Kristen Vosberg

Who Wore it Better? Scientific Journalism and Style

Scientists write Scientific “Papers” or “professional publications”. Scientific journalism,

something meant to be viewed and understood by the public, not colleagues, is written by non-

scientists. Some scientists, however, are gifted in writing science for the public. How do they do

it, and how “scientific” do they “get”? Determining just how “scientific” something is, or how

“professional” it may come across to other scientists, is a matter of analyzing the amount of

jargon and references used in a piece. If a writer takes time to explain scientific ideas in ways

which might be familiar to readers (i.e. analogies or metaphors), it becomes accessible instead of

professional. Of course, it would feel redundant to explain an idea to a colleague using a

metaphor when your colleagues are already familiar with jargon and concepts from the field.

Thus, writing content I term as “accessible” for a professional audience would be inappropriate

and costly, in terms of a knowledge economy engaged by writers. This paper will perform

Language of Origin and Lexical Field analysis on three different passages from three separate

science journalists, all of whom are scientists themselves, in some capacity. They all do harness

the knowledge and jargon allowing them to be as “scientific” as they want. Thus, authors make

choices about how to write information, the nature and effect of these choices are the focus of

this work.

Language of Origin analysis will confront accessibility of writing, looking mainly

at efforts by authors to include Old English Core language which is inherently accessible to

English speakers. Conversely, Latin originating language tends to imply scientific, professional

language. Lexical Field analysis is also an indicator of scientific vs accessible language in that an

“accessible” piece will use a lexical field tied to a metaphor, example, or otherwise common
understanding. I do not expect to see a lexical field of botany harnessed by a botanist writing a

book for the public, even though they are a botanist. Instead, I expect to see lexicon from a more

commonly understood field; the natural world. This work will analyze Robin Wall-Kimmerer’s

Braiding Sweetgrass, Michael Pollan’s Botany of Desire and Richard Dawkins’ The Selfish

Gene and determining; which is the most approachable? Which the most professional? Why?

I’ve read all three pieces and have an idea of who is accessible to everyone and who is accessible

to me, a scientist. However, this paper attempts to use Language of Origin and Lexical Field

analysis to provide some evidence!

Thinking about the rhetorical situation, its important to acknowledge the fact that all three

authors wrote books, not papers (with a capitol P). Scientific Papers work to communicate within

a discourse, a discourse the public is left out of since they were not acculturated into it in

education or professional life. So, it can be said that all three authors wrote with the purpose of

communicating complicated scientific information to a public audience. Going a bit deeper, it

can be said that there is some motivation for the audience to pick up the book and read it, making

the task of the science journalist different from that of a technical science writer. Technical

science writers may write brochures addressing heart disease or fibromyalgia for Mayo clinic.

Technical writers, then, are dealing with an audience who functionally needs to understand their

writing, more so than an audience reading a book in their downtime. The way I see it, technical

writers, in my example, have less of a choice; their audience really needs them to be writing

clear, digestible content. Science journalists, the, have more of a choice in the style of their work

because they are dealing with an audience seeking knowledge for knowledge’s sake, and their

audience likely picked up the book because they want to be “queued in” on the discourse. Thus,

science journalists can risk being a little bit more “scientific” or “professional” for a curious
audience if they want. So, would writing in a style that is more than just a stripped-down

explanation of science in plain language benefit the purpose of a science journalist’s work?

Popular science writing is compelling in ways that broshures from mayo clinic just are not. How

does style account for this difference?

It can be said that the overwhelming “style” of Science Journalism is colloquial. In a

2014 work by Teodoro Gross titled From the Rhetoric of Science to Science Journalism,

Scientific Journalism was helpfully framed as “…the transformation of technical, learned and

scientifically accurate language into colloquial language (28).” It can be said, then, that

colloquial style is the standard for science journalism. In speaking directly about style, the work

referenced a need for …clear, concise, precise, smooth and easy to understand, so as to capture

the reader’s interest” (28). In her book Rhetorical Style, Jeanne Fahnestock writes about

colloquialism, saying the use of contractions, along with verbs like “get” and adverbs like “sure”,

contribute to an air of colloquialism. Less formally, but still interestingly, Wikipedia cites idioms

and terms of phrases as landmarks in colloquial style. Finally, Leon wrote about ways scientific

journalistic style should be expressed and why, writing:

“… [it] can open up the highly stereotyped formats of scientific texts, which are boxed by

a specific methodology, and allow for narrative to unfold. Writing should then take place based

on certain resources:

- Definitions: Propositions to clearly present the subject; categorizing and synthesizing

the idea of the topic being discussed, letting the public know how to understand it.

