Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals: A Survey of Style and Grammatical Metaphor (Document Design Companion Series, V. 4)

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Document Design Companion Series document design companion series accompanies the journal document design and focuses on internal and external communication of medium sized to multinational corporations, governmental bodies, non-profit organizations, as well as media, health care, educational and legal institutions, etc. The series promotes works that combine aspects of (electronic) discourse — written, spoken and visual — with aspects of text quality (function, institutional setting, culture). They are problem driven, methodologically innovative, and focused on effectivity of communication. All manuscripts are peer reviewed. document design is ‘designed’ for: information managers, researchers in discourse studies and organization studies, text analysts, and communication specialists.

Editors Jan Renkema

Maria Laura Pardo

Ruth Wodak

Tilburg University

University of Buenos Aires

Austrian Academy of Sciences

Editorial Address Jan Renkema Tilburg University Discourse Studies Group P.O.Box 90153 NL 5000 LE TILBURG The Netherlands E-mail: [email protected]

Volume 4 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals: A survey of style and grammatical metaphor by Inger Lassen

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals A survey of style and grammatical metaphor

Inger Lassen Aalborg University

John Benjamins Publishing Company Amsterdam
/
Philadelphia

8

TM

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences – Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ansi z39.48-1984.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Lassen, Inger, 1951Accessibility and acceptability in technical manuals : a survey of style and grammatical metaphor / Inger Lassen. p. cm. (Document Design Companion Series, issn 1568–1963 ; v. 4) Includes bibliographical references and indexes. 1. Technical writing. 2. Technical manuals. 3. Readability (Literary style) I. Title. T11 .L28 2003 808’.0666-dc21 isbn 90 272 3204 0 (Eur.) / 58811 362 0 (US) (Hb; alk. paper)

2003043711

© 2003 – John Benjamins B.V. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form, by print, photoprint, microfilm, or any other means, without written permission from the publisher. John Benjamins Publishing Co. · P.O. Box 36224 · 1020 me Amsterdam · The Netherlands John Benjamins North America · P.O. Box 27519 · Philadelphia pa 19118-0519 · usa

Table of contents

Preface Introduction Chapter 1 Research disciplines and methods Overview of technical communication research Applied linguistics Text analysis and discourse analysis Systemic Functional Linguistics Chapter 2 Field, tenor and mode dimensions Register and genre theory Register in Systemic Functional Grammar Register theory and textual variation Field Tenor Mode Towards a hypothesis on the relationship between grammatical metaphor and text inaccessibility Chapter 3 Register analysis Description of text versions used in the survey Lexical density Grammatical intricacy at clause level Discussion of lexical density and grammatical intricacy at the levels of clause, group and phrase Grammatical metaphor What can a theory on grammatical metaphor achieve The metaphorical construction potential of language Categorization of types of grammatical metaphor Resources in language for creating grammatical metaphor

xi xiii

1 1 3 4 5

7 7 8 9 9 10 10 15

17 17 18 19 22 24 24 26 31 31

vi

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Summary of metaphorical realizations Application of grammatical metaphor theory Results from analysing the texts

50 51 60

Chapter 4 Categorizing text through genre analysis Varying views on genre Aims and objectives An overview of text part labels used in three traditions Genre according to Bhatia and Swales Genre according to Longacre Genre according to Systemic Functional Linguistics Coming to terms with Martin’s generic labels Advantages of using Martin’s model An SFL-inspired model for analysis of technical manuals Logico-Semantic relations between stages Stages The linguistic realization of stages Communicative purposes Applying the model for text extract selection purposes Linguistic realizations in the texts used Accessibility, acceptability and discourse community Towards a hypothesis about text acceptability and discourse communities

65 65 66 66 68 68 69 70 71 72 72 73 74 74 75 76 77 77

Chapter 5 Research methods and survey Research methods Data collection methods Sampling methods Reliability Validity Mixing methods The survey The questionnaire The text versions Interpreting the quantitative results Text choices: Text 1–6, accessibility Conclusions, texts 1–6 accessibility Text choices, texts 1–6: acceptability Conclusions, texts 1–6 acceptability

79 79 79 80 81 82 82 83 85 85 87 88 97 97 102

Table of contents vii

Conclusions, texts 7 and 8: accessibility and acceptability Text choices, short sentences: texts 1–6, accessibility Conclusions: Short sentences, accessibility and acceptability Choices, sentence pairs Conclusions: sentence pair correlations Comments and open questions Interviews Testing hypothesis 2: limits to acceptability

106 107 112 113 116 118 122 126

Chapter 6 Information structure Theories of information structure Halliday’s approach to information structure Other approaches Chafe’s approach to information structure Choosing a model Grammatical metaphor and information structure Forming a new hypothesis on the basis of Chafe’s theory Testing the hypothesis Results and discussion Summary and conclusions

127 127 127 128 129 131 132 134 134 136 143

Chapter 7 The technical manual as social semiotic Social semiotics Meaning-making as a two-directional concept Logonomic systems and constraints on meaning-making Logonomic systems and constraints on meaning-making in technical manuals Analysis of meaning-making constraints in fault-ªnding procedure: Production regimes/reception regimes Summary

155 160

Chapter 8 Discussion and conclusions Conclusions concerning features inherent in style Conclusions concerning impact of style on accessibility and acceptability Didactic implications

161 162 163 166

References

169

145 146 147 147 154

viii Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Appendix Questionnaire in English

175

Name index Subject index

179 181

Table of contents

Symbols

Genre analysis Symbols X^Y *Y (X) X {X^Y} Text extracts Clauses:

a b Parataxis: 1 2 Paratactic relation: Hypotaxis: × + Hypotactic relation: Values: H M L Senctence boundary: Embedded clause: Constituent boundary: Lexical word: Paradigmatic metaphor: Ideational metaphor: Textural metaphor: Compound noun: The passive voice: Interpersonal metaphor: New information: Accessible information: Given information:

Meaning Stage X precedes stage Y (ªxed order) Stage Y is an unordered stage Stage X is an optional stage Stage X is a recursive stage Stages X and Y are both recursive in the ªxed order X then Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

main clause sub-ordinate clause clause one clause two / enhancing (is multiplied by) extending (is added to) // high medium low # {} * lexical word paradigmatic metaphor bold

= = = = = =

(CAPS IN BRACKETS) [CAPS IN SQUARE BRACKETS] italics nw ac gv

ix

Preface

We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the ªrst time. (T. S.Eliot, Four Quartets)1

Engaging in theoretical thought may be a rewarding and useful occupation that provides greater insight into ªelds of particular interest. Along similar lines, writing a thesis of any kind is a long process of learning, and whoever engages in this process will realize that exploration never ends. Instead it will at times return to its point of departure and let the explorer “know a place for the ªrst time” as T. S. Eliot once said. Knowing a place for the ªrst time after having visited it before is a result of re¶ection. And it is through re¶ection that we are able to conceptualize ideas, which are generated through experience and later empirically tested through comparison and contrasting. Writing the present book has convinced me that there is a lot of truth in T. S. Eliot’s observation. When I began this project, I had a working knowledge of the genre of technical manuals. Now — four years later — I realize that my understanding of the genre has changed. This does not mean that I can claim proªciency as expert writer of technical manuals, but my view of the genre is generally more varied than it was. In other words, I have revisited the place and recognized the sensation of knowing it for the ªrst time; it is however, important to bear in mind that a place may be revisited several times and that learning is an ongoing process. Another important point to stress is that learning processes — although mostly enjoyable — do have their mildly painful moments. And it is in such moments of slight distress that the advice and moral support of fellow human beings is highly appreciated. I wish to express my sincere gratitude to the following friends, colleagues and associates, who in various ways helped the process along: Torben Borg (AAU), Jens Peter Hovelsø (AAU), Henrik Kaagaard (AAU), Jørgen Bornæs, Lisbeth Kjeldgaard (Cosan Crisplant A/S, Aarhus), Michael Hougaard, Copenhagen, Dancall, Pandrup (now Bosch A/S), Guy Cook (Reading University), John Kirkman (Marlborough, UK), Heikki Nyyssönen (Oulu University), 1. Cited in Kolb (1984, p. 20), Experiential learning. New Jersey, Prentice Hall.

xii Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Tim O’Connor (president of DANTEKOM), Mogens Bech, Alliance Sprogservice, Aarhus, Kirsten Aakjær (LAK). And a group of math students from the Department of Electronic Systems, who assisted me in the analysis of data, using the programme CoCo: Birgit Mortensen, Niels Zeuthen, Henrik Thomsen, Bjarke Klein and Claus Dethlefsen. And I am also endebted to NORFA (Nordisk Forskerutdanningsakademi, Oslo), who made it possible for me to spend six weeks as visiting scholar at Oulu University in Finland and to Michael Halliday, who read through and gave invaluable comments to one of my papers during his visit to Aalborg and Copenhagen in 1997. And above all there is the professional assistance I received from Professor Torben Vestergaard, who was my supervisor all along and painstakingly read through all papers presented to him. I am grateful to him for many valuable comments. And ªnally I owe a word of gratitude to my husband, Svend Aage Lassen, for specialist advice on technical issues and for the moral support he was able to oŸer throughout the process. However, in spite of the many comments received, I was the person to decide whether to act upon them, and I consequently assume responsbility for any misrepresentations, errors or shortcomings in the present thesis. Inger Lassen Aalborg University 2003

Introduction

In a world characterized by internationalization and cross-cultural communication, not only across national borders, but also across institutional boundaries, technical communication as a variety of Language for Speciªc Purposes has become an increasingly important activity for technical specialists, translators and technical writers alike. This fact combined with burgeoning recognition that effective technical communication has a potential for saving time, costs and human lives has gradually led to growing interest in the ªeld, and although, as a ªeld of research, technical communication is still not developed to any signiªcant degree, the past 20 years have seen a surge in terminology research as well as in translation studies in Denmark and abroad. However, in LSP research focusing on technical language, the emphasis has so far been on terminology. But everybody who reads technical language on a regular basis will accept that there is more to effective communication than terminology as also witnessed by the emergence of the UK-based plain language movement, who speak ardently in favour of improving the clarity, brevity, accuracy and accessibility of texts for the general public — objectives that cannot be fulªlled without addressing also syntactic structures. Although the plain style movement has primarily focused on legal language, their ideas seem to have gained a foothold also in the universe of technical writing. But even if textbooks on technical language seem to respond to this general call for greater accessibility by recommending a plainer style that would “remove technology from an elitist environment and give it to people” (Killingsworth and Gilbertson, 1992: 139), many technical texts still court failure because readers ªnd them incomprehensible. According to textbooks, the recommendations for clarity, brevity, accuracy and accessibility involve a style that makes use of personal pronouns, human subjects and active verbs. Such style would be personal rather than impersonal and sentences would be short rather than long. However, when it comes to technical texts written for the industrial market, more often than not, we will see a writing style that does not follow the recommendations. Now, to be effective, communication about technical matters will require technical knowledge, which is an asset held by the community of engineers in particular. Therefore engineers and other technical specialists representing the sphere of production will communicate with ease information that non-specialists will have di¹culty in consuming, — an observation borne out by comments from students attending technical communi-

xiv Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

cation classes. The technical translator or communicator thus seems to be caught in the dilemma of having to choose between essentially two style options in an attempt to mediate between “the production and consumption side” of technical information, to use Killingsworth and Gilbertson’s term (1992: 162). And mediation of this kind may further be constrained by possible con¶icting interests of specialists and non-specialists since these discourse communities have different identities and goals. Faced with a similar dilemma as instructor of technical English classes, I have been concerned with the inevitable tension between norms prescribed by textbooks and merciless reality presented in natural texts — tension that I believe surfaces in the concept of text acceptability. For acceptability demarcates the zone within which the accessibility of texts can be improved or impaired, as the case may be, without sacriªcing the quality of the text. Text quality is a concept that is discussed by Nordborg Nielsen (1994: 91–108) in relation to translation work. Nielsen suggests that to guarantee the quality of a translation, it is important to strive for neutrality — (Nordborg Nielsen’s term for acceptability) — since translations which are not neutral will attract attention and therefore obstruct the reading process. If the syntactic structures of the source text are transferred into the target language, the result will cause the reader to react as follows: Jeg forstår nok, hvad der menes, men man siger ikke sådan (I understand what is meant, but this is not the normal way of putting it) (ibid.: 93). As noted by Nordborg Nielsen, the situation of text quality obstructing text neutrality arises when the translator does not observe the norms and conventions applying to the target language. And so, by analogy, the neutrality of technical texts written in a target language is at stake if unconventional structures predominate. Against this background, the scope of manoevre of the technical communicator becomes extremely relevant. It is important to know to what extent the style of a text may be changed before it is considered unacceptable, thereby losing credibility as text. But it is equally important to know whether a change of style will actually make the text more accessible. To be able to answer these questions, the focus of research needs to be shifted in the direction of syntax — a shift that would at the same time help ªll a gap in the research activities traditionally associated with technical language. Keeping in mind the paradoxical mismatch between the style usually recommended by textbooks on technical English and the style prevailing in most technical literature, the questions relating to accessibility and acceptability were addressed from the angle of syntax. The purposes of this commitment were threefold: First, as an overall purpose, I wished to examine whether it is possible to say that certain style features are more accessible than others. Secondly, I intended to asses whether some style features are preferable to any alternative options in terms of acceptability, and, if possible, to explain why. I investigated these issues both from the angle

Introduction

of the text and from the angle of the reader/user by studying the interplay of accessibility and acceptability in texts extracted from technical manuals. These tasks were approached — partly by looking at stylistic features in the text under the umbrella term of grammatical metaphor — partly by looking at the situation of the reader by placing the texts analysed in the wider contexts of situation, culture and ideology. And as a third commitment, I assessed whether my ªndings were likely to have didactic implications for the technical communication class.

Deªnitions Till this moment I have been referring to accessibility, acceptability and style without making clear how these notions should be understood. For accessibility I shall adopt a deªnition suggested by Klare (1963) for one of the potential meanings of the quasi-synonym readability which has been suggested to be: “Ease of understanding or comprehension due to the style of writing”. Acceptability, on the other hand, seems to involve the reader and the text in an interactive process, in which the reader assesses whether the text has qualities which make the style appropriate for the situation. The question remains whether such appropriateness — in addition to appropriateness of style — should also be taken to embrace grammatical aspects. However, in technical communication precision and accuracy are crucial factors, and since ungrammatical language may adversely in¶uence comprehensibility, I shall take acceptability to denote grammatical acceptability as well as stylistic acceptability. Following De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) acceptability is then “the text receiver’s attitude in communication when they accept a given language conªguration as a cohesive and coherent text capable of utilization”. The third concept to be deªned is style. Traditionally, stylistics has been studied under the umbrella terms of literary stylistics and general stylistics. Of these I am concerned with the latter, which has been studied by a great many linguists including e.g. Crystal and Davy (1969), Carter and Nash (1990) Halliday (1994) and Enkvist (1971). In his essay On deªning Style (1971: 3–55), Enkvist refers to style as choice between words with similar meanings. The choice is determined by the context in which the utterance is made and he sees stylistic choice as “the context-bound use of style markers” (1971: 35), style markers being deªned as contextually bound linguistic elements. Another important point he makes is that for a text to be stylistically predictable, knowledge of the contextual hierarchy is needed, and it will be found that e.g. a socially deªnable category of people will follow the same norm in terms of style (1971: 38). This means that texts written by authors with the same social background would display less

xv

xvi Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

textual variation measured in terms of density of a particular style feature, such as e.g. the active versus the passive voice (1971: 41). There is not necessarily any contradiction between Enkvist’s deªnition and deªnitions suggested by critical discourse analysts (e.g. Hodge and Kress, 1988; Martin, 1992; Fairclough 1992). To Hodge and Kress (1988), style may be deªned as a cluster of signs — a deªnition that Killingsworth and Gilbertson (1992: 138) take to heart and refer to as “a cluster of textual traits”. Clusters of textual traits are important in that they shape style, which according to Killingsworth and Gilbertson (1992) is motivated by “the social and historical development of technology” on the one hand and “the shared values and collective image of a group” on the other. However, the difference between mainstream stylistics and stylistics as studied from the angle of critical discourse analysis is to be found in the notion of context. To the mainstream stylistician context involves situational aspects, whereas to the critical discourse analyst, context embraces also social structure enveloped in ideology. In the present study I have adopted the deªnition suggested by Killingsworth and Gilbertson, bearing in mind their suggestion that style may be seen as “a set of techniques” for achieving and presenting a collective image. The corollary is that style is inextricably bound up with conventions found in culture. It is the way we normally do things. But at the same time style plays an important part in building group identiªcation with the purpose of establishing and maintaining values — a purpose emerging in the notion of ideology. Therefore, by studying the nature of “clusters of textual traits” I believe it will be possible to throw light on the relationship between language, situation, culture, ideology and social structure. Now, to study clusters of textual traits, a theory capable of providing a model for analysing text was needed and Systemic Functional Grammar seemed to be a relevant choice because Halliday’s register dimensions of ªeld, tenor and mode have been shown to in¶uence the style of language, and grammatical metaphor, which is the main focus in this book, forms part of style. In Systemic Functional Linguistics such in¶uence takes place in the context of situation. Secondly, to investigate acceptability, I devised a way of obtaining knowledge about reader attitudes. I approached this challenge through a questionnaire. Thirdly, because the interplay of accessibility and acceptability can only be studied through a theory that recognizes the interaction of reader and text, such a theory should allow for the in¶uence of factors other than those identiªable within the context of situation. According to conventional wisdom among Systemic Functional Linguists, such factors are to be found in the context of culture, which is a level described in genre theory. However, I found that it would hardly be possible to offer a complete picture of the interplay between accessibility and acceptability without looking more closely at reader backgrounds and their anchorage in ideology, and for this

Introduction xvii

purpose social semiotics as advocated by e.g. Hodge and Kress under the research discipline of critical discourse analysis seemed to be an appropriate choice for reasons that will become clearer as we move on. To sum up, the questions to be answered involved text analysis, discourse/genre analysis, and critical discourse analysis. These disciplines formed the research basis of this book as instances of applied linguistics, and the sum of analyses carried out will ªnd an outlet in real writing situations. Therefore, in Chapter 1, as a starting point, I will offer a brief overview of the disciplines involved, and, moreover, provide a general introduction to the methodological considerations underlying my work. In Chapter 2, I offer an introduction to the theory behind text analysis in Systemic Functional Linguistics, and I introduce the notion of grammatical metaphor. In Chapter 3, I extend the theory on grammatical metaphor developed by Halliday, by suggesting that a distinction be made between syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphor, and I categorize a number of new grammatical metaphor types under these two cover terms. The results from analysing a number of texts using the theory on grammatical metaphor introduced in Chapters 2 and 3 are shown, and a hypothesis is formed on the basis of the analyses made. In Chapter 4, I provide an overview of a number of genre analysis approaches with the purpose of identifying the approach that I ªnd the most suitable. My conclusion is that a combination of genre analysis approaches by the SF linguists Martin, Eggins and Hasan provide a useful tool for analysing the genre of technical manuals. On the basis of genre theory combined with the data at hand, a new hypothesis is formed. Chapter V provides an introduction to methodological issues and describes the survey carried out, offering a versatile range of empirical data. Furthermore, the hypotheses formed in chapters III and IV are tested and the results discussed. In consequence of a number of questions arising from testing the hypotheses, various theories on the ¶ow of discourse are introduced and discussed in Chapter VI, with the purpose of identifying a suitable theory for analysing the interplay of grammatical metaphor and information ¶ow in the texts used. Chafe’s theory, which is based on varying degrees of active consciousness, seems to be directly applicable to my data, and I therefore use a model based on this theory for analysing the ¶ow of discourse. The results of these analyses are shown and a third hypothesis is formed and tested in the same chapter. Chapter 7 takes the process in the direction of social semiotics and critical discourse analysis. The notions of culture and ideology are discussed and synthesized with other aspects of the survey to form a platform for a conclusion in Chapter 8.

Chapter 1

Research disciplines and methods

Over the past 20 years research within the ªeld of technical communication has attracted increasing attention, involving such research disciplines as applied linguistics, text, discourse and genre analysis, Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL) and more recently social semiotics. In what follows I shall therefore provide an overview of some of the research carried out within this particular ªeld of interest. The overview is followed by a general introduction to some necessary methodological concerns.

Overview of technical communication research In an article on science discourse and industrial hierarchy, Rose (1998: 236) calls attention to the lack of extensive exploration of science discourse in industrial production. While scientiªc research and training discourses have been covered in various literature (see e.g. Lemke 1990; see also Halliday and Martin 1993), there seems to be a gap in research on the relationship between these two discourse types and what is sometimes held to be their origin, viz. an industrial production platform and the language code pertaining to this level of activity. The code that Rose (1998: 238) refers to, is used at the bottom of an industrial hierarchy where, until recently in Australia — but presumably also in other parts of the western world — jobs were occupied by deskilled or semi-skilled labourers, who carried out predictable routine tasks under close supervision or proceduralised tasks under general supervision. Summarizing an Australian research project, Write it Right (Rose, McInnes and Korner 1992), which was commissioned to investigate literacy at all levels of industry with the purpose of establishing a multiskilling and retraining programme, Rose (ibid.: 238) found there to be a one-to-one relationship between educational qualiªcations and authority and control in the workplace. On the basis of texts analysed by the Write it Rights researchers, Rose drew attention to the interesting point that for each educational step we move up the industrial ladder, the code becomes increasingly specialized and abstract. One of the consequences of this is that texts produced and consumed on the top levels of the industrial hierarchy were found to have features typical of the written mode such as higher densities of grammatical metaphor. For the sake of com-

2

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

parison, texts produced and consumed on the bottom levels showed lower densities of grammatical metaphor, thus relying more on grammatical features typical of the spoken mode. The texts that Rose looked at on the three bottom levels were simple workplace procedures while the texts higher up the hierarchy were more complicated conditional procedures, technical notes and technical reports, which had more features typical of the language used in science. (For a thorough explanation of these results, see Rose 1998; see also Rose 2000). These ªndings constitute an interesting parallel to Halliday’s explorations of science discourse in modern history (1998: 185–235) in which a phylogenic “drift towards grammatical metaphor” over time was demonstrated. But rather than being a drift towards grammatical metaphor caused by time and history, the drift towards grammatical metaphor that Rose demonstrated was suggested to be a result of the educational system. White (1998) elaborated on some of the diŸerences between the discourses of science and technology, which he rightly pointed out to have been mistakenly represented as “constituting the same functional variety of language”. As demonstrated in White’s article, there are important diŸerences between the two types of discourse — diŸerences that stood out clearly in the texts studied by Rose where texts at the bottom level of the industrial hierarchy (procedures, manuals and technical notes) were found to have an overweight of features typical of technical discourse while texts at the top level (reports, explanations, discussions, technical notes and research articles) were more characteristic of scientiªc language although all the texts studied showed traits from both discourses. Rose (1998: 41) described technological discourse as re¶ecting “the processes and technology of industrial production”. To be able to read such texts, the user must have technological as well as grammatical literacy. Of course this also goes for the reader of scientiªc texts — a point that will be resumed in Chapter VII where professional literacy is discussed in Bourdieuan terms as an instance of social semiotic. But in order to be able to read scientiªc texts it is necessary for the reader to be able to read abstract grammatical structures that are very remote from everyday language. The texts discussed in this book mainly belong to what Rose designates to the lower end of the industrial hierarchy and should therefore be characterized as belonging to technical discourse rather than to scientiªc discourse, due to a variation in style. The features that interested the Write it Right researchers seemed to be mainly those of style. Now the Write it Right project took place in the early 90s. But the relationship between style and technical communication had already begun to arouse some interest during the 80s to which a bibliographic sourcebook from 1985 edited by Moran and Journet bears witness. The book, which is entitled Research in Technical Communication, focuses on theoretical as well as practical

Research disciplines and methods

approaches to technical writing, and one of the chapters written by Broadhead (1985: 217–252) oŸers what was in 1985 referred to as a ªrst and comprehensive bibliography of style in technical writing with references to several hundred articles, books and papers. Important research within the language of science and technology during the 90s has furthermore been done within social semiotics, which has meant a break-away from analysis of mere surface structure of text — a method that was so common during the early years of exploration. When research into the style of language used in science and technology was ªrst begun, theories were able to describe how texts were written, while later approaches have been more interested in explaining why texts are written the way they are. However, some traditional approaches remain valid due to their capacity for bridging the gap between description and explanation. Researchers who have contributed greatly to this ªeld are e.g. Halliday and Martin (1993); Halliday (1994); Lemke (1990, 1998); Halliday and Matthiessen (1999); Rose (1998, 2000); Rose, D., McInnes, D. and Korner, H. (1992); White (1998); Killingsworth and Gilbertson (1992), to mention but a few.

Applied linguistics Applied linguistics has been narrowly deªned as “the application of linguistic research to mother tongue education and to the teaching and learning of foreign and second languages” (Gunnarsson 1995: 45). An even narrower deªnition equates applied linguistics with the teaching of English as a foreign language (Sanders, 1987: 200). However, as noted by Gunnarsson (1995: 45), in a broader interpretation Applied Linguistics covers a great number of problem areas, which may be sub-categorized under the following headings: The educational setting, the economic-technical setting, the legal and bureaucratic settings, the medical-social setting, the workplace and science and the academic setting. (For an eclectic account of research activities undertaken under these headlines in recent years, see Gunnarsson (ibid.: 46–53). It soon becomes clear when taking a brief look at the vast variety of activities described under Gunnarsson’s headings that they all focus on Language for Speciªc Purposes (LSP). And moreover, the broadening scope of linguistics in general has had an expanding eŸect on Applied Linguistics research in that this branch — besides embracing language acquisition and teaching — now embraces pragmatics, discourse analysis, sociolinguistics and text linguistics, among others. As the meaning boundaries of the term have expanded, it has come to focus more on practical application as the name suggests. An appropriate deªnition today might therefore be: “any language-related research that may result in some

3

4

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

sort of practical application” (Sanders, 1987: 200). I shall not get involved in the impossible or at least very cumbersome and perhaps futile task of enumerating the host of applied linguists, who have contributed to this branch of research, but instead refer to the comprehensive description of the area given in Gunnarsson (1995: 45–54). One of the areas to which Gunnarsson calls attention is the economic-technical setting, which she has found to include mainly two focal points, viz. improving written documents and studies of writing at work (ibid.: 48–49). Research within these areas include for example studies looking into how technical instructions and guidelines may be improved (see e.g. Andrews, 1996; Huckin & Olson, 1991).

Text analysis and discourse analysis The notions of text and discourse apparently overlap if we go by the host of deªnitions oŸered by diŸerent text and discourse analysts. Fairclough (1992) is one of the theorists, who distinguishes between the two disciplines, and whose distinction appears to be adequate and relevant in the present context. In Fairclough’s terminology a discourse is diŸerent from discourse, the former referring to a type of discourse such as e.g. the discourse of biology while the second is to be understood as a three-dimensional concept embracing 1. 2. 3.

a piece of text an instance of discursive practice an instance of social practice

A piece of text is deªned as “the written or spoken product of the process of text production” and is thus one of the dimensions of discourse, and — by inference — text analysis is analysis focusing on text-internal features. Citing Widdowson (1979), Fairclough(1992: 3), however, stresses the importance of the text-andinteraction view of discourse, in which not only the features of the text, but also the interaction between the text, writer and reader, situational context of language use and social entities and relations become areas of focal interest. In his survey of approaches to discourse analysis (1992), Fairclough concludes that linguistically oriented discourse analysis, which focuses on text and text analysis is an inadequate method for revealing anything about social aspects of discourse. Similarly, discourse analysis focusing primarily on social aspects, would beneªt greatly from including text analysis in social research. To remediate this problem, Fairclough oŸers a synthesis of the two directions in what he has referred to as “a social theory of discourse”. The synthesis pivots on the three-dimensional approach shown above, an approach that will structure the present book and let it unfold as an

Research disciplines and methods

instance of discourse analysis. Sub-disciplines will be invoked as needed. These will include genre analysis and social semiotics subsuming critical discourse analysis as cases in point. An overview of each of these disciplines will be oŸered in their appropriate context (Chapters IV and VII). However, since social semiotics originates in Systemic Functional Linguistics as explained below.

Systemic Functional Linguistics Systemic Functional Linguistics, subsuming Systemic Functional Grammar, originates in Firth’s conception of linguistic patterning within diŸerent modes of meaning associated with meaning contexts (see e.g. Firth 1951, 1957). In this view, grammatical items have meaning within grammatical contexts and lexical items within lexical contexts. Firth saw this patterning of meaning as either syntagmatic or paradigmatic, syntagmatic processes giving rise to structures and paradigmatic oppositions being viewed as systems. Of particular importance when trying to understand Firth’s theory is the notion of context of situation, a term he owed to the ethnographer Malinowski, but which he developed into a linguistic theory. In the 50s and 60s, Firth’s student Michael Halliday took on the challenge of reªning the theories developed by Firth, adding to the categories of structure and system a number of new categories and scales in more delicate patterns than those originally introduced by Firth. Halliday’s theory became known as scale and category grammar (1961), later to be developed into what is today known as Systemic Functional Grammar. The rationale for this development was Halliday’s claim that the paradigmatic aspect of language was of primary importance in the expression of meaning, which led to the concept of system networks. Since then, Halliday’s work has increasingly focused on the socio-cultural importance of linguistic networks, which he refers to as “social semiotics” (Butler, 1995: 528) — a concept I shall revert to in Chapter VII in a discussion of the reception side of text/reader interaction. Chapter II continues the general introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics and elaborates on some of the notions central to Grammatical Metaphor.

5

Chapter 2

Field, Tenor and Mode dimensions

Register and genre theory To be able to describe and analyse the higher semiotic planes of genre, culture and ideology, which will be a focus of interest in this book, a general introduction to the notions of register and genre will be necessary. The study of register and genre variation is usually referred to three main traditions, viz. the American tradition, the Prague School and the European tradition, — the latter drawing on what has come to be known as British contextualism, which is a concept derived from the British anthropologist, Malinowski. Central ideas in Malinowski’s thinking were those of context of situation and context of culture of an utterance, and we discern in those two concepts the contours of much of the register and genre analysis carried out today. The notion of context of situation seems to incarnate a number of situational determinants of immediate and probabilistic relevance to the linguistic choices made in a text. They are immediate because the linguistic choices made are a result of the immediate situation in which a sentence is uttered and probabilistic because they are the choices most likely to be made. Similarly, the notion of context of culture is a probabilistic determinant, however of global relevance since it suggests the linguistic choices most likely to be made as a result of the situational context being enveloped in a larger context, viz. that of culture. A further implication of the relationship between text and context is that apart from suggesting the linguistic choices to be made for a text, context also makes a text intelligible. Only if the reader is aware of the contextual and cultural situations will s/he be able to comprehend the meaning of the text. (For a brief historical account of register and genre theory, see Eggins and Martin, 1997: pp. 237–241. See also Eggins for an overview of Malinowski’s points of view, 1994, p. 50). The present chapter will be devoted to aspects of register theory, register being one of the two dimensions which impact on textual variation. Genre theory will be dealt with in Chapter 4. For the discussion of register and genre respectively, the theoretical angle of Systemic Functional Grammar is an obvious choice, given the emphasis this theory puts on the two textual dimensions as interactive planes in a social semiotic. Thus, in Eggins’s and Martin’s terms “texts are not neutral encodings of a natural reality, but semiotic constructions of socially constructed meanings” (1997: 251). Therefore register and genre

8

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

analysis should not be mere description of language variation, but should try to explain how texts serve diŸerent purposes.

Register in Systemic Functional Grammar In Systemic Functional Grammar, register is the name of the metafunctionally organized connotative semiotic between language and genre (Martin, 1992: 502). Firth’s contribution to the discussion was a framework consisting of a number of “repetitive events in the social process” (1957/1968: 176–7) constituted by (1) the participants and their verbal and non-verbal actions, (2) the relevant objects and non-verbal and non-personal events and (3) the eŸect of verbal action (Eggins and Martin, 1997: 238; Martin, 1992: 588). Halliday subsequently developed this schema into a framework that forms the backbone of systemic functional register theory of today — a framework that combines the organization of context with the organization of the meaning-making components in language. According to Halliday (e.g. 1978) context is organized as follows: Field: What the language is being used to talk about Tenor: The role relationships between the interactants Mode: The role language is playing in the interaction and its function in the context

These contextual variables then combine with the following metafunctional meaning-making components of language as shown in Table 1. Table 1. The relationship of metafunctions and register variables Metafunction (organization of language)

Register (organization of context)

Ideational meaning (resources for building content) Interpersonal meaning (resources for interacting) Textual meaning (resources for organizing texts)

Field (Social action) Tenor (role structure) Mode (symbolic organization)

(Eggins and Martin, 1997: 239)

The metafunctional components constitute three strands of meaning in language, which in¶uence and are in¶uenced by the register variables of Field, Tenor and Mode on the level of context of situation. Apart from being in¶uenced by the Field, Tenor and Mode variables, the realization of meaning is also in¶uenced by variables such as culture and ideology. While there seems to have been some divergence of opinion among systemicists as to where to place the notions of register and genre in the hierarchy of

Field, Tenor and Mode dimensions

language strata (see Martin, 1992: 497–502), there is consensus on using the model shown above as a point of departure for register and genre analysis as well as for explaining how meaning is made (Eggins and Martin, 1997: 241). However relevant a discussion of diŸerent views on register and genre within Systemic Functional Grammar might be to the full comprehension of how these organizational components work in each individual approach, I shall not go into a discussion of these aspects here, but instead examine more closely some of the causes of textual variation, following Martin (1992) and Eggins and Martin (1997).

Register theory and textual variation As implied above, textual variation is a result of the interaction of the components which organize context and language, and in the following we shall take a closer look at the register components of Field, Tenor and Mode to obtain a deeper understanding of the ways in which these variables may give rise to textual variation in the texts under review.

Field Martin (1992: 536) has deªned Field as “the semiotic interpretation of activity oriented to some global institutional purpose”. Field, he says, is “the contextual projection of experiential meaning”. It creates, in other words, a frame of some social activity that is going on within a semantic domain in which there is scope for situational variation. On the basis of two texts about the same topic (the card game of bridge), Eggins (1994: 71) found there to be a great deal of lexical variation, which she ascribes to the circumstance that the texts had been written for two diŸerent audiences, one for experts and one for beginners. On this basis she proposes a ªeld continuum where ªeld varies according to technicality. Texts written for the expert will typically be densely packed with technical terms and acronyms, and they will often use an abbreviated syntax with verbs re¶ecting technical processes (oscillate, tumble) or descriptive processes using the verbs be and have. What Eggins refers to as common-knowledge language, on the other hand, is generally more familiar. Technical terms will be explained if present at all, and syntax will be unmarked. Textual variation becomes possible through the grammatical system, the variable of Field being realized by the transitivity patterns of language. These patterns embrace Processes (verbs), Participants (nouns), and Circumstances (adverbs of time, place, manner cause etc.) and their interaction.

9

10

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Tenor Tenor refers to the social role relationships played by interactants (Eggins, 1994: 63) and deªnes who is taking part in the interaction (Eggins, 1994: 63, Eggins and Martin, 1997: 238). The two main contrasts of tenor values have been suggested to be formality and informality. According to Eggins (1994: 64–65) these situational dimensions are determined by power, contact and aŸective involvement. In the informal situation the interactants will usually have equal power, see each other frequently and/or be aŸectively involved. This may be true of a majority of texts. However, the tenor relations in the technical manual do not seem to match the continuum suggested by Eggins since it is hardly relevant to deªne the relationship between the writer (manufacturer) and the reader (user) as formal or informal; nor is it relevant to talk about aŸective involvement in this context or whether there is frequent or occasional contact between the manufacturer and the user since these factors do not in¶uence the style of the manual. But what is the nature of the tenor relationship in technical manuals then, if it cannot be described along the criteria mentioned? To answer this question, Eggins’s power continuum may be useful, but the concept will have to be redeªned. It is not possible to think of an equal power relationship in terms of friendship or an unequal power relationship exempliªed as that of boss and employee. But we may think of the relationship between the manufacturer and the user as that of instructor and learner or instructor and doer, which would indicate an unequal relationship. The manufacturer has the knowledge, and the user needs this knowledge, which sets the scene for exchange in the Hallidayan sense (1994: 68). Goods, services or information are exchanged by means of the speech functions of oŸer, command, statement and question realized through mood and modality choices. The relationship between the writer and the reader will be further discussed in Chapter 7.

Mode Mode has been deªned as “the role languge is playing in an interaction” (Eggins, 1994: 53). In Halliday’s original framework mode involves such dimensions as the symbolic organization of the text (how the thematic structure is formed and evolves throughout the text), whether it is spoken or written (the channel) and what is being achieved by the text (rhetorical mode such as persuasion, information, instruction, etc.) (Eggins and Martin, 1997: 238). A model of mode value contrasts would involve in particular the characteristics of spoken and written language. A number of linguistic implications of mode have been listed by Eggins (1994: 56). Of these only implications of particular relevance to the present study have been included (Table 2).

Field, Tenor and Mode dimensions

Table 2. Spoken and written language: Linguistic implications Spoken language

Written language

Grammatically complex Lexically sparse

Grammatically simple Lexically dense

(Based on Eggins, 1994: 56)

Apart from these diŸerences, the linguistic choices made for the written and the spoken modes respectively will typically involve diŸerent theme patterns of the grammar and aspects of information structure. (See Halliday 1994, Ch. 3 and 8 for an overview of theme patterns and information structure).

Types of complexity in spoken and written language As noted by Halliday (1994: 349), speech and writing have diŸerent ways of constructing complex meaning. Stated in simple terms, written language tends to be lexically dense in the sense that there are many lexical items per ranking clause, while spoken language tends to be lexically sparse with fewer lexical items per ranking clause. At the same time written languge has been shown to be grammatically simpler than spoken language in that the information carrying elements tend to be packed in fewer clauses per syntagm (Halliday, 1987: 64). In what follows we shall take a closer look at the two concepts of lexical density and grammatical intricacy. Lexical density Lexical density may be calculated in diŸerent ways. Halliday (1989: 67) has argued in favour of measuring the lexical density of a text by calculating the ratio of lexical items to the total number of clauses (see also Halliday 1989: Ch. 5) while a great many theorists have instead based their calculations on the total number of words of the text. But as noted by Halliday information is packaged in larger grammatical units than words and not inside words, which makes the value of the usual approach dubious. However, the notion of lexical item is in itself problematic since it is di¹cult to deªne the boundaries between lexical items and lexical words. One useful distinction is the semantic unit, which would deªne a phrasal verb like blow up as one lexical item but two lexical words. Similarly, an idiom like take a bath would constitute one lexical item because the meaning corresponds to bathe, which is one lexical item. As noted by Martin (1992: 291), though, such a distinction would not clearly show the boundaries in collocations consisting of looser word combinations. He therefore sees a danger in expanding the range of the semantic unit to include e.g. Process and Medium structures like cook a meal or Process and Circumstance structures like go to work. However, to my mind the semantic

11

12

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

boundary should be drawn exactly where the addition of a lexical word adds additional information. Therefore, in compound nouns like straw walker rear shaft there are four lexical items because each new noun brings in additional information. Essential to the calculation of lexical density is furthermore the probability of a lexical item occurring in a text more than once. Words that occur frequently (high-probability words) are easier to process and hence seemingly less loaded with information. Examples of high-probability words are grammatical words, but also words which are used repeatedly such as make, have, go, etc. The same mitigating eŸect may be obtained through repetition of a lexical item in diŸerent lexical words such as diŸer, diŸerent, diŸerence in that the eŸect of lexical density is reduced (see Halliday, 1989: 65). A relevant question to be asked at this stage concerns the nature of lexical density since knowledge about the way it develops might bring us closer to an understanding of textual variation. Presumably inspired by Halliday (1989: 72), Eggins (1994: 60) has shown high lexical density to be a result of nominalization. The nominal group can be expanded to embrace a great number of lexical items such as in Eggins’s example: “the smallest of the three shiny redback spiders spinning their webs in the corner”, while the verbal group does not hold the same potential. Although the verbal group may be expanded like in Eggins’s example of [spin → is spinning → has been spinning → will have been spinning → may have been going to have been spinning], this expansion, although it contains many lexical words, does not contain more than one lexical item. The explanation of this is that tense, mood and aspect are grammatical phenomena rather than content phenomena. Therefore, since in written language clauses often contain more than one noun group heavily loaded with information, lexical density will be higher than in spoken language, especially because, moreover, the number of clauses in a clause complex in written language tend to be lower than in spoken language, although both forms present a sliding scale of lexical density (see Ravelli, 1985: 20). A further implication of packing information into noun groups is the backgrounding potential presented by this way of organizing a message (Halliday 1987: 78). In the example technology has improved, which has led to mass unemployment the message of the main clause or, in Hallidayan terms the alpha clause, is about technology (a given concept) and the new information is presented in the verb improved. If this message is instead rendered as improvements in technology have led to mass unemployment, the information represented by the noun group improvements in technology has been backgrounded as given information, opening the possibility of ªlling additional (new) information onto the clause without increasing the complexity in terms of grammatical intricacy. Aspects of information ¶ow will be dealt with in greater detail in Chapter 4, where the

Field, Tenor and Mode dimensions

backgrounding and foregrounding potential of language will be discussed in relation to grammatical metaphor.

Grammatical intricacy It follows from what has been said above concerning the diŸerent ways of packaging information into clauses that the sentence structure of written language is less complex than that of spoken — or to use Halliday’s term — that written language has lower grammatical intricacy (see e.g. 1987: 62). But it would be a simpliªcation to say that grammatical intricacy is merely a function of the number of clauses per clause complex. Rather, intricacy arises as a result of the ways in which clauses are strung together. In other words the intricacy patterns depend on how clauses are syntactically related — whether they form part of a hypotactic or a paratactic pattern. For an analysis of intricacy patterns in spoken and written text, see Halliday (1987: 63–64). Relation to grammatical metaphor It was said above that the packaging of information into noun groups by changing verbs into nouns, causing lower grammatical intricacy and higher lexical density, is a feature more common to the written mode than to the spoken. This process of nominalization is one of the processes that Halliday has referred to as grammatical metaphor. Grammatical metaphor in the Hallidayan sense also involves interpersonal metaphors of mood and modality. The principle of grammatical metaphor has been explained by Martin (1992: 14–17) within the theory of stratiªcation. In Systemic Functional Linguistics language is assumed to have two planes, a content plane and an expression plane. These two planes organize three strata of which the content plane organizes the stratum of discourse semantics and the stratum of grammar while the expression plane organizes the stratum of phonology/graphology. (See Halliday, 1994: 15; see also Eggins, 1994: 18, 21). The diŸerence between metaphorical wording (also referred to as incongruent wording) and non-metaphorical wording (also referred to as congruent wording) seems to be that non-metaphorical wording becomes intelligible through a single stratum of interpretation whereas metaphorical wording requires two strata of interpretation. The stratum of grammar (referred to as lexico-grammar in SFL) construes the literal meaning of metaphorical as well as non-metaphorical structures and the stratum of semantics construes any additional meaning resulting from metaphorical expressions. (Martin 1992: 16–17). A central stratum in the construal of grammatical metaphor is the stratum of lexico-grammar. To Halliday the lexico-grammatical stratum is the stratum where human experience is transformed into meaning, and grammar does this through Figures. A Figure is deªned as “a complex semantic unit of which the organizing

13

14

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

concept is that of a process” (1995a: 6; 1995b 8). For this process to happen, Entities participating in the Process are needed as are Circumstantial elements such as when, how or why the Process happens. Grammatically, the Figure is construed as a clause in which the pivot is the Process (verbal group) and one Participant (noun group). If two or more Figures are combined, they form a Sequence in which the Figures are held together by logical-semantic relations such as e.g. cause or condition. Halliday’s point is that it is the grammar that construes the organization of Sequences, Figures and Entities in accordance with human experience. In everyday spoken language, therefore, there seems to be a regular pattern of relationship between the semantic and grammatical categories of language. In other words verbal groups are used for Processes, noun groups for Participants, adverbial groups for manner, place and time and coordinators for logical-semantic relations. Language in which this pattern of relationship is typical is congruent. In some discourses, however, and the discourses of science and technology are cases in point, the grammar tends to depart from this pattern by making what is in fact a Process and a Participant into a Thing by using e.g. a noun group for the contents of a verbal group. According to Halliday such a pattern is incongruent. The following shows a congruent sequence reconstrued incongruently as one clause: Congruence between semantic and grammatical categories the driver

drove

the bus

too rapidly

down the hill

so

the brakes failed

nom group verbal group nom group adverbial group adverbial group conjunction nominal verbal Entity

Process

Entity

Circumstance

Circumstance

Relator

Entity

Process

Incongruence between semantic and grammatical categories the driver’s Deictic

overrapid Epithet

downhill

driving

Classiªer Thing Nominal group

of the bus

caused

Qualiªer

Verbal

brake

failure

Classiªer Thing Nominal Group

(Halliday, 1995)

One might well ask what is behind such reconstrual. In other words, why has language evolved the way it has? Halliday explains this evolution by resorting to semohistory (1996). He says that language is a semogenic resource for transforming experience into the experience of meaning and this happens in three dimensions of time, each of them writing their own history. There is the history of the system, the phylogenetic dimension, where meaning evolves. Secondly, there is the history of the language user, who matures and gradually develops greater skill for interpreting abstract meaning. This dimension is the ontogenetic dimension. Finally, there is the history of the text, in which meaning unfolds from the beginning of the text to its end through diŸerent realization patterns. This last dimension is the logogenetic dimension of semohistory. As a result of this three-

Field, Tenor and Mode dimensions

dimensional evolution of language as a semogenic resource, the level of experience has become a determining factor in textual variation in the sense that e.g. technical discourse, which is our concern here, is a function of all of the three time dimensions described. Presumably, this is how incongruence has become a typical feature, the grammar oŸering the potential of depicting our knowledge of the world as a world of things which operate on a very abstract level. Besides, this particular way of writing tends to contribute to the development of the text by helping the argument along through the resources for reasoning held by language. And ªnally, technical discourse belongs in the adult world with its predilection for higher levels of abstraction. While it may be possible to explain the evolution of technical discourse on the background of semohistory, it is more di¹cult to explain why this evolution seems to impede the comprehension process, possibly shutting out some readers. An instance of such comprehension di¹culties is oŸered in Halliday (1987: 75) where he gives a number of sentences that are ambiguous in written language, while they tend to be much more explicit in spoken language. Ambiguity arises in connection with nominalization because these nominal structures do not make the semantic relations between the elements of the noun group explicit. The following examples serve as illustration of what has been said about ambiguity. From a nominal construction such as a glass container (Kirkman, 1992: 37) it is possible to deduce two meanings: (1) a container made of glass or (2) a container for storing glass. The ambiguity caused by the absence of logico-semantic relations in the noun group has been removed in each of the alternatives (1) and (2). Owing to the relatively high frequency of complex noun groups in technical discourse, such ambiguity seems to be an all-pervading feature

Towards a hypothesis on the relationship between grammatical metaphor and text inaccessibility It has been established (e.g. Halliday, 1989: 94; 1987: 75) that grammatical metaphor is a feature of written language more than of spoken. And, by the same token written language generally displays higher lexical density than spoken language, a contention that has been sustained by Halliday (1995a: 14) who found average lexical densities of technical/scientiªc texts to be around six while informal spontaneous speech had around two lexical items per clause. This diŸerence is a logical consequence of the spoken mode being grammatically intricate. The number of clauses goes up, while the number of lexical items remains constant. Now the sentences Halliday based his calculations on were typical manifestations of the grammatical metaphor of nominalization. There are other processes

15

16

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

involving grammatical metaphor, which will be dealt with in Chapter 3. While we may expect these additional grammatical metaphor categories to have some in¶uence on the accessibility of a text, their in¶uence on lexical density is less certain. However, as noted by Halliday, it would appear that written language including technical language as a case in point is complex by being lexically dense as a result of the type of grammatical metaphor explained above. This conclusion may be sustained by quoting Halliday (1994: 350) who says: It might be assumed that metaphor, while not inherently value-laden, is nevertheless inherently complex, and that the least metaphorical wording will always be the one that is maximally simple. But the concept of plain and simple is itself very far from being plain and simple; anything approaching technical language, for example, tends to become noticeably more complex if one tries to simplify it by removing the metaphors.

