Situational editing: a rhetorical approach for the technical editor.

SUMMARY

* Argues that the rhetorical approach to communication considers situations individually and is necessary for technical editors because their work comprises a series of individual rhetorical decisions

* Proposes a rhetorical theory of technical editing

**********

At present, the field of technical editing lacks a comprehensive rhetorical theory: almost all the books and articles on technical communication are directed to the technical writer rather than the technical editor. The information in these publications is often useful to editors, but it cannot completely fill their needs because the rhetorical situation of the editor is different from that of the writer.

In this article, I propose and demonstrate a rhetorical theory of technical editing that is based on a situational approach to each individual task. The rhetorical, or situational, approach is to be used in conjunction with the grammatical, or programmatic, approach.

The grammatical approach is well understood by good technical editors. Many aspects of the rhetorical approach have also been explored in articles and textbooks, primarily for technical writers; for example, excellent advice has been published on audience analysis (Houp and Pearsall 1980). Some good papers and articles have been written specifically for the technical editor; one of the best, and one that delineates a situational approach for the editor, is Lola Zook's "Training the editor: skills are not enough," (1976), which has exerted a strong influence on the concepts and theory that I am presenting here.

These, then, are the tools and equipment that have been provided for technical editors--grammatical (and other) rules, instructional material directed to technical writers, and isolated examples of advice and guidance on editorial matters. The editor also relies on pragmatic strategies learned from the real-life exercise of dealing with authors and manuscripts.

It is my purpose in this article to pull some of these elements together: to differentiate the specific problems of the technical editor from those of technical communicators (especially technical writers) in general; to contrast the rhetorical or situational approach to technical editing with the grammatical approach and to demonstrate why the programmatic approach, in itself, is inadequate; to propose a rhetorical theory for technical editors that will incorporate the pragmatic elements of situational editing now being practiced: and to show how such a theory, which is based on the wider situational implications of rhetoric that have been developed during more than 2,000 years, can be a valuable contribution to the editor's effective communication of technical information.

THE EDITOR AND RHETORIC

Why should the technical editor be concerned with rhetoric? The common perception of rhetoric is not favorable. References to rhetoric in our newspapers and other mass media are usually to something like "mere rhetoric, instead of solid achievement."

This popular misapprehension is not important and need not concern us unduly. For one thing, the denigration of rhetoric is nothing new: rhetoric has been denounced by some very articulate critics, at least as far back as Plato (trans. 1952), and it has survived and flourished. Besides, when newspaper writers or television broadcasters use the term rhetoric in this sense, they are really substituting rhetoric as a catchier, or more fashionable, or more persuasive, or more important-sounding term for language. What they are really saying is "mere language, instead of solid achievement." Why, then, do they use the term rhetoric instead of language? Probably because it sounds better to them, because they think it will persuade or impress their readers or hearers, or for some other reason implied in the specific situation. In short, they are using a rhetorical statement in deprecating the term rhetoric.

Having discarded some popular ideas about the subject, we return to our original question: Why should the technical editor be concerned about rhetoric? To find an answer, we need to understand what rhetoric is--or, at least, from what perspective we will consider it.

A review of the ways in which rhetoric has been defined through the centuries reveals that the concept of rhetoric itself is situational; rhetoric has been defined in the context of the many different social, philosophical, political, and technological environments in which people have found themselves using language to communicate ideas.

Some definitions have emphasized the persuasive aspects of rhetoric: Aristotle--"Rhetoric may be defined as the faculty of observing in any given case the available means of persuasion" (trans. 1954, 1335b, p. 25). (This in the fourth century BC, when persuasive language could be a necessity for survival in a primarily oral culture, when citizens acted as their own lawyers, and when there was a high degree of democratic participation in government.)

Some definitions have emphasized rhetoric as an oral art, characterized as oratory: Cicero, describing the qualifications of an orator--"... he will be an orator, in my opinion worthy of so dignified a title, who, whatever the topic that crops up to be unfolded in discourse, will speak thereon with knowledge, method, charm and retentive memory, combining with these qualifications a certain distinction of bearing" (trans. 1942, p. 64).

