Technical writers need a historical perspective in order to distinguish between enduring and transitory writing standards, to understand the variety of past styles in building future styles, and to give the profession a better sense of self-identity. To overcome the problems in developing a historical perspective, such as a dearth of artifacts to examine and the peculiarities in rhetorical time and place which undercut attempts to generalize on historical information, the 200 year-old federal collection of patents is offered as a solution. This collection of patents is also very often the only remaining written work of the ordinary mechanic of the nineteenth century, and this collection truly reflects technical not legal, business, or science writing.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
DobrinD. N., What's Technical about Technical Writing? in New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory, Practice, AndersonV.BrockmannR. J., and MillerC. R., (eds.), Baywood, Farmingdale, pp. 227–250, 1983.
2.
FoxE. K., A Feeling for the Organism: The Life and Work of Barbara McClintock, Freeman, San Francisco, 1983.
3.
MillerW. J., What Can the Technical Writer of the Past Teach the Technical Writer of Today? in The Teaching of Technical Writing, CunninghamDonald H. and EstrinHerman A. (eds.), NCTE, Urbana, pp. 198–216, 1975.
4.
DouglasG. H. and HilderbrandtH. W. (eds.), Studies in the History of Business Writing, American Business Communication, Urbana, pp. 69–86, 1985.
5.
LunsfordA. A.Essay Writing and Teacher's Responses in 19th Century Scottish Universities, College Composition and Communication, 32: 4, pp. 434–443, 1981.
6.
ConnorsR. J.The Rise and Fall of the Modes of Discourse, College Composition and Communication, 32: 4, pp. 444–455, 1981.
7.
GreshamS. L., Harvesting the Past: The Legacy of Scientific and Technical Writing in America, Proceedings of the 24th International Technical Communication Conference, 1977, Society for Technical Communication, Washington, D.C., pp. 306–308, 1977.
8.
GreshamS. L.When Technical Communicators Face the Past, Technical Communication, 25, pp. 3, 8–9, 11, 1978.
9.
BrockmannR. J.Bibliography of Articles on the History of Technical Writing, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 13, pp. 155–165, 1983.
DobrinD. N.What's Difficult about Technical Writing?, College English, 44, pp. 135–140, 1982.
12.
MitchellC. E., Birth and Growth of the American Patent System, Proceedings and Addresses, Celebration of the Beginning of the Second Century of the American Patent System, Gedney and Roberts, Washington, D.C., pp. 43–47, 1892.
13.
LockerK., The Earliest Correspondence of the British East India Company (1600–19), in Studies in the History of Business WritingDouglasGeorge H. and HilderbrandtHerbert W. (eds.), American Business Communication, Urbana, pp. 69–86, 1985.
14.
DellerA. W., Deller's Walker on Patents, Vol. 5, Lawyer's Cooperative, Rochester, 1972.
15.
PhillipsW., The Law of Patents for New Inventions, American Stationers, Boston, 1837.
16.
FessendenT. G., An Essay on the Law of Patents for New Inventions, Charles Ewer, Boston, 1822.
17.
Manual of Patent Examining Procedures, United States Department of Commerce, Patent and Trademark Office: Section 608, Washington, D.C.
18.
NobelD. F., American by Design: Science, Technology, and the Rise of Corporate Capitalism, Knopf, New York, 1977.
19.
ReichL. S., Science, Encyclopedia of American Economic History. PorterG. (ed.), Vol. 1, Scribner, New York, pp. 281–293, 1980.
20.
TerrangoP. J.Patents as Technical Literature, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 22: 2, pp. 101–104, 1979.
21.
AriesP., The Hour of Our Death, Knopf, New York, 1981.
22.
KeeganJ., The Face of Battle, Viking, New York, 1976.
23.
LadurieL. E., Montaillou: The Promised Land of Error, Braziller, New York, 1979.
24.
WeismanH. M., Basic Technical Writing, 4th edition, Merrill, Columbus, 1980.
25.
ConnaughtonM. E., Technical Writing in America: A Historical Perspective, in Technical Communication: Perspectives for the Eighties, MathesJ. C. and PinelliThomas E. (comps.), NASA Conference Publication 2203, Washington, D.C., pp. 15–24, 1981.
26.
ConnaughtonM. E., Notes towards a History of American Scientific Writing, Paper presented at the 1981 Modern Language Association convention, Houston, Texas, December 28, 1981.
27.
AllenJ., Redundancy in Agricola's De Re Metallica: Purpose and Execution, Proceedings of 33rd International Technical Communication Conference, May 1986, Society for Technical Communication, Washington, D.C., pp. 184–186, 1986.
28.
BitzerL. F.The Rhetorical Situation, Philosophy and Rhetoric, 1, pp. 1–14, 1968.
29.
BazermanC., Scientific Writing as a Social Act: A Review of the Literature of the Sociology of Science, in New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory, Practice, Baywood, Farmingdale, pp. 156–184, 1983.
30.
JoenkR. J. (ed.), Patents. Special Issue of IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 22: 2, pp. 1–127, 1979.
31.
SmithA. M., The Art of Writing Readable Patents, Practicing Law Institute, New York, 1958.
