The Logical and Rhetorical Construction of Procedural Discourse

Procedural discourse refers to written and spoken discourse that guides people in performing a task—in other words, it is “how to” communication. User’s guides for computer software, repair manuals for electronic equipment, booklets on assembling and using consumer products, online help systems, and oral instructions are all forms of procedural discourse. Often, technical communicators use the term “procedure” to designate a discrete unit of procedural discourse, the instructions for performing a single task. Not every form of procedural discourse, however, consists of distinct procedures. In this study I systematically and thoroughly describe a set of relationships, a consistent logic, that I believe underlies all forms of procedural discourse. We see it in the standard forms of procedures that exist all around us and in more specialized forms of procedures as well. Amid all the variations of format and syntax and as much as computer technologies such as wizards change the presentation of procedures, this same logical structure is always in force. The study also demonstrates some of the crucial rhetorical dimensions of procedural discourse, ways in which procedural discourse becomes more than logically structured information. I will use the term “model” to refer, in a general way, to procedures that seem to be most alike on the basis of such key characteristics as syntax, format, amount of detail, and use of computer technology. While grounded in theory, this study is practical in its aims. The goal is to help writers craft effective procedures and make sophisticated decisions about which models of procedural discourse best fit their circumstances. In particular, I consider the strengths and limitations of what can be termed “streamlined-step” procedures, the model that dominates online help systems and is very widely used elsewhere. THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES This study derives from two well-established theoretical perspectives: (1) human problem solving in the context of systems theory (Newell 1980) and (2) rhetoric, in particular the classical concept of source credibility and the modern concept of rhetorical roles (Ong 1975; Goodwin 1991; Coney and Chatfield 1996). These perspectives make it possible to explain professional practice in a comprehensive, detailed, and directly useful manner, and they will remain central, I believe, to our understanding of procedural discourse even as they are extended and in some ways challenged by such emergent theoretical perspectives on procedural discourse as constructivism (Mirel 1998), feminism (Sauer 1993), and postmodernism (Cooper 1996).