- Examples: The essential resource of showing cases or applications by means of images

and references, even popular ones that will bring the issue closer to the public. Narration:

Transposing the conceptual net to narrative techniques in order to talk about the topic.
 - Staging: A variation on narration introducing characters and dialogue.

- Evaluation modelling: The inclusion of the writer’s points of view, personalizing the

text with opinions or notes.

- Discursive explanations: Digressions and comments as clarifying parentheses that

keep the public’s attention.

- Metaphor: An essential resource to unravel concepts or ideas by means of general

images.

- Colloquialisms: Bringing the discourse closer to a general language so as to create

closeness with the reader” (34).

So, while analyzing the work of Dawkins, Pollan, and Wall-Kimmerer, relative

prevalence of Leon’s attributes, along with prevalence of devices referenced by Jeanne

Fahnestock, will be tracked alongside lexical fields and word-origins in order to determine

“accessibility” and “professionalism” of each author’s work.

In analyzing the relative “professional” or “accessible” language of the text, word choice

will be the focus of analysis. In addressing the role of Word Origin Analysis in analyzing style,

Fahnestock writes “…Old English provides the language of simplicity while…Latin and Greek

provide the special terms of scholarly and formal English” (38). In analyzing the relative

“accessibility” vs “scientific” nature of each text, Language of Origin analysis will focus on

comparing amount of words from the Old English Core to words from Latin or Greek.

Additionally, a Lexical Field analysis will prove useful in that it can portray an amount of words

taken from professional lexis (i.e. Botany for Wall-Kimmerer and Pollen, Genetics for Dawkins)

vs casual lexis which, for all three of them, would be the lexis of “natural world” or “nature”.

Basically, the lexical field of “natural world” indicates an attempt to bring words out of
professional discourse and into the shared, accessible discourse all people encounter and

practice; that of the natural world. Thus, the lexical field analysis also acts as a useful gauge for

assessing colloquial vs professional word choice, and authors separate choices to write in a way

that is more “scientific”.

Analysis

Passages below were chosen because they all serve the same function within the book,

and chapter, they are a part of. They all aim to introduce a scientific topic, which will later

become the topic of deeper and different conversation for that section or chapter.

Braiding Sweetgrass:

“The fact is, Maples have a far more sophisticated system for detecting spring than we
do. There are photosensors by the hundreds in every single bud, packed with light-absorbing
pigments called phytochromes. Their job is to take the measure of light every day. Tightly furled,
covered in red-brown scales, each bud holds an embryonic copy of a maple branch, and each bud
wants desperately to someday be a full-fledged branch, leaves rustling in the wind and soaking
up sun. But if the buds come out too soon they’ll be killed by freezing. Too late and they’ll miss
the spring. So the buds keep the calendar. But those baby buds need energy for their growth into
branches—like all newborns, they are hungry. We who lack such sophisticated sensors look for
other signs. When hollows appear in the snow around the tree bases, I start to think it’s tapping
time. The dark bark absorbs the growing heat of the sun and then radiates it back to slowly melt
the snow that has lain there all winter. When those circles of bare ground appear, that’s when the
first drops of sap will plop onto your head from a broken branch in the canopy.”
-Kimmerer, Robin. Braiding Sweetgrass : Indigenous Wisdom, Scientific Knowledge and
the Teachings of Plants, Milkweed Editions, 2013. ProQuest Ebook Central,
http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/depaul/detail.action?docID=1212658.
Created from depaul on 2020-11-20 01:22:33.

