Daniel Kies Department of English College of DuPage
Composition 2 English 1102		Contact Form

The Relationships among Subject, Audience, and Writer in Research Writing

Sandra Gollin Kies Department of Languages & Literature Benedictine University

and

Daniel Kies Department of English College of DuPage

Current work:   Days remaining this term: Notes: Add Note |  Log in? | Privacy | Change Name & Email Mail this page to a friend

This discussion of the relationships among subject, audience, and writer builds on the discussion of audience analysis from the English 1101 – Composition 1 course. I recommend reading that more general article first.

This discussion advances that prior one, but it focuses on the two distinctly different issues that the more general article cannot:

• the constant focus on the subject commonly found in research writing and
• the writer's adjustments to the subject depending on the audience for the research material.

To explore those differences in detail we will make a close study of the same subject — how cats lap a liquid — as that subject is presented to different audiences. For simplicity's sake, I divide audience into three subgroups:

• a general audience, everyone from primary school students to a highly educated adults,
• an educated, but non-specialist, audience, people who likely have secondary and probably some post-secondary education (either formally or informally), so that the writer can assume some higher levels of linguistic and cognitive development, and
• a specialist, professional audience, readers with advanced knowledge of the subject and the tools, theories, origins, and relevance of the subject.

To explore the changes to subject based on differences in audience in detail, we will examine a research study by Pedro M. Reis, Sunghwan Jung, Jeffrey M. Aristoff, and Roman Stocker. Their study of how cats lap liquids was published in Science, November, 2010, and other media, both print and non-print, started reporting on the study very quickly. (After all, who can resist a story about cute, little kitties?)

Source Texts for Comparison

General Audience

1. "Scientists reveal secret of a cat's lap" by Alan Boyle, msnbc.com science editor
2. "Cats and dogs use same technique to lap up liquid" by Rebecca Morelle of the BBC
3. "Pet Physics: The Uncanny Lapping Of Cats" by Geoff Brumfiel of NPR

Educated, Non-specialist Audience

4. The Science of Cat Lapping: A Big Gulp With a Tiny Touch of the Tongue by Nicholas Wade, science reporter for the New York Times
5. "The Physics of How Cats Drink" by Denise Brehm of Technology Review, published by MIT
6. "Cat Lap: Engineers Unravel the Mystery of How Felines Drink" by John Matson of Scientific American

Specialist, Professional Audience

7. "How Cats Lap: Water Uptake by Felis catus" by Pedro M. Reis, Sunghwan Jung, Jeffrey M. Aristoff, and Roman Stocker. This is the original study that we are examining here (a .pdf document).
   1. "Comment on 'How Cats Lap: Water Uptake by Felis catus'" by Michael Nauenberg
   2. "Response to Comment on 'How Cats Lap: Water Uptake by Felis catus' " by Roman Stocker, Jeffrey M. Aristoff, Sunghwan Jung, and Pedro M. Reis

      Examples of discourse among professionals discussin the article by Pedro M. Reis, Sunghwan Jung, Jeffrey M. Aristoff, and Roman Stocker.

8. "How dogs lap: ingestion and intraoral transport in Canis familiaris" by A. W. Crompton and Catherine Musinsky

   An example of a 'letter': A short research study inspired by the cat lapping research, questioning an assumption made by the cat study researchers. Abstract of the letter.

9. "On the water lapping of felines and the water running of lizards: A unifying physical perspective" by Roman Stocker, Jeffrey M. Aristoff, Sunghwan Jung, and Pedro M. Reis

   An example of an article addendum, expanding on an idea first suggested in the cat lapping research. Abstract of the addendum.

Comparison of the Source Texts

Among many other differences, as we prepare our research papers for English 1102, we should note the following traits of texts written for different audiences.

Language

Levels of Vocabulary

General Audience	Educated, Non-specialist Audience	Specialist, Professional Audience
More commonly used words, e.g., scientist, videos, and nonce words, such as in Boyle, "… used high-speed videos and mechanical gizmos …"	Less commonly used words, e.g., physicist, engineer, inertia, ratio, mathematical model, biomechanical,, videography	Specialist technical vocabulary, e.g., fluid dynamics, isometry, marginally positive allomety, liquid column dynamics, viscous and capillary forces, Froude mechanisms

Note too the differences in vocabulary among those articles when attempting to introduce the subject of the study for the first time. Reis, et al., take great care in identifying the object of their study and defining the mechanics of drinking in their study before they announce the object of their study.

