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  of British  C o l u m b i a , 1975  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE  REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  in THE  FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES DEPARTMENT OF ENGLISH  We a c c e p t t h i s to  THE  t h e s i s as  the required  conforming  standard.  UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA J u n e , 1988 @  Judith  Z. S e g a l , 1988  In  presenting  degree at  this  the  thesis in  University of  partial  fulfilment  of  of  department publication  this or of  thesis for by  his  or  her  Srty  The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date  representatives.  for  an advanced  Library shall make  it  agree that permission for extensive  It  this thesis for financial gain shall not  <5 A,«^ / /  that the  scholarly purposes may be  permission.  Department of  requirements  British Columbia, I agree  freely available for reference and study. I further copying  the  is  granted  by the  understood  that  head of copying  my or  be allowed without my written  ii  Abstract Rhetoric, means  of  study  as  theory  human i n f l u e n c e ,  of  the  considered to years,  the  however,  rhetoric  and  and s c i e n c e ,  physical exist  and p r a c t i c e  world,  i n separate  as  have  philosophy  realms.  of  the  discursive  aspects  convincingly language  in  for  persuasive.  this  use The  is  been thirty  have  yielded  a  d i s c i p l i n e concerned  knowledge  production  and  R h e t o r i c a l t h e o r y has argued  century  and  observational  i n the p h i l o s o p h y of  science  of  r e p r o d u c t i o n i n the s c i e n c e s .  the  discursive  In the p a s t  d i s c i p l i n e i n the r h e t o r i c of s c i e n c e — a with  the  traditionally  t h e o r e t i c a l convergences the  of  that  all  therefore,  rhetoric  of  language to  in  varying  science  begins  use  is  degrees, from  the  assumption t h a t p e r s u a s i o n i s a f a c t o r i n the c o n s t r u c t i o n of scientific scientific  knowledge,  and  communities  from  the  belief  (rhetorical  sense)  advocate  versions  of  theory,  formed i n language,  that  members  communities  reality  which  in  are  of  every  based  in  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 applied  present study  rhetorical published (All  of  of  project  contributes  rhetoric  perspective, i n the the  last  articles  functional—headache.)  of  to  science  thirty-five  six are  years on  by  literature analyzing,  scientific  subject  of  the  from  a  articles  i n major m e d i c a l the  in  journals.  primary—or  The p r o j e c t uses a methodology  based  on  classical  and  contemporary  theories  of  rhetoric  d i s c o v e r p e r s u a s i v e s t r a t e g i e s i n these s c i e n t i f i c poses  questions  actualized effects  in  about  scientific  on r e a d e r s ,  how  authorial  texts,  how  and how the  literary  texts,  theoretical  could  be  scientific  from  rhetorical  are  the  have  situations texts,  a  like  variety  theory  the  complete  sample  (which i n c l u d e s  and  three  case  both an  studies)  of  (for  complex  example,  use  sentence  structure;  and arguments is  objective  ideals in  "real  of  fact  articles  passive, use  The a n a l y s i s  variety  of  in  canons  journals,  of is  nominal i z a t i o n s ,  statistical  keeping w i t h  rhetoric),  and  that  not s i m p l y o b j e c t i v e  the  features  neutrality  is  itself  writing  impersonal  that  textual  their the in  and d i s i n t e r e s t e d ,  The r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s  of  in  authors  according to  i t may appear to be so. use  that  traditional  strategies  a l t h o u g h on i n i t i a l r e a d i n g , because o f i t s  the  reasoning  shows t h a t m e d i c a l  persuasive  by  scientific  a c t u a l l y produce a prose  and d i s i n t e r e s t e d  a  of  of  ( s t r a t e g i e s which may be c l a s s i f i e d  classical medical  the  from a u t h o r i t y )  science. use  of  overview  begins  q u e s t i o n i n g the e x t e n t t o which the conventions o f prose  a  texts.  The r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s of  of  provides  p a r t i c u l a r l y a p p r o p r i a t e h e u r i s t i c model f o r a n a l y z i n g world"  It  texts  While s c i e n t i f i c  analyzed  perspectives,  texts.  intentions  texts affect  i n t o which they are i n t r o d u c e d .  to  style,  demonstrates  promoting an appearance of  a r h e t o r i c a l strategy  which argues  for  iv the acceptance of p a r t i c u l a r c l a i m s i n s c i e n t i f i c The r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s practice  of  science,  science,  and  for  the  for  is  significant  the  f o r the t h e o r y and  discipline  discipline  of  articles.  of  rhetoric  rhetoric itself.  of The  a n a l y s i s d e s c r i b e s 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  conventions,  and argues  critically,  as  rhetoric forms, role  is  assumptions  that  rhetoric.  to  locate  that  underlie  texts  must be r e a d  scientific To  their  read  scientific  arguments,  its  texts  scrutinize  their  judge t h e i r a u t h o r s , and e v a l u a t e t h e i r e f f e c t s . of  the  everywhere exerted  to  rhetorician promote  especially  rhetorical.  is  to  discussion  urge of  the  such ways  by t e x t s which appear a t  reading, of  first  as  The and  influence not t o  be  V  Table of  Contents  Abstract  ii  Introduction  1  Chapter One. The T h e o r e t i c a l B a s i s f o r the A n a l y s i s of S c i e n t i f i c Texts  Rhetorical 20  Chapter Two. A Methodology f o r the R h e t o r i c a l A n a l y s i s of S c i e n t i f i c Texts  68  Chapter T h r e e . The R h e t o r i c a l A n a l y s i s of M e d i c a l Journal A r t i c l e s P a r t One. R h e t o r i c a l Overview o f Texts  the 107  P a r t Two. R h e t o r i c a l Readings of Whole T e x t s : Three Case S t u d i e s . . Chapter F o u r . On S c i e n c e , R h e t o r i c of S c i e n c e , Rhetoric  .  .167  and 204  Bibliography A . Primary  239  B.  243  Secondary  1 Introduction The t r a d i t i o n a l s e p a r a t i o n between r h e t o r i c — t h e the  discursive  means  observational  study  reconsidered  in  reconsideration science.  human  of  the  the  has  an  focussing  in  that  although  analysis on  features,  is  study o f  the  are  thirty  few  years  of  scientific  selected  rhetorical  have  been  texts.2  r h e t o r i c of  science.  theoretical  and t h a t  articles, persuasive)  It w i l l  grounds  for  argue t h a t  reading  analyzing  probe  the  nature  scientific  of  texts.  scientific  It  rhetoric  will  with  to  reference  to  medical  It  literature. findings  i m p l i c a t i o n s of those  e x t e n t do the  Latinate  of  as  proceed  s t r a t e g i e s i s o l a t e d w i t h i n the  question  there  science  p a r t i c u l a r persuasive  generalizable  the  r h e t o r i c a l t h e o r y p r o v i d e s an a p p r o p r i a t e  for  passive,  present  i n t e n d e d t o f u r t h e r p a r t i c u l a r i z e and extend  model  The  largely  The  or  of  concerned  journal  (influencing  this  rhetoric  have  medical  been  and  i n the  authors  of  science—the  world—has  discipline  a  of  their  convincing  rhetoric,  physical  last  themselves w i t h a n a l y s i s study,  influence—and  yielded a discipline  Writings  theoretical,^  of  study  which  will of  end w i t h  the  a discussion  discourse  selected of  the  analysis  and  the  is  to  findings. prompted the  conventions  of  nominalizations,  words^—actually  study  scientific  this:  of  the  complex sentence s t r u c t u r e ,  and  yield  a  writing—use  what  prose  that  is  not  2 rhetorical,  but  personality,  innocent  goal  ideal  of  the  century  disinterestedly  stylistic  normative  of  value?  scientific  Such a prose  writer,  prescriptions,  ethos  of  prose  be  non-rhetorical  prose  persuasive  that  or  agenda)  p a r t of  is  to  is  its  is  rhetoric  necessarily  suggested w i t h r e s p e c t the p r o s e i s  The v a l u e  create  prose  (See  to  of  the  universalism, Still,  can  (and p a r t of  impression  scientist?  begins,  texts  it  fiction,  a  then,  its  of  the  Rhetorical with  One),  the  the  those  rhetorician's  of  scientific  and i l l u m i n a t e s  texts;  secondly,  By  we a r e ,  each o f  analyzing  the  is  it  to  so.^  texts  is  nature  of  f o r the  u n d e r s t a n d i n g of  i n e s c a p a b l e c o n d i t i o n of language i n u s e , Booth s a y s ,  scientific  question to bring  i n ways t h a t can be u s e f u l  expands  interchange.6  that  i s r h e t o r i c a l , but how i t  specifies  of  the  Chapter  rhetorical analysis  and r e a d e r s  as  the  r h e t o r i c a l — t h a t , as Wayne Booth has  not whether i t  first,  scientific  which,  with  e s t a b l i s h e d 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  and  twofold?  of  rhetoric  scientific  writing  seventeenth-  not be more v a l i d t o say of  analysis  science  the  n o n - r h e t o r i c a l prose  impersonal, value-free  hypothesis,  has been  based on  ethos  disinterested, of  of  and s k e p t i c i s m . ^  c o n t r a d i c t i o n i n terms; might i t scientific  void  and c o n s i s t e n t  science—an  communalism, d i s i n t e r e s t e d n e s s , any  reportorial,  writers  reinforces rhetoric  as  and the  the p r o c e s s through  us,  made i n symbolic  rhetorical  structures  in  3 particular that in  scientific  t h e s e t e x t s work t o a  particular  constructs decisions  with  respect  it  is  persuade  or  reality,  to  possible  also  to  a  to  instantiated  particular  texts,  do  isolated  abstracted of  rhetorical uses  the  predictive  here i s  of  comparatively rather  their  used  than  to  large  potential  and  work  on  description strategies  strategies  other  one  of  Style,  recurring  then  of  authorial  rhetorical  composition  a  (thirty-five  underlines  and  generalized,  study  articles  described,  and  structure present  and  analysis,  set  development  disposition),  in  In t e x t u a l  how  (the  The g o a l of d i s c o u r s e a n a l y s i s  and p r e d i c t i o n .  to regard r e a l i t y  show  Invention  (their  not o n l y t o show  readers  regard  but  Arrangement  Presentation, readers.  way  as  arguments),  are  texts,  are  predict  the  texts.  The  selection  or  two),  of  the  and  of this  rhetorical  analysis. Political scientific study.  discourse  w r i t i n g with  The case t h a t  made l o n g ago,  before  "deliberative"—or discourse  a  reference  to  political  political predictions  texts about  the  discourse  political—rhetoric.  creates  penetrating  useful  the in  analogue  rationale is  for  to the  r h e t o r i c a l was  A r i s t o t l e f o r m a l i z e d the d i s c u s s i o n  is rhetorical is  The knowledge of  provides  Knowing  that  of the  a s t a r t i n g place for r h e t o r i c i a n s .  f o r the  r h e t o r i c i a n the  rhetorical order  political  to  structure make  rhetoric  responsibility of  particular  generalizations that  are  useful  and to  4 citizens.  The purpose of  and p r e d i c t i o n ; critical To  goal  that  the  expands  inescapable  our  analysis  exercise  of  is  of  the  language  rhetorical"  of  its  being  use  is  language  i n use  is  (Booth,  convincing,  demonstrating scientific  the  scientific  MD  discourse  case must  also  be  strategies  the  and  that  at  the  work  to  by v i r t u e of  language  made  what i s  instances)  up  in  use.  However,  inductively, in  in  to by  particular  Once the demonstration i s made, i t w i l l be  A r i s t o t l e would argue, likely  the  ( A l l language  is  that  least  as  take  126)  w r i t i n g must,  discourse  the  scientific  It i s possible  e v i d e n t not o n l y t h a t s c i e n t i f i c (as  to  discourse i s r h e t o r i c a l . )  rhetorical  texts.  of  t h a t human beings  be r h e t o r i c a l .  Scientific  scientific  make a more  (Brummett 34)—and t o r e i n f o r c e  i n use,  rhetorical.  Therefore, be  that  to  rhetoric  g e n e r a l argument w i t h the p a r t i c u l a r c a s e . argue d e d u c t i v e l y  description  rhetoric  r h e t o r i c which argues  "rea1ity=shared meanings"  is  public.  understanding  condition  "essentially  the  analysis  contemporary view of are  of  and more l i t e r a t e  say  texts  the  discourse  instance  a l l discourse,  is as  a fortiori  i s r h e t o r i c a l , but  shown t o be t r u e true  i n more  in  likely  the r h e t o r i c i a n would argue,  is  rhetorical. As  science  rhetoric, separate been  seen  has  traditionally  scientific from p u b l i c as  discourse  has  discourse.  discourse  related  been  separate  from  traditionally  been  Scientific to  discourse  specialized  content  has in  5  matters p e r t a i n i n g t o the n a t u r a l w o r l d ; p u b l i c d i s c o u r s e been  seen  pertaining nature been  of  as  related  to  public  the  i s not.  to  matters  life  separation  considered  scientific  to  be  discourse,  and  is  of  social  the  public discourse  realm  of  rhetoric,  r e p o r t o r i a l on matters  has  while  non-negotiable,  applied to recognized subjects  deliberation.  special  art or science;  grasp many p o i n t s  f o r which we have  .  .  view o r f o l l o w a l o n g  . [I]f  we l i g h t upon t r u e  p r i n c i p l e s , the a r t i s no l o n g e r D i a l e c t i c  o r R h e t o r i c , but principles.  is  the  d i s c i p l i n e based upon those  (12,14)  The s e p a r a t i o n of  r h e t o r i c and s c i e n c e was r e i n f o r c e d  the p a r a l l e l e v o l u t i o n of the two d i s c i p l i n e s . sixteenth-century,  associated  became  exclusively  seventeenth-century  with  saw  the  the  seen t o  be a n t i t h e t i c a l  and  objectivity  and  Science,  for  its  external  universe,  to  part,  the was  revealed  from  interests  of  to  as  the  the  Logic  Style.  of  a  concerns  and The  7  "reformed" of  rhetoric  goals of u t i l i t a r i a n i s m  "naked" dedicated through  in  Rhetoric, i n  divorced  development  and an a n t i - r h e t o r i c ,  were  no  and w i t h h e a r e r s who cannot  i n a single  chain of reasoning. scientific  of  I t has t o do w i t h t h i n g s about which  we commonly d e l i b e r a t e — t h i n g s  language  The  A r i s t o t l e f o r m a l i z e d the d i s t i n c t i o n w i t h t h i s : [R]hetoric i s  the  interest  intercourse.  such t h a t  in  general  has  truth to  the  language  of  science.**  study as  of  through  an a  6 pane o f  glass.^  The s p l i t between r h e t o r i c and s c i e n c e , discourse the  and s c i e n t i f i c  twentieth-century,  unproblematic. decade,  discourse, but  now  became a commonplace by  the  split  is  by  p r o c l a i m s the d i v i s i o n between s c i e n c e  not c l a i m an impersonal v a l i d i t y of  science,  rhetoric to  division, claim to  is  valid"  .  .  whatever  ."  (TNR_512).  not Yet  "the  Newtonian  the  The  realm  "objectively  the  nature  of and  of  the  i s ambiguous. Perelman's  a s e p a r a t e realm o f r h e t o r i c i s that  and r h e t o r i c ,  ( Realm 162).  against  is  as Perelman r e p r e s e n t s i t ,  statement  means  "every d i s c o u r s e which does  established  encompass  indisputably  no  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  a r g u i n g t h a t t o r h e t o r i c belongs  realm  and between p u b l i c  c o n t r a d i c t e d by h i s  formula  of  universal  a t t r a c t i o n , which was b e l i e v e d t o be unshakable, was breached when  people  were  (Realm 160)—for is  given  sufficient  that  to  modify  he suggests here t h a t even Newton's  not exempt from the e f f e c t s  states  reasons  of p e r s u a s i o n .  it"  physics  Perelman even  axioms i n the mathematical s c i e n c e s ,  "considered  a t f i r s t t o be s e l f - e v i d e n t , "  have subsequently been shown t o  be  (Realm 158).  "conventions o f  language"  statements argue t h a t s c i e n t i f i c to r h e t o r i c a l process,  similar  rhetorician  contradiction Richard  knowledge i s  itself  subject  and o b v i a t e the s c i e n c e / r h e t o r i c  on w h i c h , a t f i r s t , h i s t r e a t i s e A  Perelman's l a t t e r  Weaver.  split  appears t o be b a s e d .  appears Weaver  in  the  defines  writing a  realm  of of  7 rhetoric  separate  from  science,  and  he  decries  the  a p p l i c a t i o n of the methods of the second i n matters b e l o n g i n g to  the  realm of  the  "scientism"—"the subjects  which  phenomena"  first.  However,  a p p l i c a t i o n of are  not  wholly  ("Sermonic"  while  Weaver  scientific  assumptions  comprised  203)—  he  does  of not  oppose  He w r i t e s ,  "there  are degrees o f  the  scientific  He argues t h a t a l l d i s c o u r s e i s n e c e s s a r i l y  o r "sermonic," a l l language b e i n g f u l l  to  naturalistic  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 natural or subjects.  opposes  suasive  of v a l u e and tendency.  objectivity,  and t h e r e  are  v a r i o u s d i s c i p l i n e s which have t h e i r own r u l e s f o r e x p r e s s i n g their  laws o r t h e i r content i n the most e f f e c t i v e  their  purpose.  enclosed  in  But  even  this  expression  a r h e t o r i c a l intention"  can  ("Sermonic"  manner f o r be  seen  222).  as The  apparent c o n t r a d i c t i o n w i t h i n Weaver's v i s i o n can be r e s o l v e d by p o s i t i n g  a p i c t u r e of  two c o n c e n t r i c c i r c l e s — t h e  one c o n t a i n i n g r h e t o r i c and the science  and  rhetoric  within  the  realm of  realm  of  science.  illustrates and,  that  separate—but  rhetoric, The  distinctions  more g e n e r a l l y ,  a r e by no means  are  between  s m a l l e r one,  rhetoric  image  of  between the  science.  while is  not  is  within  the  rhetoric,  circles  and r h e t o r i c ,  c e r t a i n and the  contingent  clear.10  The a m b i g u i t y i n matters of boundaries—as between and  Then  science  concentric science  larger  the  certain  and  the  science  contingent—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 s a l i e n c e  of the s c i e n c e - r h e t o r i c  theorists,  especially  interdisciplinary begun t o  in  interest  in  is  therefore,  rhetorical.  if  their  full  Scientific  "symbolic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n s  comes about  is  of  x  of  (Kelso,  emerging have  no l e s s than o t h e r  of tendency,  theories,  in  and i s ,  this  view,  n a t u r e ' whose r e a l i t y  propounders can persuade  t o r e g a r d them as r e a l "  an  constructionism,  discourse,  informed by v a l u e ,  many contemporary  context  social  argue t h a t s c i e n t i f i c  discourse,  are  the  split,  enough  only  people  19).  S o c i a l constructionism i s described s u c c i n c t l y i n a recent article  by  composition  theorist  "position  i n any d i s c i p l i n e  normally  call  selves,  reality,  knowledge,  (774). in  or  x  and  constitute'  any d i s c i p l i n e .  consensual  texts,  generated by communities  texts,  selves,  and  symbolic  communities  is  R h e t o r i c here  is  that  the  formed and changed,  agreement  accomplished.  and no l e s s than t h i s science.  facts,  community-maintained  the  the  of  reality,  so  on  as  linguistic  entities—that generate  them"  S o c i a l constructionism implies a place for rhetoric  1 1  reality  thought,  more b r o a d l y s p e a k i n g ,  by which minds are the  knowledge,  facts,  community-generated  define  as  S o c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n understands  thought,  entities—or,  Bruffee,  [which] assumes t h a t e n t i t i e s we  and so on are c o n s t r u c t s  like-minded peers.  Kenneth  necessary  to  discursive  the process the  The emergence  as i t  by which  establishment  The r h e t o r i c o f s c i e n c e i s  process  process  of  no more  p e r t a i n s t o the realm of  i n the l a s t s e v e r a l y e a r s of a  9 discipline the  i n the  blurring  reference  adherence process of  of  to  recognizes  boundaries  science that  to,  of  on  two  and r h e t o r i c ,  the  process  scientific  the  of  First,  rhetoric  producing,  knowledge  is  is  rhetorical.  discourse,  affecting  of  science  and  winning  not d i f f e r e n t  Secondly,  to,  with  d i s c o u r s e and p u b l i c d i s c o u r s e ,  scientific  with  from the  other  kinds  i n c l u d i n g even a x i o l o g i c a l knowledge—and  process  scientific  r e c o g n i t i o n of  fronts.  p r o d u c i n g , and winning adherence  knowledge,  the  r h e t o r i c of s c i e n c e s i g n a l s  the  public  public  discourse.  student  of  the  insofar good  as  it  and the  Both  these  r h e t o r i c of  pertains of  insights  science,  reference  i t recognizes  welfare  the  that  to  to that  matters  citizens,  inform,  for  study o f  is the  scientific  prose. The r h e t o r i c of means  of  both  internal  science,  influence  pertains  to  i n matters  and  external  scientific  particular scientific scientific latter  texts  includes  "scientific  as  the  study  of  the  p e r t a i n i n g to dimensions.  texts  made  science,  act  the work of  writers"—from  in  the  and  received  larger  it  within  i t pertains  community.  "science w r i t e r s " — a s book-length  has  Internally,  communities; e x t e r n a l l y ,  which  discursive  opposed  popularizations  to The to of  s c i e n c e t o j o u r n a l i s t i c r e p o r t s on s c i e n c e i n the mass media. The seen  external as  context  dimension  public in  which  of  discourse, laypeople  scientific  discourse  especially increasingly  in  a  rely  is  readily  contemporary on  filtered  10 science  to  science, warrant  make  for  many of civic  promoting the  Increasingly, such  affecting  their  well-being—when  as r h e t o r i c i a n M i c h a e l H a l l o r a n e x p l a i n s ,  specialized, for  decisions  the  arguments  questions—war  well-being  "scientific"  phenomena  radiation,  Increasingly,  it  is  as  rain,  to  the  reveal and  discussion concrete,  of  the  the  diseases.  scientific  literature—by  so  and how  influence  of,  a rhetorical analysis  discussion  which,  believe  functions  and p r a c t i t i o n e r s .  particularize  waste,  by  rhetorical  texts.^  project is  scientific  what people  means  probing  strategies in scientific  researchers  toxic  of  important t o understand the ways i n which  they  "internal"  acid  81).  understanding  sexually-transmitted  influence  The p r e s e n t  ("Molecular B i o l o g y " an  discourses  identifying,  ways and means  requires  scientific act,  t r a d i t i o n a l l y non-  and peace,  p u b l i c welfare"  our  nuclear  about  "serves as  far,  and  of  a body of  for  medical  The p r o j e c t was undertaken to of has  the  rhetoric  been  more g e n e r a l than p a r t i c u l a r .  of  more  science,  abstract  a  than  Much o f the work t o  date i n r h e t o r i c of s c i e n c e has focussed more on a r g u i n g t h a t scientific than  on  discourse  illustrating  Following  the  philosophy  of  Kuhn,  how—in  social science,  a literature  rhetoric.  i s r h e t o r i c a l (persuasive,  Recent  has  the  specific  constructionist most  notably  in  grown up i n the  theoretical  constitutive)  case—it  is  argument the  work o f  theory of  contributors  in  to  the  so. the  Thomas  scientific emerging  field  include  scientific  texts,  transaction, as the  an  Paul  Newall  Walter  Michael  of  Weimer  rhetoric's  analysis  Weigart has w r i t t e n on the Roland  have  Scientific  argued  Issues,"  Scientists  and  that  ".  Herbert  justifies  of  scientific  few t e x t u a l  Those  categories.  that  are  syntactic,  scientific  texts,  that  community  James K e l s o on  arguments, of  .  and James  science.  .Rhetoric  Simons  Andrew  has  the c l o s e ,  now  Cox  Confuses  queried  Although a  if  theory  r h e t o r i c a l reading  studies  have  available  and  without,  would  semantic  actually  fall  into  been four  however,  account  those  for  linguistic  characteristics  connecting i t s e l f the  represented  by  Schindler's  "Why Engineers and S c i e n t i s t s  Twelve C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of is essentially  The t h r e e impelled,  rhetorical  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  lexical,  title,  as  of  "immoral r h e t o r i c o f s c i e n c e " ;  now i n p l a c e t h a t  theory  "audience',  are "Rhetors i n D i s g u i s e . "  texts,  personae  scientific  rhetoric(s)  is  done.  the  science  of s c i e n t i f i c  Zappen on p l u r a l i s m and the  and  on  on  O v e r i n g t o n on the  i n c a r n a t i o n of  relevance  Campbell  to any choices  An example  is  W r i t e as They Do— despite  its  descriptive.  be  texts they analyze.  features.  Their Prose," which,  remaining types o f  and can  authorial  of  classified  analysis  are  theoretically-  according to  Joseph G u s f i e l d ' s  the  kinds  of  "The L i t e r a r y R h e t o r i c  o f 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" i s often  cited  as  the  paradigm  article  in  the  rhetorical  12 analysis  of  scientific  writing  elements,  and  necessarily  Sociobiology"  (social)  science,  traditionally  been  despite  the  kind  discourse  science. the  Randall Rhetoric  and  of  of  and  The  of  nature  The t h i r d science subject  Early the  discourse  the  popular  evident,  given  decision-  Examples  discourse  ( i n c l u d i n g the analyzes  implicit  scientific writers  studied  of  include the  "The S c i e n c e  Nuclear  here,  the  Energy."  however,  is  not  but s c i e n c e qua j o u r n a l i s m .  k i n d of  and  on  of  public  needed.  P o p u l a r Coverage  In d o i n g s o ,  scientific  focusses  to  place.  sciences to  study i s  science"  are  first  discourse  has  therefore  "The SST C o n t r o v e r s y : A Case Study i n  scientists. in  social  the  k i n d of  studies  s c i e n c e qua s c i e n c e ,  its  the  i n the  with  which  and  Technology" and Steven D e l S e s t o ' s  Journalist  hard  this  contingent  analysis  science,  "filtered  more  Bytwerk's  of  deals  material  rhetoric  textual  of  The v a l u e of  centrality  making;  of  that  rhetorical  article  treats  as  aspirations  The external  Gusfield's  realm of  "pure" s c i e n c e .  second  incorporates  and thus  status of  demonstrating  However, l i k e Debra J o u r n e t ' s  recognized  c o n s i d e r e d w i t h i n the This,  discourse,  aimed a t p e r s u a s i o n .  "Rhetoric soft  scientific  make  study takes the  p h y s i c a l and l i f e  texts it  by  of  sciences)  as  scientists  seeks t o r e v e a l what meaning  discourse in  written  discourse  by v i r t u e  composing  s t u d i e s o f f e r t h i s k i n d of t r e a t m e n t ,  text.  of  for is  the  choices  A few  recent  and the p r e s e n t  project  13 is  meant  to  be  a c o n t r i b u t i o n to  this  body of  literature.  Work on the r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s o f hard s c i e n c e has been done by M i c h a e l H a l l o r a n Angus  Campbell,  Knowledge" Michael  itself  "Molecular B i o l o g y " ) ,  Yearley,  "Modern  Mulkay  (Pandora's  Box), The  John  C h a r l e s Bazerman ("Written  Evolution"),  Proposals").  G.  Nigel  and  Gilbert  Greg  present  Myers  study  and ("Two  distinguishes  by u s i n g a c o m p a r a t i v e l y l a r g e sample o f w r i t i n g i n a  particular claim  Steven  and  Biologists'  (especially,  to  scientific some  field,  and  generalizability  therefore  of  establishing  findings  and  a  predictive  p o t e n t i a l w i t h r e s p e c t to o t h e r w r i t i n g , a t l e a s t w i t h i n t h a t field,  and  even  generalizable  within  findings  of  the n a t u r e of s c i e n t i f i c of  the  nature  practice  of  science,  of  other the  study w i l l  fields.  reveal  w r i t i n g and suggest the  scientific  science,  scientific  for  writing  the  for  study  of  aspects  theory  and  rhetoric  of  and f o r the study of r h e t o r i c i t s e l f .  p r e s e n t study w i l l in  issues  mainstream  of  headache.  articles  Articles  literature,  T  i d e n t i f y and d i s c u s s p e r s u a s i v e  occurring  selected medical  were  chosen  from  current  journals to  on  form  a  the  h  e  strategies (post-1982) subject  single  c o n s t i t u t i n g a coherent p r o f e s s i o n a l  of  implications  the the  The  body  of of  conversation  within a particular discipline. Medical set  of  s c i e n c e was chosen because  i n t r a - d i s c i p l i n a r y values,  derivable  and i t s  nature,  so  describable.  it  represents  its  a  assumptions  Modern  clear are  (post-1850)  14 Western medicine can be d e f i n e d as a s c i e n t i f i c contrast  to  pre-modern Western medicine  non-Western essentially not  medicine.13  but  disease.  Doctors  "objective"  tests  tested terms  usually rely  in  Western  the  cause  symptomatic  to  has  an  and which  the  and  chemical  are  explicable  in  Experiments  are r e c o r d e d f o r r e p l i c a t i o n ;  study,  of  n o r m a l l y been  relations.  are o b s e r v e d , q u a n t i f i e d , and a n a l y z e d . present  and on  which have  and e f f e c t  stages  instruments  blood analysis)  studies  a r e performed; methods  the  medicine  diagnostic  interventions  controlled reliable  in  on  (x-rays,  and o t h e r  of  and i n c o n t r a s t  i n t e r v e n t i o n i s t program, w i t h treatment o c c u r r i n g  preventively  therapies  Modern  discipline in  results  Most i m p o r t a n t l y f o r  program  is  self-consciously  scientific. Within subject  the  of  headaches  preliminary penetrable  review  of  contemporary m e d i c a l  was  chosen  suggested  and  subject  headaches  was  the area,  further  " f u n c t i o n a l " headaches,  for  much  and comprehensible.  comprehension specific  context  In  of  study  reduced t o  of of  the  study  the  order  possibility the  this  science, because  was  increase  both  coverage journal of  within  on  articles  on  headaches which do not o r i g i n a t e i n a  pathological  headaches  a r e c o n s i d e r e d " f u n c t i o n a l " ; headaches due t o cranial  considered  process.  infection,  "organic")  a  articles  specific  tumour,  a  literature to  study  the  or  (Migraine  other  The study was  specific  and  tension brain  pathology  further r e s t r i c t e d  are to  15 those a r t i c l e s general  as  their  designated  audience,  an  initial  approximately analysis.  one  resource hundred  of  approximately  were  found  Approximately o n e - t h i r d  selected  at  random f o r  authorial  choice,  individual  texts  of  will  or  special  be  of  scientific  thirty-five  disambiguate  the  relationship  can  The  rhetorical  Three.  Chapter  theoretical  the  analysis.  the  analysis  for  the  rhetoric.  One  will  will  underpinnings  Chapter Two w i l l in  analysis  develop  of the  be  a  disciplines  of  the  be  subject  in  rhetoric  more of  which The to  and  science  of  Chapter  detail  science,  review  significance  science,  these  studied  r h e t o r i c a l model t o be  Chapter Four w i l l  and d i s c u s s  in  of  itself.  the  describe  study  writing.  rhetoric  and t o i l l u m i n a t e the nature of r h e t o r i c  for these  principles  then  between  of  The  strategies  rhetorical  writing  articles,  suitable  study.  persuasive indicate  to  350  can be used t o r e v e a l the nature o f s c i e n t i f i c nature  the  physician.  From  were  which had,  rhetoric  the  of of  the while  applied  findings  these  of  findings  science,  and  16  Endnotes 1.  See,  f o r example,  H a l l o r a n ( " 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 " ) , K e l s o , O r r , O v e r i n g t o n , Wander, Bazerman ( " 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 and Zappen ( " H i s t o r i c a l  P e r s p e c t i v e s on the  P h i l o s o p h y and  R h e t o r i c o f S c i e n c e : Sources f o r a P l u r a l i s t i c 2.  For  analysis,  a  see  3. That is,  pp.  11-12  these  of course,  prevalence  discussion  of  various  the  Rhetoric").  attempts  at  textual  below.  are  the  verifiable these  of  Science"),  conventions  of  scientific  from the p r i m a r y t e x t s .  features  has  also  been  writing  However,  the  documented  in  Aaronson, B a r b e r , Gopnick, Savory, S c h i n d l e r and o t h e r s .  17 4.  Sociologist  hallmarks the  of  an ethos  subjection  criteria"; science  of Science Robert K . Merton, d e s c r i b e s  of  2)  by  of  truth-claims  communism,  the  public;  noninvolvement  of  the  suspension  temporary  the  detached s c r u t i n y of  to  use  the 3)  of  the  impersonal findings  the  organized  of  personal  skepticism,  judgment  and  the  beliefs. quotation  is  "The author  r h e t o r i c a l heightening.  of  Rhetoric  leaving  of  101-139.  special  realm of  rhetorical to  is  attention  to  the  "Ramistic s p l i t " which s e p a r a t e d  from the  classical  choose  His only choice  pp.  R h e t o r i c pays  e f f e c t o f Ramus (1556) and the  cannot  (ROF 119).  The h i s t o r y  Arrangement,  the  scientist's  7.  the  of  and 4)  See Modern Dogma, e s p e c i a l l y  Logic  universalism,  disinterestedness,  6.  realm of  1)  "preestablished  ownership  the k i n d o f r h e t o r i c he w i l l use"  the  They are  to  scientist;  5. The o r i g i n a l whether  science.  four  Logic,  canons  R h e t o r i c the  of  canons  attributing Invention  of  Style,  to and  Memory,  and D e l i v e r y . 8. of  F r a n c i s Bacon,  the  "naked"  truth  available  o n l y t o the  form  embellishment  of  i n The Advancement o f  institutionalized  of  science,  in  "sons of s c i e n c e . "  by the  in  the  Royal  advocating  a  style  of  writes  plainest  form,  its  H i s r e j e c t i o n of  presentation Society  "primitive  when men d e l i v e r ' d so many t h i n g s  of  science  any was  and r e c o r d e d by Thomas  S p r a t i n h i s H i s t o r y of the Royal S o c i e t y . for  Learning,  S p r a t i s w e l l known  purity,  almost  and  shortness,  i n an e q u a l number of  18 words"  (113).  simplicity  as  The  Royal  itself  a  Society, form  of  which  rhetoric,  banishment o f r h e t o r i c i a n s from the i d e a l 9. U s e f u l  discussions  of  this  history  Andrews, F i n o c c h i a r o , Jones,  Bacon  Style  the  of  Science  and  not  see  this  recommended  the  society.  works of A d o l f , and  did  are  found  Stephens,  Zappen  in  the  Francis  ("Science  and  R h e t o r i c from Bacon t o 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 ,  Rhetoric Science  of  Scientistic  Sociology,"  and R h e t o r i c a r e ,  seems  and s h o u l d be,  "The Concealed to  argue  essentially  " R h e t o r i c a l p r e s e n t a t i o n , " he says "always c a r r i e s The  scientific  things  as  inquirer,  they  exist  on the  in  other  empirical  hand,  is  remains  scientific,  classificatory" 1959;  is  not  (141).  i n "Language i s  supposed  perspective.  connection.  to  ("Scientistic  be  distinct.  merely  p a s s i n g judgment on them because h i s presentment,  that  He  noting is  not  as l o n g as  it  a n y t h i n g more than  Sociology"  appeared  in  Sermonic," which appeared i n 1963, Weaver  would argue t h a t no language can "merely n o t [ e ] t h i n g s  as  they  does  not  e x i s t i n e m p i r i c a l connection.") 11. Note, name  a  related good  however,  unified  body o f  anti-positivist  discussion  of  that  social  theory;  constructionism  rather  it  or a n t i - a b s o l u t i s t  theoretical  refers  to  certain  epistemologies.  differences  A  within  social  and  Public  c o n s t r u c t i o n t h e o r y appears i n O r r . 12.  For  Discourse,  further  see Wander.  discussion  of  Science  19 13. M i c h e l  Foucault claims  t h a t modern medicine was  i n the l a s t y e a r s of the e i g h t e e n t h - c e n t u r y , to the  apply reason, threshold  second  half  little  claim  r a t h e r than i m a g i n a t i o n ,  of  visibility.  of  the  to  However,  "science."  when d o c t o r s began t o what l a y  even  nineteenth-century,  born  as  the  Infectious  beneath  late  as  the  profession  had  diseases  remained  u n c o n t r o l l e d and t h e r a p e u t i c i n t e r v e n t i o n s were u n r e l i a b l e . Louis  Pasteur's  discovery  of  bacteria  significantly  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 t r e a t m e n t , the  end  of  the  instruments  such  "scientized" dependency  on  the  the  practice subjective  Later,  the use of  own  technology  subjective  development  stethoscope  the  other diagnostic his  as  medical  diagnosis.  on  century,  by  and  the  reducing  report  of  diagnostic laryngoscope  the  of  physician's  the  the m i c r o s c o p e ,  patient  in  the x - r a y ,  and  reduced the p h y s i c i a n ' s  response,  and  p h y s i c i a n s simultaneous access t o d i a g n o s t i c  and by  dependency  permitted  several  evidence.  T r a d i t i o n a l Chinese M e d i c i n e , 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  in  China,  medicine by c o n t r a s t . of  science  but  of  also Its  holism  defines  modern Western  u n d e r l y i n g p r i n c i p l e s are not those and  phenomenology.  performed by a p h y s i c i a n who "reads" the tongue pulses the  i n the p a t i e n t ' s  a p p l i c a t i o n of  wrist.  acupuncture,  Treatment i s sometimes  use o f t h e r a p e u t i c b r e a t h i n g techniques specific  scientific  Diagnosis and the  often  is  twelve  a matter of  involving also  the  and the p r e s c r i p t i o n of  h e r b a l p r e p a r a t i o n s (See a l s o E i s e n b e r g and S t a r r ) .  20  Chapter One. The T h e o r e t i c a l B a s i s f o r the R h e t o r i c a l A n a l y s i s o f S c i e n t i f i c Texts The  purpose  theoretical texts.  of  basis  this  for  chapter  the  is  to  establish  rhetorical analysis  In the p a s t t h i r t y y e a r s ,  of  the  scientific  the p h i l o s o p h y of  rhetoric  has expanded the realm of r h e t o r i c , beyond the ground of  the  obviously  the  opinionable,  u b i q u i t y of  In d o i n g  consensual  agreement  (Bruromett 31) . focussed  knowledge  itself  with  advocacy  of  so,  focussed  on  the  the  described  of s c i e n t i f i c the  has  realities.  In  on  symbolic  processes  of  social  nature  conceptual  science  of  scientific  and  discursive  I t has a l s o concerned  consensual the  agreement  convergence  of  and  theory  s c i e n c e and r h e t o r i c are the t h e o r e t i c a l underpinnings of rhetoric analysis  of  science  of s c i e n t i f i c  and  the  of  realities"  the p h i l o s o p h y o f  the  of  nature of  probed the  communities.  processes  attention  "advocacy  same t i m e ,  attention has  it  and  A t the  and  conventions  has  r h e t o r i c and the c o n s t i t u t i v e  interchange.  has  and  argument  for  the  the in the  rhetorical  texts.  A d i s c i p l i n e i n the r h e t o r i c o f s c i e n c e i s v e r y young, and aspects  of  rhetorical Kelso,  its  theoretical  base  theorists—particularly  Michael  Overington,  in  philosophy  of  Michael  P h i l i p Wander,  and C h a r l e s Bazerman—have noted theory  remain unexamined.  science  the  A  Halloran, Stephen  significance  (especially  the  few  James  Yearley, of  recent  work  of  21 Thomas  Kuhn)  none of of  the  study  of  scientific  texts.  However,  these c r i t i c s has undertaken t o a l i g n the two  theory  (in  articulate view  for  of  rhetoric  the  full  science.  and  sScience)  theoretical Such i s  bodies  systematically  argument  the  intention  chapter  uncovers  for  to  a rhetorical  of  the  following  discussion. Specifically, between the  this  theories  of  the  connections  Chaim Perelman, Kenneth Burke,  and  Wayne Booth i n the p h i l o s o p h y of r h e t o r i c and the t h e o r i e s Thomas  Kuhn,  philosophy  of  Michael  Polanyi,  science.^  and  The  John  Ziman  discussion  of  in  the  points  to  fundamentally compatible views i n p h i l o s o p h y o f r h e t o r i c and philosophy  of  scientific rhetoric  writing is maintains  scientific therefore  persuasive; inquiry  of  factors  observation to that  scientists  the  views  is  which  rhetorical.  that  language)  scientific variety  science,  all  bias  philosophy  from  of  the  politics  and  use  (ergo  tendency  science  even  and  maintains  theory-ladenness of  that  is that  (owing t o  of  literature  s c i e n c e concludes  a  scientific  funding and p u b l i c a t i o n )  and  argue t o win the adherence of t h e i r peers  selected  r h e t o r i c of  of  in  some e x t e n t c o n t i n g e n t  p a r t i c u l a r v e r s i o n s of s c i e n t i f i c review  together  In summary, p h i l o s o p h y of  language  carries  to  argue  to  truth. A  i n the  emerging  the c h a p t e r ,  field  in  specifically  l i t e r a t u r e which s e t s the stage f o r an a n a l y s i s of t e x t s informed by a coherent r h e t o r i c a l t h e o r y .  the that  scientific  22 For A r i s t o t l e , in  the  particular  persuasion"  (7)  rhetoric is case  and  it  what  are  pertains  which we commonly d e l i b e r a t e " itself  the  to  of  finding case.  act;  rhetoric,  the  matters  Aristotle's of h i s  most  and h i s that  the  appropriate  definition,  established  a  indirectly,  process  arguments  Aristotle  framework  theory—his  the of  in  Invention,  discusses  created  that  e v e r y subsequent  Aristotle  focus  has  inventing  the  a  particular  directly  and  under  Style  three  (the  last  major  of  prominent  head,  body  rhetorical  premise  most  A r i s t o t l e develops  very  enthymeme  are  and  truncates the  rhetor  the  his  to  in  the  "demonstrative"  (based  or  of  persuasion"  (based on i n c o n s i s t e n t  has  addressed;  consistent  Under  "enthymeme" [1]),  syllogism.  leaving  already  audience  the  out the  the The  whatever status  enthymemes principles)  principles).  the  "invention"  discussion.  theory of  syllogism,  on  the  dialectic's  ascertains  common knowledge  "refutative"  in  substance  counterpart  and  heads:  subsuming  Matters p e r t a i n i n g t o the  arguments  based  terminology  shaped,  or  t h e o r y of r h e t o r i c .  rhetoric  Arrangement,  on  discovering  s u b j e c t of D e l i v e r y ) . ^  ("the  definition  and audiences which guide  p r i v i l e g i n g of  is,  of  "about  In f o r m a l i z i n g a t h e o r y of r h e t o r i c a l d i s c o u r s e  this  this  means  on p e r s u a s i o n as the g o a l of r h e t o r i c ; h i s  rhetorical  aspect  discovering  available  subject  (12).  the p a r t i c u l a r c a s e , the s i t u a t i o n s  on  the  p o i n t s t o some of the main f e a t u r e s  emphasis  the  " f a c u l t y of  of are or  A l s o under  23 the  head  of  arguments and  to  arguments  inductive  proofs  to  Invention,  (dialectic's  " i n a r t i s t i c " proofs  valued  enthymemic deductive  invented,  "artistic"  such as those based on  (These d i s t i n c t i o n s w i l l be important  the r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s of  example,  scientific  texts i n which,  for  arguments from evidence and a u t h o r i t y are seen t o be  more h i g h l y  "artistic") identifies  With  examples  from  of  modes  than  arguments  reference  p a r t i c u l a r topoi  (arguments  or  example  and c o n t r a s t s  evidence o r a u t h o r i t y . to  compares  from  reasoning)  found,  Aristotle  definition  topoi i n use);  of  proof.  to  Aristotle  to  and  consequences  from  consider  discover  describes  ("as  more,  about  the  also  arguments are  and e s t a b l i s h e s the t h r e e  Ethos  quickly,  Invention,  or places  c h a r a c t e r o f the speaker and more  A r i s t o t l e would  argument  two  pisteis from  the  a r u l e we t r u s t men of p r o b i t y things  in  general,  while  p o i n t s o u t s i d e the realm of exact knowledge, where o p i n i o n d i v i d e d , we t r u s t them a b s o l u t e l y " appeal  through  the  different decisions or  hatred"  argument apparent,  [9]);  proper  audience's  [ 8 ] ) ; pathos d e s c r i b e s emotions  ("we  give  and  logos  ("when  the  is the  very  under the sway of p a i n o r j o y , and l i k i n g  we  describes  the  appeal  demonstrate  the  truth,  from real  by such means as i n h e r e i n p a r t i c u l a r cases"  Throughout  on  Rhetoric.  Aristotle's  discussion  the or  [9]).  is  o r g a n i z e d around g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e s adapted t o the p a r t i c u l a r case:  rhetoric  is  of  particular  kinds  for  particular  24 occasions—it  is  deliberative,  (ceremonial)—and  it  is  principles  of  Aristotle's  treatment  to  his  particular  particularity  treatment  arguments  for  forensic,  of  depends  are  epideictic  audiences.  to  o f Arrangement and S t y l e than they  are  both  on  less  These  central  Invention.  no  or  The r i g h t  occasion  disposition  and audience;  of  Style  as  w e l l must be a p p r o p r i a t e t o b o t h .  A r i s t o t l e ' s d i s c u s s i o n of  metaphor,  the  Style  for  and  example,  audience.  truncated  analogy,  syllogism,  and i t s  u n d e r s t a n d i n g of the  Aristotle's much  as  the  relationship  metaphor  enthymeme  is is  between  clearly a  a  truncated  success depends on the e x t e n t t o which an  the  second  common knowledge  describes  underlines  of  term of  the  the metaphor i s  audience.  That  a multi-dimensional r h e t o r i c a l act,  a particular situation  for  is,  p a r t of  Aristotle  called forth in  a p a r t i c u l a r audience.  Given a  rational  audience and a r h e t o r who understands i t s  needs and  beliefs,  that  a c t w i l l be s u c c e s s f u l  the r h e t o r uses a l l  (persuasive)  as l o n g as  "the a v a i l a b l e means o f p e r s u a s i o n . "  His  t e x t m a r r i e s t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e . Some  debate  has  occurred  recently  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 , is  different  rhetoric.  from,  or  not  Some t h e o r i s t s  contemporary  persuasion, rhetoric,  from,  contemporary  argue t h a t A r i s t o t l e ' s r h e t o r i c  based on an a d v e r s a r i a l model, unidirectional  different  is  while  manipulative, others  Aristotelian  and aims  argue  rhetoric  that, is  is at  like  conceived  25 w i t h i n the c o n t e x t o f r h e t o r s and audiences s h a r i n g community membership, more  at  is  more c o n s t r u c t i v e  consensus  continue,  it  provide  a  suggest  than p e r s u a s i o n . 3  is  clear  starting  a model  Aristotle's  than m a n i p u l a t i v e ,  that  place  for  4th c e n t u r y ,  M i d d l e Ages,  narrowed t o  truncated  by  Bacon  r e i n t e r p r e t e d by the by  Chaim  in  which o t h e r  classical  and  Realm o f what,  roots  17th  and  of  others is  In f a c t ,  is  1982  the in  intact it  is  the  contemporary  on  because the  on R h e t o r i c  rhetoric  the  this  century, century;  and s t i l l  viable against  Scholars both  descriptions.  of  nature  respectively)  Perelman,  18th  the t h e o r y  contemporary  (possibly  in  variously  o n l y by u n d e r s t a n d i n g  rhetoric  in  century,  of  is  works  in  and e v a l u a t e d . *  I n t r o d u c t i o n above),  Rhetoric,  for  texts.  are d e f i n e d  ambiguous  (see  16th  century,  scholars  rhetoric  and i t s  Perelman  Perelman  connections  of  and  Augustine  the  rhetorician  most c l o s e l y based on the w r i t i n g s  Aristotle)  1969  nature  sermon by S t .  Ramus i n  the  Perelman  theories  may plumb the  although  kinds  particular applications  Scottish  as a t h e o r y o f d i s c o u r s e .  work i s  discussion  by P e t e r  nevertheless A r i s t o t l e ' s  Chaim  rhetorical various  does  r h e t o r i c was m o d i f i e d by C i c e r o and Q u i n t i l i a n  the  its  rhetoric  understanding  Roman p e r i o d , d i r e c t e d t o the  renewed  debate may  Aristotelian  for  the  redefined  While the  and aims  whose  of A r i s t o t l e — a n d his  of  allegiance  to  science/rhetoric  c a r e f u l r e a d i n g of  (The New R h e t o r i c  his  and The  does y i e l d a c l e a r sense o f is  and  what  it  does.  For  26 Perelman,  whose i n t e r e s t  in  forensic  of  winning  audience  argumentation,  "to  the  theses  the  "increasing")  presented  forensic bias,  for  restricted  considered  to  its  adherence assent"  of  it  is  not  such  subjects  as  "The  theory  "conceived as  covers  range o f  and c o n v i c t i o n , whatever the  that  audience  it  might  is  have  argumentation,"  a new r h e t o r i c o r  discourse  it  restricted  Aristotle of  an  (TNR 4 ) .  and, i n terms o f s u b j e c t m a t t e r s ,  Perelman w r i t e s , whole  means  Perelman's t h e o r y i s e x p a n s i v e :  contingent.  the  interest  discursive  the  not r e s t r i c t e d t o formal s i t u a t i o n s ,  to o r a l presentation, not  rhetoric is  ("inducing" o r  Despite i t s is  i n r h e t o r i c comes from an  dialectic,  aims a t  persuasion  addressed and whatever  the s u b j e c t matter" (Realm 5 ) . Two c e n t r a l  elements  of  Perelman's  theory  of  rhetoric  are d i r e c t l y connected t o elements of t h e o r y i n the r h e t o r i c of  science.  The f i r s t  is  prime c o n d i t i o n i n g f a c t o r second  is  his  view  of  his  emphasis  on audience  as  the  i n the r h e t o r i c a l e n t e r p r i s e ;  language  as  selective,  the  emphatic,  and  non-neutral. Perelman's r h e t o r i c i s describes first,  three  the  influence  k i n d s of  by  the  self  (expanding  deliberation)  "addressed" and he  audience t o which i t  p a r t i c u l a r audience discourse  traditional rhetoric. the  by d e f i n i t i o n  which  the  parallels  rhetor the  Perelman adds, however, the  and the  realm of  rhetoric  appeals.  to  "universal audience."  The  wishes  audience  to of  an audience of include  self-  The u n i v e r s a l  27 audience i s a c o l l e c t i v e of r e l e v a n t judges—on some m a t t e r s , a  collective  of  all  reasonable  beings—and  the  value  of  arguments i s measured a g a i n s t i t s s t a n d a r d . The  concept  of  universal  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 ; it  also  judges  resonates i n the  purpose o f  with  communities  of  system  validating  for  every  Perelman—and t h i s  science.  facts,  only  is  other, or  is  to  not  create  a  validating  The f e a t u r e ,  which,  h a v i n g the s t a t u s of f a c t ,  rhetoric,  a process  convinced that  some p r o p o s i t i o n i s  i n Perelman's terms,  because  of  have the  adherence of  fact-status,  have the in The  the  while  notion  audiences,  of  status. process  people  are For  d e s i r a b l e " would  u n i v e r s a l audience  and t h e r e f o r e ,  "life  is  i n any form  and t h e r e f o r e ,  communities  a  For  worth a d h e r i n g t o .  adherence o f o n l y p a r t o f t h a t a u d i e n c e ,  particular  and  general  i s won i n the  "the good i s  and  audience—there  through which r e a s o n a b l e  example,  strong  The  "facts."  t i e d to h i s notions of propositions  public  adherence t o them, have the f e a t u r e of having "fact  of  relevant  the t h e o r e t i c a l c o n s t r u c t i n Perelman's c a s e , in  no  of  l i t e r a t u r e o f the p h i l o s o p h y o f  effectively  are  concepts  of  experts  weaker as  good" would incarnated fact-status.  arbiters  of  the  f a c t u a l i s c e n t r a l a l s o t o the t h e o r i e s of Kuhn, P o l a n y i , and Ziman  (see  the  discussion  of  the  philosophers  of  science  below). Another aspect of Perelman's study o f audience r e l e v a n t  28 to  the  discussion  of  science  is  his  understanding  p o i n t s o f d e p a r t u r e f o r arguments—the argumentation already  must  adhere:  argumentation of  the  21).  is  the  Booth;  philosophy  discourse but  are  it of  scientific  like  is  theories also  base w h i c h ,  of  the  is,  to  the  "the  aim  prove the transfer  fact  to  premises"  the  (Realm  A r i s t o t e l i a n and r e c u r s  in  as  central it  is  to  theory  in  acknowledged  the that  not o n l y share a means o f  discourse,  body o f  assumptions  s t a r t i n g place of  of  they  for their  hold  increases,  in  scientific  moving forward from a  moving forward,  t o contemporary t h e o r i e s  is  shared  essential  science.**  also  intersects  with  theory  p h i l o s o p h y o f s c i e n c e a t the p o i n t o f d e s c r i p t i o n o f i n use.  of  scientific  by the  theory  to  but t o  communities  The concept  Perelman's  says,  audiences  i n which  by the  by t h a t  which  all  r h e t o r i c i a n s Kenneth Burke and  science—where  identified  to  demonstration,  emerges  takes p l a c e ,  conversation.  Perelman  essentially  communities,  common—that  theses  accorded  the  understanding that  from the p r e m i s e s ,  adherence  some form i n the  on  fact,"  not,  The concept  Wayne  based  "In  conclusion  conclusion  be  of  in  the  language  F o r Perelman and f o r the p h i l o s o p h e r s o f s c i e n c e  (as  w e l l as f o r Burke and B o o t h ) , v e r b a l language i s not n e u t r a l , no  author  is  objectivity  in  value-ladenness ladenness  of  merely texts of  a is  reporter, not  language  perception.  and  the  supportable. is  complicated  That  is,  what  claim  to  Moreover, by  the is  pure the  theory-  seen  and  29 "reported" i s the very  as  language same  used  a  production of the  Orestes  to  action  assembling  make  subject  can  be  So,  described earning  point,  he  variously  and the  respect  to s c i e n t i f i c  cites  a  statement about the  of  tightening  his  as  influence  of  "the bolt;  assisting  the  trade"  (Realm 4 1 ) .  To  "the  statement  murderer  father"  that  of  his  Realm 45).  a c c o u n t i n g , Perelman's most factors  a  as  living;  Aristotle's  described  "avenger  Perelman s a y s ,  as  a f a v o r a b l e balance of  mother"  consequent  "report" i t .  vehicle;  same is  to u n a r t i c u l a t e d presuppositions  With  significant  i n f l u e n c i n g language use and the  language  use  appears  at  the  end  of  The New R h e t o r i c : All  language i s the language of a community, be  a community bound by b i o l o g i c a l t i e s ,  o r by the  p r a c t i c e of a common d i s c i p l i n e o r t e c h n i q u e . terms used,  this  t h e i r meaning, t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n ,  The can o n l y  be understood i n the c o n t e x t of the h a b i t s , ways of thought,  methods,  external  circumstances,  t r a d i t i o n s known t o the u s e r s of those  and  terms....  Adherence t o p a r t i c u l a r l i n g u i s t i c usages n o r m a l l y expresses certain  the  explicit  definite  reflection  or  positions  of  an  manifestation  of  agreement  on  the  agreement  about  which  objective  individual use  the  implicit  of  adoption  of  neither  the  are  reality  arbitrariness. terms,  conception  of  no  less  reality  nor  the  . . .  An  than  an  and  the  30 vision  of  disputed, social  the is  draw  any  between  judgments. Perelman's  indisputable;  of  may  is  one  not  linked  which  that  judgments  it  it  situation  distinction  rhetoric  is  though  be  to  a  fundamentally might  reality  wish  and  to  value  (TNR 513)  formed  commitment,  not  even  and h i s t o r i c a l  conditions  audience,  world,  a  then,  bound  willy-nilly  in  rhetoric  which  to a  the  context  language  of  subsumes  of some  scientific  a c c o u n t i n g as t h a t a c c o u n t i n g i s d e s c r i b e d i n the t h e o r i e s  of  Kuhn, P o l a n y i , and Ziman. Kenneth B u r k e ' s r h e t o r i c the  discussion  Burke o f f e r s case,  of  is  also  d i r e c t l y pertinent  the p h i l o s o p h y of s c i e n c e .  