Intro to Content Editing
Intro to Content Editing
In the next three units, we're going to be talking about the specifics of content editing for both fiction and nonfiction. However, before we get into these specifics, we're going to look at a few general topics that can also affect both fiction and nonfiction texts. First, we'll take a brief look at the purpose of rhetoric and its major components. Then, we'll look at the top ten logical fallacies that writers often commit. Finally, we'll take a look at rhetorical grammar. To keep things simple, we're going to look specifically at how sentence variety and comma usage can affect the content of a document.
Rhetoric is speaking or writing that is both effective and persuasive. But that's not the end of the definition. It also means speaking or writing effectively and persuasively in an artful way. A more precise definition of rhetoric might be "artful, effective, and persuasive speaking or writing."
So why is this important to us here? Rhetoric permeates everything we do. We rely on rhetoric to help us sell products, to get us elected to political positions, and to convince our children to eat their vegetables. We use rhetoric to report the news and the results of our scientific experiments. Rhetoric is the cornerstone upon which each of our methods of communication is built.
Of course, the definition we provided above begs the following questions: How can we determine what is "artful"? What is "effective"? What is "persuasive"? How do we determine if an argument meets these requirements? Well, we're in luck because a man named Aristotle figured this stuff out just over 2,300 years ago. He identified three appeals, or elements, of rhetoric: logos, ethos, and pathos. Each of these appeals helps a speaker or reader present his or her ideas. Let's look at those elements in a little more detail.
Logos is a Greek word meaning word or reason, but you may more readily identify the word logic, a descendant of the word logos. Logic is arguably the most important aspect of rhetoric. While there are three elements of rhetoric, this is by far the most important because it provides the foundation upon which the other two elements are built. We can define logic as follows:
Logic: evidence + reasoning
Evidence: information (facts, statistics), expert testimony, our own experience, and others' experiences
Reasoning: deductive, inductive, causal, and analogical (reasoning by analogy)
For example, if you want someone to buy a product, you must be able to prove to that person that the product is both affordable and of good quality. You must provide evidence. So you compare the price of your product to those of other similar products, and you explain that your product is made from quality ingredients. After you have provided the necessary evidence, you must show the reasoning that indicates that consumers should buy the product. In other words, you must demonstrate the need for the solution to the problem that you identify.
Ethos is a Greek word meaning nature or disposition. This is an appeal concerning one's credibility. Ethos includes qualifications, experience, and reputation. If an argument is logically sound, the credibility of the speaker can very easily strengthen this argument.
Let's continue with the example of marketing a product. Let's say that we've firmly established the quality and need for a product. Why should that person buy the product from you? Why shouldn't he or she go elsewhere? Are you an expert on products such as these? Do you have education that would strengthen your ability to create a quality product? Have you been making these products for a number of years? Do you have a track record of recommending quality products that meet people's needs?
Try to remember the three Cs of ethos:
Competence: Do you know what you are talking about? Can you write and speak clearly and well?
Character: Are you decent, honest, trustworthy, sincere, committed, and serious?
Charisma: Are you personable and likable? Do you have an "aura"? (This aspect overlaps just a little bit with pathos.)
If you are knowledgeable about your subject matter, if you use appropriate language (this means not writing like you are sending a txt mssg to yr BFF, like, for realz), and if you demonstrate your ability to use sound logic, you will be able to effectively establish ethos.
Note: When establishing ethos, you must be careful not to fall into the trap of basing an argument's validity solely upon the speaker's credibility. All the credibility in the world doesn't make an argument correct. An expert on trees can argue that tree branches grow downward into the ground and that leaves capture the light from the moon until he or she is blue in the face, but that person's expertise will never make that argument correct.
Pathos is a Greek word meaning suffering. The idea here isn't that you literally induce suffering in your audience (this will no doubt defeat the purpose of your writing), but that you establish an emotional connection with your audience. More specifically, your audience needs to understand your own attachment to an argument. They must empathize with you and see that they, too, share an interest in your point of view.