The quotation alludes to the two kinds of complexity described earlier and succinctly combines the notions of lexical density and grammatical metaphor. On this basis it will be possible to form the following hypothesis: Since grammatical metaphor causes greater complexity, ambiguity and information load in terms of increased lexical density, texts which are rich in grammatical metaphor are intrinsically less accessible than texts with a low incidence of this phenomenon.

Text inaccessibility in this context is to be accounted for through analysis of a number of variables known to in¶uence comprehension. These include complexity of clause structure as well as lexical density and various kinds of grammatical metaphor — variables which usually play a role in readability formulae. Chapter 3 looks at text as a self-contained system and analyses a number of text versions in order to establish to what extent these versions display variation of intrinsic inaccessibility resulting from the register variables mentioned above of grammatical metaphor, lexical density and grammatical intricacy.

Chapter 3

Register analysis

Following the introduction to register analysis oŸered in Chapter 2, we shall now put theory to practice with two purposes in mind: (1) to provide a quantitative description of the texts under review from the angles of lexical density, grammatical intricacy and grammatical metaphor and (2) through a comparison of these text variables, to comment on the intrinsic accessibility of the texts. These points should be seen on the basis of the assumption introduced in Chapter 2 that the accessibility of texts may be adversely in¶uenced by high lexical density and a high density of grammatical metaphors. Well aware that the objection to register analysis as an adequate method for assessing text accessibility may rightly be made at this point, I intend to rely on these quantitative results only as a yardstick against which further analysis of a more qualitative nature may be undertaken. Therefore, this chapter aims at providing a picture of diŸerences between the texts in terms of objective, intrinsic values represented by the three variables mentioned above. The choice to focus on these three areas should be seen on the background of register theory within Systemic Functional Linguistics, which involves the concepts of Field, Tenor and Mode at the level of context of situation as explained earlier. Of the three variables examined, Lexical Density is closely related with Field, Grammatical Intricacy with Mode and Grammatical Metaphor with Field, Tenor and Mode.

Description of text versions used in the survey A detailed description of text selection methods and explanation of methods used for isolating various register features for each of the eight texts is provided in Chapter 5. But for convenience, let me provide a brief description of the provenance and audience of the texts in what follows. The eight texts were selected from literature written and distributed by the manufacturing industry, including what was then Ford/New Holland (a well-known manufacturer of farming equipment now taken over by Fiat-Agri), Shell UK (known for oil exploration and production), Glacier (a bearing construction ªrm) and Martonair (a ªrm manufacturing hydraulic equipment). All of the texts, which were examples of description, instruction, procedures and speciªcation, were selected in various kinds of technical manuals, and because the products described in the texts were not

18

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

intended for the consumer market, it was assumed that at least part of the audience would be familiar with reading technical literature. Technical manuals for the industrial market will typically address members of staŸ who either design, dismantle or assemble the products in question. However, in some situations — and this applies in particular to the combine harvesting equipment described in the fault-ªnding procedures for combine harvesters — farmers with some technical knowledge would be reading that part of the manual in order to diagnose a problem. Now, because the study was mainly undertaken in Denmark, there would be a language problem as the foreign language skills of a majority of farmers would not enable them to read a technical manual written in English. In most cases they would therefore consult a technical specialist, who would also have the necessary language skills to be able to read an English manual. Other possible members of the audience would be translators, who — in spite of their advanced language skills — would not have su¹cient knowledge about the technological aspects of the equipment for which they are expected to be able to produce readable manuals in Danish translated from English. And a third group of possible readers might be technical English instructors, who would be functioning as intermediaries between the translators and technical know-how users, but without su¹cient foreign language proªciency. The picture that can be drawn for the audience is therefore a very mixed one, which is partly a result of a Danish audience having access to an international market and technical literature written in English, but with inadequate technical and/or foreign language skills. The actual analyses were carried out on the basis of the following format. Six of the texts surveyed (1–6) appeared in three diŸerent versions, and two of the texts (7–8) appeared in two versions only. In changing the texts, the propositional content was kept constant, while changing the grammatical structures and hence the style of some of the texts. These changes resulted in noticeable textual variation between the 22 texts surveyed, of which those showing a high frequency of grammatical metaphors and high lexical density were assumed to be intrinsically less accessible. In the following, textual variation will be discussed in terms of the three dimensions of lexical density, grammatical intricacy and grammatical metaphor explained earlier.

Lexical density To calculate lexical density, I used the method devised by Halliday (1994: 351), which was introduced in Chapter 2. I counted the lexical items — deªned as the smallest unit in the meaning system of language that can be distinguished from other similar units. These did not include function words such as articles, pronouns, auxiliary verbs, prepositions and conjunctions. The lexical items were then

Register analysis

divided by the number of ranking clauses. Ranking clauses (Halliday 1994: 188) are used synonymously with non-embedded clauses, which function as constituents of a higher unit. Embedded (or rankshifted) relative clauses were not counted in this analysis, while non-deªning relative clauses were counted as ranking clauses. The analysis generated results for the 22 texts as shown in Table 3. The table shows lexical density of 8 original texts and their changed versions. As expected the lexical density values for the majority of the original texts (A2, C3, C4, B5 and A6) are higher than for most of the other texts. Only texts B1 and A8 deviate in this respect — A8 because it consists of compound nouns, which have been dissolved into embedded clauses functioning as postmodiªers. The result of this is that lexical items are added as shown in the following example: Engine coolant temperature sender (compound noun), which is changed into: Sender showing the temperature of the engine coolant. (Lexical items underlined). If we compare the other deviating result (B1 changed into C1), the problem accounting for the deviation is similar to that of text 8, but also changes from the passive into the active voice are noticeable in terms of lexical density since a suppressed agent from a passive sentence becomes subject in the active sentence. Lexical density then increases as the subject of the passive sentence becomes object in the active sentence like in the grain is moved to the front (passive), which becomes The grain pan moves the grain to the front (active) (lexical items underlined). For both of these examples the longer versions have higher lexical density. There are noticeable diŸerences between the texts shown in the table, texts C1 and B1 with the highest lexical densities of all the texts — (6.0) and (5.6) — and texts A7 and B7 the lowest (3.3). The low lexical density of texts A7 and B7, which are faultªnding procedures, is a result of these texts having many but very short and ellipted sentences.

Grammatical intricacy at clause level (GICL) The notion of Grammatical Intricacy was brie¶y introduced in Chapter 2. On the basis of the clause complex system described in Halliday (1994: 215–273), it is possible to calculate the Grammatical Intricacy at clause level (GICL). To do this, and following Ravelli (1985: 33Ÿ), I searched the full text to ªnd the clause complex with the highest number of ranking clauses, counting only paratactic and hypotactic clauses (length). I then searched each of the texts for the clause complex with the greatest number of clausal layers (depth). Grammatical Intricacy was subsequently found by adding up length and depth as shown by the following formula:

19

137 23

6.0 H

5.6 L

C1

129 23

B1

5.3 L

138 26

A1

4.7 H

112 24

A2

4.5 L

121 27

B2

4.6 L

116 25

C2

5.5 H

133 24

C3

4.6 L

132 29

A3

B3

5.0 L

144 29

7 4+3 L

8 4+4 H

7 4+3 L

Grammatical intricacy at clause level (GICL)

Grammatical intricacy at group and phrase level (GIGL)

7 4+3 L

C1

B1

Changed text (2) Txt. changed on the basis of 1 (3) Txt. changed on the basis of 2 (3)

Original text (1)

7 3+4 H

6 3+3 L

A1

7 3+4 H

4 2+2 L

A2

5 5+0 L

6 3+3 H

B2

6 2+4 L

4 2+2 L

C2

5 1+4 H

4 2+2 L

C3

4 1+3 L

6 4+2 H

A3

3 3+0 L

4 2+2 L

B3

Table 4. Grammatical intricacy at clause and phrase/group level

(high values in bold)

Changed txt. (2) Txt. changed on the basis of 1 (3) Txt. changed on the basis of 2 (3) Lexical items Number of ranking clauses Lexical density

Original text (1)

Table 3. Lexical density

8 3+5 H

7 4+3 L

C4

4.8 H

92 19

C4

7 4+3 L

9 5+4 H

B4

4.5 L

94 21

B4

5 2+3 L

4 2+2 L

A4

4.3 L

102 23

A4

9 5+4 H

7 4+3 L

B5

5.4 H

98 18

B5

8 5+3 L

8 4+4 H

C5

4.5 L

100 22

C5

5 2+3 L

6 3+3 L

A5

4.0 L

105 26

A5

9 6+3 H

6 4+2

A6

4.2 H

109 26

A6

9 6+3 H

6 3+3

B6

3.9 L

105 27

B6

C6

6 3+3 L

6 4+2

C6

3.7 L

107 29

6 2+4 H

6 4+2

A7

3.3

164 50

A7

4 1+3 L

6 4+2

B7

3.3

164 50

B7

NA

B8

5.6 H

96 17

B8

7 3 1+61+2 H L

NA

A8

4.5 L

76 17

A8

20 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Register analysis

Grammatical intricacy = length of clause complex + depth of clause complex

Now, a clause complex may consist of mainly paratactically related clauses, resulting in low depth. Therefore, length and depth are not necessarily counted within the same clause complex, but separately across the whole text and then added up. Another aspect that should be taken into account is typicality. If there were just one example of a high Grammatical Intricacy value in the text, it would mean less to the reading process than if high Grammatical Intricacy were a general feature. To account for typicality, ‘typical’ was deªned as a minimum of 3 occurrences (bold ªgures in Table 4). The example below shows how Grammatical Intricacy was found. For an overview of symbols used in Chapter 3, see p. ix. Grammatical intricacy at clause level (GICL): The text (A5) has two examples of GICL = 6 as follows: (7) Make sure // that you align the bush, mandrel, and housing correctly // a ×ba when you assemble the part. b×b (10) It becomes much easier to install bushes over 300 mm diameter // if you use a a clamp ring around the bush // when you enter the part into the housing for the ×ba b× ªrst time. Length: 3 Depth: 3

GICL: 6 In both of the examples there are 3 ranking clauses (length) and 3 clausal layers (depth). Grammatical intricacy for the text in question is therefore 6.

Phrase and group level Another important measure that may provide information on text accessibility is Grammatical Intricacy at Phrase and Group level (GIGL). When calculating Grammatical Intricacy at clause level, embedded (deªning relative) clauses were excluded because they usually function as a constituent of the nominal group at a lower rank. Halliday has not so far analysed the nominal group for Grammatical Intricacy, but accepts the suggestion that such an analysis is important if we wish to account for the accessibility of texts (personal communication 1997). Ravelli (1985: 39) supports this point of view saying that “a full account of intricacy would account for taxis at group and phrase level” but so far no analysis has been made to

21

22

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

this eŸect and hence no formula been designed.2 To ªnd the Grammatical Intricacy at Phrase and Group level, I counted the highest number of nested structures per clause complex (length) and added to this value the highest number of layers in the nested structure (depth of group or phrase). The method was based on the following formula designed for the purpose: Grammatical intricacy at phrase and group level = length of nested structures + depth of group or phrase To simplify the analysis, nested structures were counted only if they exceeded two layers since lower values presumably would not cause accessibility problems, and typicality was again deªned as three or more occurrences (shown in bold in Table 4). The example below shows how grammatical intricacy was calculated at group and phrase level. For an explanation of symbols, see p. ix. The total GIGL value was found to be 5, which is the sum of length (2 nested structures) plus depth (3 layers in the deepest structure). Grammatical intricacy at group and phrase level (GIGL): The text (A5) has one example of GIGL = 5 as follows: (4) To make it easier *{ to ªt the part }*, //you * should machine * a 2+2 (SMALL (LEAD-IN (CHAMFER))) of 15–20 deg * in the housing *. # 2+3 Length: 2 Depth: 3 GIGL: 5

Table 4 shows the values for Grammatical Intricacy at the two levels of clause and group/phrase. The ªgures in bold are values typical of the speciªc text. The results will be discussed below.

Discussion of Lexical Density and Grammatical Intricacy at the levels of clause, group and phrase Halliday (1987: 66) has shown that spoken and written language diŸer in that “written language tends to be lexically dense, but grammatically simple while spoken language tends to be grammatically intricate, but lexically sparse”. Now, as Halliday also points out (ibid.: 66) it is a simpliªcation to talk about the categories 2. Halliday deªnes group as a word that has been expanded and phrase as a clause that has been contracted (1994: 180). Phrase includes prepositional phrases; embedded clauses are included under the nominal group.

Register analysis

of spoken and written since written text may sometimes come very close to the spoken mode, depending on the genre. Following Halliday, Ravelli (1985: 51) looked at a variety of texts ranging from writing to be read to writing to be heard as if not written and found that texts in which the Lexical Density is high have low Clausal Intricacy and vice versa. Her results sustain Halliday’s ªndings. The question that arises on this background is whether high Lexical Density will always trigger low Grammatical Intricacy at clause level and vice versa. In other words, is this polarity of complexity a feature of all texts or might there be texts which have both high Lexical Density and high Grammatical Intricacy at clause level? To answer this question, let us look at the lexical density values and the GICL values in Tables 3 and 4. To ease comparison, the lexical density columns for each of the text groups (1–8) in Table 1 and the GICL columns in Table 4 have been marked with the letter L for low and H for high. When no such diŸerence is found, no comparison can be made. This explains why some of the texts are not marked with L and H. For each of the text groups consisting of three texts (two texts for groups 7 and 8), only one text is marked H. The two text versions that are not marked H are both marked L even if one has a higher value than the other. If ªndings by Halliday and Ravelli are to be sustained, we will expect high lexical density values where there are low GICL values, and this turns out to be the case for the majority of the texts. In fact texts 1–5 all follow the predicted pattern for the original text(1) as well as for the changed text (2) in that texts B1, B2, A3, B4 and C5 have high GICL counts and low lexical density counts. Similarly, texts C1, A2, C3, C4 and B5 have low GICL counts and high lexical density counts. However, there are some text versions ( A1, C2, B3, A4 and A5) that display low counts on both lexical density and grammatical intricacy at clause level. Not surprisingly, these texts have one thing in common, viz. short sentence length, which helps explain why the complexity values are low on both counts. Now, what is the purpose of this whole exercise? Let us recall that as a starting point I suggested that the notions of Lexical Density and Grammatical Intricacy may be very suitable tools for accounting for the degree of accessibility of texts. Let us therefore widen our perspective and look at Grammatical Intricacy from a diŸerent angle, viz. that of the nominal group. Lexical Density being a result of densely packed information in the clause, we might suspect that the degree of Grammatical Intricacy at group and phrase level where the depth of the nominal group or phrase is high would increase in tandem with Lexical Density. At the same time Grammatical Intricacy at clause level might be predicted to decrease. In other words, if the ideational contents of a clause complex is compacted into nominal groups and/or phrases in a single clause, Grammatical Intricacy at group and phrase level will be high as will Lexical Density. To test this prediction, we need to take a fresh look at Table 4. Again, H signiªes high and L low. Our

23

24

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

prediction turns out to be correct. All the texts that it is possible to compare (A2, C3, C4 and B5) display high Grammatical Intricacy at group and phrase level and low Grammatical Intricacy at clause level and vice versa. But what does this mean in reality? Can the coincidence of high Lexical Density and Grammatical Intricacy at group and phrase level possibly be interpreted as indication of a greater reader burden and hence lower accessibility? High Lexical Density has been shown by some theorists (e.g. Miller, 1956 (quoted in Chafe 1994: 119)) to adversely in¶uence comprehension, and since Grammatical Intricacy at group and phrase level seems to increase with Lexical Density, then these two factors are likely to in¶uence the reader’s access to meaning. On the basis of my data it is, however, less clear what the role played by Grammatical Intricacy at clause level would be in terms of accessibility. Halliday (personal communication 1997) has commented that grammatically intricate clauses tend to be easy to understand when spoken, but di¹cult to read. Similarly, lexically dense texts are di¹cult to follow when spoken and easier to follow when read. So perhaps, since Grammatical Intricacy at group and phrase level usually increases in a direct ratio to lexical density — as does grammatical metaphor — this variable may be expected to have strong implications for grammatical metaphor, and it is to this phenomenon that we shall now turn.

Grammatical metaphor The notion of grammatical metaphor was introduced in Chapter 2. However, I ªnd it necessary to address the topic again with the purpose of investigating the role played by grammatical metaphor in explaining low text accessibility. Now, as we shall see in the following, grammatical metaphor is a cover term for a number of diŸerent conªgurations originating in the ideational, the interpersonal and the textual metafunctions. To know where each metaphorical conªguration belongs, it will be necessary to ªnd a way of identifying, categorizing and labelling diŸerent types of grammatical metaphor. Halliday (1994 Ch. 10), Ravelli (1985) Martin (1992: pp. 406–417) as well as Halliday and Matthiessen (1999) have covered a lot of ground in such respect, but there still remains a great deal of work to be done before the theories will have been fully elaborated.

What can a theory on grammatical metaphor achieve? Why focus attention on grammatical metaphor rather than using conventional grammatical labels such as nominalization, compound nouns, the passive voice, etc? The obvious reason for this is that unlike conventional labels, grammatical metaphor invites an exploration into the processes behind each metaphorical

Register analysis

conªguration — processes of which some may be more complicated than others. The nature of these potentially complicated processes will be clearer as we move on, but for now let me suggest in rather simple terms that the nature of such complexity is to be found in the notions of system and structure. Before taking the discussion further, however, I ªnd it useful to draw a line of demarcation between lexical metaphor and grammatical metaphor since the two constructs are diŸerent in nature and yet share certain features. I shall not go into a discussion of the great variety of theories on diŸerent kinds of lexical metaphor, but only try to deªne lexical metaphor — a task that has been complicated by the lack of consensus on a common deªnition among lexical metaphor thorists such as Black (1972, 1981), Davidson (1978), Cohen (1981), Loewenberg (1981), LakoŸ and Johnson (1980) to name but a few. Ortony (1994: 5) cites Black for the following point of view: “Any search for an infallible criterion of metaphorhood is doomed to failure. Any criterion one cares to suggest, can be shown to break down under certain circumstances”. I shall nevertheless suggest the following tentative deªnition: Lexical metaphor may be deªned as any semantically equivalent identiªcation or any association of one thing with another by replacing a word or phrase from the semantic ªeld it naturally belongs to by a word or phrase from another, in the context, less usual semantic ªeld. On this background the notion of grammatical metaphor becomes easier to grasp and may be deªned as any association of the category meaning of one semantic category with another by replacing the original semantic category by a diŸerent semantic category in the lexicogrammar (Lassen 1997: 68).

Semantic category should be understood in the context of Systemic Functional Grammar where every grammatical class is given functional labels according to their semantic content in the language system. Thus grammatical metaphor is a result of the interchangeability of grammatical functions of diŸerent semantic categories rather than it is a result of the interchangeability of diŸerent grammatical classes as suggested by Stubbs (1996). And whereas the process of grammatical metaphor draws on syntax and morphology, the process of lexical metaphor draws on the vocabulary although both processes involve a remapping of semantics onto the lexicogrammar. (Halliday, personal communication 1997, 1998). But there is an even more important diŸerence between lexical metaphor and grammatical metaphor. Lexical metaphor usually facilitates comprehension of complex meaning as shown by e.g. Mayer (1994: 561) who focuses on what he refers to as “the instructive metaphor hypothesis”. According to this hypothesis, metaphoric language plays an important role in fostering students’ comprehension of scientiªc language because it improves the retention of conceptual infor-

25

26

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

mation by helping the learner to associate cause-eŸect relations in the text to similar relations in familiar contexts. Mayer’s hypothesis was sustained through experiments. However, the same objective is not necessarily achieved by using grammatical metaphor since the processes involved in creating certain types of grammatical metaphor do not take place at an immediate comprehension level through the association of unfamiliar contexts with familiar ones, but rather at a subtler level determined by metafunctional choices in the lexico-grammar.

The metaphorical construction potential of language The notions of system and process are fundamental notions in Systemic Functional Grammar. As explained by Martin (1992: 4), system is a result of paradigmatic opposition while syntagmatic structure is generated in a process, and it seems to me that these opposite axes might be useful as objective criteria when distinguishing between various shifts in the grammar. Therefore, I shall henceforth refer to paradigmatic metaphorical opposition in the lexico-grammar as system and reserve the term process for syntagmatic structure. As explained in Hasan (1996: 74), in the early 20th century grammars were mainly concerned with syntagms, while paradigmatic relations were largely ignored. However, with Saussure (1974), Firth (1951) and Hjelmslev (1961) this was gradually changed, and today Systemic Functional theory subscribes to the point of view that language consists of a network of options, which relate to each other paradigmatically. Naturally, even if paradigmatic relations have seen a foregrounding in SF theory, the importance of syntagmatic relations has not been abandoned and Saussure’s deªnition of these relations as being “the relations a linguistic element has with the elements preceding and following it in an utterance” still has validity (Joseph: 1994). Therefore both orientations must be said to contribute to the meaning making process, but in Saussure’s structuralist theory, which has to some extent been accommodated by SF theory, there is an important distinction between the two elements of the paradigmatic/syntagmatic axis in that syntagmatic relations are seen as predetermined (ibid.) in what Halliday and Matthiessen (1999: 13) have referred to as structural conªgurations. In a structural conªguration a verbal Process brings an Actor and a Goal into existence. The Actor and the Goal are in other words predetermined by the Process, and none of these elements can be left out as in e.g. the police (Actor) arrested (Process) the suspect (Goal) . As distinct from syntagmatic relations, and yet closely related because they are in Hasan’s words “diŸerent perspectives on the same phenomena” (Hasan 1996: 107), paradigmatic relations represent potential choices that can be made when speaking or writing. In the example above, it is not possible to leave out any of the categories Actor, Process or Goal. It is, however, possible to say instead the police (Actor) released (Process) the prisoner (Goal), making a set of diŸerent semantic choices.

Register analysis

Having made this distinction clear, it is now possible to approach the area of grammatical metaphor from these two perspectives, viz. as incongruent realization choices based on syntagmatic and paradigmatic forces creating tension between diŸerent semantic categories. And in consequence of realization choices having an incongruent axis, they must necessarily also have a congruent axis. (For a thorough presentation of the two axes of congruence/incongruence and paradigmatic orientation/ syntagmatic orientation, see Halliday and Matthiessen 1999: 255–259). At this point it is important to make clear how I intend to use the views formulated within Systemic Functional theory as regards syntagmatic and paradigmatic orientations of grammatical metaphor. As will be clear from what has been said above, it is not possible within Systemic Functional theory to separate the two notions since one would not be able to function without the other. The same observation may be made for the ideational, the interpersonal and the textual metafunctions, and yet they are usually discussed as separate phenomena. Fully aware that this was not the original intent behind the theory concerning paradigmatic and syntagmatic orientation, I shall, in what follows, nevertheless treat grammatical metaphors as instances of either a syntagmatic or a paradigmatic orientation on the simple basis of understanding that syntagmatic forces have a horizontal orientation while paradigmatic forces have a vertical orientation in the clause. There are two explanations of this decision. First, analysis can be simpliªed if an instance of grammatical metaphor is looked at from only one perspective. Secondly, the division into syntagmatic and paradigmatic orientations respectively will provide a clear framework for my further analyses. Let me therefore illustrate how a line of division may be drawn between syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphors. If the tension created takes syntagmatic form, the conªguration may look as in Figure 1 with the congruent realization above and the incongruent realization below the horizontal line. Congruent realization (Medium)

(Process)

The material bonds

Rapid

(Circumstances)

rapidly

bonding

(of the material)

(............Actor......................)

Incongruent realization

Figure 1. The principle of syntagmatic metaphor

occurs

(Process Material)

27

28

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

The arrows show the horizontal movements of semantic categories in a structural pattern as the congruent realization is transformed into a metaphorical realization. The transformations take place within the text. If, on the other hand, we look at the paradigmatic forces which are at work, we may associate a semantic category represented in the text with a semantic category outside the text. This text-external category can be viewed as some kind of mental representation that becomes responsible for the successful interpretation of congruent meaning stated either implicitly or through a semantic category that is diŸerent from the semantic category of the mental representation. The following illustrates the paradigmatic system of ellipsis in its congruent and incongruent realizations: Congruent: Top

sieve

is

(............Carrier..............) (Process: intensive)

blocked (Attribute)

Incongruent Top

sieve

(zero)

(............Carrier..............) (Process: intensive)

blocked (Attribute)

Mental representation Process: Intensive

Figure 2. The principle of paradigmatic metaphor

It is the tension between the mental representation and its non-realization in the text that creates the type of grammatical metaphor that we will henceforth refer to as paradigmatic. As shown in Figure 2, no syntagmatic process can be identiªed, but instead the ellipted verb is forms a paradigmatic opposition to the gap it leaves behind in the clause. But what insight might we hope to gain from studying these syntagmatic and paradigmatic forces? The obvious answer to this question seems to point towards text accessibility, which is the area we have been concerned with all along. Intuitively, metaphoricity may be assumed to in¶uence comprehension. But how this happens and to what extent is less clear. As mentioned above, lexical metaphor has been shown to facilitate the comprehension of complex meaning while grammatical metaphor might have the opposite eŸect due to the complexities of transformation taking place at a subtler level, viz. in the grammar rather than in lexis. But here we might be at a crossroads, since grammatical metaphor may not be an unequivocal concept in terms of interpretation cost. The question that arises

Register analysis

against this background is whether processes that are primarily syntagmatic would place a greater interpretation burden on the reader than would paradigmatic opposition? To answer this question, we shall have to distinguish between the two diŸerent conªgurations, and it would appear that our knowledge of lexical metaphor might guide us on two premises. For one thing, in Lassen (1997: 76) lexical metaphor was suggested to originate in paradigmatic opposition. Secondly, Mayer (1994: 561) showed lexical metaphor to facilitate comprehension as explained above. It may therefore be expected that paradigmatic opposition would ease comprehension or at least would not present a serious obstacle to comprehension. Furthermore, on this background we may expect that other types of metaphor rooted in paradigmatic opposition may facilitate comprehension too. To take the process further, therefore, grammatical metaphors primarily rooted in paradigmatic opposition may be assumed to be easier to process than grammatical metaphors primarily rooted in syntagmatic process, an assumption that is borne out by the diŸerences in complexity of the two illustrations above. However, the truth-value of this assumption cannot be veriªed through register analysis. We would need to know more about the way the human mind works, to be able to explain how it deals with syntagmatic input compared to paradigmatic input. One approach to this might be experimental research like the survey described in Chapter 5. Moreover, it would be necessary to study the reception side more closely as well as the ways in which language provides an interface between the reader/user and the world, an issue that is raised again in Chapter 7 in a discussion of language as social semiotics. But before we can proceed to any text-external dimensions, it will be necessary to take a closer look at the nature of paradigmatic and syntagmatic metaphor, a task I will approach by looking at text and texture.

Text and texture Halliday and Hasan have deªned text as “the basic unit of meaning in language” (1976: 25). Two criteria will have to be met for a text to fulªl this requirement: it must be coherent as regards the situational context, and it must be coherent as regards text immanent criteria (the latter phenomenon is also known as cohesion) (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 23). In other words, to be understood, a text must have texture (must be structured so that it can function in its environment). In Systemic Functional Grammar the following textual components have been identiªed as indispensable to creating texture: Structural components Thematic structure: Theme and Rheme Information ¶ow: Given and New

Cohesive components Reference Ellipsis and substitution Conjunction Lexical cohesion

29

30

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

As we shall see, all of these components (except for lexical cohesion) hold a potential for creating grammatical metaphor. Table 5 gives an overview of Halliday’s metafunctions and their sub-categories. Table 5. Features of coherence Ideational

Interpersonal

Experiential

Logical

Clause: transitivity

Paratactic and hypotactic relations

Textual (Structural)

Clause: Mood, modality

Clause: theme

Verbal group: tense

Verbal group: Person

Verbal group: voice

Nominal group: epithesis

Nominal group: attitude

Nominal group: deixis

Adverbial group: circumstance

Adverbial group: comment

Adverbial group: conjunction

(Nonstructural) Information distribution

Cohesion: Reference

Information focus

Substitution Ellipsis Conjunction Lexical cohesion

(Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 29)

It will appear from Table 5 that cohesive features are not regarded as structural. However, to understand the meaning of structure a note on rank is essential. According to Halliday any linguistic system has a rank system and a structure framework. Rank has been deªned as “the scale on which the units are ranged in the theory” (Halliday, 1961: 251). DiŸerent ranks can be combined by cohesive elements, but there is no given order of internal organization. Although they are dependent on one another for interpretation there is no structual relationship between diŸerent ranks. (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 27). The structure framework, on the other hand, comprises the presupposed constituents of the diŸerent ranks, through which meaning is construed. If we look at the syntagmatic and paradigmatic forces from the perspectives of structure and cohesion now, there seems to be a direct relationship between the syntagmatic forces and the structural components of language on the one hand and the paradigmatic forces and the cohesive components on the other, since structure seems to build on syntagmatic process whereas the cohesive elements in language do not structure the language in any given order in the clause complex. Instead they are optional elements, which may be added or removed as desired, in¶uencing the implicitness/explicitness balance of the text but not its grammatical structure. A non-ªnite clause may be in

Register analysis

initial or ªnal position without sacriªcing the grammaticality of the clause complex, and it may be replaced by a ªnite paratactic clause. But neither the order of the clause constituents nor the elements of the noun group is facultative The cohesive elements, which are non-structural, are therefore paradigmatic in nature.

Categorization of types of grammatical metaphor Table 5 above now makes it possible to identify a number of metaphorical categories. Halliday (1994) discusses ideational and interpersonal metaphors as categories of grammatical metaphor, while Martin (1992) extends the range by including also textual metaphor, a category I shall refer to as textural due to its origin in texture. Inspired by Halliday and Martin, I suggest an extension of their lists of grammatical metaphor, trying in the process to include my observations about the distinctions that are possible in the light of syntagmatic process and paradigmatic opposition. This leads me to conclude that there are categories not mentioned by Halliday and Martin that might qualify for the designation of grammatical metaphor. These include what I have referred to as grammatical interpersonal syntagmatic thematic metaphor (interpersonal thematic metaphor for short) — a label subsuming the passive voice with animate agent. Other categories include interpersonal paradigmatic metaphor realizing certain uses of the imperative, textural thematic metaphor realizing the passive voice with inanimate agent, textural syntagmatic metaphor realizing compound nouns, and textural paradigmatic metaphor realizing ellipsis and article omission. (For a discussion of the imperative as grammatical metaphor, see Lassen (forthcoming)).

A taxonomy of syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphor Figure 3 distinguishes between lexical metaphors and grammatical metaphors, the latter sub-categorized according to their syntagmatic and paradigmatic nature. Both syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphors are constructs of the grammar, but there are signiªcant diŸerences between them as explained. In Figure 3 both categories are seen on the background of the ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions. Resources in language for creating grammatical metaphor Halliday (1998) has suggested that as a theory of experience, grammar holds the resources for construing phenomena into classes through the vocabulary. Thus technical terms are assumed to have been created through the process of providing more explicit deªnitions of general-purpose terms, thereby creating taxonomies on the basis of a vocabulary already in existence, but adding to this vocabulary a

31

Textural

Interpersonal

Ideational (experiential)

Paradigmatic

Syntagmatic

Paradigmatic

Thematic metaphor Metaphor of modality Met. of mood

Syntagmatic Statement Question Offer Command

Ellipsis Article omission Relator

Thematic metaphor

Met. of modality

Met. of mood

?

Paradigmatic

Syntagmatic

Metaphor of transivity

Compound nouns

The imperative The interrogative The passive voice

The passive voice Modalized clause to projected clause ?

Clause to nominal group Process to entity

Figure 3. A taxonomy of metaphor

(Question mark indicates that no examples were found in any of my texts — the system network is not exhaustive)

Metaphor

Lexical

Simile Metaphor Metonymy Synecdoche Catachresis

32 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Register analysis

touch of theoretical abstraction. Thus bird has become avis — a term that embraces both the category meaning of noun and a number of distinctive semantic features not held by bird. It is this potential that the noun has for accomodating an ever-expanding semantic load that is at the root of grammatical metaphor. Nouns, performing as Actors may embrace also semes of Processes or Qualities. Thus move may become motion and long may become length through the resource that grammar has for deriving one semantic category from another. At the same time packaging of information takes place, both in what Wignell, Martin and Eggins (1993: 163) have referred to as condensation, but also by the fact that nouns have the potential for being premodiªed by other nouns to form compound nouns, or by adjectives to form complex nominal groups. By using the semogenic potential of metaphoric nominalization, a verb like move can change into motion or move without friction can change into frictionless motion and thereby gain the potential for participating in new processes as things which it is possible to observe and theorize about.

Ideational metaphors Under ideational metaphors (sometimes referred to as experiential metaphors) Halliday (1994) has listed metaphors of transitivity. In simple terms, these are realization choices re¶ecting the experience of the interlocutor. Ideational metaphors change the transitivity structure of the clause by representing meaning by con¶ating two semantic categories, hence the designation metaphors of transitivity. There are many ways in which metaphors of transitivity may be realized, but the general movement has been shown by Halliday to take place towards the concrete in the following order: Relator → Circumstance → Process → Quality → Entity

Thus every semantic element to the left of entity may be realized incongruently as one of the categories on its right-hand side, but transformations moving towards the left will not generate grammatical metaphor because no semantic junction (see below) takes place This means that, according to Halliday (1998), e.g. an entity realized as process is realized congruently and hence does not constitute grammatical metaphor, and the same observation can be made for any other conceivable transformation against the general drift of grammatical metaphor. Tables 6 and 7 show a transitivity analysis involving a fusion of Process and Actor. In Table 6 the Actor Installation, which is implicit Agency in the metaphorical clause, has been generated through a movement from Process to Entity (install → installation). This results in a change of Process from material to relational. The empty columns in the row headed representing in Table 7 show that the metaphorical wording has been unpacked into congruent forms.

33

34

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 6. Ideational metaphor of transitivity Metaphorical wording

Installation

began

last year

Class Function (Gram) Function (Semantic)

NG S Existent Medium

Representing

Actor: Agent

V V Process: Relational Process: Material

NG A Circumstance: Time Circumstance: Time

Table 7. Non-metaphorical version Congruent wording

They

began

installing the machine

last year

Class Function (gram) Function (semantic)

NG S Actor: Agent

V V Process: Material

VG complex O Goal: Medium

NG A Circumstance: Time

Representing (Lassen: 1997: 78)

Identiªcation of ideational metaphor There are at least ªve diŸerent ways in which ideational metaphor may be identiªed, viz. through a transitivity test, unpacking, semantic junction, derivation and agnation. Unpacking (applying two or three additional readings to a clause) is one of the most important tools of identiªcation. By rewriting a metaphorical (incongruent) clause into a corresponding non-metaphorical (congruent) version, which is supposed to be the typical way of realization (Eggins 1994: 63), it becomes possible to compare diŸerent linguistic realizations. This may be done by means of the transitivity tests shown in Tables 6 and 7. The transitivity tests show tension between diŸerent semantic categories in the analysis of the incongruent realization (Table 6) where certain categories have replaced or represented others. It is this tension that Halliday (1999) has referred to as semantic junction, a notion that is at the root of grammatical metaphor. He explains semantic junction as a con¶ation of semantic content from diŸerent semantic categories into one semantic category, which imposes on the reader a ¶ash-like fusion of the semes involved in e.g. Process and Participant. In addition to the tests already mentioned, Ravelli (1985: 63–65) lists two devices for determining whether a realization is congruent, viz derivation and agnation respectively. Of these two diŸerent approaches, derivation is based on the morphological pattern of a word in the form of preªxes or su¹xes (install → installation: su¹x: ation), while agnation is diachronically founded in the etymological evolution of a word: accede (verb) – access (noun) – access (verb). These tests, which are particularly relevant to ideational metaphors, help us determine which was the original and hence congruent way of expression.

Register analysis

Interpersonal metaphor Interpersonal metaphor is a fairly undeveloped area in Systemic Functional Linguistics, but Halliday (1994) and Martin (1992) have prepared the ground for further investigations of the topic and it is their work that has enabled the interpretations presented below. According to the two theorists, interpersonal metaphors arise from the Mood and Modality systems of language. As observed by Martin (1992: 412) interpersonal metaphors have modal responsibility. This means that through the possibility of realizing the interpersonal strand of meaning metaphorically, the speaker/writer has a resource for conveying a message via a number of Modality and Mood options as shown in Table 8. Table 8. Congruent and metaphorical realizations of interpersonal meanings Modalization: congruent

Modal verb

Probability may

Usuality will

Modal Adjunct Epithet Thing relational Process projecting Process conjunction

possibly possible possibility (suggest) (I) reckon if

usually usual tendency (predict) (I) predict provided that

Modal verb

Inclination may

Obligation must

Verb complex causative Process Epithet Thing projecting Process conjunction

be allowed to allow (x) to… permissable permission (I) recommend in case

be obliged to oblige (x) to… necessary necessity (I) insist so

statement question

declarative interrogative

He’s here Is he here?

statement question

probability usuality

It may be that … Is it usual that …

statement question

projection projection

I reckon … Don’t you think …

Proposal: congruent

command oŸer

imperative Shall/can I …………….

come here come over

metaphorical

command oŸer

obligation inclination

you should … I would …

projection: desire modulated reaction

would you like … I’d love…..

metaphorical

Modulation: congruent metaphorical

Mood Proposition: congruent metaphorical

command oŸer (Martin, 1992: 413)

35

36

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Martin’s model has been based on Halliday’s speech functions (1994: 69) and his system of modality (ibid.: 91), which is built over the assumption that dialogue takes place with the purposes of giving and demanding commodities. These may then be exchanged in the form of goods and services or information through the Modality and Mood systems. To describe the notion of modality, Halliday takes his starting point in polarity which implies that a choice has to be made between a negated and a non-negated ªnite verb. But between these two poles, there are a variety of possibilities, which Halliday classiªes as Propositions (statements and questions) and Proposals (oŸers and commands). Propositions subsume two categories: Probability — also known as epistemic modality — and Usuality, which notions show varying degrees of subjectivity as regards how probable an action is and how often it takes place. Proposals include the poles of prescribing and proscribing, and between these extremes a variety of possibilities are discernible. In commands, various degrees of obligation — also known as deontic modality — are expressed whilst oŸers imply varying degrees of inclination. Propositions and Proposals both involve the Mood system as shown in Halliday (1994: 357). A full account of the modality system is, however, beyond the scope of this book and besides not particularly relevant to the language used in technical manuals. But the notions of probability, usuality, obligation and inclination are at the root of the conªguration of metaphors of modality — a concept that we shall examine below. (For a more exhaustive account of modality, see Halliday 1994: 358–363 and Martin (1992).

Metaphors of modality Metaphors of modality, all rooted in subjectivity versus objectivity and implicitness versus explicitness, represent diŸerent ways of expressing substantive proposal or proposition. Representing the speaker’s angle, modality is used for the speaker’s own purposes to give prominence to the speaker’s point of view. This purpose is achieved by using a modalized or modulated modal verb in one of the forms shown in Figure 3 above. Halliday deªnes the use of modal verbs (should/ will) and modal adjuncts (probably) as non-metaphorical. Projecting clauses consisting of a main clause and a subordinate clause such as I think it is so are perceived as metaphorical, the determining factor being the focus of the proposal or proposition — a question that can be resolved by using a tag. If we say I think it is going to rain, isn’t it? the tag refers to it is going to rain and not to I think. As Halliday points out we would not say I think it is going to rain, don’t I. This shows that the proposition is it is going to rain and that I think is not part of the proposition and therefore metaphorical in the Hallidayan sense. As also observed by Halliday (1994, p. 355), “it is not always possible to say exactly what is and what is not a metaphorical representation of a modality”.

Register analysis

The speaker has many ways of presenting a personal point of view, and what appears to be an objective proposal or proposition is sometimes a re¶ection of the speaker’s subjective opinion dressed up as objectivity. Grammatically, this is done by projecting a congruent clause like the police must have made a mistake into a metaphorical main clause and a subordinate clause in a syntagmatic process as follows: It is obvious that the police have made a mistake everyone admits that the police have made a mistake it stands to reason that the police have made a mistake it would be foolish to deny that the police have made a mistake (interpersonal metaphors in italics)

all of which are instances of interpersonal metaphor implicitly stating the speaker’s subjective point of view but in a seemingly objective manner. The tag test haven’t they would show that the main clauses it is obvious … etc. do not belong to the proposition and are therefore to be seen as metaphorical. For all the utterances stated above it is, however, possible to use tag tests that focus on the projecting clause such as It is obvious that the police have made a mistake, isn’t it? Given this reading, it is obvious that … would not be a metaphorical realization, which means that the utterance may be interpreted as a realization of two meaning options. An aspect that carries as much weight as the problem of subjectivity versus objectivity in metaphors of modality is that of explicitness or implicitness. Halliday seems to think that only explicit propositions and proposals can carry metaphors of modality. The examples Halliday provides to illustrate what he understands by explicit statements are all projecting clauses such as: Subjective explicit: I think it is going to rain, isn’t it? Objective explicit: It’s likely Mary knows, doesn’t she?

The tags would suggest that the clauses I think and it’s likely are metaphorical on the basis of propositional focus. There is, however, a diŸerence between the two clauses. For clause 2 it is possible to use two diŸerent tag questions so we might instead say: It’s likely Mary knows, isn’t it? Therefore in examples like clause 2, a tag test would suggest two possible interpretations of which one is metaphorical and the other congruent. By contrast, clause 1 has established itself as metaphorical since we would never say: I think it is going to rain, don’t I? We may say that it has become a dead metaphor. However, there may be more than just one metaphorical process at work in clause 2 since the main clause it’s likely is a seemingly objective representation of the subjective point of view of I believe. The inference of this is that clause 2 contains both a syntagmatic interpersonal metaphor of modality (a modalized clause being realized metaphorically as a main clause and a

37

38

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

projection) and a paradigmatic interpersonal metaphor of modality (subjective explicitness being realized as objective explicitness).

Metaphors of mood Traditionally the term mood has been used in a restricted sense to mean either the imperative mood, the indicative mood or the subjunctive mood (Lyons 1977, p. 747). Halliday, however, extends the term to include diŸerent kinds of sentence types too. Thus in order to understand the concept of metaphors of mood this broader deªnition should be kept in mind. Metaphors of mood are based on patterns of exchange as shown in Figure 3 above. A common characteristic is that the verb has symbolic force — sometimes referred to as illocutionary force. But apart from being statements, questions, oŸers and commands these verbal acts can also have a certain eŸect upon the beliefs, attitudes and behaviour of the receiver and this eŸect is known as perlocutionary eŸect (Lyons 1977, pp. 730– 731). In other words the verb symbolizes or projects an act. In order to deªne more precisely the ªeld within which metaphors of mood operate, the Figure 4 may be helpful. As explained earlier, mood provides for options within an exchange system of give and take i.e. of giving or demanding information or goods & services. In this system, shown in Figure 4, we ªnd indicative type and imperative type verbs ranging from a positive pole to a negative pole represented as a variety of speech functions; these categories are archetypal categories, each of them embracing a great variety of semantically loaded verbs used explicitly to instruct, warn, claim, etc. Occasionally, however, the underlying intention of the sender is not stated in explicit terms, but only implied. It is this vagueness of expression that prepares the ground for interpersonal metaphors of mood — a vagueness that particularly characterizes the imperative. [probability] centainly probably possibly

it is

it must be

[usuality]

positive [obligation]

always

required

it wlll be

usually

it may be

sometimes

it isn't

supposed

negative

allowed

do!

[inclination]

must do

determined

will do

keen

may do

willing

don't!

Figure 4. System of types of modality (from Halliday, 1994: 357)

Register analysis

The imperative Table 8 on p. 35 shows the system of modality and how it relates to polarity and mood. The indicative mood is used for propositions while the imperative mood is used for proposals including commands which is the typical way of imposing one’s will on others (See Lyons 1981: 191; see also Eggins 1994: 153). The imperative has a number of syntactic and semantic characteristics, which may be summarized as follows: Syntactically, the imperative has no voice, auxiliary, modal and tense elements and, usually, no overt subject. Therefore, syntactic characteristics do not greatly facilitate interpretation of the imperative — a problem that is aggravated by its large semantic potential. The imperative may be used to order, insist, advise, demand and request (Holdcroft 1978), and only the context will show which of these speech functions has been invoked. Let us consider e.g. the imperative utterance check cushion screw hole. It is not possible to know on the basis of syntactic features, whether to interpret it as a command, a piece of advice or a request without knowing the situational context. Each of the possible interpretations would re¶ect the intention of the sender that something be made the case. This conªrms that there is a strong component of implicit meaning in the imperative, — meaning that it has not so far been possible to interpret by means of the grammar. Systemic Functional Grammar has not so far been su¹ciently elaborate within this area, but a more extensively developed theory on interpersonal metaphor might be capable of accommodating diŸerent interpretation options within mood. The problem has usually been solved by resorting to pragmatics of which Speech Act Theory3 and Grice’s theory on the cooperative principle4 are two obvious candidates. But also the notions of context of situation and context of culture within Systemic Functional Grammar are highly relevant when subjecting the imperative to extra-textual, extra-grammatical interpretation. Now, this chapter was devoted to register analysis, but the imperative — owing to the great variety of meaning options it represents — will force us to 3. Theorists commonly referred to in connection with Speech Act Theory are Austin and Searle (1979, 1983). 4. The basic elements of the Cooperative principle are as follows: Make your conversational contribution such as is required, at the stage at which it occurs, by the accepted purpose or direction of the talk exchange in which you are engaged. This has led Grice to formulate the maxims of quantity, quality, relation and manner, which principles must always be observed in order for discourse to be successful. However, Grice says that in certain circumstances violation of the Cooperative Principle is acceptable, but only when it is possible to work out the meaning of an utterance through what he refers to as conversational implicature. To work out that a conversational implicature is present, the hearer will not only rely on the maxims stated above, but also on the context of the utterance and the conventional meaning of the words used, provided all relevant items are available to both participants of the conversation (Grice 1975).

