Author's Notes:
This text is a revised/edited/abbreviated version of the document I submitted, in partial fulfillment of requirements for the degree of Master of Arts in Technical and Expository Writing, in the Department of Rhetoric and Writing of the College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences at The University of Arkansas at Little Rock. I wish to extend my thanks to the members of my M.A. Thesis Committee: Dr. Barry M. Maid, Dr. Michael Kleine, and Dr. David Spillers. Thanks, too, to Dr. Richard H. Hanson, Dean of the Graduate School at UALR, whose kind words and thorough reading of the final draft of my thesis encouraged me further in my academic career.
At some point in the near future, I hope to attach to this document the lab manual (of some 100 pages) that accompanied the original text, and for the production of which I received release time from the Department of Educational Leadership at UALR. I hope, for now, that the readers of this thesis, if well-acquainted with the work of rhetorician Kenneth Burke, will be able to visualize the results of this application--though the lab manual does provide amplification of my argument, in its introductory and footnoted material. Although I do believe that the manual should be here, to clearly illustrate my argument and to provide the introductory material that directly connects to the thesis, posting that document (after converting it from PageMaker for Macintosh format) represents an investment of time (and server space) that I am unable, at this time, to make. Those of you who have performed such work know how difficult it is.
Finally, the readers should know that this is a revised version of my thesis; that it, like my research into Burke's dramatism, is a work in progress; and that I will correct any HTML or other errors if they are brought to my attention. Please, readers, feel free to send me email if you have questions, note errors, or require more information.

The dramatist rhetoric of Kenneth Burke divides language into two areas of focus: scientistic discourse, the language of definition generally associated with logic and technical documents, and dramatist discourse, language which describes conscious action and is associated with expository writing. This paper uses an accompanying manual for the Computer Lab Coordinator in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock to explore some uses of dramatist rhetoric to empower the reader of a technical document. Areas of focus include methods used to establish the authority of the document and the reader; examples of hortatory devices used to promote use of the text and interactivity between the text and the reader; and examination of the technical document in light of Burke's pentad and his general theories of scope, reduction and terministic screens.

Introduction

In considering a technical document as a piece of persuasive writing, the issue of authority must be taken into consideration. Authority, in this sense, empowers the reader of the document and establishes the right of the text to do so. In the accompanying technical document, the Manual for the Lab Coordinator, authority is a key consideration in the development of what Burke would call the Coordinator's terministic screen. Establishing the authority of the reader and the text places the Coordinator as an agent in a scene which contains the power to perform assigned tasks.

Of what use is a computer lab manual which is never opened? To be effective, this technical document must be used; it follows that it must be useful--what in the computer age would be termed "user friendly." The usefulness of the text is established, in part, by the language in it.

In Language as Symbolic Action, Kenneth Burke discusses two important types of language--scientistic and dramatistic:

...the scientistic approach culminates in the kinds of speculation we associate with symbolic logic, while the dramatistic culminates in the kinds of speculation that find their handiest material in stories, plays, poems, the rhetoric of oratory and advertising, mythologies, theologies, and philosophies after the classic model. (45)

Burke further defines scientistic discourse as one that "builds the edifice of language with primary stress upon a proposition such as 'It is, or it is not.'" (Burke, Language 44). A quick scan of modern computer manuals will reveal that the emphasis of the writing in them is scientistic. The goals are stated from the perspective of an "expert" author, terms are strictly defined and courses of action mandated.

Scientistic discourse, then, can be said to establish the authority of the text, as the definer. The reader becomes part of the defined, performing tasks as ordered by the scientistic nature of the discourse. This relationship between reader and text can be seen, for example, in a popular guide to the WordPerfect for DOS word processing computer program: The WordPerfect Bible. The title is obviously meant to be tongue-in-cheek; nevertheless, the name establishes a relationship borne out in the text--the reader follows guidelines set by "experts," who lend their authority to the text as their representative to the program user.

