Today we will be looking
at two articles, of similar genre. To put the articles into context, one is a
random science article generated by a computer science genre generator while the
other is an actual scientific publication from an online science journal called
Science AAAS. The random computer
science generated article is simply an attempt to recreate the actual genre
that the online journal conforms to, so it my lack some conventions present in
true scientific articles. I will analyze the real published article and then
compare the generated one to it for similarities and differences.
The
actual published article, titled Cognitive
Control Signals for Neural Prosthetics, includes many conventions and
rhetorical devices that conform to the genre of “scholarly article” and that
cater to the audience. The audience of this piece are likely to be scientists,
doctors and engineers, specifically medical researchers. Since the purpose of
articles like this is to share results of a study, many of the conventions used
here are aimed at improving the clarity and effectiveness of transferring
information. It has an abstract at the beginning, which is consists of a well
written paragraph to introduce and summarize the contents of the article. This
allows the audience to sort through articles that may be of interest to them as
they are looking through the online science journal. It also has graphs and
charts to visually represent the data in a way that proves some important
relationship between the data collected. Each chart has its own analysis that
is broken into parts separated by alphabetized subsection. Towards the end of
the article, there are paragraphs on analysis of the data and what it could
mean for the medical field, and then a section comparing the work in this study
to other studies to put the work into perspective. At the very end of the
article the authors also includes references at the end in a list form and
cites the references within the article by including the reference number in
parentheses after the sentence.
The Cognitive Control Signals for Neural
Prosthetics article employed a style that was very formal, informative and
detailed. The tone was formal and scientific. The tone was largely influenced
by the diction which was extremely technical and scientific. For example, the
authors write about how the “Recordings
were made at points along a major pathway for visually guided movement which
begins in the extrastriate visual
cortex (6) and passes through the parietal reach region (PRR) and area
5 to the dorsal premotor cortex (PMd) and then to the primary motor cortex” (Musallam, Corneil, Greger, Scherberger,
Anderson). As you can see the diction is highly specialized (This also hints at
audience).
The “SCIgen”
computer science article generator follows many of the conventions that the
real published article does, but lacks a couple of aspects that would make it a
more believable emulation. The style, tone and purpose are essentially the same
as the published article, but the audience, while still geared towards the
scientific community, may be less medically focused than the published article,
since it was specifically about technology in the medical field. This should
not affect the overall use of conventions but the diction may not be as
medically relevant. The generator creates articles that have conventions like
the abstract, graphs and charts, and references. Among these, the abstract and
the graphs, while included, are lackluster when compared to the real article.
The abstract in the generated article is short and brief. Although it does give
information on what the article will contain, it is not nearly as in depth as
the actual article. The graphs are also lacking information. The generated
article’s graphs are only graphs or charts, a figure number, and a title. It
tried to follow the conventions of using graphs but they failed to include a
detailed analysis explaining what exactly the graph was displaying. Another
thing that was different was the use of titles to divide each subsection
–introduction, framework, implementation, results…etc. This isn’t necessarily
wrong use of a convention as for longer more detailed works, it may helpful to divide
the article into subsections, but the actual article did not have subsections.
While
both articles come from the same broad genre of scholarly article, they have a few subtle differences. The
generated articles conformed for the most part to the conventions of the genre,
and produced a believable “table of contents” for a scholarly article, but when
compared to the actual published article, it is evident that the generator did
not fully take into account the level of detail that real scientists include in
their writings.