39

40

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

include knowledge of the world in order to be able to interpret the Speech Function represented by the imperative used in technical manuals. On this background, I am going to suggest in the following how — in certain contexts — the imperative may be seen as an instance of interpersonal grammatical metaphor.

The imperative as interpersonal metaphor In the utterance install the shaft in the machine taken from the instructional part of a technical manual, I would argue that the imperative install is a paradigmatic metaphor of mood. The form has all the characteristic features of an imperative in a syntactic sense: an implicit logical subject is identiªable (you), but otherwise there are no auxiliary, modal or tense elements to be identiªed. Semantically, it has the implicit value of advice and the illocutionary force5 implied by the sender that something be made the case (install the shaft so that the machine is operational). The congruent meaning of install is If you want the machine to work, we advise you to install the shaft. It is entirely up to the receiver to act upon the utterance or to opt out, since the command has no legally binding force, but should be seen more as a recommendation. We might say that it has advisory force. Martin (1997: 26) has observed that “all things being equal we expect that statements will be realized as declaratives, questions as interrogatives and commands as imperatives”. However, as indicated by the example given above not all imperatives realize commands since it is possible to cross-couple speech acts within the mood system and thereby generate a metaphorical utterance. The question now remains whether the crosscoupling of the imperative with speech acts not typically realized by the imperative mood would fall in one of the categories of grammatical metaphor. And this does seem to be the case since rewriting the imperative clause into the congruent version of if you want the machine to work, we advise you to install the shaft seems to entail paradigmatic opposition in the mood system. In other words, there seems to be a paradigmatic semantic junction between command and advice, advice being realized metaphorically through the device typical for command, viz. the imperative. However, the imperative has so far been looked upon as congruent within Systemic Functional Grammar (see e.g. Martin, 1992: 413; see also Eggins, 1994: 5. Austin distinguishes between locutionary, illocutionary and perlocutionary acts as follows: (a) A locutionary act is an act of saying. (b) An illocutionary act is an act performed in saying something: e.g. issuing a command or request or asking a question. (c) A perlocutionary act is an act performed by means of saying something: Getting someone to believe that something is so, persuading someone to do something (Lyons 1977). There is a diŸerence between illocutionary force and perlocutionary eŸect in that the former is to be understood as a promise, threat, request, etc. whereas perlocutionary eŸect is the eŸect upon the belief, attitudes and behaviour of the addressee. (Lyons, 1977: 730–731)

Register analysis

153) because, as noted by Eggins, it is the typical realization of command. However, I have argued that in the genre of technical manuals the imperative is the typical way of expressing — not commands, but advice. Therefore, from a speech act point of view, which I have to admit is not the usual perspective taken by Systemic Functional Grammar, it may be argued that the imperative is metaphorical because of the paradigmatic tension created between command and advice. However, if we study the imperative in the above example from a diŸerent perspective, namely that of syntagmatic process, we will ªnd that it is congruent since no transformation of the semantic category of Process takes place. In the utterance install the shaft in the machine, install is Process, the shaft is Goal and in the machine is Circumstance. If the utterance reads if you want the machine to work, we advise you to install the shaft, install still realizes Process followed by Goal realized by the shaft. The wording that has been added, viz. if you want the machine to work, we advise you to does not give rise to any syntagmatic process. Instead a paradigmatic transformation takes place between the imperative and the inªnitive — a transformation that creates tension not between two diŸerent semantic categories in the lexico-grammar, but between two sentence types, one replacing a mental map of the other. Therefore, depending on the perspective taken, it is possible to look at the imperative as congruent from the perspective of syntagmatic process and metaphorical from the perspective of paradigmatic system. The notion of semantic junction remains important as, to my mind, apart from allowing for syntagmatic cross-coupling, it also allows for a paradigmatic cross-coupling of a semantic category in the utterance and its mental representation. And why should this not be possible? In the present study, I have taken the stance that such extra-textual junction is possible. On this background I would suggest that, at some level, the imperative holds the potential for realizing paradigmatic interpersonal metaphor of mood. Viewing the imperative along these lines should be beneªcial to the interpretation of the meaning potential involved in Mood, and more especially to the discussion of accessibility in terms of syntagmatic and paradigmatic forces in text. Through analysis of the genre of technical manuals, it will appear that the imperative is a frequently used device in instructional and procedural language — a device that usually entails the pragmatic value of advice oŸered to be acted upon voluntarily. Genre knowledge enables us to decide whether use of the imperative is a relevant solution in the given context, and what is more important, whether the imperative can relevantly be interpreted as having an advisory function.

The passive voice as interpersonal grammatical metaphor None of the theorists, who have done work on grammatical metaphor, has suggested that the passive voice may be viewed as such. Some passives do, however,

41

42

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 9. The passive voice: (Incongruent wording) The combine

can be equipped with

a self-levelling system

[by us]

Non-conscious Actor (Medium/Subject)

Process: Material

Goal

[Agency] implicit

Table 10. The active voice: (Congruent wording) We

can equip

the combine (with)

a self-levelling system

Actor (Agent/Subject)

Process: Material

Beneªciary: (particle) Recipient

Goal

invite interpretations along these lines. This applies to passives with the illocutionary force of oŸer and command such as (1) The combine can be equipped with a self-levelling system and (2) The machine is cleaned thoroughly after use. To illucidate this problem, let us make a transitivity analysis as in Tables 9 and 10. As will appear, the main criteria for categorizing a conªguration as grammatical metaphor are present. A semantic junction takes place in that the combine which functions as Medium/Subject in the passive clause takes up the function of Beneªciary in the active clause. At the same time the suppressed agency by us of the passive clause functions as Actor in the active clause, thus creating, in addition to the semantic junction, a thematic junction through the fusion of Agency and Actor. These transformations are syntagmatic. It should be noted, however, that the semantic junctions created diŸer from the semantic category junctions arising in connection with ideational metaphors where a Participant and a Process typically fuse together. In the example in Tables 9 and 10 the junction is between two types of Participant or between two types of Process and the transformations may therefore be said to re¶ect a diŸerent level of the grammar. Now, diŸerent kinds of passives may have diŸerent pragmatic interpretations. If the passive voice of the declarative mood is used to make a statement such as The grain is moved to the front of the top sieve the metaphorical process involves not the interpersonal metafunction, but the textual. And with this observation we shall now turn to the ªeld of textural metaphor.

Textural metaphor The concept of textural metaphor is used in this thesis about types of metaphors generated by the textual metafunction. These comprise syntagmatic metaphors as well as paradigmatic metaphors and should be seen as a function of texture and not just as a function of text. (The diŸerence between text and texture, which is a combination of structural and non-structural elements, was explained earlier). The only Systemic Functional theorist who uses the label of textual metaphor is

Register analysis

Martin (1992: 416–417), who lists a number of mechanisms for organizing social reality. These are divided into Meta-Message Relations (reason, example, pointing out, factor), Text Reference (this, that, the), Negotiating Texture (let me begin by) and Internal Conjunction (as a ªnal point, a number of reasons). However, it is not clear from the examples provided by Martin how he distinguishes between the diŸerent categories and some of them seem to overlap like e.g. those of Negotiating Texture and Internal Conjunction. Nor does he draw a distinction between structural and non-structural features of coherence or between syntagmatic and paradigmatic forces. However, one reason why the textural metaphors I am going to propose and discuss diŸer from those proposed by Martin is that we have focused on diŸerent texts, Martin’ s basis being a stretch of an expository text. If we reconsider Halliday and Hasan’s overview of features necessary to texture (Table 5), we ªnd that a number of structural and non-structural conªgurations are identiªable under the textual metafunction. These subsume features of coherence as well as cohesion which, as suggested by Martin (1992: 416) organize text, not ªeld or tenor. Halliday (1994: 36) refers to the textual metafunction as the function creating relevance to context and the logical (ideational) metafunction as constructing logical relation. Evidently, these two functions overlap since the construction of logical relations is a prerequisite for contextual relevance and vice versa. This may partly explain why Halliday (1994: 179) has not developed a theory of textual metaphor, but instead categorizes the nominal group as ideational metaphor. In my view, however, the ideational function would not be a resource for creating meaning without the textual function. The ideational function depends on the textual function to generate structuring rules that determine the order of constituents in the clause complex or the order of elements in the group complex. Therefore, I believe there is a case for arguing that the natural breeding ground for certain text organizing conªgurations is to be found in the textual metafunction. The implications are twofold: For one thing, the above observations have led me to discuss a number of incongruent conªgurations under the cover term of textural metaphor. Secondly, I have found it useful to sub-divide the notion of textural metaphor according to the syntagmatic and paradigmatic forces that we have seen are present in language. For this purpose Halliday and Hasan’s table of coherence (Table 5) would be very suitable if the following changes were made: under the textual metafunction in the section termed structural, the nominal group should allow for logical structure. Similarly, as explained, the section termed non-structural should be extended to include also paratactic and hypotactic relations since they are cohesive elements between ranks and so do not structure the order of the information. The changes are shown in Table 11.

43

44

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 11. Halliday and Hasan’s overview of text and texture revisited Ideational

Interpersonal

Experiential

Logical

Clause: Transitivity

Paratactic and hypotactic relations

Textual (Structural)

(Non-structural)

Clause: Mood, modality

Clause: Theme

Information Unit:

Cohesion: Reference

Verbal group: Voice

information distribution, information focus

Substitution

Verbal group: person voice

Nominal group: epithesis

Nominal group: attitude

Nominal group: deixis

Lexical cohesion

Adverbial group Circumstance

Adverbial group:

Experiential structure

comment

Logical structure

Paratactic and hypotactic relations

Verbal group: Tense

Ellipsis Conjunction

Adverbial group: Conjunction (Suggested changes in bold)

Examples of textural metaphors In the light of this brief account on texture and its relationship with coherence, a relationship based on structural and non-structural organization, the following examples illustrate what I understand by textural metaphor. Grammatical label – compound nouns – the passive voice – reference – non-ªnite clauses – ellipsis

Example straw walker rear shaft the grain is moved to the front of the top sieve connect (the) pipes to (the) cylinder operate the valve, checking for continuous ¶ow cleaning shoe drive belt (is) slipping

(brackets indicate ellipted words)

The grammatical categories mentioned are found in all genres, and the list is in no way exhaustive for textural metaphor, but technical manuals would typically have a high frequency of either or all of the following: compound nouns consisting of a long string of nouns, the passive voice, omission of the deªnite article resulting in implicit reference, non-ªnite clauses and ellipsis. Common to these categories is that they are all a function of syntax. A theory of textural metaphor would

Register analysis

characterize the ªrst two examples (compound nouns and the passsive voice) as structural, and hence syntagmatic, and the last three examples (reference, nonªnite clauses and ellipsis) as non-structural as follows: Structural/syntagmatic a. Straw walker rear shaft b. The grain is moved to the front

Non-structural/paradigmatic c. Connect (the) pipes to (the) cylinder d. Operate the valve, checking …. e. Cleaning shoe drive belt slipping

In the following we shall take a closer look at each of these realizations.

Compound nouns A transitivity analysis of the compound noun of example (a) straw walker rear shaft is shown in Table 12. The table shows an analysis of the experiential structure represented by Thing and Classiªer. In noun groups Thing and Classiªer will normally be preceded by Epithet, Numerative and deictic, but this is not the situation for compound nouns. The internal order of these elements is not arbitrary, but structured on the basis of their semantic meaning in a preset order within the clause constituent. A comparison of Tables 12 and 13 will show that in Table 12 a number of elements are realized incongruently (metaphorically). The congruent Goal (straw) is realized by a Classiªer, congruent Actor (walker) is realized by Thing, congruent Process/ material (moves) is realized by Zero, congruent Process/relational (is) is realized by Zero and congruent Circumstance (on the walker) is realized by Zero + Thing. Zero in the incongruent version consists in the implicit semantic relationship between each of the nouns in the noun group. In the congruent version (Table 13) these mental representations, as they really are, have been shown in brackets. The numbered examples in the incongruent version indicate two processes. If a noun is marked with two numbers, the noun has two functions — one in each process. Thus walker represents Circumstance in one process and Actor in the second. Table 12. Compound noun: Incongruent version Metaphorical wording

Straw (2)

walker (1) (2)

rear

shaft (1)

Class Experiential structure

NG Classiªer

Thing

Classiªer

Thing

Representing

Classiªer 2) goal

Thing 2) Actor: Process 1) circumstance

1) Existent: entity (relational)

45

46

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 13. Compound noun: congruent version Congruent wording

(the) rear shaft

Class Experiential structure

NG Deictic

(which is)

Classiªer Qualiªer (thing) Existent/ relational

(on the) walker

(which moves the) straw

Circumstance: Place

Representing

Table 14. Metaphorical version The grain

is moved

to the front of the top sieve

[by a mechanism]

Medium/Subject

Process: Passive

Circumstance: Place

Agency

Table 15. Congruent version (A mechanism)

moves

the grain

to the front of the top sieve

Actor

Process: Active

Goal

Circumstance: Place

The passive voice Table 14 shows an analysis of the passive voice as textural metaphor, which may be unpacked as shown in Table 15. Here the congruent Actor is realized incongruently as Agency, congruent Process: Active is realized incongruently as Process: Passive, and congruent Goal (the grain) is realized incongruently as Medium/Subject. These transformations take place syntagmatically and result in tension between the categories mentioned. It would appear, though, that the tension diŸers in nature from the tension between diŸerent semantic categories such as Actor, Process, Goal and Circumstance as we saw it in the case of the ideational metaphors. The tension seems to arise at a diŸerent level in the grammar involving what we might call thematic tension caused by the fusion of Agency and Medium/Subject features. In other words, where we might expect to ªnd an Agent (in subject position), we ªnd instead the Medium. Deªnite article omission Tables 16 and 17 show an example of omission of the deªnite article, which is a typical feature in some of the texts I have examined. I have suggested that reference of which the deªnite article is one example, may be seen as textural metaphor. In the following I would like to justify this approach, showing omission of the deªnite article to be part of a paradigmatic system resulting in a junction between a

Register analysis

Table 16. Metaphorical version Metaphorical wording

connect

Class Function (grammatical) Function (semantic) Experiential structure Representing

(the) pipes

to (the) cylinder

NG1

NG2

(zero) thing speciªc Deictic

to (zero) cylinder speciªc Deictic

Table 17. Non-metaphorical version Congruent/explicit wording: connect Class Function (grammatical) Function (semantic) Experiential structure

the

pipes NG1

speciªc deictic

thing

to

the

cylinder NG2

speciªc deictic

thing

Representing

mental representation and Zero. In other words implicit information (Zero) is interpreted by resorting to a mental representation of, in this case, the deªnite article. Table 16 shows the principle. The textural metaphor present in the two nominal groups connect pipes to cylinder is shown by the word in brackets (the), which has been omitted. This way, information about reference (the relation between an element of the text and something else by reference to which it is interpreted in the given instance (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 308) has been made implicit and the reader will have to infer which cylinder or which pipes the writer refers to. We may say that the information left out is represented by Zero in the incongruent version and by a speciªc Deictic in the congruent version. The immediate gain from this transformation is brevity and the loss is lack of precision and therefore, presumably, a heavier burden of interpretation. The transformation is paradigmatic since the information is not recoverable in any other part of the nominal group. Table 17 shows the congruent version.

Non-ªnite clauses The second type of paradigmatic metaphor enabled by the textual metafunction is that represented by non-ªnite clauses. To study this, let us look at Tables 18 and 19.

47

48

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 18. Metaphorical version Metaphorical/implicit wording

Operate

the valve

(zero) checking for

continuous ¶ow

Class Function/ grammatical

V (implicit V subject you) Process: Material a

NG O

V V

NG O

Goal

Process: Material (non-ªnite)

Goal

1

coord.(and)

+2

a

coord. (while)

×b

Function/ semantic Clause structure Representing (Altern. 1, paratactic) Representing (Altern. 2 - hypotactic)

+b

Table 19. Congruent version as paratactic relationship Congruent, operate explicit wording

the valve

and

check for

continuous ¶ow

Class Function (grammatical) Function (semantic)

V V

NG O

Conj. Coord.

V V

NG

Process Material

Goal

Coord.

Clause structure Representing

Goal Process Material (imperative)

1

+2

Table 20. Congruent version as hypotactic relationship Congruent/explicit wording

Operate

the valve

while

(you) continuous ¶ow check for

Class Function (grammatical) Function (semantic)

V V

NG O

conj.

V V

Process: Material

Goal

Subord. Process: Material (ªnite)

Clause structure Representing

a

NG O Goal ×b

The clause shown in Table 18 contains a non-ªnite clause checking for continuous ¶ow. Being a hypotactic relation, this textual phenomenon is non-structural (Halliday and Hasan, 1976: 29) and expands the main clause by way of extension

Register analysis

or enhancement according to how the clause is interpreted.6 There is an overlap of extension and enhancement, and it can often be di¹cult to decide on the correct interpretation. The clause in Table 18 may be interpreted paratactically in Table 19 as Operate the valve and check for continuous ¶ow or hypotactically in Table 20 as Operate the valve, while (you) check for continuous ¶ow, thus stressing the time factor. The logico-semantic relationship between the main clause and the nonªnite clause is therefore ambiguous for reasons explained below, but both interpretations involve paradigmatic metaphor. In Tables 18 and 20 the relationship between the main clause operate the valve and the sub-clause checking for continuous ¶ow in 18 and while (you) check for continuous ¶ow in 20 is hypotactic in both cases. I have interpreted 20 as enhancement and 18 as extension, the time component standing out more clearly in 20. For a reader to understand the metaphorical sentence in Table 18 congruently, the mental insertion of the subordinator while is necessary, which does not entail a redeªnition of the clausal relationship, but involves a change in the verbal group checking for versus check for. The metaphor is thus constituted by a ªnite verb dressing up as a paradigmatically opposed non-ªnite verb. The textural metaphor involved in this analysis is therefore that of two main clauses in an extensional relationship being dressed up as a main clause and a subordinate clause in an enhancement relationship. In this transformation the coordinator realized implicitly by Zero in the incongruent clause (Table 18) is realized hypotactically through while or paratactically through and in the two alternative congruent clauses.

Ellipsis Using conventional grammatical terms, a clause like Cleaning shoe drive belt slipping is an instance of ellipsis. Halliday ( 1994: 309) deªnes ellipsis as follows: “a clause, or a part of a clause, or a part (usually including the lexical element) of a verbal or nominal group, may be presupposed at a subsequent place in the text by the device of positive omission — that is, by saying nothing, where something is required to make up the sense”. He distinguishes between nominal ellipsis and verbal ellipsis, and the example above is an incident of the latter. Like the preceding two examples, this example can also be interpreted metaphorically, viz. as containing a textural metaphor. Tables 21 and 22 are illustrative of this point of view. 6. Halliday (1985: 225-250) mentions three kinds of expansion: Elaborating, extending and enhancing. Typical types of enhancement are temporal, spatial, manner and causal-conditional while the principal categories of extension are addition (and, nor, but) and variation (instead, except, or). These may be paratactic or hypotactic.

49

50

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 21. Metaphorical version Metaphorical/implicit wording

Cleaning shoe drive belt

(is)

slipping

Class Function (grammatical) Function (Semantic)

NG S (?) Participant Thing (?)

(zero) VG V (?) (zero) Material (ªnite)

(non-ªnite)

Representing Alternative analysis/ Class Experiential structure

Process

NG Classiªer: Thing Sub-classiªer

Sub-Thing

Table 22. Non-metaphorical version Congruent/explicit wording

Cleaning shoe drive belt

is

slipping

Class Function (grammatical) Function (semantic)

NG S Participant (Thing)

ªnite VG V Process: Material

non-ªnite

Representing Alternative analysis (does not apply)

The metaphorical system involves a mental representation of a ªnite verb, which has dressed up as zero in the metaphorical version in Table 21. As a result of the reader having to do the interpretative work, the risk of ambiguity arises as shown in the alternative analysis of Table 21. Instead of reading the clause as ellipsis, it might be misread as a nominal group with a non-ªnite verb as thing in the experiential structure. However, normally the verb-derived noun slippage would be preferable.

Summary of metaphorical realizations In the presentation and discussion of metaphorical realizations I have been able to identify two categories of grammatical metaphor, viz syntagmatic metaphor and paradigmatic metaphor. Both of these conªgurations, which originate in Halliday’s ideational, interpersonal and textual metafunctions, are determined by diŸerences of orthogonal nature. Thus syntagmatic metaphor is rooted in structure, while paradigmatic metaphor is rooted in the notion of system. Each of these overall categories may then be subdivided into ideational, interpersonal and textural metaphors. For this purpose, I found the following sets of objective criteria useful.

Register analysis

Ideational metaphor

Interpersonal metaphor

Textural metaphor

Semantic junction Derivation Agnation Transitivity test Unpacking

Semantic junction

Semantic junction

Transitivity test Unpacking Tag test Thematic junction

Transitivity test Unpacking Thematic junction

Application of grammatical metaphor theory At the opening of this chapter, I set out to test the relationship between various types of grammatical metaphor and text accessibility on the assumption that texts rich in grammatical metaphor would be inherently inaccessible. It was my aim to establish textual variation in the 22 texts surveyed and to single out texts that would be particularly di¹cult to read — presumably as a result of a high number of occurrences of grammatical metaphor. But before I could carry out the analyses, it was necessary to widen my knowledge about diŸerent metaphorical conªgurations and the functions they perform in text. Naturally, I cannot oŸer a full account of the analyses made for each of the grammatical metaphors in the texts surveyed. But in what follows, I have included one analysis for each of the eight original text versions which constituted my data. A key to symbols used in the texts is oŸered on p. ix. The ªrst text is an extract from a operator’s manual, describing how the grain is separated from the straw and subsequently cleaned. The manual, published by Ford New Holland, follows the combine harvester when it is sold to a dealer, contractor or farmer. The manual is rather voluminous, around 200 pages, and follows genre conventions with a table of contents, foreword, safety section and then a number of typical moves, which include establishing contact, inducing action, anticipating and solving problems and continuing contact. The following piece of text is from one of the descriptive parts of the manual. Text 2 is an extract from a repair manual, also published by Ford New Holland. However, while text 1 was distributed to operators, this manual is intended to assist service staŸ in repairing the combine harvester in situations of breakdown. This is seen from the instructional function of the text, which is organized as a sequence of commands, using the imperative mood. The repair manual in its full length is a set of loose sheets adding up to a total of about 200 pages. All sections are numbered for reference purposes, and sheets are easily replaced if the combine harvester undergoes constructional changes. The manual is intended for use by shop ¶oor personnel and corresponds well to Rose’s ªndings concerning technical style (1997), which were introduced in Chapter 1.

51

52

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Text 1: Version B1 1. Separation (nw) * # 2. The beater (nw) * strips (nw) * the straw (nw) from the drum (nw) and */ guides (nw) * it (gv) * to the (STRAW (WALKERS)) (nw)*. # 3. The (STRAW (RETARDING (CURTAIN))) (nw) * prevents (nw) * (the beater (ac){from throwing (nw) the straw (gv) too far onto the (STRAW (WALKERS)) })* (ac). # 4. The (STRAW(WALKERS)) (gv) * oscillate, (nw) */lift (nw) and */tumble (nw)* the straw (gv) // (ac) permitting (nw) * (the(REMAINING (GRAIN)) (nw) {to fall (nw) through the walkers (ac) and */slide (nw) down the (WALKER (RETURN (PANS))) (nw) onto the rear (nw) of the (GRAIN (PAN)) }) (nw)*. # 5. [The STRAW (gv) *IS CARRIED] (nw) *over the walkers (ac) and */out of the back (nw) of the combine (gv) *. # 6. Cleaning (nw) * # 7. [THE GRAIN (ac) AND*/CHAFF (nw) *ARE MOVED] (nw) *to the front (nw) of the (TOP SIEVE) (nw)* // where (gv) * an initial cleaning (nw) * takes place (ac)*. # 8. The (CLEANING (FAN)) (nw) *blows (ac) *chaŸ (ac) * over the (TOP(SIEVE)) (ac) and */ extension (nw)* out of the machine (ac) * , // while * the grain, (ac) * (UNTHRESHED (HEADS)) (nw) and * small quantities of chaŸ (ac) * fall (nw) * onto the (BOTTOM (SIEVE)) (nw) *. # 9. The (BOTTOM (SIEVE)) (gv) * ªnally * cleans (nw) * the grain (ac) *. # 10. ([GRAIN] (ac) {that (gv) passes (ac) through the (BOTTOM(SIEVE)) }) (gv) * [IS CARRIED] (nw) * over the(GRAIN (PLATE)) (nw) *to the (CLEAN(GRAIN (ac) (CROSS (AUGER)))) (nw) *. # 11. [((UNTHRESHED(HEADS)) (nw) * {which * do not fall (nw) * through the (BOTTOM (SIEVE)), (ac) * })ARE TRANSPORTED] (nw) * by the (RETURNS (CROSS (AUGER))) (nw) and */ (RETURNS (ELEVATOR)) (nw) * to the drum (ac) * for rethreshing (nw) *. # 12. = (ac) NOTE: (nw) * # 13. The combine (ac) * can be equipped (nw) with * a (SELF-LEVELLING (CLEANING (SYSTEM))) (nw) *(option) *. # 14. This (gv) * increases (nw) * the capacity of the (CLEANING (SHOE)) (nw) * considerably (nw) // when * operating (ac) * in(HILLY (CONDITIONS)) (nw) *. # 15. The system (nw) * functions (ac) * as follows (nw) *: # 16. When (ac) * operating (nw) * on a slope, (nw) * // the cams (nw) on the

(GRAIN (PAN)) (ac) * will move uphill (nw) * // (ac) [ACTIVATED] (nw) * BY AN ACTUATOR (nw) * // (ac) preventing (nw) (the material (gv) {from sliding (nw) to the (DOWNHILL (SIDE)) (nw) of the (GRAIN (PAN))}) (ac) *. (Courtesy of Ford New Holland)

Like texts 1 and 2, text 3 also originates from Ford New Holland. However, this extract was selected from what the company has referred to as a training manual. The purpose of a training manual is to provide the sales personnel with a catalogue for the product they are expected to sell — in this case a combine harvester. Sales persons are usually not trained as specialists of technology, and this is re¶ected in the language used. The training manual may be said to establish the link between the company — via the sales person — and the customer, who is likely to be a farmer

Register analysis

Text 2: Version A2 1. Assembly (nw) of the ((STRAW (WALKER))(SHAFTS )) (nw) * # 2. (STRAW (WALKER (gv) (REAR (nw) (SHAFT )))) (gv)* # 3. Install (ac) * the (PREASSEMBLED (nw) (SHAFT)) * in the machine (nw) *. # 4. Install (ac) * the (LEFT-HAND (BEARING)) (nw) * // and * drive (ac) * it (gv) * against the stop (nw) *. # 5. Secure (ac) * the (LEFT-HAND (BEARING)) (gv) * with the four (MOUNTING (ac) (BEARING (COLLAR C)) (nw) *. # (BOLTS)) (nw) * // and * install (ac) * 6. Install (ac) * the (RIGHT-HAND (BEARING)) (nw) * // and * drive (ac)* it (gv) * against the (FRAME (PLATE)) (nw) *. # 7. Secure (ac) * the (RIGHT-HAND (BEARING)) (gv) * with the four (MOUNTING (BOLTS)) (nw) *. # 8. Drive (ac) * the bearing (gv) * further against the stop (nw) *. # 9. Install (ac) * the (REQUIRED (NUMBER)) (nw) of shims E (nw) and */ circlip B (nw) * / / (the clearance (ac) between shims E (gv) and */ circlip B (gv) * must be (ac) * less than 1 mm) (nw) *. # 10. Install (ac) * (PROTECTION (CAP A)) (nw) *. # 11. ((STRAW (WALKER)) (gv) (FRONT (nw) (SHAFT ))) (gv) * # 12. Install (ac) * the ((STRAW (WALKER)) (gv) (FRONT (ac) (SHAFT ))) (gv) * in the same way as (nw) the ((STRAW (WALKER)) (gv) (REAR (ac) (SHAFT ))) (gv) * , // however * , (ac) starting * from the (RIGHT-HAND (SIDE )) (nw) *. # 13. Note: (nw) * # 14. To install (ac) * the bearing (ac) * on the (RIGHT-HAND (SIDE )) (gv) * // use (ac) * (SPECIAL (TOOL G )) (nw) *. # 15. The groove J (nw) in the (BEARING (HOUSING)) (ac) on the (RIGHT-HAND (gv) (SIDE))(front shaft) (ac) * should be (ac) * on the lower side (nw) * // to make it possible for (ac) * (the grease (nw) * {to enter (ac) * the bearing (ac) *}). # 16. The (GREASE(FITTING K)) (nw) *should be turned (ac) * 90° (nw) * with regard to the keyslot (nw) *. 17. Before assembling (ac) * , // soak (ac) * the (FELT (RINGS)) (nw) * with oil (nw) *. # (Courtesy of Ford New Holland)

in this case. This explains why text 3 uses description and explanation rather than instruction. It is a manual written for the learner and not for the doer. Moreover, it has some persuasive features like e.g. user friendly in the headline, and easy-to-read bargraphs in sentence 2, and the text emphasizes ease of use by highlighting some automatic functions, like e.g. sentence 11, which explains that calibration is done automatically by the monitoring system. Now, the text still has many technical elements, which would be di¹cult to interpret for the non-specialist reader. However, in the original training manual, which comprised 44 pages, the text was supplemented by many very accessible drawings and a reader-friendly layout. Text 4 is an extract from a design, installation and operation manual published and sold by the Technical Services Department of Shell U. K. Oil. In the introduction Shell writes that the publication has been produced for those who

53

54

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Text 3: Version C3 1. ((USER (FRIENDLY)) (nw) (PERFORMANCE (nw) (MONITOR))) (nw) * # 2. The (GRAIN (LOSS (LEVEL))) (nw) * IS DISPLAYED (nw) * in the form of two (EASY TO READ (BARGRAPHS)) (nw)* # 3. Each bargraph (gv) * contains (ac) * ªve green lights (nw) * at the bottom (nw) *, // FOLLOWED BY (ac) * three yellow lights (nw) * and * ªnally * three red lights (nw) * at the top (nw) *. # 4. The ªrst green light (ac) * is (ac) * a (POWER ON (INDICATOR)) (nw) and */ is lit (nw) * at all times (nw) *, // regardless of loss (nw) or */ (MONITOR (SETTING)) (nw)*. # 5. As (GRAIN (LOSSES)) (gv) * increase (nw) *, // more lights (ac) * will glow (nw) *. # 6. Because of the two bargraphs (ac) *, the operator (ac) * can see (nw) and */ identify (nw) * sieve (ac) * and * (WALKER (LOSSES)) (ac) * separately (nw) * at all times (nw) *. # 7. Adjustment (nw) * is (ac) * simple (nw) *. # 8. Each bargraph (ac) * has (ac) * only one (SENSITIVITY (KNOB)) (nw) *. # 9. Increasing/decreasing (nw) the sensitivity (ac) * will make/ more/less lights (nw) on the display (nw) * glow (ac) * for a (GIVEN (LOSS (DETECTION (RATE)))) (nw)*. # 10. This (SENSITIVITY (ADJUSTMENT)) (gv) * IS NEEDED (nw) * // as the (DETECTION (RATE)) (nw) of grain in straw (ac) * depends on (ac) * the volume (nw) and */ humidity (nw) of the straw (gv) *. # 11. No calibration (nw) for the size (nw) of grain (ac) * IS NEEDED (ac) *; # // this (gv) * is done (gv) * automatically (nw) * by the (MONITORING (SYSTEM)) (ac) *. # 12. (INTELLIGENT (nw) (MONITORING (SYSTEM))) (gv) *. # 13. The (MONITORING (SYSTEM)) (gv) * consists of (ac) * two (DETECTOR (PLATES)) (nw) *, << one (gv) at the rear (nw) of the (TOP (SIEVE)) (nw) * >>,<< the other (gv) at rear (nw) of the (STRAW (WALKERS)) (nw) * >>. # 14. Each of these plates (gv) * holds (ac) * just one (CRYSTAL (SENSOR)) (nw) * // <<which (gv) * translates (ac) * the impact of (GRAIN (KERNEL)) (nw) * into an (ELECTRICAL (SIGNAL)) (nw) * >>. # 15. (DETECTOR (PLATES)) (nw) * extend (ac) * over the full width (nw) of the walkers (ac) and */ (CLEANING (SHOE)) (nw) *, // to provide (ac) * accurate information (nw) on losses (ac) *. # (Courtesy of Ford New Holland)

require detailed technical advice on the use of industrial oil fuels. It is intended for an audience consisting of engineers engaged in the design, installation and operation of industrial oil-ªred plants and of company buyers involved in the procurement of oil fuels. The many examples of modal should supports the impression that the text is part of a prescriptive speciªcation, which is moreover conªrmed by references to BS standards in the original manual. The audience is higher up the educational ladder than are the audiences for texts 1–3, which is also re¶ected in the style of text 4 in that the message is more indirect and requires more advanced reading skills. Text 5 is from a designers’ handbook published by Glacier Industrial Bearings. The handbook is organized as a manual with a table of contents providing an overview of 70 pages. The manual contains some typical moves such as orienting

Register analysis

Text 4: Version C4 1. (UNDERGROUND (TANKS)) (nw) * # 2. (STORAGE (TANKS)) (nw) * should not be buried (nw) * directly in the ground (nw) * // as * it is * not possible (nw) * { to inspect (nw) * the tank } (ac) * // once (ac) installed (nw) *, or * / / to prevent (nw) * corrosion (nw) * and * subsequent failure (nw) of the tank (gv) *. # 3. (LEAKING (FUEL (OIL))) (nw) * will contaminate (nw) * the (SURROUNDING (SOIL)) (nw) and */ could lead (ac) to * contamination (nw) of (WATER (COURSES)) (nw) and */ ((DRINKING (WATER))(SUPPLIES)) (nw) *. # 4. Where * (UNDERGROUND (INSTALLATION)) (nw) of a (STORAGE (TANK)) (ac) * is * unavoidable (nw) *, // it (gv) * should be housed (ac) * in a (((SPECIALLY (CONSTRUCTED)) (BRICK (nw) or */ CONCRETE (CHAMBER))) (nw) , { (ac) APPROVED BY the ((LOCAL AND WATER (BOARD))(AUTHORITIES))}) (nw) *. # 5. The chamber (ac) * should be (ac) * of such a design (nw) * // as to allow * easy access (nw) to the (DRAIN (VALVE)) (nw) and */ other ªttings (nw) * # 6. The (TANK (CHAMBER)) (ac) * should be located (ac) * in dry ground (nw) // * and * the (FINISHED (STRUCTURE)) (ac) * made (ac) * watertight (nw) *. # 7. A sump (nw) * must be provided (ac) * in the ¶oor (nw) of the chamber (gv) * at one end (nw) * // to collect (nw) * any (water (nw) {which (gv) may enter (nw) the chamber (gv) in (EXCEPTIONAL (CIRCUMSTANCES))}) (nw) *, and * // to drain (nw) * any water (ac) from the tank (ac)*. # 8. The ¶oor (ac) * should slope (nw) * slightly downwards (nw) * towards the sump (ac) *.# 9. (Water (ac) (ac) {collected (nw) in the sump}) (ac) * can be removed (nw) * // by using a (ac) (SUMP (PUMP)) (nw) *. # 10. The lower part (nw) of the chamber (gv) * should form (ac) * an (OIL-RESISTANT (CATCHPIT)) (nw) *, as with the (ABOVE-GROUND (nw) (STORAGE (TANK))) (ac) *. # (Courtesy of Shell U. K. Oil)

the reader towards the product, inducing action and anticipating and solving problems. The style is similar to that used in text 4 — indirect with many modal verbs and passives. And because the handbook addresses bearing designers, the audience will be similar to that described for text 4, viz. engineers with a strong educational background within the ªeld of science and technology. Text 6 is an extract of a procedure from a maintenance manual written by Martonair Ltd, a company that manufactures hydraulic equipment, valves and cylinders for air lines. The original manual was in hard cover with many visual elements such as tables, graphs and exploded views of components. The text extract is a maintenance or testing procedure with hypothetical elements like in sentence 2, where a conditional clause opens up to a number of choices to be made by the person testing the cylinder. The text shares many features with fault-ªnding procedures. Like texts 4 and 5, this text also makes heavy demands on reading skills in spite of the fact that it tends to be more direct using the imperative mood where the other texts used modal verbs and the passive voice. The complication seems to lie in the obligation on the part of the reader to estimate which instructions to use and which ones to leave out.

55

56

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Text 5: Version B5 1. Fitting (nw) of bushes (nw) * # 2. The bush (gv) * is inserted (ac) * into its housing (nw) * with the aid of a ((CONVENTIONAL (STEPPED (MANDREL))) (nw) , { (ac) preferably made from (CASE-HARDENED (MILD (STEEL)))}) (nw) *. # 3. A (SMALL (15–20 DEG (LEAD-IN (CHAMFER)))) (nw) * should be machined (nw) / in the housing (nw) *, // and * a smear (ac) of oil (nw) * applied to (ac) * the outside (nw) of the bearing (nw) * // to assist (nw) in the (FITTING (OPERATION)) (ac) *. # 4. For (FLANGED (BUSHES)) (ac) *, it * is * necessary (nw) * { to provide (ac) * an (ADDITIONAL (45 DEG X 1 MM (CHAMFER))) } (nw) * // to allow for (ac) * the 1 mm radius (nw) behind (nw) the ¶ange (ac) *. # 5. The bush (ac), mandrel (ac,) / and * housing (ac) * must be (ac) / correctly * aligned (nw) * during assembly (nw) *. # 6. (RECOMMENDED (nw) (MANDREL (ac) / AND * CHAMFER (DIMENSIONS))) (ac) * are given (ac) in Figs 65 and 66 (nw) *. # 7. Fig 67 (nw) * gives (ac) * an indication (nw) of the ((MAXIMUM (INSERTION (FORCE))) (nw) { (ac) required}) (nw) *. # 8. Installation (nw) of bushes (ac) over 300 mm diameter (nw) * is / very much * eased (nw) * by the use (nw) of a ((CLAMP (RING)) (nw) around the bush) (ac) * during its ((INITIAL (ENTRY)) (nw) into the housing) (ac) *. # 9. When * the use (nw) of a mandrel (ac) for large bushes (ac) * becomes * impracticable (nw) *, // it * may be * necessary (nw) * // to align (nw) * the (JOINT (FACES)) (nw) * //by tapping (nw) them (gv) into place * after assembly (nw) *. # 10. Care (nw) * must be taken (ac) * during this operation (gv) * // to protect (nw) * the (BEARING (SURFACE)) (ac) * // by covering (nw) * the (RELEVANT (PART)) (nw) * with (RESILIENT (MATERIAL)) (nw) such as a (RUBBER (SHEET)) (nw) * or *//by using (nw) * a (very (SOFT (DRIFT)) (nw), { (ac) possibly also made from rubber (nw)*}). # (courtesy of Glacier Industrial Bearings)

Text 7 is from the same operator’s manual as text 1, a Ford New Holland manual. The text does not oŸer a complete view of the faultªnding procedure it is a part of, but it gives a general idea of the way the procedure was structured. There is a column for problem (concern), a column for possible causes and a column for possible measures to be taken (correction). The text is typical in terms of style. No sentences are complete, verbs and deªnite articles being omitted, whenever possible. To be able to read and use this text, the audience presumably has to have specialist knowledge, mainly due to the fact that certain of the ellipted clauses seem to be ambiguous to a general audience. Text 8 is also from a Ford New Holland manual, but where text 7 was an extract from an operator’s manual, text 8 was selected from the same repair manual that also text 2 originated from. The text may be classiªed as a list of technical speciªcations — also known as a spare parts list — of which a typical trait is the many heavily premodiªed compound nouns. In the manual the list is supplemented by a drawing of the electric system, which would assist the special-

Register analysis

Text 6: Version A6 1. Testing (nw) The Cylinder (nw) * # 2. If *(SUITABLE (nw) (VALVE/AND * PIPING)) (nw) * is * available (ac) * at the bench (nw) *, // then * a full test (ac) * can be conducted (ac) * as follows (nw) *: # 3. (ac) Connect * (ac) pipes * to (ac) cylinder * // and * (ac) switch on * (AIR (SUPPLY)) (nw) * (60–100 p.s.i.) (nw) *. # 4. (ac) Operate * the valve (gv) * six times in succession (nw) * // to make (ac) * the cylinder (nw) * reciprocate * for its full stroke (nw) *. # 5. (ac) Leaving * the cylinder (gv) * in (OUTSTROKED (+) (POSITION)) (nw) *, // (ac) test * (ac) (BLANK (END (COVER))) / (CYLINDER (BARREL (CONNECTION))) (nw) *for leaks (nw) * // by painting (nw) with oil /or (SOAPY (SOLUTION)) (nw) *. # 6. (ac) Check * also * (CUSHION (SCREW (HOLE))) (nw) / and * (CYLINDER (PORT (CONNECTION))) (nw) * in a (SIMILAR (MANNER)) (nw) *. # 7. If * (LEAKAGE (BUBBLES)) (ac) * are seen (ac) *, // then check (ac) /and * correct (ac) * accordingly * // by tightening (nw) (ac) rods, pipe union, etc (nw) *. # 8. (ac) Check * at (ac) (OPERATING (VALVE)) (nw) * //to see (ac) *//that air (nw) is not / continuously blowing out (nw) of the (EXHAUST (PORTS)) (nw) * # 9. If * air (gv) * is blowing /continuously (gv) * out *, // then * either * the (PISTON (SEAL)) (nw) * is / incorrectly (nw) * assembled (nw) /or * damaged (nw) * , // or * there * is * a ¶aw (nw) * in the ((CYLINDER (BARREL))(SURFACE (FINISH))) (nw) *. # 10. It * will be * necessary (nw) * to strip down (nw) * the cylinder (gv) / and * examine (nw) * (ac) // to clear (nw) * the fault (ac) *. # 11. Next * (ac) operate / the valve (gv) * // and * cause (ac) / the cylinder (gv) * to /((FULLY (RETRACTED))(-) (POSITION)) (nw) * // and * check (ac) * ((PISTON (ROD))((END (COVER))) (nw) /and * (BEARING (ASSEMBLY)) (ac) * in a (SIMILAR (MANNER)) (nw) *, // (ac) checking for * (CONTINUOUS (FLOW)) (nw) out of (ac) ((VALVE (EXHAUST)) (PORTS)), etc (ac) *. # (Courtesy of Martonair)

ist, but confuse the non-specialist, when trying to make sense of the text. It will appear from the presentation of the eight original texts that their audiences vary from shop ¶oor personnel or end users to staŸ with stronger educational backgrounds, but as long as a given text is read by members of its intended audience, there ought to be no problems interpreting its contents. After all, in a context where the manual is actually being used, the reader/user will have access to not only the text extract, but also to other cues, such as tables, graphs and other visuals, in addition to the full text. Moreover, the technician doing repair or maintenance work and who is also likely to be a specialist within his ªeld will most certainly rely on discursive features such as knowledge about the context of culture and context of situation in addition to pure semantic and lexico-grammatical elements. But even so, the claim is often made that technical manuals cause comprehension problems to specialists and non-specialists alike, and it may therefore be worth while looking at both lexico-grammatical features and discursive features to try to ªnd answers to this apparent paradox.

57

58

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Text 7. Version A Concern

Possible cause

Correction

GRAIN (LOSS)) over the sieves * nw

Too much air nw* blast ac* from the (CLEANING (FAN)) nw*.

Reduce ac* air gv* { blast }gv* with ((FAN (VARIABLE(SPEED))) (CONTROL)) nw*.

(WIND (DEFLECTORS)) nw* incorrectly adjusted nw*.

Position nw* de¶ectors gv* on the (FACTORY (SETTING)) nw*.

(TOP (SIEVE)) nw* not opened nw* wide enough nw*.

Open ac* the (TOP (SIEVE))gv * // so * that * all the clean grain * moves * to the (BOTTOM (SIEVE))*. nw

(TOP (SIEVE)) gv* blocked nw*.

Clean nw* (TOP (SIEVE)) gv*.

(BOTTOM (SIEVE)) nw* not opened nw wide enough nw / or * blocked nw*, // causing nw* excessive grain nw{to enter returns / and * be rethreshed} nw.

Open ac/ the (BOTTOM (SIEVE))gv* // and * clean nw* // if * it gv* is blocked nw*.

Crop nw* not in a (ªt condition {to harvest})nw, or contains ac* too much green material nw*.

Raise nw* header nw* // to prevent * as much green material as possible nw* {from entering }ac* combine ac*, // or * wait nw* // until * crop gv* is * in a ªt condition {to harvest}. gv*

(GRAIN (PAN))nw* dirty nw*.

Clean ac* (GRAIN (PAN)) gv*.

((CLEANING (SHOE))(DRIVE (BELT))) nw* slipping nw*.

Adjust ac* ((CLEANING (SHOE)) gv(BELT (TENSION)))nw *.

((BEATER (SHAFT))(SPEED))* nw incorrect nw*.

Check ac* speed of (BEATER (SHAFT))gv*. # Correct speed is 875 rpm nw*.

SELF- LEVELLING ((CLEANING(SYSTEM)) (MALFUNCTION)) nw*.

Check ac* (ELECTRIC (CONTROL)) nw*.

Register analysis

Text 7. Version A continued Concern

Blockage nw of machine nw

Possible cause

Correction

Crop ac* not * in a ªt condition {to harvest} nw, // or * too much green material nw in crop gv*.

Raise ac* header ac* // to reduce nw* amount of green material gv {entering ac the combine})gv *,// or * wait nw* // until * crop * is * in a ªt condition {to harvest} gv*.

Concave nw* incorrectly * adjusted nw*.

Increase ac* (DRUM-TO CONCAVE (CLEARANCE)) nw*. # Ensure ac *// concave gv is parallel to nw the drum gv *

(RASP (BARS)) nw/ or * concave gv* damaged nw/ or * worn nw* excessively nw*.

Inspect ac* all (RASP (BARS))gv / and * concave gv* for excessive wear ac/ or * damage ac*. # Replace ac *, // if * necessary nw*.

