2-01 (July 2001) by Amo Fuchs by Ron Blicq Special Aspects

Between:
Amo Fuchs, Israel, and
Ron Blicq, Canada

 

Editorial Preface

The exchange of correspondence shown here evolved after Amo Fuchs wrote to me (with a copy to Ron Blicq), commenting on INTECOM’s project for researching and establishing English-language documentation guidelines. He also commented on having electronic vs. paper issues of TC-Forum. I am reproducing their correspondence here, because it reflects the healthy and interesting exchange that can occur between technical communicators, even though they hold opposite points of view.

I’ve separated the chronological sequence of the correspondence in order to have the different arguments of our two colleagues to either item together in one of the two following parts:

Part 1: Standards versus Guidelines + E vs. A
(English vs. American)

Part 2: Real versus virtual
(TC-Forum on Paper versus Screen)

 

Part 1: Standards versus Guidelines + E vs. A (English vs. American).:

Amo Fuchs wrote:
Guidelines for English-Language Documentation

To Ron Blicq's question I counterattack: is it really needed? I mean uniformization. Or maybe pidgination.

There are of course many different issues embedded in the question.

First, is the manual directed to an English or American audience? Firms make promotional videos in English, with a British speaker and English vocabulary, and in American, with an American speaker and American terminology.

In writing it is much easier than in speech. With multilanguage word-processors, there is no problem in switching from English to American, from Canadian French to Belgian French, from Swiss German to Austrian German; to issue two or more manuals on the same topic but each in a different language.

This solution is adopted for "real hardware": If you buy an instrument from Hewlett Packard they deliver it from their distribution centre with the appropriate plug to the target country's socket (receptacle). To issue different manuals is even easier.

As long as the text is clearly understandable and does avoid misinterpretations, it is utterly irrelevant if you work for an "organization" or for an "organisation". But my main argument against uniformization is that languages do change, and so do orthographies (remember the recent reform of German writing).

If you set up "standards" or "guidelines" today, by 2010 they will be obsolete. Try to read a manual of the 70ies: today you would write it differently. But if you can operate the appliance with the old text, then the manual was well written, notwithstanding that here and there something would have been written differently in a "modern" text. However, if you will have difficulties in understanding it, i.e. to operate the machine according to the instructions, believe me, there are good chances that already then, in the 70ies, the operator may have faced problems in operating it.

Adding another regulating or standardizing or recommending body to the already existing academies will only add, not dilute confusion.

I dare say that even a mixture of English and American may be "correct", at least "politically correct". Haven't you met texts where, in order to be politically or generically correct, the pronoun changes from male to female every other sentence? It is a pain in the neck, you never know to whom it refers. You may write "appendixes" and "tyre" (Italian being my mother tongue, I am particularly attracted by those esoteric letters). The real problem is when you have words with different meanings in different cultures.

To this problem, no uniformization will help, because people mentally organize themselves into understanding what is close to them. In this case the solution shall be split in two:

• For terms of the "general language", like the sample "presently", those terms shall be indeed avoided.
• For purely technical terms, a brief glossary shall be added, at the beginning or the end of the text, defining what the author understands with that term, and maybe adding some mathematical formulas, if relevant; and, of course, the author must be consistent. By doing so, you may expect that the reader/operator in 10 or 20 years will undestand what you meant, even if in normal or even in professional language the semantics may have changed.

Amo Fuchs

Ron Blicq replied:

I very much appreciated--and enjoyed reading-- your rationale for not setting guidelines or standards. Views on both sides of the topic are valuable, and you are not alone in presenting an opposite view to mine.

We (INTECOM delegates) are going ahead with the project, but not to set standards or even advise particularly usage: our purpose will be to draw attention to problem spelling and problem words, and to offer comments to readers on the choices available to them.

When responding to our initial survey (the survey to determine whether there is a need to continue with the project), the majority of technical writers indicated they would like to have some guidelines, some help in making decisions on which style or words to use.

When I was a technical editor for a large engineering firm, I produced a style manual that provided guidelines for the engineers when they wrote reports and proposals. In Canada, we are particularly affected by the spelling/word choice problem: historically, most Canadians are influenced by the British spelling style, but geographically we are so close to the US--which has 12 times the population of Canada--that we are influenced by their magazines, newspapers, and television. Teachers and their students in the schools are similarly affected: one teacher will tell the students to write "centre" and "labour", and another will tell them to spell "center" and "labor".

The style manual for the company dealt with that spelling problem and recommended rather than prescribed a certain usage for each word. It also contained many other words that gave trouble; for example:

• Should you write "preventive maintenance" or "preventative maintenance"? (Although most people at that time wrote preventative, I recommended preventive, which has since become the preferred form.)
• Should you write "oriented" or "orientated"? (Again, I recommended the simpler form.)
• Should you treat "data" as a plural or singular noun? (I said data was considered plural in academia but was singular [representing one assembly of information] in technical writing.)
• Should you put punctuation inside or outside a closing quotation mark? In the UK, the punctuation is placed after the quotation mark; in the US, it is positioned before the quotation mark. (I prefer the UK positioning and this becomes a point of contention between me and my textbook editors!)

Two of my textbooks--Technically-Write! and Communicating at Work--each contain an extensive glossary with guidelines such as these to create awareness among and give guidance to Canadian engineering technology and business administration students. (A different edition of "Technically-Write!" is published in the US, and in it the guidelines are entirely US-oriented.)