a contemporary p h i l o s o p h y of  one t h a t  both r e p l i c a t e s  L i k e Perelman,  rhetoric—in  and departs  to  this  from A r i s t o t e l i a n  theory. In A R h e t o r i c o f M o t i v e s , Burke d e f i n e s r h e t o r i c as an a r t of  influence—"the  attitudes  or to  41).  is  "It  induce  .  .  (ROM 43).  attitude,  he  its  means  language  opposed  to  actions  simply  by  human  i n other in  agents  to  form  human agents" (ROM  "an e s s e n t i a l  i n beings t h a t  The g o a l  (an  is  words  f u n c t i o n of  . the use o f language as a symbolic means  inducing cooperation  symbols"  of  r o o t e d , " he s a y s ,  language i t s e l f of  use  says,  is  an  itself,  of  by nature respond  Burke's r h e t o r i c  "incipient by  representational.  its  act"  action  [ROM 42])  nature  Burke  is  says  and  symbolic that  to  as  while  the  key  term f o r r h e t o r i c ,  the  key  term  for  a  new  traditionally,  rhetoric  is  was  "persuasion,"  "identification."  He  explains: [W]e might w e l l keep i t persuades  i n mind t h a t a speaker  an audience by the use of  identifications;  stylistic  h i s a c t of p e r s u a s i o n may be f o r  purpose o f c a u s i n g the audience t o i d e n t i f y w i t h the s p e a k e r ' s  interest;  itself  and the speaker draws on  i d e n t i f i c a t i o n of i n t e r e s t s t o e s t a b l i s h  rapport  between h i m s e l f and h i s audience.  So, t h e r e i s  chance  the  of  persuasion,  our  keeping  apart  identification  communication  (the  the  no  meanings  of  ( consubstantiality')  and  v  nature of  r h e t o r i c as  addressed).  (ROM 46) In  "consubstantiality,"  Burke  names the  p r o c e s s — t h e a c t of i d e n t i f i c a t i o n audience,  h a v i n g overcome  the  goal  itself  fact  of  of  i n which r h e t o r and  their  "division,"  t o g e t h e r , h a v i n g "common s e n s a t i o n s , c o n c e p t s , attitudes This  . . . "  of  discourse  philosophy discussion "tribe"  of  and  neutrality  of  of  rhetoric  as  as the s t a r t i n g p l a c e , aligns  of  images,  act  ideas,  (ROM 21).  understanding  identification  rhetorical  Burkean  science. theories  tribal  the means,  rhetoric  Particularly of  science  membership  perception  identification,  and of  and the  are his  with  and the  views  language  goal  theory  pertinent Burke's  and of  in  to  the  concepts on  the  of  non-  i n which i t  is  32 rehearsed. Burke  says,  in  human  animal,  first  mastering  particular  as  Language we  know  summarizes  both  Symbolic  it,  whatever  symbolic  as  emerges  tribal  sense  of  into  speech  environment"  his  Action,  happens  to  With  context  "the  personality  (53).  the  that  of  by  be  its  this  he  community  in  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 p l a c e and h i s sense of language  as the  and  acts  the  comes  into  various  conditioning feature  which  being  tribal  idioms  and  Burkean  tribes. to  [has  an  by  for  Ziman,  as  are  As  developed  view  is  by  the their  (LASA 44).  described  suggests,  communities  dramatistic  are  particularized  Burke  scientific  they  animal  language]  i n the t r i b e ' s way of l i v i n g "  by  Kuhn,  incarnations  of  relationship  of  the  no d i f f e r e n t  from  the  terms  of  communities:  of  language,  in  "symbolic a c t i o n , " i s e x e r c i s e d about the  necessarily  suasive  unemotional  nature  scientific  nature reality;  as  is a  even  this  it  the .  . of  most .  Even i f  reality,  must  be  a  any  given  by i t s  very  selection  e x t e n t i t must f u n c t i o n a l s o  of r e a l i t y .  effectively  .  a reflection  terminology  and t o  a deflection here  of  nomenclatures  terminology  Burke  "[0]nce an  aptitude  r e l a t i o n s h i p o f language t o o t h e r The  it:  are u n q u e s t i o n a b l y  communities,  Polanyi,  language  motivated  that  use as instruments Scientific  are  of community membership  of as  (LASA 45)  articulates  the  position  vis-a-vis  33 non-neutrality who  will  that  be  is  found e s p e c i a l l y  described  p h i l o s o p h e r s of s c i e n c e philosophers  see  all  c o n s t r a i n e d by a of  perception  argues  the  starting  concept  for  place  a  new  i m p o s s i b i l i t y of  observation.  and  sets.  We 11 ans c hauung  The Weltanschauung  of  as  being  a tacit  system  The sense o f for  view  theorists  experience  all of  theory-free  The sense o f  those  the  "world view" c o n s t i t u t e d  unarticulated  fundamental  as  (Polanyi i s one).  c o n c e p t u a l and l i n g u i s t i c  but  of  below  in  a powerful  experience  science,  is  a  since  it  or un-informed acts  such a s t a r t i n g p l a c e  is  also  c e n t r a l t o Burkean r h e t o r i c : Not o n l y does the nature of our terms a f f e c t n a t u r e o f our o b s e r v a t i o n s ,  the  i n the sense t h a t  the  terms d i r e c t the a t t e n t i o n t o one f i e l d r a t h e r than to another.  A l s o many of the  "observations" are but  i m p l i c a t i o n s o f the p a r t i c u l a r t e r m i n o l o g y i n terms o f which the o b s e r v a t i o n s are made.  In b r i e f , much  t h a t we take as o b s e r v a t i o n s about " r e a l i t y " may be but the s p i n n i n g out of p o s s i b i l i t i e s our p a r t i c u l a r c h o i c e o f terms. The  difference  philosophers i s use  terministic  anything they  without  necessarily  between  Burke  essentially  a difference  screens," the  use  and  Burke of  constitute  says,  terms;  implicit in  (LASA 46) the  Weltanschauung  i n focus. "since  whatever  we  "We must can't  terms  a c o r r e s p o n d i n g k i n d of  we  say use,  screen;  and any such s c r e e n n e c e s s a r i l y d i r e c t s the a t t e n t i o n t o  one  34 field  r a t h e r than another"  action  as  condition  being of  (LASA 50).  described  language.  assumptions  taken  this  He  Weltanschauung p h i l o s o p h e r s , by  in  for  granted  neutrally)  we know.  The q u e s t i o n ,  then,  by the  induce  other  of  essentially  discursive  means  human agents  then,  perform p a r t i c u l a r a c t i o n s .  we  are  how b e l i e f s  and  for rhetoric;  and h i s a n a l y s i s  assent social  to  "truth,"  l o c a l i z e d theories L i k e Burke, and  he  on the and,  "value,"  the of  (MD 137).  primacy of  consequently,  Wayne  Booth, As a  construct  Booth's  theory  and is  i n much the same way as are the more  Booth focusses on people  judges—populations  of  Burke  of Kuhn and Ziman.  establishes  explanation"  work  process  by which communities  "reality,"  constructionist,  the  science.  i n Modern Dogma and the R h e t o r i c of A s s e n t . process  in  rhetorical  illuminates  especially  the  and  Burke would d e s c r i b e a r h e t o r i c  is  about  that  human agents  describes  theory  facts  hold p a r t i c u l a r attitudes  necessary  elaborated  of  and what  and even  the c o m p a t i b l e a n a l y s e s of the p h i l o s o p h e r s o f ubiquitous  incapable  identification,  of s c i e n c e a l s o i n these terms,  The  the  so guided  what we b e l i e v e  a question  of to  that  suasive" like  t h a t our p e r c e p t i o n i s  (objectively,  is,  "necessarily  argues,  assessing  a r e agreed upon i s  Burke sees a l l human  notion  communities  r h e t o r s engaged  in  of  relevant  "mutual i n q u i r y o r  Moreover, l i k e Burke, Booth focusses  language in  of  as languaging beings  in  shaping what  shaping who they  are:  people  believe,  "What an  adult  35 man o r woman i s ,  in a l l  societies,  is  i n large  degree  o t h e r men and women have c r e a t e d through symbolic (MD 114).  A c c o r d i n g t o Booth,  what  exchange"  the process of becoming human  is rhetorical: What i s a "mind" and what i s a "self" i n r h e t o r i c a l view?  this  It is essentially r h e t o r i c a l ,  symbol-exchanging, a s o c i a l product i n p r o c e s s o f changing through i n t e r a c t i o n , s h a r i n g v a l u e s with other selves.  Even when t h i n k i n g p r i v a t e l y ,  "I" can never escape the o t h e r s e l v e s which I have taken i n to make "myself," and my thought thus always be a d i a l o g u e . Booth's  placement  of  (MD 126)  language  at  the  centre  b e h a v i o u r and h i s r h e t o r i c a l view o f language is  called  There  is  attend his  to  to  mind  always  .  .  ."he  an i m p l i c i t  my way o f  philosophical  connections  r h e t o r i c as e p i s t e m i c .  in  simple  through  language.  parallels In the  sense,  the  hands  contemporary  social of  because  rhetoric  of  it  ought'  if  of  to  mind v  is  changed.  You  ought  of  coming view,  the view  to  is  to  assent—effectively  not o f  belief  when  applied  reveal  persuasion  and  knowledge  to  science, science.  even more s u g g e s t i v e process  Booth's the  of  (particulary  concentration process  to  theorists  philosophy of  scientific  yields  The two  as a p r o c e s s ,  human  ("When a n y t h i n g  only  Burke.  constructionist  Booth,  views  Ziman's)  but  The  7  "the  of  p e r c e i v i n g and naming" [MD 125])  treat a  says, v  will  of  on  a  building  36 consensus. Booth's building that  term  in  "it  "assent"  the  is  asserts  establishment  reasonable  to  the  of  primacy  all  grant  .  of  reality. .  .  consensusBy a r g u i n g  some  degree  credence t o whatever q u a l i f i e d men and women agree o n , one  has  specific  101),  Booth  agreement  of  discourse) split." this  and  stronger  argues  for  relevant  and  breaks  Moreover,  process  a  "truth"  judges  .  "symbolic  .  assent  is  he  disbelieve"  established  (MP  by  the  communities  calls  the  of  "fact-value  interchange"  and  rigorous  consensual  science:  . demanded by the p r i n c i p l e o f more  unless  e x p l i c i t about the ways i n which  agreement extends t o the realm of What i s  to  (constituting  down what  Booth i s  of  reasons  of  thought  than  systematic  is  customary  about who "we" a r e , the group of r e l e v a n t judges,  the  a x i o l o g i c a l e x p e r t s whose shared e x p e r i e n c e confirms what we know t o g e t h e r . the scientists beliefs.  process for  calculations  of  all  past  of  great  No s c i e n t i s t  or  edifice  a  the of  This i s  validation share  their  even  science  by  scientific  p r o v i d i n g more than a t i n y  scientific  is,  of  used  has ever performed experiments  beliefs  depends  on  and p r e s e n t — o n testimony  Thus s c i e n c e  i n formal s t r u c t u r e  in its  he  holds;  faith  in  the  whole  witnesses,  and t r a d i t i o n .  larger structures,  by t h e same s o c i a l processes  fraction  .  .  .  validated  t h a t I am a r g u i n g f o r i n  37 " a l l the r e s t . " Later,  (MD 108-9)  Booth w r i t e s : If  the  evert  most  austere,  scientist  cannot  social  who was made and i s  self  even  isolated  symbolic i n t e r c h a n g e e x i s t e n c e depends he r e s p e c t s the relies his  on the  still .  .  truth,  refuses  and  so  supreme  him by  purpose  of  view c o u l d not be t o t a l k someone  a p r e c o n c e i v e d view;  that  evidence,  taught  rather i t  engage i n mutual i n q u i r y o r e x p l o r a t i o n . Booth argues  "modernism"  must be  the  ability  to  (by which term he  rhetoric  "reason  presents  his  of  dignified  survival in this  i s uniquely a l i f e s t y l e a  design  nature  of  for  designates  d i s c u s s i o n of  science,  assent  as  century.  the a  l i v i n g than i t What i s  is  is  that  important,  independently  of  however,  the expansiveness o f h i s  rhetorical theorists  reality—and  prescription  a theory  truth  and  human e x p e r i e n c e  has  and  His r h e t o r i c of  f o r 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 What a l l t h r e e  mind,"  r h e t o r i c i n the sense t h a t i t  collective  persuasion.  with  to  (MD 137)  the whole o f p o s t - C a r t e s i a n Western i n t e l l e c t u a l thought) destroyed  a  he a f f i r m s when  t o cook h i s  The  as  b e i n g made i n  and methods  on.  except  . then h i s very  on the many v a l u e s  persuasion i n t h i s into  exist  with others  traditions  mentors,  else  c l a i m to  laboratory  he for  assent i s more on  the  for  the  rhetoric,  discourse.^  seem to be a r g u i n g i s  value—does  not  and human d i s c o u r s e ,  exist that  38 it  is  not  perceived  or  transmitted  in  neutrality.  C o n c o m i t a n t l y , they argue t h a t the purpose o f r h e t o r i c i s  not  to  win over  but  to  a r r i v e at t r u t h i n concert with other  an a l i e n audience  to  a predetermined t r u t h ,  "rhetors" from whom  one has i n any case l e a r n e d the language o f i n which t r u t h  is  made. Salient include  treatments  communities of  aspects  or  of  beliefs  possibilities  the  of  persuasion;  and b e l i e f ;  views o f r e a l i t y ,  essentially  interchange;  discourse  communities,  agreement  or  bonds  the  of  discourse  and  other  discourse  determine  language  as  constitutive  notions  people  of  which  share the  symbolic, of  thought  objective,  constructed i n r h e t o r i c or i n  identification  assent  then,  descriptions  not as e x t e r n a l and  but as p e r s o n a l and c o n s e n s u a l ,  or  as  inter-influence;  views of  non-neutral,  argumentation  rhetoric,  audience  assumptions  tendential,  symbolic  of  as composed of people who a l r e a d y  and  of  philosophy  rhetorical  communities  t h e s e communities  certain  of  of  which  persuasion  imply  that  work s t r a t e g i c a l l y people—and  community  and  to  to  or  within win  the  strengthen  increase  its  the  common  ground. The  same  thinking  in  or  compatible  philosophy  of  science,  scientists  write,  they  free,  intent  on winning  but  achieving  recognition  are  principles  for  not the  their  dominate and  neutral,  suggest  that  impersonal,  adherence work,  contemporary  of  their  when valuepeers,  and p a r t i c i p a t i n g  in  39 the p r o d u c t i o n of knowledge  in their  field.  The" contemporary view of s c i e n c e i s most e a s i l y as  a  critique  science,  of  with i t s  empiricism.  the  traditional,  roots  According  to  the  and e x t e r n a l ,  from  it  observers,  and  existing  in turn,  accurate  neutral  scientists. reality, nature  translations  These  mediated  other  in their  through the  w r i t e r as  language  observers  reality  then  to  observations.  the view t h a t  external  scientists  and a p a r t  to  apprehend a k i n d of  to  other  external scribe  of  ( r a t h e r than as an a u t h o r ) . ^  A  reconsideration  reality,  and  a  positions—and The f i r s t clearly  is  of  re-viewing  conceptualizing  that  what of  rhetorical  that  the  constitute  role  come  process  is  Kuhn c r e a t e s  communities to  win  of  from  two  for  articulated  rhetoric  in  of r e a l i t y by m a i n t a i n i n g  supporters  of  the  i n them b o t h .  c r e a t e competing v e r s i o n s  adherents,  in  theoretical  position,  a role  scientific  language  implicit  the s o c i a l c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t  by Kuhn.  scientific  might  reality  c o n s t r u c t i o n and t r a n s m i s s i o n  and  of  is  unproblematically  a t r a n s p a r e n t medium, which a l l o w s s c i e n t i f i c  present  of  reality  absolutely  itself  A c o r o l l a r y o f t h i s view of r e a l i t y i s is  view  t r a d i t i o n a l view,  represents  who a r e ,  positivist,  i n C a r t e s i a n r a t i o n a l i s m and Lockean  both independent mind;  understood  of  any  the that  reality,  particular  v e r s i o n o f r e a l i t y must persuade o t h e r people t o r e g a r d t h e i r version  as  true.  Weltanschauung  The  second  philosophers,  and  position it  is  is  that  of  the  articulated  by  40 Polanyi,  f o r one.  Weltanshauung, a term a l r e a d y mentioned i n  c o n n e c t i o n w i t h Burke, means, suggests e s p e c i a l l y solipsistic  or  philosophers particular view)  or  at  and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n . ways,  close  science,  to  the  predisposing.  science  conceptual  dictate  linguistic  least  constrain  social  argues  i m p l i c a t e the  that  1962,  perception of  reality;  is  of  is,  they  observation  With like  theory  i n some  respect  Kuhn's of  to  social  inquiry  brought  are  scientific to  bear  on  however, in  and  claim  the in  possibilities  part  that  of  language  is  r e a l i t y and t h a t our terms themselves have a  against not  Scientific traditional  rather  scientific  an "ought" d i m e n s i o n . Revolutions, belief,  published  that  perception  is  informed  conventions  observation  by  nature  "paradigms,"  and assumptions,  and p r a c t i c e .  in  scientific  s i m p l y e x t e r n a l l y determined by the  " d i s c i p l i n a r y matrixes" o f guide  scientific  they share and t h a t a l l  perception  Structure of  argues,  world  communities  r h e t o r i c a l o r , as Booth would say, Kuhn's  (the  f o c u s s i n g on the ways i n which our namings of  That  constitutive  constructs  The Weltanschauung p h i l o s o p h e r s ,  determine  perception.  which  symbolic system of v e r b a l language d i r e c t l y  their analysis, things  to  position,  determined by the  evidence.  extent  constructionism.  Weltanschauung  is  The Weltanschauung  the  and  d e f i n e d by the assumptions  "real"  describe  it  culturally  The Weltanschauung p o s i t i o n i s ,  constructionism,  observation  "world-view," but  the k i n d o f w o r l d - v i e w t h a t i s  similarly of  basically  (They  that  describe,  41 essentially  discourse  communities  or  rhetorical  These g o v e r n i n g paradigms i n c l u d e not o n l y what i s to  be  knowledge  particular  (itself  a matter  vocabularies,  methodologies.  considered  convention),  but  [the  some  problem-definitions,  term  accepted  practice—examples application, models  "paradigm"]  examples  of  and i n s t r u m e n t a t i o n  from  paradigms  which  . . .  actual  spring  is  theory,  together—provide particular  research.  .  .  Kuhn  "advances" taking  place  in shifts Kuhn even  in  . The study o f  thinking  (10-11)  currently  are  community  governing  He t h e o r i z e s not  that  evolutionary  from one paradigm t o that realm  there of  the  is  , is,  another. no  final  physical  or  absolute  world,  but  reality that  the  and modes of p e r c e p t i o n we b r i n g t o bear on evidence  determine what we  the  student  w i t h i n a paradigm, but r e v o l u t i o n a r y — t h a t  the  theories  to  "normal s c i e n c e . "  scientific  argues  in  according  calls  coherent  what m a i n l y prepares the  w i t h which he w i l l l a t e r p r a c t i c e . inquiry  suggest  scientific  f o r membership i n the p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c  paradigm,  and  I mean t o  which i n c l u d e law,  t r a d i t i o n s of s c i e n t i f i c  Scientific  also  He w r i t e s :  By c h o o s i n g that  of  tribes.)  what  we  make o f  what  we  see  (effectively,  then,  see): No p a r t of the aim o f normal s c i e n c e i s  to c a l l  new s o r t s of phenomena; indeed those t h a t w i l l  forth not  42 fit  the box are o f t e n not seen a t a l l .  s c i e n t i s t s n o r m a l l y aim to i n v e n t new and they  are o f t e n  others.  Instead,  Nor do theories,  i n t o l e r a n t of those i n v e n t e d by normal-scientific research  is  d i r e c t e d t o the a r t i c u l a t i o n of those phenomena and theories Paradigms they  are  gain  "more  solving  the  scientific itself,  t h a t the paradigm a l r e a d y s u p p l i e s . their  status,  successful  problems  according  than  their  scientists  revolution  occurs  paradigm. "crisis"  Then, which  Kuhn s a y s , forces  a  be  one paradigm i s  decision  accept  another,  decision nature  involves  the  competing  versions  of  always  comparison  reality,  means  must  inevitably  applied  to  win  involve adherents  current  i n a state  of  "The  simultaneously  the that  of  with  both  paradigms  i n the matter  version  will  of  triumph.  i s c l e a r t h a t paradigm  rhetoric to  presents  paradigms:  That i s , one  A  judgment l e a d i n g t o  While Kuhn never mentions the t e r m , i t shifts  is  in  acute.  "anomaly"  between  and the  and w i t h each o t h e r " ( 7 7 ) .  as  because (23)  s o l v e d w i t h i n the  choice  reject  to  an  the d i s c i p l i n e  decision to  Kuhn,  competitors"  recognize  when  a problem which cannot  to  (24)  as  the  discursive  a particular version  of  reality: [I]f first  a paradigm i s ever t o triumph i t must g a i n some s u p p o r t e r s , men who w i l l develop i t t o  the  p o i n t where hardheaded arguments can be produced and multiplied.  And even  those  arguments,  when  they  43  come,  are  scientists  not  individually  are  reasonable  decisive.  men,  one  Because another  or  argument w i l l u l t i m a t e l y persuade many of them. there  is  persuade  no  single  argument  them  all.  Rather  that than  can a  or  But  should  single  group  c o n v e r s a t i o n , what occurs i s a an i n c r e a s i n g s h i f t the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r o f e s s i o n a l  allegiances.  in  (157)  Kuhn c o n t i n u e s : [I]f  the paradigm i s one d e s t i n e d t o win i t s  the number and s t r e n g t h of p e r s u a s i v e its  favor w i l l increase.  be c o n v e r t e d ,  in then  and the e x p l o r a t i o n o f the new paradigm G r a d u a l l y the number o f  instruments,  articles,  experiments,  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, c o n v i n c e d  o f the new v i e w ' s f r u i t f u l n e s s ,  at  arguments  More s c i e n t i s t s w i l l  w i l l go o n .  new mode of  fight,  w i l l adopt  p r a c t i c i n g normal s c i e n c e ,  l a s t o n l y a few e l d e r l y h o l d - o u t s  the  until  remain.  (158) Kuhn's revolutions, only  social then,  indirectly,  nature  of  constructionist aligns  in  discourse  terms  itself of  and  assumptions starting  i n q u i r y , but a l s o d i r e c t l y , because s c i e n t i s t s , to  persuade  other  scientists  to  of  scientific  with r h e t o r i c a l theory  shared  communities  theory  about  not the  places  for  he s a y s ,  have  regard c e r t a i n versions  of  44 r e a l i t y as biases  true.  are  science,  (In e f f e c t ,  explicit,  the  same  implications  of  and  here  science  disinterested, model, in  whereas  biases  the  are  that  value-free  a scientific  during  image  scientist itself  community.  periods  alignment  the  inquiry is  revolutions, of  implicit.)  theoretical is  scientific  during s c i e n t i f i c  One  of  between  of  is  normal  the  the  rhetoric  impersonal,  eroded.  In  Kuhn's  s a n c t i o n e d by membership  The a c q u i s i t i o n  and  maintenance  o f t h a t membership and maintenance o f t h a t membership d e s p i t e the p o s s i b i l i t y of d i s s o n a n c e , of  neutrality  scientific view  at  their  in  writers  the  scientists  of  scientific  scientific have  moment  status,  of  the  They  community,  by  assumptions  of  to  win adherents  by  demonstrating that that  of  and the this  always their  consequent affirming their  community,  impossibility Not  to  and c r i s i s ;  have  solidity  do  accounting.  anomaly  scientists  community,  research.  a l l speak t o the  their but  to  to  of  community.  Only  scientists  m a i n t a i n membership and the  point  of  convince  membership relevance the  the  other in  of  values  using  arguments  do  maintain  the their  of  identification by  only  that  with  the  terms  in  these  right  to  and  ways  do  be  read or  i t would be  possible  heard. On the  b a s i s of Kuhn's t h e o r y a l o n e ,  to r a t i o n a l i z e a r h e t o r i c a l analysis would  uncover  through  their  the  strategies  surface  of  of s c i e n t i f i c  influence  structure—and  as  in  texts  texts  part  of  that  which, their  45 conventional in  fact  rhetoric—argue  disinterested,  (against  neutral,  reason)  free  of  that  value.  w r i t i n g s o f P o l a n y i and Ziman s t r e n g t h e n the  they  are  However  the  case.  The p u b l i c a t i o n o f P o l a n y i ' s P e r s o n a l Knowledge predated the p u b l i c a t i o n o f The S t r u c t u r e of S c i e n t i f i c four y e a r s . of  L i k e Kuhn's t e x t , P o l a n y i ' s stands as a c r i t i q u e  t r a d i t i o n a l science.  impersonal internal;  R e v o l u t i o n s by  and that  experiencing  external, is,  but  Polanyi  that  reality is  not  personal  and  perceiving  and  conversely,  constituted  mind.  and e x p e r i e n c e  P o l a n y i argues  by  further  the argues  that  perception  are t i e d t o a Weltanschauung (although he does  not use the t e r m ) ; they are the e f f e c t and f u r t h e r cause of a world  view.  rhetorical  The  stance  clearly  implicates  contemporary  theory:  [A]s  human  universe  beings,  from  speak about i t the  a  to  center  must lying  inevitably within  see  the  ourselves  and  i n terms o f a human language shaped by  exigencies  rigorously  we  of  human  eliminate  intercourse. our  Any  attempt  human p e r s p e c t i v e  from  our p i c t u r e of the w o r l d must l e a d t o a b s u r d i t y .  (PK  3) Polanyi  says the  regrettable; scientific  c o n d i t i o n of  rather  inquiry.  it  inevitable  he d e s c r i b e s  and i t  is  Moreover, u n d e r s t a n d i n g i t  understanding s c i e n t i f i c [N]o  is  knowledge  scientist  is  not  crucial  to  is crucial  to  evidence  in  inquiry: can  forego  selecting  his  the  l i g h t of h e u r i s t i c expectations.  .  . he may w e l l be unable t o t e l l  .  E his b e l i e f  i n a hypothesis  t r a v e s t y of as  a  the  scientific  process  which  H is  And b e s i d e s on what evidence  founded.  method t o  depends  It  is  conceive  on  the  of  speed  a it of  accumulating evidence p r e s e n t i n g i t s e l f  automatically  in  random.  respect  to  hypotheses  selected  at  (PK  30) . Scientific being guided  inquiry,  then,  is  never n e u t r a l i n the  random o r unfounded i n t h e o r y . by  a  theory.  connections  to  language t h a t which i t s  Furthermore,  rhetoric  are  It  informs s c i e n t i f i c  argues,  here,  and  to  Polanyi's  knowledge"—the  set  of  thesis  and  is  assumptions  understandings  the  i n q u i r y nor the language  his  concept  are  of  "tacit  and understandings  so  basic  in  neutral.  i n f o r m our w o r l d views and c o n s t r a i n our p e r c e p t i o n s . assumptions  the  neither  c o u r s e i s d e s c r i b e d can be c o n c e i v e d o f as  Crucial  of  i s — a n d must be—  Polanyi  obvious  sense  that  that These  in  the  c o n t e x t of t h e communities i n which they are s h a r e d , t h e y 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 q u e s t i o n a b l e .  To some e x t e n t  t h e y are not q u e s t i o n a b l e because of the d i f f i c u l t y o f u s i n g the  language  of  a  particular  set  of  assumptions  to  frame  q u e s t i o n s t h a t c h a l l e n g e those assumptions: We are faced here w i t h the g e n e r a l p r i n c i p l e by which our b e l i e f s  are anchored i n o u r s e l v e s .  .  .  .  47 I am not speaking of the s p e c i f i c which f i l l  the t e x t b o o k s ,  assertions  but of the  suppositions  which u n d e r l i e the method by which t h e s e are a r r i v e d a t .  assertions  We a s s i m i l a t e most of t h e s e p r e -  s u p p o s i t i o n s by l e a r n i n g t o speak of t h i n g s c e r t a i n language,  i n which t h e r e are names f o r  v a r i o u s kinds of o b j e c t s , be c l a s s i f i e d .  .  in a  .  .  names by which o b j e c t s  can  When we a c c e p t a c e r t a i n  set  o f p r e s u p p o s i t i o n s 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 t o d w e l l i n them as we do i n our own body.  T h e i r u n c r i t i c a l acceptance  time b e i n g c o n s i s t s i n a process o f  assimilation  by which we i d e n t i f y o u r s e l v e s w i t h them. The t h e o r y of progress  of  tacit  f o r the  (PK 59)  knowledge has c l e a r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r  any d i s c i p l i n e ,  i n c l u d i n g , of course,  the  scientific  disciplines: To l e a r n by example i s t o submit t o a u t h o r i t y .  You  f o l l o w your master because you t r u s t h i s manner o f d o i n g t h i n g s even when you cannot a n a l y z e and account i n d e t a i l for i t s  effectiveness.  master and emulating h i s e f f o r t s  By watching the i n the presence  of  h i s example, the a p p r e n t i c e u n c o n s c i o u s l y p i c k s up the r u l e 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 t o the master h i m s e l f . The  communities  effectively  the  of  people  communities  sharing of  "tacit  people  (PK 53)  knowledge"  sharing  are  (Kuhn's)  48 "paradigms"—and  they  are  the  communities  rhetorical  theory.  implicated  in  rhetoric  the name o f the process  is by  is  Specifically,  Polanyi's  a c q u i r e d : people learning  modes of  those to  knowledge" that Kuhn,  rhetorical in  two  of  process  is  ways.  First,  by which t a c i t  knowledge  become members o f p a r t i c u l a r communities  language,  and  communities.  which  implicitly  the  conventional  scientific  n e u t r a l language i s that  proclaims  Secondly, inquiry  the  is  scientist  their  value  must  third  major work  Public  his  readers, In  of  Science,  discourse.  conditions  of he  communities, initiation knowledge.  in  "tacit  also  and  depends  the  in  the  for  to  Polanyi's  of  the  Ziman  which  assimilation  text  science,  John Social  rhetoricity  writes  about  communities;  initiation  extent  and he/she  Concerning the  scientific  about  In any  the  like  scientific process  Ziman  scientific  kind  of  More than e i t h e r Kuhn o r P o l a n y i , however, of  a  the  tacit  establishment  of  into  of  of  focuses on the  on  Kuhn,  like  discourse.  philosophy  argues  Like  membership writes  argues  adherence  then,  An Essay  the  allegiances  whose  effect,  the  Knowledge:  scientific  Polanyi,  by  an absurd i d e a .  affirms  for  court.  is  argues f o r the r h e t o r i c i t y of s c i e n t i f i c  Dimension  guided  an absurd i d e a , but he i m p l i e s  neutral scientist  the  inevitably  Z iman's  i n emphasizing  and community membership, P o l a n y i not o n l y  discourse,  A  tribes  d i s t i n c t i o n and concomitant ways o f p e r c e p t i o n t h a t  identify degree  the  analysis  and  fact  as a  process  49 ( c l e a r l y a r h e t o r i c a l process, of  assent)  by  scientific  which  particularized  of  scientists—an defines  conscious rivals,  Kuhn's  of  scientific  "invisible  the  working i n  adherence,  notion  of  terministic  particularly  the  community s h a r i n g  a  "tenuous  College"  as  people  same  field,  tPublic  and a  as  108).  Wayne  Ziman  distinguishes  itself  discussion  screens,  recalls  agreement.  Booth's  argues from  then  that  other  of  consensus  it  tribe." "who  are  colleagues  and  1 0  study  Polanyi,  discussion  notion  of  consensual  scientific  knowledge  knowledge,  consensus  o f r a t i o n a l o p i n i o n over the w i d e s t p o s s i b l e  participate  in  The g o a l  persuasive,  u n i v e r s a l l y accepted.  other theorists  Ziman  observes  of  belief  consensus  beliefs,  including  i n what  problem,  and a c o n v e n t i o n a l  form o f  science  (consistent  i n both r h e t o r i c and s c i e n c e ) scientific  by  must s u r v i v e a p e r i o d o f  and found so  Furthermore,  not  That which  virtually  9).  Ziman  of  requires for v a l i d a t i o n .  and t e s t i n g  Burke's  i s e s t a b l i s h e d , but by the  " p u b l i c knowledge," he s a y s ,  critical  a  of  forms o f  the c o n s e n s u a l p r o c e s s by which i t  (Public  a  a d i s c u s s i o n of Kuhn p a r t i c u l a r l y r e c a l l s Perelman's  of  we c a l l  within  college,"  "Invisible  notion  degree  established  i n P u b l i c Knowledge as a c o n s e n s i b l e group  throughout the world"  If  is  P o l a n y i ' s community o f shared " t a c i t knowledge"  is  Ziman  consensus  community.  "paradigms,"  a process of persuasion i n a i d  it  is  is  "a  field" with  t h a t those who  must a l r e a d y share many constitutes  a  scientific  i n q u i r y i n p u r s u i t of  a  50 solution: The c o n v e n t i o n i s t h a t the s c i e n t i f i c consists  of  language. matter  .  those persons  community  who are a b l e t o  I f you wish t o pronounce on a .  The  study.  To  is  consensus,  that  accept i t as i t  is.  64)  relevance  that  the  demonstrate  he  says,  " p u b l i c knowledge,"  world"  change  paradoxically,  scientist,  to  the  to  you  bridges and t h a t for  gulf  notions  however,  Ziman i s  outside  acceptable  between the  (Public  shared  o n l y word we may u s e ,  scientific  is  the  and  to has  scientific  the  general notion of and t h a t  evidence  "experiment theoretical"  ordering, a pattern,  More than Kuhn o r P o l a n y i ,  " R h e t o r i c , " he s a y s ,  ". .  process .is  the  once we have dethroned p o s i t i v i s m , and  "Why,  argument .  that  e m p i r i c a l and the a logical  what  overlooked.^  i n naming r h e t o r i c as the  c h a l l e n g e d the a b s o l u t i s m of question  understand  by  are s c o r n e d ,  38).  explicit  o f a r r i v i n g a t agreement.  His  must,  L i k e both Kuhn and P o l a n y i , Ziman argues  "a t h e o r y p r o v i d e s  observations"  you  make a c o n t r i b u t i o n  Kuhn and P o l a n y i , Ziman b e l i e v e s  the  field  1 1  which seems t o support those concerns i s Like  scientific  t o d i r e c t h i s work so t h a t i t  general  which f a l l  scientifically  (Public  wishing  "tries  ( P u b l i c 48).  concerns  its  . you must show t h a t you are a l r e a d y  a c q u a i n t e d w i t h c u r r e n t knowledge i n t h a t of  speak  .  in  ^scientific' fact,  do  . ? " ( P u b l i c 32)  proof" ( P u b l i c we  believe  a  32). good  In t h i s  context  the s c i e n t i f i c The  o f a r h e t o r i c of  report.  work  as  research  .  .  .  and  now  (Public argues  conventional to  (Public  nature of  machine  something i s what  scientific  the  scientific  In  writing  rhetorically  impersonal'  is  a  is  written  unemotive, another.  that  really  authors  much  as  more in  from  a  one  The experiment occurred to  always takes p l a c e , set  abstract,  out  is  me,  the  in principle, i n the  the  impersonal  communications  other is  words,  is  not  use  a  the  paper.  but i t s  citations  scientific  the  of  "The r e f e r e e , "  of  impersonal  furthermore  and  embed  to it  is  that  validate in  the  He adds t o the r h e t o r i c  o f s c i e n c e t h a t the a r t i c l e appearing i n a s c i e n t i f i c  i t by the e d i t o r and the r e f e r e e s  the  style  the  rhetorically  "bears the imprimatur o f s c i e n t i f i c  by  impersonal s t y l e  says,  paper  of  consensus  impersonal  opposite:  Ziman  style  an attempt  reflection  p r e e x i s t i n g consensus ( P u b l i c 103).  ( P u b l i c 111).  the  style,  work seem a l r e a d y p a r t of  inquiry,  in  It  to  motivated.  made  .  of  34)  make h i s  the  describes  chronicle  it  i d e a l circumstances  that  96).  scientific  flat  no mere  place;  deliberately  under the  claims  took  x  author; i t  author  it  is  curiously a r t i f i c i a l  not  Ziman  published  document  calculating  Ziman  He w r i t e s :  as  contrived  science,  authenticity,  journal  as g i v e n to  whom he may have c o n s u l t e d "  he s a y s ,  i s the  " l y n c h p i n about  52 which the whole business journal referees gate-keepers  and e d i t o r s  are guardians o f the  111);  consensus,  of a s o r t .  Ziman,  then,  implicitly, scientific  of S c i e n c e i s p i v o t e d " ( P u b l i c  explicitly,  and  argue t h a t s c i e n t i f i c prose—is  rhetorical,  and  Polanyi  d i s c o u r s e — i n c l u d i n g formal  neutral or s t r i c t l y objective,  " r h e t o r i c a l " has  context  of twentieth-century theory. S c i e n t i f i c discourse i s ,  broadly  i m p e l l e d by the  identification build  been d e f i n e d  but  i n the  speaking,  as  not  Kuhn  need  among s c i e n t i s t s  to  win adherence,  establish  and w i t h dominant norms, and  consensus. Ziman's a n a l y s i s  project  because  scientific  regard i s  it  authors  particularly  is  points use  to  specific  rhetorical  interesting  about  ways  in  strategies.  Ziman's  present which  What  comments  in  is this  t h a t they do not o r i g i n a t e i n an a p r i o r i n o t i o n of  a rhetoric/science  split.  and h i s a n a l y s i s begins Some  current  Sociologists Ziman's  p a r t i c u l a r l y germane t o the  open  Ziman t r e a t s  from t h a t premise.  theorists—including  Gilbert  and Mulkay,  critical  s c i e n c e as r h e t o r i c ,  P.  B.  Medawar,  and Joseph G u s f i e l d — s h a r e  stance.  However,  other  theorists  noting r h e t o r i c a l strategies operating i n s c i e n t i f i c  texts—  i n c l u d i n g Andrew W e i g e r t , Barbara Cox and C h a r l e s R o l a n d , and H e r b e r t Simons—argue a g a i n s t r h e t o r i c i t y i n s c i e n t i f i c and  claim  tendency.  that  these  That i s ,  texts  should  among t h e o r i s t s  be  free  of  texts  rhetorical  and r e s e a r c h e r s 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 texts,  two  Weigert  attitudes  and  scientific  prevail.  others)  that  One i s  rhetoric  and the  is  attitude  not  rhetorical,  and  scientific  that  discourse  attitudes  represent  and  entirely  what is  deserve  summed  up  science." Weigert's, x  is'  .  wants."  .  with is  way  to  its  w r i t i n g simply  rhetoric  reviewed.  in The  in  about  works.  the  both  Both  rhetoric  Ziman  of W e i g e r t ,  critical  of  attitude,  rhetoric  and  Cox and R o l a n d , and Simons,  term:  "the  bias  follows  "a s c i e n t i s t  Weigert  rhetoric, he  but  renders  qua  immoral r h e t o r i c the  scientist  argues  concerned  sociological  that  identifies his  attitude  use o f p e r s u a s i v e  view,  says  of also  only  "if  a  what  himself  rhetoric  immoral,  especially reporting.  "masquerading" as s c i e n c e . told  he  sociologist .  . the  as  a  immoral  (111).  toward  rhetoric  impugns  s t r a t e g i e s , both c o v e r t and o v e r t .  professor  is  the more p r o d u c t i v e .  The  negative  A  appropriate  investigating  scholarship  r h e t o r i c o f i d e n t i t y deception"  is  by  . 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  scientist,  The  worth  theory  Weigert's  (HI)  practices  be  by  that  .  the  to  consistent  The c r i t i c a l b i a s  is  current  philosophy of science,  is  (held  a c c o u n t i n g and s h o u l d somehow be removed from i t ;  the o t h e r — l i k e Z i m a n ' s — i s t h a t s c i e n t i f i c  science  quasi-scientific  with  the  Readers,  he  covert says,  authorial Weigert  rhetoric find  of  rhetoric  He w r i t e s : me  that  an  article  of  his  was  54 accepted he  by a l e a d i n g  supply  more  argument.  He  peripheral  to  added baggage, a table is  j o u r n a l on the  empirical  proceeded  data  to  the  its  that  support  his  to a  table  distantly  the  theme of  the  a r t i c l e was d u l y p u b l i s h e d .  a form of r h e t o r i c .  The assumption u n d e r l y i n g W e i g e r t ' s could exist  add  condition  independently  of  article.  With  (Weigert  Such  116)  argument i s  rhetoric,  the  that  and t h a t ,  science  if  it  did,  purposes would be more honorably s e r v e d . ^ Weigert's  concern  about  covert  scientific  rhetoric  is  matched by the concerns of o t h e r c r i t i c s about o v e r t r h e t o r i c in  science.  Cox and Roland argue t h a t  scientific journals  articles  journals participate i n s c i e n t i f i c  and s h o u l d be c o n s t r a i n e d by t h a t  rhetorical.  emotionally  laden  especially  on  objectivity." journal  Cox  describe  is  of  patients  someone who  v  that  the  "use  of  literature,  tends  to  undermine  to a s e r i e s of medical  x  skin-popping'  snorted'  a c i d head' o r who had a  joint'.  is,  they s h o u l d not  scientific  topics,  That  ask,  it  to state that hashish x  the  those  on marijuana ( p u b l i s h e d i n 1971), they  speak  x  in  argue  Referring s p e c i f i c a l l y  "how s c i e n t i f i c  an  words  Roland  controversial  articles  to  and  ethos o f  ethos.  they are not r e a d as r h e t o r i c a l and t h e r e f o r e be  appearing i n  .  .?  v  may  Would not  heroin  good t r i p ' be  . .  .  .  .  .,  . . .  rolled  in  a more o b j e c t i v e  or  to  o r was o r even to  a  tone  be  55 a c h i e v e d by s t a t i n g t h a t p a t i e n t s intradermally, regular  i n h a l e d h e r o i n powder,  basis,  experienced  hallucinations, papers? These  authors  aware  euphoria  or r o l l e d hashish i n  express  legitimate  of  legitimate, appeals  if  it  conclude  were  their  "editors  or  naive,  scientific  designs  on  naive  weed out  the  rhetoric  paper  the  say,  because  by  Cox  of  public  and p r o f e s s i o n a l  Cox  and  trying the  science."  Roland do  to  persuade  not  recommending  anyone  how,  of  opinion  objectivity  in  the  anything,  it  and Cox and Roland h o l d t o  seventeenth-century science  could  only  ideal be  of  split  accept,  shifts, .  .  absence  very  rhetoric, of  anyone  might happen t h a t shift.  an i d e a l ,  like  the  Society,  that  if  is,  if  r h e t o r i c a l component,  all  the  Royal  from  language c o u l d o n l y be shorn of i t s  their  .the  "tide o f p u b l i c and p r o f e s s i o n a l o p i n i o n " would Weigert  that  The e d i t o r s ,  In t h e i r d i a t r i b e a g a i n s t say  they  "with the thought t h a t when  j o u r n a l w i l l be remembered f o r i t s foundation of  be  and Roland  i n the m a t e r i a l they  can c o n s o l e themselves  tide  should  simply unattainable,  possible.  emotional  about  scientific  readers  them;  theoretically  own  concerns  even i f t h a t means t a k i n g an unpopular s t a n c e . " they  pleasant  cigarette  i n the forum of the  because  authors'  if  m a i n t a i n an i d e a l of o b j e c t i v i t y t h a t i s even  used LSD on a  (141)  the r o l e o f p e r s u a s i v e article:  i n j e c t e d a compound  rhetoric,  that  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  strategies  in  and o f t e n  scientific  unconscious  texts,  as  well  use as  of  rhetorical  the  theoretical  i n e v i t a b i l i t y o f a r h e t o r i c a l dimension i n s c i e n c e r e p o r t i n g , diminishes others  the  that  usefulness  scientific  rhetorical,  of  the  c l a i m made by Weigert and  writing is  suspect by v i r t u e o f  o r t h a t s c i e n t i s t s are t o be c h a s t i s e d  as H e r b e r t Simons s a y s ,  "rhetors i n d i s g u i s e . "  kind  a  smokescreen  i n the  r h e t o r i c of  of  argument  significant the  issues  nature  is  and means  of  scientific  The  other  Ziman,  attitude  recognizes  toward  its  for being,  In f a c t ,  obscuring  the  this more  science pertaining  persuasion—issues  o t h e r c r i t i c s have been more a b l e t o  being  to  which  address.  rhetoric  inevitability  in  science,  and i s  more  noted  in  compatible  w i t h contemporary understanding o f both s c i e n c e and r h e t o r i c -although  critics  who  hold  this  attitude  concerned about the form and substance "The s c i e n t i f i c "because  it  paper may be  misrepresents  a the  are  nonetheless  of s c i e n t i f i c  fraud,"  says P .  process  of  writing.  B . Medawar,  thought  that  accompanied o r gave r i s e t o the work t h a t i s d e s c r i b e d i n the paper"  (43).  continues  to  That  is,  the  promote the  surface  reporting  i d e a l of o b j e c t i v i t y o f  and p u r i t y of r e s e a r c h , w h i l e the r e a l i t y o f "every  act  of  observation  induction i n s c i e n t i f i c Medawar's analysis  position  published  of  we  make  is  recently  corroborated by  observation  science i s  biased"  inquiry is a fiction" is  science  by  sociologists  and  that pure  (42). a of  discourse science,  57 Gilbert of  and Mulkay.  scientists'  betrays  G i l b e r t and Mulkay compare the  informal  conversation  unselfconsciously  and t h e i r  the  " r e a l " nature  formal c o n v e r s a t i o n — t h e  journals.  (which,  discourse  they  texts  of  experimental  certain recurrent s t y l i s t i c , features  their  the  author's  commitment  to  his  ties  social  mentioned.  of  professional scientists:  papers  applicable  nor  w i t h those whose work he f a v o r s  are  Laboratory  work  is  manner,  and u n i v e r s a l l y  characterized as  instances  effective.  and judgments, in  linguistic the  to  the  features,  physical  which  generally the  Mulkay  explain  "portrays  such papers  author's  authors  for i t s e l f . that  scientists'  are  style,  with  actions  and  By a d o p t i n g t h e s e kinds  w o r l d seems  and sometimes t o a c t ,  science,  a of  Although  an impersonal  judgments kept t o a minimum.  and  in  of e x p e r i m e n t a l papers c l e a r l y depends on the  references  Gilbert  .  position  particular analytical  overwhelmingly w r i t t e n  which  .  or  experimenters'actions  of  .  with  a  involvement  i m p e r s o n a l , p r o c e d u r a l r o u t i n e s which are  overt  display  grammatical and l e x i c a l  own  conventional  content  work)  which appear t o be c o h e r e n t l y r e l a t e d .  Neither  highly  claim,  of  They f i r s t d e s c r i b e the formal t a l k of  [T]he  features  the  construct  texts  r e g u l a r l y to  in  speak,  (55-56) formal  actions  writing  of  and b e l i e f s  as  58 following  unproblematically  .  .  .  from  the  empirical  c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an impersonal n a t u r a l w o r l d , " i s (56),  and they  demonstrate  comparing formal the They  same  scientific  scientists  report  the  that  p r i n c i p l e of  texts  discussing  what  appears  to  the  selective  selectivity  informal  the  same  acts  in  journal  speech  of  of  research.  articles  o b j e c t i v e o b s e r v a t i o n i s e x p l a i n e d i n f o r m a l l y as  by  to  be  guided by a  commitment t o a p a r t i c u l a r way o f l o o k i n g a t d a t a : Scientists' often  i n f o r m a l t a l k about a c t i o n and b e l i e f  much  speakers their  more  contingent,  gave accounts  professional  repertoire]  actions  actions  had been  enables  .  .  phenomena.  scientists'  as  the  the  scientific  different.  [This  to  the  When t h i s  depict  positions. Gilbert formal  (57)  and Mulkay scientific  professional influenced  repertoire is  employed, generic  of the n a t u r a l w o r l d ,  and  inclinations  values  realm o f e m p i r i c a l  judgments  i n d i v i d u a l s a c t i n g on the b a s i s of personal  that  contingent  are no l o n g e r d e p i c t e d as  realities  activities  that  i f t h e i r personal or s o c i a l  outside  actions  responses t o  sense  as b e i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y  by v a r i a b l e f a c t o r s .  and  speakers  and b e l i e f s  the  i n which i t was accepted  c o u l d have been otherwise circumstances  in  was  and  of  but  specific  their  particular  social  1 4  demonstrate,  language  does  through not  their  accurately  study, portray  that the  59 p r a c t i c e of  science,  o t h e r realms o f  on  strategies  position  is  corroborated  "literary" analysis  drinking at  of  is  by what  articulated  Gusfield  work i n the  "scientific"  he p e r c e i v e s  also  a medical  drivers.  much d i s t u r b e d by the presence he  is  in  discourse.  Medawar's Gusfield's  even as t h a t p r a c t i c e  finds  by  Joseph  journal  article  many  not  so  of r h e t o r i c i n the a r t i c l e  as  to  be the  piece,  persuasive  and i s  article's  dishonesty.  He w r i t e s : The language i s d e l i b e r a t e , and l i m i t e d i n imagery. the  persuasion  is  to  nonevocative, It  come  meticulous  informs the  reader  from an e x t e r n a l  not from the author o r h i s use of language. description i s minimally metaphorical. made  to  seem  affective think  or  cognitive  and  emotional.  and not  to  anonymous and i s  We,  feel.  The  rather  audience,  A l t h o u g h the  reality  The i n t e n t  logical the  that  is  than  are  author i s  to not  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 o r g a n i z a t i o n , the s t y l e o f w r i t i n g grounds the a c t i o n of the paper i n the agency o f methodological analysis.  procedures  The agent  is  of  data  collection  minimized and the  and  drama of  the paper i s p r e s e n t e d as f o l l o w i n g from the unfolding  of  the  interests, What i s  procedures  of  method,  not  from  b i a s e s o r language of the a u t h o r .  "fraudulent,"  then,  about  scientific  the  (21)  writing  (to  use  Medawar's term)  the  n a t u r e of  nature  of  its  the  persuasive  is  not  that  rhetoric is  enterprise  power o f  it  is  r h e t o r i c a l , but  not always c o n s i s t e n t w i t h  it  represents.  formal s c i e n t i f i c  Moreover,  language  is  G u s f i e l d ' s comments on s c i e n t i f i c  the the  derived i n  p a r t from the f a c t t h a t i t appears, a t l e a s t a t f i r s t , be r h e t o r i c a l .  that  not  to  writing,  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  n a t u r e and i m p l i c a t i o n s of exploration persuasive best use  must  scientific  reveal  strategies  in  studies  the  purpose  analytical of  the  model  based  following  the  of  functioning  of  texts,  such s t u d i e s  are  r h e t o r i c a l theory,  and  on t h a t  chapter  the  Because  informed by an understanding of an  explore  rhetoric.  modes  scientific  which  to  theory.  It  establish  just  is  the  such  a  model. Theory  in  both  science, then,  philosophy  argues  texts.  Philosophy  rhetoric  of  discourse the  symbolic  and p h i l o s o p h y  a  sense  the  the  uses  of  brings the  and i t s  enterprise of  audience  shapes o f  i n use,  epistemic  enterprise  an  nature  and the  any language  to  the  role.  every  construction  level and  of  scienctific in as  persuasion, u b i q u i t y of  P h i l o s o p h y of  a p a r a l l e l understanding of  community, and a sense of the c o n t i n g e n t  human i n q u i r y a t theory  retoric  of  interchange  discourse  to  of  community,  science brings to  rhetoric  f o r the r h e t o r i c a l study o f  science  non-neutrality  of  nature o f  —from " e m p i r i c a l " o b s e r v a t i o n the  construction  of  knowledge  itself. is  For t h e o r i s t s  value-laden  notion  of  affecting  and  i n both r h e t o r i c and s c i e n c e , perception  "Weltanschauung," both  language  e x p l a i n i n g human a c t i o n .  and  is of  theory-laden, beliefs  perception,  and goes  language and  some  assumptions some way  to  62 Endnotes 1. No attempt  is  made here  to  rhetoric  or  acience  exhaustively,  theorists  to  show the  connections  coverage  would  include  cover only  theory to  in  use  exemplary  between them.  arguments,  not  either  Exhaustive  only  from  other  r h e t o r i c i a n s but from o t h e r contemporary t e x t u a l c r i t i c s ,  on  the n o n - n e u t r a l and formative nature of  language—as  well  as  a h i s t o r y of  t r a d i t i o n a l views  of  theoretical  opposition to  science. Postmodern t e x t u a l c r i t i c s , to  deconstructionists,  neither  have made the  n e u t r a l nor t r a n s p a r e n t ,  i n r e l a t i o n t o thought. Eagleton, note,  Tompkins,  however,  and o t h e r  Scholes,  for  that  critics  language  informed and f o r m a t i v e  and C u l l e r .  see It  , f o r example, is  important t o  views.  language  not complete  is  rhetoricians,  The argument t h a t  language  in itself.  F o r the  an impersonal and c l o s e d language  is  full  of  system,  value,  r h e t o r s have some power, i n t h e i r humanness, t o use i t F o r purposes for  the  Realm of Motives  three  of  the  present  Perelman d i s c u s s i o n Rhetoric;  for  and Language as  discussion,  Modern  theorists  is  the d i s t i n c t i o n s between contemporary r h e t o r i c  how we t h i n k i s  postmodernists,  but  case  F o r an overview,  postmodernist  conditions  whereas  from r e a d e r - r e s p o n s e  the  are  synthesis,  the  Burke d i s c u s s i o n ,  Symbolic A c t i o n ,  Dogma and the  are major f i g u r e s  texts  and The  A R h e t o r i c of  and f o r  R h e t o r i c of  well.  basic  The New R h e t o r i c  and  the  Booth  Assent.  The  i n 20th c e n t u r y r h e t o r i c a l  63 theory. A  useful  science"  is  themselves, Wheeler. the  see, In  represented not  for  the  and  Ziman  philosophers the is  2.  The  rhetorical probably 3.  For  a  Modern  discussion See  Rhetoric, of  is  and  "What we to  "new  scientists  our  J.  A.  affects  itself  synthesis,  the  Structure  of  The  discussion, Public  still  is  not  observe  method  and  of  author of of  see  synopsis  the  the  Ad  see  and  the  Modern  the  All  work o f  c e n t r a l t o the canons,  the  three in  a l l three field. Invention,  five  Roman  parts  of  rhetoricians,  Herennium.  and  L u n s f o r d and  of  Knowledge;  in their discipline  differences  Knoblauch  text  Scientific  Knowledge .  Delivery—the by  basic  Personal  rhetorical  enumerated  f o r the  of  observed  world  exposed  became a c t i v e  similarities,  Rhetoric  the  observer:  present  Memory,  the  that  nature  s e m i n a l and  discussion  Corbett's  Classical  the  traditional  f i r s t by  the  Heisenberg,  early sixties,  study—were  of  physical  discussion,  Style,  W.  every  Polanyi  and  discussion  75).  science  considered  Arrangement,  and  of  late fifties now  to  discussion  f o r the  the  the  but  of  Revolutions: for  that  a  words  notion  (Heisenberg  Kuhn  the  the  itself,  purposes  for  example,  science,  nature  For  For  for  argues  source  identically  questioning"  4.  Suppe.  observed  is  secondary  history  Student.  between C l a s s i c a l Brannon.  For  a  Ede. of  rhetoric  in  64 5. truth  Perelman is  not  self-evidence,  common  (Realm  The  science.  is  Knowledge  and  Woolgar, and 7.  Gilbert  truth  a  rhetorical  conceived  by  See  also  Epistemic" Later").  fact  and  accept  these  absolute as  the  facts  and  guarantee,  would  truths  scientific by  which  Krohn, and  compel  are  such every  accepted  by  become o p e n t o  "On  work  in  Knorr-Cetina, and  Whitley.  is the  The See  itself  a  form  sociology  of  Manufacture  of  also Latour  and  Mulkay. that  Booth  arguing  is  (Perelman a new  inquiry  recent  Viewing  thoroughly  f o r the assent."  is  itself  (30)  (23) a  The  says  Scott  "The or  theory  as  under to  dialectic—inquiring  conflation  ( "On  but  According  of  rhetoric  of  contemporary  of  argumentation  dialectic.  Rhetoric  confounded  former w e l l  characteristic  rhetoric and  "has  of  dialogue."  