This article supplements existing rhetorical scholarship by returning to the notion of invention as general preparation of the communicator. Although much scholarship about invention in technical communication exists, it consists mainly of heuristics, checklists, ethical considerations, and audience awareness. Part of invention is using basic strategies to prepare the communicator to assess any communication situation and its context and to generate the appropriate discourse. Rhetorician Kenneth Burke's theories of dialectic and rhetoric are a twentieth-century version of this; this article explains important Burkean strategies such as etymological extension, limits of agreement with the thesis, finding the complex in the simple, expanding the circumference, translation or alembication, the four master tropes, and the pentad, and it shows how to apply these in technical communication. The article closes with a classroom assignment that uses Burkean invention strategies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
HallD. R., The Role of Invention in Technical Writing, in Technical Writing Teacher, 4: 1, pp. 13–24, 1976.
2.
MillerC. R., A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing, in College English, 40, pp. 610–617, 1979.
3.
StevensonD. W., Toward a Rhetoric of Scientific and Technical Discourse, in Technical Writing Teacher, 5: 1, pp. 4–10, 1977.
4.
MillerC. R. and SelzerJ., Special Topics of Argument in Engineering Reports, in Writing in Nonacademic Settings, OdellL. and GoswamiD. (eds.), Guilford, New York, pp. 309–341, 1985.
5.
ChesireA., Teaching Invention: Using Topical Categories in the Technical Writing Class, in Technical Writing Teacher, 8, pp. 17–20, 1980.
6.
MillerC. R., Invention in Technical and Scientific Discourse: A Prospective Survey, in Research in Technical Communication: A Bibliographic Sourcebook, MoranM. G. and JournetD. (eds.), Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, pp. 117–162, 1985.
7.
FarkasD. K., An Invention Heuristic for Business and Technical Communication, in ABCA Bulletin, 44: 4, pp. 16–19, December 1981.
8.
BarkerT. T., Word Processors and Invention in Technical Writing, in Technical Writing Teacher, 16, pp. 126–135, 1989.
9.
DraggaS. and GongG., Editing: The Design of Rhetoric, Baywood, Amityville, New York, 1989.
10.
WinsorD. A., Invention and Writing in Technical Work: Representing the Object, in Written Communication, 11, pp. 227–250, 1994.
11.
RegliS. H., Whose Ideas?: The Technical Writer's Expertise in Inventio, in Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 29: 1, pp. 31–40, 1999.
12.
BeckC. E. and WegnerK., Toward a Rhetoric of Technical Proposals: Ethos and Audience Analysis, in Technical Communication, 39, pp. 122–126, 1992.
13.
CorbettE. P. J., A Rhetorician Looks at Technical Communication, in Technical Communication: Perspectives for the Eighties, MathesJ. C. and PinelliT. E. (comp.), NASA Conference Publication 220, Part I, Hampton, Virginia, pp. 213–218, 1981.
14.
KallendorfC. and KallendorfC., The Figures of Speech, Ethos, and Aristotle: Notes toward a Rhetoric of Business Communication, in Journal of Business Communication, 22: 1, pp. 35–50, 1984.
15.
KillingsworthM. J. and GilbertsonM. K., Signs, Genres, and Communities in Technical Communication, Baywood, Amityville, New York, 1992.
16.
ReynoldsJ. F., Classical Rhetoric and the Teaching of Technical Writing, in Technical Communication Quarterly, 1: 2, pp. 67–76, 1992.
17.
WaddellC., The Role of Pathos in the Decision-Making Process: A Study in the Rhetoric of Science Policy, in Quarterly Journal of Speech, 76, pp. 381–400, 1990.
18.
BurkeK., A Grammar of Motives, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1969.
19.
BurkeK., A Rhetoric of Motives, University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1969.
20.
HendersonG. E., Kenneth Burke: Literature and Language as Symbolic Action, University of Georgia Press, Athens, Georgia, 1988.
21.
RueckertW. H., Rereading Kenneth Burke: Doctrine without Dogma, Action with Passion, in The Legacy of Kenneth Burke, SimonsH. W. and MeliaT. (eds.), University of Wisconsin Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 239–261, 1989.
22.
RueckertW. H., Kenneth Burke and the Drama of Human Relations (2nd Edition), University of California Press, Berkeley, California, 1982.
23.
RichardsonM., Corporate Power, Corporate Rhetoric, and the Workplace Writer, in Studies in Technical Communication: Proceedings of the 1993 CCCC and NCTE Meetings, SimsB. R. (ed.), pp. 69–79, 1993.
24.
RichardsonM. and LiggettS., Power Relations, Technical Writing Theory, and Workplace Writing, in Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 7, pp. 112–137, 1993.
25.
WinsorD. A., Rhetorical Practices in Technical Work, in Journal of Business and Technical Writing, 12, pp. 343–370, 1998.
26.
KeithP. M., Burkeian Invention: Two Contrasting Views: Burkeian Invention, from Pentad to Dialectic, in Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 9, pp. 137–141, 1979.
27.
KneupperC. W., Burkeian Invention: Two Contrasting Views: Dramatistic Invention: The Pentad as a Heuristic Procedure, in Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 9, pp. 130–136, 1979.
28.
BurkeK., Fact, Inference, and Proof in the Analysis of Literary Symbolism, in Terms for Order, HymanS. E. (ed.), Indiana University Press, Bloomington, Indiana, pp. 145–172, 1964.
29.
WinterowdW. R., Kenneth Burke: An Annotated Glossary of His Terministic Screen and a ‘Statistical’ Survey of His Major Concepts, in Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 15, pp. 145–177, 1985.
30.
TietgeD. J., The Role of Burke's Four Master Tropes in Scientific Expression, in Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 28: 4, pp. 317–324, 1998.
31.
ToddJeff, A Longinian Concept and Methodology for Technical Communication, Technical Communication Quarterly, 7: 2, 1998.
