Sci/Tech Discourse Analysis

Hi, Everyone.

As part of your group work during tomorrow's discussion of our three "scientific" genre samples, please spend some time writing a brief but coherent post on the question that corresponds with the genre you analyzed:

• Mann Group: what role do metaphors, imagery, and word choice play in conveying how Mann thinks we should feel about the impending “death shortage”?

• Wald Group: how does Wald push the limits of current research on ethanol use and production to increase the certainty of his position on the topic?

• Wechsler Group: On page 86 of his chapter on "Arrangement," Gross quotes Francis Bacon to say that “a research program, in fact, consists of ‘a double scale or ladder, ascendent and descendent; ascending from experiments to the invention of causes, and descending from causes to the invention of new experiments’.” Where do you see this “ladder” principle at work in Wechsler et al’s study, and how does it support the study's aim?

Feel free to post your group response by "commenting" to this post.

-Dr. Graban

God Save the Bees

This article is aimed at an audience that is likely receptive to simply explained scientific research regarding the environment (popular science). The article function in all four states: fact, cause, value, and policy. I think that what makes this an effective and comprehensible article is formulaic organization, from fact to policy.

The first paragraph appeals to the audiences intellect by assuming a basic understanding of the ways in which pesticides adversely effect people, bees, the environment, etc. Then the author goes on to discuss what honey bees do and what how, specifically, they are effected by the use of pesticides. Hengen brings in Haagen- Daz as an example of one popular company that is concerned with the damaging use of pesticides. By including a company familiar to the public, Hengen is able to establish that the is a lot of concern being raised over the problem. Transitioning into what caused the problem us crucial here because it establishes the superiority of organic farms. This ties in nicely with the closing request to support organic agriculture. So Hengen goes through fact and cause, and verifies the value, that the use of pesticides bad and a remedy needs to be found. As for policy, Hengen discusses the Farm Bill explaining what is it and why it would be beneficial.

The end of the article is rather direct: "There is every reason to eliminate the use of all pesticides that act synergetically with parasidic fungi..." This wraps up a well organized article that works with all four stases. The aim is reasserted to a now well informed audience: support organic farms and save the bees.

Who Wouldn't Want to Go Green?

“Going green” has been all the rage lately as a crucial attempt to help save our environment. And though it seems that many people are jumping on the bandwagon, there may just not be enough to help tip the scale towards a better and “green” earth. In the article written by Taylor Hengen entitled, “Show Me the Honey,” Hengen explains that an outrageous amount of pesticides have been found in bee hives and have ultimately led to a disorder called Colony Collapse Disorder. Unfortunately, this disorder has taken over the bee population, and has caused the bees to become not only disoriented, but has affected their immune systems as well. Hengen goes on to explain that an organic lifestyle may just be the answer because it would help to eliminate the pesticides that are contributing to the disorder. I feel that this article clearly demonstrates a “scientific” approach by utilizing the arrangement of the argument and by representing the format of stases to help not only clarify the aim to the readers, but to justify the claims of the argument as well.
In order for this article to be clearly affective, it must first be understood as to whom this article was written for. Though this article was published on the Popular Science website and may seem to be directed towards those more interested in science than the general public, I think that Hengen had a bigger audience in mind. By mentioning that the ice cream franchise, Haagen-Dazs, was trying to raise awareness of the issue to the general public this shows that even those not interested science are affected by this issue. And, if in fact the general public should be concerned about this issue then Hengen needed to present her argument in such a way that anyone could understand why this is important. I believe that this is where the formation of Fahnstock and Secor’s stases came into play.
Hengen begins her article by explaining the fact, or the “what is it,” if you will. She states, “…bees haven’t been staying on task…They’ve been acting a little weird lately—leaving their hives and not coming back…” This statement makes the reader wonder just what is going on. She then goes on to clarify the name of the crisis, the Colony Collapse Disorder. Hengen even goes one step further by making sure that the reader knows what a substance is and how it affects the body if taken in a certain dosage. By explaining all of this in the beginning paragraph, the author establishes what the article is about and who it affects. These “facts” then make the reader wonder about the cause, or “what caused it?”
To help the reader understand the issue better, the author tries to explain what the problem is, and how it all got started. First, she states, “The disorder is generally attributed to…” which is a clear indicator of the cause. However, the causes listed in this statement are not the main argument of the article, and Hengen does not necessarily dismiss their claims to be truthful, but rather just dismisses their argument from this article. Hengen then says, “While pesticides have consistently been acknowledged as a contributing factor…pesticide levels in hives are much higher than researchers predicted.” By providing evidence that pesticide levels have been tested and scientifically researched, it allows the reader to believe that this truly may be the cause of the disorder, which helps to support the argument. However, the cause is of no use to the reader if we don’t know the value of the issue.
Hengen does not necessarily focus on this particular stases for very long. It is quite evident to the reader that if a substance is causing a disorder then it is not good for you. Hengen does indicate that the pesticide is bad for you by stating that it is “toxic.” Also, she writes, “…these toxic chemical combinations…may cause behavioral changes...These changes include immune system blocks and disorientation, which may help to explain the CCD crisis of late.” The value of this argument need not to be explained any further because its effects on the bees are apparent. To sum up the argument, the reader must now know what should be done, or the policy that should be enforced. Without the policy, the argument is ineffective.
Hengen focuses her article mainly on this stases because she is trying to get her readers to take action on the issue. She explains in depth what is being done currently to help reduce this issue and what should be done in the future. By explaining what is already being done in Congress and in other agricultural organizations, Hengen reiterates that the issue is important to everyone. If the government is concerned, then the reader should be as well. The biggest point that Hengen makes, however, is that the reader cannot only be concerned about the issue, but must take action also. This is where the idea of “going green” and “supporting organic agricultural practices” comes into play. When Hengen explains what should be done, the reader understands that a stance on the issue must be made. At this point, the reader knows that either he or she needs to make a decision based on the supporting facts, causes, values, and policies of the crisis.
Though the arrangement of the stases in Hengen’s article may have not been intentional, it is quite effective. The stases allow the reader to flow through the argument and conceptualize the point of this article in a step by step process. What is the problem? How did this problem come to be? Why is this important to me as the reader? What can I do to help? These are common questions that come to be when reading an article; and when these questions are answered, the reader understands the argument better. By forming her article in this way, Hengen sets up her argument in a “scientific” approach that makes her argument clear and extremely persuasive as well. It’s hard to not want to jump on the bandwagon and join the others who have already “gone green.”

An Exciting Day at the Rock Shop

How old is the earth and how did it form? That is a question that we will most likely never know, but science continues to find more and more more information everyday that helps us understand the early days of Earth. The article "A Cool Earth" by John W. Valley provided information on some very interesting findings and presents them in a way that stays loyal to Fahnestock and Secor's explanation of scientific discourse. I was able to see it this way due to the content of the article and the way Valley organized the findings.

