0 INTRODUCTION

4. RHETORIC AND THE WORLD OF SCIENCE IN THE EModE PERIOD
focuses on medical writing and its subgenres to serve as a background to Section 6.3,
which analyzes the differences in the use of nominalizations in the various subgenres of
scientific writing. Finally, section 4.6 offers a summary of the contents of the chapter.
4.1. The rhetoric of science
It has sometimes been stated that scientific texts cannot be regarded as rhetorical objects
because they depict reality from an objective point of view. However, as Gross (1990: 5)
puts it, scientific texts are rhetorical objects since they show an aesthetic dimension,
inasmuch as they are used as a means of persuasion to other scientists.
It must be noted that the body of texts classified under the label “scientific writing” is
related to quite different areas of knowledge such as, for instance, medicine, geology and
mathematics, so it cannot be considered as a homogeneous or stationary genre (Halliday
and Martin 1993: 54). However, there are some general features that distinguish scientific
writing from other genres. In Bazerman’s words (1988: 6),
[scientific language] has the reputation of simply reporting natural fact
that transcends symbolic trappings. Scientific writing is often treated
apart from other forms of writing, as a special code privileged through
its reliance in mathematics.
In natural language, which is primarily used to communicate the ideas and emotions
of the speakers, the subject position is occupied mainly by human beings, that is, the
speakers themselves or their fellow creatures. However, science focuses on physical
objects. The importance given to them is shown by the fact that, in scientific English, they
occupy the subject position. As Gross notes (1990: 70), “science invests such objects with
88