(1987). Aristotle's “special topics”; in rhetorical practice and pedagogy. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 17, No. 1, pp. 61-70.

American business is now responsible for training an entire generation of poorly skilled writers. While brief writing seminars may help, the real cure begins with training managers on how to manage the writing process. They need to see the link between good writing and good leadership. Simply sending reports back to employees with a sarcastic note to “get it right” does little to build writing skill and confidence. Managers also need strategies for working with employees. These strategies extend from simple revising techniques to the use of sophisticated computer programs.

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.

This article studies the fate of scientific observations as they pass from original research reports intended for scientific peers into popular accounts aimed at a general audience. Pairing articles from two AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) publications reveals the changes that inevitably occur in “information” as it passes from one rhetorical situation to another. Scientific reports belong to the genre of forensic arguments, affirming the validity of past facts, the experimental data. But a change of audience brings a change of genre; science accommodations are primarily epideictic, celebrations of science, and shifts in wording between comparable statements in matched articles reveal changes made to conform to the two appeals of popularized science, the wonder and the application topoi. Science accommodations emphasize the uniqueness, rarity, originality of observations, removing hedges and qualifications and thus conferring greater certainty on the reported facts. Such changes could be formalized by adopting the scale developed by sociologists Bruno Latour and Steven Woolgar for categorizing the status of claims. The alteration of information is traced not only in articles on bees and bears, and so on, but also on a subject where distortions in reporting research can have serious consequences—the reputed mathematical inferiority of girls to boys. The changes in genre and the status of information that occur between scientific articles and their popularizations can also be explained by classical stasis theory. Anything addressed to readers as members of the general public will inevitably move through the four stasis questions from fact and cause to value and action.

Proponents of computerized text-analysis (CTA) systems like Bell Laboratories' Writer's Workbench contend that the computer's analysis of a text's surface features can help students become better writers and editors. Several colleges and universities have already integrated the new technology into their writing programs, and others will consider doing so in the future. Teachers of technical writing, however, ought to investigate carefully the capabilities and limitations of CTA before applying it to the technical writing classroom. Not even the most sophisticated of today's computers can detect the basic grammar and punctuation errors that bedevil student writers. Moreover, the computer's evaluation of a text's readability and style is untrustworthy and lacks a sound theoretical and pedagogical foundation; indeed, the machine's quantitative-based analysis of writing style might do some students more harm than good. Finally, there is no empirical evidence that CTA helps students become better writers.

Traditional views of organizational communication have fallen short because they misapprehended and oversimplified the realities of rhetorical behavior in organizations and because they offered weak theoretical underpinnings for the study of business communication. Recent developments in rhetorical theory spearheaded by the work of Toulmin, Perelman, Polanyi, and others offer a coherent, theoretically sound, and productive way of analyzing discourse in organizations. Applying constructs of the “new rhetoric” to the study of sample documents from a representative organizational situation illustrates the importance of consensus building as a tacit communication purpose, reveals the decision-making process involving the text's audience, and demonstrates the central role of context or situation in shaping discourse. Rhetoric in organizations, just as in other “rational enterprises” (such as the disciplines of science and law), reveals underlying paradigms that are determined by the nature of communal behavior and by the nature of thinking man.

The discussion of the nature and role of so-called “dialect, interference” in writing has been carried on in a literature which has failed to define its terms consistently, reported experimental results for poorly defined samples, and assumed much that has yet to be established empirically. Written partially as a response to Patrick Hartwell’s 1980 RTE article on the same topic, this paper examines these flaws in the literature of dialect interference in greater detail, examines the seven “correlates” of Hartwell’s “print code hypothesis” and finds them wanting or uninstructive, and sets forth suggestions for a more sophisticated study of this issue.

College students wrote compositions that elicited their technical knowledge of economics, cancer, or growing flowers. They later completed a questionnaire that assessed which information sources had contributed to their knowledge about these topics. We analyzed the extent to which the number and the quality of the ideas generated could be predicted by four major information sources: formal education, mass media, social interaction, and direct experience. Most of the ideas generated were true, culturally familiar, and unsophisticated. The implications of the results are discussed in the context of some cognitive theories of the writing process.

Most rhetorical history has concerned itself with the theory of argumentative discourse as it developed from classical to modern times. This essay traces a parallel but much less investigated strand of rhetorical history: the theory and practice of explanation. The slow growth of a body of knowledge about how information could best be communicated without necessary reference to overt persuasion is followed from Aristotle's Rhetoric through the beginnings of a theory of written discourse in the American nineteenth century. A later continuation of this essay will trace explanatory rhetoric into modern times.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.