This article "A Cool Earth?" stayed faithful to Fahnestock and Secor's discussion on scientific discourse due to the subject content alone. The article introduced information that shows an idea of how the Earth may have formed that is different from ideas that had been accepted in the past. He stated that it was when new technology introduced in the 1980s, scientists were able to date rocks and investigate findings better and it was just within the past few years they had found a type of rock the "zircon" that could be dated back 4.3 billion years. While in past classes that I have taken in Geologly, I saw this as very relevant since the accepted age of the earth before these findings was 4 billion years old, that is somewhat different from the 4.3 billion years stated by Valley.

The organization of the article follow's the method of using stasis and ascending information. The stasis of the article stars out with the accepted idea that the Earth started out as a huge firey molten mass, the idea that most scientists and readers had accepted. He moves into stating the findings, but in the order of how they were found. He starts off by stating the improvemenst of technology enabled them to dig deeper into finding the age and formation of the zircon grains. He moves into stating that rocks and crystals being found in areas of Australia and Canada were starting to show signs of an age older than the accepted 4 billion years and of a different formation than the firey molten ball that was believed by scientists to be the way that the Earth formed. Valley really followed an ascending way of organization by starting out with the accepted way the Earth formed and moved into the new ideas, something that really made the reader feel as if he is saying this is a new idea instead of this is what I have found now accept it.

John W. Valley was really able to follow the term provided by Fahnestock, Secor, and Gross in this article. He was able to organize his ideas in a way that went from old to new information and he also introduced information that is not known to most people. This was a very good example of scientific discourse.

Show Me the Honey Review

The article "Show Me the Honey" by Taylor Hengen provides clear-cut statements about how there is a growing problem with a phenomenon called Colony Collapse Disorder, which means there are becoming fewer and fewer bees that are returning to their hives. The author uses the stasis to explain and expand on this problem so that any reader will be informed about what it is, what causes it, whether it's positive or negative, and what the reader cam do to fix it. 

The author does a great job of answering any questions the reader might have about this topic that she is presenting. She explains it so thoroughly that I felt like I was right there with the author fighting for the sake of the bees and their existence by the end of the article. This way of informing while still evoking passion from the reader is very effective.

The author fits this article into the stasis by first telling the facts: the problem is Colony Collapse Disorder and the real problem is that "bees leave their hives and don't come back". Next she goes on to tell the cause which she examines to be "parasites, viruses, mites, chemical exposure, and even radiation from cell phone towers". The author then tells us her opinion on this subject which is that it's a very horrible thing and the furthering of this problem will become an even bigger issue because "billions of annual agricultural industry dollars" are due to the pollination that bees provide. The pesticides cause these bees to become disoriented and then they cannot pollinate and sometimes this is why they do not return to their hives. Lastly the author shows us her policy to fix this problem which includes appeals to Congress and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. But she claims that if the reader wants to do their small part to help then they should "plant flowers that attract and sustain local honeybees populations". 

The way in which this author moves from fact to cause to value and then onto policy shows us that she is trying to be very clean and concise in the way she constructs her article so that the audience will feel they are more educated and want to help this cause by the end of the article. I think she does a great job. 

Cool earth, tiny rocks?

John Vally's article "A cool early Earth?" published in the magazine Scientific American is a good example of a popularized scientific report. I say popularized because although the paper does follow the standard arrangement of a scientific report, it uses simpler language fewer technical words. The technical words it does use it defines. Such as "ratio of oxygen 18 (18O, a rare isotope with eight protons and 10 neutrons....". In a scientific report published in a professional journal the explanation of what oxygen 18 is would be omitted because the author would assume his professional audience would already know this. Though this scientific report has been popularized it still remains a scientific report.
It does this by following the classic arrangement of a scientific paper. Vally starts with an introduction where he includes the conclusion his research may refute and why he started the research. The conclusion that he is going to refute is when exactly did the earth cool enough for live to begin. Then he tells us why he is refuting that evidence. It is mostly summed up in this paragraph and a half:

"But just how quickly did the surface of the earth cool after its luminous birth? Most scientists have assumed that the hellish environment lasted for as long as 500 million years, an era thus named the Hadean. Major support for this view comes from the apparent absence of any intact rocks older than four billion years--and from the first fossilized signs of life, which are much younger still.

In the past five years, however, geologists--including my group at the University of Wisconsin-Madison--have discovered dozens of ancient crystals of the mineral zircon with chemical compositions that are changing our thinking about the earth's beginnings. The unusual properties of these durable minerals--each the size of the period in this sentence--enable the crystals to preserve surprisingly robust clues about what the environment was like when they formed. These tiny time capsules bear evidence that oceans habitable to primitive life and perhaps continents could have appeared 400 million years earlier than generally thought."

He gives us the evidence for the Hadean period, which is the absence of rocks older than 4 billion years. Then he gives us his basis for refuting it. Or the finding of zircons with "unusual properties". These are usually the main components of a scientific introduction. A brief history of the idea that is generally accepted, and possible evidence of why we may have to change that idea.

The next part of the scientific paper is the "methods and materials" section. He starts this section with the title "Digging deep" where he goes on to explain how they dug up these zircons in Australia. He also explains the equipment used to gather the composition of the zircons. This being the "ion microprobe". With this discussed he then can move on to the next part of the scientific paper the Results.

His results section has the title "Evidence of Ancient Oceans". These where that the ion microprobe found that some of the zircons had a ratio of a certain ion of oxygen that would suggest the earth cooled much earlier. Back to the idea of being popularized scientific paper for a moment. The article has no charts or graphs showing the actual raw data as it would in a professional journal. Also it has voice as shown by this quote: "We were stunned.". Lab reports generally don't have much or any voice involved.
But they all do have a discussion section. Vally's discussion section is titled "continental clues" and continues through the rest of the paper. This part just looks at what this new information may mean for our understanding of how the earth was made and gives ideas for further study.

So I guess this shows that this paper is arranged a certain way but what makes it scientific is that the arrangement has a reason. It follow the idea of Baconian Induction. Or bottom up thinking... This paper takes all the little bits of evidence we have about the worlds beginning. This is the intro. Then it adds its little part and tells us how to do it. (Materials, Method and Results). Then it starts to apply the new information to the old information (discussion). This is all in a attempt to create an understanding of the world from all evidence we have or simply the practice of science.

A Buzz-worthy Scientific Argument

Taylor Hengen’s article “Show Me the Honey” fits Jeanne Fahnestock and Marie Secor’s definition of scientific arguments. They believe that the goal of a scientific article should be presenting something new. Hengen does in fact present new research findings relating to Colony Collapse Disorder, also known as CCD. Studies that were conducted at Penn State show that the level of pesticides found in bee hives is higher than the presumed pesticide level.

