10
2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings 0-7803-9028-8/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE. Editorial Smarts: Contextual and Single Sentence Editing Tools Victoria M. Mikelonis, Ph.D. Helen Constantinides University of Minnesota [email protected] [email protected] Abstract Contextual editing emphasizes the context and pur- pose of a text, enabling the editor to focus on the writer’s intent before editing for grammar. The ap- proach discussed here builds on Mathes and Ste- venson’s procedure for editing sentences in context, also taking into consideration other editorial issues such as the given/new principle, active and passive voice, transitions, nominalizations, jargon, and wordiness. In this workshop, you will be provided with a breakdown process for editing for style that addresses these editorial issues. The purpose of this workshop is threefold: to introduce you to contex- tual editing, to provide you with an opportunity to experiment with this approach, and to solicit your feedback for the usefulness of this approach for editors and new technical communicators. Key- words: contextual editing, grammar instruction, teaching strategies, writing instruction 1. Introduction Editing for unity, coherence, and emphasis im- plies building causal logic into technical documents based on their multiplicity of purposes for various audiences. Designing documents to achieve specific purposes with specific audiences can be success- fully accomplished only if the editor performs con- textual editing, ensuring that the structure reflects the writer’s intent, before editing single sentences. Editing single sentences falls about half-way through the editing process, is informed by deci- sions made in the contextual process, and enables the writer/editor to check for directness, efficiency, and clarity in the document. According to J. C. Mathes and Dwight W. Stevenson [1], of the many grammatically correct forms a sentence may take, the form it does take derives from its context and the purpose of the unit or segment in which it falls. This paper and workshop extend the work we have been doing on sentence patterns, in which we use contextual editing and systematic breakdown processes as tools for analyzing text and as methods for effective editing, to larger units of discourse. The purpose of the workshop is to present technical writers and editors with a rubric and a breakdown process to help writers build causal logic patterns of organization and argumentation into their docu- ments and to help editors identify and verify the effectiveness of those patterns. We will examine sections of actual technical and scientific docu- ments and apply the tools presented to editing them, demonstrating the dramatic difference in “be- fore” and “after” versions. The tools presented in the workshop can serve as guides for writers and checklists for editors, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the writing/editing process. 2. Contextual Editing To improve writing and editing, we would all agree that we must move beyond the level of the sentence to larger units of discourse. We are told that of the variety of grammatically correct forms a sentence may take, in scientific and technical writ- ing its form should derive from the purpose of the unit of discourse and from the context in which it is found. So we ask ourselves the following questions: How can we help students, as well as techni- cal and professional writers, develop syntactic maturity and develop a style appropriate to their subject matter? How do we give them a deeper yet practical understanding of the genres in the field? How can we demonstrate what constitutes an effective technical style? What kinds of tools will help them revise their own work and edit the work of others? 151

[IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication

  • Upload
    h

  • View
    213

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: [IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

0-7803-9028-8/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE.

Editorial Smarts: Contextual and Single Sentence Editing Tools

Victoria M. Mikelonis, Ph.D. Helen Constantinides University of Minnesota

[email protected] [email protected]

AbstractContextual editing emphasizes the context and pur-pose of a text, enabling the editor to focus on the writer’s intent before editing for grammar. The ap-proach discussed here builds on Mathes and Ste-venson’s procedure for editing sentences in context, also taking into consideration other editorial issues such as the given/new principle, active and passive voice, transitions, nominalizations, jargon, and wordiness. In this workshop, you will be provided with a breakdown process for editing for style that addresses these editorial issues. The purpose of this workshop is threefold: to introduce you to contex-tual editing, to provide you with an opportunity to experiment with this approach, and to solicit your feedback for the usefulness of this approach for editors and new technical communicators. Key-words: contextual editing, grammar instruction, teaching strategies, writing instruction

1. Introduction

Editing for unity, coherence, and emphasis im-plies building causal logic into technical documents based on their multiplicity of purposes for various audiences. Designing documents to achieve specific purposes with specific audiences can be success-fully accomplished only if the editor performs con-textual editing, ensuring that the structure reflects the writer’s intent, before editing single sentences. Editing single sentences falls about half-way through the editing process, is informed by deci-sions made in the contextual process, and enables the writer/editor to check for directness, efficiency, and clarity in the document. According to J. C. Mathes and Dwight W. Stevenson [1], of the many grammatically correct forms a sentence may take, the form it does take derives from its context and the purpose of the unit or segment in which it falls.