Lexical Field Analysis

Professional (botany): detecting, photosensors, bud, light-absorbing, pigments, phytochromes,
measure, embryonic, sensors, radiates (10)
Natural World: system, Spring, light, day, furled, scales, branch, leaves, wind, soaking, sun,
killed, freezing, calendar, baby, energy, growth, newborns, hungry, hollows, snow, tree, time,
bark, bare, ground, growing, heat, sun, sap, broken, canopy (32)

Of terms that fell into either professional or “natural world” lexis, 32/42-or 76%, were
from the lexical field pertaining to the natural world.
Word Origin Analysis
Red=English or Old English Core
Blue=Latin OR Greek

39/51, or 76%, of words analyzed for word origin (those that were either of Latin/Greek
or English Origin) were of English origin, most being from the Old English Core, 24% were of
Greek/Latin origin.

Terms-of-phrase: full-fledged,
Contractions: 3 unique
Discursive Explanations: 1 instance: “I start to think”

Botany of Desire
“One way to look at genetic engineering is that it allows a larger portion of human culture
and intelligence to be incorporated into the plants themselves. From this perspective, my
NewLeafs are just plain smarter than the rest of my potatos. The others will depend on my
knowledge and experience when the Colorado potato beetles strike. The NewLeafs, already
knowing what I know about bugs and Bt, will take care of themselves. So while my genetically
engineered plants might at first seem like alien beings, that’s not quite right; they’re more like
us than other plants because there’s more of us in them.”
-Pollan, Michael. The Botany of Desire, Random House, 2002. Page 198.

Lexical Field Analysis

Professional (Botany): genetic engineering, NewLeaf, Colorado potato beetle, Bt,(4)

Natural World: human culture, plants, smarter, potato, knowledge, bugs, plants, alien (7)
Contractions: 3 unique

63% of words analyzed fell into natural world lexis, 37% were from Botany lexicon.

Word Origin Analysis

Red=English or Old English Core
Blue=Latin OR Greek
19/30-or 63% of words analyzed for word origin (those that were either of Latin/Greek or
English Origin) were of English origin, 37% were of Latin/Greek origin.
The Selfish Gene

“Just as the Andromedans had to have a computer on earth to take day-to-day decisions
for them, our genes have to build a brain. But these genes are not only the Andromedans who
sent the coded instructions; they are also the instructions themselves. The reason why they
cannot manipulate our puppet strings directly is the same; time-lags. Genes work by controlling
protein synthesis. This is a powerful way of manipulating the world, but it is slow. It takes
months of patiently pulling protein strings to build an embryo. The whole point about behavior,
on the other hand, is that it is fast. It works on a time-scale not of months but of seconds and
fractions of seconds. Something happens in the world, an owl flashes overhead, a rustle in the
long grass betrays prey, and in milliseconds nervous systems crackle into action, muscles leap,
and someone’s life is saved-or lost.”
-Dawkins, Richard. The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press, 1979. Page 70.

Word Origin Analysis

Red=English or Old English Core
Blue=Latin OR Greek

25/36-or 69% of words analyzed for word origin (those that were either of Latin/Greek or
English Origin) were of English origin. 31% were Latin/Greek

Lexical Field Analysis:

Professional (Genetics): gene, coded, protein synthesis, embryo, nervous system, milliseconds
(7)
Natural World: behavior, seconds, months, prey, muscles, life, owl, grass (8)
Automation: Computer, brain, manipulate, time-lags, control, slow, fast, time-scale (8)

43% of words analyzed in the lexical field analysis were of genetics lexicon. 53% were of
an automation lexicon, and, if taking automation to be somewhat professional (non-natural,
discourse-relevant), then 65% of words analyzed would be from some professional lexis.

Terms of phrase: 2 unique

Examples: 2 unique
Onomatopoeia: 3 unique

In comparing these three works, we can order them a few ways:

1) From most professional Lexis used: Dawkins, Pollan, Wall-Kimmerer
2) From most Latin/Greek originating words used: Pollan, Dawkins, Wall-Kimmerer
From these brute force analysis, it can be said that Wall-Kimmerer used the least professional,

most accessible word choice, but there are arguments for a more colloquial style used by

Dawkins and Pollan. First, I will point out the way I determined the amount of “professional”

lexicon used in Dawkins work: As I was working through analysis, I found prevalence of another
lexicon, outside of natural world or Genetic lexicon. This was lexicon of mechanics, or

“automation”, as I termed it. Given that he is running a metaphor through his paragraph that

references a sci-fi T.V series, this made perfect sense. But, then, wouldn’t automation be

considered accessible and not professional? My argument is no, because the field of Genetics is

most closely related to fields of computerization and, modernly, computing plays a massive part

in the study of genetics. I think Dawkins did a clever thing and, instead of trying to explain the

gene-computer relationship the way scientists within the discourse reference it, he left the

metaphor intact but used a different, more approachable way of communicating its existence.