Between the time of these classical Greek and Roman definitions and our own day, rhetoric has been defined in many other ways. At times, rhetoric has been considered to consist primarily of the stylistic devices of language--figures of speech like metaphors and similes (often grouped into the category "figures and tropes"), or what we in technical communication might be inclined to consider "fancy language." In the Middle Ages, rhetoric concerned itself with such evolving kinds of communication as the an of letter writing and the art of preaching sermons, each representing a cultural development of the time.

With the invention of the printing press and the spread of written (as well as oral) and informative (as well as persuasive) communication, definitions of rhetoric have often been broadened. Two well-known definitions by contemporary rhetoricians reflect this trend: Donald C Bryant's definition, "I take rhetoric to be the rationale of informative and suasory discourse" (1974, p. 199), and I. A Richards' statement that "Rhetoric ... should be the study of misunderstanding and its remedies" (1936, p. 3).

Then what is rhetoric? Obviously, there is no single answer. But the qualities inherent in the many definition, of rhetoric cluster around one concept; rhetoric is the use of language that takes into consideration the several elements of what may be called the rhetorical situation: the speaker or writer, the message to be communicated, the purpose of the message, and the person for whom the message is intended. (Because technical editors deal primarily with written material, I will use the temps "author" and "reader" for the communicator and the intended audience.)

Thus, the technical editor should be concerned about rhetoric because rhetoric, being situational, offers a coherent framework in which the editor can rationally approach the different individual situations that make up his or her work. Technical communication is--or should be--a set of situations in which rhetorical choices are made.

SITUATIONAL AND PROGRAMMATIC APPROACHES

I have defined what I mean by a rhetorical, or situational, approach as one that considers all (or at least most) of the elements of a communication situation. By contrast, a programmatic approach simply applies a set of roles to all situations. The best example of a programmatic approach in technical communication is the application of "correct" grammar, spelling, and punctuation, without concern for all the varied elements of the situation itself. Another programmatic element--which may or may not be flexible--is the application of "house rules"--that is, the rules of a given publications organization, journal, or the like, governing various aspects of format, style, and usage.

Certainly a good technical editor must have a thorough mastery of such language skills as grammar, spelling, and punctuation; these skills should be taken for granted. But they are not enough for effective editorial work: it is necessary to know the rules, but it is not sufficient.

"Follow these roles," says Grammar, "and you will always be correct."

"Consider the individual situation," says Rhetoric, "and you may be able to communicate effectively."

Many of us in technical communication, I believe, have thought that the clear, plain, objective style that we normally strive to achieve is not rhetorical. We may have thought, in fact, that when we pruned away extraneous material from a scientific report or eliminated the author's flights of fancy from a commercial brochure, we were eliminating "rhetoric" from the message.

But the truth is that the spare, objective style of technical writing is, in itself, a rhetorical choice. This style represents the most appropriate choice, in most situations, for conveying a technical message from its creator to its user, with a minimum of distraction.

The history of our plain, concise style may help us to see just how rhetorical was the choice of that style in the beginning. The development of the objective style can be traced back to the early reports of the Royal Society in England. The Royal Society (correctly known as the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge), the oldest scientific society in Great Britain and one of the oldest in Europe, was founded in 1660 to perform scientific and technical experiments, investigate natural history, and explore practical applications of these discoveries, among other aims.

Thomas Sprat, author of the History of the Royal Society, first published in 1667, clearly shows us that the language used by the Royal Society--which set the pattern for the scientific and technical language that we use today--was deliberately chosen. Sprat inveighs against the "fine speaking" of his day:

   Who can behold, without indignation, how many mists
   and uncertainties, these specious Tropes and Figures
   have brought on our Knowledge? How many rewards,
   which are due to more profitable, and difficult Arts,
   have been still snatch 'd away by the easie vanity of fine
   speaking? For now I am warm 'd with this just Anger, I
   cannot withhold myself, from betraying the shallowness
   of all these seeming Mysteries,. on which, we Writers, and
   Speakers, look so bigg. And, in a few words, I dare say:
   that of all the Studies of men. nothing may be sooner
   obtain'd, than this vicious abundance of Phrase, this
   trick of Metaphors. this volubility of Tongue, which
   makes so great a noise in the World. (Sprat rptd. 1958,
   p. 112)

