THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

1
















The Highs and Lows of Demoting a Planet:
Noting Stylistic Differences in how Information is Presented
Sarah L. DeLury
Kent State University












THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

2
When specially trained professionals, namely highly educated scientists, are made to
communicate between multiple audience that include other both professional and the public, the
nature of their communicative acts change depending on the audiences they are crafting their
message for. Using Jeanne Fahnestocks notions of rhetoric stylistics, as well as Edward
Schiappas suggestions on examining texts using definitional discourse, the texts under
investigation here highlight how choices of style are still very much at play in a text, even when
a text focuses on a scientific definition, or around the theme of a scientific definition. It is
generally thought that a new discovery or innovation forces scientists to develop new formal
scientific definitions, yet within any discourse community lies the potential for linguistic changes
that may effect even safe formal definition. Though rare, there also exists the conceivable need
to alter or readjust scientific terms in light of new information; more often than not, public
audiences pay little head to the changing definitions or new usages given to scientific terms. This
was not the case with the IAU decision to reclassify the ninth planet in our solar system; this
decision sent a thundering wave of grief and despair through public discourse communities as
well as some professional scientific communities. Reacting to this cosmic controversy brought
defy scientific replies, personal pleas, and a cross between the two of these not from public
bystanders who reacted in their own ways, but from highly regarded members of various
scientific communities. Analyzing specific qualities of two such texts generate vastly useful data
in understanding how scientists communicate for multiple purposes using both scientific and
popular discourse elements.




THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

3
The impetuous of this paper, and much of the work Ive created during the last few years,
focuses on how science facts are communicated. Specifically, I seek to better understand and
communicate on the difference in public vs. professional writing and literacies as they relate to
common understandings of scientific concepts. Because scientific concepts are often very
theoretical, how is it that science writers, or simply scientists, have transmitted so much
information about said theoretical concepts unto the masses? What types of writing do scientists
utilize when they seek to disseminate knowledge to the masses? Further, what types of writings
are utilized when scientists wish to share information with other scientists in their professional
communities of practice? These questions all funnel down to one fundamental questionwhat
have scientists done differently, what have they utilized or what have they ignored, when
communicating theoretical and difficult scientific concepts to the masses. It is arguable that our
societies now have (near universally) more understanding of highly scientific and theoretical
concepts and principles; I would like to investigate and understand the deep why of this. To
begin to understand these issues, I have focused this paper on one issue in the science
community as discussed by scientists who have taken an active role in discussing this issue.
To achieve this deeper level of investigation I will use elements of rhetorical stylistic
analysis, informed by Rhetorical Style: the Usages of Language in Persuasion by Jeanne
Fahnestock (2011) to note how selected scientific texts utilize elements of style and rhetoric to
speak more or less to issues of audience or science. While readers would expect that these texts
should share a heavy focus on both audience and science, what my analysis demonstrates is that
stylistic choices show a focus on one or the other. Still, each of the texts within this analysis
includes a focus on one particular scientific issue: the demotion of Pluto from Planet to Dwarf
Planet.
1
Each text also speaks to issues beyond the actual science of why Plutos definition

1
I have chosen to present Planet and Dwarf Planet in proper noun status throughout this paper to highlight the
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

4
changed from Planet to Dwarf Planet. These issues beyond science are know largely as culture,
but are often cited as specific things. My goal here is not to go in-depth in explaining the actual
cultural arguments being presented with and around these texts; rather, since one of my overall
research objectives is to illustrate how texts differ when they are being presented for various
purposes, I am noting here how these specific texts utilize different stylistic techniques while
other texts, with a focus on the same topic, employ different measures in order to communicate
their messages.
What I hope to establish through this analysis is that a pattern emerges in our readings of
scientific texts; discursive acts from scientific communities speaking to topics vested with at
least minimal cultural interests follow popular styles of speaking and writing in many ways, yet
also clearly incorporate varied instances of style that reflect the standards of the scientific
communities generating the discourse. No linguistic act, even one created by the most skilled
science communicator, can remove the traces of the different standards that govern all language;
the best any individual can do is know how to adjust their language use in given situations
according to context, needed genre, required style, and appropriateness of language use.
Fahnestock, noted scholar of rhetoric and style, gives a useful illustration of levels of style when
she highlights the criteria for what allows a given texts to reach levels of appropriateness. For
Fahnestock (2011), appropriate language are communicative acts that most fit each situation, for
both audience and speaker; in rhetorical manuals of old, as well as in Fahnestocks discussion,
what was deemed appropriate language was classified into three categories of style: simple (or
low), middle, and grand (or high), each fitting a specific moment of use that was dependent on
audience and rhetor (p. 79). Each of these style categorizations are evident in not only the topics
I analyze here, but are evident in many other scientific texts that seek to engage popular audience,
as we would expect to find them. Yet, what is perhaps more interesting is that these styles begin
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

5
to vary and occur in less frequencies when scientists speak only to other scientists; never less, the
variety of stylistic choice is still evident enough to demonstrate how a text fits into one of these
categories based on specific textual elements when one choses to perform a thorough content
analysis.
When scientists communicate to other scientists, the language they use is, as one would
come to expect, in grand styles, a communication style that in everyway reflects scientists
terministic screens (Fahnestock, p.75)
2
. Yet what I have found in my analysis is that where one
would expect to find predominantly scientific explanations for the shift in definitional
understanding of this cosmic conundrum, interested readers actually notice that science comes
second to conversations. Instead of finding a variety of sources explaining the science behind the
shift in the new definition and classification, I could only find one true scientific text, the IAU
decision, which ultimately turned this whole issue from curious conversation into debate. An
officer of the IAU noted, not long after the onslaught of public anger began, that the entire
definitional issue associated with Pluto, and the issue of defining Planets entirely, lacked rich
scientific associations (Christensen, 2007). This must have been a common thought, as the
various texts that continue to be published speaking on issues relating Plutos demotion, lack
grand, or high, styles of science, and instead focus on arguing for or against the new
classifications, with opinions on why each point of view is better.
To illustrate these points of view arguments, texts very much centered on how one
scientists would prefer to have the issues at hand be understood, scientists must employee
features outside of the high styles, as personal preference or individual points of view are not
indicative of standards of science. Thus, to communicate these notions relating to how an