Brummett, and  that  however,  as  of  we  the o p i n i o n of s p e c i a l i s t s  "rhetoric"  theory  [is]  and  rhetoric  K  dialectic,  an  necessity  facts  claims  Booth's  the  unless  guarantee  l a c k such  rhetoric,  of  could  example,  Knorr,  and  banner  Crusius,  and  for  Crusius  dialectic  who  supported  See,  status  24).  argument  rhetoric  "into  the  [the]  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  such  o p i n i o n o r by  6.  the  and  that  indefinitely  i f we  being  question"  of  and  However,  reasonable  see  infallible  incontestable  truths.  "We  guaranteed  e x i s t e n c e o f an are  says,  Viewing  . . "(Realm  5].  Rhetoric  as  Epistemic:  Ten  Years  65 8.  Interestingly,  Kuhn i n h i s  Booth h i m s e l f r e f e r s to both P o l a n y i and  d i s c u s s i o n of  science.  See h i s  footnote,  MD 109-  110. 9.  It  is  important view  similarly  any  language,  but an epistemology:  know what we know. implied  in  a  therefore,  intersect  that  a  reinforced  science,  of  view  subsumes it  of  not  includes  language.  theories i n the  social  this  Science, only  of  It  scientific  a  is  is  and  view  a t h e o r y of  Furthermore, an epistemology  view  that  would  of  that  of  how we  necessarily  not  surprising,  knowledge  and r h e t o r i c  contemporary i n t e l l e c t u a l  context—and  constructionist  i n a theory of  view  of  science  n o n - n e u t r a l language  would  be  and a r h e t o r i c  o f consensual v a l i d a t i o n . 10. Studies,  In  a  much  Ziman o f f e r s  Scientists  later  work,  An  Introduction  to  Science  t h i s expanded d e s c r i p t i o n :  mainly i n t e r a c t communally w i t h o t h e r  scientists i n their specialty—that  is,  with other  members o f the i n v i s i b l e c o l l e g e i n t h e i r f i e l d of research. group,  T h i s i s n o t , of c o u r s e ,  a precisely  defined  s i n c e i t c o n s i s t s s i m p l y of the r e s e a r c h  s c i e n t i s t s who happen a t 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 u s i n g a p a r t i c u l a r experimental technique o r who are i n t e r e s t e d nature.  .  .  .  i n some p a r t i c u l a r aspect  . I t i s not i n s t i t u t i o n a l l y ,  or n a t i o n a l l y l o c a l i z e d .  .  .  (75).  . . of  geographically  66  11. T h i s prevailing  view,  in  fact,  is  so  paradigm i n s c i e n t i f i c  characteristic  thought  that  it  of  is  the  referred  t o and assumed i n much the same way as p r i n c i p l e s of e m p i r i c i s m were  r e f e r r e d to  middle  of  this  and assumed century.  p r o f e s s o r James T r e f i l the  term  says,  to  methodologies a  large  to  recent  book  review,  physics  i n his  tenuous  book.  web of  The term,  Trefil  shared assumptions  and  t h a t c h a r a c t e r i z e s the work of s c i e n t i s t s and, t o  (50).  rather  a  science"  "that  extent,  operates"  In  the  remarks on author G e r a l d H o l t o n ' s use of  " c u l t u r e of  refers  i n w r i t i n g about s c i e n c e t o  determines The concept  than  argued  r a t h e r than a s s e r t e d ,  in  how  scientific  " c u l t u r e of  the  and t h i s  the  article,  enterprise  science" its  is  referred  validity  assumed  i s the mark of the m a t u r i t y of a  concept w i t h i n a c u l t u r e . 12.  See  Continental  especially Drift  Ziman's  discussion  (Public  and P o l a n y i ' s comparable d i s c u s s i o n  56-7)  of  (PK 158)  of e x t r a - s e n s o r y p e r c e p t i o n . 13.  It  objections Rhetoric cite  of  Weaver,  essay,  to  interesting look  in  carefully  Scientistic  the at  the  context  Weaver's  Sociology."  he makes many of  Weaver l i s t s  science, "social  is  While  of  Weigert's  "The  Concealed  Weigert  same p o i n t s .  does  In h i s  not 1959  r h e t o r i c a l s t r a t e g i e s of w r i t e r s i n s o c i a l  not the l e a s t o f which, he s a y s , scientists"—according  to  terms and a r h e t o r i c a l e x p r e s s i o n .  i s c a l l i n g themselves  Weaver,  a  contradiction  Sociologists,  in  according to  Weaver,  have  u s i n g the while  rhetorically  "eulogistic  Weaver i s  obfuscation, sociology,"  aware of  a rhetoric  of the  never  acknowledges  reporting  ethnographic the  of  it,  observe  of  see  research involves  l a b o r a t o r y to  of  the  science,  s u r p r i s i n g that  citations,  that  scientific  14. For f u r t h e r d i s c u s s i o n the  It is  s i g n s of p r e c i s i o n i n  might be at work i n bona f i d e  and  themselves w i t h  terms" of s c i e n c e .  and use he  identified  same  linguistic "scientistic strategies  writing.  the  performance of  Latour  and  Woolgar.  science Their  o b s e r v i n g s c i e n t i s t s working i n  how the  daily activities  l e a d t o the c o n s t r u c t i o n of s c i e n t i f i c  facts.  of  science  68 Chapter Two. A Methodology S c i e n t i f i c Texts  The d i s c u s s i o n with respect analysis are  of  to  the  legitimately  rhetoric means  (as  is  of  ladenness  absolutely,  "truth" of  neutral of  or  is  2)  that  arrived  of  no  scientific  can,  for  Moreover, these "commonplace"  longer  is  (the  the  into  in  so  consensible  of  the  consensually at  scientific by  theory-  in  the  as  5)  be  not  that called  and r h e t o r i c  Western  they  the  belief  thought.  assumed t o be v a l i d ;  much arguable  3)  language  and  science  contemporary  both  least  reasons,  of  and  o f language;  communities;  views  viewed  discursive  study  textured  these  are  as  knowledge)  not,  that  but  They a r e , among i n i t i a t e d t h e o r i s t s , are  at  and  transparent,  language  become  matters  process  o r n e u t r a l ; 4)  particular  "rhetorical."  views  scientific  investigation  scientists,  objective  scientific  have  entails  insofar  accounting  epistemic  production);  points  a rhetorical  particularly  scientific  an  following  of  1) t h a t s c i e n c e and r h e t o r i c  p r o d u c t i o n of  as  the  o f p e r c e p t i o n and the v a l u e - l a d e n n e s s  communication  systems  the  rhetoric  scientific  not  discourse:  and  viewed  and  Rhetorical Analysis  underpinnings of  interconnected,  knowledge  science  that  theoretical  inquiry  epistemically  the  f a r has e s t a b l i s h e d  scientific  scientific  is  so  for  are  these  themselves  o p i n i o n on which o t h e r arguments can be  predicated. The matter a t hand i s  t o develop a methodology of  analyzing  69 scientific  prose,  i n p a r t i c u l a r selected a r t i c l e s published i n  major m e d i c a l j o u r n a l s over the l a s t s i x y e a r s , s p e c i f y i n g the nature of t h e i r r h e t o r i c i t y . conventions  associated  with  t r a d i t i o n a l l y been thought t o  A l t h o u g h the prose  scientific  scientific  prose  is  voiceless,  neutral.  The h y p o t h e s i s  scientific  prose,  language  p a r t of i t s  as  have  realm of  from the realm of r h e t o r i c ) ,  t h e o r y — a s w e l l as p a s t r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s that  writing  be n o n - r h e t o r i c a l (the  s c i e n c e b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d separate  suggests  f o r purposes of  not  (See Chapter One)— simply  f o r the  i n use,  is  reportorial,  analysis  rhetorical,  is  that  and t h a t  r h e t o r i c a l power comes from prose conventions which  o p e r a t e t o c r e a t e the i m p r e s s i o n of the d i s i n t e r e s t e d  scientist  r e p o r t i n g a c t s o f pure o b s e r v a t i o n i n t r a n s p a r e n t p r o s e . The u l t i m a t e purpose of r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s i s t o i l l u m i n a t e the in  functions  and e f f e c t s  "The R h e t o r i c of  an a n a l y s i s its  of  rhetoric,  discourse.  Hitler's  Me i n Kampf so  of  that  Kenneth Burke w r i t e s  ^ B a t t l e , " t h a t he has undertaken  i n order to  "we may know,  d i s c o v e r the with  n a t u r e of  greater  accuracy,  e x a c t l y what t o guard a g a i n s t , " as a p o p u l a t i o n i n America (PLF 191).  To draw an  purpose o f  between  Burke's  purpose  and  t h i s p r o j e c t i s not t o suggest a n y t h i n g s i n i s t e r  the  r h e t o r i c of  The  motive  awareness  analogy  of of  science the the  i n g e n e r a l o r medicine i n  rhetorical ways  of  critic human  is  always  influence  by  the in  particular. to  increase increasing  u n d e r s t a n d i n g of language i n u s e . To develop a t h e o r y of  scientific  r h e t o r i c and e s t a b l i s h a  70 methodology  for  the  rhetorical  analysis  of  scientific  t h i s c h a p t e r begins w i t h a review of s i g n i f i c a n t both  rhetoric  descriptions the  the  and  for  as  of  well  as  the  remainder  of  the  The  review  chapter  which  the common ground o f r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , argues  appropriateness  of  of  texts,  scientific  a p p l y i n g a r h e t o r i c a l model t o  discourse  embracing  rhetorical  model  series  criticism  on which these programs are based.  groundwork  describes  rhetorical  definitions  o f 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  theories  lays  itself  texts,  of  probes  affirms  a  scientific  texts,  which  suggests  to  applied  be  definition  an  i n the  of  and  analytic  the  the  reading  rhetorical  establishes procedure,  analysis  of  a  or  a  scientific  texts. The t h e o r i s t have  traditionally  twentieth  century,  sustained the  dominant  in fact,  based  been the  based  is  century  that  i n t e r e s t i n the s u b j e c t  Aristotelian. is,  on whose work models  or  form  of  Aristotle; has  seen  and the  in  critical  according  to  practice  Aristotelian  the  greatest  of r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m ,  rhetorical  Analysis  for r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m  is  1  neo-  principles  the c o r e program on which o t h e r programs have been  from which t h e y have  been l a u n c h e d ,  and the program  a g a i n s t which s t i l l o t h e r s have r e a c t e d . 2 Not  all  rhetorical authors  rhetorical analysis  who  have  of  theorists texts  have  dealt  (Aristotle  considered  the  d i r e c t l y with  did not).  practice  of  the  Among the rhetorical  c r i t i c i s m are H e r b e r t W i c h e l n s , Edwin B l a c k , Donald C . B r y a n t ,  Wayne B o o t h , to  texts,  while  literature this  and Kenneth Burke. not  supplying  and suggests  r h e t o r i c a l analysis  rhetorical  texts,  in  rhetorical  texts,  and  the  critic  first  is  that  which  the  and then  rhetorical  defines  a  of  texts.  choose between these is  useful  in  various  critical  others,  invite  realm of  of  used  the  first the  approaches  to  criticism  of  defines  analysis  of  texts,  in  as  rhetorical  certain of  those  which and  a l l rhetorical critics  one  the  filter  distinction through  Some c r i t i c a l  treatment  of  own well-known  discovering  in  this  definition  rhetorical  criticism  author has  been s u c c e s s f u l  means o f  the  the then  r h e t o r i c a l method t o a v a r i e t y of  the  a v a i l a b l e means of p e r s u a s i o n " have  in  in  necessarily between them  which  to  approaches,  scientific  texts  examine  more  than  within  the  rhetoric.  Aristotle's "faculty  critic  methodology  works.  the  f o r methodology  between  approaches,  providing  the  texts.  criticism  While not  of  does c o v e r major trends  discusses  d i s c u s s e s the a p p l i c a t i o n of  approaches  summary  keep i n mind i n r e v i e w i n g  criticism  rhetorical as  to  their  complete  a direction  of s c i e n t i f i c  A distinction  kinds  a  in rhetorical criticism,  century  texts  A review o f  persuasion  question i t s e l f  have  as  of  rhetoric  p a r t i c u l a r case  (7),  asked  the to  what  and, i n g e n e r a l , basis what  of  extent  a  a  p a r t i c u l a r case. "criticism  of  is  the  are  the  those who  program a  i n f i n d i n g and u s i n g the  i n the  suggests  definition  of  particular available  The A r i s t o t e l i a n rhetorical  texts"  72 model,  since  features  it  implies  placed  in  first  Aristotelian  texts,  choice  of  by v i r t u e of  the  an author w i t h  the  are r h e t o r i c a l .  q u a r t e r of  model  certain  them by the  i n t e n t i o n t o persuade, In the  that  of  the  twentieth  rhetorical  century,  criticism  was  comprehensively by H e r b e r t W i c h e l n s , who then of a  the  neo-  articulated  became  somewhat  mentor f o r o t h e r c r i t i c s who would a t t a c h 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 t h e o r y . Neo-Aristotelian application  to  critical  specific  methodology  texts  of  the  is  essentially  terms  of  an  Aristotelian  r h e t o r i c a l theory  (summarized more f u l l y i n Chapter One above).  Neo-Aristotelian  critics  audience,  and purpose  but any d i s c o u r s e ) , the s p e a k e r ' s They  focus  appeals pathos  proofs  and the of  through  Arrangement,  ethos  in  the  consider  (appeal  effectively  of  from the  not  catalogued  of  as  speech, Style  of  major  and  speech  context.  rhetorical  Delivery.  They  c o n s i d e r i n g a r t i s t i c and well  as  i n them.  character  noting  possible  situation,  only a  enthymemes  the  delineate  the  speaker),  of  means of  themselves).  disposition  and i d e n t i f y and  and  They  and logos (the arguments  i n the  devices  four  Style,  speech,  Arrangement,  and arguments  effects  (now,  the  t o p o i which operate  (emotional appeal)  appeals  particular  speech has been c o n d i t i o n e d by  (as A r i s t o t l e d i d ) on I n v e n t i o n ,  examples  the  "speech"  and how the  analysis  Invention,  inartistic  They  a  the  u n d e r s t a n d i n g of a l l of these f a c t o r s  organize  canons:  for  consider  of  and  the  discuss  Delivery.  Aristotle  persuasion,  and these  73 are used h e u r i s t i c a l l y i n t h e c r i t i c i s m based on h i s t h e o r y . ^ H e r b e r t Wichelns formalize  i s c o n s i d e r e d t o be t h e f i r s t  neo-Aristotelian  criticism,  drawing  person  together  to the  fragments c o n c e r n i n g c r i t i c i s m t h a t o t h e r c r i t i c s had mentioned in  the e a r l i e r  Criticism the  p a r t of the twentieth-century.  o f O r a t o r y , " which appeared  "first  truly  scholarly  century"  (Stewart 3 ) .  approach  i s apparent  "Literary  i n 1925, was s a i d t o be  project  Wicheln's  His  in  rhetoric  for  this  commitment t o an A r i s t o t e l i a n  i n the subjects  he  suggests  merit the  a t t e n t i o n of the c r i t i c : Rhetorical c r i t i c i s m i s necessarily  analytical.  The scheme o f a r h e t o r i c a l study i n c l u d e s t h e element of  the  factor;  speaker's  personality  i t includes also  man—not  as  a  the p u b l i c  c h a r a c t e r o f the  what he was, but what he was  It requires a  description  conditioning  thought  o f t h e speaker's  t o be.  audience,  and o f t h e l e a d i n g i d e a s w i t h which he p l i e d h i s hearers—his appealed, will  topics,  t h e nature  r e v e a l h i s own  audiences,  and  also  which he d i s c u s s e d . the r e l a t i o n actually is  the  adaptation  to  which  o f t h e p r o o f s he o f f e r e d . judgment  o f human nature  h i s judgment  on  the  he These  i n his  questions  A t t e n t i o n must be p a i d , t o o , t o  o f t h e s u r v i v i n g t e x t s t o what was  u t t e r e d : i n case  known,  motives  there to  two  may  t h e nature be  occasion  audiences—that  o f t h e changes to  which  consider heard  and  that  which  the  read.  speaker's  expression, manner o f two  mode  nor  perhaps  which  of  his  delivery  are  sense  Nor can  to  habit  less  and  to  his  but  p u b l i c man as  study  f o r the  According to Wichelns'  1925  d i r e c t i o n of century  address  essay  "set  had a  development  Idiom  articulating to  detailed rhetorical  greater  single  5).  Finally,  the  testimony And  conceive his  of  the  own times by  (Wichelns 212-213)  pattern  Donald C . B r y a n t ,  and  determined  and more continuous  the  work p u b l i s h e d i n t h i s  Yet  despite  a practicable  Charles  criticism  a  influence  his  Stewart in  in  methodology. his  This  historical  twentieth-century  century"  explicitness  a c r i t i c a l approach based on A r i s t o t l e ,  produce by  ready  of the s c h o l a r s h i p o f r h e t o r i c and p u b l i c  than any o t h e r  (Bryant,  must  and c r i t i c  the  one  r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m f o r more than a q u a r t e r of  and has  upon the  failed  rhetorical theorist  the  immediate  the men of  the power of h i s d i s c o u r s e .  last  as  speaker  auditors.  one  influencing  his  sentence  only  o f w i t n e s s e s , nor i n the r e c o r d o f e v e n t s . a  of  and  and  h e a r e r s i s not t o be i g n o r e d , e i t h e r i n the  such  mode  "Style"—in  diction  e f f e c t o f the d i s c o u r s e on i t s  throughout  omit  p l a t f o r m ; though the  secure  of  his  preparation  attention,  that  minds  criticism  significant.  receive  the  of  from the  among v a r i o u s means access  arrangement  corresponds  movement—must  rhetorical  America.  in  Wichelns view  survey  is of  Stewart  75 writes, into  "The m a j o r i t y of one  devices,  of  studies  Wichelns'  [following  topics—style,  p r e p a r a t i o n — a n d authors  usually  Aristotle  for  further  Wichelns]  proofs,  turned to guidelines  sources,  (Wichelns  had  bring  proofs,  not  or other  (6) .  That should  rhetorical  classical  e x p l a i n e d how the c r i t i c should analyze s t y l e , topics)"  delved  is,  do, his  at  the  most  Wichelns  is  methodology  practical  less to  than  the  level  of  what the  explicit.  level  of  His  critic  failure  generalizable  to  practice  may be seen as a r e l u c t a n c e t o p r e s c r i b e a procedure t h a t might constrain  the  individual c r i t i c  in  the  pursuit  of  rhetorical  insight. A s i m i l a r f a i l u r e of  explicitness  i n the work o f Edwin B l a c k . of  the  neo-Aristotelian  situation  in  As one o f the most v o c a l  critical  contemporary  stance,  criticism  a l t e r n a t i v e c r i t i c a l programme. is  i n methodology  Black  which  is  found  opponents  describes  calls  forth  a his  "Our t a s k , " he s a y s ,  t o s k e t c h an approach t o r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m t h a t  c o n s t i t u t e s an a l t e r n a t i v e t o 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. and  these  There  are  assumptions  assumptions  c a n d i d l y as p o s s i b l e . B l a c k argues set  of  ought  assumptions;  a t the p o i n t o f p r a x i s .  to  be  any  approach  disclosed  as  (132)  t h a t any methodology  theoretical  behind  yet  must be based on a coherent he,  l i k e W i c h e l n s , weakens  While h i s main t h e o r e t i c a l  assumption-  76 - that  rhetoric is  powerful  one  analytical  transactive  and has method  r a t h e r than a r g u m e n t a t i v e — i s  been m a i n t a i n e d by o t h e r t h e o r i s t s ,  his  4  is  neither  comprehensive  nor  a  generally  useful. Black  argues  characterized  by  (extralinguistic discourse),  attend which  which  relationships factors  situation). ratios  embraces  scale,  rhetorical among  the  audience  strategies  whole  of  that  factors the  emotionalism  to  argumentative  discourse,  the  intense  say,  than,  advice-giving  .  .  exhortation, ."  (149)  intense aimed  a  among o t h e r  "scale" Such a  discourse,  conviction,  at  and more  of  rhetorical critic  r h e t o r i c a l process.  is  to  s t r a t e g y i n the  according to  a r r i v e at  which  situation  reaction  he m a i n t a i n s , would account f o r "exhortative" uses  is  (characteristics  (responses t o  He proposes  among these  transaction  rhetorical  influencing  and audience e f f e c t s  of to  the  rhetorical  discourse), context  that  and  "assent  intense  less  than,  discourses,  say,  which  are  unspecified. The problem w i t h B l a c k ' s approach i s vague  and t h e r e f o r e  definition  of  not o n l y t h a t  d i f f i c u l t t o a p p l y , but t h a t i t  r h e t o r i c which l i m i t s i t s  possibly  which in  intentionally  contradiction  transactive). rhetorical  is  According  criticism  is  to, to  itself  persuasive  Black's Black,  persuasive  sense  "the  same  limited—to  (despite, of  subject  discourse"  is  r e s t s on a  scope i n much the  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 discourse  it  and  rhetoric  as  matter  of  (14),  and  77 "persuasive  .  .  accomplishment. written  or  not  much  so  .refers Rhetorical  spoken,  interesting  to  a  intent,  discourses  which aim t o  program of  are  influence  rhetorical  but l i m i t e d t o o l  not  necessarily those  men"  discourses,  (15).  criticism  to  as  it  His  is  is  an  t o be a p p l i e d i n the c r i t i c i s m of  c e r t a i n k i n d s of r h e t o r i c a l t e x t s . Like  Edwin  "rhetoric," agenda  Black,  Donald  C.  Bryant  in  Rhetorical  Dimensions  and p r o c e s s - o r i e n t e d  the h i s t o r i c a l ground including  his  approaches  to  own  in  terms,  earlier  writing,  discussing  Rhetoric  the N a t i o n a l Development referred  of  is  more  Bryant  covers  a  variety  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 .  position  his  from Wichelns t o h i s own c o n t e m p o r a r i e s ,  i n h i s q u o t a t i o n o f the  (of  Criticism  than B l a c k ' s .  noting that,  criticism  the  " c r i t i c i s m , " and "method," as p r o b l e m a t i c , but  exploratory  the  views  to  discourse."  in  this  It  is  of  worth  Committee on the Scope of Project),  discussion  Bryant quotes  he  articulates  as  "rhetorical  from L l o y d B i t z e r and  Edwin B l a c k , The Prospect of R h e t o r i c : R h e t o r i c a l s t u d i e s are p r o p e r l y concerned w i t h  the  p r o c e s s by which symbols and systems o f symbols  have  (i.e.  values,  exert)  attitudes, human nor  and a c t i o n s ,  communication,  communication  group. Bryant's  influence  upon  beliefs,  and they embrace  not  within  exclusively any  one  all  forms  public  class  or  of  address cultural  (208)  dialectical  method  takes  him t o  a  crucial  point  78 concerning  the  distinction  function  discourse,  for  primarily  significant  what  they  are  and  f o r what  E.P.J.  mode  of  audience. the  whether  between As  of  kind.  as  it  and the the  imaginative  of  of  them  as  27).  In  rhetorical criticism.  an  imaginative rhetorical  for  what  considers  author, in  or  regards  the  product. activity,  the  utilitarian  is  applied  the  contemplation  instrument  the  and  the  linguistic  criticism  of  structured  of kind  it  object  the  interested  effect  more i n t e r e s t e d than  work,  is  literature,  artistically  does  significant  (Dimensions  c r i t i c i s m which  the  such  When  is  the  the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f r h e t o r i c a l  internal  process,  much  is  r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m as  interactions  It  that  treatment  do  Corbett's definition  Corbett defines that  the  they  r e g a r d , Bryant acknowledges  theorist  and  between "the treatment of a r t i f a c t s as  primarily  this  of  for  to  work  not  so  but  as  an  communication.  i n a l i t e r a r y work f o r what  it  is.  ("Introduction,"  it  Analyses  xxii) Once he has i d e n t i f i e d the the  rhetorical  definition suasory  of  perspective, rhetoric  discourse"  rationale  of  the  (Dimensions 29). his  choice,  as  f u n c t i o n of d i s c o u r s e as c e n t r a l  as  Bryant "the  (Dimensions informative  recasts  rationale 11), and  of  his  earlier  informative  converting suasory  own  in  it  to,  and "the  discourse"  A c o r o l l a r y of B r y a n t ' s r e c a s t d e f i n i t i o n he  says,  to  discuss  to  " r h e t o r i c a l dimensions  is in  79 criticism" (Bryant later  r a t h e r than  does  revert  "rhetorical criticism"  to  the  term  (Dimensions  "rhetorical  29).  criticism"  in  discussion.) As the p r o v i n c e of l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m i s —the f i c t i v e  and i m a g i n a t i v e ,  e n d u r i n g i n poems and p r o s e , affairs  and  treats and  of  the  the  speaking,  controversy editorializing,  in  the b e a u t i f u l ,  pulpit—so  rhetorical  and  pamphlets  and  poetic the  the eloquence o f p u b l i c  illuminative in  the  suasory  and  debate,  in  speeches  pamphleteering,  in  Grapes of  criticism  editorials  and  Wrath and Mother Courage  and the v e h i c l e s and media t o which t h e y b e l o n g . Rhetorical c r i t i c i s m is inside  transactions  sytematically  of  in  .  .  getting  communication  to  discover  and  d e s c r i b e t h e i r elements, t h e i r form, and t h e i r dynamics and t o e x p l o r e the s i t u a t i o n s ,  past or  present,  which  which  essential  constituents  (Dimensions Like nature  Wichelns  and q u a l i t y  methodology  for  generate  them  to  be  and  in  comprehended  they  and  judged.  34-5) and B l a c k , of  it.  Bryant i s  rhetorical  more  criticism  Bryant says t h a t  focussed than  he  on is  "it discovers  then  "into the p o t e n t i a l working of the o b j e c t  situation" to  say  (Dimensions  how the o b j e c t  38-9).  However,  how r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s  done.  i s made . . . "  Bryant does not Details  of  the  on  rhetorical criticism  "analytical"; searches  are  in  a is  and the  go on  Bryant's  80 methodology  can  best  be  inferred  from  his  own  works  of  criticism. The emerging is  prior  to  reinforced  sense t h a t  and  more  by the  the  important  writings  of  and Marie Hochmuth N i c h o l s , and  Wayne  shifting  Booth.  focus  c r i t i c i s m of that  the  suggests  It  in  texts,"  term,  than  and of  seems t o  the  "how"  the  case,  criticism of  it  is  Mark S.  rhetoricians  be  Klyn  Kenneth Burke  considering  the  rhetorical texts,"  "rhetorical  and " r h e t o r i c a l dimensions of  criticism,"  "rhetorical"  a peculiar  rhetorical  speech p r o f e s s o r s  " c r i t i c i s m of  p a r t i c u l a r form o f In  "what" of  kind of  when  applied  attention  to  to  texts  "criticism" rather  than  a  practice.  an a r t i c l e  appearing  Rhetorical  Criticism  criticism"  only  (1957)  means  for  the  Klyn  first  time  writes  " intelligent  that  writing  v  i n Essays  on  "rhetorical  about  works  of  rhetoric'" —or  about  formal from  works  sense such  but  a  writing,  which  are can  It  against,  for  example,  Aristotelianism, about  persuaders  illuminatingly way  structure  of  what he p e r c e i v e s as  works  of  the  in  any  treated  the  critic mode  judgment,  or  (147)  approach to r h e t o r i c a l  K l y n says t h a t or  rhetoric'  imply a p r e s c r i p t i v e  even any judgmental n e c e s s i t y . Arguing for a p l u r a l i s t i c  x  whatever  does not  any c a t e g o r i c a l  not  be  standpoint—in  can manage i t . of  which  criticism  the monism o f  best c r i t i c s ,  rhetoric,"  have  neo-  "in w r i t i n g  functioned  as  81 "free men," unfettered unconfined reason  by by  any any  inductively  their  insights  thinkers.  coercive pedagogical  credited  coherent  with  enough t o  imperative,  as  independent,  having  developed  stand up a g a i n s t  a  critical  methodology  a n e o - A r i s t o t e l i a n model. Burke  on which  assumptions  pertaining  the nature of meaning, the f u n c t i o n o f  language i n p r o d u c i n g c o o p e r a t i o n ,  the meaning o f  As a c r i t i c , he has searched f o r a  c r i t i c a l methodology a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h i s ("Criticism" According to  explore  and c r i t i c s , Kenneth Burke  [of c r i t i c i s m ] r e s t s ,  persuasion.  to  (156)  has been s e a r c h i n g f o r the assumptions  t o language,  able  disinterested  "As a p h i l o s o p h e r , " w r i t e s Marie Hochmuth N i c h o l s ,  the a r t  doctrine,  from t h e i r m a t e r i a l and t o  Among r h e t o r i c a l t h e o r i s t s is  critical  Nichols,  rationale.  77) Burke  finds  the  assumptions  base a c r i t i c a l methodology and a methodology as  on which  well:  F o r the c r i t i c , B u r k e ' s r a t i o n a l e n e c e s s i t a t e s a system o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ,  a naming of maneuvers  a r e o p e r a t i n g i n any language s i t u a t i o n ,  that  bringing  about e i t h e r by c a l c u l a t i o n o r by  "unconscious"  appeal,  consubstantiality.  s o c i a l cohesion,  material or i d e a l i s t i c .  that i s ,  It requires  constant  a t t e n t i o n to both the b i o l o g i c a l and r a t i o n a l  to  82 grounding of a p p e a l .  Burke's c r i t i c a l t o o l  l o c a t i n g the c o n s t i t u e n t s of a v a r i o u s l y named,  is  referring  to  ( " C r i t i c i s m " 81)  Burke's  theory  a c t i o n t o enhance c o n s u b s t a n t i a l i t y , o f Motives (see  is  "dramatistic pentad," or  ^ d i a l e c t i c a l substance.' Nichols  situation  for  Chapter One above),  of  persuasion  and Purpose,  Motives. and  his  and h i s p e n t a d i c system f o r  broad poetic  especially  While B u r k e ' s t h e o r y of dramatistic  productive observe  elaborated  in  approach  terms  of  t h a t Burke h i m s e l f  terms.  Burke  is  and n o n - p o e t i c  i n his  r h e t o r i c as  based  textual  on  that  analysis,  Agent,  Grammar of  identification  theory  it  is  are  both  crucial  concerned  discourse,  [T]o grasp the f u l l  with and  the  rhetoric  referring  here  of  both  to  "The  he w r i t e s :  nature of the symbolic  enactment  going on i n the poem, we must study the  inter-  relationships  disclosable  Coleridge's  mind i t s e l f .  I f a c r i t i c p r e f e r s t o so r e s t r i c t  of  elements formal  critical are  or  structure that  is  excluded,  But i f of  the  by a study of  analysis  categorical  conceived.  to  sees the work of the c r i t i c i n v e r y  Rime of the A n c i e n t M a r i n e r , "  rules  an  elaborated i n his Rhetoric  a n a l y z i n g d i s c o u r s e r h e t o r i c a l l y i n terms o f A c t , Scene, Agency,  as  his  poetic  that  that  is  his  objection interest act,  he  these right. to  private I  see  criticism  happens will  the  to  use  a v a i l a b l e — a n d would even c o n s i d e r  be  in  no so the  everything it  a  kind  83  of  vandalism  Coleridge  has  conventions ideal  of  that i s  to  exclude  left,  basing  as  to  the  criticism,  ideal  as  t h e r e t o use  text  the  of  context  his  symbols.  his  Hitler's the  application  of  he b r i n g s t o bear on a  is  as  the  to  Mein  pentad  or  Rhetoric.  Kampf  to  by the  ("The  critical  observations  Eclecticism is  a t the  of  is useful  root  Burke:  i n the  "sexual symbolism" t h a t runs through  . H i s knowledge o f h i s t o r y and r e l i g i o n "materialization of a  "one t e r r i f i c a l l y e f f e c t i v e  . i n a p e r i o d where r e l i g i o n has  materialism."...  of  capital  "power of e n d l e s s  r e p e t i t i o n , " the appeal of a sense of of  been  C o n v e n t i o n a l r h e t o r i c a l knowledge  l e a d s him t o c a l l a t t e n t i o n t o the  appeal  within a  understood  p r o g r e s s i v e l y weakened by many c e n t u r i e s  "the  is  Burke i s not l i m i t e d , m e t h o d o l o g i c a l l y ,  of  r e l i g i o u s pattern" i s .  all  of  o f the .  use  Rhetoric  the  .  to  (PLF 23)  (consubstantiality)  employed t o show t h a t the  weapon .  is  Marie Hochmuth N i c h o l s w r i t e s  the book. is  it.  and e x p e r i e n c e ,  H i s knowledge of p s y c h o a n a l y s i s analysis  The main  of  suggested by A r i s t o t l e ' s of h i s c r i t i c i s m .  criticism.  use  analysis  ^Battle'"),  upon some  Burke h i m s e l f uses " a l l t h a t  i n which p e r s u a s i o n  identification  that  exclusion  conceive  knowledge  promotion of In  of  As a r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c ,  totality  theoretical  such  material  [emphasis m i n e ] .  In h i s own r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s e s , there to use."  I  certain  security"  resulting  "community," from  a  "world  view" f o r a people who had p r e v i o u s l y seen the w o r l d o n l y "piecemeal," and the appeal o f H i t l e r ' s "inner v o i c e " which s e r v e d as a t e c h n i q u e o f "identification.".  .  .  s i v e and p e n e t r a t i n g .  Burke's a n a l y s i s  is  comprehen-  I t stands as a superb example  of the f r u i t f u l n e s s of a method rhetorical  leader-people  analysis  of comprehensive  which  conventional patterns.  goes  far  ("New C r i t i c i s m "  beyond  143)5  B u r k e ' s c r i t i c i s m i s w i d e l y acknowledged t o be " r h e t o r i c a l . " Yet  in  light  slipperiness what makes Burkeian  of  his  eclecticism,  o f the term i t s e l f , it  rhetorical.  criticism lies  and what  in  his  the  per  se.  formulate  certain  but kinds  in  the  instruments  of  attitude  questions  be  the  exactly  r h e t o r i c a l nature of of  but i n the assumptions which inform t h a t a n a l y s i s ; procedure  to  i t makes sense t o ask  In f a c t ,  not  seems  which  with  analysis, not i n h i s  causes  respect  to  him  to  texts.  B u r k e i a n c r i t i c i s m — a n d indeed a l l t h a t we agree t o c l a s s i f y  as  "rhetorical  of  criticism"  subject  matter  general  consensus  p o i n t of view. the  nature  text.  of  or  is  "rhetorical,"  method—about  the  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  attention  which the  seems  virtue  no  Rhetorical c r i t i c i s m is  there  by  be  to  a p o s t e r i o r i d e f i n e d by critic  directs  to  the  6  The r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m o f p e r s p e c t i v e on t h i s concept of the  which  not  discourse  of  imaginative  Wayne Booth p r o v i d e s  another  " a t t e n t i o n . " B o o t h ' s approach t o literature  has  much i n  common  85 w i t h h i s approach t o the d i s c o u r s e of d a i l y l i f e , o f the r e a l - w o r l d consequences of  his  critical  without  any  theoretical  of  program.  particular  and h i s  "fiction" dictates  Methodologically,  analytical  tool,  the nature  Booth  but  sense  uses  proceeds his  p r e d i s p o s i t i o n and h i s moral s e n s i b i l i t y t o  own  locate  and comment on the a u t h o r i a l c h o i c e s t h a t c r e a t e t h e t e x t as he reads use  it.  r h e t o r i c a l heightening.  rhetoric on  ("The a u t h o r , " he  he w i l l use"  questions  of  says,  His only choice i s  [ROF 116].)  poetic  7  to  o f the k i n d of  Booth focuses on t e c h n i q u e ,  a u t h o r i a l choice  Burke d o e s — t h a t  "cannot choose whether  and s t r a t e g y ,  literature is  believing—as  essentially rhetorical:  I f t h e most admired l i t e r a t u r e i s  i n fact  radically  contaminated w i t h r h e t o r i c , we must s u r e l y be l e d t o ask whether the r h e t o r i c i t s e l f have had The  is  something t o do w i t h our a d m i r a t i o n . .  truth  reader  are  is  that,  if  a s i g n of  impossible  fiction  may not  but  to of  wherever we l o o k .  recognizable  imperfection, perfect  find; all .  appeals  in  great  kinds,  .  we  works, find  . . to  literature  not such  just  aspect  . (ROF 98-99)  "Here i s my s u b j e c t ! " a r h e t o r i c a l  i s c o n t a i n e d w i t h i n the c o n c e p t i o n :  the s u b j e c t i s thought of as something t h a t can be made i n p u b l i c ,  something t h a t can be made i n t o a  communicated work.  .  .  .  [R]egardless o f how we  of  appeals  A t the v e r y moment when [Henry] James exclaims to himself,  the  86 d e f i n e a r t o r a r t i s t r y , the v e r y concept o f w r i t i n g a s t o r y seems to have i m p l i c i t w i t h i n i t the  notion  o f f i n d i n g techniques of e x p r e s s i o n t h a t w i l l make the work a c c e s s i b l e . If  Booth  is  committed t o  successful  in  a  The  h i s method i s Rhetoric  methodology but t o the  as  critic,  it  is  because  d i s c o v e r i n g what t e x t s do, how they a c t ,  change p e o p l e ; motive  (ROF 105)  consequent  of  Fiction the  obligation  not  to  of  separate  him from many o t h e r r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c s . have  rhetorical  noted,  text,"  was  which he d e f i n e d  i n t e n t i o n t o persuade; c r i t i c i s m of to  a  wide  textuality,  text," range  concerned  Booth i s  and  writer  theoretical  we  place  the  his  with as  of  texts,  i r r e s p e c t i v e of i n t e n t i o n .  by  agenda  "criticism  created with  concerned w i t h the  rhetorical  fiction.  Edwin B l a c k , of the  "rhetorical  i n which r h e t o r i c a l " a t t e n t i o n " of  a  f i c t i o n and  critical  the  text  Booth's  explicate  r h e t o r i c i t y of  Booth's  as  starting  is  is  how they  i n t u i t i v e and i n d u c t i v e .  demonstrate  moral  he  is  virtue  applied  of  their  He w r i t e s ,  [T]he whole q u e s t i o n o f the d i f f e r e n c e  between  a r t i s t s who c o n s c i o u s l y c a l c u l a t e and a r t i s t s who s i m p l y express themselves w i t h no thought o f a f f e c t i n g a r e a d e r i s an important one, but must be kept separate  from the q u e s t i o n o f  an a u t h o r ' s work, r e g a r d l e s s of i t s communicates i t s e l f This  review  of  it whether  source,  (ROF. p r e f a c e ) .  rhetorical  criticism,  from  Wichelns  to  87 Booth, from  lays the  the  groundwork  rhetorical  point  for of  approaching  view.  The  scientific  remainder  texts  of  this  c h a p t e r e s t a b l i s h e s an o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n o f the r h e t o r i c a l point  of  view  or  appropriateness  of  texts;  affirms  a  texts;  and  rhetorical  applying r h e t o r i c a l attention rhetorical  suggests  theory  a methodology  t e x t s from the r h e t o r i c a l p o i n t o f A  rhetorical  assumptions  about  analysis  texts  of  theory  can be based.  for  analytical  t o o l s but i s  to  make  textual  based.  certain  discoveries  scientific  that  embraces  scientific  for  analyzing  scientific  a  collection a  of  methodology  it  may  use  a  of  discoveries  the  workings  they  also  about of  stand  a  are  operationalized,  thus they  essentially  evidence  become  The a n a l y t i c a l work of o r her i n s i g h t s by  traditional  outstrips texts  of  predictive  are  of  a critic These texts of  on the  Theories they  are  reinforced.  about a t e x t go beyond what c o u l d be p r e d i c t e d theory.  Burkean as  criticism, Burke  own r h e t o r i c a l p r i n c i p l e s ,  Identification,  and  as  a  a c r i t i c generates new t h e o r y when h i s  Aristotelian criticism, his  descriptive;  is  theory  text.  particular as  the  variety  A r h e t o r i c a l methodology d i r e c t s  audiences;  rhetoric  for  A r h e t o r i c a l methodology  v a l i d i t y o f the r h e t o r i c a l t h e o r y which enabled them. of  working  c o n s t r a i n e d by the terms of the  kinds  the  to  which  analysis;  illuminate  particular  on  argues  view.  comprises  discourse  procedure  on which i t  "attention";  for  finds  such as  example,  evidence  in  D i v i s i o n and  Dramatism, and T e r m i n i s t i c S c r e e n s .  88 Irrespective critics,  their  in  textual  of  assumptions  defines  of  contributions  theory  their  "rhetorical  prior  to  language  work as  rhetorical  attention."  The  are  share  and  seems t o s e p a r a t e If between  a single  so  assumptions  l o o k i n g at  language-users  in  after  rhetoric  reinvigorated sciences"  by  to  a  and  its  unconscious  which  can  factor i n appeal.  ( consubstantiality') v  rhetorical the b a s i c  point  for  a  role  example,  this:  (a  which  rhetoric the  I would  was  upon  "new reduce  include  a  ("Rhetoric" "there  partially 203) is  no chance  identification  and communication (the nature o f  (46).  From  Aristotle  to  of view has p a r a d i g m a t i c s t a t u s  assumptions  deliberate  "new" r h e t o r i c would be  o f our keeping a p a r t the meanings of p e r s u a s i o n ,  addressed')"  Thomas Kuhn,  "new"  Yet i n R h e t o r i c of M o t i v e s . Burke adds,  x  and  difference  subject),  stress  The key term f o r the  identification,  as  of  identify  Burke,  insights the  nature  The key term f o r the o l d r h e t o r i c was  "persuasion" design.  fresh  contributed  to t h i s :  and  which  the w o r l d and the  it.  set  despite pluralism,  "old" and "new" r h e t o r i c w i t h  "old"  the  which  that  what might be c a l l e d ,  body of work  t h e y share a  and s p e c i f i e s  fundamental  rhetorical  assumptions,  I had t o sum up i n one word the the  it  constitute  among  individualizing  "paradigm," a shared way of of  approaches  and c r i t i c a l p r a c t i c e — f o r  bind rhetoricians rhetoricians  individual  rhetoric  Burke,  the  by v i r t u e  of  shared among members o f the d i s c i p l i n e  of  89  Rhetoric.  Rhetorical c r i t i c s  only p o s i t i v e l y over a g a i n s t In  other,  nature  of  thought  at  terms,  rhetoricians  (though  different  reality and  their  times)  and  the  the  world i s  action  of  rhetorician is theory "man"  could  pragmatic  speaking.  and i s  change  the  the n o t i o n o f p o s i t i v e  and the world  conception  belief mark  course  be  expressed  of  of  the  it  between and  Rhetoricians believe  that  i n c l u d i n g the  the  view  symbolic that  belief  world.  extent  that  the  i n the such  The view  that  it  a is  supports  optimistic.  workings  effectiveness  rhetorical  the  the  is  the  language  in  of  and t o  change,  i n the  the  set  concerned  relationship  Quintilian's  extended  and h u m a n i s t i c ;  This  as  "the good man speaking w e l l " has s a l i e n c e  generally,  not  p e r t a i n i n g to  function  changed by human a c t i o n , people  been may  with issues  and human n a t u r e ,  language,  have  concerns  p e r s u a s i v e communication i n s o c i e t y . the  grouped  non-rhetorical, c r i t i c s .  history  differently  furthermore be  i n terms what they s h a r e , but n e g a t i v e l y  positive  throughout  can  of  of  critic.  language  and  symbolic a c t i o n The  b e l i e v e s t h a t the s t r u c t u r e s of t e x t s r e f l e c t  rhetorical  people, in  the  critic  the i n t e n t i o n s  of  a u t h o r s ; t h a t authors communicate to r e a d e r s through t e x t s ; and that  the r h e t o r i c a l a c t i s  effect the  on the  model:  influence follows,  situation  that  people  other  people  i n a composite  addressed to an audience  i n t o which i t use and  is  introduced.  language  in  alter  their  treatment,  and has an  specific  This  is  contexts  to  contexts.  What  acknowledging p l u r a l i s m ,  is  90 the r h e t o r i c a l p o i n t of [T]here w i l l of  a  view:  be  a correspondence  communication,  discourse,  to  This  characteristics  postulate  deny  it  as  we  language, (Black  is  is  to  justified  deny  normally  the  written;  as  the  thus  situation  said,  is  makes  to  work  itself  represents the  style  peculiarly  relate  the  alters  language. tries  fact of  term.  to  available  formal also  the  critic  options  the  author i s  lexical  show  as  the  participates  that were  stylistic  and m a t e r i a l  to  choices  A  sayer  in  reality.  36)  to  For  available  well  to  the  the  as  reconstitutes  but  audience.  writer  or  other  effects  the  i n c l u d e s the  and  some attempt  the  the  that  discourse  attention  only  to  that  possibility  rhetorical  ( B r y a n t , Dimensions  What  his  16)  well  the  of  by  understand  The r h e t o r i c a l , u n l i k e the p o e t i c , as  intentions  and the r e a c t i o n s of h i s a u d i t o r s t o  discourse. that  the  among the  ethos  the  becomes the made  in  the  author and  has  style  made  resources  "rhetorical"  choices  in  critic,  an author  and s y n t a c t i c a l  not  t o produce i n an  rhetorical that  features  elements  of  seeking  rhetorical  from  reference  of  when  among to  from a he the  subject-  91 matter  or  genre  audience—or  or  some  occasion  combination  " I n t r o d u c t i o n " Analyses  Critical questions They  merely  stylized  "situations,"  the  adopting  encompassing  distinction  of  various  situations,  name t h e i r  ingredients,  form t h a t  is  meanings,  are  implicit  the  writer  are  whenever does  rhetorical  critics,  should  between  strategic propose  "strategies"  poetry  . . .  and  a way t h a t  as  for  strategies  structure,  to  be  effort  make  moral  the  size  up  outstanding contains  an  art  an  work,  judgments,  act.  that  And n o t h i n g  finally  understood  make  all  to  peers,  it  himself  as  in  accessible an  imagined  (Booth, ROF 397)  excerpted indicate  the  human beings  can  else—his  quotations,  So  These  formed  including  reader, h i s audience. These  are  made can never be d i v o r c e d from the  from h i s  someone  arose.  they I  to  (Burke, PLF 1)  When human a c t i o n s  to  answers  strategies  and name them i n  a t t i t u d e toward them.  or  (Corbett,  are  whereby we t h i n k o f  situations.  isolation  works  answers,  of  human  these.  answers....  working  and  the  author  xxvi).  imaginative  not  initial  the  of  or  posed by the s i t u a t i o n i n which they  are  answers, an  and  o r purpose  a  from  the  consistency  works in  of  approach  major that  92 argues  f o r the existence  of an " i d e a l " r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c  p a r a d i g m a t i c r h e t o r i c a l p o i n t of view.  Rhetorical  and a  "attention,"  i n t h i s context,  may be d e f i n e d as the beam shone on a p i e c e of  discourse  a  from  source  Rhetorical  attention  audiences,  situations,  in  the  rhetorical  illuminates and  texts;  point  ratios  it  among  probes  the  stuff  choice—conscious  of i t s  (internal  and consequences  the  the  close  compared  it  to  penetrates  questions  of  of  focusses on  the  available  textual  object origins  (external study). methodology  reading  refutative  unconscious—as  authors,  a n a l y s i s ; and by z e r o i n g i n on the t e x t u a l  study),  Because  or  view.  motives  p e r s u a s i o n and the means and ends of d i s c o u r s e ; i t authorial  of  New  of  of  texts,  rhetorical rhetorical  Criticism.**  definition  of  The  rhetoric,  p a r a d i g m a t i c n a t u r e by s e t t i n g i t s  criticism criticism  comparison the  includes has  suggests  establishment  of  assumptions over a g a i n s t  been the its the  assumptions u n d e r l y i n g o t h e r c r i t i c a l programs. New c r i t i c i s m approach o f of  rhetorical  share,  to  some e x t e n t ,  criticism.  the  the  theory  two programs d i f f e r  and  commentary each  consequently  with  approaches,  Rhetorical  s i g n i f i c a n t l y with respect  to  the  respect critical  generates.  In h i s d i s c u s s i o n of c r i t i c a l t h e o r i e s , encompassing  analytical  However, w h i l e the p r a c t i c e  New C r i t i c i s m may be compared t o the p r a c t i c e of  Criticism, to  does  model literary  to  categorize  theorist,  a  u s i n g an variety  M. H . Abrams  of  says  critical rhetorical  criticism chiefly  is  "Pragmatic" s i n c e  as  something success  a  means  done,  in  according  achieving to  of  out t o  that  Abrams,  by i t s  judge i t  looks  end,  an  the  value  (15).^  be  it  as  work of for  The New  from  getting  insofar  all  .  .  as  its  it  . external  a self-sufficient  by c r i t e r i a i n t r i n s i c t o  its  Criticism,  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 ,  solely  art  according to  "Objective"  art i n isolation analyzes  at  instrument  judge i t s  aim"  would  reference,  constituted  an  and tends t o  "regards the work of points  to  "it  entity and s e t s  own being"  (26). Since as  New C r i t i c i s m  subjective  issues  of  about  the  Fallacy"  (or  effects  textual of  model serves  paradigmatic  not  nature  of  the  "Affective  questions  of  responsibility)  or  These  In f a c t ,  the  contexts  writing,  f o r the a n a l y s i s Extending both  can  be  as  but  to  from the  an  instrument  to  categorize  of r e a l - w o r l d t e x t s .  Abrams'  structuralism  influential  itself  the  argument  criticism,  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 can d i s q u a l i f y  central  delineating  strengthen  rhetorical  are  demonstrate of  well  theoretical  with  texts.  only to  as  makes  and  unconcerned  for rhetorical criticism.10  New C r i t i c a l the  clearly  responsibility  judgments  for  is  authorial intention  (and, i n f a c t ,  "Intentional  it  authorial  concerns  r e a d e r response the  Fallacy"),  disregards  schema,  it  is  and d e c o n s t r u c t i o n  possible (both  contemporary  and  c r i t i c a l programs w i t h which r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m  compared)  also  as  Objective,  given  the  interest  they  94 share i n t e x t as a c l o s e d system.  What s e p a r a t e s 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 s i m p l y methodology involve  close  scrutiny  structuralism  and  theoretically  because  assumptions organized in  signs  about  and t h e i r  primarily  arrangement  criticism,  based  purpose  value, in  (in  of  (in  on  are  the  patterning);  are  different  and  force  the  interested  linguistic  pragmatic  of  primarily  sense)  rhetorical  communicative  separated  entirely  texts  while  the  textual  criticism  are  structure  interested  both  and  Structuralists  textual  will  they  the  language.  textual value.  text  rhetorical  intrinsic  their  of  ( s i n c e both  as  an  critics  are and  units  of  language  sense)  as  an  extrinsic  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  underline and  the  reveal  paradigmatic  the  nature  inappropriateness  of  of  rhetorical  structuralism  as a model f o r p r o b i n g the e f f e c t s o f r e a l - w o r l d t e x t s . Structuralism is of  an attempt  to a p p l y the l i n g u i s t i c  model  F e r d i n a n d de Saussure t o a v a r i e t y of s t r u c t u r e d e n t i t i e s —  from the w o r l d o f m y t h o l o g y I  1  t o the w o r l d o f  literature.  work o f 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 s e t and r e l a t i o n s h i p s kind of which  analysis  meaning  exclusively Culler, make  is  on  argues  effects  that  possible,  the mundane (and r h e t o r i c a l )  transmitted form  explicit  o f laws  by which s i g n s are o r g a n i z e d i n t e x t s . denies  the to  itself.  the  through  Structuralist  task of  underlying construct  form,  and  concentrates  critic,  which  a t h e o r y of  This  sense i n  Jonathan  a s t r u c t u r a l i s t poetics system  The  is  to  makes  literary  literary  discourse  95 which  would account  for  the  "Study o f the l i n g u i s t i c  possibilities  system,"  of  interpretation.  he s a y s ,  becomes t h e o r e t i c a l l y coherent when we cease t h i n k i n g t h a t our g o a l i s t o s p e c i f y the p r o p e r t i e s o f i n a corpus and c o n c e n t r a t e of  i n s t e a d on the  objects  task  f o r m u l a t i n g the i n t e r n a l i z e d competence  which  enables o b j e c t s to have the p r o p e r t i e s they do f o r those who have mastered the system. and  characterize  system  which  structures  assigns  objects i n question Even  considering  structuralism principles  a  on  which  (SP  pluralism  a  must  structural  . . . .  and r h e t o r i c ,  one  it  descriptions  approaches  clear  structuralist  analyze  that  model  the  a structuralist  is  based  to  is  generally  In most ways,  and s t r u c t u r a l i s t s opposed  are  The two "How does  considered  either  this  is true:  "symbols");  have  approach has  more  i n common  signs  both  focus  i n texts on t e x t  language as a  contained  exigences  system,  both see  not  responsive  language  itself  as  to  the  in  deconstructionists  both are concerned w i t h  meaning-bearing  to  e x t r i c a t e d from w r i t e r and r e a d e r ; both see  beings;  not  people and e f f e c t change?" i s not even  s t r u c t u r a l i s m than  with r h e t o r i c .  both  question.  Deconstruction common w i t h  the  fundamental  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 : t e x t work t o a f f e c t  to  to  c o m p a t i b l e w i t h those u n d e r l y i n g a r h e t o r i c a l model.  this  the  120)  in  is  To d i s c o v e r  h a v i n g power.  of  (as as  selfhuman  Rhetorical  96 theory,  on the o t h e r hand,  places  language, w i t h language i t s e l f However, features  with  of  reference  contrastive  power i n the people who use  empowered o n l y i n u s e .  to  the  critical  present  task—to  programs  in  identify  reference  to  r h e t o r i c — d e c o n s t r u c t i o n must be c o n s i d e r e d not as an e x t e n s i o n o f s t r u c t u r a l i s m but as an a c t of v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t a l l  critical  programs,  with  another,  including  those  no  more  allegiance  which,  like  to  one  than  structuralism,  e v o l u t i o n a r y r o l e i n the r i s e of d e c o n s t r u c t i v e In  fact,  the  deconstructive  point  played thought.  of  view  has  elements i n common w i t h the r h e t o r i c a l p o i n t of v i e w . all,  it  directs  works o f  itself  philosophy,  construct,  the  not  foundations In  propensity  uncover  Deconstruction  the  does however,  level  paradigm,  incommensurable. examine  textual  (helplessly)  of  range  which of  how  its  of  Rhetoric.  but  challenged and  what  The  the  it  Despite  theories  deconstructive  structures  to  show  where  apparent at  the  finally  has  critics  discourses  undone, undermining t h e i r own systems o f  its does,  are  attitude  and  in  t h e r e are t h e o r e t i c a l d i f f e r e n c e s and  to  any d i s c u r s i v e  can be  does  some  F i r s t of  fiction,  interest  language  resemble  similarities, of  works  criticism, linguistics—to  deconstructed. to  only to  an  become  logic.^  The d e c o n s t r u c t i v e c r i t i c might a n a l y z e a s e r i e s o f  articles  i n m e d i c a l j o u r n a l s and make r e v e a l i n g comments not o n l y about them as larger  individual system  of  texts language  but  about  which  them as  includes  specimens  and c r e a t e s  of them.  a  However, theory  the  critic  rather  than  reasons. the  critic's  by  chooses  to  his  belief  in  change  a  or  her  to  deconstructive  The w r i t i n g o f  discourse and  who  proceed theory  from  does  rhetorical analysis the  power  situation  belief  in  of  the  rhetorical  so  is  people  ability  of  who  In o r d e r t o  critic  sees  do  the  him/herself  as  intellectually,  the  over  the  again.  critic  Among  a  R h e t o r i c p r o v i d e s the shifts  the  Even  respectability  needing  work,  the  of  may  critical  acknowledging  a stance which i s choose  the  programs,  the  rhetorical  place  to  stand—  is  gaze" ^  and  intellectual  1  uniquely  while  over  r e a l l y a kind of  "governing  Rhetoric  discourse  critic, the  to  discourse  sense o f p l a c e ,  ground under  while  produce  critic  m o r a l l y , s o c i a l l y — i n r e l a t i o n t o the  under a n a l y s i s . Deconstruction  analytical  by  discourse,  promote change by v i r t u e of the work of c r i t i c i s m as itself.  