And so the members of the Royal Society chose a plainer kind of language in which to report the results of their studies:

   They have therefore been most rigourous in putting in
   execution, the only Remedy, that can be found for this
   extravagance; and that has been, a constant Resolution,
   to reject all the amplifications, digressions, and swellings
   of style: to return back to the primitive purity, and
   shortness, when men deliver'd so many things, almost in
   an equal number of words They have exacted from all
   their members, a close, naked, natural way of speaking;
   positive expressions; clear senses; a native easiness:
   bringing all things as near the Mathematical plainness,
   as they can: and preferring the language of Artizans.
   Countrymen, and Merchants. before that, of Wits, or
   Scholars. (Sprat rptd. 1958. p. 113)

Thus we see that the members of the Royal Society were not really banishing "rhetoric" from their language--they were making a practical and astute rhetorical choice of the language that best suited their situation.

The plainness of the objective style may lead us to think that good grammar is all we need to know. But although the constraints of this style usually constitute appropriate choices, they should not be applied automatically to all situations, even in technical communication: they should be applied only when the choice makes sense.

A simple example, and one that occurs frequently in technical papers and reports, is the acknowledgment section, in which the author extends appreciation to colleagues for their help, encouragement, and the like. This section normally constitutes a different rhetorical situation from the rest of the report: one does not usually thank one's friends in the concise, curt style of technical exposition. Instead, one may want to say something like "I should like to express my appreciation to my colleagues for their invaluable assistance ...." And what is wrong with that, if it fits the situation?

Unless a journal specifies style for its acknowledgment sections, the only constraint on an acknowledgment should be its rhetorical effectiveness: if it is so flowery that it makes the author sound silly, then it should be pruned. But it should be pruned rhetorically, not grammatically.

What is meant by rhetorical and grammatical pruning? (I am using the term pruning as a shorthand word for getting rid of words in written material by means of editorial techniques.) The demand for conciseness has been so much a part of our technical communication credo for so long that a discussion may be helpful.

Conciseness may seem so self-evidently desirable that it should be impervious to rhetorical considerations (except for isolated instances, as noted above). Certainly the demand for conciseness lends itself to programmatic applications. "No unnecessary words" has been a rallying cry, both in technical communication and in general expository writing. The highly regarded and much used Elements of style warns against needless words:

   Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain
   no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary
   sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should
   have, no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary
   parts. (Strunk and White 1959. p. 17)

But unnecessary for what? For programmatic "correctness" or rhetorical effectiveness? To take only one example: a rhythmical sentence, with a word or two that may not, strictly speaking, be irreplaceable, may read much more comfortably, and hence more meaningfully, than a thudding series of "short, denotative terms" (or whatever other means to conciseness may be recommended), regardless of the saving in words. Take for example, the following clause:

When the spacecraft lands on the planet Mars ...

Obviously, this expression can be pruned. Everyone who will be expected to read it will know that Mars is a planet--the word planet is redundant. But the rhythm of the words is pleasing to the ear. If we prune out the word planet, we have a more concise statement:

When the spacecraft lands on Mars ...

But now we have lost the grace of the rhythm we had before. This may not, of course, be a bad thing: in many applications--for example, in a set of instructions--the short, strong statement would be a better choice. In a beautifully illustrated brochure, however, the longer, more musical statement would usually be preferable. But a choice of this kind is rhetorical. And that's my point.

In short: the editor should not proceed automatically through all types of writing, pruning away any word that is not absolutely essential to the meaning. Programmatic pruning can destroy rhetorical effectiveness. Conciseness is desirable, but it is not all-important.

THE EDITOR'S UNIQUE SITUATION

The editor faces a set of unique rhetorical situations because the editor--unlike the author--is squarely in the middle of each situation. An often-used model for technical communication places the writer/sender essentially on one end of the communication process and the reader/receiver on the other end, with the message (and possibly feedback) flowing between.