Compare this style with dramatistic language, which Burke states "puts the primary stress upon such hortatory expressions as 'thou shalt, or thou shalt not.'" (Burke, Language 44). It is unlikely that a reader would encounter such language in a computer manual, even if one expanded the language to include such terms as "it might be a good idea if..." or "you probably should..." to Burke's definition. The difference lies in the nature of what is being described; in scientistic discourse, movement is depersonalized and the emphasis is on the act of moving. In dramatist discourse the emphasis is on the moved and the mover equally. It is the difference between movement without consciousness and movement which cannot occur without conscious activity (Permanence and Change 59).

What effect, if any, does the preponderance of scientistic language in technical documents have, and can a technical document be enhanced by the inclusion of dramatistic language? The bottom line is the reader. What language encourages the reader to use a technical document, and by what acts can the author incite interaction between the reader and the text? And what methods and aspects of dramatist discourse can be applied to a technical document for the purpose of empowering the reader? That question is the focus of this paper.

The goal of this thesis is to demonstrate an application of dramatistic rhetoric to a particular technical document. As dramatist rhetoric dominates this document, the product is not designed as a symbolic representation of elements necessary to produce any readable technical document. Rather, the goal is to produce a qualitative report of the application of dramatist rhetoric to a particular document; issues of applicability are left to the reader/technical writer.

Description of the Project

This project fell naturally into four stages: first, identification of the document to be written and development of the terministic screen which gives optimal authority to the reader; second, closer examination of the audience of the document; third, determining the mixture of dramatist and scientistic language and a strategy for applying them to the document (this could also be seen as reduction of the scope of the terministic screen for this document) ; and fourth, production of the technical document. In keeping with the linear outline, this paper will examine the steps above in the order in which they are listed.

Stage One: Identification of the Document

In determining the nature and purpose of the technical document to which I intended to apply elements of Burke's dramatist rhetoric, I looked for a document which was presently unavailable, needed, and with which I could become intimate. For practical reasons I chose to write a manual for the Computer Lab Coordinator in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of Arkansas at Little Rock. I am the present Lab Coordinator, and recognize the need for a manual to serve as a receptacle for policy and procedures, a guide for future Lab Coordinators. As the manual could both reflect my job responsibilities and direct them, I knew I could immerse myself, rhetorically, in it. My belief that such a manual is needed was reinforced by the positive reactions I received from both my superiors and other campus Lab Coordinators when I discussed the project with them. None of the computer labs on campus has a manual--and I received both verbal and written requests for my manual from university staff holding positions similar to my own.

Stage Two: The Terministic Screen

When I first began to think about the language which defines the reality of the Lab Coordinator, I thought in terms of computer language and other technical terms. Of necessity these terms must be present, as they represent symbols identifying the surroundings of the Coordinator. Narrowing my focus to the terministic screen formed by the lab manual, I began to think in terms of the language in which technical terms are couched. Somehow, I felt, a synthesis of scientistic terminology and dramatistic language could be achieved.

Burke states: "The two approaches, the 'scientistic' and the 'dramatistic' (language as definition, and language as act) are by no means mutually exclusive....Definition itself is a symbolic act, just as my proposing of this very distinction is a symbolic act" (Language 44). The difference, here, is that scientistic discourse presents definitions as symbolic movements (stressing the definition), whereas dramatistic rhetoric presents definitions as instructions (stressing the conscious activity being defined).

What problems does the Lab Coordinator face, in which a lab manual could be useful? Burke's model of terministic screens provides a possible answer; if the Lab Coordinator is disempowered by work situations and empowered by the interpretation of reality presented by the text, and if through that empowerment finds the authority to perform assigned duties, then a "use" has been found for the text. Burke writes:

The problems of existence do not have one fixed, unchanging character, like the label on a bottle. They are open to many interpretations--and these interpretations in turn influence our selection of means....And our own judgments as to the adequacy of the means selected in a given instance might depend upon our particular sense of the appropriate. (Permanence and Change 18-19)

The issue of authority must be taken into consideration in the development of the Lab Coordinator's terministic screen. Authority in this sense is designed to empower, to facilitate the performance of the Coordinator's duties by placing the individual in a position which contains the power to perform them. It is, then, appropriate. Further, if the text is to reflect the terministic screen of the reader, then the text must carry as much authority as the reader.

