts of observat ion . The sense of such a s t a r t i n g place i s a l so c e n t r a l to Burkean r h e t o r i c : Not only does the nature of our terms a f f ec t the nature of our observat ions , i n the sense that the terms d i r e c t the a t tent ion to one f i e l d ra ther than to another. Also many of the "observations" are but  impl i ca t ions of the p a r t i c u l a r terminology i n terms  of which the observations are made. In b r i e f , much that we take as observations about "rea l i ty" may be but the spinning out of p o s s i b i l i t i e s i m p l i c i t i n our p a r t i c u l a r choice of terms. (LASA 46) The d i f f erence between Burke and the Weltanschauung phi losophers i s e s s e n t i a l l y a d i f f erence i n focus. "We must use t e r m i n i s t i c screens," Burke says, "since we can ' t say anything without the use of terms; whatever terms we use, they n e c e s s a r i l y cons t i tu te a corresponding k ind of screen; and any such screen neces sar i l y d i r e c t s the a t t ent ion to one 34 f i e l d ra ther than another" (LASA 50). Burke sees a l l human a c t i o n as being described i n t h i s "necessari ly suasive" c o n d i t i o n of language. He argues, then, l i k e the Weltanschauung phi losophers , that our percept ion i s so guided by assumptions taken for granted that we are incapable of assess ing ( o b j e c t i v e l y , neutra l ly ) what we be l i eve and what we know. The quest ion, then, of how b e l i e f s and even facts are agreed upon i s e s s e n t i a l l y a question for r h e t o r i c ; that i s , by the d i s c u r s i v e means of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , human agents induce other human agents to hold p a r t i c u l a r a t t i tudes and perform p a r t i c u l a r ac t ions . Burke would describe a r h e t o r i c of science a lso i n these terms, and h is ana lys i s i l luminates the compatible analyses of the philosophers of sc ience . The ubiquitous and necessary r h e t o r i c a l process Burke describes i s e laborated i n the work of Wayne Booth, e s p e c i a l l y i n Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent . As a theory about the process by which communities construct and assent to " truth ," " r e a l i t y , " "value," Booth's theory i s s o c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t , i n much the same way as are the more l o c a l i z e d theor ies of Kuhn and Ziman. L i k e Burke, Booth focusses on people as languaging beings and he es tabl i shes the not ion of communities of re levant judges—populations of rhetors engaged i n "mutual i n q u i r y or explanation" (MD 137). Moreover, l i k e Burke, Booth focusses on the primacy of language i n shaping what people b e l i e v e , and, consequently, i n shaping who they are: "What an adult 35 man or woman i s , i n a l l s o c i e t i e s , i s i n large degree what other men and women have created through symbolic exchange" (MD 114). According to Booth, the process of becoming human i s r h e t o r i c a l : What i s a "mind" and what i s a "self" i n t h i s r h e t o r i c a l view? I t i s e s s e n t i a l l y r h e t o r i c a l , symbol-exchanging, a s o c i a l product i n process of changing through i n t e r a c t i o n , sharing values with other se lves . Even when t h i n k i n g p r i v a t e l y , "I" can never escape the other selves which I have taken i n to make "myself," and my thought w i l l thus always be a dia logue. (MD 126) Booth's placement of language at the centre of human behaviour and h i s r h e t o r i c a l view of language ("When anything i s c a l l e d to mind . . . " h e says, "the mind i s changed. There i s always an i m p l i c i t v ought' i f only v You ought to attend to my way of perce iv ing and naming" [MD 125]) revea l h i s p h i l o s o p h i c a l connections to Burke. The two theor i s t s t r e a t r h e t o r i c as epis temic . as a process , not of persuasion i n a simple sense, but of coming to b e l i e f and knowledge through language . 7 The view, when appl i ed to sc ience , p a r a l l e l s the s o c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t philosophy of sc ience . In the hands of Booth, the view i s even more suggestive of contemporary views of s c i e n t i f i c process ( p a r t i c u l a r y Ziman's) because i t y i e l d s to Booth's concentrat ion on a r h e t o r i c of a s sent—ef fec t ive ly the process of b u i l d i n g 36 consensus. Booth's term "assent" asserts the primacy of consensus-b u i l d i n g i n the establishment of a l l r e a l i t y . By arguing that "i t i s reasonable to grant . . . some degree of credence to whatever q u a l i f i e d men and women agree on, unless one has s p e c i f i c and stronger reasons to d i sbe l i eve" (MP 101), Booth argues for a "truth" es tab l i shed by the agreement of re levant judges ( cons t i tu t ing communities of discourse) and breaks down what he c a l l s the "fact-value s p l i t . " Moreover, Booth i s e x p l i c i t about the ways i n which t h i s process of "symbolic interchange" and consensual agreement extends to the realm of sc ience: What i s . . . demanded by the p r i n c i p l e of systematic assent i s more r igorous thought than i s customary about who "we" are , the group of re levant judges, the a x i o l o g i c a l experts whose shared experience confirms what we know together. This i s i n formal s t ructure the process of v a l i d a t i o n used even by s c i e n t i s t s for a great share of t h e i r s c i e n t i f i c b e l i e f s . No s c i e n t i s t has ever performed experiments or c a l c u l a t i o n s prov id ing more than a t i n y f r a c t i o n of a l l the s c i e n t i f i c b e l i e f s he holds; the whole e d i f i c e of science depends on f a i t h i n witnesses, past and present—on testimony and t r a d i t i o n . . . . Thus science i s , i n i t s l a r g e r s t r u c t u r e s , v a l i d a t e d by the same s o c i a l processes that I am arguing for i n 37 " a l l the r e s t . " (MD 108-9) L a t e r , Booth wr i t e s : I f evert the most austere, i s o l a t e d laboratory s c i e n t i s t cannot even c la im to e x i s t except as a s o c i a l s e l f who was made and i s s t i l l being made i n symbolic interchange with others . . . then h i s very existence depends on the many values he aff irms when he respects the t r u t h , refuses to cook h i s evidence, r e l i e s on the t r a d i t i o n s and methods taught him by h is mentors, and so on. The supreme purpose of persuasion i n t h i s view could not be to t a l k someone e l se in to a preconceived view; ra ther i t must be to engage i n mutual i n q u i r y or exp lora t ion . (MD 137) Booth argues that "modernism" (by which term he designates the whole of pos t -Cartes ian Western i n t e l l e c t u a l thought) has destroyed the a b i l i t y to "reason with the mind," and he presents h i s r h e t o r i c of assent as a p r e s c r i p t i o n for d i g n i f i e d s u r v i v a l i n t h i s century. His r h e t o r i c of assent i s uniquely a l i f e s t y l e r h e t o r i c i n the sense that i t i s more a design for c o l l e c t i v e l i v i n g than i t i s a theory on the nature of persuasion. What i s important, however, for the d i scuss ion of sc ience , i s the expansiveness of h i s r h e t o r i c , for h i s r h e t o r i c subsumes a l l of s c i e n t i f i c d i scourse .^ What a l l three r h e t o r i c a l theor i s t s seem to be arguing i s that r e a l i t y — a n d t r u t h and value—does not e x i s t independently of human experience and human d i scourse , that 38 i t i s not perceived or transmitted i n n e u t r a l i t y . Concomitantly, they argue that the purpose of r h e t o r i c i s not to win over an a l i e n audience to a predetermined t r u t h , but to a r r i v e at t r u t h i n concert with other "rhetors" from whom one has i n any case learned the language of i n which t r u t h i s made. S a l i e n t aspects of the philosophy of r h e t o r i c , then, inc lude treatments of r h e t o r i c a l audience as discourse communities or communities of i n t e r - i n f l u e n c e ; descr ip t ions of these communities as composed of people who a lready share c e r t a i n b e l i e f s and assumptions which determine the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of persuasion; views of language as symbolic, t e n d e n t i a l , non-neutra l , e s s e n t i a l l y c o n s t i t u t i v e of thought and b e l i e f ; views of r e a l i t y , not as external and o b j e c t i v e , but as personal and consensual, constructed i n r h e t o r i c or i n symbolic interchange; and notions of persuasion or argumentation or i d e n t i f i c a t i o n which imply that w i th in discourse communities, people work s t r a t e g i c a l l y to win the agreement or assent of other people—and to strengthen the bonds of the discourse community and increase i t s common ground. The same or compatible p r i n c i p l e s dominate contemporary t h i n k i n g i n philosophy of sc ience , and suggest that when s c i e n t i s t s w r i t e , they are not n e u t r a l , impersonal , va lue-f r e e , but in tent on winning the adherence of t h e i r peers , achiev ing recogn i t ion for t h e i r work, and p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n 39 the product ion of knowledge i n t h e i r f i e l d . The" contemporary view of science i s most e a s i l y understood as a c r i t i q u e of the t r a d i t i o n a l , p o s i t i v i s t , view of sc ience , wi th i t s roots i n Cartes ian r a t i o n a l i s m and Lockean empir ic i sm. According to the t r a d i t i o n a l view, r e a l i t y i s both independent and ex terna l , e x i s t i n g abso lute ly and apart from mind; and i t represents i t s e l f unproblemat ica l ly to observers , who are , i n t u r n , neutra l i n t h e i r observat ions . A c o r o l l a r y of t h i s view of r e a l i t y i s the view that language i s a transparent medium, which allows s c i e n t i f i c observers to present accurate t r a n s l a t i o n s of external r e a l i t y to other s c i e n t i s t s . These other s c i e n t i s t s then apprehend external r e a l i t y , mediated through the w r i t e r as a k ind of s cr ibe of nature (rather than as an author) .^ A recons iderat ion of what might cons t i tu te s c i e n t i f i c r e a l i t y , and a re-v iewing of the r o l e of language i n the conceptua l i z ing that r e a l i t y come from two t h e o r e t i c a l pos i t ions—and r h e t o r i c a l process i s i m p l i c i t i n them both. The f i r s t i s the s o c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t p o s i t i o n , a r t i c u l a t e d c l e a r l y by Kuhn. Kuhn creates a r o l e for r h e t o r i c i n the cons truc t ion and transmiss ion of r e a l i t y by maintaining that s c i e n t i f i c communities create competing vers ions of r e a l i t y , and that to win adherents, supporters of any p a r t i c u l a r ver s ion of r e a l i t y must persuade other people to regard t h e i r v e r s i o n as t r u e . The second p o s i t i o n i s that of the Weltanschauung phi losophers , and i t i s a r t i c u l a t e d by 40 P o l a n y i , for one. Weltanshauung, a term already mentioned i n connection with Burke, means, b a s i c a l l y "world-view," but i t suggests e s p e c i a l l y the kind of world-view that i s c u l t u r a l l y s o l i p s i s t i c or s i m i l a r l y predispos ing . The Weltanschauung phi losophers of science describe the extent to which p a r t i c u l a r conceptual and l i n g u i s t i c constructs (the world view) d i c t a t e or at l eas t cons tra in s c i e n t i f i c observation and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . The Weltanschauung p o s i t i o n i s , i n some ways, c lose to s o c i a l construct ionism. With respect to sc ience , the Weltanschauung p o s i t i o n , l i k e Kuhn's s o c i a l construct ion ism, argues that communities of i n q u i r y are def ined by the assumptions they share and that a l l s c i e n t i f i c observat ion i s determined by the theory brought to bear on "real" evidence. The Weltanschauung phi losophers , however, impl i ca te the symbolic system of verba l language d i r e c t l y i n t h e i r a n a l y s i s , focussing on the ways i n which our namings of things determine percept ion and the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of percept ion . That i s , they c la im i n part that language i s c o n s t i t u t i v e of r e a l i t y and that our terms themselves have a r h e t o r i c a l o r , as Booth would say, an "ought" dimension. Kuhn's Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolut ions , publ ished i n 1962, argues, against t r a d i t i o n a l b e l i e f , that s c i e n t i f i c percept ion i s not simply e x t e r n a l l y determined by the nature of r e a l i t y ; ra ther percept ion i s informed by "paradigms," " d i s c i p l i n a r y matrixes" of conventions and assumptions, that guide s c i e n t i f i c observation and p r a c t i c e . (They descr ibe , 41 e s s e n t i a l l y discourse communities or r h e t o r i c a l t r i b e s . ) These governing paradigms include not only what i s considered to be knowledge ( i t s e l f a matter of convention) , but a l so p a r t i c u l a r vocabular ie s , prob lem-def in i t ions , and methodologies. He wr i t e s : By choosing [the term "paradigm"] I mean to suggest that some accepted examples of ac tua l s c i e n t i f i c practice—examples which inc lude law, theory, a p p l i c a t i o n , and instrumentation together—provide models from which spr ing p a r t i c u l a r coherent t r a d i t i o n s of s c i e n t i f i c research. . . . The study of paradigms . . . i s what mainly prepares the student for membership i n the p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c community with which he w i l l l a t e r p r a c t i c e . (10-11) S c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y according to the c u r r e n t l y governing paradigm, Kuhn c a l l s "normal sc ience ." He theor izes that "advances" i n s c i e n t i f i c th ink ing are not evo lut ionary , tak ing place w i th in a paradigm, but revo lut ionary—that i s , i n s h i f t s from one paradigm to another. Kuhn argues that there i s no f i n a l or absolute r e a l i t y even i n the realm of the p h y s i c a l world , but that the theor ies and modes of percept ion we b r i n g to bear on evidence determine what we make of what we see ( e f f e c t i v e l y , then, what we see): No part of the aim of normal science i s to c a l l f o r t h new sorts of phenomena; indeed those that w i l l not 42 f i t the box are often not seen at a l l . Nor do s c i e n t i s t s normally aim to invent new theor i e s , and they are often i n t o l e r a n t of those invented by others . Instead, n o r m a l - s c i e n t i f i c research i s d i r e c t e d to the a r t i c u l a t i o n of those phenomena and theor ies that the paradigm already supp l i e s . (24) Paradigms gain t h e i r s ta tus , according to Kuhn, because they are "more successful than t h e i r competitors" (23) i n s o l v i n g the problems s c i e n t i s t s recognize as acute. A s c i e n t i f i c r e v o l u t i o n occurs when an "anomaly" presents i t s e l f , a problem which cannot be solved w i th in the current paradigm. Then, Kuhn says, the d i s c i p l i n e i s i n a s tate of " c r i s i s " which forces a choice between paradigms: "The d e c i s i o n to r e j e c t one paradigm i s always simultaneously the d e c i s i o n to accept another, and the judgment leading to that d e c i s i o n involves the comparison of both paradigms with nature and with each other"(77). That i s , i n the matter of competing vers ions of r e a l i t y , one vers ion w i l l triumph. While Kuhn never mentions the term, i t i s c l e a r that paradigm s h i f t s must i n e v i t a b l y involve r h e t o r i c as the d i s c u r s i v e means app l i ed to win adherents to a p a r t i c u l a r vers ion of r e a l i t y : [ I ] f a paradigm i s ever to triumph i t must gain some f i r s t supporters , men who w i l l develop i t to the po int where hardheaded arguments can be produced and m u l t i p l i e d . And even those arguments, when they 43 come, are not i n d i v i d u a l l y d e c i s i v e . Because s c i e n t i s t s are reasonable men, one or another argument w i l l u l t i m a t e l y persuade many of them. But there i s no s ing le argument that can or should persuade them a l l . Rather than a s ing l e group conversat ion , what occurs i s a an increas ing s h i f t i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n of profes s iona l a l l e g i a n c e s . (157) Kuhn continues: [ I ] f the paradigm i s one dest ined to win i t s f i g h t , the number and strength of persuasive arguments i n i t s favor w i l l increase . More s c i e n t i s t s w i l l then be converted, and the exp lorat ion of the new paradigm w i l l go on. Gradual ly the number of experiments, instruments, a r t i c l e s , and books based upon the paradigm w i l l m u l t i p l y . S t i l l more men, convinced of the new view's f r u i t f u l n e s s , w i l l adopt the new mode of p r a c t i c i n g normal sc ience , u n t i l at l a s t only a few e l d e r l y hold-outs remain. Kuhn's s o c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t theory of s c i e n t i f i c r e v o l u t i o n s , then, a l igns i t s e l f with r h e t o r i c a l theory not only i n d i r e c t l y , i n terms of shared assumptions about the nature of discourse communities and s t a r t i n g places for i n q u i r y , but a l so d i r e c t l y , because s c i e n t i s t s , he says, have to persuade other s c i e n t i s t s to regard c e r t a i n vers ions of (158) 44 r e a l i t y as t r u e . (In e f f e c t , during s c i e n t i f i c r e v o l u t i o n s , biases are e x p l i c i t , whereas during periods of normal sc ience , the same biases are i m p l i c i t . ) One of the impl i ca t ions of the t h e o r e t i c a l alignment between r h e t o r i c and science here i s that the image of the impersonal, d i s i n t e r e s t e d , va lue - free s c i e n t i s t i s eroded. In Kuhn's model, s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y i s i t s e l f sanctioned by membership i n a s c i e n t i f i c community. The a c q u i s i t i o n and maintenance of that membership and maintenance of that membership despite the p o s s i b i l i t y of dissonance, a l l speak to the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of n e u t r a l i t y i n s c i e n t i f i c accounting. Not only do s c i e n t i f i c wr i t er s have to win adherents to t h e i r po int of view at the moment of anomaly and c r i s i s ; but to maintain t h e i r s ta tus , s c i e n t i s t s have always to convince other s c i e n t i s t s of the s o l i d i t y of t h e i r membership i n the s c i e n t i f i c community, and the consequent relevance of t h e i r research . They do t h i s by a f f i rming the values of that community, by demonstrating t h e i r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the assumptions of that community, by using the terms and arguments of that community. Only i n these ways do s c i e n t i s t s maintain membership and the r i g h t to be read or heard. On the bas is of Kuhn's theory alone, i t would be poss ib le to r a t i o n a l i z e a r h e t o r i c a l analys i s of s c i e n t i f i c texts that would uncover the s tra teg ies of inf luence i n texts which, through t h e i r surface s tructure—and as part of t h e i r 45 conventional rhetor ic—argue (against reason) that they are i n fac t d i s i n t e r e s t e d , n e u t r a l , free of va lue . However the wr i t ings of Po lany i and Ziman strengthen the case. The p u b l i c a t i o n of Po lany i ' s Personal Knowledge predated the p u b l i c a t i o n of The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolutions by four years . L i k e Kuhn's t ex t , Po lany i ' s stands as a c r i t i q u e of t r a d i t i o n a l sc ience . Polanyi argues that r e a l i t y i s not impersonal and e x t e r n a l , but converse ly , personal and i n t e r n a l ; that i s , cons t i tu ted by the perce iv ing and experiencing mind. Po lanyi further argues that percept ion and experience are t i e d to a Weltanschauung (although he does not use the term); they are the e f f ec t and fur ther cause of a world view. The stance c l e a r l y impl icates contemporary r h e t o r i c a l theory: [A]s human beings, we must i n e v i t a b l y see the universe from a center l y i n g wi th in ourselves and speak about i t i n terms of a human language shaped by the exigencies of human in tercourse . Any attempt r i g o r o u s l y to e l iminate our human perspect ive from our p i c t u r e of the world must lead to absurd i ty . (PK 3) Po lany i says the cond i t ion of knowledge he describes i s not r e g r e t t a b l e ; rather i t i s i n e v i t a b l e and i t i s c r u c i a l to s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y . Moreover, understanding i t i s c r u c i a l to understanding s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y : [N]o s c i e n t i s t can forego s e l e c t i n g h is evidence i n the l i g h t of h e u r i s t i c expectat ions. And besides . . . he may we l l be unable to t e l l on what evidence E h i s b e l i e f i n a hypothesis H i s founded. I t i s a t raves ty of the s c i e n t i f i c method to conceive of i t as a process which depends on the speed of accumulating evidence present ing i t s e l f automat ica l ly i n respect to hypotheses se lected at random. (PK 30) . S c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y , then, i s never neutra l i n the sense of being random or unfounded i n theory. I t i s—and must be— guided by a theory. Furthermore, Po lanyi argues, and the connections to r h e t o r i c are obvious here, ne i ther the language that informs s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y nor the language i n which i t s course i s described can be conceived of as n e u t r a l . C r u c i a l to Po lany i ' s thes i s i s h i s concept of "taci t knowledge"—the set of assumptions and understandings that inform our world views and cons tra in our percept ions . These assumptions and understandings are so bas ic that i n the context of the communities i n which they are shared, they are v i r t u a l l y i n v i s i b l e , not r e a l l y quest ionable . To some extent they are not questionable because of the d i f f i c u l t y of us ing the language of a p a r t i c u l a r set of assumptions to frame questions that chal lenge those assumptions: We are faced here with the general p r i n c i p l e by which our b e l i e f s are anchored i n ourse lves . . . . 47 I am not speaking of the s p e c i f i c assert ions which f i l l the textbooks, but of the supposit ions which under l i e the method by which these assert ions are a r r i v e d a t . We ass imi la te most of these p r e -supposit ions by l earn ing to speak of things i n a c e r t a i n language, i n which there are names for var ious kinds of objec t s , names by which objects can be c l a s s i f i e d . . . . When we accept a c e r t a i n set of presupposit ions and use them as our i n t e r p r e t i v e framework, we may be s a i d to dwell i n them as we do i n our own body. The ir u n c r i t i c a l acceptance for the time being cons is t s i n a process of a s s i m i l a t i o n by which we i d e n t i f y ourselves with them. (PK 59) The theory of t a c i t knowledge has c l e a r impl i ca t ions for the progress of any d i s c i p l i n e , i n c l u d i n g , of course, s c i e n t i f i c d i s c i p l i n e s : To l e a r n by example i s to submit to a u t h o r i t y . You fo l low your master because you t r u s t h i s manner of doing things even when you cannot analyze and account i n d e t a i l for i t s e f fec t iveness . By watching the master and emulating h is e f f o r t s i n the presence of h i s example, the apprentice unconsciously p icks up the ru le s of the a r t , i n c l u d i n g those which are not e x p l i c i t l y known to the master h imsel f . (PK 53) The communities of people sharing "tac i t knowledge" are e f f e c t i v e l y the communities of people sharing (Kuhn's) 48 "paradigms"—and they are the communities and t r i b e s of r h e t o r i c a l theory. S p e c i f i c a l l y , r h e t o r i c a l process i s impl icated i n Po lany i ' s analys i s i n two ways. F i r s t , r h e t o r i c i s the name of the process by which t a c i t knowledge i s acquired: people become members of p a r t i c u l a r communities by l earn ing the language, and i m p l i c i t l y the conventional modes of d i s t i n c t i o n and concomitant ways of percept ion that i d e n t i f y those communities. Secondly, i n emphasizing the degree to which s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y i s guided by "taci t knowledge" and community membership, Po lanyi not only argues that neutra l language i s an absurd idea , but he impl ies l i k e Kuhn, that the neutra l s c i e n t i s t i s an absurd i d e a . In any d i scourse , the s c i e n t i s t aff irms h is a l l eg iances and proclaims t h e i r value for readers , whose adherence he/she i n e v i t a b l y must cour t . In e f f e c t , then, P o l a n y i ' s text argues for the r h e t o r i c i t y of s c i e n t i f i c d i scourse . A t h i r d major work i n the philosophy of sc ience , John Z iman's Publ i c Knowledge: An Essay Concerning the S o c i a l  Dimension of Science, a lso argues for the r h e t o r i c i t y of s c i e n t i f i c d i scourse . L ike Kuhn, Ziman writes about the condi t ions of membership i n s c i e n t i f i c communities; l i k e P o l a n y i , he writes about i n i t i a t i o n in to s c i e n t i f i c communities, and the extent to which the process of i n i t i a t i o n depends on the a s s i m i l a t i o n of a k ind of t a c i t knowledge. More than e i t h e r Kuhn or P o l a n y i , however, Ziman focuses on the establishment of s c i e n t i f i c fact as a process 49 ( c l e a r l y a r h e t o r i c a l process , a process of persuasion i n a i d of assent) by which consensus i s e s tab l i shed wi th in a s c i e n t i f i c community. Kuhn's s c i e n t i f i c community sharing "paradigms," Po lany i ' s community of shared "tac i t knowledge" i s p a r t i c u l a r i z e d i n Publ ic Knowledge as a consensible group of s c i e n t i s t s — a n " i n v i s i b l e co l l ege ," a "tenuous t r i b e . " Ziman defines the "Invis ib le College" as people "who are conscious of working i n the same f i e l d , as col leagues and r i v a l s , throughout the world" tPublic 1 0 8 ) . 1 0 I f a d i scuss ion of Kuhn p a r t i c u l a r l y r e c a l l s Perelman's not ion of adherence, and a d i scuss ion of P o l a n y i , Burke's not ion of t e r m i n i s t i c screens, then a d i s cuss ion of Ziman p a r t i c u l a r l y r e c a l l s Wayne Booth's not ion of consensual agreement. Ziman argues that s c i e n t i f i c knowledge d i s t ingu i shes i t s e l f from other forms of knowledge, not by the consensual process by which i t i s e s tab l i shed , but by the degree of consensus i t requires for v a l i d a t i o n . That which we c a l l "public knowledge," he says, must survive a per iod of c r i t i c a l study and t e s t i n g and found so persuas ive , i t i s v i r t u a l l y u n i v e r s a l l y accepted. The goal of science i s "a consensus of r a t i o n a l opinion over the widest poss ib le f i e l d " (Publ ic 9) . Furthermore, Ziman observes (consistent with other t h e o r i s t s i n both r h e t o r i c and science) that those who p a r t i c i p a t e i n s c i e n t i f i c consensus must a lready share many b e l i e f s , i n c l u d i n g b e l i e f i n what const i tutes a s c i e n t i f i c problem, and a conventional form of i n q u i r y i n p u r s u i t of a 50 s o l u t i o n : The convention i s that the s c i e n t i f i c community cons i s t s of those persons who are able to speak i t s language. I f you wish to pronounce on a s c i e n t i f i c matter . . . you must show that you are already acquainted with current knowledge i n that f i e l d of study. To change the consensus, you must, p a r a d o x i c a l l y , demonstrate that you understand and accept i t as i t i s . (Public 6 4 ) 1 1 The s c i e n t i s t , he says, wishing to make a c o n t r i b u t i o n to "public knowledge," "tries to d i r e c t h i s work so that i t has relevance to the general notions shared by the s c i e n t i f i c world" (Publ ic 48). L ike both Kuhn and P o l a n y i , Ziman argues that concerns which f a l l outside the general not ion of what i s s c i e n t i f i c a l l y acceptable are scorned, and that evidence which seems to support those concerns i s o v e r l o o k e d . ^ L i k e Kuhn and P o l a n y i , Ziman bel ieves that "experiment bridges the gu l f between the empir i ca l and the t h e o r e t i c a l " and that "a theory provides a l o g i c a l order ing , a pa t t ern , for observations" (Public 38). More than Kuhn or P o l a n y i , however, Ziman i s e x p l i c i t i n naming r h e t o r i c as the process of a r r i v i n g at agreement. "Rhetoric," he says, ". . . i s the only word we may use, once we have dethroned p o s i t i v i s m , and chal lenged the absolutism of ^ s c i e n t i f i c ' proof" (Publ ic 32). His quest ion i s "Why, i n f a c t , do we be l i eve a good s c i e n t i f i c argument . . .?" (Public 32) In t h i s context of a r h e t o r i c of sc ience , Ziman describes the s c i e n t i f i c r e p o r t . He wr i tes : The work as publ ished i s no mere c h r o n i c l e of the research as i t took p lace; i t i s a much more contr ived document . . . . I t i s w r i t t e n i n a c u r i o u s l y a r t i f i c i a l x impersonal ' s t y l e , d e l i b e r a t e l y f l a t and unemotive, as from one c a l c u l a t i n g machine to another. The experiment i s not now something that r e a l l y occurred to me, the author; i t i s what always takes p lace , i n p r i n c i p l e , under the i d e a l circumstances set out i n the paper. (Publ ic 34) Ziman argues that the abs trac t , impersonal s t y l e of convent ional s c i e n t i f i c communications i s an attempt by the author to make h i s work seem already part of the consensus (Publ ic 96). In other words, the impersonal s t y l e of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s not a r e f l e c t i o n of the impersonal nature of the i n q u i r y , but i t s opposite: impersonal s t y l e i s r h e t o r i c a l l y motivated. Ziman says, furthermore that s c i e n t i f i c authors use c i t a t i o n s r h e t o r i c a l l y to v a l i d a t e claims made i n the s c i e n t i f i c paper and embed i t i n the p r e e x i s t i n g consensus (Publ ic 103). He adds to the r h e t o r i c of science that the a r t i c l e appearing i n a s c i e n t i f i c journal "bears the imprimatur of s c i e n t i f i c a u t h e n t i c i t y , as given to i t by the e d i t o r and the referees whom he may have consulted" (Publ ic 111). "The re feree ," he says, i s the "lynchpin about 52 which the whole business of Science i s pivoted" (Publ ic 111); journa l referees and ed i tors are guardians of the consensus, gate-keepers of a s o r t . Ziman, then, e x p l i c i t l y , and Kuhn and Polanyi i m p l i c i t l y , argue that s c i e n t i f i c d i scourse—inc lud ing formal s c i e n t i f i c prose—is not neutra l or s t r i c t l y o b j e c t i v e , but r h e t o r i c a l , as "rhetor ica l" has been defined i n the context of twentieth-century theory. S c i e n t i f i c d iscourse i s , broadly speaking, impel led by the need to win adherence, e s t a b l i s h i d e n t i f i c a t i o n among s c i e n t i s t s and with dominant norms, and b u i l d consensus. Ziman's ana lys i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y germane to the present pro jec t because i t points to s p e c i f i c ways i n which s c i e n t i f i c authors use r h e t o r i c a l s t r a t e g i e s . What i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g about Ziman's comments i n t h i s regard i s that they do not o r i g i n a t e i n an a p r i o r i not ion of a r h e t o r i c / s c i e n c e s p l i t . Ziman trea t s science as r h e t o r i c , and h i s ana lys i s begins from that premise. Some current t h e o r i s t s — i n c l u d i n g P. B. Medawar, S o c i o l o g i s t s G i l b e r t and Mulkay, and Joseph Gusf ie ld—share Ziman's open c r i t i c a l stance. However, other t h e o r i s t s not ing r h e t o r i c a l s trateg ies operat ing i n s c i e n t i f i c texts— i n c l u d i n g Andrew Weigert, Barbara Cox and Charles Roland, and Herbert Simons—argue against r h e t o r i c i t y i n s c i e n t i f i c texts and c la im that these texts should be free of r h e t o r i c a l tendency. That i s , among theor i s t s and researchers who have 53 done r h e t o r i c a l treatments of s c i e n t i f i c and q u a s i - s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , two a t t i tudes p r e v a i l . One i s the a t t i t u d e (held by Weigert and others) that r h e t o r i c i s not appropriate to s c i e n t i f i c accounting and should somehow be removed from i t ; the o t h e r — l i k e Ziman's—is that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g simply i s r h e t o r i c a l , and that what i s worth i n v e s t i g a t i n g about s c i e n t i f i c discourse i s the way i t s r h e t o r i c works. Both a t t i tudes represent current scholarsh ip i n the r h e t o r i c of sc ience and deserve to be reviewed. The Ziman a t t i t u d e , e n t i r e l y cons is tent with theory i n both r h e t o r i c and phi losophy of sc ience , i s the more product ive . The c r i t i c a l b ias of Weigert, Cox and Roland, and Simons, i s summed up by Weigert's term: "the immoral r h e t o r i c of sc ience ." The c r i t i c a l bias follows the view, a lso Weiger t ' s , that "a s c i e n t i s t qua s c i e n t i s t says only what x i s ' . . . . A r h e t o r i c i a n qua r h e t o r i c i a n says whatever he wants." ( H I ) Weigert argues that " i f a s o c i o l o g i s t prac t i ce s r h e t o r i c , but i d e n t i f i e s himself . . as a s c i e n t i s t , he renders h i s r h e t o r i c immoral, the immoral r h e t o r i c of i d e n t i t y deception" (111). The negative a t t i tude toward r h e t o r i c impugns a u t h o r i a l use of persuasive s t r a t e g i e s , both covert and over t . Weigert i s concerned e s p e c i a l l y with the covert r h e t o r i c of s o c i o l o g i c a l r e p o r t i n g . Readers, he says, f i n d r h e t o r i c "masquerading" as sc ience . He wr i t e s : A professor t o l d me that an a r t i c l e of h i s was 54 accepted by a leading journal on the cond i t ion that he supply more empir i ca l data to support h i s argument. He proceeded to add a tab le d i s t a n t l y p e r i p h e r a l to the theme of the a r t i c l e . With the added baggage, the a r t i c l e was duly publ i shed . Such a tab le i s a form of r h e t o r i c . (Weigert 116) The assumption underly ing Weigert's argument i s that science could e x i s t independently of r h e t o r i c , and tha t , i f i t d i d , i t s purposes would be more honorably s e r v e d . ^ Weigert 's concern about covert s c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c i s matched by the concerns of other c r i t i c s about overt r h e t o r i c i n sc ience . Cox and Roland argue that a r t i c l e s appearing i n s c i e n t i f i c journals p a r t i c i p a t e i n s c i e n t i f i c ethos of those journals and should be constrained by that ethos. That i s , they are not read as r h e t o r i c a l and therefore they should not be r h e t o r i c a l . Cox and Roland argue that the "use of emotional ly laden words i n the s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e , e s p e c i a l l y on c o n t r o v e r s i a l t o p i c s , tends to undermine o b j e c t i v i t y . " Referr ing s p e c i f i c a l l y to a ser ies of medical journa l a r t i c l e s on marijuana (published i n 1971), they ask, "how s c i e n t i f i c i s i t to speak of pat ients v sk in -popping ' . . . or to descr ibe someone who x snor ted ' heroin . . . , or was an x a c i d head' or who had a vgood t r i p ' . . . or even to s tate that hashish may be r o l l e d i n to a x j o i n t ' . . .? Would not a more objec t ive tone be 55 achieved by s t a t i n g that pat ients i n j e c t e d a compound in tradermal ly , inhaled heroin powder, used LSD on a regular b a s i s , experienced euphoria or pleasant h a l l u c i n a t i o n s , or r o l l e d hashish i n c i g a r e t t e papers? (141) These authors express l eg i t imate , i f naive , concerns about the r o l e of persuasive appeals i n the forum of the s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e : l eg i t imate because s c i e n t i f i c readers should be aware of authors' designs on them; naive because they maintain an i d e a l of o b j e c t i v i t y that i s simply unat ta inable , even i f i t were t h e o r e t i c a l l y p o s s i b l e . Cox and Roland conclude t h e i r own emotional paper by recommending that "editors weed out the r h e t o r i c i n the mater ia l they accept, even i f that means taking an unpopular stance." The e d i t o r s , they say, can console themselves "with the thought that when the t i d e of p u b l i c and profes s iona l opin ion s h i f t s , t h e i r journa l w i l l be remembered for i t s o b j e c t i v i t y . . . the very foundation of sc ience ." In t h e i r d i a t r i b e against r h e t o r i c , Cox and Roland do not say how, i n the absence of anyone t r y i n g to persuade anyone of anything, i t might happen that the "tide of p u b l i c and profes s iona l opinion" would s h i f t . Weigert and Cox and Roland hold to an i d e a l , l i k e the seventeenth-century i d e a l of the Royal Soc ie ty , that i f science could only be s p l i t from r h e t o r i c , that i s , i f language could only be shorn of i t s r h e t o r i c a l component, a l l i n q u i r e r s would be c l o s e r to an independent t r u t h . 56 The ubiquitous and often unconscious use of r h e t o r i c a l s t ra teg ie s i n s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , as we l l as the t h e o r e t i c a l i n e v i t a b i l i t y of a r h e t o r i c a l dimension i n science r e p o r t i n g , diminishes the usefulness of the c la im made by Weigert and others that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s suspect by v i r t u e of being r h e t o r i c a l , or that s c i e n t i s t s are to be chast i sed for be ing, as Herbert Simons says, "rhetors i n d i sgu i se ." In f a c t , t h i s k ind of argument i s a smokescreen obscuring the more s i g n i f i c a n t issues i n the r h e t o r i c of science p e r t a i n i n g to the nature and means of s c i e n t i f i c persuasion—issues which other c r i t i c s have been more able to address. The other a t t i t u d e toward r h e t o r i c i n sc ience , noted i n Ziman, recognizes i t s i n e v i t a b i l i t y and i s more compatible with contemporary understanding of both science and r h e t o r i c --al though c r i t i c s who hold t h i s a t t i tude are nonetheless concerned about the form and substance of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g . "The s c i e n t i f i c paper may be a f raud ," says P. B. Medawar, "because i t misrepresents the process of thought that accompanied or gave r i s e to the work that i s descr ibed i n the paper" (43). That i s , the surface r e p o r t i n g of science continues to promote the i d e a l of o b j e c t i v i t y of observation and p u r i t y of research , while the r e a l i t y of science i s that "every act of observat ion we make i s biased" and pure induct ion i n s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y i s a f i c t i o n " (42). Medawar's p o s i t i o n i s corroborated by a discourse ana lys i s publ ished recent ly by s o c i o l o g i s t s of sc ience, 57 G i l b e r t and Mulkay. G i l b e r t and Mulkay compare the features of s c i e n t i s t s ' informal conversat ion (which, they c la im, betrays unse l fconsc ious ly the "real" nature of t h e i r work) and t h e i r formal conversation—the discourse of pro fes s iona l j o u r n a l s . They f i r s t describe the formal t a l k of s c i e n t i s t s : [T]he texts of experimental papers d i s p l a y c e r t a i n recurrent s t y l i s t i c , grammatical and l e x i c a l features which appear to be coherent ly r e l a t e d . . . . Nei ther the author's own involvement with or commitment to a p a r t i c u l a r a n a l y t i c a l p o s i t i o n nor h i s s o c i a l t i e s with those whose work he favors are mentioned. Laboratory work i s charac ter i zed i n a h i g h l y conventional manner, as instances of impersonal , procedural rout ines which are genera l ly app l i cab le and u n i v e r s a l l y e f f e c t i v e . Although the content of experimental papers c l e a r l y depends on the experimenters'act ions and judgments, such papers are overwhelmingly wr i t t en i n an impersonal s t y l e , with overt references to the author's act ions and judgments kept to a minimum. By adopting these kinds of l i n g u i s t i c features , authors construct texts i n which the p h y s i c a l world seems r e g u l a r l y to speak, and sometimes to ac t , for i t s e l f . (55-56) G i l b e r t and Mulkay expla in that the formal w r i t i n g of sc ience , which "portrays s c i e n t i s t s ' act ions and b e l i e f s as 58 fo l lowing unproblemat ical ly . . . from the empir i ca l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an impersonal natura l world ," i s s e l ec t i ve (56), and they demonstrate the p r i n c i p l e of s e l e c t i v i t y by comparing formal s c i e n t i f i c texts to the informal speech of the same s c i e n t i s t s d i scuss ing the same acts of research. They report that what appears i n journal a r t i c l e s to be objec t ive observat ion i s explained in formal ly as guided by a commitment to a p a r t i c u l a r way of looking at data: S c i e n t i s t s ' informal t a l k about a c t i o n and b e l i e f was of ten much more contingent, i n the sense that speakers gave accounts i n which i t was accepted that t h e i r pro fe s s iona l act ions and s c i e n t i f i c values could have been otherwise i f t h e i r personal or s o c i a l circumstances had been d i f f e r e n t . [This contingent r e p e r t o i r e ] enables speakers to dep ic t pro fe s s iona l act ions and b e l i e f s as being s i g n i f i c a n t l y inf luenced by v a r i a b l e factors outside the realm of empir i ca l . . . phenomena. When t h i s r e p e r t o i r e i s employed, s c i e n t i s t s ' act ions are no longer depicted as generic responses to the r e a l i t i e s of the na tura l world , but as the a c t i v i t i e s and judgments of s p e c i f i c i n d i v i d u a l s ac t ing on the bas is of t h e i r personal i n c l i n a t i o n s and p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l p o s i t i o n s . ( 5 7 ) 1 4 G i l b e r t and Mulkay demonstrate, through t h e i r study, that formal s c i e n t i f i c language does not accurate ly portray the 59 p r a c t i c e of sc ience , even as that p r a c t i c e i s a r t i c u l a t e d i n other realms of d i scourse . Medawar's p o s i t i o n i s corroborated a lso by Joseph G u s f i e l d ' s " l i t e r a r y " analys i s of a medical journa l a r t i c l e on d r i n k i n g d r i v e r s . G u s f i e l d f inds many persuasive s t ra teg ie s at work i n the "sc i en t i f i c" p iece , and i s not so much d i s turbed by the presence of r h e t o r i c i n the a r t i c l e as he i s by what he perceives to be the a r t i c l e ' s dishonesty. He wr i t e s : The language i s d e l i b e r a t e , nonevocative, meticulous and l i m i t e d i n imagery. I t informs the reader that the persuasion i s to come from an external r e a l i t y not from the author or h i s use of language. The d e s c r i p t i o n i s minimally metaphorical . The in tent i s made to seem cogni t ive and l o g i c a l rather than a f f e c t i v e or emotional . We, the audience, are to th ink and not to f e e l . Although the author i s not anonymous and i s i d e n t i f i e d as a s c i e n t i s t i n a governmental organ iza t ion , the s t y l e of w r i t i n g grounds the ac t ion of the paper i n the agency of methodological procedures of data c o l l e c t i o n and a n a l y s i s . The agent i s minimized and the drama of the paper i s presented as fo l lowing from the unfo ld ing of the procedures of method, not from the i n t e r e s t s , biases or language of the author. (21) What i s "fraudulent," then, about s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g (to use Medawar's term) i s not that i t i s r h e t o r i c a l , but that the nature of i t s r h e t o r i c i s not always cons i s tent with the nature of the enterpr i se i t represents . Moreover, the persuasive power of formal s c i e n t i f i c language i s der ived i n par t from the fac t that i t appears, at l eas t at f i r s t , not to be r h e t o r i c a l . G u s f i e l d ' s comments on s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , as w e l l as those of Medawar, G i l b e r t and Mulkay—and John Ziman--suggest the need for further studies which explore the nature and impl ica t ions of s c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c . Because the exp lora t ion must revea l the modes of funct ioning of persuasive s tra teg ies i n s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , such studies are best informed by an understanding of r h e t o r i c a l theory, and use an a n a l y t i c a l model based on that theory. I t i s the purpose of the fo l lowing chapter to e s t a b l i s h jus t such a model. Theory i n both philosophy of r h e t o r i c and phi losophy of sc ience , then, argues for the r h e t o r i c a l study of s c i e n c t i f i c t e x t s . Philosophy of r e t o r i c brings to an enterpr i se i n r h e t o r i c of science a sense of the nature of audience as d iscourse community, the uses and the shapes of persuasion, the n o n - n e u t r a l i t y of any language i n use, the u b i q u i t y of symbolic interchange and i t s epistemic r o l e . Philosophy of science brings to the enterpr i se a p a r a l l e l understanding of d iscourse community, and a sense of the contingent nature of human i n q u i r y at every l e v e l —from "empirical" observation to theory cons truct ion and the cons truct ion of knowledge i t s e l f . For t h e o r i s t s i n both r h e t o r i c and sc ience , language i s va lue- laden and percept ion i s theory- laden, and some not ion of "Weltanschauung," of b e l i e f s and assumptions a f f e c t i n g both language and percept ion , goes some way to exp la in ing human a c t i o n . 62 Endnotes 1. No attempt i s made here to cover theory i n e i t h e r r h e t o r i c or acience exhaust ive ly , only to use exemplary t h e o r i s t s to show the connections between them. Exhaustive coverage would include arguments, not only from other r h e t o r i c i a n s but from other contemporary t ex tua l c r i t i c s , on the non-neutral and formative nature of language—as w e l l as a h i s t o r y of t h e o r e t i c a l oppos i t ion to t r a d i t i o n a l views of sc ience . Postmodern t ex tua l c r i t i c s , from reader-response c r i t i c s to d e c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t s , have made the case that language i s ne i ther neutra l nor transparent , but informed and formative i n r e l a t i o n to thought. For an overview, see , for example, Eagleton, Tompkins, Scholes , and C u l l e r . I t i s important to note, however, the d i s t i n c t i o n s between contemporary r h e t o r i c and other postmodernist views. The argument that language condi t ions how we th ink i s not complete i n i t s e l f . For the postmodernists , language i s an impersonal and c losed system, whereas for r h e t o r i c i a n s , language i s f u l l of va lue , and rhetors have some power, i n t h e i r humanness, to use i t w e l l . For purposes of the present synthes i s , the bas ic texts for the Perelman d i scuss ion are The New Rhetoric and The  Realm of Rhetor ic ; for the Burke d i s cus s ion , A Rhetoric of  Motives and Language as Symbolic A c t i o n , and for the Booth d i s c u s s i o n , Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent . The three t h e o r i s t s are major f igures i n 20th century r h e t o r i c a l 63 t h e o r y . A u s e f u l secondary source f o r a d i s c u s s i o n of "new s c i e n c e " i s Suppe. For the words o f the s c i e n t i s t s themselves, see, f o r example, W. Heisenberg, and J . A. Wheeler. In s c i e n c e , the n o t i o n t h a t the observed a f f e c t s the observed argues t h a t the p h y s i c a l w o r l d i t s e l f i s not r e p r e s e n t e d i d e n t i c a l l y t o every o b s e r v e r : "What we observe i s not nature i t s e l f , but nature exposed t o our method of q u e s t i o n i n g " (Heisenberg 75). For purposes of the p r e s e n t s y n t h e s i s , the b a s i c t e x t f o r the Kuhn d i s c u s s i o n i s The S t r u c t u r e of S c i e n t i f i c  R e v o l u t i o n s : f o r the P o l a n y i d i s c u s s i o n , P e r s o n a l Knowledge; and f o r the Ziman d i s c u s s i o n , P u b l i c Knowledge. A l l t h r e e p h i l o s o p h e r s of s c i e n c e became a c t i v e i n t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e i n the l a t e f i f t i e s and e a r l y s i x t i e s , and the work o f a l l t h r e e i s now c o n s i d e r e d seminal and s t i l l c e n t r a l t o the f i e l d . 