LANGUAGE AND PERSUASION IN BIOTECHNOLOGY COMMUNICATION WITH THE PUBLIC: HOW TO NOT SAY WHAT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO NOT SAY AND NOT SAY IT

This paper explores the role of language in biotechnology communication with public. Analyzing a USDA press release, rhetorical choices of organization, style, and diction that convey values and emotions contrary to content are examined. The effect of language is not usually considered in transfer models of communication.

[1]  Randall L. Bytwerk.  The SST controversy: A case study of the rhetoric of technology , 1979 .

[2]  Charles R. Bantz.  Public arguing in the regulation of health and safety , 1981 .

[3]  Michael J. Reddy.  Metaphor and Thought: The conduit metaphor: A case of frame conflict in our language about language , 1993 .

[4]  Katherine E. Rowan,et al.  The technical and democratic approaches to risk situations: Their appeal, limitations, and rhetorical alternative , 1994 .

[5]  Ch. Perelman.  The realm of rhetoric , 1982 .

[6]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

[7]  C. E. SHANNON,et al.  A mathematical theory of communication , 1948, MOCO.

[8]  Carolyn R. Miller.  The Rhetoric of Decision Science, or Herbert A. Simon Says , 1989 .

[9]  Dorothy A. Winsor,et al.  The Construction of Knowledge in Organizations: Asking the Right Questions about the Challenger , 1990 .

[10]  Joseph G. Morone,et al.  The Demise of Nuclear Energy?: Lessons for Democratic Control of Technology , 1989 .

[11]  Dennis F. Thompson,et al.  Why Deliberative Democracy is Different , 2000, Social Philosophy and Policy.

[12]  D. Hine,et al.  Public Opposition to a Proposed Nuclear Waste Repository in Canada: An Investigation of Cultural and Economic Effects , 1997 .

[13]  M. Jimmie Killingsworth,et al.  Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America , 1991 .

[14]  G. T. Goodnight,et al.  Accidental rhetoric: The root metaphors of three mile Island , 1981 .