1

Andrew Vasquez

Julia Crisler

Writing 2

25 11 November December 2019

Formatted: Underline

Dear Julia,

The most important part of this writing project was without a doubt breaking down the lab report

and sitting back for a minute and thinking about what would be needed to be included in my

translation. This has continued to be a serious step throughout all my work projects, as without

being able to first understand what’s going on in the piece I’m writing about, the writing itself

becomes immensely harder. In this case it was no exception, as I would be taking a discourse

community for older individuals and applying some of the information learned to a younger

audience. This step would also shape what would be in my translation overall and the plotline of

the story. My favorite decision was choosing a storybook idea as it really challeneged me to try

and include what was going on in the experiment itself, and try to explain it, without getting held

up by all the scientific jargon. The part of the writing I feel just a bit unsure about is how I split

up the explanation essay. While I see room for improvement with it, I’m just a little unsure about

how I would go about fixing it.

My favorite and most challenging part was creating a coherent story line that included at

least some of the main concepts of the research I was looking into. Writing in a nonacademic

genre informed a lot of what I usually only consider when it comes to school, including

audience, and more so rhetorical situations, of what is to be reaped by the audience from a piece

of work. I reread a couple childhood books in order to get a sense of what is was that I was going
 2

to be working with. This process took me about forty minutes in order to dive in and really value

the different aspects of the work. I began to realize that the illustrations were going to have to be

a significant investment in my work, as they begin to convey ideas or personify characters, as

maybe the text of the page is limited.

In analyzing my own writing, I began to notice the that I enjoy using larger than

necessary words, and therefore in drafting my storyline, I had to remove many of them. It’s a

force of habit that has helped me previously in academics, although was holding me back just

slightly with the creation of a storybook. When analyzing my work, I began to realize that within

my translation, as I read the experiment, I naturally began to exclude ideas. This wasn’t

necessarily a bad thing, just something I did and worked around, often times creating new

solutions to the scrapped information. This was largely done for understanding purposes. I feel

that while using limited examples of evidence from references, I utilized them well in expressing

the genre of children’s reading overall.

Within my writing, specifically my explanation essay, I’m wondering if I hit on and

thoroughly explained the differences between scientific, or psychological writing and and

children’s story books.

Sincerely,

Andrew VasquezInsect Education, Illustrated as a Storybook

 3

Seen throughout all medias are the translation of works into other forms; this can be seen

in translation examples as a book into a play, where the information of the original work is both

kept and manipulated to fit new genre conventions, or situational elements leading to what’s

expected of genres, (Dirk). Probing an intenselyI chose to take the article academic piece as that

of a psychological experiment Olfactory Learning in the Cricket Gryllus Bimaculatus by

Yukihisa Matsumoto and Makoto Mizunami and translate it to a children’s storybook. A highly

academic source as that of a psychological experiment requires and often infers that individuals

are familiar with terminology surrounding the topic. As such, in my translation to a children’s

storybook, this would be one of the first obstacles to overcome. was bound to come with its own

set of challenges. First and foremost were attempts to try and liven such a piece. So many

characterize the idea of research and discovery as so stale in practice, myself included. That’s

why whenBy choosing a storybook I chose my non-academic translation, my goal was to further

use both illustration and short phrasing to translate the pieceo make it as approachable as

possible. Therefore, my translation of the article Olfactory Learning in the Cricket Gryllus

Bimaculatus by Yukihisa Matsumoto and Makoto Mizunami takes on a storybook approach.

This was intentional necessary in breaking down the academic barriers created by the original

work, in by addressing diction, and conventions of the genre and surrounding discourse

communities., diction and surrounding discourse communities.

In translating the academic report to the storybook genre, the rhetorical situation had to

be revaluated. The premise of the experiment was to determine whether or not the cricket could

determine using ‘olfactory’ or smell to determine certain substances, and/or recall their choice
 4

over a set count of days. The crickets themselves underwent ‘training sessions’ and ‘retention

tests’ in order to determine whether or not they would be able to correctly select their chosen

‘liquid’ of vanilla with salt, or peppermint. Their ability to maintain a preference over multiple

sessions, with a preference to peppermint showed optimistic results. Concluded from the study

was that by undergoing multiple sessions, the crickets were able to continue choosing

peppermint, over vanilla for a total of seven days. While a detailed experiment in its own right,

application of the ideas above would have proved difficult in a storybook translation. Rather in

the story, like most children’s book, I choose to personify the characters or test subjects and

place them in school as young children are, in hopes of allowing them to become relateable. As

well as explain processes such as ‘chemoreceptive cues’ or the process by which insects show

response to some (chemical) stimuli. A concept too dense for the audience of young children, I

chose to describe it as a ‘result.’ Within the two respective literary practices, the speaker,

audience and message of each largely differ. This includes the presentation of information and

receiving audience as incredibly necessary in receiving the right information.