This paper and workshop extend the work we have been doing on sentence patterns, in which we use contextual editing and systematic breakdown processes as tools for analyzing text and as methods for effective editing, to larger units of discourse. The purpose of the workshop is to present technical writers and editors with a rubric and a breakdown process to help writers build causal logic patterns of organization and argumentation into their docu-ments and to help editors identify and verify the effectiveness of those patterns. We will examine sections of actual technical and scientific docu-ments and apply the tools presented to editing them, demonstrating the dramatic difference in “be-fore” and “after” versions. The tools presented in the workshop can serve as guides for writers and checklists for editors, improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the writing/editing process.

2. Contextual Editing

To improve writing and editing, we would all agree that we must move beyond the level of the sentence to larger units of discourse. We are told that of the variety of grammatically correct forms a sentence may take, in scientific and technical writ-ing its form should derive from the purpose of the unit of discourse and from the context in which it is found. So we ask ourselves the following questions:

How can we help students, as well as techni-cal and professional writers, develop syntactic maturity and develop a style appropriate to their subject matter? How do we give them a deeper yet practical understanding of the genres in the field? How can we demonstrate what constitutes an effective technical style? What kinds of tools will help them revise their own work and edit the work of others?

151

Page 2: [IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

Mathes and Stevenson already provide a proce-dure for editing sentences in context. If we use this contextual editing procedure to analyze units of discourse in scientific and technical texts and com-bine it with an understanding of basic sentence pat-terns, we can analyze technical and scientific documents for effectiveness in terms of audience and purpose, develop a clearer understanding of what constitutes good style in different genres, and help our students identify and practice stylistics that will enable them to develop syntactic maturity.

The following is an adaptation of Mathes and Stevenson’s procedure for contextual editing. This procedure consists of a set of questions that we can use to analyze paragraphs, units (two or more re-lated paragraphs under a second-level heading), and segments (larger elements of discourse that contain two or more units under a first-level heading).

1. What is the purpose of the paragraph, unit, or segment? Is it informative or per-suasive?

2. Does the paragraph, unit, or segment have a core sentence or core paragraph that identifies a pattern for the discourse?

3. Can you identify the pattern and explain how it relates to the purpose of the para-graph, unit, or segment? Is the pattern ap-propriate? Is it followed?

4. Are there any variations in the pattern? If so, do they provide additional information to make the content understandable or do they fulfill a larger pattern for the overall discourse?

5. Pick out the subjects, verbs, and connec-tive words or phrases to see if they reflect and reinforce the pattern.

We can apply this procedure to the following passage from a technical document:

The steel system can be constructed more rap-idly than the masonry system. Steel columns can be erected much faster than concrete col-umns, which must be allowed to cure in their forms for two or three weeks. Steel wall pan-els can be placed much faster than block walls can be erected, so the prospect of delays caused by the masonry union can be elimi-nated. Insulation can be sprayed more rapidly than Styrofoam panels can be glued in place. Therefore, a steel system can be constructed in one-third to one-half the time a masonry system can be erected.

1. What is the purpose of the unit or seg-ment? To persuade the reader to adopt a steel system. Is it informative or persuasive? Persua-sive.

2. Does the unit or segment have a core sen-tence or core paragraph that identifies a pattern for the discourse? Yes: The steel system can be constructed more rapidly than the masonry system.

3. Can you identify the pattern and explain how it relates to the purpose of the unit or segment? It is a comparative pattern, and comparison is often used as a means of persuasion.Is the pattern appropriate? Yes, compari-son is a common pattern used for persua-sion.Is it followed? It appears to be because all sentences begin with a feature of the steel system and compare it to a feature of the masonry system.

4. Are there any breaks in the pattern? No. If so, do they provide additional information to make the content understandable or do they fulfill a larger pattern for the overall discourse?

