"shorthand" vs. plain writing style

[Ned Bedinger]

Yves Barbion wrote:
> Hello techwhirlers,
>
> I'm doing some research on car repair manuals. A typical writing style 
> here
> seems to be some sort of "shorthand" English, in which articles and 
> pronouns
> are omitted. 

You seem to be unsure whether this shorthand is appropriate for 
technical writing?  I assure you that it is perfectly OK, and would say 
further that it is desireable in written procedures--the disciplined use 
of words (as opposed to norrmal/formal English) will convey a distilled, 
concentrated meaning to the reader.

English is peppered with "necessary" parts of speech that serve to couch 
the important words in our sentences, while contributing little to 
meaning.  Imagine how we, being used to English, would react if every 
imperitive-voiced instruction included the pronoun 'You'--who would 
argue that it is needed to answer the question "Who is being 
instructed?"  The same motive is at work in this shorthand you've 
identified, I think.  It is a means to distill an instruction and 
concentrate the meaning. 
> For example:
>
> - "Remove fuel tank cover."
> - "Drain fuel tank and clean fuel filler neck and surrounding area."
> - "Unscrew securing bolt and remove tank flap unit with rubber cup."
> - "Remove securing bolts on filler neck."
> - "Ensure fuel hoses are tight."
>
These examples do not seem to me to have ambiguity introduced by the 
omission of articles or pronouns.  As with any English sentence, I could 
noodle the meaning around to something unintended by the author, but if 
I were following a valid procedure and looking/working hands-on at the 
object being specified, such unclear interpretations would be moot.  I 
suspect there is a word or name for this effect, this synchronization 
between the meaning intended by the author and the meaning apprehended 
by the reader, but I can't seem to come up with it. Anyone?
> Any thoughts/opinions about this writing style? Pros and cons? 
Pro.
> Where does this writing style come from? 
It is the style, though more formal still, that any of us would use when 
jotting down instructions.  It is deeply familiar and intuitive to us all. 

> Effect on the readability and translatability
> of the text?
>
Readability increases.  The omitted words are like a tax on the 
reading-- they create cognitve overhead for the reader. They simply 
aren't useful and are indeed hindering for instructions about such a 
narrowly-defined context (a workshop manual for a particular piece of 
machinery).  In this case, shorthand is fine, because the reader and the 
author share the necessary vocabulary and concepts to communicate 
efficiently about a procedure.  Beyond that, I think it is really all 
about tone--shorthand instructions patronize the reader who has the 
necessary background to understand the procedure.   They are respectful 
of that shared knowledge, and speak directly to such a reader.

BTW, I don't mean that shorthand is condescending...

> Thanks in advance.
>
> Best regards

Ned Bedinger
doc at edwordsmith.com