Metapahor, Ambiguity, and Motive in Evolutionary Biology

Written Communication Oct 2005

Metapahor, Ambiguity, and Motive in Evolutionary Biology

Debra Journet University of Louisville Hospital

Abstract

This article analyzes the power of ambiguous metaphors to present scientific novelty. Its focus is a series of papers by the prominent population biologist W. D. Hamilton in which he redefined the meaning of biological altruism. In particular, the article draws on Kenneth Burke’s dramatistic pentad to examine why suggestions of motive are so pervasive in Hamilton’s representation of genetic evolution and what epistemological consequences result from this rhetorical choice. Specifically, the metaphorical language of motive allows Hamilton to represent genes ambiguously and simultaneously as both the agents of evolutionary action and as the agency or mechanism by which organism agents act. The textual ambiguity generated by the agent-agency metaphors both reflects and constructs a conceptual ambiguity in the way evolutionary processes are theorized. Analysis of Hamilton’s rhetoric thus suggests the productive function of ambiguous metaphors in highly technical scientific texts.

Journal: Written Communication
Published: 2005-10-01
DOI: 10.1177/0741088305279953
Open Access: Closed
Topics: rhetorical theory multilingual writers

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (5)

Youngblood (2012)

Balancing the Rhetorical Tension Between Right to Know and Security in Risk Com…

Journal of Business and Technical Communication
Moran et al. (2012)

A Bibliography of Works Published in the History of Professional Communication …

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Yu (2011)

Visualizing Banking and Financial Products: A Comparative Study of Chinese and …

Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
Gronnvoll et al. (2010)

From Viruses to Russian Roulette to Dance: A Rhetorical Critique and Creation o…

Rhetoric Society Quarterly
Journet (2010)

The Resources of Ambiguity

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

Cites in this index (4)

Ceccarelli (2004)

Neither Confusing Cacophony Nor Culinary Complements

Written Communication
Fahnestock (2004)

Preserving the Figure

Written Communication
SWALES et al. (1987)

The Writing of Research Article Introductions

Written Communication
FAHNESTOCK (1986)

Accommodating Science

Written Communication

Also cites 30 works outside this index ↓

10.1023/A:1006508719300

↗
Baake, K. (2003)

Metaphor and knowledge: The challenge of writing science

↗
10.7591/9781501741326

↗
10.1073/pnas.77.12.7506

↗
10.1525/9780520340664

↗
10.1525/9780520341715

↗
10.1080/02691729508578780

↗
10.1017/S0031819100050580

↗
10.1207/S15327965PLI1302_05

↗
10.2307/j.ctvjsf433

↗
10.1086/497114

↗
10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4

↗
10.1016/0022-5193(64)90039-6

↗
10.1038/2281218a0

↗
10.2307/3685509

↗
10.1146/annurev.es.11.110180.001523

↗
10.1080/02691729508578781

↗
10.7312/kell92562

↗
Keller, E. F. (2000)

The century of the gene

↗
Keller, E. F. (2002)

Making sense of life: Explaining biological development with models, metaphors, and machines

↗
10.1207/S15327965PLI1101_01

↗
10.1146/annurev.es.01.110170.000245

↗
10.1207/S15327965PLI1302_04

↗
10.1017/S0031819100063488

↗
10.1017/S0031819100068431

↗
10.2307/2992272

↗
10.1007/BF00129880

↗
10.1017/CBO9781139173865

↗
10.1073/pnas.72.1.143

↗
10.1146/annurev.es.14.110183.001111

↗

CrossRef global citation count: 9 View in citation network →