Not only does the article fit Fahnestock and Secor’s definition, but Hengen does a nice job using the four stasis to present her argument. Since Colony Collapse Disorder is not necessarily common knowledge, the term needed to be defined for the audience. Hengen’s definition was in the first paragraph and was accessible to almost any reader. This lays the ground work for the rest of the article since the issue being argued is a solution to Colony Collapse Disorder and the reader needs to know what exactly CCD is in order to understand why it is a problem. The author also explains the cause of CCD in the first paragraph, which covers the second stasis. The second stasis seems not to be as important as the third stasis considering that it the third stasis is prevalent throughout the article. Hengen is trying to argue that Colony Collapse Disorder is a negative phenomenon that is caused by high levels of pesticides, along with “parasites, viruses, mites, chemical exposure, and even radiation from cell phone towers.”(Hengen.) Hengen’s discussion of the Farm Bill that the Department of Agriculture has proposed to Congress helps show the audience that other people, including people in government, share Hengen’s views. The fourth and final stasis is clearly displayed in the last couple of paragraphs. The author offers many different ways to act differently to support her argument. Hengen urges the audience to use organic agricultural practices to help eliminate pesticides in our bees. I believe that Hengen’s use of the four stasis to articulate her argument adds to the scientific nature of this article because it helped clearly inform the audience of a new concept, CCD.

Professorly Encouragement

Professorly Encouragement: Don't be hesitant to break out of the bee paradigm. There are 2 other excellent articles linked to our page, both very very very very very relevant to stasis and arrangement and a host of other rhetorical principles. :)

-Dr. Graban

What's all the Buzz About

What makes a scientific article “scientific”? If readers apply Fahnestock and Secor’s stases, readers can develop a sense of meaning to scientific writing. In the Popular Science article “Show Me the Honey” by Taylor Hegen, readers can apply Fahnestock and Secor’s staces concept to prove this an affective piece of scientific writing for the audience.

The first staces as discussed in class and in the Fahnestock and Secor article was the staces of fact and definition. Hagen’s article follows the structure of the staces concept quite well. Readers are first introduced to the problem at hand, which the article explains that honey bees are carrying too many pesticides into their hives and causing problems in the be population as a whole.

The second staces is that of value, a question of is this good, or is this bad. Clearly Hagen wants readers to know that the honey bee population is important, and is something that people need to be aware of. Hagen uses expert knowledge to back up and establish the value of these bees to people.

Hagen soon brings in the idea of procedure, which happens to be the third staces. Hagen brings to light that because of the public’s awareness, a bill has been presented to Congress. Hagan reveals exactly what the farm bill presented to congress will do for the bee population.
Finally the last staces and last section of Hagen’s article is that of policy. Hagen encourages readers to plant flowers and use organic pesticides. In doing so the bees will be exposed to a far less harsh environment and not bring so many pesticides into the hive.

This article followed Fahnestock and Secor’s staces concept to a T; in doing so, a clear and concise scientific argument can be made. When writers organize the content of their writing it is much easier for them to convey meaning.

Popular Science on bees: Does it follow the rules of scientific discourse?

The article "Show Me the Honey" by Taylor Hengen is posted on Popsci.com. According to the website, it was launched in 1999 in association with the popular magazine Popular Science, which has been in print since 1972. The publication boasts itself as the leading informant in science and technology, so it can be assumed that the they only publish reliable scientific documents. The bee article is well written, and stays true to Baconian form. The difference between this article and other scientific language is its use of popular rhetortic. This post will work to demonstrate how the article uses the principles of Baconian and if the language choices strengthen or weaken the article.

First, the article begins with an introduction to the problem. The article is written to raise awareness to a problem in the bee community. The bees suffer from colony collapse disorder, or CDC. The problem is described as possibly being caused by pesticides at the beginning, but by the end of the article the author seems sure that his or her hypothesis is correct. Hengen follows the Baconian format by presenting information, providing methods and materials for research, and presenting the results. Hengen does not pinpoint one scientific study, but he does refer to several different results, especially those presented by Penn State through their ice cream company grant.

It is interesting that Hengen ends up supporting the introductory "theory" by the end of the article because Gross predicted this in his book The Rhetoric of Science (92). Hengen urges readers to move to organic farming and plants flowers when the "theory" has not even been fully proved as is stated in the beginning. This realization makes it important to read the article with a critical eye because the format is very convincing. By using the Baconian format, by the end of reading the article it is easy to believe the information because evidence has been presented and discussed "thoroughly." It may have been better to start the article with a definite statement about bees and pesticides or simply base the article on the harmful affects of pesticides on nature.

A part of this article that did not seem to fit into scientific discourse were the lax language choices. The article used words like "er" and the title "Show Me the Honey" all try to draw on popular language rather than scientific language. The publication may or may not be written by someone with scientific knowledge, but the language choices seem like it is written more by someone who has been given the facts instead of someone who went out and collected all the facts. This may work as a better piece of scientific discourse, but the article is taking into consideration the type of audience it is catering to on the internet. The site is written for the general public and people interested in pop-science, and not written for researchers and scientists. Researchers and scientists may still enjoy reading it, but they are not the intended audience.

The article is interesting and informative about problems with bees. The article definitely follows certain conventions of scientific discourse and ignores others. The language choices at times seem out of place compared to the rest of the article, but that does not mean it is poorly written. The article had an intended audience, and based on the comments following the article it was able to satisfy its readers.

The Bee article

Jacob Kowalczyk
In the report “Show Me the Honey” by Taylor Hengen, the text takes a forensic approach to the issue of CCD, or Colony Collapse Disorder, a massive and widespread evacuation of beehives by honey bees in the U.S. In other words, the article examines the possible causes of this issue and, through investigating the evidence, narrows it down to one cause. The text, once the cause of the issue is established, then takes a deliberative approach as it discusses the multiple courses of action that are being taken and could be taken to solve the problem. The use of a forensic approach in this text certainly qualifies this text as scientific, but the deliberative approach that is apparent later in the text transforms this “report” into an argument. By framing the paper within the stases, I will seek to elucidate how this transition from a forensic to a deliberative approach occurs and how the text transitions from an investigation to an argument.
The text begins with a basic statement about the issue of CCD explaining what it is. Equally as important as the explanation of what CCD is, reasons why the issue is significant to the audience are also addressed: “These little workers are responsible for billions of annual agricultural industry dollars, thanks to their pollination services.” While this statement assumes that the audience cares about the continuation of the honey industry, the statement also implies that without the honey industry, there will be no or very little honey available, a problem for people who enjoy consuming it. So, the text begins the first stasis, the stasis concerned with fact and definition. The justification of the issue’s significance and the purpose of examining it are also present here. While not explicit, the purpose of the author beginning the text in this stasis is implied in that it is intended for general readers.
The text then goes on to discuss the possible causes of this problem of CCD, which deals in the second stasis. The author states that many different causes have been considered by different parties, but a recent study about pesticides in beehives that shows highly toxic chemicals being synthesized within beehives because of pesticides points the text towards the conclusion that the use of pesticides is the leading cause of CCD. Up until this point in the article, the approach to the issue of CCD has been forensic in that is has dealt with the facts of the issue. But this conclusion about the cause of the issue then leads the article to transition into a deliberative mode of argument in that the text next addresses what should be and what is being done about pesticide use on bee colonies, now that evidence shows that it causes CCD, a problem threatening the collapse of the honey industry.
At this point the article seemingly skips the third stasis of evaluation and goes into the fourth stasis which discusses policies or actions that needed to be taken to solve the issue. But the case is that the third stasis is implied based on the construction of the audience by the text. The text assumes that most everybody thinks that not having honey would be a negative thing to varying degrees. So, after the implied third stasis of value, the fourth stasis of policy and solutions takes on a deliberative approach. Several possible solutions are discussed, but through the deliberation of each solution’s validity and effectiveness, narrows these possible solutions down to the best one: organic beekeeping. So, through taking a deliberative approach to the issue of CCD, the text arrives at a conclusion about what should be done.
In sum, the article follows the stases rather sequentially to first examine the issue of CCD and then to prove the cause of it in a forensic manner. In an effective transition, the article moves towards a deliberative approach to discuss the action that should be taken on the issue once the cause has been identified. So, in that the article uses a forensic approach, it acts scientific, but in that this report transitions into an argument, it becomes more than simply a scientific report.

