The constant emphasis on specialization produces university graduates who do not or cannot look at problems broadly. As a result, engineers, scientists and executives—indeed graduates in all fields—including the supposedly broad-based humanities—often cannot solve problems that require knowledge outside of their specializations. Or their narrowness causes them to commit embarrassing blunders that could be avoided if they took a broader view. The case of the British Westland Lysander P12 Ground Strafer aircraft illustrates the problem of narrow thinking. Very little direct information is available on this ingenious but obscure prototype airplane, but by examining many peripheral matters we can determine not only why the P12 was built but also how it was built. Further, we can also determine why it failed. Had the initial designers approached the problem in a broad way, and using information that was then available, they would have seen in advance that the project would fail. The case is instructive as an industrial problem, but it also demonstrates the value of global thinking methodology.

One function of language is to communicate substantive information, but that is not its only function—sometimes not even its primary function. The criminal and drug class adopt an argot unintelligible to law abiding citizens, and that cipher function is one of the purposes of that language. Teenagers of any era adopt a vocabulary that shows that they are hip or hep or with it or cool. Such languages are often rich in metaphor and at their root poetic. It is fascinating to investigate these elusive and protean sub-languages, because they demonstrate with modern instances how language has evolved and how it continues to evolve. Our present focus, with technical sub-languages reveals sociological functions of language that transcend mere transfer of substantive information. Technical language would seem to be at the opposite pole from criminals' argot or teenagers' cool slang. We might expect it to exhibit that so-called purer function of transferring information, little affected by sociological factors. Nonetheless, we find one sociological feature, the shibboleth, acting widely throughout technical fields. This is our current topic.

The concept of shape is commonly conveyed in scientific and technical fields by reference to pre-existing images presumably familiar to both writer and reader. Such images are drawn from a wide variety of sources which include geometrical images, shape images from nature and simple technology, and from familiar arbitrary forms such as the alphabet. Shape images in language continue to be invented, and provide both analogs for expression and analogs for thought. Once a term is established, it ceases to function as an analog. Examination of shape analogs serves as a useful microcosm of language development. Shape imagery is a facet of language that remains quite impervious to computer analysis and translation.

Technical and scientific terms originate from many different sources. Among the most common are foreign language root words, names of originators, inventors and discoverers, names of common shapes, names of functions, acronyms, arbitrary labels, anonymous folk coinages and labels given by advertisers and public relations people. Numerous examples can be found of each of these. The usefulness and viability of technical and scientific terms is dependent upon the amount and kind of information contained within the term itself and the suitability of that information for the situation in which the term is used. The usefulness and viability of such terms is also dependent upon the terms' mnemonic qualities and upon their having the right ring or onomatopoeia. Although such effects are not entirely predictable or controllable, attention to them can nonetheless lead to more effective naming in science and technology.

In this article, the discussion centers around a changing and expanding definition of technical writing. An early definition was restrictive. Later, as courses for a number of disciplines were designed, technical writing became more diversified. A distinction is made between technical reporting and technical writing in other forms. The relation of graphics to technical writing is explored. The author gives a number of examples of the expanding subject matter and forms of technical writing.