Opinion, Fact, and the Defense of Context (Was Re: Lingua Franca Today) fairly long, unfortunately!

["Melody Akins" <melodyakins -at- hotmail -dot- com>]

(To begin, this is Bruce's first inclusion from Margaret.)

> Beilby, Margaret wrote:
>
> >It's a real challenge to move from academic writing to technical writing
> >and, frankly, some people are simply unable to do so. No one will ever
make
> >a movie based on one of my technical documents (can you imagine,
"Contract
> >Tracking Wars" or "Return of the Storage Subsystem"), but at least
they're
> >usable, clear, technically accurate (usually), and make good reading if
you
> >need some sleep.

===========My comment to Margaret------->

Actually, training videos abound; they are based on technical writing.  In
fact, a video on 'Return of the Storage Subsystem" would help me out
immensely just now, as I am an online IT student!
> >
(In reply to Margaret's comments , Bruce Byfield wrote:)
>
> To be honest, I've always thought that good writing was good writing,
regardless of the genre. I have encountered academic writing that
communicated clearly, and I like to think that my published papers fall into
that category, too.

============Comment----------->
In an academic context, the audience that is to receive the communication
will understand the lingua franca/academic jargon/subject-specific
communicative shorthand; others have no reason to try, do they?  I belong to
a bioelectromagnetics list.  Believe me, no one who is not interested in
this subject, would try to read the journals.  (We are NOT talking
'Scientific American,' here!)

(Bruce says:)
> But academia is, of course, much more forgiving of poor writing or (to put
it more politely) of writing whose main goal is not communication.

============My comment---------->

I would like to think that poor academic writing, where it exists, is an
unintended consequence of the failure of our system of funding; there is no
money to hire tech writers!  It is neither 'fair' nor appropriate, imo, to
expect a researcher who spends most of his/her working hours in a rat
lab--or anyone else in 'academia'--to be what professional writers would
consider a 'good writer!'

This is where we make our living, folks!

-------------->As to 'writing whose main goal is not communication:'

I was taught that the purpose of all non-mechanical 'utterance'--whether it
be oral, musical, visual, written, or given by means of signs and
symbols--is to convey information from one entity to another.  However, when
communication achieves this end, it has been only partially successful; if
the intended receivers of the information, do not act in ways that reflect
an understanding of the material (ways that reflect the receivers' having
given 'meaning' to the received information), the communication has not
achieved its final end and must be modified.

Only humans talk/write to 'hear' the sound of their own voice.

=============Snip----------->
> As a matter of fact, there seems to be a close (but not exact) correlation
between scholarship and good writing. In other words, the more original the
academic work, the less likely it is to be written pretentiously.

=============My comment------->

Bruce seems to be equating the use of academic (in this case) 'lingua
franca' with 'pretentiousness,' and by extension, 'scholarship' with good
writing.'  I don't think these are valid equations.  Not all users of
application-specific jargon are pretentious; in fact, the in-context use of
'lingua franca' can be an effective form of 'intra-species' <grins!>
communication.  I know non-pretentious practitioners who are also good
writers, precisely BECAUSE they know how to use 'lingua franca' to
communicate content in a particular context to a particular audience
(www.pathguy.com).

Then, there are real scholars--be they geek or Greek--who could not put
together a coherent sentence if their livelihoods depended on it (and they
frequently do!) They exist to give us employment!

As for the 'pretentious academics' they probably wouldn't consider having
anyone edit their stuff, anyway, so we can consign them to the flames!

==============Snip (I think!)-------->
(Bruce's words)
Good scholarship or good ideas don't need the gingerbread; mediocre rehashes
and safe conclusions do.

=============My comment----------->

And sandwiched perilously between 'good scholarship or good ideas,' and
'mediocre rehashes and safe conclusions,' lies (probably) most of the
(mostly careful) writing and speaking of ordinary teachers and researchers,
folks whose life work consists in trying (by whatever means necessary, in
some cases <grins>) to 'communicate' some sort of information from their
heads to the heads--and hearts--of their
students/clients/subscribers/employers...

>
Keep on truckin!

Warmly,
Melody
"Take the Shoes Off Your Mind!"

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Collect Royalties, Not Rejection Letters! Tell us your rejection story when you 
submit your manuscript to iUniverse Nov. 6 -Dec. 15 and get five free copies of 
your book. What are you waiting for? http://www.iuniverse.com/media/techwr

Have you looked at the new content on TECHWR-L lately?
See http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ and check it out.

---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as: archive -at- raycomm -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot-  Visit 
http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.