In the speech “The route
to a sustainable future”, the speaker, Alex Steffen, gave his lecture focusing on one
word-sustainability.
He discusses the
waste created by humanity and unfair usage of natural resources to reach
through his point about why we need “world changing”. World changing is
a bit of new service we adopt to change the future, for examples, tools, models
and ideas. He gives two solutions
that researchers
are still studying for in order to reach this goal. One is building up a bright
green city by enhancing the living quality and the population density in a city such as Vancouver.
Another solution is about implementation
for collaboration, it is
particularly talking about once people have their chances to cooperate and
innovate, and distinct solutions will come out. In the end, the author
believes that one day the humanity will make the world better through the ideas of world
changing.
|
|
Compare
the differences between Azuma (1997) and Xia et al (2008)
After perusing these two
articles, I found the authors of these two articles used distinct writing
skills. For myself, I found reading Azuma (1997) is easier than reading Xia et
al (2008), and I also observed many other differences between these two
articles. I will show
three aspects that I think are different between these two articles in the
following paragraphs.
Audience
These two articles focus
on distinct audiences. For
Azuma (1997), as the author said in the beginning paragraph, “this is a
computer science graduate school survival guide,” we can affirm that the
audiences are more general audience. Also, we can know that the author are
focus on those people who have decided to study in the field of computer
science. The author himself is already a doctor, so the audiences can
get to know more about this field and can be well prepared after finishing this
article. What's more, the writer answer some of the complicated problems that
the audiences might face in their future road, it will make the audiences feel
less stressful and less confused.
The audiences of Xia et
al (2008) differ from those of Azuma (1997). The audiences of this article might be used to study in
this field and might be familiar with the content that means the audiences can
be the students, theorists, professors or practitioners working related to the
supply chain management. While reading Xia et al (2008), the readers could
compare with their own methods or means and gain additional professional
knowledge.
Style
There are colloquialisms
and casual expressions being used in Azuma (1997). For instance, there is a paragraph using the
sentence like "Why the hell am I doing this?"(P.2, 3). Also, other
examples like “I would have no regrets because I had given it my best shot and
was not able to make it” (P.3) and “Don't take them for granted.”(P.4). These
three sentences are using colloquial words and they are informal. Furthermore,
the writer often uses “I” as a subject, which would only appear in the informal
writing. There is a paragraph, I got the Ph.D. because I wanted to get a
research position after leaving graduate school. I wanted to work with the
state of the art and extend it. I did not want to bring yesterday's technology
one step closer to tomorrow. I wanted a job that would I find interesting,
challenging and stimulating. Azuma (1997, P.3). I think the statement is
too lengthy. The author also uses the words “good” and “bad”, those are all belong to casual
expressions. In contrast, in the composition Xia et al (2008), the writer
states his points confidently and offers his argument firm support.
Rhetorical Structure
It is obvious that the structure used
by Azuma is informal as compared to Xia et al. In my opinion, the structure and
the word used in the article are simpler and easier. The reason is because this
article is written to help prospective or novice graduate students, as it
states in the beginning that this article is a guidebook. Also, I think this article is
more casual because the writer provides many experiences, resolutions to the
problem that the reader might face.
As compared, it is
obvious that Xia et al (2008) is a business academic literature. The article starts with an
abstract that states what the article is writing about and what the main result
is. Also, there is an introduction to let the reader know about the topic, the
reason for the author to write this article and how the author completed this
research. For the following several sections, the author talks about
some models and means researched by others, the advantages of using those
models and how are they different from the previous literature. After the
discussion of methods and means, the author gives some examples to support the
assumption. In the last
paragraph, as formal academic writing, there is a conclusion and some
references of this literature included.
In a nutshell, after comparing three aspects between these two articles, I could easily tell whether
this is an academic writing or informal writings. Furthermore, I learned that
the structure can be varies by different intentions. Also by recognizing who
are the main audiences for the article matter the writing too.
|
1.
This is a thesis.
Reference:
Aloe, A. M. (2009). A partial effect
size for the synthesis of multiple regression models (Order
No. 3373964).
Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text;
ProQuest Education Journals.
2.
This is an article.
Reference:
Allore, H., Tinetti, M. E., Araujo, K.
L. B., Hardy, S., & Peduzzi, P. (2005). A case study found that a
regression tree outperformed multiple linear regression in predicting the
relationship between impairments and social and productive activities scores.Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(2), 154-161.
3.
This is a book.
Reference:
Lin,
C. (2009). Evaluating the transactional theory of coping as a psychosocial adaptation
model for taiwanese with spinal cord injury: A multiple regression analysis