What Hive Found

As we have learned, the stases theory described by Fahnestock and Secor is composed of three to four points at which certain questions can be asked. “There are questions of fact, questions of definition, questions of value, and in some versions questions of procedure, which [we] will conflate with questions of policy.” These stases can be used to create arrangement and can even be a tool for audience analysis. Although all stasis are usually addressed in scientific rhetoric, more emphasis is usually placed on one or two stases. This does not mean that the remaining stasis or stases, is to be disregarded because they are still relevant to the reader and the audience. This emphasis on one or two stases is a major component in the composition of the audience.
In the article, “Show Me the Honey,” written by Taylor Hengen, follows the systematic flow of the stases theory. Hengen is able to answer the simple questions of fact and definition in the first few paragraphs of the article. What are they? Bees. Clearly this question is answered through the title of the article and the picture given next to it. But what is really the problem that is being discussed? “But Bees haven’t been staying on task. They’ve been acting a little weird lately—leaving their hives and not coming back…” Hengen continues to describe what is happening to the bees, and how pesticides are a “contributing factor” in the strange behavior of the bees. This description of the actual problem that is occurring in these hives is answering the question cause.
When answering the question of value, is this good or bad, Hengen has to convince the audience that this is a real problem. I am not sure that he/she is able to do this. He/she seems to not spend as much time on this stasis, which is common in scientific writing, but in this case, I feel that the author should be convincing us, the readers, to completely understand why these crazy bees are a problem. This is a major role in audience construction that is not complete in my opinion. If the bees are not changing my life, my food, my environment, why should I care? These questions should be addressed and answered.
The last two paragraphs are spent answering the question of policy. What action should be taken? “Last year, the American Beekeepers' Federation, in a letter to the Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture, encouraged Congress to pass the 2007 Farm Bill. The letter highlighted environmental regulation and enforcement as one of the beekeeping industry's priority issues, stating "the central role of bees in the environment and farm economy should be emphasized in environmental regulation and enforcement, including in the review and approval of new farm chemicals and treatments.... In the Farm Bill or otherwise, Congress should, among other things, mandate that sub-lethal effects on honey bees be considered in the regulatory process for new agricultural treatments."
Hengen is able to address all stases, some more than others in this article. It is necessary as a writer and reader of rhetoric to see how these states play a role in all public discourse. It is also important to see what role they play. “Why are arguments being addressed in these states at all?” “Every topic or issue must have ‘won’ an argument over value before it can be addressed at all. Such a preliminary value argument may not be addressed explicitly in the text of an actual argument, but it is necessary part of the fir of argument to audience.” Audience construction and arrangement are both part of the way we write. Our style is very important when we are trying to bring our reader’s to our side of the argument. The Stases are a systematic way for a writer to construct a well written argument.

Bees Successfully Buzz Through Scientific Arrangement

Taylor Hengen writer for the Scientific American is the author of the report of recent unusual bee activity, “Show me the Honey”. Many agriculturists and scientists have been observing bees acting in a very bizarre manner, becoming disoriented and on occasion not loyally returning to their hives. After extensive study this problem has been attributed to “pesticide levels in hives (that) are much higher than researchers predicted.” Hengen’s article contains several examples of key concepts discussed in Fahnestock and Secor’s, and Gross’s articles regarding the arrangement of scientific papers. Using the theory of stases, the inductive process, and Gross’s comments on layout one can better understand the successful order of the topic discussed in Hengen’s article.

Fahnestock and Secor describe the stases as “a format for the arrangement of arguments” and they consists of five logical questions including, fact, definition, value, procedure, and policy. When considered in this order it can allow one to reach specific conclusions about an argument or rhetorical piece. Emphasis on specific stases can provide clues towards the author’s attempts of audience construction. In The beginning of Hengen’s article she briefly addresses the first three stases, discussing the purpose of bees, their usual and unusual habits, and suspected cause of their behavior. The rest of the article is spent discussing various experiments and conclusions that scientists have been reaching regarding the condition of these fuzzy flyers, which would be categorized as procedure and policy stases components. Since Hengen is writing for Scientific American she can assume her audience contains a general knowledge of the first three stases, and therefore places the majority of her emphasis on the remaining two.

In addition to the use of the stases Hengen’s article also employs the “inductive process” discussed in Gross’s article. This process involves “a series of laboratory or field events leading to a general statement about natural kinds.” Before scientists were aware of the extreme amounts of pesticides in bee hives, they first observed their unusual behavior in agricultural situations, and in bee hives maintained for honey production. These “claims” were then addressed by scientists, who concluded that the bees were suffering from “Colony Collapse Disorder” most likely caused by chemical exposure. When confirmed by experiments the observed claims are then transformed into “data” and general statements about nature.

By the standards put forth by Fahnestock, Secor, and Gross Hengen’s article successfully acts as a scientific research paper, putting for claims, experimental results, and stunning conclusions. She follows the logical progression of the stases, as proposed by Fahnestock and Secor, allowing her audience to get all of the information they desire about the topic. She also uses the inductive process to take her claims and turn them into useful data that will be used by scientists to attempt to reverse the damage done to bees. Hengen successfully concludes her article on the personal note of the positive effect that each person can have on bees by growing flowering plants in their yards.

Question of Right and Wrong

“All in the Name of Science” talks about scientific experiments that have been done in the medical field which have called into concern the question of morality. Experiments such as the Tuskegee Study used poor black men to study the affects of untreated syphilis. It allowed the men, who were never told they had syphilis, to go untreated even though the proper medication was available. The writer asks the reader to consider what is morally correct and how research can be done with out violating the rights of participants.  To do this, the writer uses Fahnstock and Secors stases.