5. Pick out the subjects, verbs, and connec-tive words or phrases to see if they reflect and reinforce the pattern. See Table 1.

The pattern in this paragraph is obvious, and it reinforces the comparative and persuasive purpose of the paragraph [see Table 1]. If we add the “un-derstood” verb in the latter half of the first sen-tence, this sentence looks almost like a balance with more rapidly than as the fulcrum. The syntactic structure of the core sentence actually reinforces the comparative pattern of the paragraph. Sentences 3, 4, and 5 make this pattern explicit and reinforce it by repetition. Since we are trying to convince read-ers to adopt a steel system, it is consistently men-tioned first in each sentence, which puts it in the dominant position. The first set of connectives rein-forces the notion of comparison because all of the connectives use the comparative form of the adverb or adjective followed by than (more rapidly than,much faster than; than and as are often used to sig-nal a comparison). In the second set, the connec-tives introduce independent and dependent clauses that provide additional evidence to build the case for steel systems.

152

Page 3: [IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

0-7803-9028-8/05/$20.00 © 2005 IEEE.

Table 1. Example of contextual editing.

Subject Verb Connectives Subject Verb Connec-tives

Steel system can be con-structed

more rapidly than

masonry sys-tem

[Understood: can be con-structed]

Steel columns can be erected much faster than

concrete col-umns

[Understood: can be erected]

which . . .

Steel wall panels can be placed much faster than

block walls can be erected so . . .

Insulation can be sprayed more rapidly than

Styrofoam panels

can be glued

Therefore [connec-tive that signals a conclusion], steel system

can be con-structed

1/3-1/2 time masonry sys-tem

can be erected

When we identify the comparative pattern, we notice that the same syntax appears in most of the sentences, and almost the same words appear in the syntactical slots. The consistency in the pattern is necessary to provide parallel construction that sup-ports the comparative pattern and persuasive pur-pose. When we examine the individual sentences, we notice that the subjects are substantive, and the verbs are strong verbs that express action. More-over, the redundancy of syntactic patterns and word choice provides us with a fail-safe. If we are hur-riedly reading the passage, there is enough repeti-tion that we find it hard to miss the patterns and the purpose of the paragraph. This repetition is another stylistic feature of this passage. Yet another way of thinking about the patterns that are foregrounded by the contextual editing process is that the core sen-tence and the pattern that it reflects implies a con-tract between the writer and the reader that must be followed without significant deviations to be ful-filled.

3. Sample Genre for Persuasion

By using Mathes and Stevenson’s contextual ed-iting procedure, we provide students with tools to identify patterns appropriate to different technical and scientific genres, and we demonstrate to them how writers build unity, coherence, and emphasis into their writing—not word by word and sentence by sentence, but paragraph by paragraph and seg-ment by segment. We determine which genre would be appropriate and then use it as the outline for developing the content of the discourse. In this way, we help students recognize syntactic units lar-ger than the sentence, reconstruct the genres them-

selves, and deconstruct conventional genres. The modes of discourse—long outmoded—suddenly become relevant again because they become the patterns for paragraphs, units, and segments that, taken together, build the logical underpinnings of the discourse. We can enter into a dialogue about how to arrange and combine these patterns (modes) to better achieve our purposes with our audiences. We can also demonstrate how these patterns are the building blocks for the genres we teach.

When we teach persuasive genres, such as in the example below, we demonstrate to students that each major section of the discourse is composed of patterns that help construct a logical argument.

Problem/solution (Executive Summary) BackgroundCriteria to evaluate the evidence: 1, 2, 3 Support:

Alternative A (and how it meets criteria 1, 2, 3)

Alternative B (and how it meets criteria 1, 2, 3)

Alternative C (etc.)Restatement of the solution and summary of

conclusions and recommendations AppendicesWe can discuss how the Executive Summary fol-

lows a specific pattern based on a description of the problem and investigation, followed by the solution and recommendations. The Background section might be a combination descriptive and process segment arranged chronologically. The Criteria sec-tion would be an analytic section arranged from most to least important. The Support section will

153

Page 4: [IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

most likely be a comparative segment in which the alternatives are described and then analyzed in terms of how well they meet the criteria. The Re-statement of the solution and summary of conclu-sions and recommendations will often be a compi-lation (another analytical pattern) of the conclu-sions and recommendations found at the end of each alternative unit. This kind of analysis enables students to see how the patterns or modes of dis-course are used in each of the segments of dis-course and how the segments are combined logi-cally to present a coherent argument.