"
Burke concept from: Burke, Kenneth (1966). Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature, and
method. Berkley: University of California Press. (p.45)

THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

6
individual thinks or feels, lower styles are employed. In order to best retain credibility as a
scientists who knows and can use the knowledge behind their opinions, these individuals must
move in and out of colloquial, low styles and supplement it with elements of higher stylistic
choices, which is done most notably with register mixing (Fahnestock, 2011 p.88). Moving from
low to high, and even middle, styles utilizing words from a variety of registers, both public and
private, allows these individuals to communicate not just notions of science, but also their own
value as the disseminators of these notions. The division of low, middle and grand levels of
communication that Fahnestock speaks to are not simply linguistic in nature; grand styles of
communication create actual barriers in understanding that divide public audience from
professional audiences, and work to keep the foundations of knowledge relating to specific fields
in the minds of the elite members of the professional communities, the gatekeepers of these
groups, by retaining more formal, separate from everyday usage, styles of language for the
discourse that makes up the language of science. Part of what my analysis uncovers is that these
texts speak to colloquial matters, such as used to be and why isnt it that the scientists
writing these texts say pubic audiences want addressed (and in many cases, they are correct);
there are not many instances of abstract, scientific concepts, such as asking how an object
billions of miles away, a place no human has never been, can be something we actually consider
as experiential past knowledge of used to be, or what does it mean to define a stellar object in
human terms, in many of these texts. Thus, readers interested in this issue are left with colloquial
discussions and arguments from individual points of view on the topic, not scientific
explanations that could potential aid in the building of new knowledge for public participants
outside of specialized discourse communities. By focusing on what parts of culture have been
assailed in the demotion from Planet to Dwarf Planet rather than any actual expositions on the
science behind the reasons, these scientists have limited any popular understandings to remain at
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

7
novel appreciations of the topic. This in and of itself is problematic, but becomes particularly
troublesome when we analyze the IAU resolution that truly defines Plutos status. By not
clarifying the science behind these new definitional elements, scientists have ensured that public
audiences will have to figure out for themselves what each part of the resolution means. And
while understanding some of this is relatively less difficult for some members of public
audiences, the last and what is considered to be the sticking point of the resolution is confusing
for most individuals, making the likelihood for the majority of pubic audiences members able to
translate this point of the resolution improbable.
Using Defining Reality by Edward Schiappa (2003), I have been better able to note what
uses of definitions and shifts in definitions were evident in each text I analyzed, what patterns
emerged showed that while the actual linguistic changes made by the IAUs new classification
are themselves perhaps significant in importance, how the definition has been appropriated and
used is much more interesting. Actual definitions, it seems, are not the focus of many of the texts
I analyze. Schiappas text, much like Fahnestocks, allows investigators to uncover nuisances
within discursive acts that go well beyond simple definitions. Any definition, as my brief
analysis of even the IAUs classification of a Planet will show, may seem simple on the surface,
but looking more closely demonstrates issues of power, authority to govern language usage, and
thus, attempts to govern understanding and knowledge in an odd flux that invites itself to be
analyzed. All language has these qualities, and scientific terms, far from being exceptions, are
actually very good illustrations of how linguistic terms can hold power, authority, and the ability
to allow or deny users and audiences understanding and knowledge. Further, far from being plain
or lacking in flair typically ascribed to more colloquial, and livelier texts, as scientific texts are
stereotypically said to be, these discursive acts actually holds as many complexities and instances
of choices of style, as we find in all other disciplines involving language, spoken or written. In
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

8
recent years, as scientists became more aware of the variety of linguistic styles readily suited for
the information they needed to communicate, some scientists steadily broke from of the old
guard scientific languages, replacing dry and dull information with carefully crafted constructs.
Both forms, the old standards of scientific communication and new scientific discursive
transmissions are alleged to hold the same information, scientific fact, but more and more,
scientists have begun to lean away from the dullness of old. Yet, it is observable that something
perceivably negative happens when a text leans too far into colloquial and popularized zones of
communication and falls steadily away from more high, formalized styles of communications of
science. The shift to allow ones work to become more popularly accepted can be said to contain
far too many popularized modes of expression, that in some instances, focus not on the science
behind the purpose for the communicative act, but on the cultural impetus that demanded the
communication. Plutos demotion serves as a nearly perfect illustration to this, yet there are other
examples that could just as easily stand in (justifying Blue-Ray over DVD technology; ignoring
the potential for electric cars because interests in traditional cars has the backing of more
powerful people who control the flow of information; explaining the comet ISON, or nuclear
fusion, or what happens what a washcloth is wrung out on the ISS; and so on). Yet none of these
examples offer the polarizing cultural connection that developed or was brought to light when
Pluto was demoted from Planet to Dwarf Planet. In these other examples, scientists may chose to
differentiate the way they would normally communicate to each other in order to communicate to
public audiences so that they public audiences may better understand their intended message on
the topic. Yet with the Pluto controversy, cultural forces more than scientists intentions seemed
to control the intended messages, and thus the greatest focus was not on the science behind the
change in classifications, but on the reasons any given scientists were writing about their
positions in the debate. Put simply, the normal flow of information that occurs in the
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