2. The t r a d i t i o n a l r h e t o r i c a l canons, I n v e n t i o n , Arrangement, S t y l e , Memory, and D e l i v e r y — t h e f i v e p a r t s of r h e t o r i c a l s t u d y — w e r e enumerated by the Roman r h e t o r i c i a n s , p r o b a b l y f i r s t by the author of the Ad Herennium. 3. For a d i s c u s s i o n of the d i f f e r e n c e s between C l a s s i c a l and Modern R h e t o r i c , see Knoblauch and Brannon. Fo r a d i s c u s s i o n o f s i m i l a r i t i e s , see L u n s f o r d and Ede. 4. See C o r b e t t ' s s y n o p s i s of the h i s t o r y of r h e t o r i c i n C l a s s i c a l R h e t o r i c f o r the Modern Student. 64 5. Perelman says, "We see t h a t [the] s t a t u s of f a c t and t r u t h i s not guaranteed i n d e f i n i t e l y u n l e s s we accept the e x i s t e n c e of an i n f a l l i b l e a u t h o r i t y , a d e i t y whose r e v e l a t i o n s are i n c o n t e s t a b l e and who c o u l d guarantee these f a c t s and t r u t h s . However, i f we l a c k such an a b s o l u t e guarantee, such s e l f - e v i d e n c e , and such n e c e s s i t y as would compel every r e a s o n a b l e b e i n g the f a c t s and t r u t h s which are accepted by common o p i n i o n o r by the o p i n i o n of s p e c i a l i s t s become open to q u e s t i o n " (Realm 24). 6. The argument t h a t s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y i s i t s e l f a form o f r h e t o r i c i s supported by r e c e n t work i n the s o c i o l o g y of s c i e n c e . See, f o r example, K n o r r - C e t i n a , The Manufacture of  Knowledge and Knorr, Krohn, and Whitley. See a l s o L a t o u r and Woolgar, and G i l b e r t and Mulkay. 7. C r u s i u s claims t h a t Booth "has t h o r o u g h l y confounded d i a l e c t i c and r h e t o r i c , a r g u i n g f o r the former w e l l but under the banner of Ka r h e t o r i c of a s s e n t . " (23) A c c o r d i n g t o C r u s i u s , Booth's " r h e t o r i c " i s i t s e l f a d i a l e c t i c — i n q u i r i n g " i n t o the t r u t h by d i a l o g u e . " (30) The c o n f l a t i o n o f r h e t o r i c and d i a l e c t i c , however, i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of contemporary r h e t o r i c a l t h e o r y (Perelman says "The t h e o r y of argumentation [ i s ] c o n c e i v e d as a new r h e t o r i c o r d i a l e c t i c . . . "(Realm 5 ] . See a l s o Brummett, and S c o t t ( "On Viewing R h e t o r i c as E p i s t e m i c " and "On Viewing R h e t o r i c as E p i s t e m i c : Ten Years L a t e r " ) . 65 8. In tere s t ing ly , Booth himself re fers to both Polanyi and Kuhn i n h i s d i scuss ion of sc ience . See his footnote, MD 109-110. 9. I t i s important that t h i s view of Science, and s i m i l a r l y any view of sc ience, subsumes not only a view of language, but an epistemology: i t includes a theory of how we know what we know. Furthermore, an epistemology i s necessar i ly impl ied i n a view of language. I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g , there fore , that theories of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge and r h e t o r i c would i n t e r s e c t i n the contemporary i n t e l l e c t u a l context—and that a s o c i a l cons truc t ion i s t view of science would be re in forced i n a theory of non-neutral language and a r h e t o r i c of consensual v a l i d a t i o n . 10. In a much l a t e r work, An Introduction to Science  Studies , Ziman of fers t h i s expanded d e s c r i p t i o n : S c i e n t i s t s mainly i n t e r a c t communally with other s c i e n t i s t s i n t h e i r spec ia l ty—that i s , with other members of the i n v i s i b l e co l l ege i n t h e i r f i e l d of research. This i s not , of course, a p r e c i s e l y defined group, s ince i t cons is ts simply of the research s c i e n t i s t s who happen at the time to be t r y i n g to solve a p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c problem . . or who are using a p a r t i c u l a r experimental technique . . . or who are interes ted i n some p a r t i c u l a r aspect of nature. . . . I t i s not i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y , geographica l ly or n a t i o n a l l y l o c a l i z e d . . . (75). 66 11. This view, i n f a c t , i s so c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the p r e v a i l i n g paradigm i n s c i e n t i f i c thought that i t i s r e f erred to and assumed i n much the same way as p r i n c i p l e s of empiricism were r e f e r r e d to and assumed i n w r i t i n g about science to the middle of t h i s century. In a recent book review, physics professor James T r e f i l remarks on author Gerald Holton's use of the term "culture of science" i n his book. The term, T r e f i l says, re fers to "that tenuous web of shared assumptions and methodologies that character izes the work of s c i e n t i s t s and, to a large extent , determines how the s c i e n t i f i c enterpr i se operates" (50). The concept "culture of science" i s r e f e r r e d to ra ther than argued i n the a r t i c l e , i t s v a l i d i t y assumed rather than asserted, and t h i s i s the mark of the maturity of a concept wi th in a c u l t u r e . 12. See e s p e c i a l l y Ziman's d i scuss ion (Public 56-7) of Cont inenta l D r i f t and Po lany i ' s comparable d i scuss ion (PK 158) of extra-sensory percept ion. 13. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g i n the context of Weigert's object ions to look c a r e f u l l y at Weaver's "The Concealed Rhetoric of S c i e n t i s t i c Sociology." While Weigert does not c i t e Weaver, he makes many of the same po int s . In h i s 1959 essay, Weaver l i s t s r h e t o r i c a l s trateg ies of wr i ters i n s o c i a l sc ience , not the l eas t of which, he says, i s c a l l i n g themselves "socia l s c i ent i s t s"—accord ing to Weaver, a c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n terms and a r h e t o r i c a l express ion. S o c i o l o g i s t s , according to Weaver, have r h e t o r i c a l l y i d e n t i f i e d themselves with sc ience, us ing the "eulogis t ic terms" of sc ience. It i s s u r p r i s i n g that while Weaver i s aware of a r h e t o r i c of c i t a t i o n s , l i n g u i s t i c obfuscat ion , and use of the signs of p r e c i s i o n i n " s c i e n t i s t i c soc io logy ," he never acknowledges that the same s trateg ies might be at work i n bona f ide s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g . 14. For further d i scuss ion of the performance of science and the repor t ing of i t , see Latour and Woolgar. The ir ethnographic research involves observing s c i e n t i s t s working i n the laboratory to observe how the d a i l y a c t i v i t i e s of science lead to the construct ion of s c i e n t i f i c fac t s . 68 Chapter Two. A Methodology for the R h e t o r i c a l Analys i s of S c i e n t i f i c Texts The d i scuss ion so far has es tabl i shed the fo l lowing points with respect to the t h e o r e t i c a l underpinnings of a r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s of s c i e n t i f i c d iscourse: 1) that science and r h e t o r i c are l e g i t i m a t e l y interconnected, p a r t i c u l a r l y inso far as s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y and s c i e n t i f i c accounting are viewed e p i s t e m i c a l l y (as the production of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge) and r h e t o r i c i s viewed as an epistemic process (the d i s c u r s i v e means of knowledge product ion) ; 2) that the study of both science and r h e t o r i c e n t a i l s i n v e s t i g a t i o n in to the theory-ladenness of percept ion and the value-ladenness of language; 3) that s c i e n t i f i c "truth" i s a r r i v e d at consensual ly i n the communication of s c i e n t i s t s , and i s not , at l e a s t not abso lu te ly , objec t ive or n e u t r a l ; 4) that s c i e n t i f i c language i s not neutra l or transparent , but textured by the b e l i e f systems of p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c communities; and 5) that s c i e n t i f i c language can, for these reasons, be c a l l e d " r h e t o r i c a l . " Moreover, these views of science and r h e t o r i c have become "commonplace" i n contemporary Western thought. They are , among i n i t i a t e d t h e o r i s t s , assumed to be v a l i d ; these views are no longer so much arguable as they are themselves matters of consensible opinion on which other arguments can be pred ica ted . The matter at hand i s to develop a methodology of analyzing 69 s c i e n t i f i c prose , i n p a r t i c u l a r se lected a r t i c l e s publ ished i n major medical journals over the l a s t s i x years , for purposes of spec i fy ing the nature of t h e i r r h e t o r i c i t y . Although the prose conventions associated with s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been thought to be n o n - r h e t o r i c a l (the realm of sc ience being considered separate from the realm of r h e t o r i c ) , theory—as we l l as past r h e t o r i c a l analys i s (See Chapter One)— suggests that s c i e n t i f i c prose i s not simply r e p o r t o r i a l , v o i c e l e s s , n e u t r a l . The hypothesis for the ana lys i s i s that s c i e n t i f i c prose, as language i n use, i s r h e t o r i c a l , and that par t of i t s r h e t o r i c a l power comes from prose conventions which operate to create the impression of the d i s i n t e r e s t e d s c i e n t i s t r e p o r t i n g acts of pure observation i n transparent prose . The u l t imate purpose of r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s i s to i l luminate the functions and e f fec ts of d i scourse . Kenneth Burke writes i n "The Rhetoric of H i t l e r ' s ^Batt le ," that he has undertaken an ana lys i s of Me i n Kampf i n order to d iscover the nature of i t s r h e t o r i c , so that "we may know, with greater accuracy, exac t ly what to guard against ," as a populat ion i n America (PLF 191). To draw an analogy between Burke's purpose and the purpose of t h i s projec t i s not to suggest anything s i n i s t e r i n the r h e t o r i c of science i n general or medicine i n p a r t i c u l a r . The motive of the r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s always to increase awareness of the ways of human inf luence by increas ing understanding of language i n use. To develop a theory of s c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c and e s t a b l i s h a 70 methodology for the r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s of s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , t h i s chapter begins with a review of s i g n i f i c a n t d e f i n i t i o n s of both r h e t o r i c i t s e l f and r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m as w e l l as descr ip t ions of p a r t i c u l a r programs of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m and the theor ies on which these programs are based. The review lays the groundwork for the remainder of the chapter which describes the common ground of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , argues the appropriateness of applying a r h e t o r i c a l model to the reading of s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , aff irms a d e f i n i t i o n of r h e t o r i c a l d iscourse embracing s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , and es tabl i shes a r h e t o r i c a l model which suggests an a n a l y t i c procedure, or a ser ies of probes to be appl ied i n the ana lys i s of s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s . The t h e o r i s t on whose work models for r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been based i s A r i s t o t l e ; and i n the twentieth century, the century that has seen the greatest sustained i n t e r e s t i n the subject of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , 1 the dominant form of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c a l p r a c t i c e i s neo-A r i s t o t e l i a n . Ana lys i s according to A r i s t o t e l i a n p r i n c i p l e s i s , i n f a c t , the core program on which other programs have been based or from which they have been launched, and the program against which s t i l l others have reacted.2 Not a l l r h e t o r i c a l theor i s t s have dea l t d i r e c t l y with the r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s of texts ( A r i s t o t l e d i d no t ) . Among the authors who have considered the p r a c t i c e of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m are Herbert Wichelns, Edwin Black , Donald C . Bryant , Wayne Booth, and Kenneth Burke. A review of t h e i r approaches to t e x t s , while not supplying a complete summary of the l i t e r a t u r e i n r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , does cover major trends i n t h i s century and suggests a d i r e c t i o n for methodology i n the r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s of s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s . A d i s t i n c t i o n to keep i n mind i n reviewing approaches to r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s that between the c r i t i c i s m of  r h e t o r i c a l t ex t s , i n which the c r i t i c f i r s t defines c e r t a i n texts as r h e t o r i c a l and then discusses the ana lys i s of those t ex t s , and the r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m of t ex t s , i n which the c r i t i c f i r s t defines a methodology as r h e t o r i c a l and then discusses the a p p l i c a t i o n of r h e t o r i c a l method to a v a r i e t y of kinds of t ex t s . While not a l l r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c s neces sar i l y choose between these approaches, the d i s t i n c t i o n between them i s use fu l i n prov id ing one f i l t e r through which to examine var ious c r i t i c a l works. Some c r i t i c a l approaches, more than others , i n v i t e the treatment of s c i e n t i f i c texts w i th in the realm of r h e t o r i c . A r i s t o t l e ' s own well-known d e f i n i t i o n of r h e t o r i c i s the "faculty of d i scover ing i n the p a r t i c u l a r case what are the a v a i l a b l e means of persuasion" (7), and, i n genera l , those who have used t h i s d e f i n i t i o n as the bas is of a program of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m have asked to what extent a p a r t i c u l a r author has been successful i n f ind ing and us ing the a v a i l a b l e means of persuasion i n the p a r t i c u l a r case. The A r i s t o t e l i a n quest ion i t s e l f suggests a " c r i t i c i s m of r h e t o r i c a l texts" 72 model, s ince i t impl ies that c e r t a i n t ex t s , by v i r t u e of the features placed i n them by the choice of an author with the i n t e n t i o n to persuade, are r h e t o r i c a l . In the f i r s t quarter of the twentieth century, the neo-A r i s t o t e l i a n model of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m was a r t i c u l a t e d comprehensively by Herbert Wichelns, who then became somewhat of a mentor for other c r i t i c s who would at tach themselves to a c r i t i c a l base i n A r i s t o t e l i a n theory. N e o - A r i s t o t e l i a n c r i t i c a l methodology i s e s s e n t i a l l y an a p p l i c a t i o n to s p e c i f i c texts of the terms of A r i s t o t e l i a n r h e t o r i c a l theory (summarized more f u l l y i n Chapter One above). N e o - A r i s t o t e l i a n c r i t i c s consider the p a r t i c u l a r s i t u a t i o n , audience, and purpose for a "speech" (now, not only a speech but any d i scourse ) , and how the speech has been condit ioned by the speaker's understanding of a l l of these factors of context . They organize analys i s through the four major r h e t o r i c a l canons: Invention, Arrangement, S t y l e , and D e l i v e r y . They focus (as A r i s t o t l e did) on Invention, cons ider ing a r t i s t i c and i n a r t i s t i c proofs i n the speech, as we l l as enthymemes and examples and the topo i which operate i n them. They del ineate appeals of ethos (appeal from the character of the speaker), pathos (emotional appeal) and logos (the arguments themselves). They consider Arrangement, not ing the d i s p o s i t i o n of the appeals and arguments i n the speech, and i d e n t i f y and discuss the e f f ec t s of devices of S ty le and D e l i v e r y . A r i s t o t l e e f f e c t i v e l y catalogued poss ib le means of persuasion, and these 73 are used h e u r i s t i c a l l y i n the c r i t i c i s m based on his theory.^ Herbert Wichelns i s considered to be the f i r s t person to formalize neo-Aristotelian c r i t i c i s m , drawing together the fragments concerning c r i t i c i s m that other c r i t i c s had mentioned i n the e a r l i e r part of the twentieth-century. His "Literary C r i t i c i s m of Oratory," which appeared i n 1925, was said to be the " f i r s t t r u l y s c h o l a r l y project i n r h e t o r i c f o r t h i s century" (Stewart 3). Wicheln's commitment to an A r i s t o t e l i a n approach i s apparent i n the subjects he suggests merit the attention of the c r i t i c : Rhetorical c r i t i c i s m i s necessarily a n a l y t i c a l . The scheme of a r h e t o r i c a l study includes the element of the speaker's personality as a conditioning factor; i t includes also the public character of the man—not what he was, but what he was thought to be. It requires a desc r i p t i o n of the speaker's audience, and of the leading ideas with which he p l i e d his h e a r e r s — h i s to p i c s , the motives to which he appealed, the nature of the proofs he offered. These w i l l reveal his own judgment of human nature i n his audiences, and also his judgment on the questions which he discussed. Attention must be paid, too, to the r e l a t i o n of the surviving texts to what was a c t u a l l y uttered: i n case the nature of the changes i s known, there may be occasion to consider adaptation to two audiences—that which heard and that which read. Nor can r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m omit the speaker's mode of arrangement and h i s mode of express ion, nor h i s habit of preparat ion and his manner of d e l i v e r y from the p lat form; though the l a s t two are perhaps less s i g n i f i c a n t . "Style"—in the sense which corresponds to d i c t i o n and sentence movement—must rece ive a t t e n t i o n , but only as one among various means that secure for the speaker ready access to the minds of h i s a u d i t o r s . F i n a l l y , the e f f ec t of the discourse on i t s immediate hearers i s not to be ignored, e i t h e r i n the testimony of witnesses, nor i n the record of events. And throughout such a study one must conceive of the p u b l i c man as in f luenc ing the men of h i s own times by the power of h i s d i scourse . (Wichelns 212-213) According to r h e t o r i c a l t h e o r i s t and c r i t i c Donald C . Bryant, Wichelns' 1925 essay "set the pat tern and determined the d i r e c t i o n of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m for more than a quarter of a century and has had a greater and more continuous inf luence upon the development of the scholarsh ip of r h e t o r i c and publ i c address than any other s ing le work publ ished i n t h i s century" (Bryant, Idiom 5) . Yet despite h i s e x p l i c i t n e s s i n a r t i c u l a t i n g a c r i t i c a l approach based on A r i s t o t l e , Wichelns f a i l e d to produce a p r a c t i c a b l e methodology. This view i s d e t a i l e d by Charles Stewart i n h i s h i s t o r i c a l survey of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i n twentieth-century America. Stewart 75 w r i t e s , "The major i ty of studies [ fo l lowing Wichelns] delved i n t o one of Wichelns' t o p i c s — s t y l e , proofs , r h e t o r i c a l dev ices , preparation—and authors turned to c l a s s i c a l sources, u s u a l l y A r i s t o t l e for further guidel ines (Wichelns had not explained how the c r i t i c should analyze s t y l e , proofs , or other top ic s )" (6) . That i s , at the most p r a c t i c a l l e v e l of what the c r i t i c should do, Wichelns i s less than e x p l i c i t . His f a i l u r e to b r i n g h i s methodology to the l e v e l of genera l i zable p r a c t i c e may be seen as a re luctance to prescr ibe a procedure that might c o n s t r a i n the i n d i v i d u a l c r i t i c i n the p u r s u i t of r h e t o r i c a l i n s i g h t . A s i m i l a r f a i l u r e of e x p l i c i t n e s s i n methodology i s found i n the work of Edwin Black. As one of the most voca l opponents of the n e o - A r i s t o t e l i a n c r i t i c a l stance, Black describes a s i t u a t i o n i n contemporary c r i t i c i s m which c a l l s f o r t h his a l t e r n a t i v e c r i t i c a l programme. "Our task," he says, i s to sketch an approach to r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m that cons t i tu tes an a l t e r n a t i v e to n e o - A r i s t o t e l i a n i s m , but we cannot approach c r i t i c i s m i n a t h e o r e t i c a l vacuum. There are assumptions behind any approach and these assumptions ought to be d i s c lo sed as cand id ly as p o s s i b l e . (132) Black argues that any methodology must be based on a coherent set of t h e o r e t i c a l assumptions; yet he, l i k e Wichelns, weakens at the po int of p r a x i s . While h i s main t h e o r e t i c a l assumption-76 - that r h e t o r i c i s t ransac t ive rather than argumentative—is a powerful one and has been maintained by other t h e o r i s t s 4 , h i s a n a l y t i c a l method i s ne i ther comprehensive nor general ly u s e f u l . Black argues that the r h e t o r i c a l t r a n s a c t i o n i s charac ter i zed by r e l a t i o n s h i p s among r h e t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n ( e x t r a l i n g u i s t i c factors in f luenc ing audience reac t ion to d i s c o u r s e ) , r h e t o r i c a l s trateg ies ( c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of d i s c o u r s e ) , and audience e f fec t s (responses to s trategy i n the context of s i t u a t i o n ) . He proposes that the r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c attend to r a t i o s among these factors according to a "scale" which embraces the whole of the r h e t o r i c a l process . Such a s c a l e , he maintains , would account for "exhortative" d i scourse , which uses emotionalism to a r r i v e at intense c o n v i c t i o n , and argumentative d i scourse , which i s aimed at "assent less intense than, say, exhortat ion , and more intense than, say, a d v i c e - g i v i n g . . ." (149) among other d i scourses , which are unspec i f i ed . The problem with B lack ' s approach i s not only that i t i s vague and therefore d i f f i c u l t to apply , but that i t res t s on a d e f i n i t i o n of r h e t o r i c which l i m i t s i t s scope i n much the same way as the scope of A r i s t o t e l i a n r h e t o r i c i s i t s e l f l imi ted—to discourse which i s i n t e n t i o n a l l y persuasive (despite , and p o s s i b l y i n c o n t r a d i c t i o n t o , B lack ' s sense of r h e t o r i c as t r a n s a c t i v e ) . According to Black, "the subject matter of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s persuasive discourse" (14), and 77 "persuasive . . . r e f er s to i n t e n t , not n e c e s s a r i l y to accomplishment. Rhetor i ca l discourses are those d iscourses , w r i t t e n or spoken, which aim to inf luence men" (15). His i s not so much a program of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m as i t i s an i n t e r e s t i n g but l i m i t e d t o o l to be appl ied i n the c r i t i c i s m of c e r t a i n kinds of r h e t o r i c a l t ex t s . L i k e Edwin Black , Donald C . Bryant views the terms, "rhe tor i c , " " c r i t i c i s m , " and "method," as problematic , but his agenda i n Rhe tor i ca l Dimensions i n C r i t i c i s m i s more exploratory and process -or iented than B l a c k ' s . Bryant covers the h i s t o r i c a l ground from Wichelns to h i s own contemporaries, i n c l u d i n g h i s own e a r l i e r w r i t i n g , d i scuss ing a v a r i e t y of approaches to r h e t o r i c and r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m . I t i s worth not ing tha t , i n h i s quotat ion of the Committee on the Scope of Rhetoric (of the Nat ional Development P r o j e c t ) , he a r t i c u l a t e s the p o s i t i o n r e f e r r e d to i n t h i s d i scuss ion as "rhe tor i ca l c r i t i c i s m of d i scourse ." Bryant quotes from Ll oyd B i t z e r and Edwin Black , The Prospect of Rhetor ic : R h e t o r i c a l studies are proper ly concerned with the process by which symbols and systems of symbols have ( i . e . exert) inf luence upon b e l i e f s , va lues , a t t i t u d e s , and ac t ions , and they embrace a l l forms of human communication, not e x c l u s i v e l y p u b l i c address nor communication wi th in any one c la s s or c u l t u r a l group. (208) Bryant ' s d i a l e c t i c a l method takes him to a c r u c i a l point 78 concerning the funct ion of d i scourse , and that i s the d i s t i n c t i o n between "the treatment of a r t i f a c t s as s i g n i f i c a n t p r i m a r i l y for what they are and the treatment of them as p r i m a r i l y s i g n i f i c a n t for what they do (Dimensions 27). In t h i s regard, Bryant acknowledges the s i g n i f i c a n c e of r h e t o r i c a l t h e o r i s t E . P . J . Corbet t ' s d e f i n i t i o n of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m . Corbett defines r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m as that mode of i n t e r n a l c r i t i c i s m which considers the i n t e r a c t i o n s between the work, the author, and the audience. As such i t i s in teres ted i n the product . the process , and the e f f ec t of l i n g u i s t i c a c t i v i t y , whether of the imaginative k ind or the u t i l i t a r i a n k i n d . When r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s app l i ed to imaginative l i t e r a t u r e , i t regards the work not so much as an object of contemplation but as an a r t i s t i c a l l y s tructured instrument for communication. I t i s more in teres ted i n a l i t e r a r y work for what i t does than for what i t i s . ("Introduction," Analyses x x i i ) Once he has i d e n t i f i e d the funct ion of discourse as c e n t r a l to the r h e t o r i c a l perspect ive , Bryant recasts h i s own e a r l i e r d e f i n i t i o n of r h e t o r i c as "the r a t i o n a l e of informative and  suasory discourse" (Dimensions 11), convert ing i t t o , "the r a t i o n a l e of the informative and suasory i n discourse" (Dimensions 29). A c o r o l l a r y of Bryant 's recast d e f i n i t i o n i s h i s cho ice , as he says, to discuss " r h e t o r i c a l dimensions i n 79 c r i t i c i s m " rather than "rhe tor i ca l c r i t i c i s m " (Dimensions 29). (Bryant does rever t to the term "rhe tor i ca l c r i t i c i s m " i n l a t e r d i s c u s s i o n . ) As the province of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m i s the poet ic —the f i c t i v e and imaginat ive , the b e a u t i f u l , the enduring i n poems and prose, the eloquence of pub l i c a f f a i r s and the pu lp i t—so r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m t r e a t s of the i l l u m i n a t i v e and suasory i n speeches and speaking, i n pamphlets and pamphleteering, i n controversy and debate, i n e d i t o r i a l s and e d i t o r i a l i z i n g , i n Grapes of Wrath and Mother Courage and the veh ic l e s and media to which they belong. . . R h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s sy temat ica l ly ge t t ing i n s i d e transact ions of communication to d iscover and descr ibe t h e i r elements, t h e i r form, and t h e i r dynamics and to explore the s i t u a t i o n s , past or present , which generate them and i n which they are e s s e n t i a l const i tuents to be comprehended and judged. (Dimensions 34-5) L i k e Wichelns and Black, Bryant i s more focussed on the nature and q u a l i t y of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m than he i s on a methodology for i t . Bryant says that r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s " a n a l y t i c a l " ; "i t discovers how the object i s made . . . " and then searches "into the p o t e n t i a l working of the object i n the s i t u a t i o n " (Dimensions 38-9). However, Bryant does not go on to say how r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s done. D e t a i l s of Bryant's 80 methodology can best be i n f e r r e d from h i s own works of c r i t i c i s m . The emerging sense that the "what" of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s p r i o r to and more important than the "how" of i t i s r e i n f o r c e d by the wr i t ings of speech professors Mark S. Klyn and Marie Hochmuth N icho l s , and of r h e t o r i c i a n s Kenneth Burke and Wayne Booth. I t seems to be the case, cons ider ing the s h i f t i n g focus i n " c r i t i c i s m of r h e t o r i c a l t exts ," "rhe tor i ca l c r i t i c i s m of texts ," and "rhe tor i ca l dimensions of c r i t i c i s m , " that the term, "rhetor ica l" when appl ied to "cr i t i c i sm" suggests a p e c u l i a r kind of a t tent ion to texts ra ther than a p a r t i c u l a r form of p r a c t i c e . In an a r t i c l e appearing for the f i r s t time i n Essays on  R h e t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m (1957) Klyn writes that "rhe tor i ca l c r i t i c i s m " only means " v i n t e l l i g e n t w r i t i n g about works of r h e t o r i c ' " —or about works which are not x r h e t o r i c ' i n any formal sense but which can be i l l u m i n a t i n g l y treated from such a s tandpoint—in whatever way the c r i t i c can manage i t . I t does not imply a p r e s c r i p t i v e mode of w r i t i n g , any c a t e g o r i c a l s tructure of judgment, or even any judgmental necess i ty . (147) Arguing for a p l u r a l i s t i c approach to r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m aga ins t , for example, what he perceives as the monism of neo-A r i s t o t e l i a n i s m , Klyn says that the best c r i t i c s , "in w r i t i n g about persuaders or works of r h e t o r i c , " have functioned as 81 "free men," unfet tered by any coerc ive c r i t i c a l doc tr ine , unconfined by any pedagogical imperat ive , able to reason i n d u c t i v e l y from t h e i r mater ia l and to explore t h e i r ins ights as independent, d i s i n t e r e s t e d t h i n k e r s . (156) Among r h e t o r i c a l t h e o r i s t s and c r i t i c s , Kenneth Burke i s c r e d i t e d with having developed a c r i t i c a l methodology coherent enough to stand up against a n e o - A r i s t o t e l i a n model. "As a phi losopher ," writes Marie Hochmuth N i c h o l s , Burke has been searching for the assumptions on which the a r t [of c r i t i c i s m ] r e s t s , assumptions p e r t a i n i n g to language, the nature of meaning, the funct ion of language i n producing cooperat ion, the meaning of persuas ion. As a c r i t i c , he has searched for a c r i t i c a l methodology appropriate to t h i s r a t i o n a l e . ("Cr i t i c i sm" 77) According to N icho l s , Burke f inds the assumptions on which to base a c r i t i c a l methodology and a methodology as w e l l : For the c r i t i c , Burke's r a t i o n a l e necess i tates a system of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , a naming of maneuvers that are operat ing i n any language s i t u a t i o n , b r i n g i n g about e i t h e r by c a l c u l a t i o n or by "unconscious" appeal , s o c i a l cohesion, that i s , c o n s u b s t a n t i a l i t y . mater ia l or i d e a l i s t i c . I t requires constant a t t en t ion to both the b i o l o g i c a l and r a t i o n a l 82 grounding of appeal . Burke's c r i t i c a l t o o l for l o c a t i n g the const i tuents of a s i t u a t i o n i s v a r i o u s l y named, "dramatistic pentad," or ^ d i a l e c t i c a l substance. ' ("Cri t i c i sm" 81) Nichols i s r e f e r r i n g to Burke's theory of persuasion as an a c t i o n to enhance c o n s u b s t a n t i a l i t y , e laborated i n h i s Rhetoric  of Motives (see Chapter One above), and h is pentadic system for analyz ing discourse r h e t o r i c a l l y i n terms of A c t , Scene, Agent, Agency, and Purpose, e laborated e s p e c i a l l y i n h i s Grammar of  Motives . While Burke's theory of r h e t o r i c as i d e n t i f i c a t i o n and h i s dramat i s t i c approach based on that theory are both product ive i n terms of t ex tua l a n a l y s i s , i t i s c r u c i a l to observe that Burke himself sees the work of the c r i t i c i n very broad terms. Burke i s concerned with the r h e t o r i c of both poet ic and non-poetic d i scourse , and r e f e r r i n g here to "The Rime of the Ancient Mariner ," he wr i t e s : [T]o grasp the f u l l nature of the symbolic enactment going on i n the poem, we must study the i n t e r -r e l a t i o n s h i p s d i s c l o s a b l e by a study of Co ler idge ' s mind i t s e l f . I f a c r i t i c prefers to so r e s t r i c t the ru l e s of c r i t i c a l analys i s that these pr iva te elements are excluded, that i s h i s r i g h t . I see no formal or c a t e g o r i c a l objec t ion to c r i t i c i s m so conceived. But i f h i s i n t e r e s t happens to be i n the s t ruc ture of the poet ic ac t , he w i l l use everything that i s ava i lable—and would even consider i t a kind 83 of vandalism to exclude c e r t a i n mater ia l that Coler idge has l e f t , basing such exc lus ion upon some conventions as to the i d e a l of c r i t i c i s m . The main  i d e a l of c r i t i c i s m , as I conceive i t . i s to use a l l  that i s there to use [emphasis mine]. (PLF 23) In h i s own r h e t o r i c a l analyses , Burke himself uses " a l l that i s there to use." As a r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c , he brings to bear on a text the t o t a l i t y of h i s knowledge and experience, w i th in a t h e o r e t i c a l context i n which persuasion i s understood as the promotion of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n (consubstant ia l i ty ) by the use of symbols. In h i s analys i s of Mein Kampf ("The Rhetoric of H i t l e r ' s ^Bat t l e '" ) , Burke i s not l i m i t e d , methodological ly , to the a p p l i c a t i o n of the pentad or to c r i t i c a l observations suggested by A r i s t o t l e ' s Rhetor ic . E c l e c t i c i s m i s at the root of h i s c r i t i c i s m . Marie Hochmuth Nichols wri tes of Burke: His knowledge of psychoanalysis i s use fu l i n the ana lys i s of the "sexual symbolism" that runs through the book. . . .His knowledge of h i s t o r y and r e l i g i o n i s employed to show that the "mater ia l i zat ion of a r e l i g i o u s pattern" i s "one t e r r i f i c a l l y e f f e c t i v e weapon . . . i n a per iod where r e l i g i o n has been progres s ive ly weakened by many centuries of c a p i t a l m a t e r i a l i s m . " . . . Conventional r h e t o r i c a l knowledge leads him to c a l l a t t ent ion to the "power of endless r e p e t i t i o n , " the appeal of a sense of "community," "the appeal of securi ty" r e s u l t i n g from a "world view" for a people who had prev ious ly seen the world only "piecemeal," and the appeal of H i t l e r ' s "inner voice" which served as a technique of leader-people " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . " . . . Burke's ana lys i s i s comprehen-s ive and penetrat ing . I t stands as a superb example of the f r u i t f u l n e s s of a method of comprehensive r h e t o r i c a l analys i s which goes f a r beyond conventional pat terns . ("New C r i t i c i s m " 143)5 Burke's c r i t i c i s m i s widely acknowledged to be " r h e t o r i c a l . " Yet i n l i g h t of h i s e c l e c t i c i s m , and what seems to be the s l i p p e r i n e s s of the term i t s e l f , i t makes sense to ask exact ly what makes i t r h e t o r i c a l . In f a c t , the r h e t o r i c a l nature of Burkeian c r i t i c i s m l i e s not i n h i s instruments of a n a l y s i s , but i n the assumptions which inform that a n a l y s i s ; not i n h i s procedure per se. but i n the a t t i tude which causes him to formulate c e r t a i n kinds of questions with respect to t ex t s . Burkeian c r i t i c i s m — a n d indeed a l l that we agree to c l a s s i f y as " r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m " i s " r h e t o r i c a l , " not by v i r t u e of subject matter or method—about which there seems to be no general consensus among r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c s — b u t by v i r t u e of po int of view. Rhetor i ca l c r i t i c i s m i s a p o s t e r i o r i defined by the nature of the a t tent ion which the c r i t i c d i r e c t s to the t e x t . 6 The r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m of Wayne Booth provides another perspect ive on t h i s concept of "attention." Booth's approach to the discourse of imaginative l i t e r a t u r e has much i n common 85 with h i s approach to the discourse of d a i l y l i f e , and h is sense of the r e a l - w o r l d consequences of " f i c t ion" d i c ta te s the nature of h i s c r i t i c a l program. Methodologica l ly , Booth proceeds without any p a r t i c u l a r a n a l y t i c a l t o o l , but uses h i s own t h e o r e t i c a l p r e d i s p o s i t i o n and h is moral s e n s i b i l i t y to locate and comment on the a u t h o r i a l choices that create the text as he reads i t . ("The author," he says, "cannot choose whether to use r h e t o r i c a l heightening. His only choice i s of the k ind of r h e t o r i c he w i l l use" [ROF 116].) Booth focuses on technique, on questions of a u t h o r i a l choice and s trategy , be l iev ing—as Burke does 7 —that poet ic l i t e r a t u r e i s e s s e n t i a l l y r h e t o r i c a l : I f the most admired l i t e r a t u r e i s i n fac t r a d i c a l l y contaminated with r h e t o r i c , we must sure ly be l e d to ask whether the r h e t o r i c i t s e l f may not have had something to do with our admirat ion. . . . The t r u t h i s tha t , i f recognizable appeals to the reader are a s ign of imperfect ion , per fec t l i t e r a t u r e i s impossible to f i n d ; i n great works, not jus t of f i c t i o n but of a l l k inds , we f i n d such appeals wherever we look. . . . (ROF 98-99) At the very moment when [Henry] James exclaims to h imsel f , "Here i s my subject!" a r h e t o r i c a l aspect i s contained wi th in the conception: the subject i s thought of as something that can  be made i n p u b l i c , something that can be made in to a communicated work. . . . [R]egardless of how we 86 define a r t or a r t i s t r y , the very concept of w r i t i n g a s tory seems to have i m p l i c i t w i th in i t the not ion of f i n d i n g techniques of expression that w i l l make the work acces s ib l e . (ROF 105) I f Booth i s successful as a c r i t i c , i t i s because he i s committed to d i scover ing what texts do, how they ac t , how they change people; h i s method i s i n t u i t i v e and i n d u c t i v e . Booth's motive i n The Rhetoric of F i c t i o n i s not to exp l i ca te a methodology but to demonstrate the r h e t o r i c i t y of f i c t i o n and the consequent moral o b l i g a t i o n of the w r i t e r of f i c t i o n . Booth's t h e o r e t i c a l s t a r t i n g place and h is c r i t i c a l agenda separate him from many other r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c s . Edwin Black, as we have noted, was concerned with the " c r i t i c i s m of r h e t o r i c a l t ext ," which he defined as text created with the i n t e n t i o n to persuade; Booth i s concerned with the "rhe tor i ca l c r i t i c i s m of t ext ," i n which r h e t o r i c a l "attention" i s appl ied to a wide range of t ex t s , r h e t o r i c a l by v i r t u e of t h e i r t e x t u a l i t y , i r r e s p e c t i v e of i n t e n t i o n . He w r i t e s , [T]he whole question of the d i f ference between a r t i s t s who consc ious ly c a l c u l a t e and a r t i s t s who simply express themselves with no thought of a f f e c t i n g a reader i s an important one, but i t must be kept separate from the question of whether an author's work, regardless of i t s source, communicates i t s e l f (ROF. pre face ) . This review of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , from Wichelns to 87 Booth, lays the groundwork for approaching s c i e n t i f i c texts from the r h e t o r i c a l point of view. The remainder of t h i s chapter es tabl i shes an operat ional d e f i n i t i o n of the r h e t o r i c a l po int of view or r h e t o r i c a l "attention"; argues the appropriateness of applying r h e t o r i c a l a t t ent ion to s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s ; af f irms a r h e t o r i c a l theory that embraces s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s ; and suggests a methodology for analyz ing s c i e n t i f i c texts from the r h e t o r i c a l point of view. A r h e t o r i c a l theory comprises a c o l l e c t i o n of working assumptions about discourse on which a methodology for the ana lys i s of texts can be based. A r h e t o r i c a l methodology i s a procedure for t ex tua l a n a l y s i s ; i t may use a v a r i e t y of a n a l y t i c a l too l s but i s constrained by the terms of the theory on which i t based. A r h e t o r i c a l methodology d i r e c t s a c r i t i c to make c e r t a i n kinds of d i scover ies about a t e x t . These d i scover ie s i l l u m i n a t e the workings of p a r t i c u l a r texts on p a r t i c u l a r audiences; they a lso stand as evidence of the v a l i d i t y of the r h e t o r i c a l theory which enabled them. Theories of r h e t o r i c are thus e s s e n t i a l l y d e s c r i p t i v e ; as they are o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d , they become p r e d i c t i v e and are r e i n f o r c e d . The a n a l y t i c a l work of a c r i t i c generates new theory when his or her in s igh t s about a text go beyond what could be predic ted by t r a d i t i o n a l theory. Burkean c r i t i c i s m , for example, o u t s t r i p s A r i s t o t e l i a n c r i t i c i s m , as Burke f inds evidence i n texts of h i s own r h e t o r i c a l p r i n c i p l e s , such as D i v i s i o n and I d e n t i f i c a t i o n , Dramatism, and T e r m i n i s t i c Screens. 88 Irre spec t ive of i n d i v i d u a l approaches among r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c s , t h e i r contr ibut ions cons t i tu te a s ing le body of work i n t e x t u a l theory and c r i t i c a l p r a c t i c e — f o r they share a set of assumptions p r i o r to i n d i v i d u a l i z i n g assumptions, which defines t h e i r work as r h e t o r i c a l and s p e c i f i e s the nature of " r h e t o r i c a l a t t en t ion ." The assumptions which i d e n t i f y and bind r h e t o r i c i a n s are so fundamental that despi te p l u r a l i s m , r h e t o r i c i a n s share what might be c a l l e d , a f t e r Thomas Kuhn, a "paradigm," a shared way of looking at the world and the r o l e of language and language-users i n i t . Burke, for example, seems to separate "old" and "new" r h e t o r i c wi th t h i s : I f I had to sum up i n one word the d i f f erence between the "old" r h e t o r i c and a "new" (a r h e t o r i c r e inv igora ted by fresh ins ight s which the "new sciences" contr ibuted to the subjec t ) , I would reduce i t to t h i s : The key term for the o l d r h e t o r i c was "persuasion" and i t s s tress was upon de l ibera te des ign. The key term for the "new" r h e t o r i c would be i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , which can include a p a r t i a l l y unconscious fac tor i n appeal . ("Rhetoric" 203) Yet i n Rhetoric of Motives . Burke adds, "there i s no chance of our keeping apart the meanings of persuasion, i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ( v c o n s u b s t a n t i a l i t y ' ) and communication (the nature of r h e t o r i c as x addressed')" (46). From A r i s t o t l e to Burke, the r h e t o r i c a l po int of view has paradigmatic status by v i r t u e of the bas ic assumptions shared among members of the d i s c i p l i n e of 89 Rhetor i c . R h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c s can furthermore be grouped not only p o s i t i v e l y i n terms what they share, but negat ive ly as set over against o ther , n o n - r h e t o r i c a l , c r i t i c s . In p o s i t i v e terms, r h e t o r i c i a n s have been concerned throughout h i s t o r y (though t h e i r concerns may be expressed d i f f e r e n t l y at d i f f e r e n t times) with issues p e r t a i n i n g to the nature of r e a l i t y and human nature, the r e l a t i o n s h i p between thought and language, and the funct ion of language and persuasive communication i n soc i e ty . Rhetor ic ians be l i eve that the world i s changed by human a c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g the symbolic a c t i o n of people speaking. Q u i n t i l i a n ' s view that the r h e t o r i c i a n i s "the good man speaking wel l" has sa l i ence i n the theory genera l ly , and i s extended i n the b e l i e f that such a "man" could change the course of the world . The view i s pragmatic and humanistic; and to the extent that i t supports the not ion of p o s i t i v e change, i t i s o p t i m i s t i c . This conception of the workings of language and people, and the b e l i e f i n the ef fect iveness of symbolic ac t ion i n the world mark the r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c . The r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c be l ieves that the s tructures of texts r e f l e c t the intent ions of authors; that authors communicate to readers through texts ; and that the r h e t o r i c a l act i s addressed to an audience and has an e f f e c t on the s i t u a t i o n in to which i t i s introduced. This i s the model: that people use language i n s p e c i f i c contexts to in f luence other people and a l t e r t h e i r contexts . What fo l lows , i n a composite treatment, acknowledging p l u r a l i s m , i s 90 the r h e t o r i c a l point of view: [T]here w i l l be a correspondence among the intent ions of a communication, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of h i s d i scourse , and the react ions of h i s audi tors to that d i scourse . This postulate i s j u s t i f i e d by the fact that to deny i t i s to deny the p o s s i b i l i t y of language, as we normally understand that term. (Black 16) The r h e t o r i c a l , un l ike the p o e t i c , includes the sayer as we l l as the s a i d , the w r i t e r as w e l l as the w r i t t e n ; thus r h e t o r i c a l discourse p a r t i c i p a t e s i n the s i t u a t i o n and a l t e r s or recons t i tu tes r e a l i t y . (Bryant, Dimensions 36) What makes a t t ent ion to s t y l e p e c u l i a r l y r h e t o r i c a l i s some attempt to r e l a t e the s t y l i s t i c features not only to other formal and mater ia l elements i n the work i t s e l f but a l so to the ethos of the author and to the e f fec t s the author i s seeking to produce i n an audience. For the r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c , s t y l e represents the choices that an author has made from the a v a i l a b l e l e x i c a l and s y n t a c t i c a l resources of a language. A c r i t i c becomes "rhetor ica l" when he t r i e s to show that the choices from among the a v a i l a b l e options were made i n reference to subject -91 matter or genre or occasion or purpose or author or audience—or some combination of these. (Corbett , "Introduction" Analyses x x v i ) . C r i t i c a l and imaginative works are answers to questions posed by the s i t u a t i o n i n which they arose. They are not merely answers, they are s t ra teg i c answers, s t y l i z e d a n s w e r s . . . . So I should propose an i n i t i a l working d i s t i n c t i o n between "strategies" and "s i tuat ions ," whereby we th ink of poetry . . . as the adopting of various s tra teg ies for the encompassing of s i t u a t i o n s . These s t ra teg ies s i z e up the s i t u a t i o n s , name t h e i r s t r u c t u r e , and outstanding ingred ien t s , and name them i n a way that contains an a t t i t u d e toward them. (Burke, PLF 1) When human act ions are formed to make an a r t work, the form that i s made can never be d ivorced from the human meanings, i n c l u d i n g the moral judgments, that are i m p l i c i t whenever human beings ac t . And nothing the w r i t e r does can be f i n a l l y understood i n i s o l a t i o n from his e f f o r t to make i t a l l access ib le to someone e l se—his peers , himself as an imagined reader , h i s audience. (Booth, ROF 397) These quotat ions , excerpted from the works of major r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c s , ind ica te a consistency i n approach that 92 argues for the existence of an "ideal" r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c and a paradigmatic r h e t o r i c a l point of view. Rhe tor i ca l "attention," i n t h i s context , may be defined as the beam shone on a piece of d iscourse from a source i n the r h e t o r i c a l po int of view. R h e t o r i c a l a t t en t ion i l luminates r a t i o s among authors, audiences, s i t u a t i o n s , and texts ; i t probes the motives of persuasion and the means and ends of d i scourse; i t focusses on a u t h o r i a l choice—conscious or unconscious—as the a v a i l a b l e s t u f f of i t s a n a l y s i s ; and by zeroing i n on the t ex tua l object ( i n t e r n a l s tudy) , i t penetrates questions of t ex tua l o r i g i n s and consequences (external s tudy) . Because the methodology of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m includes the c lose reading of t ex t s , r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m has been compared to New Cri t ic i sm.