Re: metadiscourse

["Porrello, Leonard" <leonard -dot- porrello -at- COMPAQ -dot- COM>]

When I was teaching argumentation and persuasion in writing, I used the
classical rhetoric model from which I think the Tell em, tell em, tell em
approach degenerated.

The declaration of independence is an excellent example of this form. In the
intro or front matter you lay down you philosophical underpinnings and tell
the reader why he should read the document. In the second big chunk, you
outline your argument in detail, using concrete and specific examples. In
the last bit, you take your argument to its logical conclusion or spell out
your action step. While it all works toward a single thesis, and in this the
effect is that the same point is pitched in several ways, there is no bald
repetition. Of course, there is more to it than that, but that is the basic
idea. It is a very powerful form because it caters to the way we think here
in the west (I can't speak for the east).

In terms of metadiscourse, it remains implied (if I can say such a thing).
In the Declaration, Jefferson never says, "We are here to talk about
becoming independent from the British Crown," yet by the end of the first
paragraph (perhaps even the first sentence!), you know that that is what he
is about. If he had used just the bald tell em three times approach, we
wouldn't be reading the document today.

Of course, in end user documentation, the three chunks get all mixed
together. But nevertheless, you can still keep the first two sections
discrete. Look at any good user's guide, and you'll find the basic
ingredients I mention above: an introduction that philosophically orients
the reader and tells him why he should continue reading and a body that give
concrete and specific information and provides action steps.

Leonard Porrello
Compaq, Telecom Network Solutions
Pubs, Omaha
402.384.7390


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=