many  energized  by changing t h e i r  the  for  Q  f  motion,  Rhetoric.  suitable  to  a  comprehensive a n a l y s i s o f r e a l - w o r l d t e x t s . The d i s c u s s i o n "rhetoric  of  established,  as  science"  has  from two  now approached the  directions.  and  persuasively  on  membership a f f e c t seek agreement t o . extent that i t  that  should—be r e a d as r h e t o r i c .  scientific readers;  composition, and  the substance  personal  concept,  Chapter One  from the p o i n t o f view o f t h e o r y ,  w r i t i n g could—indeed, language  a whole  it belief  scientific Scientific  showed, and  has  act  community  of what s c i e n t i s t s agree t o and  (A c o n s t r u c t i o n i s t model of s c i e n c e , t o  the  a s s e r t s the r e a l i t y o f these p r o c e s s e s i s a l s o a  98 r h e t o r i c a l model o f s c i e n c e . ) some e x i s t i n g all  theories,  From the r h e t o r i c a l  p a r t i c u l a r l y o f Burke and B o o t h ,  d i s c o u r s e as r h e t o r i c a l s i n c e  the a s s e n t of a u d i e n c e s . scientific view  of  discourse  Rhetoric,  the  that  an a c t  a  i t a l l , i n some manner, seeks  i s r h e t o r i c a l i s merely,  c r i t i c a l theories  belief  define  The t h e o r e t i c a l move t o p r o c l a i m t h a t  of  that  theory.  and methodologies  special  from the p o i n t of  foregrounding a p r o p o s i t i o n  a l r e a d y has a p l a c e i n e x i s t i n g All  perspective,  kind  of  reviewed here  textual  share  information  is  a v a i l a b l e t o those who a p p l y a p a r t i c u l a r c r i t i c a l program—but (as  i n s c i e n c e ) the nature of the t h e o r y i n f o r m i n g the c r i t i c a l  program and the a piece  concomitant b i a s o f the methodology a p p l i e d to  o f w r i t i n g determine  retrieved in analysis. programs has as  one  analyze  perspectives;  the  texts,  rhetoric  from  supplies  a  is  texts,  variety  a  of  particularly  f o r a n a l y z i n g t e x t s which have  shown i n t h e o r y t o be p e r s u a s i v e That i s ,  information that  one c o u l d a n a l y z e s c i e n t i f i c  literary  however,  a p p r o p r i a t e model  kind of  An examination of a v a r i e t y of c r i t i c a l  revealed that  can  the  already  been  i n the w o r l d of human a c t i o n .  c r i t i c i n s e a r c h of r h e t o r i c a l i n f o r m a t i o n 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 a n a l y s i s dimension  of  Analytical  resources  that  scientific  impairs  its  a  of s c i e n t i f i c  discipline must  writing is  scientific  be  in  the  t e x t s i s the p r a c t i c a l Rhetoric  m a r s h a l l e d not  to  of claim  r h e t o r i c a l and t h a t i t s  nature  Science. naively  rhetoricity  (See Weigert d i s c u s s i o n ,  Chapter  99 One  above).  rather,  The  beginning  necessarily works.  the  value  all,  writing,  is,  the  analysis  should r e v e a l  w r i t e r s use  practical  that  scientific all  texts  language  how s c i e n t i f i c  is  rhetoric  s h o u l d study the range of  t o persuade t h e i r r e a d e r s of  t h e i r work—for t h i s  main  of  assumption  rhetorical critics  scientific of  the  from  rhetorical,  That  strategies  rhetorical  act df persuasion i s ,  agenda  in  a  piece  of  after  scientific  the u l t i m a t e v a l u e o f which i s n i l i f the author  fails  a t the l e v e l o f p e r s u a s i o n . The  nature  inform  of  scientific  arguments  arguments  take,  which express  in the  rhetoric—the  scientific  writing,  organizational  those  assumptions  assumptions  and  the  which  forms  those  stylistic  strategies  and promote those  arguments—  i s d i s c o v e r a b l e i n the r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s of s c i e n t i f i c Other  critics  Bazerman,  (Halloran,  Gilbert  John  and Mulkay,  view,  they  have  and working begun  to  the  by  i n d u c t i o n and  practical  territory  R h e t o r i c of S c i e n c e and suggest the d i r e c t i o n of i t s The a n a l y t i c c h a p t e r t h a t f o l l o w s to Its  Yearley,  insight.  is  also  essentially  Rhetorical c r i t i c i s m ,  as  insight, of  the  expansion.  i s meant as a c o n t r i b u t i o n  l i t e r a t u r e i n the a p p l i e d study of the r h e t o r i c o f methodology  have  prose from the r h e t o r i c a l p o i n t  essentially define  Campbell,  and Myers have been c i t e d )  probed the n a t u r e of s c i e n t i f i c of  Angus  texts.  to has  science.  work by i n d u c t i o n and been  demonstrated,  t y p i c a l l y not f o r m u l a i c , and the argument t h a t i t  is  s h o u l d not be  i s made c o n v i n c i n g l y by speech r h e t o r i c i a n O t i s W a l t e r :  100 To  assume  that  rhetorical  theory  formula complete w i t h a s t e p - b y - s t e p followed  by  likely  the  in  otherwise  error.  can  furnish  procedure t o be  thoughtless  Formulas  a  may  critic,  work  is  well  in  elementary p h y s i c s , but i n the h u m a n i t i e s ,  formulas  somehow r e s u l t i n mindless m e c h a n i c a l n e s s ,  giving  evidence sometimes of hard work but l e s s o f t e n o f brilliance.  Scholarship  and  hard  work  are  not  same t h i n g ; but c r i t i c i s m t h a t i s b r i l l i a n t i s criticism is  that  could  not  somewhat unexpected,  f o r which i t  be  easily  that f i t s  the unique  with  what  Walter  that  speech speech,  t h a t i s the most a p p r o p r i a t e t h i n g t o say a t  Consistent  always  prescribed,  i s designed and perhaps no o t h e r  time about t h a t speech.  the  this  (170) has  said  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 a n a l y s i s proceeds by u s i n g as  heuristic  itself. rhetorical is  It  is  t h e r e t o use"  a  "naming of  it  manoeuvers" of  in rhetoric  and works  the w o r l d — " t o use  the  basic  brought  re-viewed  r h e t o r i c a l theory;  is,  the  all  into  a  contemporary  and expanded by Burke.  the  that  attention  for several reasons,  is  rhetorical;  most e s p e c i a l l y  the  by  Aristotle,  critical  Burkean.  theory  context  Perelman, and Burke are the major t h e o r e t i c a l r e s o u r c e s analysis;  through  (Burke PLF 23).  and is  accumulated t h e o r y  knowledge  supplies  explicated  Perelman;  p r i n c i p l e s of  theory to  Aristotle is  the  f o r the attitude  101 Burkean t h e o r y  is  seen  as  e n a b l i n g the  treatment o f the t e x t s f o r t h i s s t u d y .  broadest  inductive  The Burkean approach i s  s e p a r a t e d from o t h e r r h e t o r i c a l approaches most i m p o r t a n t l y by scope. the  Burke so expands the realm o f r h e t o r i c t h a t he e n l a r g e s  rhetorician's  motive), the  (looking,  the n a t u r e of h i s  pentad,  appropriate however, finally  gaze  for  of  a  for  and  i n the  The r o l e o f t h e c r i t i c  the  any  to  definition study.  of  the  what  The  other—critical  q u a l i t y of  rhetorical  ( u s i n g the dramatism of  rhetorical  Burkean—or  revealed  example,  instruments  example)  subject  for  an  usefulness, approach  criticism it  i s t o pose q u e s t i o n s  is  is  invites.  a r i s i n g from t h e o r y  i n d i r e c t i n g r h e t o r i c a l attention to a t e x t . The q u e s t i o n s medical  which w i l l  journal  articles  t h e o r y but on assumptions of  all,  considering  guide the a n a l y s i s o f the are  based  their  appearance  these  articles  world  human  action.  Secondly,  rhetorical  (persuasive)  articles  are  persuasiveness are,  is  covert  on  rhetorical  are  seen t o  in be  r a t h e r than  major  professional  consequential  it  is  in  some way,  assumed  overt,  First  in  the  that that  the their  and t h a t  they  i n g e n e r a l , w r i t t e n n e i t h e r w i t h the i n t e n t i o n t o persuade  nor the d e s i r e t o is  only  about the a r t i c l e s themselves.  journals, of  not  selected  assumed t h a t  conceal persuasive i n t e n t .  these  articles,  taken t o g e t h e r ,  p a r t i c u l a r l y Western m e d i c a l paradigm, assumptions Finally,  which  these  the  medical  articles texts  Furthermore,  both are  a set  a  of shared m e d i c a l  reflect taken  represent  it  to  and be  perpetuate. samples  of  102 scientific  writing,  and w h i l e not a l l f i n d i n g s w i t h r e s p e c t  t h e s e t e x t s w i l l be p e r t i n e n t t o a l l s c i e n t i f i c assumed  throughout  writing,  findings  that  writing, i t  because m e d i c a l w r i t i n g i s  can  be  discussed  in  terms  to is  scientific  of  scientific  writing. The  following  guide the (1)  represent  the  type  What  strategies  Which appeals  (of  persuasive?  Is  most  essentially (3)  question  that  will  analysis: of  Invention,  D e l i v e r y are seen t o operate i n the (2)  of  How  ethos, the  Arrangement,  pathos,  notion  Identification  and  texts? and l o g o s )  that  appear t o  be  writing  is  scientific  pure logos j u s t i f i e d by r e a d i n g the  does  Style,  function  in  texts?  the  texts—as  a  s t a r t i n g p l a c e f o r argument, as a method of argumentation, as a g o a l of (4)  argument?  How i s  Through  the a u t h o r i t y of the author e s t a b l i s h e d  what  strategies  does  the  author  i n the  establish  text?  his/her  credibility? (5)  What assumptions,  author  and r e a d e r  assumptions (6)  To  devices voice,  according to  before  the  r e i n f o r c e d by the  what  extent  commonly  do  of  text,  appear  reading?  to  How are  authors  with  complex  use  scientific  the  What i s  these  linguistic  writing  sentence s t r u c t u r e ) ?  (passive What  the r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t of those d e v i c e s where they occur? (8)  bind  text?  medical  associated  nominalizations,  act  the  the r o l e of metaphor i n s c i e n t i f i c  writing?  is  103 (9)  Is  the  surface  rhetorical presence  structure of  structure of  of  the  value-laden  the t e x t s c o n s i s t e n t  texts?  Does,  terminology  for  belie  the  example,  the  n e u t r a l i t y suggested by o t h e r l e x i c a l and s y n t a c t i c the  with  the  authorial features  of  text?  (10) that  What s t r a t e g i e s the  author  opinion or (11)  is  account  f o r the  discussing  matters  of  where i t fact  occurs,  rather  than  speculation?  What k i n d o f arrangement i s  Does  effect,  arrangement  itself  t y p i c a l of a medical a r t i c l e ?  contribute  to  the  effect  of  the  article? (12)  How i s  The  the canon D e l i v e r y r e p r e s e n t e d i n the m e d i c a l t e x t ?  analysis  organizing  will  principles  use for  the the  rhetorical  discussion.  canons In  f i n d i n g s w i l l be summarized and t h e i r s i g n i f i c a n c e  as  Chapter  the Four,  discussed.  104  Endnotes 1. F o r a h i s t o r i c a l s u r v e y o f r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m , see Stewart. 2.  See S t e w a r t , N i l s o n ,  3. A by  useful  E.P.J.  Student. textual  summary  Corbett  Walter.  of A r i s t o t e l i a n  in  Classical  rhetoric  Rhetoric  For a discussion of A r i s t o t e l i a n analysis,  see  Analyses of L i t e r a r y  also  his  i s provided  f o r the  rhetoric  Introduction  Modern  i n terms o f  to  Rhetorical  Works.  3. S e e , 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 ' Rhetoric 6.  of Hitler's The  explicit  critical  Structuralist that  notion  call  Battle," of  i s used  "There  languages  with  "attention" also  to  a n d among  isolate which  manifest content t o a series  these  forms,  burden  of the text"  7. B o o t h ' s literature  echo  oppositions  against  o r modes  of  refers  in such  discovers i t s one  might  t o name t h e plays,  and t h e n  t o go  t o make  signification,  on  the r h e t o r i c i t y  t o some e x t e n t t h e s e r e m a r k s  the  of  a l l forms  o f Burke,-  of  from  "The r e a d e r o f modern p r o s e i s e v e r o n g u a r d  "rhetoric,'  definition,  the text  o f forms  method  which  codes,  Culler  to  (259).  comments  Counter-Statement:  "The  contrast  Jonathan  of attention  beyond  or  by  to  one a u t o m a t i c a l l y  But t h e r e i s a k i n d desire  Burke,  i s no s t r u c t u r a l i s t  i t to a text  a  Kenneth  PLF .  critical  method  structuralist:  various  x  Poetics:  by a p p l y i n g  structure.  q u o t a t i o n s a r e from  yet  the  word,  by  but t o "the use o f language  lexicographer's i n s u c h a way a s  105 to produce a d e s i r e d i m p r e s s i o n upon the hearer o r r e a d e r . " accordance  with  this  definition,  Burke  says,  l i t e r a t u r e c o u l d be nothing e l s e but r h e t o r i c " 8.  See,  for  example,  E.P.J.  In  "effective  (210).  Corbett's  Introduction  to  Analyses. 9. Abrams continues There i s ,  of c o u r s e ,  emphasis  and d e t a i l ,  pragmatic c r i t i c  is  the g r e a t e s t v a r i a n c e  but the c e n t r a l tendency of t o conceive  made i n o r d e r to e f f e c t readers; view of  a poem as  requisite  t o c o n s i d e r the  t h i s end;  .  .  . The p e r s p e c t i v e ,  t h e o r y of r h e t o r i c .  Abrams proposes  ordinates  of  art  c r i t i c i s m , " namely the work,  universe,  and the  work i t s e l f ,  of  interested the  the  in  they p l a c e on each of  the  the  cothe  t h e o r i e s emphasizing  the  are O b j e c t i v e ; those which d e a l w i t h  the  Critical  artist  are  Expressive;  t r u t h or v e r i s i m i l i t u d e  universe;  the  "four  artist,  audience.  he s a y s ,  terms  the  a schema f o r c a t a l o g u i n g c r i t i c a l t h e o r i e s  emphasis  to  much of  (15)  the  relation  of  characteristic  according to  are  its  author from the p o i n t  of pragmatic c r i t i c i s m o r i g i n a t e d i n  classical  in  something  responses i n  the b a s i c v o c a b u l a r y and many of the  work  the  the powers and t r a i n i n g he must have i n o r d e r  to achieve  topics  in  Mimetic of  and Pragmatic t h e o r i e s  c o n n e c t i o n between the work and i t s  audience.  the  theories work  focus on  in the  106 10.  Wimsatt w r i t e s : The I n t e n t i o n a l poem and i t s  Fallacy is  origins.  a c o n f u s i o n between the  . . .  I t begins by t r y i n g to  d e r i v e the standard of c r i t i c i s m from the p s y c h o l o g i c a 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  c o n f u s i o n between the poem and i t s is  and what i t d o e s ) . . .  results  (what  it  I t begins  by t r y i n g to d e r i v e the standards of c r i t i c i s m from the p s y c h o l o g i c a l e f f e c t s of the poem and ends i n impressionism and r e l a t i v i s m . Fallacy of  . . .  specifically  disappear. In (see  his  comparison  note  directly,  9),  of  E.P.J.  t h a t the poem i t s e l f , c r i t i c a l judgment,  either  as an o b j e c t  tends  to  (21) rhetorical Corbett  criticism  refers  to  and New  Wimsatt's  Criticism Fallacies  and here makes h i s p o i n t t h a t r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c i s m i s  "more i n t e r e s t e d what i t  is  The outcome o f  is"  i n a l i t e r a r y work f o r what i t  ( " I n t r o d u c t i o n " Analyses  does than  for  xxii).  11.  See L e v i - S t r a u s s .  12.  See,  13.  The term "governing gaze" i s borrowed from Janet Emig.  f o r example,  the essays of De Man.  107 Chapter T h r e e . Articles P a r t One.  The R h e t o r i c a l  R h e t o r i c a l Overview of the  Chapter Two has is  defined,  formulaic  not  by  established particular  strategies  assumptions  about  consistent  with  for  the  in this  context,  has  a clear  theoretical  follows,  of  Medical  rhetorical criticism  instruments  reading,  purposes  Journal  Texts  that  of  but  and  a r h e t o r i c a l point  is,  he  Analysis  of  analysis  by  fundamental  effects view.  or  of  texts  Kenneth Burke  an " i d e a l " r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c because he  within  framework f o r t e x t u a l  that  framework,  a  analysis,  variety  of  yet  paths  to  analysis  of  insight. The medical  guiding journal  persuasion questions  in  questions articles  the  for  a  concern  production of  about s c i e n t i f i c  rhetorical the  those  available texts.  means These  (the  discovery  of  of the d i s c o u r s e ) , of  concern  rhetoric  represent  which  productive  arguments), Style,  have  heuristic  canon—Memory—is Presentation  is  Arrangement  four  of  the  endured,  irrelevant  examining  five  even  rhetorical  here  to to  r e l a t e d to D e l i v e r y i n c l a s s i c a l In  (the  and P r e s e n t a t i o n .  for  used  are  w r i t i n g as argumentation t h a t  be c a t e g o r i z e d o p e r a t i o n a l l y i n terms o f r h e t o r i c a l  medical  the  can  Invention  organization  These f o u r areas  canons  through  of  study o f some  classical  Burke,  analysis.  subsume  of  as  (The  a  fifth  written  text.)  of  issues  the  theory.  texts,  specific  questions  of  108 Invention pathos, shared topoi  concern and  the  logos.  by w r i t e r used  the  of  focus,  and r e l a t i v e  quality  and r e a d e r ,  because  Arrangement  nature  on the  ethos,  apparently  enthymemic  assumptions.  example,  of  assumptions  and the  shared  for  of  uses  logic  Questions  placement  of  p e r s u a s i v e uses o f I n t r o d u c t i o n s o r ( i n the case o f pre-Introductions,  consider  the  scientific  formal  prose  o r synopses.  markers  (passive  voice,  and measure t h e i r  the  of  Presentation figures  (Delivery)  and t a b l e s  photographs mutually  to  articles  of  effects  as a whole.  concern,  for  complex of  Questions  of  the  use  o r the use o f  accompany some a r t i c l e s .  with  i n terms  example,  i n medical a r t i c l e s ,  Style  associated  nominalization,  sentence s t r u c t u r e ) , rhetorical effect  and the  scholarly  Questions  usually  of  strong  and weak m a t e r i a l i n the o r g a n i z a t i o n of an a r t i c l e ,  papers)  and  Categories  of  author are  not  exclusive.  The w r i t i n g i n m e d i c a l j o u r n a l s , l i k e a l l o t h e r uses o f language—being persuasive.  However,  medicine has style  that  persuasion to  isolate,  articles  necessarily  l e d to is  not  since  the  themselves.  the  and  tendentious—is  scientific  conventionalization of  overtly  i n medical texts possibly  symbolic  persuasive, are  invisible  subtle, even  S c r u t i n y of  to  the  rubric a  discursive  mechanisms  sometimes the  medical  for  difficult  writers journal  of  of  the  articles  from the r h e t o r i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e r e v e a l s the e x i s t e n c e and the nature  of  persuasive  strategies  i n those  texts.  Since  a  109 study o f the r h e t o r i c i t y of the a r t i c l e s their  effects—on  readers  into  which  they  with  those  elements  Presentation  are  which  and on the  Invention,  represent  r e a l l y a study of  rhetorical  introduced—the of  is  analysis  is  Arrangement,  authorial  moves  for analysis  thirty-five articles  i n the p r e s e n t  having  of  headache.  journals  physician,  which, are  professional  because of  conversation.  the  Articles  reports articles. 1982.  interest  research, A l l pieces  the  Journal. for  Medicine,  of  organs  the  of  a  the  Study  (the of  of  family  include  functional  The L a n c e t . The Medicine.  diagnosis,  headache,  observations,  in a specific  headaches,  journal  Headache),  and Postgraduate  examined are c u r r e n t ,  headaches due t o  of  coherent  i n question  Headache  concern the  original  do not o r i g i n a t e  M i g r a i n e and t e n s i o n  includes  to  include  and  review  appearing  pathologic  f o r example,  etiology  and  F u n c t i o n a l headaches are those w h i c h , u n l i k e  headaches,  while  of  and treatment on  study  on the s u b j e c t  the American M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n .  under c o n s i d e r a t i o n  (origin),  readers.  The American J o u r n a l o f M e d i c i n e .  Association  New England J o u r n a l  real-  taken from a v a r i e t y  The j o u r n a l s  American A s s o c i a t i o n  Journal of  are  their  constitute  American F a m i l y P h y s i c i a n .  of  exclusively  The a r t i c l e s  seen t o  Canadian M e d i c a l  and  s e l e c t e d at random (given l i m i t a t i o n s  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 ) functional  concerned Style,  w o r l d consequences by i n f l u e n c i n g the b e l i e f s of The m a t e r i a l  situations  are  b r a i n tumour o r c r a n i a l  after  "organic" process.  functional, inflammation  110 are  organic.  Functional  "primary" headaches: symptoms  of  headaches  when i t  are  sometimes  is established  t h a t they are not  a higher-order disease process,  themselves  constitute  the  disease  for  called  these  which  headaches  treatment  is  sought. In  general,  persuasive  for  articles  in  medical  two p r a c t i c a l r e a s o n s .  c o m p e t i t i o n w i t h i n the p r o f e s s i o n publication  journals  dictate  that  First,  must  be  standards  and  as w e l l as the p o l i t i c s  i n order to  win support  for  r e s e a r c h and a p u b l i c a t i o n source f o r t h e i r f i n d i n g s , scientists boards  that  themselves once  a  convince  their  of  depends  it  was  substantial  funding  work  are r e l i a b l e  piece  authors which  must  work on  is  of  reception  addressed.  If of  observation or a n a l y s i s ) ,  the  the  and  the  within  authors  worth  of  the fail  will  not  scientific  published Normative  if  of w r i t i n g i s  progress  community's s t o r e of  Studies funded;  the  which are not done  by  for  that  they  Secondly, of  the  community to  their  to  convince  research  a (or  of  into obscurity.  taken s e r i o u s l y ,  science  or  add  it  to  the  are not  well  knowledge.  i n i t i a l l y persuasive  nevertheless,  mainstream  criteria  medical  t h e i r work w i l l not be c i t e d i n the  unless a piece further  their  editorial  reputation  p u b l i c a t i o n s o f t h e i r peers and w i l l d i s s o l v e Ultimately,  and  t h e i r work.  published,  its  readership  creditable,  reporters is  agencies  of  they  journals  scientific  are in  unlikely the  publication  to  be  profession.1 include  not  Ill o n l y the  perhaps obvious requirements of  mathematical techniques,  precision,  but  also  r e p l i c a b i l i t y of  o r i g i n a l i t y , and t h e o r e t i c a l  the v e r y l e a s t ,  writing.  its  t h e i r g o a l must be  the  field  scientific  time  the  fall  the in  degree  persuasive  both p o s i t i v e  became  joint  disease  (a  disorder  significant  number of  the  cause  of  patients.  headache  disease.  Treatment Disorders"  of  The  1985  (Reik),  reports  that  of  for  the name  c h r o n i c headache  in a  fully  patients"  article,  Headache P a t i e n t s  In  jaw,  preselected according to previous therapies) the  the  common t o  The d i a g n o s i s  clinic  of  the  one study found r e c e n t l y t h a t  "consecutive  favour  and n e g a t i v e .  it  TMJ) as  which  of  nature  example,  as  to  and out  for  abbreviated  popular that  headache,  to  about them,  temporomandibular  of  explanations  testifies  nineteen-seventies,  for  to  (Perelman, TNR 4 ) .  literature  its  professionals  adherence of an audience t o the theses p r e s e n t e d f o r  Within  over  At  and t h e i r r e p o r t s worth  In Chaim Perelman's terms,  assent  certain  research  significance.^  s c i e n t i s t s must convince f e l l o w  t h a t t h e i r s t u d i e s are worth d o i n g ,  win the  l o g i c a l r i g o u r and  became  so  a fifth  of  (i.e.  had been t r e a t e d  "Unnecessary  Temporomandibular  o n l y twenty  not  percent  Dental Joint of  the  headache p a t i e n t s who were t r e a t e d f o r TMJ a c t u a l l y s a t i s f i e d diagnostic that  criteria  "increased  for  patient  the  disease.  awareness  The author of  the  concludes  TMJ syndrome,  i n a p p r o p r i a t e r e f e r r a l by p h y s i c i a n s , and i n c o r r e c t d i a g n o s i s  112 by  dentists  treatment"  all  probably  (246).  professional d i s e a s e was headache.  led  to  In o t h e r words,  and  nonprofessional,  a reasonable By 1985,  were  unnecessary  dental  a l a r g e number o f  people,  were  diagnosis  they  the  for  being  persuaded sufferers  persuaded  t h a t TMJ of  chronic  that  it  was  not. The  openness  acceptance treatment  of  the  and r e j e c t i o n testifies  of  also to  willingness,  medical new its  its  work.  There i s no doubt, however,  to  the  i n general,  contingent  consequences of  The e d i t o r "scientific which  as  of  the  discuss  classified  as  [Nov.  other  "Scientific  and  itself  i n any s e r i o u s  but  Headache,  in  diagnosis  t h a t headache e x p e r t s view  (or s u b j e c t  (Edmeads  headache  in  both  t o abandon what does not  argumentation)  journal,  journal"  concepts  to  commitment t o monitor  and t o  t h e i r work not  profession  as  "scientific."  considers 1984]  it  343);  journals  Articles";3  way  are  to  be  a  articles generally  meetings  of  the  American A s s o c i a t i o n f o r the study of Headache are c o n s i d e r e d " S c i e n t i f i c Meetings"  (Kirn,  reading of  headache  articles  rhetorical  for  scientific  being  reveals  scientific,  that and  Still, they  a close  are no  arguably  no  less less  for being r h e t o r i c a l .  Particulary strategies  "Discussion" 9 ) .  important  which  between w r i t e r Identification  encourage  and r e a d e r .  to  the  medical  professional  writer  are  identification  Kenneth B u r k e ' s t e r m i n o l o g y  and C o n s u b s t a n t i a l i t y p r o v i d e the  key t o  of  this  113 rhetoric. audience  Gestures (the  of  identification  w r i t e r being  between  i n any case one of  writer  the  and  audience)  p r o v i d e the s t a r t i n g p l a c e f o r the m e d i c a l a r t i c l e as w e l l its  means and i t s  of  being  g o a l , which i s  consubstantial  Consubstantiality agreement  aspects  definitions, programs,  of  and as  an  first  "acting  comes  properly  medical  from  internal  and  all  and  to  and  goals.  and  document,  the  implicitly. of  for asserting  i n the s c i e n t i f i c  the  to  most  problem research  medical  used  their  journal  affirm  be  allegiance  the  means is  to  the  so w e l l - e d u c a t e d  community  author  a s p e c t of m e d i c a l p e r s u a s i o n .  is  to  This  the  about the  C o n t r i b u t o r s t o the j o u r n a l  and s e c o n d l y , of  solidifies  including  The  sense  together").  instrumentations,  demonstrate  forms  character  a vehicle  research,  of the p r o f e s s i o n .  of  language  apparent  both  appropriate  community's v a l u e s , the  (or  methodologies  shared v a l u e s have  here  f u r t h e r i n g o f the  i n the m e d i c a l community—agreement  important  article,  the  as  that  that  they  the  an extremely  in  do  so  ethos  or  important  The j o u r n a l a r t i c l e i t s e l f  l e g i t i m a c y of the a u t h o r ' s  is  place  community, and the e f f e c t o f the a r t i c l e  is  i n e x t r i c a b l e from the a u t h o r ' s c r e d i b i l i t y . Several headache  strategies literature,  rhetorically.  of  Invention  when  the  Particularly salient  are  seen t o r e c u r i n  literature  is  ones i n c l u d e  the  evaluated (1)  use  of  a topos o f s i z e as a d e v i c e of s e d u c t i o n a t the opening of an article;  (2)  use of the q u a s i - l o g i c a l argument by comparison,  114 to  argue  use  of  from  f o r the  r e f u t a t i o n f o r the same purpose; example,  rationalize  form  of a  especially  the  the s c i e n t i f i c and  need f o r a p a r t i c u l a r study o r r e p o r t , and  whole  of  alliance  sometimes  and r e a d e r s ;  between  (4)  writer  (5) and  use o f on  (This i s  arguments  research,  to  to  characteristic  use o f t o p o i o f  and d i v i s i o n ,  argument,  among w r i t e r s  reports  a study  method i t s e l f ) ;  classification new  in  (3)  sometimes reaffirm  of  definition  in  what  order is  to  shared  use o f pathos t o e s t a b l i s h audience,  which  p a t i e n t i n an i m p l i e d we/they s e p a r a t i o n ;  (6)  an  excludes  use o f  the  specific  e t h i c a l arguments t o c r e a t e an image of the s p e a k e r - w r i t e r as knowledgeable and t r u s t w o r t h y . t a i l o r e d to s p e c i f i c A  close  number  sentences)  which  headache, dollars  r h e t o r i c a l purposes and o c c a s i o n s .  reading  remarkable  A d d i t i o n a l types o f p r o o f are  of  of  the  article  argue  the  journal  articles  Introductions  significance  of  i n terms o f number o f p a t i e n t s lost,  effectively attentive  to  to  to  justify  seduce  the  interest  readers  article.  is,  (often the  in  the  a  opening  problem of  a f f l i c t e d by i t  who might  That  reveals  and  field  otherwise  be  and less  i n f o r m a t i o n on headache  i s not p r e s e n t e d n e u t r a l l y , innocent of v a l u e , but l a d e n from the  o u t s e t w i t h a sense of  statistics  might  interesting,  be  from the  significance.  concerning  in  While v a r i a t i o n i n  itself,  what  r h e t o r i c a l p o i n t of view,  is  is  more  that  so  many authors seek t o win the a t t e n t i o n of audiences w i t h what Aristotle  c a l l e d the  topos o f  size,  "the  relative  greatness  115 and s m a l l n e s s of t h i n g s " of  claims  appearing  (147).  in  the  The f o l l o w i n g  opening  is  paragraphs  a sampling of  headache  articles s In the U . S . A . , to suffer  24 m i l l i o n Americans are r e p o r t e d  from severe headaches,  l o s t time at work and decreased costing  15.1 b i l l i o n d o l l a r s  (Szekely et  al  contributing  to  productivity,  annually.  86)  E p i d e m i o l o g i c a l s t u d i e s i n d i c a t e t h a t about t h i r d s of a d u l t s  i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s  headaches and t h a t 40% of these s u f f e r c o n t r a c t i o n o r t e n s i o n headache.  two-  experience from muscle  ( B e l l et a l  162)  Each y e a r 550 m i l l i o n workdays are l o s t i n the U n i t e d States  because  principal  of  pain,  complaint  which  presented  by  is  probably  patients  and  major determinant i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n t o c o n s u l t physician.  (Diamond, "Treatment" 91)  Headache i s  a common problem, a f f e c t i n g  the the  a  approximately  70-75% o f men and more than 80% of women i n a y e a r ' s time.  (Featherstone  Headache  is  one  194)  of  the  most  common  of  medical  c o m p l a i n t s and i s presumed t o a f f e c t more than 80% of the p o p u l a t i o n .  (Glassman e t  al  101)  116  Migraine  headache  neurological of  is  one  disorders,  of  the  w i t h an e s t i m a t e d  5% t o 25% i n western s o c i e t y .  Migraine  is  a  estimated  5%  of  common the  most  common  prevalence  ( S t e l l a r 2576)  disorder,  occurring  general  population.  secured,  the  in  an  (Bending  508) Once r e a d e r a t t e n t i o n  is  article  at  case o f  research a r t i c l e s )  for  p a r t i c u l a r appropriateness  the  group o f its  hand must be e s t a b l i s h e d ,  authors  makes  authors  its  relevance  of  the  and ( e s p e c i a l l y  in  the  proceed t o make the of  their  case  own work.  case by f o c u s s i n g  One  by degrees  on  own r e s e a r c h p l a n : [A]n  increase  around the  time  [THERE  A  IS  HEADACHE.]  of  in  NEED  a  positive  effect  headache  pain.  INCLUDES  been w e l l  FOR RESEARCH  treatment  growing of  body  [THERE  IS  to  headache  documented.  ON PARAMENSTRUAL  r e d u c t i o n of  or  There  literature .  .  on  the  .  on  FOR MORE RESEARCH  TREATMENTS.] is  Numerous  significantly  waiting  headache p a i n .  headaches.  treatment  A NEED  BEHAVIORAL  placebo  of of  behavioral  s t u d i e s show such treatment superior  of  P h a r m a c o l o g i c a l agents have t r a d i t i o n a l l y  however,  WHICH  incidence  menses has  been employed i n the is,  the  list  [HOWEVER]  control  in  Such r e s e a r c h  117 has been c a r r i e d out almost muscle  contraction  and  exclusively  mixed  on m i g r a i n e ,  headache  sufferers.  [THERE IS A NEED FOR RESEARCH ON BEHAVIOR FOR  PARA-MENSTRUAL  HEADACHE  SUFFERERS.]  s p i t e of w e l l  documented e x a c e r b a t i o n  menstruation,  there  has  only  been  THERAPIES .  .  .  In  in relation  one  study  on  to the  e f f e c t o f b e h a v i o r a l treatment on m e n s t r u a l m i g r a i n e . [A NEW STUDY—THE PRESENT STUDY—IS NEEDED] et  (Szekely  a l 86) .  The o v e r r i d i n g s t r a t e g y here i s the q u a s i - l o g i c a l argument by comparison*,  essentially  the comparing of the p r e s e n t  t o those which have been done b e f o r e ; studies  are  enthymeme question  found  is is  in  the  refutative:  process the  established  conventionally,  by  to  be  validity  the  study  earlier  lacking.  of  the  undercutting  The  study  of  in  previous  research. Other authors use to  argue  for  group,  having  80% of  tension  that or  it  is  their  comparative argument  research  pointed  out  that  "surprising that  the  the  role  headaches.  Another  psychological  aspects  of team  reports  of  One  implicate  headaches,  r o l e of  al  stress  in  160).  points  i n promoting received Their  concerned out  in  directly  recurrent  authors,  headache,  has  research stress  says  stress  headaches  (Holm e t  of  refutatively  corrective.  recurrent tension  empirical attention"  investigates  as  (muscle-contraction)  exacerbating  little  the  that  so  study tension with while  118 numerous s t u d i e s have focussed sufferers effort  and of  has  disorder" explain,  headache  gone  to  itself,  study  is  on e x a c t l y  of  work  literature,  "little  patient  (Barnat and Lake 229).  using r e f u t a t i o n to piece  on the psychology of  that  of  neither  is  that  attitudes  subject.  course,  strategy  r e l e v a n c e of  scientific  unique  the  t h e y go on t o  While the  not  research  toward  Their study,  argue f o r the  is,  of  headache  of  a particular  to  scientific  l i t e r a t u r e unique f o r  the  absence o f t h i s r h e t o r i c a l s t r a t e g y . The  quality  scientific underlie  of  the  inductive  reporting illustrates  scientific  discourse  used  in  t h a t c e r t a i n assumptions  so  that  argument  also  arguments based on those  assumptions are w i d e l y c o n s i d e r e d t o be not arguments a t a l l , but  statements  method t h a t should drawn  be  every  is  cases. in  scientific  but  of  This  argued,  however, accounting,  of  is  a  a  reliable  of  empowers  articles,  the  assumed.  in  a  the  the  way  What  in  can nor can  be  number  of  statistical  appropriateness is  g i v e n the prominence o f is  scientific  conclusions  phenomenon  premise  but  premise  a phenomenon n e i t h e r  that  scientific  never  interesting,  it  instance  repetitions  particular  which  fact.5  observed,  from  reasoning  of  which  m a n i p u l a t e d i n some cases t o appear i n the b e s t  of  especially  statistics numbers  in are  possible—or  most p e r s u a s i v e — l i g h t . F o r example,  one group of r e s e a r c h e r s c l a i m s t h a t  "93% of  88 c h i l d r e n w i t h severe migraine" r e c o v e r e d on s y s t e m a t i c a l l y  119 restricted,  anti-allergy  reading of the a r t i c l e  diets  (Egger  e t a l 865).  Close  r e v e a l s t h a t t h e study began w i t h 99  s u b j e c t s , e l e v e n o f whom withdrew from the study f o r reasons unstated  i n the a r t i c l e  (possibly  were u n a f f e c t e d by t r e a t m e n t ) . s i x d i d n o t improve a t a l l , to  do  so  even  reintroduced.  when  because  their  headaches  Of t h e 88 remaining s u b j e c t s ,  and e i g h t who improved  presumably  offending  foods  (The authors says, r a t h e r i n d i r e c t l y ,  8 r e l a p s e d on r e i n t r o d u c t i o n o f one o r more foods" al  866].)  total  That  pool  i s , researchers  demonstrated  o f 99 s u b j e c t s — a p p r o x i m a t e l y  dietary control.  continued  that  were  " a l l but [Egger e t 74 o f a  75%—improved  While the authors do not m i s r e p r e s e n t  with their  f i n d i n g s , t h e y do r e p r e s e n t t h e i r f i n d i n g s s t r a t e g i c a l l y . The f a i r manipulation  o f numbers i s one o f t h e most  "available"  o f t h e "means o f p e r s u a s i o n " t h e s c i e n t i s t c a n use. Another treatment  study, on  which  sixteen  assesses women  the e f f e c t s  suffering  of behavioral  from  paramenstrual  headache, mentions o n l y on the second page o f i t s r e p o r t t h a t s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d from a p o o l o f 93 p o t e n t i a l s u b j e c t s , 77 o f whom were d i s q u a l i f i e d for  various  reasons  from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n t h e study  ( S z e k e l y e t a l 87).  Ironically,  this  a r t i c l e uses language which has the e f f e c t o f o b f u s c a t i n g t h e common-sense  "fact"  that  f i n d i n g s based on a s i x t e e n - p e r s o n  sample i s n o t o f g r e a t s c i e n t i f i c v a l u e . I t r e p o r t s , s u b j e c t s "self-monitored  4 times  daily  were matched on pre-treatment  f o r a 2-cycle baseline, pain  levels  into  then  8 p a i r s and  120 randomly data  assigned  analysis  to  was  headache  on  .  by three-way  r e p e a t e d measures" treatments  treatment.  (86).  sixteen  conditions  .  .  Post-treatment  analysis  of  In o t h e r words,  people  suffering  and then  variance with 2  the  study used  from f o u r  asked them t o  group  two  different  report  how  they  felt. Argument from example as  argument  from s t a t i s t i c s )  conventional surveyed, from  in  the  common  classification. unstated, be  that  treated,  special  classification "Are  Classical  (Wilkinson Still  and  Viable?"  conditions  with  questions  of  appeared  and  Common  Blau),  "Is  (Pikoff),  (Thompson),  "Towards  and  articles  h e a v i l y on  arguments  One  a  and  questions:  seminal  1962  Assessment  (Featherstone).  can  have  dividing,  these  on  Committee),  Different  Entities?"  Model of  of  Head  and of  article  (Ad Hoc  Muscular  Muscle  they  f o r the l a r g e number of to  Definition  and  generally  before  defining,  Migraine the  division  practitioners  "Diagnosis  to a  the  and  the  in  reasoning  assumption,  and  T h i s accounts  which  In  must be diagnosed  Headache,"  Approach  Continuum"  the  specifically  of  "Migraine  with  researchers  Idiographic  (Blau),  article.  definition  Beginning  i n science  one mode of  topoi,  devoted  "Classification  just  also r e l i e s  classifying disorders. articles  most o f t e n  logos  medical  concern  is  scientific  scientific  the  (manifested  Pain:  An  Classification"  Migraine  Contraction  Headache  Headache"  Headaches:  particularly  A  convincing  121 a r t i c l e uses the h y p o t h e t i c a l s y l l o g i s m as a s u b s t r u c t u r e f o r the  definitional  argument.  The case  "common" m i g r a i n e are d i f f e r e n t i s based, that  that  "classical"  aspects of the same d i s o r d e r  i n p a r t , on r e f u t i n g the c l a i m o f o t h e r  "classical"  phenomenon  migraine  called,  originates  "Leao's  and  in  spreading  a  researchers  physiological  depression."  They  write: We know t h a t the aura o f m i g r a i n e i s p a i n l e s s  and i f  the remaining symptoms were due t o the s p r e a d i n g d e p r e s s i o n then the c o r t i c a l changes, expected, spreading [classical  should  also  be  depression migraine]  as would be  painless.  cannot  Therefore  account  headache.  for  the  ( W i l k i n s o n and B l a u  212) Definition articles others argue  and c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  which  focus  which use for  claims  the  that  on those  them as  validity  are  only  to  but  to  support hypotheses o r  to  concerns  topoi  of  important  to  exclusively,  a r e s e a r c h program.  pharmacological  treatment  of  haphazard, and not c o r r e l a t e d c l o s e l y enough t o headache of  (Thompson 221).  migraine"  as  Diamond 184).  "some i n v e s t i g a t o r s " though  it  One study headache  were  In g e n e r a l ,  an  is  "subtypes" of  Another study r e p o r t s  a s u r v e y on d i e t a r y p r e c i p i t a n t s  concern that  not  the  of m i g r a i n e ,  results  expressing  have used the term " d i e t a r y accepted  entity  (Blau and  the need f o r 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 typical  122 article  will,  for  its  own  purposes,  affirm  this  shared  i n t e r e s t o f the p r o f e s s i o n : Most o f us c o n s i d e r m i g r a i n e as a p u r e l y e p i s o d i c phenomenon  and  migrainous  when  process  headaches  are  contraction  the  is  headache  r u l e d out  generally  or tension  occurs  daily,  straightway.  Daily  considered  headaches.  as  muscle  Such an approach  might d e p r i v e p a t i e n t s o f the b e n e f i t t h e y might have received  from  was d i f f e r e n t . While the the  emotional  appeal  formation  of  alliance  powerful an  alliance  although  the  be  message  a prerequisite  (patients) together) hard-core  in  is  in  literature  less in  so.  the  must  literature.  lies  author  and  the  subject  excludes  Direct  understand  persuasion  between  which  suggests  separation  implicit  diagnosis  their in  the  audience,  an  of  medical  in  medical  the s u b j e c t made o b j e c t .  separation  articles  of  the  prevalent  authors  which n e c e s s a r i l y  we/they  is  pathos  means  if  66)  unconventional  scientific  journal  even  from  is  articles—the patient, The  (Mathew e t a l  appeal  Nevertheless, a  treatment  appeal from logos  surveyed,  audience;  specific  the  Burke's  is to  is  maintained term,  necessary  to  physicians  professionalism.  headache  "scapegoating,  literature  and may  In e f f e c t , is  that  one  "they"  get headaches and "we" (the author and the readers do n o t . headache  One author r e f e r s c o n d e s c e n d i n g l y t o patient"  as  "our  specialty  "the  albatross"  123 (Edmeads  [Nov.  professional reader,  is  1984]  collaboration,  dissociated  the same t i m e , language that of  of  the  r e f e r the  author,  kind  of  i d e n t i f y i n g with  the  One author w r i t e s ,  f o r p a i n management equipment,  patient least  The p a t i e n t  becomes  a  who i s ,  Dissociation is reflected  articles.  patient—at  141) .  the  what  from the headache p a t i e n t ,  u s i n g biofeedback  need t o  In  objectified.  requiring special  the  342).  to  in  in this  a  so .  that  .  has  the  case i s  example,  the  drawback  physician  care"  not s u b j e c t ,  dissociative medical  removes  but  impulse  (or a i l i n g organ)  facility.  that  is  responsible  for  through which the p a t i e n t  the  common  and the  ailment  are made one—as i n h o s p i t a l p a r l a n c e ,  "pancreas i n Room 2 5 2 . "  which the p h y s i c i a n i s article,  the  not d i s s o c i a t e d  his  disorder,  scientist  with  he a  "perhaps  similar  problem  an o p p o r t u n i t y t o  that  generate  may  ( C r e d i t o r 1032). appeal,  the  i n some  In  detail  F o l l o w i n g a p e r s o n a l account of  writes,  condition  case i n  from the p a t i e n t .  physician-author describes  h i s own h i s t o r y of m i g r a i n e .  one  7  In the l i t e r a t u r e s u r v e y e d , t h e r e i s o n l y a s i n g l e  this  object,  t h i s o b j e c t i f y i n g language i s the same k i n d of  synecdoche  speaks o f the  "may  (Gunderson  an e n t i t y which i s r e f e r r e d then removed to another What m o t i v a t e s  i n the  for  . c l i n i c , which  part—from his  at  study  bizarre  some will  young  recognize  systematically  outcome  physician-  the  the  inputs  as  migraine"  While the a r t i c l e has a c e r t a i n  persuasive  d e r i v e d i n p a r t from pathos—the  known  in  sympathy the  reader  124 feels  for  the  science.  plight  of  the  Self-observation  scientific  usefulness  is  author—it  is  considered  precisely  to  not be  because  read  of  it  as  limited  blurs  the  d i s t i n c t i o n between the o b s e r v e r and the o b s e r v e d . E t h o s , the argument from the c h a r a c t e r o f the speaker, important  to  all  persuasive  important t o m e d i c a l w r i t i n g . argument argues that or  is  explained  that  voice  something  persona  articles  trustworthy,  that  writing,  to  a  to  be  Initially,  read  specifically, authors worth  i n the  person medical and  and  ethical  impression  attends speech;  it, he  argument.  appeal—external  In  of  the  and  the  considers medical  and i n t e r n a l t o  the  operate.  c r e d i b i l i t y accrues t o m e d i c a l w r i t e r s t h a t  from  as  the  belief  knowledgeable  the  the r h e t o r c r e a t e d by the  d i s c o u r s e — a r e seen t o  is  as  the  what  journals appears  both  and t h e i r  i n which t h e i r i n a respected  respectable  readers  of  and  boards  have  been  i n place  appear.  scientific  journal  journal  screened for  is  articles  scientific.  a professional  articles  by e d i t o r i a l  he  i n a number o f ways.  between  speech  Ong when  Authors o f  themselves  distinguishes  latter  Essentially,  information."^  ethical  and t h a t  secondary t o b e l i e f  establish  both k i n d s o f  borrowed  is  precedes  impression of the  "a summons f o r b e l i e f "  true  consequently  by W a l t e r J .  and they a c c o m p l i s h t h i s  Aristotle  only  is  and  The c e n t r a l i t y of the  succinctly  s h a r i n g the  have  rhetor  is  discourse  is  that  More assume  as  to  purpose.  that basic In  125 addition,  some  creating  authors  an advance  have  the  credibility,  benefit  something  by t h e i r p u b l i c a t i o n s and r e f e r e n c e s other  authors.  establish  Most,  their  "credentials" degree  of  which  give  in  right  being  Ph.D.  to  an  added  they  have  read,  terms.  M . D . , but  reputation have  earned  t o t h e i r p u b l i c a t i o n s by  case,  be  cognate  or  them  any  of  credentials  that  "credibility"  These  several  are  minimally  authors  appeal:  they  and  have  are  a  titles  heads  of  departments o r d i r e c t o r s o f c l i n i c s , w e l l - p l a c e d academics  or  consultants  to  in  photographs  accompanying t h e i r  photograph  government.  adds  to  Some authors  ethical  are r e p r e s e n t e d  articles.  effect  by  The presence making  sense  affiliations, articles  an  author  created  identifying  a  Moreover,  source  with  of  the  own r e l i a b l e  authorial  authorial  ethos  character,  of  conventional  disinterestedness). most  obvious  their texts, reports  reputation,  and i t  on r e s e a r c h ,  (the of  The p r e v a l e n c e strategy  sign of  neutrality of  for  find that  itself, for  passive removing  by  establish prose  the  universalism) (the  sign  of  voice  is  the  authors  i s common i n m e d i c a l a r t i c l e s , to  is  authors  declaring in their  appearance  stylistic  absence  credibility,  science,  c o n v e n t i o n a l appearance o f modesty the  attached.  d e g r e e s , and photographs i s o f t e n b e l i e d i n the  absence.  ironically,  and  by  a  themselves which are c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a c o n v e n t i o n a l  authorial  their  of  a  available  v i s u a l image t o which i d e a s and i n f o r m a t i o n may be The  of  from  especially  the m a j o r i t y of verbs  are  126 i n the p a s s i v e . invited"  to  A t y p i c a l study r e p o r t s t h a t  participate;  "the d i a g n o s i s patient  was  2500).  obviate  as  however,  to  "the  and  need  for  a  physician"  on  account,  is  "the  and h i s  study  (Gunderson);  "the  association  the  [not  of  a  the  of  obtained";  i s to  items.  .  psychological  the  and  passive  speaker. i n the many  One third-  articles,  "the study" o r  agency  or the  research  each  Steele,  of  in  agent. 10  of  In one  demonstrates"  (Stellar .  "the  instrument  group]  p a r t i c u l a r drug  analysis  between  use  readers  p l a c e d i n the r o l e of  effectiveness  another,  (Solomon,  first-person  the t h i r d person r e f e r e n c e  investigation  was  were  "the c o n d i t i o n o f  articles,  both h i m s e l f  a n a l y s i s . T y p i c a l l y ,  the  so  In most  the  author r e f e r s person  consent  o f m i g r a i n e was made";  evaluated";  Spaccavento helps  "informed  "patients  2580);  demonstrated"  factors  and  in an  headache  (Drummond 2 1 ) . The persona of k i n d of trust  the  impersonal r e p o r t e r i t s e l f  ethos t h a t i n the s c i e n t i f i c  and b e l i e f .  ethical  argument  journals  are  The assumption is  that  the  community i n s p i r e s underlying this  contributors  with r e p l i c a b l e r e s u l t s .  from  is  themselves their  to  both  inverse  scientific  r e p o r t i n g on e m p i r i c a l events r e v e a l e d through  accepted methodologies this  carries a  assumption in their  results.  that  findings  (Kenneth  authors  should  What f o l l o w s not  implicate  nor make p r o p r i e t a r y c l a i m s  Burke  sheds  r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of s c i e n t i f i c  some  light  on  i m p e r s o n a l i s m : "If,  to the in  127 the o p i n i o n of a g i v e n audience, admirable,  then  a  speaker  a c e r t a i n k i n d of conduct  might  persuade  the  audience  u s i n g s i g n s and images t h a t i d e n t i f y h i s cause w i t h t h a t of  conduct"  authors  [ROM 55].)  do d e v i a t e  In a few a r t i c l e s  from what  the c o n v e n t i o n a l i n d i f f e r e n t do,  the  effect  is  the a u t h o r i t y of the  generally  scientific  seems t o be t o  surveyed,  increase  adopts Here  a  in  the  authors  of  the  of  treatment  of  some  speaker  in  the  anticipate  migraine.  researchers])  reader  They w r i t e ,  migraine  that  (Egger e t  placebo  effect  .  al  .  867).  d i d not  cxonfession  way.  The r h e t o r i c a l s t r a t e g y sample  argue t h a t  Discussion  articles.  the  neurotic  allayed. authors.  concerns  account  study  is  triad  is  . . . "  anticipated,  for  the  to  their  high i n  believing  go on t o  their  authors  prolepsis.  Another  reverse]  is  section.  "We (except J . F . S .  The authors  humanized  of  [ r a t h e r than the readers'  has  dietary  the [one that  . c o u l d be e x p l a i n e d as a placebo  their  the  in  patients,  objections  embarked on t h i s  any f a v o r a b l e response response"  be  reader confidence  argument by acknowledging t h a t placebo e f f e c t treatment  to  author(s).  first-person  the  kind  Whenever they  One group of a u t h o r s , c l a i m i n g the importance o f manipulation  by  however,  considered  ethos.  is  author  the  results, in  a  and i t writes,  result  of  (Mathew 67). acknowledged  explain  as  but  pleasing recurs  in  "One can  chronic pain Thus are  the  shared,  and  These e f f e c t s combine t o i n c r e a s e c o n f i d e n c e  i n the  128 Another  author  begins  his  article  with  a  first-person  speaker.  H i s s u b j e c t a t t h i s p o i n t i s h i s own p a s t  research:  "In 1979,  we assayed the frequency of temporomandibular j o i n t  (TMJ) p a i n - d y s f u n c t i o n syndrome among our m e d i c a l p a t i e n t s . of  .  " (Reik 246). which i s  The v a l i d i t y of t h i s  t o compare c u r r e n t (1985)  f i n d i n g s of s i x - y e a r - o l d s t u d y , in  research  personnel.  Whatever  their  of  specific  conventions  of t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e .  of  their  invariably  articles,  on TMJ t o  the  continuity  first-person  rhetorical  authors  is  a  purpose  speaker  continuity.  published  those conventions  findings  the  i s enhanced by the  Use  u n d e r l i n e s t h a t sense of  article,  .  itself a  choices,  remain w i t h i n In e f f e c t ,  however,  the  discourse  t h e i r command of  an important a s p e c t o f the  sign  of  their  membership  ethos  in  the  p r o f e s s i o n a l community f o r which they w r i t e . In a d d i t i o n t o pathos,  and  these common means o f p e r s u a s i o n i n  ethos.  inventional  medical  strategies  appropriate  purposes and s i t u a t i o n s . of  rhetorical  proofs  from  the use  patient  (itself  a  to  use  their  of  rhetorical  f o r example,  and  the  use  the  use  of  various  emphasis.  r e s e a r c h which focuses on the kind  specific  of A r i s t o t e l i a n i n a r t i s t i c  authority),  a p p l i c a t i o n s of the p r i n c i p l e of The case s t u d y ,  articles  These i n c l u d e ,  "presence,"  (arguments  journal  logos.  argument  from  individual  example),  is  r e c o g n i z e d as a method f o r i d e n t i f y i n g problems o r  generating  hypotheses  rhetorical  for  scientific  investigation.  The  129 appeal  of  Chaim  Perelman,  working  style,  describes  as  by  the  "choosing  (Realm  case  to  35).  study i s  to  the  appeal o f  presence—what  Aristotelian  principles  " d i r e c t l y upon our  out c e r t a i n t h i n g s  The case  author r e f e r s  from  acting  single  i n the  study  effect  individual  case,  is  sensibility,"  for  presentation"  evoked whenever  but i t  is  used as  major mode of argument i n t h r e e of the a r t i c l e s this the  study.  One, which s t a t e s  association  conflicts,  exacerbation  recounts i n s p e c i f i c  crisis  in  estrogen  purpose as  between d e t e r i o r a t i n g  and  whom sought  its  f o r headache  life.  "to  highlight  pain"  (Roy  and 360),  a l l of  d u r i n g o r f o l l o w i n g some  Another,  i n the pathogenesis  the  family situations  head  an  surveyed f o r  terms the cases o f f o u r s u b j e c t s ,  treatment family  of  of  exploring  the  factor  of  of m i g r a i n e , r e p o r t s on the case  o f a " 2 5 - y e a r - o l d r i g h t - h a n d e d white woman" who had her  first  m i g r a i n e e x p e r i e n c e d u r i n g her f o u r t h pregnancy ( B e n d i n g ) . third  article  between  diet  enters and  the  debate  migraine  "married  professional  headaches  ended  man  about  the  by  developing  in  his  "serendipitously"  late  when  the  was  bland d i e t to t r e a t his g a s t r i c u l c e r ( G e t t i s ) . articles  are  particular then claim  case,  ignore to  persuasive  its  making i t  virtue  vivid  implications.  scientific  the example i s  by  to  While  significance,  relationship case  of  thirties"  he  a  whose  placed  on  a  A l l of these  of  focussing  the  r e a d e r who  they  A  overtly  these a r t i c l e s  do  r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the u n i v e r s a l c a s e .  on  the  cannot  make no suggest  130 The  autobiographical  article  earlier  ( C r e d i t o r ) may a l s o  study,  although  distinguish the  it  the  be  variation  rooted  in  the  which a r e  not  proofs,  beforehand.  In s c i e n t i f i c  in  arguments  effect,  of  to  from  authority,  ever  providing  more  than  beliefs  he  faith  in  That  holds;  (MD 1 0 8 - 9 ) .  developing  their  to  cite  will  resides  provides  supporting  testimony  might  weaken  example,  the  the  form  Wayne  or  of  other  the  edifice  of  science  present—on  Booth  calculations  all  refer  many is  is,  the  scientific depends  testimony  other then,  on and  of  freely, an  only  and  of  cases  while  the  in  expected  However, the  article  enumerates  scientists  not  author,  examples  cited  who  to  writing.  