** The comparison suggests the r e f u t a t i v e d e f i n i t i o n of r h e t o r i c , the establishment of i t s paradigmatic nature by s e t t i n g i t s assumptions over against the assumptions under ly ing other c r i t i c a l programs. New c r i t i c i s m does share, to some extent , the a n a l y t i c a l approach of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m . However, while the p r a c t i c e of New C r i t i c i s m may be compared to the p r a c t i c e of Rhetor i ca l C r i t i c i s m , the two programs d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y with respect to theory and consequently with respect to the c r i t i c a l commentary each generates. In h i s d i scuss ion of c r i t i c a l theor i e s , us ing an encompassing model to categorize a v a r i e t y of c r i t i c a l approaches, l i t e r a r y t h e o r i s t , M. H. Abrams says r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s "Pragmatic" s ince "it looks at the work of a r t c h i e f l y as a means to an end, an instrument for get t ing something done, and tends to judge i t s value according to i t s success i n achieving that aim" (15).^ The New C r i t i c i s m , according to Abrams, would be "Objective" i n s o f a r as i t "regards the work of a r t i n i s o l a t i o n from a l l . . . external points of reference , analyzes i t as a s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t e n t i t y cons t i tu ted by i t s parts i n t h e i r i n t e r n a l r e l a t i o n s , and sets out to judge i t s o l e l y by c r i t e r i a i n t r i n s i c to i t s own being" (26). Since New C r i t i c i s m disregards a u t h o r i a l i n t e n t i o n as we l l as subjec t ive reader response (and, i n f a c t , makes t h e o r e t i c a l i ssues of the "Intentional Fa l lacy" and the "Affective F a l l a c y " ) , i t i s c l e a r l y unconcerned with questions of a u t h o r i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (or t ex tua l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) or judgments about the e f fec ts of t ex t s . These are c e n t r a l concerns for r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m . 1 0 In f a c t , d e l i n e a t i n g the New C r i t i c a l model serves not only to strengthen the argument for the paradigmatic nature of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , but to demonstrate how a c r i t i c a l model, by d i v o r c i n g i t s e l f from the contexts of w r i t i n g , can d i s q u a l i f y i t s e l f as an instrument for the ana lys i s of r ea l -wor ld t ex t s . Extending Abrams' schema, i t i s poss ib le to categorize both s t r u c t u r a l i s m and deconstruct ion (both contemporary and i n f l u e n t i a l c r i t i c a l programs with which r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m can be compared) a l so as Objec t ive , given the i n t e r e s t they 94 share i n text as a c losed system. What separates s t r u c t u r a l i s m from r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s not simply methodology (since both involve c lose s c r u t i n y of text and t ex tua l pat tern ing) ; s t r u c t u r a l i s m and r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m are separated t h e o r e t i c a l l y because they are based on e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t assumptions about the purpose of texts and the force of organized language. S t r u c t u r a l i s t s are in teres ted p r i m a r i l y i n signs and t h e i r s tructure ( in the l i n g u i s t i c sense) as an i n t r i n s i c t ex tua l va lue , while r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c s are in t ere s t ed p r i m a r i l y i n communicative un i t s of language and t h e i r arrangement ( i n the pragmatic sense) as an e x t r i n s i c t e x t u a l va lue . A b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n of s t r u c t u r a l i s t p r i n c i p l e s w i l l both underl ine the paradigmatic nature of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , and revea l the inappropriateness of s t r u c t u r a l i s m as a model for probing the e f fec ts of r e a l - w o r l d t ex t s . S t r u c t u r a l i s m i s an attempt to apply the l i n g u i s t i c model of Ferdinand de Saussure to a v a r i e t y of s t ructured e n t i t i e s — from the world of mythologyI 1 to the world of l i t e r a t u r e . The work of the s t r u c t u r a l i s t c r i t i c i s to i d e n t i f y the set of laws and r e l a t i o n s h i p s by which signs are organized i n t ex t s . This k ind of ana lys i s denies the mundane (and r h e t o r i c a l ) sense i n which meaning i s transmitted through form, and concentrates e x c l u s i v e l y on form i t s e l f . S t r u c t u r a l i s t c r i t i c , Jonathan C u l l e r , argues that the task of a s t r u c t u r a l i s t poet ics i s to make e x p l i c i t the underly ing system which makes l i t e r a r y e f fec t s p o s s i b l e , to construct a theory of l i t e r a r y discourse 95 which would account for the p o s s i b i l i t i e s of i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . "Study of the l i n g u i s t i c system," he says, becomes t h e o r e t i c a l l y coherent when we cease th ink ing that our goal i s to spec i fy the propert ies of objects i n a corpus and concentrate instead on the task of formulat ing the i n t e r n a l i z e d competence which enables objects to have the propert ies they do for those who have mastered the system. To discover and character ize s tructures one must analyze the system which assigns s t r u c t u r a l descr ip t ions to the objects i n question . . . . (SP 120) Even cons ider ing a p l u r a l i s m i n approaches to both s t r u c t u r a l i s m and r h e t o r i c , i t i s c l e a r that the fundamental p r i n c i p l e s on which a s t r u c t u r a l i s t model i s based are not compatible with those underly ing a r h e t o r i c a l model. The two c r i t i c a l programs d i f f e r even i n problem d e f i n i t i o n s : "How does t h i s text work to a f fec t people and e f f ec t change?" i s not even a s t r u c t u r a l i s t quest ion. Deconstruction i s genera l ly considered to have more i n common with s t r u c t u r a l i s m than e i t h e r approach has i n common with r h e t o r i c . In most ways, t h i s i s t r u e : deconstruct ion i s t s and s t r u c t u r a l i s t s both are concerned with signs i n texts (as opposed to meaning-bearing "symbols"); both focus on text as e x t r i c a t e d from w r i t e r and reader; both see language as a s e l f -contained system, not responsive to the exigences of human beings; both see language i t s e l f as having power. Rhetor ica l 96 theory, on the other hand, places power i n the people who use language, with language i t s e l f empowered only i n use. However, with reference to the present task—to i d e n t i f y features of contras t ive c r i t i c a l programs i n reference to rhe tor i c—decons truc t ion must be considered not as an extension of s t r u c t u r a l i s m but as an act of v io lence against a l l c r i t i c a l programs, with no more a l l eg iance to one than another, i n c l u d i n g those which, l i k e s t r u c t u r a l i s m , played an evo lut ionary r o l e i n the r i s e of deconstruct ive thought. In f a c t , the deconstruct ive point of view has some elements i n common with the r h e t o r i c a l po int of view. F i r s t of a l l , i t d i r e c t s i t s e l f not only to works of f i c t i o n , but to works of phi losophy, c r i t i c i s m , l i n g u i s t i c s — t o any d i s c u r s i v e cons truc t , the foundations of which can be chal lenged and deconstructed. In the range of i t s i n t e r e s t and i n i t s propens i ty to uncover how language does what i t does, Deconstruct ion does resemble Rhetor ic . Despite apparent s i m i l a r i t i e s , however, there are t h e o r e t i c a l d i f ferences at the l e v e l of paradigm, and the theories are f i n a l l y incommensurable. The deconstruct ive a t t i t u d e has c r i t i c s examine t ex tua l s tructures to show where discourses become (he lp less ly ) undone, undermining t h e i r own systems of l o g i c . ^ The deconstruct ive c r i t i c might analyze a ser ies of a r t i c l e s i n medical journals and make revea l ing comments not only about them as i n d i v i d u a l texts but about them as specimens of a l a r g e r system of language which includes and creates them. However, the c r i t i c who chooses to proceed from r h e t o r i c a l theory ra ther than deconstruct ive theory does so for many reasons. The w r i t i n g of r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s i s energized by the c r i t i c ' s b e l i e f i n the power of the people who produce discourse to change a s i t u a t i o n by changing t h e i r d i scourse , and by h is or her b e l i e f i n the a b i l i t y of the c r i t i c to promote change by v i r t u e of the work of c r i t i c i s m as discourse i t s e l f . In order to do the a n a l y t i c a l work, the r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c sees h im/herse l f as needing a place to stand— i n t e l l e c t u a l l y , mora l ly , s o c i a l l y — i n r e l a t i o n to the discourse under a n a l y s i s . Rhetoric provides the sense of p l a c e , while Deconstruct ion s h i f t s the ground under the c r i t i c , over and over aga in . Even while acknowledging the i n t e l l e c t u a l r e s p e c t a b i l i t y of a stance which i s r e a l l y a k ind of motion, the c r i t i c may choose the "governing gaze" 1^ Q f Rhetor ic . Among c r i t i c a l programs, Rhetoric i s uniquely s u i t a b l e to a comprehensive ana lys i s of r ea l -wor ld t ex t s . The d i scuss ion as a whole has now approached the concept, "rhetoric of science" from two d i r e c t i o n s . Chapter One has e s t a b l i s h e d , from the point of view of theory, that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g could—indeed, should—be read as r h e t o r i c . S c i e n t i f i c language and s c i e n t i f i c composit ion, i t showed, act persuas ive ly on readers; and personal b e l i e f and community membership a f f ec t the substance of what s c i e n t i s t s agree to and seek agreement t o . (A c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t model of sc ience , to the extent that i t asserts the r e a l i t y of these processes i s a l so a 98 r h e t o r i c a l model of sc ience . ) From the r h e t o r i c a l perspect ive , some e x i s t i n g theor i e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y of Burke and Booth, define a l l d iscourse as r h e t o r i c a l s ince i t a l l , i n some manner, seeks the assent of audiences. The t h e o r e t i c a l move to procla im that s c i e n t i f i c discourse i s r h e t o r i c a l i s merely, from the point of view of Rhe tor i c , an act of foregrounding a p r o p o s i t i o n that a lready has a place i n e x i s t i n g theory. A l l c r i t i c a l theories and methodologies reviewed here share the b e l i e f that a s p e c i a l k ind of t ex tua l information i s a v a i l a b l e to those who apply a p a r t i c u l a r c r i t i c a l program—but (as i n science) the nature of the theory informing the c r i t i c a l program and the concomitant bias of the methodology appl i ed to a piece of w r i t i n g determine the k ind of information that i s r e t r i e v e d i n a n a l y s i s . An examination of a v a r i e t y of c r i t i c a l programs has revealed that one could analyze s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , as one can analyze l i t e r a r y t ex t s , from a v a r i e t y of perspect ives ; however, r h e t o r i c suppl ies a p a r t i c u l a r l y appropriate model for analyz ing texts which have a lready been shown i n theory to be persuasive i n the world of human a c t i o n . That i s , the c r i t i c i n search of r h e t o r i c a l information should use a r h e t o r i c a l model. The r h e t o r i c a l analys i s of s c i e n t i f i c texts i s the p r a c t i c a l dimension of a d i s c i p l i n e i n the Rhetoric of Science. A n a l y t i c a l resources must be marshalled not to c la im na ive ly that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s r h e t o r i c a l and that i t s r h e t o r i c i t y impairs i t s s c i e n t i f i c nature (See Weigert d i s c u s s i o n , Chapter 99 One above). The r h e t o r i c a l analys i s of s c i e n t i f i c texts r a t h e r , beginning from the assumption that a l l language i s n e c e s s a r i l y r h e t o r i c a l , should revea l how s c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c works. That i s , r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c s should study the range of s t ra teg ie s s c i e n t i f i c wr i ters use to persuade t h e i r readers of the value of t h e i r work—for t h i s act df persuasion i s , a f t er a l l , the main p r a c t i c a l agenda i n a piece of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , the ul t imate value of which i s n i l i f the author f a i l s at the l e v e l of persuasion. The nature of s c i e n t i f i c rhe tor i c—the assumptions which inform arguments i n s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , the forms those arguments take , the organ iza t iona l and s t y l i s t i c s trateg ies which express those assumptions and promote those arguments— i s d i scoverable i n the r h e t o r i c a l analys i s of s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s . Other c r i t i c s (Hal loran , John Angus Campbell , Year ley , Bazerman, G i l b e r t and Mulkay, and Myers have been c i t ed) have probed the nature of s c i e n t i f i c prose from the r h e t o r i c a l point of view, and working e s s e n t i a l l y by induct ion and i n s i g h t , they have begun to define the p r a c t i c a l t e r r i t o r y of the Rhetoric of Science and suggest the d i r e c t i o n of i t s expansion. The a n a l y t i c chapter that follows i s meant as a c o n t r i b u t i o n to l i t e r a t u r e i n the appl ied study of the r h e t o r i c of sc ience . Its methodology i s a l so e s s e n t i a l l y to work by induct ion and i n s i g h t . R h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , as has been demonstrated, i s t y p i c a l l y not formula ic , and the argument that i t should not be i s made conv inc ing ly by speech r h e t o r i c i a n Ot i s Walter: 100 To assume that r h e t o r i c a l theory can furn i sh a formula complete with a step-by-step procedure to be fol lowed by the otherwise thoughtless c r i t i c , i s l i k e l y i n e r r o r . Formulas may work w e l l i n elementary phys ics , but i n the humanities, formulas somehow r e s u l t i n mindless mechanicalness, g i v i n g evidence sometimes of hard work but less often of b r i l l i a n c e . Scholarship and hard work are not the same t h i n g ; but c r i t i c i s m that i s b r i l l i a n t i s always c r i t i c i s m that could not be e a s i l y p r e s c r i b e d , that i s somewhat unexpected, that f i t s the unique speech for which i t i s designed and perhaps no other speech, that i s the most appropriate th ing to say at t h i s time about that speech. (170) Consis tent with what Walter has sa id and with what other r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c s have shown, t h i s ana lys i s proceeds by using as h e u r i s t i c the p r i n c i p l e s of accumulated theory i n r h e t o r i c i t s e l f . I t i s a "naming of manoeuvers" and works through r h e t o r i c a l theory to knowledge of the world—"to use a l l that i s there to use" (Burke PLF 23). A r i s t o t l e suppl ies the bas ic r h e t o r i c a l theory; the theory i s exp l i ca ted and brought in to a contemporary context by Perelman; i t i s re-viewed and expanded by Burke. A r i s t o t l e , Perelman, and Burke are the major t h e o r e t i c a l resources for the a n a l y s i s ; the a t t ent ion i s r h e t o r i c a l ; the c r i t i c a l a t t i tude i s , for severa l reasons, most e s p e c i a l l y Burkean. 101 Burkean theory i s seen as enabl ing the broadest induct ive treatment of the texts for t h i s study. The Burkean approach i s separated from other r h e t o r i c a l approaches most importantly by scope. Burke so expands the realm of r h e t o r i c that he enlarges the r h e t o r i c i a n ' s gaze ( looking , for example, to r h e t o r i c a l mot ive) , the nature of h i s instruments (using the dramatism of the pentad, for example) and the d e f i n i t i o n of what i s an appropriate subject for r h e t o r i c a l study. The usefulness , however, of a Burkean—or any o t h e r — c r i t i c a l approach i s f i n a l l y revealed i n the q u a l i t y of the c r i t i c i s m i t i n v i t e s . The r o l e of the c r i t i c i s to pose questions a r i s i n g from theory i n d i r e c t i n g r h e t o r i c a l a t t ent ion to a t ex t . The questions which w i l l guide the ana lys i s of the se lected medical journa l a r t i c l e s are based not only on r h e t o r i c a l theory but on assumptions about the a r t i c l e s themselves. F i r s t of a l l , cons ider ing t h e i r appearance i n major profes s iona l j o u r n a l s , these a r t i c l e s are seen to be consequential i n the world of human a c t i o n . Secondly, i t i s assumed that the a r t i c l e s are r h e t o r i c a l (persuasive) i n some way, that t h e i r persuasiveness i s covert rather than overt , and that they are , i n genera l , wr i t t en ne i ther with the i n t e n t i o n to persuade nor the des i re to conceal persuasive i n t e n t . Furthermore, i t i s assumed that these a r t i c l e s , taken together, represent a p a r t i c u l a r l y Western medical paradigm, a set of shared medical assumptions which the a r t i c l e s both r e f l e c t and perpetuate. F i n a l l y , these medical texts are taken to be samples of 102 s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , and while not a l l f indings with respect to these texts w i l l be pert inent to a l l s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , i t i s assumed throughout that because medical w r i t i n g i s s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , f indings can be discussed i n terms of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g . The fo l lowing represent the type of quest ion that w i l l guide the a n a l y s i s : (1) What s t ra teg ies of Invention, Arrangement, S t y l e , and D e l i v e r y are seen to operate i n the texts? (2) Which appeals (of ethos, pathos, and logos) appear to be most persuasive? Is the not ion that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s e s s e n t i a l l y pure logos j u s t i f i e d by reading the texts? (3) How does I d e n t i f i c a t i o n funct ion i n the texts—as a s t a r t i n g p lace for argument, as a method of argumentation, as a goal of argument? (4) How i s the author i ty of the author es tab l i shed i n the text? Through what s tra teg ies does the author e s t a b l i s h h i s / h e r c r e d i b i l i t y ? (5) What assumptions, according to the t ex t , appear to bind author and reader before the act of reading? How are these assumptions re in forced by the text? (6) To what extent do medical authors use the l i n g u i s t i c devices commonly associated with s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g (passive v o i c e , nominal izat ions , complex sentence s tructure)? What i s the r h e t o r i c a l e f f ec t of those devices where they occur? (8) What i s the r o l e of metaphor i n s c i e n t i f i c wr i t ing? 103 (9) Is the surface s tructure of the texts cons is tent with the r h e t o r i c a l s t ruc ture of the texts? Does, for example, the presence of va lue- laden terminology b e l i e the a u t h o r i a l n e u t r a l i t y suggested by other l e x i c a l and syntac t i c features of the text? (10) What s tra teg ies account for the e f f e c t , where i t occurs , that the author i s d i scuss ing matters of fact rather than opin ion or speculat ion? (11) What k ind of arrangement i s t y p i c a l of a medical a r t i c l e ? Does arrangement i t s e l f contr ibute to the e f f ec t of the a r t i c l e ? (12) How i s the canon De l ivery represented i n the medical text? The ana lys i s w i l l use the r h e t o r i c a l canons as the organiz ing p r i n c i p l e s for the d i s c u s s i o n . In Chapter Four, f indings w i l l be summarized and t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e d iscussed. 104 Endnotes 1. F o r a h i s t o r i c a l survey of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , see Stewart. 2. See Stewart, N i l s o n , Walter. 3. A u s e f u l summary of A r i s t o t e l i a n r h e t o r i c i s p r o v i d e d by E.P.J. C o r b e t t i n C l a s s i c a l R h e t o r i c f o r the Modern  Student. For a d i s c u s s i o n of A r i s t o t e l i a n r h e t o r i c i n terms of t e x t u a l a n a l y s i s , see a l s o h i s I n t r o d u c t i o n t o R h e t o r i c a l  A n a l y s e s o f L i t e r a r y Works. 3. See, f o r example, B r o c k r e i d e . 5. A l l N i c h o l s ' q u o t a t i o n s are from Kenneth Burke, "The R h e t o r i c o f H i t l e r ' s x B a t t l e , " PLF . 6. The n o t i o n of c r i t i c a l " a t t e n t i o n " t o c o n t r a s t t o e x p l i c i t c r i t i c a l method i s used a l s o by Jonathan C u l l e r i n S t r u c t u r a l i s t P o e t i c s : "There i s no s t r u c t u r a l i s t method such t h a t by a p p l y i n g i t t o a t e x t one a u t o m a t i c a l l y d i s c o v e r s i t s s t r u c t u r e . But th e r e i s a k i n d o f a t t e n t i o n which one might c a l l s t r u c t u r a l i s t : a d e s i r e t o i s o l a t e codes, t o name the v a r i o u s languages w i t h and among which the t e x t p l a y s , t o go beyond m a n i f e s t content t o a s e r i e s of forms and then t o make these forms, o r o p p o s i t i o n s o r modes of s i g n i f i c a t i o n , the burden of the t e x t " (259). 7. Booth's comments on the r h e t o r i c i t y o f a l l forms of l i t e r a t u r e echo t o some ext e n t these remarks of Burke,- from Counter-Statement: "The re a d e r of modern prose i s ev e r on guard a g a i n s t " r h e t o r i c , ' y e t the word, by l e x i c o g r a p h e r ' s d e f i n i t i o n , r e f e r s but t o "the use of language i n such a way as 105 to produce a des ired impression upon the hearer or reader." In accordance with th i s d e f i n i t i o n , Burke says, "effective l i t e r a t u r e could be nothing e l se but rhetor ic" (210). 8. See, for example, E . P . J . Corbett ' s Introduct ion to Analyses . 9. Abrams continues There i s , of course, the greatest variance i n emphasis and d e t a i l , but the centra l tendency of the pragmatic c r i t i c i s to conceive a poem as something made i n order to e f fec t r e q u i s i t e responses i n i t s readers; to consider the author from the point of view of the powers and t r a i n i n g he must have i n order to achieve t h i s end; . . . The perspect ive , much of the bas ic vocabulary and many of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c top ics of pragmatic c r i t i c i s m or ig inated i n the c l a s s i c a l theory of r h e t o r i c . (15) Abrams proposes a schema for cataloguing c r i t i c a l theories according to the emphasis they place on each of the "four co-ordinates of a r t c r i t i c i s m , " namely the work, the a r t i s t , the universe , and the audience. C r i t i c a l theories emphasizing the work i t s e l f , he says, are Object ive; those which deal with the work i n terms of the a r t i s t are Expressive; Mimetic theories are i n t e r e s t e d i n the t r u t h or v e r i s i m i l i t u d e of the work i n r e l a t i o n to the universe; and Pragmatic theories focus on the connection between the work and i t s audience. 106 10. Wimsatt wri tes : The Intent ional F a l l a c y i s a confusion between the poem and i t s o r i g i n s . . . . I t begins by t r y i n g to der ive the standard of c r i t i c i s m from the psycholog ica l causes of the poem and ends i n biography and r e l a t i v i s m . The A f f e c t i v e F a l l a c y i s a confusion between the poem and i t s r e s u l t s (what i t i s and what i t d o e s ) . . . It begins by t r y i n g to der ive the standards of c r i t i c i s m from the psycholog ica l e f fects of the poem and ends i n impressionism and r e l a t i v i s m . The outcome of e i t h e r F a l l a c y . . . i s that the poem i t s e l f , as an object of s p e c i f i c a l l y c r i t i c a l judgment, tends to disappear. (21) In h i s comparison of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m and New C r i t i c i s m (see note 9) , E . P . J . Corbett re fers to Wimsatt's F a l l a c i e s d i r e c t l y , and here makes h i s point that r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s "more in tere s t ed i n a l i t e r a r y work for what i t does than for what i t i s" ("Introduction" Analyses x x i i ) . 11. See L e v i - S t r a u s s . 12. See, for example, the essays of De Man. 13. The term "governing gaze" i s borrowed from Janet Emig. 107 Chapter Three. The Rhetor i ca l Ana lys i s of Medical Journal A r t i c l e s Part One. Rhe tor i ca l Overview of the Texts Chapter Two has es tabl i shed that r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s de f ined , not by p a r t i c u l a r instruments of ana lys i s or formulaic s tra teg ies for reading , but by fundamental assumptions about the purposes and e f fec t s of texts cons i s tent with a r h e t o r i c a l point of view. Kenneth Burke i s , i n t h i s context , an "ideal" r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c because he has a c l e a r t h e o r e t i c a l framework for t ex tua l a n a l y s i s , yet he fo l lows , w i th in that framework, a v a r i e t y of paths to i n s i g h t . The guiding questions for a r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s of medical journa l a r t i c l e s concern the a v a i l a b l e means of persuasion i n the product ion of those t ex t s . These are questions about s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g as argumentation that can be categor ized o p e r a t i o n a l l y i n terms of r h e t o r i c a l Invention (the d i scovery of arguments), Arrangement (the organizat ion of the d i s course ) , S t y l e , and Presentat ion . These four areas of concern represent four of the f i ve canons of c l a s s i c a l r h e t o r i c which have endured, even through Burke, as a product ive h e u r i s t i c for r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s . (The f i f t h canon—Memory—is i r r e l e v a n t to the study of wr i t t en t e x t . ) Presentat ion i s used here to subsume some of the issues r e l a t e d to De l ivery i n c l a s s i c a l theory. In examining medical t ex t s , s p e c i f i c questions of 108 Invention concern the nature and r e l a t i v e uses of ethos, pathos, and logos . the q u a l i t y of assumptions apparently shared by w r i t e r and reader, and the enthymemic l o g i c and topo i used because of shared assumptions. Questions of Arrangement focus, for example, on the placement of strong and weak mater ia l i n the organizat ion of an a r t i c l e , and the persuasive uses of Introductions or ( in the case of s c h o l a r l y papers) pre - Introduct ions , or synopses. Questions of S ty le consider the formal markers u s u a l l y associated with s c i e n t i f i c prose (passive vo i ce , nomina l i za t ion , complex sentence s t r u c t u r e ) , and measure t h e i r e f fec t s i n terms of the r h e t o r i c a l e f f ec t of a r t i c l e s as a whole. Questions of Presentat ion (Del ivery) concern, for example, the use of f igures and tables i n medical a r t i c l e s , or the use of author photographs to accompany some a r t i c l e s . Categories are not mutual ly e x c l u s i v e . The w r i t i n g i n medical journa l s , l i k e a l l other uses of language—being neces sar i ly symbolic and tendentious—is persuas ive . However, s ince the s c i e n t i f i c r u b r i c for medicine has l e d to the convent iona l i za t ion of a d i s c u r s i v e s t y l e that i s not o v e r t l y persuasive , the mechanisms of persuasion i n medical texts are subt l e , sometimes d i f f i c u l t to i s o l a t e , p o s s i b l y i n v i s i b l e even to the wr i t er s of the a r t i c l e s themselves. Scrut iny of medical journa l a r t i c l e s from the r h e t o r i c a l perspect ive reveals the existence and the nature of persuasive s tra teg ies i n those t ex t s . Since a 109 study of the r h e t o r i c i t y of the a r t i c l e s i s r e a l l y a study of t h e i r e f fects—on readers and on the r h e t o r i c a l s i tua t ions i n t o which they are introduced—the analys i s i s concerned with those elements of Invention, Arrangement, S t y l e , and Presentat ion which represent a u t h o r i a l moves having r e a l -world consequences by in f luenc ing the b e l i e f s of readers . The mater ia l for analys i s i n the present study includes t h i r t y - f i v e a r t i c l e s se lected at random (given l i m i t a t i o n s of r e a d a b i l i t y and a c c e s s i b i l i t y ) e x c l u s i v e l y on the subject of f u n c t i o n a l headache. The a r t i c l e s are taken from a v a r i e t y of journals which, because of t h e i r i n t e r e s t to the family p h y s i c i a n , are seen to cons t i tu te the organs of a coherent pro fe s s iona l conversat ion. The journals i n quest ion include American Family P h y s i c i a n . The American Journal of Medicine. Canadian Medical A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l . Headache (the journal of the American Assoc ia t ion for the Study of Headache), Journal of the American Medical A s s o c i a t i o n . The Lancet . The  New England Journal of Medicine, and Postgraduate Medicine. A r t i c l e s under cons iderat ion concern the d iagnos i s , e t i o l o g y ( o r i g i n ) , and treatment of funct iona l headache, and include reports on research , o r i g i n a l observat ions , and review a r t i c l e s . A l l pieces examined are current , appearing a f t er 1982. Funct iona l headaches are those which, un l ike "organic" headaches, do not o r i g i n a t e i n a s p e c i f i c pathologic process . Migraine and tens ion headaches, for example, are f u n c t i o n a l , whi le headaches due to b r a i n tumour or c r a n i a l inflammation 110 are organ ic . Funct ional headaches are sometimes c a l l e d "primary" headaches: when i t i s e s tab l i shed that they are not symptoms of a h igher-order disease process , these headaches themselves cons t i tu te the disease for which treatment i s sought. In genera l , a r t i c l e s i n medical journals must be persuasive for two p r a c t i c a l reasons. F i r s t , standards and competit ion w i th in the profess ion as we l l as the p o l i t i c s of p u b l i c a t i o n d i c t a t e that i n order to win support for t h e i r research and a p u b l i c a t i o n source for t h e i r f i n d i n g s , medical s c i e n t i s t s must convince funding agencies and e d i t o r i a l boards that t h e i r work i s c r e d i t a b l e , and that they themselves are r e l i a b l e reporters of t h e i r work. Secondly, once a piece of work i s publ i shed, the reputat ion of the authors depends on i t s recept ion w i th in the community to which i t was addressed. I f the authors f a i l to convince a s u b s t a n t i a l readership of the worth of t h e i r research (or observat ion or a n a l y s i s ) , t h e i r work w i l l not be c i t e d i n the p u b l i c a t i o n s of t h e i r peers and w i l l d i s so lve in to o b s c u r i t y . U l t i m a t e l y , unless a piece of w r i t i n g i s taken s e r i o u s l y , i t w i l l not further the progress of science or add to the s c i e n t i f i c community's store of knowledge. Studies which are not i n i t i a l l y persuasive are not we l l funded; i f done nevertheless , they are u n l i k e l y to be publ ished by mainstream journals i n the profess ion .1 Normative c r i t e r i a for s c i e n t i f i c p u b l i c a t i o n inc lude not I l l only the perhaps obvious requirements of l o g i c a l r i g o u r and mathematical p r e c i s i o n , but a l so r e p l i c a b i l i t y of research techniques, o r i g i n a l i t y , and t h e o r e t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e . ^ At the very l e a s t , s c i e n t i s t s must convince fe l low profess ionals that t h e i r studies are worth doing, and t h e i r reports worth w r i t i n g . In Chaim Perelman's terms, t h e i r goal must be to win the adherence of an audience to the theses presented for i t s assent (Perelman, TNR 4) . Within the f i e l d of headache, the degree to which c e r t a i n s c i e n t i f i c explanations f a l l i n and out of favour over time t e s t i f i e s to the persuasive nature of the l i t e r a t u r e about them, both p o s i t i v e and negative . In the nineteen-sevent ies , for example, i t became common to name temporomandibular j o i n t disease (a d i sorder of the jaw, abbreviated as TMJ) as the cause of chronic headache i n a s i g n i f i c a n t number of pa t i en t s . The diagnosis became so popular that one study found recent ly that f u l l y a f i f t h of i t s "consecutive headache c l i n i c pat ients" ( i . e . not prese lec ted according to previous therapies) had been treated for the d isease . The 1985 a r t i c l e , "Unnecessary Dental Treatment of Headache Pat ients for Temporomandibular Jo in t Disorders" (Reik) , reports that only twenty percent of the headache pat ients who were treated for TMJ a c t u a l l y s a t i s f i e d d iagnost ic c r i t e r i a for the disease . The author concludes that "increased pat ient awareness of the TMJ syndrome, inappropr iate r e f e r r a l by phys ic ians , and i n c o r r e c t diagnosis 112 by dent i s t s a l l probably l e d to the unnecessary dental treatment" (246). In other words, a large number of people, p r o f e s s i o n a l and nonprofess ional , were persuaded that TMJ disease was a reasonable diagnosis for suf ferers of chronic headache. By 1985, they were being persuaded that i t was not . The openness of the medical profess ion to both acceptance and r e j e c t i o n of new concepts i n diagnosis and treatment t e s t i f i e s a l so to i t s commitment to monitor i t s e l f and to i t s w i l l i n g n e s s , i n general , to abandon what does not work. There i s no doubt, however, that headache experts view t h e i r work not as contingent (or subject i n any serious way to the consequences of argumentation) but as " s c i e n t i f i c . " The e d i t o r of the j o u r n a l , Headache, considers i t to be a " s c i e n t i f i c journal" (Edmeads [Nov. 1984] 343); a r t i c l e s which discuss headache i n other journals are genera l ly c l a s s i f i e d as " S c i e n t i f i c A r t i c l e s " ; 3 meetings of the American A s s o c i a t i o n for the study of Headache are considered " S c i e n t i f i c Meetings" ( K i r n , "Discussion" 9) . S t i l l , a c lose reading of headache a r t i c l e s reveals that they are no less r h e t o r i c a l for being s c i e n t i f i c , and arguably no less s c i e n t i f i c for being r h e t o r i c a l . P a r t i c u l a r y important to the medical w r i t e r are s t ra teg ie s which encourage profes s iona l i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between w r i t e r and reader. Kenneth Burke's terminology of I d e n t i f i c a t i o n and Consubs tant ia l i ty provide the key to t h i s 113 r h e t o r i c . Gestures of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n between w r i t e r and audience (the w r i t e r being i n any case one of the audience) provide the s t a r t i n g place for the medical a r t i c l e as we l l as i t s means and i t s goa l , which i s the fur ther ing of the sense of being consubstant ia l (or "acting together") . C o n s u b s t a n t i a l i t y here both comes from and s o l i d i f i e s agreement i n the medical community—agreement about the most important aspects of medical research, i n c l u d i n g problem d e f i n i t i o n s , methodologies and instrumentat ions , research programs, and appropriate goals . The medical journal a r t i c l e , as an i n t e r n a l document, i s used to a f f i r m the shared values of the profes s ion . Contr ibutors to the journal have f i r s t of a l l to demonstrate t h e i r a l l eg iance to the community's va lues , and secondly, to be so wel l -educated i n the language and forms of the community that they do so proper ly and i m p l i c i t l y . This means that the ethos or apparent character of the author i s an extremely important aspect of medical persuasion. The journal a r t i c l e i t s e l f i s a v e h i c l e for a s ser t ing the leg i t imacy of the author's place i n the s c i e n t i f i c community, and the e f f ec t of the a r t i c l e i s i n e x t r i c a b l e from the author's c r e d i b i l i t y . Several s t ra teg ies of Invention are seen to recur i n the headache l i t e r a t u r e , when the l i t e r a t u r e i s evaluated r h e t o r i c a l l y . P a r t i c u l a r l y s a l i e n t ones inc lude (1) use of a topos of s i ze as a device of seduction at the opening of an a r t i c l e ; (2) use of the q u a s i - l o g i c a l argument by comparison, 114 to argue for the need for a p a r t i c u l a r study or r e p o r t , and use of r e f u t a t i o n for the same purpose; (3) use of arguments from example, e s p e c i a l l y i n reports on research , to r a t i o n a l i z e the whole of a study (This i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the s c i e n t i f i c method i t s e l f ) ; (4) use of topo i of d e f i n i t i o n and of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and d i v i s i o n , sometimes i n order to form a new argument, sometimes to r e a f f i r m what i s shared among w r i t er s and readers; (5) use of pathos to e s t a b l i s h an a l l i a n c e between w r i t e r and audience, which excludes the pat i ent i n an impl ied we/they separat ion; (6) use of s p e c i f i c e t h i c a l arguments to create an image of the speaker-writer as knowledgeable and trustworthy. A d d i t i o n a l types of proof are t a i l o r e d to s p e c i f i c r h e t o r i c a l purposes and occas ions . A c lose reading of the journal a r t i c l e s reveals a remarkable number of a r t i c l e Introductions (often opening sentences) which argue the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the problem of headache, i n terms of number of pat ients a f f l i c t e d by i t and d o l l a r s l o s t , to j u s t i f y i n t e r e s t i n the f i e l d and e f f e c t i v e l y to seduce readers who might otherwise be less a t t en t ive to the a r t i c l e . That i s , information on headache i s not presented n e u t r a l l y , innocent of va lue , but laden from the outset with a sense of s i g n i f i c a n c e . While v a r i a t i o n i n s t a t i s t i c s might be concerning i n i t s e l f , what i s more i n t e r e s t i n g , from the r h e t o r i c a l point of view, i s that so many authors seek to win the a t tent ion of audiences with what A r i s t o t l e c a l l e d the topos of s i z e , "the r e l a t i v e greatness 115 and smallness of things" (147). The fo l lowing i s a sampling of c laims appearing i n the opening paragraphs of headache a r t i c l e s s In the U . S . A . , 24 m i l l i o n Americans are reported to su f fer from severe headaches, c o n t r i b u t i n g to l o s t time at work and decreased p r o d u c t i v i t y , co s t ing 15.1 b i l l i o n d o l l a r s annual ly . (Szekely et a l 86) Epidemio log ica l studies ind ica te that about two-t h i r d s of adults i n the United States experience headaches and that 40% of these suf fer from muscle contrac t ion or tension headache. ( B e l l et a l 162) Each year 550 m i l l i o n workdays are l o s t i n the United States because of p a i n , which i s probably the p r i n c i p a l complaint presented by pat ients and the major determinant i n t h e i r dec i s ion to consul t a p h y s i c i a n . (Diamond, "Treatment" 91) Headache i s a common problem, a f f e c t i n g approximately 70-75% of men and more than 80% of women i n a year ' s t ime. (Featherstone 194) Headache i s one of the most common of medical complaints and i s presumed to a f f ec t more than 80% of the populat ion . (Glassman et a l 101) 116 Migraine headache i s one of the most common neuro log i ca l d i sorders , with an estimated prevalence of 5% to 25% i n western soc ie ty . ( S t e l l a r 2576) Migraine i s a common d i sorder , occurr ing i n an estimated 5% of the general populat ion . (Bending 508) Once reader a t tent ion i s secured, the relevance of the a r t i c l e at hand must be e s tab l i shed , and ( e s p e c i a l l y i n the case of research a r t i c l e s ) authors proceed to make the case for the p a r t i c u l a r appropriateness of t h e i r own work. One group of authors makes i t s case by focussing by degrees on i t s own research p l a n : [A]n increase i n the incidence of headache around the time of menses has been w e l l documented. [THERE IS A NEED FOR RESEARCH ON PARAMENSTRUAL HEADACHE.] Pharmacological agents have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been employed i n the treatment of headaches. There i s , however, a growing body of l i t e r a t u r e on the p o s i t i v e e f f ec t of behavioral treatment . . . on headache p a i n . [THERE IS A NEED FOR MORE RESEARCH WHICH INCLUDES BEHAVIORAL TREATMENTS.] Numerous studies show such treatment i s s i g n i f i c a n t l y super ior to placebo or wai t ing l i s t c o n t r o l i n reduct ion of headache p a i n . [HOWEVER] Such research 117 has been c a r r i e d out almost e x c l u s i v e l y on migraine, muscle contrac t ion and mixed headache s u f f e r e r s . [THERE IS A NEED FOR RESEARCH ON BEHAVIOR THERAPIES FOR PARA-MENSTRUAL HEADACHE SUFFERERS.] . . . In s p i t e of we l l documented exacerbation i n r e l a t i o n to menstruation, there has only been one study on the e f f ec t of behavioral treatment on menstrual migraine. [A NEW STUDY—THE PRESENT STUDY—IS NEEDED] (Szekely et a l 86) . The o v e r r i d i n g s trategy here i s the q u a s i - l o g i c a l argument by comparison*, e s s e n t i a l l y the comparing of the present study to those which have been done before; convent iona l ly , e a r l i e r s tudies are found i n the process to be l a c k i n g . The enthymeme i s r e f u t a t i v e : the v a l i d i t y of the study i n quest ion i s e s tab l i shed by the undercutt ing of previous research . Other authors use the comparative argument r e f u t a t i v e l y to argue for t h e i r research as c o r r e c t i v e . One research group, having pointed out that reports impl icate s tress i n 80% of tens ion (muscle-contraction) headaches, says d i r e c t l y that i t i s "surpr i s ing that the r o l e of s tress i n promoting or exacerbating recurrent tension headaches has rece ived so l i t t l e e m p i r i c a l at tent ion" (Holm et a l 160). T h e i r study inves t igates the r o l e of s tress i n recurrent tens ion headaches. Another team of authors, concerned with psycho log ica l aspects of headache, points out that while 118 numerous studies have focussed on the psychology of headache suf ferers and of headache i t s e l f , " l i t t l e of that research e f f o r t has gone to study pat ient a t t i tudes toward the disorder" (Barnat and Lake 229). The ir study, they go on to e x p l a i n , i s on exact ly that subject . While the s trategy of us ing r e f u t a t i o n to argue for the relevance of a p a r t i c u l a r piece of work i s , of course, not unique to s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e , ne i ther i s s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e unique for the absence of t h i s r h e t o r i c a l s trategy . The q u a l i t y of the induct ive argument a lso used i n s c i e n t i f i c r epor t ing i l l u s t r a t e s that c e r t a i n assumptions so under l i e s c i e n t i f i c discourse that arguments based on those assumptions are widely considered to be not arguments at a l l , but statements of fac t . 