9
transmission of scientific materials has been changed with this topic. Carefully crafted texts from
scientists speak in part to Pluto as a scientific object, yet focus more on the popular meaning
behind the cultural appreciation it has. Instead of communicating on the science of this issue,
scientists themselves have become social critics arguing with cultural commentary that only
occasionally utilizes the stylistic choice to include elements of actual science. It wasnt as though
the Pluto controversy allowed scientists the first chance to do this; arguably, scientists have been
involved in cultural issue as long as science has been a field of study. Yet, what happened with
the IAUs new definition, and the shifts made in our own solar system because of it, evoked
sentiments from populations normally unconcerned of organizations such as the IAU, normally
inexperienced of issues of space, and perhaps normally completely disinterest with anything to
do with science, maths nasty red-headed stepsister.
Before any textual analysis can take place, it is important to first, albeit briefly, attempt to
look at the scientific issues involving Pluto and its demotion to Dwarf Plant. Each of the authors
I am analyzing explains the cultural issues at play in this situation, and while they discuss these
issues in their own unique ways, their main focus is not on the new definition offered by the IAU,
it instead tends to be on their individual point of view on why or why not this definition works.
The central issue to all of this revolves around how scientists and anyone can classify and then
define objects in space as a Planet. A Planet, it seemed, was an object in space that could easily
be said to orbit the sun and had not go through nuclear fusion; knowing what a Planet is, was a
common sense issue for some hundreds of years, and few went out of their way to define or
question this popularly known explanation. As Neil deGrasse Tyson
3
, popular science
communicator and astrophysicist, and noted Pluto-assassin explain, it seems quite obvious what
a planet is, or ought to be. If an object orbits the Sun but is not itself a comet and does not orbit

3
Because the source used for this text is a Kindle, any material from Tyson lacks a page number.
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

10
another object the way moons do, then all is well (2009). From the days of Ancient astronomers,
from Galileo to Copernicus, objects found wandering the heavens were given the name Planets,
or wanderers, a term that we have continued to use unabashedly as it relates to many solar
objects. As Tyson further noted, from the 18
th
Century to the 20
th
Century, a sizeable amount of
Planets were discovered throughout our solar system. Yet by 1802, scientists and dedicated
thinkers alike began to really question the language being used to describe newly discovered
celestial bodies. William Herschel, discoverer of Uranus, wrote to a friend,
You know already that we have two newly discovered celestial bodies. Now, by
what I shall tell you of them it appears to me much more poor in language to call
them planets than if we were to call a rasor a knife, a cleaver a hatchet, etc. They
certainly move around the sun; so do comets. It is true they move in ellipses; so
we know do some comets also. But the difference is this: they are extremely
small, beyond all comparison less than planetsNow as we already have Planets,
Comets, Satellites, pray help me to another dignified name as soon as possible
(Tyson, 2009).
Ancient thinkers had been comfortable calling all objects in their night skies wanderers, but by
1802, a noted scientist openly called into question the language we were using to describe any
and all objects that were being discovered in our solar system. Despite this, it was not until 2006
that a global collection of scientist began debating, discussing and ultimately deciding the fate of
all the Planets in the universe, not simply our tiny solar system.
When the Keiper Belt was finally affirmed as being where it had been hypothesized to be,
and was actually discovered, and scientists, Tyson included, began categorizing objects
according to more than their ability to orbit our sun and be seen by us from Earth, the questions
of future discovery became louder, What happens the day we find something bigger than Pluto?
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

11
Do we call it a planet, because Pluto is a planet, or do we use the opportunity to come up with
modified nomenclature for this new class of objects, including Pluto? (Tyson, 2009). When
Clyde Tombaugh discovered Pluto in 1930, there was a growing, but relatively mumbled
consensus that all objects before us in the heavens were not Planets simply by virtue of being
there to be seen. When Michael Brown, Caltech planetary astronomy professor, began
discovering trans-Neptunian objects (TNOs), Plutos designation as a Planet had to be called into
question by the IAU, the governing body responsible for creating and changing scientific
designations that related to astronomical issues. In 2003, when Brown and his Caltech team
discovered Eris
4
, a TNO object more massive than Pluto, Brown requested that Eris be
designated a Planet, which made scientific sense given that its size actual dwarfed Pluto.
In 2006, the very solar system around us, the space the Earth occupies within the universe
that we call our cosmic home, changed fundamentally. This change did not occur because of a
new discovery in our galactic neighborhood, it did not happen as a result of illuminating new
understandings of scientific facts relating to how matter or even dark matter operates out there in
the vast reaches of space, despite the wording used by the IAU to justify the formation of a
definition for a term that had gone so long without being defined. As unbelievable as it may
seem that something as small and unassuming as a human definition could literally reorder the
nature of the celestial objects neighboring us, when we stop to consider just how we come to
know about and understand these objects, we can more readily appreciate that these mundane
definitions form the basis of all our knowledge relating to the cosmos. At this meeting in Prague,
which was the The 26
th
General Assembly of the International Astronomical Union, there were
More than 2500 astronomers [who] participated in six symposia, 17 joint discussions, seven
Special Session and four Special Sessions (Immediate Release, 2006). These astronomers used

4
Eris is the current name of this object. In one text analyzed here, it is referred to be its discovery designation, 2003
UB313, then as Xena, and finally as Eris only after the IAU had official accepted it as a Dwarf Planet, TNO, and
KBO.
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

12
this meeting, described as an astounding success (Immediate Release, 2006), to discuss matters
of astronomical importance, which included ascribing new definitions to newly discovered
objects, and then the group ended their annual meeting by holding a vote to redefine Pluto; this
vote was literally one of the last events of the conference. A virtually unannounced, unadvertised,
unplanned event that left many in attendance surprised at the vote, but not at the context; the
thousands of scientists, members and nonmembers of the IAU alike, who were not in attendance
for this vote, were left speechless at being excluded from the decision to reorder our galactic
neighborhood, at least momentarily. At the end of the vote, the known universe was left with
new objects to learn about: Dwarf Planets. And perhaps worse still, our solar system was now a
Planet short, and a very real concern ringing out across the globe was that because of this, all
humans now needed to learn a new mnemonic; thus, as it has since been told, schoolchildren,
women, and men the world over wept in unison either the moment the resolution was signed into
the astronomical union law books, or when they eventually found out about it via the newspaper,
or watching The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, both which covered this as an actual news
event, or when teachers broke the catastrophic news to these traumatized school children, who
probably really couldnt care less.
It is beneficial to begin any textual analysis by examining a popular public representation
of the science relating to Pluto and its demotion by first reviewing a basic dictionary style
definition given by a text very much geared for a general, or lay, audience. This entry, reflective
of Schiappas notion of the fact of essence, comes from a Smithsonian publication titled, The
Universe. By reviewing this brief entry, we are able to gain a foundational understanding of the
general tones established through stylistic choices used to explain scientific concepts to general
audiences:
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

