The technical report and proposal are strategic documents that must cogently define, rationalize, and sell their high-technology products in the world of competitive procurement. Because these documents are created by group authorship, there is a need to coordinate the multiple engineer-authors, provide them with strategy information, and help them develop arguments that justify their design approaches. Conventional methods of subject outlining, trial-and-error writing, and post-manuscript reviewing do not cope with these needs. The Stop (Sequential Thematic Organization of Proposals) technique applies five principles to solve this problem: It (1) recognizes the passage unit of discourse to gain expository-descriptive coherence; (2) uses the essay (with thesis sentence) to enhance strategic discussion; (3) restricts outlining to establishing topical architecture and introduces prewriting (via storyboards) to discover and exercise argument, explanation, and visualization; (4) uses pre-reviewing (via real-time, walk-through group dynamics) to permit team/corporate review of the story plan prior to manuscript drafting; and (5) stresses group writing to infuse both the marketing and the technical strategy and design approach into the document. Twenty years of applying STOP has shown it to be a thoroughly practical system, even though intellectually demanding and unforgiving of lazy writing. This paper reviews the principles, practices (including misconceptions), and lessons of STOP as developed, refined, and learned during those years.

Preview this article: Effects of Modes of Discourse on Writing Performance in Grades Four and Six, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/17/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15713-1.gif

Preview this article: Three Strategies for Deliberative Discourse: A Lesson from Competitive Debating, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/34/1/collegecompositionandcommunication15293-1.gif

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.

Tables and figures arc an integral part of the medium of communication of science and technology. An analysis of tables and figures, relying heavily on Euclidean terms (point, line and plane) explains something of their power–their ability to display with clarity large amounts of data, complex data relationships, and intricate three-dimensional configurations. Analysis also clarifies the mutual dependence of tables and figures and their accompanying texts. Additionally, analysis makes clear the semantic gap between tables and graphs, on the one hand, and illustrations, on the other. All are equally vital strategies in scientific and technical discourse. However, tables and graphs are paralinguistic extensions of scientific and technical dialects; illustrations, on the other hand, are a nonlinguistic supplement to these dialects. Finally, analysis provides clues for the teaching of proper graphic choice, good graphic ‘grammar,’ and the appropriate contextualization of graphs.

Articles by Richard Fulkerson, Karen Pelz, and Michael Hogan in the first issue of the Journal of Advanced Composition (Spring 1980) all pointed to a serious lack of consistency in the profession's conception of what should be covered in advanced composition courses in college. Professor Pelz, while arguing against what she perceives as another teacher's advocacy of media-centered rather than writing-centered advanced composition courses, advocates the development of a personal style in advanced writing courses, seemingly calling for an emphasis on expressive discourse and self-discovery (A Reply to Medicott: Evaluating Writing, 7-9). Professor Fulkerson (Some Theoretical Speculations on the Advanced Composition Curriculum, 9-12) uses Abrams' and Kinneavy's theories of literary criticism and the aims of discourse to construct two different curricular models for advanced composition programs--one suggesting courses based on the skills required of students as they produce discourse with different aims, the other suggesting synthesizing all four discourse aims in a single advanced composition course. Finally, Professor Hogan (Advanced Composition: A Survey, 21-29) sent questionnaires to 374 advanced composition teachers at 311 schools and found an enormously diverse range of course objectives and plans among the responses that he received. Hogan also found that many advanced composition courses used the same books as freshman writing courses in the same schools. Although rhetoric, Hogan found, dominated the courses of instruction, there did not seem to be any clear or consistent pattern of rhetorical approach in the schools or teachers who reported. Very few respondents, in fact, reflected much attention to types or aims of discourse, as Fulkerson had suggested, in their assignments or plans. Articles such as these reflect the composition profession's general lack

(1983). The faculties and the ends of discourse. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 13, No. 1, pp. 19-20.