Evoking pathos is a subtle art, and you must be very careful not to rely too much on pathos, just like you must be careful not to rely too much on the other appeals. Human beings respond much more strongly to emotion than to logic and common sense, and so the opportunity for abuse is larger with regard to pathos than with the other two appeals. The appeal to emotion must be very carefully balanced with the appeals to logic and credibility.
So let's look at the topic of climate change, an extremely controversial topic in many circles. A person advocating change in a government's environmental policy must not rely too heavily on an audience's sense of self-preservation or fear. It would be much more effective for a speaker or writer to invoke an audience's sense of shared responsibility for our environment, or to argue that we should keep things clean for future generations, than it would be for the speaker or writer to try to panic the audience into agreeing with that speaker or writer's point of view.
We've mentioned balance several times. Let's look at what happens when logos, ethos, and pathos are out of balance.
Logical fallacies are errors in logic that result in weak or faulty arguments. There are many, many different types of logical fallacies, and each of these types is very nuanced. For our purposes today, we're going to look at a list of the ten most common logical fallacies. You may run into more, but these are by far the most common.
You should also be aware that some of these fallacies use logic that can sometimes be true. However, even when a method of argumentation is only sometimes illogical, we must do our best to avoid it at all costs or provide that much more evidence in support of the argument we wish to make.
We don't want to overwhelm you, but we also want to make sure you are prepared. We've split the top ten logical fallacies up into seven "stand alone" fallacies and three "paired" fallacies.
Argumentum ad verecundiam ("argument from authority" or "appeal to authority"):
Example: This doctor says smoking does not cause cancer, so I'm not too worried about it.
Just because someone in a position of authority says something does not mean it is true. A person's position and ethos can definitely add credence to an argument, but it never establishes truth.
Argumentum ad ignorantium ("argument from ignorance" or "appeal to ignorance"):
Example: You can't prove [insert conspiracy theory here] didn't happen. Therefore, it must be true.
An argument against one thing is not an argument for something else. If a person can provide evidence that a particular piece of paper is not black, that doesn't mean that they have proven the true color of the paper, only that it isn't black.
Argumentum ad hominem ("argument against the person"):
Example: You can't trust that man. He's an alcoholic!
While a person's personal habits may take away their credibility, it doesn't mean that person is wrong. This fallacy operates just like the appeal to authority. If an alcoholic or even a raging lunatic makes a statement of fact, it's still a fact.
Argumentum ad misericordiam ("argument from pity" or "appeal to pity"):
Example: You can't give me a bad grade. If I fail this assignment, I won't pass the class!
Appeals to pity have their place. To a certain degree, this is the way that charities function. But when the appeal to pity is misused, it creates a major fallacy. While it may be kind to pass a student out of sympathy, it would be completely unethical.
Petitio principii ("assuming the initial point," "begging the question," also known as "circular logic"):
Example: Doug always tells the truth. He said so himself!
If Doug is a pathological liar, then we are back to square one.
Loaded question: Loaded questions group an assumption into a question to force admittance to a possibly untrue premise.
Example: Why are you such an idiot?
Here it is presupposed that the person is an idiot. If the person answers this question in any way, that person will be admitting that they are, indeed, an idiot.
Straw Man: Those employing this fallacy present a false or easily dismissible argument and then attack this argument.
Example: My opponent just wants to take all of your money through taxes.
This is a very common method of argument in politics, perhaps more common than any other. A straw man may burn brightly, but it doesn't burn for long and can't sustain itself in the long haul.
Generalizations
Sweeping generalization: This means applying the general to the specific.
Example: When people die, it is normally in a hospital. Therefore, you will die if you visit a hospital.
Every case is not the same. People often do die in hospitals, but for a vast number of other reasons. Furthermore, not everyone that goes to a hospital dies as a result of that visit.
