TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Stuart Burnfield wondered about "rhetoric": <<I don't believe adding an
irrelevant, emotive, all-caps adverb and some exclamation marks to an
instruction has anything to do with the art of rhetoric as it applies
to tech writing.>>
Unless, of course, you're referring to the illegitimate child of
technical communication and Sales: "Marketing". <g>
<<But this did get me to wondering what rhetoric _does_ mean when
applied to tech writing. My dictionary has as its primary definition:
"the study of the techniques of using language effectively." There are
other definitions, including "the use of language to inform and
persuade" and "excessive ornamentation and contrivance in spoken or
written discourse; bombast"... but I assume the first definition
describes how rhetoric is usually applied in TW courses.>>
I can't speak to the academic perspective, but my take on rhetoric is
that it's the study of how we communicate effectively with an
identified audience to accomplish a specific goal. The first definition
comes close, but without any reference to tailoring the message to the
audience or purpose; it's implicit in the definition, but should be
made very explicit.
The second definition is the more classical (in the sense of Aristotle
et al.) definition, but it also clearly relates to technical
communication: mostly we write to inform our readers, but sometimes we
must write to persuade (e.g., a warning message: do this and die! don't
do this and you're hosed! <g>). The third definition is the pejorative
flavor, and refers not to rhetoric per se but rather to rhetorical
excess or unskilled communication. Hopefully not something we indulge
in.
<<What are the main rhetorical techniques? Or are they pretty much the
usual writing issues that come up often on the list--chunking, active
versus passive voice, first person versus second person, vocabulary,
consistency, and so on.>>
Got a semester? We can do the whole Rhetoric 101 thing if we both have
time. <g> My take on this, from the practitioner's standpoint, is that
the reason to study rhetoric is that it lets us make informed decisions
about what techniques to use in a specific situation by teaching what
techniques are available, how they can be used, and when they're
(in)appropriate. That turns us into thinkers about communication rather
than just people who blindly apply learned patterns.
I can't recommend any specific books on rhetoric, since I've learned
what I know through many years of reading a wide range of books and
articles that touch on the topic. I have vague memories of Sir Ernest
Gower's "The Complete Plain Words" having a good discussion of
rhetoric, but it's been many years... in any event, it's available
inexpensively from Amazon, and presumably in any good library.
Now Shipping -- WebWorks ePublisher Pro for Word! Easily create online
Help. And online anything else. Redesigned interface with a new
project-based workflow. Try it today! http://www.webworks.com/techwr-l
Doc-To-Help 2005 now has RoboHelp Converter and HTML Source: Author
content and configure Help in MS Word or any HTML editor. No
proprietary editor! *August release. http://www.componentone.com/TECHWRL/DocToHelp2005