5 i t i s a premise of s c i e n t i f i c method that every instance of a phenomenon ne i ther can nor should be observed, but that r e l i a b l e conclusions can be drawn from r e p e t i t i o n s of a phenomenon i n a number of p a r t i c u l a r cases. This premise empowers the s t a t i s t i c a l reasoning i n s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e s , the appropriateness of which i s never argued, but assumed. What i s e s p e c i a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g , however, given the prominence of s t a t i s t i c s i n s c i e n t i f i c accounting, i s the way i n which numbers are manipulated i n some cases to appear i n the best poss ib le—or most p e r s u a s i v e — l i g h t . For example, one group of researchers claims that "93% of 88 c h i l d r e n with severe migraine" recovered on sys temat ica l ly 119 r e s t r i c t e d , a n t i - a l l e r g y diets (Egger et a l 865). Close reading of the a r t i c l e reveals that the study began with 99 subjects, eleven of whom withdrew from the study f o r reasons unstated i n the a r t i c l e (possibly because t h e i r headaches were unaffected by treatment). Of the 88 remaining subjects, s i x d i d not improve at a l l , and eight who improved continued to do so even when presumably offending foods were reintroduced. (The authors says, rather i n d i r e c t l y , " a l l but 8 relapsed on reintroduction of one or more foods" [Egger et a l 866].) That i s , researchers demonstrated that 74 of a t o t a l pool of 99 subjects—approximately 75%—improved with d i e t a r y c o n t r o l . While the authors do not misrepresent t h e i r findings, they do represent t h e i r findings s t r a t e g i c a l l y . The f a i r manipulation of numbers i s one of the most "available" of the "means of persuasion" the s c i e n t i s t can use. Another study, which assesses the e f f e c t s of behavioral treatment on sixteen women su f f e r i n g from paramenstrual headache, mentions only on the second page of i t s report that subjects were selected from a pool of 93 po t e n t i a l subjects, 77 of whom were d i s q u a l i f i e d from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study f o r various reasons (Szekely et a l 87). I r o n i c a l l y , t h i s a r t i c l e uses language which has the e f f e c t of obfuscating the common-sense "fact" that findings based on a sixteen-person sample i s not of great s c i e n t i f i c value. I t reports, subjects "self-monitored 4 times d a i l y f o r a 2-cycle baseline, then were matched on pre-treatment pain l e v e l s into 8 pairs and 120 randomly assigned to treatment. . . . Post-treatment group data ana lys i s was by three-way analys i s of var iance with 2 repeated measures" (86). In other words, the study used two treatments on s ixteen people s u f f e r i n g from four d i f f e r e n t headache condi t ions and then asked them to report how they f e l t . Argument from example (manifested most often i n science as argument from s t a t i s t i c s ) i s jus t one mode of reasoning conventional i n the s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e . In the a r t i c l e s surveyed, s c i e n t i f i c logos a lso r e l i e s heav i l y on arguments from the common t o p o i , d e f i n i t i o n and d i v i s i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . Beginning with the assumption, genera l ly unstated, that condit ions must be diagnosed before they can be t r e a t e d , medical researchers and p r a c t i t i o n e r s have a s p e c i a l concern with questions of d e f i n i n g , d i v i d i n g , and c l a s s i f y i n g d i s o r d e r s . This accounts for the large number of a r t i c l e s devoted s p e c i f i c a l l y to these quest ions: " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Headache," the seminal a r t i c l e on c l a s s i f i c a t i o n which appeared i n 1962 (Ad Hoc Committee), "Are C l a s s i c a l and Common Migraine D i f f erent E n t i t i e s ? " (Wilkinson and B l a u ) , "Is the Muscular Model of Headache S t i l l Viable?" ( P i k o f f ) , "Diagnosis of Head Pa in : An Idiographic Approach to Assessment and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n " (Thompson), "Towards a D e f i n i t i o n of Migraine Headache" (Blau) , "Migraine and Muscle Contract ion Headaches: A Continuum" (Featherstone). One p a r t i c u l a r l y convincing 121 a r t i c l e uses the hypothet ica l sy l log i sm as a substructure for the d e f i n i t i o n a l argument. The case that "c la s s i ca l" and "common" migraine are d i f f e r e n t aspects of the same d isorder i s based, i n p a r t , on r e f u t i n g the c la im of other researchers that " c l a s s i c a l " migraine or ig inates i n a p h y s i o l o g i c a l phenomenon c a l l e d , "Leao's spreading depress ion." They w r i t e : We know that the aura of migraine i s pa in less and i f the remaining symptoms were due to the spreading depression then the c o r t i c a l changes, as would be expected, should also be p a i n l e s s . Therefore spreading depression cannot account for the [ c l a s s i c a l migraine] headache. (Wilkinson and Blau 212) D e f i n i t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n are important not only to a r t i c l e s which focus on those concerns e x c l u s i v e l y , but to others which use them as topoi to support hypotheses or to argue for the v a l i d i t y of a research program. One study claims that pharmacological treatment of headache i s haphazard, and not c o r r e l a t e d c l o s e l y enough to "subtypes" of headache (Thompson 221). Another study reports the r e s u l t s of a survey on d i e t a r y p r e c i p i t a n t s of migraine, expressing concern that "some invest igators" have used the term "dietary migraine" as though i t were an accepted e n t i t y (Blau and Diamond 184). In general , the need for a r e l i a b l e system of headache d e f i n i t i o n and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s accepted; a t y p i c a l 122 a r t i c l e w i l l , for i t s own purposes, a f f i r m t h i s shared i n t e r e s t of the profess ion: Most of us consider migraine as a pure ly episodic phenomenon and when the headache occurs d a i l y , migrainous process i s r u l e d out straightway. D a i l y headaches are genera l ly considered as muscle c o n t r a c t i o n or tens ion headaches. Such an approach might deprive pat ients of the benef i t they might have rece ived from s p e c i f i c treatment i f the diagnosis was d i f f e r e n t . (Mathew et a l 66) While the appeal from logos i s prevalent i n l i t e r a t u r e surveyed, the appeal from pathos i s l ess so. D irec t emotional appeal i s unconventional i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Nevertheless , s c i e n t i f i c authors must understand t h e i r audience; a powerful means of persuasion l i e s i n the formation of an a l l i a n c e between author and audience, an a l l i a n c e which neces sar i l y excludes the subject of medical a r t i c l e s — t h e p a t i e n t , the subject made objec t . The we/they separat ion which i s maintained i n medical journa l a r t i c l e s suggests Burke's term, "scapegoating, although the separat ion i s necessary to phys ic ians and may even be a p r e r e q u i s i t e to profess ional i sm. In e f f e c t , one message i m p l i c i t i n the headache l i t e r a t u r e i s that "they" (pat ients) get headaches and "we" (the author and the readers together) do not . One author re fers condescendingly to "the hard-core headache patient" as "our s p e c i a l t y albatross" 123 (Edmeads [Nov. 1984] 342). In what becomes a k ind of p r o f e s s i o n a l c o l l a b o r a t i o n , the author, i d e n t i f y i n g with the reader , i s d i s s o c i a t e d from the headache p a t i e n t , who i s , at the same time, o b j e c t i f i e d . D i s s o c i a t i o n i s r e f l e c t e d i n the language of the a r t i c l e s . One author w r i t e s , for example, that us ing biofeedback for pain management has the drawback of r e q u i r i n g s p e c i a l equipment, so that the phys i c ian "may need to r e f e r the pat ient to a . . . c l i n i c , which removes the pat i ent—at l eas t i n part—from his care" (Gunderson 141) . The pat ient i n t h i s case i s not subject , but objec t , an e n t i t y which i s r e f e r r e d then removed to another f a c i l i t y . What motivates t h i s o b j e c t i f y i n g language i s the same kind of d i s s o c i a t i v e impulse that i s responsible for the common medical synecdoche through which the pat ient and the ailment (or a i l i n g organ) are made one—as i n h o s p i t a l par lance , one speaks of the "pancreas i n Room 252." 7 In the l i t e r a t u r e surveyed, there i s only a s ing l e case i n which the phys i c ian i s not d i s soc ia t ed from the p a t i e n t . In t h i s a r t i c l e , the phys ic ian-author describes i n some d e t a i l h i s own h i s t o r y of migraine. Fol lowing a personal account of h i s d i s o r d e r , he w r i t e s , "perhaps some young p h y s i c i a n -s c i e n t i s t with a s i m i l a r problem w i l l recognize i n the c o n d i t i o n an opportunity to study sys temat ica l ly the inputs that may generate the b i z a r r e outcome known as migraine" (Cred i tor 1032). While the a r t i c l e has a c e r t a i n persuasive appeal , der ived i n part from pathos—the sympathy the reader 124 fee l s for the p l i g h t of the author—it i s not read as sc ience . Se l f -observat ion i s considered to be of l i m i t e d s c i e n t i f i c usefulness p r e c i s e l y because i t b lurs the d i s t i n c t i o n between the observer and the observed. Ethos , the argument from the character of the speaker, i s important to a l l persuasive discourse and consequently important to medical w r i t i n g . The c e n t r a l i t y of the e t h i c a l argument i s explained s u c c i n c t l y by Walter J . Ong when he argues that vo ice i s "a summons for be l i e f" and that b e l i e f that something i s true i s secondary to b e l i e f i n the person or persona sharing the information."^ Authors of medical a r t i c l e s have to e s t a b l i s h themselves as knowledgeable and trustworthy, and they accomplish t h i s i n a number of ways. A r i s t o t l e d i s t inguishes between the impression of the rhetor that precedes a speech and attends i t , and the impression of the rhetor created by the speech; he considers only the l a t t e r to be the e t h i c a l argument. In medical w r i t i n g , both kinds of appeal—external and i n t e r n a l to the d iscourse—are seen to operate. I n i t i a l l y , c r e d i b i l i t y accrues to medical wr i t er s that i s borrowed from the journals i n which t h e i r a r t i c l e s appear. E s s e n t i a l l y , what appears i n a respected s c i e n t i f i c journal i s read as both respectable and s c i e n t i f i c . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , readers of a profes s iona l journa l assume that authors and t h e i r a r t i c l e s have been screened as to basic worth by e d i t o r i a l boards i n place for that purpose. In 125 a d d i t i o n , some authors have the benef i t of reputat ion c r e a t i n g an advance c r e d i b i l i t y , something they have earned by t h e i r pub l i ca t ions and references to t h e i r pub l i ca t ions by other authors . Most, i n any case, have credent ia l s that e s t a b l i s h t h e i r r i g h t to be read, " c r e d i b i l i t y " and "credentials" being cognate terms. These are minimally a degree of Ph.D. or M . D . , but severa l authors have t i t l e s which give them an added appeal: they are heads of departments or d i r e c t o r s of c l i n i c s , we l l -p laced academics or consultants to government. Some authors are represented i n photographs accompanying t h e i r a r t i c l e s . The presence of a photograph adds to e t h i c a l e f f ec t by making a v a i l a b l e a v i s u a l image to which ideas and information may be attached. The sense of an author created by reputa t ion , a f f i l i a t i o n s , degrees, and photographs i s of ten b e l i e d i n the a r t i c l e s themselves which are character ized by a conventional a u t h o r i a l absence. Moreover, a u t h o r i a l absence i s i t s e l f , i r o n i c a l l y , a source of a u t h o r i a l c r e d i b i l i t y , for by i d e n t i f y i n g with the ethos of sc ience , authors e s t a b l i s h t h e i r own r e l i a b l e character , d e c l a r i n g i n t h e i r prose the conventional appearance of modesty (the s ign of universal ism) and the conventional appearance of n e u t r a l i t y (the s ign of d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s ) . The prevalence of passive vo ice i s the most obvious s t y l i s t i c s trategy for removing authors from t h e i r t ex t s , and i t i s common i n medical a r t i c l e s , e s p e c i a l l y reports on research , to f i n d that the major i ty of verbs are 126 i n the pass ive . A t y p i c a l study reports that "patients were inv i t ed" to p a r t i c i p a t e ; "informed consent was obtained"; "the diagnosis of migraine was made"; "the cond i t i on of each pat i ent was evaluated"; and so on (Solomon, Stee le , and Spaccavento 2500). In most a r t i c l e s , use of the passive helps obviate the need for a f i r s t - p e r s o n speaker. One author re f er s to both himself and h i s readers i n the t h i r d -person as "the physic ian" (Gunderson); i n many a r t i c l e s , however, the t h i r d person reference i s to "the study" or "the a n a l y s i s . T y p i c a l l y , the agency or instrument of i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s placed i n the r o l e of the agent. 10 In one account, "the study [not the research group] demonstrates" the e f fect iveness of a p a r t i c u l a r drug ( S t e l l a r 2580); i n another, "the ana lys i s of items. . . demonstrated" an a s s o c i a t i o n between psycholog ica l factors and headache (Drummond 21). The persona of the impersonal reporter i t s e l f c a r r i e s a k ind of ethos that i n the s c i e n t i f i c community i n s p i r e s both t r u s t and b e l i e f . The assumption underly ing t h i s inverse e t h i c a l argument i s that the contr ibutors to s c i e n t i f i c journals are repor t ing on empir i ca l events revealed through accepted methodologies with r e p l i c a b l e r e s u l t s . What follows from t h i s assumption i s that authors should not impl icate themselves i n t h e i r f indings nor make p r o p r i e t a r y claims to t h e i r r e s u l t s . (Kenneth Burke sheds some l i g h t on the r h e t o r i c a l e f fect iveness of s c i e n t i f i c impersonalism: "If, i n 127 the op in ion of a given audience, a c e r t a i n k ind of conduct i s admirable, then a speaker might persuade the audience by us ing signs and images that i d e n t i f y h i s cause with that k ind of conduct" [ROM 55].) In a few a r t i c l e s surveyed, however, authors do deviate from what i s genera l ly considered to be the conventional i n d i f f e r e n t s c i e n t i f i c ethos. Whenever they do, the e f f e c t seems to be to increase reader confidence i n the a u t h o r i t y of the author(s ) . One group of authors, c la iming the importance of d i e t a r y manipulat ion i n the treatment of some migraine p a t i e n t s , adopts a f i r s t - p e r s o n speaker i n the Discuss ion s ec t ion . Here the authors a n t i c i p a t e reader object ions to t h e i r argument by acknowledging that placebo e f f ec t i s high i n the treatment of migraine. They w r i t e , "We (except J . F . S . [one of the researchers]) embarked on t h i s study b e l i e v i n g that any favorable response . . . could be explained as a placebo response" (Egger et a l 867). The authors go on to exp la in that placebo e f f ec t d i d not account for t h e i r r e s u l t s , but t h e i r cxonfession has humanized the authors i n a p leas ing way. The r h e t o r i c a l s trategy i s p r o l e p s i s . and i t recurs i n the sample of a r t i c l e s . Another author w r i t e s , "One can argue that the neurot ic t r i a d i s the r e s u l t of chronic pain [rather than the reverse] . . . " (Mathew 67). Thus are the readers ' concerns a n t i c i p a t e d , acknowledged as shared, and a l l a y e d . These e f fec ts combine to increase confidence i n the authors . 128 Another author begins h i s a r t i c l e with a f i r s t - p e r s o n speaker. His subject at t h i s point i s h i s own past research: "In 1979, we assayed the frequency of temporomandibular j o i n t (TMJ) pa in-dys funct ion syndrome among our medical pat ients . . . " (Reik 246). The v a l i d i t y of t h i s a r t i c l e , the purpose of which i s to compare current (1985) f indings on TMJ to the f indings of s i x - y e a r - o l d study, i s enhanced by the c o n t i n u i t y i n research personnel . Use of a f i r s t - p e r s o n speaker underl ines that sense of c o n t i n u i t y . Whatever t h e i r s p e c i f i c r h e t o r i c a l cho ices , however, publ ished authors i n v a r i a b l y remain w i th in the discourse conventions of t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e . In e f f e c t , t h e i r command of those conventions i s i t s e l f an important aspect of the ethos of t h e i r a r t i c l e s , a s ign of t h e i r membership i n the p r o f e s s i o n a l community for which they w r i t e . In a d d i t i o n to these common means of persuasion i n logos . pathos, and ethos. medical journal a r t i c l e s use s p e c i f i c invent iona l s trateg ies appropriate to t h e i r r h e t o r i c a l purposes and s i t u a t i o n s . These inc lude , for example, the use of r h e t o r i c a l "presence," the use of A r i s t o t e l i a n i n a r t i s t i c proofs (arguments from a u t h o r i t y ) , and the use of various a p p l i c a t i o n s of the p r i n c i p l e of emphasis. The case study, research which focuses on the i n d i v i d u a l pa t i en t ( i t s e l f a k ind of argument from example), i s recognized as a method for i d e n t i f y i n g problems or generating hypotheses for s c i e n t i f i c i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The r h e t o r i c a l 129 appeal of the case study i s i n the appeal of presence—what Chaim Perelman, working from A r i s t o t e l i a n p r i n c i p l e s of s t y l e , describes as ac t ing " d i r e c t l y upon our s e n s i b i l i t y , " by "choosing to s ing le out c e r t a i n things for presentation" (Realm 35). The case study e f f ec t i s evoked whenever an author r e f e r s to the i n d i v i d u a l case, but i t i s used as the major mode of argument i n three of the a r t i c l e s surveyed for t h i s study. One, which states i t s purpose as "to h i g h l i g h t the a s s o c i a t i o n between d e t e r i o r a t i n g family s i t u a t i o n s and c o n f l i c t s , and exacerbation of head pain" (Roy 360), recounts i n s p e c i f i c terms the cases of four subjec ts , a l l of whom sought treatment for headache during or fo l lowing some c r i s i s i n fami ly l i f e . Another, exp lor ing the fac tor of estrogen i n the pathogenesis of migraine, reports on the case of a "25-year-old right-handed white woman" who had her f i r s t migraine experience during her fourth pregnancy (Bending). A t h i r d a r t i c l e enters the debate about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i e t and migraine by developing the case of a "married pro fe s s iona l man i n h i s l a t e t h i r t i e s " whose headaches ended "serendipitously" when he was placed on a bland d i e t to t r e a t h i s g a s t r i c u l c e r ( G e t t i s ) . A l l of these a r t i c l e s are persuasive by v i r t u e of focuss ing on the p a r t i c u l a r case, making i t v i v i d to the reader who cannot then ignore i t s i m p l i c a t i o n s . While they o v e r t l y make no c la im to s c i e n t i f i c s i g n i f i c a n c e , these a r t i c l e s do suggest the example i s representat ive of the u n i v e r s a l case. 130 The autobiographical a r t i c l e on migraine discussed e a r l i e r (Credi tor) may a lso be seen as an instance of case study, although the v a r i a t i o n of s e l f - r e p o r t i n g does d i s t i n g u i s h i t methodological ly; r h e t o r i c a l l y , the e f f ec t of the a r t i c l e , rooted i n the p r i n c i p l e of "presence," i s s i m i l a r to that of other case s tudies . I n a r t i s t i c proofs , according to A r i s t o t l e , are those which are not constructed by the rhetor but ra ther ex i s ted beforehand. In s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , these proofs , which are , i n e f f e c t , arguments from author i ty , take the form of c i t a t i o n s and references to other s c i e n t i s t s and other a r t i c l e s . S o - c a l l e d i n a r t i s t i c proof i s , important ly , one of the mainstays of sc ience: "No s c i e n t i s t , " as Wayne Booth exp la ins , "has ever performed experiments or c a l c u l a t i o n s p r o v i d i n g more than a t i n y f r a c t i o n of a l l the s c i e n t i f i c b e l i e f s he holds; the whole e d i f i c e of science depends on f a i t h i n witnesses, past and present—on testimony and t r a d i t i o n " (MD 1 0 8 - 9 ) . 1 1 That s c i e n t i s t s w i l l r e f e r to other s c i e n t i s t s i n developing t h e i r own arguments i s , then, not only expected but requ ired i n s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g . However, the choice of whom to c i t e res ides with the author, and the medical l i t e r a t u r e provides many examples of cases i n which support ing testimony i s c i t e d f r e e l y , while testimony which might weaken the e f f ec t of an a r t i c l e i s ignored. For example, the author who enumerates the phys i c ian ' s drug 1 3 1 choices i n "managing" the migraine pat ient (Gunderson) does not r e f e r to the authors who c la im that narcot i c treatment of headache i s "one of the commonest antecedents to s i g n i f i c a n t i a t rogen ic drug addict ion" (Lane and Ross 3 0 2 ) , or to the study which shows that withdrawal of a l l analgesics s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced headache days i n most pat ients who had been tak ing more than 3 0 analgesic tab le t s per month ( I s l e r 2 8 ) . S i m i l a r l y , the authors who use a se l f -moni tor ing anxiety measure i n t h e i r study of headache pat ients (Szekely et a l ) do not r e f e r to the l i t e r a t u r e which claims that headache pat ients are poor witnesses of t h e i r own states of anxiety (Roy). The p r i n c i p l e of s e l e c t i v e c i t a t i o n has a c e r t a i n pragmatic v a l u e : i f authors had to c i t e every source r e l a t e d to t h e i r research, a r t i c l e s would never get w r i t t e n ; s t i l l , what gets se lected i s most often a matter of what best supports the case at hand. R h e t o r i c a l l y , these c i t a t i o n s funct ion by "ca l l f ing ] to mind," to use Wayne Booth's terms, p l a c i n g "some sort of value on what i s not s ens ib ly there" (MD 1 2 5 ) — o r to use Richard Weaver's terms, the c i t a t i o n s are persuasive because a l l language use i s an "art of emphasis" ("Sermonic" 2 1 3 ) . A r e l a t e d matter of invent iona l s trategy concerns the p r i n c i p l e of emphasis i t s e l f . A c o r o l l a r y of the Burkean c la im that language i s symbolic ac t ion and that i t "induces cooperation" by "direc t ing the a t t en t ion ," i s that discourse persuades a l so by the d i s t r i b u t i o n of emphasis. While one 132 author spends pages of h i s a r t i c l e on pharmacological treatments of headache ( S i l b e r s t e i n ) , another, in teres ted i n non-pharmacological treatment, approaches drug intervent ions summarily: Although a p le thora of methods i s a v a i l a b l e for d i r e c t treatment, i n c l u d i n g analges ics , n a r c o t i c s , t r i c y c l i c ant idepressants , biofeedback, transcutaneous s t imula t ion , surgery, and acupuncture, a r e l i a b l e regimen for r e l i e f of chronic pa in remains e l u s i v e . (Diamond, "Treatment" 91) S i m i l a r l y , while some headache s p e c i a l i s t s see c l a s s i f i c a t i o n as a primary concern of t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e (Blau, "Def in i t ion") , one c l i n i c i a n dismisses the quest ion of p o s i t i v e l y separat ing migraine (vascular) from tens ion (muscular) headaches with t h i s : "[D] i s t inguishing between the two types can be overstressed, s ince a pat i ent with muscle c o n t r a c t i o n headaches w i l l seldom suf fer from a wel l -planned t r i a l of migraine management. . . " (Gunderson 138). An exemplary case of comparative emphasis i s i n two s o l i c i t e d responses to a reader i n q u i r y i n the Journal of  the American Medical A s s o c i a t i o n . The query involved a pat i ent experiencing "co i ta l cephala lg ia"—vascular headache assoc iated with sexual in tercourse . The journa l publ ished two responses—one from a neuro log i s t , another from a p s y c h i a t r i s t . While both consultants i n s i s t on the need to r u l e out serious organic i l l n e s s , the neurolog is t ends by 133 suggesting the p r e s c r i p t i o n of ergotamine medicine (Joynt 254). The p s y c h i a t r i s t , whose answer i s approximately four times longer than that of the neuro log i s t , recommends, among other th ings , "at l eas t three 30-minute v i s i t s with the couple . . to focus on the p a t i e n t ' s unusual symptom and how i t has af fected t h e i r l i v e s " (Renshaw 253). The quest ion of emphasis as i t perta ins to medical w r i t i n g i n general i l l u s t r a t e s the extent to which t h e o r e t i c a l a l l eg iances and problem-perception inform s c i e n t i f i c observat ions , and throws in to r e l i e f the c la im of some medical a r t i c l e s to o b j e c t i v i t y . Kenneth Burke discusses how d i f f e r e n t terminologies (and i m p l i c i t l y the pred i spos i t i ons which guide them) d i r e c t the a t t ent ion d i f f e r e n t l y and lead to a correspondingly d i f f e r e n t q u a l i t y of observat ions . "In b r i e f , " he says, ""behavior' i s n ' t something that you need but observe; even something so "object ive ly there ' as behavior must be observed through one or another k ind of t e r m i n i s t i c screen, that d i r e c t s the a t t ent ion i n keeping with i t s nature" (LASA 49). Thus would Burke explain—as r h e t o r i c — t h e d i f f e r e n t medical responses to a s ing l e set of behaviora l data . Readers are inf luenced not only by arguments themselves but a l so features of t h e i r arrangement i n a d i scourse . The fo l lowing s tra teg ies of Arrangement recur i n the l i t e r a t u r e surveyed: (1) the use of the synopsis as a device to promote the a r t i c l e which follows i t ; (2) the use of opening and 134 concluding sect ions of an a r t i c l e for frank persuasive appeals—and the embedding of the weakest mater ia l i n the dense middle sec t ion of the a r t i c l e ; (3) the use of the AGREED . . . INDEED r h e t o r i c a l s tructure noted by Blanton; (4) the use of an organ iza t iona l p r i n c i p l e of d i s j u n c t i o n , the formal separat ion of mater ia l the author does not wish to be considered together. The use of synopses i s conventional i n s c h o l a r l y l i t e r a t u r e , and medical l i t e r a t u r e i s no except ion. These short summary p ieces , i n any d i s c i p l i n e , are f u n c t i o n a l l y persuasive; that i s , they inform a reader 's d e c i s i o n as to whether to read an a r t i c l e and how to read i t . Synopses are accord ing ly d i f f i c u l t to w r i t e : they must accurate ly represent the contents of an a r t i c l e and, at the same time, make i t i n v i t i n g to the r i g h t audience. Sentences excerpted from synopses of headache a r t i c l e s suggest t h e i r wr i t er s are aware of the importance of synopses as a d v e r t i s i n g . They tend to promise some s i g n i f i c a n c e of f ind ings , and often o r i g i n a l i t y as w e l l : Our studies of pat ients with chronic pa in a f f l i c t i n g var ious body parts l e d to the d e l i n e a t i o n of a psychobio log ica l p r o f i l e . . . .(Blumer and Hei lbronn 180) P h y s i c a l and/or sexual abuse i n women with chronic headache has never been addressed. This p i l o t study 135 addressed differences i n women with chronic headache who reported such a history, compared to a control group of women with chronic headache without a traumatic h i s t o r y . (Domino and Haber 310) The present study was designed to help f i l l a gap i n the e x i s t i n g knowledge of patient perceptions. (Barnat and Lake 229) Although some headaches are doubtless caused by muscular hyperactivity, true muscle contraction headache i s probably f a r less common than t r a d i t i o n a l l y assumed. (Pikoff 186) The study demonstrates that the beta-blocker t i m o l o l i s a safe and e f f e c t i v e treatment i n patients with frequent migraine headaches. ( S t e l l a r 2576) A small dose i n intravenous chlorpromazine may provide an al t e r n a t i v e [to narcotics i n aborting headache]. I t i s r e l a t i v e l y safe, gives exceedingly prompt r e l i e f , and has minimal addictive p o t e n t i a l . (Kain 2037) The attention that goes into w r i t i n g a synopsis i s rewarded, not only because some readers decide on t h e i r account that the ensuing a r t i c l e i s worth reading, but also because a 136 segment of readers looks only at the synopses of some a r t i c l e s , along with introduct ions and conc lus ions , as a way of securing an overview of research i n t h e i r f i e l d . The importance of a good synopsis i s furthermore explained by c l a s s i c a l r h e t o r i c a l theory which makes the case that the opening of a speech must predispose the audience to rece ive i t . "Men pay a t t en t ion ," says A r i s t o t l e , "to things of importance, to t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s , to anything wonderful , to anything pleasant; and hence you must give the impression that your speech has to do with the l i k e " (224). Those readers who look only at the beginnings and ends of research a r t i c l e s are u s u a l l y met with the most f rankly persuasive appeals . I t i s i n the opening sec t ion of an a r t i c l e that authors make the case for t h e i r research , and i t i s i n the c l o s i n g that they spec i fy the s i g n i f i c a n c e of t h e i r r e s u l t s . I f there are weaknesses i n research design or methodology, or i f f indings are obscured by the circumstances of the experiment, these matters w i l l be evident only i n the middle of the a r t i c l e . That i s , the d i s p o s i t i o n of the s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e i s t y p i c a l l y Nestor ian , "wherein," as Chaim Perelman exp la ins , "we begin and end with the strongest arguments, l eav ing the others i n the middle" (Realm 148). The authors , for example, who address p h y s i c a l and sexual abuse i n women with headache, report i n m i d - a r t i c l e that "none of the abused women i d e n t i f i e d abuse as a s i g n i f i c a n t fac tor i n pain onset" and that subjects were 137 ( inexp l i cab ly ) "reluctant to discuss t h i s emotional trauma at a l l " (Domino and Haber 312). However, the authors f a i l to descr ibe the condit ions of t h e i r study by way of exp la in ing why subjects might want to confide i n the researchers . In the same v e i n , the authors who c la im to have demonstrated that "t imolol i s a safe and e f f e c t i v e treatment" for prophylaxis of migraine mention m i d - a r t i c l e that "the t o t a l amount of concomitant medication required during drug treatment with t i m o l o l or placebo was not analyzed," and that o v e r a l l response rates were only 14% higher with t i m o l o l than with placebo (43% vs . 29%) ( S t e l l a r 2579). Without s u f f i c i e n t explanat ion, experimental r e s u l t s are d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t ; yet the authors, as they open and c lose t h e i r papers, seem to c la im for t h e i r information the status of i n c i p i e n t knowledge. This observat ion about the arrangement of a r t i c l e s impl ies no in tent on the part of authors to mislead t h e i r readers . A r t i c l e s are wr i t t en to be read i n f u l l ; in teres ted readers read them i n f u l l ; however, the r e a l i t y of the medical conversat ion i s that great quant i t i e s of information are d i r e c t e d to people who are too busy to rece ive i t a l l . H Readers 'consequently make choices about what and how they read . Whether known reader behavior inf luences the way a r t i c l e s are composed—that i s , whether, reader behavior accounts for the s p e c i a l r h e t o r i c i t y of a r t i c l e openings and c l o s i n g s — i s a matter only for specu la t ion . 138 What can be r e l i a b l y observed about the s tructure of medical texts i s that research a r t i c l e s are frequent ly composed as arguments, and frequent ly adhere to the "grammar" suggested by M. J - V Blanton i n h i s a r t i c l e on "rhe tor i ca l maturi ty i n the sc iences ." Blanton wr i t e s : Modulating the mood of the e n t i r e text w i th in the f i xed form of the underly ing grammar, the r h e t o r i c a l s trategy develops against the background of downplaying and h i g h l i g h t i n g ideas . Downplaying a l t e r n a t i v e or contrary ideas and assumptions i n various sect ions of the discourse h ierarchy of the paper i s part of a l arger scheme designed to guide the reader 's a t t ent ion and thought through the developmental s h i f t s of AGREED, BUT, BUT SUPPOSE, THEN, INDEED. (136) A t y p i c a l research report can be paraphrased according to Blanton's s h i f t s . For example, the a r t i c l e de scr ib ing c l i n i c a l experiments with the drug chlorpromazine for emergency-room treatment of migraine (Lane and Ross) can be s t r u c t u r a l l y reduced as fo l lows: AGREED: the use of narcot i c s to t r e a t emergency room pat ients present ing with migraine i s u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . BUT: no e f f e c t i v e a l t e r n a t i v e s have been e s tab l i shed to date. BUT SUPPOSE: we found that a safe , non-a d d i c t i v e drug was e f f e c t i v e i n most pat ients with acute migraine . THEN: more experiments would be ind ica ted to e s t a b l i s h t h i s new form of therapy. INDEED: the promise of 139 such a treatment could not be ignored. Blanton's grammar can be shown to underly the s tructure of most research repor t s . The v a l i d i t y of Blanton's observations i s further evidence of the r h e t o r i c a l s tructure of s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e s which appear i n i t i a l l y to be d i s i n t e r e s t e d accounts of objec t ive phenomena. In f a c t , each a r t i c l e presents an argument and one c a r e f u l l y constructed to be the most successful at winning the adherence of an audience. Unl ike research a r t i c l e s , review or "update" a r t i c l e s tend to d i s p l a y a rather homogeneous organ iza t ion: the pieces are not organized with persuasive Introduct ion and Discuss ion sect ions f lank ing a more d e s c r i p t i v e middle; ra ther they are d i v i d e d pragmat ica l ly according to t o p i c s . The review a r t i c l e s , "Management of the Migraine Patient" (Gunderson) and "Treatment of Headache i n Primary Care Pract ice" ( S i l b e r s t e i n ) , both manifest t h i s k ind of organizat ion—with headings and subheadings d i r e c t i n g reader a t t en t ion to p a r t i c u l a r areas of c l i n i c a l i n t e r e s t . T h e o r e t i c a l l y , sect ions of these a r t i c l e s could be read out of order; whereas i n the case of the research r e p o r t , sect ions are most informative when read i n the order of presentat ion . Review a r t i c l e s , however, are not less persuasive because of t h e i r r e l a t i v e l y f l a t organizat ion; they are simply persuasive i n a d i f f e r e n t way and to a d i f f e r e n t end. R h e t o r i c a l Arrangement i s t r a d i t i o n a l l y the d i s p o s i t i o n of 140 parts of a speech based on the fundamental assumption that "the order of presentat ion of arguments modifies the condi t ions of t h e i r acceptance" (Perelman, Realm 146), so, for example, i t i s formalized i n r h e t o r i c a l theory that the proem ( i n medical journa l s , the synopsis and Introduct ion together) should dispose the audience we l l to the speech ( A r i s t o t l e 224), and Refutat ion i s best inc luded i n the Argument and not considered a separate d i v i s i o n of the speech ( A r i s t o t l e 235). In medical review a r t i c l e s , a t t en t ion to conventional organizat ion i s dispensed with i n favor of an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l monotone of information. In e f f e c t , the absence of a conc lus ion , summary, or other r e a l ending i n "Management of the Migraine Patient" (Gunderson) gives the a r t i c l e an apparent shapelessness which contr ibutes to the e f f e c t that i t i s simply and d i r e c t l y r e p o r t i a l . The a r t i c l e ends, "This phenomenon [a v a r i e t y of vascu lar headache] seldom occurs on more than two or three occasions and i s no longer be l i eved to be a common present ing symptom of subarachnoid hemorrhage" (143). A d d i t i o n a l evidence of r h e t o r i c i t y i n arrangement i s found i n a r t i c l e s which use a s trategy of d i s j u n c t i o n i n the deployment of information i n the t ex t . The term "disjunct ion" i s suggested by Chaim Perelman's term "d i s soc ia t ion ." Perelman means by "dissociat ion" the p r a c t i c e of separat ing , for r h e t o r i c a l purposes, "elements which language or a recognized t r a d i t i o n have prev ious ly t i e d 141 together" (Realm 49). D i s junc t ion i s a s trategy of formal separat ion based on the p r i n c i p l e that matters discussed separate ly w i l l probably be considered separate ly , and i t i s a s trategy found to recur i n the l i t e r a t u r e on headache. The prime example of d i s j u n c t i o n appears i n the a r t i c l e which reports on the use of a n t i - a l l e r g y d i e t s i n the treatment of c h i l d r e n with migraine. The authors exp la in e a r l y i n the piece that t h e i r subjects w i l l have had migraines "at l eas t once a week for the previous s i x months."; they mention i n a d i f f e r e n t paragraph that p a r t i c u l a r foods were re introduced when subjects had no headache or "only one during the l a s t two weeks" (Egger et a l 865). The d i s c o n t i n u i t y between the two statements—one about subject s e l e c t i o n and one about the length of c l i n i c a l tr ia ls—-discourages readers from making a c r i t i c a l connect ion: cons ider ing the base l ine of the once-weekly headache and the f a c t , which the authors point out i n s t i l l another sec t ion of the paper, that a l l e r g y r e a c t i o n time could be up to one week, the c l i n i c a l t r i a l s are too rushed to al low for s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . The weakness i n research methodology i s concealed by a fact of organizat ion which seems to discourage c r i t i c i s m by separat ing , i n e f f e c t , the pieces of the methodological puzz le . S t y l e , l i k e Invention and Arrangement, cons t i tu tes a category of persuasive s trateg ies i n a t e x t — f o r , according to A r i s t o t l e , "i t i s not enough to know what to say—one must 142 a l so know how to say i t . The r i g h t way of doing t h i s contr ibutes much to the r i g h t impression of the speech" (182). For the s c i e n t i f i c w r i t e r , S ty l e i s e s p e c i a l l y important: not only i s author f a m i l i a r i t y with appropriate s c i e n t i f i c s t y l e a p r e r e q u i s i t e to c r e d i b i l i t y , but , according to John Ziman, appropriate use of an abstract and impersonal s t y l e has the e f f ec t of i d e n t i f y i n g a piece of w r i t i n g with knowledge already accepted i n the f i e l d — e f f e c t i v e l y begging the question by c r e a t i n g s t y l i s t i c a l l y the impression that what i s argued i s a lready known (Public 97). A d d i t i o n a l (and more s p e c i f i c ) r h e t o r i c a l uses of s t y l e are found i n the medical a r t i c l e s . They inc lude : (1) use of the passive vo ice to n e u t r a l i z e the presence of the author; (2) use of nominal izat ions to reduce the e f f ec t of human a c t i o n i n the account; (3) use of other conventional features of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , i d e n t i f y i n g the text with other works on sc ience; (4) use of syntax i n the d i r e c t i o n of reader a t t e n t i o n ; (5) use of vague language, with var ious e f f e c t s ; (6) use of q u a l i f y i n g language, a l so with various e f f e c t s ; (7) use of the i n t e r r o g a t i v e , represent ing a mood of i n q u i r y ; (8) avoidance of language which might be seen to be metaphorical or p o e t i c . Commentators on the s t y l e of s c i e n t i f i c prose frequent ly r e f e r to in junct ions to the s c i e n t i s t , going back as f a r as the Royal Soc ie ty i n the seventeenth-century, to be c l e a r , to o f f e r s c i e n t i f i c t r u t h i n language unadorned by s t y l i s t i c 143 embellishment (that i s , i n the most l i m i t e d , seventeenth-century sense of the word, unadorned by " r h e t o r i c " ) . Most frequently quoted i s Thomas Sprat's statement i n the History  of the Royal Society that members of the Society should s t r i v e a f t e r "the p r i m i t i v e purity, and shortness [of language], when men d e l i v e r ' d so many things. almost i n an equal number of words" (Sprat 113). In f a c t , d i r e c t i v e s to the s c i e n t i f i c w r iter have not s u b s t a n t i a l l y changed i n 300 years; i f they have changed at a l l , they have become more s t r i c t , more p u r i s t — a s t h i s nineteenth-century pronouncement on s t y l e proclaims: The s c i e n t i f i c writer w i l l constantly aspire to r e f l e c t objective r e a l i t y with the perfect serenity and candor of a mirror, drawing with words as the painter with his brush, forsaking, i n short, the pretensions of the s t y l i s t and the fatuous ostentation of philosophic depth.*3 A t y p i c a l contemporary (twentieth-century) w r i t i n g text demonstrates the current view: Science assumes a s p e c i a l posture and therefore requires a s p e c i a l kind of w r i t i n g . The s c i e n t i f i c posture i s based on o b j e c t i v i t y , n e u t r a l i t y , and observation; consequently s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s p r i m a r i l y denotative and f a c t u a l . (Winkler and McCuen 339) Composition t h e o r i s t James Kinneavy writes that s c i e n t i f i c 144 w r i t i n g i s "re ferent ia l" and focuses on "rea l i ty" as i t s subject matter and i s character ized by the "nonintrusion" of the w r i t e r (174). I t i s not s u r p r i s i n g then that those who describe contemporary s c i e n t i f i c prose do so i n these terms: "A s c i e n t i f i c paragraph says p r e c i s e l y what i t means, and no more; i t reads as i f i t had been composed by a robot . . . (Savory 133). C l a r i t y as a goal of s c i e n t i f i c prose i s commendable, but the l i m i t e d and archaic view of c l a r i t y held i n the sciences represents the attachment of s c i e n t i f i c d i s c i p l i n e s to the concept that c l e a r language i s not language appropriate to purpose and audience, but language that s t r i v e s to be transparent , u t t e r l y impersonal, and v a l u e - f r e e . 1 4 rp^e view that language can be as a window on r e a l i t y i s incons i s tent with what i s now known about i t s symbolic and neces sar i l y tendentious nature. However, the conservat ive (preservat ive) i n s t i t u t i o n s which d i c t a t e the s t y l e of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , hold on to acontextual , seventeenth-century notions of c l a r i t y and impersonal i ty , and i n s i s t on the surface features of such a s t y l e , represented most obvious ly i n the use of the passive voice .15 One language s p e c i a l i s t r a t i o n a l i z e s the pass ive voice as a way of avoiding "the seemingly boas t fu l use of the a c t i v e verb with personal pronouns or nouns" (Schindler 5) . However, s c i e n t i f i c modesty, represent ing the perceived 145 unimportance of the i d e n t i t y of the researcher , i s a precept cons i s tent with a t r a d i t i o n a l idea of sc ience , but not with r e a l i t y . The personal , p r o p r i e t a r y c la im of James Watson and Franc i s C r i c k to the s tructure of DNA has been we l l documented (Hal loran , "Molecular Bio logy") , but less dramatic claims of p r i o r i t y and property are found throughout s c i e n t i f i c l i t e r a t u r e , and examples are found i n the contents of the synopses of the medical l i t e r a t u r e surveyed for the present study. In f a c t , one group of researchers , to argue the o r i g i n a l i t y of t h e i r research quest ion, makes a point of s t a t i n g that the only other work on t h e i r top ic was publ ished "while the present study was already i n progress" (Szekely et a l ) . That i s , while S ty le bespeaks d i s i n t e r e s t , an examination of the ways i n which s c i e n t i s t s work to fos ter adherence to t h e i r claims suggests d i s i n t e r e s t i s no more than a shared f i c t i o n among s c i e n t i f i c wr i ters and readers . Medical authors are advised by the s t y l e manual of the Journal of the American Medical A s s o c i a t i o n , that "the primary purpose of medical w r i t i n g i s communication of s c i e n t i f i c knowledge to other physic ians" and that , there fore , "information must be presented with accuracy and c l a r i t y i n a manner that can be read e a s i l y and rap id ly" (Barc lay , Southgate, and Mayo 9) . The e f f ec t of such guide l ines i s to perpetuate the s t y l i s t i c i d e a l of the Royal Soc ie ty , and perpetuate the not ion that language can meet that i d e a l ; that i s , that i t i s separable from r h e t o r i c . 146 C e r t a i n forms, such as the passive v o i c e , become convent ional ized i n the l i t e r a t u r e and t h e i r use a p r e r e q u i s i t e to s c i e n t i f i c p u b l i c a t i o n . The JAMA s t y l e manual continues: "It i s often s a i d i n books about w r i t i n g that the a c t i v e vo ice i s p r e f e r r e d . This i s not always t r u e , and i t may be true less often i n medical w r i t i n g than i n some types of n a r r a t i v e prose" (9). Consequently, i t i s less accurate to speak of authors who use the passive for the  purpose of n e u t r a l i z i n g t h e i r presence i n the t ex t , than i t i s to speak of w r i t i n g which has the e f f ec t of n e u t r a l i z i n g that presence. A s i m i l a r separat ion between in tent and e f f ec t i s i m p l i c i t i n the d i scuss ion of the use of nominal izat ions i n s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g and other features of s c i e n t i f i c s ty le—such as the considerable use of long sentences and Lat ina te words. The survey of medical a r t i c l e s v e r i f i e s the dominance of the pass ive verb i n s c i e n t i f i c accounting. A t y p i c a l paragraph i n the Methods sec t ion of a research a r t i c l e reports that pat ients "were studied" and "were c a r e f u l l y analyzed"; ana lys i s i n t h i s case "was done" i n three ways; and a second group of pat ients "was analyzed i n a s i m i l a r fash ion ." Of the two ac t ive verbs i n t h i s paragraph, one i s used i n connection with the inanimate agent, "history" ("history revealed . . . " [Mathew 66]) . The Methods sec t ion of another a r t i c l e contains e ight verbs , s i x of which are 147 pass ive: pat ients were "referred" to the c l i n i c , then "assigned" a d iagnos i s , and "assigned" again to the appropriate c l i n i c a l category; t h e i r h i s t o r y "was recorded," c e r t a i n items were "marked," and f indings were "were recorded." Of the remaining verbs , one has the inanimate subjec t , "comparison" ("comparison demonstrated. . . " [Roy]). This pat tern of p a s s i v i z a t i o n character izes the middle sect ions of research repor t s , and i s l ess apparent i n the openings and c los ings of art ic les—where i t i s common for fewer than h a l f of the verbs to be i n the pass ive v o i c e . The s t y l i s t i c s h i f t between the body of a report and i t s opening and c l o s i n g sect ions i s cons is tent with observations about the r h e t o r i c a l arrangement of the research a r t i c l e . The pervasive use of the passive i n the d e s c r i p t i v e middle sec t ion of the research report fosters the impression that methodology i s i n accordance with accepted s c i e n t i f i c p r a c t i c e and that data made a v a i l a b l e through the methodology r e f l e c t phenomena that e x i s t independently of the researcher-observer; that i s , the passive argues that any s c i e n t i s t would have observed the same t h i n g . This impersonal i ty i s a fundamental c r i t e r i o n of s c i e n t i f i c "truth ," and i t i s with respect to t h i s t ruth-des ignat ion that the use of the passive i s persuas ive . The e f f e c t of human a c t i o n or of the i n d i v i d u a l s c i e n t i s t as agent i s minimized again by the use of nouns i n place of verbs—or nominal i za t ion—in the research r e p o r t ' s 148 d e s c r i p t i v e middle , where i t i s not unusual to f i n d such a paragraph as t h i s : Recognit ion of underly ing family c o n f l i c t s i s of utmost importance. Intervent ion and correc t diagnosis and treatment of family issues often r e s u l t i n amel iorat ion or reduct ion of head p a i n . (Roy 360) Absent from t h i s account i s the human agent who recognizes c o n f l i c t s , who intervenes and makes a d iagnos i s , who treats fami ly problems, and thereby, ameliorates or reduces head p a i n . Thus, nominal izat ion complements p a s s i v i z a t i o n i n c r e a t i n g the impression of the disembodied i n v e s t i g a t o r (now seen to be persuasive i n i t s e l f ) . Nominal izat ion and p a s s i v i z a t i o n are s t y l i s t i c features most commonly associated with s c i e n t i f i c prose . Another widely acknowledged feature of s c i e n t i f i c s t y l e i s the use of Lat ina te words. 