The contextual editing procedure, combined with the genres, helps students identify the logical struc-ture of the discourse and demonstrates to them the unity and coherence of the various segments in achieving a particular purpose with an audience. They can then perform a similar analysis on the documents they write or edit and feel confident that they will do a creditable job. If we accomplish these ends, we can count ourselves successful. But we contend that in addition to technical and logical proficiency, we can use this method to enhance our students’ critical thinking skills by encouraging them to reflect on the semantics as well as the syn-tactics of the discourse.

To demonstrate how contextual editing can be used to enhance critical thinking and reasoning skills, let us take a second look at our paragraph on steel versus concrete systems.

When we look back at the table identifying sub-jects, verbs, and connectives [see Table 1], we no-tice that the first sentence, the core sentence, makes the claim that steel systems can be constructed faster than concrete systems. The last sentence sub-stantiates that claim by telling us that steel systems can be constructed in one-third to one-half the time needed to construct masonry systems. These two sentences frame the evidence that supports the claim. Sentences 2, 3, and 4 provide us with the evidence:

Sentence 2: Steel columns can be erected much faster than concrete col-umns, which must be allowed to cure in their forms for two or three weeks.

Sentence 3: Steel wall panels can be placed much faster than block walls can be erected, so the prospect of de-

lays caused by the masonry un-ion can be eliminated.

Sentence 4: Insulation can be sprayed more rapidly than Styrofoam panels can be glued in place.

As stated, the evidence presented in these three sentences is true. However, when we closely exam-ine each of these supportive statements, we find that we are not given all of the information neces-sary to choose between the two systems. For exam-ple, Sentence 2 tells us that concrete columns must be allowed to cure in their frames for two to three weeks. That is true. However, it does not mention that contractors can purchase pre-cured concrete columns. Sentence 3 claims that since it takes more time to erect block walls, we might be delayed by a strike of the masonry workers. But what if the steelworkers also go out on a sympathy strike or, worse yet, the teamsters go on strike and no one gets supplies? How likely is it that any strike will be held? This knowledge leads us to question the relevance of a strike threat. Sentence 4 assumes that there is only one way to insulate a steel structure and one way to insulate a masonry structure—not true. Closer examination of the supporting state-ments raises questions about how convincing they are. Moreover, to question the “evidence” pre-sented, we have to go outside the confines of the document and have enough knowledge of the con-struction industry to raise these objections.

What lesson do we learn from these exercises? When we construct arguments, the arguments should have two characteristics: validity and truth. Validity is a function of form. The form of these arguments is valid. By teaching our students how to become masters of syntax and structure, we will help them build the validity of form into their ar-guments and their documents. However, to develop their critical thinking skills, we have to challenge their assumptions, raise ethical concerns, and look beyond the evidence presented to help them con-struct arguments that are not only valid, but true.

4. A Breakdown Process for Style

We can construct rubrics or breakdown proc-esses based on the stylistic features that we want to emphasize in the discourse. These breakdown proc-esses provide the students with a set of systematic procedures that lead them through the editing proc-ess to check for the effectiveness of sentences, grammar, punctuation, and usage. They thereby

154

Page 5: [IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

move from contextual editing that illuminates the structure of the entire discourse to editing that veri-fies units smaller than the paragraph. The break-down process reproduced in Figure 1 is just one of seven that we have designed to teach students strategies for systematic revision or editing.

Using this process, students can check for strong subjects and verbs, as discussed by Mathes and Stevenson [1], as well as given/new information, active and passive voice, transitions, nominaliza-tions, jargon, and wordiness, as discussed by Kris-tin R. Woolever [2]. We have found that checking for strong subjects and verbs first resolves many other editorial issues. For example, a nominaliza-tion is a verb that has been converted to a noun. Thus checking for strong verbs highlights instances in which the main action has been nominalized.