(IRREGULAR (FEEDING)) nw*.

Adjust ac* (GROUND (SPEED)) nw* // to permit nw * even feeding nw* # Check ac* ((STRAW (ELEVATOR))(CHAIN (TENSION))) nw*.

Belts ac slipping nw*.

Check ac* all (BELT (DRIVES)) nw*. # Tighten ac* belts gv*, // as required nw*.

Text 8: Version A Electrical components parts list: 1. ((STRAW (WALKER)) (SPEED (SENSOR))) 2. (FIRST ((STRAW (WALKER))(PROTECTION))) 3. ((DRUM (SPEED))(SENSOR)) 4. ((GRAIN (ELEVATOR))(SPEED (SENSOR))) 5. (((GRAIN (TANK))(LEVEL)) ((WARNING (SIGNAL))(SENSOR))) 6. (OPEN ((UNLOADING (AUGER))(SWITCH))) 7. ((CLUTCH (PEDAL))(SAFETY (SWITCH))) 8. (STRAW (CHOPPER))(ENGAGED (SWITCH))) 9. (((AIR (FILTER))(RESTRICTION))(SENDER)) 10. (((ENGINE (COOLANT))(TEMPERATURE))(SENDER)) 11. (((EXCESSIVE ((ENGINE (OIL))(PRESSURE)))(SENDER)) 12. ((PARKING (BRAKE))(WARNING (LIGHT))) 13. ((LOW ((ENGINE (OIL))(PRESSURE))(WARNING (LIGHT))) 14. (((STRAW (WALKER))(PROTECTION))(WARNING (LIGHT))) 15. ((EXCESSIVE (WATER (TEMPERATURE)))(WARNING (LIGHT))) 16. (((GRAIN (ELEVATOR))(SPEED))(WARNING (LIGHT))) 17. (((STRAW (CHOPPER))(SWITCH))(CONDUCTING (PLATE)))

59

60

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Results from analysing the texts In continuation of the presentation aspects of grammatical metaphor theory, it is now possible to proceed to the results of the analyses made of the 22 text versions with the purpose of calculating the density of grammatical metaphor to ranking clauses. To this end, let us take a look at Table 23. As foreseen, the original texts had a higher ratio than the rewritten versions with one exception, text 2. Now, as explained, in this study grammatical metaphor subsumes the categories of what I have referred to as paradigmatic and syntagmatic metaphor. To obtain greater insight into the distribution of these two categories I made two additional analyses, one of paradigmatic and one of syntagmatic metaphor. I did this with the purpose of ªnding out which of the two categories was particularly important in determining the grammatical metaphor ratios found and shown in Table 23. Table 24 shows the density of syntagmatic metaphor. Interpreted along the same lines as Table 23, Table 24 shows that the original texts all have a high density of syntagmatic metaphor. None of the ratios calculated in the changed versions exceeds any one of the original texts. Table 25 shows the ratio of paradigmatic metaphor to ranking clauses. Tables 24 and 25 show that the density of syntagmatic metaphor is higher than that of paradigmatic metaphor in all the texts, and it should be noted that the incidence of paradigmatic metaphor is in fact negligible for the majority of texts. This has of course limited the importance that can be attached to the role played by paradigmatic metaphor in the respondents’ perception of the texts surveyed, and subsequent analyses will re¶ect this fact in that for reasons of simpliªcation the two metaphor categories will henceforth be subsumed under the umbrella term of grammatical metaphor. However, three texts (B2, A6 and A7) contained a higher percentage of paradigmatic metaphors than the rest of the texts. Thinking in terms of paradigmatic metaphors and lexical density cf. Tables 1 and 2, only A6 had high lexical density. Therefore, there seems to be no predictable relationship between paradigmatic metaphor and lexical density and the same conclusion may be drawn as for the relationship between paradigmatic metaphor and Grammatical Intricacy at clause, phrase and group levels. (See Table 4 p. 20) Now, what are we able to conclude on this basis? The analyses shown have provided us with an overview of the similarities and diŸerences between the 22 texts in terms of lexical density (see Table 3, p. 20), grammatical intricacy (see Table 4, p. 20) and grammatical metaphor (see Tables 20, 21 and 22, pp. 48 and 50). They have also provided us with an idea of which texts may be presumed to be intrinsically more inaccessible than others. Based on lexical density (Table 3) and syntagmatic grammatical metaphor (Table 24), these are supposed to be: B1, C1,

59

23

2.8 H

Ratio of syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphors to ranking clauses

2.3

2.8

24

68

A2

3.4 H

27

93

B2

2.8

25

70

C2

3.0 H

24

67

C3

1.6

29

47

A3

23

2.6 H

Ratio of syntagmatic metaphors to ranking clauses

2.5 H

23

2.2

26

57

59

Ranking clauses, total

57

A1

C1

Syntagmatic metaphors total

B1

Changed text (2) Text changed on the basis of 1 (3) Text changed on the basis of 2 (3)

Original text (1)

2.1 H

24

50

A2

2.0

27

54

B2

2.1 H

25

52

C2

2.7 H

24

64

C3

1.5

29

43

A3

Table 24. Ratio of syntagmatic metaphors to ranking clauses

2.6

23

26

65

Ranking clauses, total

59

A1

C1

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphors, total

B1

Changed text (2) Text changed on the basis of 1 (3) Text changed on the basis of 2 (3)

Original text (1)

Table 23. Ratio of grammatical metaphors to ranking clauses

1.5

29

43

B3

1.5

29

44

B3

2.7 H

19

51

C4

2.9 H

19

55

C4

1.5

21

32

B4

1.6

21

33

B4

2.2

23

50

A4

2.3

23

53

A4

3.1 H

18

55

B5

3.4 H

18

61

B5

1.6

22

36

C5

1.9

22

42

C5

1.4

26

37

A5

1.5

26

39

A5

1.9 H

26

50

A6

2.9 H

26

76

A6

1.7

27

45

B6

2.4

27

64

B6

1.5

29

44

C6

2.1

29

61

C6

0.8

50

42

A7

2.3 H

50

116

A7

0.9

50

44

B7

1.4

50

68

B7

1.0

17

17

A8

1.0

17

17

A8

NA

17

0

B8

2.4 H

17

41

B8

Register analysis 61

2

23

0.3 H

Ratio of paradigmatic metaphors to ranking clauses

0.1

23

0.1

26

6

Ranking clauses, total

2

A1

C1

Paradigmatic metaphors total

B1

Changed text (2) Text changed on the basis of 1 (3) Text changed on the basis of 2 (3)

Original text (1)

0.8

24

18

A2

1.4 H

27

39

B2

0.7

25

18

C2

0.1 H

24

3

C3

0.1 H

29

4

A3

Table 25. Ratio of paradigmatic metaphors to ranking clauses

.03

29

1

B3

0.2 H

19

4

C4

0.4

21

1

B4

0.1

23

3

A4

0.3 H

18

6

B5

0.3 H

22

6

C5

0.1

26

2

A5

1.0 H

26

26

A6

0.7

27

19

B6

0.6

29

17

C6

1.5 H

50

74

A7

0.5

50

24

B7

0

17

0

A8

1.0

17

17

B8

62 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Register analysis

A2, C2, C3, C4, B5, and A6. Of these, only text (C1) is not an original text version. If we look at GICL for the same texts (Table 4), we ªnd that the assumption made in this chapter has been sustained in that for the texts which have a high density of grammatical metaphor and/or lexical density, the GICL values are low, while the GIGL values are high. The only texts that do not meet these expectations are texts B1 and C1. However, these preliminary text-internal indications need to be examined more thoroughly, and we shall therefore have to expand our area of research to include, apart from text, also the reader and the situational and cultural contexts. For this purpose we shall have to slightly modify the hypothesis formed in Chapter 2 by adding a qualiªcation that will enable testing of reader attitudes. Therefore, the hypothesis will henceforth read as follows: Hypothesis 1: Since grammatical metaphor causes greater complexity, ambiguity and information load in terms of increased lexical density, texts which are rich in grammatical metaphor are intrinsically less accessible than texts with a low incidence of this phenomenon. [The following qualiªcation added]: It follows that readers and users of texts with a high incidence of grammatical metaphor will ªnd these texts more di¹cult to comprehend than texts with a low incidence of grammatical metaphor and consequently will prefer the latter if asked to assess such texts from the point of view of accessibility.

However, before doing so in Chapter 5, it will be necessary to analyse the genre of technical manuals in order to be able to account for the methods used for the selection of texts presented to the respondents in the survey, and it is to genre analysis that we shall now turn in Chapter 4.

63

Chapter 4

Categorizing text through genre analysis

With burgeoning recognition that language use calls for explanation rather than description, followed by a gradual move from text analysis towards discourse analysis during the 80s, genre analysis has come to play a signiªcant role in linguistics. As we saw in Chapter 2 the term register has been used by Halliday (1964, 1978) to cover the ªeld, tenor and mode dimensions of language; but while register variables are capable of describing how language is used, they do not have the potential for explaining why language is used diŸerently from one institutional or cultural context to another. Therefore, gradually, a diŸerent perspective on language use has emerged, and genre theory has come to be recognized as the appropriate analytical tool for widening the knowledge about the institutional and cultural components of text. Genre analysis facilitates the dialogue between Hodge and Kress’s notions of production regimes and reception regimes (1988) in that genre literacy necessitates a common understanding among writers and readers of the rules governing grammar, style conventions and cultural practice. For an elaborate discussion of these issues, see Chapter 7, where the technical manual is discussed as an instance of social semiotics.

Varying views on genre In recent years various theorists, all rooted in Firthian tradition, have contributed to a clariªcation of the relationship between register and genre. Of theories concerned with genre analysis I shall brie¶y comment on four, which seem to operate from a common platform, viz that of “communicative purpose”, but which are distinguishable by the labels they use to refer to text parts and by their diŸerent approaches to analysing discourse structure. The four approaches are those of Swales (1990), Bhatia (1993), Longacre (1976, 1992) and Australian genre theorists working within Systemic Functional Linguistics. The systemic approach to genre analysis, which will receive particular attention in this book, is mainly attributable to Martin (1992, 1993b, 1997; Eggins and Martin, 1997; Eggins, 1994; and Hasan, 1985.

66

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Aims and objectives The aims and objectives of this chapter are fourfold. First of all I intend to present an overview of text part labels used in the three traditions with the purpose of identifying areas of common focus. In the process, and as a second objective, I shall argue in favour of basing the analysis of the macro-genre of technical manuals on a model combining approaches by Systemic Functional linguists, including in particular Martin’s metaredundancy model, which is shown on p. 148. It will be necessary, however, to suggest certain clariªcations of the SFL approach with the purpose of fulªlling my third objective, viz. that of explaining the rationale behind the selected range of texts for my survey of technical manuals. And ªnally, once the selection procedure has been explained, I shall prepare the ground for an investigation of the relationship between the concepts of acceptability and discourse community, using Swales’s deªnition of genre as a starting point (Swales, 1990).

An overview of text part labels used in the three traditions Table 26 provides an overview of text part labels used by Swales (1990), Bhatia (1993, 1997), Longacre (1976, 1992) and SFL theorists such as Martin, Eggins and Hasan. Equivalent notions have been co-indexed. This means that Martin’s term factual genre (1992: 562–63) corresponds to the term genre as used by Bhatia and Swales; the notion of communicative purpose is used by Swales, Bhatia and the systemicists with, presumably, equal value, while Longacre refers to this concept as deep-structure genres (1976: 197–201); a third area of concern is found in generic structure where Swales (1990) and Bhatia (1993) agree on using the concept of move for something Longacre refers to as high-level moves (1992: 110) and Martin as stages (1993: 121–129). Finally, it is worth noting that Martin uses the term factual genre, without discrimination, for proper factual genres such as news story or anecdote as well as for the linguistic realizations that Bhatia refers to as rhetorical processes and Longacre as surface-structure genres. There is scope for confusion. Therefore, after a brief introduction to the ideas behind the four theoretical approaches, I shall try to bring some clarity into the ªeld with the purpose of identifying a method for the analysis of technical manuals.

Surface-structure genres / embedding

Rhetorical processes … narration, description, evaluation, explanation, instruction …

structured in paragraphs made up of coordinated and/or subordinated sentences

… hortatory, procedural, narrative, expository, drama…

High-level moves (ex.) (3) – Establishment of the authority of the text producer – Presentation of a problem – Issuing of one or more commands – Resort to motivation

Moves (examples) (3) – OŸering incentives – Enclosing documents – Soliciting response – Using pressure tactics – Ending politely

Moves (examples) (3) – Establishing a territory Steps: Claiming centrality and/or Making topic generalizations and/or Reviewing items of previous research – Establishing a niche – Occupying a niche

Deep-structure genres (2) – Hortatory – Procedural – Expository – Narrative (communicative purposes in Longacre’s sense)

Communicative purpose (2) (genre-discriminatory) – promoting a product or an issue – to impose obligations – to confer rights

Super-structure

Super-genre Genres (1) Sub-genres

Genres (1)

Communicative purpose (2) (rationale for the genre) – moulding public opinion – presenting the author favourably – entertaining the reader – etc.

Longacre

Bhatia

Swales

Table 26. An overview of four genre traditions

At the level of context of situation these stages are realized through combinations of description, report, exposition, discussion, recount, procedure, explanation, exploration, serial, anecdote, exemplum, observation, news story … (register realizations constraining style)

Stages (examples) (3) – Sales Initiation – Sales Request – Sales compliance – Purchase

Schematically structured into macrogenre made up of

Communicative purpose (2) (generated at the level of context of culture)

Macro-genre / Factual genres (1)

The level of context of culture (this level generates genre and determines discourse structure and register)

Martin (SFL) The level of ideology

Categorizing text through genre analysis 67

68

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Genre according to Bhatia and Swales Swales (1990) has deªned genre as “A recognizable communicative event characterized by a set of communicative purposes identiªed and mutually understood by the members of the professional or academic community in which it regularly occurs”. Using Swales’s deªnition as his ideological platform and basing his work on a uni-criterial model, Bhatia (1993) calls attention to the signiªcance of the concept of communicative purpose, suggesting that it is the communicative purpose, sustained by the move-structure, that determines the genre. The communicative purpose is genre discriminatory as is the move-structure in the sense that variation on this second level may create sub-genres. But while Swales has a third level where the text is organized into steps, Bhatia does not include this subordinate level in his model. Instead he gives priority to analysing the communicative purpose, suggesting that any major change in the comunicative purpose is likely to give us a diŸerent genre. To Bhatia, the linguistic realizations are not genrediscriminatory, but non-discriminatory rhetorical processes realizing the moves of the move-structure. In recent work, Bhatia (1997: 232) has found it useful to introduce the notions of super-genre, genre and sub-genre to form a hierarchical pattern, super-genre comprising a colony of genres, which may each of them subsume sub-genres. An example of a super-genre is promotional writing with advertisements as a sub-genre, which may in turn be sub-divided into TV commercials, print advertisements etc. The sub-genres have diŸerent move-structures but similar communicative purposes.

Genre according to Longacre Longacre (1976: 198) deªnes genre with reference to a rough-grained taxonomy of discourse including both surface structure and deep structure. He lists four deep structure genres, viz. hortatory, procedural, expository and narrative, which are classiªed according to the notions of projected or accomplished time. As noted by Longacre (ibid.: 202) “it is the deep structure characteristics, not the surface structure characteristics, which best distinguish the discourse genre”. Of course, within a given language, we have conventionally established rules for correlating deep structure to surface structure. In hortatory discourse for instance, we expect to ªnd many imperative clauses where the subject is implicit, while the typical pattern of realization in procedural discourse would be passives with the patient encoded as subject. And once we begin comparing languages, we ªnd that deep structure characteristics do not necessarily correlate with the same surface structure features in all languages, an observation that has implications in translation work, but also serves the purpose of intensifying our perspective on generic

Categorizing text through genre analysis

construction. For the question this raises is to what extent surface structure characteristics are capable of determining the genre. DiŸerent languages and diŸerent cultures would appear to use diŸerent means to achieve the same communicative purpose. But even within a single culture, variation in the surface realization of deep structure features are often seen. The implication of this is that there is not necessarily any one-to-one relationship between communicative function and syntactic form. Longacre (1976: 208) exempliªes this absence of strict correlation between form and function by referring to a sermon in the church. If the vicar fulªls conventional genre expectations of the hortatory genre, by correlating deep structure characteristics with surface structure characteristics, the minds of the audience are likely to wander oŸ. If, on the other hand, he chooses to realize the hortatory genre through the surface structure characteristics expected of the narrative genre, the sermon becomes much more interesting and more eŸective in achieving its communicative purpose. The beneªts of stylistic variation have been reaped by skewing deep structure features of a discourse genre and its surface structure features, one genre fulªlling the purpose of another. Such skewing of language function and form has been referred to as contextual metaphor by Martin (1997: 26), — a notion I shall revert to at the end of the chapter. The concept of communicative purpose is discussed in rather vague terms by Longacre although his deep-structure genres imply some sort of communicative goal represented in the labels used. However, in his discussion of the possibilities of correlating deep-structure genres with surface-structure genres it dawns on the reader that the labels he uses for deep-structure genres are in fact to be understood as labels for communicative purposes. About correlation he further makes the observation that surface structure genres quite frequently embed within the same or diŸerent genres. Expository discourse may ¶ow into hortatory discourse, explanation often preceding instruction (1976: 209). And other combinations are often seen within a given deep structure genre. In more recent work, Longacre (1992: 110) refers to super-structure made up of high-level moves which are realized by the surface-structure genres of hortatory, procedural, expository, narrative and drama. These moves then combine to form the overall deep-structure genres of hortatory, procedural, expository or narrative discourse.

Genre according to Systemic Functional Linguistics SFL sees language and social context as metaredounding layers in a semiotic system (Martin, 1997: 4). Register theory in the Hallidayan sense, embracing the three meaning-making resources of ªeld, tenor and mode, constitutes the context of situation, but Martin (1992) adds an additional layer to the level of context by

69

70

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

including the contextual variable of genre, which he refers to as context of culture. According to Martin (ibid.: 502–503) one particular reason why it may be rewarding to talk about genre as a variable separate from the register variables of ªeld, tenor and mode is that it has not been possible to ªnd a single correlate of purpose on the level of register. Instead the register variables combine to achieve the communicative purpose of a text in systems of social processes at the level of genre. Another observation Martin (ibid.: 503) makes is that texts typically move through stages to a point of closure. He suggests that text structure is generated at the level of genre of which it is possible to say that it is characterized by having beginnings, middles and ends. A similar concept of genre is expressed by Eggins (1994: 9) who says that “genre is used to describe the impact of the context of culture on language, by exploring the staged, step-by-step structure cultures institutionalize as ways of achieving goals”. And she continues (ibid.: 10) “When we describe the staged, structured way in which people go about achieving goals using language we are describing genre”.

Coming to terms with Martin’s generic labels In one of his latest articles on genre theory, Martin (1997: 16) has introduced the notion of macro-genre to denote a genre complex. It would appear that the chunks constituting the macro-genre are made up of a varying combination of factual genres which form a sequence of stages from beginning to end. A cookbook may be recognized as a macro-genre consisting of a mix of factual genres such as e.g. recipe and warning, each of them having its own set of characteristics and each of them a genre in its own right. However, there will be certain problems involved if we use Martin’s concept of factual genre in this sense. For one thing, quite a few of Martin’s factual genres can hardly be deªned as such because they do not move through stages towards a closure with a beginning, a middle and an end. This would notably apply to description, explanation and speciªcation because these text categories cannot be characterized as a goal-oriented social processes moving through stages. It might therefore be useful to reserve the concept of genre for factual genres which meet this criterion and which constitute complete texts with a beginning, a middle and an end. And macro-genre might then be understood in terms of a predeterminable set of recursive stages, each of them realized by one or several linguistic systems such as description, explanation etc. This would enable us to deªne the technical manual as a macro-genre, consisting of a number of stages, each of them realized by one or more rhetorical systems on the level of register. For a slightly diŸerent approach to genre labelling, see also Vestergaard (1999), who suggests a categorization hierarchy based on genre, text types and moves, stressing the importance of register intersecting with the communicative purposes to determine genre.

Categorizing text through genre analysis

Advantages of using Martin’s model As noted by Martin (1992: 506) one of the advantages gained from distinguishing between genre and register levels is that such distinction allows us to account for changes in experiential, interpersonal or textual meaning from one text sequence to another without having to redeªne the genre or genre complex referred to as macro-genre in Martin’s model. The theoretical framework that makes such distinction possible is provided in the metaredundancy model shown in Figure 5. The model, which is inspired by Martin (1992: 496), shows the levels of communication referred to earlier with genre contextualizing register and register contextualizing language as explained. It will appear that none of the other theories mentioned provides a similar framework for explaining how and on which level the notions of genre and communicative purposes are generated. Nor do they pay su¹cient attention to the relationship between the diŸerent moves or stages as a genre phenomenon but tend to deal with this aspect in the grammar only. Admittedly, Swales and Bhatia are rather precise in their deªnition of the communicative purpose, which they say is the “rationale for the genre”. However, they tend not to include stylistic choices when they analyse genre, arguing that the choice of linguistic features cannot determine the communicative purpose. While this may be a correct observation, register analysis still is necessary for identifying the communicative purposes of a genre because the linguistic choices made at the level of register will usually support the analysis of communicative purposes at the level of genre. Longacre (1976) pays more attention to the register

of

ex t

ex t

n

Co nt

at io

Co nt

ure

Situ

lt Cu

of

mode

Language field

Register Genre (Eggins, 1994:34)

Figure 5. Martin’s metaredundancy model

tenor

71

72

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

or surface-structure of text. However, his model is somewhat blurred by his use of deep-structure genre labels coinciding with surface-structure genre labels, and as far as discourse structure is concerned, he tends to operate mainly on the grammatical level like Swales and Bhatia.

An SFL-inspired model for analysis of technical manuals On the basis of Martin’s preliminary work on genre theory, Eggins (1994: 36) suggests that in order to ªnd out how each stage contributes to the whole of the text, the text be analysed on three dimensions. The ªrst of these is the realization patterns in terms of logico-semantic relations between stages. The second involves the staged and goal-oriented organization of the genre expressed through functional labels or schematic structure in Eggins’s terms. The third dimension involves the linguistic realizations of each stage. However, since the organization of stages can be shown to be goal-oriented, I ªnd it useful to extend Eggins’s approach by a fourth point, viz. the communicative purpose. Therefore, I would suggest the following four-step approach: 1. The logico-semantic relations between stages 2. The schematic structure understood as the staged and goal-oriented organization of the text 3. The linguistic realizations of each stage 4. The communicative purpose(s) In what follows, I shall comment on each of the four steps, showing to what extent it is possible to generalize when trying to explain why technical manuals are written the way they are, and when describing how they are written.

Logico-semantic relations between stages Martin (1997: 16) has suggested that logico-semantic relations be used to describe the boundaries between the text parts which combine stages. We have already deªned the technical manual as a macro-genre and we shall now try to establish the nature of the relations between the diŸerent text parts. On the basis of the manuals surveyed, I found that these relations are usually not stated in explicit terms but have to be deduced by the user. But, even so, it is possible for the reader to deduce the logico-semantic relations — not least because they are carried by the logic of institutional culture and may therefore be said to be a generic feature. If using Halliday’s denotational system for the clause complex (Halliday, 1994: 219– 220) we may arrive at the following interpretation:

Categorizing text through genre analysis

(1xb) To use your new (splendid) product, <<which is …..>>, (a) you are advised to read the manual and follow its instructions step by step, (+2) but this may cause you problems (+3) and therefore we have suggested possible solutions, (+4a) but contact us (xb) if necessary.7

The transcription shows that a given technical manual may in fact be reduced to a single clause complex in which the individual clauses are related to one another through a number of logico-semantic relators, which have been made explicit here, but which are always implicit in the manual. By deducing their meaning, it becomes possible to approach the manual with an expectation that the genre progresses through stages according to a pattern based on result/purpose, condition/cause, reason and contradiction.

Stages Inspired by Hasan (1985), Eggins (1994: 41) has suggested a compact description of the minimal generic structure of text by writing out the transactional genre in a linear sequence, each stage being ordered with respect to the next. In the formula she allows for the inclusion of obligatory and optional elements as well as recursivity and unordered elements, thereby providing the framework that Hasan (1985: 64) refers to as the generic structure potential of a particular genre. On this background it is now possible to suggest the following linear description of the technical manual. The symbols used for schematic structure are explained on p. ix. ↓Establishing contact and orienting the reader towards the text and the product^ ↓inducing action^ ↓anticipating and solving problems*(continuing contact)

which is to be read as: The recursive, ªxed order and obligatory stage of establishing contact and orienting the reader towards the text and the product preceding the recursive and obligatory, ªxed order stage of inducing action preceding the recursive, obligatory, ªxed order stage of anticipating and solving problems preceding the optional and unordered stage of continuing contact. The linear description shows how the manual moves through stages, each stage having a communicative purpose in terms of the overall goal of the macro-genre, and an analysis will show each stage to combine a number of linguistic realizations each of them with its own function in the communicative event.

7. The symbols used to show paratactic and hypotactic relations are derived from Halliday: 1, 2 are used for parataxis and hypotaxis is illustrated through + for extending clauses and x for enhancing clauses (Halliday 1994). The symbols << >> signal enclosure (non-identifying relative clause)

73

74

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

The linguistic realization of stages As mentioned earlier, a stage may have one or several linguistic realization patterns, which are combined according to the genre conventions typical of the language in question. In English technical manuals, the typical pattern seems to be that the ªrst stage combines evaluation, deªnition, description, speciªcation, recommendation and instruction. All of these realizations are characterized by a number of diŸerent semantic and grammatical features involving e.g. the use of modal verbs, mood or tense. The second stage where action is induced mainly consists of instruction realized in English through the imperative mood. The third stage where problems are anticipated and solved is characteristically broken down into problem, cause and corrective action. The typical realizations would involve ellipted clauses using the simple present for the problem, the present perfect using ªnished-result verbs for the cause and the imperative mood for the corrective action to be done. Stage 4, which is a non-obligatory sequence, may have speciªcations on how and where to obtain spareparts and recommendations on whom to contact if things go wrong. As a gloss on the linguistic realizations of stages we might add that an analysis of them would answer the question: how has this manual been written? Or which linguistic resources have been activated to achieve the communicative purpose? From this point of view the linguistic realizations are a means to an end. (For an analysis of technical manuals following Bhatia, see Lassen (1998: 104–125))

Communicative purposes On the basis of the manuals studied, I contend that the deepest purpose of a technical manual is to ensure correct use of a given product with the purpose of safeguarding the reputation of a ªrm. This purpose may be seen to hold a longterm perspective as well as a short-term perspective. In the short run it is important for a ªrm to prevent operation errors, which will invariably lead to higher repair and maintenance costs on the part of the manufacturer, if the product is still under warranty. If this is not the case, the repair and maintenance costs will be paid by the owner, thereby causing major dissatisfaction. The manual may therefore be seen to save eŸort and time on the part of the manufacturer as well as on the part of the owner/user. In the long run eŸective technical manuals contribute to the survival of the manufacturer by ensuring smooth co-operation with customers. These overall purposes, although only implied, constitute an all-pervading feature whose goal may be achieved through the well-written and accessible manual that oŸers the user sincere assistance. The communicative purposes identiªable in technical manuals may be summarized as follows:

Categorizing text through genre analysis

Communicative purposes – – – –

To instruct To hedge To inform To sell

These purposes are not equally prominent in all manuals, but there will always be an instructional part achieving the purpose of ‘instructing’. This is what Longacre (1992: 110) refers to as the “minimal and basic” stage. Besides there will be warnings and notes protecting or hedging the user against injury or damage (and the manufacturer against legal action). The purpose of selling is more or less implicit depending on which type of manual we study. In the sub-genre of training manuals, selling is one of the main purposes. But most manuals are written with the purpose of informing in addition to instructing since they are intended to improve the user’s knowledge about the product and how to use it. As a gloss on the communicative purposes we may say that they answer the question: Why has this manual been written?

Applying the model for text extract selection purposes This general characterization of the prototypical technical manual provides an overview of the domain within which it is possible to select text extracts necessary for a survey of manuals. The texts selected re¶ect linguistic realizations typical of each of the stages of the manual. To avoid burdening the respondents with too heavy reading tasks I asked them to look at briefer texts, — a choice that entailed the sacriªce that the respondents were only able to assess the text in terms of accessibility at register level. The genre dimensions of communicative purpose and the idea of a goal-oriented social process are dimensions that the respondents were not able to consider due to the fragmentary process they participated in. Nor did the respondents receive an impression of the layout of the manual — another important aspect when considering accessibility. The corollary is that the feed-back received from the respondents was based on their attitudes to linguistic realizations of a number of diŸerent stages and nothing beyond that. But even so, it was important to try to cover as many realization patterns of the technical manual as possible — a task that would not have been possible without providing an analysis of the generic dimensions too.

75

76

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Linguistic realizations in the texts used The text extracts surveyed are shown in Chapter 3, pp. 52–59 as examples of the linguistic realizations of description sub-divided into static and dynamic description, explanation, speciªcation sub-divided into the three types of performance speciªcation, prescriptive speciªcation and technical speciªcation, and ªnally instruction as perhaps the most important type of realization in the technical manual. (For an account on procedures, instructions and speciªcations, see Lay, 1982: 235) Description, which is typical of stage 1 (Establishing contact and orienting the reader towards the text and the product) is found in texts B1, p. 52 and C3, p. 54. Although the two texts are both descriptive, there are diŸerences to be found. The main diŸerence is the use of dynamic verbs in text B1 (strips, guides, retards, oscillate, lift and tumble, etc. and static verbs in text C3 (contains, is, increase, has, consists of, extend over etc). Munck (1994: 140) has referred to the two types of description as static description and dynamic description. Instruction, which is typically realized through the imperative and is the usual realization of stage 2 (inducing action), is found in texts A2, p. 53, A6, p. 57 and the correction part of text A7, p. 58. In texts A2 and A6 the instructions proceed in chronological order, one step followed by the next. As for text A7, which is a faultªnding procedure, the steps have not been organized in chronological order, the instructions providing solutions to problems that may occur in any order. Explanation is typically found in connection with stage 3 (anticipating and solving problems) and usually states the cause of the problem. In text A7 there are numerous examples of explanation, but in this example with the verbs omitted. The commonest type of explanation is realized by way of declarative statements in the present perfect, present or future tenses. Speciªcations are found in texts C4, p. 55, B5, p. 56 and A8, p. 59. Text C4 is an example of a prescriptive speciªcation with mandatory force derived from reference in the original manual to a British Standard on installation of tanks. The normal realization of prescriptive speciªcation is by modal shall. However, in text four the modal verb should in should not be buried, should be housed, should slope etc. has been used. The mandatory force is thus disguised through the illocution of recommendation, which creates tension between the dimensions of register and genre in that the genre of prescriptive speciªcation dresses up as a genre of performative speciªcation. As mentioned earlier, Martin (1997: 33) has referred to such tension as contextual metaphor. Text B5 is an example of performance speciªcation in which it is up to the reader/user to follow the recommendations provided by the text. Performance speciªcation is typically realized through modal verbs: should be machined, may be

Categorizing text through genre analysis

necessary, modal adjuncts: preferably, possibly, passives: the bush is inserted with the aid of …, impersonal constructions: during assembly, it is necessary to …. The tone underlying these realizations is one of freedom of choice. Text A8 is an example of the third kind of technical speciªcation, the technical speciªcation, which normally does not contain any verbs at all, but consists of complex nominal groups. Prescriptive and performance speciªcation are typical realizations of part of stage 2 (inducing action) or part of stage 1 (establishing contact and orienting the reader towards the text and the product). Technical speciªcations, on the other hand, may be found as part of stage 1 or part of stage 4. The last stage (continuing contact) does not give rise to any additional comments on linguistic realizations and therefore has not been included in my survey.

Accessibility, acceptability and discourse community In text C4 mentioned above we saw that prescriptive speciªcation had dressed up as advisory text through the phenomenon referred to by Martin as contextual metaphor. One may wonder what the reasons are for rendering e.g. mandatory force in implicit terms as advisory force by skewing linguistic form and communicative function, since this strategy does not help to improve the clarity and hence the accessibility of the communication. However, clarity and accessibility may not be the primary aims of this text sequence, the writer apparently attaching greater importance to indirectness than to explicitness. The reader/user certainly has a wider latitude with modal should than with mandatory shall. And this latitude (read ambiguity) is made even wider through the widespread use of impersonal style such as the passive voice in text C4. The question that arises on this background is whether one realization pattern is more accessible or readily understood than the other. And, if a realization pattern turned out to be more accessible than another without following genre conventions, would this then mean that it was less acceptable.

Towards a hypothesis about text acceptability and discourse communities It is contemplations of the sort illustrated above that bring us closer to the notion of discourse community — a notion that has turned out to be of crucial importance when trying to explain why readers/users seem to have diŸerent style preferences. The elements that may contribute to an understanding of such attitudinal variation are expressed succinctly in Swales’s deªnition of genre which is repeated below for convenience: “Genre is a recognizable communicative event characterized by a set of communicative purposes identiªed and mutually understood by the members of the professional or academic community in which it regularly occurs”.

77

78

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Against this background it is possible to infer that readers who belong to the discourse community in which the communicative event regularly occurs would expect certain conventions to be followed in terms of style, layout, contents, etc, and that if a given document does not meet these expectations, the discourse community would consider it unacceptable as a specimen of the genre. Similarly, readers who do not belong to the discourse community will not be able to recognize the genre and consequently will be less inclined to consider the acceptability of the text from a generic point of view. As a result, such readers would put the emphasis on text accessibility. Criticism of Swales’s focus on discourse communities has sometimes been raised on the ground that such a community may not be readily identiªable (see e.g. Allison,1994: 698–699). Bloor (1998: 55–59), however, counters the criticism by emphasizing the social nature of the notion. She bases her point of view on Swales’s original elaboration of the notion of discourse community (1990) according to which there is a broadly agreed set of common public goals, mechanisms for providing information and feedback, genre ownership etc. In disagreement with critics of Swales’s concept, Bloor adds that a discourse community is a closed group of members who interact with each other, but each of these members may participate in other discourse communities with diŸerent goals and conventions (1998: 58). In my view Bloor’s comment is justiªable since, by implication, the concept refers to a loosely deªned community whose members have a common goal, but do not necessarily belong to the same language community or geographical area. The concept of discourse community is directly applicable to the macro-genre of technical manuals intended for the industrial market. The genre is characterized by a set of communicative purposes, it is a recognizable communicative event and the manufacturer and the reader/user have the common goal of ensuring the successful operation of a machine or product. Members of this specialist community may be said to own the genre and there are mechanisms for providing information and feedback through a network set up by the manufacturer. It will therefore be possible to form the following hypothesis: A change of the style of technical manuals towards greater intrinsic accessibility will cause members of the discourse community in which this macro-genre regularly occurs to reject its style as unacceptable while non-members will ªnd the same style acceptable.

The hypothesis has been tested in a questionnaire, and the results are described in Chapter 5.

Chapter 5

Research methods and survey In this chapter, following an introduction to a number of methodological issues, the hypotheses developed earlier will be tested with the purpose of establishing whether grammatical metaphor in¶uences the two notions of accessibility and acceptability. This is done on the basis of data obtained through a questionnaire, followed by interviews.

Research methods In what follows investigations of user attitudes to the two notions of text accessibility and acceptability will be described, analysed and discussed. This will involve two statistical pivots one of which is centred on user attitudes and the other on text features. As for the ªrst pivot, the sample survey method was used. The primary motivation for this choice was that I was targeting diŸerent audiences, and I therefore found that a survey would provide a more representative section of my target groups than would participant observation, since participant observation would only allow for the observation of a limited number of subjects, who might fall outside the normal distribution of the target group. (The questionnaire used is shown in the Appendix). As for the second statistical pivot, which was centred on text features, I relied on hard-core quantiªcation, doing a manual count of linguistic phenomena with the purpose of staying as close to my data as possible.

Data collection methods The act of responding was partly self-administered with the respondents returning the questionnaires without further assistance, partly group-administered in the sense that the incentive to respond was in some cases imposed upon the respondent and administered by a superior staŸ member, sometimes by the chairman or president of a trade union or trade association. The consequences of this may have been twofold. First, it may have in¶uenced the stratiªcation of the sample as — once the distribution task was left in somebody else’s hands, I was no longer able to monitor whether the questionnaire was sent to a small, medium-size or large company, educational institution or translation agency. This may have somewhat obscured the normal probability sampling principles. However, the questionnaire

80

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

was designed to make up for such shortcomings, since it allowed for the strict monitoring of company sizes and occupational groupings. Second, there is a risk that the respondents may have been given a chance to choose a questionnaire with a text of their preference, since some respondents were presented with a pile of texts from which to pick and choose. It is di¹cult to tell how this procedure may have in¶uenced the result, but according to the principles generally accepted within statistical science, the lack of control in the distribution of the questionnaire has the eŸect that, strictly speaking, the sampling method would not be deªned as probability sampling by hard-core statisticians.

Sampling methods To obtain data through one-stage stratiªed sampling, the company directory, Kompass, was used to identify small, medium-size, and large companies in Copenhagen, Aarhus and Aalborg — all major Danish towns. The selection of these companies allowed for an even distribution in terms of company size. Furthermore, the design of the questionnaire used made it possible to monitor the occupations of respondents to make sure that each target group surveyed was represented to the largest possible extent. In my survey, the data collection method used will have limited the rate of non-response. In spite of this, the response rate was as low as 14%. To obtain a su¹ciently high number of responses, I had phoned about 250 companies and explained the purpose of the survey and how to ªll in the questionnaire. A great many companies committed themselves to participating in the task. In the distribution stage, 2000 questionnaires with texts attached were mailed to companies, educational institutions and translation agencies in Denmark, and 274 were returned. The same procedure could not quite be followed for distribution of the questionnaire in Britain because of the high expense connected with phoning British companies. Therefore questionnaires were mailed to 240 companies and 31 were returned, yielding a response rate of about 13%, which is only slightly lower than the response rate obtained for the Danish respondents. It should be noted that, due to the time constraint and the additional expense that would invariably have resulted, I did not follow up on the distribution phase by contacting the respondents a second time, although this might have improved the response rate. Now, low response rates create problems because they tend to bias the results of the survey. However, the respondents who replied presumably did so out of interest and appreciation of the relevance of the study to their work, since this was the impression I received when I ªrst contacted various companies. But how should non-response be interpreted? How can we provide evidence, beyond rea-

Research methods and survey

sonable doubt, that those who responded are representative of those who did not respond either because they chose not to do so or because they did not get a chance to respond? And are these two groups of non-respondents representative of one another? These are questions to which there are no clear answers, but which should be kept in mind when analysing data.

Reliability If a research method is characterized as reliable, it is taken to be capable of making consistent and replicable measurements. A prerequisite for fulªlling this requirement is that each respondent is exposed to the same stimuli such as questions in a questionnaire. The questions asked should have the same meaning to each of the respondents, — an objective that may be assisted by providing adequate deªnitions of ambiguous terms (Fowler, 1988: 84). Reliability may also be ensured by using diŸerent research methods or methods of calculation, in which cases the results should be replicable. However, there is a problem connected with assessing people’s attitudes and beliefs in that these values tend to change with time. This is a problem that makes replicability di¹cult if the study is repeated after a lapse of time. Another problem is that apart from changing with time, attitudes also tend to change with personal mood; as a result a text that seemed to be acceptable yesterday may not be acceptable today and vice versa, owing to the unpredictable in¶uence of the context in which the assessment takes place. Naturally, the problem of reliability is very much present also in this study. As we have seen, the stimuli to which the respondents are exposed, should be the same. The implication of this is that in a questionnaire the respondents should all be asked the same questions. But how does one know how a question was interpreted? The notion of acceptability to take an example from the questionnaire used in the survey, does not necessarily have the same meaning to everybody. Acceptability is an ambiguous notion that may imply grammaticality to some respondents, while it may imply stylistic acceptability to others. To cope with this problem I had used the headline which style do you ªnd more acceptable (hvilken stil foretrækker du i tekniske manualer). However, when reading the responses it dawned on me that some of the respondents might not have understood the intended meaning of acceptability. One piece of evidence that would justify this interpretation was the vast co-incidence of text accessibility and text acceptability preferences. Moreover, a few respondents made a comment in which they asked “how should acceptability be understood?” This problem of ambiguity made it clear that an operational deªnition was missing. I understood that I might have a reliability problem relating to one of the response variables. The question now was: how could I solve the problem? I chose

81

82

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

a combination of two possible solutions. First, I assessed the seriousness of the problem. Which were the possibilities of misunderstanding the concept and which possible consequences might be foreseen? I came to the conclusion that if the respondents had read acceptability to mean grammatical acceptability, this would not in¶uence their choice, since possible grammatical unacceptability would hardly pass as acceptable text. However, the lack of a clear understanding of the word acceptability did in¶uence other aspects of the survey in that the number of not available answers was larger for this response variable than for the response variable of accessibility. Possibly, some of the respondents who were not sure about the meaning of the concept decided not to react to this stimulus.

Validity A third consequence of the ambiguity of the concept was that it became di¹cult to interpret the answers, which could potentially endanger the validity of the project. Validity may be deªned as the capability of a research method to measure the phenomenon or phenomena it is actually intended to measure. An issue that normally arises when discussing validity is whether the questions asked are of a subjective or an objective nature. If they are subjective in the sense that they ask the respondents about their subjective attitudes and opinions, according to Fowler (1988: 85), there is no objective method of assessing the validity of their answers. Therefore a method sometimes resorted to is that of correlating the respondents’ answers with a number of background variables that may elucidate factors characterizing the respondents. In my questionnaire the questions asked tried to elicit subjective attitudes and opinions, and it became di¹cult to know whether the questions asked did in fact measure what they were supposed to measure. There seemed to be no straight-forward way of knowing whether the responses given in terms of the acceptability variable re¶ected the respondents’ attitudes to stylistic acceptability, or they had made their choices on the basis of the general idea that if a text is accessible it is also acceptable, which might explain the large rate of coincidence on these two variables as explained earlier. Or could it be taken for granted that those who did not understand the term had either indicated this on the comments line or had not made a choice at all?

Mixing methods At this apparent cross-roads I made a post-dated qualitative interview, thus mixing research methodology. In the questionnaire, I had given the respondents the possibility of being interviewed to let them explain in greater detail some of the reasons for their preferences. That part of the design turned out to be useful now,

Research methods and survey

and I contacted every respondent who had indicated a wish to be interviewed. In the following days telephone interviews were conducted with 19 Danish interviewees. Asked about their understanding of the word acceptability, ªve of these either were not able to explain the meaning or interpreted it to be diŸerent from the intended meaning. Among the ªve, three interviewees said the notion was problematic because it was ambiguous, and a fourth interviewee understood the notion to mean “text that is not too di¹cult to read”. The ªfth interviewee who was asked to explain the meaning of acceptability had not answered the question because he had not understood the meaning of the word. The three interviewees who found the term ambiguous had all tried to guess the intended meaning, and results varied from grammatical to stylistic acceptability. This shows the range of the problem, which is however mitigated by the circumstance that there is a limited range of possible reactions. Many respondents will have reacted in accordance with the spirit of the questionnaire, a few have not responded and perhaps even fewer will have mistaken acceptability for accessibility. But the crux of the matter is that no respondent will have let a text pass a acceptable if it was found either grammatically or stylistically unacceptable or unacceptable for other reasons. The result must therefore be said to suŸer on precision rather than on validity. The problem has not been fully solved, though, but the possibility of mixing methods turned out to be a worthwhile strategy because it made it possible to clarify certain unclear points. A second area where methods were mixed was in the questionnaire, which was designed to allow for the respondents to give general comments. In some of the questionnaires, which were not identical because they had to be matched to the characteristics of the texts attached to them, I furthermore asked the respondents to explain the meaning of a problem sentence that occurred in one of the texts. This experiment was done to test the level of understanding when the respondents read the texts with the purpose of making a text choice. The results of this experiment will be discussed in greater detail below. However, before it is possible to take a closer look at the data produced in the survey, a brief introduction to the design of the survey will be necessary.

The survey As explained in the introduction, the purpose of the survey was to analyse and discuss the two concepts of accessibility and acceptability on the basis of Grammatical Metaphor. For this purpose two hypotheses were formed, which are repeated here for convenience:

83

84

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Hypothesis 1: Since grammatical metaphor causes greater complexity, ambiguity and information load in terms of increased lexical density, texts which are rich in grammatical metaphor are intrinsically less accessible than texts with a low incidence of this phenomenon. It follows that readers and users of texts with a high incidence of grammatical metaphor will ªnd these texts more di¹cult to comprehend than texts with a low incidence of grammatical metaphor and consequently will prefer the latter if asked to assess such texts from the point of view of accessibility. Hypothesis 2: A change of the style of technical manuals towards greater intrinsic accessibility will cause members of the discourse community in which this macro-genre regularly occurs to reject its style as unacceptable while non-members will ªnd the same style acceptable.

It follows from the two hypotheses that our main concern is going to be with the relationship between text choices made by a number of respondents and these respondents’ attitudes towards accessibility on the one hand, and acceptability on the other. On the basis of questionnaire data processed through a specially designed programme developed by statisticians based in Aalborg (see Badsberg, 1991 and 1995; see also Lauritzen, 1996), there were reasonably clear indications that text choices in terms of accessibility and acceptability were primarily determined by the respondents’ occupations and their familiarity with writing or using technical manuals. Responses received as regards speciªc stylistic alternatives in a number of sentence pairs tended to substantiate this result, although results varied somewhat as regards diŸerent style options. It was noticeable that occupational groups diŸered in attitudes towards text accessibility, but less so in attitudes towards text acceptability, which suggests that choosing a more accessible style means addressing a diŸerent discourse community. This interesting, but perhaps not surprising result raises a number of questions that call for closer exploration. First, how important are these occupational disparities in attitudes towards text accessibility, and which occupational group prefers a given text version? Second, do the preferences expressed by the respondents in general re¶ect any predilection for any particular text among the eight texts used in the survey? Third, although the correlations between occupational groups and text acceptability preferences tended to be weaker than the correlations between occupational groups and text accessibility preferences, it would still be important to have further details about the attitudes expressed by diŸerent occupational groups in terms of text acceptability, since such knowledge may have a direct impact on didactics. And as a fourth point, a relevant question to ask would be whether the attitudes expressed should be seen as a result of the lower language proªciency of non-native speakers of English than of native speakers of English. In the following — after a brief description of the questionnaire used — I shall address these four concerns in

Research methods and survey

turn, commenting in the process on a number of tables that are relevant to the questions raised.