            The first stases to be used is the question of fact. The article explains what the Tuskegee Study was as well as explaining several other similar studies. This stases helps to construct an audience which I believe is composed of people who are unfamiliar with these types of studies, and more specifically, the poor and the minorities whom these studies seem to target the most.

The second stases is the question of cause. The writer believes that people’s rights are being violated by these studies, which tend to misinform their participants or leave them completely blind to what they are participating in. Because of this lack of communication between the researchers and the subjects, the writer seems to suggest that the studies violate moral boundaries. The text even explains that guidelines have been created to protect people from these experiments yet they continue to occur and most of the time involve members of “minority or disadvantaged groups.”

Next, is the stases regarding value. The articles value lies in the idea that when people’s rights are violated, it can have negative impacts. The text points out that in many studies, people died due to a lack of understanding of the study, or from being completely misinformed. Considering what can be done to avoid violating the rights of participants will, in turn, potentially save lives.

The final stases is the question of policy or procedure. The writer’s aim is to challenge readers to consider the moral issues concerning medical scientific research, and is calling for the audience to push for more ethical experiments so that the rights of the people can be protected.

Beyond the use of the stases the article also uses dispositio because it follows a cause and effect type method by saying “this is what happened as well as who it affected and this is what the outcome was.” 

Questions about Bees..

Fahnestock and Secor's article says, "the stases describe a series of three or sometimes four points at which certain types of questions arise about a subject.." It goes on to explain what kind of questions and give examples such as how obviously asking what something is gives the definition. Adding more questions F & S says gives the writer a way to answer a thesis. The article I read was called, "Show Me the Honey". It is about bees and a problem called Colony Collapse Disorder. In its first paragraph the writer describes a little bit about what bees do (pollinate) and how people are being made aware of this problem. F & S say, "This is what it means to be sensitive to language in argument: to be aware of facts that are assumed significant, to notice definitions that might be implicit in word choice and metaphor." So one of the stases or questions that provide definition might have been, "What are the bees problem?" However like F & S tell us we have to be aware because definitions can be shaky sometimes. Just like this one is about the CCD of bees. We don't really have an understanding of what causes it because many things might cause it, yet the writer goes on to blame it on pesticides.
It is not just definition that F & S talk about but facts as well. This article pushes facts on us as writers about pesticides and organic farming. It is directed at us as an audience to make us react to ask questions like if that this is true what must I do? What is the next step? The writer tells us to eliminate all pesticides, and to find other ways to deal with problems.
Value is what I think the other authors we have read have called pathos. It appeals most to our emotions, and is evident in the bee article when the author uses language such as homes instead of hives to appeal to us, and make us feel for the homeless, confused, little bees.
I think what struck me as an important quote was, "We address an issue in one stasis, we may do so because of the preferred practices of our discipline. That does not mean, however, that the other stases are absent or irrelevant to the reactions of our readers or audiences" F & S are saying that we can use all of the stases at once to construct an argument for the audience. And that it won't be lost on them.

Multiple Audiences, Multiple Aims

“Freeing a Locked-In Mind” written by Karen Schrock focuses on the previous thoughts about brain-damaged patients. This article was published in Scientific American in 2007. The obvious audience for this article would be medical professionals, and other Americans interested in science. Schrock is able to appeal to more than just the scientific audience, by using multiple aims that are discussed in Kinneavy’s aims of discourse.

A reader might believe that the first aim technique that Schrock uses would be under the referential category, but Schrock actually pulls in the reader by setting up a scenario that would more likely fit in the introduction to a novel. This could be considered literary. This first paragraph pulls in more than just the scientific reader; it also keeps the attention of a reader that would usually not read a scientific article. Schrock is able to use pathos to appeal to the audiences emotions. Once Schrock is able to draw in her audience, she is able to use ethos to convince the reader that she is knowledgeable about the subject. She is able to do this by using scientific support from doctor’s dialogue in her article. This also falls under the referential and scientific category in Kinneavy’s discourse chart.

Because Schrock’s audience is more than just the medical world, she never addresses the audience as medical experts. She is able to clearly present her information in a simple, but persuasive structure that allows all readers to understand the information that is given. One of the quotes that Schrock uses from Adrian Owens, addresses how all people felt about patients with brain damage, not just medical doctors and experts. “People have felt until now that this patient group isn’t worth investing in. The attitude has been, ‘There’s nothing that can be done.’” This quote is important because it allows to the reader to reflect on what they think about this issue, and how they felt about brain damaged patients.

I felt that Schrock used multiple techniques to persuade the reader to become interested in new treatments for brain-damaged patients. Her focus on her audience, and her use of pathos and referential material, allow Schrock to clearly present her information to more than one group of people.

Sisterhood, a silent persuasion

It is evident Barbara Kantrowitz did not want to narrow her audience to one group of people. However, the context of the article is sure to appeal to women. It is also evident that Kantrowitz is opposed to the Miss America pageants and writes to persuade her audience to be opposed as well. What is more, Kantrowitz’ general, but informative, way of writing cleverly targets women without screaming “hey! Miss America is an outrage!” Yet, this is exactly what her article implies.

Kantrowitz writes in order to reach women, not by offending them, but pointing out the obvious flaws of her subject. She writes, “In 2007, Miss America might seem a paltry target, but back then it was a very big deal”: this, hardly vicious, choice of words is enough to draw the audience without smacking the issue in its face.

Kantrowitz ends her article by writing, “crowned or uncrowned, sisterhood is powerful.” While she has diverted singling out an audience all through her writing, it is safe for her now to assume, that if the reader is indeed a women she would better bond with the article by somehow being tied to it. She is left with the strong feeling of the power of sisterhood.