When editors are involved in the situation, however--if they are performing rhetorically, rather than programmatically--they are working with the author, on the one hand, and projecting themselves into the character of the reader, on the other hand (see Figure 1). Editors attempt to simulate the reader's expected feedback, to test the effectiveness of the message transmission. They also attempt to preserve as much of the author's character, or style, as possible. Some examples of what this can mean are discussed below, in terms of both the reader and the author.

[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]

Serving the reader

Although audience analysis has been emphasized primarily for writers, rather than editors, some advice on audience analysis has been specifically directed toward editors:

   ... the editor needs to learn to work. consciously, at
   many different levels .... If an electronics manual is to
   be used by men who are technically proficient but whose
   reading ability is at the eighth-grade level, that manual
   is not going to be very useful unless it is prepared with
   that reading level in mind. The difficulty is that some
   12th grade words and some college-level concepts will
   have to be used in that manual, reading ability or too. So
   the problem becomes one of finding means for presenting
   these terms and concepts in a way that will help the
   technician learn their meaning and use them. Not only
   the language skills of the editor but the various resources
   of format and typography and visual aids should be
   marshaled to make the manual readable, visually helpful,
   and easy to use. (Zook 1976, p. 15)

Here the editor, with a college-level literacy ability, must tailor material for readers with an eighth-grade level of literacy. However one solves it, the problem clearly calls for rhetorical skills: no amount of correct grammar and concise writing will ensure that the information is transmitted effectively unless the needs of the audience are correctly assessed and fulfilled.

The example is perhaps an extreme one: the distance between the concepts to be conveyed and the level of the audience's understanding is usually not so great. But the special characteristics of the audience, however subtle, can affect communication in important ways and must always be considered.

Serving the author

It is generally agreed that the editor should "preserve the author's style." That is, a piece of written material should reflect the author's patterns of thought and language so far as possible within the confines of effective communication. The editor, it is generally agreed, should not change an author's language arbitrarily or capriciously, and should not make changes in a manuscript without an identifiable reason.

But, again, what kind of reason? A programmatic reason or a rhetorical reason? For some examples, we can return to classical rhetoric.

In a triumphal ceremony celebrating a military victory, Julius Caesar had a banner carried before him that read (in translation): "I came, I saw, I conquered" (Suetonius n.d.). If a technical editor had been called in to work with Caesar and his designer of celebratory graphics, what might have happened?

Could the editor have said something like the following?

   I like the dynamic style of your slogan, but it isn't really
   correct grammatically. What you have here is an A, B,
   and C enumeration. Now this kind of enumeration
   normally takes a conjunction before the final element,
   and a comma before the conjunction--of course, there
   are two schools of thought about that: some people have
   been taught to leave the comma out. But in technical
   communication we advise that you leave the comma in.
   Besides, you have some unnecessary words; you don't
   need to say I three times. Once is enough; after that,
   people will know who is talking. And so your banner
   should read "I came, saw, and conquered."

Would one of us--as technical editors--have said that? I hope not. I hope we would recognize that Caesar was making the language carry his meaning both in form and in content: he was rhetorically emphasizing the speed and dispatch with which he conducted his campaign. (Suetonius, in fact, tells us that this was the real significance of the statement.) Undoubtedly, the language also reflected Caesar's own personal image--that of a direct, hard-hitting military leader.

I hope that we--as technical editors--would also know that Caesar was using a rhetorical figure, asyndeton, in which an enumeration of elements is listed without conjunctions. The figure, as such, is perfectly "correct"; depending on the situation, it may or may not be effective.

Or, to take another example: the orator Cicero, in describing the kind of knowledge that a good orator should possess, has Crassus (considered to be Cicero's spokesman) explain, in De oratore, that

   ... the genuine orator must have investigated and
   heard and read and discussed and bandied and debated
   the whole of the contents of the life of mankind,
   inasmuch as that is the field of the orator's activity, the
   subject matter of his study. (Cicero trans. 1942, p. 43)

Assuming that this English translation faithfully represents Cicero's Latin, what would we have done, as technical editors, if we had been asked to review Cicero's manuscript? Would we have pointed out the excess of conjunctions, the unnecessary words, and the fact that an A, B, and C enumeration should be properly put together with commas and a final conjunction?