Hasty generalization: This means applying the specific to the general.
Example: Bill Kryczek is a writing instructor. He has a beard. Therefore, all writing instructors have beards.
We have direct evidence that Bill Kryczek is both a writing instructor and a man who wears a beard. However, we cannot assume that all writing instructors have beards based on that information.
The Consequent and Antecedent
Affirming the consequent: This means using a linkage between two things in an attempt to provide support for an unsupported conclusion.
Example: If you have a brain tumor, you have massive headaches. You have a massive headache. Therefore, you have a brain tumor.
Denying the antecedent: This is the opposite of "affirming the consequent."
Example: If Keanu Reeves were an American, he would be a mammal. Keanu Reeves is not a mammal because he is not an American.
These two fallacies operate on the assumption that if one thing is or is not true, then the other truths related to them will follow suit.
Non Sequiturs
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc: "After this, therefore because of this"
Example: My computer crashed after I installed this program. Therefore, this program caused my computer to crash.
Cum hoc, ergo propter hoc: "With this, therefore because of this" (correlation does not equal causation)
Example: Many people who complain of stomach cramps watch television after 10 p.m. Therefore, watching television after 10 p.m. causes stomach cramps.
Now that we've established the importance of the main elements of rhetoric and have looked at some of the consequences of failing to use them, let's look at rhetorical grammar and its effect on content.
It is almost unbearable for us to write this next line simply because it seems so overused, but nevertheless, it is true: technology has changed everything. A hundred and fifty years ago, scriveners were employed to copy legal documents. They would sit in a chair all day long, painstakingly making copies of legal documents for lawyers and a host of other individuals. This was obviously delicate work, much like the work of a modern copywriter, with the added pressure of having not only to ensure that the document at hand contained no errors, but that all the future copies were perfect as well. Now, we not only have copy machines, we have in many cases rid ourselves of needing physical copies of documents in the first place.
Technology has also made it possible for us to take shortcuts when compiling documents. Spell check and grammar check ensure that, to the best of your word processor's knowledge, everything is spelled correctly and is grammatically sound. But that's the key phrase: to the best of your word processor's knowledge. While word processing programs are getting better and better at catching grammatically incorrect constructions, this doesn't ensure that the content of a particular text is of the quality it should be.
A text can be completely sound grammatically and still make absolutely no sense. That's why simple grammar and spelling errors don't concern us here. What we want to look at are the more nuanced grammatical problems that may or may not be "wrong" in the traditional sense of the word.
In other training units, we've readily established that there are four different types of sentences: simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex sentences. Briefly, we'll give you the rundown one more time.
Simple Sentence: One independent clause
Example: I ran.
Compound Sentence: Two independent clauses joined by a coordinating conjunction
Example: I ran, and I jumped.
Complex Sentence: A dependent clause and an independent clause
Example: Although I was tired, I ran.
Compound-Complex Sentence: Two or more independent clauses and a dependent clause
Example: Although I was tired, I ran, and I jumped.
There are many different ways of creating sentences such as these. In fact, there are so many that it's better that we concentrate on the ways in which these sentences can be used rather than the process of creating them.
If a text has too many simple sentences, it runs the risk of sounding elementary.
There are many beautiful places in North and South America. I am going to Hawaii for vacation this summer. Hawaii is a beautiful state. It has lots of unique and diverse flora and fauna. I will travel around the state. I will document all the flora and fauna I see.
While all the sentences in this brief selection are grammatically sound, the use of only simple sentences produces a staccato effect that makes the writing boring and simplistic. With a few changes, the paragraph can sound much more erudite.
Although there are many beautiful locales in North and South America, I am planning on going to the gorgeous state of Hawaii for my vacation this summer. Hawaii has a plethora of unique flora and fauna, and I will be taking great pains to document everything that I see.
We've taken six simple sentences and combined them to form two complex sentences. This paragraph has gone from sounding simplistic to sounding educated. Now let's look at the rhetorical power of these two sentences a little more closely.
