Although engineering departments were dissatisfied with early twentieth-century technical writing teaching methods, those methods were not simply a result of “anti-science” attitudes. In fact, late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century composition teachers tried to accommodate the influx of applied science students by teaching correctness and clarity of style and stressing the expository modes of writing. Emphasis on “clarity” was a legacy of rhetoricians like Hugh Blair of the eighteenth century. Emphasis on expository modes was a legacy of the nineteenth-century rhetoricians' interest in the inductive methodology of “pure” science, a method which implied invention by “observation” and made conclusions “self-evident”: argument was unnecessary since observations and methods only need to be explained to “convince.” Applied science departments were, in reality, dissatisfied with teaching methods based on “pure” rather than “applied” science methodology.

As a concept of rhetoric in technical writing, relevance involves an awareness of time. The report deals with the past; the manual, with the present; the proposal, with the future. To be considered relevant, however, all the modes of technical writing must relate to the present reality of the audience. Writers must recognize this need not only as it influences grammar and style but also as it affects larger concerns of organization and tone. Realizing that the temporal classification of modem reports, manuals, and proposals correlates with Aristotle's designation of forensic, epideictic, and deliberative discourse, technical writers can discover a body of rhetorical theory on which to base choices about selection, arrangement, and presentation of subject matter.

In contrast to the literary artist we expect the scientist-writer to transmit information to the intended audience as accurately and clearly as possible. Nevertheless, a few scientists have managed to slip into their prose such rhetorical devices as anagram, acrostic, pun, metaphor, litotes, and neologism.

Some theoreticians and practitioners view editing as a superficial task, often no more than the mindless following of a set of prescriptive rules for grammar, syntax, and style. In addition, the editor-author relationship is typically perceived as an interaction between an editor and words. However, drawing upon rhetoric and cognitive psychology, I argue in this article for the complexity and importance of the editing process and the writer-editor relationship. This perspective is tentatively supported by a study of the revising and editing patterns of professional and experienced writers. The study suggests that revising and editing may be equally complex tasks. Further, the complexity increases if editors and authors discuss their changes as opposed to legislating them. Several methods for imparting this perspective and related knowledge to students are discussed.

Stylistic analysis of scientific and technical prose reveals that technical and non-technical expository prose share a number of common characteristics; consequently, common assumptions about a clear stylistic separation between scientific and literary writing are faulty. Technical prose, moreover, possesses a number of rhetorical features which further increase its likeness to literary writing. Both style and rhetoric of technical writing thus point toward non-referential functions in scientific discourse, including the operation of significant cultural codes.

Writing good computer manuals for beginners is a demanding job. Recently, rhetoricians have advised manual writers who want to write better manuals to consider the audience (computer users) carefully. However, my rhetorical analysis of several computer manuals shows that writers should also consider genre, subject, and writer's purpose. I also found that, while some writers accommodate their rhetorical situation, they may do it unconsciously, given the inconsistency of their rhetorical choices. In conclusion, by paying attention to the overall rhetorical situation, manual writers will surely produce better manuals.

To evaluate Technical Communication faculty requires understanding of the distinctive nature of the research, teaching, and service performed by faculty in the field. This article documents the work situations and accomplishments of a cadre of twenty-four accomplished faculty members in Technical Communication. The study group, identified by a prior survey of 275 people in technical writing, composition, and rhetoric, provides an empirical basis for defining the kinds and quantities of work that currently can be expected in the field. The article thus helps to provide empirically-based guidelines and criteria for evaluation. Included also is a discussion of other relevant research on faculty evaluation.

Consistency is the orderly treatment of a set of linked elements, and it is a necessary characteristic of polished, highly readable prose. Consistency is either “uniform” or “harmonious,” depending on whether a set of linked elements is indivisible or divisible into subsets. From the perspective of text characteristics, we can speak of semantic, syntactic, stylistic, spatial, and mechanical consistency. To deal successfully with consistency problems, technical communicators should establish patterns that are logical, evident, functional, resource efficient, and stable. Because of its importance, the concept of consistency should be more fully recognized. Indeed, consistency should be a component of any comprehensive rhetoric of technical communication.

Using examples from journal articles in the natural sciences, the author argues that scientific writing has conventions of personality which are rhetorically constrained. Writers represent themselves and their readers at specific junctures in the text through the use of pronominals, verbs entailing reasoning, modals expressing possibility or obligation, and adjectives or adverbs which qualify assertions. Seven rhetorical acts are identified which are likely to bring the writer and/or the reader to the surface of the text: 1) acknowledging assistance; 2) referring to one's own research; 3) justifying hypothesis selection; 4) justifying methods chosen or departures from established methods; 5) explaining adjustments to results or inability to interpret results; 6) stating conclusions and comparing conclusions to those of other studies; and 7) discussing implications for reader behavior.

