Posts

Posted on

Obsessed with Possessives

Andrea Wenger

We see it everywhere: our schools, our places of business, even in notes stuck on our refrigerator. Yes, my friends, I’m talking about apostrophe abuse. The Obama administration, faced with two wars and an economy teetering on the edge of disaster, is unlikely to make this a priority. So it’s our duty as professional communicators to stamp it out.

My elementary school teacher made it sound easy. “To make a word a possessive, add an ’s, unless the word is a plural ending in s, and then, just add an apostrophe.” Ah, life was simpler in elementary school. True, many atrocities (such as Grammar Girl’s report of a menu advertising Ladie’s Night) could be avoided if people applied that straightforward rule. Yet there are myriad exceptions, and even the U.S. Supreme Court can’t agree on them (more on that later).

Pronouns

Possessive pronouns don’t use apostrophes: hers, his, its, ours, theirs, whose, yours. Most of us wouldn’t have a problem with this rule if it weren’t for the contractions it’s (it is, it has) and who’s (who is, who has). The sentence, Who’s book is this? doesn’t look wrong to me, but of course, it is. It should read, Whose book is this?

Personal possessive pronouns are often called absolute possessives, because they can occur with no noun following them. For example, a sentence could read It’s her book, or The book is hers. Absolute possessives are sometimes used mistakenly in conjunction with other possessives. For example, She worried about hers and his safety, should read, She worried about her and his safety. A better choice, though, would be to recast the sentence: She worried about her safety and his, or She worried about his safety, and her own.

Singular Words Ending in S

If a singular word ends in s, is it correct to add an s after the apostrophe in the possessive form? That depends on who you ask. It’s a matter of style, not grammar. As a technical writer, however, I consider it a usability issue. When people read, they hear the words in their head. So where the style guides disagree, I use pronunciation as the ultimate arbiter.

According to The Chicago Manual of Style, if an s at the end of a singular word is pronounced, the possessive is formed by adding ’s. The same is true for words ending in x or z: boss’s office, Alex’s wallet. However, if the ’s would be awkward, avoid the possessive and use of instead: the governor of Texas, the history of jazz. If the s, x, or z is not pronounced, the s after the apostrophe may be omitted: Illinois’ capital, Margaux’ necklace. Follow this practice only if you’re certain of the pronunciation.

Fowler’s Modern English Usage recommends omitting the s after the apostrophe with names ending in an iz sound, as in Beau Bridges’ brother.

The Associated Press Stylebook omits the s after the apostrophe altogether in singular words ending in s. Since newspapers are pressed for space, I suppose they can be forgiven (although I’m not sure I’ll be forgiven for that pun). But unless you’re required to follow AP, I recommend including the s for consistency with pronunciation.

Ancient Names

Ancient names can be troublesome, in part because style guides also disagree here. According to Fowler’s, ancient names ending in s form the possessive with an apostrophe alone: Achilles’ heel, Moses’ journey. However, according to Chicago, while names ending in an eez sound receive only an apostrophe, others use ’s: Aristophanes’ plays, Zeus’s wife. When in doubt, or when both ways look wrong, Chicago recommends using of, as in son of Isis or teachings of Jesus.

Multiple Possessors

Is it Joe and Renalda’s fishing poles, or Joe’s and Renalda’s fishing poles? That depends. Are the fishing poles joint property, or do Joe and Renalda each have their own pole? Placing an ’s only at the end of the group of names denotes joint ownership. Placing an ’s at the end of each individual name denotes individual ownership.

Attributive Forms

The distinction between an attributive form and a possessive is often unclear. A users’ manual isn’t a manual belonging to users; it’s a manual for users. Nevertheless, Chicago recommends retaining the apostrophe except in the case of proper names: citizens’ advocate, Panthers game, Boys and Girls Clubs of America.

Genitives

Analogous to possessives, genitives that denote value or time use an apostrophe, as in five dollars’ worth or two weeks’ notice. The apostrophe in this case stands in for the word of.

Double Possessives

In this idiom, also called a double genitive, a possessive noun or pronoun is used after of, to denote one example of several:
An associate of Sheila’s (or an associate of hers)
A collection of Bob’s (or a collection of his)

According to Garner’s Modern American Usage, some people dislike this idiom, but it has a long history and is widely approved. It can also be intrinsic to meaning: it wouldn’t make much sense to say a collection of Bob. Nevertheless, it might be better to recast the phrase as one of Bob’s collections.

Using an Apostrophe to Form a Plural

The practice of using an apostrophe to form the plural of abbreviations or numerals has fallen out of favor. The most common usage is to simply add an s: UFOs, the 1940s.

With lowercase letters, an apostrophe is needed for clarity. This is usually unnecessary with uppercase letters, but the apostrophe may be used where confusion might otherwise ensue, as in A’s, I’s, and U’s.

”Mind your p’s and q’s.
He got A’s and B’s on his report card.”
but…
He got Bs and Cs on his report card.

Chicago offers several examples of when to use the apostrophe to form a plural and when to leave it out:

maybe’s
ifs, ands, or buts
yesses and noes (or yes’s and no’s, especially if used with maybe’s)
dos and don’ts

For special cases like these, it’s best to consult a good style guide. But if you’re forced to rely on your own judgment, don’t obsess over it. When it comes to apostrophe use, intelligent people can disagree. Jonathan Starble(external link) wrote in Legal Times about a rift in the 2006 Supreme Court case Kansas v. Marsh: in the majority opinion, Justice Thomas consistently used Kansas’ statute, while in the minority opinion, Justice Souter used Kansas’s statute. Although I consider myself a political moderate, I have to side with Justice Souter on this one.

Reprinted with permission from the Carolina Communique(external link), the newsletter for the Carolina Chapter(external link).