with  effect  author  existed  and  as  of  and  those  i m p o r t a n t l y , one of  experiments  own arguments  literature  is  1 1  but r e q u i r e d i n s c i e n t i f i c whom  the  fraction  whole past  of  which a r e ,  scientists  "No s c i e n t i s t , "  a tiny  the  scientists  other  performed  witnesses,  tradition"  to  science:  "has  rather  take  S o - c a l l e d i n a r t i s t i c proof i s ,  explains,  are  w r i t i n g , these p r o o f s ,  articles.  of  "presence,"  r h e t o r but  and  mainstays  of  does  effect  Aristotle,  citations  the  case  studies.  by the  references  of  self-reporting  r h e t o r i c a l l y , the  according  constructed  discussed  an i n s t a n c e  principle  s i m i l a r t o t h a t of o t h e r case Inartistic  migraine  seen as  methodologically;  article,  on  choice  the  of  medical  in  which  testimony  which  ignored.  For  physician's  drug  is  131  choices  in  "managing" the m i g r a i n e p a t i e n t  (Gunderson)  does  not r e f e r t o the authors who c l a i m t h a t n a r c o t i c treatment headache  is  "one of  iatrogenic study  drug  which  the commonest antecedents t o  addiction"  shows  significantly  that  reduced headache  been t a k i n g more than 3 0 28) .  Similarly,  the  in their  et  refer  do  not  headache  patients  anxiety  (Roy).  days  all  to  use  a  who had  the  literature  are poor w i t n e s s e s of The p r i n c i p l e  of  authors  r e l a t e d to  articles  t h e i r research,  (Isler  self-monitoring  study of headache p a t i e n t s  to  the  analgesics  t a b l e t s p e r month  who  c e r t a i n pragmatic v a l u e : i f  still,  of  or  i n most p a t i e n t s  analgesic authors  a n x i e t y measure al)  withdrawal  significant  302),  (Lane and Ross  of  which  (Szekely  claims  that  t h e i r own s t a t e s  selective had t o  citation  cite  every  would never get  of  has  a  source  written;  what gets s e l e c t e d i s most o f t e n a matter o f what b e s t  supports  the  case  at  hand.  Rhetorically,  these  citations  f u n c t i o n by " c a l l f i n g ]  t o mind," t o use Wayne B o o t h ' s  terms,  placing  value  there"  (MD  "some s o r t  125)—or  persuasive  claim that  language  of  matter emphasis  language  is  of  use  is  inventional  itself.  not  sensibly  the c i t a t i o n s  an "art of  also  by the  strategy  are  emphasis"  A corollary  concerns  of  the  symbolic a c t i o n and t h a t i t  c o o p e r a t i o n " by " d i r e c t i n g the persuades  is  213).  related  principle  on what  t o use R i c h a r d Weaver's terms,  because a l l  ("Sermonic" A  of  attention,"  d i s t r i b u t i o n of  is  that  emphasis.  the  Burkean "induces discourse  While  one  132 author  spends  treatments  of  pages  of  headache  non-pharmacological  his  article  (Silberstein),  treatment,  on  pharmacological  another,  interested  approaches drug  in  interventions  summarily: Although direct  a  plethora  treatment,  tricyclic  of  methods  including  is  available  analgesics,  narcotics,  antidepressants,  transcutaneous  for  biofeedback,  s t i m u l a t i o n , s u r g e r y , and acupuncture,  a r e l i a b l e regimen f o r r e l i e f of c h r o n i c p a i n remains elusive.  (Diamond, "Treatment" 91)  S i m i l a r l y , w h i l e some headache s p e c i a l i s t s as  a  primary  "Definition"), positively  concern one  of  their  clinician  separating  migraine  types  can be  will  exemplary  solicited the  with  psychiatrist. rule  out  since  .  from  a patient  comparative  emphasis  The  intercourse. a  organic  tension  with  is  muscle  Journal  query  involved  The j o u r n a l  neurologist,  illness,  the  in  i n the  "coital cephalalgia"—vascular  from  of  from a w e l l - p l a n n e d  a reader i n q u i r y  While both c o n s u l t a n t s  serious  question  . " (Gunderson 138).  Association.  sexual  responses—one  of  to  Medical  experiencing  associated two  responses  American  patient  case  (vascular)  seldom s u f f e r  t r i a l o f m i g r a i n e management. An  the  (Blau,  " [ D ] i s t i n g u i s h i n g between the  overstressed,  c o n t r a c t i o n headaches  classification  discipline  dismisses  (muscular) headaches w i t h t h i s : two  see  insist  another  two of a  headache published from  a  on the need  to  neurologist  ends  by  133 suggesting 254).  the  prescription  The p s y c h i a t r i s t ,  times l o n g e r than t h a t other  things,  couple  .  it  affected  has  . to  "at  emphasis  as  illustrates  the  three  on the p a t i e n t ' s  pertains extent  relief  the  objectivity.  them)  the  correspondingly  but  he  with  its  attention  the  The q u e s t i o n  writing  in  medical  of  general  allegiances  discusses  be  something  observed  screen,  nature"  that  of  isn't  and  and throws  articles how  to  different  directs  and  lead  to  observations.  something  so  through  (LASA 49).  rhetoric—the different  differently  quality  ""behavior'  even  must  terministic  with  observations,  some  Burke  among  unusual symptom and how  medical  of  different  says,  observe;  behavior  claim  visits  four  (and i m p l i c i t l y the p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s which guide  direct  brief,"  recommends,  (Renshaw 253). to  (Joynt  approximately  t o which t h e o r e t i c a l  Kenneth  terminologies  medicine  30-minute  p r o b l e m - p e r c e p t i o n inform s c i e n t i f i c into  is  of the n e u r o l o g i s t ,  their lives"  it  ergotamine  whose answer  least  focus  of  that  "objectively one the  or  "In  you  need  there'  another  attention  in  Thus would Burke  a  kind  as of  keeping  explain—as  m e d i c a l responses t o a s i n g l e  set  of  behavioral data. Readers are i n f l u e n c e d but a l s o  features  of  following  strategies  surveyed:  (1)  the  article  not o n l y by arguments  t h e i r arrangement i n a d i s c o u r s e . of  Arrangement r e c u r i n the  the use of the s y n o p s i s which  themselves  follows  it;  (2)  as a d e v i c e the  use  of  The  literature to  promote  opening  and  134 concluding  sections  appeals—and dense  middle  AGREED (4)  the  .  .  the  .  use  of  an  embedding  section  of  article of  the  the  frank  weakest  article;  INDEED r h e t o r i c a l of  for  (3)  structure  an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  persuasive  material  in  the  the  of  the  use  noted  p r i n c i p l e of  by B l a n t o n ; disjunction,  the formal s e p a r a t i o n of m a t e r i a l the author does not wish t o be c o n s i d e r e d The  use  literature, short  together. of  synopses  and m e d i c a l  summary p i e c e s ,  persuasive;  that  is,  is  conventional  literature in  they  any  is  in  no e x c e p t i o n .  discipline,  are  inform a reader's  represent make i t  the  difficult  to  contents of  write:  they  an a r t i c l e  i n v i t i n g t o the r i g h t a u d i e n c e .  from synopses of  headache  articles  as  Synopses  must  and, a t  These  functionally  decision  whether t o r e a d an a r t i c l e and how to r e a d i t . accordingly  scholarly  to are  accurately  the  same t i m e ,  Sentences  excerpted  suggest t h e i r w r i t e r 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  significance  of  findings,  and  often  o r i g i n a l i t y as w e l l : Our s t u d i e s of p a t i e n t s  with chronic pain a f f l i c t i n g  v a r i o u s body p a r t s l e d t o the d e l i n e a t i o n o f a psychobiological p r o f i l e Heilbronn  .  .  .  .(Blumer and  180)  P h y s i c a l a n d / o r s e x u a l abuse i n women w i t h c h r o n i c headache has never been addressed.  This p i l o t  study  135 addressed  d i f f e r e n c e s i n women w i t h c h r o n i c headache  who r e p o r t e d group  such  o f women  a history, with  traumatic h i s t o r y .  compared  chronic  to a control  headache  without  a  (Domino and Haber 310)  The p r e s e n t study was designed t o h e l p f i l l  a gap  i n t h e e x i s t i n g knowledge o f p a t i e n t p e r c e p t i o n s . (Barnat and Lake 229)  Although  some headaches a r e d o u b t l e s s caused by  muscular h y p e r a c t i v i t y , t r u e muscle c o n t r a c t i o n headache  is  probably  far  less  common  than  t r a d i t i o n a l l y assumed. ( P i k o f f 186)  The  study demonstrates t h a t t h e b e t a - b l o c k e r  t i m o l o l i s a s a f e and e f f e c t i v e treatment  i n patients  w i t h f r e q u e n t migraine headaches. ( S t e l l a r 2576)  A s m a l l dose i n i n t r a v e n o u s chlorpromazine may p r o v i d e an a l t e r n a t i v e headache].  [to narcotics i n aborting  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 a d d i c t i v e p o t e n t i a l . (Kain 2037) The  a t t e n t i o n t h a t goes i n t o w r i t i n g a s y n o p s i s i s rewarded,  not  o n l y because  the  ensuing  some readers  article  i s worth  decide  on t h e i r  reading,  account  but a l s o  that  because a  136 segment  of  articles, of  readers  along with  securing  importance classical  an of  overview a  only  at  good  of  research  synopsis theory  is  in  which makes  attention,"  says  and hence  the  of  research  persuasive  of  you must  who l o o k o n l y a t  articles  are  appeals.  It  the  in  as a way  field.  The  explained case  audience  give  that to  "to  the  receive  things  the  of to  impression  the beginnings  the  by  (224).  u s u a l l y met w i t h is  some  to anything wonderful,  t h a t y o u r speech has t o do w i t h the l i k e " Those r e a d e r s  their  Aristotle,  i m p o r t a n c e , t o t h e i r own i n t e r e s t s , pleasant;  synopses  furthermore  a speech must p r e d i s p o s e  "Men pay  anything  the  i n t r o d u c t i o n s and c o n c l u s i o n s ,  rhetorical  opening o f it.  looks  the  opening  and ends  most  frankly  section  of  an  a r t i c l e t h a t authors make the case f o r t h e i r r e s e a r c h , and i t is  i n the c l o s i n g t h a t they s p e c i f y the s i g n i f i c a n c e  results.  If  methodology, of  the  middle  there or i f  experiment, of  scientific  the  are  The sexual  these matters w i l l  article.  article  is  that  "none  significant  That  authors,  for  the  factor  research  pain  who  headache,  address report  women  identified  onset"  and  that  the  of  the  "wherein,"  i n the middle" (Realm  example,  abused in  only i n  disposition  Nestorian,  or  circumstances  be e v i d e n t the  their  design  "we b e g i n and end w i t h the  i n women w i t h of  is,  typically  l e a v i n g the others  abuse  in  f i n d i n g s are obscured by the  Chaim Perelman e x p l a i n s , arguments,  weaknesses  of  as  strongest 148).  physical  and  in mid-article abuse subjects  as  a  were  137 (inexplicably) all"  (Domino and Haber 312).  describe  the  conditions  why s u b j e c t s the  "reluctant to discuss  might want  same v e i n ,  that  "timolol  to  is  a  amount  concomitant  i n the  and  have  effective  with  timolol  or  placebo  explaining  not  In  treatment"  required was  to  demonstrated  m i g r a i n e mention m i d - a r t i c l e t h a t medication  fail  researchers.  who c l a i m t o  safe  authors  study by way of  confide  authors  of  of  However, the  their  the  prophylaxis  treatment  of  t h i s emotional trauma a t  for  "the  total  during  drug  analyzed,"  and  t h a t o v e r a l l response r a t e s were o n l y 14% h i g h e r w i t h t i m o l o l than  with  placebo  sufficient  explanation,  interpret; papers,  (43%  yet  the  seem t o  incipient  vs.  29%)  (Stellar  experimental r e s u l t s  authors,  claim  for  as  they  their  open  2579).  Without  are d i f f i c u l t and c l o s e  i n f o r m a t i o n the  read  on the  part of  are w r i t t e n  them  in  conversation directed  to  articles  is  accounts  for  closings—is  authors  great  who  are  make  known  to  the  busy  choices  reader  composed—that  of to  about  behavior is,  readers.  interested  reality  quantities too  implies  mislead t h e i r  be r e a d i n f u l l ;  however,  that  people  Whether are  to  full;  Readers ' c o n s e q u e n t l y read.  of  knowledge.  intent  Articles  their  status  T h i s o b s e r v a t i o n about the arrangement o f a r t i c l e s no  to  of  readers  the  medical  information  receive what  it  are  all. H  and  how  they  influences  the  way  whether,  reader  behavior  the s p e c i a l r h e t o r i c i t y o f a r t i c l e openings and a matter o n l y f o r  speculation.  138 What can medical  be  texts  reliably  is  that  composed as arguments, suggested  by  observed  research  m a t u r i t y i n the s c i e n c e s . "  fixed  the  form of  strategy  alternative  or  the  part  reader's  research  Blanton's clinical  the  of  of  the  a  shifts  report For  experiments  of  can  with  to date. drug  migraine.  THEN:  establish  this  was  the  background  and  of  Downplaying assumptions  in  h i e r a r c h y of  the  thought  AGREED,  be  to  guide  through  the  BUT, BUT SUPPOSE,  of  the  the drug  migraine  article  chlorpromazine  (Lane and Ross)  for  can be  narcotics  presenting with migraine  is  have  been  BUT SUPPOSE: we found t h a t a s a f e ,  non-  in  most  experiments  new form o f  alternatives  to  describing  AGREED: the use o f  effective  effective  more  paraphrased a c c o r d i n g  example,  BUT: no  addictive  within  scheme designed and  emergency room p a t i e n t s  established  text  (136)  shifts.  unsatisfactory.  "rhetorical  ideas.  discourse  larger  s t r u c t u r a l l y reduced as f o l l o w s : treat  frequently  on  the  ideas  attention  emergency-room treatment  to  entire  against  contrary  THEN, INDEED. typical  article  highlighting  sections  developmental  A  are  of  the u n d e r l y i n g grammar, the r h e t o r i c a l  and  is  his  mood of  downplaying  paper  articles  structure  Blanton w r i t e s :  develops  various  the  and f r e q u e n t l y adhere t o the "grammar"  M. J - V B l a n t o n i n  Modulating  about  therapy.  patients  would  be  with  acute  indicated  to  INDEED: the promise of  139 such a treatment c o u l d not be i g n o r e d . Blanton's of  most  research  observations of  grammar can be shown t o u n d e r l y the  is  reports.  The  f u r t h e r evidence  of  scientific  disinterested  articles accounts  which  validity  structure  of  Blanton's  the r h e t o r i c a l  appear  structure  initially  of o b j e c t i v e phenomena.  to  be  In f a c t ,  each  a r t i c l e p r e s e n t s an argument and one c a r e f u l l y c o n s t r u c t e d  to  be  an  the  most  successful  at  winning  the  adherence  of  audience. Unlike  research  articles,  review  or  "update"  articles  tend t o d i s p l a y a r a t h e r homogeneous o r g a n i z a t i o n : the are not o r g a n i z e d w i t h p e r s u a s i v e  pieces  I n t r o d u c t i o n and D i s c u s s i o n  sections  f l a n k i n g a more d e s c r i p t i v e m i d d l e ; r a t h e r they  divided  pragmatically  articles, and  according  "Management  "Treatment  of  of  the  both manifest  headings  subheadings  and  particular sections  areas of  of  these  topics.  Migraine  Headache  (Silberstein),  to  in  this  clinical  articles  Patient"  Primary k i n d of  directing  (Gunderson)  Care  reader  be  review  Practice"  organization—with  interest.  could  The  are  attention  to  Theoretically,  read  out  of  order;  whereas i n the case of the r e s e a r c h r e p o r t , s e c t i o n s are most i n f o r m a t i v e when r e a d i n the o r d e r of Review because  of  articles, their  simply persuasive Rhetorical  however,  relatively  are  flat  presentation. not  less  organization;  persuasive they  i n a d i f f e r e n t way and t o a d i f f e r e n t  Arrangement  is  traditionally  the  are end.  disposition  of  140 parts  of  a  speech based  "the  order  conditions for  of of  proem  (in  presentation  their  example,  it  should  (Aristotle  of  journals,  and  235).  conventional  (Perelman,  the  absence  of  the  audience  "Management article  conclusion,  of  the  it  "This  is  is  longer  to  be  of  a  or  with  variety  to  of  an  effect, real  vascular  the  ending gives  contributes  of  speech  favor  (Gunderson)  which  the  attention  in  In  other  Patient"  the  to  the  The a r t i c l e headache]  o c c a s i o n s and i s  presenting  in  no  arrangement  is  which use a s t r a t e g y of d i s j u n c t i o n i n  the  of  suggested Perelman  separating,  common  in  (143).  information is  "dissociation." practice  [a  speech  of  evidence  of  "disjunction"  the  included  articles,  information. summary,  to  d i v i s i o n o f the  dispensed  the  symptom  s u b a r a c h n o i d hemorrhage"  found i n a r t i c l e s  so,  Introduction  s i m p l y and d i r e c t l y r e p o r t i a l .  believed  deployment  of  well  on more than two o r t h r e e  Additional  the  and  best  review  shapelessness  phenomenon  seldom o c c u r s  is  Migraine  an apparent  effect that ends,  In m e d i c a l  monotone  a  modifies Realm 146),  synopsis  Refutation  organization  organizational  that  arguments  Argument and not c o n s i d e r e d a separate (Aristotle  assumption  formalized i n r h e t o r i c a l theory that  dispose  224),  fundamental  acceptance"  is  medical  together)  on the  for  rhetoricity  in by means  the  in  text.  Chaim by  rhetorical  The  Perelman's "dissociation"  purposes,  term term the  "elements  which language o r a r e c o g n i z e d t r a d i t i o n have p r e v i o u s l y  tied  141 together"  (Realm 49).  separation  based  Disjunction is  on  the  principle  a strategy  that  of  matters  formal  discussed  separately  w i l l p r o b a b l y be c o n s i d e r e d s e p a r a t e l y ,  a strategy  found t o r e c u r i n the l i t e r a t u r e on headache.  The prime example which  reports  treatment early  of  on  of  the  disjunction use  of  c h i l d r e n with  migraine.  the  piece  that  their  migraines  "at  least  once  a  months.";  they  particular  a  The authors  for  will  the  different  explain  have  had  previous  six  paragraph  subject  selection  trials—-discourages connection: headache another  section  c o u l d be up t o to  allow  for  of  the  is  the  of  concealed  like  length of  of  that  allergy  a  Invention  once-weekly  of  in  still  reaction are too  The weakness i n fact  clinical critical  authors p o i n t out  results. by  a  the  time  rushed  research  organization  c r i t i c i s m by s e p a r a t i n g ,  persuasive  to A r i s t o t l e ,  statements—one  making  baseline  paper,  p i e c e s of the m e t h o d o l o g i c a l  category  two  one week, the c l i n i c a l t r i a l s  discourage  Style,  from  which the  significant  methodology seems t o  readers  fact,  the  and one about the  considering  and the  between  subjects  that  al  discontinuity  when  the  headache o r "only one d u r i n g the l a s t two weeks" (Egger e t  about  reintroduced  in  no  The  were  week  article  diets  subjects  is  had  865).  foods  in  i n the  anti-allergy  in  mention  appears  and i t  which  in effect,  the  puzzle. and  Arrangement,  strategies  constitutes  in a text—for,  a  according  " i t i s not enough to know what t o say—one must  142 also  know  how  contributes (182).  impersonal  is  right  has  Additional  the  impression  writer,  to  of  passive  voice  (2)  use  nominalizations  to  of  by  a piece  in  creating  the  of  field—  a l r e a d y known ( P u b l i c  r h e t o r i c a l uses o f  presence  reduce  and  stylistically  They i n c l u d e :  the  but,  an a b s t r a c t  identifying  argued i s  neutralize  speech"  credibility,  accepted  a r e found i n the m e d i c a l a r t i c l e s .  of  Style  the  appropriate  (and more s p e c i f i c )  the  of  this  f a m i l i a r i t y with  effect  is  doing  especially  question  what  of  is  already  the  to  way  a p p r o p r i a t e use  knowledge  begging  right  prerequisite  John Ziman,  style  The  author  a  impression that  97).  the  only  with  effectively  it.  scientific  style  according to  the  to  the  not  scientific  writing  say  much  For  important:  to  the  (1)  of  the  effect  style use of  author; of  a c t i o n i n the account;  (3)  of  scientific  i d e n t i f y i n g the t e x t w i t h o t h e r works  on  science;  attention;  writing, (4)  (5)  use  of  of  syntax  vague  qualifying  use  (7)  use of the i n t e r r o g a t i v e , avoidance  metaphorical or  of  the  direction  to  effects;  r e p r e s e n t i n g a mood o f  inquiry;  which  might  be  seen  to  be  poetic.  injunctions  scientific  reader  also with various  to  the  scientist,  truth  in  language  prose  frequently  going back as  the Royal S o c i e t y i n the s e v e n t e e n t h - c e n t u r y , offer  of  effects;  Commentators on the s t y l e of s c i e n t i f i c refer  features  with various  language,  language  in  language,  (6)  (8)  of  use  use o f o t h e r c o n v e n t i o n a l  human  far  as  t o be c l e a r ,  to  unadorned  by  stylistic  143 embellishment century  (that  sense of  i s , in  the  the  most  word, unadorned by  f r e q u e n t l y quoted i s Thomas Sprat's of  the  strive  Royal  Society  after  language],  "the  that  fact,  they  d i r e c t i v e s to  have  become  nineteenth-century The  of  the  purity,  and  Most History  Society  should  shortness  [of an  113). the  s u b s t a n t i a l l y changed i n 300 all,  "rhetoric").  d e l i v e r ' d so many t h i n g s . almost i n  e q u a l number of words" (Sprat In  seventeenth-  statement i n the  members  primitive  when men  limited,  scientific  years;  more  writer  have  not  i f t h e y have changed a t  strict,  more  pronouncement on s t y l e  purist—as  this  proclaims:  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 o b j e c t i v e r e a l i t y w i t h the p e r f e c t s e r e n i t y and  candor of a m i r r o r , drawing w i t h words as  p a i n t e r w i t h h i s brush, f o r s a k i n g , i n s h o r t , pretensions  of  the  stylist  and  the  the the fatuous  o s t e n t a t i o n of p h i l o s o p h i c depth.*3 A  typical  contemporary  (twentieth-century)  writing  text  demonstrates the c u r r e n t view: Science  assumes a s p e c i a l p o s t u r e and  r e q u i r e s a s p e c i a l k i n d of w r i t i n g .  therefore The  scientific  p o s t u r e 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  scientific  144 writing  is  "referential"  s u b j e c t matter the w r i t e r It  is  scientific it  (Savory  not  surprising  scientific  reads  as  if  then  prose  paragraph says  "reality"  it  that  do  those  so  precisely  in  who  these  what  it  describe terms:  means,  that  purpose  and  transparent,  attachment  clear  of  prose i s  language  audience,  scientific is  but  .  .  .  commendable, but  can be as  with  what  now known about  is  tendentious  nature.  (preservative)  century notions  of  h o l d on t o  One language of  the  dictate  of  such  a  specialist  avoiding  "the  style,  scientific  conservative style  of  seventeenthand i n s i s t  represented  on  most  voice.15  rationalizes seemingly  modesty,  be  necessarily  the  the  passive  boastful  v e r b w i t h p e r s o n a l pronouns o r nouns"  However,  to  to  inconsistent  and  c l a r i t y and i m p e r s o n a l i t y ,  features  the  rp^e view  1 4  acontextual,  o b v i o u s l y i n the use of the p a s s i v e  way  strives  symbolic  which  to  appropriate  that  However,  institutions  writing,  surface  language  a window on r e a l i t y i s its  sciences  disciplines  u t t e r l y i m p e r s o n a l , and v a l u e - f r e e .  language  scientific  not  language  that  active  "A  and no  had been composed by a r o b o t  a goal of s c i e n t i f i c  the  concept  a  its  " n o n i n t r u s i o n " of  l i m i t e d and a r c h a i c view o f c l a r i t y h e l d i n the  the  as  133).  represents  as  on  and i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by the  C l a r i t y as the  focuses  (174).  contemporary  more;  and  representing  use  voice of  (Schindler the  the 5).  perceived  145 unimportance o f  the  i d e n t i t y o f the r e s e a r c h e r ,  consistent with a t r a d i t i o n a l reality.  is  i d e a of s c i e n c e ,  a precept  but not w i t h  The p e r s o n a l , p r o p r i e t a r y c l a i m o f James Watson and  Francis  Crick  to  the  structure  of  DNA  has  been  well  documented ( H a l l o r a n , "Molecular B i o l o g y " ) , but l e s s dramatic claims  of  priority  scientific of  the  present the  and  property  l i t e r a t u r e , and examples  synopses  of  study.  the  medical  In f a c t ,  o r i g i n a l i t y of  are  found  throughout  are found i n the c o n t e n t s  literature  one group o f  surveyed  researchers,  t h e i r research question,  for to  the  argue  makes a p o i n t  of  s t a t i n g t h a t the o n l y o t h e r work on t h e i r t o p i c was p u b l i s h e d "while the p r e s e n t al).  That  examination adherence  is,  of  to  study was a l r e a d y i n progress" while  the  ways  their  Style  bespeaks  suggests  Medical  authors  Journal  of  the  primary  purpose  scientific  are  advised  American of  knowledge  to  " i n f o r m a t i o n must  clarity  a manner  that  (Barclay,  Southgate,  and  guidelines  is  Society, that  in  and perpetuate  ideal;  that  is,  is  the  be  read 9).  it  is  no  more  that  "the  and  of  that,  w i t h a c c u r a c y and  The  that  the  communication  easily  stylistic  notion  foster  manual o f  physicians"  be p r e s e n t e d  Mayo  the  that  writing  can  t o perpetuate  style  Association,  other  therefore,  is  an  w r i t e r s and r e a d e r s .  by the  Medical  medical  work t o  disinterest  than a shared f i c t i o n among s c i e n t i f i c  et  disinterest,  i n which s c i e n t i s t s  claims  (Szekely  and r a p i d l y "  effect  of  such  i d e a l o f the  Royal  language  separable  from  can  meet  rhetoric.  146 Certain  forms,  such  conventionalized prerequisite manual  in  to  as  the  the  literature  scientific  continues:  "It  is  passive  often  and i t may be t r u e l e s s o f t e n of  narrative  accurate  to  purpose o f is  to  that  said  of  of  is  A  similar  nominalizations scientific  in  in  JAMA  about  Consequently,  who  use  the  presence  a  style  writing  the  as  it  true,  effect  of  of  than  intent the  considerable  the it  neutralizing  w r i t i n g and o t h e r the  less  for  text,  between  discussion  is  passive  i n the  separation  scientific  style—such  The  use  T h i s i s not always  (9).  authors  implicit  their  i n books  w r i t i n g which has the  presence.  become  i n m e d i c a l w r i t i n g than i n some  neutralizing their  speak  effect  prose"  speak  and  publication.  t h a t the a c t i v e v o i c e i s p r e f e r r e d .  types  voice,  and  use  of  features  use  of  of long  sentences and L a t i n a t e words. The survey o f m e d i c a l a r t i c l e s of  the  passive  paragraph reports  in  that  analyzed"; and a  second  in  the  patients  scientific  in this  of  studied" case  patients  "was "was  another  article  with  . . . "  the  and  "were  done"  verbs,  article carefully  i n three  analyzed  inanimate  eight  A typical  research  [Mathew 6 6 ] ) .  contains  dominance  a  Of the two a c t i v e verbs i n t h i s connection  the  accounting.  section  "were  group of  ("history revealed of  in  Methods  analysis  fashion." used  verb  verifies  in  a  ways;  similar  p a r a g r a p h , one agent,  "history"  The Methods six  of  is  section  which  are  147 passive:  patients  "assigned"  a  were  "referred"  diagnosis,  and  appropriate c l i n i c a l category; certain  items  recorded." subject, This  were  Of the  clinic,  "assigned"  again  their history  "marked,"  and  one  of  passivization  of  research reports,  openings  and c l o s i n g s  than h a l f  stylistic  of  shift  opening and c l o s i n g  of  has  the  less  articles—where  verbs  between  to the  sections i s  be  body  of  the  "were  inanimate  .  . " [Roy]). the  is  middle  report  with  the  common  passive  a  consistent  the  apparent i n  it  i n the  to  were  characterizes and i s  then  "was r e c o r d e d , "  findings  remaining v e r b s ,  sections  The  the  "comparison" ("comparison demonstrated.  pattern  fewer  to  for  voice. and  its  observations  about the r h e t o r i c a l arrangement of the r e s e a r c h a r t i c l e . The p e r v a s i v e use of the p a s s i v e section  of  the  methodology  is  research in  report  accordance  i n the d e s c r i p t i v e middle  fosters with  the  impression  that  accepted  scientific  p r a c t i c e and t h a t data made a v a i l a b l e through the  methodology  reflect  researcher-  phenomena t h a t e x i s t i n d e p e n d e n t l y of the  observer;  that  is,  the  passive  argues  would have observed the same t h i n g . fundamental  c r i t e r i o n of  scientific  that  any  scientist  This impersonality i s "truth,"  and i t  r e s p e c t t o t h i s t r u t h - d e s i g n a t i o n t h a t the use of the is  is  a  with  passive  persuasive. The  scientist place  of  effect  of  human  action  or  of  the  individual  as agent i s minimized a g a i n by the use of nouns v e r b s — o r n o m i n a l i z a t i o n — i n the  research  in  report's  148 descriptive  middle,  paragraph as  where  it  is  not  unusual t o  find  such a  this:  Recognition of underlying family c o n f l i c t s utmost  importance.  diagnosis in  Intervention  is  of  and  correct  and treatment o f f a m i l y i s s u e s o f t e n  amelioration  or  reduction  of  head  result  pain.  (Roy  360) Absent  from t h i s  conflicts, family  account  who i n t e r v e n e s  problems,  pain.  is  Thus,  c r e a t i n g the  and  the  and makes a d i a g n o s i s ,  thereby,  nominalization i m p r e s s i o n of  seen t o be p e r s u a s i v e i n  human agent who  the  ameliorates complements  or  recognizes who  reduces  commonly  disembodied i n v e s t i g a t o r  with  scientific  w i d e l y acknowledged f e a t u r e of s c i e n t i f i c In m e d i c a l a r t i c l e s ,  1  "initiated," "bilateral" subjects'  rather  than  started  rather  than  (Domino and H a b e r ) ; and substances made (Solomon). scientific  The main e f f e c t  articles  (now  features  prose.  Another  s t y l e i s the use of headache a t t a c k s  (Bending);  r a t h e r than on two s i d e s "responses"  in  itself).  associated  L a t i n a t e words. "'  head  passivization  N o m i n a l i z a t i o n and p a s s i v i z a t i o n are s t y l i s t i c most  treats  are  headaches  are  (Diamond, "Ibuprofen"); answers  are  considered  are "produced" r a t h e r than of t h i s word c h o i c e  is  that  are thereby made t o sound s c i e n t i f i c .  effect,  scientific  authors  medical  canon by u s i n g  the  insinuate stylistic  their signs  studies of  into  belonging  In the to  149 that  canon.  Another e f f e c t  the message t h a t knowledge  is  the  of  scientific  style is  language of a w e l l - d e f i n e d  impenetrable,  open o n l y t o  the  to  convey  community of  initiated—in  a  sense, magical. Syntax  in  dimension,  scientific  and  is  writing  especially  also  has  a  noteworthy  for  the  rhetorical way  it  is  used t o d i r e c t r e a d e r a t t e n t i o n and t o g i v e a p a r t i c u l a r c a s t to  assertions.  An  i n f o r m a t i o n which the  embedded  of  the  may  de-emphasize  author does not want t o be  as p r i m a r y ; minor s y n t a c t i c effect  clause  structures  information  they  considered  f u n c t i o n t o reduce  contain—or  the  imply  the  i n f o r m a t i o n i s not new, but g i v e n . In one s t u d y , researchers  f o r example,  d i m i n i s h e d because s u b j e c t s d i d not c o n t i n u e treatment  i n the  experimental  Instead  confounding  syntactically,  on p a t i e n t  afterthought  how r e s u l t s  up,  the  half  of  regularly,  (Szekely et  al).  of  be  confronting  results,  behavior,  the  which  group  directly authors  and mention  were a f f e c t e d :  behavioral  techniques  of i t s  of  not  (which were  period.  would  of a treatment effective)  follow-up  hypothesized  results  failed  decreased  to  some  focus,  only  "During the  as  the  Another group o f authors a l t e r s  an  follow-  practice of  the  their gains"  the  force  a d v i c e about p h a r m a c o l o g i c a l management o f headache by  embedding relative phrases:  a  significant  clauses,  and  portion burying  of  the  its rest  advice-content in  noun  and  in verb  150 In p a t i e n t s who a t times e x p e r i e n c e headache of  diffuse,  steady,  contraction, focal,  t e n s i o n type r e f l e c t i n g muscular  and  severe  at  other  either  times  experience  and t h r o b b i n g headaches  clearly stress-related, of  that  a d e c i s i o n to  650 mg a s p i r i n o r  are  not  a d v i s e the  use  and a p r e s c r i p t i o n  drug f o r the t e n s i o n - v a s c u l a r headaches,  One  effect  analgesic of  their is  analgesic  interest,  patterns without  taking  that  (Lane  begun agent,  such  an  these authors  abuse.  concerns  addiction"  is rational.  e t a l 41)  of  use  more  1,000 mg acetaminophen  f o r headaches of the t e n s i o n t y p e ,  (Peters  the  A related the  and  use  of  Ross  without  the  also  term, to  of  to  issue  syntactic  "iatrogenic  describe  treatment.  action,  approach  t h e r e b y a v o i d the  point,  302)  during medical  indirect  drug  drug abuse  The noun p h r a s e ,  syntactically glides  over  the  o r i g i n o f the drug problem. Another authors' widely  case  of  syntax  b e a r i n g meaning concerns  working d e s c r i p t i o n s accepted  migraine  is  associated  description  "often  with  of  .  .  familial,"  migraine.  of  the  and  "in  . mood d i s t u r b a n c e s "  While  disorder some  various the  most  says  that  cases  (Ad Hoc Committee),  some authors manipulate syntax t o compose d e s c r i p t i o n s which seem t o One  pair  c o n f i r m what t r a d i t i o n a l d e s c r i p t i o n s of  authors  writes  that  migraine  is  only  suggest.  a  "familial  151 disorder" a  ( W i l k i n s o n and B l a u ) ; another d e s c r i b e s m i g r a i n e as  "stress-related  similar  process  syndrome"  of  (Featherstone  suggestion  and Beitman).  becoming f a c t  i n syntax  A  takes  p l a c e when a r e s e a r c h e r w r i t e s of the phenomenon o f the dog headache" (Daroff to  debate  the  precipitation  and Whitney) w h i l e s p e c i a l i s t s  role  of  dietary  instead  accounts. clarity would  be  fully  to  while  it  "would  to  researchers patterns  it  say  correlates  be  is  is  that  responses of  Beitman 110).  outcomes  their  (from  the  nonetheless  by u s i n g scientific  history  scientific  written  to  superior  (Lane  in  that  and  the  is  say  that  to  the  Ross  of  accounting  vague  drug  is  to  emotional  of  .  .  .  accurate.  in  many  alternative it  that  "it  stress  therapy"  are  be  is is,  drug  modes  might  superior.  The v e r y vagueness of  That  an e x p e r i m e n t a l  304),  can c l a i m w i t h c o n f i d e n c e  of  migraine  p a r a d o x i c a l l y , vague language  accurate  to  expect  rhetoric)  t h a t what  available"  accurate  in  rhetorically is  language  might  precise,  may be  appear  therapy  one  In some c a s e s ,  ensure  style  precise,  scientific  instances. used  of  While in  continue  (Diamond and B l a u ) .  Another way w r i t e r s use vague,  triggers  "hot  of less  Similarly, appears  that  significant  (Featherstone  and  the c l a i m enhances  its  truth-value. Vague  language  not  i n a c c u r a t e statements, to  only  protects  writers  i t also f a c i l i t a t e s  from  making  audience adherence  t h e i r c l a i m s , by m i n i m i z i n g grounds f o r c o n f l i c t .  Yet an  152 additional  rhetorical effect  of vague language,  and one  that  i s c o n c e r n i n g , i s t h a t vague statements may sometimes be r e a d as  reliable  that  assertions.  When r e a d e r s are t o l d ,  "some e p i d e m i o l o g i s t s "  the  population"  circumstances;  the  that  approximately  this  suffer  from m i g r a i n e .  rationalizes "appeared  their to  and Ross  necessary  is  percentage  taken of  by  saying  promise"  most  readers  302).  That  condition  special  use  of  case  essential  of  for  see  is,  the  to  qualifiers the  an  the  effect  use  scientific  of  in  particular  justified is  way  of  dealing  theoretical, on  diet  "foods  migraine]  alcohol  for  the  can  reporting  i n some p a t i e n t s "  that  family  is  Qualifiers  are  physician  occasional  a are  allow  authors  hypothetical,  One author d i s t i l l s  provoke  Some  o n l y because they  matters  or c o n t r o v e r s i a l .  and m i g r a i n e or  with  a  textuality.  f o r a c c u r a c y i n r e p o r t i n g , but a l s o because they g i v e a  not  certainty.  language.  w r i t i n g not  as  itself  scientific  vague  drug  "theoretical  study  of  does  researchers  of  certainty  assertion  population  a  because  c e r t a i n t y i s v i r t u a l l y a byproduct of The  as  the  that  (given  say so and under  S i m i l a r l y , when a group o f  offer  considerations," (Lane  statement  study  25% of  they do not n o r m a l l y  ask which e p i d e m i o l o g i s t s  what  example,  r e p o r t m i g r a i n e i n up t o  (Gunderson 137),  a c r e d i b l e author)  for  by  research saying,  attacks  [of  (Diamond and B l a u 184).  Another  r e p o r t s t h a t the demands o f c h i l d r e a r i n g can f o s t e r  migraine  attacks,  in  and  unresolved  grief  may  play  a  role  some  153 patients"  (Kirn,  "Migraine"  12-13).  The same author sums up  c o n t r o v e r s y about the p o s s i b i l i t y of a "migraine p e r s o n a l i t y " by  writing  that  they  that  "most  believe  perfectionistic, (All  emphasis  affirmative and  suggests  persons  meticulous, is  mine.)  statements  qualifiers  scientific  are  inquiry. that  taking care  not  warrant the  status of  under  in  the  review.  as  issues, of  factual,  assertions  paragraphs 114-115  be (12).  to  vague  make terms  language of  of view  pose  potential  in their  reading,  statements which do not  the  pp.  the  qualifiers  With t h i s  of  to  r h e t o r i c a l point  fact.  opening (See  elements  and  tend  scientists  who must be v i g i l a n t  receive  some  allowing  the  breath  and ambitious"  unresolved  However,  readers,  reconsidering  In  terms  migraine  compulsive  about  vague  admit under t h e i r  with  crucial  problems t o  appear  specialists  of  i n mind, which the  it  were  headache  above.)  is  worth  found  to  articles  A l l emphasis  is  mine: In the U . S . A . , suffer  24 m i l l i o n Americans are r e p o r t e d t o  from severe headaches  . . . .  (Szekely  et  al  86)  Epidemiological studies indicate that  about  t w o - t h i r d s of a d u l t s i n the U n i t e d S t a t e s headaches  . . . .  ( B e l l et a l  162)  experience  154 Each y e a r 550 m i l l i o n workdays are l o s t i n the U n i t e d States  because  of  p r i n c i p a l complaint (Diamond,  pain,  which  presented  is  by  probably  patients  .  the  .  .  .  "Treatment" 91)  Headache i s  a common problem, a f f e c t i n g  70-75% of men .  Headache i s  .  . (Featherstone  approximately  194)  one of the most common of m e d i c a l  c o m p l a i n t s and i s presumed t o a f f e c t more than 80% of the p o p u l a t i o n .  Migraine  (Glassman e t a l  headache  neurological  is  disorders,  one  of  (Stellar  is  estimated  5% o f the g e n e r a l p o p u l a t i o n .  purposes  vague  in  nonetheless has  most  Migraine  While  great  language  scientific  concern,  and  cause  a headache"  and  2576)  serve  certainty  in  effort  508)  important writing  which  One m e d i c a l author w r i t e s ,  should  (Silberstein  be made 65).  to As  is  itself  " a l l headaches s h o u l d be i n i t i a l l y viewed every  an  (Bending  some s c i e n t i f i c of  common  prevalence  occurring  qualifiers  language  r h e t o r i c a l power. that  disorder,  writing,  marked by a  example,  of  common  the  w i t h an e s t i m a t e d  o f 5% t o 25% i n western s o c i e t y .  a  101)  for with  determine  the  a statement  of  155 common m e d i c a l its  sense,  this assertion  tone of c e r t a i n t y .  author i s  more  However, t h i s statement from the same  problematic:  " A l l p a t i e n t s s h o u l d be  prophylactically  for  sentence has  same s t r u c t u r e ,  authorial is  not  the  stance  has some v a l i d c l a i m t o  cluster  headache" the  as  be  consigned  theoretically linguistic means  in  to  signs  scientific  necessarily  certainty  possible  certainty w r i t i n g of  yet  suggests  would  seem  to  be  i n some s c i e n t i f i c  constitute  at  odds  prose.  reveals,  however,  maintained  overall  in  The  one  authority  of  certainty use  with  scientific  the  claim  T h i s review o f  that  a  mood  scientific  might be the  end of  of  prose  inquiry.  o f vague terms and q u a l i f i e r s ,  impression  of  conversation, scientific  the  without  inquiry by  ongoing  research  some authors  questions—"Diet  (Diamond  and  Blau),  Different  Entities?"  "Are  and  actually  Classical  where  which may s u s t a i n  and  ( W i l k i n s o n and B l a u ) ,  to the  professional  pose whole a r t i c l e s  and Headache.  is  specific  In a d d i t i o n  ongoing  to  medical  r h e t o r i c a l means which balance the e f f e c t o f c e r t a i n t y ,  the  that  attacks.  the p r o b i n g , i n q u i r i n g nature o f the  literature  real  it  indefinitely,  headache  projecting  same  but a statement  drugs  here  the  first,  for i t  taking  second  p r o j e c t i n g an a u t h o r .  In g e n e r a l , enterprise  to  prevent of  the  common m e d i c a l sense,  o f o p i n i o n , by no means u n c o n t r o v e r s i a l , patients  The  same s y n t a x ,  and r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t  a statement of  (70).  treated  as  Is There a L i n k ? " Common M i g r a i n e "Is  the Muscular  156 Model of Headache S t i l l V i a b l e ? " Allergy?"  (Egger e t  r h e t o r i c a l question  al) .  (Pikoff),  These  (erotema)  are  p e r se ,  be o f f e r e d  achieve  the  same  articles  as  suggest:  "Dietary  Physicians'  i n the  s p i r i t of  effect  by  contributions Factors  View"  New P e r s p e c t i v e " texts  knowledge, basic  a  a piece  further  Other  to  authors  present  as  their  these  titles  Precipitation:  The  "Towards a D e f i n i t i o n  R h e t o r i c a l analysis of despite  science  of  individual  is  scientific  The e f f e c t  discourse,  scientific  claims  about  the  exploratory.  The u l t i m a t e  w r i t i n g must  be  the  which  the  to  invite  a follow-up, a challenge,  of  as  the  medical  discourse  proliferation  of  is  to  medical  testifies.  Stylistic intentionally Figures  r a t h e r they  "The Mixed Headache Syndrome: A  i n the form o f a q u e s t i o n ,  articles  the  p a r t i c u l a r r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s i n the c r e a t i o n of  replication.  invite  of  t h e r e i s evidence i n the s t y l e o f the prose o f  of  response or  that  assumption t h a t  effect  Migraine  (Blau and Diamond),  demonstrates  importance o f  inquiry.  dialogue,  in  (Saper).  instances  a response;  appearing  to  of M i g r a i n e Headache" ( B l a u ) ,  not  the purpose of which i s  t o make a p o i n t r a t h e r than to e l i c i t seem t o  "Is M i g r a i n e Food  to  of  rhetoric  scientific  avoid  speech  and  Humanities,  devices  and  found  are  are  in  figurative  thought,  everywhere  shunned  writer,  the  scientific  by  the  the  keeping w i t h  in  classical  discourse  scientific  seems  and m e t a p h o r i c .  catalogued in  writer  writer.  a positivist  of  the The  tradition,  157 sees  the  use  embellishment, obfuscation, asked, .  of  sees  stylistic  linguistic  and sees  both  devices  embellishment  as  Thomas  i n The H i s t o r y o f the Royal S o c i e t y .  Figures  suspicions  have  brought  accounts  Sprat  "Who can b e h o l d  these s p e c i o u s Tropes  on our Knowledg?"  continue to c o n s t r a i n s c i e n t i f i c  The s c a r c i t y of f i g u r a t i v e  linguistic  as a method o f  unscientific.  . . how many m i s t s and u n c e r t a i n t i e s ,  and  as  language  (112)  style.  Sprat's  1 7  in scientific  texts  i n p a r t f o r t h e i r known a m e n a b i l i t y t o t r a n s l a t i o n ,  which i s i n t u r n p a r t o f the i m p e r s o n a l , g l o b a l image o f the scientific prose,  enterprise.  One l i n g u i s t  "alone among a l l the d i f f e r e n t can  language  be  in  translated  which  it  into  was  s a t i s f a c t o r i l y but p e r f e c t l y " Metaphoric the  medical  language  literature,  but  also  compared  with  "freeway w i t h many on-ramps."  ironic,"  he s a y s ,  analogy  as  "Migraine"  the  a  best  12).  inappropriate  to  the  with the general  view  the  merely  its  many  scarce  noted.  on headache,  disease,"  description  in One  says t h a t an  triggers,  to  "though  it  a  seems  would need t o r e s o r t [emphasis  author's  discussion that  not  negatively  authorities  The  than  The r e p o r t i n g author comments  "baffling  "that  written,  not o n l y r e l a t i v e l y  expert  is  other  (Savory 138).  r e p o r t i n g on a conference  migraine  scientific  c a t e g o r i e s o f prose  first  is  migraine,  that  languages  author,  that  writes  of  scientific  view  mine]"  that  science,  (Kirn,  analogy is  to  is  consistent  w r i t i n g s h o u l d not be  158 rhetorical.  What i s  arhetoricity  is  unembellished  on f a c t ,  itself  style  that research,  ironic  has  the  f o r example,  of  the  that  scientific  r h e t o r i c a l : science's effect  of  striving  affinity  persuading  is disinterested,  and p r o d u c t i v e of  Avoidance  is  to  to an  audiences  unbiased,  based  fact.  appearance  of  persuasion  is  itself  persuasive. Although s c i e n t i s t s s t r i v e their  writing,  some of  the  some r h e t o r i c a l s t y l i s t i c to  be  there  f o r the a r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t  medical  authors  structures.  because c l a r i t y depends  surveyed  do  These s t r u c t u r e s on them.  use o f some r h e t o r i c a l d e v i c e s — u s u a l l y  That  the s u b t l e  use seem  is,  as  in  the  opposed  t o the c l e a r l y ornamental o n e s — i s v i r t u a l l y u n a v o i d a b l e even i n the p l a i n e s t Subtle  use of  language.*8  stylistic  turns,  then,  through the m e d i c a l l i t e r a t u r e . rhetorical  question  to  headache  classification:  be  said  to  "and i f  so  groups]  have  be what  Rhetorical  suffering  parenthesis  scattered  One p a i r of authors uses  the  their  concerns  about  "Should a l l  these  [patient]  groups  from c l a s s i c  an  found  articulate  do we c a l l  without  are  the  aura?" is  used  migraine,"  headaches  that  (Wilkinson by  [two  and  another  they  ask,  of  Blau  the 211).  writer,  who  i n t e r r u p t s the flow o f h i s sentence t o p r o v i d e the s e r v i c e explanation: tyramine, significant  "The v a s o a c t i v e  dopamine, quantity  and in  amines—serotonin,  norepinephrine—are the  typical  Western  of  tryptamine, present diet.  in .  ."  159 (Diamond,  "Treatment"  common i n s c i e n t i f i c Sometimes whole  these  ("In  poised  separately  that  to  are  integrated  our c l i n i c a l e x p e r i e n c e  .  guide  Parallel  .  constructions  w r i t i n g , o f t e n t a k i n g the form o f  lists  groups:  summarize  279).  into  the  patients  are lists.  a r t i c l e as  fall  into  three  . " [ W i l k i n s o n and B l a u 211]); sometimes they from  the  main  particular points. "Talking  to  physicians,  "headache d i a r y ' .  to  One author  Patients  "Encourage .  text  are  highlight  provides  a  a  or  quick  about Headache," recommending patient  . Advise patients  [sic]  to  maintain  a  t o a v o i d a f t e r n o o n naps  .  .  . Recommend t h a t p a t i e n t s 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). ^  rhetorical  understatement,  literature.  The use  of  is  also  writes, if  found  understatement  w i t h the g e n e r a l move i n s c i e n t i f i c importance o f  The t r o p e , in  litotes, the  would be  or  medical  consistent  a r t i c l e s t o argue f o r the  a p a r t i c u l a r research e f f o r t .  The author who  "It would be h e l p f u l t o both p h y s i c i a n s and p a t i e n t s  t h e r e were a treatment which was r e l a t i v e l y s a f e ,  addictive courting  and  gave  audience  prompt r e l i e f " agreement,  but  is  was  (Kain  2037)  not  using  understatement  not only to  enhance the importance of h i s e n s u i n g r e p o r t . A metaphor. of  number  of  The t e r m ,  premonitory  metaphorically warning.  authors,  make  their  points,  "aura," used i n v a r i a b l y i n  visual to  to  symptoms  suggest  the  of  to  descriptions  migraine,  ineffable  turn  quality  is of  The term "topography" i s used a n a l o g i c a l l y t o  used the refer  160 t o the study o f the s u r f a c e o f the c o r t e x 212).  One group of  researchers  d e s c r i b i n g the phenomenon of the c u r s e o f the l a t e s l e e p e r , blankets" to (Gordon  921).  h e a v i l y on metaphor,  " t u r t l e " headache,  the  who " r e t r a c t s h i s head beneath  a v e r t the sun and i s  Gilbert  relies  ( W i l k i n s o n and B l a u  thereby d e p r i v e d of  Metaphor and s i m i l e  are  the  oxygen  frequently  used a l s o as p a i n d e s c r i p t o r s , which i s v i r t u a l l y u n a v o i d a b l e since  the  doctor  pain lexicon  describes  and Haber 310);  is  itself  patient  largely metaphorical.  complaints  of  "tightness"  another r e f e r s t o the sense o f  One  (Domino  "squeezing" o r  "the s e n s a t i o n of wearing a t i g h t band" (Diamond, "Ibuprofen" 206);  a  third  describes  patients'  "icepick-like"  pains  (Drummond 16). It  is  possible  phenomenon  is  author  to  is  language. the more  It  likely  is  speculate  describe  "resort is  an  to  possible  more t e c h n i c a l  articulated true  to  to  analogy" to speculate  author  is  as metaphors.  the  literally,  and a b s t r a c t  found i n the  that  to  more d i f f i c u l t  the  or  more  to  that,  use  theoretical  discussion  of  term  neurons  "nerve storms" (Kirn,  is  is,  the  constructs  this  opposed t o v a s c u l a r g e n e s i s of m i g r a i n e , where, the  figurative  topic  An i n d i c a t i o n t h a t  theoretical  an  as a c o r o l l a r y ,  a scientific use  likely  a  might be  neuronal  as  f o r example,  used t o d e s c r i b e the b e h a v i o r of  "Discussion" 11).  That i s ,  w h i l e metaphor  is  p r e s e n t but r e l a t i v e l y uncommon i n the m e d i c a l t e x t s surveyed for this  s t u d y , metaphor may be more common i n a r t i c l e s which  161 are more a b s t r a c t o r which attempt t o d e s c r i b e the of t h e o r e t i c a l What rhetoricity  constructs.^0  is,  in  in  the  general,  however,  scientific  an  F o r example,  a different perhaps  aversion  w r i t i n g of  i s much l e s s apparent i n the u n s c i e n t i f i c authors.  technology  to  scientific  overt authors  w r i t i n g o f the same  medical journal e d i t o r i a l s  constitute  genre f o r m e d i c a l a u t h o r s , a genre w i t h fewer  different)  stylistic  Editorial,  one  researcher  theoretical  explanation  constraints. uses  In  analogy  f o r headache.  It  to is  a  (or  Guest  suggest  a  an e x p l a n a t i o n  u n l i k e l y t o appear i n an " O r i g i n a l A r t i c l e . "  He w r i t e s :  The word f o r the d i s c o m f o r t e x p e r i e n c e d when the h e a r t i s overwhelmed by demands p l a c e d upon i t pump i s that  angina—angina  these  suffocating .  .  resulting  soul?  conventions  of  from the  the  for  brain,  a  chest—a  suffocation  license  editorial  genre.  Headache, i s  of  poetic  writing,  scientific  in  words  tells  us  painful  throttling.  situation—but  or  throttling  and maybe,  even  or  of  the  with  the  (Graham 105)  author's  editorial  Latin  contraction  overloading  science  the  Webster  . Headache may r e p r e s e n t a s i m i l a r  one  This  are  pectoris.  as a  and  it  The  has  more  writing  than  is,  no  in  regular  to  the  way,  editor  do  conventions unusual  of  the  to  of the  journal,  here unabashedly r h e t o r i c a l i n h i s d i s c u s s i o n o f  controversy:  162 The  intriguing thing  don't  seem  to  have  is  that  some o f  changed  much  these  over  the  C o n s i d e r the vasogenic v e r s u s neurogenic Meyer  and Olesen  are  contending f a i t h s . of  research  technology,  .  and  with  the  and each has  controversy.  champions  of  the  And y e t ,  accoutrements  argued h i s  of  high  case w i t h  grace  was not the same  battle  . fought between Latham and L i v e i n g over  a c e n t u r y ago? be  the  years.  Each has armed h i m s e l f w i t h years  and d i s t i n c t i o n . .  clearly  debates  decided  What was d i s c o v e r e d then?  now?  Can we  ever  know  What w i l l  whether  b l o o d v e s s e l o r b r a i n i s the key t o m i g r a i n e ? .  .  . And what about t h i s  business?  . . .  " a l l e r g i c headache"  I f t h a t t a t t e r e d o l d hulk o f  " a l l e r g i c headache" keeps looming through the fog,  is  i t because  (Edmeads [Sept. These  editorial  "neutral" the of  basic their  1986]  writings  nature of  real  matter;  . . .  supply  good  texts  scientific the  or unreal?  435)  scientific  i n c l i n a t i o n s of  subject  it's  neutral  is  evidence  that  the  a matter n e i t h e r  authors nor the style  is  a  of  nature  cultivated  s t y l e which has become c o n v e n t i o n a l i z e d i n a p a r t i c u l a r forum for like  scientific the  use  of  writing:  the  scientific  research rationales  p a r t of the r h e t o r i c of In  the  overall  article.  Its  use,  and o t h e r arguments,  is  science.  analytic  structure  for  the  rhetoric  of  163 science,  the  "Delivery"). relatively oral and  final  minor  rhythm.  what i s  is  Presentation  one, to  Yet  in  the  subsuming voice,  the  study of  matters  to  presented c o n v i n c i n g l y .  the a r t of a c t i n g has had on the drama"  Presentation  matters  critic  written  turns  including  typesetting, space,  font  type,  have  relatively  size,  matters  system,  important  the  of  Delivery,  attention  article  location  and q u a l i t y of  critical  of  that  transformed i n t o  layout,  rhetorical  is  "the same e f f e c t  quality,  article  number,  little  to  article,  paper  documentation  headings, these  the  pitch,  as  (184).  D e l i v e r y of the speech i s of  a in  inclusion  not m i n o r : i t  a c c o r d i n g t o A r i s t o t l e , has on the speech  When the  pertain,  volume,  u n d e r l y i n g the  Rhetoric i s  is  which  specifically  premise  presented w e l l  rhetorical  (Aristotle's  The canon, i n the A r i s t o t e l i a n framework, i s  presentation,  Delivery  canon  of  binding,  column w i d t h , notes,  graphics.  effect,  attention—for  the  appearance—  journal  of  the  white  use  of  Although  they  command  decisions  about  p r e s e n t a t i o n u s u a l l y i n v o l v e p u b l i s h e r s r a t h e r than a u t h o r s .  The  impression  an  article  makes  does  stem  ethos borrowed from the p u b l i c a t i o n i n which i t terms o f  presentation,  taken s e r i o u s l y  depends  factors  part  from  appears.  