Check for Strong Subjects and Verbs 1. Replace weak subjects (there, it, this)

with strong subjects. 2. Replace weak verbs (be, say, tell, do,

have, make) with strong action verbs.

Apply the Given / New Principle 3. Begin each sentence [subject] with infor-

mation reader knows.4. End each sentence [predicate] with infor-

mation new to the reader.5. Check that predicate of sentence links to

subject of next sentence.

Verify Active and Passive Voice 6. Verify that the voice is appropriate.

a. If the most important information is who did something, the sentence should be in active voice.

b. If the most important information is what was done, the sentence should be in passive voice.

Verify Transitions 7. Use explicit and implicit transitions be-

tween sentences.

Convert Inappropriate Nominalizations 8. Convert inappropriate nominalizations to

verbs and adjectives.a. If the nominalization is commonly used

with reference to the topic, leave the nominalization.

b. If the nominalization is not commonly used with reference to the topic, con-vert it.

Remove Inappropriate Jargon 9. Remove inappropriate jargon.

a. If the audience will understand the jar-gon, leave the jargon.

b. If the audience will not understand the jargon, remove it.

Remove Unnecessary Words 10. Remove unnecessary words.

Figure 1. Breakdown process for style.

We can illustrate the breakdown process for style using the following passage from a scientific text:

(1) There are risk levels (2) below which we have no reason to worry (3) because they are still not very different from the risk (4) that

155

Page 6: [IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

we already experience. (5) People living in countries (6) where the age-specific mortality rate is less than twice the reference rate are not likely to consider their domicile frighten-ing. (7) They live in industrialized countries (8) that are usually considered “safe.” If (9) the mortality rate is higher, (10) they live in countries (11) where life is often considered not quite safe. [3]

4.1. Strong Subjects and Verbs

First, we must identify the subjects and verbs in each sentence to see if they are strong or weak. Weak subjects include expletives and pronouns such as there, it, or this. Weak verbs include forms of to be or verbs such as say, tell, do, have, or make. In Table 2, we list the subject and verb pair for each independent and dependent clause in the passage, labeled numerically. As shown, only one of the subjects is weak; however, most of the other subjects are not concrete nouns but pronouns. Six of the eleven verbs are forms of to be or to have;thus, the majority of verbs are weak. We can clarify the passage by replacing some of the weak subjects and verbs with strong subjects and verbs.

Table 2. Strong subjects and verbs.

Subject Verb 1 there are 2 we have3 they are4 we experience 5 people are6 rate is7 they live 8 that are considered 9 rate is10 they live 11 life is considered 1 / 11 weak sub-

jects6 / 11 weak verbs

To clarify the passage, we need to identify the main action of each sentence, or clause, and the subject that corresponds to that action. For instance, the first sentence consists of the following four clauses:

1. There are risk levels 2. below which we have no reason to worry 3. because they are still not very different

from the risk

4. that we already experience.

We can infer that the main action of this sentence is either to worry or to alarm. The semantic meanings of these two words differ based on who or what is acting. If we is the subject, then the verb should be to worry, a verb that requires an animate agent. If risk levels is the subject, then the verb should be toalarm, as this verb expresses the reaction of an animate agent to an objective situation (risk levels). To determine whether the subject and verb should be we worry or risk levels alarm, we need to know the purpose of the text as a whole. The title of the entire text is “How Safe Is Safe Enough?” [3], which indicates that its purpose is to determine ac-ceptable risk levels. Therefore, the phrase risk lev-els should serve as the subject and the verb should be a form of to alarm: “…Risk levels…alarm….”

At this point, we can complete the sentence by replacing the modifiers. For example, we can ask which risk levels should or should not be alarming. Based on the text, we can surmise that those risk levels that correspond to risk levels already present in the environment should not be alarming. Alterna-tively, those risk levels that are higher than those levels already present should be alarming. Again, we must refer to the purpose of the text to deter-mine which alternative is correct. The first sentence of this passage reads as follows: “These expressions may help us to find what might be called a ‘negli-gible’ or ‘insignificant’ risk rate” [3]. Therefore, the first alternative should be selected. We can rewrite the sentence as follows:

Risk levels below the levels that we already experience should not be alarming.