Dorothy Augustine's Geometries and Words: Linguistics and Philosophy: A Model of the Composing Process (College English, 43 [1981], 221-31) illustrates how radically our understanding of the composing process has changed from the linear schemes of the last generation.' However, this new understanding is not always applied to discussions of technical writing. In fact, technical writing is sometimes assumed to be a rhetorically simple process because the rhetorical context of the completed product, the document, is generally limited.2 This assumption is not borne out by practical experience. My own initiatory adventures as a technical writer have led me to the conviction that technical discourse of any seriousness is a structure necessarily created by the writer out of the elements of the writing situation. In other words, the writing situation cannot by itself determine for the writer or editor the meaning of the technical document to be produced; in a fundamental sense, technical discourse is a lamp upon rather than a mirror of the world it represents. Of course, not all technical writing is complex; the IRS form 1040A is simple, not only as product but also as process. Moreover, a given technical document

To determine how certain cohesion elements - the given-new contract, pronouns, synonyms, and topic sentences – affect the readability of technical paragraphs, six alternative paragraphs were composed, two “models” and four others carefully varied to feature the four factors under consideration. Then each passage was tested for its readability when subjects were administered a cloze procedure and a recall exercise for each paragraph. The results show that violations of the given-new contract make technical paragraphs more difficult to read; that changing repeated words to pronouns makes passages more difficult to follow; that using synonyms (instead of repetitions) makes prose harder to read; and that deleting a topic sentence may impede a reader's comprehension. Writing teachers, then, might consider these results when they direct students in the production of connected discourse. And researchers might use this methodology to investigate other influences on the readability of connected discourse.

Language study and literary criticism have for many years been separated. Modern developments in critical theory have stressed the study of texts. Structuralism developed a semiotic approach to texts using psychological and linguistic theory to support objective analysis. Poststructuralist theory has further developed these approaches investigating deep and surface significance in textual interpretation urging a deconstruction of texts to yield a full contemporary understanding. The relationship between writer, reader, text, and context is seen anew within the whole communication complex in an approach which regards texts as discourse. Advanced foreign language teaching unites literature and language in a new synthesis stressing communication and conceptualization through language. Technical communication should be aware of new interdisciplinary trends since it is itself at the center of the dominant theme of communication.

I. A. Richards has said that we begin reading any text with an implicit faith in its coherence, an assumption that its author intended to convey some meaning and made the choices most likely to convey the meaning effectively.' As readers, therefore, we tolerate the writer's manipulation of the way we see the subject that is being addressed. Our tolerance derives from a tacit acceptance of the writer's to make the statements we are reading.2 When reading a textbook, for instance, we assume that its writer knows at least as much about the book's subject as we do, and ideally even more. When we read a newspaper article, we take for granted that the writer has collected all the relevant facts and presented them honestly. In either case, derives partly from what we know about the writer (for instance, professional credentials or public recognition) and partly from what we see in the writer's discourse (the probity of its reasoning, the skill of its construction, its use of references that we may recognize). The sources of writers' authority may be quite various. But whatever the reason for our granting authority, what we are conceding is the author's right to make statements in exactly the way they are made in order to say exactly what the writer wishes to say. The more we know about a writer's skill, the more we have read of that individual's work or heard of his or her reputation, the greater the claim to authority. This claim can be so powerful that we will tolerate writing from that author which appears to be unusually difficult, even obscure or downright confusing. For instance, our having read Dylan Thomas' Fern Hill with pleasure may lead us to work harder at reading Altarwise by Owlight, although we may not understand it readily and may not derive the same pleasure from reading it. As readers, we see this harder material as a problem of interpretation, not a shortcoming of the composer. Writers may, of course, compromise their authority through evident or repeated lapses, but, in general, Lil Brannon is an assistant professor at New York University, co-director of the Expository Writing Program, and coordinator of the Writing Center. She is completing a text entitled Writers Writing. C. H. Knoblauch, also an assistant professor at New York University, is co-director of the Expository Writing Program. He is a co-author of Functional Writing and has just completed a book on eighteenth-century theories of the composing process.

