Jonathan Cardoso

English AWD
Tom Akbari
Unit 1 Final Draft
24 September 2018

A Discourse on Discontinuity: Defining the Depths

Professor Karin Sigloch from the University of Oxford published an article in Nature

Geoscience in June of 2018. The article, “Yellowstone debate erupts again,” is located in the

News and Views section of the journal, a division dedicated to highlighting new scientific

advances for non-specialist readers. The Yellowstone supervolcano underneath Wyoming has

ridden the ebb and flow of media attention since the detailed volcanic history of the region was

first catalogued in 1972 1(p. B1-B18). Novel methodologies and technologic advances in the hands of

geophysicists has brought to the surface again the question of where the volcano’s source of heat

lies. Three scientific papers in 2018 Nature Geoscience by Ying Zhou, Nelson and Grand, and

Quan Zhou, undertake mapping the discontinuities beneath Yellowstone. Here, Professor Sigloch

synthesizes the recent findings to make the works digestible to those who are not experts in the

field, all while providing her views on the subject.

An ‘article in Nature, when mentioned to members of academia, inspires thoughts of

prestige and technical prowess. It is the coveted peer reviewed journal of serious researchers.

This document, however, does not include congested sentences of highly scientific terms. It is

directed to the reader, the not-so-highly specialized researchers, the general crowd looking to be

enticed into a story. Still a child of Nature, the article is well documented and accurate. It draws

from, but need not follow, the structure of a technical paper. I find that this methodology, this

style, is an effective and efficient means of communicating technical information to a general

audience. For evidence of this effectiveness, look no further than the choice of phrasing in the

title, “Yellowstone debate erupts again” 2(p. 385). It grabs the reader and pulls them into a
 Cardoso 2

narrative, instantly building an imagery around the word choice “erupts.” Even though the paper

will not discuss the actual eruption of the volcano, an association has been constructed in the

mind of the reader. What could be a “dry” description of the science, instead, at the outset,

seduces the audience. This approach is seen again with the authors’ use of idiom: “So, it is time

to introduce the elephant in the room: a huge pile of subducting oceanic lithosphere...” 2(p. 386).

We are story tellers by nature. Sigloch’s choice of words can capture the interest of all scientific

minds, uniting and relaxing readers with a sense of imagery. This can be especially useful at a

point in the paper where you need to challenge the reader’s understanding – to introduce new

evidence so far ignored in the explanation. According to researchers, the use of casual expression

in scientific work, especially that of idioms, should be limited, but can be used to effectively

emphasize aspects of a study. In this case Sigloch is changing the current narrative to a new

theory. Research even cites this specific idiom as a “universally accepted” 3(p. 2) expression used

by scholars. Overall, I believe this form of writing bridges the gap between the unconventional

approach, providing flair; and the weight, and the grace, of professionalism and substance.

There is still debate surrounding what fuels the fire of the Yellowstone supervolcano.

Where does the heat come from? Without getting lost in the rabbit hole of specialization Sigloch

successfully brings the reader along, providing accurate synopses of up-to-date theories. Paired

with writing, however, often comes figures. Being that the article is short and attention grabbing

(hence the appealing title), a single attached figure should be eye-catching. I find it to be a

launching point for the reader to become more immersed in the article, bringing you down to the

depths of the volcano. Professor Sigloch’s balance struck between specialist and layman’s

directed article is admirable, but her use of visuals is deficient 2(Fig. 1). The sole figure in the

paper, does in this case, fall in a successful location. It is only after a page of background into

Yang Zhou and Nelson’s respective approaches to tracing the Yellowstone plume at certain
 Cardoso 3

depths underground, that Sigloch introduces this figure. At this point and time, the reader should

have some mental image of the situation. This timely placement serves to question that

presumption. Do you actually understand, in your mind, the physical phenomena described thus

far? This singular figure should serve as the most efficient means of displaying the present

theories at large. The apt use of visuals to improve learning in both mechanical and chemical

systems has been widely shown 4(p.1-14). The schematic in this case was “adapted from

reference,2(Fig. 1) a reference to a technical paper by the same author where the figure has a vastly

different purpose and representation. The original context of the figure5(Fig. 2) from Sigloch’s

previous work is attached below, followed by the repurposed version used to summarize new

competing theories:
 Cardoso 4

The original schematic serves to highlight the feature of ‘depth’ specifically and is not targeting

an amalgamation of three competing theories. In the process of adapting the illustration, the

original color distribution indicating depth is removed – leaving behind a monochromatic blob

that attempts to summarize multiple complex geodynamic theories. Furthermore, attempting to

illustrate multidirectional heat sources into one 3D cutout, in this case, leaves the reader with a

confusing sense of perspective. The article would have been better served by either making a

new singular figure directed toward the debate at hand, or small individual schematics to

accurately convey each theory visually.

Most of the time the forms and functions of writing in physics follows strict rules. The

writing mirrors the discipline. Physics cannot function without a sound flow of logic, and the

writing must reflect the same. The unconventional approach persists nonetheless but tends to

express itself as inside jokes. The flair and universally interesting writings in physics are

typically the layman’s directed magazines. The eye-catching but ultimately devoid of hard facts
 Cardoso 5

entries. This is the expectation. My time on coop is Italy doing research found this to be true

more often than not. The papers I read and the paper I wrote required a high degree of technical

sophistication and agreed upon language. This is where I feel the most uncomfortable in my

writing: competently distilling complex science calls for an even more complex understanding.

Times do arise, as long as the author is looking out for them, where you are afforded the

opportunity to invoke gusto and spirit – offering vivacious sentences and visuals to grab ahold of

the reader. Here, Sigloch’s goal appears to be centered around penetrating the intimidating realm

of technical science, all while building quickly and effectively to bridge the gap between this

unknown topic and the reader. The author employs a series of literary devices to effectively

communicate a highly technical and contentious topic to an audience of only broadly familiar

readers. The apt use of imagery, common idiomatic and relaxed language, and visuals combine

to carry out this endeavor. My academic education thus far has not been arranged to favor flair;

fully formulating thorough scientific papers that catch the reader’s eye. That is, after all, the real

goal - to make your piece of hay the tastiest in the haystack.

 Cardoso 6

References

1. Christiansen RL, Blank R. 1972. Volcanic Stratigraphy of the Quaternary Rhyolite Plateau in
Yellowstone National Park. U.S. Geological Survey: B1–B18.
https://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/pp729B

2. Sigloch K. 2018. Yellowstone debate erupts again. Nature Geoscience 11: 385–387.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41561-018-0150-4

3. Batovski DA. 2010. How To Use Idioms. AU Journal of Technology: 1–2.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235984603_How_to_use_idioms

4. Bobek E, Tversky B. 2016. Creating visual explanations improves learning. Cognitive

Research: Principles and Implications 27: 1–14.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5256450/

5. Sigloch K. 2008. Two-stage subduction history under North America inferred from multiple-
frequency tomography. Nature Geoscience 1: 458–462. https://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo231