Don Stap, author of the article, "Flight of the Kuaka", uses many rhetorical strategies in his writing. He showcases many examples of "showing", giving the reader a clearer image of his story of the Bar-tailed Godwit, or the "Kuaka". He starts his article like a narrative, and drops the reader right at the location of "100 yards west of the Firth of Thames on New Zealand's North Island".
Stap uses some scientific terms to describe his team's study of the Kuakas. He explains how the use of "implanted satellite transmitters" were used to track the migration pattern of this diminishing species of wetland bird. He describes how the scientists identify male from female birds, and how heavy the transmitter they are carrying must be. He also explains the gravity of how endangered this species is. Only "thirteen species of Numeniini exist worldwide" and "godwits and curlews are the most threatened".
Yet, nothing is difficult to understand. Stap clearly knows his audience, and knows that they do not all have a PhD in science. He writes clearly about the migration of the kuaka, "the flight is nonstop, no food, no water, no sleep as we know it, flying for eight days". The general reading public can easy understand how amazing this process is.
I agree Stap really knows his audience and does not use anything too complicated for them. By did you find the endless description annoying at all? Just wondering!
ReplyDelete