On one hand, when scientific language is used in a popular context, the effect can be that researchers are incomprehensible. On the other hand, the use of a laymen language in scientific contexts often discredits the researcher. This paradox is acknowledged in the Swedish Higher Education Ordinance, which specifies that PhD-students must be able to present their research to different audiences upon the completion of their education, both academic and non-academic audiences. For the last four years I have been the course co-ordinator for a PhD-course “Presenting research for different audiences,” in which the participants are examined through two oral presentations to different imaginary audiences, that of academic peers and that of interested laymen. To make the students aware of the importance of language choices in this context, I ask them to write word-for-word scripts for both presentations. At the beginning, the main reason was to help me to better understand the various research fields and topics chosen and to give me insight into both the process and the product before the examination. This teacher-centered pedagogical approach has, however, proved to be a learning situation conductive of language development in the PhD-students; through these word-for-word scripts, the rhetorical function of language is made prominent in an unexpected way. My current research project Narratives in research communication: the story as an academic argument draws on the empirical material collected for four years in form of word-for-word scripts, both for the scientific and popular presentations for each student in the course. The aim of the project is to make visible and explore the narratives of scientific argument. I found that the student’s awareness of the different audiences is more prominent in their language choices if they are asked to compose word-for-word scripts than otherwise. In this talk, I focus on the educational situations thatarise when PhD-students compile word-for-word scripts instead of the more traditional scripts based on keywords.ReferencesBaur, Martin W. (2008). Survey research and the public understanding of science. I Trench, Brian (red.). Handbook of public communication of science and technology. London, UK: Routledge. ss. 111-130.Baur. Martin W. 2009). The evolution of public understanding of science – discourse and comparative evidence. I Science, technology and society. 14 (2). ss. 221-240.Garrett, Peter (2010). Attitudes to language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Irwin, Alan & Wynne, Brian (red.) (1996). Misunderstanding science? The public reconstruction of science and technology. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.Jørgensen, Charlotte, Kock, Christian & Rørbech, Lone (2011). Retorik der flytter stemmer: hvordan man overbeviser i offentlig debat. Ödåkra: RetorikförlagetOlsson Jers, Cecilia (2010). Klassrummet som muntlig arena: att bygga och etablera ethos. Diss. Lund : Lunds universitet.Olsson Jers, Cecilia (2011-2013) Kommunikation mot profession. Muntlighet som en del av den kommunikativa kompetensen i utbildning: http://www.mah.se/Forskning/Sok-pagaende-forskning/Kommunikation-mot-profession-Muntlighet-som-en-del-av-den-kommunikativa-kompetensen-i-utbildning/Weber, James R. och Schell Word, Charlotte (2001). The Communication Process as Evaluative Context: What Do Nonscientist Hear When Scientists Speak. I BioScience June 2001, 15 (6).