Bringing It All Together

The start of a revolution began, in its smallest of measures, at the 1968 Ms. America pageant. From here, it grew to astronomical proportions, and truly became one of the greatest steps forward for women. In the article, “Its Ms. America to You,” written by Barbara Kantrowitz, one would find that these revolutionizing events were not only stated in Newsweek for the simple knowledge of history, but rather for an even bigger aim and purpose. By using the concepts from Kinneavy’s article and applying it to this sample of work, the reader would realize that it is not just referential, but expressive, literary, and persuasive as well. When a small sample of all of these is placed into one article, the effects of success are transparent; even if, at first glance, the reader is drawn in and focused on the informative approach.
It is quite obvious to most that this article falls under the referential informative category because it is a news article reporting on the events of the past. To witness this, observe the opening sentence which states, “In a tumultuous year, a demonstration by 100 women on the boardwalk in Atlantic City seemed relatively tame.” By mentioning facts, such as how many women were involved, what occurred on that day, and where the event took place, the author sets up a story, or an explanation if you will, allowing the reader to know from the very start that this is a recollection of events. By focusing on the informative, the author brings in the “reality,” as Kinneavy would say, of the situation. It is also interesting to note that Kantrowitz also clearly explains in her article what did not happen on this day as well. She uses the word “myth” in the beginning to lay to rest any misconceptions about what occurred on this day. This also helps to reinforce the factual and truthful information that makes a report or news article credible. The article also goes on to state dates, names, and events that took place to help further the point of informing the reader of the facts.
Though this article may seem to have a clear cut purpose that lies under the referential category, one may also note that it could also fall under the expressive category as well. This article is about the struggle of women’s rights, and at this time in 1968, women were not necessarily a minority, but they did experience many of the hardships that minorities faced. Being given the right to choose how to act and how to portray one’s self, without the stereotypes of what men thought women should live up to, was an incredible step towards “freedom” for women. This idea of socially expressing one’s self is not as obvious as just stating the facts, but it does help to add more of a purpose to this article. This particular area is where the writer highlights the advancements that women have made in our country since 1968.
Also, the idea of literary composition can also be found in this article. This too, is not completely obvious to the reader; however, it plays a very important role. In the article, Kantrowitz talks about Robin Morgan, a woman who played a huge role in the liberation movement. Her story is briefly portrayed here and explained to the reader because it helps the reader understand what was going on in the minds of the women at this time. Why here at the Ms. America pageant? Why now? What caused these women to perform in such an act? These questions are going through the reader’s mind because the reader wants to know why and where the women of the liberation movement were coming from. By telling Morgan’s story, the reader gets a better idea as to why this event occurred.
Finally, this article appeals to the reader through a persuasive technique. The fact that these women were fighting for rights is a very political topic that concerns all women. Kantrowitz adds the quote from the Ms. America winner of 1968 saying, “’I think the feminist movement has done a lot for women…We wouldn’t be where we are if it hadn’t started out that way.’” By using this quote, the reader begins to recall how far women have actually come, and this sense of pride and accomplishment is quite overwhelming. Kantrowitz also adds “Crowned or uncrowned, sisterhood is powerful.” This particular statement adds to the emotions of the reader, especially women, because we realize that we could make a difference as well if we just come together and fight for what we believe in. The passion that Kantrowitz leaves us with is awe-inspiring; and this just makes the article even more successful in its aim.
It is only after observing these different segments in the article that the reader can realize just how effective and successful this article is as a whole. The point that Kinneavy was trying to portray was that it is the combination of the communications triangle that makes a piece of writing more effective to the readers because it appeals to a broader range of audience. Though the intended audience of this article is to all the readers of Newsweek, the implied audience is to all women. By using the referential aspect, Kantrowitz appeals to anyone who is reading the article because she is stating news and facts that anyone would be interested in; however, by using expressive, literary, and persuasive, Kantrowitz can make an extra appeal to women as well. This article is a great example of Kinneavy’s aims and principle divisions because it draws in the writer, the audience, the text, and the reality of the situation to help complete the triangle and help to bring the article together in an extremely effective manner that helps to fulfill the aim that Kantrowitz was trying to depict.

Layered Assumptions

Jacob Kowalczyk
SA 2
W350 Graban

The audience for “Letter to President Clinton on Iraq” consists of one person: Bill Clinton. The main aim of the letter is to inform President Clinton about the situation in Iraq and also to persuade him to act upon this information in a certain way. Because the text is so heavily focused on this goal of persuasion, it necessitates audience construction.
The letter, when analyzed for what it is trying to accomplish: informing and instigating action, seems best to fit into the system of discursive aims as developed by Reichenbach, whose system states that the aims of discourse are to be communicative (factually), promotive (of action), and suggestive (emotionally). Throughout the text, we see the authors giving information which allows them to make appeals to the President’s emotions: “we will be unable to determine with any reasonable level of confidence whether Iraq does or does not possess such weapons.” This is not simply a statement of fact, but a fact that the authors can assume that the president will react emotionally to. So in this sense that the authors are assuming certain reactions from the audience (Bill Clinton) to certain pieces of information, the authors are employing the concept of audience construction.
This use of audience construction is highly effective for the authors, who want to make a strong impact on the President so as to motivate him into action. The process of stating facts that the author can assume will elicit a certain emotional reaction, then, based off of those assumptions, present more facts that can be assumed to evoke certain responses to even further their goal of motivating the President into action. So, the text is heavily reliant on audience construction to make its appeal, but without the ability to assume the effects of the text, the authors would not have been able to so strongly make their case to the President.

America, Don't undo feminists efforts!

After reading the article “It’s Ms. America to You”, I believe the intended audience is middle-aged women. Because the article was printed in Newsweek, the article also appealed to men in a couple of ways, especially by making the point that the feminists “didn’t burn their bras”, which shows the men that they aren’t “crazy” feminists. However, I believe the main idea of the article was to remind women of the efforts that went into attaining the freedoms that we now have today. The author listed many liberties that the New York Radical Women fought for, and these liberties also happened to be things that many women today take for granted. I also believe that the author tries to play with the reader’s emotions. She is very suggestive in the sense of how she sarcastically urges women to stop altering their physical beauty.

I feel as though I have a pretty good understanding of Kinneavy and his “basic purposes for construction” and “basic aims of discourse”; however, I have a tough time putting a piece of media in just one category. Not every piece of media is going to fall clearly into one category because many or even most media is not as “basic” as we would like to think. I think that Kinneavy’s use of the word “basic” is rather deceiving. “It’s Ms. America to You” falls into two different categories. The audience is re-informed of some historical events and these events are summarized, which specifies the type of referential reality this piece is: Informative. The informative nature of the article helps the author reach her other aim of persuasion. It would be almost impossible to persuade someone to think or act differently if they did not have knowledge of negative aspects of how they think or act at the present time. Throughout the article, the author is describing different achievements of women’s activist groups. Then, she seems as though she is pleading with the reader. All of the efforts to have women not be viewed as sex objects or judged on the basis of their beauty could be destroyed, but not by men. It is the women who have plastic surgery to enhance their physical appearance or fight against Roe v. Wade, she says. She has tried to persuade the reader not to undo all of the women’s rights groups’ efforts.

“It’s Ms. America to You” achieves its aims through a couple different outlets and I think the author did a good job of informing her intended audience of her ideas while still appealing to other readers.