A great deal of empirical research has been done in the past to test writing rules commonly taught in the classroom. To date, however, no one has constructed a deep theory of the relationship between cognition and writing that confirms the writing rules and explains why they work. Grunig, Ramsey, and Schneider construct a deep theory of the relationship between language, cognition, and writing — based upon theories and research in the fields of cognitive psychology, social psychology, philosophy of language, information theory, reading theory, rhetoric, and systems theory. The authors build a theory of writing that contains fifteen definitions, eleven premises, and eleven principles. The eleven axiomatic principles subsume practical writing rules, especially science writing rules, and offer a broad framework for research. The article concludes with results of several exploratory studies using the “signaled stopping technique” to observe the cognitive effects of writing.

Though historical scholarship in technical writing has been sparse, what is available on Francis Bacon has tended to focus on Bacon's influence in directing scientific discourse toward the use of plain prose. This article shows that in many ways, Bacon's theory of rhetoric for specialized, knowledge-seeking fields directly conflicts with that of those who support plain prose for these fields. In addition, the rhetorical method Bacon utilized in presenting the theory has subverted the effect of much of his theory. Consequently, it is not surprising that Bacon's actual theory differs both from what was transferred to the Royal Society and from posterity's interpretation of it.

Medical and scientific writing have traditionally occasioned debate. The earliest critics of scientific language were harsh because they were promoting a plain style of writing free from rhetorical embellishment, not because they questioned the writing ability of those they censured. Writing and language were central parts of scientific inquiry. Modern critics are likewise frequently harsh and derisive, but they have lost sight of the integrated approach to language and science that their predecessors had. This article examines three texts published within the last ten years that seem to reverse some trends in medical writing. Tapping non-scientific fields from philology to aesthetics to composition theory, these texts suggest ways in which the humanities can be reintegrated with the study of medical and scientific writing.

Technical writing is one kind of creative writing. Using knowledge of facts, audience, and situation, the technical writer recreates reality in a technical report. Concepts of reality and creativity currently operative in philosophy, the physical sciences, cognitive and developmental psychology, history of science, rhetoric, and linguistics provide a theoretical basis for this creative approach to technical writing and confirm that imagining and reasoning are related rather than mutually exclusive thought processes.

A rhetorical editing method can help the editor redesign technical reports, when necessary, to meet the needs of the intended audience. If the editor sees that the author has not selected and arranged the ideas to accord with the audience and purpose of the report, he or she must reselect the necessary and sufficient ideas and rearrange them. Rhetorical editing thus calls on the editor to edit at the scale of the entire report—not just at the scale of individual words and sentences. Although seemingly a bold departure from conventional editing, rhetorical editing merely applies the principles of rhetoric widely used in technical writing and composition.

Although science and scientific communication have traditionally been considered objective and non-rhetorical, current thinking suggests that science is, to some degree, dependent on perception and belief, and that scientific communication reflects the values of its author. Sociobiology, a subset of evolutionary theory, considers the degree to which animal behavior is genetically determined. The question of the applicability of sociobiology to human behavior was brought to public attention by E. O. Wilson in Sociobiology [1], initiating a prolonged argument between Wilson and other scientists. This series of exchanges demonstrates a good deal of subjectivity on the part of the writers, and provides one example of a scientific debate that relies on traditional rhetorical techniques of persuasion.

With the rise of science, 18th-century logic and rhetoric began to make use of inductive patterns of discourse. In logic, William Duncan discussed two methods of organizing extended discourse, the methods of analysis and synthesis. Analysis represents the movement of thought as the thinker or writer works through a problem to discover its solution. This method is actually an early form of what is now known as problem solving that Joseph Priestley, a rhetorician as well as a scientist, introduced into rhetoric. He uses analysis in his scientific writing, especially in his Experiments on Different Kinds of Air, in the form of a five-stage mental operation or heuristic that records the progress of his thoughts as he experimented on air to isolate and identify oxygen.

We have developed a method of using simple, commercially available computer simulations to create productive writing cases. Students working with the simulations easily understand their data, audience, and objectives, and they revise intelligently and successfully. We have used The Farm Game, simulating frontier farming in Nebraska, Fur Trader, simulating the life of a Canadian courier du bois, Hamurabi, simulating government problems in a Sumerian city state, King, simulating economic decisions on a Caribbean island, and Stock Market, simulating trading of amplified stocks. We are expanding our library of programs, and we will be happy to serve as a clearinghouse for exchanges of simulations useful to writing teachers.