The questionnaire The questionnaire was organized into 18 background variables and 3 response variables. The background variables were intended to elicit general information about readers, users, writers and instructors of technical manuals broken down on (1) instructors of technical English, (2) engineers/technicians, (3) translators/ technical writers, (4) executive staŸ responsible for the design of technical manuals and (5) a mixed group of other occupations. The motivation for this grouping was an assumption of correlations between occupational groups and text choices. The response variables focused on the respondents’ attitudes towards accessibility and acceptability and particular linguistic phenomena present in the diŸerent text versions. These were tested in sentence pairs.

The text versions On the basis of the generic categorization of technical manuals given in chapter IV, eight texts were selected. All of the texts showed some of the typical technical language features subsumed under the umbrella term of grammatical metaphor as explained earlier. I shall refer to these texts as texts 1–8 in the following. The topic areas which included combine harvesters, cylinders, bearings and oil tanks all represented products sold on the industrial market, thus eliminating the end-user from the targeted audience. Table 27 provides an overview of the texts and their origin. Table 27. Overview of text genres and their origin Text Topic

Manufacturer and text genres

Sub-genres

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Ford/New Holland, description Ford/New Holland, procedure Ford/New Holland, description Shell U. K. Oil, prescriptive speciªcation Glacier, performative speciªcation Martonair, procedure Ford/New Holland, fault-ªnding procudere Ford/New Holland, technical speciªcations

user’s manual repair manual training manual user’s manual designer’s manual maintenance manual user’s manual repair manual

Straw-walker Straw-walker Monitor Oil tanks Bush bearing Cylinders Sieves Combine

The original texts referred to as original in the tables below, were rewritten into alternative versions, in the following referred to as changed, in such a way that some of the grammatical metaphors were unpacked. I did not unpack all of the grammatical metaphors since this would have made for very unnatural text, which

85

86

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

might have in¶uenced the result of the survey in a predictable manner. To test readers’ attitudes to short sentences, some of the texts (1–6) were rewritten in a third version too. Of these, two were based on the original text referred to as original/short below, and four were based on the changed version referred to as changed/short below. But for text 7, which already had short sentences, and text 8, which consisted of noun groups, it was neither necessary nor possible to reduce the sentence length. Analysed versions of the original texts are shown on pp. 52– 58. The coding system used is shown in Table 28. Table 28. Coding of texts Original Changed

B 1

A 2 C 1

B 2

Original/ short Changed/ short

C 3

C 4 A 3

B 4

C 2 A 1

B 5

A 6 C 5

A 7 B 6

A 8 B 7

B 8

A 4 B 3

A 5

C 6

For each of the questionnaires, the order of texts was A followed by B followed by C. This means that the order in which the original texts, the changed versions and the versions with short sentences had been laid out varied from one questionnaire to the next. This unpredictability had been purposefully planned to make sure that the respondents did not all read the original text ªrst, which might have in¶uenced the results. For the sentence pairs the following coding system was applied. Each sentence pair consisted of two sentences of which one, (D, G, H, J, L, N, P and R) contained grammatical metaphor and one (E, F, I, K, M, O, Q, and S) did not have that feature. The following dichotomies were studied under the codes in brackets (Table 29). Table 29. Sentence pair codings Principle 1

Principle 2

Passive constructions (D) Nominal style (G) Impersonal style (H) Article omission (J) Premodiªcation (L) Object omission (N) Ellipsis (P) Non-ªnite clause (R) ..................................................................... Grammatical clause (T)

Active constructions (E) Clausal style (F) Personal style (I) Article retention (K) Postmodiªcation (M) Object retention (O) Complete clause (Q) Finite clause (S) ..................................................................... Ungrammatical clause (U)

Research methods and survey

Interpreting the quantitative results The total sample included 306 returned questionnaires broken down on 274 Danish respondents and 32 native speakers of British English. In the following, the ªgures in brackets show the size of the sample for each individual section, and reference is given to points/questions in the questionnaire. There was a ªne balance of respondents with a technical background (126) and respondents with a language background (121). The same applies to the distribution of engineers (92) and translators/ technical writers (92). All the occupational groups were represented, although only 13 technical English instructors had returned the questionnaire. This fact will of course have weakened the reliability of the results for the latter group in particular. But the number of technical English instructors in Denmark is bound to be very limited, whereas there is a large population of engineers and translators. This explains the small sample of technical English instructors compared to the other groups. As for age, the majority of respondents (106) were between 31 and 40 years. Only 36 respondents were above the age of 50, which — apart from providing information about age distribution patterns — may indicate that this group is less interested in the style aspect of technical documentation than are the younger generations. The majority of respondents (161) were employed in large ªrms with more than 100 employees, and only 14 respondents were employed in small ªrms with 5 or fewer employees. The types of ªrms were rather unevenly distributed, 192 working in industrial ªrms, representing the largest sample within this section. Technical schools and translation agencies were poorly represented with 9 and 8 respondents respectively. But then there would not be as many technical schools and translation agencies as there are industrial ªrms in Denmark, which helps explain this diŸerence. Regarding familiarity with the product in the text accompanying the questionnaire, only 6 said they knew the product. However, it turned out that a great many (118) wrote technical manuals, which would indicate that genre knowledge rather than product knowledge is likely to have in¶uenced the results. Asked which types of manuals the respondents most often worked with, a majority (212) said they most often worked with users’ manuals, while service manuals represented the second most frequent type (131 respondents). Most of the respondents (125) translated the text, while a great many wrote (95) or revised (92) the text. Only 38 said that they were familiar with style manuals (manuals which set up house rules for writing style, layout, etc.) and of these only 16 actually used a style manual when writing technical manuals. However, there may have been other constraints on style. In some ªrms the technical documentation is prepared

87

88

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

by teams consisting of translators as well as engineers or the text prepared by the translators may be discussed with colleagues. As a result of these discussions, the translator or technical writer may gradually become more conscious about style and other features of the manual and change attitudes accordingly. This point was focused upon in the question do you discuss the text with colleagues before printing. It appears that the vast majority of the respondents (174) did discuss the text with colleagues before printing and that such discussions gave rise to disagreement in 77 of the cases. However, only in 35 of these cases was style the point at issue. This would indicate that, after all, the number of the respondents whose attitudes were aŸected either by the constraint of style manuals or by the constraint of having to come to terms with diŸering opinions as to style was rather limited. When asked about their attitudes to style, the technical English instructors tended to disagree as to how important they found style compared to e.g. terminology and other aspects. A relative majority (10) found that terminology was more important than style (7), and the group was almost evenly divided between those who prescribed style norms in their teaching and those who did not. Out of a number of stylistic features, the majority of the technical English instructors encouraged their students to use personal style and the active voice. As for the questionnaire submitted to the native speakers of English, the response pattern in terms of educational backgrounds, age, size of ªrm, type of ªrm, familiarity with the product, familiarity with technical manuals did not diŸer from the Danish response sample. However, there were proportionally more respondents with a language background (11) than there were engineers (3) whereas in the Danish sample these two groups were equally large. Another diŸerence between the Danish sample and the British sample was that about 55% of the Britons (17 out of 31) knew what a style manual was, while only about 14% of the Danes were familiar with the concept. Of the 17 Britons who knew what a style manual was, only 6 (or approx 35%) actually used one compared with 16 of the 38 Danes (approx 42%).

Text choices: Texts 1–6, accessibility Before analysing the data from the point of view of occupation, a general overview of accessibility text preferences and non-preferences on the basis of texts 1–6 may constitute a purposeful beginning. The overview, which covers the whole sample of Danish respondents (195) will serve the purpose of placing the preferences and non-preferences expressed by diŸerent occupational groups in the widest possible perspective.

Research methods and survey

Preferred text versions: The Danish audience, accessibility Table 30 shows a percentage breakdown of the preferences expressed for three text versions: an original version, a changed version and a version with short sentences. It is important to explain at this point that the text versions with short sentences have diŸerent foundations. Out of the six texts that were distributed in three versions, texts 2 and 4 had text versions with short sentences based on the original version, while texts 1, 3, 5 and 6 had text versions with short sentences based on the changed version. The deeper intentions behind this design and the implications in terms of the risk of jeopardizing the validity of some of the results will become clearer in what follows. Table 30. Preferred versions: accessibility, Danish respondents (n = 195) Original

82 of 195

42.1%

Changed Short sentences No version preferred

41 of 195 68 of 196 (NA)

21.0% 34.9% 2.0%

Short sentences broken down on: Original/short 30 of 195 Changed/short 38 of 195

15.4% 19.5%

As shown in Table 30, a relative majority of the respondents (42.1%) found that the original text was the most accessible while not quite as many (34.9%) voted for a text version with short sentences and only 21% of the respondents found that the changed version presented the most accessible text. This result contradicts hypothesis 1 that the original text would be found less accessible. However, interpreted in a diŸerent light the conclusion may equally well be drawn that an absolute majority of the Danish respondents did not ªnd the original text su¹ciently accessible, since as many as 55.9% did not favour the original version. But even so, the respondents have not given a clear mandate for abandoning the writing style typical of technical manuals. As regards the short sentence options, it may be argued that the respondents did not have the possibility of choosing between a text with short sentences based on the original and a text with short sentences based on the changed version as explained earlier. One consequence of this may have been that respondents strongly in favour of short sentences may have voted for a text with short sentences against their normal conception of what accessible style is. However, the present design was given priority for two reasons. First, I did not want to reduce the response rate unnecessarily. Second, I wanted to make sure that the choice of a version with short sentences would not be motivated by the combination of one particular style and short sentences only. By basing the short sentence versions on

89

90

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

two diŸerent styles, it would be possible to compare the results obtained for text versions of similar origin to see whether marked diŸerences could be established. The results of such comparison would of course be restricted by the problem that the foundations on which objects are compared are rarely identical no matter how meticulously they have been planned. Therefore, even if the short sentence versions had been designed on the basis of the original text version in all cases, these original versions consisted of six diŸerent texts with similar, but not identical text features. So comparability is at best restricted by the in¶uence of a number of factors diŸering from one text to the next and at worst not possible at all. However, this is a problem generally facing the researcher who wishes to point out similarities and diŸerences of various phenomena and a problem that tends to weaken the reliability of surveys in general. A question that arises in direct consequence of the mismatch of text versions pointed out above is whether the 34.9% of the respondents who voted for a text version with short sentences constitute a true representation of voter attitudes. Would the result have been diŸerent if the short sentence texts had been designed diŸerently? In other words: have I produced a reliable and replicable result? Probably not. But since, in some cases, even a missing comma may signiªcantly in¶uence the respondents’ attitudes, there is probably no way of knowing exactly what determines respondent behaviour. Features that the survey designer sees as salient features in a text may not be salient features from a respondents’ point of view. Therefore, there is in fact no way of knowing for sure whether the respondents who voted for the short sentence versions did so because they found the texts easier to access due to the short sentences or due to some other so far undetected feature. And I doubt that a redesign of the survey approach would have solved this problem. The best solution I can oŸer is therefore to point out the problem of comparability and advise caution especially in interpreting the results relating to the analysis of short sentences.

Least preferred versions With three text options, choosing one text does not necessarily mean rejecting the two other texts in equal dimension. Table 31 has therefore been included to show which text versions were found to be the least accessible ones from a respondents’ point of view. Table 31 shows that the text version found to be the least accessible by the greatest number of respondents was the version with short sentences since 33.3% had opted for this text as their third choice, and of the two short sentence options the version based on the changed text was by far the most unpopular (24.1% compared with 9.2% as for the text based on the original version). But while a relative majority of the respondents (33.3%) found that the version with short

Research methods and survey

Table 31. Least preferred versions (third option): Accessibility, Danish respondents (n = 195) Original Changed Short sentences No version preferred

60 of 195 60 of 195 65 of 195 (NA)

30.8% 30.8% 33.3% 5.1%

Short sentences broken down on: Original/short Changed/short

18 of 195 47 of 195

9.2% 24.1%

sentences was the least accessible, an even greater percentage 34.9% had ranked the same text principles high on the accessibility scale (see Table 30) Similarly, an absolute majority (19.5% of the 34.9% who preferred the short sentence text versions found that the versions based on the changed text were the most accessible. It is interesting to compare this result with the result obtained for the texts found to be the least accessible. Here this pattern is repeated in reverse in that an absolute majority (24.1% of the 33.3% respondents) who found the short sentence versions to be the least accessible found that the short sentence versions based on the changed text were less accessible than the short sentence versions based on the original. One inference to be drawn from this rather blurred picture is that generally, the respondents do not agree on what accessible text is, — an observation we shall revert to in Chapter 7.

Native speakers of English The results so far commented upon do not seem to justify the underlying assumption that foreign language proªciency should impact on text preferences. If this had been the case one might have expected the Danish audience to react diŸerently, by not rejecting the changed text versions, which were designed to be intrinsically more accessible than the original versions. If the respondents had found the original versions di¹cult to comprehend — and reading in a foreign language would hardly make the task easier — they would be expected to react by choosing a text with a style that was more personal and direct, on the basis of the assumption that such style is more comprehensible. However, this did not turn out to be the case for a majority of readers; but even so, in order to establish whether the results could in any way be ascribed to diŸerences in language proªciency of the two audiences, I examined the data obtained from the survey of a British control group exclusively consisting of native speakers of English (see Table 32). It should be noted that this control group was of a rather limited size since only 32 persons replied. Of these, 20 had returned the questionnaires attached to texts 1–6. The rather limited sample made it di¹cult to analyse the data

91

92

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 32. Preferred versions: Accessibility, native speakers of English (n = 20) Original Changed Short sentences No version preferred

5 of 20 7 of 20 6 of 20 2 of 20

25% 35% 30% 10%

Short sentences broken down on: Original/short Changed/short

5 of 20 1 of 20

25% 5%

along the same lines as those followed for the analysis of the Danish sample. This explains why results have been stated only for the sample relating to texts 1–6 and also why some of the analyses have not been possible simply because there were too few respondents in many of the cells. As will appear from Table 32, among the British control group only 25% found that the original text was the most accessible, compared with 42.1% of the Danes (see Table 30). And whereas only 21.0% of the Danes preferred the changed version, a relative majority among the British audience (35%) found the changed text to be more accessible than any of the other texts. The option with short sentences, however, did not give rise to major divergence since 30% of the British respondents preferred this text version compared to only a slightly higher percentage (34.9%) among the Danish respondents. There seems to be a diŸerence, though, in preferences expressed by the two groups as regards the two options of short sentence versions in that the Danes generally preferred the changed version with short sentences (19.5% of the 34.9% who preferred short sentences), while the British control group showed a diametrically opposed pattern since 25% of the 30% who preferred short sentences voted for the original text with short sentences and only 5% voted for the changed version with short sentences. Moreover, it can be concluded that an absolute majority of 65% of the Britons did not vote for the original text. This is an even higher percentage than the one calculated for the Danes where 55.9% preferred other options than the original text as regards accessibility.

Preferred versions broken down on occupational groups Data analysis showed a correlation between text choices and occupation. Table 33 illustrates this through a breakdown of occupational groups and their text preferences in terms of accessibility. The bracketed ªgures, which are comparable, are percentages showing the distribution of text preferences within each occupational group.

Research methods and survey

Table 33. Preferred versions broken down on occupational groups: Accessibility (n = 195) Occup.

a

b

c

d

Original Changed Short NA Total

2 (23) 3 (33) 4 (44) 0 (0) 9

28 (47) 24 (39) 5 (42) 14 (23) 9 (15) 3 (25) 17 (28) 28 (46) 4 (33) 1 (2) 0 0 60 61 12

e

f

7 (32) 5 (38) 10 (45) 0 4 (18) 7 (54) 1 (5) 1 (8) 22 13

g

h

5 (71) 5 (45) 0 2 (18) 2 (29) 2 (18) 0 2 (18) 7 11

Total 81 41 68 5 195

It turned out that some of the respondents were engaged in more than one of the professional activities they had been asked to mark. Therefore, for the sake of precision, I decided to make a breakdown of eight categories in Table 33 rather than the ªve categories listed in the questionnaire. The following categories were found to render the most accurate results: a. b. c. d. e. f. g. h.

Technical English instructor Engineer/technician Translator/technical writer Executive responsible for the design of technical manuals A mixed group of other occupations Engineer and executive Translator and executive NA and other combinations

It is worth noting that there is an even balance between the groups of engineers (60) and translators (61). Moreover, these groups are amply represented, which makes comparison and interpretation safer and less prone to sampling error. It was not possible to obtain as many responses from the rest of the groups, primarily because the population of these groups is generally less dense. Therefore, there is a need to urge caution in the interpretation of percentages representing low counts of respondents. Only one group, the mixed group of other occupations found that the changed version was the most accessible with a relative majority of 45% choosing this option. A relative majority of technical English instructors (44%) agreed with a relative majority among the translators/technical writers (46%) and an absolute majority among the executive engineers (54%) that the short sentence version was the easiest to understand. As for the translators/ technical writers, however, the race was close, since this group was almost equally divided between those who preferred short sentences (46%) and those who preferred the original text (39%). The groups who particularly favoured the original version were the engineers (47%) and the group of executives (42%). The inference that may be drawn on the basis of these

93

94

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

calculations is that there does not seem to be consensus in any of the groups as regards the accessibility of text. This result is slightly surprising, since respondents with a language background (not a technical background) might be expected to ªnd the changed version more accessible than the original text — a point of view that is sustained by the voting pattern of the group of mixed occupations. The latter group is the only group that has rather unequivocally opted for the style represented by the changed version. The lack of consensus in the other groups signals the importance of involving other background variables than occupational background alone. As indicated by the voting pattern of the group of mixed occupations, the background variable of familiarity with technical manuals may be the variable that has the potential of explaining the diŸerence in voting pattern of groups without speciªc technical knowledge. This variable would therefore call for closer examination. However, regrettably, the marginal tables produced for the relationship between (7) familiarity with English technical manuals and text choices failed to provide reliable information because the tables had too many empty cells.

Least preferred version broken down on occupational groups However, although Table 33 gives information about text preferences it does not tell us anything about the respondents’ third priorities, which cannot be inferred on the basis of ªrst priority votes. If we look at c) translators in Table 33 the changed version would appear to be the least popular, since it obtained the lowest score of preferences. However, Table 34 shows us that this interpretation is not entirely correct, the original text obtaining a relative majority of third preference votes (42%) compared with only 28% for the changed text. It is furthermore worth noting that the results obtained for the preferred text versions and those obtained for the least preferred text versions are not contradictions of one another even if this may seem to be the case. Because of the relatively balanced distribution of text preferences, the percentages expressing preference (Table 33) and dislike (Table 34) respectively represent diŸerent segments among the groups of respondents, for which reason it becomes even more important to pay attention to both tables. Table 34. Least preferred versions broken down on occupational groups: Accessibility (n = 195) Occup.

a

b

c

d

Original Changed Short NA Total

3 (38) 2 (25) 3 (38) 0 8

15 (25) 21 (35) 23 (38) 1 (2) 60

25 (42) 5 (42) 17 (28) 6 (50) 14 (23) 1 (8) 4 (7) 0 60 12

e

f

7 (30) 2 (15) 2 (9) 5 (38) 12 (52) 4 (31) 2 (9) 2 (15) 23 13

g

h

1 (14) 2 (17) 2 (29) 4 (33) 4 (57) 4 (33) 0 2 (17) 7 12

Total 60 59 65 11 195

Research methods and survey

The results that are particularly interesting in Table 34 are found under (b) engineers, (c) translators and technical writers and (e) mixed group of other occupations in the sense that this is where the greatest variations are found. A great many translators have in fact expressed a strong dislike of the original text (42%) — a ªgure that — if compared with the percentage of translators who preferred the original text (39%) — shows that there were slightly more translators who discarded the original text than translators who preferred it. As for the engineers 25% found that the original text was the least accessible while 47% preferred that version. This shows a result that is diametrically opposed to the result found for the translators. If we look at the mixed group of other occupations the most noteworthy result is to be found in connection with the changed version since only 9% expressed dislike of the changed version while as many as 45% preferred this version. In the same group 52% did not ªnd the short sentence text version very accessible, while only 18% preferred that style. It is therefore possible to conclude that the group that demonstrates the highest degree of consensus is the mixed group of other occupations, while each of the two groups of engineers and translators seems to be divided on the issue of accessibility. As for the rest of the groups they are either too weakly represented or do not show su¹ciently signiªcant diŸerences to warrant further comment.

The most popular text: Accessibility Up till now we have looked at how the respondents react to the texts in general. We have done this by dividing the respondents into professional groups. In the following section we shall consider reactions to the diŸerent versions of each individual text without taking the professional backgrounds into account since such a breakdown would reduce the number of observations in each cell to negligible importance. Let us therefore compare Tables 35 and 36. Table 35 shows the distribution of votes for each individual text in terms of preferences and Table 36 shows a similar distribution in terms of dislike.

Table 35. Text preferences expressed for 6 diŸerent texts: Accessibility (n = 195) Text Original Changed Original/short Changed/ short NA Total

1 22 (55) 9 (23) 0 8 (20) 1 (2) 40

2 7 (20) 12 (33) 17 (47) 0 0 36

3 16 (57) 6 (21) 0 5 (18) 1 (4) 28

4 14 (44) 4 (13) 13 (41) 0 1 (2) 32

5 20 (59) 5 (15) 0 9 (26) 0 34

6

Total

3 (12) 82 5 (20) 41 0 30 16 (64) 38 1 (4) 4 25 195

95

96

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 36. Least preferred texts for 6 diŸerent text options: Accessibility (n = 195) Text Original Changed Original/short Changed/ short NA Total

1 12 (30) 10 (25) 0 16 (40) 2 (5) 40

2 13 (36) 13 (36) 8 (22) 0 2 (6) 36

3 5 (18) 12 (43) 0 9 (32) 2 (7) 28

4 4 (13) 17 (53) 10 (31) 0 1 (3) 32

5 12 (35) 3 (9) 0 17 (50) 2 (6) 34

6 14 5 0 5 1 25

Total (56) (20)

60 60 18 (20) 47 (4) 10 195

Now, it is not possible to asses which of the 6 texts was preferred by the respondents in absolute terms since they did not all look at the same text. Therefore we can only compare the results on a very general basis. However, for each of the text categories 1–6, there is a relative, internal weighting of preferences to be analysed — a weighting that may give some idea as to which linguistic features the respondents generally prefer. The most popular text version of all the texts turned out to be the short sentence version of text 6, which obtained 64% of the votes cast. This version had been based on the changed text. There seems to be reasonable consensus as to this text choice since only 20% of the respondents who saw text 6 found that the short sentence version was the least accessible. It is possible to compare this result with the preferences expressed for the short sentence versions of texts 1, 3 and 5, since these have all been designed on the basis of the changed version. However, none of these versions was particularly popular. The short sentence version of text 5 was particularly unpopular, 50% of the respondents who had received text 5 rejecting this particular version. Of the original texts, text 5 was considered the most accessible by 59% and the least accessible by 35%. Text 3 original text was preferred by 57% and rejected by only 18% and text 1 was preferred by 55% and rejected by 30%. None of the changed versions obtained a particularly high score. The changed versions of text 2 and text 6 fared better than the rest of the texts, 33% ªnding the changed version of text 2 the most accessible. For text 6 the percentage was 20, which means that the changed version of these two texts was more popular than the original version. It may therefore be concluded that in addition to the short sentence version of text 6 the original versions of texts 5, 3 and 1 were the versions preferred in terms of accessibility. However, original texts 5 and 1 were considered quite inaccessible by some respondents, which might point to diŸerences in background knowledge and, as we have seen, in professional occupations.

Research methods and survey

Conclusions, texts 1–6: Accessibility So far we have looked at text preferences from an accessibility point of view and the picture we have found is rather blurred. As a point of departure our ªrst hypothesis proposed that readers and users of texts with a high incidence of grammatical metaphor will ªnd these texts more di¹cult to comprehend than texts with a low incidence of grammatical metaphor and consequently will prefer the latter if asked to assess such texts from the point of view of accessibility. However, as our investigations revealed, this hypothesis could only be conªrmed in part, a relative majority of the respondents ªnding the original text more accessible than any of the alternatives. However, the majority being only relative there were still a great many respondents, who rejected the original texts, ªnding them rather inaccessible. Therefore, the hypothesis has neither been fully conªrmed, nor fully refuted, if texts 1–6 are used as the basis on which the hypothesis is assessed. Now, explanations of some of the patterns shown have already been suggested, viz. professional occupations, familiarity with English technical manuals and the great variety of text options. And closer examination of these background variables measured against the response variables revealed a number of interesting aspects. First, it seems that the respondents’ text choices were largely determined by their professional occupations. The engineers, in particular, seem to have rejected the changed versions, unlike the group of mixed occupations, who preferred this style. And although many of the translators rejected the changed versions, thus agreeing with the engineers, almost as many translators rejected the original versions. Therefore, a second observation we may make at this early stage is that in general there is lack of consensus among the respondents from each of the professional occupations, apart from the mixed group of other occupations, who almost unanimously found the changed versions the most accessible. Thirdly, it has also been revealed that the respondents tended to react diŸerently to diŸerent texts, although these texts had similar stylistic characteristics. The corollary of these ªndings is that, although not constituting an absolute majority, a rather large percentage of the respondents called for greater text accessibility. This conclusion leads us on to an examination of the response variable of acceptability.

Text choices, texts 1–6: Acceptability There are two reasons why knowledge about the respondents’ reactions to acceptability is important. First, we need to ªnd out whether there is consensus among the respondents as regards their attitudes towards text acceptability as suggested by the computer generated correlations. Second, on the basis of such possible

97

98

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 37. Preferred versions: Acceptability, Danish audience (n = 195) Original Changed Short sentences No version preferred

99 of 195 38 of 195 47 of 195 11 of 195

51% 19% 24% 6%

Short sentences broken down on: Original/short Changed/short

23 of 195 24 of 195

12% 12%

consensus, we need to know whether the respondents have sustained hypothesis 2, which held that A change of the style of technical manuals towards greater accessibility will cause members of the discourse community in which this macro-genre regularly occurs to reject its style as not acceptable. It follows that non-members of the discourse community will not share this point of view. In other words, what I would like to explore is to what extent respondents can conªrm the hypothesis, a question I will try to answer below. Let us ªrst look at Table 37, which shows a percentage breakdown of the respondents’ attitudes to acceptability. The response pattern for accessibility shown in Table 30 seems to be even more pronounced for acceptability in Table 37. An absolute majority (51%) preferred the original text in terms of acceptability while only 42.1% voted for it as the most accessible. As for the changed version as few as 19% found this text to be the most acceptable. However, this result did not diverge signiªcantly from the percentage preferring this version as the most accessible (21%). But the respondents generally found that the texts with short sentences were more accessible (34.9%) than acceptable (24%). Those who found that the short text versions were the most acceptable were equally divided between the two text foundations of original text with short sentences (12%) and changed text with short sentences (12%), a pattern that does not diŸer signiªcantly from the result obtained for accessibility. The relatively high percentage for NA answers may re¶ect the problem that none of the three texts was found acceptable — possibly due to the fact that no text represented the optimum solution to text design within the genre, layout having been totally neglected. Moreover there were examples of highly unconventional constructions, due to the unpacking of grammatical metaphor, like e.g. how you assemble….

Least preferred versions, acceptability In preceding sections, acceptability results were compared with those found for accessibility. But in order to be able to judge the degree of consensus on the individual text types, we also need to assess how the acceptability results compare

Research methods and survey

Table 38. Least preferred versions (third option): Acceptability, Danish respondents (n = 195) Original rejected by Changed version rejected by Short sentences version rejected by NA

35 of 195 70 of 195 74 of 195 16 of 195

17.9% 35.9% 37.9% 8.2%

Short sentences broken down on: Original/short Changed/short

14 of 195 60 of 195

7.2% 30.8%

with corresponding results found for the least preferred versions? Table 38 shows the results. In Table 38, the original text was rejected by 17.9% as the most unacceptable text while 51% found this text to be the most acceptable (see Table 37). Quite a few (35.9%) rejected the changed version as the most unacceptable text compared with the 19% who found this text to be the most acceptable (Table 37). And as for the short sentence version, this was found unacceptable by 37.9% while 24% found that it was the most acceptable (Table 37). To sum up, there were not nearly as many respondents who found the original text unacceptable (2 out of 10) as there were respondents who found it acceptable (5 out of 10). As for the changed version this style was rejected by a much larger percentage (4 out of 10) than the percentage accepting it (2 out of 10). And also the short sentence version gave rise to discrepancy, since it was generally rejected as being unacceptable by 4 out of 10, while only about 2 out of 10 found this text to be the most acceptable. But even if there is no doubt as to which text version was considered the most acceptable, it should be noted that not everybody shared this attitude. Generally speaking, the greater the diŸerence between the number of respondents accepting and rejecting a text respectively, the greater the consensus. There was thus greater consensus on which texts were the most acceptable than on which texts were the most accessible. A second inference to be drawn on the basis of this observation is that on both response variables there is a minority to consider — a minority that for one reason or the other does not share mainstream points of view as regards text acceptability.

Native speakers of English, acceptability Now, one thing is how a Danish audience reacted to the acceptability of an English text; but the question is whether an audience of native speakers of English would express the same attitudes to acceptability as did the Danes. Table 39 shows a breakdown of percentages of 20 British respondents. The table should be read with caution because of the low cell counts.

99

100 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 39. Preferred versions, acceptability: Native speakers of English (n = 20) Original Changed Short sentences No version preferred

8 of 20 4 of 20 7 of 20 1 of 20

40% 20% 35% 5%

Short sentences broken down on: Original/short Changed/short

6 of 20 1 of 20

30% 5%

In terms of acceptability, 40% of the group of native speakers of English found that the original text was the most acceptable compared with 51% of the Danish respondents (see Table 37). A minority of 20% of the British group found that the changed text was the most acceptable, which is similar to the result found for the Danish audience (19%). But whereas only 24% of the Danes found that the short sentence version was the most acceptable, 35% of the British respondents voted for this version. Of these, the majority preferred the short sentence version that had been based on the original text. This result shows that the Danish respondents were more in favour of the original text in terms of acceptability than were many of the British respondents. Besides, quite a large percentage among the British respondents (35%) were not taken back by the text version with short sentences to the same extent as were the Danish respondents (24%). The results show rather clear diŸerences between the Danish audience and the British audience in terms of their attitudes to acceptability. But we cannot decide whether these diŸerences are of a general nature or they are a function of occupational diŸerences. However, if we look at Table 40 we receive the impression that occupation is perhaps not a crucial factor when it comes to acceptability attitudes. Table 40 shows that all the occupational groups preferred the original version as the most acceptable. This result was particularly pronounced for the group of translators (56%), technical English instructors (67%) and executives (54%), the latter two groups, however, being quite small. Although the group of engineers also favoured the original text, they did so only with a relative majority (42%) and

Table 40. Preferred versions and occupational groups: Acceptability (n = 195) Occup.

a

b

c

d

Original Changed Short NA Total

6 (67) 1 (11) 2 (22) 0 9

25 (42) 16 (27) 16 (27) 3 (5) 60

34 (56) 7 (54) 11 (18) 3 (23) 13 (21) 2 (15) 3 (5) 1 (8) 61 13

e

f

9 (39) 6 (46) 5 (22) 0 6 (26) 6 (46) 3 (13) 1 (8) 23 13

g

h

5 (83) 7 (70) 0 2 (20) 1 (17) 0 0 1 (10) 6 10

Total 99 38 46 12 195

Research methods and survey 101

relatively many within this group (27%) found the changed text and the text with short sentences to be more acceptable. This would indicate that many engineers are not as strongly in¶uenced by having read technical texts in abundance as one might expect. Instead they are more open to alternative style options than are some of the other groups. The same comment can hardly be made for the translators who tend to prefer conventional style more than do the engineers even if we operate within very small margins. There is one important observation to be made at this point though. The group of mixed occupations (e) was the group that preferred the original text with the least conviction (39%). Therefore, although this percentage represents a relative majority within the group, its members were more inclined than members of the rest of the groups to accept stylistic features less typical of the genre. Table 41. Least preferred versions and occupational groups: Acceptability (n = 195) Occup.

a

b

c

d

Original Changed Short NA Total

0 4 (44) 5 (56) 0 9

14 (23) 21 (35) 22 (37) 3 (5) 60

11 (18) 3 (23) 24 (39) 6 (46) 21 (34) 3 (23) 5 (8) 1 (8) 61 13

e

f

5 (22) 1 (8) 4 (17) 6 (46) 10 (43) 4 (31) 4 (17) 2 (15) 23 13

g

h 0 1 (10) 3 (50) 2 (20) 3 (50) 6 (60) 0 1 (10) 6 10

As will appear from Table 41, the distribution of least preferred texts among occupational groups is fairly even between the three text options, however the original text being considered the least preferable by a lower percentage for all the groups than the two other text versions. This sustains the result presented in Table 40 that a relative majority of the respondents found the original text the most acceptable, irrespective of their professional background.

The most popular text, acceptability Earlier, some of the texts were shown to be considered more accessible than others. It would therefore be appropriate also to consider how these texts were looked upon by the respondents in terms of acceptability. The following two Tables, 42 and 43, give an overview of the preferred texts and the rejected texts respectively.

102 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 42. Text preferences expressed for 6 diŸerent texts: Acceptability (n = 195) Text Original Changed Original/ short Changed/ short NA Total

1 28 (70) 7 (18) 0 3 (8) 2 (5) 40

2

3

4

11 (31) 16 (57) 15 (47) 11 (31) 3 (10) 4 (13) 11 (31) 0 12 (38) 0

7 (25)

5 26 (76) 4 (12) 0

0

3 (7) 2 (7) 1 (2) 36 28 32

6

Total

3 (12) 99 9 (36) 38 0 23

3 (9) 11 (44) 24 1 (3) 2 (8) 11 34 25 195

Table 43. Least preferable texts for 6 diŸerent text options: Acceptability (n = 195) Text

1

2

Original Changed Original/ short Changed/ short NA Total

5 (13) 8 (20) 0

8 (22) 2 (7) 3 (9) 17 (47) 14 (50) 21 (66) 7 (20) 0 7 (22)

24 (60) 3 (7) 40

0

3

8 (29)

4

0

4 (11) 4 (14) 1 (3) 36 28 32

5

6

Total

6 (18) 11 (44) 35 4 (12) 6 (24) 70 0 0 14 22 (65)

6 (24) 60

2 (5) 2 (8) 16 34 25 195

A glance at Tables 42 and 43 reveals that there is general consensus among the respondents as to which texts are acceptable and which are less so. The original versions of texts 1, 3 and 5 are the clear winners with 70%, 57% and 76% ªnding these texts the most acceptable. This is conªrmed by Table 43 where these three texts have fairly low scores on unacceptability (13%, 7% and 18% respectively). The only text which has a high score on low acceptability among the original text versions is text 6, 44% of the respondents ªnding this version the least preferable. If we compare this result with Tables 35 and 36, which gave an overview of the accessibility preferences, we ªnd that accessibility and acceptability preferences coincide for the majority of texts. The only exceptions to this pattern are texts 2 and 4 where the versions found to be the most acceptable in Table 42 were not unequivocally found to be the most accessible in Table 35.

Conclusions, texts 1–6: Acceptability Having examined acceptability in some detail, the following impressions seem to be predominant. There are some diŸerences between the respondents’ attitudes to the texts in terms of acceptability and accessibility, which would indicate that some of the readers have been able to derive diŸerent meanings from the two concepts.

Research methods and survey 103

Another salient result of the survey is that there seems to be greater consensus among the respondents as to what an acceptable text is than as to what an accessible text is. Apparently, the attitudes of the majority of respondents are thus determined by expectations of genre conventions. Thirdly, there does not seem to be any great disparity between the attitudes expressed by diŸerent Danish occupational groups in terms of acceptability, a majority of all groups preferring the original text. However, within a small margin, the translators seem to be more conservative than the engineers in terms of acceptability. And the group of mixed occupations seems to be less bound by genre conventions than the other groups. A fourth observation to be made is that, generally, the British control group tends to be less conservative than the Danish group. In this sense the British group has more in common with the Danish group of engineers than with the Danish sample as a whole. One explanation of this may be that a relatively higher percentage of the British respondents had a technical background. This might indicate a predilection among respondents with a technical background for short sentences, an observation that will be further explored below. Finally, in the light of the observations made so far, it seems that the second hypothesis has been conªrmed, a relative majority of the respondents having rejected the changed versions in terms of acceptability. But even so, it must not be forgotten that there were a minority of respondents whose opinions diŸered from this very general picture — a fact that would call for further investigation.

Text choices: Texts 7–8 Accessibility: Danish audience Appearing in only two versions each, texts 7 and 8 had to be analysed separately. Text 7 is a fault-ªnding text whose most salient feature is ellipsis, and it consists of short sentences. Text 8 is a spare parts list consisting of compound nouns with strings of up to six nouns. The text has no verbs and therefore cannot be changed into a version with short sentences. To have a general picture of the respondents’ attitudes to texts 7 and 8, let us look at Table 44. As will appear from Table 44, an absolute majority of 57% found the changed text more accessible than the original version that was only preferred by 39%. This result would suggest that textual variation in the 8 texts has had signiªcant impact on text choices, since texts 7 and 8 diŸer from the other six texts in terms of characteristic features. Table 44. Preferred version, texts 7–8: Accessibility (n = 79) Original Changed NA Total

31 (39%) 45 (57%) 3 (4%) 79 (100%)

104 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Preferred versions broken down on occupational groups However, even if the respondents generally preferred the changed text versions of texts 7 and 8 in terms of accessibility, the following occupational breakdown shows marked diŸerences between some of their views. Table 45 shows that most of the occupational groups found the changed text more accessible than the original text. However, there was far from consensus on this aspect as 75% of the group of executives responsible for the design of technical manuals preferred the original version. Moreover, although 52% of both the engineers and the translators agreed that the changed text was the more accessible, more than 40% of these two groups opted for the original version. Interestingly, what we witness here is a cleavage not between occupational groups, but internally within two of the groups with the highest representation. Text preferences expressed for texts 7 and 8: Accessibility It will have appeared from Tables 44 and 45 that there are general as well as occupational diŸerences in attitudes towards texts 7 and 8. However, so far we have not examined whether these diŸerences can be ascribed to one of the texts more than to the other. It is therefore necessary to make a separate analysis as shown in Table 46.

Table 45. Preferred text versions and occupational groups: Texts 7 and 8, accessibility (n = 79) Preferred text

Original

Changed

NA

Total

Occupations: Technical English instructors Engineers and technicians Translators and technical writers Executives Mixed group of occupations Engineer and executive Translator and executive NA and other combinations Total

0 12 (41) 9 (43) 6 (75) 1 (14) 0 1 (100) 2 (33) 31

1 (100) 14 (52) 11 (52) 2 (25) 6 (86) 6 (100) 0 4 (67) 45

0 2 (7) 1 (5) 0 0 0 0 0 3

1 29 21 8 7 6 1 6 79

(Percentages in brackets)

Table 46. Text preferences for texts 7 and 8: Accessibility (n = 79) Text

7

8

Total

Original Changed NA Total

18 (46%) 19 (49%) 2 (5%) 39

13 (33%) 26 (65%) 1 (2%) 40

31 45 3 79

Research methods and survey 105

Table 46 shows that although the changed version was found to be the more accessible by the majority of the respondents, it was the changed version of text 8 that was particularly popular since 65% of the respondents had voted for this option. As for text 7 the respondents were almost equally divided between those who favoured the original text and those who favoured the changed version.

Text choices, texts 7 and 8: Acceptability Compared with the accessibility pattern for texts 1–6, the accessibility pattern for texts 7 and 8 showed a much clearer picture, in that the changed texts were considered more accessible. The question that remains is now to what extent this pattern will be repeated in terms of acceptability. Table 47. Text choices, texts 7–8: Acceptability, Danish audience (n = 79) Original

Changed

NA

Total

40 (51)

35 (44)

4 (5)

79

Table 47 shows that an absolute majority of 51% found that the original text was the more acceptable, a result that does not diŸer from the result found for texts 1– 6, where also 51% had voted for the original version. However, a great many respondents (44%) found that the changed versions of texts 7 and 8 were more acceptable than the original text, but the same can be said for texts 1–6. Therefore, even if the changed versions of texts 7 and 8 scored high on accessibility compared with texts 1–6 where the percentage was 39%, there seems to be relative consensus that the original text is the more acceptable. However, the respondents were divided on the issue, a division that may well be a result of diŸerences of opinion among diŸerent occupational groups as the statistical analysis seemed to suggest. Table 48 illustrates this problem: Table 48. Preferred versions and occupations, texts 7–8: Acceptability (n = 79) Preferred version

Original

Changed

NA

Total

Occupation: TE instructor Engineer Translator Executive Mixed group Engineer and executive Translator and executive NA Total

0 16 (55) 11 (52) 5 (63) 3 (43) 1 (17) 0 4 (67) 40

1 (100) 12 (41) 8 (38) 3 (38) 3 (43) 5 (82) 1 (100) 2 (33) 35

0 1 (3) 2 (10) 0 1 (14) 0 0 0 4

1 29 21 8 7 6 1 6 79

106 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 48 suggests that although a majority among the group of engineers and the group of translators did prefer the original version as the more acceptable, there were internal divisions in nearly all of the occupational groups. The groups that were most favourably inclined towards the changed text were the mixed group that was equally divided with 43% in favour of both text versions and the group of executives consisting of engineers where 82% found the changed text more acceptable. It should be noted, though, that the relatively small sizes of some of the groups tend to weaken the results.

Text preferences for texts 7–8: Acceptability Table 49 below serves the purpose of illustrating to what extent the picture provided by Tables 47 and 48 matches each of the two texts, if these were to be analysed separately. It would appear that the original version of text 8 was preferred to the changed version, while the picture was reversed for text 7, where 58% of the respondents found the changed text more acceptable. However, the respondents tended to be divided on the issue here as well as in the preceding tables for texts 7 and 8. Table 49. Preferred texts, 7 or 8: Acceptability (n = 79) Text

7

7

Total

Original Changed NA Total

14 (37%) 22 (58%) 2 (5%) 38

26 (63%) 13 (32%) 2 (5%) 41

40 35 4 79

Conclusions, texts 7 and 8: Accessibility and acceptability The observations made for texts 7 and 8 in terms of accessibility and acceptability respectively point to voting patterns that diŸer from those for texts 1–6. There may be two reasons for this, viz. audience variation and textual variation. Aspects of textual variation have already been discussed in Chapters II and III, but I shall revert to the topic in Chapter VI. Audience variation will be discussed as a dimension of social semiotics in Chapter VII. I shall therefore not go deeper into the question here, but instead proceed with some general comments on the results found for texts 7 and 8. As for text 7 the changed text was found to be both more accessible and more acceptable than the original text, but for text 8, even if the changed text was found to be the more accessible the original was still considered the more acceptable. This result shows how important it is to look at the individual texts since the general table, where no distinction had been made between the texts, showed a diŸerent picture. Here the changed text was the most popular in terms of accessi-

Research methods and survey 107

bility, 57% having voted for it, while the original text was still found more acceptable with 51% of the respondents voting for this version. Generally, voting patterns for texts 7 and 8 tend to show greater variation than was the case for texts 1–6. The obvious reason for this is that texts 7 and 8 only appeared in two versions each, while texts 1–6 appeared in three versions. As a consequence the attitudes expressed for texts 7 and 8 presented a clearer picture with more convincing percentages. The consequence is that it is not possible to compare the percentages calculated for texts 7 and 8 with these calculated for texts 1–6. A third observation that could be made was that similar to the observations made for texts 1–6 some of the professional groups were split on the issues of both accessibility and acceptability. This trend was perhaps even more pronounced for texts 7 and 8 since the lines of division tended to cut across some of the groups rather than along them. But in the ªnal analysis, voting patterns followed by the majority of votes cast seem to support the assumption that diŸerent professions have diŸerent attitudes while in general the observable voting patterns followed by a minority of respondents would suggest division lines splitting the professions. In other words the sliding scale of attitudes seems to have a vertical as well as a horizontal axis in that the professions are divided by lines separating insiders from outsiders as well a by lines cutting across the professions.

Text choices, short sentences, texts 1–6: Accessibility As shown above, 34.9% of the respondents found that the texts with short sentences were the most accessible. However, at the same time we have seen that 33.3% of the respondents found one of the other text versions more accessible than the short sentence version. This divergence of opinion is not surprising, seeing that a similar lack of consensus was expressed for the original text versions as well as the changed text versions, indicating extensive variation in the attitudes of the respondents. Such variation warrants closer examination and I therefore looked at some of the correlations that seemed to exist between the response variable of text choice and the background variables of professional occupation and knowledge of technical manuals. I accomplished this task by grouping the respondents who had short sentences as their ªrst priority into writers and non-writers. The purpose was to ªnd possible diŸerences between attitudes to short sentences. To ªnd out whether any marked diŸerences could be established for respondents with diŸerent educational backgrounds, I furthermore looked at the attitudes expressed on this background. These three parameters were all examined from the points of view of accessibility and acceptability. Before going into detail with any of these parameters, however, a general overview of ªrst priorities and third priorities expressed by diŸerent occupational groups will be in order.

108 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 50. A breakdown of occupational groups preferring short sentences: Accessibility Short sentences

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

44%

28%

46%

33%

18%

54%

29%

18%

Table 51. A breakdown of occupational groups with short sentences as their last preference: Accessibility Short sentences

a

b

c

d

e

f

g

h

38%

38%

23%

8%

52%

31%

57%

33%

Overview of text choices, short sentences: Accessibility The result referred to above would indicate that there might be a diŸerence between the attitudes expressed by speciªc occupational groups, and this prediction seems to be conªrmed in Tables 50 and 51. To ease comparison, I have included Table 51, which shows a breakdown of occupational groups with short sentences as their last preference. For an overview of occupations, see p. 93. There are two observations to be made on the basis of Tables 50 and 51. First, the group of mixed occupations (e) generally resented short sentences, since only 18% had this style as their ªrst priority while an absolute majority of 52% opted for short sentences as their third priority. Second, the engineers (b) seemed to ªnd text with short sentences less accessible than did the translators (c), although in general the engineers did not seem to have very strong feelings about sentence length since only 28% preferred short sentences and 38% found text with short sentences less accessible than any of the other versions. They must therefore have voted for one of the other text versions, and we already know that this text version was the original. The translators, on the other hand, showed that they would be much more inclined to prefer text with short sentences, since 46% had it as their ªrst priority and only 23% had it as their last priority. Writers of technical manuals, priorities: Accessibility Having narrowed the focus of investigation to short sentences and having provided a general overview of the preferences expressed by diŸerent occupational groups, I intend now to include an additional variable whose importance was predicted by the statistical analyses. This variable is familiarity with technical manuals, which seems to be crucial in determining respondent reactions. In the questionnaire, familiarity with technical manuals was divided into three subcategories: Unfamiliar with manuals, using manuals and writing manuals. For the sake of statistical simpliªcation I have collapsed the two categories of unfamiliar

Research methods and survey 109

Table 52. Writers of technical manuals, short sentence version: Accessibility (n = 85) 1st priority

2nd priority

3rd priority

31 (36.5%)

18 (21.1%)

30 (35.3%)

NA 6 (7.1%)

with manuals and using manuals into one, since the third category, writing manuals, is the category where thorough knowledge might be expected to in¶uence the attitudes expressed. Before this new aspect may be taken into consideration, however, a few ªgures are necessary. Of the 195 respondents there were 85 who wrote technical manuals, which amounts to 43.6%. Their priorities will appear from Table 52 above. The percentages have been based on the 85 respondents who said they wrote technical manuals. The writers of technical manuals were almost equally divided between those who preferred a short sentence version (36.5%) and those who had it as their last priority (35.3%).