13
Plutos 48-year orbit ranges between about 2.7 billion miles (4.4 billion km) and
4.6 billion miles (7.4 billion km) from the Sun, meaning that Pluto sometimes lies
closer to the Sun than Neptune (most recently between 1979 and 1999). However,
the pronounced tilt of Plutos orbit (at an angle of 17.1! to the ecliptic), combined
with the fact that it sits in a resonant orbit with Neptune makes close encounters
between the impossible. Plutos spin axis is titled as 122! to the vertical, which
means that it spins in the opposite direction to Earth, Pluto is about 1,430 miles
(2,300 km) across and has several moons, the largest of which, Charon, is half the
size of Pluto itself (2012 p. 209).
This concise descriptive entry gives audiences multiple, straightforward, scientific facts relating
to Pluto as a solar object within our very local group of solar objects. As Schiappa explains,
dictionary definitions such as this one can be understood as prescriptive guides to what counts
as correct usage. By describing the dominant usage of a word in the past, dictionaries prescribe
how the term ought to be used now (2003, p. 50). An entry such as this, which establishes
degrees of orbit, relative size in relation to other solar objects, distance from the sun, axis
rotation, also generates a correct understanding of the essential scientific facts necessary for
really understanding Pluto. Because this entry occurs in a text whose genre also aims to report
and inform, it seems safe to assume that the other texts from active scientists in varied fields
would also offer rather clear-cut and equally educationally focused science within their texts. Yet,
as we investigate the stylistic elements used in each of the others texts, we find that they are
actually far less scientific than this Smithsonian reference book.
In order to establish a context for each of the text in this analysis, we must briefly analyze
the stylistic features evident in the IAU resolution. Readers may note how they have established
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

14
the text as a scientific document, outside of colloquial matters, accessible in reception by all
audience, but only to be interacted with by professional audiences:
The IAU members gathered at the 2006 General Assembly agreed that a planet
is defined as a celestial body that (a) is in orbit around the Sun, (b) has sufficient
mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a
hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (c) has cleared the
neighbourhood around its orbit (IAU0603).
The resolution sets itself up as having been created by the members present at the 26
th

assembly, which, as was stated early in this text, was more than 2500 astronomers
(Immediately Release, 2006). What is important to note about this distinction is the information
left out by that full sentence; the voting session to establish this resolution, as well as five other
resolutions that the IAU was voting on, were the very last items of business conducted at the
Closing Ceremonies. Anyone who has ever attended a conference knows that a closing ceremony
is never well attended, and it has been documented that approximately 10% of participants
remained at the 26
th
Assembly by the time the vote actually occurred.
5
Moving away from the
low number of voting participants, we can note that this text clearly defines itself as a scientific
text with the use of a few general scientific terms, notably, hydrostatic equilibrium. Yet, since
this text is publication was released to communicate about the new definition for objects known
as Planet, it is also constructed in such a way as to clear up confusion with other terms, so we are
given nearly round following hydrostatic equilibrium in case the term caused readers
moments of pause in our understanding. And while the authors are willing to provide a brief
clarification in that term for any confused readers, they neglect to clarify the greatest confusion

5
"There were 2,700 astronomers in Prague during that 10-day period. But only 10% of them voted this afternoon.
Those who disagreed and were determined to block the other resolution showed up in larger numbers than those
who felt 'oh well, this is just one of those things the IAU is working on Professor Gingerich from Pluto vote
hijacked in revolt, BBC.com.
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

15
developed within the entire resolution, the actual point that caused Pluto to become a Dwarf
Planet. (C) has cleared the neighbourhood around its orbit may be very clear to astronomers,
planetary scientists, and scientists in general, yet to public audiences reacting to this resolution,
this point could potentially make very little sense. Even if public audiences have a basic
understanding of planetary orbits, the notions of clearing orbits is not a notion of general
understanding, mostly because we do not have such an issue to contend with in our own orbit
here in our position in the solar system. Further, the definition does not establish parameters
relating to clearing, making that matter seem less of a fact and more of a value to be judged by
each astronomer with tools, such as large telescopes, good enough to view such objects. Certain
orbits are established in popular audiences as facts, as we have an experience with not one, our
own, but other observable ones we are shown. By not providing any further clarification for this
point, the IAU ensured that this resolution would remain an informational text, stylistically
scientific, and informed by the grand style that, when not used properly, divides and alienates
people from the knowledge which it transmits.
According to both Fahnestock and Schiappa, divisions between public and professional
discourse communities are observable phenomena that offer moments of analysis that
rhetoricians can review to demonstrate how choices made in constructing texts serve to enact not
simply the information transmitted, but many other persuasive elements often woven directly to
word constructions or word choice, phrasing, tone, patterns of speech, or any other elements we
could note to look for in an content analysis (Fahnestock, 61). Specifically, Fahnestock (2011)
notes, Stylistic analysis can begin from simply paying attention to words in the various
functional classes. A passage can be decomposed into lists of words under headings for the
traditional parts of speech. Such analyses are always more interesting when they are performed
on comparable passagestwo political speeches on the same issue, two newspaper reports of the
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