In establishing the authority of the text I turned to Aristotelian rhetoric, and comparing some of this material to Burke's work found the topoi of argument contained elements consistent with my purpose. The first element of argument is authority (Corbett 124), which I interpreted for the purposes of the lab manual to mean an interaction between the user (Lab Coordinator) and the used (text prepared by the same or an earlier Coordinator). By encouraging the reader, who has authority through a job description approved by the State of Arkansas, to interact with a text prepared by someone in the same position, the authority of the text and the reader are synthesized. Both are empowered, in this sense.

The second element of Aristotelian argument I found applicable to the lab manual is precedent, or example (Corbett 131). By "walking the reader through a situation" I establish the authority of myself as writer and the text as conveyer of what I have written. I decided, then, to include several step-by-step examples in my text.

By empowering the Lab Coordinator though authority, I have placed the act of advantage-seeking within the individual's terministic screen. This authority can be seen, rhetorically, as wholly positive, and is consistent with Burke's establishment of authority through motive:

We think the term "advantage," quite useful for rhetorical theory, in that it can also subsume, before we meet them, all possible "drives" and "urges" for the existence of which various brands of psychology and sociology may claim to find empirical evidence....And that men should seek advantage of some sort is reasonable and ethical enough--hence the term need not confine one's terminology of rhetorical design to purely individualist cunning or aggrandizement, as with the rhetorical implications lurking in those "scientific" terminologies that reduce human motives to a few primitive appetites, resistances, and modes of acquisition... (Rhetoric of Motives 61)

When we are trying to persuade people to do something, we try to show them that what we want them to do is either good or advantageous. All of our appeals in this kind of discourse can be reduced to these two heads: (1) the worthy (dignitas) or the good (bonum) and (2) the advantageous or expedient or useful (utilitas). The English terms do not express fully and precisely what the Latin terms denoted, but perhaps the English terms do convey the general idea of "what is good in itself" (and therefore worthy of being pursued for its own sake) and "what is good for us" (a relative good, if you will, one that would be expedient for us to pursue because of what it can do for us or what we can do with it). (133-34)

Stage Three (A): Issues of Scope

Having determined the subject of my technical document, and given thought to the terministic screen of the reader, I found that the purpose of the document became clear. A manual for the Lab Coordinator in the Department of Educational Leadership should guide the Coordinator through various job responsibilities. It should also place the Coordinator in the hierarchy of the university; in other words, the Lab Coordinator's manual should assist the Coordinator in effectively placing himself or herself within the employment/responsibility structure of the university. In dramatistic terms, the manual should define the Lab Coordinator by providing a structure which "contains" the actions of the individual (Grammar of Motives 3).

This brings me to issues that Burke labels scope and reduction. To embody dramatistic principles the authority of and in the manual must be perception-based--that is, it must reflect the authority of the Lab Coordinator from an angle which is positive and humanistic. This is action, as opposed to movement; Burke states that the difference between the two is that movement is without "connotations of consciousness or purpose" (Grammar of Motives 14).