The signiªcance of educational backgrounds A look at the distribution of the 31 ªrst priority votes according to educational backgrounds in Table 53 below will shed further light on the preferences expressed. Table 53 illustrates the distribution of votes between respondents with a technical background and respondents with a language background. Of the 31 manual writers who had short sentences as their ªrst priority 41.9% had a technical background while 54.8% had a language background. Calculated on the basis of the total number of manual writers (85) there were 20% with a language background and 15.3% with a technical background who preferred short sentences, but the diŸerence is not striking. Priorities of respondents who are unfamiliar with technical manuals: Accessibility For the sake of comparison, question 7 of the questionnaire (familiarity with technical manuals) will now be elucidated from the angle of the 102 respondents who said that they did not write technical manuals. It would be a reasonable Table 53. Writers of technical manuals and educational background: Accessibility, short sentences as ªrst priority: texts 1–6 (n = 31) Technical background Totals % of sample

13 41.9%

Language background 17 54.8%

Combined background 1 3.2%

NA 0 0%

110 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

expectation to make that their attitudes might diŸer from those of the writers — an expectation that seems to be conªrmed if we compare Tables 51 and 53. The 102 respondents, who had said they did not write manuals, made out 52.3% of the 195 respondents who had returned a questionnaire for texts 1–6. Table 53 shows their priorities. Table 54 shows an even distribution between the three priorities unlike the distribution shown in Table 52 for writers of technical manuals where the majority were equally divided between short sentence texts as ªrst and third priorities. For some reason therefore writers of technical manuals seem to be more conscious about their choice in the sense that fewer have short sentences as their second choice. They appear to be more capable of making the choices of either selecting or rejecting the style. If we now look at the text choices from an educational background point of view, we ªnd results that, contrary to expectation, do not vary signiªcantly from the results found for the population of manual writers. Text choices based on educational background are shown in Table 55. Table 55 shows that a majority of the respondents with a language background who did not possess thorough knowledge of technical manuals (52.9%) had short sentences as their ªrst priority, while the respondents with a technical background showed a larger degree of hesitation in opting for this style choice. This result would indicate that educational background plays a greater role in determining text choices in terms of accessibility than does the variable of familiarity with technical manual writing. Table 56 provides a general overview of text choices expressed by writers of technical manuals in terms of acceptability. Table 54. Respondents who are unfamiliar with technical manuals: Accessibility (n = 102) 1st priority

2nd priority

3rd priority

34 (33.3%)

31 (30.4%)

36 (35.3%)

NA 1 (1.0%)

Table 55. Non-writers according to educational background ªrst priority, short sentences: Accessibility (n = 34) Technical background % of total population

14 41.2%

Language background

Combined background

18 52.9%

1 2.9%

NA

Table 56. Writers of technical manuals, short sentences: Acceptability (n = 85) 1st priority

2nd priority

3rd priority

NA

20 (23.5%)

24 (28.2%)

33 (38.8%)

8 (9.4%)

1 2.9%

Research methods and survey

There were 85 writers of technical manuals out of a sample of 195 who had returned texts 1–6. Table 56 shows the distribution of votes according to priorities. Generally, the short sentence version was not very acceptable according to these writers, since a relative majority (38.8%) had this style as their third and last preference. But we must remember that almost as many (35.3%) did not ªnd it accessible either. The greatest diŸerence between accessibility and acceptability choices seems to be particularly clear in connection with ªrst priorities since only 23.5% found the short sentence versions to be the most acceptable, compared with 36.5% who found these versions to be the most accessible. Table 56 furthermore shows quite great diŸerence between ªrst priorities and third priorities, which also helps cement the impression that in general short sentence texts are not considered very acceptable, and especially not by writers of technical manuals. However, this was the general picture. An examination of ªrst priorities broken down according to educational backgrounds might provide a diŸerent pattern, and this in fact seems to be the case if we look at Table 57. Table 57. Writers of technical manuals, short sentences as ªrst priority, educational background: Acceptability (n = 20)

Totals % of sample

Technical background

Language background

Combined background

11 55%

8 40%

1 5%

NA 0 0%

As appears from Table 57, educational background seems to have in¶uenced attitudes to short sentences, the respondents with a technical background (55%) showing a stronger inclination to vote for short sentences than do the respondents with a language background (40%). It is interesting to compare this result with the result shown in Table 24 for accessibility. When looking at attitudes from an acceptability point of view, the roles have been reversed in the sense that respondents who write technical manuals and who have a technical background tend to ªnd short sentences more acceptable than do writers with a language background.

Respondents who are unfamiliar with writing technical manuals Table 58 shows a breakdown of priorities based on the 102 respondents who said they did not write technical manuals. Table 58. Respondents who do not write technical manuals: Acceptability (n = 102) 1st priority

2nd priority

3rd priority

NA

25 (24.5%)

32 (31.4%)

41 (40.2%)

4 (3.9%)

111

112

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

As shown in Table 58, respondents who did not write technical manuals, tended to list short sentences as their third priority, while only 24.5% considered this style the most acceptable. This is about the same percentage as for the writers of technical manuals of which 23.5% preferred the texts with short sentences as the most acceptable. This would indicate that knowledge of writing technical manuals is not a determining factor in all situations and that, therefore, other aspects should be considered too.

Short sentences as ªrst priority Table 59 shows an educational breakdown of respondents without thorough knowledge of technical manuals. There is no important diŸerence between attitudes expressed by writers of technical manuals and non-writers, if the basis for comparison is educational backgrounds. Among the non-writers, an absolute majority of the respondents with a technical background (56%) listed short sentences as their ªrst priority (compared to 55% in the group of writers). The diŸerence is slightly bigger between writers and non-writers in the group of respondents with a language background, 40% of the writers preferring short sentences, while only 32% of the non-writers took that stance. Table 59. Short sentences as ªrst priority: Acceptability (n = 25)

Totals % of sample

Technical background

Language background

Combined background

14 56%

8 32%

3 12%

NA 0 0%

Conclusions: Short sentences, accessibility and acceptability One of the main purposes of looking into the respondents’ attitudes to short sentences was to look for cues that might point to ways of explaining why some respondents prefer short sentences while others tend to resent this style. It is of course necessary to distinguish between reactions in terms of accessibility and acceptability, since these two notions may be presumed to draw on diŸerent cognitive resources. Let us look at accessibility ªrst. It seems that occupational background matters more than any other background variable, since apparently, the mixed group and to a certain extent the engineers did not ªnd texts with short sentences very accessible, while a relative majority of the translators thought that such texts were easier to understand than any of the other texts. If the sample is categorized according to knowledge of technical manuals into a writing group and a non-writing group, this distinction seems to have in¶uenced text choices too.

Research methods and survey

Writers were generally more conscious than non-writers in their choices. And if we look at the third variable, educational background, respondents with a language background were generally more favourably inclined towards short sentences than were the respondents with a technical background. If the same sample was grouped according to familiarity with writing technical manuals into a writing group and a non-writing group, however, there seemed to be no diŸerence in attitudes, educational background therefore being a determining factor in text choices more than the writing, non-writing distinction. However, this observation can hardly lead us to deduce that text choices will always be thus determined as we have already seen that the writing/non-writing distinction can be a strong indicator of text choice. Let us then look at the acceptability results. The general impression is that a majority of the respondents did not ªnd short sentences very acceptable. It has been shown earlier in Table 39 that none of the occupational groups found short sentences particularly acceptable. Therefore, in this section I have only looked at acceptability from an educational point of view. According to my data, respondents with a technical background tended to ªnd texts with short sentences more acceptable than did respondents with a language background, and there seemed to be greater consensus on this stance in the group of respondents with a technical background who were writers than in the non-writing group with a language background. It would thus appear that even if the results obtained for the occupational background variable did not point in that direction, the respondents’ attitudes to short sentences were determined more by educational backgrounds than by familiarity with the genre. This observation is further sustained by the apparent paradox that there seems to be consensus between writers and non-writers on choosing short sentences as their third priority.

Choices, sentence pairs As for the part of the questionnaire which dealt with attitudes to a number of diŸerent constructions, it should be noted that the respondents had not been asked to state their attitudes in terms of accessibility and acceptability. Instead they were simply asked to choose the sentence they preferred in a number of sentence pairs.

General results Table 60 provides an overview of the sentence pairs and the choices made by diŸerent occupational groups. The numbers in Table 60 are percentages calculated on the basis of responses for each sentence pair. The general pattern of attitudes revealed in Table 60 is not a far cry from the

113

114

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

style pattern assumed to be typical of technical English in the introduction. With a few exceptions a majority of respondents preferred the passive voice, nominal and impersonal style, premodiªcation, ellipsis and non-ªnite clauses. There were, however, two exceptions from the norm in that a majority preferred to retain the deªnite article rather than leaving it out, and not to leave out the object [it] in sentences like “it will be necessary to strip down the cylinder and examine [it] to clear the fault”. However homogeneous this pattern may appear, there was nevertheless some variation when looking at the diŸerent occupational groups. The odd man out in the game was once again the mixed group of other occupations who disagreed with the rest of the respondents in a number of cases. Where the rest of the groups preferred the passive voice, the mixed group of other occupations was almost evenly split between the active and the passive voice with 6.8% in favour of the passive voice and 5.4% in favour of the active. And where the other groups preferred nominal and impersonal style, the mixed group preferred clausal and personal style. In a number of cases the respondents split their votes evenly between one style and the other. This applies to article omission versus article retention where the engineers and the translators as groups could not decide on which style they preferred. And the same applied to the translators in the case of premodiªcation versus postmodiªcation. The support of object retention was overwhelming from all the groups and so was the rejection of the ungrammatical sentence coded as U in Table 60: “The groove J should be on the lower side to make it possible the grease enters the bearing”. Finally, the technical English instructors were evenly divided on the question of ellipsis and non-ªnite clauses where 50% of them preferred complete and ªnite clauses. On these issues the executives had no doubt, a majority of this group preferring complete clauses. The percentages shown in Table 60, however, are marginal tables, not correlations. But the programme was also asked to generate correlations, the results of which are shown below.

Contingent dependencies based on professional occupation and sentence choices The search for correlations generated 7 dependencies for sentence choice and professional occupation. These support the analysis made on the basis of Table 60, but the percentages are calculated on the basis of the total of the occupational group, not on the basis of the number of respondents, who made up the sample for each sentence pair.

1.

Codes: D - E: G - F: H - I: J - K: L - M: N - O: P - Q: R - S: T - U:

TE instructor Engineer Translator Executive Other occupat. Engineer and executive Translator and executive Total

Occupation

1.4

2.7

0.7

0 15.1 9.6 2.7 8.2 3.4

F

146

1.4

2.7 19.2 24.0 3.4 4.8 4.8

G

3.2

4.4 22.8 26.6 4.9 4.9 6.0

H

184

0

0.5 9.2 7.1 2.2 7.1 1.1

I

0.8

0 14.7 20.1 3.9 3.1 0.8

J

129

2.3

4.7 14.0 17.8 4.7 8.5 4.7

K

Representing: Passive versus active constructions Nominal style versus clausal style Impersonal style versus personal style Article omission versus article retention Premodiªcation versus postmodiªcation Object omission versus object retention Ellipsis versus complete clause Non-ªnite clause versus ªnite clause Grammatically correct clause versus ungrammatical clause

148

2.0 9.5 10.1 2.0 5.4 2.7

E

3.4 24.3 19.6 5.4 6.8 4.7

D1

Table 60. Total number of choices made in terms of stylistic principles

2.2

2.2 20.1 16.1 5.4 6.7 4.9

L

224

1.3

1.8 14.7 15.2 2.2 4.5 2.7

M

0

0 8.6 13.8 1.7 1.7 1.7

N

58

1.7

0 25.9 20.7 6.9 12.1 5.2

O

0

1.6 22.6 25.8 1.6 8.1 0

P

62

0

1.6 17.7 4.8 4.8 4.8 6.5

Q

2.2

2.2 20.4 24.8 7.3 6.6 2.9

R

137

1.5

2.9 10.9 9.5 2.2 2.9 3.6

S

0

2.9 20.0 45.7 5.7 11.4 5.7

T

35

0

0 5.7 2.9 0 0 0

U

Research methods and survey 115

116 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Table 61 shows that as many as 71.4% of the translators/technical writers preferred nominal style while only 54.6% of all other groups made that choice. Interestingly, only 36.8% of other occupations preferred nominal style, while this style was preferred by as many as 63.8% of all the other respondents. It should be noted (Table 62), however, that the group of other occupations is quite small since only 19 respondents had responded. The mixed group of other occupations tended to prefer personal style (59.0%), while everybody else favoured impersonal style (77.2%). The group of other occupations (Table 63) was represented by 22 respondents in total. Table 64 shows that 100% of the technical English instructors preferred article retention and a slight majority of the rest of the respondents (54.5%) agreed that articles should be retained in technical manuals. Note that the group of technical English instructors is represented by only 6 respondents, for which reason the results should be read with caution. Translators and technical writers were divided on the issue of article omission and article retention in that 46.9% preferred article retention while 53.1% preferred article omission. Based on an average of all the other occupational groups, a handsome majority of 62.5% preferred article retention. Among the translators as many as 84.2% favoured ellipsis while the rest of the respondents were divided on the issue with 51.1% in favour of complete clauses and 48.8% in favour of ellipsis (Table 66). Of course each individual group may show variation from this average score as did a small group of four engineers who were at the same time executives responsible for manuals. This group unanimously preferred complete clauses.

Conclusions: Sentence pair correlations The section on sentence pair correlations has provided invaluable information on the respondents’ attitudes to particular linguistic features; but as mentioned earlier, the general pattern re¶ected in these analyses is one of stylistic conservatism, the style features characteristic of technical manuals being favoured at the expense of style features that would make the texts more personal and direct. However, the mixed group of other occupations, who do not belong to the discourse community, tended to favour personal and clausal style unlike members of the discourse community. This further sustains our second hypothesis formed at the beginning of this chapter that a change of style towards greater intrinsic accessibility will jeopardize its acceptability in the sense that members of the discourse community to which the text belongs will ªnd that their style expectations have been infringed, while non-members of this discourse community will react diŸerently. However, there are deviations from this general trend. For one thing, all the occupational groups agreed that they would prefer to keep the object rather than

Research methods and survey

Table 61. Translators/technical writers and clausal style versus nominal style (n = 146) Preferred principle

Translator/technical writer

All other groups

Clausal style Nominal style Total

14 = 28.6% 35 = 71.4% 49 = 100%

44 = 45.4% 53 = 54.6% 97 = 100%

p< 0.061

Table 62. Mixed group of other occupations and clausal style versus nominal style (n = 146) Preferred principle

Mixed group of other occupations

All other groups

Clausal style Nominal style Total

12 = 63.2% 7 = 36.8% 19 = 100%

46 = 36.2% 81 = 63.8% 127 = 100%

p< 0.032

Table 63. Mixed group of other occupations and impersonal style versus personal style (n = 184) Preferred principle

Mixed group of other occupations

All other groups

Impersonal style Personal style Total

9 = 41.0% 13 = 59.0% 22 =100%

125 = 77.2% 37 = 22.8% 162 = 100%

p< 0.001

Table 64. Technical English instructors and article omission versus article retention (n = 129) Preferred principle

Technical English instructor

All other groups

Article omission Article retention Total

0 = 0% 6 = 100% 6 = 100%

56 = 45.5% 67 = 54.5% 123 = 100%

p< 0.027

Table 65. Translators and article omission versus article retention (n = 129) Preferred principle

Translators

All other groups

Article omission Article retention Total

26 = 53.1% 23 = 46.9% 49 = 100%

30 = 37.5% 50 = 62.5% 80 = 100%

p< 0.092 (the p-value is rather high and may show independence in a new test)

Table 66. Translators and ellipsis versus complete clause (n = 62) Preferred principle

Translators

All other groups

Ellipsis Complete clause Total

16 = 84.2% 3 = 15.8% 19 = 100%

21 = 48.8% 22 = 51.1% 43 = 100%

p< 0.008

117

118

Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

to omit it. Secondly, two large groups of respondents, the engineers and the translators, were both evenly split on the question of whether the deªnite article should be kept or omitted in technical texts. The same applies for the group of translators who did not agree whether they preferred premodiªed or postmodiªed nouns. But for the rest of the stylistic features, the passive voice was generally preferred to the active voice, nominal style to clausal style, impersonal style to personal style, ellipsis to complete clauses, the latter result contradicting the results found for text 7 whose most salient feature was ellipsis. For this text the majority of the respondents preferred complete clauses. The occupational group that attracts attention is the group of mixed occupations, who do not belong to the discourse community in which technical manuals regularly occur. Presumably, the respondents in this group went against the tide for the majority of features because they were not used to using or writing the genre. Therefore, it may be concluded that stylistic preference is a function of familiarity with the writing style of speciªc genres and of educational and professional backgrounds.

Comments and open questions As mentioned earlier, the respondents were encouraged to provide additional comments in the questionnaire. Furthermore, one of the questionnaires had an open question which had been asked in order to test the level of understanding. These two open comment areas had been included to obtain a deeper understanding of the attitudes behind the respondents’ reactions to the response variables, and it is on these two open comment areas that we shall now focus attention.

Comments The respondents’ comments on the questionnaire and on the texts they had been asked to read may provide deeper insight into what actually motivated their choices. Not everybody had provided comments, but the comments from those who felt they needed to elaborate on their contribution re¶ected the same type of variation between diŸerent professional groups and between writers and nonwriters of technical manuals. Based on the comments only, it would appear that writers of technical manuals, if they are engineers, tend to prefer brevity and impersonal style as implied in the following quotation: “A technical manual must be as brief as possible. Avoid personal words like we, you etc. No, brief, clear and precise”.

It was also possible to ªnd the same belief in the group of translators, who wrote technical manuals, one representative stating:

Research methods and survey

“I normally prefer condensed style with the deªnite article suppressed and premodiªcation. The level of information in technical manuals is high and condensation is therefore necessary. However, if condensation results in ambiguity, I prefer a less condensed style like in sender indicating air ªlter restriction rather than air ªlter restriction sender”.

But another representative from the group of manual writing translators had an entirely diŸerent point of view, involving considerations about the audience: “I believe version B [the changed text] will be easier to understand for the nonspecialist, whereas understanding A [the original] would require a specialist. And not only specialists read the texts!” [bracketed explanations added]

In fact, concern about the audience seems to be more pronounced among the manual writers than among the respondents who did not write manuals — an observation that is illustrated by the following comment by a manual writing translator: “Whether to prefer one version or the other depends on the audience. If you write to a specialist, you may use condensed style, but if you write to a non-specialist you will have to write in complete sentences”.

Respondents, both from the group of manual writers and the group of nonwriters, often expressed rather petriªed views on style like the following: “I hope my choices re¶ect how technical English should be written, even if this style might not be the most accessible”

or “One thing is what is preferable — another what is correct”.

It was also possible to ªnd much more progressive points of view in both groups. From the manual writing group, here represented by an executive responsible for the design of technical manuals I received the following comment: “I think technical writing style is moving from condensed brief style towards the more elaborated style used in other literature. And why not — why should maintenance and operating personnel be more minded for reading condensed style. The text may easily be precise and unambiguous even if it is not fragmentary”.

This point of view was frequently shared by representatives from the group of non-writers, who tended to show a higher level of frustration with the writing style normally used in manuals: “I deªnitely prefer version b [the changed version], but unfortunately technical texts are rarely written that way”. [Bracketed explanation added]

or “I think version B [the changed text] will cause fewer misunderstandings”

119

120 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

or “By using a more direct style, some of the mystery behind the text is removed and also the attitude that this is probably too di¹cult for me to read” .

A particularly useful comment was provided by a translator from the group of non-writers: “The purpose of a manual is to assist people in doing a job. It is therefore crucial that the text is very clear and unambiguous. The only way of testing whether the manual serves its purpose is to try to follow it step by step. If it is possible to operate the machine in accordance with the instructions of the manual, the language will have been accessible”.

This comment aptly anticipates an observation that needs to be made about method at this point. Perhaps style is not as important as we are sometimes made to believe. Perhaps accessibility is to be found on a level diŸerent from that of style, or style may only partly explain why one text is more accessible than another. The great variety of attitudes expressed in the survey seem to indicate that style is an equivocal concept in¶uenced by many factors, and the comment above makes one wonder whether it is in fact possible to analyse the accessibility of style on the basis of the reading of texts only — a problem that has been dealt with by Gunnarsson (1982: 68).

Open questions Inspired by Gunnarsson (1982), I had included in the questionnaire the following open question to test the respondents’ level of understanding.: Increasing the sensitivity will make more lights on the display glow for a given loss detection rate. The interesting point here is how the respondents interpreted the meaning of the sentence. The problem seems to be that it is possible to analyse the noun group loss detection rate in two ways, which both give meaning, but not full equivalence. In one possible interpretation the head is rate, which is premodiªed by loss detection corresponding to the rate of  loss detection. (The symbol  indicates stress on the syllable that follows). If the stress is on loss the implication is that of new information contrasting with any alternative. We are talking about loss not gain in this interpretation. Therefore the meaning we would infer would be something like: We are talking about loss not gain and something is done to this loss at given intervals (there may be no loss, but if there is, the extent of this  loss is being measured from time to time). In a second interpretation the head is rate premodiªed by detection to form a new head  detection rate. The noun group then reads as follows: loss  detection rate. Here the word detection is stressed, indicating that loss, being unstressed, is given information. We know there is a loss (there always is when harvesting).

Research methods and survey

What is new, however, is how we treat this loss. In this case we are detecting it and not, as would also be possible, preventing it. The implied meaning is therefore: We are talking about detecting something, not preventing something at given intervals (the extent of the loss (which is given) is being  detected from time to time). It would appear that there is very little diŸerence in meaning between these two interpretations. But the crux seems to be that knowledge of intonation patterns, however important they may be in assisting interpretation, are faced with barriers that the grammar cannot overcome. The problem with the noun group in question is that none of the two interpretations are capable of rendering the full meaning of the word rate, which normally refers to frequency, but here has the double meaning of frequency and volume. This means that what is detected by a sensor is detected not only at given intervals, but the detection is also determined by the volume of grain lost. The inference of this is that the noun group holds a meaning potential that is only accessible to the reader who has specialist knowledge that goes beyond the linguistic resources so far available. The specialist would interpret rate as a combination of how much grain is lost and how fast is it lost. It is therefore not surprising that of the 24 respondents who had tried to explain the sentence, only 10 had solved the problem. But what is surprising is that of these 10 only 2 said they were familiar with the electronic system mentioned in the sentence. Of course the remaining 8, who provided the correct answer, may have consulted specialists to ªnd out. But none of the 14 respondents who provided a wrong explanation were familiar with the system. To illustrate how a correct explanation could read, the following two answers have been included: (a) Udtrykket angiver, hvor hurtig overvågningssystemet reagerer på/ registrerer spild. (Spørgsmålet er, om der måske menes, hvor følsomt overvågningssystemet er over for en given spildprocent??) (The utterance explains how fast the monitoring system reacts to/registers loss (the question is whether the utterance is intended to indicate how sensitive the monitoring system is to a given grain loss percentage??)) As the bracketed comments shows, even this one specialist had doubts about the correct interpretation. The next example (b) is a translation rather than an explanation: (b) Målt tabsmængde (detected volume of loss) The explanations or comments oŸered by respondents who had not understood the sentence varied from: (c) I do not understand the sentence. I do not know if it means frequency or speed. I would need to contact a specialist for an explanation

121

122 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

to (d) to what extent the loss is measured (I hvilken grad der detekteres for tab) The interesting problem this apparent lack of understanding raises is related to credibility. In other words, to what extent does a low level of understanding cause a loss of credibility when the respondents are required to say which text they ªnd the most accessible. It is all very well for a respondent to say that a text is accessible, if the message this text contains is not brought home. And this seems to be the case for text 3, which is the text containing this particular sentence. According to Table 35, the original text was rather popular in terms of accessibility, drawing 57% of the votes cast; but the question that remains to be answered is: on what grounds? For now, su¹ce to say that the open question posed in text 3 has proved to be important in placing this whole venture in a new perspective. It may not be possible to come closer to the core of the problem, but it is nevertheless important not to forget the possible in¶uence such lack of understanding may have on the results.

Interviews Since the interview part mainly focused on the respondents’ understanding of the diŸerence between accessibility and acceptability, which has been explained in chapter I, I shall only brie¶y comment on the rest of the questions asked. To make sure that the respondents were asked the same questions, 19 Danish respondents were interviewed in accordance with the following guide: 1. How long time did you spend on the questionnaire? 2. Did you feel a need to answer questions that had not been asked? 3. How did you understand the words accessibility (tilgængelighed) and acceptability (acceptabilitet) 4. State reasons for choosing the texts of your preference. 5. Other comments? The time spent on replying to the questionnaire varied between 15 and 60 minutes and it appears that none of the respondents felt that important questions had been omitted. One interviewee suggested that the questionnaire should also have allowed for comments on the layout; however, this need had been covered by including an area for open comments. As for reasons for choosing the texts of their preference, some respondents said that they were aware that they had contradicted themselves when selecting style in the sentence pair section of the questionnaire. Asked if they were able to justify this apparent contradiction, many of the respondents had no idea as to why they preferred one style when it appeared in an isolated sentence and another when it appeared in a longer text. Some, however, gave

Research methods and survey 123

reasons of ambiguity in connection with speciªc sentences in isolation — ambiguity that might be resolved if the sentence appeared in a wider context. Other reasons were inconsistency and the massive use of personal pronouns in a text being more conspicuous than the use of a single pronoun in an isolated sentence. Looking at text choices only, the reasons stated for the preferences expressed varied from predilection for one of the linguistic features in a given text to dislike of personal, direct style for reasons that were not clear to the individual respondent. Therefore, an important element in determining text choice will have been idiosyncrasy.

Testing hypothesis 1: Accessibility text choices compared with ratios of grammatical metaphor It has been established that a relative majority of the respondents found the original texts to be more accessible than the alternative versions. But it has also been shown that the conviction with which the respondents voiced this attitude varies from one text to the next and thus deviations from the overall pattern will be found if the diŸerent text versions are studied more closely. In chapter III we found the ratio of ranking clauses to grammatical metaphors broken down into syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphors and the results were illustrated in Tables 49, 50 and 51. We will now test hypothesis 1 by comparing relevant tables, which are repeated below for convenience as Tables 67, 68 and 69. Table 67. Text preferences expressed for 6 diŸerent texts: Accessibility (n = 195) Text

1

2

Original 22 (55) B Changed 9 (23) C Original/ 0 short Changed/ 8 (20) A short NA 1 (2) Total 40

17 (20) A 12 (33) B 17 (47) C

3 16 (57) C 6 (21) A 0

0 0 36

5 (18) B 1 (4) 28

4 14 (44) C 4 (13) B 13 (41) A

5

3 (12) A 82 5 (20) B 41 0 30

9 (26) A

16 (64) C 38

0 34

(percentages)

Table 68. Text preferences for texts 7 and 8: Accessibility (n = 79) Text Original Changed NA Total

7 18 (46%) A 19 (49%) A 2 (5%) 39

8 13 (33%) A 26 (65%) B 1 (2%) 40

Total

20 (59) B 5 (15) C 0

0 1 (2) 32

6

Total 31 45 3 79

1 (4) 25

4 195

2.5

0.3

2.8

Ratio of paradigmatic metaphors to ranking clauses

Ratio of grammatical metaphors to ranking clauses

2.6

0.1

2.5

23

59

C1

2.3

0.1

2.2

26

59

A1

2.9

0.8

2.1

24

69

A2

(Figures rounded oŸ to one decimal) [landscape]

23

Ratio of syntagmatic metaphors to ranking clauses

64

B1

Ranking clauses, total

Syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphors, total

Text changed on the basis of 2 (3)

Text changed on the basis of 1 (3)

Changed text (2)

Original text (1)

3.4

1.4

2.0

27

93

B2

2.8

0.7

2.1

25

70

C2

2.5

0.1

2.4

24

61

C3

1.6

0.1

1.4

29

45

A3

Table 69. Ratio of grammatical metaphors to ranking clauses

1.4

.03

1.4

29

42

B3

3.0

0.2

2.8

19

57

C4

1.6

0

1.6

21

34

B4

2.5

0.1

2.3

23

57

A4

3.3

0.2

3.2

18

60

B5

2.0

0.1

1.8

22

43

C5

1.5

0.1

1.5

26

40

A5

2.9

1.0

2.0

26

76

A6

2.2

0.5

1.7

27

59

B6

2.0

0.4

1.6

29

58

C6

2.0

1.1

0.9

50

101

A7

1.0

.06

0.9

50

49

B7

1.0

0

1.0

17

17

A8

2.4

1.0

NA

17

41

B8

124 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Research methods and survey 125

If hypothesis 1 holds good, the texts preferred by the majority will demonstrate the lowest density of grammatical metaphor within each of the text categories 1, 2, 3, etc. However, this does not seem to be the case. In terms of accessibility the preferred texts are: B1, C2, C3, C4, B5, C6, B7 and B8 (Tables 67 and 68). If we now look at Table 69, texts B1, C3, C4, B5 and B8 all have higher density of grammatical metaphor than their alternative versions and even so they were preferred by a relative majority of respondents. It should be added, however, that the results of text 8 should be interpreted with caution since the original text consisted of noun groups which are not usually deªned as ranking clauses. As for the remaining texts, C2 and C6 were preferred while the respondents were evenly divided on text 7. If we look at grammatical metaphor density for those three texts, we ªnd that C2, C6 and B7 all have the lowest incidence of grammatical metaphor compared with their alternative versions, which does agree with the hypothesis. However, as explained above, the results found for the remaining texts work in the opposite direction. Therefore, the results found for the texts as a whole would indicate that the presence of grammatical metaphor is not per se a criterion for low text accessibility, and that goes for lexical density, GICL and GIGL values too as we saw it in Chapter 3. But if the notion of grammatical metaphor does not signiªcantly in¶uence the respondents’ reaction to the texts when asked about accessibility, would then the notions of syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphor make a diŸerence? To try to answer this question, let us look at Table 69, which oŸers a breakdown of these two sub-categories to ranking clauses. As for text 2, there is little diŸerence between the text versions when looking at syntagmatic metaphor, so here it seems to be paradigmatic metaphor that causes the diŸerence in grammatical metaphor density between the three texts. But the text with the highest density of paradigmatic metaphor (B2) was not particularly popular among the respondents while the preferred text, C2, shows the lowest density of paradigmatic metaphor within this category of texts. Text C6, which was another much preferred text, shows the lowest density of both syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphor of the category of texts under 6 and therefore, in terms of being able to assess the possible role each of the two types of grammatical metaphor might play in accessibility, there is little to be gained from studying the diŸerences of this particular example. And as for text 7, where the respondents were evenly divided between preferring text A and B, the example does not throw new light on the distinction between syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphor in text accessibility. It must therefore be concluded that the only text in which paradigmatic metaphor may have played a role in the survey is in text 2 where there is a low incidence in the preferred text. However, although on the basis of text 2, it would seem as if paradigmatic metaphor might increase the accessibility of the text, this ªnding — which must be said to be counter-intuitive — has too

126 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

little weight to be signiªcant because of the limited size of the sample. It will therefore be necessary to look for explanations of low accessibility other than those grammatical metaphor had been assumed to be capable of providing.

Testing hypothesis 2: Limits to acceptability Hypothesis 2 set out to test whether respondents who do not belong to the discourse community as deªned by Swales (1990) would take a stance that diŸers from that of the discourse community when asked which texts they would prefer in terms of accessibility and acceptability. Interestingly, in the group of mixed occupations, who were not familiar with the genre, a relative majority of 45% (which is a higher percentage than for any of the other occupational groups) opted for the changed versions. And when we looked at the acceptability results, we found that although a relative majority of 39% in the group of mixed occupations preferred the original texts, this percentage was lower than for any of the other occupational groups. The results showed that even to respondents who did not belong to the discourse community, texts could be changed beyond their limits of acceptability, but the group had a wider latitude than any of the other groups who belonged to the discourse community in which technical manuals frequently occur. And members of the discourse community discarded the changed text versions with great conviction. On this basis it is then possible to conclude that the results sustain Hypothesis 2. These results furthermore substantiate the assumption that members of a discourse community identify with a common professional dialect, which in certain respects share features with Bernstein’s restricted code (1971). For a discussion of Bernstein’s Codes, see Chapter 7.

Chapter 6

Information structure

In Chapter 5 we concluded that the presence of grammatical metaphor in text is not per se a criterion for low text accessibility. To be able to explain why some texts are more di¹cult to comprehend than others, we would therefore have to invoke principles likely to have in¶uenced the respondents’ reactions, other than those of grammatical metaphor. Text accessibility may be presumed to be a function of both text internal and text external criteria, and two in this book so far uninvestigated areas seem to be of immediate relevance for reasons that will become clearer as we move on. These two areas are (1) the information structure combining new and given information and (2) the respondents’ socio-cultural situation. This chapter discusses information structure with the purpose of identifying a model suitable for accomodating varying degrees of interpretation eŸort. Socio-cultural aspects will be dealt with in Chapter 7.

Theories of information structure Information structure is an area of research that has been widely studied, and a vast number of theories have been developed, e.g. by the Prague School, whose main achievement was a theory on the Functional Sentence Perspective. Other theorists, who have studied the ªeld are Halliday (1994), Clark and Haviland (1977), Prince (1981) and Chafe (1994) to name but a few. In the following I shall present a brief overview of their theories in order to identify a suitable method for studying the information structure of the texts used in my survey.

Halliday’s approach to information structure Led by studies of information structure pursued by the Prague School, Halliday has made signiªcant contributions to this ªeld of research through studies of rhythm and tonicity of spoken language (see e.g. 1994). I shall not explain these two concepts further since they are peripheral to my purpose, but it should be noted that rhythm and tonicity are central notions in marking out information units, which determine the way in which language unfolds through sequences and

128 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

thus help the discourse along. To Halliday (1994: 296) the information unit — realized as a “pitch-contour” with falling and rising tones — carries information, which builds on tension between what is recoverable and what is non-recoverable or in other words what is given and what is new.8 In this sense the Given is what the listener or reader already knows. It is in other words information that the listener/ reader shares with the speaker/writer. To Halliday New information, on the other hand, is not shared, since it is being presented to the listener/reader for the ªrst time. Each information unit, which is not necessarily mapped onto a clause, contains an obligatory New element and an optional Given element. The Given element is optional because Given information sometimes operates through ellipsis, which leaves unrealized features behind in a subsequent information unit like in: “Susan won a prize last year and will [win a prize] again this year” (Quirk and Greenbaum, 1973: 410). New information is marked by prominence, i.e. a tone foot deªning the culmination of the New element and marking the end of it, which is usually at the end of the clause. This observation has led Halliday to conclude that the information element is typically structured as Given followed by New. But unfortunately, since nothing marks where the New element begins, it is not usually possible to tell where the boundary between the Given and the New element would be, which makes the framework less suitable for producing an exact analysis of the distribution of Given and New information in texts. Besides, Halliday’s model does not account for the ease or di¹culty with which the reader accesses information.

Other approaches However, other theorists have followed the Prague School and Halliday and developed related models for analysing information structure. A splendid overview of some of these models is provided in Chafe (1994: 161–185), who concludes that the element that mainly diŸerentiates his own approach from those of other linguists is the notion of consciousness, which plays a central role in the processing of information. Chafe cites Clark and Haviland (1977), whose main idea is that communication rests on a contract agreed to by the reader/listener and the writer/speaker, according to which the speaker/writer tries to structure the message in accordance

8. Halliday’s notions of Given and New, which signal the information structure of a text, should not be confused with his designations for thematic structure, viz Theme and Rheme, which indicate what the speaker/writer chooses as point of departure of the message. However, since thematic structure is not of direct relevance to my purpose, I shall leave it aside.

Information structure 129

with his/her knowledge of the listener/reader’s mental world. The interaction is believed to take place in steps where the reader isolates the given and the new information in the sentence under review, searches the memory for an antecedent that matches the given information and integrates the new information into the memory structure (ibid.: 169). However, this process takes time and eŸort since a bridge has to be created between what is known to the reader and what is treated as given information by the writer. To measure information processing time, Clark and Haviland made an experiment in which they found that processing what Chafe refers to as “an active referent” takes less time than processing a referent that has to be activated in the reader’s memory. In other words a referent that is directly identiªable takes shorter to process than a referent that is only indirectly identiªable. Clark and Haviland’s experiments have been extremely relevant as substantiation of Chafe’s approach to analysing not just information structure, but the way information structure interacts with consciousness. Besides, their results may also have a bearing on the direction this study will take because they predict a sliding scale of text accessibility, which is determined not only by the two concepts of given and new information but also draws on a complex web of factors capable of activating the memory of the reader in varying degrees. To obtain deeper understanding of the nature of these factors, an overview of Chafe’s approach will be necessary.

Chafe’s approach to information structure Chafe is concerned with “the human ability to be conscious of things that are absent from the immediate environment whether language is involved or not” and how the ¶ow of conscious experience aŸects the shape of language (1994: 3–4). He enumerates three states of consciousness in the human mind and deªnes them in terms of activation cost, identiªability and salience. The three states are Active, Semi-active and Inactive and these states are activated with varying eŸort on the part of the listener/reader. At a certain point (T1) an idea may be active, semiactive or inactive in the listener/reader’s mind. At a later point (T2) the same idea will be active regardless of its original state. To be converted from T1 to T2 given information requires a minimum of activation cost, accessible information (Chafe’s term)9 requires greater activation cost and new information, which meets an inactive state of mind, requires the highest activation cost of the three. Figure 6 illustrates Chafe’s conception of the interplay of consciousness and information structure. 9. Chafe uses accessible for information that is neither new nor given. The term thus signals a medium level of activation cost and should not be confused with the term accessibility as used in other parts of this study.

130 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

T1

T2

Active

given information

Semi-active

accessible information

Inactive

new information

Active

Figure 6. The interplay of consciousness and information structure

Chafe recognizes Halliday’s work on intonation and uses similar patterns for identifying the diŸerent categories of information in written as well as in spoken text. Thus given information, which typically consists of pronouns, is usually pronounced with a weak accent while accessible information is pronounced with a stronger accent. New information receives the strongest accent unless the information is contrastive like in I shot the sheriŸ, but you shot the deputy (contrastive accents in italics). To diŸerentiate accentual force, Chafe uses the terms primary accent and secondary accent. This helps distinguish accessible information from new information, and also pinpoints what Chafe has referred to as “centers of interest”. According to Chafe the human mind is incomplete because it is only capable of dealing with a very small amount of information at a time. As human beings we are under the “one new idea constraint”, which is a cognitive constraint on how much information can be active at a time. Chafe relates this to the intonation unit suggesting that a “substantive unit”, which may but does not have to con¶ate with the clause, tends to be constrained to a modal length of four words in English.

When is information accessible? On the background provided and using intonation rules, it would be possible now to identify given information. But it still seems less clear how to distinguish between accessible information and new information since intonation does not provide all the answers. Chafe therefore suggests three possible situations in which an activated referent is in the semi-active rather than in the inactive state: a. The referent was active earlier in the discourse b. The referent is directly associated with an idea that is or was active in the discourse or c. The referent is associated with the non-linguistic environment of the discourse A further discourse property that plays a role in distinguishing given, accessible and new information is Identiªability. Identiªable referents may be given, acces-

Information structure

sible or new as the case may be, but non-identiªable referents are always new (1994: 105). Chafe lists three properties that make a referent identiªable: the referent must be (a) shared, (b) verbalized in a su¹ciently identifying way and (c) contextually salient (1994: 107). Sharing may be direct or indirect. Su¹ciently identifying language ranges from demonstrative pronouns via proper names to attributive adjectives and identifying relative clauses. Contextual salience may rely on salience for linguistic or extralinguistic reasons. If a referent is salient for linguistic reasons it has been activated earlier in the text. If a referent is salient for extralinguistic reasons, its identity is clear from the situation in which the text is used. If a car-owner is about to change a wheel and consults the repair manual, s/ he may read the following sentence: Place the jack directly under the jack-up point. Neither the jack nor the jack-up point are directly shared referents, but in the situation of changing a wheel they become identiªable. To Chafe (ibid.: 93) an identiªable referent is a referent that the speaker/writer assumes the listener will be able to identify at varying activation cost. Since identiªable referents may be given, accessible or new, further criteria are needed. One criterion is that non-identiªable referents are always new information processed at high activation cost. Other criteria may be position in the clause and intonation, as explained. As regards position, Chafe sees the grammatical subject as the starting point of the message and has found that in conversational language the vast majority of subjects express given information (ibid.. 85). This observation, which is also sustained in Prince (1981), is what Chafe refers to as “the light subject constraint”, nearly all subjects consisting of pronouns with a light information load. However, Chafe’s data also demonstrated that quite a few of such subjects contained information that was accessible according to the criteria he introduced. But grammatical subjects never included new information, probably as a result of the principle of end-weight that is typical of English.

Choosing a model Let us recall at this point that the purpose of looking at theories available for studying information structure was to identify a model in which the categories of given information and new information had been reªned to accomodate varying degrees of interpretation eŸort. While Halliday and the Prague School both seem to recognize that information structure patterns display greater variety in the distribution of information than the designations of given and new (or theme and rheme in the Prague School) would suggest, none of these traditions has considered the interpretation burden diŸerent degrees of givenness places on the listener/reader. And most other linguists tend to follow the same course. For although Martin

131

132 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

(1992: 454) distinguishes New, hyper-New and macro-New, thus oŸering a more detailed picture of the chunks of the message that constitute new information and Fries (1994: 234) follows a similar path in introducing the notion of N-Rheme (New-Rheme) for the newsworthy part of the clause because he ªnds Halliday’s notion of Rheme too inclusive, these strategies do not assist an interpretation which considers the impact of the ¶ow of discourse on the human mind in terms of comprehension. The same observation can be made as for Prince (1981) who proposes a taxonomy for assumed familiarity, in which she distinguishes between new, inferrable and evoked information, roughly corresponding to Chafe’s categories of new, accessible and given information. Although Chafe’s and Prince’s models do have a lot in common, Chafe (1994:176) points to important diŸerences, especially in their conceptions of the relationship between activation cost and sharedness, which are principles Chafe sees as distinct, sharedness being one of the components of identiªability and activation cost referring to the given-accessiblenew distinction. Prince, on the other hand, con¶ates the domains of sharedness and activation cost in the concept of unused information, which is not identiªable but still believed to be shared with the listener/reader. As pointed out by Chafe (1994: 174–178), apart from certain diŸerences some of which are of fundamental importance, there is a great deal of similarity between the various components included in Prince’s taxonomy and Chafe’s model, but since Chafe’s cognitive approach based on activation cost seems to oŸer a better tool for explaining text accessibility than any of the models described above, this is the model that will be used.

Grammatical metaphor and information structure The conclusion to Chapter 3 was that, on the basis of lexical density (Table 3, p. 20) and grammatical metaphor (Table 23, p. 61), the texts assumed to be intrinsically less accessible than their alternative versions were: B1, C1, A2, B2, C3, C4, B5, A6 and A7. However, it was also found that a relative majority of the respondents did not agree with Hypothesis 1, which is repeated here for convenience: Hypothesis 1. Since grammatical metaphor causes greater complexity, ambiguity and information load in terms of increased lexical density, texts which are rich in grammatical metaphor are intrinsically less accessible than texts with a low incidence of this phenomenon. [The following qualiªcation added]: It follows that readers and users of texts with a high incidence of grammatical metaphor will ªnd these texts more di¹cult to comprehend than texts with a low incidence of grammatical metaphor and consequently will prefer the latter if asked to assess such texts from the point of view of accessibility.

Instead they preferred B1, C3, C4, B5 and were evenly divided between A7 and B7. Table 70 below illustrates the respondents’ text preferences matched against the

Information structure

Table 70. Preferred texts matched against intrinsically least accessible texts: Grammatical metaphor Text Intrinsically least accessible texts

Preferred texts

Sustainability of hypothesis 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

B 1

A2 and B2

C 3

C 4

B 5

A 6

A7

N A *

B 1

C2

C 3

C 4

B 5

C 6

A7 og B7

B 8

–

+

–

–

–

+

–

N A *

* Value not available because text 8 consists of complex noun groups

texts predicted to be the least accessible. The marking of a text with ‘+’ (plus) indicates agreement with hypothesis 1. If a text is marked with ‘-‘ (minus) hypothesis 1 has not been conªrmed. Contrary to expectation, these preferences co-incided with the majority of the texts that had been assumed to be intrinsically less accessible according to Hypothesis 1. Now, grammatical metaphor — and syntagmatic metaphor in particular — tends to be an all-pervading feature of the texts examined, and since the texts are a mix of given, accessible and new information each instance of grammatical metaphor potentially co-incides with one of these three categories. Would it be possible then that knowledge about the information structure might help explain how the intrinsic inaccessibility that is believed to characterize grammatical metaphor may be mitigated through the con¶ation of given information and grammatical metaphor or of accessible information and grammatical metaphor as the case may be? Presumably, it is easier to understand structures that are already active in the mind of the reader than structures that have to be activated from a state of inactivity. Therefore if grammatical metaphor co-incides with given information, the fact that it is given might facilitate comprehension of an otherwise complicated construct. Similarly, grammatical metaphor co-inciding with accessible information may also be more accessible than grammatical metaphor co-inciding with new information. As we have seen, the survey showed that a relative majority of the respondents did not ªnd texts containing grammatical metaphor di¹cult to comprehend despite the fact that such texts were assumed to be intrinsically less accessible according to Hypothesis 1. To look for explanations of this rather surprising result, it might therefore be rewarding to take a closer look at the

133

134 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

interplay of grammatical metaphor and information structure, and to this end we shall be using Chafe’s theory.

Forming a new hypothesis on the basis of Chafe’s theory In his model, which illustrates activation states, activation costs, and time (see Figure 6, p. 130), Chafe observes that it takes greater mental eŸort to convert an idea from the inactive state to the active than it does from the semi-active state to the active and that the processing of active information is the least costly of the three states in terms of cognitive cost, an observation that was partly sustained by Clark and Haviland’s ªndings. Since each of these states involves diŸerent activation costs including the activation cost of processing grammatical metaphor, it is possible to form the following hypothesis, which I shall henceforth refer to as Hypothesis 3: Hypothesis 3. Text accessibility decreases with the ratio by which grammatical metaphor co-incides with new information.