James L. Kinneavy's A Theory of Discourse: The Aims of Discourse (PrenticeHall, 1971) has contributed much to field of English. Evidence of its impact that it required reading for two NEH seminars-Edward P. J. Corbett's summer seminar at Ohio State and Dudley Bailey's year-long seminar at University of Nebraska. This evident concern and book's recent appearance in paperback (Norton, 1980) prompt a review of its strengths and limitations. Kinneavy clarifies need for order in English studies, but-to use his own term for characterizing field-his work preparadigmatic in that his categories are static and his approach too closely tied to literary criticism to be helpful in Though he intends to rescue from the present anarchy of discipline,' his theory unsatisfactory for many teach composition, largely because he fails to account adequately for rhetorical choices and composing processes. This review will focus on some of underlying reasons for limited success of Kinneavy's theory. Kinneavy seems aware of many of his presuppositions, including his assumption that he can side-step considering rhetorical processes. However, he does not always seem to be aware of implications of his methodological decisions. His decision to analyze the aim which embodied in text itself (49) based on a desire to concentrate on rather than composition. A theory of composition, he argues, would require attention to process of composing, a concern he concludes is not desirable for an analysis of aims (4). He prefers to deal with with the characteristics of text, with decoder, who primary element in any communication situation (49-50). Ironically, though he recognizes rhetorical significance of writer's audience, he fails to perceive that rhetoric, unlike discourse analysis, must deal with process by which texts come into existence. He thus sets out to establish the basic foundations of composition and to provide a framework of research for all areas of dis-

Preview this article: A Theory of Discourse: A Retrospective, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/33/2/collegecompositionandcommunication15859-1.gif

In 1977 Donald Stewart startled his audience at the National Council of Teachers of English Convention by giving them a test.1 Not at all to his surprise, Professor Stewart found that although the teachers assembled devoted forty-five percent of their working time to teaching composition, hardly any of them recognized the names of twenty prominent rhetoricians or titles of works by those rhetoricians. Professor Stewart did not include Alexander Bain on his list, but had he done so very few of the writing teachers in his audience would have heard of Bain. Almost certainly, none would have read his books on composition and rhetoric. That such should be the case seems remarkable, for a great deal of what has been taught in traditional composition courses derives directly or indirectly from Bain's work. In an historical study of the paragraph written at the end of the nineteenth century, Edwin Lewis describes Bain's influence as formative. Indeed, Lewis claims that Bain's analysis of the paragraph was presented and defended with the same acuteness and grasp that made him perhaps the ablest writer on rhetoric since Aristotle.2 Bain's stock, however, has plunged since Lewis wrote those words. The revival of interest in rhetoric occurring during the last three decades has led us to call into question what Richard Young calls the current-traditional in the teaching of composition.3 For those challenging this paradigm and attempting to improve or replace it, Bain has become a popular whipping boy, identified with a rigidly prescriptive, product-centered system. Exactly who was Alexander Bain, and has his influence on our discipline been, on the whole, salutary or detrimental? When Bain died at the age of eighty-six in 1903, major newspapers throughout Britain and North America carried the news. The headline in the New York

Preview this article: Alexander Bain's Contributions to Discourse Theory, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/44/3/collegeenglish13726-1.gif

Preview this article: The Stability of T-Unit Length in the Written Discourse of College Freshmen: A Second Study, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/16/1/researchintheteachingofenglish15751-1.gif

Requirements of accuracy in technical writing overwhelm considerations of stylistic grace. Analysis of the resulting technical style, however, often reveals a discrepancy between technical and verbal accuracy. The object of verbal form is an accommodation between grace and accuracy. Several avenues to achieve this accommodation are presented from Martin Buber's I and Thou to psycholinguist theorists such as George Miller and Walter Kintsch. Linguistic theory and literacy analysis can also provide means of reestablishing grace, not as replacement, but in contention with technical accuracy. The aims of technical discourse, like that of all other discourse, should include the gracefulness of one human being speaking to another.

Preview this article: Discourse Analysis and the Art of Coherence, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/44/1/collegeenglish13747-1.gif

Active expressions like “the table lists” and “the figure shows” are preferable to passive sentences beginning “data are listed” and “results are displayed.” Convening information clearly and vigorously is often more important than rigorous adherence to semantics. However, data and results shouldn't “argue” or “proclaim” those activities are the responsibility of the author. This point of view is also applied to detached participlesing words that don't have a noun to belong to.

Preview this article: The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/32/4/collegecompositionandcommunication15892-1.gif

This article is placed within the defined area of study of “coherence,” which is seen as one of the three parts of recent work in the “discourse analysis” of contemporary English prose with emphasis on technical writing. One element of the total system of coherence is seen to be the “associated nominal” which, together with repetition, substitution, deletion, synonymy, among others, enables writers to maintain the thread of continuity in a text. Introductory details of associated nominals are given, and some of their purposes and environments of use are described with the use of examples of actual English use. Potential effects of this work on the teaching of technical writing are mentioned, and detailed references and anannotated bibliography assist readers who may wish to read further.

