This article explores the catechism in the Book of Common Prayer, shedding light on the emergence of instructional writing from oral instruction. The 1549 text evinces qualities of preliterate oral communication identified by Ong. By contrast, the 1604 addendum reveals a trend toward modern plain style, which is even more pronounced in the 1647 Westminster Shorter Catechism. The evidence indicates the oral features were useful to the text’s technical aims. What Ramist plain style gains in precision and objectivity comes at the cost of other useful features, such as reiteration, contextualization, and agonism, which (in Tannen's phrase) involve a greater relative focus on interpersonal involvement between speaker and auditor/ reader.

Corporate social media policies construct what Herndl and Licona term “constrained agency,” an ambiguous, contradictory agent function. Drawing on an analysis of 31 corporate social media policies, this article argues that these policies create constrained agency in two ways: they establish contradictory expectations for a writer's voice by requesting both individual and corporate-friendly voices, and they create a seemingly paradoxical situation where employees both do and do not represent the company. These policies shed light on the complex constructions of agency within corporations and encapsulate the workplace tensions that accompany the affordances of social media tools.

This study traces Renaissance and post-Renaissance technical writers' use of classical rhetoric in English instruction manuals on the sport of falconry. A study of the period's five prominent falconry manuals written by four authors—George Turberville, Simon Latham, Edmund Bert, and Richard Blome—reveals these technical writers' conscious use of classical rhetoric as an important technique to persuade readers to accept these authors' authority and trust the information they were disseminating. These manuals employed several classical rhetorical techniques: invention by using ethos and several classical topics, classical arrangement, the plain style, and adaptation of the orator's duties. The explanation for this classical influence rests in the authors' own knowledge of classical rhetoric derived from sources such as Thomas Wilson, as well as the sources from whom these authors obtained their knowledge of falconry. The article ends by suggesting the origins through which these classical rhetorical techniques influenced the writing of the manuals.

This article analyzes the statements on plain style made by Royal Society writers and seventeenth-century women writers. Using scholarship in feminist rhetorical theory, the article concludes that Royal Society plain stylists constructed scientific discourse as a masculine form of discourse by purging elements that were associated with femininity, such as emotional appeals. The article also discusses how women writers, particularly Margaret Cavendish, embraced a plain style more out of concern for their audience than out of a desire to eliminate undesirable feminine attributes. The implications of this historical study for understanding of current practice are noted.

This article suggests ways of writing a truly effective cover letter, an extremely important document in the search for a job. First, features gleaned from 13 model letters in technical writing textbooks yield figures on the number of words, sentences, and paragraphs per letter, plus the average number of words per sentence and paragraph, information helpful to those with little or no knowledge of how to write a strong cover letter. Second, the article surveys what the textbook writers offer as advice about the rhetorical principles that should be employed in composing cover letters. One piece of advice given by almost all of the experts is that writers should try to exude an energetic attitude, yet these same authorities do not delineate just how to display such a posture in the letters themselves. Third, examination of the letters reveals that one way that experts insert verve into cover letters is to use verbals, particularly gerunds, participles, and infinitives. In fact, 92.58% of the sentences in the 13 model letters have some type of verbal in them. The advantage of employing verbals is that while they are used for other parts of speech, they still retain the residue of action in their meaning. Fourth, the article describes the results of a survey to determine the acceptance of such constructions in the minds of two sets of readers: first-year writing students and third-year technical writing students. In both groups, more than 75% of the students preferred a paragraph with verbals in it over a paragraph devoid of verbals. Finally, the article suggests “sentence combining” as a procedure for teaching technical writing students how to combine basic sentences into verbals to garner variety and economy, one of the hallmarks of technical writing.

This article claims that two social values in science—falsifiability of science and cooperation among scientists—determine use of passives in scientific communication. Scientists do not always develop valid theories, so scientific experiments must be amenable to being repeated and found invalid. This requires that the experiments must not be discrete events. Science is also a cooperative enterprise. As an integral part of science, scientific writing employs more passives than actives to focus on materials, methods, figures, processes, tables, concepts, etc. Use of passives to focus on the physical world helps de-emphasize discreteness of scientific experiments. Besides, it also helps remove personal qualifications of observing experimental results. Finally, it enhances cooperation among working scientists by providing a common knowledge base of scientific work—things and objects. Looked at in this way, the passive voice in scientific writing represents professional practices of science instead of personal stylistic choices of individual scientists.

Emphasis on page design, as an aid to visual accessibility, did not receive attention in modern technical writing until the 1970s. However, accounting documents and instructional texts utilized format and document design strategies as early as the twelfth century to enhance the organization of quantitative data and linear bookkeeping entries. Format in text was used to reflect the arrangement used in oral accounting practices and to produce uniform documents. Thus, format was integral to the rise of pragmatic literacy of the commercial reader. During the Renaissance, these early format strategies received impetus from Ramist method. The result was design strategies that attempted to capture the rigid principles of organization fundamental to commercial accounting. These early accounting documents also illustrate the plain style that would become the focus of the later decades of the seventeenth century. Clarity in language paralleled clarity in page design for the sole purpose of eliminating ambiguity on the page and on the sentence level. Plain style was thus nurtured by financial forces long before the advent of natural science.

In earlier centuries, authors of medical works intended for popular readers defended their use of the vernacular against potential criticism from their learned colleagues. Scholars have shown that by the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries such defence reflected rhetorical posturing more than political reality. This article examines self-help medical literature in 19th-century Canada, revealing that authors adopted a similar stance in writing for the public. Not only did this rhetorical convention continue, but it also did not assure adoption of the plain style advocated. Moreover, a comparison of their style with that of medical textbook authors reveals few real differences.

This article discusses two conflicts occurring during the first decade of the Royal Society (1660–1670). One conflict concerned the proper method of scientific experimentation, the other the proper writing style for communicating scientific knowledge. Following the method proposed by taxonomists, language would be a vehicle for representing the order of reality in its undisturbed state. Following the method proposed by conjecturalists, language would be a means for constructing a theory and arguing for its validity. Members of the Society were divided over these crucial questions, as evident in scientific documents of the period as well as in Thomas Sprat's History of the Royal Society. Parallels to this division are present in contemporary issues in technical writing, and this article closes by discussing some implications for teaching, practice, and theory.

Early American science writers used the Puritan plain style sermon as a readily available prose model. From the sermon they derived an organization divided into doctrine and uses, a format using sectional divisions and heads, the use of simple language, and a concern for the needs of their audiences. Essays on comets by two early American scientists, Samuel Danforth and John Winthrop, illustrate the sermon's influence. The doctrine and uses organization employed in these essays may be seen as analogous, in some senses, to the Results and Discussion organization of the modern research report.

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.

Although George Orwell's “Politics and the English Language” offers good advice to writers, the technical writer's situation and use of language are more effectively discussed in 1984 and its Appendix, “The Principles of Newspeak.” The technical writer must make use of some Newspeak principles, such as limiting vocabulary and narrowing the definition of words; conversely, the writer must try to keep his expression of a corporate point of view and his limitations on wording from finally serving to limit the range of thought itself. Orwell considers these points much more important than “good prose style.”

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.

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.