16
same event, two textbook sections covering the same material, (70-71) or, as is my case, a series
of scientific texts attempting to justify and explain Plutos new classification as a Dwarf Planet.
The following stylistic analyses notes not just patterns that develop in word usage and various
words classes, but also pay attention to how terms definitional qualities also contribute to the
entire stylistic classification of the text. To develop Schiappas notions of private discourse fields
and public discourse fields, which include technical fields, further
6
, the analytical framework
herein uses the classifications of simple, middle, grand, given from Rhetorical Style: the Use of
Language in Persuasion, where Fahnestock notes,
In rhetorical manuals, appropriateness was discussed in terms of three levels: the
simple, or low, the middle, and the grand or high ([Cicero] 1981, 253-63; Cicero
1998 319-21). The simple style was conversational and colloquial, suitable for
friendly exchanges and comic encounters; the grand was highly formal and ornate,
appropriate for the highest, most serious and intense topics. In between these two
was the middle style, which conveyed an unmarked, neutral stance, fitted and
straight narration and exposition. (2011, p. 79)
Thus, a text that falls into the simple, or low style, will address audiences with more
conversational word forms, word choices, suitable for conversations. The middle is a
combination of the two, but is marked by neutrality highlighted by what could only feel like
monotone feelings. Because of this, this categorization doesnt find a use in this analysis. The
grand style falls at the other end of the spectrum and is easily identified by its formal qualities
that mark it as reserved for series, important matters. Each of these styles has a foundational
rooting in linguistic styles that informs it, and with even but a small amount of consideration
offered by Fahnestock, these categorizations are rendered very clearly understood

6
According to Schiappa, Private discourse fields are those that can be classified as having unsophisticated discourse
communities and community members, while the Public-which includes technical fields- is seen as sophisticated, as
they requires special understanding for the varied discourses they use.
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

17
While Old English provides the language of simplicity and sincerity and French
adds words for elegance and order, Latin and Greek provide the special terms of
scholarly and formal English. They are the source languages for technical
vocabularies and, in general, of the lexicon of what can be called rational
distances, in part because these words are not in everyday informal use. This
quality of detachment dominates in the language of academics. (2011, p.35)
Both low and high, simple or grand, styles of communicating are marked by very specific, very
observable characteristics that aid in an analysis of what each text is doing beyond what each text
is saying.
Low style characteristics that were included in this observation pool were selected based
off of the notions developed on levels of appropriateness noted within Fahnestocks text. The
items that most identified a text under investigation as occupying low styles were the use of
contractions, certain verbs that denoted action, personal pronouns in the singular vs. in plural,
pronoun use in general, slang or instances of vulgarity, and relevance of topic to the actual
science of Pluto vs. the culture associated with Pluto (Fahnestock 80). Texts that have been
categorized as fitting into the grand style had the same topics investigated, but low incidents of
discovery allowed the style category to be deemed grand instead of low. Grand styles, according
to Fahnestock (2011), are most often characterized as occurring in an upscale version of
Standard English, and are the styles academics and professionals use in publications for
academic audiences. She continues by noting that It is characterized by its use of polysyllabic
words, many of Latin and Greek origins, and by phrases that in other contexts might sound
outdated. Sentences are longer and more complex, connectives are elaborate, and punctuation is
most likely to be heavy: that is, the most precise rules for inserting commas are followed and
semicolons and colons are used liberally (p.81). Of the text I analyzed, only one safely fit into
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

18
this style categorization, and while it fits stylistically, it fails overall as a successful text for my
analysis because it does not address the overall topic that I sought to find to analyze.
What makes this text markedly different than the others analyzed is its differing topic.
While Discovery of a Planetary-Sized Object in the Scattered Kuiper Belt by Michael Brown
and his team at Caltech also centers on Pluto and its status as a Planet as theme, it is addressing a
different topic as its main focus, namely the discovery of another Kuiper Belt object, 2003
UB313. This text also differs in that it was originally published in an academic journal, the only
such text I was able to find that related to Pluto as a Planet as a definition. Michael Brown has
communicated at length about Pluto, trans-Neptunian-Objects, Kuiper Belt objects, and specific
the Dwarf Planets he and his various teams have discovered. Brown also occupies a historically
difficult or dignified position, depending on the vantage point one choses to view his work from.
As the astronomer who discovered the series of trans-Neptunian-Objects that would eventually
unseat Pluto, it was his direct insistent that the IAU classify his this finding, 2003 UB313 (an
object that was renamed Eris to follow the acceptable naming patterns of planets, though the
object was never officially considered a planet by the IAU), that forced the IAU to chose
between having potentially hundreds of new planets in our solar system, or developing new
classes of objects better suited for describing objects that didnt fit scientific definitions set for a
Planet.
Upon releasing the various papers he and his team need to in order to make his 2003
trans-Neptunian-Objects legitimate in the astronomic community, and officially recognized by
the IAU, Brown needed to establish that his teams findings had been substantiated by others in
the field through peer review process. As the most scientific text offered in this analysis,
Browns text does a number of things the other texts do not do, simply by virtue of the style
Brown presented his findings in. A simple review of the stylistic usages, selected in comparison
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

19
to those selected for analysis for the other texts in this analysis, demonstrates that a different
mode of expression is being set up within this text.





THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

20
What is most clear about this text is that it speaks to the science behind this new
discovery; Brown only referencing Pluto in almost offhand ways to establish the size and
qualifications to define 2003 UB313 by logical relation to Pluto. Brown sets this short four page
text up so that 2003 UB313 is the focal point, but in doing so, he brings Pluto in as an item of
comparison, not culturally, scientifically, showing the sizing is rationally enough to allow his
new discovery the same status as Pluto. In explaining this, the contexts are set in scientific
settings; the above terms are the two items I experienced the most definitional confusion with, so
I used these as examples to demonstrate the use of formalistic styles based on terministic
registers relating to fields of studying space I am not familiar with. The stylistic breakdown of
the terms in the investigation pool further demonstrate that this text sticks to the action of the
topic, and the task at hand in affirming its classification according to Browns inclusive views. As
scientific as this text is, the next few texts veer more towards low styles, utilizing more and more
colloquial styles, one somewhat successfully, and one with successful and unsuccessful elements.
The first of the low styles texts offered in this analysis, Its not about Pluto: Exoplanets
are Planets too by David Grinspoon (2013), offers an argument against classifying Pluto as a
Dwarf Planet that attempts to open the issue up to include interstellar issues, such as the
continued discoveries of exoplanets. Yet, what Grinspoon essentially gives his readers is an
opinion on why he feels that Pluto, and other Planets in and outside of our solar system, should
not be classifies as Dwarf Planets. To make this point, the greatest stylist features that are used
breakdown as follows:

THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

21

This text is not void of scientific notions, though they are obfuscated by the desire to placate to
an audience who desires to see a cultural answer to a scientific problem presented with regards to
Pluto. We see this is instance of the text when Grinspoon directly includes himself and his reader,
and notes, You can explain to the kids that we discovered many other Plutos out there. Theyll
respond, But why cant they all be planets? And why do you call it a dwarf planet if its not a
planet? Good questions. Unlike life, planet is not an inherently difficult thing to
The greatest and most visable difference between this text and the previous text is the use
of contractions. Simply put, Grinspoon uses them heavily, and Brown did not. A standard
element of colloquial speech, contractions allow speakers quickness and ease that formal
language standards simply do not have. In speaking, contractions may often go unnoticed and
unobserved, as they often flow into the conversation unless brought to the attention of audiences.
In writing, contractions generally seem to be much more evident; when they are used within a
form of professional dialogue where a reader does not expect to find them in use, they are often a
detraction from the message being transmitted, as is the case with this text, mainly because they
shape the text to be too reminiscent of speech. Additionally, Grinspoon uses an array of adjective
arrangements that are also reminiscent of those that would be used to enhance a spoken
conversation. Most notable of the ten distinctive arrangements found in this environment was the
phrase particularly silly, which was used to describe the IAUs, decision to deem it useful to

THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

22
provide a new definitional understanding for the term Planet
7
.
Because Grinspoon finds the actions of the IAU silly, a synonym analysis could tell us
that he also finds their actions meaningless, stupid, impractical, insane, and/or mindless. Perhaps
Grinspoon could find any of these terms active substitutes for silly, yet as Fahnestock notes,
every contemporary speaker and writer of English makeschoices among synonyms, whether
consciously or not (p.23). Of all the variables in style, in sentence or phrase construction, a
rhetorical choice was made to go with the least offensive, yet still suggestive of possessing
juvenile qualities for not simply this new definition for Planet, but also the IAU for making it and
voting on it. Fahnestock allows us to understand the rhetorical choice behind this as holding
stylistic qualities aimed at persuading when she notes
Rhetors inevitability select a socially determined language variety, whether that
selection matches or attempts to change their actual rhetorical situation. They
pitch to a certain level of formality, filter through a regional or social dialect, and
select from the register appropriate to an activity or subject. The dominant level,
dialect, and register is clearly one of the key choices a rhetor can make. But
effective speakers and writers can also mix in or shift levels, dialects, and
registers at different points to communicate special emphases and attitudes, often
serving their personal goals. (2011, p. 96)
Clearly no active scientist arguing for others, scientists and the public alike, to understand
Planets from his developing perspective would consciously chose to represent a very large group
of professional peers as mindless, or any of these still worse synonyms for silly. As Schiappa
(2003) establishes in his text, When an advocate wants others to adapt a new definition, that

7
So its particularly silly, in the time of this exoplanet revolution, to proclaim a new definition that cannot be
practically applied outside our solar system (Grinspoon, p.15).

THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

23
person must persuade people that they ought to alter their future linguistic behavior (p. 51). In
choosing the term silly, Grinspoon attempts to neutralize the stance he is taking against the
science behind this decision. As safe and relatively harmless as silly seems, he is still using it to
demonstrate the negatives associated to how restrictive he feels the new definitional qualities are.
Yet, to show that there is more to rely on than just this silly, useless definition created by voting
members of an international organization thousands of members strong, Grinspoon closes his
piece by offering readers his own definition.
Within Grinspoons proposed definition these are elements of high choices of style, but
these mainly develop though the creation of the scientific elements of the definition. The nature
of scientific definitions requires high styles, yet the environment that surrounds the definition
truly allows the definition to be transmitted as scientific or as otherwise. Reviewing the
definition, we find Grinspoon proposes that,
So lets fix this definition and put it to rest. I propose something simple like: A
planet is a gravitationally grounded object that is orbiting a star. To bound this
definition on the large end, we can say that if an object has ever experienced
nuclear fusion, its a brown dwarf and not a planet. On the small end we can say
that if it has not gravitationally dominated its surroundings then it goes in a
subclass called dwarf planets. And dwarfs is just a subdivision of planets that
already includes rocky planets, ice giants, and gas giants. When astronomers
discover an exoplanet, were often unsure which of these categories it goes in, but
we know its a planet. (2013, p.15-16)
What is most obviously off about this proposed scientific definition of a Universal Solar Object,
meaning an object that is found throughout the entire universe, is that the definition comes from
an individual, not voting members of an esteemed union of scientists. By using the personal,
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