We can take the same approach to the second sentence, which consists of two clauses. In this sen-tence, the second clause is a dependent clause sepa-rating the subject and verb of the main or independ-ent clause:

1. People living in countries…are not likely to consider their domicile frightening.

2. where the age-specific mortality rate is less than twice the reference rate

Again, we need to identify the main action of the sentence and its corresponding subject. The main action in the sentence seems to be to consider, a verb that requires an animate agent. The subject that corresponds to the verb is people and the direct object of the verb is their domicile:

156

Page 7: [IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

“…People…consider their domicile….” The rest of the sentence consists of modifiers identifying which domicile and when people are or are not frightened. We can rewrite the sentence as follows:

People living in countries where the age-specific mortality rate is less than twice the reference rate probably do not consider their domicile frightening.

Both the third and fourth sentences have stronger subjects and verbs, so we can leave them as is. Our rewritten passage reads as follows [see Table 3 for the corresponding breakdown of subjects and verbs]:

(1) Risk levels below the levels (2) that we al-ready experience should not be alarming. (3) People living in countries (4) where the age-specific mortality rate is less than twice the reference rate probably do not consider their domicile frightening. (5) They live in industri-alized countries (6) that are usually considered “safe.” If (7) the mortality rate is higher, (8) they live in countries (9) where life is often considered not quite safe.

Table 3. Strong subjects and verbs.

Subject Verb 1 levels should (not) be alarming 2 we experience 3 people do (not) consider 4 rate is5 they live 6 that are considered 7 rate is8 they live 9 life is considered 0 / 9 weak sub-

jects2 / 9 weak verbs

As shown in Table 3, many of the verbs are now strong verbs. However, if we consider the subjects and verbs in isolation, it is difficult to determine whether the topic of the passage is “people,” indi-cated by subjects such as we, people, they, and life,or “risk,” indicated by subjects such as levels and rate. Similarly, the predominate verb is to consider,a verb that does not seem to capture the main action of the passage. We can address these problems by applying the given/new principle and examining transitions.

4.2. Given/New Principle, Voice, and Transitions

According to the given/new principle, the subject of each sentence should provide information the reader knows while the predicate should introduce new information. This principle focuses on the logical flow between sentences, a feature that our example seems to lack. Given the title and the first sentence of the text, the topic of this passage seems to be risk levels. However, the subjects of the four sentences do not emphasize this topic. We can ex-amine the flow of the sentences in terms of given and new information [see Table 4].

While the topic of the passage is risk, the subject in three out of four sentences is people, or the pro-noun they, which refers to people. Given the pur-pose and topic of the text and the first sentence of the passage, we can infer that the author is attempt-ing to define what is meant by the phrase levels that we already experience. The important information does not seem to be whether or not people consider their domiciles frightening but how risk levels cor-respond to age-specific mortality rate.

Table 4. Given and new information.

Given New 1 risk levels below the

levels that we al-ready experience

should not be alarm-ing

2 people living in countries where the age-specific mortal-ity rate is less than twice the reference rate

probably do not con-sider their domicile frightening

3 they live in industrialized countries that are usu-ally considered “safe”

4 if the mortality rate is higher, they

live in countries where life is often considered not safe

Furthermore, the author is attempting to present this information using a parallel pattern. In sen-tences 2 and 4, the author associates the mortality rate with feelings of alarm. However, in sentences 3 and 4, the author associates the mortality rate with industrialization. So we can ask whether it is a feel-ing of alarm or industrialization that indicates risk. Assuming that it is the latter, an assumption that

157

Page 8: [IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

would have to be verified with the author, we can rewrite the passage as follows:

(1) Risk levels below the levels that we al-ready experience should not be alarming. (2) The age-specific mortality rate in industrial-ized countries, which are usually considered “safe,” is less than twice the reference rate. (3) If the mortality rate is higher, the country is often considered unsafe.

