“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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I would disagree with calling this work "scientific" as defined by Kinneavy. Though the subject may be of a scientific nature, the aim of this work is not to prove the science that is being discussed. In Kinneavy's description of scientific he uses the word "proving" twice indicating that an argument is essential in a scientific paper. The use of quotes by the researchers is dialogue but not a dialogue. It was not a conversation but rather quotes that give the paper some authority. This gives a little hint into the pathos that the writer is showing us that she is not an expert in this field but with the help of the researchers her article is valid and well researched. Giving us a little window into the audience construction that the author had in mind. That she may have constructed them to be people interested in science but not necessarily experts. this explains the use of relatively simple language.
I can see parts of this being a persuasive work after reading your structure examples from the beginning of the article. But after reading the entire article I don't feel this is the case. Though she sets the stage with sad imagery of the unconscious person. It is really to set the stage of why this information is relivent to report. Giving the article context. In the conclusion when she speaks of the poor finances of this research there is no information on how or who to give money to. Perhaps suggesting that these statements were purely to inform us that the progress of the research was coming slowly in part due to a lack of funds.
though i didn't read this article, your analysis enabled me to map out the article as a purely scientific discussion towards an eventual opinionated conclusion. interesting.
This article may not be completely defined as scientific, its aim is to appeal to the scientific audience. It is published in Scientific American and she uses scientific support throughout the article to get her point across. I may agree that it is more persuasive than scientific, but she is definetly using science to pursuade. Therefore, why can it not fall into both catagories? Wasn't Kinneavy trying to tell us that discourse does not have to be black or white? Maybe this article just happens to fall into that gray area. I happen to like gray.
Post a Comment