As per Dan's request, here is the citation for the article that I mentioned in class. I'll add the link later.
Graves, H. B., & Graves, R. (1998). Masters, slaves, and infant
mortality: Language challenges for technical editing.
Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(4), 389-415.
Also, for those who don't want to read the article to see if they want to read the article, below is an annotation given by Erika Bronson, a former classmate with whom I collaborated on a bibliographic resource project last winter/spring.
"Graves and Graves explore the numerous, often unnoticed
and sometimes offensive, occurrences of figurative language
in technical and scientific writing. Citing research in linguistic
theory and the rhetoric of science, they argue that the way
we use language helps to shape our understanding of reality.
Because technical writing is often viewed as 'objective' and
value-free, one responsibility for technical editors is to challenge
unquestioned, metaphorically-derived language choices in the
documents they edit. By initiating these discussions, technical
communicators, both in the workplace and the classroom, can
start to 'uncover assumptions embedded in a document that
we, as a society, may want to reconsider and change' (410).
As such, this article is an invaluable read for comprehensive
technical editors." (annotation by Erika Bronson, March 2009)
I'm sure I got the attribution wrong somehow but at least I'm giving her credit.
No comments:
Post a Comment