In determining the dramatist scope for the lab manual, I was guided by Burke's statements concerning reality:

Dramatism suggests a procedure to be followed in the development of a given calculus, or terminology. It involves the search for a "representative anecdote," to be used as a form in conformity with which the vocabulary is constructed. ( 59)

Stage Three (B): Strategy Reduction and the Pentad

The dramatist representation of reality is deduced from itself, according to Burke (Grammar of Motives 60). Applying this to my technical document, I would say that affirmation of the reality of the reader should be established by the overall appearance and interactivity--the authority--of the text. This indirect affirmation can take place through terminology, which Burke states "must be supple and complex enough to be representative of the subject matter....yet it must also possess simplicity, in that it is broadly a reduction of the subject matter" (Grammar of Motives 60). The language must simply request action, but should not patronize or alienate the reader. Terminology should be complex where complexity is essential; elsewhere it must flow in a more expository than scientistic fashion.

Based on my perception of the Lab Coordinator's terministic screen, I examined again the purpose of the document through Burke's pentad of Act, Scene, Agent, Agency and Purpose. The introduction of the pentad at this point in my writing process was made qualitatively; I gathered as much information about the environment of the project and the individuals within it before examining for commonalities. In this sense I used the pentad is a development tool, a "sieve" for the information I had accumulated rather than a heuristic for discovering what information I should be seeking.

The Purpose of the manual is to establish the authority of the Lab Coordinator (Agent) to perform assigned tasks (Acts) in the department (Scene) through an empowering presentation of the duties involved (Agency). The manual is the Agency which links Scene, Act and Agent in the performance of a Purpose (Grammar of Motives 9). From this general application of Burke's pentad, what strategies evolve for application of dramatist discourse to the Lab Coordinator's manual?

In his Grammar of Motives, Burke states: "... there is implicit in the quality of a scene the quality of the action that is to take place within it" (6-7). The audience (Agent) for the lab manual is clearly the Lab Coordinator. But what else could I say, with confidence, about that individual? The Lab Coordinator is now, and will continue to be, an individual who possesses at least a slightly above-average competency in computer operations and basic computer programming. In the university environment, with so many staff positions filled by students seeking baccalaureate or master's degrees, the Lab Coordinator is probably a student and is, therefore, basically familiar with university departments and their hierarchy.

The position of Lab Coordinator is one of only two grade-and-level staff positions in the Department of Educational Leadership. It follows that the Coordinator will continue to work as a pseudo-colleague with instructors while also a student (a traditional subordinate to the instructor). The job responsibilities place the Coordinator in a difficult position within the university hierarchy--somewhere between a graduate assistant and an associate professor, with many of the responsibilities of both and few of the rewards of either. The manual, then, should address the authority of the Lab Coordinator in such a way as to affirm the individual, to give this individual confidence in having the authority to carry out assigned tasks.

It is important to note, here, that recognition of the Lab Coordinator as an individual within an existing hierarchy does not constitute acceptance of that hierarchy. It is acceptance of the fact that hierarchies are inevitable, and that the Lab Coordinator must find a place in whatever university hierarchy exists. Burke states:

To say that hierarchy is inevitable is not to say that any particular hierarchy is inevitable; the crumbling of hierarchies is as true a fact about them as their formation. But to say that the hierarchic principle is indigenous to all well-rounded human thinking, is to state a very important fact about the rhetorical appeal of dialectical symmetry. And it reminds us, on hearing talk of equality, to ask ourselves, without so much as questioning the possibility that things might be otherwise: "Just how does the hierarchic principle work in this particular scheme of equality?" (Rhetoric of Motives 141)

The manual must be realistic. It must accurately outline the duties and responsibilities of the Lab Coordinator, without losing the individual in a maze of unchangeable regulations. The Lab Coordinator must be informed as to the "Acts" contained by the "Scene" in which he or she works as "Agent," as opposed to the traditionally mandated and documented "movements." In dramatist discourse the terminology is a reflection of reality: "....by its very nature as a terminology it must be a selection of reality; and to this extent it must function also as a deflection of reality [italics by Burke]" (Language 45).