General Audience	Educated, Non-specialist Audience	Specialist, Professional Audience
More common vocabulary Boyle, "… to figure out the mechanics of a cat's drinking style …. Wade, "… we now know how cats drink."	Less common vocabulary Brumfiel, "Even if you don't own a cat you've probably seen one lap up a bowl of milk."	Specialist technical vocabulary Reis, et al., "… vertebrates with incomplete cheeks, including most carnivores, are unable (after weaning) to seal their mouth cavity to generate suction and must rely on their tongue to move water into the mouth (13). When the tongue sweeps the bottom of a shallow puddle, the process is called licking (4). When the puddle is deeper than the tongue excursion into the liquid, it is called lapping (15). Here, we report on the lapping mechanism of the domestic cat (Felis catus).

Colloquialisms and Clichés

Furthermore, the reader is more likely to find colloquialisms (informal words and phrases, such as dog poop for dog feces or good eats for haute cuisine) in writing intended for a general audience. Such informal vocabulary is less likely in the educated, non-specialist articles; however, even there, readers will find some colloquialisms and other examples of less formal language such as clichés. Conversely, readers will rarely find informal language of any sort in academic writing.

General Audience	Educated, Non-specialist Audience	Specialist, Professional Audience
Boyle, "Cats are way different from dogs."	Matson, "And in this case … curiosity did not kill the cat …."	None

Evaluative Language

Rarely, in writing for specialist, professional audience, will readers see language that carry any emotive qualities. Such language is more common in writing for general and educated, non-specialist audience. See below.

General Audience	Educated, Non-specialist Audience	Specialist, Professional Audience
Relatively common Boyle, "A little pool of water is brought into the mouth every time Fido takes a gulp from the toilet bowl." Morelle, "Cats … always like to be neat and clean and to tidy themselves up." [quoting Compton] Morelle, "Dogs … don't worry about spreading the liquid around and making a mess." [quoting Compton]	Less common Wade, "Dog owners are familiar with the unseemly lapping noises that ensue when their thirsty pet meets a bowl of water. The dog is thrusting its tongue into the water, forming a crude cup …. Cats, both big and little, are so much classier, according to new research …."	Relatively rare Reis, et al., "The subtle use of the tongue in the drinking process of F. catus is remarkable, given the tongue’s lack of skeletal support (28)." [used once in the conclusion]

Discourse Features

We can also see marked differences in the mode of discourse and the writing style between the source texts written different audiences on the same subject. First, notice how the writers "tell the story."

Discourse Mode

General Audience	Educated, Non-specialist Audience	Specialist, Professional Audience
Narrative common Expository common Argumentative (= the process of reasoning by advancing proof) rare Brumfiel, "Even if you don't own a cat you've probably seen one lap up a bowl of milk." Boyle, "Engineers have used high-speed videos and mechanical gizmos to figure out the mechanics of a cat's drinking style …."	Narrative common Expository common Argumentative rare Matson, "One morning a few years back Roman Stocker was watching his cat, Cutta Cutta, drink …." Brehm, "About four years ago, Roman Stocker was watching his cat, Cutta Cutta, drink from his bowl." Wade, "It has taken four highly qualified engineers and a bunch of integral equations to figure it out, but we now know how cats drink."	Narrative rare Expository common Argumentative common Reis, et al., "Terrestrial animals have evolved diverse means to acquire water, including absorption through the skin (1) or extraction of moisture from food (2), but most rely on drinking (3–12)."

Illustration and Use of Examples

The number and kind of examples vary (and increase in number) as we compare across audiences work intended for the general audience to work intended for the specialist audience. Partly, this is a function of space. Articles written for a general audience tend to be short, for editorial reasons. Articles for the educated, non-specialist audience are longer since they often include more details about the scope, methods, results, and conclusions of the research. The length of scholarly work is less driven by space concerns. Scholarly work generally is given sufficient space to explain the research fully.