Rhetoric teachers often defer responsibility for technical-problem treatment to either the technical student or the technical instructor. But these technical persons are trained largely in academic problems and treatments, which are shown to differ profoundly from their professional counterparts. For engineering students are traditionally trained in a discipline dissociated from a professional base at its very origins, enrolled in a science-oriented curriculum, and taught by technical instructors lacking professional experience. Rhetoric instructors should not, therefore, consider engineering students experts in the articulation and treatment of typical problems addressed by professionals. This paper describes representative student difficulties in the selection and treatment of technical problems in simulated professional reports. Based on results obtained with questionnaires and in-depth interviews, these difficulties are traced to the use of academic materials as sources. Representative case histories are used to illustrate typical student pitfalls in adapting academic source materials. Pedagogical suggestions are offered.

Much has been written on and about technical communication. Most of this writing focuses on specific advice for practitioners (e.g., how to write better, typographical guidelines, proposed standards, how to produce more effective manuals, and the like). Also, considerable literature deals with the field theoretically. Often, this second category of literature is difficult to find because so much is buried under the welter of pragmatically oriented material and is interwoven with literature from related fields. Assemblage of this hard-to-find material reveals that within the context of the considerably broader area of human communication, generally technical communication occupies a unique position. Schematic models of related human communication disciplines are used to construct an overall theoretical model which locates this specialized niche occupied by technical communication. Contributions to the overall model come from such areas as empirical social research, general semantics, learning theory, and modern rhetoric. The overall model represents an attempt to provide a catalogue of perspectives from which technical communication might be studied profitably. It also is intended to provide a useful guide to specific actions in various pragmatic and occupational technical communication situations.

How do you communicate clearly to a reader without boring him? How do you prod his imagination without confusing him? The answer, I suppose, is to be a highly skilled writer and work very hard at your craft. But while there may be no simple and absolute rules for effective communication, there is an art called rhetoric that can help. I offer the following brief passage from Aristotle's words about rhetoric in the hope that some who are unfamiliar with that ancient art may be moved to read further. A good starting point would be Readings in Classical Rhetoric, edited by Thomas W. Benson and Michael H. Prosser (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1969). As you read, bear in mind that this is a translation from a Greek text thought by scholars to be lecture notes – perhaps those of Aristotle himself, perhaps those of one of his students. Consider whether notes from any lectures you have given or attended are likely to look this insightful and clear 2300 years hence. Then notice Aristotle's very subtle understanding of how verbal style can shape an audience's awareness of what is being communicated.

We may discover the basis for a humanistic rhetoric of technical writing by examining managerial theories of human behavior. Complaints about the deficiencies of writers and their work correspond remarkably to complaints about the deficiencies of employees and their work. And both sets of complaints may actually be related to the traditional Theory X of human behavior, held by managers and teachers of writing. An alternative managerial theory proposed by Douglas McGregor, Theory Y, suggests ways to encourage an individual's initiative and to satisfy the organization's goals simultaneously. Since technical writing weds the worlds of writing and working, this managerial theory can provide a sound basis for a rhetorical theory that encourages a writer's initiative and satisfies the goals of writing simultaneously. The letter of application for employment illustrates how Theory Y works.

Creative and technical writing share definite, but seldom realized, affinities. Like the fiction writer, the engineer and the scientist must realize that writing is a creative process rather than a reflex action if they are to communicate successfully. Often, professional advancement depends on the ability to present and to interpret factual information coherently and effectively. Although technical writing presents factual information and creative writing fictional information, both crafts adhere to the same underlying rhetorical principles in order to create their desired effects. This article examines those shared principles that make technical writing more than a prosaic exercise and allow writers to express themselves meaningfully. The role of imagination in this craft is also explored.

This article emphasizes four syntactic-rhetorical imperatives which make written messages easier to read. 1. Keep subjects and their verbs close together. Since native speakers of English expect verbs to follow subjects closely, any intervening element makes the processing of information difficult. The longer the intervening element, the more difficult the comprehension of the message. 2. Use appropriate prepositions between nouns to explicitly indicate their semantic relationships. Long nominal phrases are hard to understand because these implicit relationships create ambiguity. What compounds the difficulty of the message is that all the nouns in the phrase, except the last one, assume the function normal to adjectives namely, modification. 3. Help readers to segment syntactic units correctly. The obstacles to readability in this area are the omission of commas and of the signals of subordination, and the misplacement of modifiers. 4. Match textual sequence with chronological sequence. If the sequence of the events does not match the sequence of their reporting in a piece of technical writing, that piece of expository prose is bound to communicate poorly.

