"shorthand" vs. plain writing style

[Ned Bedinger]

I've read about a study of reading that theorized the process by which 
we anticipate and discriminate among possible meanings. The long and 
short of it, as described in the theory, is that we use the process of 
elimination to choose among alternative meanings. So when the 
instruction uses, for example, an article (the,a) before a noun, I as 
reader have to apply the rules of article usage, if only to discover 
that the article had no effect on meaning.  If the instruction had not 
used any explicit article, the cognitive overhead would be lower because 
the reader would not have to process the rule of definite or indefinite 
articles.  The examples Yves gave from the automotive manual demonstrate 
that meaning is not lost or confused by this particular practice of 
leaving out articles, while at least one theory predicts that meaning is 
arrived at with fewer diversions, which I count as a step toward 
readability.

In my experience, where I have written manuals for licensed/expert users 
of medical equipment, these users wanted telegraphic style because they  
needed procedural instructions only to prompt their recall of things 
they knew.  They knew the procedures already, but needed to reload the 
details into working memory, and they definitely preferred instructions 
written in telegraphic style.  Interestingly, those manuals also 
provided illustration of every step, which is similar to many automotive 
workshop manuals.   This "graphic + telegraphic" design of instructions 
appears to be one typical standard for readers who have a background in 
the subject matter under instruction.

The study I referred to above is in my Cognitive Studies library, but it 
may take a long time to find.  I'm slowed in m y search, it seems, 
because my books all seem to have that doggone overburden of speech 
parts couching meaning.

Of course, YMMV.

Ned Bedinger
doc at edwordsmith.com


Susan W. Gallagher wrote:
> Not true, Ned. Sorry to disagree. When we read, we go thru a series of
> activities, some of which involve eye movement and others that involve 
> cognitive processing. One of the biggies is congnitive parsing. Simply
> put,  cognitive parsing is the act of anticipating the next word or part of
> speech based on what's gone before. Leaving out words, then, provides
> a larger cognitive load, not a lesser one, as our brains must re-parse
> the phrase or sentence that does not meet our expectations, in effect,
> filling in the words that the author saw fit to omit.
>
> my two cents
> -Sue Gallagher
>
> ---- Ned Bedinger <doc at edwordsmith.com> wrote: 
>   
>>> 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.
>>     
>
>
>
>