The number of weak subjects and strong verbs has not changed appreciably (0 weak subjects and 2 weak verbs); however, both the pattern of and the flow between sentences is much clearer. [See Table 5.]

Table 5. Given and new information.

Given New 1 risk levels below the

levels that we al-ready experience

should not be alarm-ing

2 the age-specific mor-tality rate [refers to risk levels]

in industrialized countries, which are usually considered “safe,” is less than twice the reference rate

3 if the mortality rate [refers to risk levels] is higher [refers to twice the reference rate],

the country is often considered unsafe.

The first sentence defines negligible risk levels in terms of risk already experienced. The second and third sentences relate risk level to mortality rate in industrialized and non-industrialized countries, respectively.

Next, we can check for active and passive voice. When checking for passive voice, we advocate that students consider whether the focus of the text is who did something or what was done. Very often in technical and scientific writing, what was done is more important than who did it. In these cases, we recommend that the text be left in passive voice.

In the example, there are two instances of pas-sive voice. In the second sentence, the dependent clause “which [countries] are usually considered ‘safe’” is in passive voice. In the third sentence, the

independent clause “country is often considered unsafe” also is in passive voice. Neither clause specifies who is considering the countries safe or unsafe. In both cases, we would argue that the main point of the clause is not who considers the coun-tries but rather what the countries are considered: unsafe. Thus we would not revise the clauses. However, if the same text were in an article com-paring safety levels by country, the question of who is doing the assessing, or measuring, would be critical.

The next step in editing for style consists of veri-fying transitions. Transitions indicate, whether ex-plicitly or implicitly, the logical flow of the sen-tence. Specifically, transitions can be used to con-nect given and new information. Explicit transitions include conjunctions and introductory phrases; whereas implicit transitions refer to connections made through meaning. In our example below, ex-plicit transitions are indicated by a single underline and implicit transitions by various underline styles.

Risk levels below the levels that we already experience should not be alarming. The age-specific mortality rate in industrialized coun-tries, which are usually considered “safe,” is less than twice the reference rate. If the mor-tality rate is higher, the country is often con-sidered unsafe.

There are two examples of implicit transitions in the passage. In the first example, indicated by a double underline, the meaning of the phrase that we already experience implies a connection with the later references to countries. In the second example, indicated by a dotted underline, the meaning of the phrase age-specific mortality rate implies a connec-tion with the later reference to mortality rate. In this passage, the logical flow of the sentences is indi-cated by the order of the given and new information as well as by transitions; therefore, we do not have to change the transitions.

4.3. Nominalizations, Jargon, and Wordiness

We began with the relationship between the sub-ject and predicate, or verb, and then considered the logical flow between sentences from the perspec-tive of given/new information and transitions. The remaining steps of the breakdown process focus on editing at the word level. Specifically, we can now check for the use of inappropriate nominalizations or jargon and excessive wordiness. Many of these

158

Page 9: [IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

problems, however, have usually been resolved by this point.

A nominalization is a verb or an adjective that has been turned into a noun. Whether or not the nominalization is appropriate depends on the topic and context. If a nominalization is commonly used with reference to the topic or within the context of the passage, we recommend that it be left. How-ever, if the nominalization is not commonly used, converting it back to a verb or adjective may clarify the passage. In our example, neither the original nor the rewritten passage contains any nominalizations.

In addition to nominalizations, text may contain inappropriate jargon. Whether the jargon is appro-priate or not depends on the audience. If the audi-ence will understand the jargon, we advocate that it be left. Among specialists, technical terms provide a precise and efficient method of communication. If the audience will not understand the jargon, then we would rewrite it. For example, we can identify several technical terms in the rewritten passage that may be considered jargon, depending on the audi-ence:

Risk levels below the levels that we already experience should not be alarming. The age-specific mortality rate in industrialized coun-tries, which are usually considered “safe,” is less than twice the reference rate. If the mor-tality rate is higher, the country is often con-sidered unsafe.

While most readers would understand the phrase mortality rate, the phrases risk levels and reference rate could be considered jargon. However, we ex-tracted the sample passage from a lecture to the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements. For an audience of radiation physi-cists, these two phrases probably constitute com-mon terminology in their field. However, a lay au-dience would consider the phrases jargon. If we were editing this passage for a lay audience, we would have to define the terms explicitly.

