Dinosaur Extinction: Impact Theory vs. Volcanism
We are facing a scientific text since it seeks an objective explanation of the world and its phenomena. In this case, the author explains the cause of the disappearance of the dinosaurs.
The text takes the form of a scientific paper released by the press, which justifies the use of a language level more accessible to a heterogeneous audience, such as the newspaper reader.
Asimov uses the following expressive techniques: first, exposition, as he explains both the impact theory and volcanism; secondly, argumentation, as he provides reasons to test the validity of his hypothesis (*”stishovite” is found in places where there is evidence that a meteorite of significant size crashed at some time against the floor*, eighth paragraph); and finally, objective description, so that the reader thoroughly understands the process he is explaining.
The text is consistent because all the information revolves around a single theme: the explanation of the causes that led to the demise of the dinosaurs. The content also progresses gradually. The writer begins by explaining the different theories, supported with different arguments, to reach the conclusion that the impact theory, in his view, explains the true cause of the disappearance of the dinosaurs.
The title, *”Crushed Sand”*, is brief and suggestive, while referring by its popular name to the strongest evidence corroborating Asimov’s thesis: “stishovite” as evidence that an impact caused the extinction of the dinosaurs.
As for the external format, the text is organized into fourteen paragraphs of unequal length, with a trend toward brevity to promote a more enjoyable read. Internally, it has three sections:
- Introduction: Presents the known information on the subject, in this case, the two competing theories, “impact versus volcanic,” on the occasion of the demise of the dinosaurs (paragraphs 1-4).
- Development: Analyzes the option favored by the author, the impact theory, and invalidates the contrary, volcanism (paragraphs 5-11).
- Conclusion: The author provides the decisive reasons to support the hypothesis of “impact” (paragraphs 12-14).
It is a divulgative scientific text since it targets a wide and diverse audience. The author is in a superior position regarding knowledge of his subject, so he adapts his language to the average receiver.
Scientific discourse, in its striving for objectivity, avoids any personal reference, restricts the use of adjectives, and resorts to declarative sentences in the indicative mood (*In the last nine years, scientists have been discussing a new explanation for the disappearance of dinosaurs 65 million years ago*, first paragraph), sentences without an agent (*In 1980, it was reported that a thin layer of sediment of such antiquity had an unusual concentration of a rare metal, iridium*, second paragraph), and the informative language function (first paragraph, for example). It resorts to the authority of experts to strengthen its explanations. The use of a written channel for the dissemination of scientific discourse promotes understanding of the text by allowing for rereading.
In terms of style, it opts for simplicity, clarity, and precision to reach the reader more easily, as shown by the logical order of his speech and the prevalence of coordinated and juxtaposed sentences. It also stresses the abundance of technical terms from the scientific area (*silicon dioxide, atom, nuclear magnetic resonance, X-ray diffraction, etc.*) and the use of the present tense with its expressive value of timelessness to give greater effect to the investigation and to provide the necessary cohesion to the text.
In conclusion, this is clearly a scientific text, not only for its subject matter but also for the linguistic features mentioned.