Preview this article: Pausing and Planning: The Tempo of Written Discourse Production, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/15/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15773-1.gif

PROFESSOR ARNETT IS ADDRESSING taxonomists in entomology, no doubt a rather peripheral body of specialists, at least in the vision of most English teachers. But his point holds for any profession that makes and perpetuates formal classifications. What specialists forget is that classifications, built by specialists, should serve nonspecialists. Yet in all disciplines the formal classification often does little more than befuddle. Since my aim here is precisely to suggest a classification fit for the novice writer, I think it is essential first to ask what has gone wrong when this particular mode of knowledge-a more central one can hardly be conceived-proves difficult for laymen to assimilate. Such a preliminary inquiry, although perforce brief, at least will show faults I have tried to avoid in building a classification of discourse that beginning writers can both understand readily and use easily. It may help to remain for a moment with the biological taxonomy. Three centuries have so refined this classificatory procedure that the problem of which Professor Arnett speaks, this failure of communication between builder and user, stands out clearly. Consider those taxonomic keys that biologists construct for identification of specimens, for instance those in Julian A. Steyermark's Flora of Missouri or Melville Hatch's Beetles of the Pacific Northwest. Professor Arnett's point is that amateurs (and not a few professional biologists) find these keys impossible to use. The chief obstacle is not hard to find. Traditionally, these keys are constructed to follow evolutionary, genetic relationships as closely as possible. The result is an analytical description of a whole field, very much like a genealogical tree. The farmer, however, who rashly comes to these keys with specimen in hand, cares little

Preview this article: Tactics of Discourse: A Classification for Student Writers, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/43/2/collegeenglish13824-1.gif

Because of doubts about the status of paragraphs after World War II and the influence of readability formulas which emphasize sentence length and word length, technical writing teachers and texts have not been concerned very much with stylistic matters, especially at the paragraph level. However, recent research advances in the fields of linguistics, discourse analysis, cognitive psychology, and readability all redirect our attention to matters beyond the sentence in technical writing. A familiarity with such advances—including an understanding of cohesion elements, the “given-new contract,” and tagmemics—can enable technical writing instructors to improve student writing.

Instead of just recording thoughts, printing itself can be used as a means of communicating ideas. Writer and publisher should collaborate to produce an article or a book in such a way as to make its organization and meaning more clear. `Discourse punctuation' encompasses the inclusion of an outline; underlining, both thick and thin; boldface words, phrases, and sentences; brackets or boxes around important sections; marginal markers and notes; various printing styles, type fonts and sizes; and the use of color. The intent of these effects is to increase the reader's immediate understanding and thereby to increase the speed and efficiency of reading. The author demonstrates some of these suggestions.

PICK UP ANY RECENT PUBLICATION on composition and you will almost surely find some reference to the problem of evaluating writing. Teachers and researchers alike acknowledge that pronouncing judgment on a piece of writing is both important and difficult. Important because teaching students to write, sorting students for placement or admission, and research in composition all depend upon ability to discriminate levels of quality in writing. Difficult because the theoretical basis of evaluation remains unarticulated. In contrast, composition instruction has begun developing a coherent set of assumptions. For example, theorists may disagree on the relative merits of classical, tagmemic, dramatistic, and prewriting forms of invention, but they agree on the principle that invention is part of the writing process. Evaluation of writing proceeds without a similar set of principles. Yet evaluation does proceed. The need for deciding who shall attend which college, designating those competent to graduate from high school, identifying growth in writing, or determining our nation's educational progress have spawned various systems for evaluating writing. Holistic scoring, quantification of syntactic features, analytic scales, and primary trait scoring illustrate the range of existing methodologies for evaluating writing. Rather than evolving from commonly held assumptions about evaluation, each method rests upon its own set of assumptions. Statistical computations of reader responses provide the rationale for holistic scoring and analytical scales; developmental stages of language acquisition account for quantification of syntactic features; a triangular model of discourse underlies primary trait scoring. Each of these systems and the assumptions underlying it represent careful and intelligent thought, and my purpose here is not to denigrate any of them. I cite them simply as illustrations of my point. Driven by the necessity to evaluate writing, theorists have avoided examination of the nature of evaluation itself and have moved directly to devising means (and rationales for these means) for accomplishing this difficult task. In this article I wish to propose a more general theory of evaluation and to suggest how it might be worked out in practical terms. This theory grows out of a philosophical and linguistic debate on the question of meaning. The debate, best summarized by P. F. Strawson's distinction between