1"' In medical a r t i c l e s , headache attacks are " i n i t i a t e d , " rather than s tar ted (Bending); headaches are " b i l a t e r a l " rather than on two sides (Diamond, "Ibuprofen"); subjec t s ' "responses" rather than answers are considered (Domino and Haber); and substances are "produced" rather than made (Solomon). The main e f fec t of t h i s word choice i s that s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e s are thereby made to sound s c i e n t i f i c . In e f f e c t , s c i e n t i f i c authors ins inuate t h e i r s tudies in to the medical canon by using the s t y l i s t i c signs of belonging to 149 that canon. Another e f f ec t of s c i e n t i f i c s t y l e i s to convey the message that the language of a we l l -de f ined community of knowledge i s impenetrable, open only to the i n i t i a t e d — i n a sense, magica l . Syntax i n s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g a lso has a r h e t o r i c a l dimension, and i s e s p e c i a l l y noteworthy for the way i t i s used to d i r e c t reader a t tent ion and to give a p a r t i c u l a r cast to a s ser t i ons . An embedded clause may de-emphasize information which the author does not want to be considered as primary; minor syntac t i c s tructures funct ion to reduce the e f f e c t of the information they contain—or imply the information i s not new, but g iven. In one study, for example, r e s u l t s of a treatment (which researchers hypothesized would not be e f f ec t ive ) were diminished because subjects d i d not continue treatment i n the fol low-up p e r i o d . Instead of confront ing d i r e c t l y the experimental confounding of r e s u l t s , the authors focus, s y n t a c t i c a l l y , on pat ient behavior, and mention only as an afterthought how r e s u l t s were a f fec ted: "During the fo l low-up, h a l f of the behavioral group f a i l e d to p r a c t i c e t h e i r techniques r e g u l a r l y , which decreased some of the gains" (Szekely et a l ) . Another group of authors a l t e r s the force of i t s advice about pharmacological management of headache by embedding a s i g n i f i c a n t p o r t i o n of i t s advice-content i n r e l a t i v e c lauses , and burying the r e s t i n noun and verb phrases: 150 In pat ients who at times experience headache of the d i f f u s e , steady, tens ion type r e f l e c t i n g muscular c o n t r a c t i o n , and at other times experience more f o c a l , severe and throbbing headaches that are not c l e a r l y s t r e s s - r e l a t e d , a dec i s ion to advise the use of e i t h e r 650 mg a s p i r i n or 1,000 mg acetaminophen for headaches of the tens ion type, and a p r e s c r i p t i o n drug for the tens ion-vascular headaches, i s r a t i o n a l . (Peters et a l 41) One e f f e c t of t h e i r tak ing such an i n d i r e c t approach to analges ic use i s that these authors thereby avoid the issue of analges ic abuse. A r e l a t e d p o i n t , a l so of syntac t i c i n t e r e s t , concerns the use of the term, "iatrogenic drug addic t ion" (Lane and Ross 302) to describe drug abuse patterns begun during medical treatment. The noun phrase, without agent, without a c t i o n , s y n t a c t i c a l l y g l ides over the o r i g i n of the drug problem. Another case of syntax bearing meaning concerns various authors' working descr ipt ions of migraine. While the most widely accepted d e s c r i p t i o n of the d i sorder says that migraine i s "often f a m i l i a l , " and "in some cases assoc iated with . . . mood disturbances" (Ad Hoc Committee), some authors manipulate syntax to compose descr ip t ions which seem to confirm what t r a d i t i o n a l descr ip t ions only suggest. One p a i r of authors writes that migraine i s a " f a m i l i a l 151 disorder" (Wilkinson and Blau) ; another describes migraine as a "s tres s -re la ted syndrome" (Featherstone and Beitman). A s i m i l a r process of suggestion becoming fact i n syntax takes place when a researcher writes of the phenomenon of the "hot dog headache" (Daroff and Whitney) while s p e c i a l i s t s continue to debate the r o l e of d i e t a r y t r i g g e r s i n migraine p r e c i p i t a t i o n (Diamond and B lau) . Another way wr i ters use s t y l e r h e t o r i c a l l y i s by using vague, ins tead of p r e c i s e , language i n t h e i r s c i e n t i f i c accounts. While one might expect (from the h i s t o r y of c l a r i t y i n s c i e n t i f i c rhe tor i c ) that s c i e n t i f i c accounting would be f u l l y p r e c i s e , i t i s nonetheless vague i n many ins tances . In some cases, p a r a d o x i c a l l y , vague language i s used to ensure that what i s wr i t t en i s accurate . That i s , whi le i t may be accurate to say that an experimental drug "would appear to be super ior to the a l t e r n a t i v e modes of therapy ava i lab le" (Lane and Ross 304), i t might be less accurate to say that the drug i s super ior . S i m i l a r l y , researchers can c la im with confidence that " i t appears that patterns of responses to emotional s tress are s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t e s of outcomes of . . . therapy" (Featherstone and Beitman 110). The very vagueness of the c la im enhances i t s t r u t h - v a l u e . Vague language not only protects wr i ters from making inaccurate statements, i t a l so f a c i l i t a t e s audience adherence to t h e i r c la ims , by minimizing grounds for c o n f l i c t . Yet an 152 a d d i t i o n a l r h e t o r i c a l e f f ec t of vague language, and one that i s concerning, i s that vague statements may sometimes be read as r e l i a b l e a s ser t ions . When readers are t o l d , for example, that "some epidemiologists" report migraine i n up to 25% of the populat ion" (Gunderson 137), they do not normally (given a c r e d i b l e author) ask which epidemiologists say so and under what circumstances; the statement i s taken as an asser t ion that approximately t h i s percentage of the populat ion does su f f er from migraine . S i m i l a r l y , when a group of researchers r a t i o n a l i z e s t h e i r study by saying that a p a r t i c u l a r drug "appeared to o f f e r promise" because of "theoret ica l cons iderat ions ," most readers see the study as j u s t i f i e d (Lane and Ross 302). That i s , c e r t a i n t y i t s e l f i s not a necessary cond i t i on for the e f f ec t of c e r t a i n t y . Some c e r t a i n t y i s v i r t u a l l y a byproduct of t e x t u a l i t y . The use of q u a l i f i e r s i n s c i e n t i f i c r e p o r t i n g i s a s p e c i a l case of the use of vague language. Q u a l i f i e r s are e s s e n t i a l to s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g not only because they al low for accuracy i n r e p o r t i n g , but a l so because they give authors a way of dea l ing with matters that are h y p o t h e t i c a l , t h e o r e t i c a l , or c o n t r o v e r s i a l . One author d i s t i l l s research on d i e t and migraine for the family phys i c ian by saying, "foods or a l coho l can provoke occas ional attacks [of migraine] i n some patients" (Diamond and Blau 184). Another reports that the demands of c h i l d r e a r i n g can fos ter migraine a t tacks , and unresolved g r i e f may p lay a r o l e i n some 153 pat ients" ( K i r n , "Migraine" 12-13). The same author sums up controversy about the p o s s i b i l i t y of a "migraine personal i ty" by w r i t i n g that "most s p e c i a l i s t s admit under t h e i r breath that they be l i eve persons with migraine tend to be p e r f e c t i o n i s t i c , meticulous, compulsive and ambitious" (12). ( A l l emphasis i s mine.) In a l lowing s c i e n t i s t s to make a f f i r m a t i v e statements about unresolved i s sues , vague terms and q u a l i f i e r s are c r u c i a l elements of the language of s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y . However, the r h e t o r i c a l po int of view suggests that vague terms and q u a l i f i e r s pose p o t e n t i a l problems to readers , who must be v i g i l a n t i n t h e i r reading , tak ing care not rece ive as f a c t u a l , statements which do not warrant the status of f a c t . With t h i s i n mind, i t i s worth recons ider ing some of the assert ions which were found to appear i n the opening paragraphs of the headache a r t i c l e s under review. (See pp. 114-115 above.) A l l emphasis i s mine: In the U . S . A . , 24 m i l l i o n Americans are reported to  su f f er from severe headaches . . . . (Szekely et a l 86) Epidemio log ica l studies ind ica te that about two-thirds of adults i n the United States experience headaches . . . . ( B e l l et a l 162) 154 Each year 550 m i l l i o n workdays are l o s t i n the United States because of p a i n , which i s probably the p r i n c i p a l complaint presented by pat ients . . . . (Diamond, "Treatment" 91) Headache i s a common problem, a f f e c t i n g approximately 70-75% of men . . . (Featherstone 194) Headache i s one of the most common of medical complaints and i s presumed to a f f ec t more than 80% of the populat ion . (Glassman et a l 101) Migraine headache i s one of the most common neuro log i ca l d i sorders , with an estimated prevalence of 5% to 25% i n western soc i e ty . ( S t e l l a r 2576) Migraine i s a common d i sorder , occurr ing i n an estimated 5% of the general populat ion . (Bending 508) While vague language and q u a l i f i e r s serve important purposes i n s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , some s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s nonetheless marked by a language of c e r t a i n t y which i t s e l f has great r h e t o r i c a l power. One medical author w r i t e s , for example, that " a l l headaches should be i n i t i a l l y viewed with concern, and every e f f o r t should be made to determine the cause of a headache" ( S i l b e r s t e i n 65). As a statement of 155 common medical sense, t h i s a s ser t ion has some v a l i d c la im to i t s tone of c e r t a i n t y . However, t h i s statement from the same author i s more problematic: " A l l pat ients should be treated p r o p h y l a c t i c a l l y for c l u s t e r headache" (70). The second sentence has the same s t r u c t u r e , the same syntax, the same a u t h o r i a l stance and r h e t o r i c a l e f f ec t as the f i r s t , yet i t i s not a statement of common medical sense, but a statement of o p i n i o n , by no means uncontrovers ia l , for i t suggests that pat ients be consigned to taking drugs i n d e f i n i t e l y , t h e o r e t i c a l l y to prevent poss ib le headache a t tacks . The l i n g u i s t i c signs of c e r t a i n t y here cons t i tu te one of the means i n s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g of p r o j e c t i n g author i ty without n e c e s s a r i l y p r o j e c t i n g an author. In genera l , the p r o b i n g , i n q u i r i n g nature of the s c i e n t i f i c en terpr i se would seem to be at odds with the c la im to c e r t a i n t y i n some s c i e n t i f i c prose. This review of medical l i t e r a t u r e revea l s , however, that a mood of i n q u i r y i s maintained o v e r a l l i n s c i e n t i f i c prose by s p e c i f i c r h e t o r i c a l means which balance the e f f ec t of c e r t a i n t y , where r e a l c e r t a i n t y might be the end of i n q u i r y . In a d d i t i o n to the use of vague terms and q u a l i f i e r s , which may sus ta in the impression of ongoing research and ongoing pro fe s s iona l conversat ion , some authors a c t u a l l y pose whole a r t i c l e s as s c i e n t i f i c questions—"Diet and Headache. Is There a Link?" (Diamond and B l a u ) , "Are C l a s s i c a l and Common Migraine D i f f e r e n t E n t i t i e s ? " (Wilkinson and B l a u ) , "Is the Muscular 156 Model of Headache S t i l l Viable?" ( P i k o f f ) , "Is Migraine Food A l l e r g y ? " (Egger et a l ) . These are not instances of the r h e t o r i c a l quest ion (erotema) per se, the purpose of which i s to make a po int rather than to e l i c i t a response; ra ther they seem to be o f fered i n the s p i r i t of i n q u i r y . Other authors achieve the same e f f ec t by appearing to present t h e i r a r t i c l e s as contr ibut ions to d ia logue , as these t i t l e s suggest: "Dietary Factors i n Migraine P r e c i p i t a t i o n : The Phys i c ians ' View" (Blau and Diamond), "Towards a D e f i n i t i o n of Migraine Headache" (Blau) , "The Mixed Headache Syndrome: A New Perspective" (Saper). Rhetor i ca l ana lys i s of s c i e n t i f i c texts demonstrates that despite i n d i v i d u a l c laims about the importance of p a r t i c u l a r research studies i n the c r e a t i o n of knowledge, there i s evidence i n the s t y l e of the prose of the bas ic assumption that science i s exploratory . The ul t imate e f f e c t of a piece of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g must be to i n v i t e response i n the form of a quest ion, a fo l low-up, a chal lenge , or a r e p l i c a t i o n . The e f f ec t of medical discourse i s to i n v i t e fur ther d i scourse , as the p r o l i f e r a t i o n of medical a r t i c l e s t e s t i f i e s . S t y l i s t i c devices which the s c i e n t i f i c w r i t e r seems i n t e n t i o n a l l y to avoid are the f i g u r a t i v e and metaphoric. Figures of speech and thought, catalogued i n c l a s s i c a l r h e t o r i c and found everywhere i n the discourse of the Humanities, are shunned by the s c i e n t i f i c w r i t e r . The s c i e n t i f i c w r i t e r , i n keeping with a p o s i t i v i s t t r a d i t i o n , 157 sees the use of s t y l i s t i c devices as l i n g u i s t i c embellishment, sees l i n g u i s t i c embellishment as a method of obfuscat ion , and sees both as u n s c i e n t i f i c . Thomas Sprat asked, i n The H i s t o r y of the Royal Soc ie ty . "Who can behold . . . how many mists and u n c e r t a i n t i e s , these specious Tropes and Figures have brought on our Knowledg?" (112) Sprat ' s suspic ions continue to cons tra in s c i e n t i f i c s t y l e . 1 7 The s c a r c i t y of f i g u r a t i v e language i n s c i e n t i f i c texts accounts i n part for t h e i r known amenabil i ty to t r a n s l a t i o n , which i s i n turn part of the impersonal, g loba l image of the s c i e n t i f i c e n t e r p r i s e . One l i n g u i s t writes that s c i e n t i f i c prose , "alone among a l l the d i f f e r e n t categories of prose can be t rans la t ed in to languages other than the language i n which i t was f i r s t w r i t t e n , not merely s a t i s f a c t o r i l y but per fec t ly" (Savory 138). Metaphoric language i s not only r e l a t i v e l y scarce i n the medical l i t e r a t u r e , but a lso negat ive ly noted. One author, r e p o r t i n g on a conference on headache, says that an expert compared migraine, with i t s many t r i g g e r s , to a "freeway with many on-ramps." The repor t ing author comments that migraine i s a "baff l ing disease," "though i t seems i r o n i c , " he says, "that a u t h o r i t i e s would need to re sor t to  analogy as the best d e s c r i p t i o n [emphasis mine]" ( K i r n , "Migraine" 12). The author's view that analogy i s inappropr ia te to the d i scuss ion of sc ience , i s cons is tent with the general view that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g should not be 158 r h e t o r i c a l . What i s i r o n i c i s that s c i e n t i f i c s t r i v i n g to a r h e t o r i c i t y i s i t s e l f r h e t o r i c a l : sc ience 's a f f i n i t y to an unembellished s t y l e has the e f f ec t of persuading audiences that research , for example, i s d i s i n t e r e s t e d , unbiased, based on f a c t , and productive of f a c t . Avoidance of the appearance of persuasion i s i t s e l f persuas ive . Although s c i e n t i s t s s t r i v e for the a r h e t o r i c a l e f f ec t i n t h e i r w r i t i n g , some of the medical authors surveyed do use some r h e t o r i c a l s t y l i s t i c s t ruc tures . These s tructures seem to be there because c l a r i t y depends on them. That i s , the use of some r h e t o r i c a l dev ices—usual ly the subt le as opposed to the c l e a r l y ornamental ones—is v i r t u a l l y unavoidable even i n the p l a i n e s t use of language.*8 Subtle s t y l i s t i c turns , then, are found scat tered through the medical l i t e r a t u r e . One p a i r of authors uses the r h e t o r i c a l quest ion to a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r concerns about headache c l a s s i f i c a t i o n : "Should a l l these [pat ient] groups be s a i d to be s u f f e r i n g from c l a s s i c migraine ," they ask, "and i f so what do we c a l l the headaches that [two of the groups] have without an aura?" (Wilkinson and Blau 211). R h e t o r i c a l parenthesis i s used by another w r i t e r , who i n t e r r u p t s the flow of h is sentence to provide the serv ice of explanat ion: "The vasoact ive amines—serotonin, tryptamine, tyramine, dopamine, and norepinephrine—are present i n s i g n i f i c a n t quant i ty i n the t y p i c a l Western d i e t . . ." 159 (Diamond, "Treatment" 279). P a r a l l e l construct ions are common i n s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , often taking the form of l i s t s . Sometimes these l i s t s are integrated in to the a r t i c l e as a whole ("In our c l i n i c a l experience pat ients f a l l in to three groups: . . ." [Wilkinson and Blau 211]); sometimes they are poised separate ly from the main text to h i g h l i g h t or summarize p a r t i c u l a r po in t s . One author provides a quick guide to "Talking to Pat ients about Headache," recommending that phys i c ians , "Encourage pat ient [ s ic ] to maintain a "headache d i a r y ' . . . Advise pat ients to avoid afternoon naps . . . Recommend that pat ients wear sunglasses i n b r i g h t l i g h t . . ." and so on ( S i l b e r s t e i n 72). ^ The trope , l i t o t e s , or r h e t o r i c a l understatement, i s a l so found i n the medical l i t e r a t u r e . The use of understatement would be cons is tent with the general move i n s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e s to argue for the importance of a p a r t i c u l a r research e f f o r t . The author who w r i t e s , "It would be h e l p f u l to both physic ians and pat ients i f there were a treatment which was r e l a t i v e l y safe , was not a d d i c t i v e and gave prompt r e l i e f " (Kain 2037) i s not only c o u r t i n g audience agreement, but using understatement to enhance the importance of h i s ensuing r e p o r t . A number of authors, to make t h e i r p o i n t s , turn to metaphor. The term, "aura," used i n v a r i a b l y i n descr ip t ions of premonitory v i s u a l symptoms of migraine, i s used metaphor ica l ly to suggest the ine f fab l e q u a l i t y of the warning. The term "topography" i s used a n a l o g i c a l l y to r e f e r 160 to the study of the surface of the cortex (Wilkinson and Blau 212). One group of researchers r e l i e s heav i ly on metaphor, d e s c r i b i n g the phenomenon of the "turt le" headache, the curse of the l a t e s leeper , who "retracts h i s head beneath the blankets" to avert the sun and i s thereby deprived of oxygen (Gordon G i l b e r t 921). Metaphor and s i m i l e are frequent ly used a l so as pa in d e s c r i p t o r s , which i s v i r t u a l l y unavoidable s ince the pa in l ex i con i s i t s e l f l a r g e l y metaphorical . One doctor describes pat ient complaints of "tightness" (Domino and Haber 310); another re fers to the sense of "squeezing" or "the sensat ion of wearing a t i g h t band" (Diamond, "Ibuprofen" 206); a t h i r d describes p a t i e n t s ' " i c e p i c k - l i k e " pains (Drummond 16). I t i s poss ib le to speculate that the more d i f f i c u l t a phenomenon i s to describe l i t e r a l l y , the more l i k e l y an author i s to "resort to analogy" or to use f i g u r a t i v e language. I t i s poss ib le to speculate tha t , as a c o r o l l a r y , the more t e c h n i c a l and abstract a s c i e n t i f i c top ic i s , the more l i k e l y an author i s to use t h e o r e t i c a l constructs a r t i c u l a t e d as metaphors. An i n d i c a t i o n that t h i s might be true i s found i n the t h e o r e t i c a l d i scuss ion of neuronal as opposed to vascu lar genesis of migraine, where, for example, the term "nerve storms" i s used to describe the behavior of neurons ( K i r n , "Discussion" 11). That i s , while metaphor i s present but r e l a t i v e l y uncommon i n the medical texts surveyed for t h i s study, metaphor may be more common i n a r t i c l e s which 161 are more abstract or which attempt to describe the technology of t h e o r e t i c a l constructs .^0 What i s , i n general , however, an avers ion to overt r h e t o r i c i t y i n the s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g of s c i e n t i f i c authors i s much less apparent i n the u n s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g of the same authors . For example, medical journal e d i t o r i a l s cons t i tu te a d i f f e r e n t genre for medical authors, a genre with fewer (or perhaps d i f f e r e n t ) s t y l i s t i c c o n s t r a i n t s . In a Guest E d i t o r i a l , one researcher uses analogy to suggest a t h e o r e t i c a l explanat ion for headache. I t i s an explanation u n l i k e l y to appear i n an "Orig ina l A r t i c l e . " He wr i t e s : The word for the discomfort experienced when the heart i s overwhelmed by demands placed upon i t as a pump i s angina—angina p e c t o r i s . Webster t e l l s us that these are the L a t i n words for a p a i n f u l su f focat ing contrac t ion i n the chest—a t h r o t t l i n g . . . . Headache may represent a s i m i l a r s i tuat ion—but one r e s u l t i n g from suf focat ion or t h r o t t l i n g or overloading of the b r a i n , and maybe, even of the soul? (Graham 105) This author's poet ic l i cense has more to do with the conventions of e d i t o r i a l w r i t i n g than the conventions of sc ience w r i t i n g , and i t i s , i n no way, unusual to the e d i t o r i a l genre. The regular e d i t o r of the j o u r n a l , Headache, i s here unabashedly r h e t o r i c a l i n h i s d i scuss ion of s c i e n t i f i c controversy: 162 The i n t r i g u i n g th ing i s that some of these debates don't seem to have changed much over the years . Consider the vasogenic versus neurogenic controversy. Meyer and Olesen are c l e a r l y the champions of the contending f a i t h s . Each has armed himself with years of research and with the accoutrements of high technology, and each has argued h is case with grace and d i s t i n c t i o n . And ye t , was not the same b a t t l e . . . fought between Latham and L i v e i n g over a century ago? What was discovered then? What w i l l be decided now? Can we ever know whether blood vesse l or b r a i n i s the key to migraine? . . . And what about t h i s " a l l e r g i c headache" business? . . . I f that t a t t e r e d o l d hulk of " a l l e r g i c headache" keeps looming through the fog , i s i t because i t ' s r e a l . . . or unreal? (Edmeads [Sept. 1986] 435) These e d i t o r i a l wr i t ings supply good evidence that the "neutral" nature of s c i e n t i f i c texts i s a matter ne i ther of the bas ic i n c l i n a t i o n s of s c i e n t i f i c authors nor the nature of t h e i r subject matter; the neutra l s t y l e i s a c u l t i v a t e d s t y l e which has become convent ional ized i n a p a r t i c u l a r forum for s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g : the s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e . I ts use, l i k e the use of research ra t iona le s and other arguments, i s par t of the r h e t o r i c of sc ience . In the o v e r a l l a n a l y t i c s tructure for the r h e t o r i c of 163 sc ience , the f i n a l canon i s Presentat ion ( A r i s t o t l e ' s "Del ivery") . The canon, i n the A r i s t o t e l i a n framework, i s a r e l a t i v e l y minor one, subsuming matters which p e r t a i n , i n o r a l presenta t ion , to v o i c e , s p e c i f i c a l l y to volume, p i t c h , and rhythm. Yet the premise underly ing the i n c l u s i o n of D e l i v e r y i n the study of Rhetoric i s not minor: i t i s that what i s presented we l l i s presented conv inc ing ly . D e l i v e r y , according to A r i s t o t l e , has on the speech "the same e f f ec t as the a r t of ac t ing has had on the drama" (184). When the De l ivery of the speech i s transformed in to the Presentat ion of the wr i t t en a r t i c l e , the a t t en t ion of the r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c turns to matters of a r t i c l e appearance— matters i n c l u d i n g paper q u a l i t y , journa l b ind ing , t ypese t t ing , font s i z e , a r t i c l e layout , column width, white space, documentation system, l o c a t i o n of notes, use of headings, type , number, and q u a l i t y of graphics . Although these have important r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t , they command r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e c r i t i c a l a t t ent ion—for dec is ions about presentat ion u s u a l l y involve publ i shers rather than authors. The impression an a r t i c l e makes does stem i n part from ethos borrowed from the p u b l i c a t i o n i n which i t appears. In terms of presenta t ion , t h i s means that whether an a r t i c l e i s taken s e r i o u s l y depends in part on the pro fe s s iona l look of the p u b l i c a t i o n i n which i t appears. Other factors of presentat ion are connected to 164 p u b l i s h e r s ' dec is ions concerning format, layout , and r e a d a b i l i t y aids such as headings. A r t i c l e s may be made i n v i t i n g or not by v i r t u e of t h e i r appearance as a r t i c l e s : as most Technica l W r i t i n g texts c l a i m , readers are drawn more r e a d i l y to a piece d iv ided by many headings and presented with adequate white-space. A f u l l - l e n g t h piece of uninterrupted t ex t , or one which does not appear i n columns of p r i n t , discourages a l l but the most determined readers . S i m i l a r l y , charts and other graphics which break up blocks of p r i n t are e f f e c t i v e addit ions to format. Moreover, tables which summarize information for quick reference—and these may be suppl ied by authors rather than publ ishers—add to the impression of a c c e s s i b i l i t y of information. The way a r t i c l e s present themselves i s no less important than the way speakers present themselves. Issues of Presentat ion are i n v a r i a b l y issues of appearance, ra ther than substance; yet appearance i s persuasive . Those a r t i c l e s which inc lude a photograph of the author are t r a d i n g i n some way on the r h e t o r i c of appearance. I t i s worth not ing at t h i s po int Kenneth Burke's anatomy of the persuasive appeal of the doctor ' s o f f i c e , which, he says, "is not to be judged pure ly for i t s d iagnost ic usefulness , but a l so has a funct ion i n the r h e t o r i c of medicine." Burke continues: Whatever i t i s as apparatus, i t a l so appeals as imagery; and i f a man has been treated to a fulsome ser i e s of tappings, s c r u t i n i z i n g s , and l i s t e n i n g s , 165 with the a i d of various scopes, meters, and gauges, he may f e e l content to have p a r t i c i p a t e d as a pat ient i n such h i s t r i o n i c a c t i o n , though abso lute ly no mater ia l th ing has been done for him, whereas he might count himself cheated i f he were given a r e a l cure , but without the pageantry. (What McKeon c a l l s "the cross ing l i n e s of r h e t o r i c and medicine" would, i n our terms, be "extending the range of r h e t o r i c in to medicine." A r e l a t e d popular term i s "bedside manner," which A r i s t o t l e might have c lassed under top ic s that appeal by ethos) . (ROM 171) Burke's ana lys i s i s e f f e c t i v e l y a treatment of D e l i v e r y , of appeals from imagery, and the "bedside manner" of the medical person standing behind the publ ished a r t i c l e i s jus t what i s at i ssue when an author's photograph i s publ ished with a medical a r t i c l e . To accompany the a r t i c l e , "Treatment of Chronic Headache, (Diamond), the journal Postgraduate  Medicine p r i n t s a photograph of Diamond, l i t e r a l l y at the bedside of a pat i ent undergoing biofeedback therapy. S c i e n t i f i c authors (and p u b l i s h e r s ) , then, use a v a r i e t y of s tra teg ies to make s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e s persuasive . R h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s of t h i s body of medical l i t e r a t u r e suggests that while o b j e c t i v i t y continues to be upheld as an i d e a l of s c i e n t i f i c medicine, i t only p a r t l y character izes the r e a l p r a c t i c e and transmiss ion of i t . Writers are not s c r i b e s , but authors, with biases both as witnesses and as 166 w r i t e r s . Moreover, t h e i r w r i t i n g cannot be separated from the motive to convince other s c i e n t i s t s of the worthiness of t h e i r work. A t r a d i t i o n a l sense of sc ience , as e s s e n t i a l l y objec t ive and non-negot iable , continues , however, to dominate the medical mainstream and inform the reading of medical d i scourse , and readers i n general do not recognize the f u l l r h e t o r i c i t y of science—the s i m i l a r i t y of s c i e n t i f i c texts to a l l other d i scourses . Perhaps readers are u n w i l l i n g to recognize the impl i ca t ions for science of the symbol ic i ty and tendency of even s c i e n t i f i c language; perhaps, however, they simply lack s trateg ies for reading s c i e n t i f i c texts c r i t i c a l l y , as r h e t o r i c . I s o l a t i n g r h e t o r i c a l moves i n medical texts enables c r i t i c a l analys i s of other samples of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , and i t i n v i t e s d i scuss ion of the r h e t o r i c of sc ience , based not only on theory which says that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g must be r h e t o r i c a l , but on p r a c t i c a l reading that says that i t i s , and how. The r h e t o r i c a l p r i n c i p l e s revealed by the ana lys i s of medical journa l a r t i c l e s are both d e s c r i p t i v e and p r e d i c t i v e of r h e t o r i c a l moves i n medical texts and may be appl i ed h e u r i s t i c a l l y i n the c r i t i c a l reading of other a r t i c l e s . To precede d i scuss ion of the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the discovery of these p r i n c i p l e s , three case studies are provided to demonstrate the a p p l i c a t i o n of the r h e t o r i c a l model i n the c r i t i c a l reading of whole t ex t s . 167 Part Two. R h e t o r i c a l Readings of Whole Texts: Three Case Studies In t h i s s ec t ion , three medical journa l a r t i c l e s are analyzed r h e t o r i c a l l y , with the benef i t of awareness of the s t ra teg ie s and s tructures revealed through the l a r g e r scale a n a l y s i s . The professed purpose of B. Szekely et a l , "Nonpharmacological Treatment of Menstrual Headache: Relaxation-Biofeedback Behavior Therapy and Person-Centered Ins ight Therapy," which appeared i n the journa l Headache i n 1986, i s to contr ibute to "the growing evidence that menstrual headache should be considered and treated as a s p e c i a l c l i n i c a l e n t i t y i n headache" (91). The study uses two non-drug therapies (one behav iora l , one contro l ) on menstrual ly exacerbated headaches. I t concludes, from the r e l a t i v e inef fec t iveness of behavioral therapies i n c o n t r o l l i n g the headaches (these therapies are e f f e c t i v e i n c o n t r o l l i n g headaches g e n e r a l l y ) , that menstrual headache cons t i tu tes a s p e c i a l c l i n i c a l e n t i t y , l i k e l y connected to biochemical change. The argument i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h i s : AGREED: menstrual headaches are a serious problem and non-drug therapies have been e f f e c t i v e i n t r e a t i n g headaches i n genera l . BUT: almost no research has been done on the e f fect iveness of non-drug treatment s p e c i f i c a l l y on menstrual headache. BUT SUPPOSE: we i s o l a t e d subjects s u f f e r i n g from menstrual headache and treated them with non-drug therapies . 168 THEN: we would discover i f menstrual headache was amenable to the same forms of treatment as other headaches. INDEED: re s i s tance to such treatment would argue for the fact that menstrual headaches cons t i tu te a separate c l i n i c a l e n t i t y . The Szekely piece begins with a persuasive synopsis . (Authors who submit to Headache are i n s t r u c t e d to send—with t h e i r a r t i c l e — a synopsis of under 200 words, i n c l u d i n g statement of the problem, method of study, r e s u l t s , and conc lus ions . ) In the synopsis , the authors use information s e l e c t i o n and emphasis r h e t o r i c a l l y to d i r e c t a t t ent ion and to p o s i t i v e l y predispose readers to t h e i r a r t i c l e . I t begins with a d e c l a r a t i o n of importance us ing the topos of s i z e : "Sixty percent of female headache suf ferers have an increase paramenstrually" (86). I t argues then, r e f u t a t i v e l y , for the need for study i n the area of paramenstrual headache: "Although behaviora l treatment of migraine and tens ion headache has proven e f f e c t i v e i n c o n t r o l l e d s tud ies , the e f f e c t on paramenstual increases has r a r e l y been i s o l a t e d and observed [my emphasis]" (86). The greatest part of the remainder of the synopsis argues through the use of h igh ly convent ional ized s c i e n t i f i c s t y l e that the group's research i s bona f ide science and the members of the research group, bona f ide s c i e n t i s t s . The authors repor t : 16 women with paramenstrual headaches s e l f monitored 4 times d a i l y for a 2-cyc le base l ine , then were matched on pre-treatment pain l eve l s into 169 8 p a i r s and randomly assigned to treatment . . . Post-treatment group analys i s was by three-way analys i s of variance with 2 repeated measures. (86) The synopsis concludes with a p o s i t i v e statement made v i r t u a l l y ind i sputable by the use of vague terms and q u a l i f i e r s : "Results suggest that nonpharmacological treatment has a l e s ser impact on menstrual ly associated periods than on headaches not associated with menstruation [emphasis mine]" (86). Vague language and q u a l i f i e r s al low for some of the e f f ec t of p o s i t i v e a s s e r t i o n , without the commitment of p o s i t i v e as ser t ion or the p o s s i b i l i t y of f a l s i f i c a t i o n . With respect to what the synopsis leaves out ( i t f a i l s to mention, for example, that i t s 16 subjects were se lec ted from a pool of 93 women, 77 of whom were considered inappropr iate to p a r t i c i p a t e ) , i t i s important to note that although information c r u c i a l to evaluat ing the study does not—and l o g i s t i c a l l y , cannot—appear i n the synopsis , many readers who look only at a r t i c l e synopses come away with a c a r e f u l l y constructed view of the research. The authors' r h e t o r i c a l acts of arguing l o g i c a l l y for the importance and the p r i o r i t y of t h e i r research , of us ing h i g h l y s c i e n t i f i c language to describe a q u a s i - s c i e n t i f i c study, and of making c a r e f u l l i n g u i s t i c choices to present i t s f indings i n the best poss ib le l i g h t are a l l manifest to a 170 l a r g e r extent i n the a r t i c l e i t s e l f . The a r t i c l e opens with the sentence, "Headaches continue to be one of the common phys i ca l complaints of humankind" (86), a statement appealing for i t s i n t u i t i v e t r u t h and understated elegance. I t goes on to say ( c i t i n g a Report to the White House) "In the U . S . A . , 24 m i l l i o n Americans are reported to su f fer from severe headaches, c o n t r i b u t i n g to l o s t time at work and decreased p r o d u c t i v i t y , cos t ing 15.1 b i l l i o n d o l l a r s annually" (86). Once reader attention—and reader agreement as to the s ever i ty of the problem—is secured, the authors go on to make the case for the appropriateness of t h e i r own research. They do so by a process of accre t ion of adherence, through a ser i e s of arguments d e t a i l e d e a r l i e r (p.115-116 above). E s s e n t i a l l y , they b u i l d t h e i r case t h i s way: that there i s a need for research on paramenstrual headache; that there i s a need for more research on behavior therapies for headaches; f i n a l l y , that there i s a need for research (that i s , t h e i r research) on behavior therapies for suf ferers of paramenstrual headache. The r h e t o r i c a l goal of the opening sec t ion i s to secure audience agreement concerning the importance of the study i n quest ion. The authors argue that there i s a v o i d i n headache research and that t h e i r research i s undertaken to f i l l the v o i d . By de f in ing an area of needed research and c la iming a dearth of a v a i l a b l e mater ia l i n that research area (they 171 say,"there has been only one study"), the authors persuade t h e i r audience of the need for t h e i r own study. Part of the perceived value of the Szekely a r t i c l e , according to the authors' own l o g i c , i s i t s o r i g i n a l i t y , and part of the authors' r h e t o r i c a l agenda, then, i s to argue for the p r i o r i t y of t h e i r research p l a n . In f a c t , the p u b l i c a t i o n of the Szekely a r t i c l e was predated, by almost two years , by a study e n t i t l e d , "Menstrual Migraine Headache: Results of a C o n t r o l l e d , Experimental , Outcome Study of Non-drug Treatments" (Solbach et a l ) publ ished i n the same j o u r n a l . The Szekely group i s quick to po int out ( in the second paragraph of t h e i r own a r t i c l e ) that t h i s e a r l i e r research was publ ished "while the present study was already i n progress" (86). This d i r e c t c la im to p r i o r i t y i s c l e a r l y meant to persuade the audience of the added value of Szekely et a l ' s research , and contradic t s the persona of the d i s i n t e r e s t e d , u n i v e r s a l i s t s c i e n t i s t . The sect ions which fol low the Introduct ion of the report and precede i t s Discuss ion sec t ion (namely, Methods, Subjects , Therap i s t s , Procedures, Dependent Measures, S t a t i s t i c s , and Results) are presented i n the conventional s t y l e of s c i e n t i f i c prose, and the s c i e n t i f i c nature of the prose i t s e l f argues for the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the study. S c i e n t i f i c s t y l e i s character ized here e s p e c i a l l y by the use of pass ive vo ice and nominal izat ions . The Methods s e c t i o n , for example, cons i s t s of one paragraph of f i ve 172 sentences. The sentences contain ten verbs , and of these nine are i n passive vo i ce . The tenth verb i s "is ." Any other a c t i o n i n the sentence i s expressed i n the form of nominalized verbs: the design i s a "measurement" process with the "introduction" of experimental change—or "treatments." Patterns of p a s s i v i z a t i o n and nominal izat ion e s p e c i a l l y charac ter i ze the main body of the r e p o r t . Verbs i n the Procedures and Dependent Measures sect ions of the paper, for example, are t y p i c a l l y pass ive: "Thus, i t was decided to use an a l t e r n a t i v e treatment, accepted i n psycho log ica l c l i n i c a l p r a c t i c e , but not proven to be e f f e c t i v e s p e c i f i c a l l y on headache" (87); "Subjective reports of d a i l y headache pain l e v e l s were gathered by means of a d a i l y headache d i a r y adapted from a vers ion described by Blanchard et a l , s o c i a l l y v a l i d a t e d , and employed i n over 40 headache studies" (88). On the other hand, ac t ive verbs are more common than passive verbs i n the Introduct ion and Discuss ion sec t ions , although the frequency of nominal izat ions remains approximately the same. The f i r s t paragraph of the Discuss ion s e c t i o n , for example, contains seven sentences, and only three of the t o t a l t h i r t e e n verbs are i n the passive v o i c e , although again three nominalized forms ("reduction," "exacerbation," and "assessment") are found i n a s ing le paragraph. V a r i a t i o n i n voice wi th in the report seems to ind ica te some a u t h o r i a l a t t ent ion to r h e t o r i c a l d i s t i n c t i o n at the l e v e l of language. An attempt has been made s t y l i s t i c a l l y i n 173 the main body of the report to preserve the sense of the detached s c i e n t i s t observing what i s external to him or her. The impression created by the pervasive use of the passive i s , f i r s t of a l l , that methodology i s accepted s c i e n t i f i c p r a c t i c e ("the t ime-ser ies experiment as descr ibed by Campbell and Stanley," the authors say) and that phenomena made a v a i l a b l e through the methodology e x i s t independently of the researcher-observer; that i s , the i n d i v i d u a l observer i s unimportant because any s c i e n t i s t would have observed the same phenomena. This i s not the impression the authors have created i n t h e i r Introduct ion . In the f i n a l s ec t ion of the r e p o r t , the reader again encounters Szekely et a l as a group of committed researchers doing an important job. In t h i s s e c t i o n , the authors are , as they were i n t h e i r Introduct ion , more openly r h e t o r i c a l , and they openly seek the agreement of t h e i r readers: In conc lus ion , the i n h i b i t e d responsiveness of menstrual headache to behavioral treatment has impl i ca t ions for treatment p lanning , suggesting also rami f i ca t ions in to headache c l a s s i f i c a t i o n . This study has corrected f a u l t y methodology by i s o l a t i n g e f fec t s of behavioral treatment on menstrual ly exacerbated headaches, and has given more a t t e n t i o n to an understudied headache group. . I t contr ibutes to the growing evidence that 174 menstrual headache should be considered and treated as a s p e c i a l c l i n i c a l e n t i t y i n headache. (91) The most o v e r t l y persuasive sect ions of the a r t i c l e then occur at i t s beginning and i t s end. This method of organiz ing arguments i n the a r t i c l e suggests a Nestorian arrangement. In f a c t , Szekely et a l ' s l eas t convincing mater ia l i s b u r i e d , o r g a n i z a t i o n a l l y , i n the middle of the a r t i c l e . The authors, for example, mention, m i d - a r t i c l e , that two of t h e i r s ixteen subjects were "homosexual i n preference" and that "this plus the high educat ional l e v e l of the group suggests that these women were not a l l t r a d i t i o n a l i n acceptance of the female r o l e , yet s t i l l suf fered from d i s t r e s s associated with the menstrual c y c l e . " No supporting l i t e r a t u r e i s c i t e d to substant iate the l i n k between the a t t i tudes of women toward the "female ro le" and the experience of menstrual d i s t r e s s . Later i n the a r t i c l e ( s t i l l m i d - a r t i c l e ) , the authors o f f e r t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of "Person-centered Therapy," t h e i r c o n t r o l treatment: . . . the goal i s to help the person e l iminate anxiety which stems from the need to defend against accurate perceptions of experiences which are contrary to that person's i n t r o j e c t e d condit ions of worth. Growth p o t e n t i a l i s re leased i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p i n which the therap i s t i s experiencing and communicating rea lness , c a r i n g , and a deeply s e n s i t i v e non-judgmental understanding. (88) 175 One might i n f e r from the d e s c r i p t i o n that , even i f readers knew exac t ly what "growth potent ia l" and "realness" meant, there would s t i l l be some d i f f i c u l t y i n r e p l i c a t i n g Szekely et a l ' s therapeut ic cond i t ions , although r e p l i c a b i l i t y i s known to be one of the main c r i t e r i a for eva luat ing a s c i e n t i f i c study. The d e s c r i p t i o n of "Insight Treatment" points to a tendency to imprec is ion i n the use of terms i n the Szekely a r t i c l e — a n imprec is ion which at times has the r h e t o r i c a l e f f ec t of i d e n t i f y i n g the study with other studies i n the f i e l d . The f i r s t problem i s with the s l i p p e r y use of the term "headache" i t s e l f — f o r while t h e i r a r t i c l e i s indeed a d i s cuss ion of menstrual headache. the authors repeatedly discuss t h e i r own research i n terms of research on menstrual migraine . They c i t e one study, apparently to corroborate t h e i r own, which indicates that "non-drug treatments have a l e s s e r impact on menstrual migraines than on migraines not assoc iated with menstruation [emphasis mine]" (86) and another which concludes that menstrual migraine i s "probably not merely a s t r e s s - r e l a t e d phenomenon, but one which i s rooted i n biochemical parameters" (91) and there fore , one would assume, more i n t r a c t a b l e i n the face of non-drug i n t e r v e n t i o n . That i s , Szekely et a l place t h e i r study i n the context of accepted work on menstrual migraine although t h e i r own research i s on the more nebulous area of menstrual headache. (The Szekely group used subjects diagnosed as s u f f e r i n g paramenstrual l y from four d i f f e r e n t types of 176 headache: migraine, musc le -contract ion , mixed, and c l u s t e r headache.) The second term which confounds for the c r i t i c a l reader the r e s u l t s of the Szekely study i s "paramenstrual," a term which the authors use without s u f f i c i e n t d i s c u s s i o n . They def ine "the paramenstrual phase" as being "15 days, plus and minus 7 days surrounding day one of menstruation." As Chaim Perelman exp la ins , "a d e s c r i p t i o n which seems neutra l reveals i t s e l f as one-sided when brought up against a d i f f e r e n t descr ip t ion" (Realm 45). Szekely et a l (to continue with Perelman's terminology) create a l i a i s o n between t h e i r own study and the Solbach study on menstrual migraine, yet the Solbach authors use a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n of the paramenstual phase: "menstrual migraine i s def ined i n t h i s study as any migraine headache which occurs 3 days p r i o r to the menstrual flow, during the time of the flow, or three days fol lowing" (76). While the Szekely a r t i c l e , then, presents i t s e l f as repor t ing s i g n i f i c a n t research i n the f i e l d of paramenstrual headache, the authors are not s u f f i c i e n t l y respons ible i n t h e i r use of both of t h e i r key terms. I d e n t i f y i n g i t s e l f with compatible s tud ies , the Szekely study s i m i l a r l y d i s soc ia te s i t s e l f from studies which are e s s e n t i a l l y incompatible with i t . The s trategy i s simply one of s e l e c t i v e c i t a t i o n . The authors, for example, ignore the body of l i t e r a t u r e that discourages a temporal c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 177 of headache types (and therefore the d e f i n i t i o n of headaches as paramenstrual) when biochemical , e l e c t r o n i c , and other data o f f e r more productive grounds for c l a s s i f i c a t i o n (Saper, Bruyn) . The Szekely a r t i c l e , i t seems, derives most of i t s p o s i t i v e e f f e c t from a u t h o r i a l ethos—the external ethos of degrees and a f f i l i a t i o n s , and the i n t e r n a l ethos generated as the authors demonstrate that they have access to the language of the community for which they are w r i t i n g , and access as w e l l to the assumptions and b e l i e f s that empower that language—assumptions about the nature of research , the s t ruc ture of evidence, the value o f . numbers, the appropriateness of c e r t a i n kinds of medical in tervent ions . Szekely et a l e x h i b i t i n the w r i t i n g of t h e i r report a f a c i l i t y i n dea l ing with an acceptable r h e t o r i c of sc ience , and the r e s u l t i s that t h e i r research , despi te the tenuousness of i t s c la im to pure sc ience , i s taken s e r i o u s l y by t h e i r peers . Egger et a l ' s "Is Migraine Food A l l e r g y ? A Double-Bl ind C o n t r o l l e d T r i a l of Ol igoant igenic Diet Treatment" (The Lancet , 1983) i s a l so a report on an empir i ca l study. An "ol igoantigenic" d i e t i s a low-al lergen d i e t ; the Egger study used a ser ies of c l i n i c a l t r i a l s of sys temat ica l ly l i m i t e d d i e t s to c o n t r o l attacks of migraine i n c h i l d r e n . The ir 178 a r t i c l e i n The Lancet reports on t h e i r experiment, and argues that food-re la ted migraine i s a r e s u l t of " a l l e r g i c disease rather than metabolic idiosyncracy" (867). S t r u c t u r a l l y , t h e i r argument i s t h i s : AGREED: some people develop migraine a f t e r inges t ing c e r t a i n foods; BUT: although "food a l l e r g i e s have . » . been postu lated , . . . none has been es tab l i shed by c o n t r o l l e d studies"; (865) BUT SUPPOSE: a v a r i e t y of foods were withdrawn and reintroduced sys temat i ca l ly i n a large sample of migraine subjects ; THEN: offending foods could be i d e n t i f i e d and the q u a l i t y of subject responses to withdrawal and r e i n t r o d u c t i o n could be measured; INDEED: i f subjects became headache-free with the withdrawal of a wide v a r i e t y of foods, and were subject to attacks again on t h e i r r e i n t r o d u c t i o n , a l l e r g i c rather than metabolic pathogenesis of migraine would be i n d i c a t e d . The Egger a r t i c l e uses both l o g i c a l and e t h i c a l arguments to make i t s case; i t s major topos. cons is tent with s c i e n t i f i c method, i s argument from example. The a r t i c l e i s headed by a persuasive summary and i t s organizat ion i s "Nestorian": i t begins and ends with the strongest arguments, l eav ing the others i n the middle. I t uses d i s j u n c t i o n i n more than one case with the e f f ec t of d iminish ing the e f f ec t of weaknesses i n research design. While the a r t i c l e i s comparatively more d i r e c t and more personal than many other research r e p o r t s , i t succes s fu l ly uses the conventions of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , i n c l u d i n g e s p e c i a l l y passive vo ice and 179 nominal izat ions . I t avoids f i g u r a t i v e language. A s t r i k i n g feature of the a r t i c l e ' s s t y l e i s i t s use of the quest ion (not the " r h e t o r i c a l quest ion," but the quest ion posed apparently to i n v i t e response) and other s t ra teg ies which create the e f f ec t that the a r t i c l e i s i n q u i r i n g i n good f a i t h . Beginning from the understanding that would be shared among t h e i r audience that the subject of d i e t and headache i s c o n t r o v e r s i a l , Egger et a l introduce t h e i r a r t i c l e in to t h e i r d iscourse community more as a conversat ional turn than as a speech. They accomplish the d i a l o g i c e f f ec t i n a number of ways-—including the use of a quest ion i n t h e i r t i t l e and the use of q u a l i f y i n g language—part i cu lar ly i n t h e i r In troduct ion . By using q u a l i f i e r s i n t h e i r Introduct ion to emphasize the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c uncerta inty of research to date on d i e t and migraine, the authors underl ine the mood of i n q u i r y . T h e i r purpose seems to be not to d i s c r e d i t other research ( d i r e c t l y ) , but to demonstrate the unf in i shed , or ongoing, nature of work i n the f i e l d : Cheese, chocolate , and red wine sometimes provoke migraine , a l l e g e d l y owing to an i d i o s y n c r a t i c response to . . tyramine. This response i s perhaps due to monoamine oxidase de f i c i ency , which has been reported i n some pat ients with migraine. Def ic iency of p l a t e l e t phenolsulphotransferase . . . has a l so  been proposed as a poss ib le basis for id iosyncrasy . 