Within psychologyPsychology, and furthermore the scientific discourse community, the

presentation of information relies heavily on textual explanations and illustrations representing

an aspect of the experiment. the presentation of information is often timesFurthermore done so in

a “matter of fact form,.” with tThe aim of this is to inform an audience familiar with the same

set of background information as well. Thise is proven through work by Matsumoto and

Mizunami on with the introduction of their research with on concepts such as memory retention

and classical conditioning. This creates limitations in the work if the application of it is to be so

widespread, in addition to the structure of the discourse community. That is also why inIn

choosing a translation, I I imagineded what could be more on the flipsideapproachable than a in

 5

approach than a stchildren’s story ory book. Of the references I picked out, all of them were

stories I’d read through my childhood and had stuck with me. For example, that of The Very

Hungry Caterpillar by Eric Carle, is which is also straightforward in approach, with including a

timeline of food consumedsummary of what the caterpillar ate, but while unmissably at the same

time is very bright and colorful. This is done so intentionally in capturing the audience, as well

as illustrating further information to guide the reader.The energy placed into each of the

illustrations further helps to communicate a message to the reader, where words may be limited.

Children’s books have also been found to be on the shorter side of text used, as well. This helps

to allow the work to help the work be more approachable, as the community surrounding story

books is significantly younger, and is not necessarily reliant on a “style” of writing, other than

that of being understood. Translating the original experiment, I began to realize it would not be

enough to simply summarize the text in a short form, but that word choice would have to be

changed as well.

Within the discourse, diction Diction is also used in helpingby both discourse

communities to create a foundation of expectancy in both. This includes While in the use of

scientific terms in academic article on crickets, use of scientific terms is abundant in explaining

the physical traits possessed by the insect. This is done intentionally in setting up the research to

be understood by those in the field as well as the biological aspects also at playhe greater science

discourse community. Terms such as ‘electrophysiological’ or ‘neural mechanisms,’ (Matsumoto

and Mizunami, 2000) which explain both the measurement and neural pathways are included in

demonstrating the overarching impact of the newfound further help to describe the research in

relative termsresearch and lessons needed for it to be understood. Choosing rather to explain

‘electrophysiological’ in the story translation as the bugs following their positive results, and
 6

“neural mechanisms” more broadly as preferences for “study” juices. While vital to the academic

nature in which the article is published, inclusion of large and scientifically based words in a

children’s story book are off limits. In a discourse as thatthe discourse of children’s writing, the

intenttion is to be well thought out and concise in ideasand straightforward in what’s presented. .

This includes significant emphasis on diction. Whereas varying length sentences may be

necessary in writing a coherent pieceother writing practices, examples such as “And the boy

loved the tree…” (Silversteen 1964) are relatively simple in nature. This includes the repetition

of an often time simple character’s name. My translation of “Can Insects Learn?” sought to

include the same simple repetition, with the reintroduction of characters names throughout the

story, or reference to the sameall characters as a whole as “they.”

Within each medium, genre conventions are pertinent to adhere to as they set up

‘rules’ which inform the work. This includes more often than not the inclusion of material within

the works themselves. The published report by Matsumoto and Mizunami includes

predominately a scientific or ‘lab report’ style write up. This is marked by the use of explained

control and experimental groups, experimental chambers, and the overarching idea of classical

conditioning. Whereas children’s books I analyzed including The Very Hungry Caterpillar and

The Giving Tree were in addition to repetition in word choice and subject, were illustrated to

further express the subject of the page. As a result, the largest change needing to take place was

addressing the new audience and expectations of what would need to be created. Moving away

from a specific audience of adults to really children at large seemed a daunting task, although

one necessary in successfully translating. That is also where the selection of information took

place. In children’s books there is often times a simple task or goal that is aimed to be reached by

the conclusion, so it was imperative that this so took place. As a result, I chose not to include the
 7

chambers of the crickets, as well as the various groups they were sorted into, of testing retention.

This was done in goal of simplifying the story line and creating an ‘upbeat’ ending, of which is

often associated with a children’s book.

In translating such an undeniabacly academic piece as that oflike that of Olfactory

Learning in the Cricket Gryllus Bimaculatus, I aimed tomy approach it was aimed as though I

was explaining it to a child. This was necessary in including the information dire to the

experiment itself and events taking place. I chose to retain ideas surrounding memory retention

and classical conditioning, without necessarily addressing each. Instead satisfying these concepts

by allowing the crickets to choose what worked best for their study habits. If I were to have done

so, it would have alternated the discourse all together. Rather I focused on the conventions of the

new genre, with three main characters and the happy solution that would fosuccess they had in

studying. The goal of the translation itself was to breakllow them. All of which was done in aim

of breaking down the surrounding academic barriers of the pieceexperiment, in allowing for the

topic itself to be more approachable in a storybook form, by a wider array of individualsaudience

and younger discourse community..

 8

Work Cited

Berenstain, J. Berenstain, S. (1974). The Berenstain Bears. Random House.

Carle, E. (1996). The Very Hungry Caterpillar. Lakeshore Learning Materials.

Dirk, Kerry. (2019). “Navigating Genres.” Writing 2 Reader. Edited Crisler, Julia. UCSB 2019.

Matsumoto, Y & Mizunami, M. (2000). Olfactory Learning in the Cricket Gryllus Bimaculatus.

The Journal of Experimental Biology 203, 2581–2588.

Silverstein, S. (1964). The Giving Tree. New York: Harper and Row.
9