The inference of this is that texts in which there is a high incidence of grammatical metaphor mapped onto new information compared with the incidence of grammatical metaphor mapped onto given or accessible information may be expected to score low in popularity as far as accessibility is concerned.

Testing the hypothesis To test Hypothesis 3, the information structure of the whole text sample10 was analysed, and on the basis of a number of semantic, syntactic, grammatical, phonetic and situational criteria the distribution of given, accessible and new information was found, using Chafe’s method as shown in the following text extract. To be decipherable, the analysis and text tagging shown above requires some explanation. The headline Separation signals new information, since it is mentioned in the text for the ªrst time. The same applies to beater, strips, straw, drum, guides and straw walkers in sentence (2). The pronoun it in (2) is given information, which refers back to straw (anaphoric relationship). In (3) straw retarding curtain is mentioned for the ªrst time and is therefore new information. The verb prevents also 10 . Texts 8A and 8B were omitted from the information structure analyses because they did not contain ranking clauses. It was therefore impossible to calculate the lexical item to ranking clause density (lexical density).

Information structure

Version B1 (extract): (the original text, analysed for syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphors and information ¶ow) 1. Separation (nw) # 2. The beater (nw) strips (nw) the straw (nw) * from the drum (nw) and / guides (nw) it (gv) to the (STRAW (WALKERS)) (nw) . # 3. The (STRAW (RETARDING (CURTAIN))) (nw) prevents (nw) (the beater (ac) {from throwing (nw) the straw (gv) too far onto the (STRAW (WALKERS)) (ac)})*. # 4. The (STRAW (WALKERS)) (gv) oscillate, (nw) / lift (nw) and / tumble (nw) the straw (gv) // (ac) permitting (the (REMAINING (GRAIN)) (nw) {to fall (nw) through the walkers (ac) and */ slide (nw) down the (WALKER (RETURN (PANS))) (nw) * onto the rear (nw) of the (GRAIN (PAN)) }) (nw) *. # 5. THE STRAW (gv) IS CARRIED (nw) over the walkers (ac) and / out of the back (nw) of the combine (ac) . # 6. Cleaning (nw) # 7. THE GRAIN AND /CHAFF (ac) ARE MOVED (nw) to the front (nw) of the (TOP (SIEVE)) (nw) * // where (gv) an initial cleaning (nw) takes place (ac) . # The symbols used are explained on p. ix.

represents new information, which becomes clear if we ask the question what does it do? The stronger accent received by the answer prevents testiªes to this. Beater is accessible information because it was mentioned in sentence (2) and therefore can be activated from the reader’s semi-active state of mind. It should be noted that there seems to be no clear criteria as to how long a given referent retains the status of given. Chafe (1994:79) does not provide any solution to this problem, commenting that “the number of diŸerent referents that can be active at the same time is very small and any referent, unless it is refreshed, will quickly leave the active state”. He adds that if there is a stateable limit on the number of referents that can be fully active (given) at one time, this limit remains to be discovered. Therefore, for lack of any clear deªnition of limits to givenness, the calculations were based on distance to previous mention and directness of reference. A further criterion used is that a referent leaves its given state when it is no longer possible to refer to it pronominally. Throwing is new information which has not been mentioned earlier, but the straw has now become given because it has been used within the same sentence. Straw walkers in (3) is accessible and not given information for the reasons mentioned above. But then in (4) straw walkers becomes given information for reasons of proximity. The verbs oscillate, lift and tumble all represent new information. Generally, dynamic verbs like those used in the text extract tend to represent new information, while static verbs including linking verbs typical of nominal style are most often accessible or given. Accessible or given information is often a function of what is self-evident from the text or the context. Therefore, the paradigmatic metaphor of , permitting... in

135

136 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

(4) signals accessible information since the relator that would be left out in a paratactic version — in this case and — can be inferred as can to a certain extent the logico-semantic relationship between the main clause and the non-ªnite clause in the realized hypotactic version. For inferences of this kind the reader relies on knowledge about the grammatical system. In (4) the term walkers represents accessible information that is accessible because “the referent is directly associated with an idea that is or was active in the discourse” to quote Chafe (1994:74). The concept of combine in (5) may be categorized as accessible on the basis of salience. Although the word has not been mentioned earlier in the text, its identity is clear from the situation in which the text is used. We may say that the concept is salient for extralinguistic reasons.

Results and discussion Having analysed the texts in terms of information structure, the ratios of new information, accessible information and given information to ranking clauses respectively can now be calculated. The results are shown in Tables 71, 72 and 73 below. As explained in the conclusion to Chapter 3, grammatical metaphor subsumes syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphor. The decision not to analyse the two concepts separately was taken because syntagmatic metaphor makes up by far the vast majority of incidences of grammatical metaphor in all the texts analysed. Besides, only texts 2 (original), 6 (original), 7 (original) and 2 (changed) could possibly have in¶uenced the respondents’ attitudes as a direct result of their slightly higher incidences of paradigmatic metaphor compared to the other texts. We have already seen that, perhaps with the exception of text 7 (original), none of these texts was rated high on the popularity scale. Therefore, if the presence of paradigmatic metaphor has in¶uenced respondents’ attitudes to text accessibility, the in¶uence has been towards non-preference. As will appear from Table 73, the frequency with which grammatical metaphor is mapped onto given information is quite low compared to the frequency with which grammatical metaphor is mapped onto accessible information (Table 72). But the ratio for grammatical metaphor mapped onto new information to ranking clauses (Table 71) is the highest for the majority of texts, the only exceptions being texts B2 (changed), and A7 (original), which both have high accessibility ratios compared to their alternative versions. When the ratios of grammatical metaphor to given, accessible and new information had been found, the next step was to ªnd the ratios of grammatical metaphor mapped onto new information to grammatical metaphor mapped onto given and accessible information respectively. This was done by dividing the former ratio by the latter with

1.9

1.7

40

23

1

29

24

1.5 1.2

40

1 26

2

1.0

27

27

2

1.2

29

25

2

1.8

44

24

3

1.1

32

29

3

Grammatical metaphor + accessible/ ranking clauses ratio

Incidents of grammatical metaphor mapped onto accessible information

Original Changed Original/short Changed/short Ranking clauses

0.7

17

23

1

14

1 26

0.6 0.5

14

23

1

1.1

27

24

2

27

25

2

2.1 1.1

56

27

2

0.6

14

24

3

0.4

11

29

3

Table 72. Ratio of grammatical metaphor to accessible information

Grammatical metaphor + new/ ranking clauses ratio

44

23

Changed Original/short Changed/short Ranking clauses

Incidents of grammatical metaphor mapped onto new information

1

Original

Table 71. Ratio of grammatical metaphor to new information

0.2

7

3 29

1.1

32

3 29

0.9

17

19

4

2.1

39

19

4

0.4

9

21

4

1.2

25

21

4

0.7

16

23

4

1.7

39

23

4

1.1

19

18

5

2.3

42

18

5

0.4

9

22

5

1.5

32

22

5

0.4

10

5 26

1.2

30

5 26

1.4

35

26

6

1.5

39

26

6

0.9

23

27

6

1.4

39

27

6

40

50

68

50

0.8 1.4

22

6 29

7

1.2 0.8

36

6 29

7

NA

8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

(17) (17)

8

0.4 NA

18

50

7

8

(17) (17)

0.8 NA

39

50

7

8

Information structure 137

0.2

5

23

1

0.2

5

23

1

0.2

5

1 26

12

27

2

0.6 0.4

15

24

2

0.8

19

25

2

0.3

8

24

3

0.1

4

29

3

0.2

5

3 29

?

0

19

4

?

0

21

4

.04

1

23

4

?

0

18

5

.05

1

22

5

.04

1

5 26

.08

2

26

6

.07

2

27

6

8

50

0.1 0.2

3

6 29

7

0.2

11

50

7

Grammatical metaphor/new ratio to grammatical

9.5 H

8.5 M

0.2 0.2

Grammatical metaphor + given/ ranking clauses ratio

1.7

23

1

1.9

23

Changed Original/short Changed/short Ranking clauses

Grammatical metaphor + new to ranking clauses ratio

1

Original

24

7.5 2. L M

0.2 0.6

1.5 1.2

1 26

2

2.5 H

0.4

1.0

27

2

1.5 L

0.8

1.2

25

2

6.0 M

0.3

1.8

24

3

11 H

0.1

1.1

29

3

5.5 L

0.2

1.1

3 29

? H

?

2.1

19

4

? L

?

1.2

21

4

4.3 M

.04

1.7

23

4

? H

?

2.3

18

5

30 M

.05

1.5

22

5

30 M

.04

1.2

5 26

.07

1.4

27

6

18.8 20 M H

.08

1.5

26

6

50

12 L

4

0.1 0.2

1.2 0.8

6 29

7

4

0.2

0.8

50

7

8

NA

NA

8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

(17) (17)

8

NA

NA

(17) (17)

8

Table 74. Ratio of grammatical metaphor mapped onto new information to grammatical metaphor mapped onto given information

Grammatical metaphor + given/ ranking clauses ratio

Incidents of grammatical metaphor mapped onto given inforrmation

Original Changed Original/short Changed/short Ranking clauses

Table 73. Ratio of grammatical metaphor to given information

138 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Grammatical metaphor/new ratio to grammatical metaphor/accessible ratio

Grammatical metaphor + accessible to ranking clauses ratio

Grammatical metaphor + new to ranking clauses ratio

Original Changed Original/short Changed/short Ranking clauses

2.7 L

0.7

1.9

23

1

24

2

3.5 3.0 1.1 H M M

1.1

1.5 1.2

1 26

0.6 0.5

1.7

23

1

0.5 L

2.1

1.0

27

2

0.6

1.8

24

1.1 3.0 M M

1.1

1.2

25

2

3

0.2

1.1

3 29

0.9

2.1

19

4

2.8 5.5 2.3 L H L

0.4

1.1

29

3

0.7

1.7

23

4

1.1

2.3

18

5

3.0 2.4 2.1 H M L

0.4

1.2

21

4

0.4

1.2

5 26

3.8 3.0 H M

0.4

1.5

22

5

0.9

1.4

27

6

50

0.8 1.4

1.2 0.8

6 29

7

1.1 1.6 1.5 0.6 L H M H

1.4

1.5

26

6

NA

0.4 NA

0.2 L

8

NA

NA

NA

(17) (17)

8

0.8 NA

50

7

Table 75. Ratio of grammatical metaphor mapped onto new information to grammatical metaphor mapped onto accessible information

Information structure 139

140 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

the purpose of comparing these ratios with the preferences expressed by the respondents in the survey described in Chapter V. The ratios are shown in Tables 74 and 75. For texts 4 (original), 4 (changed) and 5 (original) it was not possible to calculate the ratios in question, since the three texts did not have any incidences of grammatical metaphor mapped onto given information.11 In Table 74, however, calculations were based on logical reasoning and the texts marked H (high), M (medium) and L (low), depending on their relative status within the category to which they belong. We can now compare the text preferences in Table 76 with the ratios in Tables 74 and 75. Table 76 shows that apparently, Hypothesis 3 does not hold if we only look at the new to given ratio of grammatical metaphor. This becomes clear if we match the text preferences expressed by the respondents with the ratios of new grammatical metaphors to given grammatical metaphors because only texts 2 and 6 fully meet the criteria established earlier. However, as pointed out by Chafe, a declining scale of activation cost is determined by the activation state of information, be it given, accessible or new. We therefore need to take a second look at text preferences to see how they match the ratios of new grammatical metaphor to accessible grammatical metaphor. And it turns out that the respondents generally prefer texts in which there are relatively many accessible grammatical metaphors compared with the number of new grammatical metaphors and that, consequently, hypothesis 3 is sustainable in part. In fact none of the texts preferred under accessible had a high ratio of new to accessible even if the results were not unequivocal, the options for texts 2, 3 and 6 being medium, which indicates that the respondents might as well have opted for an alternative version of these 3 texts. Admittedly, there is a degree of vagueness in the results found. Let us therefore extend our comparison to include also the least preferred texts (Table 77). If texts with high ratios between new grammatical metaphors and given or accessible grammatical metaphors are di¹cult to comprehend, the respondents ought to have voted against such texts. Table 77 shows whether this assumption holds. However, reality does not fully sustain the assumption. Where we might expect a high value we ªnd a low or medium value showing that a majority of 11. It will be possible to conclude, however, that if the new grammatical metaphor ratios for three texts within any one category were identical, a given grammatical metaphor incidence of zero would produce a higher ratio of new to given than would just one single incidence of given grammatical metaphor. But if the new grammatical metaphor ratio was lower for one of the texts than for the others, the new/given grammatical metaphor ratio would also be lower, provided the given grammatical metaphor incidence was still zero. However, although we may arrive at this result through rational thinking, mathematics does not assist us here due to an apparent ¶aw in the system, viz that it is not possible to divide by zero.

2.7 (Low) +

9.5 (High) –

Preferred

Ratio of gram met/nw to grammatical metaphor/ accessible

Ratio of gram met/nw to grammatical metaphor/given

2

1.5 (Low) +

1.1 (Med) (+)

original/ short

3

6.0 (Med) (+)

3.0 (Med) (+)

original

4

? (High) –

original and original/ short 2.3 (Low) +

Symbols used: + Co-incidence of preferred text and low new grammatical metaphor to given grammatical metaphor ratio (conªrms hypothesis 3) (+) Negligible diŸerence between ratio of preferred text and ratio of texts of second and third priorities (partly conªrms hypothesis 3) Co-incidence of preferred text and high new grammatical metaphor to given – grammatical metaphor ratio (refutes hypothesis 3)

1

original

Text

? (High) –

2.1 (Low) +

original

5

12.0 (Low) +

1.5 (Med) (+)

changed/ short

6

4.0 and 4.0 (+)

0.2 (Low) +

original and changed

7

NA

NA

changed

8

Table 76. The relationship between text preferences and new grammatical metaphor to given grammatical metaphor and accessible grammatical metaphor respectively, Preferred text versions

Information structure 141

Ratio of gram met/nw to grammatical metaphor/gv

2.0 og 2.5 (Medium and High)

(+)

–

original and changed 1.1 og 0.5 (Med and low) –

2

7.5 (Low)

+

changed/ short 3.0 (High)

Least preferred text

Ratio of gram met/nw to grammatical metaphor/ accessible

1

Text

+

11.0 (High)

–

2.8 (Low)

changed

3

–

NA (Low)

+

3.0 (High)

changed

4

–

30.0 (Med)

(+)

changed/ short 3.0 (Med)

5

–

18.8 (Med)

–

1.1 (Low)

Original

6

–

4.0 (Med)

+

0.6 (high)

Original

7

NA

NA

Changed

8

Table 77. The relationship between text preferences and new grammatical metaphor to given grammatical metaphor and accessible grammatical metaphor respectively, Least preferred versions

142 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Information structure 143

respondents did not state their last preferences according to the content of new grammatical metaphors relative to given. However, if we look at the row showing new to accessible grammatical metaphor, we do ªnd three matches indicated by +. But the mere fact that the respondents seem to choose texts according to the new/ accessible ratios in some of the texts and not in others indicates that the results should be interpreted with caution. Now, it should be added that there is a diŸerence between consciously choosing a text out of three options and choosing a text that would qualify for the designation least preferred. The respondents were never asked to deliberately point out which text they found the least accessible. The order was in the reverse in that they were asked to point out their ªrst preference, then their second, while their third option was chosen by default. This may partly explain why there would appear to be a pattern of systematic agreement that sustains Hypothesis 3 as regards the preferred text versions whereas the pattern for the least preferred texts — if a pattern at all — seems slightly less convincing. It therefore seems that we shall have to evoke explanations other than those suggested in Hypothesis 3.

Summary and conclusions Seeing that grammatical metaphor does not in itself determine how readers react to a variety of texts, the assumption arose that the interplay of grammatical metaphor and information structure might provide a more powerful basis of explanation. Consequently, a third hypothesis — based on Chafe’s theory on consciousness and information structure — was formed. To test the hypothesis, a number of ratios had to be found. These showed whether the texts contained a higher density of new grammatical metaphors than given or accessible grammatical metaphors. The results of these ratios were then matched with text preferences expressed by the respondents. The ratios of new grammatical metaphors to accessible grammatical metaphors indicated a pattern that might sustain hypothesis 3. However, when the same ratios were measured against the respondents’ third preferences the result tended to disrupt the idea of an overall pattern based on the interplay of grammatical metaphor, consciousness and information structure. I can therefore conclude that although there seems to be a certain degree of correlation between grammatical metaphor, information structure and text preferences, Hypothesis 3 cannot be fully conªrmed.

Chapter 7

The technical manual as social semiotic

One of the main conclusions to Chapter 5 was that of a number of text extracts, a majority of the Danish respondents (42.1%) found the original — and hence most typical — versions to be the most accessible, and — perhaps less surprisingly — as many as 51% of the same audience found the same texts the most acceptable. However, it was also possible to conclude that a minority of respondents did not agree with this point of view since 21% preferred the changed — and hence atypical — versions as the most accessible while 19% preferred these texts as the most acceptable. A categorization of the respondents according to their professional backgrounds made these attitudinal diŸerences stand out even more clearly, the respondents who were unfamiliar with the genre generally preferring the changed (atypical) versions as the most accessible. At the same time, although the latter category of respondents did not prefer the atypical versions in terms of acceptability, they reacted less strongly against the unconventional style than did the professions familiar with reading or writing technical manuals. This result raises the interesting question of why attitudes vary — a question, which has been studied by a great many sociologists and socio-linguists under the cover term of textual variation (see e.g. Labov, 1966, 1972; Bernstein, 1971; Halliday, 1978; Hodge and Kress, 1988). Closely linked to textual variation is linguistic behaviour, which according to e.g. Labov (1972: 111) is shaped by the speaker’s social position. Bell (1984: 145) builds on a similar correlation of linguistic variation and social factors suggesting that “The social axis has been subjected to considerable examination, which convincingly shows that linguistic variation correlates with variation in a speaker’s class, gender, social network, and so forth”. Also other theorists have been thinking along similar lines of correlation between textual variation and social or socially determined groupings (see e.g. Schirato & Yell, 1996: 43, 163; Martin, 1992: 576; Lemke, 1990: 138; and Killingsworth and Gilbertson, 1992, to name but a few). For a deeper understanding of a number of sociolinguistic factors that might determine diŸerences in attitudes to text accessibililty and text acceptability, it would therefore seem relevant to focus attention on a research discipline that owes a lot to these researchers, viz. social semiotics.

146 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Social semiotics Social semiotics is a notion derived from the discipline of semiotics of which Saussure is commonly known as the founding father. Saussure (1974) deªned semiotics as “the science of the life of signs in society” (quoted in Hodge and Kress (1988: 1). In spite of the deªnition, Saussure’s approach was structuralistic, generally neglecting functions and social values, and so is deªnable as part of what Hodge and Kress (ibid.) has referred to as “mainstream semiotics”. One of the fundamental ideas in mainstream semiotics is that meanings belong to the text, which is seen as a self-contained system. However, this stance was ardently criticized by Volosinov (1986), among others, and the criticism launched has been corroborated by research carried out during the past 25 years to the eŸect that it is now a generally held belief that readers bring meaning to the text rather than vice versa. While appreciating the value and responding to the in¶uence of analysts, who have abandoned semiotics altogether, Hodge and Kress (1988: 2) have opted for a middle-of-the-road solution that builds on semiotics, but at the same time provides for the analysis of social meaning through knowledge of the interaction of text, context and discourse participants in the discipline of social semiotics. In their approach, Hodge and Kress seem to be in line with Lemke (1990: 183) who distinguishes between formal semiotics, which he describes along Saussurean lines as “the systematic study of the systems of signs themselves” and social semiotics, which expands to studying how people use signs to construct the life of a community. Halliday (1978: 2) also uses the notion of social semiotics, but enriches the concept with the additional attribute of language. Thus he conceives of language as social semiotic, which makes it possible to interpret “language within a sociocultural context, in which the culture itself is interpreted in semiotic terms”. Closely related with sociocultural context is social structure — a notion that Halliday (ibid.) and Bernstein (1971: 118–21, 124–5) associate with the statuses and roles imposed on and assumed by people in society, — statuses and roles which are re¶ected in language through the cultural ªlter of Code, which is used by Halliday (1978: 111) as “the principle of semiotic organization governing the choice of meanings by a speaker and their interpretation by a hearer”. For a deªnition of Code, see also Bernstein (1971: 76–77). The social structure deªnes the relations between people and, through Code, becomes a semiotic system of control governing who can say or do what in a given situation. At the same time this system imposes certain constraints on what can potentially be meant by an utterance or gesture in a given situation. Halliday (1978: 19) has referred to this phenomenon as meaning potential signalling thereby that most utterances or actions oŸer a range of choices of meaning. Lemke (1990: 186–187) sustains this point of view by saying that “mean-

The technical manual as social semiotic 147

ings are made” and that “the meaning we make for an action or event consists of the relations we construct between it and its contexts”, thus emphasizing the importance of contextualization — one of the main pillars of social semiotics.

Meaning-making as a two-directional concept Social semiotics is a discipline of meaning-making, but the term meaning-making seems to invite two angles, viz. the angle of production and the angle of reception, or to use Hodge and Kress’s terms “production regimes” and “reception regimes” (1988: 119, 153, 249, 253, 266). The production regime speciªes rules followed by writers, speakers and actors in their production of meaning. Such rules would include knowledge of grammatical rules, stylistic conventions and cultural practices among others. In other words, to produce meaning, the meaning-maker needs to know how to make actions, gestures or utterances meaningful in a larger context. Similarly, reception regimes are governed by rules, which in Hodge and Kress’s words “constrain the semiosic potential of receivers”. In other words, such rules delimit the range of meanings to be made from actions, gestures or utterances produced or received in a given context. Therefore production and reception regimes constrain meaning potential.

Logonomic systems and constraints on meaning-making The inference of what has been said is that people do not make free choices as to how they produce or receive meanings. As indicated above, meaning-making is constrained by a number of factors, which, I would argue, are all reducible to social structure. Why this is so will become clearer by resorting to work done by critical discourse analysts. Hodge and Kress (1988: 4–5) refer to the combination of meaning-making constraints as logonomic systems, which they deªne as “a set of rules prescribing the conditions for production and reception of meanings”. In Hodge and Kress’s thinking, which is inspired by Marx, the twin of a logonomic system is the ideological complex, — a term coined to capture the dialectic nature of communication between the dominant and the dominated groups in society. The dominant groups seek to protect their position by describing the world in such terms that their interests are not jeopardized. They do this by appealing to the dominated groups through ideology, which in Schirato and Yell’s terms (1996) is a “process which naturalises the connection between certain signs and meanings within text”. (For thorough discussions of ideology, see also Martin, 1992; Lemke, 1990; Hodge and Kress, 1988; Fairclough 1998). The role of the ideological complex is thus to uphold relationships of power and solidarity in society. However, according to Hodge and Kress, this would not be possible without the logonomic

148 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

system. The rules, which make up the logonomic system, are imposed by dominant social agents such as parents, teachers or employers and challenged by dominated groups like e.g. children, students and employees. This sometimes leads to open clashes over what can be said or written in particular situations and how. Logonomic systems thus embrace a number of conventions such as politeness conventions, humour conventions and conventions for social behaviour in general, which all constrain meaning. And since writing technical instructions must be said to form part of social behaviour, this activity will be contrained by logonomic rules too.

Examples of constraining factors As explained above many factors within logonomic systems potentially constrain the production and reception of meaning. However, some factors seem to be more important than others when it comes to explaining why attitudes to text accessibility and text acceptability tend to vary. Apart from ideology, — a notion that I shall revert to later in this chapter — these are access, context and culture as subsumed in Martin’s metaredundancy model (Figure 7). Access — not speciªcally discussed by Martin — is a dimension of semantics, which construes and is construed by register. The two metaredounding layers of register and genre are both contextual dimensions. Register, subsuming style, realizes the context of situation while genre realizes the context of culture, which in turn construes and is construed by ideology — a layer shaped by social structure.

ideology genre

register semantics grammar

phonology

Figure 7. A metaredundancy model (From Martin, 1992: 496)

The technical manual as social semiotic 149

Access Schirato and Yell (1996: 45 Ÿ) have described the two constraining conditions of access and context, apparently from a production point of view. However, I shall attribute to these terms meaning that presumably diŸers from that originally intended by the authors in that in the following I shall also include the reception point of view in my discussion. Schirato and Yell (ibid.:46) suggest that “not everyone within a culture or community has access to all the possible ways of speaking, writing or meaning which that culture potentially allows. And not everyone has the same access to educational and other contexts so that they can command a range of ways of speaking, from technical, to formal, to colloquial discourse”. This, of course is true. However, from a reception regime point of view, I shall add to this that as a result of not commanding a range of ways of speaking — or writing, for that matter — not everyone has access to the same kind of information, simply because the reader sometimes cannot make sense of the message communicated because s/he lacks the background to understand the subtleties of the communication going on. Martin (1992: 576) is one of the theorists who sustains this observation. In his discussion of ideology he mentions the heterogeneity in the speech community, which has a number of diŸerent causes, and he arrives at the conclusion that “it remains the case that in all known speech communities meaning-making is unevenly distributed according to what in semiotic theory are referred to as the discourses of class, gender, ethnicity and generation”. The list has been extended by other theorists to include a number of other social groupings, but the important point that Martin makes is that access to meaning is — in his own term — “selectively available” (ibid.: 581). Halliday (1994, 1996, 1998) seems to take the same stance. Focusing attention on grammatical metaphor in scientiªc and technical discourse, he observes that “when the semogenic resources of metaphor are deployed so as to overcome the limitations of the everyday grammar as a gateway to systematic technical knowledge, another form of constraint becomes apparent: that of limiting some people’s access to certain realms of meaning”.1 Grammatical metaphor as an instance of style thus both liberates in that it enables reasoning and logical argument and enslaves since the style is not equally accessible to everyone. Context The condition of context is a third constraint on meaning-making. As noted by Schirato and Yell (1996: 46) context constrains the range of meanings a person can possibly make in the form of activities, utterances or gestures. But, from a recep1. The ªrst form of constraint alluded to is the grammar, which sets limits to what can be meant (Halliday 1994, 1996, 1998)

150 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

tion point of view, context also constrains the interpretation of these acts. The reader/listener inserts a contextual ªlter, so to speak, between the meanings produced and the meanings received — a ªlter that helps identify the meanings an activity, gesture or utterance can possibly have in a given situation. This ªlter is not a static one, but is constantly being challenged and stretched by social, cultural and other factors, which constitute the world knowledge held by the reader/listener. A useful approach to analysing the meaning-making constraint of context as it manifests itself in text is Halliday’s model of ªeld, tenor and mode explained in Chapter II. However, as we shall see later, not all aspects of the context get directly represented in a given text, and the model therefore has its limitations — especially when analysing text extracts. But even if we had analysed a full manual, there would still have been text-external information that it would not have been possible to deduce on the basis of the text. This applies e.g. to the stipulations of the Directive regulating certain aspects of instruction manuals such as languages to be used when exporting a product to an EU country.

Text Closely related to access and context is text, which, both from a reception and a production point of view may be seen as the interface between these two notions. As suggested by Lemke (1990: 196), text may therefore be deªned as “a record of social action”. Text is in Lemke’s words “the enactment of semiotic practices, or a record or product of the performance”. But, what is even more important, text is a record that is available for analysis — a record founded on what Lemke has referred to as “semiotic resource systems” and “semiotic formations” (1990: 194). A semiotic resource system is a system that enables meaning-making (see also Halliday, 1978: 17). An example of a semiotic resource system is language. As a resource system language assists us in knowing what can be meaningfully expressed in a community. A semiotic formation, on the other hand, describes the habitual patterns followed when using the semiotic resource system. It re¶ects institutionalized ways of talking, gesturing or behaving. It thus describes, not what can be done or said, but what does get done or said. Now, Lemke is concerned with spoken language in particular, but since he also refers to semotics as describing social action, and social action includes writing, the theory must apply to writing as well. A semiotic formation therefore also describes what gets written as habitual and recognized activity in a community. Culture Culture is a notion that has given rise to a great deal of confusion in research. It is a notion whose meaning varies from one context to another, but in this study culture is to be understood as a semiotic formation in Lemke’s sense. It is the

The technical manual as social semiotic

institutionalized habitual patterns followed when using the semiotic resource system. Culture in this sense is concerned less with national diŸerences and more with institutional and intra-societal practices. One of the theorists, who studied cultural structures and practices was the French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu (1990, 1991, 1993, 1998). Bourdieu’s theory (explained in Schirato and Yell, 1996: 144) discusses the split between individualism and cultural determination and points to a number of key notions that help explain how communication practice can be at the same time free and regulated, conscious and unconscious. Of the key notions listed in Schirato and Yell (ibid.) I shall focus on three, which are particularly relevant to my purpose, viz. Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, cultural ªeld and cultural capital.

Habitus Schirato and Yell (1996: 144–161) oŸer a very accessible introduction to Bourdieu’s cultural theory where they explain habitus as “the set of values and dispositions gained from our cultural history that stay with us across contexts”. Habitus incarnates a number of elements such as knowledge of the world in the form of beliefs and values, dispositions towards attitudes and values, moments of practice in the sense that habitus is always brought out when our values meet a context, and unconsciousness. However, the practices — although engaged in unconsciously — are always motivated by social structure in terms of various power relations. That we engage in certain practices unconsciously, as if we were genetically predisposed to adopt certain values and beliefs, becomes clear if rules that do not form part of our habitus are forced upon us. The product of such rules will then seem disgusting, absurd or comic (Schirato and Yell, 1996: 149). It is thus the sharing of habitus that forms the criterion for group formation in society. (For a treatment of habitus, see Bourdieu, 1990: 52–65, 1979, 1998: 123, 437–440; see also Clark and Ivanic, 1997: 46–47). Closely related to Bourdieu’s habitus are the concepts of cultural ªeld and cultural capital. Let us therefore look at these two concepts in the following. Cultural ªeld and cultural capital Cultural ªeld as used by Bourdieu is interpreted by Schirato and Yell (ibid.:155) to mean the interaction of: 1. a series of speciªc institutions, rules, categories, designations, appointments and titles which constitute an objective hierarchy, and which produce and authorise certain discourses and activities, on the one hand, and 2. the con¶ict which is involved when groups or individuals attempt to determine what constitutes capital within that ªeld, and how that capital is to be distributed, on the other.

151

152 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Now, how should capital be understood? Capital — understood as cultural capital — is deªned by Bourdieu as “all the goods, material and symbolic, without distinction, that present themselves as rare and worthy of being sought after in a particular social formation” (quoted in Schirato and Yell, 1996: 156; see also Hodge and Kress, 1988: 193 and Clark and Ivanic, 1997: 121). These issues certainly raise the question of habitus shared via cultural capital and cultural ªeld. Who has access to capital and who decides which capital is “worthy of being sought after”? Access to capital largely depends on what Schirato and Yell have referred to as cultural literacy. For in order to appreciate the value of cultural capital it is necessary to be able to read the values it represents. The person who is culturally illiterate is not able to understand a given context and hence not the text produced or received. S/he therefore does not share the habitus of the culture. The question of who decides which capital is worthy of being sought after is of a diŸerent and yet related nature, taking us back to the notion of social structure and inviting in the process a discussion of the relationship between ideology, power and social class.

Ideology, power and social class As noted by Schirato and Yell (1996: 163) “all ideologies have some kind of group basis within a culture; in other words, ideologies construct and promote meanings which privilege one culture, or one section of a culture (which can be based on class, occupation, race, skin colour, gender, age, sexual preference, religious a¹liation, nationality or general physicality) over another”. In this quotation we already discern the contours of class formation helped along by the meanings created (and constrained) by ideology. The quotation at the same time anticipates tension by mentioning that a culture or a section of a culture is privileged over another. The tension alluded to is what has been treated in critical discourse analysis as power relations — a concept that is readily identiªable in language through what Hodge and Kress (1988: 82) have referred to as metasigns. There is a close relationship between the notions of power and social structure, and because of the strong in¶uence these notions have on linguistic variation, the area has been widely studied within the ªelds of both sociology and linguistics. Names commonly cited within this ªeld of research are Halliday (1978), who studied social dialect and register and Labov (1966) and Bernstein (1971), who both studied the relationship between language and social hierarchy on the basis of diŸerent social groupings. Labov looked at social hierarchies in New York and Martha’s Vineyard while Bernstein’s concern was the British educational system. All three theories would have explanations to oŸer as regards attitudinal variation, but since Bernstein’s Code theory seems to be of direct relevance to the present study I shall brie¶y summarize it, using to a great extent Halliday (1978) and Hodge and Kress (1988) as resource bases.

The technical manual as social semiotic

Bernstein’s Codes Lemke’s notion of semiotic formations was introduced earlier as re¶ecting institutionalized ways of talking, gesturing or behaving. Focusing on language and social structure, Bernstein (1971: 76–77) referred to this notion as Codes, which he deªned in terms of “the probability of predicting for every one speaker which syntactic elements will be used to organize meaning”. Bernstein demonstrated Code to be a function of the system of role relationships within the family — relationships that may be either positional with non-negotiable role relations or personal with greater scope for negotiation of roles. Family relations should be seen here as an example of social structure, which according to Bernstein governs (or institutionalizes) the codes used. In his book, Class, Codes and Control (1971), he distinguished between elaborated code and restricted code. Elaborated code is characterized by complex syntax, hypotactic structures, elaborate noun and verb phrases, diŸerentiated vocabularies, explicitness and is therefore context-independent. Explicitness and context-independence are factors that create a distance between interactants and therefore express “low solidarity” to use Hodge and Kress’s term. In other words, the style used is a metasign of low solidarity between members of the group. Restricted code, on the other hand, is characterized by simpler syntax, restricted variety of linguistic forms and greater implicitness. It must therefore be said to be context-dependent. The relatively loose syntax and the implicitness typical of restricted codes are metasigns of high solidary. (For an account of Codes according to Bernstein, see also Hodge and Kress, 1988: 108– 109; Halliday, 1976: 87). One of the interesting questions these observations raise is whether a one-toone relationship may be posited between solidarity and power. To try to answer this question, let us look at Bernstein’s wider use of his Code theory. Bernstein’s main concern was to show how knowledge is organized and transmitted in a culture. He claimed that the British educational system placed users of restricted code at a disadvantage because the system was based on elaborated code to which the users of the restricted code had only limited access. Users of elaborated code therefore stood a better chance of leaving their educational careers as winners who would later belong to the elite in society. Bernstein’s ªndings would indicate that power and low solidarity are strongly interlinked concepts. Now, it should be noted that Bernstein’s studies were pursued in the late 60s early 70s and that social structures may not be today what they seemed to be at the time when Bernstein made his study. Most likely, as a result of the much wider access to T. V., users of restricted code will have greater access to elaborated code nowadays; but it is less certain that users of elaborated code will have (or have ever had) greater access to restricted code. To my knowledge, Bernstein did not look into this issue, and I would therefore turn the theory upside down and argue that users of elaborated

153

154 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

code are limited in their access to restricted code. Naturally, my angle is diŸerent from Bernstein’s in that my ªeld of investigation is written technical manuals, which, by semiotic nature, diŸer, from the type of language studied by Bernstein. However, written technical language — or at least the type of language used in the manual extracts that formed the basis of my survey — is in many ways very similar to Bernstein’s restricted code. As we have seen, the writer draws from a relatively narrow range of syntactic alternatives — mainly passives, imperatives, nominalization and ellipsis —, and the clause structure is mainly paratactic, which causes greater implicitness in that the logicosemantic relations are not spelt out. Technical manuals are to a large extent context-bound. The implicitness characteristic of the genre, but also the fact that users of technical manuals depend on the writers for acquisition of knowledge, would indicate strong links of solidarity between the interactants. In Bernstein’s universe this would mean a loss of power; however, when using the notion of restriced code as a synonym for technolect, which — although a product of social structure is not a product of social class, — the power relationship seems to take a new direction. Restricted code, in this new sense, is a professional dialect and not a social dialect and whoever commands the code has access to knowledge that — in an advanced technological society is worthy of being sought after in Bourdieuan terms. Whoever commands the code has cultural capital and cultural habitus. Therefore he or she possesses power.

Logonomic systems and constraints on meaning-making in technical manuals Logonomic systems and the rules that constrain meaning-making in general were presented on pp. 147–151. In order to put theory to practice, I shall now try to analyse the logonomic system governing the production and reception of a faultªnding procedure from Ford/New Holland. The analysis is based on a text extract only, 7a p. 58, which of course seriously constrains meaning-making in the reception phase. Moreover, it is di¹cult to provide a complete analysis of the meaningmaking constraints governing the production phase on the basis of a fairly short text taken from a manual consisting of well over 100 pages for which reason the text has been seen in its wider contexts of production and reception, however limiting analysis to the meaning-making constraints of access, context, culture and ideology.

The technical manual as social semiotic

Analysis of meaning-making constraints in fault-ªnding procedure: production regimes/reception regimes Access Fault-ªnding procedures are normally made available in instruction manuals, which pursuant to the EU Machinery Safety Directive adopted in 1989 and amended in 1993, 1994 and 1995 must always follow the machine. Section 1.7.4. (b) of the 1993 Directive speciªes that “the instructions must be drawn up in one of the Community languages by the manufacturer or his authorized representative established in the Community”. On commissioning, all machinery must be accompanied by a translation of the instructions in the language or languages of the country in which the machinery is to be used and by the instructions in the original language. The same Directive further stipulates that “maintenance instructions for use by specialized personnel employed by the manufacturer or his authorized representative may be drawn up in only one of the Community languages understood by that personnel”. Authorized representative in this context could mean e.g. a dealer, agent or distributor, who will often operate in a diŸerent country. The Directive is an example of a factor constraining the access to meaningmaking in the production phase. Requirements as to which languages may be used will call for translation skills that may not always be available. It will therefore be di¹cult for the translator to render the exact meaning in the translated version, which will again constrain the access to meaning in the reception phase. Moreover, as for maintenance instructions which may be written in one of the main languages of the Community, the specialist employed by the manufacturer or an authorized representative will have constrained access to meaning, if the maintenance instructions are written in a foreign language. Another important meaning-making constraint is knowledge. For the manufacturer to make relevant meaning in the fault-ªnding procedure, s/he needs to have knowledge of what normally goes wrong when somebody operates the machine. Without such knowledge it becomes di¹cult to select relevant topics for the procedure, which as a consequence will not make sense to the operator. Other factors potentially constraining the access to meaning-making are closely related to culture and ideology and will therefore be discussed later. Context For discussing context in what follows, I have looked at text-external factors, which are not all of them re¶ected in the brief extract under review. Moreover, the context in which I used text (7a) is not the same as the context this piece of writing was originally intended for, which will be shown in the scenarios explained below: Any fault-ªnding procedure like text (7a) has a production context and one or

155

156 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

more reception contexts. In the production context, the manufacturer is interested in spending as little time as possible on the phone, instructing a dealer or operator on how to solve problems of operation. In the business community time is an important issue. In spite of this, when a new product is designed, usually very little time is allowed for producing the technical documentation required, which of course also in¶uences the issue of access to making comprehensible meaning. In the reception phase it is possible to think of at least 2 diŸerent scenarios, of which one is the scenario the text was originally intended for, and the other represents the context in which I used text (7a): Scenario 1: Text (7a) is an extract from a more extensive fault-ªnding procedure, which constitutes part of an operator’s manual. It is used in situations of malfunction and machinery break-down, which makes for a situation of con¶ict. What normally happens is that the operator, if unable to solve the problem, calls one of the technicians employed by the manufacturer or his authorized representative. In this situation, the operator is usually impatient, which puts pressure on the technician, who either avoids using the manual or — as a last resort — tries to use the fault-ªnding procedure. This motivates to some extent the brevity of style. It remains a question, however, whether such brevity serves the intended purpose, viz. precise communication? But at the same time there are mitigating circumstances. The communicative situation becomes very concrete when the combine harvester is available for examination. When the procedure says grain loss over the sieves it is actually possible to locate the sieves and to investigate the problem, and a term like belt becomes meaningful, once it is possible to touch it. The relationship between the text and the reader is one of interaction in which the reader becomes the doer. Scenario 2: The context of reception, in which the respondents were asked to select the text they found the most accessible of a number of text extracts, is a very diŸerent one. This situation is very abstract in that there is no combine harvester to look at (and no infuriated operator to calm down). The respondent in this situation reads with a purpose that was diŸerent from the purpose with which the operator in scenario 1 reads the text. Comprehension of the text in both scenarios very much depends on the reading situation. Reading research has shown that the purpose of reading governs the technique used for processing diŸerent text levels. Gunnarsson (1982: 67–71) suggested a taxonomy of diŸerent levels of comprehension for written language, ranging from superªcial to deep comprehension as opposite ends of a scale. These levels of comprehension were tied up with a scale of reading purposes from memorizing syntactic structures and lexical meaning (“ytstruktur og textinnehåll”) to being able to act in accordance with information provided in a text. Gunnarsson

The technical manual as social semiotic 157

(ibid.: 44) found that in the reading process the reader directs attention towards diŸerent anchor points (“hållpunkter”) such as syntactic, phonological, semantic and pragmatic features. Which anchor points are used is determined by factors such as the reading purpose, the situation of reading, the degree of incompleteness of the text read and the time allowed for reading. In the second scenario described, the reading situation the respondents were subjected to was one of incompleteness. The text was an abbreviated version and moreover, the respondents did not read with the purpose of being able to act on the instructions of the text. When they read text (7a) correction which said reduce air blast with fan variable speed control they did not have to actually engage in any adjustment of the speed control. So they did not read in order to do; they read in order to comprehend with the purpose of evaluating which syntactic structures were the most eŸective in providing access to the meaning of the text.

Culture In the context of production, one of the most signiªcant constraints on access to meaning making is culture. We shall now see how the design of text (7a) might have been in¶uenced by Bourdieu’s cultural conditions of habitus, cultural ªeld and cultural capital, which were introduced earlier. Text (7a) is a typical specimen of a fault-ªnding procedure. By convention, the problem complex is laid out in three columns, one stating concern, the second stating possible cause and the third column proposing correction. This arrangement may be seen as an instance of habitus in that knowledge of the world of repair motivates the structuring of information in a logical format — a format that the text writer engages in unconsciously since this is the way in which fault-ªnding procedures are normally structured. Of other conventions may be mentioned the typical stylistic features such as ellipsis in Top sieve not opened wide enough, where the verb (has been) has been omitted, omission of the deªnite article like in clean top sieve instead of writing clean the top sieve, statements used instead of questions and commands in the second column like wind de¶ectors incorrectly adjusted, which might congruently have been realized as two speech acts: (1) a question like in are the wind de¶ectors adjusted incorrectly or (2) check if wind de¶ectors are adjusted incorrectly. A further convention is found in the correction column in the realization of a recommendation as command through the imperative mood like in reduce air blast with fan variable speed control. The congruent version would be to correct the problem of too much air blast, you are recommended to reduce the air blast by adjusting the speed control, which of course is extremely long-winded. We may say that the rules governing this particular discourse are authorized by the institution constituted by the range of combine harvesting manufacturers and their habitus. Within this cultural ªeld, knowledge of how to solve problems of operation

158 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

constitutes cultural capital — capital signalled through the discourse markers mentioned above. These discourse markers help institutionalize text (7) in its proper professional and cultural context. From a reception point of view, however, the interesting question remains as to how well the discourse markers of text 7 are understood and appreciated. The answer to this question very much depends on the cultural literacy of the readers. If they have specialist knowledge and are familiar with the cultural ªeld and habitus of the ªeld, the discourse markers will go unnoticed. If on the other hand, these readers or in this case respondents do not belong to the discourse community, they will most likely ªnd the discourse markers strange, incomprehensible or even absurd.

Ideology As noted above, ideologies construct and promote meanings which privilege one culture over another, and the vehicle that makes this possible is language. A second point to note is that the language of science and technology has generally been characterized as neutral and objective, devoid of subjective meaning, to judge from the vast number of text books that recommend a change of style (See e.g. Markel 1984; Pickett og Laster (1993); Andrews and Blickle (1982); Jordan (1971); Weisman (1980)). However, Lemke (1990: 45) contends that “science does not stand outside the system of social values” — a contention that I believe comprises the language of technology too — and ideology seems to be the text level where social values and beliefs operate. Now, because of their apparently objective nature, technical texts do not contain an abundance of markers of social values and, if present at all, they tend to be distinguishable by their lack of explicit realization. This observation will be clearer from the following analysis of text (7a). Looking at the text, I would contend that its ideological value is one of hegemony to use Gramsci’s term (Gramsci (1986) quoted in Schirato and Yell (1996: 176)); hegemomy should be understood in this context to mean that one group believes that everybody’s interests, including the group’s own interests, are best served if they accept another group to be in a dominant position. Hegemony is created through cultural institutions of which some are more in¶uential than others; (for an elaborate explanation of hegemony, see also Fairclough, 1998: 91– 93). Hegemony is a common notion in political discourse, but I believe it is also possible to use it in this context since language leads its own political life. Hegemony should be understood then as professional superiority. This would justify the conclusion that text (7a) is a document, which gives access to the specialist, but denies access to the lay person. In the text, the social marker is style. The ideology of the text is hidden in the style, which is characterized by the implicitness that is a direct consequence of the discourse markers mentioned under culture. Only

The technical manual as social semiotic 159

members of the discourse community understand the implicit meaning carried by the characteristic style, and only experts on the genre appreciate the brevity this style produces, because they have knowledge of the institutional framework in which the text was produced. From a text production point of view the discourse neglects grammatical rules normally followed in language for general purposes like e.g. rules for the use of the deªnite article. Such deviation from the standard use of language contributes to creating a kind of restricted code, which is however restricted for reasons other than those described by Bernstein. Writers of technical discourse usually have access to elaborated code. That they do not use it in this context is a result of a number of factors including the very real one of time pressure. But of other factors can be mentioned what Lemke refers to as technocratic ideology (1990: 139), which is a type of ideology that reinforces professional hegemony. According to Lemke the stylistic norms of science foster two sets of beliefs: 1. The ideology of the objective truth of science 2. The ideology of the special truth of science Ideology of the objective truth of science has to do with the way in which students of science are made to believe that science consists of non-negotiable facts. The ideology manifests itself in the total aura of objectivity that is characteristic of the style of this discourse. It is a discourse totally devoid of human actors, and yet we all know that behind the surface quite a lot of human activity goes on. The style thus misrepresents reality by taking on an air of indisputability — both as regards the subject ªeld and the underlying realities of the text. The second type of ideology rests on the belief subtly imposing itself upon us that science is a di¹cult and inaccessible discipline. There are strong psychological barriers preventing laymen from feeling conªdent about reading technical or scientiªc texts, which gives rise to preconceived ideas about the discourse as such. Generally, non-specialists tend to think that if they do not understand a technical or scientiªc text, they are the ones to blame rather than the text and the way in which the text was written (ibid.: 138). Now science and technology are two diŸerent disciplines. But in spite of the diŸerences, which I shall not discuss here, the two types of discourse share common habitus. They both present themselves as matter-of-factly, objective, emotionless manifestations of the truth. Agents are generally non-existent, and they both make wide-spread use of syntagmatic grammatical metaphor as a structuring device. These discourse markers may be seen as markers of social structure re¶ecting professional hegemony. Seen from a reception point of view, which is the angle I believe the second type of ideology invites, it is a commonly recognized fact that technical texts in general — and technical manuals in particular — are di¹cult to comprehend and use. In

160 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

this study I have investigated the role played by syntax realized as grammatical metaphor, to comprehensibility and found that syntax by itself does not signiªcantly in¶uence comprehension. This result is sustained by research carried out by e.g. Gunnarsson (1982), explained above, and Strother and Ulijn (1991), and Ulijn and Strother (1995), who studied interlingual transfer eŸects on all linguistic levels. They found that readers with su¹cient language and background knowledge did not signiªcantly rely on syntax for comprehension. The conclusion therefore was that syntactic simpliªcation does not signiªcantly assist comprehension and is not a “true simpliªcation for the reader” (Ulijn and Strother, 1995: 229). Instead, according to Ulijn and Strother all linguistic levels and knowledge sources are believed to interact in the comprehension process, — an observation that the present survey seems to have sustained.