Preview this article: A Note on Specifying the Mode and Aim of Written Discourse for Basic Writing Students, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/14/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15809-1.gif

Fred R. Pfister, Joanne F. Petrick, A Heuristic Model for Creating a Writer's Audience, College Composition and Communication, Vol. 31, No. 2, Recent Work in Rhetoric: Discourse Theory, Invention, Arrangement, Style, Audience (May, 1980), pp. 213-220

Preview this article: The Discourse Matrix, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/31/2/collegecompositionandcommunication15950-1.gif

Kinneavy's theory of discourse and Mathes' concept of contextual editing can be effectively applied to teaching classification in technical writing. My procedure, in the nine steps described here, provides students with an understanding of classification as an analytical and generative tool. Its usefulness in analysis is discovered through a structural study of Mumford's “Machines, Utilities, and ‘The Machine‘”; an awareness of Mumford's classificatory structure helps students understand his essay. Students see for themselves, by organizing facts into paragraphs, the generative power of contextual editing applied to classification; the same kind of structuring Mumford uses can be used in their own writing. This generative application simulates the research-to-writing process and dramatically increases the coherence and clarity of much student writing.

THE spectrum of public speaking ranges from dialog to formal, staged presentations. Although we may engage easily in casual conversation, almost any discourse that is scheduled or that involves more than a few people seems to give most of us cause for concern. Why?

The following treatise surveys the issues and approaches for designing a computer system capable of reading, understanding, and writing technical reports. Recent progress in computer science and artificial intelligence research is used to specify the nature of the modules in the system. The processing of a sample text is observed during the phases of reading and writing a report on the origin of sunspots. The author advances some proposals for correlating syntax and semantics of English from a procedural standpoint. The discussion is illustrated with structural diagrams.

Preview this article: Oral and Written Discourse of Basic Writers: Similarities and Differences, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/13/2/researchintheteachingofenglish17849-1.gif

Preview this article: Audience and Mode of Discourse Effects on Syntactic Complexity in Writing at Two Grade Levels, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/13/2/researchintheteachingofenglish17847-1.gif

Preview this article: Applications of Kinneavy's Theory of Discourse to Technical Writing, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/40/6/collegeenglish16060-1.gif

Preview this article: Teachers of Composition and Needed Research in Discourse Theory, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/30/1/collegecompositionandcommunication16254-1.gif

This chapter draws distinctions somewhat unorthodox in discussing terms such as and with respect to rhetorical action. It suggests that the rules and conventions of linguistics and speech act theory are inadequate for a complete account of rhetorical phenomena. The chapter argues that the rules, conventions, and constraints of rhetorical action differ from those operating in conversation or dialogue. It also argues that in view of the fact that rhetorical action and strategies are in large part determined by constraints generated by aim, media, audience, and situation, rhetorical action is in large part not constrained by rules and conventions that are universal to human action or the language used. The chapter examines the effect that although linguistic conventions and rules, including speech act theory, are incidental to defining the felicity of certain rhetorical genre and modes, the main thrust of the art of rhetoric and rhetorical strategy deals with constraints not grounded in conventions and rules.

(1979). Speech acts and rehtorical action. Rhetoric Society Quarterly: Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 23-27.

Preview this article: The Ethos of Academic Discourse, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/29/4/collegecompositionandcommunication16286-1.gif

Preview this article: Advertising and the Modes of Discourse, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/29/4/collegecompositionandcommunication16287-1.gif

The Plural I: The Teaching of Writing. William E. Coles, Jr. With a Foreward by Richard Larson. New York: Holt, Rhinehart, and Winston, 1978. Prose Style and Critical Reading. Robert Cluett. New York: Columbia University, 1976. Pp. 316. The Language of Adam: On the Limits and Systems of Discourse. Russell Fraser. New York: Columbia University Press, 1977. Pp. 255. THE RHETORIC OF SCIENCE AND THE ASSAULT ON AMBIGUITY