At this point I discovered what I believe to be the primary benefit of dramatist language as applied to a technical document. In Grammar of Motives, Burke states: "... words have also incantatory effects, inviting men to make themselves over in the image of their imagery" (123). If the manual is to be the Agency which enables the Agent to perform Acts toward a Purpose, effective language in the manual should empower the Agent. It should serve as a reflection of the Coordinator's authority, and should discourage subordination of the authority of the reader to the authority of the text.

I decided to proceed with the division of scientistic and dramatistic portions of the text by chapter, with a body of each section which is overtly dramatistic (and covertly scientistic) followed by a "Policies and Procedures Recap" which is overtly scientistic (and covertly dramatistic). The body of each chapter is hortatory, utilizing such hortatory expressions as "you should...," "it would be a good idea if..." and "you might consider..." Through these expressions, the body of each chapter exhorts the Coordinator to the performance of his or her duties.

The "Policies and Procedures Recap" at the end of each chapter is designed as a reiteration of the purpose of the chapter, stated in scientistic terminology which includes frequent use of "the Lab Coordinator will," "the Lab Coordinator must" and "it is." The two terminologies contribute to one terministic screen; the Lab Coordinator is presented with a reality in which performance of job duties is hortatory (the path to a good deed), and a reality in which the performance of duties is included in the definition of the Coordinator as an entity.

Stage Four: Production of the Lab Manual

Having determined a strategy for using dramatist rhetoric to establish authority in the lab manual, I began to construct the document. To lend authority to the manual I began with two realizations: 1) the manual receives authority because it is based upon the Lab Coordinator's state- and university-approved job description; and 2) the authority of the Lab Coordinator must be established early in the text, with written authority in the "Introduction" and "Letter from a Former Lab Coordinator" to adapt the manual to situations as they are encountered.

I had at my disposal the equipment to print the manual on both sides of the page, and to bind it. I chose, however, to print the manual double-spaced on one side of the page, and to insert it in a three-ring binder with a disk pocket at the back. The disk in the pocket is to contain the manual in a format (Aldus PageMaker 4.2) with which the Lab Coordinator should be familiar. This choice was made deliberately, to encourage interaction between the Lab Coordinator and the manual by providing plenty of room for making notes on the text and a means of altering the "master copy" of the manual.

In Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, Corbett writes:

The kind of prose we write cannot be arbitrary; it is governed by the subject matter, the occasion, the purpose, the audience, and the personality of the writer. If it is true that matter and form are intimately related, then there must be one best way in which to say a particular thing for a given audience and purpose. But as a practical matter, what we manage to achieve most of the time is one of a number of better ways to say something. (495)

Corbett also relates "the kind of prose we write" to the type of prose we read; therefore, he states, imitating and improving upon a text facilitates learning on the part of the reader-as-writer (Classical Rhetoric 475). If Burke is correct in his assumption that an authoritative text remakes the reader in the image of the writer (Grammar of Motives 123), and if the writer is also the reader, then encouraging the Lab Coordinator to write directly on the text strengthens the image and authority of the Coordinator presented in the text. To discourage the do-not-alter tendency supposed by the scientistic portions of the manual, the Lab Coordinator is allowed also to directly intervene by altering the master copy of the text.

At this point in the production of the manual, I had decided upon the format for my document, the general information to be included in each section, and had a few ideas as to how to apply some dramatist language to the text. I used a hanging-file method for organizing my data, and the production fell into the following stages:

Stage One: Information Gathering:

At this stage I began to gather and organize the data I felt would be included in the manual. I created a hanging file for each section, with folders in each file for sub-sections. Into these files and folders I placed the handouts and other printed materials I'd accumulated, along with written notes and file cards with bibliographic information on books which I thought I might use or refer to in the manual.

Stage Two: Outlining the Sections

My goal at this stage was to include as much of the job responsibility of the Lab Coordinator as possible. Issues of authority were set aside at this point. Using the Coordinator's job description and the information from my hanging files, along with the brief outline from the prospectus of my exit project (which I'd just presented), I wrote a sentence-style outline. I then wrote each sentence of my outline at the top of a sheet of paper and wrote (in sentences and fragments) ideas for inclusion in the related section or sub-section below the outline item.

