In topic-based writing delivered as web help or interactive PDF, readers are able to access topics non-linearly, reading only those topics they feel a need to read. Consequently, readers can easily lose a sense of a topic's broader context of related topics and concepts, which is knowledge presumed of a "qualified reader." Purpose: This paper investigates how relative "that" and "which" clauses are used to signal context in writing that is intended to be free of obligatory contextual connections to other topics in a documentation set. Method: This analysis relies on a computer-assisted, descriptive analysis of relative pronoun use in a corpus of published, topic-based documentation. The analysis focuses on "that" and "which," typically used in English to refer to and add information (e.g., a context) about an antecedent noun. Results: Relative "that" and "which" clauses are shown to be used in a variety of ways in topic-based writing to signal associations between topics, making it easier for readers who need context to find it. Conclusions: The author offers implications for writing practice that include deliberate, strategic use of "that" and "which" and complementary documentation design that enables readers to locate contextual information signaled by those pronouns.
{"title":"Signaling Context in Topic-Based Writing","authors":"J. Swarts","doi":"10.55177/tc812725","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55177/tc812725","url":null,"abstract":"In topic-based writing delivered as web help or interactive PDF, readers are able to access topics non-linearly, reading only those topics they feel a need to read. Consequently, readers can easily lose a sense of a topic's broader context of related topics and concepts, which is knowledge\u0000 presumed of a \"qualified reader.\" Purpose: This paper investigates how relative \"that\" and \"which\" clauses are used to signal context in writing that is intended to be free of obligatory contextual connections to other topics in a documentation set. Method:\u0000 This analysis relies on a computer-assisted, descriptive analysis of relative pronoun use in a corpus of published, topic-based documentation. The analysis focuses on \"that\" and \"which,\" typically used in English to refer to and add information (e.g., a context) about an antecedent noun.\u0000 Results: Relative \"that\" and \"which\" clauses are shown to be used in a variety of ways in topic-based writing to signal associations between topics, making it easier for readers who need context to find it. Conclusions: The author offers implications for writing practice\u0000 that include deliberate, strategic use of \"that\" and \"which\" and complementary documentation design that enables readers to locate contextual information signaled by those pronouns.","PeriodicalId":46338,"journal":{"name":"Technical Communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48611277","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Purpose: This research is the first step in exploring how public policymakers use the expert knowledge and nonexpert knowledge they acquire in oversight hearings. This step is focused on learning what the testimony in oversight hearings reveals about how the primary stakeholders of the February 2021 power loss event understood that event. Method: The researcher used NVivo, a content analysis application, to examine public comments, witness testimony, and a combination of legislators' press releases and the text of bills they drafted. All texts were generated in February and March 2021. The researcher ran both a word frequency analysis and a thematic analysis of each set of texts to identify topoi used by each stakeholder group and compared the results. Results: The analysis revealed that the three primary stakeholder groups perceived the February 2021 power loss event differently, though some of the most salient, significant, or urgent concerns of each group overlapped. The stakeholder groups shared some topoi, but the ways each group used those topoi suggested different ways of understanding and interpreting the event. Conclusions: Technical communicators who are tasked with reconciling technical and nontechnical audiences in situations like this can use the techniques discussed here to better identify specific places where the respective groups' use of topoi diverged from one another or aligned with one another. The more that is known, and not just surmised, about stakeholders and how they understand and interpret their technical knowledge, the better we can address how that knowledge may be communicated throughout the legislative process.
{"title":"Snowpocalypse 2021: Understanding Stakeholder Topoi in the 2021 Texas Power Grid Failure","authors":"R. M. Harlow","doi":"10.55177/tc350749","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.55177/tc350749","url":null,"abstract":"Purpose: This research is the first step in exploring how public policymakers use the expert knowledge and nonexpert knowledge they acquire in oversight hearings. This step is focused on learning what the testimony in oversight hearings reveals about how the primary stakeholders\u0000 of the February 2021 power loss event understood that event. Method: The researcher used NVivo, a content analysis application, to examine public comments, witness testimony, and a combination of legislators' press releases and the text of bills they drafted. All texts\u0000 were generated in February and March 2021. The researcher ran both a word frequency analysis and a thematic analysis of each set of texts to identify topoi used by each stakeholder group and compared the results. Results: The analysis revealed that the three primary\u0000 stakeholder groups perceived the February 2021 power loss event differently, though some of the most salient, significant, or urgent concerns of each group overlapped. The stakeholder groups shared some topoi, but the ways each group used those topoi suggested different ways\u0000 of understanding and interpreting the event. Conclusions: Technical communicators who are tasked with reconciling technical and nontechnical audiences in situations like this can use the techniques discussed here to better identify specific places where the respective groups'\u0000 use of topoi diverged from one another or aligned with one another. The more that is known, and not just surmised, about stakeholders and how they understand and interpret their technical knowledge, the better we can address how that knowledge may be communicated throughout the legislative\u0000 process.","PeriodicalId":46338,"journal":{"name":"Technical Communication","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2022-02-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48093461","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"文学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：