| Carl Chatfield home page | Thesis | Chapter II |
In this chapter I describe the rhetorical issues I will apply to two software manuals in the Chapter III analysis. While it is informative to consider these rhetorical factors separately, it should be noted that in the act of reading they work together to achieve the author's rhetorical purposes. The reader, however, typically is not conscious of these factors-at least not when the author's rhetorical intent is successful. In fact it is precisely at the point when readers become aware of the rhetorical factors such as cues to invoke a reader role that the rhetorical factors are most likely to fail. Cues to step into a particular reader role or to respond to a specific authorial role work best when they are unconsciously acted upon by the reader.
The two subject texts are The Microsoft Word User's Guide, published by Microsoft Corporation, and Word for Windows 6 for Dummies, published by IDG Books. For simplicity, I will abbreviate the titles:
| The Microsoft Word User's Guide | Word User's Guide |
| Word for Windows 6 for Dummies | Word for Dummies |
Word User's Guide is a primary text; it is published by Microsoft Corporation, and is included in the Word for Windows software package. Word for Dummies is a secondary text; it is published by IDG Books, and is available at computer stores and bookstores. It is not sold or endorsed by Microsoft Corporation. Word for Dummies was selected as a subject of study from the considerable secondary market because it is the best-selling secondary title about Microsoft Word version 6.0.
In analyzing rhetorical issues within the subject texts, I will refer to a set of criteria developed by (Walters and Beck, 1992). This criteria allows for a thorough analysis of important rhetorical factors that are manifested through the author's choices in style and design. However Walters and Beck's criteria do not directly consider rhetorical style and cues that develop reader and author roles. In analyzing roles within the texts, I shall refer to the taxonomies and methods of Coney (1992) and Simpson (1989).
Walters and Beck based their rhetorical analysis of the texts on the following issues:
Intertextuality refers to the classifying of a specific text within the genre of texts. For example, an instructional text might be classified as a user's guide or as a tutorial. There is value in clearly indicating the genre in which a text belongs. If readers can properly classify an instructional text, they can adopt cognitive processing strategies and rhetorical reader roles they've developed by reading other instructional texts of the same classification, or even for similar texts from other genres. I will determine the intertextuality of each subject text by examining each text's title, cover and page design, and packaging.
Informativity is the ratio of given, or easily understandable, information to new and unfamiliar information. This ratio affects the reader's ability to assimilate new information. Factors that affect informativity of instructional texts include (1) how new information is added to the reader's existing knowledge, (2) how much new information is included, and (3) whether information is organized around the software product (semantic organization) or around the reader's tasks (pragmatic organization). To determine each text's level of informativity, I will count the number of terms specific to the software that appear in sample 200 word passages. The fewer new words that appear in a passage, the easier it is for the reader to assimilate new concepts. The frequency of repeated new terms indicates the level of reinforcement of the terms within the passage.
I will also measure the ratio of index entries to total pages, and each text's overall organization. Two types of organization are semantic and pragmatic. A semantic organization is based around the software product. An example of a semantically organized text is a command reference guide. A pragmatic organization is based around tasks a real user is likely to perform. A user's guide is an example of a pragmatically organized text.
Situationality refers to the agreement or disagreement between author and reader about aspects of the subject (not the text, but what the text is about). These aspects include the perceived difficulty in using the subject software, or the value in understanding the subject software. For example when both author and reader agree that a software application is difficult to use but important to understand, the author can present straightforward information without trying to change the reader's beliefs. Or, if the reader disagrees with the author that a software application (or a specific feature or area of the software) is worth learning, the author must use rhetorical strategies to encourage the reader's cooperation.
The position of the writer that the subject software is or is not difficult to use is the most important aspect of situationality. The mere existence of the instructional text implies some level of difficulty in using the software-otherwise, there would be no need for the instructional text. The author of the instructional text may make more explicit claims about the difficulty of the software within the text. I will determine the situationalty of each text by looking for specific references made by the authors about the difficulty or ease of use of the subject software.
When a reader comes to a how-to text, the reader intends to solve a problem. Ideally, the writer (as revealed through the writer role) agrees to be knowledgeable and helpful. The reader, in turn, agrees take on the role of novice or learner. Thus writer and reader enter into an unspoken but understood contract with one another. Through various rhetorical means the writer states his intention. The degree to which the reader is willing to enter into the contract is referred to the reader's acceptability. As the writer's intentionality is made clear, the reader's acceptability increases.
In how-to texts, the relationship between writer and reader might take the form of helper/learner, or teacher/pupil. Intentionality is affected by revealing the writer's identity, directly addressing the reader, and directly invoking roles via the rhetorical factors described here. Acceptability is indicated by the writer's perceived level of expertise of the reader, for example one who knows something about computers, or about word processing.
As was noted in Chapter I, Ong identified authorial and reader roles in a text by Hemingway. Elements of Hemingway's writing style included the reader not only in the scene but in the personal history of the narrator. Reader roles can exist at a high level; for example, the Word User's Guide title and overall organization suggest a reader role of "Word user." However this is not a very fruitful role to study. The more interesting reader roles exist at the phrase and sentence level within a text, as Ong found in the work of Hemingway.
Authorial roles also exist at the phrase and sentence level within a text. While Dan Gookin, author of Word for Dummies, is identified on the text's cover, the authorial role is created only by the text within. The creation of both authorial and reader roles is to a large extent determined by the author's writing style. To identify authorial and reader roles within the two subject texts, I will examine the texts at the most basic level: phrases and sentences. I will refer to the reader role taxonomies of Simpson (1989) and Coney (1992) described in Chapter I.