Rhetoric and Relevance in Technical Writing

Abstract

As a concept of rhetoric in technical writing, relevance involves an awareness of time. The report deals with the past; the manual, with the present; the proposal, with the future. To be considered relevant, however, all the modes of technical writing must relate to the present reality of the audience. Writers must recognize this need not only as it influences grammar and style but also as it affects larger concerns of organization and tone. Realizing that the temporal classification of modem reports, manuals, and proposals correlates with Aristotle's designation of forensic, epideictic, and deliberative discourse, technical writers can discover a body of rhetorical theory on which to base choices about selection, arrangement, and presentation of subject matter.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson

W. S.

and Cox

D. R.

, The Technical Reader, Holt, New York, p. 3, 1980.

Pearsall

T. E.

and Cunningham

D. H.

, How to Write for the World of Work, Holt, New York, p. 6, 1978.

Barzun

and Graff

H. F.

, The Modern Researcher, Harcourt, New York, p. 6, 1970.

D'Angelo

F. J.

, Process and Thought in Composition, 3rd edition, Little, Brown, Boston, p. 212, 1985.

Bridgman

P. W.

, The Way Things Are, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, p. 5, 1959.

Aristotle , The “Art” of Rhetoric, translated by Freese

J. H.

, Loeb Classical Library 1926; Harvard University Press, Cambridge, 1981, (Hereafter Book and section only will be cited internally. For example, Book 1, Section 3 would appear in the text as [6, 1.3].)

Grimm

S. J.

, How to Write Computer Manuals for Users, Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont, California, p. 10, 1982.

Skees

W. D.

, Writing Handbook for Computer Professionals, Lifetime Learning Publications, Belmont, California, p. 183, 1982.

Dean

, Producing Quality Technical Information, IBM, San Jose, California, p. 2, n.d.

10.

Vreeland

J. J.

, What to Look for When You Review Programming Documents for Product Usability, IBM, San Jose, California, pp. 5–6, 1980.

11.

Maynard

, A User Driven Approach to Better User Manuals, in IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-25, No. 1, p. 16, March 1982. (Note: IEEE distinguishes the volume numbers of their various publications this way: PC = Professional Communication; EWS = Engineering Writing and Speech.)

12.

Chavarria

L. S.

, Improving the Friendliness of Technical Manuals, IBM, Tucson, p. 8, 1981.

13.

Holtz

, Government Contracts: Proposalmanship and Winning Strategies, Plenum Press, New York, 1979.

14.

Holtz

and Schmidt

, The Winning Proposal—How to Write It, McGraw-Hill, New York, pp. 66–67, 1981.

15.

Burke

, A Rhetoric of Motives, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, pp. 442, 482, 1950.

16.

Evans

F. J.

Jr. , More Effective Engineering Proposals, in IRE Transactions on Engineering Writing and Speech, EWS-3, No. 2, pp. 54–58, July 1960.

17.

Murdick

R. J.

, How to Evaluate Engineering Proposals, Machine Design, 33:3, pp. 116–120, September 1961.

18.

Hill

F. I.

, The Rhetoric of Aristotle, in A Synoptic History of Classical Rhetoric, Murphy

J. J.

(ed.), Hermagoras Press, Davis, California, p. 47, 1983.

19.

Killingsworth

M. J.

, Can an English Teacher Contribute to the Energy Debate? College English, 43, 1981.

20.

Killingsworth

M. J.

, Science and Technology for a General Audience: The Personal Essay, IEEE Transactions in Professional Communication, 25, 1982.

21.

Killingsworth

M. J.

, A Bibliography on Proposal Writing, IEEE Transactions in Professional Communication, 26, 1983.

22.

Killingsworth

M. J.

, The Essay and the Report: Expository Poles in Technical Writing, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 15, 1985.