This is an evaluation of the undergraduate technical communication major in the Department of Rhetoric, University of Minnesota, St. Paul, 1979. Three audiences received the questionnaire: technical communication graduates, potential employers, and members of the Society for Technical Communication. The questionnaire was designed to determine perceptions of technical communication courses, rank-ordering of competency areas, and listing courses that should be required for all technical communication majors. The results are reported and discussed in this article.

Practicing the forms of definitions may not produce writing that satisfies the informational needs of readers. This paper discusses definition as a method for engaging students in the process by which thinking and writing test and clarify one another. By first saying all he can about the theoretical and practical meaning of a term, the student can analyze his writing to discover the significances the term has for different readers and the rhetorical devices that best express the meanings. The writer then can compose a series of redefinitions of the term for different readers according to their needs.

A long-term relationship between a technical writing program and a single non-university organization can have rewards as significant as short-term relationships with several such organizations. Four specific programs of interaction now in effect at Battelle Memorial Institute and Ohio State University provide Battelle personnel ready access to information on the state-of-the-art of rhetorical theory and assure them of a large pool of well trained writers as potential employees. The technical writing faculty gains confidence and a better understanding of the tasks typically performed by technical writers over long periods of time. Description of these particular programs of interaction suggests ways to foster similar programs elsewhere, even in the absence of nearby research foundations.

The technical writing course has the potential to be one of the most valuable and relevant classes that a student takes, but before his rhetorical skills can improve he must overcome his reluctance to write. The formal technical report, the most challenging and the most rewarding assignment, offers the technical writing teacher a unique opportunity to bring his course to life and to enrich each class member's learning experience. The author has developed an approach to the major report that allows the student to assume the role of a consultant in his field while simultaneously permitting him to feel independent and creative. The inexperienced technical writer must create a realistic situation in which someone would require the technical information he wishes to convey. Placing the student in the role of a consultant makes him more aware of his audience and its needs. This problem-oriented approach effectively increases the writer's liberty to choose an appropriate topic and his responsibility to present it in a coherent and professional manner.

Liberal arts colleges that elect to introduce technical writing courses or programs into their curriculum face the dilemma of vocationalism vs. liberal education. This paper examines the philosophical differences between the two as well as their practical compatibility or incompatibility, and then argues for the union of technical writing and the liberal arts school while admitting certain reservations. The technical writing course at a liberal arts school should use a wider range of books and periodicals than should a technical school, should stress rhetorical theory and strategy, and should confront the moral issues resulting from technology.

The article consists of four sets of questions designed to help the author, reviewer, and editor examine the medical/scientific manuscript from four different aspects: 1) its medical/scientific contribution to its field (Gross Examination); 2) contents and coverage of topic (In-depth Examination); 3) rhetoric and punctuation (Minute Examination); and 4) the manuscript-package assembled for transmission to journal editor (Components of the Manuscript). When such examinations are used one at the time as needed, they will help individuals to separate content from mechanics of presentation and to distinguish scientific evidence from erroneous speculation. They will also help authors, reviewers, and editors to judge objectively the scientific worthiness of the paper, to improve the literary presentation, and to elevate the quality of effective medical/scientific communications.

Use of the word multimedia is discussed in terms of cultural history, English grammar, classical rhetoric, communication technology, and recent articles by audiovisualists. Against this background, adjectival usage is seen as traditional, and nominative usage is shown to be justified by precedent and specialist practice, although not yet widely conven- tional. The following definitions are offered for general acceptance: multimedia (adjective)—involving several media; referring to any mixture of communication media, including mediated lectures, TV, film, drama, collages, and slide/tape programs multimedia (noun)—multiple-projection presentations reinforced by sound, and methods or equipment used to make such presentations; a method of communication which uses multi-image techniques combining static and moving projections with live or reproduced sound.

The ornate style practiced before the scientific revolution of the seventeenth century too often led to obscurity and verbal games rather than clarity and the pursuit of truth. In reacting against ornateness, however, scientists developed the ideal of a plain style that is itself problematic. The writer's posture is essentially defensive; he is more concerned with what not to do than what to do in his writing. The practice of amplification, useful for audience adaptation, has been abandoned, and rhetorical devices that promote the personal touch are no longer taught. Recent experiments indicate that classroom exercises involving rhetorical devices can help promote economy and clarity, encourage more personal and aggressive writing, strengthen the idea that writing is an art, and arouse writer and reader interest. The study of stylistic devices in use before the scientific revolution can be fruitful for modern scientific and technical writing.