24
singular pronoun I he is directly claiming this definition as his own, and only shifts to the
personal plural pronoun we when the receiving stage of reception of information begins. So
while this definition may very well fit his parameters for what exoplanets and even our solar
system Planets should do, and are known to do, by taking possession of a collective definition,
Grinspoon has negated how successfully his actual definition can be at being transmitted into
collective use. While his overall text may have made stylistic choice that reflect an interest in
transmitting ideas to the collective audience of the public, he ends up losing the ability to link his
own definition to a collective definition when he tries to claim possession of one as the one to
now use.
These definitions guide our understanding of the solar system, yet who guides our
understanding of these definitions? When it comes to how different groups of people interact
with information, it is generally excepted, and commonly transpires that the individuals in
control of the information guide how the rest of the groups can come to understand a terms
proper usage, definitions and the full meaning that relates to each, and concepts. What Schiappa
demonstrates for us in Defining Reality is that definitions require all language users to ask How
ought we use the word X? a preferred method for interacting with a definitional concepts, and
the more commonly accepted and used basic method of asking What is X, which generates
information on the actual definitions terms of usage in language, not use in essence (xi). In
reviewing the brief evolution of the official definition of Planet, and differentiating it from
Dwarf Planet simply by the arguments that Pluto was a Planet by virtue of what it had been, in so
far as how it is being used in the texts being analyzed, the main notion that was being
investigated was how firmly accepted were these official definitions in both usages and essence
as scientists communicated about the concepts to audiences. Because of the nature of the issue,
not may scientific texts speaking to definitional elements regarding why Pluto is no longer a
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

25
Planet were readily available for this analysis. Still, as Schiappa establishes for readers within his
discussions on definitional discourses that, All linguistic contexts demonstrate how public or
professional, as well as private discourse communities, [each] use definitions to both establish
and regulate special sort of social knowledgea shared understanding among people about
themselves, the objects of their world, and how they ought to use language (p. 3). Regardless of
the level of concrete scientific tones or styles that are absent in these instances of communication,
each of the texts analyzed manages to retain some science, hold an aspect of a definition, its own
or the IAUs, and ascribe to itself the level of style that the scientists deems appropriate for the
transmission of their message. Thus, the scientists acting as rhetor for each specific
communicative act seems in command of the definitional elements at the center of the debate.
Yet each of these scientists message ends up being swayed in the direct that culture, not science,
is pulling it.
A reoccurring theme throughout Schiappas texts asks readers to understand the fullness
of the interactions being formed by the creation and dissemination of a definition as they relate to
questions of power: Who has the power to define, and further, who should have such authority?
In all cases, proposed definitions are a request for institutional norms. Yet, when a term is
institutionalized per one groups standards, it becomes a tool or function of that one group.
Because the concept of Planet had never before been defined, the IAU did not simply try to
provide a helpful way to think about the space around the Earth; the definition they proposed
sought to regulate and order the cosmos in a way that they saw as ideal and functional per their
institutionalized rules. Inevitably, this new definition would create division that would leave
objects out of inclusion within its set, yet worse still its new definition also creates dividing line
between with individuals that can participate with it as a term of fact or usage, as
Bureaucratization of language or definitions works to create disenfranchised public who isnt
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

26
part of the specialized discourse communities who are making these terms inaccessible
(Schiappa p. 134-35). The term Planet seems a far cry from a highly scientific term than can be
said to keep public and private audiences divide on the knowledge that they can both share on a
topic, yet if we really consider what the term does according to how the IAU proposed it and
seeks to have it used, we can see that it has the true potential to hinder public understanding on
what a Planet is.
As the governing agency responsible for clarifying and creating terms for scientific
phenomenon, the IAU acts as a bureaucratic force that holds power over public audience by
setting definitions that may not be accessible to all due to the technical nature of the actual
definitions used. For most people, Pluto was a planet simply because it was said to or was
assumed to share qualities with other Planets of the solar system, and simply because it was a
object with a regular orbit in the solar system. Public audiences attempting to understand the
IAUs new definition for Planet and Dwarf Planet were required not simply to learn a new term
in Dwarf Planet, they were also asked to consider actual characteristics of Pluto and other cosmic
bodies, not just rely on assumptions, if they wanted to understand the requirements of the new
definitions. According to the IAU, the point of contention the knocked Pluto down from Planet
to Dwarf Planet was section C of their new resolution: it has cleared the neighborhood around its
orbit. For scientists, this notion is no doubt clear. For the average public reader, this is no doubt
somewhat confusing. As an institution tried to push a definition or an idea into a bureaucratized
statues, it seems best practice to frame the notions in a way that will hinder any question on the
matter; one could assume such was the case with Pluto and its redefinition, that many public
participants in this issue may or may not have just accepted the IAUs definition without
question simply because the IAU used mystified scientific wording to limit public participation.
Yet, what we find as we look back on where the issue has gone since 2006, we find that
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

27
the definition of Planet has gotten out of the hands of the IAU and now seems to be guided more
by the public audiences who propagate the most general understanding of what these solar
objects are. Within a text not analyzed here, Michael Brown and a co-author Gibor Basri offer a
very clear explanation for importance of public audiences
The public is very interested in planets, and learns about them as young
schoolchildren. Certain kinds of discoveries (especially of new planets) bring
benefits (or at least attention) beyond that for discoveries of similar objects that
are not called planets. The latest example of this importance is the current (as
of this writing) controversy around the discovery of the 10
th
planet (2003
UB313) by MB and collaborators. There are sometimes professional arguments
over whether the discovery merits such attention, based on the definition of
planet. We care in part because society cares. (2006, p.2)
However, this reasoning isnt as cut and dry as it is clear. Michael Brown, whose finding 2003
UB313 was denied the defined status as a Planet, has since reveled in being one of the scientists
responsible for killing Pluto, with actions such as his 2010 book How I Killed Pluto: Why it
had it Coming, as well as appearing on countless television and radio shows which addressed the
topic. So while he may have seen the importance of reflecting on how The public saw things in
2006, by that same year his greater focus was on forcing the IAU to take a stand with having the
definition either amplify the number of Planets in our solar system, or create a new class of
objects to study as a classified group, such as the Dwarf Planets. As far as actually aligning with
society for the sake of how society views things does not actually seem to represent what
Michael Brown was doing. The public, in reacting to and with this new definition set forth by the
IAU, and no doubt also reacting to and with the countless article, documentaries, books, radio
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