That being said, the words associated with automation lexis are actually very prevalent in the

genetics discourse, and so I decided to cite them as professional. Thus, Dawkins comes out as the

most professional, least accessible in terms of word choice. Dawkins is working with subject

matter a little more challenging than Botany, genes are invisible. They started as theory. To pick

up Dawkins book, you have to already be some amount of interested or invested in that complex

knowledge to begin with. So, I argue that Dawkins can afford to be a little more professional

where Botanists, who likely draw in-part an audience who just think plants look cool, cannot.

But Dawkins’ scientific journalism style criteria (use of colloquialisms) are off the charts:

Two examples seamlessly worked into an explanation (“…an owl flashes overhead, a rustle in

the long grass betrays prey…”), with onomatopoeias worked into each. He also used two overtly

colloquial terms of phrase (“day-to-day” and “on the other hand”). Thus, Dawkins afforded his

invested audience a little bit of the discourse, but was sure to support that choice affectively

using colloquial language. The Selfish Gene is one of the most popular, most cited, and most

respected pieces of popular science writing ever.

 Something all three of our authors do is anthropomorphize their subjects (maples,

potatoes, genes), but Pollan and Wall-Kimmerer do it in a very obvious way. Pollan noticeably

talks about potatoes as “taking care of” themselves, almost to the point of invoking imagery.

This is highly colloquial in that it is an example and, in place of all the scientific jargon that

could be used to describe how the genetically modified potatoes actually fend off Colorado

potato beetles, he used plain English to explain, though sacrificing much scientific information in

the process. I would argue, then, that Pollan’s approach is less risky than Dawkins, he does not

risk inclusion of professional lexis to the end of conveying more accurately the science. Instead,

he stops before it gets messy to keep his generally-curious, plant-liking audience at peace.

Additionally, Pollan’s book communicates relationship between humans and plants, and so his

paragraph naturally contains a lot of personal pronouns and personalization, bringing the reader

into his work by framing it in terms of the human experience. The most obvious example is his

last clause, “…they’re more like us than other plants because there’s more of us in them.”

After reading Wall-Kimmerer this quarter I decided she is the most poetic science author

I have ever read. Her excerpt contains an instance of rhyme “dark bark”, along with a vast

majority of words originating from English and natural world lexicon. Again, her field of Botany

probably draws more generally-curious readers than readers looking to be roped in on botanical

discourse, and paired with her poetic writing exercised from the very beginning of her book

onward, I’d argue she can hardly afford to use professional lexicon or much Latin/Greek for risk

of falling out of her own, cultivated, captivating style. She employs simile (“Like newborns…”)

imagery, and onomatopoeia to keep her language accessible. She does not risk losing readers to

professional discourse like Dawkins does.

 So, the nature of the professional field of Botany, since more people are familiar with the

basics of Botany than the basics of genetics, probably draws a larger and more vast, general

audience. Genetics, on the other hand, draws a more exclusive audience who is either

moderately queued in on the discourse, or interested in being queued in. Dawkins includes more

professional jargon, but balances it out with an overt attempt at overall colloquial style, using

devices like example and onomatopoeia. He doesn’t anthropomorphize genes as shamelessly as

the botanists anthropomorphize their subjects. The botanists work hard at maintaining accessible

word choice and so likely feel less pressure to flood every paragraph with colloquial devices,

although some come through, anyway. Overall, these are three pieces of scientific writing that

are popular, effective, and scientifically sound. They all balance style in different ways to reach

different audiences but have a shared goal of writing books for the public sphere.
 Works Cited

1) Fahnestock J. Rhetorical stylistics. Language and Literature. 2005;14(3):215-230.

doi:10.1177/0963947005054478

2) Gross, Teodoro León. “From the Rhetoric of Science to Scientific Journalism.” Interactions :
studies in communication & culture. 5.1 (2014): 25–40. Web