180 Food a l l e r g i e s have a lso been pos tu la ted , though none has been es tab l i shed by c o n t r o l l e d s tud ies . (865) The use of q u a l i f i e r s i n the Introduct ion has another e f f e c t , and that i s the conventional e f f ec t i n research reports of making the present research appear to be needed. That i s , whi le c r e a t i n g a sense of dialogue i n controversy , the authors a l so manage to r a t i o n a l i z e t h e i r study. The l o g i c of t h e i r i n t r o d u c t i o n argues by r e f u t a t i o n that what i s needed i s a c o n t r o l l e d study to inves t igate the causal r e l a t i o n s h i p between food a l l e r g i e s and migraine; what i s needed i s t h e i r study. A strong and u n q u a l i f i e d Summary preceding the Introduct ion has the e f f ec t of p o s i t i v e l y d i spos ing the audience to the study, for notwithstanding any weaknesses i n design of research or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s u l t s , the Summary proc la ims , "93% of 88 c h i l d r e n with severe frequent migraine recovered on o l igoant igen ic d ie t s . . . " (865) and "In most of the pat ients i n whom migraine was provoked by non-spec i f i c fac tors . . . t h i s provocation no longer occurred while they were on the diet" (865). Moreover, the authors' a s soc ia t ion with the Departments of Neurology and Immunology, Hosp i ta l for S ick C h i l d r e n and the I n s t i t u t e of C h i l d Hea l th , London has been made c l e a r at the a r t i c l e ' s head. Thus, the a r t i c l e , while appearing exploratory , a lso sets i t s e l f up as a strong autonomous piece of work. This means not that every 181 word of the a r t i c l e w i l l be accepted u n c r i t i c a l l y , but that the a r t i c l e as a whole w i l l be rece ived as b e l i e v a b l e . The e f f e c t of l i n g u i s t i c and syntac t i c choice i n promoting an appealing s c i e n t i f i c a t t i tude of i n q u i r y i s under l ined i n the contrast between the t i t l e of the Egger a r t i c l e ("Is Migraine Food A l l ergy? ) and the t i t l e of another a r t i c l e on migraine and d i e t appearing i n The Lancet almost exac t ly one year l a t e r . The l a t t e r a r t i c l e reports on the e f fect iveness of a p a r t i c u l a r drug i n preventing migraine when administered with foods u s u a l l y known to cause migraine. I ts t i t l e proc la ims, "Migraine i s a F o o d - A l l e r g i c Disease" (Monro et a l ) . The d i f f erence i n a t t i tude between the a r t i c l e s , suggested i n the syntax of t h e i r respect ive t i t l e s i s sustained to some extent i n the language of the a r t i c l e s themselves, but the r h e t o r i c a l d i f ferences between the main texts are less remarkable than the d i f ferences between t h e i r t i t l e s . The recept ion of the a r t i c l e s i n the s c i e n t i f i c community, however, seems i n part to be a recept ion of the tone of each. The l e t t e r s i n response to the Egger a r t i c l e continue the e x p l o r a t i o n , po in t ing out strengths and weaknesses of the study, d i scuss ing i t i n terms of other , r e l a t e d research , and r a i s i n g further questions for i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Sample l e t t e r s begin as fo l lows: Dr. Egger and col leagues ' paper . . . w i l l doubtless become a d e f i n i t i v e t ex t , s ince i t confirms i n a 182 double -b l ind t r i a l . . . what has been descr ibed many-times i n e a r l i e r years . (Hearn and Finn 1082) The c r i t e r i a used by Dr. Egger and col leagues . . . to def ine migraine are not s p e c i f i c enough and w i l l inc lude pat ients f a l l i n g outs ide the scope of i n t e r n a t i o n a l l y accepted d e f i n i t i o n s . (Cook and Joseph 1256) Dr. Egger and h is colleagues have e s tab l i shed , i n s c i e n t i f i c double -b l ind t r i a l , that foods are a common and important cause of migraine. Physic ians should now t r y to i d e n t i f y i n c h i l d r e n the food(s) and inhalants . . that t r i g g e r attacks of migraine. (Gerrard 1257) The l e t t e r s i n response to the other piece are less exploratory than argumentative. The f i r s t w r i t e r accuses the researchers of drawing "unwarranted conclusions" (Blau, "Letter" 926); the second w r i t e r states that the researchers ' c la im "is a dramatic d e c l a r a t i o n . " "But i s i t true?" he asks (Pearce, "Letter" 926). The l e t t e r s of response suggest that s c i e n t i f i c readers have reacted not only to the research i n each case but the r h e t o r i c of the r e p o r t . The a t t i t u d e of i n q u i r y which character izes the Egger a r t i c l e i s enhanced also by the use of the f i r s t - p e r s o n speaker i n the r e p o r t . (This i s the a r t i c l e , r e f e r r e d to 183 e a r l i e r i n Chapter 3, that confesses, "We . . . embarked on t h i s study b e l i e v i n g that any favorable response . . . could be explained as a placebo response" [867].) The authors' cautious a t t i t u d e here i s a lso an example of the r h e t o r i c a l use of p r o l e p s i s . i n which a speaker presents an objec t ion to which he or she i s eager to respond.) The use of the f i r s t person helps the wr i ters e s t a b l i s h a pro fe s s iona l i d e n t i t y , and t h e i r a r t i c l e , consequently, takes on some of the e f f ec t of a personal communication. Furthermore, the authors extend the e f f ec t of d ia logue , the e f f ec t of pro fes s iona l i d e n t i t y , and the e f f ec t of p o s i t i v e ethos by d i scuss ing d i r e c t l y the place of t h e i r study i n the l a r g e r research p i c t u r e . They mention the need for tes ts to i d e n t i f y reac t ion-caus ing foods; they discuss the impl ica t ions of t h e i r study for other a l l e r g y - r e l a t e d d i sorders ; and they c i t e t h e i r own e a r l i e r work on d i e t a r y c o n t r o l of sk in disease i n the context of assess ing "empirical d i e t s . " The ir s e l f - r e f e r e n c e , r h e t o r i c a l l y understated, has the e f f ec t of promoting author c r e d i b i l i t y . The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c openness of the Egger report accounts for some s t y l i s t i c features which d i s t i n g u i s h i t from many other research repor t s . Passive vo ice i s used less frequent ly here than i n other research a r t i c l e s . In a t y p i c a l paragraph, even i n the Methods s ec t ion , 7 of the 12 f i n i t e verbs are i n the passive vo i ce , and readers are less l i k e l y to f i n d "the data" speaking for i t s e l f here than i n many 184 other r e p o r t s . S t i l l , the repor t ing persona i s incons i s tent through the repor t : the human i n t e l l i g e n c e which inhabi t s the Introduct ion and Discuss ion sect ions of the a r t i c l e i s less apparent i n the middle sec t ion of the p iece ; the f i r s t person of the Discuss ion sec t ion i s not present at a l l . Readers are informed that pat ients "were selected" and "treated"; foods "were introduced," "withdrawn," and "systematical ly re introduced"; symptoms "were provoked" and "invest igated." Nominalized verbs—"provocation," "re introduct ion ," " i d e n t i f i c a t i o n , " "discussion"— susta in the impression of agentless a c t i o n (the s u b s t i t u t i o n of Agency for Agent) . The use of conventions of s c i e n t i f i c language a f f i rm the c la im of the authors to membership i n the s c i e n t i f i c community, and promote the reading of t h e i r a r t i c l e as sc ience . In the l e ss personal , less exploratory—and r h e t o r i c a l l y weaker—middle of t h e i r r e p o r t , Egger et a l a l so tend, i f not to conceal some of the more t r o u b l i n g aspects of t h e i r research , then at l eas t to make them a l i t t l e i n a c c e s s i b l e . ( Interes t ing from the perspect ive of Presentat ion i s the fac t that the Pat ients and Methods sec t ion of the a r t i c l e appears i n smal ler p r i n t than that used i n the r e s t of the a r t i c l e , i n the Summary, Introduct ion , Resul t s , and Discuss ion sec t ions . ) The researchers , for example, report that they depended for evidence of treatment success on each p a t i e n t ' s d i a r y of symptoms. They a lso report—but a page l a t e r — t h a t some of t h e i r subjects were as young as three years o l d . 185 Even i f parents were r e c r u i t e d to keep records for the youngest subjec ts , readers might question the r e l i a b i l i t y of subjec t ive repor t ing i n pat ients that age. Instead of confront ing that issue d i r e c t l y , however, the authors avoid i t by d i s j u n c t i o n , by t e x t u a l l y separat ing rather than connecting r e l a t e d po in t s . A s i m i l a r problem plagues the authors' conclus ion that "during the d i e t per iod smoke and perfume s t i l l provoked migraine, but only 3 pat ients s t i l l had symptoms a f t e r exposure to other [provocations]" (867). In an e a r l i e r s ec t ion , the authors mentioned that pat ients "were encouraged to continue f u l l a c t i v i t i e s " (865). Present ing r e l a t e d points i n separate sec t ions , the authors avoid the quest ion of how they i s o l a t e d the almost i n f i n i t e number of v a r i a b l e s that would a f fec t 88 c h i l d r e n l i v i n g i n t h e i r normal environments. Thus, a conclus ion which has the appearance of empir i ca l t r u t h derives that appearance from d i s j u n c t i o n . In order to conclude that 93% of 88 c h i l d r e n with severe frequent headache recovered on o l igoant igen ic d i e t s , " they the authors must engage i n the r h e t o r i c a l process of s e l e c t i n g and emphasizing some b i t s information and suppressing others i n order to gain the most support from t h e i r c la im (the i n q u i r i n g a t t i tude of t h e i r a r t i c l e notwithstanding) that migraine i s a f o o d - a l l e r g i c c o n d i t i o n . Another instance of the use of r h e t o r i c a l d i s j u n c t i o n i n the a r t i c l e concerns the s e l e c t i o n of subjects and the length of c l i n i c a l t r i a l s , and was discussed i n d e t a i l e a r l i e r i n 186 t h i s chapter . In t h i s case, the organizat ion of the d i scuss ion of c l i n i c a l var iab le s drew a t tent ion away from the fac t that subjects who normally got migraines approximately once a week would be moved to the next experimental phase when they had not had a headache for only two weeks. Also discussed e a r l i e r i s the persuasive handling of s t a t i s t i c s i n the a r t i c l e , with the e f f ec t that a p o s i t i v e r e s u l t a f f e c t i n g 75% of 99 pat ients (according to one person's "neutral" c a l c u l a t i o n s ) i s reported as a f f e c t i n g 93% of 88 subjec t s . The Egger study appears to be unexceptional i n making i m p l i c i t claims to v a l i d i t y and s i g n i f i c a n c e connected to employment of s c i e n t i f i c method. Understanding the f i e l d of d i e t and headache, the researchers developed a research hypothesis subject to empir i ca l t e s t i n g and developed a methodology to t e s t i t . They noted r e s u l t s as i f they were d i s i n t e r e s t e d observers . Then i n the language a v a i l a b l e to them as i n i t i a t e d s c i e n t i s t s , they reported t h e i r observat ions . Throughout, they assumed and argued i m p l i c i t l y that what was found to be true for the few ( t h e i r subjects) would a lso be true for the many ( i n t h i s case, other c h i l d r e n with food-re la ted migraine) . The e f f e c t of Egger et a l ' s report i s that i t i s persuas ive . I ts Introduct ion persuades readers that an a l l e r g y study for headache i s j u s t i f i e d ; i t s Methods sect ion persuades readers that the p a r t i c u l a r study i s cons is tent 187 with s c i e n t i f i c method (the "double-bl ind c o n t r o l l e d t r i a l " ) and therefore productive of r e l i a b l e r e s u l t s ; i t s Discuss ion sec t ion persuades readers that the study i s successful i n demonstrating "that most c h i l d r e n with severe frequent migraine recover on an appropriate d i e t , and that so many foods can provoke attacks that any food or combination of foods may be the cause" (867). Wel l -p laced q u a l i f i e r s encourage reader agreement. Reader agreement i s secured also i n the Discuss ion sec t ion by the authors a n t i c i p a t i n g reader object ions and responding to them. (This i s true not only i n the authors' d i smis sa l of a s i g n i f i c a n t placebo e f f e c t , a lready noted; the authors a l so point out that "the observations that 8 pat ients who responded to the d i e t d i d not re lapse on r e i n t r o d u c t i o n of foods . . . could be due to spontaneous recovery of a l l e r g y on d i e t , . . . to a change of the fami ly d i e t r e s u l t i n g from general d i e t a r y advice , or to a placebo effect" [868].) The a r t i c l e as a whole a l so persuades readers that the researchers are r e l i a b l e witnesses and reporters of t h e i r study. Reading the a r t i c l e from a r h e t o r i c a l perspect ive demonstrates the means by which s t ra teg ie s of Invention, Arrangement, S t y l e , and Presentat ion work persuas ive ly on readers . C a r l H . Gunderson's a r t i c l e , "Management of the Migraine P a t i e n t , " American Family Phys ic ian (1986)—is not a report 188 on research , but one of the summary a r t i c l e s which appear p e r i o d i c a l l y i n the genera l i s t journals to discuss care of the headache pat ient by the family phys ic ian .21 Summary a r t i c l e s do not purport to be o r i g i n a l ; they purport only to be r e l i a b l e and a u t h o r i t a t i v e . Unl ike reports on research or other o r i g i n a l a r t i c l e s , summary pieces tend to be s i n g l e -authored; they are sometimes s o l i c i t e d by journa l ed i tors to meet reader demands for c l i n i c a l reviews i n s p e c i f i c areas. Gunderson's a r t i c l e i s t y p i c a l of the genre. The apparent purpose of the Gunderson a r t i c l e i s to keep the pr imary-care phys ic ian apprised of recent advances i n the diagnosis and treatment of a d i sorder which, as Gunderson says, "may occur i n up to 25% of the general population" (137) and i s "among the most common disorders seen i n o f f i c e prac t i ce" (137). However, two e s s e n t i a l observations about the a r t i c l e c a l l that simple purpose in to quest ion and suggest the usefulness of a r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s to revea l more subt le a u t h o r i a l purposes. F i r s t , the a r t i c l e i s remarkably s i m i l a r i n bas ic content to other review a r t i c l e s on headache by other authors i n other journa l s ; secondly, the Gunderson a r t i c l e and the other s i m i l a r a r t i c l e s deal l a r g e l y i n what the p r a c t i c i n g phys ic ian reader a lready knows. (They a l l say e s s e n t i a l l y t h i s : that migraine must be d i s t ingu i shed from a symptom of organic disease on the one hand and from other forms of funct iona l headache on the other; and that , fo l lowing d iagnos i s , treatment should inc lude behavior 189 therapy and/or the p r e s c r i p t i o n of one of one or more of the fo l lowing kinds of drugs: analgesics and narco t i c s [ for p a i n ] , ergotamines [to abort the headache], and c e r t a i n drugs used p r o p h y l a c t i c a l l y against frequent, i n c a p a c i t a t i n g headache, notably beta-blockers and t r i c y c l i c ant idepressants . ) From a r h e t o r i c a l perspect ive , what i s i n t e r e s t i n g here i s that the Gunderson a r t i c l e , i n covering bas ic content most of which i s a lready known to the p h y s i c i a n , has the e f f ec t not so much of being informative as being a f f i r m a t i v e . While the a r t i c l e seems to be an update, i t i s more r e a l i s t i c a l l y a d e c l a r a t i o n that l i t t l e i s new i n the f i e l d of headache of consequence to primary-care phys i c ians ; the r h e t o r i c a l agenda i s to reassure the family doctor that l i t t l e i s new; to be "true" by v i r t u e of a f f i rming what the doctor already knows. The review a r t i c l e i s a k ind of e p i d e i c t i c r h e t o r i c . A s e l e c t i o n of Gunderson's statements of what i s a lready known—not as the s t a r t i n g place for argument but as the argument i t s e l f — a t t e s t to the nature of the r h e t o r i c a l purpose: The phys i c ian must d i s t i n g u i s h migraine from muscle-contrac t ion (tension) headaches, headaches associated with serious i n t r a c r a n i a l disease and other forms of vascu lar disease . (138) Trea t ing headaches i n a pat ient who i s t e r r i f i e d that he i s harboring a b r a i n tumor i s of l i t t l e benef i t 190 unless adequate reassurance i s a l so provided. (139) A s p i r i n ' s e f fect iveness i n r e l i e v i n g migraine may be enhanced by the add i t i on of other barb i turates or antihistamines for sedative and antinauseant e f f e c t s . (140) This i s not the only k ind of statement which appears i n the a r t i c l e ; others are more genuinely informat ive . S t i l l , the high incidence of statements of what i s a lready known i s no more than redundancy i f the r e a l purpose of the a r t i c l e i s to inform. Although summary a r t i c l e s are s i m i l a r i n bas ic content, they do vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n terms of emphasis and va lue . The a r t i c l e s , then, perform a complicated r h e t o r i c a l func t ion: they are read as "true," a f f i rming what doctors a lready know and hold i n common, and, at the same time, they are n e c e s s a r i l y eva luat ive . Indeed, physic ians often read journa l a r t i c l e s as a way of consu l t ing another phys i c ian on a s p e c i f i c t o p i c . The issue of author bias or i m p l i c i t judgement i s e s p e c i a l l y important i n review a r t i c l e s because readers of these a r t i c l e s are i n the business of primary care , of t r a n s l a t i n g what they read in to p r a c t i c e . (The a r t i c l e s are no less considered to be " s c i e n t i f i c . " The Gunderson a r t i c l e appears i n American Family Phys ic ian under the heading, " S c i e n t i f i c A r t i c l e s . " ) While one review author ( K i r n , 191 "Migraine") spends severa l paragraphs d i scuss ing accurate headache c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , Gunderson (as was i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r ) i s unconcerned with c l a s s i f i c a t i o n because, he says, "a pat i ent with muscle contrac t ion headaches w i l l seldom suf fer from a wel l -p lanned t r i a l of migraine management . . ." (138). Furthermore, while many authors see the r e l a t i o n s h i p between d i e t and migraine as c r u c i a l to migraine in tervent ion (Diamond and Blau , Egger et a l , Monro et a l , G e t t i s ) , Gunderson simply wr i t e s , d i p l o m a t i c a l l y : "a number of d i e t a r y fac tors have been associated with changes i n headache frequency [emphasis mine] (143). I t seems s i t u a t i o n and r h e t o r i c a l purpose i n v i t e summary a r t i c l e s i n genera l i s t journals which are tendentious i n important ways w i th in the l i m i t s of consensus and a c c e p t a b i l i t y . Gunderson's own views are revealed a lso i n h i s use of terms. The very t i t l e of the a r t i c l e , "Management of the Migraine Pat ient [emphasis mine]" reveals a tendency to o b j e c t i f y the person with migraines . According to e t h i c i s t Hans T e i f e l , medical language i s e s s e n t i a l l y o b j e c t i f y i n g : pat ients are "managed" with the hope they can be "salvaged" although t h e i r organs may be "defective" ( T i e f e l ) . Gunderson, i n a d d i t i o n , was the author r e f e r r e d to e a r l i e r i n Chapter Three who objected to forms of therapy which would "remove" the pat ient from his care.22 Gunderson's l e x i c a l choices i n descr ib ing pat ient care ind i ca te the sa l i ence for him of a we/they dichotomy (not argued but assumed), 192 r e i n f o r c e d by h i s tendency to r e f e r to himself and h is readers together as "the phys ic ian": "The phys i c ian must d i s t i n g u i s h [among types of headache]" (138) or "The h i s t o r y of migraine may be presented to the phys ic ian i n many guises" (139). Gunderson o v e r a l l es tabl i shes a p o s i t i v e ethos with respect to h i s phys ic ian-readers . He uses the f i r s t person r e a d i l y , although not to r e f e r to himself as p r a c t i t i o n e r ( in r e l a t i o n to p a t i e n t s ) , but to himself as au thor i ty ( in r e l a t i o n to readers ) . He says, for example, "I agree with [. . ] that the dangers of the ergot preparat ion have been overstated" (140), or "I have been most impressed with hydroxyzine parmoate . . [administered] intramuscularly" (141). In genera l , Gunderson develops h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p with h i s reader by using a d i r e c t s t y l e . He i s a u t h o r i t a t i v e but not a u t h o r i t a r i a n . While he sometimes advises readers d i r e c t l y ("Special a t t ent ion should be given to the nervous system and the p a t i e n t ' s blood pressure" [139]) he i s jus t as l i k e l y to make an asser t ion that simply has the i n d i r e c t force of a d v i s i n g . When he says, for example, that "If a headache develops extremely r a p i d l y . . . or i s associated with neurologic f indings . . . subarachnoid hemorrhage may have occurred" (138), h i s speech act i s i n d i r e c t . Gunderson f i n a l l y has the ethos of the t rus ted p h y s i c i a n : a loof but concerned, h e l p f u l but f i r m , calm but caut ious . His photograph, which appears on the l a s t page of the a r t i c l e can 193 have no purpose but to r e i n f o r c e t h i s ethos. Gunderson, Chief of Neurology at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, and consultant i n neurology to the Surgeon General of the Army, appears i n uniform. L i k e most other review a r t i c l e s , Gunderson's i s arranged t o p i c a l l y according to a p r i n c i p l e of access to in format ion . In just under s i x pages of t ex t , the a r t i c l e covers four t o p i c s , each under a d i f f e r e n t heading: D i f f e r e n t i a l Diagnosis , Treatment, Prevention of Migraine A t t a c k s , and The Long View. Each sec t ion i s fur ther d iv ided i n t o at l eas t four subsect ions. The a r t i c l e begins with a general statement about the unknown e t i o l o g y of migraine , and ends, ra ther abrupt ly , with a statement about vascular headaches o r i g i n a t i n g with orgasm. The a r t i c l e ' s o v e r r i d i n g impression of being informative i s enhanced by i t s apparently f l a t p r o f i l e . S t i l l , the r h e t o r i c a l analys i s continues to revea l the ways i n which Gunderson's a r t i c l e i s not simply a v e h i c l e for " s c i e n t i f i c " informat ion. Having es tab l i shed the persona of the t rus t ed p h y s i c i a n , Gunderson uses a "trust me" e t h i c a l argument under h i s mater ia l to buoy i t up. "Some epidemiologists" he says, be l i eve that migraine may occur i n up to 25% of the populat ion (137); but he does not say which ones. L a t e r i n the a r t i c l e , he announces that "some studies suggest that the use of widely advert i sed brand-name agents may have an a d d i t i o n a l placebo effect" (140). Again , he 194 provides no documentation. In f a c t , many of Gunderson's statements owe t h e i r inf luence to an underly ing "trust me" argument, meaning that c e r t a i n assert ions which are i n fac t unsubstantiated do not have the e f f ec t of unsubstantiated as ser t ions . Examples occur throughout the a r t i c l e : The p e c u l i a r a b i l i t y of s leep to r e l i e v e migraine i s w e l l known. (141) [Relaxation and biofeedback techniques] are most use fu l i n pat ients who have mixed tens ion-vascular headaches rather than c l a s s i c or common migraine. (141) Migraineurs should remain under long-term blood pressure s u r v e i l l a n c e , e s p e c i a l l y i f t h e i r headaches become more d i f f i c u l t to c o n t r o l . (142-3) Two factors make the unceremonious presentat ion of these statements of "fact" acceptable: one i s that the statements may subsume points of "common knowledge" wi th in the f i e l d ; the other i s that a summary a r t i c l e does not , by d e f i n i t i o n , requ ire formal a t t r i b u t i o n for every one of i t s statements. What i s important, however, i s that the tone of the unsubstant iated-but-substant iable a s ser t ion i s c a r r i e d through to other statements i n the a r t i c l e which are more quest ionable , such as these: 195 Unusual s tress or depression i s perhaps the most l i k e l y cause of a change i n migraine p a t t e r n . (142) [Antidepressants] are . . . of va lue , e s p e c i a l l y i n pat ients whose headaches have a muscle-tension component or are t r iggered or exacerbated by depress ion. This i s p a r t i c u l a r l y true when increases i n migraine frequency are associated with menopause or ret irement . (141) Simple analges ics , such as a s p i r i n and acetaminophen, are probably more e f f e c t i v e than most authors be l i eve them to be. (140) Gunderson o f fers a range of propos i t ions from the s c i e n t i f i c to the speculat ive ; yet i t i s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of h i s w r i t i n g that he homogenizes assert ions such that they a l l appear to have approximately the same t r u t h va lue . The a r t i c l e i s a monotone of content as i t i s (because of i t s organizat ion) a monotone of form. In a d d i t i o n , Gunderson uses omission as a r h e t o r i c a l s trategy . Some of h i s statements appear to be true because of the absence of any opposing information. Gunderson's biases are apparent e s p e c i a l l y to the reader who knows what he leaves out . For example, i t has been noted that the author spends about a t h i r d of h i s a r t i c l e t a l k i n g about drug 196 treatments for headache; h i s presentat ion seems s tra ight forward , but what Gunderson does not mention i s the cons iderable body of research now a v a i l a b l e which suggests that n a r c o t i c treatment of headaches i s "one of the commonest antecedents to s i g n i f i c a n t ia trogenic drug a d d i t i o n , " (Lane and Ross 302) and that headache drugs themselves have been impl ica ted i n the perpetuation of headache problems ( I s l e r ) . Of course , no author can present a l l a v a i l a b l e information i n a s ing le a r t i c l e i n any medical area . Authors are n e c e s s a r i l y s e l e c t i v e and, by the same token, neces sar i ly r h e t o r i c a l . Furthermore, those authors who undertake a review a large area of research are a l s o , n e c e s s a r i l y , reduct ive—and, by the same token, r h e t o r i c a l . A f i n a l point about the Gunderson a r t i c l e concerns the way i n which i t addresses the needs of the busy p h y s i c i a n , who might benef i t from having mater ia l reduced and encapsulated. Gunderson provides a small (2" x 4") table of the features of the f i v e main kinds of migraine. The tab le acts as a "quick reference" and, i n t e r e s t i n g l y , i t s capt ion t e l l s us i t i s adapted from Gunderson's book, Quick Reference to C l i n i c a l  Neurology. P u b l i c a t i o n data i s provided. In e f f e c t , the a r t i c l e advert i ses the book, which readers may presume i s as conservat ive , r educ t ive , and benevolent as the a r t i c l e . These analyses demonstrate the extent to which the 197 f indings of the general r h e t o r i c a l study can be appl ied h e u r i s t i c a l l y to the study of s p e c i f i c s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s . The main f i n d i n g of the general ana lys i s—that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g as represented i n medical journals i s h igh ly r h e t o r i c a l — i s confirmed i n the analys i s of s p e c i f i c t ex t s . 198 Endnotes 1. For a d i scuss ion of the considerat ions of s c i e n t i s t s prepar ing funding proposals , see Greg Myers, "Two B i o l o g i s t s ' Proposa ls ." 2. See Janet M. Chase. Chase l i s t s the fo l lowing p u b l i c a t i o n c r i t e r i a ranked according to the proport ion of respondents marking i t as e s s e n t i a l : 1. L o g i c a l r i g o r 2. R e p l i c a b i l i t y of research techniques 3. C l a r i t y and conciseness of w r i t i n g s t y l e 4. O r i g i n a l i t y 5. Mathematical p r e c i s i o n 6. Coverage of s i g n i f i c a n t e x i s t i n g l i t e r a t u r e 7. C o m p a t i b i l i t y with genera l ly accepted d i s c i p l i n a r y e th i c s 8. T h e o r e t i c a l s ign i f i cance 9. Pert inence to current research i n the d i s c i p l i n e 10. A p p l i c a b i l i t y to " p r a c t i c a l ' or appl ied problems i n the f i e l d 3. See, for example, sect ion headings i n American Family  P h y s i c i a n . 4. This i s Chaim Perelman's terminology which br ings together A r i s t o t e l i a n topoi dea l ing with comparison and c o n t r a s t . See Realm on "Weights, Measures, and P r o b a b i l i t i e s , " 199 pp. 75-80. E . P . J . Corbett a lso general izes A r i s t o t e l i a n topo i to produce the "common topic" "comparison." See C l a s s i c a l  Rhe tor i c , esp. pp. 115-124. 5. The A r i s t o t e l i a n not ion that the speech must be condi t ioned by the b e l i e f s of the audience—and may s t a r t from what the speaker and audience hold i n common (that i s , as fact) i s e laborated for purposes of the present d i s cuss ion very c l e a r l y by Chaim Perelman. A l l quotations are from The Realm of  Rhetor i c : " D i a l e c t i c a l reasoning begins from theses that are genera l ly accepted, with the purpose of gaining the acceptance of other theses which could be or are controvers ia l" (2) . "The speaker can choose as his points of departure only the theses accepted by those he addresses" (21). "When we address groups which, by t h e i r profess ion or commitment, are supposed to adhere to c e r t a i n theses, we may assume that as g iven . The lawyer can assume that the judge i s respec t fu l of the country 's l e g i s l a t i o n and of a l l l e g a l s tatutes . . . . A scho lar who addresses h i s colleagues can assume that they recognize what cons t i tu tes the core of t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e " (31). Another dimension of the subject of s t a r t i n g places for argumentation i s a r t i c u l a t e d by Paul Newall Campbell with s p e c i f i c reference to the r h e t o r i c of science and s c i e n t i f i c r e v o l u t i o n s . Campbell wr i t e s , " . . . [A]f ter the adoption of a p a r t i c u l a r paradigm, the s c i e n t i s t s ' work follows the model, the po int of view, the outlook i m p l i c i t i n that paradigm. A l l that happens i s that what was contested, what was questioned at 200 one stage i s accepted without question at a l a t e r stage; an e x p l i c i t b i a s , an e x p l i c i t l y r h e t o r i c a l viewpoint becomes an i m p l i c i t b ias and point of view. . ." (392). 6. Burke writes that the "purest r h e t o r i c a l pattern" i s "speaker and hearer as partners i n par t i san jokes made at the expense of another" (ROM 38). 7. See T i e f e l on the "stark, objec t ive , and impersonal language of science" (11). 8. In f a c t , Ong extends h is analys i s to the realm of sc ience . He wr i tes : The knowledge of s c i e n t i s t s themselves i s almost a l l grounded i n f a i t h . . . . Of the s c i e n t i f i c knowledge which any many has, only a t i n y f r a c t i o n has been achieved by h is own observat ion. For the r e s t , he has good reason to be l ieve that i t i s true because, w i th in the l i m i t s of t h e i r competence, he be l ieves i n h i s f e l l o w - s c i e n t i s t s report ing on t h e i r work or report ing on the work of others . Thus, even i n the most "objective" of f i e l d s , i n a c t u a l i t y the word of persons i s more pervasive than f a c t u a l obervat ion . (91-2) See note 11 below. 9. This feature of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g was pointed out by S. Michael Hal loran i n "The B i r t h of Molecular Bio logy ." 201 10. Burke's pentad, e laborated e s p e c i a l l y i n h i s Grammar  of Motives , l i s t s the f i ve h e u r i s t i c elements of dramat i s t i c a n a l y s i s , of analyz ing events ( inc luding l i n g u i s t i c events) as human a c t i o n . Burke's f i ve terms are A c t , Agent, Agency, Scene, and Purpose. The pentad appl ied to s c i e n t i f i c s t y l e suggests there i s some motive of avoiding r e s p o n s i b i l i t y or at l e a s t making the locus of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ambiguous when, i n the place of the Agent i n the d e s c r i p t i o n of an a c t i o n , Agency i s h i g h l i g h t e d . 11. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to compare Booth's words to the words of Walter J . Ong, quoted i n note 8 above, and to these words from from Michael Po lany i : " . . . nobody knows more than a t i n y fragment of science we l l enough to judge i t s v a l i d i t y and value at f i r s t hand. For the re s t he has to r e l y on views accepted at second hand on the author i ty of a community of people accred i ted as s c i e n t i s t s " (PK 163). 12. One source reports that there are now more than 40,000 p r o f e s s i o n a l journals of science alone and that researchers contr ibute to them at the rate of one every 30 seconds, 24 hours a day, 365 days a year (Bracey 9) . 13. Ramon Y C a j a l , "Precepts and Counsels on S c i e n t i f i c Inves t igat ions ," 1893. Quoted i n Blanton. 14. For a d i scuss ion of c l a r i t y and context , see Lanham. 15. Coetzee points out that the passive i t s e l f i s not t rea ted as a r h e t o r i c a l device i n c l a s s i c a l theory but may be considered to be subsumed under the strategy of s t y l e which 202 i n v e r t s the conventional order of words. The change i n grammatical t o p i c , then, i s the key funct ion of the passive v o i c e , the e f f ec t of which i s to suppress the agent of the a c t i o n . 16. See Aronson, Gopnick, Savory, Sch ind ler . 17. For discuss ions of the h i s t o r y of s c i e n t i f i c p l a i n s t y l e , see Stephens, Jones, Paradis , Ado l f , and Halloran and Whitburn. 18. Ha l loran and Whitburn point out that C i c e r o ' s "plain s t y l e , " was more sophis t i ca ted than the p l a i n s t y l e of the 17th Century s c i e n t i s t s . C i c e r o , as they exp la in , d i d not c a l l for the a b o l i t i o n of a l l r h e t o r i c a l devices i n h i s p l a i n s t y l e , a s t y l e d i s t ingu i shed not by genre, but by purpose (the purpose of p l a i n language was to i n s t r u c t ) . In C i c e r o ' s view, only "noticeable ornament" and "cosmetics" needed to be absent i n the p l a i n s t y l e , which would simply be more subt le i n i t s use of the f igures of speech. 19. Ha l loran and Bradford are f i r s t to note that the l i s t wi th b u l l e t s i s a v i s u a l counterpart to the o r a l device of p a r a l l e l i s m . 20. For a d i scuss ion of the uses of metaphor i n s c i e n t i f i c accounting, see Hal loran and Bradford on the metaphors of DNA research and the extended metaphor of the "genetic message." 21. Other summary a r t i c l e s i n the sample are Diamond, "Treatment," S i l b e r s t e i n , and K i r n , "Migraine." 203 22.In t h i s regard, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note that users of the medical system are c a l l e d "patients," (according to the OED, people who are s u f f e r i n g , s i c k , pass ive ) , rather than, for example, "c l i en t s ," people who, for t h e i r own benef i t , seek the advice or services of experts . 204 Chapter Four. On Science, Rhetoric of Science, and Rhetoric The r h e t o r i c a l analys i s of medical journals a r t i c l e s demonstrates that s c i e n t i f i c wr i ters use a great range of r h e t o r i c a l s t ra teg ies to persuade readers of the c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e i r authorship and the value of t h e i r work; at the same time, i t shows there i s a veneer i n formal s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g which seems to deny that science i s i n any way personal or that i t depends on persuasion for agreement. Furthermore, the analys i s suggests that the veneer i t s e l f may be read as a r h e t o r i c a l s trategy , one of the e f fec ts of which i s to argue that a p a r t i c u l a r piece of w r i t i n g i s consis tent with the norms of bona f ide sc ience . (As Kenneth Burke w r i t e s , " In i t s s implest mani fes ta t ion , s t y l e i s i n g r a t i a t i o n . I t i s an attempt to gain favor by the hypnotic or suggestive process of x s a y i n g the r i g h t t h i n g ' " [PC 50].) S p e c i f i c a l l y , the r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s reveals that medical wr i t er s use s trateg ies of Invention, Arrangement, S t y l e , and Presentat ion to show t h e i r research or t h e i r p r o f e s s i o n a l view of information i n the best poss ib le l i g h t . T h e i r s t ra teg ie s of Invention include—with respect to the appeal from logos—use of the topos of s i ze as a device of reader seduct ion; use of q u a s i - l o g i c a l arguments of comparison and use of r h e t o r i c a l r e f u t a t i o n , e s p e c i a l l y to r a t i o n a l i z e research s tudies ; use of s t a t i s t i c s as arguments from example; use of the topo i of d e f i n i t i o n and of c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and d i v i s i o n to support observations; and use of se lected 205 d i v i s i o n to support observations; and use of se lected " i n a r t i s t i c " arguments—or c i t a t i o n — t o strengthen the force of l o g i c a l arguments. Strategies of Invention a lso include appeals from pathos, arguments which use the appeal of presence and which e s t a b l i s h a sense of i d e n t i t y between author and reader , and ethos, i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t arguments per ta in ing to the c r e d i b i l i t y of the author. S trateg ies of Arrangement discovered i n medical texts inc lude the use of the proem—the Synopsis and Introduct ion together—to promote, and p o s i t i v e l y predispose readers t o , the a r t i c l e which fo l lows; the use of a Nestorian order ing of arguments, such that the strongest and most o v e r t l y persuasive arguments appear at the beginning and end of an a r t i c l e ; the use of a progress ive argumentative form (described i n the a n a l y s i s , a f t e r Blanton, as the AGREED-INDEED model); and the use of formal separat ion of c e r t a i n r e l a t e d pieces of in format ion , e f f e c t i v e l y to discourage readers from drawing un-authorized conc lus ions . S trateg ies of S ty le revealed i n medical texts inc lude the use of the passive voice as we l l as nominal izat ions and agency-(rather than agent-) subjects to n e u t r a l i z e the presence of the researcher-author; use of vague language and q u a l i f y i n g language, both to enhance accuracy and to al low for p o s i t i v e assert ions i n areas of some uncerta inty; use of the signs of c e r t a i n t y i n statements of profes s iona l op in ion; use of syntax r h e t o r i c a l l y as an instrument of emphasis; avoidance of 206 metaphor and other f i g u r a t i v e language to promote the e f f ec t of fac t i n an a r t i c l e ; and use of a l l of the above and other conventions of s c i e n t i f i c s t y l e (complex sentences, Lat inate words, for example) to i d e n t i f y a text with other works on science and to make a piece of work seem part of the body of e x i s t i n g s c i e n t i f i c knowledge. * S t r a t e g i e s o f Presentat ion found i n medical texts are more v a r i a b l e , depending at l eas t i n part on conventions of s p e c i f i c journa l s , but inc lude the use of a small typeface i n a r t i c l e midsections with the e f f ec t of discouraging c lose reading of a l l but the Introduct ion and Discuss ion sect ions of an a r t i c l e ; use of headings to draw reader a t t ent ion to a r t i c l e h i g h l i g h t s ; use of graphs and tables not only to provide information but to "scientize" an a r t i c l e and e f f e c t i v e l y to break up bodies of t ex t ; use of author photos to add a q u a l i t y of p e r s o n a l i t y and "bedside manner" to an a r t i c l e . By apply ing a r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c a l methodology, the analys i s has demonstrated by induct ion what theory i n r h e t o r i c and phi losophy of science have argued by deduction: that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s persuasive and that s c i e n t i f i c wr i t er s are r e a l authors , not scr ibes for an empir i ca l r e a l i t y . Philosophy of r h e t o r i c has argued the i m p o s s i b i l i t y of neutra l percept ion or neutra l d iscourse i n any f i e l d , and described the processes of b u i l d i n g consensus and meaning i t s e l f , and of winning agreement to p r o p o s i t i o n s . Philosophy of science has argued that s c i e n t i f i c communities ( r h e t o r i c a l communities i n every sense) 207 advocate vers ions of r e a l i t y , and that these vers ions of r e a l i t y are based i n theory, formed i n language, and dependent on the agreement of other s c i e n t i s t s for t h e i r v a l i d a t i o n . The r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s , which began from the premise, based on theory , that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g would therefore be tendentious and persuas ive , has shown, by applying r h e t o r i c a l p r i n c i p l e s h e u r i s t i c a l l y to medical t ex t s , that science i s not separate  from r h e t o r i c but made i n i t . In l i g h t of the a n a l y s i s , i t i s no longer poss ib le to hold the t r a d i t i o n a l view that s c i e n t i s t s are simply unbiased and d i s i n t e r e s t e d , that t h e i r projects uncover objec t ive truths through unmediated acts of observat ion , and that t h e i r w r i t i n g i s transparent as a window on t h e i r work.