28
interviews, and other sources of opinion dissemination, chose for themselves, as a very large
group, how they would continue use this word Planet.
How the public reappropriated this word is still a thing in flux; in some instances, this
involves still calling Pluto a Planet, in others, it involves calling everything in space a Planet,
including suns, comets, nebulas, and so on. Thus, in all cases, the public is fundamentally using
the term incorrectly based on the scientific parameters set up by the IAU as the governing
scientific body that seeks to establish order over how these terms are used in conjunction with
knowledge the world over. Yet, it seems as though the term Planet may be one such term that is
more difficult than many others to govern with a concrete definition based solely on concepts of
essence or usage. For thousands of years, these objects have guided our imaginations and
thoughts as we watched them move in and out of the night sky, and until only now, very recently,
have specific terms of definition applied to that understanding is perhaps too difficult for
individuals to manage. As such, it seems for now at least, the public is winning the battle over
how this term Planet should be understood, meaning that it is the public, not the scientist that are
in control of the power to shift the definition. Yet this is a thing in flux and requires greater time
to watch how it changes.
In future research, I hope to establish that it is this fundamental issue that keeps public
audiences at a metaphorical arms length from actually understanding scientific facts that some
scientists deem too abstract and too valuable to release fully into public discourse communities.
Upon reflection of my research, and my vested interest in the topic, I am able to suggest that
without a change to how specialist communicate specialized information this greater information
access afforded to the multitudes today will have little lasting and hard hitting effects. Because
professional and public ways of communicating have such different tones and styles, even if one
given text speaks to the same scientific information of a different text, it could potentially say
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

29
something very different depending on the intended audience of the piece due to the stylistic
choices made in presenting the information. What results is often a watered-down or saturated
with an individualized stylistic version of scientific fact. As information and highly scientific
concepts becomes more and more available to any individual interested, it is important that
receptors of this information are granted access to more than popular versions of science. Further,
it is becoming increasingly more important for popular scientists to blur the lines between these
two styles of communicating to audiences; in doing so they may begin to address public
audiences with tones and style more fit for professional audiences, inviting audiences in popular
circles to investigate for themselves the more difficult scientific genres.















THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

30
Work Cited
Brown, Micheal, C. A. Trujillo, and D.L. Rabinowitz. (2005). Discovery of a planetary-sized
object in the scattered Kuiper Belt. The Astronomical Journal, 635. 97-100.
Fahnestock, Jeanne. (2011). Rhetorical style: The uses of language in persuasion. London:
Oxford University Press.
Grinspoon, David. (2013). Its not about Pluto: Exoplanets are planets too! Sky & Telescope,
14-16.
Lindberg, Lars Christensen. (2007). The Pluto affair: When professionals talk to professionals
with the public watching. Future Professional Communication in Astronomy, 191-207.
International Astronomical Union. (2006). IAU0603: For immediate release. IAU 2006
General Assembly: Results of the IAU Resolution Votes. 1-4. Retrieved from
http://www.iau2006.org/mirror/www.iau.org/iau0603/index.html
Maurer, John. (2002). Retrieval of surface albedo from space. Retrieved from
http://www2.hawaii.edu/~jmaurer/albedo/
Natural Resources Canada. (2010). Space weather-Telluric activity zones. Retrieved from
http://geogratis.gc.ca/api/en/nrcan-rncan/ess-sst/de0e3d00-8893-11e0-96f3-
6cf049291510.html
Ress, Martin. Ed. (2012). Universe. New York: Smithsonian Publications.
Rincon, Paul. (2006). Pluto vote hijacked in revolt. BBC News. Retrieved from
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/5283956.stm
Schiappa, Edward. (2003). Defining Reality: Definitions and the politics of meaning. Carbondale,
Illinois: Southern Illinois University Press.
Spellman, Frank R., Joni Price-Bayer. (2011). In defense of science literacy: Why science
literacy matters. London: Scarecrow Press.
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

31
Tyson, Neil degrasse. (2009). The Pluto files: The rise and fall of Americas favorite planet.
[Kindle Version] New York: W.W. Norton & Company. Retrieved from Amazon.
Works Referenced
Bernstein, G.M., Trilling, D.E., et al. (2004). The size distribution of trans-Neptunian-bodies.
The Astronomical Journal, 128, 1364-1390.
Boyle, Alan. (2010). The case for Pluto: How a little planet made a big difference. Hoboken,
New Jersey: Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Brown, Michael, et al. (2013). Discovery of a planetary-mass Brown Dwarf with a circumstellar
disk. Draft Version.
---.(2008). The largest Kuiper Belt objects. In The Solar System Beyond Neptune. University of
Arizona Press, 1-15.
Cain, Fraser. (2012). Why Pluto is no longer a planet. Universe Today. Retrieved from
http://www.universetoday.com/13573/
Fahnestock, Jean. (2002). Rhetorical figures in science. London: Oxford University Press.
Fraknoi, Andrew, interview conductor. (2007). Teaching what a planet is: A roundtable on the
education implications of the new definition of a planet. Astronomy Education Review,
5(2), 226-244.
International Astronomical Union. (2006). The IAU draft definition of planet and plutons.
1-5. Retrieved from http://www.iau2006.org/
Margot, Jean-Luc. (2009). What makes a planet? UCLA Earth, Planetary, and Space Sciences
Physics and Astronomy. Retrieved from
http://www2.ess.ucla.edu/~jlm/epo/planet/planet.html
Shira Teitel, Amy. (2011). Enough of the hubbub about Pluto, the little planet that's still a little
planet. Motherboard. Retrieved from http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/the-little-planet-
THE HIGHS AND LOWS OF DEMOTING A PLANET

32
that-s-still-a-little-planet
Slater, Matthew H. Pluto and the Platypus; or: The Role of Classifcatory Norms revised and
resubmitted to Mind. Department of Philosophy, Bucknell University. Lewisburg, PA.