Research and Educational Center of Foreign Languages, the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine
The article provides an overview of the development of rhetoric of science as a new interdisciplinary field since the 1970’s to the present. The philosophical foundations of rhetoric of science, in particular its relation to postpositivism and relativism, are being analysed. The main methodological vectors in this field are considered, such as analysis of rhetorical figures and schemes; identification of stases and topoi; delineation of rhetorical steps and moves; analysis of logos, ethos and pathos in scientific texts. The article emphasizes the importance of the conception of rhetorical figures’ cognitive basis for ongoing development of rhetoric of science. The importance of the use of rhetorical means in scientific discourse has been demonstrated via comparison of the style of two scientific works (by J. Watson & Fr. Creek and O. Avery et al.), which laid the foundations of molecular biology, but had a considerably different level of acclaim in the scientific community due to the difference in their writing styles. The main points of the critique of rhetoric of science by D. Gaonkar and other scholars are considered. The relevance and significance of applying rhetorical theory to the analysis of scientific discourse is substantiated, with the purpose of identification of cognitive and evaluative presuppositions that determine the course of scientific research of individual scholars or entire fields. It is argued that the rhetoric of science has practical significance for the translation of special texts, the popularization of science, and the training of would-be scientists in academic writing.
Keyw ords: rhetoric of science, scientific discourse, rhetorical figures, style, scientific communication.
- Arp A. Rhetoric and science: examining and identifying the rhetorical techniques used by students in a composition classroom // Honors Program Theses 124, 2014: http://scholarworks.uni.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1097&context=hpt
- Avery O. et al. Studies on the chemical nature of the substance inducing transformation of pneumococcal types. Induction of transformation by a desoxyribosenucleic acid fraction isolated from pneumococcus type III. – The Journal of Experimental Medicine, 1944. Vol. 79. Pp. 137-158.
- Baigrie B. S. Picturing Knowledge: Historical and Philosophical Problems Concerning the Use of Art in Science. – Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 1996. 389 p.
- Ceccarelli L. Shaping Science with Rhetoric: The Cases of Dobzhansky, Schrödinger, and Wilson. – Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 2001. 192 p.
- Fahnestock Accommodating science: The rhetorical life of scientific facts. – Written Communication. 1986. Vol. 3, No. 3. Pp. 275–296.
- Fahnestock J. & Secor M. The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument. – Written Communication. 1988. 5, No 4. Pp. 427-443.
- Freddi M., Korte B. & Schmied J. Developments and Trends in the Rhetoric of Science. – European Journal of English Studies. 2013. Vol. 17. No. 3. Pp. 221-234.
- Gaonkar D. P. The Idea of Rhetoric in the Rhetoric of Science. – In Rhetorical Hermeneutics: Invention and Interpretation in the Age of Science. / A. G. Gross and W. M. Keith. – Albany, SUNY Press, 1997. – Pp. 25–85.
- Gross A. The Rhetoric of Science. – Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1990. 248 p.
- Halloran M. The birth of molecular biology: An essay in the rhetorical criticism of scientific discourse. – Rhetoric Review. 1984. Vol. 3, No. 1. Pp. 70-83.
- Halloran S. M. & Bradford A.N. Figures of Speech in the Rhetoric of Science and Technology. In Essays on Classical Rhetoric and Modern Discourse / R. Connors, L. Ede & A. Lunsford. – Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1984. – Pp. 179-192
- Harris R. The Rhetoric of Science Meets the Science of Rhetoric. – Poroi. 2013. Vol. 9, No. 1. Pp. 1-12.
- Harris R. Visions and revisions: issues in rhetoric and composition. Carbondale, Southern Illinois University Press, 2002. – Pp. 163-219.
- Ilynska L., Ivanova O. & Senko Z. Rhetoric of Scientific Text Translation. – Procedia. Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2016. No. 231. P. 84-91.
- Leach J. New rhetorics in new sciences: Figuration and knowledge mediation. In What is the New Rhetoric? – Cambridge, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2009. Pp. 69-81.
- Lynch J. What are stem cells? Definitions at the intersection of science and politics. – Tuscaloosa, University of Alabama Press, 2011. 184 p.
- Madden M. E. et al. Rethinking STEM Education: An Interdisciplinary STEAM Curriculum. – Procedia Computer Science. December 2013. Vol. 20. P. 541-546.
- Moore R. Writing About Biology: How Rhetorical Choices Can Influence the Impact of a Scientific Paper. – Bioscene. 2000. Vol. 26, 1. Pp. 23-25.
- Ornatowski C. M. Rhetoric of Science: Oxymoron or Tautology? The Writing Instructor. 2007.: http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ824640.pdf
- Perelman Ch. & Olbrechts-Tyteca L. La nouvelle rhétorique; Traité de l’Argumentation / Ch. Perelman & L. Olbrechts-Tyteca. – Paris, Presses Universitaires de France, 1958. – 384 p.
- Prelli L. J. A Rhetoric of Science: Inventing Scientific Discourse. – Columbia: U of South Carolina, 1989. 320 p.
- Simpson T.K. Maxwell’s Mathematical Rhetoric: rethinking the Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. – Santa Fe, Green Lion Press, 2010. 351 p.
- Swales J. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. – Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1990. 260 p.
- The University of Waterloo. The Rhetorical Figure Project. – The University of Waterloo. 2017: https://artsresearch.uwaterloo.ca/rhetfig/fignav/
- Walsh L. The common topoi of STEM discourse: An apologia and methodological proposal, with pilot survey. – Written Communication. 2010. Vol. 27, No. 1. Pp. 120-156.
- Watson D. & Crick Fr. H. A structure for deoxyribose nucleic acid / J. D. Watson & Fr. H. Crick. – Nature. 1953. Vol. 171. – Pp. 737–738.
- Webster J. The Bloomsbury Companion to M.A.K. Halliday – Bloomsbury Academic Press, London & New York, 2015. 512 p.
- Wynn J. Evolution by the numbers: The origins of mathematical argument in biology. – Anderson, Parlor Press, 2012. 271 p.