Calling president Clinton mamby pamby

The aims of this letter seem to be pretty obvious. It is to urge president Clinton to take a tougher stance on Iraq and Saddam Hussein. Especially when it came to the use of military means. This letter is vary much a persuasive work. The letter was in response to the fact that Saddam had not been allowing UN inspectors to inspect the installations he agreed to allow them in to after the gulf war (CNN). The UN placed diplomatic sanction after sanction on Iraq but they were to no avail. President Clinton was a big supporter of this tactic and was vary wary to discuss military action (CNN). This made the group Project for the New American Century write this letter. Their beliefs are clearly written that Saddam was too dangerous to fool around with. Some of these names are familiar to us; particularly Donald Rumsfeld. Other notables are; John Bolton who was later one of our representatives at the UN. Paul Wolfowitz who in 1989 was the Under Secretary for Defence policy and later would become the Deputy Secretary of Defence under Donald Rumsfeld (NNDB). So this letter was written by some fairly prominent policy people of the last two decades. This builds a strong ethos for the work which can be very important for the act of persuasion. The writers spell out in plain terms what they feel the danger is. That being Saddam's lack of cooperation and the potential for him to possess and use WMD's. They point out the dangers of the situation. One being that the region contains "a significant portion of the worlds supply of oil will all be put at hazard." This being a strong argument being that everything in daily American life has oil involved somehow. They also point out that even the idea of Iraq being equipped with WMD's itself could "have a seriously destabilizing effect on the Middle East." Also not a fun idea to mess around with. The letter then suggests the removal of Saddam and his government by "diplomatic, political and military efforts." as "the only acceptable strategy".
For this letter the use of audience construction is fairly straight forward if, it was in fact a direct letter to president Clinton. From the letter itself it is purely addressed to President Clinton. The language itself also gives us an impression that the letter is in fact a direct letter. Phrases such as "as you have rightly stated" and "we urge you".
In the end this letter may have well affected President Clinton because he did take some military action in December of 1998 to "degrade" Iraq's WMD production capability (wikipedia)

Proposition for the President

The article titled “Letter to President Clinton On Iraq” was written in 1998 about the situation regarding Saddam Hussein and the American policy toward Iraq. The text has several aims, which can be explained using Kinneavy’s triangle.

            First, the authors of the text, which were from an organization called Project For The New American Century, wrote the letter to their implied audience, which was President Clinton. However the intended audience included more than just the president. It was also intended for the American people to inform them of the current situation and form an awareness of the steps that needed to be taken to improve things. One of the author’s aims is persuasive because of the political context of the entire letter. The article talks about “securing the interests of the U.S. and our friends and allies around the world.” It also talks of foreign policy, the UN Security Council, and sanctions, all of which are political terms and issues.

            The author also has a referential aim in several ways. First, it is referential exploratory because the letter is proposing a solution to problems (Kinneavy, 302). The authors propose a strategy that “should aim, above all, at the removal of Saddam Hussein’s regime from power.”  They call for a strategy that “eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction” and “willingness to undertake military action.” It is also referential scientific because it proves a point using accepted premises (Kinneavy, 302). The author uses facts by discussing the inspections taking place in Iraq and the findings from these inspections. This also makes it referential informative because the text if giving a report on the current situation and the results and findings that are coming out of the inspections in Iraq.

            The text also has an expressive social aim because it is talking about an issue that is directly related to the American people and this country. It appeals to the audience’s emotions because it is discussing the threat to our nations security. By making it sound like with out this plan and course of action the United States is not safe, the audience is more likely to be motivated to do something to ensure their safety.

The letter is making an effort to propose a plan that will make this country safe from the threat of Iraq and weapons of mass destruction. It utilizes Kinneavy’s triangle is several ways by using aims that were expressive, referential, and persuasive.

Successful Release of Compositional Strategies

“Freeing a Locked-In Mind” written by Karen Schrock was originally published in the Scientific American in April of 2007. It is a detailed recount of some of the recent developments leading scientist to the “verge of communicating with patients who only a few years ago would have been considered brain-dead.” The nature of the article and the location of its publication points towards it existing as a purely referential work on Kinneavy’s ‘basic purposes of composition’ chart. However, several visual and discrete appeals to pathos allow it to also be categorized as persuasive. Schrock’s verbal creation of visuals as well as her reference to the nationally heart wrenching case of Terri Schiavo creates a unified audience. While her work is easily categorized as referential, the subtle and visual appeals to pathos unite her audience behind her ultimate aim of promoting research into locked-in minds.

Upon first read this article seems immediately and purely referential falling precisely under Kinneavy’s subcategory of scientific. While examining it the reader can see it also fulfills the descriptions of exploratory and informative, seeing as it contains dialogues from scientists, information about revolutionary research, and historical context around the area being studied. At an even closer glance one can see the structure of the article also allows it to be considered persuasive. Schrock originally offers the image of many hopeless “brain dead” for which “nothing can be done.” She then in detail describes the breaking edge research offering the reader a feeling of hope. Her article concludes with the miserable statistics regarding the unfortunate financial situation stalling most of the new studies. This organization would have proven very effective towards creating supporters in the largely scientific audience Schrock would have been addressing, while writing for the Scientific American.

The specific work relies heavily on audience construction because without supporters the research addressed in the article cannot move forward. Schrock begins bringing her audience together in the first paragraph, while describing an anonymous woman in a hospital room. By leaving the woman without an identity it allows the reader to visualize possibly a family member, friend, or the nationally known Terri Schiavo who is mentioned later in the article. This image then sticks with the reader throughout the remainder of the article, giving the reader someone to hope for and support. Even though the article was released to the intellectual audience of Scientific American it is composed with simple language, and clearly explains the concepts within, allowing any common reader with an interest in the subject to feel involved.

Schrock’s clever organization and simple explanation of developing research allows her to create an audience unified behind the concepts of promoting further research in the area of vegetative minds. Withholding the negative aspects, such as the financial problems, until the end of the article allows the reader to be persuaded towards its benefits before considering the odds. In writing a purely referential, and persuasive article allows it to come off as professional, and intelligent, while building a strong emotional appeal. Her brilliant combination of all of these aspects results in an emotional, inspiring, and logical article.

Eavesdropping on a Philosophy to Live By

In the letter, " A Philosophy to Live by Is a Healing Thing," by John Cromwell, we see that based on Kinneavy's article the basic aim of this piece is for Jonathan, the author's son and intended audience, to know and always be honest with himself. In doing this his father is hopeful that Jonathan will create his own philosophy to live by. This letter is both expressive and persuasive to me. I believe that the author is trying to persuade his son to take on the beliefs he is presenting, but he is also trying to present a new way of thinking and in doing that he expresses his opinions. This text is both reader/decoder as well as encoder/writer oriented because it is the father's testimony and is meaningful to him. It is profitable towards the son because his father took the time to spell out in so many words these profound thoughts in confidence that Jonathan will take them to heart and gain from them.

Audience construction is definitely an important part of this letter because the main audience, in reality, is not necessarily only Jonathan, but a number of other readers. In directing this article towards his son, the author brings in a kind of intimate, secretive feeling that maybe the reader is eavesdropping on a private conversation. This idea captivates the mind more easily than a simple article on how to live. The author writes in reference to his son because it draws on the pathos of the article and brings our emotions in as a factor that his father would want to try to further his son's life experiences and keep hi, from missing out on knowing himself. The author writes, "For me, there are several things I believe, deeply, for they evolved slowly out of my experience without my being aware of it." The author does not want his son to miss out on some of the things that he feels he himself couldn't fully grasp at a young age. He is trying to let his son in on the secret ahead of him and this draws on the readers' emotions almost causing the reader to wish that their own parent had been so thoughtful as to write a similar letter filled with the insight of life.