Summary Seeing that attitudes to text accessibility and text acceptability are closely related to variation in the social and professional positions of respondents, the research discipline of social semiotics was invoked in order to come closer to an explanation of such attitudinal variation. I proceeded by arguing with Hodge and Kress that the meanings that can be made in any given situation — including situations of writing — are a function of the interplay of logonomic systems and ideological complexes operating through the meaning making constraints of access, context and culture. The relationship of necessity between culture and social structure in terms of ideology, power and social class was then discussed through reference to critical discourse analysis and sociology, and on the basis of Bernstein’s theory on Restricted and Elaborated Code I went on to suggest that technical language — including the language of technical manuals — may be viewed — not as a social dialect — but as a professional dialect, access to which is restricted for the nonspecialist audience. In this sense it has a great many features common with Bernstein’s Restricted Code. One of the aspects that distinguishes professional dialects from other dialects is style, and it will therefore be safe to conclude that style and ideology are inextricably linked — an observation that has subtle but signiªcant implications when it comes to interpreting the relationship between text accessibility and text acceptability.

Chapter 8

Discussion and conclusions

In this book I have been concerned with style — a notion I have studied under the umbrella term of grammatical metaphor. As a gateway to meaning-making in all senses of the word, the abstraction of grammatical metaphor has been examined from the two angles of syntagmatic process and paradigmatic opposition with the purpose of setting the scene for analysing the two concepts of accessibility and acceptability. The task I had set for myself sent me in the direction of unknown destinations towards still higher semiotic planes of consciousness. My point of departure was the text as preliminary object of investigation. However, as my work proceeded I became aware of new realms to investigate — a process that took me to the planes of context of situation, culture and ideology in a movement through the disciplines of text analysis, discourse/genre analysis and ending in critical discourse analysis. That my journey should take this direction would hardly be of surprise to anyone familiar with recent trends within linguistic research since, as noted by Kuure (1995: 120) the research focus in readability research “seems to have changed from texts to users” — an observation that Cook (1995: 12) corroborates by pointing to the nowadays generally held belief that “developments in discourse analysis and pragmatics have led to a very diŸerent view of meaning, as in¶uenced not only by variations in text, but by variations in readers too”. That I decided to experience this evolution in the process of my work in addition to relying on studies available within the theories relevant to the area was a decision based on the logic of necessity because I soon realized that text analysis on its own would hardly answer my questions. The focus of my investigations was whether one style rather than the other would facilitate comprehension, and in the process I asked whether there would be limits to how comprehensible a text could be made without infringing the genre expectations of the reader. Two diŸerent styles were tested, viz. the style found to be typical of technical manuals and a changed simpliªed style. Both these styles were tested in diŸerent versions including a short sentence version. As a second purpose, which was closely related to the style issue, I studied the possible interaction of and relationship between accessibility and acceptability. My starting point here was that the two concepts were separate entities with separate ªelds of operation, which is also re¶ected in the design of my questionnaire. As the study unfolded, however, I was made to change this view as a result of the nature of my data.

162 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Conclusions concerning features inherent in style Analysis of my text corpus suggests that lexical density increases in a direct ratio to the increase of syntagmatic grammatical metaphor and grammatical intricacy at group and phrase level. At the same time the three variables of lexical density, syntagmatic grammatical metaphor and grammatical intricacy at group and phrase level decrease with higher grammatical intricacy at clause level. These results agree with studies by Halliday and Ravelli on the inversely proportional nature of grammatical intricacy at clause level and lexical density/grammatical metaphor. In addition to counting the incidence of syntagmatic grammatical metaphor, I also counted the incidence of paradigmatic grammatical metaphor. The result was that of the two types of grammatical metaphor, syntagmatic metaphor was by far the most common phenomenon in the technical manuals I studied. In fact, the density of paradigmatic metaphor was so low that I ªnd it di¹cult to draw any conclusions on the basis of the text corpus available. The objection may be made that I ought to have struck a ªner balance between the two types of grammatical metaphor by selecting texts rich in paradigmatic as well as syntagmatic metaphor. However, as a result of my selection procedure, which I believe constituted a su¹ciently ªne-meshed network for including the most typical text parts to be found in technical manuals, I would contend that the distribution of syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphor was rather typical. However, the assumption made in Chapter 3, p. 29 that syntagmatic process is more complex than paradigmatic opposition and hence imposes a greater burden on the reader in terms of comprehension, has neither been conªrmed nor denied, although my data indicated that the few texts containing a relatively higher incidence of paradigmatic metaphor were less popular among the respondents when they were asked about their attitudes to accessibility. There is another important aspect relating to the complexities of syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphor, which has not been dealt with to any signiªcant degree, viz. instances in which the two metaphor categories interact like in the examples of interpersonal metaphor given in the present study. Such interaction would suggest the presence of a web of complexities yet to be revealed — complexities that would also invite a closer examination of diŸerent levels in which diŸerent kinds of junctions — thematic as well as semantic — might take place. Studies of this kind would perhaps oŸer tools for the improved understanding of the notion of intrinsic accessibility. These observations raise interesting questions as to how the human brain functions. For although, intuitively, syntagmatic metaphor seems to build on a more complicated process than does paradigmatic metaphor, for which reason it should be possible to infer that syntagmatic metaphor would obstruct comprehension to a greater extent than would paradigmatic

Discussion and conclusions 163

metaphor, my data pointed to a diŸerent conclusion. In his important article about Asphasic Disturbances, Roman Jakobson (1971: 74) describes two types of speech disorder, of which one aŸects the combinatory capacities and the other the selective capacities of the patient. Wider knowledge about these aspects may be very relevant to understanding how syntagmatic and paradigmatic metaphors operate in the human brain, since apparently the ability to process syntagmatic metaphor is a function of combinatory capacity while the ability to process paradigmatic metaphor relies on selective capacities in the reader/writer. Could it then be that some of us handle one of these processes better than the other and that this might constitute part of the answer to varying attitudes among the respondents? To obtain more knowledge about the in¶uence on accessibility of each of the two types of grammatical metaphor, however, more research would be necessary, and there is not at present basis for drawing any conclusions as regards the capacity of the human brain to process the two metaphorical categories. As the observant reader will have noticed, I have gradually moved from the domain of the text into a discussion of the interplay of the text and the reader, — a decision helped along by e.g. Cook (1995: 13) who holds that in order to assess text accessibility, it is necessary to supplement the description of text with a description of the reader and the interaction between these factors since a text “is not accessible in itself, but for a particular person in a particular situation”. Or — as noted by Nyyssönen (1995: 21) “accessibility does not refer to text di¹culty as such but in relation to some group or groups of readers”. Ignoring for the time being the possible, but so far unproven possibility that nature may have equipped readers with diŸerent capacities for interpreting syntagmatic and paradigmatic meaning, the approach suggested by Nyyssönen and Cook will be an appropriate avenue to explore, and the rest of this Chapter will be devoted to a discussion of conclusions drawn on the basis of a survey of text and reader interaction.

Conclusions concerning impact of style on accessibility and acceptability of text To widen my knowledge on reader reactions to diŸerent styles, a questionnaire was distributed and the following three hypotheses tested: Hypothesis 1 Since grammatical metaphor causes greater complexity, ambiguity and information load in terms of increased lexical density, texts which are rich in grammatical metaphor are intrinsically less accessible than texts with a low incidence of this phenomenon. It follows that readers and users of texts with a high incidence of grammatical metaphor will ªnd these texts more di¹cult to comprehend than texts with a low incidence of grammatical metaphor and consequently will prefer the latter if asked to assess such texts from the point of view of accessibility.

164 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Hypothesis 2 A change of the style of technical manuals towards greater intrinsic accessibility will cause members of the discourse community in which this macro-genre regularly occurs to reject its style as unacceptable, while non-members will ªnd the same style acceptable. Hypothesis 3 Text accessibility decreases with the ratio by which grammatical metaphor co-incides with new information.

Analysis of data derived from the questionnaire gave rise to the following observations: 1. A relative majority of Danish respondents found the style of the original texts more accessible than any of the alternative versions, but even so there was general dissatisfaction with the original text since an absolute majority voted for alternative versions. 2. A group of mixed occupations found the changed versions more accessible than any of the other texts and, unlike a majority among the other groups, this group favoured direct, active and personal style when asked to express their views on speciªc linguistic realizations. 3. The attitudes to short sentences varied across and among professional groupings as did attitudes to style; but, generally speaking, texts with short sentences were not rated high on most respondents’ lists of priorities. 4. The British control group was generally less inclined to vote for the original text than were the Danes as a relative majority of British respondents found the changed text more accessible than any of the other versions. 5. There was generally greater consensus among the respondents as to what an acceptable text is than to what an accessible text is. However, the group of mixed occupations found the changed text more acceptable than did other groups of respondents. Now, these observations, which show that Hypothesis 1 could not be fully conªrmed, give rise to a number of conclusions. First of all, as reader responses have shown, it has not been possible to come to any unequivocal conclusion as to the degree of intrinsic accessibility of text — if such exists. Therefore, I found it worthwhile to extend my investigations of the text dimension by involving the notion of information structure to obtain greater knowledge about the interplay between grammatical metaphor and Chafe’s terms of given, accessible and new information as important text dimensions. On the basis of empirical data from the text corpus, I was able to conclude that information structure combined with grammatical metaphor seems to in¶uence the respondents’ attitudes to text accessibility in that texts with a high ratio of grammatical metaphor mapped onto

Discussion and conclusions 165

accessible information (in the Chafean sense) were found to be more accessible than texts with a high ratio of grammatical metaphor mapped onto new information. These ªndings seem to partly conªrm Hypothesis 3. However, as there were relatively few incidences of grammatical metaphor mapped onto given information, it is not clear to what extent such a combination might have in¶uenced reader preferences in terms of accessibility. Now, of course, the balance struck between given, accessible and new information may have made an impact on reader reactions apart from that brought about by the combination of information structure and grammatical metaphor. I did not look into this possibility. Therefore, more work needs to be done on the possible interplay of information structure and grammatical metaphor, and on the role played by information structure on its own before a ªnal conclusion may be drawn. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, I had assumed the concepts of accessibility and acceptability to be distinct entities with separate meanings, accessibility apparently being a text dimension while acceptability seems to be a reader-oriented notion. As my work unfolded and my data were analysed, however, the indisputability of this assumption gradually seemed less convincing. The responses I received showed a varied picture of attitudes to accessibility and acceptability in that some groups — the technical writing specialists in particular — found that the style typical of technical manuals is both more accessible and more acceptable than other types of style, in spite of the fact that text analysis had suggested the style in question to be intrinsically less accessible due to a high density of grammatical metaphor. This would indicate that, to a specialist audience, style is a gateway to comprehension in that the acceptability of a particular text may make it more accessible to the specialist reader. This raises the question as to whether content is inextricably linked to form since, to my mind, there is a close relationship between accessibility and content on the one hand and acceptability and form on the other. Content is what the reader accesses to make meaning, and form is what s/he accepts. As noted by Killingsworth and Gilbertson (1992: 183) few authors of specialized discourse would assent to the organic principle that form and content are inextricably linked, but most of them act as if the principle were true. This way language can be a boundary of knowledge in that it both expresses knowledge, but also marks that knowledge “for particular uses in speciªc settings” (1992: 183). This would indicate that members of the discourse community would tend to link content to form or accessibility to acceptability, while non-members would hope to gain access to the same knowledge or meaning in a way that oversteps the boundaries set by the discourse community. And this conclusion seems to be borne out by analysing data from the group of non-specialists, who form a separate discourse community and do not seem to link text acceptability to text accessibility to the same extent as the specialist groups. Therefore, it can be concluded that stylistic preference is a

166 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

function of familiarity with the writing style of speciªc genres and hence of membership of a discourse community, a conclusion that conªrms my second hypothesis. A bird’s eye view on the observations and resulting conclusions would suggest that more often than not there is an unequal relationship between the writer and the reader of technical manuals. There is the tenor relationship of instructor and learner/doer, which is a relationship construed by and construing the context of situation. But in addition to these contextual relationships, there is also a socially motivated power relationship between members and non-members of the discourse community in which the technical manual is a recognizable communicative event. This relationship involves specialists and non-specialists, and style demarcates the borderline between the two groupings, separating insiders from outsiders. Moreover, as I argued in Chapter 7, style is closely related to ideology and the product resulting from the naturalizing eŸect style has on ideology is a variety of language usually preferred by the technological elite for presenting information and thus becomes the legitimate way of writing. I have referred to this variety as professional dialect. As noted by Fairclough (1989: 107), “ideology is truly eŸective only when it is disguised”, which in the present context would imply that once the discourse no longer attracts attention it has seriously begun serving its function of reinforcing the power relationship between diŸerent social groupings: Those who possess specialist knowledge and those who do not. Of course, as observed by Fairclough (ibid.: 91) “naturalization is a matter of degree and the extent to which a discourse type is naturalized may change, in accordance with the shifting balance of forces in social struggle”. However, this study has shown that conscious manipulation of language does not in itself bring about a shift of balance in the attitudes of diŸerent professional groupings, but that stylistic determination is instead a re¶ection of social processes in which professional groupings interact.

Didactic implications One of the questions I asked in the introduction was whether my ªndings would possibly have any didactic implications. And the time has now come to address this issue. The question that students had so often wondered about and which the plain language revolution had made me feel uncertain about was whether we should continue teaching students to write careful in-box placement of egg was performed rather than s/he placed the egg in the box carefully of which the ªrst example is specialist jargon. For a long time, I was much tempted to follow the advice given by advocates of the plain English movement for a plainer and more direct style — perhaps because such a style would be easier to understand for non-

Discussion and conclusions 167

specialists. However, as we have seen, there seems to be more than one answer to the question. Results from the present survey have shown that audiences do not agree on style, and that varying style preferences are a result of varying backgrounds. Technical English instructors should therefore design courses that take such diŸerences into account, by focusing more on audience analysis and encouraging students to vary their writing style according to purpose, audience and context.

References

Allison, D. 1994. “Genre Analysis in LSP Teaching: Where are we?” In Applications and implications of current LSP research, Brekke et al., 698–705. Bergen: Fakbok Forlaget. Andrews, D. C. 1996. International Dimensions of Technical Communication. Arlington: Society for Technical Communication. Andrews, D.C and Blickle, M. D.1982. Technical Writing, Principles and Forms. USA: Macmillan. Badsberg, J. H. 1991. A guide to CoCo. Institute for Electronic Systems, Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, AUC: Aalborg. Badsberg, H. H. 1995. An Environment for Graphical Models. Ph.d. Thesis submitted to the Faculty of Technology and Science, Aalborg University, Institute for Electronic Systems, Aalborg, Denmark. Bell, Allan 1984. “Language style as audience design”. In Language in Society 13 (1). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 145–204. Bernstein, Basil 1971. Class, Codes and Control 1. London: Routledge. Bhatia, V. K. 1993. Analysing Genre. London and New York: Longman. Bhatia, V. K. 1997. “Analysing Genre Revisited”. In Hermes, Journal of Linguistics, Faculty of Business Language. Aarhus: The Aarhus School of Business. Black, Max 1972. Models and Metaphors. Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press. Black, M. 1981. “Metaphor”. In Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor, Johnson, M., 63–82. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Bloor, M. & Bloor T. 1992. “Given and New information in the Thematic organization of Text: An Application to the Teaching of Academic Writing”. In Occasional Papers in Systemic Linguistics 6: Nottingham, 34–43. Bloor, M. 1998. “The Preservation of the Species (Some notes on a recently evolved species and on the contribution of John Swales to its preservation and protection)”. In English for Speciªc Purposes 17 (1), Celebratory Issue 60th Birthdays of Ann Johns and John Swales. UK: Pergamon. Bourdieu, P. 1990. The Logic of Practice trans. R. Nice.Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. 1991. Language and Symbolic Power ed. and introduced by J. B. Thompson, trans. G. Raymond and M. Adamson. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. 1993. The Field of Cultural Production, trans. R. Johnson. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bourdieu, P. 1979, 1998. Distinction. A social critique of the judgement of Taste, London: Routledge. Broadhead, G. J. 1985. “Style in Technical and Scientiªc Writing”. In Research in Technical Communication. A bibliographic Sourcebook, Moran and Journet (eds), 217–252. Connecticut and England. Greenwood Press. Butler, C. 1995. “Systemic Functional Grammar”. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Manual. Verschueren, Östman & Blommaert (eds), 527–532. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.

170 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Carter, R. and Nash. W. 1990. Seeing through Language. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, Consciousness and Time. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press. Clark, H. and Haviland, S. 1977. “Comprehension and the Given-New Contract”. In Discourse Production and Comprehension, Freedle, R. (ed), 1–39. Norwood, N. J.: Ablex. Clark, Romy and Ivanic 1997. The Politics of Writing. London and New York: Routledge. Cohen, T. 1981. “Figurative Speech and Figurative Acts”. In Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor, Johnson, M., 182–199. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Cook, G. 1995. “Principles for Research into Text Accessibility”. In Principles of Accessibility and Design in English Texts. Research in Progress. Nyyssönen, H. And Kuure, L. (eds), 9–18. Oulu: University of Oulu Printing Centre. Crystal, D. and Davy, D. 1969. Investigating English style. London: Longman. Davidson, D. 1978. “What metaphors mean”. In Critical Inquiry 5 (1), pp 31–47. Davies. E. 1986. The English Imperative. London, Sydney: Croom Helm. De Beaugrande & Dressler 1981. Introduction to Text Linguistics, Harlow: Longman. Eggins, S. 1994. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics. London: Pinter. Eggins, S and Martin, J. R. 1997. “Genres and Registers of Discourse”. In Discourse as Structure and Process, Discourse Studies: A Multidisciplinary Introduction, Volume 1, van Dijk, T. (ed), 230–256. London: Sage. Enkvist, N. E. 1971. ”On deªning style, An Essay in Applied Linguistics”. In Linguistics and Style, Spencer, J. (ed), 3–55. London: Oxford University Press. Fairclough, N. 1989. Language and Power. London and New York: Longman. Fairclough, N. 1992, 1998. Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press. Firth, J. R. 1951. “Modes of Meaning”. In Essays and Studies, The English Association, reprinted in J. R. Firth Papers in Linguistics 1935–195. London: Oxford University Press. Firth, J. R. 1957. “A synopsis of linguistic theory”, 1930–1955, in Studies in Linguistic Analysis (special volume of the Philological Society). London: Blackwell, pp 1–31. Reprinted in F. R. Palmer (ed), Selected Papers of J. R. Firth, 1952–1959. London: Longman, 1968, pp 168– 205. Fowler, F. J., Jr. 1988. Survey Research Methods, revised edition, Applied Social Research Methods Series1. London: Sage. Fries, P. 1994. “On Theme, Theme and discourse goals”. In Advances in Written Text Analysis, Coulthard, M (ed), 229–320. London and New York: Routledge. Gramsci, A. 1986. Selections from Prison Notebooks, ed. and trans. Q. Hoare and G. Smith, London: New Left Books. Grice, H. P. 1975. “Logic and Conversation”. In Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts. Cole, P. & Morgan, J. L. (eds), 41–58. Gunnarsson, B. 1982. Lagtexters begriplighet, En språkfunktionell studie av medbestämmandelagen, Lund: Liber Förlag. Gunnarsson, B. 1995. “Applied Linguistics”. In Handbook of Pragmatics, Manual. Verschueren, Östman & Blommaert (eds), 45–54. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. Halliday, M. A. K. 1961. Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17: pp 241–92 Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as social semiotic. The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. 1987. “Spoken and Written Modes of Meaning”. In Comprehending Oral and Written language, Horowitz R and Samuels S (eds), 55–82. London: Academic Press.

References

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985/1989. Ch 5 “Written language, lexical density”. In Spoken and Written Language Ch 5, 61–75. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. A. K. 1985/1989. “Speaking, writing, and learning”. In Spoken and Written Language Ch 7, 92–101. Oxford University Press. Halliday, M. A. K. 1985,1994. An Introduction to Functional Grammar, London: Edward Arnold. Halliday, M. A. K. 1995a. “Scientiªc English”. Paper given at University of Trieste, Facoltà de Economia, Sala Conferenze. Halliday, M. A. K. 1995b. “Language and the reshaping of human experience”. National and Kapodistrian University of Athens. Honorary Lectures (1994–1997), 1247–1276. Athens: The University of Athens Publications. Halliday, M. A. K. 1994, 1996, 1998. “Linguistics as Metaphor”. In Reconnecting Language. Morphology and Syntax in Functional Perspectives, Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen, Kristin Davidse and Dirk Noël (eds), 3–27. Amsterdam: Benjamins. Halliday, M. A. K. 1998. “Things and Relations: Regrammaticizing experience as technical knowledge”. In Reading Science: Critical and Functional perspectives on discourses of science, Martin, J. R. & Veel, Rober (eds). London: Routledge. Halliday, M. A. K. 1999. “Grammar and the Construction of Educational Knowledge”. In Language analysis, description and pedagogy, R. Berry, B. Asker, K. Hyland & M. Lam (eds.), 70–88. Hong Kong: Hong Kong University of Science & Technology and Lignan University. Halliday, M. A. K. & Hasan, R. 1976. Cohesion in English, London: Longman. Halliday, M. A.K and Martin, J. R. 1993. Writing Science, Literacy and Discursive Power. London: The Falmer Press. Halliday, M. A. K. & Matthiessen, C. 1999. Construing Experience Through Meaning. A languagebased approach to cognition. London and New York, Cassell. Hasan, R. 1985. “The Structure of a Text”. In Language, Context and Text, Halliday and Hasan, 52–69. Geelong, Vic.: Deakin University Press (republished by OUP 1989). Hasan, R. 1996. Ways of saying: Ways of Meaning. New York: Cassell. Hjelmslev, L. 1961. Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. Madison. Wisconsin: University of Wisconsin Press. Hodge, R & Kress G. 1988. Social semiotics. Cambridge: Polity Press. Holdcroft, D. 1978. Words and Deeds. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Huckin, T. N. & Olsen, L. A. (eds) 1991. Technical Writing and Professional Communication. For Nonnative Speakers of English. Singapore: McGraw-Hill. Jakobson, R. 1971. “Two Aspects of Languge and Two Types of Aphasic Disturbances”. In Fundamentals of Language, Jakobson, R. and Halle, M., 66–95. The Hague: Mouton. Jordan, S. (ed) 1971. Handbook of Technical Writing Practices 1 and 2. USA: John Wiley & Sons. Joseph. J. E. 1994. “Saussurean Tradition in Twentieth-century Linguistics”. In The Encyclopedia of Language and Linguistics 7. Pergamon Press. Killingsworth, M. J. and Gilbertson, M. K. 1992. Signs, Genres, and Communities in Technical Communication, Baywood’s Technical Communications Series. Amityville: Baywood. Kirkman, J. 1992. Good Style. London: Chapman and Hall. Klare, G. 1963. The Measurement of Readability. Iowa State University, Ames. Kompass. 1996. Electronic version. Kuure, L. 1995. “A Reader Perspective into Text Accessibility”. In Principles of Accessibility and Design in English Texts. Research in Progress. Nyyssönen, H. And Kuure, L. (eds), 119–134. Oulu: University of Oulu Printing Centre.

171

172 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Labov, W. 1966. The social stratiªcation of English in New York City Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics. Labov. W. 1972. Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. LakoŸ, G. and Johnson, M. 1980. Metaphors we live by. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago press. Lassen, I. 1998. “Technical Manuals in a Bhatian genre perspective”. In Netværk LSP, SSP Nyhedsbrev 13, Handelshøjskolen i Århus, 104–125. Lassen, I. 1997. “On the Cohabitation of Grammatical Metaphor and Conventional Figures of Speech”. In Interactional perspectives on LSP, Language and Cultural Contact 22, Lassen (ed), 67–83. Aalborg: Aalborg University Press. Lassen, I. (forthcoming). “Imperative readings of grammatical metaphor. A study of congruency in the imperative”. In Grammatical Metaphors in Systemic Functional Perspectives. SimonVandenbergen, A., Ravelli, L. & Taverniers, M. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins. Lauritzen, S. L. 1996. Graphical Models. Oxford: Clarendon. Lay, M. M. 1982. “Procedures, Instructions, and Speciªcations: A Challenge in Audience Analysis”. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 12(3). Baywood Publishing, 235–241. Lemke, J. 1990. “Technical discourse and technocratic ideology”. In Learning, keeping and using language: selected papers from the 8th World Congress of Applied Linguistics. Volume II. Halliday, M. A. K. Gibbons, J. & Nicholas, H. (eds). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Lemke, Jay 1990. Talking science: Language, Learning, and Values. USA, Ablex Lemke, Jay 1998. “Multiplying meaning: Visual and verbal semiotics in scientiªc text”. In Reading Science. Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, Martin, J. R. and Veel R. (eds.), 87–113. London and New York: Routledge. Loewenberg, I. 1981. “Identifying metaphors”. In Philosophical Perspectives on Metaphor, Johnson, M. (ed), 154–181. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Longacre, R. E. 1976. An Anatomy of Speech Notions, Lisse: The Peter De Ridder Press. Longacre, R. E. 1992. “The Discourse Strategy of an Appeals Letter”. In Discourse Description, Diverse Linguistic Analyses of a Fund-Raising Text, Mann, W. and Thompson, S (eds), 109– 130. Amsterdam/Philadelphia, John Benjamins. Lyons, J. 1977. Semantics (2). London: Cambridge University Press Lyons, J. 1981. Language and Linguistics. London: Cambridge University Press Markel, M. H. 1984 Technical Writing, Situations and Strategies. New York: St. Martin’s Press. Martin, J. R. 1992. English Text, System and Structure. Philadelphia/Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Martin, J. 1993a. “Life as a Noun: Arresting the Universe in Science and Humanities”. In Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power, Halliday, M and Martin J, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. Martin, J. R. 1993b. “A Contextual Theory of Language”. In The Powers of Literacy: A Genre Approach to Teaching Writing, Cope, B. and Kalantzis, M. (eds), 116–136. Hong Kong: The Falmer Press. Martin, J. R. 1997. “Analysing genre: functional parameters”. In Genre and Institutions, Social Processes in the Workplace and School, Christie, F. and Martin, J. R. (eds), 3–39. London and Washington: Cassell Mayer, R. 1994. “The instructive metaphor: Metaphoric aids to students’ understanding of science”. In Metaphor and Thought, Ortony, A. (ed), 561–578. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moran, M. G. and Journet, D. 1985. Research in Technical Communication. A Bibliographic

References 173

Sourcebook. Connecticut: Greenwood Press. Nielsen, J. N. 1994. ”Der er en verden uden for sproget. Om at sikre kvalitet i oversættelse af fagsproglige tekster”. In Hermes 12, 91–108. Aarhus: Handelshøjskolens. Nyyssönen, H. 1995. “Exploring the Accessibility of Written Text”. In Principles of Accessibility and Design in English Texts. Research in Progress, Nyyssönen H. and Kuure, L. (eds), 19–33. Oulu: University of Oulu Printing Centre. O¹cial Journal of the European Communities: Council Directive of 14. June 1989 (89/392/EEC) and Council Directive of 14. juni 1993 (93/44/EEC) Ortony, A. 1994. Metaphor and Thought, Cambridge: University Press Pickett, N. A. and Laster, A. A. 1993. Writing, reading, speaking. USA: Harper Collins College Publishers Prince, E. 1981. “Towards a Taxonomy of Given-New Information”. In Radical Pragmatics, P. Cole (ed), 223–255. New York: Academic Press. Quirk, R. og Greenbaum, S. 1973. A University Grammar of English. Harlow: Longman Ravelli, J. L. 1985. Metaphor, Mode and Complexity, An Exploration of Co-varying patterns, Fourth Year Honours Thesis, Department of Linguistics, University of Sydney. Rose, D. 1998. “Science discourse and industrial hierarchy”. In Reading science. Critical and functional perspectives on discourses of science, Christie F. and Martin J. R. (eds.), 236–265. London and New York Rose, D. 2000. “Science, technology and Technical Literacies”. In Genre and Institutions. Social Processes in the Workplace and School, Christie F. and Martin J. R. (eds), 40–71. London and New York: Continuum. Rose, D., McInnes, D. and Korner, H. 1992. Stage 1: Scientiªc Literacy — Literacy in Industry Research Project, Sydney. The Write It Right Project, Metropolitan East Disadvantages Schools’ Program, NSW, Department of School Education. Sanders, C. 1987. “Applied Linguistics”. In New horizons in Linguistics, Lyons and Associates (eds), 200–224. London: Penguin. Saussure, F. de 1974. Course in General Linguistics (ed. J. Culler, trans. W. Baskin). London: Fontana. Schirato, T & Yell, S 1996. Communication & Cultural Literacy. An introduction, Australia: Allen & Unwin. Searle, J. R. 1979. Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts, Expression and Meaning. Cambridge: University Press. Searle, J. R. 1983. Intentionality. An essay in the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: University Press. Strother, JB and Ulinj, J. M. 1991. “The ties that bind readability to writing research: who writes the most readable texts?” In Celebrating Literacy: Defending Literacy, Harrison, C and Ashworth, E (eds), 75–92. Oxford: Blackwell. Stubbs, M. 1996. Text and Corpus Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Swales, J. 1990. Genre Analysis, English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: University Press Ulijn, Jan and Strother, Judith.1995. Communicating in Business and Technology, From Psycholinguistic Theory to International Practice. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang Vestergaard, T. 1999. “That’s not News: Persuasive and Expository Genres in the Press”. In Analysing Professional Genres, Trosborg, A. (ed). Amsterdam: Benjamins. Volosinov, V. N. 1986. Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Weisman. 1980. Basic Technical Writing. USA: Charles E. Merrill.

174 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

White, P. 1998. “Extended reality, proto-nouns and the vernacular: Distinguishing the technological from the scientiªc”. In Genre and Institutions. Social Processes in the Workplace and School, Christie, F. and Martin, J. R. (eds), 134–160. London and New York: Continuum. Widdowson, H. G. 1979. Explorations in applied linguistics. Oxford University Press. Wignell, P, Martin, J. R. and Eggins, S. 1993. “The Discourse of Geography: Ordering and Explaining the Experiential World”. In Writing Science: Literacy and Discursive Power, Halliday and Martin. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Appendix Survey of writing style in technical manuals

To obtain users’ and authors’ views on preferable writing style in technical manuals, I ask you to complete the questionnaire below and to judge the texts and sentence pairs attached. ——————— 1. Educational background

2. Occupation

3. Age

ⵧ 1.1. Science and

ⵧ 2.1. Teacher of technical

ⵧ 18–30

engineering

English

ⵧ 31–40

ⵧ 1.2. Modern languages

ⵧ 2.2. Technician/engineer

ⵧ 41–50

ⵧ 1.3. A combination

ⵧ 2.3. Technical writer

ⵧ 51–60

ⵧ 1.4. Other background:

ⵧ 2.4. Executive manager

ⵧ above 60

…………………..

responsible for technical documentation ⵧ 2.5. Other occupation

4. Size of ªrm

5. Type of ªrm

ⵧ 4.1. Small ªrm

ⵧ 5.1. Industrial ªrm ⵧ 5.2. University or

6. Knowledge of product in attached text

(1–5 employees)

ⵧ 4.2. Medium sized ªrm (6–99 employees)

ⵧ 4.3. Large ªrm (100 employees or more) 7. Knowledge of technical manuals ⵧ 7.1. No knowledge ⵧ 7.2. I use manuals ⵧ 7.3. I write manuals

graduate school

ⵧ 5.3. Technical school ⵧ 5.4. Translation agency ⵧ 5.5. Other type of ªrm

ⵧ 6.1. No knowledge ⵧ 6.2. Fair knowledge ⵧ 6.3. Thorough knowledge

176 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

Aspects relating to using and/or writing technical manuals 8. Which of the following types of manuals

9. Which of the following activities do you

do you most often work with?

most often do when working with technical manuals?

ⵧ ⵧ ⵧ ⵧ

8.1. Sales manuals 8.2. Repair and maintenance manuals 8.3. User’s guides 8.4. Other types

ⵧ ⵧ ⵧ ⵧ

9.1. I prepare the text 9.2. I revise the text 9.3. I translate the text 9.4. I teach one or several of the above items

10. Are you familiar with “style manuals”?

13. Do you discuss the text with colleagues

ⵧ 10.1. Yes — go to item 11 ⵧ 10.2. No — go to item 13

ⵧ 13.1. Yes

before printing? Whom? ……………..

ⵧ 13.2. No 11. Do you use a style manual when pre-

14. Does this ever give rise to disagree-

paring technical manuals?

ment?

ⵧ 11.1. Yes — go to item 12 ⵧ 11.2. No — go to item 13

ⵧ 14.1. Yes — go to item 15 ⵧ 14.2. No

12. Which of the following items does the

15. Describe the nature of the disagree-

style manual describe?

ment?

ⵧ 12.1. The style of the text ⵧ 12.2. The purpose of the text ⵧ 12.3. Other aspects

ⵧ 15.1. Style ⵧ 15.2. Layout ⵧ 15.3. Other aspects

……………………………..

Appendix 177

Aspects relating to the language used in technical manuals: 16. Which of the following do you

17. Do you prescribe style norms when

consider of greatest importance when

teaching technical English?

teaching technical English? (To be completed by technical English instructors only)

ⵧ Yes — go to item 18 ⵧ No — go to item 19

ⵧ 16.1. Focus on style ⵧ 16.2. Focus on terminology ⵧ 16.3. Focus on other aspects 18. Which of the following stylistic features do you encourage students to use?

ⵧ ⵧ ⵧ ⵧ ⵧ ⵧ

ⵧ ⵧ ⵧ ⵧ ⵧ ⵧ

Personal style Impersonal style The active voice The passive voice Premodiªcation Postmodiªcation

Deªnite article omission The deªnite article Long sentences Short sentences Finite clauses Non-ªnite clauses

Which style do you prefer? 19. Which of the three text versions overleaf (A1, B1 or C1) would you prefer for a technical manual? To give your view on this, please state your preferences under 20 and 21: 20. More accessible text: (Put an “X” in one box in each column) Choose between:

Choose between:

Choose between:

ⵧ Version A1 ⵧ Version B1

ⵧ Version B1 ⵧ Version C1

ⵧ Version C1 ⵧ Version A1

21. More acceptable style: (Put an “X” in one box in each column) Choose between:

Choose between:

ⵧ Version A1 ⵧ Version B1

ⵧ Version B1 ⵧ Version C1

Choose between: ⵧ Version C1 ⵧ Version A1

Name index

A Allison, D. 78, 169 Andrews, D. C. 4, 158, 169 B Badsberg, J. H. 84, 169 Bell, A. 145, 169 Bernstein, B. 126, 145, 146, 152–154, 159, 160, 169 Bhatia, V. K. 65, 66, 68, 71, 72, 74, 169 Black, M. 25, 169 Blickle, M. D. 158, 169 Bloor, M. 78, 169 Bourdieu, P. 151, 152, 157, 169 Broadhead, G. J. 3, 169 Butler, C. 5, 169 C Carter, R. xv, 170 Chafe, W. xvii, 24, 127–132, 134–136, 140, 143, 164, 170 Clark, H. 127–129, 134, 151, 152, 170 Cohen, T. 25, 170 Cook, G. xi, 11, 161, 163, 170 Crystal, D. xv, 170 D Davies, E. 170 Davy, D. xv, 170 De Beaugrande xv, 170 E Eggins, S. xvii, 7–13, 33, 34, 39–41, 65, 66, 70, 72, 73, 170, 174 Enkvist, N. E. xv, xvi, 170 F Fairclough, N. xvi, 4, 147, 158, 166, 170 Firth, J. R. 5, 8, 26, 170

Fowler, F. J. 81, 82, 170 Fries, P. 132, 170 G Gilbertson, M. K. xiii, xiv, xvi, 3, 145, 165, 171 Greenbaum, S. 128, 173 Grice, H. P. 39, 170 Gunnarsson, B. 3, 4, 120, 156, 160, 170 H Halliday, M. A. K. xii, xv, xvi, xvii, 1–3, 5, 8, 10–16, 18, 19, 21–27, 29–31, 33–38, 43, 44, 47–50, 65, 72, 127, 128, 130–132, 145, 146, 149, 150, 152, 153, 162, 170–172, 174 Hasan, R. xvii, 26, 29, 30, 43, 44, 47, 48, 65, 66, 73, 171 Haviland, S. 127–129, 134, 170 Hjelmslev, L. 26, 171 Hodge, R. xvi, xvii, 65, 145–147, 152, 153, 160, 171 Holdcroft, D. 39, 171 Huckin, T. N. 4, 171 J Jakobson, R. 163, 171 Johnson, M. 25, 169, 170, 172 Jordan, S. 158, 171 Joseph, J. E. 26, 171 Journet, D. 2, 169, 172 K Killingsworth, M. J. xiii, xiv, xvi, 3, 145, 165, 171 Kirkman, J. xi, 15, 171 Klare, G. xiv, 171 Korner, H. 1, 3, 173 Kress, G. xv, xvii, 65, 145–147, 152, 153, 160, 171 Kuure, L. 161, 170, 171, 173

180 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

L Labov, W. 145, 152, 172 Lakoff, G. 25, 172 Lassen, I. xii, 25, 29, 31, 74, 172 Laster, A. A. 158, 173 Lauritzen, S. L. 84, 172 Lay, M. M. 76, 158, 172 Lemke, J. 1, 3, 145–147, 150, 153, 158, 159, 172 Loewenberg, I. 25, 172 Longacre, R. E. 65, 66, 68, 69, 71, 75, 172 Lyons, J. 38, 39, 172, 173 M Markel, M. H. 158, 172 Martin, J. R. xvi, xvii, 1, 3, 7–11, 13, 24, 26, 31, 33, 35, 36, 40, 43, 65, 66, 69–72, 76, 77, 131, 145, 147–149, 170–174 Mayer, R. 25, 26, 29, 172 McInnes, D. 1, 3, 173 Moran, M. G. 2, 169, 172 N Nash, W. xv, 170 Nielsen, J. N. xiv, 173 Nyyssönen, H. xi, 163, 170, 171, 173 O Olsen, L. A. 171 Ortony, A. 25, 172, 173 P Pickett, N. A. 158, 173 Prince, E. 127, 131, 132, 173

Q Quirk, R. 128, 173 R Ravelli, J. L. 12, 19, 21, 23, 24, 34, 162, 172, 173 Rose, D. 1–3, 51, 173 S Sanders, C. 3, 4, 173 Saussure, F. de 26, 146, 173 Schirato, T. 145, 147, 149, 151, 152, 158, 173 Searle, J. R. 173 Strother, J. B. 160, 173 Stubbs, M. 25, 173 Swales, J. 65, 66, 68, 71, 72, 77, 78, 126, 169, 173 U Ulinj, J. M. 173 V Vestergaard, T. xii, 70, 173 Volosinov, V. N. 146, 173 W Weisman 158, 173 White, P. 2, 3, 174 Widdowson, H. G. 4, 174 Wignell, P. 33, 174 Y Yell, S. 145, 147, 149, 151, 152, 158, 173

Subject index

A acceptability 77–79, 81–85, 97–103, 105–107, 110–113, 122, 126, 148, 160, 163, 165 accessibility 17, 21–24, 63, 75, 77–79, 81–85, 88, 89, 91–98, 102–113, 116, 120, 122–127, 134, 136, 148, 160–165 accessible information 129, 130, 133–136, 165 activation cost 129, 131, 132, 134, 140 active state 129, 130, 133-136 active voice 19, 42, 46, 86, 88, 114, 118, 164 see also passive voice applied linguistics 3, 170 C code 126, 146, 152–154, 159, 160 see also elaborated code, restricted code coherence 30, 43, 44 cohesion 29, 30, 43, 44 communicative function 69, 77 communicative purpose 65, 66, 68–75 compound nouns 12, 19, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 56, 103 congruence 14, 27 see also incongruence congruent realization 27, 28 context of culture 7, 39, 57, 70, 148 context of situation 5, 7, 8, 17, 39, 57, 69, 148, 161, 166 contextual salience 131 correlations 84, 85 cultural capital 151, 152, 154, 157, 158 cultural field 151, 152, 157, 158 culture 7, 8, 39, 57, 69, 70, 72, 146, 148–155, 157, 158, 160, 161 see also context of culture D deep-structure genres 66, 69 description 76-77

see also explanation, instruction, specification discourse 1–5, 157–161, 164–166 discourse analysis 3–5, 65, 152, 160, 161 discourse community 66, 77, 78, 84, 98, 116, 118, 126, 158, 159, 164–166 discourses of science and technology 2, 14 E educational backgrounds 57, 88, 107, 109, 111–113 see also occupational groups elaborated code 153, 159, 160 see also restricted code ellipsis 28–31, 44, 45, 49, 50, 86, 103, 114, 116, 118, 128, 154, 157 entity 14, 33 explanation 76-77 see also description, instruction, specification F field 7–9, 150–152, 154, 157–159, 169 G genre analysis 1, 5, 7, 9, 63, 65, 161, 169, 173 given information 12, 120, 127–136, 140, 165 see also accessible information, new information grammatical intricacy 11–13, 16–19, 21–24, 60, 162 grammatical intricacy at clause level (GICL) 19, 21 grammatical intricacy at phrase and group level (GIGL) 21 grammatical metaphor 13, 15–18, 24–28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 40–42, 50, 51, 60, 63, 79, 83–86, 97, 98, 123, 125–127, 132–134, 136, 140, 143, 149, 159–165

182 Accessibility and Acceptability in Technical Manuals

H habitus 151, 152, 154, 157–159 hegemony 158, 159 hypothesis 1 63, 84, 89, 123, 125, 132, 133, 163, 164 hypothesis 2 84, 98, 126, 164 hypothesis 3 134, 140, 143, 164, 165 I ideational metaphors 33, 34, 42, 46 identifiable referent 131 ideology 7, 8, 147–149, 152, 154, 155, 158– 161, 166 imperative 31, 38–41, 51, 55, 74, 76, 157 inactive 129, 130, 134 incongruence 14, 15, 27 see also congruence incongruent realization 27, 34 see also congruent realization information structure 11, 127–129, 131–134, 136, 143, 164, 165 instruction 10, 17, 53, 69, 74, 76, 150, 155 see also description, explanation, specificatin interpersonal metaphors 13, 31, 35, 37, 38 interviews 79, 83, 122 L lexical density 11–13, 15–19, 22–24, 60, 63, 84, 125, 132, 162, 163 lexical item 11, 12 lexical metaphor 25, 28, 29 logogenetic dimension 14 M metaphors of modality 36, 37 metaphors of mood 13, 38 metaredundancy model 66, 71, 148 mode 7–10, 13, 15, 17, 23, 65, 69, 70, 150 moves 19, 45, 51, 54, 66, 68–71, 73 N new information 12, 120, 128–136, 164, 165, 169 see also given information, accessible information non-finite clauses 44, 45, 47, 114, 177

O occupational groups 84, 85, 87, 88, 92– 94,103–108, 113, 114, 116, 126 ontogenetic dimension 14 open questions 118, 120 P paradigmatic opposition 26, 28, 29, 31, 40, 161, 162 paradigmatic relations 26 passive voice 24, 31, 41, 42, 44, 46, 55, 77, 114, 118 see also active voice phylogenetic dimension 14 professional dialect 126, 154, 160, 166 Q questionnaire 78–88, 108–110, 161, 163, 164, 175 R ranking clause 11 register analysis 17, 29, 39, 71 reliability 81, 87, 90 respondents’ comments 118 restricted code 126, 153, 154, 159, 160 see also elaborated code S sampling methods 80 scientific language 2, 25 semantic junction 33, 34, 40–42, 51 semi-active 129, 130, 134, 135 semohistory 14, 15 sequence 14, 51, 70, 71, 73, 74, 77 short sentences 86, 89–93, 98, 100, 101, 103, 107–113, 164 social semiotics 145–147, 160 social structure 146–148, 151–154, 159, 160 specification 17, 54, 70, 74, 76, 77, 85 spoken language 11, 12, 14, 15, 22, 127, 150 stages 66, 70–75 style 2, 3, 10, 54–56, 77, 78, 84, 86–89, 91, 94, 95, 97–99, 101, 108, 110–112, 114, 116, 118–120, 122, 123, 135, 145, 148, 149, 153, 156, 158–167 surface-structure genres 66, 69

Subject index 183

survey 79–126, 167 symbols viii syntactic form 69 syntagmatic process 28–31, 37, 41, 161, 162 syntagmatic relations 26 systemic functional linguistics xiv, xv, 1, 5, 13, 17, 35, 65, 69 T technical discourse 2, 15, 149, 159 technical manuals 17, 18, 66, 72, 74, 78, 85, 87–89, 107–113, 116, 118, 119, 126, 145, 154, 159–162, 164–166 tenor 7–10, 17, 43, 65, 69, 70, 150, 166

text analysis 4, 65, 161, 165, 170 textual variation 7, 9, 12, 15, 18, 51, 103, 106, 145 textural metaphor 42–44, 46, 47, 49, 51 transitivity test 34, 51 U unpacking 34, 51, 98 V validity 26, 82, 83, 89 W written language 10–13, 15, 16, 22, 156, 170