^ The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to further describe the r h e t o r i c a l nature of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g as a genre, i n s t a n t i a t e d i n medical journal a r t i c l e s , and to suggest the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the nature of s c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c i t y i n three areas . F i r s t , because the r h e t o r i c of science has consequences for the "real world" of sc ience , the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the f indings of the r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s for the theory and p r a c t i c e of science i s explored. Then, because the present r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s operat iona l i zes a model for the c r i t i c a l reading of s c i e n t i f i c prose , the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the study for the r h e t o r i c of science i s d iscussed. F i n a l l y , because the f indings of the analys i s serve to disambiguate the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r h e t o r i c and sc ience , the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the study for 208 the d i s c i p l i n e of r h e t o r i c i t s e l f i s d iscussed. The term, "rhetoric of science" has become more generative the more i t has been used. I t r e f e r s , i n i t s bas ic sense, to the accumulated conventional s trateg ies s c i e n t i f i c wr i ters use--not only s t y l i s t i c s trateg ies such as passive vo ice and q u a l i f i c a t i o n , but invent iona l s trateg ies such as recourse to s t a t i s t i c a l proof . When John Ziman asks, "Why, i n f a c t , do we be l i eve a good s c i e n t i f i c argument . . .?" (Publ ic 32), he i s asking a quest ion about the r h e t o r i c of sc ience . (Ziman says, i n t h i s regard , that the s c i e n t i f i c method i t s e l f i s a powerful r h e t o r i c a l s t ra tegy . ) In the same v e i n , when r h e t o r i c i a n Charles Bazerman asks, "How does one convince a c r i t i c a l audience that something happened when they d i d n ' t see i t ? " ("Literate" 302), he i s asking a question about the r h e t o r i c of sc ience . Persuasion, Bazerman says, depends not on the "presentation of se lec ted , d i sp layed brute events to others , but on the symbolic representat ion of events i n the publ ished report" (302). The present r h e t o r i c a l analys i s has extended the meaning of "rhetoric of science" by i n d i c a t i n g the r h e t o r i c a l complexity of s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , us ing the term to describe the v a r i e t y of persuasive moves revealed when s c i e n t i f i c prose i s s tudied from the r h e t o r i c a l point of view. Fol lowing the r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s , the term "rhetoric of science" re fer s not only to the use of s p e c i a l t ex tua l features i n s c i e n t i f i c prose , but to 209 the ways these features are marshalled i n texts to c a r r y out the mult i -d imens ional intent ions of s c i e n t i f i c authors. S c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , the r h e t o r i c a l analys i s has shown, are the r e s u l t of a negot ia t ion between two purposes—to promote the acceptance of s p e c i f i c s c i e n t i f i c claims and to support c e r t a i n more general c la ims , i n c l u d i n g claims about the nature of science i t s e l f . That i s , the goal of s c i e n t i f i c texts i s not only persuasion i n the p a r t i c u l a r case with respect to p a r t i c u l a r c la ims; i t i s persuasion to the cont inuat ion of the whole s c i e n t i f i c e n t e r p r i s e , i t s assumptions aff irmed and r e i n f o r c e d i n every instance of i t s prose, i t s i d e n t i t y confirmed and renewed i n the p u b l i c a t i o n of t ex t s . Revelat ion of the complex nature of s c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c i s s i g n i f i c a n t , f i r s t of a l l , to the theory and p r a c t i c e of sc ience . R h e t o r i c a l analys i s i s concerned with the "real world" e f fec t s of d i scourse , with how texts act i n the world. R h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s foregrounds issues i n the consequences of conventional forms of accounting i n s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s , and, i n doing so, suggests issues for d i scuss ion w i th in s c i e n t i f i c communities and provides a framework for such d i s c u s s i o n . Some of the consequences of standard s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g are w e l l known. S c i e n t i f i c prose conventions funct ion p r i m a r i l y to maintain an i d e a l standard of s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y and s c i e n t i f i c r e p o r t i n g . They discourage the p r i v i l e g i n g of personal opinion and support s c i e n t i f i c i m p a r t i a l i t y (which may be d i s t ingui shed from the more loaded term "objec t iv i ty" ) . The goal of 210 r e p l i c a b i l i t y i n s c i e n t i f i c accounting, always asp ired to i n s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , serves to promote s c i e n t i f i c universa l i sm and to minimize the p o s s i b i l i t y of s c i e n t i f i c f raud . In the realm of medicine, i t can be added that c e r t a i n prose conventions, p a r t i c u l a r l y the conventions associated with p r o f e s s i o n a l d i s t a n c i n g , a l so funct ion to make the i n t o l e r a b l e (the forms and the range of human suffer ing) s u f f i c i e n t l y t o l e r a b l e to be s tudied . There are other , l ess obvious, consequences of s c i e n t i f i c prose conventions, and these are worthy of the a t t ent ion of s c i e n t i s t s . The r h e t o r i c a l analys i s has shown that c e r t a i n u n a r t i c u l a t e d p r i n c i p l e s and assumptions (both personal and d i s c i p l i n a r y ) are perpetuated i n s c i e n t i f i c prose p a r t l y because of the nature of the prose i t s e l f . The nature of the prose i t s e l f , there fore , ra i se s c e r t a i n issues for the theory and p r a c t i c e of Science: (1) the p o t e n t i a l i n s c i e n t i f i c texts for concealment of author-researcher r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for s c i e n t i f i c ac t s ; (2) the tendency of s c i e n t i f i c texts to promote a c u l t of author i ty i n matters of sc ience; (3) the tendency of c e r t a i n prose conventions to perpetuate u n c r i t i c a l l y p a r t i c u l a r features of s c i e n t i f i c paradigms. Several language theor i s t s and r h e t o r i c i a n s have commented on the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s c i e n t i f i c s t y l e and a u t h o r i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The consensus i s that absence of a f i r s t -person speaker i n s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g leaves ambiguous the source of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for s c i e n t i f i c ac t s . The impersonal 211 s t y l e of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s seen to al low s c i e n t i f i c authors to r e l i n q u i s h r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for t h e i r w r i t i n g and, by extension, even to r e l i n q u i s h r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for t h e i r work. Da l las High argues that language must be s e l f - r e f l e x i v e to be respons ib le—that the "I" i s a necessary ingredient for e t h i c a l communication behavior (309), and P h i l i p Rubens condemns d i r e c t l y the re luctance among s c i e n t i f i c wr i t er s to use the f i r s t person: One can use the phrase, "I found that the sample weighed 128 grams" without destroying the fac tua l nature of the observed measurement. Such a statement not only i d e n t i f i e s the author, i t places r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and, I suspect, i s exac t ly what makes engineers and others apprehensive about us ing f i r s t person pronouns. (334) Paul Newall Campbell contends there can be no prose without persona and that the recogn i t ion of personae i n s c i e n t i f i c discourse would c a l l for an admission of the humanness of the observat ion made, of the point of view or frame of reference underly ing that observat ion, and a s i m i l a r admission of the d i s t o r t i o n involved i n the act of observing. (401) Campbell maintains that while s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g comes from a p e r c e i v i n g and i n t e r p r e t i n g agent, t h i s very feature of i t i s at odds with what he says are the god-terms of sc ience: 212 o b j e c t i v i t y , p r e d i c t a b i l i t y , and c o n t r o l . Campbell a l so argues that the objec t ive stance i n science i s i n any case not "neutral" because he says "the b i a s - f r e e , neutra l view i s d r a m a t i c a l l y impossible to enact" (404); i n o b j e c t i f y i n g , he says, s c i e n t i s t s de-value what they study. The present study, not ing the s t y l i s t i c corre la t e s of a u t h o r i a l absence i n medical a r t i c l e s , corroborates concerns that the conventions of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g obscure issues of a u t h o r i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Ambiguity i n matters of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y does seem to be a consequence of conventional s c i e n t i f i c prose ( p a r t i c u l a r l y the avoidance of the f i r s t person and the use of passive vo ice )—a byproduct, i n e f f e c t , of s c i e n t i f i c modesty and the not ion of s c i e n t i s t s as n e u t r a l --and therefore t h e o r e t i c a l l y interchangeable—observers. As long as the r h e t o r i c i t y of s c i e n t i f i c prose remains genera l ly unacknowledged and s c i e n t i f i c wr i t er s are perceived more as a r t i c u l a t e witnesses than as motivated authors, there i s no need for s c i e n t i s t s to openly procla im r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for t h e i r observat ions—or for the events that l e d up to t h e i r observat ions , or for the s t y l i z e d prose that describes them. The r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s has demonstrated that the non-r h e t o r i c i t y of s c i e n t i f i c prose i s a f i c t i o n ; yet i t i s a f i c t i o n which, according to the texts themselves, s c i e n t i s t s agree to share. Research on the composing processes of s c i e n t i s t s shows that s c i e n t i f i c wr i ters are knowingly persuasive i n t h e i r own composition of both grant proposals and 213 a r t i c l e s for p u b l i c a t i o n (Myers and Rymer); other research (Bazerman, "Physicists")—as w e l l as common sense—indicates that s c i e n t i s t s are s e l ec t i ve and c r i t i c a l i n t h e i r own read ing , r e c e i v i n g other people's work broadly as r h e t o r i c a l (without, however, having the means to read i t thoroughly as r h e t o r i c ) ; i n t h e i r laboratory t a l k , s c i e n t i s t s acknowledge the importance of non-neutral aspects of t h e i r research—the ir i n c l i n a t i o n s , t h e i r hunches, t h e i r a l l eg iances to hypotheses ( G i l b e r t and Mulkay, Latour and Woolgar); i n conversat ion, s c i e n t i s t s confess to a l l that i s personal and even p o l i t i c a l i n t h e i r work and engage i n a k ind of metadiscourse about t h e i r own w r i t i n g that reveals some consciousness of i t s r h e t o r i c i t y . S t i l l , s c i e n t i s t s continue to wri te as though they were a r t i c u l a t e witnesses rather than motivated authors. To examine s c i e n t i f i c texts r h e t o r i c a l l y i s to recognize there i s convent ional ly no s i g n i f i c a n t a u t h o r i a l presence i n the prose . I rrespec t ive of the reasons for t h i s , a l l of which may be i n keeping with the highest idea l s of sc ience , the consequence of a u t h o r i a l absence for Science i s that s c i e n t i f i c authors continue to conduct research with the knowledge they w i l l orchestrate the concealment of t h e i r own i d e n t i t i e s and biases i n t h e i r r e p o r t s . I f the r h e t o r i c i t y of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g were genera l ly acknowledged, wr i t er s and readers would benef i t by openly approaching s c i e n t i f i c texts from the r h e t o r i c a l premise, the premise that a l l texts embody choices made by authors , that these choices are condit ioned by 214 purposes, audiences, and s i t u a t i o n s , and that these choices act on s i t u a t i o n s by in f luenc ing readers .3 The r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s a l so notes some consequences of the trend to j o i n t authorship i n s c i e n t i f i c prose . Nearly two-t h i r d s of the t h i r t y - f i v e a r t i c l e s examined for t h i s study were authored by more than one person. J o i n t authorship seems to have two e f fec t s i n the r h e t o r i c of sc ience: one i s to confirm a sense of s c i e n t i f i c community and r e i n f o r c e the s c i e n t i f i c i d e a l of "communalism," the not ion that s c i e n t i f i c d i scover ies are not the property of i n d i v i d u a l s ; however, the other i s p o t e n t i a l l y to further d i f fuse the e t h i c a l e f f ec t of a piece of wr i t ing—as any a u t h o r i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i s t r a n s f e r r e d from i n d i v i d u a l researchers to groups and to the i n s t i t u t i o n s which sponsor t h e i r research. This study suggests that j o i n t authorship may underl ine the problem of the p r o j e c t i o n of a u t h o r i t y sans author i n s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s .* The e f f ec t of author i ty i t s e l f i n s c i e n t i f i c , and e s p e c i a l l y medica l , t ex t s , i s another issue i n the "real world" consequences of s c i e n t i f i c prose conventions. The present study has demonstrated that medical prose i s character ized by a tone of c e r t a i n t y derived from the accumulated conventions of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , a c e r t a i n t y so pronounced that even the most q u a l i f i e d statements convey a tone of a u t h o r i t y . For example, "the demands of c h i l d r e a r i n g can fos ter migraine a t tacks , and unresolved g r i e f may p lay a r o l e i n some patients" ( K i r n , "Migraine" 13) i s presented as a wholly c r e d i t a b l e 215 statement, the more so for i t s use of q u a l i f i e r s . Some authors , i n keeping with other s c i e n t i f i c conventions, avoid us ing the q u a l i f i e r s which would s i g n a l that t h e i r statements of op in ion are statements of op in ion . The statement, " A l l pat ients should be treated p r o p h y l a c t i c a l l y for c l u s t e r headache" ( S i l b e r s t e i n 70) i s an example.5 The consequences of author i ty i n medical w r i t i n g are e s p e c i a l l y d i r e c t . The author i ty of medical w r i t i n g re inforces and perpetuates the author i ty of the medical doctor who appl ies i n the p r a c t i c e of medicine what he or she reads i n textbooks and j o u r n a l s . (Medical p r a c t i c e i s to some extent mediation between texts and p a t i e n t s . ) S o c i o l o g i s t Aaron C i c o u r e l writes that medical diagnosis i s a process by which profess ionals armed with "schematized knowledge" (to a large extent , the knowledge of texts) "convert the often id iomat ic and sometimes ambiguous language . . . of pat ients in to unambiguous d e c l a r a t i v e knowledge using a systematic not ion system" (94). That i s , phys ic ians turn p a t i e n t s ' accounts in to acceptable or i n t e r p r e t a b l e n a r r a t i v e s ; they do not rev i se t h e i r knowledge s t ruc ture to accommodate the p a t i e n t s ' accounts—and so o r i g i n a l ( textual) c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s are sustained (96). A u t h o r i t y i s a s i g n i f i c a n t feature of medical p r a c t i c e as i t i s a s i g n i f i c a n t feature of medical texts ,^ and i t i s important to note that the author i ty of medical persons i s borrowed from medical texts even as medical texts are c r e d i b l e because of the a u t h o r i t y of medical persons. 216 A f i n a l point i n the "real world" consequences of s c i e n t i f i c prose concerns the degree to which prose conventions r e f l e c t c e r t a i n biases i n s c i e n t i f i c paradigms and i n r e f l e c t i n g them, re in force them u n c r i t i c a l l y . The process , a d i f f i c u l t one to penetrate , i s exemplif ied for Medicine i n the a r t i c l e , "Serendipity and Food S e n s i t i v i t y " ( G e t t i s ) , considered i n Chapter Three above. Readers of t h i s case study are i n c l i n e d (and expected) to agree i t i s for tu i tous that the headaches of a pat ient who was being treated for g a s t r i c u lcers improved when he was placed on a r e s t r i c t e d d i e t for his u l c e r s . The p a t i e n t ' s u lcers had i n fact been caused by h is inges t ion of thousands of a s p i r i n tab le t s for h i s headaches. However, the "subject" i s viewed i n the a r t i c l e i m p l i c i t l y as the product of two disease processes ra ther than as a whole person whose heal th was undermined by the treatment for one of h i s symptoms. Unstated assumptions i n the a r t i c l e p e r t a i n to the appropriateness of an i n t e r v e n t i o n i s t (rather than preventive) approach to heal th care and a fragmented (rather than integrated) view of pa t i en t s . While a l l d i s c u r s i v e acts begin with some unar t i cu la t ed assumptions shared between w r i t e r and audience, the o b j e c t i f y i n g assumptions of Western medicine are r e i n f o r c e d i n the s t y l i s t i c signs of neutra l observat ion, and are p a r t i c u l a r l y we l l accommodated i n s c i e n t i f i c prose. The s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e i s persuasive , then, not only e x p l i c i t l y by v i r t u e of what i t c la ims , but i m p l i c i t l y by v i r t u e of features of the prose i t s e l f . 217 Rhetor ic ians studying s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g are studying also the t a c i t assumptions of the communities which produce i t . Yet r h e t o r i c i a n s are constrained i n t h e i r analyses by the l i m i t s of t h e i r own understanding of the s c i e n t i f i c texts they examine, s ince they are not themselves members of the discourse communities out of which those texts are produced; they are fur ther constrained by the r e l a t i v e novelty of a d i s c i p l i n e i n the Rhetoric of Science, such that every discourse study i s a foray in to uncharted t e r r i t o r y . S t i l l , the r o l e of the r h e t o r i c i a n i n soc ie ty i s to study the d i s c u r s i v e means of human inf luence and to i l luminate the workings of r h e t o r i c a l t e x t s . Because s c i e n t i f i c texts u l t i m a t e l y a f f ec t the l i v e s of a l l people , the r h e t o r i c i a n ' s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y with respect to s c i e n t i f i c texts i s great . Notwithstanding a necessary cautiousness i n approaching s p e c i a l i z e d t ex t s , the r h e t o r i c i a n must study s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g and must promote d i scuss ion of the r h e t o r i c of sc ience , e s p e c i a l l y and at f i r s t among s c i e n t i s t s , to help them become more l i t e r a t e users of t h e i r prose . The f indings of the r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s of medical a r t i c l e s are s i g n i f i c a n t a l so for theor i s t s i n both Rhetoric of Science and Rhetoric i t s e l f . With respect to a d i s c i p l i n e i n the Rhetoric of Science, the study has es tab l i shed that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g has a complex r h e t o r i c a l nature, and i t has suggested a methodology for plumbing the complex r h e t o r i c of s c i e n t i f i c 218 t e x t s . When analyses of s c i e n t i f i c discourse f a i l to acknowledge the complexity of i t s r h e t o r i c , they may suggest many pert inent issues for the Rhetoric of Science, but they f a l l short of f u l f i l l i n g the r h e t o r i c i a n ' s o b l i g a t i o n to revea l the m u l t i p l i c i t y of ways texts work on audiences and inf luence the s i t u a t i o n s i n t o which they are introduced. Authors such as P . B . Medawar and G i l b e r t and Mulkay, for example, argue that the r h e t o r i c of sc ience , with i t s persuasive appearance of o b j e c t i v i t y and n e u t r a l i t y , and i t s i m p l i c a t i o n that facts speak for themselves, misrepresents the r e a l nature of s c i e n t i f i c p r a c t i c e . In G i l b e r t and Mulkay's terminology, s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s "empir ica l ," while s c i e n t i f i c p r a c t i c e i s "contingent." Both Medawar and G i l b e r t and Mulkay contr ibute a great deal to the Rhetoric of Science. They acknowledge, f i r s t of a l l , that s c i e n t i f i c prose should not s t r i v e to be more "empirical" than i t i s (that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g would not be improved by seeming less cont ingent) . Furthermore, they ind i ca te the extent to which s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g i s the objec t ive c o r r e l a t i v e of the continued sa l ience of a s c i e n t i f i c i d e a l of "pure" observat ion and "pure" r e p o r t i n g . However, ne i ther Medawar nor G i l b e r t and Mulkay go far enough i n t h e i r analyses . The r h e t o r i c of sc ience , in so far as i t i s r h e t o r i c of unbiased observat ion or empiric ism, does, as Medawar and G i l b e r t and Mulkay suggest, misrepresent the r e a l p r a c t i c e of 219 sc ience . However, when read as complex r h e t o r i c , s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g reveals i t s e l f to be f u n c t i o n a l l y cons i s tent with the contingent nature of s c i e n t i f i c p r a c t i c e — f o r wi th in the context of t h e i r publ ished profes s iona l conversat ion, s c i e n t i s t s do engage i n many behaviours which reproduce the contingent q u a l i t y of s c i e n t i f i c a c t i v i t y . S c i e n t i f i c wr i ters argue i n t h e i r texts to e s t a b l i s h t h e i r r i g h t to be heard; they r a t i o n a l i z e t h e i r s tudies ; they c la im p r i o r i t y for t h e i r research; they assert the value of t h e i r past work; they f l a t t e r and court t h e i r peers and associate themselves with the best of them; they propose p a r t i c u l a r ways of looking at data, and deploy s t a t i s t i c s to make t h e i r arguments convinc ing; they i d e n t i f y with the l a r g e r enterpr i se of science and demonstrate f a c i l i t y with i t s conventions. The s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e , read as complex r h e t o r i c , i s not , then, as misrepresentat ive of s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y as Medawar and G i l b e r t and Mulkay suggest. The s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e has many contingent features; i t s contingent features are simply not over t . S c i e n t i f i c authors are not candid , as Medawar says, about the biases a f f e c t i n g t h e i r observations or about the "by-ways of thought" which lead to t h e i r hypotheses (42). Yet read as complex r h e t o r i c , with i t s persuasive manouevers revealed , the s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e i s a f i t t i n g d i s c u r s i v e counterpart to s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y . In f a c t , the r h e t o r i c of science deconstructs the shared f i c t i o n s on which s c i e n t i f i c texts are b u i l t . Some of the complexity of s c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c i s suggested 220 i n a recent report by composition researcher Jone Rymer. Rymer d i d a pro toco l ana lys i s of an "eminent s c i e n t i s t " i n the process of w r i t i n g a s c i e n t i f i c a r t i c l e . She had her subject compose a loud, us ing an audio tape-recorder to preserve his v e r b a l i z e d t h i n k i n g process . Rymer found that the s c i e n t i s t ' s commitment to using s c i e n t i f i c conventions needed to be r e c o n c i l e d with h i s des ire to use language that would promote h i s own research. (For example, the s c i e n t i s t returned repeatedly to the term "dramatic" to descr ibe the f indings of h i s research , knowing that using such a term would v i o l a t e conventions of s c i e n t i f i c modesty.) Rymer argues that the s c i e n t i s t - a u t h o r works simultaneously i n the "business of science" (which she says has "contingent" features) and the "profession of science" (which she sees as "empirical") . Rymer's d e s c r i p t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c composition suggests some of the complex l a y e r i n g of s c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c ; however, the usefulness of her analys i s i s l i m i t e d by the fac t that i t does not consider the contingent q u a l i t y of s c i e n t i f i c i n q u i r y i t s e l f . Rymer seems to be l i eve i n a pure science which i s t a i n t e d by the impure contexts i n which i t i s p r a c t i c e d . S c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c i s more complex than Rymer suggests. A d e s c r i p t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c , based on the r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s , recognizes context i t s e l f as formative, and considers as w e l l the author, the audience, and the purpose of t ex t s . S c i e n t i f i c texts are , i n every case, the r e s u l t of attempts by authors to shape t h e i r preconceptions, d e f i n i t i o n s , 221 observat ions , and in terpre ta t ions in to some d i s c u r s i v e form which meets t h e i r own needs for pro fes s iona l s a t i s f a c t i o n and i n t e g r i t y , and for funding and recogn i t ion; which meets reader needs for informat ion, suppl ied i n some cons is tent format and unencumbered by what may appear to be extraneous accounts; and which meets the needs of t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e for d iscovery and progress w i t h i n the constra ints of the normative ethos of science., The present r h e t o r i c a l analys i s suggests such a complex d e s c r i p t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c prose and suggests as w e l l the means of extending the d e s c r i p t i o n through the ana lys i s of other s c i e n t i f i c texts i n further research which appl ies the p r i n c i p l e s of r h e t o r i c a l theory h e u r i s t i c a l l y to other examples of s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g . This ana lys i s worked i n d u c t i v e l y from a text base of t h i r t y - f i v e a r t i c l e s , and because of the r e l a t i v e l y large s i ze of the sample, i t i s meant to be not only d e s c r i p t i v e , but p r e d i c t i v e of s tra teg ies occurr ing i n other medical texts i n p a r t i c u l a r and other s c i e n t i f i c texts i n genera l . To the extent that the analys i s expands the meaning of "rhetoric of science" and suggests a methodology for further r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s , i t i s s i g n i f i c a n t for the emerging d i s c i p l i n e of Rhetoric of Science. The r e v e l a t i o n of the range of r h e t o r i c a l s t ra teg ies operat ing i n medical texts i s a lso s i g n i f i c a n t for the d i s c i p l i n e of Rhetoric i t s e l f , e s p e c i a l l y because i t serves to c l a r i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Rhetoric 222 and Science , d i s c i p l i n e s which have been h i s t o r i c a l l y e i t h e r separated or ambiguously and prob lemat i ca l ly brought together. Rhetoric was, for A r i s t o t l e , "applied to recognized subjects of d e l i b e r a t i o n . . . for which we have no s p e c i a l a r t or science" (12), and where a r t i s t i c or enthymemic proofs were more to be valued than i n a r t i s t i c proofs , such as the testimony of witnesses . For Bacon, Science was a matter of i n a r t i s t i c or u n a r t f u l t r u t h , while Rhetor ic , for i t s p a r t , was a matter of S t y l e ; the paths of the two in tersec ted only because not a l l "men" were recept ive to the "naked" t r u t h . While Rhetoric and Science have not remained c l e a r l y s p l i t i n twentieth-century theory, some i n t e l l e c t u a l discomfort with t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p s t i l l p r e v a i l s . Chaim Perelman and Richard Weaver c la im that Rhetoric i s the condi t ion of a l l language, yet both seek to def ine a realm for Rhetoric against the realm of Science (see Introduct ion above). While Kenneth Burke and Wayne Booth c l e a r l y acknowledge the marriage of the realms of Rhetoric and Science, they, ne i ther of them, completely embrace Science. While Burke, for example, proclaims that "even the most unemotional s c i e n t i f i c nomenclatures" are "necessari ly "suasive" (LASA 45), he does not subject p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c texts to the same r h e t o r i c a l s c r u t i n y he appl ies to other texts i n h i s c r i t i c a l w r i t i n g s . Yet when p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c texts are subjected to r h e t o r i c a l s c r u t i n y as they have been i n the present study of medical a r t i c l e s , the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Rhetoric and Science i s f u l l y disambiguated, compell ing a 223 r h e t o r i c a l theory which does completely embrace Science and s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s . R h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s c l a r i f i e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Rhetoric and Science not simply by d i s s o l v i n g the boundary which t r a d i t i o n a l l y has separated them, but by suggesting the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between Rhetoric and r e a l i t y . R h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s demonstrates that while there may indeed be an e m p i r i c a l and sens ib le world, of tables and cha ir s and even v i ruses and b a c t e r i a , any attempt to describe or to account for that world i n symbolic language i s n e c e s s a r i l y , and to vary ing degrees, r h e t o r i c a l . As l i t e r a r y t h e o r i s t Terry Eagleton w r i t e s , even to say "This cathedral was b u i l t i n 1612" betrays an i n t e r e s t i n dates (13). This i s the inescapable act of i m p l i c a t i o n of language i n use, an act which does not however presume to deny the existence of any external and apprehensible r e a l i t y . T r a d i t i o n a l views of Science and Rhetoric have upheld the not ion that c e r t a i n kinds of a s ser t ions , thought to be s c i e n t i f i c , were outside the realm of Rhetor ic . "This ca thedra l was b u i l t i n 1612" would be an example of that k ind of a s s e r t i o n , p e r t a i n i n g to the f a c t u a l nature of time and records and evidence. In the medical l i t e r a t u r e "Subjects s e l f -monitored 4 times d a i l y for a two-cycle basel ine" would be another example of that k ind of a s s e r t i o n . Terry Eagleton may be understood as saying that the fac t that the cathedra l was b u i l t i n 1612 does not make the statement that i t was, n e u t r a l . 224 The fac t that the subjects i n a p a r t i c u l a r experiment s e l f -monitored 4 times d a i l y for a two-cycle base l ine does not make the statement that they d i d , n o n - r h e t o r i c a l . The r h e t o r i c a l ana lys i s shows, for example, that the statement i t s e l f i s part of an argument from example, and that the h igh ly conventional s c i e n t i f i c language used to report the research has the r h e t o r i c a l e f f ec t of increas ing the c r e d i b i l i t y of the researchers , and drawing a t tent ion away from weaknesses i n the experiment i t s e l f . In f a c t , the s c i e n t i s t s who wrote the medical a r t i c l e s analyzed i n the present study designed and performed t h e i r experiments, made t h e i r observations and recorded them, a l l with a t t e n t i o n to the idea l s of n e u t r a l i t y and o b j e c t i v i t y i n Science . S t i l l , from the language they used to compose the proposals that r a i s e d the funds for t h e i r research , to the language they used to wri te t h e i r a r t i c l e s for p u b l i c a t i o n i n major pro fe s s iona l journa l s , those s c i e n t i s t s were engaged i n r h e t o r i c a l process . I f Science i s thus bound to Rhetor ic , then the R h e t o r i c i a n , no less than the S c i e n t i s t , must come to terms with the marriage. What t h i s means i n i t i a l l y for Rhetoric i s that i t must ipso facto inc lude s c i e n t i f i c texts i n i t s purview, addressing to s c i e n t i f i c texts those questions and those challenges that Rhetoric at i t s best has addressed to other texts as they have acted i n the world . Rhetor ic , conceived as a humanistic d i s c i p l i n e with t i e s to D i a l e c t i c , 225 Epistemology/ Psychology, and E t h i c s , i s not i n d i f f e r e n t to the texts i t engenders or the texts i t descr ibes . I t views Sty le not as rec ipe for e f f ec t but as a q u a l i t y of substance; i t evaluates the means of a speech with regard to the ends of a speech; i t s most honoured speeches are not only e f f e c t i v e but somehow "good." These concerns of the d i s c i p l i n e suggest the fu l lnes s of the r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i q u e that must be brought to bear on s c i e n t i f i c texts once they are treated as l eg i t imate r h e t o r i c . The framework for the d i s c i p l i n e of Rhetoric has t r a d i t i o n a l l y inc luded an understanding of the occasions for the p r a c t i c e of the art—and i t i s the l i m i t s of t h i s understanding that a contemporary study of r h e t o r i c must redress . In c l a s s i c a l theory, occasions for—and kinds of— r h e t o r i c were i d e n t i f i e d as D e l i b e r a t i v e , F o r e n s i c , and E p i d e i c t i c . As the p o l i t i c a l , economic, s o c i a l , and c u l t u r a l contexts for r h e t o r i c changed over time and p lace , occasions for r h e t o r i c a l so changed. They came to inc lude m i l i t a r y speeches (at the time of the Roman Empire) , addresses from the p u l p i t (with the spread of C h r i s t i a n i t y ) , and by the Middle Ages, r h e t o r i c a l occasions inc luded a lso the w r i t i n g of l e t t e r s and the composition of poetry. From the time of the Renaissance to the twentieth-century, occasions for r h e t o r i c were not expanded i n any notable way, although of course the a t t e n t i o n of r h e t o r i c i a n s turned to wr i t t en t ex t s . Now, i n the l a t e twentieth century, a complete theory of 226 Rhetoric must s e l f - c o n s c i o u s l y i d e n t i f y a l l the contemporary occasions for r h e t o r i c a l process . The expansionist projec t has begun, but i t must continue. Rhetoric i s s t i l l occasioned by p o l i t i c s and jurisprudence and i n the realm of the church. E p i d e i c t i c r h e t o r i c , e s p e c i a l l y with the work of Chaim Perelman, however, i s now seen to extend beyond the ceremony of the funeral o r a t i o n or the a f t er -d inner speech. Perelman argues, for example, that formal education i s a k ind of e p i d e i c t i c r h e t o r i c . Both the e p i d e i c t i c speech and the r h e t o r i c of the classroom, he wr i t e s , appeal to common values , undisputed though not formulated, made by one who i s q u a l i f i e d to do so, with the consequent strengthening of adherence to those values with a view to poss ib le l a t e r a c t i o n . (TNR 53) In t h i s century, a new r h e t o r i c a l occasion has emerged with the r e c o g n i t i o n of a generic r h e t o r i c of a d v e r t i s i n g . A l so i n t h i s century, Kenneth Burke, Wayne Booth, E . P . J . Corbet t , and others have descr ibed a r h e t o r i c a l view of imaginative l i t e r a t u r e (see Chapter Two above). Burke i n add i t i on has expanded the realm of Rhetoric to inc lude even non-discurs ive forms, such as a r c h i t e c t u r a l s t ruc tures . With a l l of t h i s work i n r h e t o r i c a l theory, the realm of Rhetoric has become more encompassing. In many ways, the present p r o j e c t , i n analyz ing s c i e n t i f i c texts from the r h e t o r i c a l perspect ive , p a r a l l e l s Wayne Booth's p r o j e c t for imaginative l i t e r a t u r e i n The Rhetoric of F i c t i o n . 227 Booth's purpose i n Rhetoric of F i c t i o n was to i d e n t i f y imaginative prose as a r h e t o r i c a l genre and to argue that because f i c t i o n was r h e t o r i c a l ("The author cannot choose whether to use r h e t o r i c a l heightening. His only choice i s the k ind of r h e t o r i c he w i l l use" [119] 7 ) , i t had consequences i n the r e a l world; i t had a moral dimension, and i t s authors had a moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . The r h e t o r i c i t y of f i c t i o n , according to Booth, c a l l e d for an understanding of how readers are persuaded by arguments i n f i c t i o n , and for the knowledge of how to t e l l a good w r i t e r from a bad or a moral ly i n d i f f e r e n t one. The r h e t o r i c i t y of f i c t i o n meant that audiences had to look c r i t i c a l l y at the arguments of f i c t i o n , t h e i r representat ions i n form, and t h e i r sources. Booth wr i t e s : [W]hat i s needed i s . . . a repudia t ion of a l l a r b i t r a r y d i s t i n c t i o n s among "pure form," "moral content ," and the r h e t o r i c a l means of r e a l i z i n g for the reader the union of form and matter. When human act ions are formed to make an a r t work, the form that i s made can never be d ivorced from the human meanings, i n c l u d i n g the moral judgments, that are i m p l i c i t whenever human beings ac t . And nothing the w r i t e r does can be f i n a l l y understood i n i s o l a t i o n from his e f f o r t to make i t a l l access ib le to someone e l se—his peers , himself as imagined reader , h i s audience. (ROF 397) To view science r h e t o r i c a l l y i s s i m i l a r l y to locate i t s 228 arguments, study i t s language and i t s forms, and judge i t s speakers. L i k e f i c t i o n , s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g has consequences i n the r e a l wor ld , and therefore a moral dimension and a strong element of a u t h o r i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . In p r i n c i p l e , the Boothian questions for f i c t i o n are appropr ia te ly d i r e c t e d to s c i e n t i f i c t ex t s . The present study and other examinations of s c i e n t i f i c r h e t o r i c — e s p e c i a l l y because of t h e i r a t t en t ion to p a r t i c u l a r texts—continue the expansion of the realm of Rhetor ic , not only i n theory but i n p r a c t i c e , and suggest furthermore that i f the texts of Science, which have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been considered out of the realm of Rhetor ic , are demonstrably r h e t o r i c a l , then a f o r t i o r i a l l texts w i l l be found to be, to some degree, r h e t o r i c a l . (Indeed, with the realm of Science entrenched i n the realm of Rhetor ic , r h e t o r i c i a n s may ask i f there i s any type of d iscourse which might s t i l l c la im i n any s i g n i f i c a n t way not to be r h e t o r i c a l . ) To a r r i v e at a complete d e s c r i p t i o n of the contemporary occasions for r h e t o r i c , r h e t o r i c i a n s must not only go forward i n the r h e t o r i c a l examination of texts of sc ience , but must study as we l l the texts of other s p e c i f i c d iscourse communities i n order to describe and p r e d i c t the nature and degree of t h e i r r h e t o r i c i t y . 8 What, however, i s the immediate r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of Rhe tor i c , once i t s purview has been expanded to inc lude the texts of Science? F i r s t of a l l , i t must suggest the prec i se ways i n which s c i e n t i f i c texts may be read as complex r h e t o r i c . 229 A study such as the present one begins to accomplish that purpose. Secondly, i t must suggest d i r e c t i o n s not only for the education of s c i e n t i s t s as the primary users of those texts , but for the education and empowerment of a l l "c i t izens", for a l l are u l t i m a t e l y af fected by what s c i e n t i s t s wr i te and how they wr i te i t . The revealed r h e t o r i c a l nature of s c i e n t i f i c texts has impl i ca t ions for a general r h e t o r i c a l education because i t i s the nature of s c i e n t i f i c discourse to be not only r h e t o r i c w i t h i n the confines of a p a r t i c u l a r community, but Publ ic Discourse as w e l l . Michael Ha l loran has noted the ways i n which science "serves as a warrant for many of the arguments about t r a d i t i o n a l l y non-spec ia l i zed , c i v i c questions" ("Molecular Biology 81). Also on the subject of s c i e n t i f i c d iscourse as Publ i c Discourse , Speech Communication Professor P h i l i p Wander argues that with s c i e n t i f i c discourse becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y s p e c i a l i z e d , laypeople are discouraged, indeed prevented, from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n c e r t a i n dec is ions about t h e i r own w e l l - b e i n g . He wr i t e s : Rel iance on t e c h n i c a l language i n p u b l i c debate i s r h e t o r i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , for i n a democracy, whatever i t s imperfect ions , people have a r i g h t , on the important pub l i c i s sues , to know the re levant s o c i a l and economic facts as we l l as the p o l i c y conclusions to be drawn from them. When the language of p u b l i c debate becomes too s p e c i a l i z e d , the l a i t y 230 i s encouraged to remain s i l e n t . (227) Both H a l l o r a n and Wander argue that i n order to p a r t i c i p a t e i n dec i s ions a f f e c t i n g t h e i r own l i v e s , p e o p l e need to understand— and to d i s c u s s — s c i e n t i f i c information. I t might be argued that t h i s external discourse of sc ience , the discourse brought to the pub l i c forum, i s the only d iscourse of science which concerns "cit izens" and i s therefore the only discourse which should concern r h e t o r i c i a n s . I t might be argued that there are , i n e f f e c t , pr iva te conversations among s c i e n t i s t s , and that while the substance of those conversations may be re levant to laypeople , t h e i r form (and t h e i r i n t e r n a l rhe tor i c ) i s not. A s ing l e reference to a recent a r t i c l e on the language of nuclear technology (appl ied physics) dramat i ca l l y makes the point that the i n t e r n a l r h e t o r i c of science i s a lso of consequence to c i t i z e n s . In an a r t i c l e for B u l l e t i n of the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s . psychologis t C a r o l Conn wri tes about "technostrategic language," the ins ide language of nuclear t echno log i s t s , a language which, she says, "both r e f l e c t s and shapes the American nuclear s t ra teg i c project" (17): Technostrategic language a r t i c u l a t e s only the perspect ive of the users of nuclear weapons, not the v i c t i m s . Speaking the expert language not only o f fers d i s tance , a f e e l i n g of c o n t r o l , and an a l t e r n a t i v e focus for one's energies; i t a l so o f fers escape from th ink ing of oneself as a v i c t i m of 231 nuclear war. . . . I suspect that much of the reduced anxiety about nuclear war commonly experienced by both new speakers of the language and longtime experts comes from c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the language i t s e l f : the distance afforded by i t s a b s t r a c t i o n , the sense of c o n t r o l afforded by mastering i t , and the fac t that i t s content and concerns are those of the users ra ther than the v i c t i m s . (22) What i s s i g n i f i c a n t about Cohn's analys i s i s that she i s not t a l k i n g about how the technologis ts represent technology to laypeople , but how, for t h e i r own purposes, they represent i t to themselves and to each other . Her argument (she goes on to say that us ing technostrategic language a c t u a l l y prevents one from a r t i c u l a t i n g , and even from formulat ing, a c r i t i q u e of the technology and i t s uses) i s p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g because of the enormity of the consequences of the science and the technology on which she i s r e p o r t i n g . I t i s a d d i t i o n a l l y s t r i k i n g , for purposes of t h i s d i s c u s s i o n , because i t demonstrates that r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c s have an o b l i g a t i o n to wr i te about the r h e t o r i c of science that i s as great as t h e i r o b l i g a t i o n to wri te about the r h e t o r i c of mass movements such as Nazism (See Burke, "The Rhetoric of H i t l e r ' s B a t t l e , PLF) . The existence of a complex r h e t o r i c of science argues the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of r h e t o r i c i a n s to educate people to evaluate 232 s c i e n t i f i c notions as r h e t o r i c a l representat ions , r ece iv ing c r i t i c a l l y such concepts as "safe doses of r a d i a t i o n " or "permissible l e v e l s of tox ins ." As both philosophers of Rhetoric and philosophers of Science would agree, facts do not ho ld s t i l l and they do not speak for themselves. Moreover, not only do accounts of r e a l i t y change, so that the drug, for example, that was reported h e l p f u l yesterday i s reported harmful today, but r e a l i t y i t s e l f changes, so that what was "in fact" a safe l e v e l of exposure to the sun 20 years ago i s s imply not "in fact" a safe l e v e l any more. Science must h a b i t u a l l y be read as r h e t o r i c , and the r o l e of r h e t o r i c i a n s must be to demonstrate how that i s done—and to demonstrate t h i s w i t h i n the context of a theory that recognizes a l l occasions of language use as occasions for r h e t o r i c . Perhaps to read science as r h e t o r i c i s a l so to meditate on the f l u x . Perhaps to do t h i s , to be cognizant of the uncer ta in ty of even s c i e n t i f i c knowledge i s , as Kenneth Burke suggests " l ike peering over the edge of things in to an ult imate abyss" (LASA 5) . Yet i t i s necessary to look. The r o l e of r h e t o r i c i a n s i s to study the persuasive moves at work i n a l l forms of d i scourse , even the most sacred; and, because so much i s at s take, to engage people, both s p e c i a l i s t s and laypeople , i n t a l k i n g about them. Throughout the h i s t o r y of Rhetor ic , the d i s c i p l i n e has c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y focussed a t tent ion on a ser i e s of r e l a t e d concerns—about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between thought and language, 233 the nature of knowledge and how i t i s acquired , the nature of t r u t h (or r e a l i t y ) , the r o l e of persuasive communication i n s o c i e t y , and the o b l i g a t i o n of a soc ie ty to educate i t s people i n the means of persuasive communication. This ana lys i s has addressed a l l of those concerns with respect to s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , the r h e t o r i c a l nature of which i s no longer to be argued, only further explored. 234 Endnotes 1. Ziman says "impersonal phraseology i s an attempt t o make the work seem a l r e a d y p a r t o f the consensus" ( P u b l i c 118). See Ziman d i s c u s s i o n , Chapter One above. 2. The p h y s i c i s t Heisenberg argued t h a t phenomena are changed i n the process of being o b s e r v e d — s o t h a t what i s observed i s never observed as i n nature; p h i l o s o p h e r s of Science have argued furthermore t h a t t h e o r e t i c a l p r e c o n c e p t i o n s and e x p e c t a t i o n s i n f l u e n c e a l l p e r c e p t i o n ; r h e t o r i c a l t h e o r y has argued i n a d d i t i o n t h a t no language i s without tendency. In examining s c i e n t i f i c t e x t s , the c r i t i c a l r e a der i s examining the work o f a person n e c e s s a r i l y b i a s e d as observer, as i n q u i r e r , and as author. 