Although it feels that this piece is intended solely for Jonathan. it could be reconstructed to be a generic dear children as if the speaker is sort of an omniscient character and wants to share these secrets with anyone who will wisely choose to take the time to listen. Audience construction can be done in one way by using familiarized and not complex words in so that it feels like a personal conversation and not a formal letter. In this letter the author writes, "This won't mean much to you for a long time." If he were aiming this to a general audience of perhaps young people who are seeking this wisdom, then this quote would be irrelevant. So the letter would have to be tweaked a bit in order to appeal to a different set of individuals. However, I think that the way in which this article is written is the most effective form of audience construction and I would not change it.

Overall, this article claims,"the discovery of a philosophy to live by is a healing thing. It brings its discoverer about as close to achieving happiness as it is possible to get." I feel that the author really uses this sentence in a way in which to say, I've found the fountain of youth or I've found the pathway to near happiness and I'm going to share it with you so listen carefully. That he wants to show this to his son and the reader is able to get in on the confidential action makes it feel like there is a bit of danger and excitement attached. This immensely helps the letter and gives it that bit of desirability it needs to have a well-rounded actual audience.  

Words to Live By

After reading A Philosophy to Live by is a Healing Thing I was not suprised to find that it was aired in 1952, nor that it was written by someone so accomplished in the movie business; the word choice and the flow of the sentences give the letter a wisdom that only someone like this could accomplish. Even without knowing the context of the letter, it would not be difficult to assume this letter encompassed the "wise words" of a father to his son. Despite this fact, I find it interesting further that if this letter had been directed to his 14 year old daughter instead of son, the article could remain more or less exactly how it was written.

Aside from the obvious, that no 14 year old girl would rightly be named Jonathon, there are no true distinctions in the letter that would differentiate being written to a boy or girl. "Men" is used throughout the article when referring to the general population instead of, for instance, "men and women" or "everyone"; which may have possibly been done to appeal to Cromwell's son. That being said his (imaginary) daughter may have connected to the letter more in a way if the term men was substituted by women or a more versatile term, but I do not feel it would be of major siginificance if this was not done.

I think the fact that this letter's aim is so centered around the encoder is what makes its audience so versatile. Though it's obvious that Cromwell had an audience in mind, his son, the author seems to almost reminisce, that he is essentially having a conversation with himself in the letter and telling this son, "Do with it what you will." This contextual conversation is what makes it so likely a daughter would be just as likely to accept the letter as the son.

Sisterhood...but no bra burning.

Ong’s article also mentions T.S Elliot and takes an idea from him that audiences have been fictionalized as long as there has been literature and writing. I found this to be a very interesting comment, and really helped me wrap my head around how the audience is fictionalized. The article, “It’s Ms. America to You” is very directed toward women. I think that it is most directed to women who are older, who maybe lived through the feminist movement. The article uses many examples and sets up scenes that are from that area in time. There are also women quoted who were involved in that 1968 Beauty Pageant. The article appears in a Newsweek magazine, which is predominantly read by an older population of people who are typically well educated. The article briefly discusses the 2007 pageant but dismisses it quickly and it has no value to the article. I think this sets up the audience as older, educated females who are obviously Newsweek readers.
In order for the author to construct a different audience I think a lot of things about the article would need to be changed. The article is very female oriented, and sadly without completely altering the article I don’t know how the audience could be constructed to be entirely male. I do however think that it could be altered to an audience that includes more women. Women of different races, and ages. I think your audience needs to feel connected to the aim of the article that is being projected. Ong says that the writer must construct the audience this could be clearly or vaguely according to Ong, but an audience is constructed so that the writer has someone to write to. Ong also talks about how the audience must also fictionalize themselves. So, while the writer constructs the audience the audience also fictionalizes itself too. This is not the same as what they may be in reality, but merely what they are while reading the text. I think that the audience can adapt of course to still feel persuaded by a text, but it must be constructed as well.
Therefore, completely ignoring the present and focusing solely on the past would not work in constructing a younger audience. However the writer does mention a few issues such as gay rights and abortion rights, but they could be expanded on because they are currently such hot topics and draw people in. The world currently is full of dialogue about hot topic issues from the campaign. This draws in both young and old audiences, and now more than ever women. Mentioning Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, or even Michelle Obama has a profound uniting affect for women, and I believe will make an audience of young women accept this plea of sisterhood.

A Man Addressing his Son, and His Nation: A speech by John Cromwell

In 1952, John Cromwell addressed his son over the radio. Cromwell, a recognized actor and director, had been asked to speak about the philosophy by which he lived. When he left home at the age of 19 to pursue acting, his father began writing him letters on life-lessons; so, Cromwell decided to use the epistolary format to address his audience. This is an interesting choice of format to use when addressing a national audience because it is meant to address only one person. By choosing to speak to his son on a national broadcast Cromwell has brought in very personal ties; this response will work to determine why Cromwell choice this format by using Kinneavy's definitions and also analyzing the tone and voice inflections used by Cromwell when listening to his broadcast live.

First, it is important to not only read Cromwell's speech, but to also listen to him say the words from the actual broadcast. By listening to his emphasis on certain words, syllables and his pauses the text takes on a completely different meaning. Cromwell speaks about listening to the voice within and trusting that voice because it knows you best, but at the same time understanding the voice for that same reason. His speech is very "emotive" because it is used for the purpose of "individual satisfaction" (Kinneavy 300). It is "poetic" with its language because he chooses the emotive discourse to reach his audience (301). In his closing remarks to his son, Cromwell says that it is his "fervent hope" that his son will be a "discoverer" of himself and come as close as possible to "achieving happiness" (Cromwell 2). The emotion is apparent in his voice and that will draw the audience members into his speech if they are parents because all parents want their children to be happy.

To break Cromwell's speech even further down in Kinneavy's expections, this speech should be categorized as a dialogue to Cromwell's oldest son Jonathan. It is also a manifesto of sorts because Cromwell is providing his basic theory of life and living. It is individual because it is for himself and his son, but social also because of the large audience of listeners and the lesson the topic provides. Kinneavy's article points out that the audience must take into consideration that Cromwell could have just simply handed this letter to his son and be done with it (Kinneavy 297). They must think, why did Cromwell read it to us; why did he choose this delivery? Cromwell knew he had been reached and touched by the letters his father had given to him, so he knew it was a format that worked. Cromwell drew on his personal experience to share his philosophy. Cromwell is extremely personal and provides examples in his letter. He does not just list off his theories, he makes them relatable.

In conclusion, Cromwell speaks on his philosophy to by; he tells about learning to listen to his inner voice and learning about himself. He addresses his son, but he is really addressing his nation. He speaks to the nation not as a Hollywood actor know-it-all, but as a father who wants to help his son. He draws not on his glitz and glam, but on his hard learning experiences. Cromwell may never have in fact received letters from his father, but in his speech his audience will believe that he did and that he is letting them into a very personal part of his life. Cromwell is poetic and sincere and draws on emotions when he is giving a very opinionated speech.