t h i s means t h a t whether an a r t i c l e i n p a r t on the p r o f e s s i o n a l  the p u b l i c a t i o n i n which i t Other  in  of  In is  l o o k of  appears. presentation  are  connected  to  164 publishers' readability  decisions aids  such  concerning as  format,  headings.  layout,  Articles  and  may be  made  i n v i t i n g o r not by v i r t u e of t h e i r appearance as a r t i c l e s : most  Technical Writing  readily with  to  a  piece  adequate  print,  claim,  readers  are  d i v i d e d by many headings  white-space.  uninterrupted text, of  texts  A  as  drawn more  and  presented  full-length  piece  of  o r one which does not appear i n columns  discourages  all  but  the  most  determined  readers.  Similarly,  c h a r t s and o t h e r g r a p h i c s which break up b l o c k s of  print  are  effective  which  summarize  additions  information  to  for  format. quick  Moreover,  tables  reference—and  these  may be s u p p l i e d by authors r a t h e r than p u b l i s h e r s — a d d t o impression of a c c e s s i b i l i t y The way a r t i c l e s than  the  way  the  of i n f o r m a t i o n .  present themselves i s no l e s s important  speakers  present  themselves.  Issues  of  P r e s e n t a t i o n are i n v a r i a b l y i s s u e s of appearance, r a t h e r than substance;  yet  appearance  is  persuasive.  Those  articles  which i n c l u d e 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 o f appearance.  I t i s worth n o t i n g a t  p o i n t Kenneth B u r k e ' s anatomy of the p e r s u a s i v e appeal of doctor's for i t s  office,  w h i c h , he s a y s ,  this the  "is not t o be judged p u r e l y  d i a g n o s t i c u s e f u l n e s s , but a l s o has a f u n c t i o n i n the  r h e t o r i c of medicine." Whatever imagery; series  it  is  and i f  of  Burke as  continues: apparatus,  it  also  a man has been t r e a t e d  tappings,  scrutinizings,  and  appeals to  a  as  fulsome  listenings,  165 w i t h the  a i d of  he may f e e l in  such  content  thing  might count  action,  has  been  himself  but without  "the c r o s s i n g  scopes,  meters,  and gauges,  t o have p a r t i c i p a t e d as a p a t i e n t  histrionic  material  cure,  various  though  done  cheated  for  if  of  him,  whereas  (What McKeon  topics  Aristotle  might  t h a t appeal by e t h o s ) .  Burke's  analysis  is  appeals  from imagery, and the  effectively  have  "bedside  classed  issue  medical  when  an  author's  article.  a treatment  of  Delivery,  Headache,  Medicine  prints  photograph the  (Diamond),  a  photograph  authors  (and  Diamond,  analysis  of  this  of  the  of  real  scribes,  scientific practice but  medicine,  it  and t r a n s m i s s i o n  authors,  with biases  only of  of  at  the  therapy. then,  use  a  articles  persuasive.  medical  literature  suggests t h a t w h i l e o b j e c t i v i t y c o n t i n u e s ideal  a  Postgraduate  literally  publishers),  body  is  with  "Treatment  journal  v a r i e t y o f s t r a t e g i e s t o make s c i e n t i f i c Rhetorical  j u s t what  published  article,  the of  is  b e d s i d e of a p a t i e n t undergoing biofeedback Scientific  of  "bedside manner" of the m e d i c a l  To accompany  Chronic  under  (ROM 171)  person s t a n d i n g behind the p u b l i s h e d a r t i c l e i s at  calls  rhetoric  i n t o m e d i c i n e . " A r e l a t e d p o p u l a r term i s which  he  r h e t o r i c and medicine" would,  i n our terms, be "extending the range o f  manner,"  no  he were g i v e n a r e a l  the pageantry.  lines  absolutely  t o be upheld as an  partly it.  both as  characterizes  W r i t e r s are witnesses  and  not as  166 writers.  Moreover,  their  w r i t i n g cannot be  the motive t o c o n v i n c e o t h e r s c i e n t i s t s  separated  from  o f the w o r t h i n e s s  of  t h e i r work. A t r a d i t i o n a l sense of s c i e n c e , and  non-negotiable,  medical  continues,  mainstream  discourse,  and  and r e a d e r s  other  however,  inform  the  to  objective  dominate  reading  of  the  medical  i n g e n e r a l do not r e c o g n i z e the  r h e t o r i c i t y of science—the all  as e s s e n t i a l l y  discourses.  s i m i l a r i t y of s c i e n t i f i c  Perhaps  readers  are  full  texts  to  unwilling  to  r e c o g n i z e the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s c i e n c e of the s y m b o l i c i t y and tendency of simply  even s c i e n t i f i c  lack  critically, medical  strategies as  texts  for  rhetoric.  enables  science,  only  must  be  r e a d i n g t h a t says t h a t i t  is,  writing  reading  scientific  rhetorical  analysis  of  other  on  theory  rhetorical,  which but  of  journal a r t i c l e s  rhetorical  heuristically precede these  moves  principles, the  of  samples  of  says  that  practical  and how.  medical  the  three  in  analysis  of  are both d e s c r i p t i v e and p r e d i c t i v e  i n the c r i t i c a l  discussion  demonstrate  in  texts  moves  on  The r h e t o r i c a l p r i n c i p l e s r e v e a l e d by the medical  they  i n v i t e s d i s c u s s i o n of the r h e t o r i c  not  scientific  based  p e r h a p s , however,  Isolating  critical  s c i e n t i f i c w r i t i n g , and i t of  language;  texts  and may  be  applied  reading of other a r t i c l e s .  significance case  a p p l i c a t i o n of  c r i t i c a l r e a d i n g of whole t e x t s .  studies the  of  the are  To  discovery of provided  to  r h e t o r i c a l model i n  the  167 Part  Two. R h e t o r i c a l  Readings  of  Whole T e x t s :  Three  Case  Studies In t h i s  section,  three medical journal  a n a l y z e d r h e t o r i c a l l y , w i t h the b e n e f i t strategies  and s t r u c t u r e s  of  a r t i c l e s are  awareness  of  r e v e a l e d through t h e l a r g e r  the  scale  analysis. The  professed  purpose  "Nonpharmacological  1986,  of  Szekely  is  special  to  Behavior Therapy  contribute  headache  clinical  non-drug  menstrually relative  should  entity  exacerbated  controlling  be  considered  t h e headaches  of  constitutes  a special  clinical  AGREED:  The  m e n s t r u a l headaches  drug t h e r a p i e s general.  entity,  argument  no  one  as  on  from  the  therapies  in  are e f f e c t i v e  in  headache  l i k e l y connected  is  essentially  has  to  this:  problem and n o n -  i n t r e a t i n g headaches  research  a  uses  control)  menstrual  are a s e r i o u s  have been e f f e c t i v e  BUT: almost  that  that  The study  concludes,  (these t h e r a p i e s  generally),  Headache i n  evidence  behavioral  headaches  change.  (91).  It  Headache:  and t r e a t e d  behavioral,  controlling  biochemical  growing  headaches.  ineffectiveness  journal  "the  (one  al,  and P e r s o n - C e n t e r e d  to  i n headache"  therapies  et  Menstrual  T h e r a p y , " which appeared i n the  menstrual  two  B.  Treatment  Relaxation-Biofeedback Insight  of  been  done  on  in the  e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f 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  suffering  from  m e n s t r u a l headache and t r e a t e d them w i t h non-drug t h e r a p i e s .  168 THEN: we would d i s c o v e r i f menstrual headache was amenable t o the  same  resistance  forms to  of  treatment  such treatment  m e n s t r u a l headaches  as  other  headaches.  would argue  f o r the  fact  that  a separate c l i n i c a l  entity.  with  persuasive  synopsis.  (Authors who submit t o Headache are i n s t r u c t e d t o  send—with  The  Szekely  their  piece  article—a  statement  of  the  conclusions.) selection  constitute  INDEED:  begins  synopsis  of  problem,  method  under  In the s y n o p s i s ,  and emphasis  a  200  of  words,  study,  including  results,  the authors use i n f o r m a t i o n  r h e t o r i c a l l y to  direct attention  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 . with  a  d e c l a r a t i o n of  " S i x t y p e r c e n t of paramenstrually" need  for  "Although headache  study  in  proven  the  area  the  conventionalized is  bona f i d e  in  and  begins  of  size:  have an i n c r e a s e  migraine controlled  f o r the  headache:  and  tension  studies,  the  has r a r e l y been i s o l a t e d and  (86).  scientific  bona f i d e s c i e n t i s t s .  topos  paramenstrual  of  effective  synopsis  science  of  treatment  [my emphasis]"  remainder o f  It  I t argues t h e n , r e f u t a t i v e l y ,  e f f e c t on paramenstual i n c r e a s e s observed  the  female headache s u f f e r e r s  behavioral has  importance u s i n g  (86).  and  argues style  The g r e a t e s t through the that  the  part use  of  of  group's  the  highly  research  and the members of the r e s e a r c h group, The authors r e p o r t :  16 women w i t h paramenstrual headaches  self  monitored 4 times d a i l y f o r a 2 - c y c l e  baseline,  then were matched on p r e - t r e a t m e n t p a i n l e v e l s  into  169 8 p a i r s and randomly a s s i g n e d t o treatment Post-treatment  The  synopsis  virtually  than  [emphasis for  a on  mine]"  some o f  commitment  the of  fails  impact  headaches  not  positive  assertion  93 women,  crucial  not—and  logistically, only  it to  c a r e f u l l y c o n s t r u c t e d view of the  the  scientific  study,  and o f  findings  the  that  without  the  possibility  of  synopsis its  allow  leaves  priority language  of to  making c a r e f u l  77 o f whom were c o n s i d e r e d is  important t o  i n the  note  that  study  does  synopsis,  many  the  synopses come away w i t h  a  research.  their describe  linguistic  i n the b e s t p o s s i b l e  out  16 s u b j e c t s were  r h e t o r i c a l a c t s of a r g u i n g l o g i c a l l y f o r  highly  its  or  evaluating  article  menstruation  assertion,  cannot—appear at  with  associated  and q u a l i f i e r s  t o what the  f o r example,  and  nonpharmacological  associated  of  made  terms  menstrually  effect  information  and  on  statement vague  that  Vague language  although  importance  repeated  of  (86).  participate),  who l o o k  use  lesser  t o mention,  The a u t h o r s '  2  positive  the  With r e s p e c t  inappropriate to  a  suggest  s e l e c t e d from a p o o l of  readers  by  positive  falsification. (it  variance with  with  "Results has  .  (86)  indisputable  treatment periods  of  concludes  qualifiers:  .  group a n a l y s i s was by t h r e e -  way a n a l y s i s measures.  .  research, a  of  the  using  quasi-scientific  choices  to  present  l i g h t are a l l m a n i f e s t  to a  170 l a r g e r e x t e n t i n the a r t i c l e  itself.  The a r t i c l e opens w i t h the s e n t e n c e , to  be  one  (86),  of  a  White  reported lost  House)  time  dollars  reader  agreement the  appropriateness  arguments they  of  severe  to  their  the  their  own  of  case  Once r e a d e r  way:  that  a need  on  is  behavior  for research  therapies  for  the  a  above).  15.1  so  the by  series  a of  Essentially,  there  is  a need  for  a need  for  is  f o r headaches; (that i s ,  to  for  They do  sufferers  are  problem—is  case  that there  on b e h a v i o r t h e r a p i e s  costing  through  that  more r e s e a r c h  and  attention—and  the  research.  r e s e a r c h on paramenstrual headache;  there  of  make  (p.115-116  this  truth  contributing  productivity,  adherence,  earlier  humankind"  m i l l i o n Americans  headaches,  to  continue  ( c i t i n g a Report t o  severity  on  of  intuitive  say  24  (86).  go  accretion  detailed  build  U.S.A.,  annually"  authors  its  goes on t o  from  as  complaints  for  work and decreased  billion  of  It  "In the  suffer  at  secured,  appealing  elegance.  to  process  common p h y s i c a l  statement  understated the  the  "Headaches  their  of  finally, research)  paramenstrual  headache. The  r h e t o r i c a l goal  audience  agreement  question. research  of  the  opening  c o n c e r n i n g the  section  is  to  secure  importance o f the study  in  The authors argue t h a t t h e r e i s a v o i d i n headache and t h a t  their  research  is  undertaken t o  fill  the  void.  By d e f i n i n g an area of needed r e s e a r c h and c l a i m i n g a  dearth  of  available  material  in  that  research  area  (they  171 say,"there  has  been  only  one  study"),  the  authors  persuade  t h e i r audience of the need f o r t h e i r own s t u d y . Part  of  the  a c c o r d i n g t o the  perceived  value  of  a u t h o r s ' own l o g i c ,  the is  Szekely  its  o r i g i n a l i t y , and  p a r t o f the a u t h o r s ' r h e t o r i c a l agenda, t h e n , the  priority  publication  of  of  their  the  research  Szekely  two y e a r s , by a study e n t i t l e d , Results drug  of  a Controlled,  Treatments"  journal. second  paragraph o f  fact,  predated,  by  the almost  "Menstrual M i g r a i n e Headache:  et  al)  group i s their  r e s e a r c h was p u b l i s h e d  In  E x p e r i m e n t a l , Outcome Study of Non-  (Solbach  The S z e k e l y  i s t o argue f o r  plan.  a r t i c l e was  article,  own  in  quick to  point  article)  that  (in  this  the  earlier  This d i r e c t c l a i m to p r i o r i t y i s  clearly  meant t o persuade the audience of the added v a l u e o f  Szekely  et  of  al's  research,  disinterested,  and  present  out  same  already  (86).  the  the  study was  i n progress"  "while  published  contradicts  universalist  the  persona  the  scientist.  The s e c t i o n s which f o l l o w the I n t r o d u c t i o n of the r e p o r t and  precede  Subjects,  of  scientific  Scientific of  section,  are  prose,  (namely, Dependent  presented  and the  in  the  scientific  argues f o r the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the style  passive for  section  Procedures,  and R e s u l t s )  prose i t s e l f  use  Discussion  Therapists,  Statistics, style  its  is  voice  example,  c h a r a c t e r i z e d here and  of  one  Measures, conventional  nature of  the  study.  especially  nominalizations.  consists  Methods,  The  by  the  Methods  paragraph o f  five  172 sentences. nine  are  other  The sentences in  passive  action  in  contain  voice.  the  verbs,  The t e n t h  sentence  is  n o m i n a l i z e d v e r b s : the d e s i g n i s the  ten  verb  expressed  is in  of  characterize  passivization  the  and  main body  "is." the  Any  form  with  "treatments."  nominalization  Procedures and Dependent Measures s e c t i o n s o f the p a p e r ,  for  example, a r e t y p i c a l l y  use  passive:  an a l t e r n a t i v e  treatment,  practice,  but  not  headache"  (87);  to  "Subjective  gathered  by  Verbs  "Thus, i t was d e c i d e d t o  accepted  proven  report.  especially the  were  the  of  in  levels  of  these  a "measurement" process  " i n t r o d u c t i o n " o f e x p e r i m e n t a l change—or Patterns  and o f  be  i n psychological c l i n i c a l effective  reports  means  of  of a  specifically  daily daily  headache headache  adapted from a v e r s i o n d e s c r i b e d by B l a n c h a r d e t a l , validated,  and  employed i n over  40 headache  verbs the  in  the  I n t r o d u c t i o n and D i s c u s s i o n s e c t i o n s ,  frequency  same.  The  example,  of  first  contains  nominalizations paragraph of seven  remains  the  sentences,  only  t o t a l t h i r t e e n verbs are i n the p a s s i v e v o i c e , three  nominalized  forms  ("reduction,"  diary  socially (88). passive although  approximately  Discussion and  pain  studies"  On the o t h e r hand, a c t i v e verbs are more common than  section, three  on  of  the for the  although again  "exacerbation,"  and  "assessment") are found i n a s i n g l e p a r a g r a p h .  some  Variation  i n v o i c e w i t h i n the r e p o r t seems t o  authorial  attention  l e v e l o f language.  to  rhetorical  distinction  indicate at  An attempt has been made s t y l i s t i c a l l y  the in  173 the  main body o f  the  detached s c i e n t i s t  report to  o b s e r v i n g what i s  The  i m p r e s s i o n c r e a t e d by the  is,  first  of  practice Campbell  all,  ("the  preserve  that  and S t a n l e y , "  pervasive is  authors  use  of  the  accepted  experiment  the  sense  of  the  e x t e r n a l t o him o r h e r .  methodology  time-series  the  say)  as  passive  scientific  described  and t h a t  by  phenomena  made a v a i l a b l e through the methodology e x i s t i n d e p e n d e n t l y of the  researcher-observer; that  unimportant  because  any  is,  the  scientist  i n d i v i d u a l observer  would  have  observed  is the  same phenomena. This their  is  not  the  i m p r e s s i o n the  Introduction.  In the f i n a l  authors  have  created  s e c t i o n o f the r e p o r t ,  in the  r e a d e r a g a i n encounters S z e k e l y e t a l as a group o f committed researchers authors a r e , rhetorical,  doing  an  important  job.  In t h i s  section,  the  as they were i n t h e i r I n t r o d u c t i o n , more openly and  they  openly  seek  the  agreement  of  their  readers: In  conclusion,  menstrual  headache  implications ramifications This  study  isolating  the  inhibited  has  f o r treatment p l a n n i n g , s u g g e s t i n g  also  has  behavioral  of  treatment  into  to  responsiveness  headache corrected  effects  of  classification. faulty  behavioral  m e n s t r u a l l y exacerbated headaches,  methodology  by  treatment  on  and has g i v e n more  a t t e n t i o n t o an u n d e r s t u d i e d headache group. .  It  contributes  to  the  growing evidence  that  174 menstrual  headache  s h o u l d be  considered  and  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. The most occur  at  o v e r t l y persuasive its  organizing  beginning  arguments  arrangement. material  In  is  The  that  of  two  preference" the in  fact,  buried,  article.  in  and t h a t  and the  its  sixteen  the  et  (91) article  This  al's  example,  of  Nestorian convincing  middle of  mention,  subjects  a  least  i n the  then  method  suggests  organizationally, for  of  end.  article  Szekely  authors, their  sections  treated  were  the  mid-article,  "homosexual  in  "this p l u s the h i g h e d u c a t i o n a l l e v e l  of  group suggests t h a t these women were not a l l t r a d i t i o n a l acceptance  of  the  female  role,  yet  still  suffered  d i s t r e s s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h the menstrual c y c l e . " literature attitudes experience (still  is  cited  of  women  of  to  toward  menstrual  mid-article),  substantiate  the  the  the  distress. authors  "Person-centered Therapy," t h e i r c o n t r o l .  .  between  role"  Later offer  No s u p p o r t i n g  link  "female  in  this  worth.  Growth p o t e n t i a l  article  eliminate against  which are  introjected conditions is released  r e l a t i o n s h i p i n which the t h e r a p i s t and communicating r e a l n e s s ,  the  treatment:  of experiences  contrary to that person's  and  the  a n x i e t y which stems from the need to defend perceptions  the  description  . the g o a l i s t o h e l p the person  accurate  from  of  in a is  experiencing  c a r i n g , and a d e e p l y  s e n s i t i v e non-judgmental u n d e r s t a n d i n g .  (88)  of  175 One might knew  exactly  there et  infer  from the  what  "growth  would s t i l l  al's  known  be  be  one  of  study.  points  a tendency  the  to  Szekely  potential"  conditions,  scientific  that,  the  main  even i f  readers  "realness"  meant,  in replicating  Szekely  and  some d i f f i c u l t y  therapeutic  to  description  although criteria  The d e s c r i p t i o n of to  replicability for  article—an  evaluating  "Insight  i m p r e c i s i o n i n the  use  i m p r e c i s i o n which at  field.  The f i r s t  the term "headache" a  discussion  discuss  of  terms  in  has  the  times  lesser  itself—for  menstrual  own,  They  cite  one  with  merely  would  in  a  assume,  context  their  the  authors  of  indeed  repeatedly  more  headache. suffering  (The  to  corroborate  "non-drug treatments have  migraines  than on m i g r a i n e s  [emphasis  mine]"  phenomenon,  parameters" intractable  is,  accepted  own r e s e a r c h i s  apparently  (86)  t h a t menstrual m i g r a i n e i s  stress-related  That of  that  menstruation  biochemical  intervention. the  study,  on menstrual  another which concludes  rooted  s l i p p e r y use  while t h e i r a r t i c l e i s  headache.  which i n d i c a t e s  impact  associated  not  studies  t h e i r own r e s e a r c h i n terms o f r e s e a r c h on menstrual  migraine. their  of  problem i s w i t h the  a  Treatment"  r h e t o r i c a l e f f e c t of i d e n t i f y i n g the study w i t h o t h e r i n the  is  Szekely  (91) in  et  but and  the  one  a l place  of  their  work on menstrual m i g r a i n e  on the more nebulous  Szekely  paramenstrual l y  group from  used four  area of  subjects  which  and  is one  non-drug study  in  although menstrual  diagnosed  different  not  "probably  therefore,  face  a  types  as of  176 headache:  migraine,  muscle-contraction,  mixed,  and  cluster  headache.) The the  second  results  which  the  define  term which confounds  of  the  authors  Szekely use  study  without  for  is  the  critical  "paramenstrual," a term  sufficient  discussion.  Perelman e x p l a i n s , itself  as  Perelman's  Solbach  to  terminology)  brought  up  Szekely  et  create  S o l b a c h study  authors  use  paramenstual  this  when  (Realm 45).  and the  As Chaim  "a d e s c r i p t i o n which seems n e u t r a l  one-sided  description"  the  They  "the paramenstrual phase" as b e i n g "15 d a y s , p l u s and  minus 7 days s u r r o u n d i n g day one of m e n s t r u a t i o n . "  study  reader  a  al  liaison  (to  a  different  continue  "menstrual  with  between t h e i r  on menstrual m i g r a i n e ,  a significantly  phase:  against  reveals  different migraine  yet  days  following"  presents field  (76).  itself  of  sufficiently  d u r i n g the time o f the  as  While  reporting  paramenstrual responsible  the  Szekely  significant  headache, in their  the  definition is  defined  study as any m i g r a i n e headache which occurs 3 days  the m e n s t r u a l flow,  own  flow,  research  in  prior  or  article,  of  three then,  in  the  the  authors  are  not  of  both of  their  key  use  terms. Identifying study  similarly  essentially of  itself  with  dissociates  compatible itself  incompatible with i t .  selective citation.  studies,  from  the  studies  The s t r a t e g y i s  The a u t h o r s ,  f o r example,  body o f l i t e r a t u r e t h a t d i s c o u r a g e s a temporal  Szekely  which  are  s i m p l y one ignore  the  classification  177 of as  headache  types  (and t h e r e f o r e  paramenstrual)  when  the d e f i n i t i o n o f  biochemical,  electronic,  headaches and  d a t a o f f e r more p r o d u c t i v e grounds f o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  other (Saper,  Bruyn). The  Szekely  positive  article,  effect  it  seems,  derives  most  of  its  ethos  of  and the i n t e r n a l ethos generated  as  from a u t h o r i a l ethos—the e x t e r n a l  degrees and a f f i l i a t i o n s ,  the authors demonstrate t h a t they have access t o the of  the  well  community f o r which they to  the  assumptions  language—assumptions structure  about  beliefs  the the  appropriateness  of  kinds  Szekely  exhibit  et  facility  al  result  tenuousness o f by t h e i r  et  Controlled Lancet,  is  its  that  empower  of  research,  the  of.  numbers,  the  medical  writing  their  of  their  research, is  that  interventions. report  r h e t o r i c of  c l a i m t o pure s c i e n c e ,  al's  "Is  Trial  of  1983)  is  "oligoantigenic"  diets  the  as  science,  despite  taken  a  the  seriously  peers.  Egger  a  in  of  i n d e a l i n g w i t h an a c c e p t a b l e  the  used  certain  value  and access  that  nature  evidence,  and  of  and  are w r i t i n g ,  language  series to  of  control  Migraine  Food A l l e r g y ? A D o u b l e - B l i n d  Oligoantigenic  also diet is  a report  Diet  Treatment"  on an e m p i r i c a l s t u d y .  a low-allergen diet;  clinical trials attacks  of  of  migraine  An  the Egger study  systematically in  (The  children.  limited Their  178 a r t i c l e i n The Lancet r e p o r t s on t h e i r experiment, that  food-related  rather  than metabolic  their  argument  after  ingesting  have by  migraine  .  is  is  idiosyncracy"  this:  certain  foods  were  large  sample  c o u l d be  of  withdrawal subjects  v a r i e t y of  allergies  .  and  "food  . none has been  established  BUT SUPPOSE:  variety  (865)  reintroduced subjects  and the  ;  a  systematically THEN:  q u a l i t y of  allergic  Egger  responses  article  method,  by  a  INDEED:  the  is  uses  case;  pathogenesis  both  and  its  logical  major t o p o s .  summary  and  its  in  the  middle.  It  uses  ethical  consistent  weaknesses  in  research  c o m p a r a t i v e l y more d i r e c t research scientific  reports,  it  design.  While  and more p e r s o n a l  successfully  uses  writing, including especially  the  with  The a r t i c l e organization  disjunction  the  is is  arguments,  more than one case w i t h the e f f e c t of d i m i n i s h i n g the of  wide  than m e t a b o l i c  argument from example.  persuasive  others  if  a g a i n on t h e i r  "Nestorian": i t begins and ends w i t h the s t r o n g e s t leaving  a  to  indicated.  t o make i t s  scientific  rather  a  foods  withdrawal of  to a t t a c k s  of  in  offending  subject  w i t h the  and were s u b j e c t  of m i g r a i n e would be  headed  BUT: although  .  headache-free  foods,  reintroduction,  arguments  Structurally,  and r e i n t r o d u c t i o n c o u l d be measured;  became  The  (867).  disease  foods;  migraine  identified  "allergic  migraine  studies";  withdrawn  of  AGREED: some people develop  » . been p o s t u l a t e d ,  controlled  a result  and argues  effect  article  than many  is  other  conventions  passive voice  in  and  of  179 nominalizations. feature (not  of  the  the  avoids  article's  "rhetorical  apparently create  It  to  the  style  is  question,"  invite  effect  figurative  response)  that  the  language.  its  use  but  the  and  other  article  is  A striking  of  the  question  question  posed  strategies  which  inquiring  in  good  faith. Beginning  from the  understanding  among t h e i r audience t h a t the s u b j e c t controversial, their  discourse  as a speech. of the  Egger  on  diet  inquiry. research ongoing,  and  the  use  introduce  of  qualifying  Introduction. the  of d i e t  their  By u s i n g  a question  article  characteristic  u n c e r t a i n t y of  migraine,  authors  Their  the  purpose  (directly),  but  seems t o to  demonstrate  nature of work i n the Cheese,  chocolate,  migraine, allegedly response t o  .  title in  and  their  Introduction research to  underline  be not  into  i n a number  in their  in their  is  t u r n than  language—particularly qualifiers  shared  and headache  They accomplish the d i a l o g i c e f f e c t  of  emphasize  al  would be  community more as a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l  ways-—including use  et  that  to  the  the  date  mood  discredit  to  of  other  unfinished,  or  field:  and r e d wine sometimes provoke owing to an i d i o s y n c r a t i c  . tyramine.  T h i s response i s  due t o monoamine o x i d a s e d e f i c i e n c y ,  which has been  r e p o r t e d i n some p a t i e n t s w i t h m i g r a i n e . of p l a t e l e t phenolsulphotransferase been proposed as a p o s s i b l e  perhaps  .  basis for  .  Deficiency . has  also  idiosyncrasy.  180 Food  allergies  have  also  been  postulated,  none has been e s t a b l i s h e d by c o n t r o l l e d  though  studies.  (865) The use o f q u a l i f i e r s i n the I n t r o d u c t i o n has another and t h a t  is  making the while  the  conventional  present  creating  research  a  sense  effect  i n research reports  appear t o  of  dialogue  be needed. in  is  i n t r o d u c t i o n argues  by r e f u t a t i o n t h a t  a c o n t r o l l e d study t o i n v e s t i g a t e  between food a l l e r g i e s  That  controversy,  authors a l s o manage t o r a t i o n a l i z e t h e i r s t u d y . their  effect,  is, the  The l o g i c of  what  the c a u s a l  and m i g r a i n e ; what i s  of  is  needed  relationship  needed i s  their  study. A  strong  Introduction audience t o  and has  the  unqualified  the  study,  effect  of  Summary  preceding  positively  the  disposing  the  f o r n o t w i t h s t a n d i n g any weaknesses i n  d e s i g n of r e s e a r c h  or i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of r e s u l t s ,  proclaims,  88 c h i l d r e n w i t h severe frequent m i g r a i n e  "93% o f  r e c o v e r e d on o l i g o a n t i g e n i c o f the p a t i e n t s factors  .  .  for has  the  . this  (865).  Departments  article,  made while  (865)  and "In most  p r o v o c a t i o n no l o n g e r o c c u r r e d w h i l e  of  S i c k C h i l d r e n and the been  . . . "  i n whom m i g r a i n e was provoked by n o n - s p e c i f i c  were on the d i e t " with  diets  the Summary  clear  at  Moreover, the a u t h o r s '  association  Neurology and Immunology, Institute the  Hospital  o f C h i l d H e a l t h , London  article's  appearing e x p l o r a t o r y ,  a s t r o n g autonomous p i e c e o f work.  they  also  head.  Thus,  sets i t s e l f  T h i s means not t h a t  the up as every  181 word o f  the  article will  be accepted u n c r i t i c a l l y , but  the a r t i c l e as a whole w i l l be r e c e i v e d as The  effect  promoting  an  underlined  of  linguistic  appealing  in  the  and  scientific  contrast  syntactic  the  M i g r a i n e Food A l l e r g y ? )  ("Is  article  on m i g r a i n e and d i e t a p p e a r i n g i n  exactly  one y e a r  effectiveness  of  a  in  in  inquiry  is  the  Egger  of another  The L a n c e t almost  article  drug  choice  of  and the t i t l e  The l a t t e r  particular  of  title  article  later.  believable.  attitude  between  that  r e p o r t s on  the  preventing migraine  when a d m i n i s t e r e d w i t h foods u s u a l l y known t o cause m i g r a i n e . Its  title  proclaims,  (Monro e t  difference  suggested  in  sustained  to  themselves,  in  attitude  the  syntax  of  some  extent  in  but the  between  their the  the  respective  language  of  The  community, of  r h e t o r i c a l differences  reception  however,  each.  continue  the  weaknesses related  Disease"  of  the  study, and  raising  out  it  in  further  b e g i n as  is  articles  between  the main  between  the  their  scientific the  t o the Egger a r t i c l e  pointing  discussing  Sample l e t t e r s  in  titles  be a r e c e p t i o n o f  i n response  exploration, the  articles  seems i n p a r t t o  The l e t t e r s  research,  investigation.  of  articles,  the  are l e s s remarkable than the d i f f e r e n c e s  titles.  tone  a Food-Allergic  al).  The  texts  "Migraine i s  strengths terms  of  and other,  questions  for  follows:  D r . Egger and c o l l e a g u e s '  paper .  .  . will  doubtless  become a d e f i n i t i v e t e x t ,  s i n c e i t confirms i n a  182 double-blind t r i a l  .  .  . what has been d e s c r i b e d many-  times i n e a r l i e r y e a r s .  (Hearn and F i n n  1082)  The c r i t e r i a used by D r . Egger and c o l l e a g u e s to  define  include  m i g r a i n e are patients  not  specific  falling  outside  enough the  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 . Joseph  Dr.  Egger  and  his  colleagues  double-blind  common and important should  now t r y  and i n h a l a n t s (Gerrard letters  to .  .  cause of  identify that  response  to  the  of  drawing  readers  attitude is  speaker  in  of  that  foods  migraine.  a  Physicians  c h i l d r e n the attacks  in  are  of  food(s)  migraine.  other  piece  of  are  less  "unwarranted  conclusions"  "But i s  it  reacted  not  researchers'  t r u e ? " he asks  report.  by (This  the  that  research  in  report.  i n q u i r y which also  only to  the  (Blau,  The l e t t e r s of response suggest  have  enhanced the  established,  the second w r i t e r s t a t e s t h a t the  "Letter" 926).  article  scope  The f i r s t w r i t e r accuses  each case but the r h e t o r i c o f the The  in  trigger  c l a i m "is a dramatic d e c l a r a t i o n . "  scientific  and w i l l  1257)  in  "Letter" 926);  (Pearce,  .  (Cook and  have  trial,  e x p l o r a t o r y than argumentative. researchers  .  1256)  scientific  The  .  characterizes  the  use  of  the  is  the  article,  the  Egger  first-person referred  to  183 earlier this be  i n Chapter 3,  that confesses,  "We .  .  . embarked on  s t u d y b e l i e v i n g t h a t any f a v o r a b l e response  explained  cautious  as  a placebo  attitude  here  use o f p r o l e p s i s . which he o r she person helps  is  response" also  the  eager  and t h e i r a r t i c l e ,  the  effect  and the place  mention  of  their the  need  they d i s c u s s  work  on d i e t a r y  assessing  The use  of the  tests  to  first  identity,  takes on some o f the  effect  Furthermore, the authors  extend  of p r o f e s s i o n a l  identity,  ethos by d i s c u s s i n g d i r e c t l y  i n the  for  an o b j e c t i o n  a professional  the e f f e c t  positive  study  allergy-related  the r h e t o r i c a l  consequently,  dialogue,  effect  of  foods;  of  an example of  establish  o f a p e r s o n a l communication.  . could  The a u t h o r s '  to respond.)  writers  .  [867].)  i n which a speaker p r e s e n t s is  .  larger research p i c t u r e . to  identify  the They  reaction-causing  the i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h e i r study f o r o t h e r  disorders; control  "empirical  r h e t o r i c a l l y understated,  and they  of  skin  cite  their  disease  diets."  in  the  Their  has the e f f e c t  own  earlier  context  of  self-reference,  of promoting author  credibility. The  characteristic  accounts  for  some  openness  stylistic  of  features  from many o t h e r r e s e a r c h r e p o r t s .  the  Egger  which  distinguish  verbs to  are  find  even i n the  "the  i n the Methods s e c t i o n , passive  data"  voice,  speaking  for  it  P a s s i v e v o i c e i s used l e s s  f r e q u e n t l y here than i n o t h e r r e s e a r c h a r t i c l e s . paragraph,  report  7 of  and r e a d e r s itself  In a t y p i c a l  the  12  are l e s s  here  than  finite likely i n many  184 other  reports.  Still,  the  r e p o r t i n g persona  through the r e p o r t : the human i n t e l l i g e n c e I n t r o d u c t i o n and D i s c u s s i o n  sections  of  is  which i n h a b i t s  the  article  apparent i n the middle s e c t i o n of the p i e c e ; o f the D i s c u s s i o n s e c t i o n informed "were  that  patients  "withdrawn,"  symptoms  Nominalized  a g e n t l e s s a c t i o n (the use o f conventions authors  at a l l .  and  to  person  Readers are foods  "systematically "investigated."  "reintroduction,"  sustain  the  impression  s u b s t i t u t i o n of Agency f o r A g e n t ) .  of s c i e n t i f i c  membership  i n the  scientific  conceal  research,  in  the  of  less exploratory—and r h e t o r i c a l l y  the  more  the  Summary,  sections.)  The r e s e a r c h e r s ,  d i a r y of  symptoms.  some  their  of  Results,  for  example,  treatment  were  as  of  the  and  as  their  the  appears article,  report that  three  fact  Discussion  success on each  young  not  inaccessible.  They a l s o r e p o r t — b u t a page  subjects  if  of  o f the a r t i c l e  used i n the r e s t  Introduction,  depended f o r evidence  of  aspects  of P r e s e n t a t i o n i s  and Methods s e c t i o n  s m a l l e r p r i n t than t h a t  in  troubling  from the p e r s p e c t i v e  Patients  and  science.  then a t l e a s t t o make them a l i t t l e  (Interesting that  some  The  community,  weaker—middle of t h e i r r e p o r t , Egger e t a l a l s o t e n d , to  of  language a f f i r m the c l a i m of  promote the r e a d i n g of t h e i r a r t i c l e as In the l e s s p e r s o n a l ,  the less  and "treated";  "were provoked" and  "discussion"—  is  the f i r s t  verbs—"provocation,"  "identification,"  the  "were s e l e c t e d "  introduced,"  reintroduced";  i s not p r e s e n t  inconsistent  they  patient's  later—that years  old.  185 Even  if  parents  were  youngest s u b j e c t s ,  reporting  confronting  that  by  in  issue  disjunction,  connecting  related  by  conclusion  and  perfume  still  that  exposure  section,  Presenting r e l a t e d points question  number o f  variables  of  appearance  of  disjunction.  empirical  severe  frequent  they  process  of  the  claim  (the  notwithstanding)  Thus,  smoke  patients  [provocations]" mentioned  sections,  (865).  the  almost  that  authors infinite  88 c h i l d r e n l i v i n g  a c o n c l u s i o n which has  conclude  that  that  recovered  must  plagues  activities"  the  than  period 3  of  avoid  rather  only  other  truth derives  authors  engage  and emphasizing  and s u p p r e s s i n g o t h e r s  authors  diet  but  isolated  headache  selecting  Instead  the  authors  would a f f e c t  In o r d e r t o  diets,"  their  the  how they  t h e i r normal environments.  with  to  i n separate  that  age.  "during the migraine,  the  the r e l i a b i l i t y of  separating  "were encouraged t o c o n t i n u e f u l l  a v o i d the  for  A s i m i l a r problem  after  In an e a r l i e r  records  however,  textually  provoked  had symptoms  patients  keep  that  points.  authors'  (867).  patients  directly,  the  still  to  readers might q u e s t i o n  subjective  it  recruited  appearance  93% o f on in  in the  from  88 c h i l d r e n  oligoantigenic the  some b i t s  rhetorical information  i n o r d e r to g a i n the most support from  inquiring  attitude  of  their  that migraine i s a f o o d - a l l e r g i c  article  condition.  Another i n s t a n c e of the use o f 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  clinical  trials,  and was  o f s u b j e c t s and the  discussed  in detail  length  earlier  in  186 this  chapter.  In  this  case,  the  organization  of  the  d i s c u s s i o n o f c l i n i c a l v a r i a b l e s drew a t t e n t i o n away from the fact  that  subjects  once  a week would be moved t o  when they  who n o r m a l l y got m i g r a i n e s  had not  the  had a headache  next  approximately  experimental  phase  f o r o n l y two weeks.  Also  d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r i s the p e r s u a s i v e h a n d l i n g of s t a t i s t i c s the  article,  with of  the  affecting  75%  99  "neutral"  calculations)  effect  patients is  that  a  positive  (according  r e p o r t e d as  to  result  one  affecting  in  person's 93% of  88  subjects. The  Egger study  implicit  claims  employment o f diet  and  to  appears validity  scientific  headache, subject  to  methodology  to  it.  them  as  test  and  significance  i n making  connected  Understanding the  researchers empirical  developed  testing  Then i n the scientists,  as  language they  research  developed if  to  f i e l d of  a  and  They noted r e s u l t s  observers.  initiated  be u n e x c e p t i o n a l  method.  the  hypothesis  disinterested  to  they  were  available  reported  a  to  their  observations.  Throughout, they assumed and argued i m p l i c i t l y  that  found t o be t r u e f o r the  what was  few  (their  subjects)  would a l s o be t r u e f o r the many ( i n t h i s c a s e , o t h e r c h i l d r e n with food-related migraine). The  effect  persuasive.  Its  of  Egger  Introduction  a l l e r g y study f o r headache persuades  readers  et  that  the  is  al's  report  persuades justified;  is  that  readers its  p a r t i c u l a r study  Methods is  it  is  that  an  section  consistent  187 with s c i e n t i f i c and t h e r e f o r e section  method  demonstrating  can  foods  may  encourage i n the  "that on  provoke be  most  the  children  that  cause"  any  dismissal  noted;  observations  the  that  persuades  frequent  or  so  many  combination  is  of  qualifiers  secured  also  of  a  authors  8 patients  ( T h i s i s t r u e not o n l y i n  significant  placebo  also  out  point  who responded t o foods  .  . .  effect,  that the  "the  diet  [868].)  The  did  . c o u l d be due .  article  to  . t o a change of  r e s u l t i n g from g e n e r a l d i e t a r y a d v i c e ,  effect"  as  a  or  whole  to  also  r e a d e r s t h a t the r e s e a r c h e r s are r e l i a b l e w i t n e s s e s  and r e p o r t e r s rhetorical  severe  in  by the authors a n t i c i p a t i n g r e a d e r  r e c o v e r y of a l l e r g y on d i e t ,  placebo  successful  Reader agreement  spontaneous  a  Discussion  Well-placed  on r e i n t r o d u c t i o n of  family diet  trial")  and t h a t  food  not r e l a p s e  the  its  is  with  (867).  and responding to them.  authors'  study  an a p p r o p r i a t e d i e t ,  Discussion section  already  that  attacks  the  reliable results;  r e a d e r agreement.  objections the  readers  recover  foods  "double-blind c o n t r o l l e d  productive of  persuades  migraine  (the  of  their  perspective  study.  Reading the  demonstrates  the  s t r a t e g i e s of I n v e n t i o n , Arrangement, S t y l e ,  article means  from a  by  which  and P r e s e n t a t i o n  work p e r s u a s i v e l y on r e a d e r s .  Carl  H . Gunderson's a r t i c l e ,  Patient,"  "Management o f  American F a m i l y P h y s i c i a n  the  Migraine  (1986)—is not  a report  188 on  research,  periodically the  but in  headache  articles  one the  of  the  summary a r t i c l e s  generalist  patient  by  the  journals family  appear  discuss  care  physician.21  original  authored;  they  articles,  summary p i e c e s  tend  f o r c l i n i c a l reviews  Gunderson's a r t i c l e i s t y p i c a l of the  to  be  single-  in specific  genre.  the p r i m a r y - c a r e p h y s i c i a n a p p r i s e d of r e c e n t advances  says, (137)  and  "may o c c u r and i s  practice" the  suggest  of  a  i n up t o  disorder  25% o f  which,  the  However,  call  that  the  usefulness  subtle  authorial  two e s s e n t i a l  simple of  a  purpose  rhetorical  purposes.  remarkably s i m i l a r i n b a s i c  keep  i n the  Gunderson  population"  seen i n  office  observations  about  into  question  analysis  First,  content  as  general  "among the most common d i s o r d e r s  (137).  article  more  treatment  the  to  and  reveal  article  t o o t h e r review  Gunderson a r t i c l e and the o t h e r s i m i l a r a r t i c l e s  all  from a symptom o f other  forms  following  deal  of  this: organic  functional  diagnosis,  t h a t m i g r a i n e must be d i s e a s e on the headache  treatment  one  on the  should  the  largely  p r a c t i c i n g p h y s i c i a n r e a d e r a l r e a d y knows.  say e s s e n t i a l l y  is  articles  on headache by o t h e r authors i n o t h e r j o u r n a l s ; s e c o n d l y ,  i n what the  to  areas.  The apparent purpose of the Gunderson a r t i c l e i s t o  diagnosis  to  U n l i k e r e p o r t s on r e s e a r c h o r  are sometimes s o l i c i t e d by j o u r n a l e d i t o r s  meet r e a d e r demands  of  Summary  do not p u r p o r t t o be o r i g i n a l ; they p u r p o r t o n l y  be r e l i a b l e and a u t h o r i t a t i v e . other  to  which  (They  distinguished hand and from  other;  include  and  that,  behavior  189 t h e r a p y a n d / o r the p r e s c r i p t i o n of one of one o r more of following  kinds  of  drugs:  pain],  ergotamines  used  prophylactically  headache,  antidepressants.)  basic  content  physician,  is most  is  the  field  of  tricyclic  perspective,  Gunderson a r t i c l e ,  which  is  already  little  is  what  in  is  covering  known  to  the  new;  consequence  to  what  rhetoric.  is  already  as  seems t o be an update, little to  be  "true"  is  the  by  A s e l e c t i o n of as  family  virtue  The review  known—not  new i n  primary-care  to reassure  d o c t o r a l r e a d y knows.  a k i n d of e p i d e i c t i c of  of  r h e t o r i c a l agenda i s  a f f i r m i n g what the  place  incapacitating and  a declaration that  headache  the  that  statements  the  While the a r t i c l e  more r e a l i s t i c a l l y  doctor  frequent,  rhetorical  [for  has the e f f e c t not so much of b e i n g i n f o r m a t i v e  physicians;  is  of  a  narcotics  and c e r t a i n drugs  beta-blockers  that  being a f f i r m a t i v e . it  against  From  here  and  [to abort the headache],  notably  interesting  analgesics  the  of  article  Gunderson's  the  f o r argument but as the argument i t s e l f — a t t e s t  starting to  the  n a t u r e o f the r h e t o r i c a l purpose: The p h y s i c i a n must d i s t i n g u i s h m i g r a i n e from m u s c l e contraction with serious  ( t e n s i o n ) headaches,  headaches a s s o c i a t e d  i n t r a c r a n i a l d i s e a s e and o t h e r forms of  vascular disease.  (138)  T r e a t i n g headaches i n a p a t i e n t who i s  terrified  he  little  is  harboring a brain  tumor i s  of  that  benefit  190 u n l e s s adequate reassurance  A s p i r i n ' s effectiveness  is  also provided.  (139)  i n r e l i e v i n g m i g r a i n e may be  enhanced by the a d d i t i o n of o t h e r b a r b i t u r a t e s antihistamines effects. This  is  only kind of  others  high incidence  sedative  and  antinauseant  (140)  not the  article;  for  or  statement which appears  are more g e n u i n e l y of  informative.  statements o f what  is  in  the  Still,  the  a l r e a d y known i s  no  more than redundancy i f the r e a l purpose o f the a r t i c l e i s  to  inform. Although  summary a r t i c l e s  t h e y do v a r y s i g n i f i c a n t l y The  articles,  function:  they  then, are  are in  terms  perform  read  as  similar  a  of  in  emphasis  "true,"  affirming  necessarily  journal  articles  a specific The  as  Indeed,  rhetorical what  doctors  same t i m e ,  physicians  they  often  read  a way of c o n s u l t i n g another p h y s i c i a n on  issue  of  important  articles  are  author  bias  in  review  in  the  or  implicit  articles  business  no l e s s c o n s i d e r e d to be " s c i e n t i f i c . " in  "Scientific  American  Family  Articles.")  Physician  While  one  judgement  because  of  t r a n s l a t i n g what they r e a d i n t o p r a c t i c e .  appears  value.  topic.  especially these  evaluative.  content,  and  complicated  a l r e a d y know and h o l d i n common, and, at the are  basic  is  readers  of  care,  of  (The a r t i c l e s  are  primary  The Gunderson a r t i c l e under review  the author  heading, (Kirn,  191 "Migraine")  spends  several  headache c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , is  unconcerned  with  paragraphs  discussing  Gunderson (as was i n d i c a t e d e a r l i e r )  classification  because,  patient  w i t h muscle c o n t r a c t i o n headaches  from  well-planned  a  (138).  accurate  trial  of  migraine  he  will  says,  seldom  management  F u r t h e r m o r e , w h i l e many authors see  "a  suffer .  .  ."  the  relationship  between d i e t and m i g r a i n e as c r u c i a l t o m i g r a i n e  intervention  (Diamond  and  Gunderson  Blau,  simply  dietary factors  Egger  et  writes,  al,  Monro  [emphasis  mine]  rhetorical  purpose  invite  al,  diplomatically:  have been a s s o c i a t e d  frequency  et  number  of  w i t h changes i n headache  (143).  It  summary  j o u r n a l s which are tendentious  "a  Gettis),  seems  situation  articles  in  and  generalist  i n important ways w i t h i n  the  l i m i t s o f consensus and a c c e p t a b i l i t y . Gunderson's terms.  own  The v e r y  Migraine  Patient  objectify  the  Hans T e i f e l , patients  are  although  views title  are of  revealed  the  [emphasis  article,  mine]"  language  "managed" w i t h the  their  organs  may  is  in  his  a  tendency  According to  essentially  of the to  ethicist  objectifying:  hope they can be be  use  "Management of  reveals  person w i t h m i g r a i n e s . medical  also  "salvaged"  "defective"  (Tiefel).  Gunderson, i n a d d i t i o n , was the author r e f e r r e d t o e a r l i e r i n Chapter "remove"  Three who o b j e c t e d the  patient  from  to his  choices i n describing patient him  of  a  we/they  dichotomy  forms  of  care.22  t h e r a p y which would Gunderson's  lexical  c a r e i n d i c a t e the s a l i e n c e (not  argued  but  for  assumed),  192 reinforced readers  by  his  together  distinguish  tendency as  "the  to  refer  to  physician":  [among types of  himself  and  "The p h y s i c i a n  headache]"  (138)  his must  o r "The h i s t o r y  o f m i g r a i n e may be p r e s e n t e d t o the p h y s i c i a n i n many guises" (139). Gunderson respect  to  readily,  his  overall  physician-readers.  to  patients),  r e l a t i o n to readers). that  the  dangers  (140),  hydroxyzine  parmoate  (141).  but  of  or  In g e n e r a l ,  ergot  have  .  himself  directly  ("Special  force  to  make  of  headache  been  first  with person  While attention  advising.  When he  says,  for  rapidly  .  findings  have o c c u r r e d " (138), has  the  his  ethos  helpful  of  but  .  .  .  firm,  have  been  impressed  with  authoritative advises to  has  the  the  example, .  .  or  is  but  readers nervous  [139]) he i s  simply  just  as  indirect  that  "If  a  associated  subarachnoid hemorrhage may  speech a c t i s the  [.  intramuscularly"  s h o u l d be g i v e n  b l o o d pressure"  extremely  "I agree w i t h  sometimes  that  (in  his r e l a t i o n s h i p with  He i s  assertion  develops  concerned,  he  (in  authority  most  [administered]  an  neurologic  finally  ethos  preparation  Gunderson develops  system and the p a t i e n t ' s  as  f o r example,  the  "I .  authoritarian.  likely  positive  He uses the  r e a d e r by u s i n g a d i r e c t s t y l e .  not  with  to  He s a y s ,  overstated"  his  a  a l t h o u g h not t o r e f e r t o h i m s e l f as p r a c t i t i o n e r  relation  . ]  establishes  trusted calm  indirect. physician: but  Gunderson aloof  cautious.  but His  photograph, which appears on the l a s t page o f the a r t i c l e can  193 have  no  Chief  purpose  of  but  Neurology  consultant  to  at  reinforce  this  ethos.  Gunderson,  W a l t e r Reed Army M e d i c a l  i n neurology  to  the  Center,  Surgeon General o f  the  and  Army,  appears i n u n i f o r m . Like arranged  most  other  topically  according  information.  In  covers  topics,  four  Differential Attacks, into  at  review  just  each  a  under  Gunderson's  principle  pages o f  Treatment,  and The Long View. four  to  under s i x  Diagnosis,  least  articles,  a  text,  access the  different  Prevention  Each s e c t i o n i s  subsections.  of  is to  article heading:  of  Migraine  further divided  The a r t i c l e  begins w i t h  a  g e n e r a l statement about the unknown e t i o l o g y o f m i g r a i n e , and ends,  rather  abruptly,  with  a  statement  headaches o r i g i n a t i n g w i t h orgasm.  about  vascular  The a r t i c l e ' s  overriding  i m p r e s s i o n o f b e i n g i n f o r m a t i v e i s enhanced by i t s  apparently  flat  profile. Still,  the  rhetorical analysis  ways i n which Gunderson's a r t i c l e i s "scientific"  information.  the  physician,  trusted  argument  under  epidemiologists"  his  material  not s i m p l y a v e h i c l e  for  ones.  L a t e r i n the a r t i c l e ,  suggest t h a t  the  of  may  additional  to  a  the persona of  "trust  buoy  it  me" up.  ethical "Some  b e l i e v e t h a t m i g r a i n e may o c c u r i n  25% o f the p o p u l a t i o n  an  the  Having e s t a b l i s h e d  up t o  have  to reveal  Gunderson uses  he s a y s ,  use  continues  (137); but he does not say which he announces  widely placebo  that  advertised effect"  "some s t u d i e s  brand-name (140).  agents  Again,  he  194 p r o v i d e s no documentation. In  fact,  influence certain have  to  many  Gunderson's  statements  owe  their  an u n d e r l y i n g " t r u s t me" argument, meaning t h a t  assertions  the  of  effect  which are of  o c c u r throughout the  i n fact  unsubstantiated  unsubstantiated assertions.  do  Examples  article:  The p e c u l i a r a b i l i t y of s l e e p t o r e l i e v e m i g r a i n e w e l l known.  in  headaches  is  (141)  [Relaxation useful  not  and  biofeedback  patients  who  have  r a t h e r than c l a s s i c  techniques] mixed  are  most  tension-vascular  o r common m i g r a i n e .  (141)  M i g r a i n e u r s s h o u l d remain under l o n g - t e r m b l o o d pressure  surveillance,  especially  if  become more d i f f i c u l t t o c o n t r o l . Two  factors  make  statements o f may subsume the o t h e r require What  "fact"  points  is  unceremonious  acceptable: of  one  to  is  that  "common knowledge"  however,  is  unsubstantiated-but-substantiable through  presentation  a t t r i b u t i o n f o r e v e r y one  important,  other  questionable,  statements  such as t h e s e :  in  that  the  of  of the  article  these  statements  w i t h i n the  assertion the  headaches  (142-3)  t h a t a summary a r t i c l e does n o t ,  formal  is  the  their  field;  by d e f i n i t i o n , its  statements.  tone is  of  the  carried  which are more  195 Unusual s t r e s s o r d e p r e s s i o n i s perhaps the most l i k e l y cause of a change i n m i g r a i n e p a t t e r n . (142)  [Antidepressants]  are . . .  of v a l u e , e s p e c i a l l y  in  p a t i e n t s whose headaches have a m u s c l e - t e n s i o n component  or  are  triggered  or  T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y t r u e when  increases  in  frequency  menopause  migraine  are  associated  such as a s p i r i n and acetaminophen,  a r e p r o b a b l y more e f f e c t i v e them t o b e . Gunderson scientific  the  than most authors  a  range  of  propositions  speculative;  yet  it  is  h i s w r i t i n g t h a t he homogenizes  assertions  appear  the  to  article  is  have  In  he  leaves  of  content  his  it  from  characteristic  the of  such t h a t they a l l truth is  value.  The  (because of  its  form. omission  as  a rhetorical  statements appear t o be t r u e  any opposing  apparent e s p e c i a l l y out.  same as  Gunderson uses  Some o f  absence are  of  a monotone o f  addition,  strategy.  biases  approximately  a monotone  organization)  believe  (140)  offers  to  with  (141)  Simple a n a l g e s i c s ,  the  by  depression.  or retirement.  of  exacerbated  F o r example,  information.  to it  the has  because  Gunderson's  r e a d e r who knows what 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  straightforward, considerable  headache;  his  body o f  and Ross  to  302)  research  now a v a i l a b l e  significant and t h a t  is  iatrogenic  headache  which  "one o f the drug  drugs  course,  no  author  can  commonest  addition,"  themselves  present  review  a  large  area  of  those  authors  research  are  who  been  (Isler).  all  available  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 t o k e n , Furthermore,  (Lane  have  i n f o r m a t i o n i n a s i n g l e a r t i c l e i n any m e d i c a l a r e a .  rhetorical.  the  suggests  i m p l i c a t e d i n the p e r p e t u a t i o n o f headache problems Of  seems  but what Gunderson does not mention i s  t h a t n a r c o t i c treatment of headaches antecedents  presentation  Authors  necessarily undertake  also,  a  necessarily,  r e d u c t i v e — a n d , by the same t o k e n , r h e t o r i c a l . A f i n a l p o i n t about the Gunderson a r t i c l e concerns the way in  which i t  addresses  might b e n e f i t  the  needs  of  f i v e main k i n d s o f m i g r a i n e .  reference" adapted  and,  article  interestingly,  P u b l i c a t i o n data  advertises  conservative,  These  is  t a b l e of the f e a t u r e s  caption  Quick  tells  Reference  provided.  