Making use of a variety of sentence types doesn't just make your writing sound better; it can help you form arguments as well. Look again at the revised version of the "trip to Hawaii" paragraph.
Although there are many beautiful locales in North and South America, I am planning on going to the gorgeous state of Hawaii for my vacation this summer. Hawaii has a plethora of unique flora and fauna, and I will be taking great pains to document everything that I see.
We've already identified the sentences as complex. Now take a closer look at that first sentence. We've used a subordinating conjunction (although) to make the first clause dependent upon the second. In other words, the first part of the sentence has no meaning without the context of the second. However, this is a strength, not a weakness because it sets up an argument. The person whom the speaker or writer is addressing could suggest numerous beautiful places to which a person could travel, but the use of although and a subordinating clause indicates to the reader or listener that the speaker or writer has already considered these possibilities and has chosen Hawaii out of the lot.
Wow! All of that is packed into one complex sentence. Amazing!
If you are the kind of person who finds grammar frustrating, punctuation probably often pushes you over the edge. In fact, even if you are a person who does not find grammar frustrating, you might still find yourself beating your head with your palm when trying to determine whether a comma should be here, a semicolon there, or whether the question mark goes inside or outside of the final quotation mark.
We'll give you a brief respite here and avoid talking about "right" and "wrong." Instead, we're going to address the ways in which punctuation, specifically commas, used in a grammatically correct fashion can fundamentally change the meaning of a sentence.
In 2006, The Globe and Mail reported that Rogers Communications, a Canadian communications company, had to pay $2.13 million to Aliant, Inc. Rogers had a contract with Aliant for the use of telephone poles owned by Aliant. The contract read that the agreement . . .
" . . . shall continue in force for a period of five years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party."
The comma following the phrase five year terms caused all of this trouble. Rogers was under the impression that the contracts were five-year contracts and that the renewal of the contract was automatic. In Rogers' eyes, the only way the contract could be broken was if Aliant notified Rogers at the beginning of the fifth year of each term that they wanted to renegotiate when the contract was to be renewed.
Aliant used that comma to their advantage. They argued that the comma makes the final phrase of that sentence apply to the entirety of the sentence. They provided one year's notice and raised their prices on Rogers Communications.
It should be noted that, while Rogers was initially ordered to pay Aliant, the decision was eventually overturned. However, the only reason that it was overturned was because Rogers also had a version of the contract in French without the comma problem. It would seem that it pays to write your contracts in more than one language!
Chances are, you'll never edit a multi-million dollar contract or write an amendment to a constitution. However, you will still run into these types of situations that require careful consideration of punctuation usage. Let's look at a few down-to-earth examples.
Call your mom Phillip.
Call your mom, Phillip.
The first sentence here implies that the listener or reader should literally call his or her mother "Phillip." Obviously, this would be silly. The second sentence indicates that Phillip needs to make a phone call to his mother. This makes much more sense. Neither sentence is technically incorrect, as far as grammar is concerned.
The dog running around in circles is barking loudly.
The dog, running around in circles, is barking loudly.
Again, the commas change the context. In the first sentence, the implication is that there are many dogs. The phrase "running around in circles" is meant to clarify to which dog the speaker or writer is referring. In the second sentence, the implication is that there is only one dog. The phrase set off by commas serves to provide more information about that dog, but that information isn't necessary for the listener or reader to understand to which dog the speaker or writer refers.
We've readily established that the cornerstone of any document is its appeal to the reader. Appealing to the reader is accomplished by adhering to the rules of rhetoric.
Logos: logic, evidence, reason, and rationality
Ethos: mood, credibility, goodwill, and ethics
Pathos: emotion, empathy, and pity (but not the bad kind)
We've covered the importance of avoiding logical fallacies, and we've given you some sound advice on the importance of sentence variety and punctuation.
Last Updated: 09/29/2022