There are a
countless number of specific genres. Ripping
them apart and comparing them together reveals the conventions and rhetorical
features used. To get a more in depth
perspective on the use of genre, you should comparing two pieces of writing
within the same genre. I compared the
rhetorical features of the “SCIgen” genre generator and of the academic
publication “Political Traditions and Political Change: The Significance of
Postwar Japanese Politics for Political Science” written by Professors Bradley
Richardson (Ohio State) and Dennis Patterson (Michigan State). The similarities of both of the publications all
follow the conventions of the specific genre of academic writing. There are 2 main similarities between the two
pieces: the tone and the audience.
A tone of a paper sets the initial perspective of the
paper for both the reader and the writer.
Genre conventions greatly affect the specific tones used for every
single genre. Wither it is a comic strip
or a press release, the genre determines the tone. There is a very unique tone used then it
comes to academic papers. The tone is
that of formality and precise. When
trying to get the most amount of information across, the authors specifically try
to be as clear as possible while maintaining a scholarly disposition. This can be seen in both of the papers chosen. “Two properties makes this approach perfect:
our algorithm…” (1, SCIgen) and with the
Richardson and Patterson’s paper “…electoral mobilization has been a frequent
theme in descriptions of Japan’s political arrangements…” (5, Richardson & Patterson) Instead of commentary on the subject itself,
the authors make a distinct choice to limit their writing to specific material
on the subject itself.
The audience of the writing piece is a particularly crucial
part of scholarly writing. This is the
main convention of the genre and is the baseline for the tone and style to be
based off of. The audience is limited to
those qualified and educated in the topics of the subjects being written
on. These publications are not for those
who are alien to the subjects at hand. There
is no baseline introduction to the overall subject of the paper nor is there a
summary or breakdown of the arguments or topics being written. This is unique to scholarly writing because
it is usually difficult to find the writing without seeking it out. This leads to the presumption of those who
seek out the writing are already in the know about the subject. In the SCIgen paper, “The evaluation of 64
bit architectures has constructed…” (1, SCIgen)
This sentence is the first line of the introduction section of the
paper. For such a complex and specific
topic to be discussed that early in the paper, it is easily shown how the
audience is meant for those with prior knowledge within the subject.
There are a lot of similarities within the genre of
academic writing, but there is a very distinct difference between all of the
writings. The different disciples that
are the subject of these writings provide a unique structure and style of
writing. While science writing is much
more quantitative with extreme specifics, social sciences and humanities is
much more observational and deductive. “Elections
inevitably involve an interaction between what politicians do to gain popular
support…” (13, Richardson &
Patterson) This is a very distinct
difference between these different writings within this genre.
Genre is critical to the formation of proper writing and
the basic understanding of those writings.
We can pick part and compare writings within the genres to really
understand what the conventions actually are.
Works Cited
"Eggar:
A Methodology for the Investigation of Link-Level Acknowledgements." Eggar: A Methodology for the Investigation
of Link-Level Acknowledgements. SCIGen, n.d. Web. 01 Feb. 2015.
Richardson,
Bradley, and Dennis Patterson. "Political Traditions and Political Change:
The Significance of Postwar Japanese Politics for Political Science." Annual Review of Political Science 4
(2001): 93-116. Annual Reviews. Web.
31 Jan. 2015. <http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.93>.