us  to  it  demonstrate  the  as the  extent  is  Clinical  In e f f e c t ,  the book, which r e a d e r s may presume i s  r e d u c t i v e , and benevolent  analyses  of  The t a b l e a c t s as a "quick its  from Gunderson's book,  Neurology.  busy p h y s i c i a n , who  from h a v i n g m a t e r i a l reduced and e n c a p s u l a t e d .  Gunderson p r o v i d e s a s m a l l (2" x 4") the  the  the as  article.  to  which  the  197 findings  of  the  general  rhetorical  h e u r i s t i c a l l y t o the study o f s p e c i f i c  study  scientific  main f i n d i n g o f the g e n e r a l a n a l y s i s — t h a t as  represented  i n medical  journals  confirmed i n the a n a l y s i s o f s p e c i f i c  is  can  be  texts.  scientific  highly texts.  applied The  writing  rhetorical—is  198 Endnotes  1.  For a  discussion  of  preparing funding proposals,  the  considerations  see Greg Myers,  of  scientists  "Two B i o l o g i s t s '  Proposals." 2.  See  Janet  publication  M.  criteria  respondents  Chase. ranked  marking i t as  Chase according  lists to  the  the  following  proportion  of  essential:  1. L o g i c a l r i g o r 2.  Replicability  of research  techniques  3. C l a r i t y and conciseness o f 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  7.  C o m p a t i b i l i t y w i t h g e n e r a l l y accepted  existing  literature disciplinary  ethics 8.  Theoretical  significance  9.  P e r t i n e n c e to c u r r e n t r e s e a r c h i n the  10.  A p p l i c a b i l i t y to  the  field  3.  See,  for  example,  is  Chaim  "practical'  or  s e c t i o n headings  discipline  applied  problems  in  i n American F a m i l y  Physician. 4. T h i s together contrast.  Aristotelian  Perelman's topoi  terminology  dealing  with  which  brings  comparison  and  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.  to  produce  the  R h e t o r i c , esp. 5. The  Corbett also generalizes  "common t o p i c "  A r i s t o t e l i a n topoi  "comparison."  See  Classical  pp. 115-124.  Aristotelian  notion  that  the  speech  must  c o n d i t i o n e d by the b e l i e f s of the audience—and may s t a r t what the speaker and audience h o l d i n common ( t h a t i s , is  elaborated  for  purposes  of  the  present  be from  as  fact)  discussion  very  c l e a r l y by Chaim Perelman. A l l q u o t a t i o n s  are from The Realm of  Rhetoric:  from theses  " D i a l e c t i c a l reasoning  generally of  accepted,  begins  w i t h the purpose of g a i n i n g the  can choose as  his  points  a c c e p t e d by those he addresses" which,  by  adhere  to  their  profession  certain  theses,  of  or  "When we  commitment,  are  we may assume t h a t  as  addresses  and of  his  all  legal  statutes.  can  assume t h a t  colleagues  .  c o n s t i t u t e s the core of t h e i r d i s c i p l i n e " Another  dimension  argumentation specific  is  reference  revolutions. particular  of  the  articulated to  the  the p o i n t of v i e w , t h a t happens i s  by  " . . .  scientists'  of  .  they  groups  supposed  to  given.  The  country's  A scholar recognize  who what  (31).  of  Paul  rhetoric  Campbell w r i t e s , paradigm, the  subject  .  "The  theses  address  lawyer can assume t h a t the judge i s r e s p e c t f u l o f the legislation  (2).  departure o n l y the  (21).  are  acceptance  o t h e r t h e s e s which c o u l d be o r are c o n t r o v e r s i a l "  speaker  that  starting  Newall science  places  Campbell and  for with  scientific  [ A ] f t e r the a d o p t i o n of a work  follows  the  model,  the o u t l o o k i m p l i c i t i n t h a t paradigm.  t h a t what was c o n t e s t e d ,  what was q u e s t i o n e d  All at  200 one  stage  explicit  is  accepted without  bias,  question  an e x p l i c i t l y r h e t o r i c a l  i m p l i c i t b i a s and p o i n t o f view. 6. Burke  at  writes  that  "speaker and h e a r e r as  the  .  a  later  viewpoint  stage;  an  becomes  an  pattern"  is  . " (392).  "purest  rhetorical  p a r t n e r s i n p a r t i s a n jokes made a t  the  expense o f another" (ROM 38). 7.  See  Tiefel  on  language o f science" 8. science.  In  fact,  the  "stark,  objective,  and impersonal  (11).  Ong extends  his  analysis  to  the  realm  of  He w r i t e s : The knowledge o f 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 h a s , o n l y a t i n y f r a c t i o n has been a c h i e v e d by h i s own o b s e r v a t i o n . has good reason t o b e l i e v e t h a t i t  F o r the r e s t ,  i s t r u e because,  w i t h i n the l i m i t s o f t h e i r competence, he in his fellow-scientists  he  believes  r e p o r t i n g on t h e i r work o r  r e p o r t i n g on the work of o t h e r s . most "objective" o f f i e l d s ,  Thus, even i n the  i n a c t u a l i t y the word  of persons i s more p e r v a s i v e than f a c t u a l o b e r v a t i o n . (91-2) See note 11 below.  9. T h i s  feature  of  scientific  w r i t i n g was p o i n t e d out  S. M i c h a e l H a l l o r a n i n "The B i r t h of M o l e c u l a r B i o l o g y . "  by  201 10. B u r k e ' s pentad, of  Motives,  analysis, human  lists  of  five  Burke's  and Purpose.  suggests t h e r e  is  especially  heuristic  a n a l y z i n g events  action.  Scene,  the  elaborated  i n his  elements  of  dramatistic  (including l i n g u i s t i c  five  terms  The pentad  are  Act,  applied  to  Grammar  events)  Agent,  as  Agency,  scientific  style  some motive of a v o i d i n g r e s p o n s i b i l i t y o r  at  l e a s t making the l o c u s 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 o f  an a c t i o n ,  Agency  is  highlighted. 11.  It  words o f words a  is  interesting  to  compare  Booth's  words  W a l t e r J . Ong, quoted i n note 8 above,  to  and t o  the these  from from M i c h a e l P o l a n y i : " . . . nobody knows more t h a n  tiny  fragment  of  and v a l u e a t f i r s t accepted  at  science well hand.  second  F o r the r e s t  hand on  the  people a c c r e d i t e d as s c i e n t i s t s " 12.  enough t o  judge  its  validity  he has t o r e l y on views  authority  of  a  community  of  (PK 163).  One source r e p o r t s t h a t t h e r e are now more than 40,000  professional contribute  journals to  them  of  at  science  the  rate  alone of  and  one  that  every  30  researchers seconds,  24  hours a day, 365 days a y e a r (Bracey 9 ) . 13. Ramon Y C a j a l , Investigations," 14.  and Counsels  on  Scientific  Quoted i n B l a n t o n .  F o r a d i s c u s s i o n o f c l a r i t y and c o n t e x t , see  15. Coetzee treated  1893.  "Precepts  as  considered  points  out  that  a r h e t o r i c a l device to  be  subsumed  the  passive  in classical  under  the  Lanham.  itself  is  not  t h e o r y but may be  strategy  of  style  which  202 inverts  the  grammatical voice,  the  conventional topic,  then,  effect  of  order is  the  which i s  of  words.  key  function of  to  suppress  The  the  change the  in  passive  agent  of  the  action. 16. See Aronson, Gopnick, Savory, S c h i n d l e r . 17.  For discussions  of  the  h i s t o r y of  scientific  plain  s t y l e , see Stephens, Jones, P a r a d i s , A d o l f , and Halloran and Whitburn. 18. H a l l o r a n  and Whitburn p o i n t out t h a t C i c e r o ' s  "plain  s t y l e , " was more s o p h i s t i c a t e d than the p l a i n s t y l e of the Century s c i e n t i s t s . the  a b o l i t i o n of  Cicero, all  as  17th  they e x p l a i n , d i d not c a l l  rhetorical  devices  in  his  plain  for  style,  a s t y l e d i s t i n g u i s h e d not by genre, but by purpose (the purpose of  plain  language  "noticeable the  plain  was  to  ornament" and  style,  instruct).  In C i c e r o ' s  "cosmetics"  needed t o  only  be absent  which would s i m p l y be more s u b t l e  of the figures of  view,  in its  bullets  is  use  speech.  19. H a l l o r a n and B r a d f o r d are f i r s t t o note t h a t the with  in  a  visual  counterpart to  the  oral  list  device  of  parallelism. 20. F o r a d i s c u s s i o n of the uses of metaphor i n accounting,  see  H a l l o r a n and B r a d f o r d on the metaphors o f DNA  r e s e a r c h and the extended metaphor of the 21. Other  scientific  summary a r t i c l e s  in  "Treatment," S i l b e r s t e i n , and K i r n ,  the  "genetic message." sample  "Migraine."  are  Diamond,  203 22.In t h i s regard, the  medical  system  are  i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g t o note t h a t u s e r s o f called  "patients,"  (according to  OED, people who a r e s u f f e r i n g , s i c k , p a s s i v e ) , example,  rather than,  " c l i e n t s , " people who, f o r t h e i r own b e n e f i t ,  advice or s e r v i c e s of experts.  the for  seek the  204 Chapter F o u r . The  On S c i e n c e ,  rhetorical  demonstrates  R h e t o r i c of S c i e n c e ,  analysis  that  of  scientific  medical  writers  and R h e t o r i c  journals  use  a  articles  great  range  of  r h e t o r i c a l s t r a t e g i e s t o persuade r e a d e r s o f the c r e d i b i l i t y of t h e i r a u t h o r s h i p and the v a l u e of t h e i r work; a t the same t i m e , it  shows t h e r e  seems t o  is  a veneer  deny t h a t  i n formal s c i e n t i f i c  science  is  i n any way p e r s o n a l  depends on p e r s u a s i o n f o r agreement. suggests  that  strategy,  one  particular  the of  piece  veneer the of  bona f i d e s c i e n c e .  itself  effects  writing  may be of  is  read  which  is  consistent  It is  favor  hypnotic  or  process  r i g h t t h i n g ' " [PC  writers  Style,  and  professional Their  strategies  appeal  use  of  of  division  the to  rhetorical  strategies  of of  show  Invention  use  of  use  topoi  to  of  information  rhetorical  research studies; use  use  from logos—use  reader seduction; and  the  Presentation view  argue the  that  norms  x  of  simplest  an attempt t o of  a  gain  saying  the  50].)  Specifically, medical  analysis  " In i t s  ingratiation.  it  a rhetorical  with  (As Kenneth Burke w r i t e s ,  suggestive  as to  style is  the  or that  Furthermore, the  manifestation, by  w r i t i n g which  of of  support  of  the  analysis  reveals  Invention, their  i n the  of  quasi-logical refutation,  size  respect as  especially  and  observations;  their light. to  a device  the of  arguments o f comparison  s t a t i s t i c s as arguments definition  or  possible  include—with topos  Arrangement,  research best  that  of and  to  rationalize  from example;  classification use  of  and  selected  205 division  to  support  observations;  and  " i n a r t i s t i c " arguments—or c i t a t i o n — t o logical  arguments.  Strategies  appeals from p a t h o s , and  which  reader,  of  selected  s t r e n g t h e n the f o r c e of also  include  arguments which use the a p p e a l of  presence  establish  and e t h o s ,  use  a  sense  of  of  Invention  identity  i m p l i c i t and e x p l i c i t  between  author  arguments  and  pertaining  t o the c r e d i b i l i t y of the a u t h o r . Strategies include  the  use  together—to article  a  of  the  the  the the  progressive  in  Synopsis  medical and  of  a  texts  Introduction  formal  separation  ordering  and most o v e r t l y  argumentative  effectively  Nestorian  b e g i n n i n g and end o f  B l a n t o n , as  authorized  use  strongest  after  information,  discovered  proem—the  follows;  appear a t  analysis, use  of  such t h a t  arguments of  Arrangement  promote, and p o s i t i v e l y p r e d i s p o s e r e a d e r s t o ,  which  arguments,  use  of  form  certain  an a r t i c l e ;  (described  related  of  persuasive  in  the AGREED-INDEED model); of  the  the the  and the  pieces  of  t o d i s c o u r a g e r e a d e r s from drawing u n -  conclusions.  Strategies  of  Style  revealed  i n medical texts  include  the  use o f the p a s s i v e v o i c e as w e l l as n o m i n a l i z a t i o n s and agency(rather the  than  agent-)  researcher-author;  language, assertions  both t o  subjects use  enhance  i n areas  of  of  to  neutralize  vague  language  a c c u r a c y and t o  some u n c e r t a i n t y ;  the  of  for  positive  the  s i g n s of  c e r t a i n t y i n statements of p r o f e s s i o n a l o p i n i o n ; use o f rhetorically  as  an  instrument  of  emphasis;  of  and q u a l i f y i n g  allow use  presence  syntax  avoidance  of  206 metaphor and o t h e r f i g u r a t i v e language t o promote the e f f e c t fact  in  an  article;  conventions words,  of  for  science  and use  scientific  example)  to  scientific  Presentation  all  style  of  the  (complex  identify  and t o make a p i e c e  existing  of  a  with  Introduction  and  of  Latinate  other  works  the body of  knowledge. *  Strategies  of  in  medical  texts  are  discouraging  Discussion  close  sections  more  variable,  of s p e c i f i c in article  reading of of  an  journals, midsections  all  but  article;  and  tables  "scientize" text;  not  an a r t i c l e  use o f  only  to  provide  and e f f e c t i v e l y  author photos  information  to  the  use  headings t o draw r e a d e r a t t e n t i o n t o a r t i c l e h i g h l i g h t s ; graphs  on  work seem p a r t of  found  effect  other  of  but i n c l u d e the use of a s m a l l t y p e f a c e the  and  sentences,  text  depending a t l e a s t i n p a r t on conventions  with  above  of  of  use of but  to  break up bodies  of  t o add a q u a l i t y o f p e r s o n a l i t y and  "bedside manner" t o an a r t i c l e . By a p p l y i n g a r h e t o r i c a l c r i t i c a l methodology, has  demonstrated  by  induction  what  theory  in  the  rhetoric  p h i l o s o p h y o f s c i e n c e have argued by d e d u c t i o n : t h a t writing  is  persuasive  authors,  not  scribes  rhetoric  has  argued the  neutral discourse  and  that  scientific  propositions.  scientific  i n any f i e l d ,  Philosophy  communities  and  scientific are  real  P h i l o s o p h y of  i m p o s s i b i l i t y of n e u t r a l perception or and d e s c r i b e d the p r o c e s s e s of  b u i l d i n g consensus and meaning i t s e l f , to  writers  f o r an e m p i r i c a l r e a l i t y .  analysis  of  and of winning  science  has  ( r h e t o r i c a l communities  agreement  argued  i n every  that sense)  207 advocate reality  versions  of  reality,  are based i n t h e o r y ,  and  that  these  formed i n language,  versions  and dependent  on the agreement o f o t h e r s c i e n t i s t s f o r t h e i r v a l i d a t i o n . rhetorical theory, and  analysis,  that  which  scientific  persuasive,  heuristically  has  to  began  from the  premise,  w r i t i n g would t h e r e f o r e be  shown,  medical  by  from r h e t o r i c but made i n i t .  that  In  science  is  based  simply  uncover  unbiased  and  not  objective  observation,  truths  and t h a t  separate  l i g h t of the a n a l y s i s ,  disinterested, through  that  it  is  scientists  their  projects  unmediated  their writing is  on  principles  no l o n g e r p o s s i b l e t o h o l d the t r a d i t i o n a l view t h a t are  The  tendentious  applying r h e t o r i c a l  texts,  of  acts  of  t r a n s p a r e n t as a window  on t h e i r work.^ The  purpose  rhetorical  of  this  nature  of  instantiated  i n medical  significance  of  areas. for  First,  the  chapter  the  is  scientific journal  nature of  analysis  is  world"  of  rhetoric  explored.  operationalizes  scientific  prose, of  writing  scientific  describe as  and t o  science,  the  science  Then,  the  for  significance is  f i n d i n g s o f the a n a l y s i s  discussed.  genre,  suggest  the  three  consequences  significance  of  the  the p r e s e n t r h e t o r i c a l  the  critical  of  the  r e a d i n g of  study  Finally,  serve t o disambiguate the  between r h e t o r i c and s c i e n c e ,  the  f o r the t h e o r y and p r a c t i c e  because  a model  a  rhetoricity in  because the r h e t o r i c of s c i e n c e has  "real  science  further  articles,  f i n d i n g s of the r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s of  to  for  the  because  the  relationship  the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f the study f o r  208 the d i s c i p l i n e o f r h e t o r i c i t s e l f  The t e r m , the more i t  "rhetoric of  is  science"  has been used.  It  discussed.  has  become more  refers,  in its  b a s i c sense,  the accumulated c o n v e n t i o n a l s t r a t e g i e s s c i e n t i f i c -not  only  stylistic  qualification, statistical believe  but  strategies  inventional  proof.  such  as  strategies  When John Ziman a s k s ,  a good s c i e n t i f i c  argument  .  .  use-  voice  and  passive such as  rhetorical Charles  strategy.)  Bazerman  audience  that  but on the  of  "How  same  does  happened  Bazerman  vein,  one when  selected,  says,  of  scientific  says,  a powerful rhetorician a  critical  didn't  depends  of  see  not  events  it?"  on  to  events i n the  rhetorical analysis  the  others,  published  science" texts,  has extended the meaning of  by i n d i c a t i n g the  rhetorical the  point  term  rhetorical  complexity  u s i n g the term t o d e s c r i b e the v a r i e t y of  p e r s u a s i v e moves r e v e a l e d when s c i e n t i f i c  analysis,  is  (302).  "rhetoric  the  when  they  he  (Ziman  convince  displayed brute  symbolic r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  The p r e s e n t  of  the  do we  . ? " ( P u b l i c 32),  is  to  he i s a s k i n g a q u e s t i o n about the r h e t o r i c of  Persuasion,  "presentation  report"  asks,  something  ( " L i t e r a t e " 302), science.  In  recourse  "Why, i n f a c t ,  method i t s e l f  to  writers  a s k i n g a q u e s t i o n about the r h e t o r i c o f s c i e n c e . i n t h i s r e g a r d , t h a t the s c i e n t i f i c  generative  of  view.  " r h e t o r i c of  the use o f s p e c i a l t e x t u a l  prose i s  Following science"  features  s t u d i e d from  the  refers  in scientific  rhetorical not  only  to  p r o s e , but to  209 the  ways t h e s e  the  features  are m a r s h a l l e d i n t e x t s  multi-dimensional  Scientific result  of  texts,  intentions  the  rhetorical  a negotiation  of  carry  scientific  analysis  between two  to  has  authors.  shown,  purposes—to  out  are  the  promote  the  acceptance o f s p e c i f i c  scientific  c l a i m s and t o support c e r t a i n  more  including  claims  general  claims,  about  the  science i t s e l f .  That i s ,  the g o a l of s c i e n t i f i c  only  in  particular  persuasion  not  respect  to  p e r s u a s i o n t o the c o n t i n u a t i o n o f  the  p a r t i c u l a r claims;  it  whole  enterprise,  scientific  reinforced  in  every  its  instance  of  case  significant, science.  first  affirmed  its  its  prose,  so,  of  of  all,  to  analysis  discourse,  analysis  conventional doing  complex nature of  Rhetorical  world" e f f e c t s Rhetorical  the  suggests  scientific  theory  concerned  issues  for  rhetoric practice  with  the  i n the  discussion  identity  and  accounting i n s c i e n t i f i c issues  and  texts.  w i t h how t e x t s a c t  foregrounds  forms o f  the is  with  assumptions  confirmed and renewed i n the p u b l i c a t i o n of Revelation of  of  texts is  the is  nature  i n the  within  of  "real world.  consequences texts,  is  and,  of in  scientific  communities and p r o v i d e s a framework f o r such d i s c u s s i o n . Some o f w e l l known.  the  consequences of s t a n d a r d s c i e n t i f i c  S c i e n t i f i c prose conventions  m a i n t a i n an i d e a l s t a n d a r d o f s c i e n t i f i c reporting.  the  function p r i m a r i l y to i n q u i r y and  scientific  They d i s c o u r a g e the p r i v i l e g i n g of p e r s o n a l o p i n i o n  and support s c i e n t i f i c from  w r i t i n g are  more  loaded  i m p a r t i a l i t y (which may be d i s t i n g u i s h e d term  "objectivity").  The  goal  of  210 replicability scientific  in  scientific  writing,  serves  and t o  minimize the  realm  of  it  and  the  of  the  range  scientific  be  distancing, also  forms  always  aspired to  promote s c i e n t i f i c  can  particularly  professional (the  to  possibility  medicine,  conventions,  accounting,  added  conventions  universalism  fraud.  that  human  In  certain  the  prose  associated  f u n c t i o n t o make the  of  in  with  intolerable  suffering)  sufficiently  t o l e r a b l e t o be s t u d i e d . There prose  are  other,  conventions,  scientists.  prose  are  itself,  therefore, Science:  concealment  scientific promote  a  tendency  are  acts; cult of  and  of  person  speaker  (1)  source o f  the  scientific  attention  shown  that  (both  personal  scientific  (2)  the  tendency in  prose  between  prose  f o r the  matters  scientific of  to  the  theory texts  texts  science;  and  partly  responsibility  conventions  (3)  for to the  perpetuate  of s c i e n t i f i c paradigms. and r h e t o r i c i a n s have commented  scientific  The consensus scientific  of  of  certain  The n a t u r e o f  c e r t a i n issues  author-researcher  certain  of  the p o t e n t i a l i n s c i e n t i f i c  authority  in  has  of  relationship  responsibility.  in  raises  S e v e r a l language t h e o r i s t s the  worthy o f  the prose i t s e l f .  u n c r i t i c a l l y p a r t i c u l a r features  on  consequences  assumptions  perpetuated  the n a t u r e of  and p r a c t i c e o f for  and these  principles  disciplinary) of  obvious,  The r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s  unarticulated  because  less  is  that  writing  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  style  and a u t h o r i a l  absence leaves acts.  of  a  first-  ambiguous  the  The impersonal  211 s t y l e of s c i e n t i f i c to  relinquish  extension, Dallas  even t o  communication the  for  their  that  the  language  (309),  reluctance  among  their  and  by  work. to  be  ingredient for ethical  Philip  scientific  Rubens  writers  condemns  to  use  the  person: One can use the p h r a s e , weighed  128  grams"  "I found t h a t the  without  not  only  identifies  the  r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and, I s u s p e c t , engineers  and  others  person pronouns. Newall  Campbell  sample  destroying  n a t u r e of the observed measurement.  Paul  for  and,  must be s e l f - r e f l e x i v e  "I" i s a necessary  behavior  authors  writing  relinquish responsibility  High argues  directly  seen t o a l l o w s c i e n t i f i c  responsibility  responsible—that  first  writing is  the  factual  Such a statement  author,  it  places  i s e x a c t l y what makes  apprehensive  about  using  first  (334)  contends  there  can be  no prose  without  persona and t h a t the  recognition  would  call  for  observation  of  personae  an admission  made,  of  the  reference  underlying that  admission  of  observing. Campbell m a i n t a i n s  the  in of  point  distortion  view  or  and in  a  of  the  frame  of  similar  the  act  of  (401) that  while  scientific  at  the  what  of  discourse  humanness  involved  this  with  the  observation,  p e r c e i v i n g and i n t e r p r e t i n g agent, odds  scientific  he  says  are  w r i t i n g comes from a very  feature  god-terms  of  of  it  is  science:  212 objectivity, that  the  p r e d i c t a b i l i t y , and c o n t r o l .  objective  "neutral"  because  dramatically says,  says  impossible  present  authorial the  in  noting  of  (404);  scientific  prose  p e r s o n and the  scientific  scientific  be  of  passive  long  generally more as  not  view  is  objectifying,  he  correlates  corroborates  w r i t i n g obscure in  a consequence the  concerns issues  matters of  avoidance  voice)—a  of  of of  conventional of  the  first  byproduct, i n  effect,  modesty and the n o t i o n 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 As  case  neutral  in  Ambiguity  seem t o  any  stylistic  articles,  (particularly  use  in  argues  study.  the  responsibility. does  is  bias-free,  enact"  medical  conventions  responsibility  is  science  "the  to  study,  absence  authorial  of  he  in  s c i e n t i s t s d e - v a l u e what they  The  that  stance  Campbell a l s o  as  the  interchangeable—observers.  rhetoricity  of  scientific  unacknowledged and s c i e n t i f i c  a r t i c u l a t e witnesses  prose  writers  are  remains perceived  than as m o t i v a t e d a u t h o r s ,  there  no need f o r s c i e n t i s t s t o openly p r o c l a i m r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r  their  observations—or  observations, The  for  rhetorical  rhetoricity fiction agree  or  to  scientists  the  the  scientific  has prose  according to  share. shows  Research that  events  stylized  analysis  of  which,  for  the on  that  prose  that  demonstrated is  a  texts the  scientific  led  up  to  their  describes  them.  that  fiction;  yet  themselves, composing writers  the it  nonis  scientists  processes are  a  of  knowingly  p e r s u a s i v e i n t h e i r own c o m p o s i t i o n of both grant p r o p o s a l s and  213 articles  for  (Bazerman, that  publication  "Physicists")—as  scientists  reading,  are  receiving  (without,  however,  rhetoric);  other  Rymer);  as  other  common  and  people's  having the  of  non-neutral their  (Gilbert  Mulkay,  and  scientists  their  well  selective  inclinations,  their  and  sense—indicates  critical  in  their  work b r o a d l y as  means  to  research  read i t  own  rhetorical  thoroughly  i n t h e i r l a b o r a t o r y t a l k , s c i e n t i s t s acknowledge  importance  in  (Myers  c onfe ss work  own  hunches,  to  and  all  that  Still,  their  Latour  and  that  engage  writing  rhetoricity.  aspects  the  research—their  allegiances  to  in  hypotheses  conversation,  p e r s o n a l and even p o l i t i c a l  a kind  reveals  scientists  their  Woolgar);  is  in  of  as  of  some  metadiscourse  consciousness  continue  to  write  about of  as  its  though  they were a r t i c u l a t e w i t n e s s e s r a t h e r than m o t i v a t e d a u t h o r s . To  examine  there  is  be  keeping  consequence  will  significant  continue  in  with  the  highest  o f a u t h o r i a l absence  orchestrate  biases  no  rhetorically  their  to  conduct  the  of  the  w r i t i n g were g e n e r a l l y acknowledged, benefit  by  rhetorical made  by  openly premise,  authors,  approaching the that  for t h i s , ideals  research with  If  premise these  to  of  their  the  science,  knowledge  rhetoricity writers  all  choices  of  the  they and  scientific  and r e a d e r s would texts  texts are  in  scientific  own i d e n t i t i e s  scientific that  recognize  a l l o f which  for Science i s that  concealment  reports.  is  a u t h o r i a l presence  I r r e s p e c t i v e o f the reasons  in  authors  texts  conventionally  the p r o s e . may  scientific  from  embody  the  choices  conditioned  by  214 purposes,  audiences,  on s i t u a t i o n s  and s i t u a t i o n s ,  to  joint  also  authorship  in  notes some consequences scientific  prose.  authored by more than one have two e f f e c t s sense  ideal are  of  of  not  person.  science:  property  community and r e i n f o r c e  of  two-  study were  one i s  individuals;  however,  to  to confirm  the  "communalism," the n o t i o n t h a t s c i e n t i f i c the  the  J o i n t a u t h o r s h i p seems  i n the r h e t o r i c of  scientific  of  Nearly  t h i r d s o f the t h i r t y - f i v e a r t i c l e s examined f o r t h i s  a  act  by i n f l u e n c i n g r e a d e r s . 3  The r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s trend  and t h a t t h e s e c h o i c e s  scientific discoveries  the  other  is  p o t e n t i a l l y t o f u r t h e r d i f f u s e the e t h i c a l e f f e c t o f a p i e c e of writing—as individual sponsor  any  authorial  researchers  their  authorship  to  responsibility  underline  This the  study  problem  a u t h o r i t y sans author i n s c i e n t i f i c The  effect  of  authority  especially medical, texts, consequences  of  scientific  s t u d y has demonstrated  transferred  groups and t o the i n s t i t u t i o n s  research.  may  is  suggests of  the  from which  that  joint  projection  texts.*  itself  in  scientific,  i s another i s s u e i n the prose  conventions.  t h a t m e d i c a l prose i s  most  qualified  example, attacks, (Kirn,  writing,  "the  a  certainty  statements demands  of  convey child  so a  The  present  c h a r a c t e r i z e d by  pronounced t h a t tone  rearing  of can  and  " r e a l world"  a tone o f c e r t a i n t y d e r i v e d from the accumulated conventions scientific  of  even  authority. foster  of the For  migraine  and u n r e s o l v e d g r i e f may p l a y a r o l e i n some p a t i e n t s " "Migraine"  13)  is  presented  as  a  wholly  creditable  215 statement, authors,  the  in  u s i n g the of  more  so  keeping  with  qualifiers  opinion  are  for  other  statements  should  headache"  ( S i l b e r s t e i n 70)  direct.  and p e r p e t u a t e s in  the  and  be  of  of  with  knowledge  that  opinion.  That i s ,  texts)  physicians  practice  is  to  original  (textual)  .  .  using  medical  to  process  of  "All  cluster  writing  are  reinforces  reads  by (to  they the  which a  mediation  extent,  into  unambiguous  notion  revise  patients' are  system"  (94).  into acceptable their  sustained  so (96).  f e a t u r e of m e d i c a l p r a c t i c e as i t  of  medical  persons  is  is  is  important to  borrowed  m e d i c a l t e x t s even as m e d i c a l t e x t s are c r e d i b l e because of persons.  or  knowledge  accounts—and  f e a t u r e o f m e d i c a l t e x t s , ^ and i t  a u t h o r i t y of medical  the  i d i o m a t i c and sometimes  accounts  do not  writes  professionals  large  patients  classifications  authority  i n textbooks  some e x t e n t  a systematic  turn patients'  a significant  the  for  S o c i o l o g i s t Aaron C i c o u r e l a  accommodate  a significant  is  knowledge"  narratives;  structure  that  .  knowledge  Authority is  statements  The statement,  in  "convert the o f t e n  language  interpretable  avoid  the a u t h o r i t y o f the m e d i c a l d o c t o r who a p p l i e s  "schematized  declarative  their  prophylactically  authority  diagnosis  of  ambiguous  note  conventions,  The a u t h o r i t y of m e d i c a l w r i t i n g  (Medical  medical  Some  i s an example.5  between t e x t s and p a t i e n t s . )  armed  qualifiers.  p r a c t i c e o f medicine what he o r she  journals.  that  of  scientific  treated  consequences  especially  use  which would s i g n a l  patients  The  its  from the  216 A  final  scientific reflect  point  in  the  "real  world"  consequences  prose concerns the degree t o which prose certain  reflecting difficult  them,  biases  in  reinforce  "Serendipity  is  and  and  The p r o c e s s ,  Food  Sensitivity" Readers of t h i s  to agree i t  improved  when  was  placed  on  ulcers.  The p a t i e n t ' s  ulcers  had i n  ingestion However, the  of  thousands  of  the  "subject"  is  product of  two  is  case  fortuitous  a  restricted fact  viewed  i n the  processes  that  diet  for  his  article  the  symptoms.  Unstated assumptions  appropriateness  preventive)  of  approach t o  than i n t e g r a t e d )  view o f  an health  r a t h e r than  i n the  patients.  ulcers  for  his  and a  his  headaches.  as  a  whole  f o r one of  a r t i c l e pertain  interventionist care  the  i m p l i c i t l y as  p e r s o n whose h e a l t h was undermined by the treatment his  study  been caused by  aspirin tablets  disease  a  (Gettis),  headaches o f a p a t i e n t who was b e i n g t r e a t e d f o r g a s t r i c he  in  e x e m p l i f i e d f o r M e d i c i n e i n the  c o n s i d e r e d i n Chapter Three above. are i n c l i n e d (and expected)  conventions  paradigms  them u n c r i t i c a l l y .  one to p e n e t r a t e ,  article,  scientific  of  (rather  fragmented  to  than (rather  While a l l d i s c u r s i v e  acts  b e g i n w i t h some u n a r t i c u l a t e d assumptions shared between w r i t e r and a u d i e n c e ,  the o b j e c t i f y i n g  a r e r e i n f o r c e d i n the and  are  stylistic  p a r t i c u l a r l y well  assumptions signs  of  accommodated  of Western medicine neutral  in  observation,  scientific  prose.  The s c i e n t i f i c  a r t i c l e i s persuasive,  t h e n , not o n l y e x p l i c i t l y  by  what  implicitly  virtue  features  of  of the prose  it  claims,  itself.  but  by  virtue  of  217 Rhetoricians the t a c i t  studying  scientific  w r i t i n g are  studying  also  assumptions of the communities which produce i t .  Yet  r h e t o r i c i a n s are c o n s t r a i n e d i n t h e i r analyses their  own u n d e r s t a n d i n g of  since  they  communities  are  not  out  of  the  scientific  themselves  which those  texts  members  texts  by the l i m i t s of they  of  are  examine,  the  discourse  produced; they  are  f u r t h e r c o n s t r a i n e d by the r e l a t i v e n o v e l t y of a d i s c i p l i n e the  R h e t o r i c of  foray  into  Science,  uncharted  rhetorician  in  texts. all  is  and t o  scientific  the  is  the  the  study  the  rhetoric  of  to  science,  help  discursive  responsibility  of  texts,  of  the  means  of  rhetorical of  respect  to  a  necessary  the r h e t o r i c i a n  and must promote d i s c u s s i o n  especially  and  a  the l i v e s  with  Notwithstanding  writing  study i s  role  texts ultimately affect  great.  scientific  the  workings  i n approaching s p e c i a l i z e d  must  scientists,  study  rhetorician's  texts  cautiousness  to  Still,  illuminate  Because s c i e n t i f i c  people,  every d i s c o u r s e  territory.  society  human i n f l u e n c e  such t h a t  in  at  them become more l i t e r a t e  first  users  of  of  among their  prose.  The f i n d i n g s are s i g n i f i c a n t and  Rhetoric  Rhetoric of  of  the r h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s  also  for theorists  itself.  Science,  With the  of medical  i n both R h e t o r i c o f  respect  to  a  discipline  study has e s t a b l i s h e d  that  articles Science in  the  scientific  w r i t i n g has a complex r h e t o r i c a l n a t u r e , and i t has suggested a methodology  for  plumbing the  complex  rhetoric  of  scientific  218 texts. When a n a l y s e s  of  scientific  the c o m p l e x i t y of i t s issues  for  the  fulfilling  fail  of  Science,  rhetorician's  but  they  obligation  P.B.  into  which  they  Medawar and G i l b e r t  the  rhetoric  of and  speak  themselves,  are  with  neutrality,  scientific  practice.  scientific  writing is  its  and  for  its  Gilbert  Authors  example,  of the  the  the  such  argue  that  real  Mulkay's  as  that  appearance  implication  and  short  reveal  persuasive  misrepresents In  fall  and i n f l u e n c e  introduced.  and Mulkay,  science,  objectivity for  acknowledge  to  m u l t i p l i c i t y of ways t e x t s work on audiences situations  to  r h e t o r i c , they may suggest many p e r t i n e n t  Rhetoric  the  discourse  of  facts  nature  of  terminology,  "empirical," while s c i e n t i f i c  practice  is  "contingent."  to  Both Medawar and G i l b e r t and Mulkay c o n t r i b u t e a g r e a t  deal  the  all,  R h e t o r i c of  that  scientific  than  it  seeming  is  prose  (that  less  Science.  the  scientific  w r i t i n g would not  contingent).  continued  Furthermore,  salience  of  a  unbiased Gilbert  of  observation  science, or  they  scientific  of  improved by  indicate  insofar  empiricism,  and Mulkay s u g g e s t ,  the  correlative  ideal  of  "pure"  However, n e i t h e r Medawar nor  G i l b e r t and Mulkay go f a r enough i n t h e i r rhetoric  be  w r i t i n g i s the o b j e c t i v e  o b s e r v a t i o n and "pure" r e p o r t i n g .  The  first  s h o u l d not s t r i v e t o be more " e m p i r i c a l "  e x t e n t t o which s c i e n t i f i c of  They acknowledge,  as  analyses. it  does,  misrepresent  the  is as  rhetoric Medawar  real practice  of and of  219 science. writing  However, reveals  contingent  when r e a d as  itself  nature  context  of  to  of  scientific published  engage  in  do  contingent  q u a l i t y of  rhetoric,  scientific  be f u n c t i o n a l l y c o n s i s t e n t  their  scientists  complex  practice—for  within  professional  many behaviours  scientific  the the  conversation,  which  activity.  with  reproduce  Scientific  the  writers  argue i n t h e i r t e x t s t o e s t a b l i s h t h e i r r i g h t t o be h e a r d ; they rationalize research;  their they  studies;  assert  they  the  value  claim of  priority  their  past  for  their  work;  they  f l a t t e r and c o u r t t h e i r peers and a s s o c i a t e themselves w i t h the best of  them; they propose p a r t i c u l a r ways o f  and d e p l o y s t a t i s t i c s  l o o k i n g at  t o make t h e i r arguments c o n v i n c i n g ;  i d e n t i f y w i t h the l a r g e r e n t e r p r i s e o f s c i e n c e and f a c i l i t y with i t s complex  scientific The  scientific  not  its  their  then,  as  has  many  Medawar s a y s ,  o r about the  hypotheses  (42).  contingent  a r t i c l e , read as  about  the  features;  biases  of  which s c i e n t i f i c Some of  the  science  its  authors affecting  "by-ways o f thought" which l e a d  Yet r e a d as complex r h e t o r i c ,  p e r s u a s i v e manouevers r e v e a l e d , the s c i e n t i f i c  rhetoric  of  suggest.  Scientific  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 the  demonstrate  and Mulkay  are s i m p l y not o v e r t .  as  they  misrepresentative  as Medawar and G i l b e r t  features  candid,  The s c i e n t i f i c  not,  article  t h e i r observations to  is  inquiry  contingent are  conventions.  rhetoric,  data,  deconstructs  the  article is a  inquiry. shared  with  In  fact,  fictions  on  t e x t s are b u i l t . c o m p l e x i t y of  scientific  rhetoric is  suggested  220 i n a r e c e n t r e p o r t by c o m p o s i t i o n r e s e a r c h e r Jone Rymer. did  a  protocol  process  of  compose  aloud,  analysis  of  an  writing a scientific using  an  audio  verbalized thinking process. commitment  to  using  reconciled with his his  own  his  desire  to  the  research,  conventions  knowing  of  (which  "profession  that  of  use  using  science"  (which  scientific  the  of  usefulness not  layering  o f her a n a l y s i s  consider  itself.  the  Rymer  seems  to  such  a  she  in  description analysis, as  well  of  the  author,  texts to  are, shape  violate  that  the  "business  of  features) as  itself  in  and  the  "empirical").  rhetoric;  of  however,  the  that i t  does  scientific  a pure  science  inquiry which  is  is practiced.  based  on  the  A  rhetorical  as f o r m a t i v e , and c o n s i d e r s  audience,  i n every c a s e , their  of  c o m p o s i t i o n suggests some of  rhetoric,  context the  findings  more complex than Rymer s u g g e s t s .  scientific  recognizes  Scientific authors  rhetoric is  be  returned  argues  the  sees  quality  believe  to  term would  Rymer  t a i n t e d by the impure c o n t e x t s i n which i t Scientific  needed  l i m i t e d by the f a c t  contingent  his  scientist's  d e s c r i b e the  scientific is  subject  preserve  scientist  "contingent"  Rymer's d e s c r i p t i o n o f complex  the  modesty.)  has  the  language t h a t would promote  simultaneously  says  to  conventions  "dramatic" t o  works she  tape-recorder  example,  scientific  scientist-author science"  to  in  She had her  Rymer found t h a t the  (For term  scientist"  article.  scientific  research.  repeatedly  "eminent  Rymer  and the  purpose o f  texts.  the r e s u l t o f attempts  preconceptions,  by  definitions,  221 observations,  and  interpretations  which meets t h e i r integrity, needs  own needs  and f o r  for  into  some  for professional  discursive  form  satisfaction  and  funding and r e c o g n i t i o n ; which meets r e a d e r  information,  supplied  i n some c o n s i s t e n t  format and  unencumbered by what may appear t o be extraneous  accounts;  and  which  discovery  and  meets  progress  the  needs  within  the  of  their  discipline  constraints  of  the  for  normative  ethos  of  science., The  present  rhetorical  d e s c r i p t i o n of of  scientific  extending  scientific  the  analysis  in  such  a  complex  prose and suggests as w e l l the  description  texts  suggests  through  further  the  research  analysis which  of  text  base  writing. of  thirty-five  medical  but  texts  articles,  predictive  in  the  examples  T h i s a n a l y s i s worked i n d u c t i v e l y from a  r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e s i z e of the sample, descriptive,  other  applies  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 of s c i e n t i f i c  means  of  particular  it  and  of  the  i s meant t o be not o n l y  strategies and  because  other  occurring in scientific  other  texts  in  meaning  of  general. To  the  "rhetoric  extent of  rhetorical  that  science" analysis,  the  analysis  and suggests it  is  rhetorical  significant because i t  strategies  for  the  operating  discipline  of  the  a methodology  significant  d i s c i p l i n e o f R h e t o r i c of S c i e n c e . of  expands  for  for  the  further emerging  The r e v e l a t i o n o f the in  medical  texts  Rhetoric i t s e l f ,  is  range also  especially  s e r v e s t o c l a r i f y the r e l a t i o n s h i p between R h e t o r i c  222 and  Science,  disciplines  which have  been  historically  s e p a r a t e d o r ambiguously and p r o b l e m a t i c a l l y brought R h e t o r i c was, of  for A r i s t o t l e ,  deliberation  science"  (12),  .  .  .  for  and where  unartful Style;  which we  artistic  have  or  paths  of  Rhetoric, the  "men" were r e c e p t i v e  two  t o the  Science  have  not  theory,  some  intellectual  still  prevails.  Rhetoric define  is  proofs  such as the  or  were  testimony  split  discomfort  unemotional  a matter  of  o n l y because not  "naked" t r u t h .  condition  above).  they,  Burke,  p a r t , was  intersected  remained c l e a r l y  c l e a r l y acknowledge  "suasive"  art  all  While R h e t o r i c and in  with  twentieth-century their  relationship  Chaim Perelman and R i c h a r d Weaver c l a i m t h a t  the  Introduction  While  special  enthymemic  for i t s  of  all  language,  a realm f o r R h e t o r i c a g a i n s t  Science,  no  F o r Bacon, S c i e n c e was a matter o f i n a r t i s t i c o r  t r u t h , while  the  together.  "applied to recognized subjects  more t o be v a l u e d than i n a r t i s t i c p r o o f s , of witnesses.  either  While  Kenneth  realm of  Burke  and  both  seek  Science Wayne  to (see  Booth  the marriage of the realms o f R h e t o r i c and  neither for  the  yet  of  them,  example,  scientific  (LASA 45),  completely  proclaims  that  nomenclatures"  he does not s u b j e c t  embrace "even are  Science. the  most  "necessarily  particular  scientific  t e x t s t o the same r h e t o r i c a l s c r u t i n y he a p p l i e s t o o t h e r t e x t s in his c r i t i c a l writings. are  subjected  present Rhetoric  study and  to of  Yet when p a r t i c u l a r s c i e n t i f i c  r h e t o r i c a l s c r u t i n y as medical  Science  is  articles, fully  the  texts  they have been i n relationship  disambiguated,  the  between  compelling  a  223 rhetorical  theory  scientific  texts.  Rhetorical Rhetoric  which does  analysis  and  Science  clarifies not  which t r a d i t i o n a l l y has nature  of  the  completely  the  s i m p l y by  embrace  Science  relationship  dissolving  and  between  the  boundary  s e p a r a t e d them, but by s u g g e s t i n g  relationship  between  Rhetoric  and  the  reality.  R h e t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s demonstrates t h a t w h i l e t h e r e may indeed be an e m p i r i c a l  and s e n s i b l e w o r l d ,  of t a b l e s  and c h a i r s and even  v i r u s e s and b a c t e r i a , any attempt t o d e s c r i b e o r t o account f o r t h a t w o r l d i n symbolic language i s degrees, writes, an  rhetorical. even t o say  interest  in  i m p l i c a t i o n of  As  necessarily,  literary  and t o  theorist  Terry  varying Eagleton  "This c a t h e d r a l was b u i l t i n 1612"  dates  (13).  This  language i n u s e ,  is  the  inescapable  betrays act  of  an a c t which does not however  presume t o deny the e x i s t e n c e of any e x t e r n a l and a p p r e h e n s i b l e reality. Traditional notion  that  scientific,  views certain  were  of  Science kinds  outside  of the  and R h e t o r i c have upheld the assertions, realm  of  thought  to  Rhetoric.  "This  c a t h e d r a l was b u i l t i n 1612" would be an example o f t h a t of  assertion,  p e r t a i n i n g to  r e c o r d s and e v i d e n c e . monitored  4 times  the  factual  nature  time  In the m e d i c a l l i t e r a t u r e "Subjects  daily  for  a two-cycle  baseline"  another example o f t h a t k i n d o f a s s e r t i o n . be u n d e r s t o o d as  of  saying that  the  fact  that  be  kind and self-  would be  T e r r y E a g l e t o n may the  c a t h e d r a l was  b u i l t i n 1612 does not make the statement t h a t i t was,  neutral.  224 The  fact  that  the  subjects  in  a particular  experiment  self-  m o n i t o r e d 4 times d a i l y f o r a t w o - c y c l e b a s e l i n e does not make the  statement  analysis of  that  shows,  they  did, non-rhetorical.  f o r example, t h a t the statement  an argument from example,  scientific  language  rhetorical  effect  researchers, experiment In  used of  in  report  increasing  scientists  the  present  made  their  to  Science.  Still,  proposals  that  the  the  research  credibility  the  who  study  wrote designed  observations  ideals  the  of  medical  the  language  raised  the  funds  no  is  must  they  for  challenges  other  texts  as  bound  than the  used  their  to  articles their  compose  research,  all  to  the the  for publication i n were engaged  to  Rhetoric,  Scientist,  must  What t h i s means i n i t i a l l y  ipso  addressing  as  thus  less  those  conceived  the  and r e c o r d e d them,  j o u r n a l s , those s c i e n t i s t s  w i t h the m a r r i a g e .  purview,  of  in  process.  Science  it  the  n e u t r a l i t y and o b j e c t i v i t y i n  from  professional  Rhetorician,  that  has  and performed  language t h e y used t o w r i t e t h e i r a r t i c l e s  If  part  and t h a t the h i g h l y c o n v e n t i o n a l  to  the  with attention  rhetorical  is  itself.  experiments,  major  itself  and drawing a t t e n t i o n away from weaknesses i n the  fact,  analyzed  The r h e t o r i c a l  facto to  that they  include  scientific Rhetoric at  its  have  in  acted  come t o  those  best the  the terms  for Rhetoric is  scientific texts  then  texts  in  its  questions  and  has  addressed  world.  a humanistic d i s c i p l i n e w i t h t i e s  to  to  Rhetoric, Dialectic,  225 Epistemology/ texts not  it  Psychology,  engenders  as  recipe  evaluates  its  somehow  "good."  bear  most  of  the  texts  effect  means  speech;  fullness  o r the  for  the  and E t h i c s , i s not i n d i f f e r e n t t o  of  but  it as  describes. a quality  It of  views  the  Style  substance;  a speech w i t h r e g a r d t o  the  it  ends of  a  honoured speeches are not o n l y e f f e c t i v e  but  These concerns  the  rhetorical  on s c i e n t i f i c  texts  of  the d i s c i p l i n e  critique  once they  that are  must  suggest  be  treated  brought  as  to  legitimate  rhetoric. The  framework  for  the  discipline  of  traditionally  i n c l u d e d an u n d e r s t a n d i n g  of  the  of  the  practice  understanding redress.  the  that  a  were  As the  contexts  rhetoric  for  rhetoric  speeches pulpit  (at  theory,  identified  Epideictic.  also  it  is  contemporary  In c l a s s i c a l  rhetoric  for  art—and  political, changed  changed.  study  occasions  as  the  spread  of  occasions  for  limits of  Deliberative, economic,  has  of  this  rhetoric  must  for—and kinds Forensic,  social,  of— and  and c u l t u r a l  over  time  and p l a c e ,  occasions  They  came  to  military  the time of the Roman E m p i r e ) ,  (with  the  Rhetoric  Christianity),  include  addresses from the and by the  Middle  Ages, r h e t o r i c a l occasions  i n c l u d e d a l s o the w r i t i n g o f  letters  and  poetry.  of  the  composition  Renaissance were not  to  the  expanded  of  From  twentieth-century, in  any n o t a b l e  way,  the  occasions  time for  although of  the  rhetoric  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 w r i t t e n t e x t s . Now,  in  the  late  twentieth  century,  a  complete  theory  of  226 Rhetoric  must  occasions begun,  self-consciously  for r h e t o r i c a l process.  but  politics  it  must c o n t i n u e .  and  Epideictic  jurisprudence  rhetoric,  Perelman, however, the  funeral  argues,  identify  epideictic  the  contemporary  The e x p a n s i o n i s t  Rhetoric i s and  in  especially  the  still  project  occasioned  realm of  with  the  the  work  has by  church.  of  Chaim  i s now seen t o extend beyond the ceremony of  oration  for  all  or  example, rhetoric.  the  after-dinner  that  formal  Both  the  speech.  education  epideictic  Perelman  is  a  kind  speech  and  of the  r h e t o r i c o f the c l a s s r o o m , he w r i t e s , appeal t o common v a l u e s , formulated, with  the  made  by  u n d i s p u t e d though not  one  consequent  who  is  qualified  strengthening  those v a l u e s w i t h a view t o p o s s i b l e  of later  to  do  so,  adherence  to  action.  (TNR 53) In t h i s  c e n t u r y , a new r h e t o r i c a l o c c a s i o n has emerged w i t h the  r e c o g n i t i o n o f a g e n e r i c r h e t o r i c of a d v e r t i s i n g . c e n t u r y , Kenneth Burke, Wayne Booth, E . P . J .  Also i n  this  C o r b e t t , and o t h e r s  have d e s c r i b e d a r h e t o r i c a l view of i m a g i n a t i v e l i t e r a t u r e Chapter Two above). of  Rhetoric  to  architectural theory,  include  structures.  from the  project  even  non-discursive  With a l l of t h i s  forms,  realm  such  as  work i n r h e t o r i c a l  the realm o f R h e t o r i c has become more encompassing.  In many ways, texts  Burke i n a d d i t i o n has expanded the  (see  the  present  project,  r h e t o r i c a l perspective,  for imaginative  literature  i n analyzing  scientific  p a r a l l e l s Wayne Booth's  i n The R h e t o r i c o f  Fiction.  227 Booth's  purpose  imaginative because  in  prose  fiction  Rhetoric  as  a  was  of  Fiction  rhetorical  rhetorical  whether  to  kind of  r h e t o r i c he w i l l use"  genre  ("The  use r h e t o r i c a l h e i g h t e n i n g .  was and  author  to to  argue  cannot  [119] ),  it  7  that  choose  His only choice  is  the  had consequences  the r e a l w o r l d ; i t had a moral d i m e n s i o n , and i t s moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y .  identify  in  authors had a  The r h e t o r i c i t y of f i c t i o n ,  a c c o r d i n g to  Booth, c a l l e d f o r an u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f how r e a d e r s are persuaded by arguments i n f i c t i o n , good  writer  from  rhetoricity critically i n form,  of at  a  and f o r the knowledge o f how t o t e l l  bad  fiction the  or  a morally  meant  arguments  of  and t h e i r s o u r c e s . [W]hat  is  needed  and  the  audiences  fiction,  their  had  form  actions that  are  is  is  .  .  .  a  that  are  look  repudiation  of  all  among "pure form," "moral  rhetorical  means  formed  to  make  can  never  be  made  human meanings,  to  The  representations  of  realizing  the r e a d e r the u n i o n of form and m a t t e r . human  one.  Booth w r i t e s :  arbitrary distinctions content,"  that  indifferent  a  an  for  When art  work,  the  from  the  divorced  i n c l u d i n g the moral judgments,  implicit  whenever  human  beings  act.  And  n o t h i n g 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 h i s e f f o r t to  someone  reader, To  view  else—his  h i s audience.  science  t o make i t peers,  all  accessible  himself  as  imagined  (ROF 397)  rhetorically  is  s i m i l a r l y to  locate  its  228 arguments,  study  speakers. the  its  Like f i c t i o n ,  r e a l world, of  Boothian  questions  scientific  and  authorial  its  scientific  and t h e r e f o r e  element  The  language  forms,  judge  a moral dimension and a  fiction  its  w r i t i n g has consequences i n  responsibility.  for  and  are  In  strong  principle,  the  appropriately directed  texts.  present  study  and  other  rhetoric—especially  because of  texts—continue  expansion  the  examinations  their of  the  of  scientific  attention  to  particular  realm of  Rhetoric,  not  o n l y i n t h e o r y but i n p r a c t i c e , and suggest furthermore t h a t the  to  texts of  Science,  which have t r a d i t i o n a l l y been  if  considered  out o f the realm of R h e t o r i c , are demonstrably r h e t o r i c a l , then a  fortiori  all  rhetorical. the  (Indeed,  realm of  type  of  texts  will  not  the  which might  but must study  discourse  communities  What, Rhetoric, texts  of  once  however, its  Science?  ways i n which s c i e n t i f i c  there  is  in any  description  for rhetoric,  rhetoricians  r h e t o r i c a l examination o f the to  texts  of  describe  other  and  must  texts  of  specific  predict  the  rhetoricity.8  is  the  purview has First  entrenched  if  claim i n  degree,  To a r r i v e a t a complete  order  n a t u r e and degree of t h e i r  some  Science  may ask  still  as w e l l  in  to  significant  forward i n the  science,  be,  any  contemporary o c c a s i o n s  o n l y go  to  realm o f  rhetoricians  way not t o be r h e t o r i c a l . ) of  found  w i t h the  Rhetoric,  discourse  be  of  immediate been  all,  it  responsibility  expanded must  to  include  suggest the  of the  precise  t e x t s may be r e a d as complex r h e t o r i c .  229 A  study  such  as  the  present  one  begins  to  accomplish  that  purpose.  S e c o n d l y , i t must suggest d i r e c t i o n s not o n l y f o r the  education  of  scientists  but  for  the  all  are  ultimately  they w r i t e The  education  revealed  nature  within  which about  of  as  of  well. "serves  Biology  as  of  of  all  those  texts,  "citizens",  scientists  a  as  of  write  for  and how  scientific  to  be  particular Halloran  not  only  community, has  noted  a warrant f o r many o f non-specialized, A l s o on the  Public Discourse, that  specialized,  is  Public ways  in  arguments  civic subject  it  but  the  has  rhetoric  the  questions" of  scientific  Speech Communication P r o f e s s o r  with  scientific  laypeople  are  discourse  becoming  discouraged,  from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n c e r t a i n d e c i s i o n s  own w e l l - b e i n g .  texts  r h e t o r i c a l e d u c a t i o n because discourse  81).  Wander argues  increasingly  nature  Michael  traditionally  prevented,  by what  rhetorical  confines  ("Molecular  Philip  affected  scientific  science  discourse  primary u s e r s  and empowerment  for a general  the  Discourse  the  it.  implications the  as  indeed  about  their  He w r i t e s :  R e l i a n c e on t e c h n i c a l language i n p u b l i c debate rhetorically  significant,  whatever i t s  imperfections,  for  in  a  democracy,  people have a r i g h t ,  on the important p u b l i c i s s u e s , t o know the s o c i a l and economic f a c t s conclusions  to  be  is  relevant  as w e l l as the p o l i c y  drawn from them.  When the  of p u b l i c debate becomes too s p e c i a l i z e d ,  the  language laity  230 i s encouraged t o remain s i l e n t .  (227)  Both H a l l o r a n and Wander argue t h a t i n o r d e r t o p a r t i c i p a t e i n d e c i s i o n s 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 t o understand— and t o d i s c u s s — s c i e n t i f i c It  might  science,  be  information.  