Stylistic analysis of scientific and technical prose reveals that technical and non-technical expository prose share a number of common characteristics; consequently, common assumptions about a clear stylistic separation between scientific and literary writing are faulty. Technical prose, moreover, possesses a number of rhetorical features which further increase its likeness to literary writing. Both style and rhetoric of technical writing thus point toward non-referential functions in scientific discourse, including the operation of significant cultural codes.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
PorterR. R., The Structure of Antibodies, Scientific American, 217: 4, pp. 81–90, October 1967 — Article I.
2.
GoriniL., Antibiotics and the Genetic Code, Scientific American, 214: 4, pp. 102–109, April 1966 — Article II.
3.
ClemonsC. A.ColemanA. I., and SaltzmanB. E., Concentration and Ultrasensitive Chromatographic Determination of Sulfur Hexafluoride for Application to Meteorological Tracing, Environmental Science and Technology, 2: 7, pp. 551–556, July 1978 — Article III.
4.
LovejoyO. C., The Origin of Man, Science, 211: 4480, pp. 341–350, January 23, 1981 — Article IV.
5.
ParkerG. H., A Modern Conception of the Action of the Nervous System, Science, 92: 2389, pp. 319–323, October 11, 1940 — Article V.
6.
MassermanJ. H., Experimental Neuroses, Scientific American, 182: 3, pp. 39–43, March 1950 — Article VI.
7.
OlssonA. G., The Impact of Spacecraft OCS on the Design of Ground Support Equipment and Software, in Handbook of Technical Writing Practices, Vol. I, JordanS. (ed.), Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp. 466–469, 1971 — Article VII.
8.
Franco-FormanB.AbramsonA. L., and SteinT., High-speed Drill Noise and Hearing, The Technical Reader, AndersonS. and CoxD. R. (eds.), Holt, Rinehart and Winston, New York, pp. 288–293, 1980 — Article VIII.
9.
FlandersS. E., Control of Sex in the Honeybee, Scientific Monthly, 71: 4, pp. 237–240, October 1950 — Article IX.
10.
GoriniL., Antibiotics and the Genetic Code, Scientific American, 214: 4, pp. 102–109, April 1966.
11.
DandridgeE. P., Notes toward a Definition of Technical Writing, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 3: 4, pp. 265–271, 1973.
12.
JonesR. F., Science and Enghsh Prose Style, 1650–1675, in Seventeenth-Century Prose, FishS. (ed.), Oxford University Press, New York, pp. 53–89, 1971.
13.
HalloranS. M., Technical Writing and the Rhetoric of Science, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 8: 2, pp. 77–88, 1977.
14.
ChardJ., The Incidence of Sentence Openers in Selected Technical and Scientific Journals and Periodicals, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 5: 2, pp. 91–98, 1975.
15.
PaulT. and RosnerM., Discovering and Teaching Syntactic Structures in Three Technical Disciplines, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 13: 2, pp. 109–122, 1983.
16.
RamseyR. D., Grammatical Voice and Person in Technical Writing: Results of a Survey, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 10: 2, pp. 109–113, 1979.
17.
OlssonA. G., The Impact of Spacecraft OCS on the Design of Ground Support Equipment and Software, in Handbook of Technical Writing Practices, Vol. I, JordanS. (ed.), Wiley-Interscience, New York, pp. 466–469, 1971.
18.
A Bibliography of the Colloquial as a Stylistic Term, Style, 14, pp. 107–126, 1980.
19.
Eliot, Tradition, and Textuality, Texas Studies in Literature and Language, 27, pp. 311–323, 1985.
20.
Larvatus Prodeo: Semiotic Aspects of the Ideogram in Pound's Cantos, Paideuma, 9, pp. 289–307, 1980.
21.
International Bibliography of Style Studies, Style, 18, pp. 391–533, 1984.
22.
An Introduction to the Colloquial as a Stylistic Term, Style, 14, pp. 103–107, 1980.
23.
Modernist Form: Pound's Style in the Early Cantos, Susquehanna University Press, Selingsgrove, Pennsylvania, 1986.
24.
The Odyssey of Style in James Joyce'sUlysses, Style, 18, pp. 227–229, 1984.
