'How Walking In Nature Changes The Brain'

Why the Audience Changes How Writers Tell a Story Two articles, one newspaper, one peer reviewed, that share the same story in completely different ways. “How Walking in Nature Changes the Brain” is an article in the New York Times written by Gretchen Reynolds, and “Nature experience reduces rumination and subgenual prefrontal cortex activation” a peer reviewed article by Gregory Bratman, J. Paul Hamilton, Kevin S. Hahn, Gretchen Daily, and James Gross. Both describe that city life can be making people depressed, while in nature the brain is stimulated by positive means. There is correlation between walking in nature and having good mental health, as well as walking through a city and poor mental health. A persons’ environment has a huge …show more content…
Differences in the language, structure, and reference in the writing revolve around this idea of story vs. report. Language in writing is how the authors use words to convey ideas to their readers. Structure is how the writers use different formats to lead their reader through their writing. Reference is how the authors credits their sources. These three conventions change depending who the audience is, to deliver the story in the most effective way for their reading purposes.  From the start the difference in conventions of language is one of the first differences the readers pays attention to—the title. Just looking at the titles it becomes clear that although these articles might have the same overall idea, they are very different. Like how a story has a creative title, a scientific report has a very detailed, descriptive, and professional title—because of the readers. Everyone knows what nature and the brain is, but seldom will know about the prefrontal cortex. This is a difference in language, and is specific to the audience. The general public will be reading a newspaper—and although some may have expertise it may not be in the field medicine or brain studying. To appeal to this audience the author uses