I hope not--because Cicero's expansive and encompassing style reflects perfectly the meaning of his statement: that the orator, too, must have such expansive and encompassing knowledge and experience. Like Caesar, Cicero is making the form as well as the content carry his meaning. The statement also reflects Cicero's own image as a man, and the kind of overwhelming ability that he himself possessed as an orator. The sentence could not possibly carry the same weight of connotations if it were recast in the formula of an A, B, and C enumeration.

I hope, too, that we would recognize this rhetorical figure as polysyndeton--that is, an enumeration in which the elements are joined with a series of conjunctions (see Lanham 1969 for a useful glossary of rhetorical terminology). Again, the figure is perfectly correct--the only question should be: is it effective?

A RHETORICAL THEORY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS

On the basis of the limited number of examples included in this brief discussion, some general elements of rhetorical theory for the technical editor may be proposed.

1. Programmatic or rule-following editorial procedures are necessary and basic for acceptable editorial quality.

2. However, the programamatic approach will not provide the editor the scope required for considering each editorial situation individually.

3. A rhetorical approach, which allows the editor to consider all the elements in each rhetorical situation, is required for effective communication. Elements to be considered are the author, the message, the purpose of the message, the intended audience, any applicable house rules, and any other pertinent information. These elements will determine the form (within unavoidable constraints) as well as the content of the message.

From the elements of this theory, one can draw implications for the editor's performance. The skills and abilities necessary to perform programmatic editing, while important, are different from those required for the rhetorical approach.

The programmatic approach requires the following in an editor:

1. Knowledge of the rules involved (grammar, punctuation, house rules)

2. Knowledge of how to apply the roles correctly

3. Ability to apply the rules consistently throughout an editorial project

4. Ability to interpret the rules to the author (for example, to cite a rule for any change that is made in a manuscript)

Obviously, these are very desirable qualities: they are basic skills that every good technical editor must possess. But, as I have demonstrated, these abilities are not enough for effective editing. The rhetorical approach, which builds on the basis of the programmatic approach, requires such additional skills as the following:

1. Breadth of perspective--the ability to see the rhetorical situation in its entirely

2. Investigative persistence--the ability to keep asking questions about the rhetorical characteristics of any situation until the necessary answers are received

3. Flexibility--the ability to see each situation as an individual one, and to shift easily from one rhetorical level to another

4. Rhetorical knowledge and taste--the ability to judge whether a given language usage is effective, not merely whether it is "correct"

5. Empathy--the ability to understand and communicate with people (authors and potential readers) of varied educational backgrounds, cultural ties, and literacy levels

6. Self-confidence--the ability to apply rhetorical considerations, as well as programmatic ones, and to justify" any editorial action taken in either approach

CONCLUSION

To sum up: The editor's position in technical communication is unique since the editor functions in the center of a series of rhetorical situations, linking the author and the potential reader, and serving the needs of both. The editor cannot solve the problems of effective communication by using programmatic techniques alone. The rhetorical approach makes more difficult demands on the editor, poses greater challenges, requires a higher level of effort on a less secure basis--but offers greater rewards in terms of effective communication.

For more information on rhetoric, technical editors--and other technical communicators--are invited to review the special issue of Technical communication that was devoted to the subject (Fourth Quarter 1978). In addition to the articles in that issue, the various reference lists contain a wealth of sources that could form the beginning of a useful bibliography on rhetoric, representing such rhetoricians as Wayne C. Booth, Kenneth Burke, Chaim Perelman, and many more, including, of course, Aristotle himself, the most basic reference of all.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

In developing the editorial concepts presented here, I am greatly indebted to Mrs. Lola Zook, who, until her retirement, was director of the editorial and production division, Human Resources Research Organization, Alexandria, VA, and subsequently served as an editorial consultant in Washington, DC.

I am also indebted to Professor Waiter R. Fisher, Department of Speech Communication, University of Southern California, who encouraged me to investigate the rote of rhetoric in technical communication.

This article was originally published in the Third Quarter 1980 issue of Technical communication (27, no. 3:18-22).

REFERENCES

Aristotle. 1954. Rhetoric and poetics. Trans. W. Rhys Roberts. New York, NY: The Modern Library, Random House.