argued  that  this  external  discourse  the d i s c o u r s e brought t o the p u b l i c forum,  i s the o n l y  d i s c o u r s e o f s c i e n c e which concerns " c i t i z e n s " and i s the  only  might  discourse  be  argued  which  should  concern  that  there  are,  c o n v e r s a t i o n s among s c i e n t i s t s , those  conversations  may be  a r t i c l e on the  physics)  relevant  rhetoric article  of s c i e n c e for  language o f "both  of  the  laypeople,  their  point  Atomic  the  form  A s i n g l e reference to a  that  (applied  the  Scientists.  "technostrategic  shapes  It  private  internal  a l s o of consequence t o c i t i z e n s .  about  and  effect,  nuclear technology  the  nuclear technologists,  reflects  project"  is  Bulletin  C a r o l Conn w r i t e s  makes  rhetoricians.  in  to  not.  language of  dramatically  therefore  and t h a t w h i l e the substance of  (and t h e i r i n t e r n a l r h e t o r i c ) i s recent  of  psychologist  language," the  a language w h i c h , she American  In an  nuclear  inside says,  strategic  (17): T e c h n o s t r a t e g i c language a r t i c u l a t e s o n l y the p e r s p e c t i v e of the u s e r s of n u c l e a r weapons, not the victims. offers  Speaking  distance,  alternative escape  from  the  expert  language  a f e e l i n g of c o n t r o l ,  focus  for  thinking  one's of  only  and an  energies; oneself  not  as  it  also a  offers  victim  of  231 nuclear  war.  reduced  .  .  .  I  anxiety  suspect  about  that  nuclear  much  war  of  the  commonly  e x p e r i e n c e d by both new speakers o f the language and longtime e x p e r t s comes from c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of  the  language  by  its  content  and  itself:  abstraction, mastering concerns  are  victims.  (22)  significant  talking  about  laypeople,  say  that  and  the  those  fact  of  afforded  how the  that  the  about Cohn's  but how,  t o themselves  distance  the sense of c o n t r o l a f f o r d e d by  it,  What i s  the  its  users  rather  analysis  technologists  is  represent  f o r t h e i r own p u r p o s e s ,  and t o each o t h e r .  using technostrategic  the  and i t s  enormity  of  technology  on  striking,  for  demonstrates write  uses) the  which  she  particularly  is  about the r h e t o r i c o f  (See Burke,  The e x i s t e n c e responsibility  of  of  to  they represent  it  a c r i t i q u e of  the It  have  that  is  because  science is  an  and  one the of the  additionally  discussion,  critics  science  o b l i g a t i o n t o w r i t e about the as Nazism  of  this  rhetorical  not  technology  striking  reporting.  of  is  language a c t u a l l y p r e v e n t s  consequences  purposes  that  is  she  the  Her argument (she goes on t o  from a r t i c u l a t i n g , and even from f o r m u l a t i n g , technology  that  than  because obligation  as g r e a t as  it to  their  r h e t o r i c of mass movements such  "The R h e t o r i c of H i t l e r ' s B a t t l e , P L F ) .  a complex r h e t o r i c o f  r h e t o r i c i a n s to  educate  science people  argues to  the  evaluate  232 scientific  notions  critically  such  "permissible Rhetoric  rhetorical  concepts  levels  of  as  representations,  "safe  toxins."  doses As  do  both  that  of  was  a  safe not  habitually  "in  reported  helpful  yesterday  be  to  this  within  the  a  safe  level  rhetoric,  context  of  a  Perhaps even  to  this,  scientific  for  reported  years  of  that  ago  Science  is  must  rhetoricians  done—and t o  theory  not  drug,  is  20  role  demonstrate  recognizes  all  for r h e t o r i c .  as r h e t o r i c i s do  the  any more.  is  do not  so t h a t what was " i n sun  and the  how t h a t  read science  uncertainty of  to  also  be  knowledge  t o meditate  cognizant  is,  as  of  on the  Kenneth Burke  " l i k e p e e r i n g over the edge of t h i n g s i n t o an u l t i m a t e  (LASA 5 ) .  rhetoricians  at  fact"  the  of language use as o c c a s i o n s  flux.  forms o f  exposure  demonstrate  Perhaps t o  suggests  of  be r e a d as  must  occasions  level  facts  Moreover,  that  to  is  of  so  fact"  abyss"  philosophers  change,  changes,  the  or  reality  harmful t o d a y , but r e a l i t y i t s e l f  receiving  radiation"  and t h e y do not speak f o r themselves.  accounts  example,  simply  of  and p h i l o s o p h e r s of S c i e n c e would a g r e e ,  hold s t i l l only  as  is  Yet i t to  discourse,  stake,  is  necessary  study the  to  persuasive  look.  moves  The r o l e  a t work i n  even the most s a c r e d ; and, because  t o engage p e o p l e ,  both s p e c i a l i s t s  of all  so much  and l a y p e o p l e ,  i n t a l k i n g about them. Throughout  the  history  of  Rhetoric,  characteristically  focussed  attention  the  on a  discipline  series  of  has  related  concerns—about the r e l a t i o n s h i p between thought and language,  233 the  nature  truth  (or  society, in  the  knowledge  reality),  the  and how i t role  of  is  a c q u i r e d , the  persuasive  nature  of  communication  in  and the o b l i g a t i o n of a s o c i e t y t o educate i t s means of  addressed writing,  of  all the  of  persuasive those  rhetorical  communication.  concerns nature  argued, o n l y f u r t h e r e x p l o r e d .  of  with  This  respect  which  is  no  people  analysis to  has  scientific  longer  to  be  234 Endnotes 1. Ziman s a y s the  work  seem a l r e a d y p a r t  Ziman d i s c u s s i o n , 2. The in  observed  i s never  argued  expectations argued  Chapter  physicist  changed  have  "impersonal  the  examining  of  furthermore  that  scientific  (Public  t o make  118).  See  phenomena  are  above.  Heisenberg  observed  i n addition  i s an attempt  o f t h e consensus"  One  process  influence  phraseology  argued  being  that  observed—so  that  what  is  as i n n a t u r e ; p h i l o s o p h e r s o f S c i e n c e that  theoretical  a l l perception; no  texts,  language  preconceptions  rhetorical  i s without  the c r i t i c a l  reader  and  theory  has  tendency.  In  i s examining  the  w o r k o f a p e r s o n n e c e s s a r i l y b i a s e d as o b s e r v e r , a s i n q u i r e r , a n d as  author. 3. R h e t o r i c i a n  Guinn  provides  writing from of  (albeit  Lewis  of  rhetoricity.  composing  pertinent  theorist  example  of  Dorothy  rhetorical  f o r a more g e n e r a l a u d i e n c e ) .  Thomas' L i v e s  writing  example  a  and  with  a  of a C e l l  positive  scientific Lewis  ethos;  which  Guinn's  excerpt  i t i s also  acknowledges  its  an own  writes:  In a recent study o f the r e a c t i o n patients  scientific  i s , as s h e s a y s , a n example  authorial  writing  Margaret  with  obstructive  was c o n c l u d e d t h a t  of the dying i n  disease of the lungs, i t  t h e p r o c e s s was c o n s i d e r a b l y more  shattering  f o r the professional  observers than the  observed.  Most o f t h e p a t i e n t s  appeared  preparing  themselves  with  equanimity  t o be  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 w i t h the b u s i n e s s .  One  e l d e r l y woman r e p o r t e d t h a t the o n l y p a i n f u l and d i s t r e s s i n g p a r t of the process was i n b e i n g interrupted;  on s e v e r a l o c c a s i o n s  she was p r o v i d e d  w i t h c o n v e n t i o n a l t h e r a p e u t i c measures t o m a i n t a i n oxygenation o r r e s t o r e 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 o f coming back harrowing; she deeply r e s e n t e d the i n t e r f e r e n c e w i t h her d y i n g . I f i n d myself s u r p r i s e d by the thought t h a t d y i n g is  an a l l - r i g h t t h i n g t o do, but i t  surprise.  It  is,  should not  a f t e r a l l , the most a n c i e n t and  fundamental of b i o l o g i c f u n c t i o n s , w i t h  its  mechanisms worked out w i t h the same a t t e n t i o n detail,  to  the same p r o v i s i o n f o r the advantage o f  the  organism, the same abundance of g e n e t i c i n f o r m a t i o n f o r guidance through the s t a g e s , t h a t we have l o n g s i n c e become accustomed t o f i n d i n g i n a l l the a c t s of l i v i n g . In t h i s  excerpt,  conventional  Thomas observes  style.  vocabulary.  Thomas,  a scientist,  makes and  certain  claims  through  his  Yet the  with  responsibility that  voice  effect  of  and some s t a n d a r d the  piece  is  has made c e r t a i n o b s e r v a t i o n s ,  assertions  style  32-3)  many of the p r e s c r i p t i o n s of  He uses p a s s i v e  scientific as  ( quoted i n Guinn  for  while  crucial  respect those his  to  those  assertions.  observations  that  and now  observations, He are  implies  based  on  236 evidence,  they  evidence,  are  based  also  on  his  own  interpretation  of  and h i s a s s e r t i o n s are s u b j e c t to the e v a l u a t i o n of a  critical  reader.  Moreover, Thomas' prose i s  clear—not i n  the  sense t h a t i t can be seen t h r o u g h , l i k e g l a s s , but i n the sense that  it  communicates,  without  obfuscation,  a u t h o r and what he means to say. c l e a r because o f ("the  business"  its  use of  and r e p e t i t i o n  provision  .  .  such s t y l i s t i c  the  ("the  sense  of  the  I t i s more, r a t h e r than l e s s ,  o f d y i n g ) , analogy  living"),  a  (to  d e v i c e s as metaphor  " a l l the c r u c i a l a c t s of  same a t t e n t i o n  same abundance").  .  .  . the  Thomas' e x c e r p t  here as an i n d i c a t i o n of the d i r e c t i o n t h a t s c i e n t i f i c  same  stands  writing,  acknowledged t o be r h e t o r i c a l , might t a k e . 4. A confounding problem i s articles, piece  a  noted  researcher  that  i n many j o i n t l y authored  attaches  his  or  her  name  o f work l a r g e l y done and w r i t t e n up by graduate  or post-doctoral  fellows.  (Very d i s t u r b i n g q u e s t i o n s  and a u t h o r s h i p have been r a i s e d r e c e n t l y  in politics  to  a  students of  ethos  with  the  r e v e l a t i o n by U . S . P r e s i d e n t Reagan's ex-spokesman L a r r y Speaks that  he  president text  is  (Speaks)  routinely  had never u t t e r e d . not  necessarily  authored the t e x t ,  the  attributed  to  Reagan  words  When the name a s s o c i a t e d name of  the  person who  the  with a actually  the problem of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y becomes a c u t e .  I t may be p o s s i b l e problem o f ambiguous  that,  in its  own way,  attribution.)  Science  faces  such a  237 5.  In  addition,  authority  by v i r t u e  authorial  pretensions  literature  success  Benson  important (placebo  texts—like  textuality  to certainty,  a l l texts—have  alone,  and l i t e r a c y .  treatment.  notes  aspect  that  of placebo  effect  being  discussed i n  See O l s o n .  In t h i s faith  effect  irrespective of  as has been  a u t h o r i t y i s known t o a c c o u n t  of medical  Herbert  of their  on o r a l i t y  6. M e d i c a l  scientific  a t times  f o r the  regard, medical  in  the  doctor,  physician  is  an  i n t h e c a r e o f some p a t i e n t s  "any n o n s p e c i f i c  aspect  of  treatment")  (Benson 1 2 ) . 7. E l s e w h e r e author  i n ROF,  c a n t o some  extent  Booth  writes:  choose  ".  .  . although  the  h i s d i s g u i s e s , he c a n n e v e r  choose t o disappear" (20). 8. C o m p u t e r rhetorically. respect  of  One m i g h t  t o the kinds  epistemic kinds  software  can, examine  example,  software,  o f t h i n k i n g pathways  effect—since  particular  o f t h i n k i n g and d i s c o u r a g e  computer  for  terminology  and computer  i t forges  from t h e r h e t o r i c a l p o i n t o f view.  might  interested  programs, well.  most They  difference,  i n considering  obviously might  also  rhetorically,  between  an  "Remove t h e d i s k f r o m D r i v e A b e f o r e one  that  says,  programs,  interested  "CAUTION: Remove y o u r  certain  in  effect  i s also  worth  Technical writers  the ethos  interactive be  encourage  metaphors  with  and t h e i r  The f o r m a t i v e  examining be  examined  f o r example,  programs  others.  be  of  particular  but others  considering  instruction  that  as the  says,  t u r n i n g o f f computer" and disk  from  Drive A  before  turning off  your  computer.  239 Bibliography A.  Primary  Ad  Hoc Committee o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n o f 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 o f t h e American M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 179.9 ( 1 9 6 2 ) : 717-719.  B a r n a t , M i c h a e l R. and A l v i n E . L a k e , I I I . " P a t i e n t About Headache." Headache S e p t . 1983: 229-237. Bell,  Attitudes  Noa W i e s e l b e r g e t a l . " B i o f e e d b a c k , B r i e f P s y c h o t h e r a p y T e n s i o n H e a d a c h e . " Headache J u l y 1983: 162-172.  and  Bending, Jeremy J . "Recurrent B i l a t e r a l Reversible Migrainous H e m i p a r e s i s During Pregnancy." Canadian M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n Journal 15 S e p t . 1982: 508-509. Blau, . Blau,  J . N.  Letter.  Lancet  "Towards a D e f i n i t i o n F e b . 1984: 444-445.  29 S e p t . of  1984: 926.  Migraine  Headache."  J . N. a n d Seymour Diamond. " D i e t a r y P r e c i p i t a t i o n : The P h y s i c i a n s ' V i e w . " 184-187.  Letter.  L a n c e t 26 Nov.  C r e d i t o r , M o r t o n C. "Me and M i g r a i n e . " M e d i c i n e 14 O c t . 1986: 1029-1032.  25  Factors i n Migraine Headache J u n e 1985:  B l u m e r , D i e t r i c h and Mary H e i l b r o n n . " C h r o n i c M u s c l e H e a d a c h e a n d t h e P a i n - P r o n e D i s o r d e r . " Headache 180-183. Cook, G.E. and R. J o s e p h . 1256-7.  Lancet  New  Contraction July 1982:  1983:  England  Journal of  D a r o f f , R o b e r t B. and C h r i s t i n a M. W h i t n e y . " T r e a t m e n t o f V a s c u l a r H e a d a c h e s . " Headache O c t . 1986: 470-472. Diamond, Seymour. " I b u p r o f e n V e r s u s A s p i r i n a n d P l a c e b o i n T r e a t m e n t o f M u s c l e C o n t r a c t i o n H e a d a c h e . " Headache S e p t . 1983: 206-210. "Treatment of Chronic Headache. Approach." Postgraduate Medicine 81.2  t h e  A Nonpharmocologic ( 1 9 8 7 ) : 91-9.6.  Diamond, Seymour and J.N. B l a u . " D i e t and H e a d a c h e . Is There a Link?" Postgraduate Medicine 79.4 ( 1 9 8 6 ) : 279-286. Domino, J u l i a V. and J o e l D. H a b e r . " P r i o r P h y s i c a l and S e x u a l A b u s e i n Women w i t h C h r o n i c H e a d a c h e : C l i n i c a l C o r r e l a t e s . "  240 Headache  J u n e 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 a n d 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 o f Headache." Headache J a n . 1986: 57. Edmeads, J o h n . E d i t o r i a l ,  57.  .  Editorial,  " F o r t h e New Y e a r . "  "Headache  and Deja  Headache J a n .  V u . " Headache  Sept.  1986: 1986:  434-435. .  Editorial, "Placebos Headache Nov. 1984:  a n d t h e Power 342-343.  o f Negative  Thinking."  Egger, J . e t a l . " I s M i g r a i n e Food A l l e r g y ? A D o u b l e - B l i n d C o n t r o l l e d T r i a l o f O l i g o a n t i g e n i c D i e t Treatment." Lancet  15 O c t . 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 H e a d a c h e s : A C o n t i n u u m . " Headache J u n e 1985: 194-198. F e a t h e r s t o n e , H a r v e y J . a n d B e r n a r d D. B e i t m a n . " ' 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 M e d i c a l T h e r a p y . " Headache May 1983: 110-112. G a r v e y , M i c h a e l J . "Occurrence o f Headaches i n A n x i e t y P a t i e n t s . " Headache Mar. 1985: 101-103. Gettis, Alan. Headache  " S e r e n d i p i t y and Food F e b . 1987: 73-75.  G i l b e r t , Gordon J . Letter. A s s o c a t i o n 248.8 (1982):  Sensitivity:  Journal 921.  Disordered  A Case  Study."  o f The American  Medical  G l a s s m a n , J e r o m e M. e t a l . " T r e a t m e n t o f M u s c l e H e a d a c h e : M i c r a i n i n v s . A s p i r i n . " Headache  109.  Graham, J o h n R. E d i t o r i a l , "Headache a s C r a n i a l H e a d a c h e F e b . 1986: 104-105.  C o n t a c t i o n May 1982: 101Angina."  G u n d e r s o n , C a r l H. "Management o f t h e M i g r a i n e P a t i e n t . " A m e r i c a n F a m i l y P h y s i c i a n J a n . 1986: 137-143. H e a r n , B. a n d R. F i n n . L e t t e r . Holm,  Lancet  5 Nov. 1983:  1081-1082.  J e f f r e y E . e t a l . "The R o l e o f S t r e s s i n R e c u r r e n t Headache." Headache A p r . 1986: 160-161.  Tension  I s l e r , Hansruedi. "A H i d d e n D i m e n s i o n i n Headache Work: A p p l i e d H i s t o r y o f M e d i c i n e . " Headache J a n . 1986: 27-29.  Joynt, Robert J. Letter. A s s o c i a t i o n 253.2 (1985):  J o u r n a l o f t h e American 253-254.  Kain,  B r i a n F. "Non-Narcotic R e l i e f o f Acute F a m i l y P h y s i c i a n . 28 (1982): 2037-2038.  Kirn,  T i m . " D i s c u s s i o n , Ideas Abound i n Migraine Research; C o n s e n s u s Remains E l u s i v e . " J o u r n a l o f t h e A m e r i c a n M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 257.1 (1987): 9-12.  . Lane,  Migraine."  Medical Canadian  " M i g r a i n e : Many T h i n g s t o Many P a t i e n t s . " J o u r n a l A m e r i c a n M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . 257.1 (1987): 12-13. P. L. a n d R. Preliminary Results  1985:  302-304.  Ross. "Intravenous i n Acute Migraine."  of  the  Chlorpromazine— Headache Sept.  Mathew, N i n a n T. e t a l . " T r a 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 I n t o D a i l y H e a d a c h e : A n a l y s i s o f F a c t o r s . " Headache Mar. 1982:  66-68.  Monro, J e a n e t a l . " M i g r a i n e 29 S e p t . 1984: 719-721. Pearce,  J.M.S.  Letter.  i s a Food-Allergic Disease."  Lancet  Lancet  20 O c t . 1984: 926.  P e t e r s , B r u c e H. e t a l . " C o m p a r i s o n o f 650 mg A s p i r i n a n d 1,000 mg A c e t a m i n o p h e n w i t h E a c h O t h e r , a n d w i t h P l a c e b o i n M o d e r a t e l y S e v e r e Headache." A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f M e d i c i n e 14 J u n e 1983: 36-42. P i k o f f , Howard. " I s t h e M u s c u l a r M o d e l o f H e a d a c h S t i l l V i a b l e ? A R e v i e w o f C o n f l i c t i n g D a t a . " Headache J u l y 1984: 186- 198. Reik,  Louis J r . "Unnecessary Dental Treatment of Patients f o r Temporomandibular J o i n t D i s o r d e r s . " J u l y 1985: 246-248.  Headache Headache  Renshaw, Domeena C. Q u e s t i o n s a n d A n s w e r s , " 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 t h e A m e r i c a n M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n . 253.2 (1985):  254.  Roy,  Ranjan. "Marital Conflicts Some C l i n i c a l O b s e r v a t i o n s . "  a n d E x a c e r b a t i o n o f Headache: Headache J u l y 1986: 360-364.  S a p e r , J o e l R. "The M i x e d 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 P r i m a r y H e a d a c h e : A n a l y s i s o f C u r r e n t P r a c t i c e From a D r u g U t i l i z a t i o n S t u d y . " Headache J u n e 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 J o u r n a l of Medicine 10 S e p t . 1984: 65-72. S o l b a c h , P a t r i c i a e t a l . "Menstrual M i g r a i n e Headache: R e s u l t s o f a C o n t r o l l e d , E x p e r i m e n t a l , Outcome Study o f Non-drug Treatments." Headache Mar. 1984: 75-78. Solomon, Glen D., J. Griffith Steele, and Leo J. Spaccavento."Verapamil P r o p h y l a x i s o f M i g r a i n e . " J o u r n a l of the American M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 250.18 (1983): 25002502. S t e l l a r , S t a n l e y e t a l . "Migraine P r e v e n t i o n With T i m o l o l : A D o u b l e - B l i n d Crossover Study." Journal of the American M e d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n 252.18 (1984): 2576-2580. Szekely, Barbara et al. "Nonpharmacological Treatment of M e n s t r u a l Headache: R e l a x a t i o n - B i o f e e d b a c k Behavior Therapy and Person-Centered I n s i g h t Therapy." Headache Feb. 1986:86-92. Thompson, J. Kevin. "Diagnosis of Head Pain: An IdiographicApproach to Assesment and Classification." Headache S e p t . 1982: 221-232. Weinberger, Thomas. L e t t e r . (1984): 752.  Canadian Family P h y s i c i a n 30  W i l k i n s o n , M a r c i a and J . N . B l a u . "Are C l a s s i c a l and Common M i g r a i n e D i f f e r e n t E n t i t i e s ? " Headache June 1985: 212-213.  243 B.  Secondary  A a r o n s o n , S. " S t y l e i n S c i e n t i f i c I ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 6-15.  Writing." Current  Abrams, M. H. T h e M i r r o r a n d t h e Lamp. U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1953.  Contents  London: O x f o r d  A d o l f , R o b e r t . The R i s e o f Modern P r o s e S t y l e . C a m b r i d g e : MIT P r e s s , 1968. A n d r e w s , Edmund. The H i s t o r y o f S c i e n t i f i c R. S m i t h , 1947.  E n g l i s h . New  A r i s t o t l e . The R h e t o r i c o f A r i s t o t l e . T r a n s . Lane E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , 1960. A u 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 . T r a n s . 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.  York:  Cooper.  D. W.  Robertson,  A u s t i n , J . L . How t o Do T h i n g s w i t h Words. 2nd e d . C a m b r i d g e : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1962. B a c o n , F r a n c i s . T h e Advancement o f L e a r n i n g a n d New L o n d o n : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1966. B a k e r , J o h n 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 P a p e r s . " 176 ( 1 9 5 5 ) : 851-52. R p t . i n S c i e n c e 123 ( 1 9 5 6 ) : 720-21.  Atlantis. Nature 713-14,  B a r b e r , C. L . "Some M e a s u r a b l e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i n M o d e r n S c i e n t i f i c Prose." Contributions to English 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. T h e r e s e S o u t h g a t e , a n d R o b e r t W. Mayo. Manual f o r Authors and Editors. (American Medical A s s o c i a t i o n ) . L o s A l t o s , CA: L a n g e M e d i c a l P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1981. B a r n e s , B a r r y a n d D a v i d Edge, e d s . S c i e n c e i n C o n t e x t : i n t h e S o c i o l o g y o f S c i e n c e . Cambridge, Mass.: P r e s s , 1982.  Readings T h e MIT  B a z e r m a n , C h a r l e s . "What W r i t t e n Knowledge Does: T h r e e E x a m p l e s of Academic D i s c o u r s e . " P h i l o s o p h y o f the S o c i a l S c i e n c e s I I ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 361-387. "The W r i t i n g o f S c i e n t i f i c ( 1 9 8 4 ) : 39-75.  Non-Fiction."  Pre/Text  5.1  244 .  "Modern E v o l u t i o n o f t h e E x p e r i m e n t a l R e p o r t i n P h y s i c s . " S o c i a l S t u d i e s o f S c i e n c e . 14.2 (1984): 163-196. " P h y s i c i s t s R e a d i n g P h y s i c s : Schema-Laden P u r p o s e s a n d P u r p o s e - L a d e n Schema." W r i t t e n C o m m u n i c a t i o n 2.1  (1985)  .  3-23.  "Literate Science: A  Acts a n d t h e Emergent Social Structure o f 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, Herbert. Foreword. Encounters with Oi. Exploring C h i n e s e M e d i c i n e . By D a v i d E i s e n b e r g , M.D. and Thomas L e e Wright. New Y o r k : N o r t o n , 1985. B e r g e r , P e t e r L . and Thomas Luckman. T h e S o c i a l 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 G a r d e n C i t y : A n c h o r , 1967.  Construction Knowledge.  Bitzer, Lloyd. "The R h e t o r i c a l Rhetoric J a n . 1968: 1-14.  Philosophy  .  Situation."  and  " R h e t o r i c and P u b l i c Knowledge." Rhetoric, P h i l o s o p h y and L i t e r a t u r e . Ed. Don B u r k s . West L a f a y e t t e : P u r d u e U n i v e r s i t y , 1978.  B i t z e r , L l o y d and E d w i n B l a c k , e d s . The P r o s p e c t o f R h e t o r i c : R e p o r t o f t h e N a t i o n a l Development P r o j e c t . Englewood C l i f f s , N J : 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 o f W i s c o n s i n P r e s s , 1978. B l a n t o n , M a c k i e J-V. "The P r a g m a t i c 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 Sciences." L i n g u i s t i c s and L i t e r a c y . E d . W i l l i a m F r a w l e y . New Y o r k : Plenum, 1982. B o o t h , Wayne. T h e R h e t o r i c o f F i c t i o n . Chicago Press, 1961.  Chicago:  . M o d e r n Dogma and t h e R h e t o r i c o f A s s e n t . Dame U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974.  University of  N o t r e Dame: N o t r e  Bracey, Gerald W. "The W o r l d i n Bits and P i e c e s . " C o n t e m p o r a r y R e a d e r From L i t t l e , Brown. 2nd e d . -Ed. Goshgarian. B o s t o n : L i t t l e , Brown, 1987.  The Gary  B r o c k r e i d e , Wayne E . "Toward a C o n t e m p o r a r y A r i s t o t e l i a n T h e o r y of R h e t o r i c . " Contemporary T h e o r i e s o f R h e t o r i c : S e l e c t e d R e a d i n g s . Ed. R i c h a r d L. Johannesen. New Y o r k : H a r p e r and Row, 1971.  245 Brou.se, A l b e r t J . " C l a r i t y i n S c i e n c e W r i t i n g i s Not Enough." 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 1 (1971): 73-78. Bruffee, Kenneth. "Social Construction, Language, Knowledge." C o l l e g e E n g l i s h 48 (1986): 773-790.  and  Brummett, B a r r y . "Some I m p l i c a t i o n s of ' P r o c e s s ' o r " I n t e r sub j e c t i v i t y ' : Postmodern 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 9.1 (1976): 21-51. B r y a n t , Donald C . R h e t o r i c a l Dimensions i n C r i t i c i s m . 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 , 1973. , e d . The R h e t o r i c a l Idiom: Essays i n R h e t o r i c . O r a t o r y , Language, and Drama. I t h a c a : C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1958. B u r k e , Kenneth. A Grammar of M o t i v e s . C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1969. . A Rhetoric of Motives. P r e s s , 1969.  Berkeley:  .  Language as Symbolic C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1966.  .  The P h i l o s o p h y of L i t e r a r y U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press,  . Counter-Statement. 1953. .  Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of  Action.  U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Berkeley:  Form. 1973.  3rd  University ed.  2nd e d . Los A l t o s : Hermes  of  Berkeley:  Publications,  " R h e t o r i c — O l d and New." J o u r n a l of General E d u c a t i o n . (1951): 202-9.  .  5  Permanence and Change. An Anatomy of Purpose. 3 r d e d . B e r k e l e y : U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a P r e s s , 1984.  Bytwerk, R a n d a l l L . "The SST C o n t r o v e r s y : A Case o f Study i n the R h e t o r i c o f Technology." C e n t r a l S t a t e s Speech J o u r n a l 30 (1979): 187-98. C a m p b e l l , John A . "Charles Darwin and the C r i s i s o f E c o l o g y : A R h e t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e . " Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f Speech 60 (1974): 442-49. C a m p b e l l , P a u l N e w e l l . "The Personae o f S c i e n t i f i c D i s c o u r s e . " Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f Speech 61 (1975): 391-405. Chase,  Janet  M.  "Normative  Criteria  for  Scientific  246 P u b l i c a t i o n . " American S o c i o l o g i s t 5 (1970): C i c e r o . De O r a t o r e . T r a n s . E . W. S u t t o n . U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1979.  262-65.  Cambridge: Harvard  C i c o u r e l , Aaron V . "The Reproduction o f O b j e c t i v e Knowledge: Common Sense Reasoning i n M e d i c a l D e c i s i o n Making." The Knowledge Society. Eds. G . Bohme and N . Stehr. D o r d r e c h t : D. R e i d e l P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1986. 80-105. C o e t z e e , John M. "The R h e t o r i c of the P a s s i v e 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,  Carol. " S l i c k 'ems, G l i c k 'ems, Christmas T r e e s , and Cookie C u t t e r s : Nuclear Language and how we l e a r n e d t o pat the bomb." B u l l e t i n o f the Atomic S c i e n t i s t s 4.8 (1987): 17-24.  Connors, R o b e r t . "The R h e t o r i c o f E x p l a n a t i o n . " W r i t t e n Communication 1 (1984): 189-210. .  "The R i s e o f T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g I n s t r u c t i o n i n A m e r i c a . " 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 12 (1982): 329-351.  Corbett, E . P . J . , ed. R h e t o r i c a l Analyses o f New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969. .  L i t e r a r y Works.  C l a s s i c a l R h e t o r i c f o r the Modern Student. Y o r k : Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1971.  2nd e d . New  C o r e y , Robert L . "Rhetoric and T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g : B l a c k Magic o r Science?" T e c h n i c a l Communication 26.4 (1978): 2-6. Cox,  Barbara G . and C h a r l e s G . Roland. "How R h e t o r i c Confuses S c i e n t i f i c I s s u e s . " 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-16, No. 3 (1973): 140-42.  C r a n b e r g , Lawrence. " E t h i c a l Code f o r S c i e n t i s t s " S c i e n c e 141 (1963): 1242. C r a n e , D i a n a . I n v i s i b l e C o l l e g e s : D i f f u s i o n o f 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 o f Chicago P r e s s , 1972. C r u s i u s , Timothy W. "A Case f o r Kenneth Burke's D i a l e c t i c and Rhetoric." Philosophy and R h e t o r i c 19 (1986): 23-26. C u l l e r , Jonathan. S t r u c t u r a l i s t Kegan P a u l , 1975. .  The  Pursuit  of  P o e t i c s . London: Routledge &  Signs.  Semiotics,  Literature,  247 Deconstruction. 1981.  Ithaca,  NY:  Cornell  University  Press,  D e b a k e y , L o i s . " H a p p i n e s s i s O n l y a P i l l Away: M a d i s o n A v e n u e R h e t o r i c w i t h o u t Reason." 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 C o m m u n i c a t i o n 10 ( 1 9 8 0 ) : 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 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 273-286. Delia, Jesse G. "Constructivism and t h e S t u d y o f Human Communication." Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f Speech 63 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 66-83. Del  de  S e s t o , S t e v e n L . "The S c i e n c e J o u r n a l i s t a n d E a r l y P o p u l a r Coverage o f Nuclear Energy." 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 C o m m u n i c a t i o n 11 ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 315-27. Man, P a u l . B l i n d n e s s a n d I n s i g h t : E s s a y s i n t h e R h e t o r i c o f C o n t e m p o r a r y C r i t i c i s m . New Y o r k : O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1971.  D e r r i d a , J a c q u e s . Of Grammatology. T r a n s . G a y a t r i Chakravorty S p i v a k . B a l t i m o r e : J o h n s H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974. Dobrin, 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 C o l l e g e E n g l i s h 47 ( 1 9 8 5 ) : 237-251. E a g l e t o n , T e r r y . L i t e r a r y T h e o r y : An I n t r o d u c t i o n . B a s i l B l a c k w e l l , 1983. Emig,  Janet. Meaning. 170.  Objective?" Oxford:  "Inquiry Paradigms and W r i t i n g . " The Web o f U p p e r M o n t c l a i r , N J : B o y n t o n / C o o k , 1983. 157-  Farrell, Thomas B. "Knowledge, Consensus, and Rhetorical Theory." Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f Speech 62 ( 1 9 7 6 ) : 1-14. F a r r e l l , Thomas B. a n d G. Thomas G o o d n i g h t . " A c c i d e n t a l Rhetoric: The Root Metaphors o f Three Mile Island." C o m m u n i c a t i o n Monographs 48 ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 271-300. F e y e r a b e n d , P a u l . A g a i n s t Method: O u t l i n e o f T h e o r y o f K n o w l e d g e . L o n d o n : V e r s o , 1978.  an A n a r c h i s t i c  F i n o c c h a r i o , M a u r i c e A. G a l i l e o and t h e A r t o f R e a s o n i n g . D o r d r e c h t , 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 t h e C l i n i c : An A r c h e o l o g y o f M e d i c a l P e r c e p t i o n . T r a n s . A. M. S h e r i d a n S m i t h . New Y o r k : P a n t h e o n B o o k s , 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 A m b i v a l e n t R e s p o n s e o f 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 ization." .  Unpublished  essay,  1984.  "Cognitive Authority of Science." Paper p r 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 Studies of Science, 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 M u l k a y . O p e n i n g P a n d o r a ' s Box: A S o c i o l o g i c a l A n a l y s i s o f 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 o f R e s e a r c h F i n d i n g s i n t o Knowledge." S o c i a l S t u d i e s o f S c i e n c e 6 (1976):  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 Hague: Mouton, 1973.  Scientific 281-306.  Texts.  The  G r o s s , A l a n G. " S t y l e and A r r a n g e m e n t i n S c i e n t i f i c 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 C o m m u n i c a t i o n 241-253.  Prose." 14 ( 1 9 8 4 ) :  Guinn, Dorothy Margaret. "Ethos T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g Teacher XI.1  Discourse."  i n Technical ( 1 9 8 3 ) : 31-37.  G u s f i e l d , J o s e p h . "The L i t e r a r y R h e t o r i c o f 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 R e v i e w 41 ( 1 9 7 6 ) : 16-34. H a l l o r a n , S. M i c h a e l . "The B i r t h o f M o l e c u l a r B i o l o g y : An E s s a y 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 Discourse." R h e t o r i c R e v i e w 3 ( 1 9 8 4 ) : 70-83. .  "Eloquence i n a S p e e c h J o u r n a l 29  Technological Society." ( 1 9 7 8 ) : 221-27.  Central  States  .  " R h e t o r i c i n t h e A m e r i c a n C o l l e g e C u r r i c u l u m : The o f P u b l i c D i s c o u r s e . " P r e / T e x t 3 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 245-269.  .  " T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and t h e R h e t o r i c o f 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 C o m m u n i c a t i o n 8 ( 1 9 7 8 ) , 77-89.  Decline  H a l l o r a n , S. M i c h a e l and A n n e t t e N o r r i s B r a d f o r d . " F i g u r e s o f S p e e c h i n t h e R h e t o r i c o f S c i e n c e and T e c h n o l o g y . " Essays in Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse. Eds. R. C o n n o r s , L i s a Ede, A n d r e a L u n s f o r d . C a r b o n d a l e : S o u t h e r n 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. W h i t b u r n . " C i c e r o n i a n R h e t o r i c and t h e R i s e o f 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 Writing. Ed. James Murphy. New Y o r k : Modern L a n g u a g e 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 R h e t o r i c f o r the E n g i n e e r i n g S t u d e n t . " 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 1 (1971): 17-24. H a r r i n g t o n , E l b e r t W. "Rhetoric and the S c i e n t i f i c Method o f I n q u i r y . " U n i v e r s i t y of Colorado S t u d i e s : S e r i e s i n Language and L i t e r a t u r e 1 (1948): 1-64. Heisenberg, Unwin, High,  W. Physics 1963.  and  Philosophy.  London: A l l e n  and  Dallas. Communication: E t h i c a l and Moral I s s u e s . Ed. Lee Thayer. New York: Gordon and Beach Science P u b l i s h e r s , 1973. 303-312.  Jardine, Lisa. Francis Bacon: Discovery and the Art D i s c o u r s e . London: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974.  of  J o n e s , R i c h a r d F . "Science and E n g l i s h Prose S t y l e i n the T h i r d Q u a r t e r of the Seventeenth C e n t u r y . " The Seventeenth C e n t u r y . S t a n f o r d : S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1951. 75-110. Journet, Debra. "Rhetoric and Sociobiology." Journal of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and Communication 14 (1984): 339-351. K e l s o , James A . "Science and the R h e t o r i c of R e a l i t y . " C e n t r a l S t a t e s Speech J o u r n a l 31 (1980): 17-29. K i n g , M. D. "Reason, T r a d i t i o n , and the P r o g r e s s i v e n e s s of S c i e n c e . " H i s t o r y and Theory 10 (1970): 3-32. Kinneavy, James. C o . , 1971. Klyn,  A Theory of D i s c o u r s e .  Mark S. "Toward a P l u r a l i s t i c Essays i n R h e t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m . New Y o r k : Random House, 1968.  New York: Norton and  Rhetorical C r i t i c i s m . " E d . Thomas R. N i l s e n .  Knoblauch, C H . & L i l Brannon. R h e t o r i c a l T r a d i t i o n s and T e a c h i n g of W r i t i n g . Upper M o n t c l a i r : Boynton/Cook, 1984.  the  K n o r r , K , Roger Krohn and R i c h a r d W h i t l e y , eds. The S o c i a l Process o f S c i e n t i f i c I n v e s t i g a t i o n . Boston: D. R e i d e l P u b l i s h i n g C o . S o c i o l o g y of the S c i e n c e s . 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 C o n t e x t u a l Nature of S c i e n c e . O x f o r d : Pergamon, 1981.  250 K n o r r - C e t i n a , K. and M i c h a e l Mulkay, eds. Science Observed; P e r s p e c t i v e s on the S o c i a l Study of S c i e n c e . London: Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s , 1983. Kowal, John P a u l . "Responsible Science R e p o r t i n g i n a Technological Age." Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 10 (1980): 307-315. Kuhn,  Thomas. 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 . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago P r e s s , 1970.  2nd ed.  L a k o f f , Sanford A . , e d . S c i e n c e 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, M a s s . : Addison-Wesley, 1980. L a n g e r , Suzanne K. P h i l o s o p h y American L i b r a r y , 1951.  i n a New Key. New York: New  Lanham, R i c h a r d . S t y l e : An A n t i - T e x t b o o k . U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1974.  New Haven: Y a l e  L a t o u r , Bruno and Steve Woolgar. Laboratory L i f e . The S o c i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n of S c i e n t i f i c F a c t s . B e v e r l y H i l l s : Sage, 1979. Leff,  M i c h a e l C . "In Search of A r i a d n e ' s Thread: A Review o f the Recent L i t e r a t u r e on R h e t o r i c a l T h e o r y . " C e n t r a l S t a t e s Speech J o u r n a l 29 (1978): 73-91.  L e v i - S t r a u s s , Claude. The Raw and the Cooked. T r a n s . John and Doreen Weightman. New York: Harper & Row, 1969. L o c k e , J o h n . An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. Henry Regnery Company, 1956.  Chicago:  L u n s f o r d , A n d r e a . " C l a s s i c a l R h e t o r i c and T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g . " C o l l e g e Composition and Communication 27 (1976): 289-91. L u n s f o r d , Andrea A . and L i s a Ede. "On D i s t i n c t i o n s Between Classical and Modern R h e t o r i c . " Essays on 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. Robert J . Connors, L i s a S. Ede, Andrea A . L u 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 , Carbondale: 1984. 37-49. Maclntyre, Alasdair. N a r r a t i v e , and the (1977): 453-471.  "Epistemological Crises, Dramatic P h i l o s o p h y of S c i e n c e . " The Monist 60  McKeon, R i c h a r d . "The Uses of R h e t o r i c i n a T e c h n o l o g i c a l Age: A r c h i t e c t o n i c P r o d u c t i v e A r t s . " The Prospect of R h e t o r i c :  251 R e p o r t o f t h e N a t i o n a l D e v e l o p m e n t P r o j e c t . E d s . L l o y d F. B i t z e r and E d w i n B l a c k . E n g l e w o o d C l i f f s , N. J . : P r e n t i c e H a l l , 1971. 44-63. Markels, Michael. Technical Writing; 2nd e d . New Y o r k : S t . M a r t i n s ,  S i t u a t i o n s and 1988.  Medawar, P.B. "Is the S c i e n t i f i c Paper Fraudulent? Review 1 Aug. 1964: 42-43. M e n d e l s o h n , E v e r e t t , P e t e r W e i n g a r t , and The S o c i a l P r o d u c t i o n o f S c i e n t i f i c 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 I: 1977.  Strategies. " Saturday  Richard Whitley, eds. Knowledge. B o s t o n : of the Sciences. V o l .  M e r t o n , R o b e r t K. The S o c i o l o g y o f 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 Press, 1973. Miller, Carolyn. "A Humanistic Rationale for Writing." College English 40 ( 1 9 7 9 ) : 611-17. .  "Public Knowledge S p r i n g 1982: 31-49.  in  Science  .  "Technology as a Form o f Contemporary Ethos." Central ( 1 9 7 8 ) : 228-36.  and  Technical  Society."  Pre/Text  Consciousness: A Study States Speech Journal  M i l l s , G o r d o n H. and J o h n A. W a l t e r . T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g . New Y o r k : H o l t , R i n e h a r t and W i n s t o n , 1977.  4th  in 29 ed.  M i t c h e l l , Ruth. "Shared R e s p o n s i b i l i t y : T e a c h i n g T e c h n i c a l Writing i n t h e 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 , I a n I . The S u b j e c t i v e S i d e o f S c i e n c e . New A m e r i c a n E l s e v i e r P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1974. Mohrmann, G.P., Explorations Pennsylvania  York:  Charles J. Stewart and Donovan J. Ochs. 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 P a r k , PA: State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973.  Moran, Michael G. "Joseph Analytic Arrangement Discourse." Journal C o m m u n i c a t i o n 14 ( 1 9 8 4 ) :  Priestley, William Duncan and in 18th-century Scientific of Technical Writing and 207-215.  M o r a n , M i c h a e l G. and D e b r a J o u r n e t , e d s . R e s e a r c h i n C o m m u n i c a t i o n . W e s t p o r t , Conn.: Greenwood P r e s s , Mulkay,  Michael.  Science  and  the  Sociology  of  Technical 1985.  Knowledge.  252 Controversies i n S o c i o l o g y . V o l . 8. E d s . T.B. and M.J. M u l k a y . L o n d o n : A l l e n , Unwin, 1979. Murphy, James. Rhetoric in the U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press,  Middle 1974.  Ages.  Bottomore Berkeley:  , 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 Press, 1971. M y e r s , G r e g . " R e a l i t y , C o n s e n s u s , and Reform i n t h e R h e t o r i c C o m p o s i t i o n T e a c h i n g . " C o l l e g e E n g l i s h 48 ( 1 9 8 6 ) : 154-174. "The S o c i a l C o n s t r u c t i o n o f Two B i o l o g i s t s ' W r i t t e n C o m m u n i c a t i o n 2.3 ( 1 9 8 5 ) : 219-245. Nichols, Marie Rhetoric.'" 133-144. .  of  Proposals."  Hochmuth. "Kenneth Burke and the New Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l o f Speech XXXVIII ( 19 5 2 ) : x  "Burkeian Criticism." E s s a y s on R h e t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m . E d . Thomas R. N i l s e n . New Y o r k : Random House, 1968.  Nilsen, Thomas R., ed. Y o r k : Random House, Olson, David Journal  Essays 1968.  on  Rhetorical  Criticism.  R. "On t h e L a n g u a g e and A u t h o r i t y o f o f C o m m u n i c a t i o n 3 0 . i : 186-196.  New  Textbooks."  Ong,  Walter. " V o i c e as a Summons f o r B e l i e f . " L i t e r a t u r e and Belief. E d . M.J. Abrams. New Y o r k : C o l u m b i a U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1965. 80-107.  Orr,  C. Jack. "How Shall We Say: "Reality i s Socially 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 ( 1 9 7 8 ) : 263-74.  O v e 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 A u d i e n c e : Toward a R h e t o r i c a l A n a l y s i s o f 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 10 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 143-64. Paradis, James. "Bacon, Linnaeus, and Lavoisier: Early Language Reform i n the S c i e n c e s . " New E s s a y s i n T e c h n i c a l and S c i e n t i f i c C o m m u n i c a t i o n : R e s e a r c h , T h e o r y , P r a c t i c e . Eds. Paul V. A n d e r s o n , R. J o h n Brockmann, C a r o l y n R. Miller. Farmingdale, NY: Baywood P u b l i s h i n g .Company, Inc., 1983. Paul,  Terri and Mary Rosner. "Discovering and Teaching Syntactic Structures in Three Technical Disciplines." 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 C o m m u n i c a t i o n 13 ( 1 9 8 3 ) : 109-122.  253 Perelman, Chaim. T h e Realm of Rhetoric. U n i v e r s i t y o f N o t r e Dame P r e s s , 1982.  Notre  Dame:  P e r e l m a n , C h a i m a n d L . O l b r e c h t s - T y t e c a . T h e New R h e t o r i c . N o t r e Dame: N o t r e Dame U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969. P l a t o . G o r q i a s and Phaedrus i n The D i a l o g u e s o f P l a t o . V o l . I , T r a n s . B. J o w e t t . New Y o r k : 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 K n o w l e d g e : Towards a P o s t - C r i t i c a l P h i l o s o p h y . C h i c a g o : U n i v e r s i t y o f C h i c a g o 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 o f Q u i n t i l i a n . Trans. E . B u t l e r . C a m b r i d g e : H a r v a r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1980.  H.  Ramsey, Richard David. "Grammatical Voice and Person in Technical Writing: Results o f a Survey." Journal of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n 10 ( 1 9 8 0 ) : 109-113. R i c h a r d s , I.A. The P h i l o s o p h y U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1936.  of Rhetoric.  Oxford:  Oxford  Richardson, Jacques. "What t h e P u b l i c Needs t o Know A b o u t S c i e n c e and Technology: A Report t o t h e 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 a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n 11 ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 303-13. .  "Science and Technology as I n t e g r a l P a r t s o f o u r C u l t u r e : Interdisciplinary Responsibilities of the Scientific 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 C o m m u n i c a t i o n 10 ( 1 9 8 0 ) : 141-147.  R o r t y , R i c h a r d . P h i l o s o p h y and t h e M i r r o r o f Nature. 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.  Princeton,  Rubens, P h i l i p M. " R e i n v e n t i n g t h e W h e e l : 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 o f T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and C o m m u n i c a t i o n 11 ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 329-39. Rymer, J o n e . "The B u s i n e s s and t h e 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 C h o i c e s 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, Ferdinand de. Course i n General L i n g u i s t i c s . Wade B a s k i n . New Y o r k : McGraw H i l l , 1959. S a v o r y , T h e o d o r e H. The L a n g u a g e o f S c i e n c e : I t s G r o w t h , C h a r a c t e r a n d U s a g e . L o n d o n : D e u t s c h , 1958.  Trans.  254 S c h i n d l e r , G e o r g e E. "Why E n g i n e e r s and S c i e n t i s t s W r i t e as They D o — T w e l v e C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f T h e i r P r o s e . " 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 C o m m u n i c a t i o n , PC-18, No. (1975). 5-10.  1  S c h m e l z e r , 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 t h e T e c h n i c a l W r i t e r . " 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 C o m m u n i c a t i o n 11 ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 217-221. Scholes, 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 . Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1974.  New  S c o t t , R o b e r t . "On V i e w i n g R h e t o r i c as E p i s t e m i c . " S t a t e s S p e e c h J o u r n a l 18 ( 1 9 6 7 ) : 9-17.  Haven: Central  .  "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 R h e t o r i c 6 ( 1 9 7 3 ) : 81-96.  and  .  "On V i e w i n g R h e t o r i c as E p i s t e m i c : Ten Y e a r s L a t e r . " C e n t r a l S t a t e s S p e e c h J o u r n a l 27 ( 1 9 7 6 ) :  258-266.  Searle, John. S p e e c h A c t s . An Essay i n the Philosophy Language. Cambridge: Cambridge U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1969.  of  S i m o n s , H e r b e r t W. "Are S c i e n t i s t s R h e t o r s 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 N a t u r e and Use o f R h e t o r i c . Ed. Eugene E . W h i t e . U n i v e r s i t y P a r k , 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 o f t h e Cope and H a r o l d Whitmore U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1958.  R o y a l S o c i e t y . Ed. J a c k s o n I. Jones. S t . L o u i s : Washington  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 New Y o r k : B a s i c , 1982. Stehr, Nico. Inquiry  of American  "The E t h o s o f S c i e n c e R e v i s i t e d . " S o c i o l o g i c a l 48.3-4 ( 1 9 7 8 ) : 172-96.  Stephens, James. Francis Bacon and the Chicago: U n i v e r s i t y of Chicago Press, .  Medicine.  Style 1975.  of  Science.  " 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 ( 1 9 7 5 ) : 213-229. " S t y l e as T h e r a p y i n R e n a i s s a n c e S c i e n c e . " New E s s a y s i n T e c h n i c a l and S c i e n t i f i c C o m m u n i c a t i o n : R e s e a r c h , T h e o r y , Practice. Eds. Paul V. A n d e r s o n , R. John Brockmann, C a r o l y n R. M i l l e r . F a r m i n g d a l e , NY: Baywood P u b l i s h i n g  255 Company, I n c . ,  1983.  S t e v e n s o n , D w i g h t W. "Toward a R h e t o r i c o f S c i e n t i f i c and T e c h n i c a l Discourse." T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g Teacher 5 (1977): 4-10. Stewart. Charles 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 . E d s . G. P. Mohrmann e t a l . U n i v e r s i t y P a r k , PA: Pennsylvania State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1973. S t o d d a r d , Eve W a l s h . "The R o l e o f E t h o s i n t h e T h e o r y and Teaching of Technical Writing." Technical Writing T e a c h e r 11 ( 1 9 8 5 ) : 229-241. S t r a k e r , S t e p h e n M. "A New P h y s i o g n o m y o f S e r v i t u d e ' : Some Comments on a New Philosophy of Science." 4S Review (Journal of the S o c i e t y f o r S o c i a l Studies of Science) 2 (1984): 5-11. v  Suppe, F r e d e r i c k , e d . The S t r u c t u r e o f S c i e n t i f i c ed. Urbana: U n i v e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s , 1977.  Theories.  2nd  Tebeaux, Elizabeth. "Franklin's Autobiography—Important Lessons in Tone, Syntax, and Persona." Journal of T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and C o m m u n i c a t i o n . 11 ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 341-49. .  " L e t ' s Not R u i n T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g Too: A Comment o n the E s s a y s 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 ( 1 9 8 0 ) : 822-824.  Tiefel, Hans. O. "The Language o f M e d i c i n e H a s t i n g s C e n t r e R e p o r t . Dec. 1978: 11-19. T o d o r o v , T z v e t a n . The P o e t i c s o f P r o s e . E d . 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 ,  and  Richard 1984.  T o m p k i n s , J a n e P. e d . R e a d e r R e s p o n s e C r i t i c i s m . The J o h n s H o p k i n s U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1980.  Morality." Howard.  Baltimore:  T o u l m i n , S t e p h e n . "Can S c i e n c e and E t h i c s be R e c o n n e c t e d ? " Hastings Center Report 9 ( 1 9 7 9 ) : 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 P o s t m o d e r n S c i e n c e . " C r i t i c a l I n q u i r y 9 ( 1 9 8 2 ) : 93-111.  Trefil, James. Rev. o f The Advancement o f S c i e n c e , and Its Burdens, by G e r a l d H o l t o n . New Y o r k Times Book R e v i e w O c t . 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 Quarterly  Journal  of  S p e e c h . 49  (1963):  239-249.  W a l t e r , O t i s . "On t h e V a r i e t i e s o f R h e t o r i c a l C r i t i c i s m . " E s s a y s 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 Y o r k : Random House, 1968. Wander, P h i l l i p C. "The R h e t o r i c o f S c i e n c e . " W e s t e r n o f S p e e c h C o m m u n i c a t i o n 40 ( 1 9 7 6 ) : 226-35. .  .  Journal  "The P a s s i v e V o i c e V e r b : A S e l e c t e d , A n n o t a t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y — P a r t I." Journal of Technical Writing C o m m u n i c a t i o n 11 ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 271-287. "The P a s s i v e V o i c e V e r b : A S e l e c t e d , A n n o t a t e d B i b l i o g r a p h y — P a r t s II-V." Journal of T e c h n i c a l and C o m m u n i c a t i o n 11 ( 1 9 8 1 ) : 373-389.  and  Writing  W a t s o n , James D. The D o u b l e H e l i x : A P e r s o n a l A c c o u n t o f t h e D i s c o v e r y o f t h e S t r u c t u r e o f DNA. New Y o r k : New American Library, 1969. Watson, James D. and F. H. C. Crick. "A Structure D e o x y r i b o s e N u c l e i c A c i d . " N a t u r e 171 ( 1 9 5 3 ) : 737-38.  for  Weaver, R i c h a r d . "Language i s S e r m o n i c . " L a n g u a g e i s S e r m o n i c . Eds. Richard J o h a n n e s e n , R e n n a r d S t r i c k l a n d , and Ralph E u b a n k s . B a t o n 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 Rhetoric i n S c i e n t i s t i c Sociology." 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: Louisiana State U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1970.  W e i g e r t , Andrew J . "The Immoral R h e t o r i c o f S o c i o l o g y . " The A m e r i c a n S o c i o l o g i s t 5  Scientific ( 1 9 7 0 ) : 111-119.  Weimer, W a l t e r B. " F o r and A g a i n s t M e t h o d : R e f l e c t i o n s o n F e y e r a b e n d and t h e F o i b l e s o f P h i l o s o p h y . " Pre/Text 1 ( 1 9 8 0 ) : 161-203. . "Science as a Rhetorical Transaction: Toward N o n j u s t i f i c a t i o n a l Conception of Rhetoric." Philosophy and R h e t o r i c 10 ( 1 9 7 7 ) : 1-29. W h i t b u r n , 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 W r i t i n g . " 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 6 ( 1 9 7 6 ) : 299-306.  a  and T e c h n i c a l Communication  "The Plain Style in Technical Writing." Journal T e c h n i c a l W r i t i n g and C o m m u n i c a t i o n 8 ( 1 9 7 8 ) : 349-58.  of  257 Wichelns, Herbert A . " L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m of O r a t o r y . " Studies i n R h e t o r i c and P u b l i c Speaking i n Honor of James A l b e r t Winans by P u p i l s and C o l l e a g u e s . New York: R u s s e l l and R u s s e 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 V e r b a l I c o n : S t u d i e s in the Meaning of Poetry. Lexington: University of Kentucky P r e s s , 1954. W i n k l e r , Anthony C . and Jo Ray McCuen. R h e t o r i c Made P l a i n . Canadian e d . Don M i l l s : Academic P r e s s , 1981. Yearley, Steven. "Textual P e r s u a s i o n : The Role o f Social A c c o u n t i n g i n the C o n s t r u c t i o n of S c i e n t i f i c Arguments." P h i l o s o p h y o f the S o c i a l Sciences 11 (1981): 409-435. Zappen, James P. "Francis Bacon and the R h e t o r i c of S c i e n c e . " C o l l e g e Composition and Communication 26 (1975): 244-47. .  "Genre(s) o f S c i e n t i f i c D i s c o u r s e . " Paper d e l i v e r e d at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, M i n n e a p o l i s : March, 1985.  .  "Science and R h e t o r i c from Bacon to Hobbes." R h e t o r i c 78. Eds. Robert L . Brown, J r . and M a r t i n Steinman, Jr. M i n n e a p o l i s : U n i v e r s i t y of Minnesota, Center f o r Advanced S t u d i e s i n Language, S t y l e , and L i t e r a r y T h e o r y , 1979. 399-419.  .  " H i s t o r i c a l P e r s p e c t i v e s on the P h i l o s o p h y and the R h e t o r i c o f S c i e n c e : Sources f o r a P l u r a l i s t i c R h e t o r i c . " P r e / T e x t 6.1-2 ( S p r i n g 1985): 9-29.  Ziman, J o h n . P u b l i c Knowledge: An Essay Concerning The S o c i a l Dimension o f S c i e n c e . Cambridge: U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1968. .  An I n t r o d u c t i o n to Science S t u d i e s . University Press, 1984.  Cambridge: Cambridge  

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:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098335/manifest

Comment

Related Items