Scholars have long argued that technical editing should be viewed as a rhetorical practice in which copy editors take “a situational approach to each individual task” (Buehler, 1980/2003, p. 458). Yet many editing pedagogies still treat some language-level editing tasks, like those that involve prescriptive usage rules, as mechanical rather than rhetorical. This article discusses how empirical data from corpora can help copy editors adopt a more rhetorical view of prescriptive usage rules and introduces corpus linguistics as a methodology that can contribute to technical editing pedagogy.
BiberD.ConradS.ReppenR. (1998). Corpus linguistics: Investigating language structure and use. Cambridge University Press.
4.
BitzerL. F. (2010). The rhetorical situation. In BurgchardtC. R. (Ed.), Readings in rhetorical criticism (4th ed., pp. 46–55). Strata. (Original work published 1968).
5.
BoettgerR. K. (2016). Using corpus-based instruction to explore writing variation across the disciplines: A case history in a graduate-level technical editing course. Across the Disciplines, 13(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.37514/ATD-J.2016.13.1.03
6.
BoettgerR. K.WulffS. (2014). The naked truth about the naked this: Investigating grammatical prescriptivism in technical communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 23(2), 115–140. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572252.2013.803919
7.
BourdieuP. (1991). Language and symbolic power. Polity Press.
BridgefordT. (2019). Imagination as agency: Communities of practice and editing pedagogy. In FlanaganS.AlbersM. J. (Eds.), Editing in the modern classroom (pp. 66–90). Routledge.
10.
BuehlerM. F. (2003). Situational editing: A rhetorical approach for the technical editor. Technical Communication, 50(4), 458–464. (Original work published 1980).
11.
Chicago manual of style. (2010). (16th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
12.
Chicago manual of style. (2017). (17th ed.). University of Chicago Press.
13.
ChrisomalisS. (2015). What’s so improper about fractions? Prescriptivism and language socialization at Math Corps. Language in Society, 44, 63–85. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404514000748
14.
ConnatserB. R. (2004). Reconsidering some prescriptive rules of grammar and composition. Technical Communication, 51(2), 264–275.
15.
ConradS. (2018). The use of passives and impersonal style in civil engineering writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 31(1), 38–76. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651917729864
16.
CunninghamD. H.MaloneE. A.RothschildJ. M. (2019). Technical editing. Oxford University Press.
EatonA.BrewerP. E.PortewigT. C.DavidsonC. R. (2008). Examining editing in the workplace from the author’s point of view: Results of an online survey. Technical Communication, 55(2), 111–139.
22.
EbnerC. (2017). Proper English usage: A sociolinguistic investigation of attitudes towards usage problems in British English. Leiden University.
FlanaganS. (2019). The current state of technical editing research and open questions. In FlanaganS.AlbersM. J. (Eds.), Editing in the modern classroom (pp. 15–46). Routledge.
25.
GarnerB. A. (2016). Garner’s modern English usage (4th ed.). Oxford University Press.
GorrellR. M. (1977). Usage as rhetoric. College Composition and Communication, 28(1), 20–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/356888
28.
GravesH. B.GravesR. (1998). Masters, slaves, and infant mortality: Language challenges for technical editing. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(4), 389–414. https://doi.org/10.1080/10572259809364639
29.
HinrichsL.SzmrecsanyiB.BohmannA. (2015). Which-hunting and the Standard English relative clause. Language, 91(4), 806–836. https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2015.0062
30.
KrethM. L.BowenE. (2017). A descriptive survey of technical editors. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(3), 238–255. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2017.2702039
31.
LambrechtK. (2021). Tracking the differentiation of risk: The impact of subject framing in CDC communication regarding COVID-19. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 35(1), 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920958394
32.
LangS.PalmerL. (2017). Reconceiving technical editing competencies for the 21st century: Reconciling employer needs with curricular mandates. Technical Communication, 64(4), 297–309.
33.
MillerC. R. (1979). A humanistic rationale for technical writing. College English, 40(6), 610–617. https://doi.org/10.2307/375964
PophamS. L. (2019). Teaching editing through a feminist theoretical lens. In FlanaganS.AlbersM. J. (Eds.), Editing in the modern classroom (pp. 91–108). Routledge.
38.
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). (2010). American Psychological Association.
39.
Publication manual of the American Psychological Association (7th ed.). (2020). American Psychological Association.
40.
SallerC. F. (2017). Toward accuracy, clarity, and consistency: What copyeditors do. In GinnaP. (Ed.), What editors do: The art, craft, and business of book editing (pp. 106–115). University of Chicago Press.
41.
Tieken-Boon van OstadeI. (2019). Describing prescriptivism: Usage guides and usage problems in British and American English. Routledge.
42.
Van BurenR.BuehlerM. F. (1980). The levels of edit (2nd ed.). Jet Propulsion Laboratory.
43.
WaltonR.MooreK. R.JonesN. N. (2019). Technical communication after the social justice turn: Building coalitions for action. Routledge.
44.
WilliamsJ. M. (2005). Style: Ten lessons in clarity and grace (8th ed.). Pearson.
45.
WolfeJ. (2009). How technical communication textbooks fail engineering students. Technical Communication Quarterly, 18(4), 351–375. https://doi.org/10.10.1080/10572250903149662
46.
ZhangS.GosseltJ. F.de JongM. D. T. (2020). How large information technology companies use Twitter: Arrangement of corporate accounts and characteristics of tweets. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 34(4), 364–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651920932191