3. R h e t o r i c i a n and composing t h e o r i s t Dorothy Margaret Guinn p r o v i d e s a p e r t i n e n t example of r h e t o r i c a l s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g ( a l b e i t f o r a more g e n e r a l a u d i e n c e ) . Guinn's e x c e r p t from Lewis Thomas' L i v e s of a C e l l i s , as she says, an example o f w r i t i n g w i t h a p o s i t i v e a u t h o r i a l ethos; i t i s a l s o an example o f s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g which acknowledges i t s own r h e t o r i c i t y . Lewis w r i t e s : In a r e c e n t study of the r e a c t i o n o f the d y i n g i n p a t i e n t s w i t h o b s t r u c t i v e d i s e a s e of the lungs, i t was concluded t h a t the process was c o n s i d e r a b l y more s h a t t e r i n g f o r the p r o f e s s i o n a l o b s e r v e r s than the observed. Most of the p a t i e n t s appeared t o be p r e p a r i n g themselves w i t h equanimity f o r death, as 235 though i n t u i t i v e l y f a m i l i a r with the business. One e l d e r l y woman reported that the only p a i n f u l and d i s t r e s s i n g part of the process was i n being in terrupted; on several occasions she was provided with conventional therapeutic measures to maintain oxygenation or res tore f l u i d s and e l e c t r o l y t e s , and each time she found the experience of coming back harrowing; she deeply resented the interference with her dying . I f i n d myself surpr i sed by the thought that dying i s an a l l - r i g h t th ing to do, but i t should not s u r p r i s e . I t i s , a f t er a l l , the most ancient and fundamental of b i o l o g i c funct ions , with i t s mechanisms worked out with the same a t tent ion to d e t a i l , the same p r o v i s i o n for the advantage of the organism, the same abundance of genetic information for guidance through the stages, that we have long s ince become accustomed to f ind ing i n a l l the c r u c i a l acts of l i v i n g . ( quoted i n Guinn 32-3) In t h i s excerpt , Thomas observes many of the p r e s c r i p t i o n s of convent ional s t y l e . He uses passive voice and some standard s c i e n t i f i c vocabulary. Yet the e f fec t of the piece i s that Thomas, as a s c i e n t i s t , has made c e r t a i n observat ions , and now makes c e r t a i n assert ions with respect to those observat ions , and claims r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for those asser t ions . He implies through h is s t y l e that while h is observations are based on 236 evidence, they are based also on his own i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of evidence, and h is assert ions are subject to the evaluat ion of a c r i t i c a l reader . Moreover, Thomas' prose i s c lear—not i n the sense that i t can be seen through, l i k e g las s , but i n the sense that i t communicates, without obfuscat ion, a sense of the author and what he means to say. I t i s more, rather than l e s s , c l e a r because of i t s use of such s t y l i s t i c devices as metaphor ("the business" of dying) , analogy (to " a l l the c r u c i a l acts of l i v i n g " ) , and r e p e t i t i o n ("the same at tent ion . . . the same p r o v i s i o n . . the same abundance"). Thomas' excerpt stands here as an i n d i c a t i o n of the d i r e c t i o n that s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , acknowledged to be r h e t o r i c a l , might take. 4. A confounding problem i s that i n many j o i n t l y authored a r t i c l e s , a noted researcher attaches h i s or her name to a piece of work l a r g e l y done and wri t ten up by graduate students or p o s t - d o c t o r a l fe l lows. (Very d i s turb ing questions of ethos and authorship have been r a i s e d recent ly i n p o l i t i c s with the r e v e l a t i o n by U . S . President Reagan's ex-spokesman L a r r y Speaks that he (Speaks) r o u t i n e l y a t t r ibuted to Reagan words the pres ident had never ut tered . When the name associated with a text i s not neces sar i ly the name of the person who a c t u a l l y authored the t ex t , the problem of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y becomes acute. I t may be poss ib le that , i n i t s own way, Science faces such a problem of ambiguous a t t r i b u t i o n . ) 237 5. In a d d i t i o n , s c i e n t i f i c t e x t s — l i k e a l l t e x t s — h a v e a u t h o r i t y by v i r t u e of t h e i r t e x t u a l i t y alone, i r r e s p e c t i v e o f a u t h o r i a l p r e t e n s i o n s t o c e r t a i n t y , as has been d i s c u s s e d i n l i t e r a t u r e on o r a l i t y and l i t e r a c y . See Olson. 6. M e d i c a l a u t h o r i t y i s known t o account a t times f o r the succ e s s o f me d i c a l treatment. In t h i s r egard, m e d i c a l d o c t o r , H e r b e r t Benson notes t h a t f a i t h i n the p h y s i c i a n i s an important a s p e c t o f placebo e f f e c t i n the c a r e o f some p a t i e n t s (placebo e f f e c t b e i n g "any n o n s p e c i f i c aspect o f treatment") (Benson 12). 7. Elsewhere i n ROF, Booth w r i t e s : ". . . although the author can t o some exte n t choose h i s d i s g u i s e s , he can never choose t o d i s a p p e a r " (20). 8. Computer software can, f o r example, be examined r h e t o r i c a l l y . One might examine software, f o r example, w i t h r e s p e c t t o the kinds o f t h i n k i n g pathways i t f o r g e s and t h e i r e p i s t e m i c e f f e c t — s i n c e p a r t i c u l a r programs encourage c e r t a i n k i n d s o f t h i n k i n g and d i s c o u r a g e o t h e r s . The f o r m a t i v e e f f e c t o f computer ter m i n o l o g y and computer metaphors i s a l s o worth examining from the r h e t o r i c a l p o i n t o f view. T e c h n i c a l w r i t e r s might be i n t e r e s t e d i n c o n s i d e r i n g the ethos o f p a r t i c u l a r programs, most o b v i o u s l y i n t e r a c t i v e programs, but o t h e r s as w e l l . They might a l s o be i n t e r e s t e d i n c o n s i d e r i n g the d i f f e r e n c e , r h e t o r i c a l l y , between an i n s t r u c t i o n t h a t says, "Remove the d i s k from D r i v e A b e f o r e t u r n i n g o f f computer" and one t h a t says, "CAUTION: Remove your d i s k from D r i v e A b e f o r e turn ing o f f your computer. 239 B i b l i o g r a p h y A. Primary Ad Hoc Committee on C l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Headache. " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f Headache." J o u r n a l of the American Medical A s s o c i a t i o n 179.9 (1962): 717-719. Barnat, M i c h a e l R. and A l v i n E. Lake, I I I . " P a t i e n t A t t i t u d e s About Headache." Headache Sept. 1983: 229-237. B e l l , Noa Wieselberg e t a l . "Biofeedback, B r i e f Psychotherapy and T e n s i o n Headache." Headache J u l y 1983: 162-172. Bending, Jeremy J . "Recurrent B i l a t e r a l R e v e r s i b l e Migrainous Hemiparesis During Pregnancy." Canadian Medical A s s o c i a t i o n  J o u r n a l 15 Sept. 1982: 508-509. B l a u , J . N. L e t t e r . Lancet 29 Sept. 1984: 926. . "Towards a D e f i n i t i o n o f Migraine Headache." Lancet 25 Feb. 1984: 444-445. B l a u , J . N. and Seymour Diamond. " D i e t a r y F a c t o r s i n M i g r a i n e P r e c i p i t a t i o n : The P h y s i c i a n s ' View." Headache June 1985: 184-187. Blumer, D i e t r i c h and Mary H e i l b r o n n . "Chronic Muscle C o n t r a c t i o n Headache and the Pain-Prone D i s o r d e r . " Headache J u l y 1982: 180-183. Cook, G.E. and R. Joseph. L e t t e r . Lancet 26 Nov. 1983: 1256-7. C r e d i t o r , Morton C. "Me and M i g r a i n e . " New England J o u r n a l of  Medicine 14 Oct. 1986: 1029-1032. D a r o f f , Robert B. and C h r i s t i n a M. Whitney. "Treatment of V a s c u l a r Headaches." Headache Oct. 1986: 470-472. Diamond, Seymour. "Ibuprofen Versus A s p i r i n and Placebo i n t h e Treatment o f Muscle C o n t r a c t i o n Headache." Headache Sept. 1983: 206-210. "Treatment of Chronic Headache. A Nonpharmocologic Approach." Postgraduate Medicine 81.2 (1987): 91-9.6. Diamond, Seymour and J.N. Blau. "Diet and Headache. Is There a L i n k ? " Postgraduate Medicine 79.4 (1986): 279-286. Domino, J u l i a V. and J o e l D. Haber. " P r i o r P h y s i c a l and Sexual Abuse i n Women with Chronic Headache: C l i n i c a l C o r r e l a t e s . " 240 Headache June 1987: 310-314. Drummond, P. D. "P r e d i s p o s i n g , P r e c i p i t a t i n g and R e l i e v i n g F a c t o r s i n D i f f e r e n t C a t e g o r i e s of Headache." Headache Jan. 1986: 57. Edmeads, John. E d i t o r i a l , "For the New Year." Headache Jan. 1986: 57. . E d i t o r i a l , "Headache and Deja Vu." Headache Sept. 1986: 434-435. . E d i t o r i a l , "Placebos and the Power of Negative T h i n k i n g . " Headache Nov. 1984: 342-343. Egger, J . e t a l . "Is Mi g r a i n e Food A l l e r g y ? A Do u b l e - B l i n d C o n t r o l l e d T r i a l of O l i g o a n t i g e n i c D i e t Treatment." Lancet 15 Oct. 1983: 865-868. F e a t h e r s t o n e , Harvey J . "Migraine and Muscle C o n t r a c t i o n Headaches: A Continuum." Headache June 1985: 194-198. F e a t h e r s t o n e , Harvey J . and Bernard D. Beitman. " ' D a i l y ' Common M i g r a i n e : P s y c h o s o c i a l P r e d i c t o r s o f Outcomes o f Me d i c a l Therapy." Headache May 1983: 110-112. Garvey, M i c h a e l J . "Occurrence o f Headaches i n A n x i e t y D i s o r d e r e d P a t i e n t s . " Headache Mar. 1985: 101-103. G e t t i s , A l a n . " S e r e n d i p i t y and Food S e n s i t i v i t y : A Case Study." Headache Feb. 1987: 73-75. G i l b e r t , Gordon J . L e t t e r . J o u r n a l of The American M e d i c a l  A s s o c a t i o n 248.8 (1982): 921. Glassman, Jerome M. e t a l . "Treatment o f Muscle C o n t a c t i o n Headache: M i c r a i n i n v s . A s p i r i n . " Headache May 1982: 101-109. Graham, John R. E d i t o r i a l , "Headache as C r a n i a l Angina." Headache Feb. 1986: 104-105. Gunderson, C a r l H. "Management of the Migraine P a t i e n t . " American  F a m i l y P h y s i c i a n Jan. 1986: 137-143. Hearn, B. and R. F i n n . L e t t e r . Lancet 5 Nov. 1983: 1081-1082. Holm, J e f f r e y E. e t a l . "The Role o f S t r e s s i n Recurrent Tension Headache." Headache Apr. 1986: 160-161. I s l e r , Hansruedi. "A Hidden Dimension i n Headache Work: A p p l i e d H i s t o r y o f Medicine." Headache Jan. 1986: 27-29. J o y n t , Robert J . L e t t e r . J o u r n a l o f the American M e d i c a l  A s s o c i a t i o n 253.2 (1985): 253-254. K a i n , B r i a n F. "Non-Narcotic R e l i e f o f Acute M i g r a i n e . " Canadian  F a m i l y P h y s i c i a n . 28 (1982): 2037-2038. K i r n , Tim. " D i s c u s s i o n , Ideas Abound i n Mi g r a i n e Research; Consensus Remains E l u s i v e . " J o u r n a l o f the American  M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 257.1 (1987): 9-12. . "Migraine: Many Things t o Many P a t i e n t s . " J o u r n a l o f the American M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . 257.1 (1987): 12-13. Lane, P. L. and R. Ross. "Intravenous C h l o r p r o m a z i n e — P r e l i m i n a r y R e s u l t s i n Acute M i g r a i n e . " Headache Sept. 1985: 302-304. Mathew, Ninan T. e t a l . " Tra n s f o r m a t i o n o f E p i s o d i c M i g r i n e Into D a i l y Headache: A n a l y s i s of F a c t o r s . " Headache Mar. 1982: 66-68. Monro, Jean e t a l . "Migraine i s a F o o d - A l l e r g i c D i s e a s e . " Lancet 29 Sept. 1984: 719-721. Pearce, J.M.S. L e t t e r . Lancet 20 Oct. 1984: 926. P e t e r s , Bruce H. e t a l . "Comparison o f 650 mg A s p i r i n and 1,000 mg Acetaminophen w i t h Each Other, and w i t h Placebo i n Moderately Severe Headache." American J o u r n a l o f M e d i c i n e 14 June 1983: 36-42. P i k o f f , Howard. "Is the Muscular Model o f Headach S t i l l V i a b l e ? A Review o f C o n f l i c t i n g Data." Headache J u l y 1984: 186- 198. Reik, L o u i s J r . "Unnecessary Dental Treatment o f Headache P a t i e n t s f o r Temporomandibular J o i n t D i s o r d e r s . " Headache J u l y 1985: 246-248. Renshaw, Domeena C. Questions and Answers, " C o i t a l C e p h a l a l g i a . " J o u r n a l o f the American M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . 253.2 (1985): 254. Roy, Ranjan. " M a r i t a l C o n f l i c t s and E x a c e r b a t i o n o f Headache: Some C l i n i c a l O b s e r v a t i o n s . " Headache J u l y 1986: 360-364. Saper, J o e l R. "The Mixed Headache Syndrome: A New P e r s p e c t i v e . " Headache Nov. 1982: 284-286. S c a r a n i , G a b r i e l l a e t a l . "Pharmacological Treatment o f Primary Headache: A n a l y s i s of Cur r e n t P r a c t i c e From a Drug U t i l i z a t i o n Study." Headache June 1987: 345-350. 242 S i l b e r s t e i n , Stephen D. "Treatment of Headache i n Primary Care P r a c t i c r . " American Journal of Medicine 10 Sept. 1984: 65-72. Solbach, P a t r i c i a et a l . "Menstrual Migraine Headache: Results of a C o n t r o l l e d , Experimental , Outcome Study of Non-drug Treatments." Headache Mar. 1984: 75-78. Solomon, Glen D . , J . G r i f f i t h Stee le , and Leo J . Spaccavento."Verapamil Prophylaxis of Migra ine ." Journal of  the American Medical Assoc iat ion 250.18 (1983): 2500-2502. S t e l l a r , Stanley et a l . "Migraine Prevention With T i m o l o l : A Double-Bl ind Crossover Study." Journal of the American  Medical Assoc ia t ion 252.18 (1984): 2576-2580. Szekely , Barbara et a l . "Nonpharmacological Treatment of Menstrual Headache: Relaxation-Biofeedback Behavior Therapy and Person-Centered Insight Therapy." Headache Feb. 1986:86-92. Thompson, J . Kevin . "Diagnosis of Head Pa in : An IdiographicApproach to Assesment and C l a s s i f i c a t i o n . " Headache Sept. 1982: 221-232. Weinberger, Thomas. L e t t e r . Canadian Family Phys ic ian 30 (1984): 752. Wi lk inson , Marcia and J . N. Blau . "Are C l a s s i c a l and C o m m o n Migraine Di f ferent E n t i t i e s ? " Headache June 1985: 212-213. B. Secondary 243 Aaronson, S. " S t y l e i n S c i e n t i f i c W r i t i n g . " C u r rent Contents I (1977): 6-15. Abrams, M. H. The M i r r o r and the Lamp. London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P ress, 1953. A d o l f , Robert. The Rise of Modern Prose S t y l e . Cambridge: MIT P r e s s , 1968. Andrews, Edmund. The H i s t o r y of S c i e n t i f i c E n g l i s h . New York: R. Smith, 1947. A r i s t o t l e . The R h e t o r i c of A r i s t o t l e . Trans. Lane Cooper. Englewood C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1960. Au g u s t i n e , S t . On C h r i s t i a n D o c t r i n e . Trans. D. W. Robertson, J r . I n d i a n a p o l i s : B o b b s - M e r r i l l , 1958. A u s t i n , J . L. How to Do Things w i t h Words. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1962. Bacon, F r a n c i s . The Advancement of L e a r n i n g and New A t l a n t i s . London: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1966. Baker, John R. " E n g l i s h S t y l e i n S c i e n t i f i c Papers." Nature 176 (1955): 851-52. Rpt. i n Sc i e n c e 123 (1956): 713-14, 720-21. Barber, C. L. "Some Measurable C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n Modern S c i e n t i f i c Prose." C o n t r i b u t i o n s t o E n g l i s h  Syntax and P h i l o l o g y . Ed. Frank Behre. Gothenburg: A l m q u i s t , W i k s e l l , 1962. 21-43. B a r c l a y , W i l l i a m R. , M. Therese Southgate, and Robert W. Mayo. Manual f o r Authors and E d i t o r s . (American M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n ) . Los A l t o s , CA: Lange Medical P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1981. Barnes, B a r r y and David Edge, eds. Sc i e n c e i n Context: Readings  i n the S o c i o l o g y of S c i e n c e . Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT P r e s s , 1982. Bazerman, C h a r l e s . "What W r i t t e n Knowledge Does: Three Examples of Academic D i s c o u r s e . " P h i l o s o p h y of the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s I I (1981): 361-387. "The W r i t i n g o f S c i e n t i f i c N o n - F i c t i o n . " Pre/Text 5.1 (1984): 39-75. 244 . "Modern E v o l u t i o n of the Experimental Report i n P h y s i c s . " S o c i a l S t u d i e s o f Scie n c e . 14.2 (1984): 163-196. " P h y s i c i s t s Reading P h y s i c s : Schema-Laden Purposes and Purpose-Laden Schema." W r i t t e n Communication 2.1 (1985) 3-23. . " L i t e r a t e A c t s and the Emergent S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e o f Sc i e n c e : A C r i t i c a l S y n t h e s i s . " S o c i a l Epistemolocrv 1.4 (1987): 295-310. Benson, H e r b e r t . Foreword. Encounters w i t h O i . E x p l o r i n g  Chinese Medicine . By David E i s e n b e r g , M.D. and Thomas Lee Wright. New York: Norton, 1985. Berger, P e t e r L. and Thomas Luckman. The S o c i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n  of R e a l i t y : A T r e a t i s e i n the S o c i o l o g y of Knowledge. Garden C i t y : Anchor, 1967. B i t z e r , L l o y d . "The R h e t o r i c a l S i t u a t i o n . " P h i l o s o p h y and  R h e t o r i c Jan. 1968: 1-14. . " R h e t o r i c and P u b l i c Knowledge." R h e t o r i c , P h i l o s o p h y and L i t e r a t u r e . Ed. Don Burks. West L a f a y e t t e : Purdue U n i v e r s i t y , 1978. B i t z e r , L l o y d and Edwin Black, eds. The Prospect o f R h e t o r i c : Report o f the N a t i o n a l Development P r o j e c t . Englewood C l i f f s , NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1971. B l a c k , Edwin. R h e t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m . A Study i n Method. Madison, Wl: U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin P r e s s , 1978. B l a n t o n , Mackie J-V. "The Pragmatic S t r u c t u r e o f R h e t o r i c a l M a t u r i t y i n the S c i e n c e s . " L i n g u i s t i c s and L i t e r a c y . Ed. W i l l i a m Frawley. New York: Plenum, 1982. Booth, Wayne. The R h e t o r i c o f F i c t i o n . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y o f Chicago P r e s s , 1961. . Modern Dogma and the R h e t o r i c of Assent. Notre Dame: Notre Dame U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974. Bracey, G e r a l d W. "The World i n B i t s and P i e c e s . " The  Contemporary Reader From L i t t l e , Brown. 2nd ed. -Ed. Gary Goshgarian. Boston: L i t t l e , Brown, 1987. B r o c k r e i d e , Wayne E. "Toward a Contemporary A r i s t o t e l i a n Theory of R h e t o r i c . " Contemporary T h e o r i e s of R h e t o r i c : S e l e c t e d  Readings. Ed. R i c h a r d L. Johannesen. New York: Harper and Row, 1971. 245 Brou.se, A l b e r t J . " C l a r i t y i n Science Wri t ing i s Not Enough." Journal of Technica l Wri t ing and Communication 1 (1971): 73-78. Bruf fee , Kenneth. "Social Construct ion, Language, and Knowledge." Col lege Eng l i sh 48 (1986): 773-790. Brummett, Barry . "Some Implications of 'Process' or "Inter-sub j e c t i v i t y ' : Postmodern Rhetor ic ." Philosophy and  Rhetoric 9.1 (1976): 21-51. Bryant , Donald C . Rhetor ica l Dimensions i n C r i t i c i s m . Baton Rouge: Louis iana State U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1973. , ed . The Rhetor ica l Idiom: Essays i n Rhetor ic . Oratory , Language, and Drama. Ithaca: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1958. Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives . Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press , 1969. . A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: Univers i ty of C a l i f o r n i a Press , 1969. . Language as Symbolic A c t i o n . Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press , 1966. . The Philosophy of L i t e r a r y Form. 3rd ed. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press , 1973. . Counter-Statement. 2nd ed. Los A l t o s : Hermes P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1953. . "Rhetoric—Old and New." Journal of General Educat ion. 5 (1951): 202-9. . Permanence and Change. An Anatomy of Purpose. 3rd ed. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press , 1984. Bytwerk, Randal l L . "The SST Controversy: A Case of Study i n the Rhetoric of Technology." Centra l States Speech Journal 30 (1979): 187-98. Campbell , John A . "Charles Darwin and the C r i s i s of Ecology: A R h e t o r i c a l Perspect ive ." Quarter ly Journal of Speech 60 (1974): 442-49. Campbell , Paul Newell . "The Personae of S c i e n t i f i c Discourse ." Quarter ly Journal of Speech 61 (1975): 391-405. Chase, Janet M. "Normative C r i t e r i a for S c i e n t i f i c 246 P u b l i c a t i o n . " American Soc io log i s t 5 (1970): 262-65. C i c e r o . De Oratore . Trans. E . W. Sutton. Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1979. C i c o u r e l , Aaron V. "The Reproduction of Object ive Knowledge: Common Sense Reasoning i n Medical Decis ion Making." The  Knowledge Society . Eds. G. Bohme and N. Stehr. Dordrecht: D. Reidel Publ i sh ing Company, 1986. 80-105. Coetzee, John M. "The Rhetoric of the Passive i n E n g l i s h . " L i n g u i s t i c s 18 (1980): 199-201. Cohn, C a r o l . "Sl ick 'ems, G l i c k 'ems, Christmas Trees , and Cookie Cut t er s : Nuclear Language and how we learned to pat the bomb." B u l l e t i n of the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s 4.8 (1987): 17-24. Connors, Robert. "The Rhetoric of Explanat ion." Written  Communication 1 (1984): 189-210. . "The Rise of Technical Wri t ing Ins truc t ion i n America." Journal of Technica l Wri t ing and Communication 12 (1982): 329-351. Corbet t , E . P . J . , ed. Rhetor ica l Analyses of L i t e r a r y Works. New York: Oxford Univers i ty Press , 1969. . C l a s s i c a l Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 2nd ed. New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1971. Corey, Robert L . "Rhetoric and Technical W r i t i n g : Black Magic or Science?" Technical Communication 26.4 (1978): 2-6. Cox, Barbara G. and Charles G. Roland. "How Rhetoric Confuses S c i e n t i f i c Issues." IEEEE Transactions on Profess iona l  Communication PC-16, No. 3 (1973): 140-42. Cranberg, Lawrence. "Eth ica l Code for Sc ient i s t s" Science 141 (1963): 1242. Crane, Diana. I n v i s i b l e Col leges: D i f fus ion of Knowledge i n  S c i e n t i f i c Communities. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press , 1972. C r u s i u s , Timothy W. "A Case for Kenneth Burke's D i a l e c t i c and Rhetor ic ." Philosophy and Rhetoric 19 (1986): 23-26. C u l l e r , Jonathan. S t r u c t u r a l i s t Poet ics . London: Routledge & Kegan P a u l , 1975. . The Pursu i t of Signs. Semiotics , L i t e r a t u r e , 247 D e c o n s t r u c t i o n . I t h a c a , NY: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1981. Debakey, L o i s . "Happiness i s Only a P i l l Away: Madison Avenue R h e t o r i c without Reason." J o u r n a l of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g  and Communication 10 (1980): 25-37. Rpt. from A d d i c t i v e  D i s e a s e s : An I n t e r n a t i o n a l J o u r n a l 3 (1977): 273-286. D e l i a , J e s s e G. " C o n s t r u c t i v i s m and the Study o f Human Communication." Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f Speech 63 (1977): 66-83. D e l Sesto, Steven L. "The Science J o u r n a l i s t and E a r l y Popular Coverage of Nucl e a r Energy." J o u r n a l of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g  and Communication 11 (1981): 315-27. de Man, P a u l . B l i n d n e s s and I n s i g h t : Essays i n the R h e t o r i c o f  Contemporary C r i t i c i s m . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1971. D e r r i d a , Jacques. Of Grammatology. Trans. G a y a t r i Chakravorty Spivak. B a l t i m o r e : Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974. Dob r i n , David. "Is T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g P a r t i c u l a r l y O b j e c t i v e ? " C o l l e g e E n g l i s h 47 (1985): 237-251. E a g l e t o n , T e r r y . L i t e r a r y Theory: An I n t r o d u c t i o n . Oxford: B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , 1983. Emig, Janet. " I n q u i r y Paradigms and W r i t i n g . " The Web of  Meaning. Upper M o n t c l a i r , NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1983. 157-170. F a r r e l l , Thomas B. "Knowledge, Consensus, and R h e t o r i c a l Theory." Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l of Speech 62 (1976): 1-14. F a r r e l l , Thomas B. and G. Thomas Goodnight. " A c c i d e n t a l R h e t o r i c : The Root Metaphors of Three M i l e I s l a n d . " Communication Monographs 48 (1981): 271-300. Feyerabend, P a u l . A g a i n s t Method: O u t l i n e o f an A n a r c h i s t i c  Theory of Knowledge. London: Verso, 1978. F i n o c c h a r i o , Maurice A. G a l i l e o and the A r t of Reasoning. Dordrecht, H o l l a n d : D. R e i d e l , 1980. F o u c a u l t , M i c h e l . The B i r t h o f the C l i n i c : An Archeology o f Me d i c a l P e r c e p t i o n . Trans. A. M. Sheridan Smith. New York: Pantheon Books, 1973. G i e r y n , Thomas F. " A u t h o r i t y i n S c i e n c e / A u t h o r i t y o f S c i e n c e : The Ambivalent Response of S c i e n t i s t s t o t h e i r P o p u l a r -248 i z a t i o n . " Unpublished essay, 1984. . " C o g n i t i v e A u t h o r i t y of S c i e n c e . " Paper pr e s e n t e d a t the 6th Annual Meeting, S o c i e t y f o r S o c i a l S t u d i e s of S c i e n c e , A t l a n t a , November, 1981. G i l b e r t , G. N i g e l and M i c h a e l Mulkay. Opening Pandora's Box: A  S o c i o l o g i c a l A n a l y s i s of S c i e n t i s t s ' D i s c o u r s e . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1984. . "The T r a n s f o r m a t i o n of Research F i n d i n g s i n t o S c i e n t i f i c Knowledge." S o c i a l S t u d i e s of Science 6 (1976): 281-306. Gopnik, Myrna. L i n g u i s t i c S t r u c t u r e s i n S c i e n t i f i c T e x t s . The Hague: Mouton, 1973. Gross, A l a n G. " S t y l e and Arrangement i n S c i e n t i f i c Prose." J o u r n a l o f T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and Communication 14 (1984): 241-253. Guinn, Dorothy Margaret. "Ethos i n T e c h n i c a l D i s c o u r s e . " T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g Teacher XI.1 (1983): 31-37. G u s f i e l d , Joseph. "The L i t e r a r y R h e t o r i c of S c i e n c e : Comedy and Pathos i n D r i n k i n g D r i v e r Research." American S o c i o l o g i c a l  Review 41 (1976): 16-34. H a l l o r a n , S. M i c h a e l . "The B i r t h of M o l e c u l a r B i o l o g y : An Essay i n the R h e t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m of S c i e n t i f i c D i s c o u r s e . " R h e t o r i c Review 3 (1984): 70-83. . "Eloquence i n a T e c h n o l o g i c a l S o c i e t y . " C e n t r a l S t a t e s Speech J o u r n a l 29 (1978): 221-27. . " R h e t o r i c i n the American C o l l e g e C u r r i c u l u m : The D e c l i n e o f P u b l i c D i s c o u r s e . " Pre/Text 3 (1982): 245-269. . " T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and the R h e t o r i c of S c i e n c e . " J o u r n a l o f T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and Communication 8 (1978), 77-89. H a l l o r a n , S. M i c h a e l and Annette N o r r i s B r a d f o r d . "Figures of Speech i n the R h e t o r i c of Science and Technology." Essays  i n C l a s s i c a l R h e t o r i c and Modern D i s c o u r s e . Eds. R. Connors, L i s a Ede, Andrea Lu n s f o r d . Carbondale: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1984. 179-192. H a l l o r a n , S. M i c h a e l and M e r r i l l D. Whitburn. " C i c e r o n i a n R h e t o r i c and the R i s e of S c i e n c e : The P l a i n S t y l e Reconsidered." The R h e t o r i c a l T r a d i t i o n and Modern  W r i t i n g . Ed. James Murphy. New York: Modern Language A s s o c i a t i o n , 1982. 58-72. 249 H a l l o r a n , Stephen M. " C l a s s i c a l Rhetoric for the Engineering Student." Journal of Technical Wri t ing and Communication 1 (1971): 17-24. Harr ington , E l b e r t W. "Rhetoric and the S c i e n t i f i c Method of Inquiry ." U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado Studies: Series  i n Language and L i t e r a t u r e 1 (1948): 1-64. Heisenberg, W. Physics and Philosophy. London: A l l e n and Unwin, 1963. High , D a l l a s . Communication: E t h i c a l and Moral Issues. Ed . Lee Thayer. New York: Gordon and Beach Science P u b l i s h e r s , 1973. 303-312. J a r d i n e , L i s a . Francis Bacon: Discovery and the A r t of  Discourse . London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1974. Jones, Richard F . "Science and Eng l i sh Prose S ty le i n the T h i r d Quarter of the Seventeenth Century." The Seventeenth  Century. Stanford: Stanford U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1951. 75-110. Journet , Debra. "Rhetoric and Sociobiology." Journal of  Technica l Wri t ing and Communication 14 (1984): 339-351. Ke l so , James A. "Science and the Rhetoric of R e a l i t y . " Centra l  States Speech Journal 31 (1980): 17-29. K i n g , M. D. "Reason, T r a d i t i o n , and the Progressiveness of Science." His tory and Theory 10 (1970): 3-32. Kinneavy, James. A Theory of Discourse. New York: Norton and C o . , 1971. K l y n , Mark S. "Toward a P l u r a l i s t i c Rhetor ica l C r i t i c i s m . " Essays i n Rhetor ica l C r i t i c i s m . Ed. Thomas R. N i l s e n . New York: Random House, 1968. Knoblauch, C H . & L i l Brannon. Rhetor ica l T r a d i t i o n s and the  Teaching of W r i t i n g . Upper Montc la i r : Boynton/Cook, 1984. Knorr , K, Roger Krohn and Richard Whit ley, eds. The S o c i a l  Process of S c i e n t i f i c Inves t igat ion . Boston: D. Reide l Pub l i sh ing Co. Sociology of the Sciences. Volume IV: 1980. K n o r r - C e t i n a , K. The Manufacture of Knowledge: An Essay on the  C o n s t r u c t i v i s t and Contextual Nature of Science. Oxford: Pergamon, 1981. 250 K n o r r - C e t i n a , K. and Michael Mulkay, eds. Science Observed;  Perspect ives on the S o c i a l Study of Science. London: Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1983. Kowal, John P a u l . "Responsible Science Reporting i n a Techno-l o g i c a l Age." Journal of Technical Wri t ing and  Communication 10 (1980): 307-315. Kuhn, Thomas. The Structure of S c i e n t i f i c Revolut ions . 2nd ed. Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, 1970. Lakof f , Sanford A . , ed. Science and E t h i c a l R e s p o n s i b i l i t y . Proceedings of the U .S . Student Pugwash Conference, U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , San Diego, June 19-26, 1979. Reading, Mass. : Addison-Wesley, 1980. Langer, Suzanne K. Philosophy i n a New Key. New York: New American L i b r a r y , 1951. Lanham, Richard . S t y l e : An Anti-Textbook. New Haven: Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1974. Latour , Bruno and Steve Woolgar. Laboratory L i f e . The S o c i a l  Construct ion of S c i e n t i f i c Facts . Beverly H i l l s : Sage, 1979. L e f f , Michael C. "In Search of Ariadne's Thread: A Review of the Recent L i t e r a t u r e on Rhetor ica l Theory." Centra l  States Speech Journal 29 (1978): 73-91. L e v i - S t r a u s s , Claude. The Raw and the Cooked. Trans. John and Doreen Weightman. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. Locke, John. An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Chicago: Henry Regnery Company, 1956. Lunsford , Andrea. " C l a s s i c a l Rhetoric and Technical W r i t i n g . " Col lege Composition and Communication 27 (1976): 289-91. Lunsford , Andrea A . and L i s a Ede. "On D i s t i n c t i o n s Between C l a s s i c a l and Modern Rhetor ic ." Essays on C l a s s i c a l  Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Eds. Robert J . Connors, L i s a S. Ede, Andrea A. Lunsford. Carbondale: Southern I l l i n o i s U n i v e r s i t y Press , Carbondale: 1984. 37-49. Maclntyre , A l a s d a i r . "Epistemological C r i s e s , Dramatic N a r r a t i v e , and the Philosophy of Science." The Monist 60 (1977): 453-471. McKeon, Richard . "The Uses of Rhetoric i n a Technological Age: A r c h i t e c t o n i c Productive A r t s . " The Prospect of Rhetor ic : 251 Report o f the N a t i o n a l Development P r o j e c t . Eds. L l o y d F. B i t z e r and Edwin B l a c k . Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : P r e n t i c e -H a l l , 1971. 44-63. Mar k e l s , M i c h a e l . T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g ; S i t u a t i o n s and S t r a t e g i e s . 2nd ed. New York: S t . M a r t i n s , 1988. Medawar, P.B. "Is the S c i e n t i f i c Paper Fraudulent? " Saturday  Review 1 Aug. 1964: 42-43. Mendelsohn, E v e r e t t , P e t e r Weingart, and R i c h a r d W h i t l e y , eds. The S o c i a l P r o d u c t i o n of S c i e n t i f i c Knowledge. Boston: D. R e i d e l P u b l i s h i n g Co. S o c i o l o g y of the S c i e n c e s . V o l . I : 1977. Merton, Robert K. The S o c i o l o g y of S c i e n c e : T h e o r e t i c a l and E m p i r i c a l I n v e s t i g a t i o n s • Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1973. M i l l e r , C a r o l y n . "A Humanistic R a t i o n a l e f o r T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g . " C o l l e g e E n g l i s h 40 (1979): 611-17. . " P u b l i c Knowledge i n Science and S o c i e t y . " Pre/Text S p r i n g 1982: 31-49. . "Technology as a Form of Consciousness: A Study i n Contemporary Ethos." C e n t r a l S t a t e s Speech J o u r n a l 29 (1978): 228-36. M i l l s , Gordon H. and John A. Walter. T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g . 4th ed. New York: H o l t , R i n e h a r t and Winston, 1977. M i t c h e l l , Ruth. "Shared R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : Teaching T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g i n the U n i v e r s i t y . " C o l l e g e E n g l i s h 43 (1981): 543-55. M i t r o f f , Ian I. The S u b j e c t i v e Side of S c i e n c e . New York: American E l s e v i e r P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1974. Mohrmann, G.P., C h a r l e s J . Stewart and Donovan J . Ochs. E x p l o r a t i o n s i n R h e t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m . U n i v e r s i t y Park, PA: P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973. Moran, M i c h a e l G. "Joseph P r i e s t l e y , W i l l i a m Duncan and A n a l y t i c Arrangement i n 18th-century S c i e n t i f i c D i s c o u r s e . " J o u r n a l of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and Communication 14 (1984): 207-215. Moran, M i c h a e l G. and Debra Journet, eds. Research i n T e c h n i c a l  Communication. Westport, Conn.: Greenwood P r e s s , 1985. Mulkay, M i c h a e l . Science and the S o c i o l o g y of Knowledge. 252 C o n t r o v e r s i e s i n S o c i o l o g y . V o l . 8. Eds. T.B. Bottomore and M.J. Mulkay. London: A l l e n , Unwin, 1979. Murphy, James. R h e t o r i c i n the Middle Ages. B e r k e l e y : U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1974. , ed. Three Medieval R h e t o r i c a l A r t s . Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1971. Myers, Greg. " R e a l i t y , Consensus, and Reform i n the R h e t o r i c of Composition Teaching." C o l l e g e E n g l i s h 48 (1986): 154-174. "The S o c i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n of Two B i o l o g i s t s ' P r o p o s a l s . " W r i t t e n Communication 2.3 (1985): 219-245. N i c h o l s , Marie Hochmuth. "Kenneth Burke and the xNew R h e t o r i c . ' " Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l of Speech XXXVIII ( 19 5 2 ) : 133-144. . "Burkeian C r i t i c i s m . " Essays on R h e t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m . Ed. Thomas R. N i l s e n . New York: Random House, 1968. N i l s e n , Thomas R., ed. Essays on R h e t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m . New York: Random House, 1968. Olson, David R. "On the Language and A u t h o r i t y of Textbooks." J o u r n a l of Communication 3 0 . i : 186-196. Ong, Walter. "Voice as a Summons f o r B e l i e f . " L i t e r a t u r e and  B e l i e f . Ed. M.J. Abrams. New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1965. 80-107. Orr, C. Jack. "How S h a l l We Say: " R e a l i t y i s S o c i a l l y C o n s t r u c t e d Through Communication?"' C e n t r a l S t a t e s Speech  J o u r n a l 29 (1978): 263-74. Ove r i n g t o n , M i c h a e l A. "The S c i e n t i f i c Community as Audience: Toward a R h e t o r i c a l A n a l y s i s of Science." P h i l o s o p h y and  R h e t o r i c 10 (1977): 143-64. P a r a d i s , James. "Bacon, Linnaeus, and L a v o i s i e r : E a r l y Language Reform i n the S c i e n c e s . " New Essays i n T e c h n i c a l  and S c i e n t i f i c Communication: Research, Theory, P r a c t i c e . Eds. Paul V. Anderson, R. John Brockmann, C a r o l y n R. M i l l e r . Farmingdale, NY: Baywood P u b l i s h i n g .Company, Inc., 1983. P a u l , T e r r i and Mary Rosner. " D i s c o v e r i n g and Teaching S y n t a c t i c S t r u c t u r e s i n Three T e c h n i c a l D i s c i p l i n e s . " J o u r n a l of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and Communication 13 (1983): 109-122. 253 Perelman, Chaim. The Realm of R h e t o r i c . Notre Dame: U n i v e r s i t y o f Notre Dame Pre s s , 1982. Perelman, Chaim and L. O l b r e c h t s - T y t e c a . The New R h e t o r i c . Notre Dame: Notre Dame U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1969. P l a t o . Gorqias and Phaedrus i n The Dialogues o f P l a t o . V o l . I, Trans. B. Jowett. New York: Random House, 1920. P o l a n y i , M i c h a e l . P e r s o n a l Knowledge: Towards a P o s t - C r i t i c a l  P h i l o s o p h y . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1962. Q u i n t i l i a n . The I n s t i t u t i o O r a t o r i a of Q u i n t i l i a n . Trans. H. E. B u t l e r . Cambridge: Harvard U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1980. Ramsey, R i c h a r d David. "Grammatical V o i c e and Person i n T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g : R e s u l t s of a Survey." J o u r n a l of  T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and Communication 10 (1980): 109-113. R i c h a r d s , I.A. The Phi l o s o p h y o f R h e t o r i c . Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1936. Richa r d s o n , Jacques. "What the P u b l i c Needs t o Know About S c i e n c e and Technology: A Report t o the Club o f Vienna." J o u r n a l o f T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and Communication 11 (1981): 303-13. . "Science and Technology as I n t e g r a l P a r t s o f our C u l t u r e : I n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the S c i e n t i f i c Communicator." J o u r n a l o f T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and  Communication 10 (1980): 141-147. Rorty, R i c h a r d . P h i l o s o p h y and the M i r r o r of Nature. P r i n c e t o n , N.J.: P r i n c e t o n U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979. Rubens, P h i l i p M. "Reinventing the Wheel: E t h i c s f o r T e c h n i c a l Communicators." J o u r n a l of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and  Communication 11 (1981): 329-39. Rymer, Jone. "The Business and the P r o f e s s i o n o f s c i e n c e : S t y l i s t i c Choices o f Eminent S c i e n t i s t s . " Presented a t the Conference on C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, S t . L o u i s , 1988. Saussure, F e r d i n a n d de. Course i n General L i n g u i s t i c s . Trans. Wade B a s k i n . New York: McGraw H i l l , 1959. Savory, Theodore H. The Language of S c i e n c e : I t s Growth,  C h a r a c t e r and Usage. London: Deutsch, 1958. 254 S c h i n d l e r , George E. "Why Engineers and S c i e n t i s t s W r i t e as They Do—Twelve C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of T h e i r Prose." IEEEE  T r a n s a c t i o n s on P r o f e s s i o n a l Communication, PC-18, No. 1 (1975). 5-10. Schmelzer, R i c h a r d W. "New R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s f o r the T e c h n i c a l W r i t e r . " J o u r n a l of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and Communication 11 (1981): 217-221. S c h o l e s , Robert. S t r u c t u r a l i s m i n L i t e r a t u r e . New Haven: Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974. S c o t t , Robert. "On Viewing R h e t o r i c as E p i s t e m i c . " C e n t r a l  S t a t e s Speech J o u r n a l 18 (1967): 9-17. . "On Not D e f i n i n g R h e t o r i c . " P h i l o s o p h y and R h e t o r i c 6 (1973): 81-96. . "On Viewing R h e t o r i c as E p i s t e m i c : Ten Years L a t e r . " C e n t r a l S t a t e s Speech J o u r n a l 27 (1976): 258-266. S e a r l e , John. Speech A c t s . An Essay i n the P h i l o s o p h y of  Language. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969. Simons, He r b e r t W. "Are S c i e n t i s t s Rhetors i n D i s g u i s e ? : An A n a l y s i s of D i s c u r s i v e Processes w i t h i n S c i e n t i f i c Communities." R h e t o r i c i n T r a n s i t i o n : S t u d i e s i n the  Nature and Use of R h e t o r i c . Ed. Eugene E. White. U n i v e r s i t y Park, Pa.: P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1980. 115-130. S p r a t , Thomas. H i s t o r y of the Royal S o c i e t y . Ed. Jackson I. Cope and H a r o l d Whitmore Jones. S t . L o u i s : Washington U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1958. S t a r r , P a u l . The S o c i a l T r a n s f o r m a t i o n of American Medicine. New York: B a s i c , 1982. S t e h r , N i c o . "The Ethos of Science R e v i s i t e d . " S o c i o l o g i c a l  I n q u i r y 48.3-4 (1978): 172-96. Stephens, James. F r a n c i s Bacon and the S t y l e of S c i e n c e . Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1975. . " R h e t o r i c a l Problems i n Renaissance S c i e n c e . " P h i l o s o p h y and R h e t o r i c 8 (1975): 213-229. " S t y l e as Therapy i n Renaissance S c i e n c e . " New Essays i n  T e c h n i c a l and S c i e n t i f i c Communication: Research, Theory,  P r a c t i c e . Eds. Paul V. Anderson, R. John Brockmann, C a r o l y n R. M i l l e r . Farmingdale, NY: Baywood P u b l i s h i n g 255 Company, Inc., 1983. Stevenson, Dwight W. "Toward a R h e t o r i c of S c i e n t i f i c and T e c h n i c a l D i s c o u r s e . " T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g Teacher 5 (1977): 4-10. Stewart. C h a r l e s J . " H i s t o r i c a l Survey: R h e t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m i n Twentieth Century America." E x p l o r a t i o n s i n R h e t o r i c a l  C r i t i c i s m . Eds. G. P. Mohrmann e t a l . U n i v e r s i t y Park, PA: P e n n s y l v a n i a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973. Stoddard, Eve Walsh. "The Role of Ethos i n the Theory and Teaching of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g . " T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g  Teacher 11 (1985): 229-241. S t r a k e r , Stephen M. "A vNew Physiognomy of S e r v i t u d e ' : Some Comments on a New P h i l o s o p h y of S c i e n c e . " 4S Review ( J o u r n a l of the S o c i e t y f o r S o c i a l S t u d i e s of Science) 2 (1984): 5-11. Suppe, F r e d e r i c k , ed. The S t r u c t u r e of S c i e n t i f i c T h e o r i e s . 2nd ed. Urbana: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1977. Tebeaux, E l i z a b e t h . " F r a n k l i n ' s A u t o b i o g r a p h y — I m p o r t a n t Lessons i n Tone, Syntax, and Persona." J o u r n a l of  T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and Communication. 11 (1981): 341-49. . "Let's Not Ruin T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g Too: A Comment on the Essays o f C a r o l y n M i l l e r and E l i z a b e t h H a r r i s . " C o l l e g e  E n g l i s h 41 (1980): 822-824. T i e f e l , Hans. O. "The Language of Medicine and M o r a l i t y . " H a s t i n g s Centre Report. Dec. 1978: 11-19. Todorov, Tzvetan. The P o e t i c s of Prose. Ed. R i c h a r d Howard. I t h a c a , NY: C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1984. Tompkins, Jane P. ed. Reader Response C r i t i c i s m . B a l t i m o r e : The Johns Hopkins U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1980. Toulmin, Stephen. "Can Science and E t h i c s be Reconnected?" H a s t i n g s Center Report 9 (1979): 27-34. . "The C o n s t r u a l and R e a l i t y : C r i t i c i s m i n Modern and Postmodern S c i e n c e . " C r i t i c a l I n q u i r y 9 (1982): 93-111. T r e f i l , James. Rev. of The Advancement of S c i e n c e , and I t s  Burdens, by G e r a l d H o l t o n . New York Times Book Review Oct. 5, 1986: 50. W a l l a c e , K a r l R. "The Substance of R h e t o r i c : Good Reasons." 256 Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l of Speech. 49 (1963): 239-249. Wa l t e r , O t i s . "On the V a r i e t i e s of R h e t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m . " Essays on R h e t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m . Ed. Thomas R. N i l s e n . New York: Random House, 1968. Wander, P h i l l i p C. "The R h e t o r i c of S c i e n c e . " Western J o u r n a l  of Speech Communication 40 (1976): 226-35. . "The P a s s i v e V o i c e Verb: A S e l e c t e d , Annotated B i b l i o g r a p h y — P a r t I . " J o u r n a l of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and  Communication 11 (1981): 271-287. . "The P a s s i v e V o i c e Verb: A S e l e c t e d , Annotated B i b l i o g r a p h y — P a r t s II-V." J o u r n a l of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g  and Communication 11 (1981): 373-389. Watson, James D. The Double H e l i x : A P e r s o n a l Account of the D i s c o v e r y of the S t r u c t u r e of DNA. New York: New American L i b r a r y , 1969. Watson, James D. and F. H. C. C r i c k . "A S t r u c t u r e f o r Deoxyribose N u c l e i c A c i d . " Nature 171 (1953): 737-38. Weaver, R i c h a r d . "Language i s Sermonic." Language i s Sermonic. Eds. R i c h a r d Johannesen, Rennard S t r i c k l a n d , and Ralph Eubanks. Baton Rouge: L o u i s i a n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1970. . "Concealed R h e t o r i c i n S c i e n t i s t i c S o c i o l o g y . " Language i s Sermonic. Eds. R i c h a r d Johannesen, Rennard S t r i c k l a n d , and Ralph Eubanks. Baton Rouge: L o u i s i a n a S t a t e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1970. Weigert, Andrew J . "The Immoral R h e t o r i c o f S c i e n t i f i c S o c i o l o g y . " The American S o c i o l o g i s t 5 (1970): 111-119. Weimer, Walter B. "For and A g a i n s t Method: R e f l e c t i o n s on Feyerabend and the F o i b l e s of P h i l o s o p h y . " Pre/Text 1 (1980): 161-203. . "Science as a R h e t o r i c a l T r a n s a c t i o n : Toward a N o n j u s t i f i c a t i o n a l Conception of R h e t o r i c . " P h i l o s o p h y  and R h e t o r i c 10 (1977): 1-29. Whitburn, M e r r i l l D. " P e r s o n a l i t y i n S c i e n t i f i c and T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g . " J o u r n a l of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and Communication 6 (1976): 299-306. "The P l a i n S t y l e i n T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g . " J o u r n a l of  T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and Communication 8 (1978): 349-58. 257 Wichelns, Herbert A . "Li terary C r i t i c i s m of Oratory ." Studies  i n Rhetoric and Publ ic Speaking i n Honor of James A lber t  Winans by Pupi l s and Colleagues. New York: Russe l l and Russe l l I n c . , 1962. 181-216. Wimsatt, W.K. "The A f f e c t i v e F a l l a c y . " The Verbal Icon: Studies  i n the Meaning of Poetry. Lexington: U n i v e r s i t y of Kentucky Press , 1954. Winkler , Anthony C. and Jo Ray McCuen. Rhetoric Made P l a i n . Canadian ed. Don M i l l s : Academic Press , 1981. Year l ey , Steven. "Textual Persuasion: The Role of S o c i a l Accounting i n the Construct ion of S c i e n t i f i c Arguments." Philosophy of the S o c i a l Sciences 11 (1981): 409-435. Zappen, James P. "Francis Bacon and the Rhetoric of Science." Col lege Composition and Communication 26 (1975): 244-47. . "Genre(s) of S c i e n t i f i c Discourse." Paper de l ivered at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Minneapol is : March, 1985. . "Science and Rhetoric from Bacon to Hobbes." Rhetoric 78. Eds. Robert L . Brown, J r . and Mart in Steinman, J r . Minneapol is : U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, Center for Advanced Studies i n Language, S t y l e , and L i t e r a r y Theory, 1979. 399-419. . " H i s t o r i c a l Perspectives on the Philosophy and the Rhetoric of Science: Sources for a P l u r a l i s t i c Rhetor i c ." Pre/Text 6.1-2 (Spring 1985): 9-29. Ziman, John. Publ ic Knowledge: An Essay Concerning The S o c i a l  Dimension of Science. Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1968. . An Introduct ion to Science Studies . Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y Press , 1984. 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098335/manifest

Comment

Related Items