The traditional view of rhetoric and science as sharply distinct has helped reduce the technical writing course to mere vocational training. Current thinking in rhetorical theory and philosophy of science supports the contrasting view that science is rhetorical. Salient aspects of the rhetoric of science are illustrated by Crick and Watson's discovery of the structure of DNA, as recorded in Watson's The Double Helix [1]. Analysis of the rhetoric of science suggests that the study of technical writing could be central to liberal education for a technological society.

Of graduating seniors, businessmen assume basic writing skills. Graduates of business administration curriculums are assumed to have, additionally, not only basic language competence but also some expertise in report writing. Experience, both in the classroom and with personnel in formal organizations, bears out that neither students nor practitioners have a real grasp of organization, rhetorical techniques, and reader devices. Consumerism in Communication suggests what is being done in the College of Business Administration's undergraduate communications course to prepare students to meet realistically, confidently, and competently the expectations of their employers. Based on both research and experience, the course design pragmatically aims at reducing frustration on the part of employers who are dismayed at the verbal deficiencies of college graduates.

This article, first of all, describes some of the results of research into the relationship between grammatical choice and rhetorical function in English for Science and Technology (EST). The second part of the paper presents some details about procedures used in EST courses for non-native speakers. We emphasize changes made in these procedures through application of the results of our research. Some unsolved problems are referred to.

The schism between theory and practice is reflected in English studies. British technological universities have attempted to meet the needs of industry in technical fields. Economic and academic pressures often make this difficult. A degree in modern English studies is planned which attempts to combine traditional academic values and functional needs. A new approach to rhetoric combining linguistic and critical disciplines with practical skills in communication can combine liberal and vocational needs. The course content of the degree and the teaching approach is related to the ethos of a technological university.

The rhetorical and syntactic interfaces between technical communicators and readers are being affected by cost-related pressures. The resulting modification of the technical communicator's role will benefit or harm engineering and technical communication according to the developing understanding of the technical communicator. In business and in education the changing professional rationale should consider both the nature of the work and the professional personality of the technical communicator. This is because the success of an engineering enterprise depends on the cooperation and interaction of administrators, engineers, and technical communicators, and because those who are being channeled into technical writing and illustrating are being increasingly selected by educators. As the bridge between the engineer and the user, the professional personality of the technical communicator fulfills two requirements, the technical and the artistic; technical communicators typically remain suspended between technology and art.

Much like a sentence or paragraph, the table of contents for a technical report can be designed systematically on the basis of a logic and rhetoric developed from experience. Being true to technical subject matter requires a full use of four basic logical techniques normally employed in scientific problem solving: classifying, partitioning, causally subordinating, and comparing. The logical approach that uses these techniques for the division and subdivision of topics is necessary, but not sufficient, for structuring the outline of a report. As can be shown in a typical library research report, the logical approach must be supplemented by three other approaches to the problem of topic arrangement that are more distinctly rhetorical: the conventional approach that depends on the convenient habituation rendered by standard format, the pedagogical approach that depends on the effective methods and order of technical presentation suited to the reader's level of comprehension, and the empathic approach that depends on the need to keep the reader from enduring topics of excessive length or complexity. These four approaches together provide for a strategy of topic outlining.

His knowledge of rhetorical principles enables the English teacher to criticize the content as well as the form of a technical report because the report is a verbal model of an object, process, or product. This relationship between content and rhetoric means that the English teacher can base his evaluation of the written work of science and engineering students on these three axioms: Axiom I. Poor rhetoric signals poor technical knowledge. Axiom II. Poor rhetoric manifests unscientific thinking. Axiom III. Poor rhetoric demonstrates a lack of concern for engineering values.

While the field of report writing has assumed an increasingly sophisticated status in recent years (reflected even in textbook titles), the “old verities” continue to be an important center of attention for those who write or edit material in the field. In addition to keeping uppermost in mind the age-old, sound principles of rhetoric and composition, we need, today, to ask ourselves relevant questions regarding problem areas created by technological advances and linguistic developments. If we can strive always to be lucid, accurate, and succinctly informative, human communication will continue to keep pace with technology.

The revival of interest in rhetoric raises the question of the relevance of the discipline to the modern student, particularly the engineering student. In general, rhetoric can be defined as the study of language emphasizing its practical rather than its aesthetic qualities. As a theory of composition, classical rhetoric stresses writing as communication rather than self-expression, and provides a systematic method for dealing with problems of achieving cooperation among men. As a “systems approach” to composition, rhetoric is suited to the mental style of the engineering student. Moreover, engineers and scientists skilled in rhetoric would be equipped to deal with the problem of alienation between the scientific community and society at large.