The last step in the breakdown process is the re-moval of excessive wordiness. Specifically, we should check for concise language and efficient phrases as well as eliminate vague or obvious quali-fiers or strings of qualifiers. We can compare the number of words in the original and rewritten ver-sions of our sample passage for an estimate of their

relative wordiness. The original passage, shown below, contained 78 words:

There are risk levels below which we have no reason to worry because they are still not very different from the risk that we already experi-ence. People living in countries where the age-specific mortality rate is less than twice the reference rate are not likely to consider their domicile frightening. They live in indus-trialized countries that are usually considered “safe.” If the mortality rate is higher, they live in countries where life is often considered not quite safe.

However, the final version of the passage contains only 44 words:

Risk levels below the levels that we already experience should not be alarming. The age-specific mortality rate in industrialized coun-tries, which are usually considered “safe,” is less than twice the reference rate. If the mor-tality rate is higher, the country is often con-sidered unsafe.

By using contextual editing and editing for style, we have condensed and clarified the passage as well as strengthened the presentation of the topic and improved the logical flow of the sentences.

What becomes apparent to students is that if they identify the audience and purpose of the discourse and determine what genre would be most appropri-ate, they then have a basic outline for the discourse. Moreover, if they perform a contextual edit first, they will catch many of the single sentence errors as well as ensure that the sentences in the para-graphs, units, and segments are appropriate to the context in which they appear. Finally, by using the breakdown process, they have a double check at a more basic level of complexity or from a stylistic perspective so that they can identify any remaining errors.

5. Conclusion

As Mathes and Stevenson emphasize, the correct form of a sentence depends on its context and pur-pose. Taking their concept of contextual editing as a starting point and integrating editorial issues dis-cussed by Woolever, we have suggested a process approach that addresses strong and weak subjects and verbs, given and new information, active and

159

Page 10: [IEEE IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication Conference, 2005. - Limerick, Ireland (July 7, 2005)] IPCC 2005. Proceedings. International Professional Communication

2005 IEEE International Professional Communication Conference Proceedings

passive voice, transitions, nominalizations, jargon, and wordiness. The process approach to editing and revision that we have been describing consists of a set of heuristics that improve the students’ revision and editing skills because they help students shift perspective in analyzing and improving the effec-tiveness of documents. They enable the students to move systematically from audience and purpose to genre and context and finally to style and correct-ness. The deeper understanding of structure and logic that the students acquire makes them more confident of the refinements they make in a docu-ment and provides them with ways of justifying and explaining their suggested changes to the authors of the documents.

References

[1] J.C. Mathes and Dwight W. Stevenson. Design-ing Technical Reports: Writing for Audiences in Organizations. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs Merrill, 1976.

[2] Kristin R. Woolever. Writing for the Technical Professions. 2nd ed. New York: Addison-Wesley Educational Publishers, Inc., 2002.

[3] Bo Lindell. How Safe Is Safe Enough? The Lauriston S. Taylor Lecture Series in Radiation Protection and Measurements. Bethesda, MD: Na-tional Council on Radiation Protection and Meas-urements. 1988. 30.

About the Authors

Victoria M. Mikelonis, Director of Undergraduate Programs in Scientific & Technical Communication and Professor of Rhetoric, has been conducting re-search in writing and editing at the University of Minnesota for the last four years. She is a co-author of Grant Seeking in an Electronic Age, and is the co-author of a paper which won the award for best paper at the 2004 IPCC. She is also active in inter-nationalizing the curriculum and does field research and teaching in intercultural communication. E-mail: [email protected]; phone: 612-624-6206

Helen Constantinides is a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Minnesota. She has been active in writing and editing research and served as editorial assistant for Technical Communication Quarterly for several years. She is a co-author of a paper which won the award for best paper at the 2004 IPCC and has published in IEEE Transactions on

Professional Communication, the Quarterly Jour-nal of Speech, Technical Communication Quar-terly, and Technical Communication. E-mail: [email protected].

160