Re: metadiscourse

[Peter Collins <peter -dot- collins -at- BIGFOOT -dot- COM>]

Ben, Simon, Tim, Leonard, Doug and the two Mikes, all have worked the
subject of Metatext around statement-oriented presentations. Where should
the Socratic method appear in this discussion? Are rhetoric questions
metatext? Whether they are or not, are they useful?
    Why have I raised this question now? I expected it to arise much
earlier in the debate, and even more importantly, being in Australia I
start up after the Topsiders are done with their day. Is that a 'last word
by default' ploy? Perhaps.

*  What are the benefits of using questions as the main preamble mechanism?
    1. Improved reader orientation can be expected, because it seems that
people can't help thinking further forward from a question than from a
statement. Compare your own response to the asterisked question above, with
the blah heading "The Benefits of Question-oriented Preambles", the blaher
statement "Using questions as the  ... mechanism brings benefits", or the
blahest "This section discusses the benefits of using questions as the ...
mechanism"
    2. The introduction becomes unique, metatext-free. What follows is an
answer to it, not an expansion. (I don't wish to imply that meta-text is
bad, though I agree with minimising it).
    3. We are a problem-solving species. Technical writing is explicitly
done to solve problems - 'how do I enter a New Job?' - so we as writers
must be clear what problem we are writing about. Tim describes the benefits
of the Clustar Method in which the section name effectively replies "[This
is about] Entering a New Job". Posing the question in the open, up front,
carries the same logic one stage further, as it gets all parties well in
step on exactly what question will be addressed in the text.
    4. The popularity of so-called FAQs (Frequently Asked Questions) should
alert us to our readers' appreciation of having their questions spelt out
for them before they start wrestling with the substantive text. Were you
aware that many FAQs are not gleaned from help-desk logs, but are made-up
by their authors? So I am told, and what does that imply? It suggests that
those authors really believe that the rhetorical question is the best way
of getting their material read and absorbed.

    What are the benefits of using questions in the postamble? Simon Says
(oops) "of course there's always the 4th step we can only cover with
difficulty - Get them to tell you what you taught them." Does the use of
questions help us achieve the 4th step? Obviously we don't actually get
told what they have learnt, but doesn't our just posing the question cause
the same beneficial mental rehearsal?

    So, what have we learnt? Can you now answer questions like "How would
you use the socratic method in your opening, and why?", "In the body of the
text, what are the advantages of presenting at least part of the material
as queries?", and "When you ask for feedback, does the 'audience' benefit
from providing it? How? Why, might this be so?"?

    Do you want more dialogue on this topic? You can contact me off-list if
you wish.

... and so on.
P
========================================================
Peter Collins, VIVID Management Pty Ltd,
26 Bradleys Head Road, MOSMAN 2088, Australia
+61 2 9968 3308, fax +61 2 9968 3026, mobile +61 (0)18 419 571
Management Consultants and Technical Writers
email: peter -dot- collins -at- bigfoot -dot- com                ICQ#: 10981283
web pages: http://www.angelfire.com/pe/pcollins/
========================================================


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