We can see that trend most clearly in the use of illustrations in the work intended for the difference audiences. Not only are there fewer illustrations in works intended for a general audience, the captions are sometimes meaningless, meant instead to be cute or entertaining. See for example the photo and caption of Cutta Cutta in Boyle's article. This is not a rule, however. Compare the caption under the first photo in Brunfiel's article. In works intended for an educated, non-specialist audience, we see yet more detail, more information. Consider the caption to the "Study of Cat Lapping" in Wade and the caption to "Pull-up" in Matson. In works for a specialist, professional audience, the captions are crucial to the overall information within the work. Notice too that Reis, et al., not only write more expository captions; they also explain the relevance of each illustration (called a figure) within the text itself. That is a hallmark of scholarly writing.

Additional Contrasts between Scholarly Texts and the Others

Citations, of course, are the most obvious additional feature of writing for a specialist, professional audience. However, citations are found in writing for an educated, non-specialist audience occasionally as well. As we research a subject ourselves, these citation become a valuable source for finding more relevant information in our own research subject. Finally, as writers, we can appreciate the value citations add to the work: citations add ethical appeal to the writing.

In addition to citations, the next most obvious contrast between writing for a specialist, professional audience and the others is the prevalence of summary. Summary, in scholarly writing, is most often used as part of a literature review section within the new research. Otherwise, summary rarely occurs. In writing for a general or educated, non-specialist audience, on the other hand, most of the text itself is a summary of the original research — and nothing more. (That explains why you may find it difficult to write an abstract of articles written for general or educated, non-specialist audiences: often you will be attempting to write summaries of summaries, as would be true of articles (1) through (6) above.)

Thirdly, work written for a general audience usually contains some explanation of the work's relevance to the world. For example, half-way through, Brumfiel has a section that begins

The Value Of Pet Physics?

The whole system is much more elaborate than that of dogs, which simply scoop up the water with their tongues. "I have no idea why cats don't just do it the ordinary way, but you know that's the weird, interesting thing about biology ….

Similarly, near the end of his piece, Boyle writes

This is the kind of research that sounds as if it came to a conclusion everybody already knows, but Stocker told me these are new discoveries. "I don't think anyone has explained it," he said, "certainly not the balance of forces behind it." …

Stocker admitted that there's not an immediate practical application to the research, which was conducted with borrowed equipment and no outside funding. But he said the mechanics of a cat's tongue could be adapted for robotic devices that move water around using soft structures (like, say, an elephant's trunk). There might also be some evolutionary lessons to be learned from the differences between the drinking habits of cats and dogs.

Writing for an educated, non-specialist or specialist audience rarely includes such sections: writers at those levels seem to assume that an educated reader understands the relevance of the research subject.

Conclusion

As students begin a research project in an unfamiliar subject, the student researcher — like writers everywhere — likely will start with background reading by seeking out the work written for both general and educated, non-specialist audiences. That material will be easier to read, comprehend, and shorter so that the student researcher can learn the key concepts, some of the important vocabulary in the subject, key research areas in the subject, and the scope of those research areas.

However, all considered, we also can see why research at the college/university level focuses on the study, synthesis, and incorporation of the specialist, professional work as much as is possible into our own research writing. As we progress in our studies, as we advance toward our degree, we are also expected to master the specialist, professional work in our subject area. The proof of that mastery will evidence itself in our own research writing.

To express those ideas graphically, we might draw a matrix with four quadrants, as we see below. The four quadrants map the written, spoken, and graphic materials in academic discourse.

Fig 1: Matrix of four quadrants

The goals of first-year writing instruction at the college/university level revolve around moving student writing toward the 4th quadrant. As such, we can see that style (the choices a writer makes regarding vocabulary, sentence structure, number as well as kind of examples, and formatting) plays a significant role in how faculty evaluators respond to the writing that students produce.

An Exercise

Based on what we have learned now, evaluate the following texts for markers both of formality and of academic writing. All of these examples (except one) are from students who have volunteered these texts for our study.

Task 1: In the texts below, find examples of language that is emotive / evaluative / judgmental, and make a list of those markers for each text.

Task 2: Examine the texts below for markers of formality, and make a list of those markers for each text.

Task 3: Examine the texts below for markers of certainty/authority/ethos, and make a list of those markers for each text.

Task 4: Attempt to identify which text was written by the professional.

• Sample text 1
• Sample text 2
• Sample text 3
• Sample text 4
• Sample text 5

 

 

^Take Note! | Table of Contents | Syllabus | Course Calendar | eForum | Search

The HyperTextBooks | The English Main Page | College of DuPage