Bryant. D. C. 1974. "Rhetoric: Its functions and its scope." A tradition in transition. Ed. W. R. Fisher. Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.

Cicero. 1942. De oratore. Book I. Trans. H. Rackham. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Houp, K. W., and T. E. Pearsall. 1980. Reporting technical information, 4th ed. Los Angeles, CA: Glencoe Publishing Company.

Lanham, R. A, 1969. A handlist of rhetorical terms. Berkeley, CA: The University of California Press.

Plato. 1952. Gorgias. Trans. W. C. Helmbold. Indianapolis, IN: The Bobbs-Merrill Company, Inc.

Richards, I. A. 1936. The philosophy of rhetoric. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

Sprat, T. 1958. History of the Royal Society. St. Louis, MO: Washington University Studies.

Strunk, W., Jr., and E. B. White. 1959. The elements of style. New York, NY: The Macmillan Company.

Suetonius. 1923. History of twelve Caesars. Trans, P. Holland. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co.

Zook, L. 1976. "Training the editor: Skills are not enough." In Technical editing: Principles and practices. Washington, DC: Society for Technical Communication.

POSTSCRIPT BY LOTTIE APPLEWHITE

Throughout her career, Mary Fran Buehler recognized that the skills of the technical writer and the practices of the technical editor were different. The writer's skills were programmatic, precise use of the rules of grammar. The editor's practices included the precise use of grammar but had the added dimension of needing to adapt rules to particular situations. Hence, she used the term "situational editing."

She based her theory on the rhetorical approach. She conveyed in her articles, presentations, and classes that communication had developed rhetorically over two millennia. Communication and the language usage convey not only an idea but also the style of the author or orator. Situational editing was Mary Fran Buehler's art.

Definitions of rhetoric have varied over the years, but Mary Fran emphasized that rhetoric offers the technical editor a framework in which the editor can approach each situation. Rhetoric clusters around one--concept the transmission of the message from the creator of the message to the person(s) for whom the message is intended. When editors perform rhetorically, they are working with the author and, at the same time, projecting themselves into the character of the reader(s).

Every technical editor must have the programmatic skills well-honed but, in addition, must have breadth of perspective, investigative persistence, flexibility, rhetorical knowledge and taste, empathy, and self-confidence. This article is one more outstanding contribution from Mary Fran Buehler. It reflects the scholarly maturity she acquired through pursuit of her doctorate from the University of Southern California.

MARY FRAN BUEHLER began her career in technical communication in 1963 and served in progressively responsible jobs in writing, editing, and management through the years. She attained international recognition while she was supervisor of the publications group at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. Her academic education began at Illinois Wesleyan University. She received an MS degree in journalism from Northwestern University and completed her doctorate in communication (rhetoric, communication theory, and linguistics) at the University of Southern California. Her dissertation, "Rhetorical foundations of technical communications," was the first that addressed technical editing. Toe levels of edit (1976; 2nd ed. 1980). coauthored with Robert Van Buren, has been widely used and adapted by numerous organizations and companies, including General Motors Research Laboratories (1975) and RCA (1983). Her book, Report construction, probably is best known for its chapter on "Table design." Her involvement in professional associations included the Society for Technical Communication, the Society for Scholarly Publishing, the IEEE Professional Communication Society. the Association of Teachers of Technical Writing, the Speech Communication Association, and the International Society for the History of Rhetoric. A presenter at 10 STC Annual Conferences, she was a stem manager for the 19th, and deputy program chair for the 26th. She served as manager or member of six STC committees over the years and was a reviewer for Technical communication for more than a decade. She was an STC fellow and died in 1994.

LOTTIE APPLEWHITE, author's editor for medical manuscripts and books, has been a member of STC since 1968. Her career has included 16 years in the U.S. Army as an occupational therapist and instructor at the Medical Field Service School, including five years on duty in Scandinavia, England, and Germany. She served 10 years as technical publications editor at Letterman Army Medical Center and 10 years as technical publications editor at Letterman Army Institute of Research, Presidio of San Francisco. In 1986, she retired. Now she edits for orthopedic surgeons in sports medicine all over the world. In 1990, she was named an STC fellow. Contact information: lottieapplewhite@mindspring.com