The point you make about writing English-style for products to be sold in the UK and American style for products to be sold in the US is valid. But to produce different manuals is costly and many firms would prefer to have just one document. The intent of the guidelines will be to suggest which to do for English-language documentation that is to be used worldwide.

I do not view the guidelines as a fixed and unchangeable document. It will be a continuing role of INTECOM to monitor language developments worldwide and regularly update the guidelines to reflect these changes. (I do the same with each new edition of my textbooks.)

You have given me reason to think more about the rationale for the project and I very much value your views.

Ron

In his reply, Amo said:

Concerning two of your examples: "data" and "curriculum". Those are Latin words and, being "Latin", notwithstanding my German name, I cannot but follow the rules. "Hier bin ich und kann nicht anders" said Luther (I am here and cannot otherwise). But for other words, including Latin and Greek words "acculturated" in other languages for 100 years or more, I am ready to swing.

I just want to tell you of some other experiences.

I have three "Webster" dictionaries (one Merriam and two other), and found divergences among them, and not only of nuance.

I have two "Roget-Thesaurii" (?) and once found a word having NOT ONE other close meaning (unfortunately I forgot which it was!). I read about the forthcoming reform of German orthography several years ago in a Swiss paper, in French. The author of that article was very positive and was regretting that nothing was done in French. He mentioned different spellings, not only between the Robert and the Larousse, but also in two dictionaries published by the same publisher! (No reference was made to Canadian French! I use the Canadian French keyboard emulation on my multi-language word-processor because it is the closest to the American keyboard, the French keyboard being a little pain in the neck. and elsewhere...)

Amo

Ron commented by return:

When I created the style manual for the engineers at CAE Industries, I referred to numerous texts, journals, and publications to identify a consensus from which I established company standards. When I created the glossaries for textbooks Technically-Write! and Communicating at Work, I accumulated over 20 different authorities, ranging from the US Government Style Manual, several manuals of style (Canadian Press, Chicago, New York Times, IEEE Standards, a Civil Engineering Dictionary, and so on).

Today, for the international study, I have accumulated several US dictionaries, from 600 to 2000 pages (including the Random House Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language), several British (a Chambers - one standard, one technical - and three Oxfords), and two Canadian (the Canadian Oxford is a superb dictionary, one of the best). I am fascinated by them, by the depth of knowledge and research they contain. This could be a life's study in itself!

However, I came up with an interesting contradiction: When trying to identify whether to write "email" or "e-mail", I discovered that in two British Oxford dictionaries one recommends "email" and the other says "e-mail"! (I prefer email, but the trend seems to be drifting toward inserting the hyphen.)

Have you read "The Professor and the Madman" by Simon Winchester? It's about the making of the original Oxford English Dictionary and contains extraordinary information about a US Professor, James Murray, who contributed much, although he bordered on the edge of madness. Published by Harper Collins, ISBN 0-06-017596-6.

Ron

And Amo replied:

I agree. "Entre nous". Yet I find you wasted money in purchasing so many dictionaries.

I have only a few, and found enough discrepancies.

I am currently translating a philosophical text from French to German. As usual, whenever I have to think about a word, i.e. a "meaningful" word - it is always the bad choice that comes to my mind first. I have a "dictionnaire des synonymes", but compared to the "thesaurii culture" of English, a very mature one (notwithstanding some occasional shortcomings as reported recently). The French one is still in its infancy.

So I translate it into English (occasionally it is similar [but caveat! -- there are many false friends], check alternatives in English, and find the good term to be used in German). I have been told that my translation was occasionally better than the original - but, as I said, it is a philosophical text, and I like philosophy as a hobby.

Amo

 

Part 2: Real vs. Virtual (TC-Forum via Paper vs. Screen)

Amo wrote:

To the issue "real vs. virtual" I say that I definitively prefer the real thing. I get the feeling to be "treated" as a "real" person, although I know that the shipments are made automatically. But I am at least a name on a list. Since the bulletin is published only a couple of times annually, I can store it easily. I can turn the pages at my pace. I am ready to pay a modest sum for the "real" version, and am even ready to accept a modest amount of adverti(z)(s)ements.

In short, virtual reading is ok for a short help, to glance at and discard. An item read on paper, or on a clay tablet (3000 years ago) is remembered better.

Ron Blicq replied:

Like you, I prefer the real thing. I spend enough time in front of a computer screen as it is, consequently to leaf through a newsletter or journal is a restful pleasure. As an example, I belong to two societies, A and B. A has put its newsletter on line; B is retaining a print newsletter. I know much more about what is happening with society B, because I take brief pleasure in leafing through the newsletter and identifying the pieces of information I want to read. I also make a quick mental note of upcoming meetings and make a point of attending them. With society A I know much less of what is going on, and regretfully occasionally miss a meeting because I am not aware of it I don't want to use my time surfing for information. Additionally, the presence of that piece of paper is a reminder of events I would like to attend (I know, computer purists would look at my viewpoint with disgust!).

 

Editorial postscript:

Ron wrote to me, saying: "I long to meet Amo personally, so we may continue our dialogue in person."

Wouldn’t you, dear readers, like to let us know your opinion on these very valid subjects?  

"transline Deutschland - Übersetzungsdienst für technische Übersetzung"