Stage Three: Scientistic Discourse

Using information from my outline sheets, I wrote a draft of each of the manual's "Policies and Procedures Recap" sub-sections. The earliest drafts of these sub-sections were so formal and scientistic as to be stilted; in later drafts I tried to keep the scientistic language without the long, complicated sentences. Each item in the "Policies and Procedures Recap" was numbered, in order of the proposed appearance of the item in the earlier sub-sections. As I wrote these sub-sections I discovered more material which I felt needed to be added to the sections.

Stage Four: Dramatist Discourse

The "Policies and Procedures Recap," along with the sentence-style outline, notes and my hanging-file materials, served as the starting point for each of sections in the manual. From the first draft of these sub-sections onward, I attempted to keep the language as dramatistic as possible. When I reached items which were "black-and-white" (and these were few) I used some scientistic language--but I attempted to emphasize the dramatistic language before and after any lengthy occurrence of scientistic language. At this stage I selected the artwork to be used at the beginning of each section, attempting to use both realistic and symbolic/humorist artwork. In the sub-sections, I saw the illustrations and tables as occurrences of scientistic discourse and adjusted the dramatistic language before and after them accordingly.

Stage Five: The Synoptic Text

At this stage I had a rough draft of all the material I intended to include in the text, and had already worked on the language of the sub-sections. I printed out the manual and bound the text, then let the document sit for a few days. I then read the manual text from beginning to end, adjusting the language of the main sub-sections to focus more on dramatistic discourse and checking the order and use of scientistic discourse in the "Policies and Procedures Recap" sub-sections. With the synoptic text before me, I worked on meshing the scientistic and dramatistic sections into the Lab Coordinator's terministic screen. Editing at this point included removing most references to the Coordinator by title, in the body of each section, replacing the title with "you" proforms where appropriate. Similarly, personal references were largely removed from the "Policies and Procedures Recap" sub-sections, and the Coordinator referred to by title where appropriate.

Stage Six: Readers and Further Editing

After working on the language again, I printed the sections and passed them along to two readers for input. The readers were not rhetoricians; they were individuals in the Department of Educational Leadership acquainted with the computer labs and the duties of the Lab Coordinator. The considerations addressed by my readers focused on whether or not the text accurately reflected the responsibilities of the Lab Coordinator and the clarity of instructions and anecdotes in the sub-sections. Due to time constraints neither reader was able to cover the entire text; however, input from the readers was taken into consideration at the end of this stage, when I further edited the document.

Conclusion

In producing a technical document which successfully meshes dramatistic and scientistic discourse, I have demonstrated that such a deliberate language mixture is possible and potentially valuable. The resulting lab manual empowers the Coordinator, rather than the text, and through its official acceptance by the department chair and the Lab Project Supervisor gives the Coordinator the authority to perform assigned tasks.

I am reminded at this point of an old saying: "The proof is in the pudding." Interpreting guidelines from Burke and Corbett I have created a text which encourages the reader to change it, but I recognize that I have no way to gage the effectiveness of this strategy without examining the revision of the manual over the job tenure of several Lab Coordinators.

The implications of this project, of dividing dramatistic and scientistic discourse and using them in tandem in technical documents, is beyond the scope of this paper. Demonstration that this division and utilization works in one technical document does reveal the usefulness of Burke's language type distinction, and suggests that qualitative research in technical writing is possible and, at least potentially, beneficial to the field.

Burke, Kenneth. A Grammar of Motives. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1969.

Burke, Kenneth. A Rhetoric of Motives. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969.

Burke, Kenneth. Language as Symbolic Action. Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966.

Burke, Kenneth. Permanence and Change: An Anatomy of Purpose. New York: New Republic, 1936.

Corbett, Edward P.J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 3d ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1990.

Back to My Home Page