Posted on

Michelle Corbin Receives Distinguished SIG Service Award

Michelle Corbin Receives Distinguished SIG Service Award

The STC Technical Editing SIG is pleased to announce that Michelle Corbin, STC Associate Fellow, has received a Distinguished SIG Service Award(external link), or DSSA. Started in 2002, the DSSA is intended to recognize exemplary dedication to a SIG and its activities. The SIGs recommend qualified candidates, and the STC Board approves the recipients. The criteria for identifying nominees for the DSSA are length of SIG service, consistency of service over time, and variety of service.

Michelle Corbin

Michelle Corbin

Michelle served as the co-manager of the STC Technical Editing SIG for two years and as the immediate past co-manager for one year. In her tenure she helped revitalize the SIG and put procedures in place to keep it thriving. She has also served and continues to serve as managing editor for Corrigo, the STC Technical Editing SIG newsletter. She also wrote the strategic plan for the SIG and wrote a Tieline article about it. Her strategic plan can serve as a model for other STC communities to develop their plans.

Michelle will be honored at the annual conference along with other DSSA recipients. She will also receive a plaque in honor of her recognition. The citation on this plaque reads, “For your exceptional leadership as STC Technical Editing SIG manager and as newsletter managing editor and for your continuing selfless contributions to the SIG.” Please join us in recognizing Michelle Corbin for all of her past and continued contributions to the Technical Editing SIG.

Posted on

Editing for the Next Generation of Readers

Jeffrey Japp

As I read Tony Self’s article “What If Readers Can’t Read” in the February 2009 issue of Intercom(external link), I began thinking about how editors should revise the way they edit textual content for the next generation of readers.

According to Self, “The speed at which information can be retrieved through tools such as Google is causing readers to become impatient. An Akami study in 2006 found that 75 percent of people would not go back to a website that took more than four seconds to load.” He continues by asserting that “our reading is moving toward skimming information horizontally, or reading snippets of text from different sources, rather than in-depth vertical reading.”

So how should we as editors respond to this trend? First, it is imperative that we shorten and streamline copy by removing all superfluous information. Too much text in a topic, whether it is in print or online, will increase the reader’s frustration at not being able to locate information quickly enough. Shortening text can be difficult because we deal with writers who may view every word as important and SMEs who feel that every possible bit of information should be covered in-depth. However, to ensure that we are communicating effectively to the target audience, we must be firm in our resolve to shorten and streamline copy.

The other area where we as editors can make an impact is in creating and editing indices. While this is less of an issue when a professional indexer is involved in the project, often budgetary constraints force writers to create their own indices which may not be as functional. On a recent document I edited, the index was little more than a copy of the Table of Contents. Because an index can help readers locate the precise location of the information they need, it is likely that there will be a shift from using a TOC to locate information to using an index. Self goes as far as suggesting that we abandon TOCs in electronic documents altogether.

If you are an editor who is not also tasked with writing, it may be prudent to get involved with writers early in the project. With an understanding of how documents should be structured to facilitate rapid location of information, we can assist writers in the development phase of a project by suggesting guidelines on how to design hierarchies of information. While this is less of an issue for organizations that employ structured documentation, it is invaluable for those still using more traditional documentation practices.

As content delivery changes, we as editors need to adapt the way we work to ensure that we assist in delivering content that is helpful and intuitive to our users.

Posted on

Creating an Anthology on Editing

Avon J. Murphy

Pulling together New Perspectives on Technical Editing, an anthology on editing, was a complex, yet exhilarating experience. The process fell into four stages.

The longest stage was the gestation stage. I’d written an annotated bibliography on technical editing for the National Council of Teachers of English two decades earlier. Long a highly organized pack rat in careers as academic researcher, government research analyst, and finally editor, I had several hundred articles and a hundred books on technical editing. But something was missing from all this literature. As much as I’d gripe about the hole over the years, I couldn’t quite identify what I wanted. Tom Warren, of Oklahoma State University, challenged me to do something about it.

Energized by adrenalin, I charged into the second stage: What would we learn by looking at our discipline from different points of view at once? This question morphed into another: How much would we learn if recognized experts wrote separate chapters addressing the deeper questions suggested by their specific approaches to editing? Thus was born the idea of a collection of research-based and experience-based chapters looking at technical editing from various angles.

The collection eventually came to include such disparate angles—the “Perspectives” in the book title—as research methodologies, editing with electronic tools, editing within particular environments, the teaching of editing, and so on. Dozens of questions wrote themselves. For example, what methodologies can editing researchers best use? Is technical editing more complex than it was in the mid-20th century? What choices do teachers of technical editing have for designing their course? How can the structure of an organization dictate editorial career paths? How can copyeditors ensure quality? How have computers changed technical editing? What special problems do science editing and journal editing present?

The most challenging stage personally was getting the right people on board. As Technical Communication book review editor for nearly two decades and as manager of several research efforts, I’d been monitoring the careers of several accomplished editors; my short list of candidates was almost ready before I wrote it out. I was looking for original thinkers within their niches who had published a good deal, were dependable, and would keep me informed about their progress. Michelle Corbin, Angela Eaton, Barbara Gastel, Geoff Hart, George Hayhoe, Carolyn Rude, Tom Warren, and Jean Hollis Weber were all such people. The time-consuming part was to convince each individual to participate. I showed them the shape of the book, its contribution, the possible main points and resource leads, how the editors could individually contribute within their specialties, and the impact of this writing upon their careers. After some anxious weeks for me, all of them finally accepted the challenge.

The final stage was comparatively easy. Having lived so long with the book-to-be, I watched the proposal write itself. Baywood Publishing was the only company I seriously considered, and it quickly accepted the proposal. With schedule, style sheet, and chapter template on their computers, my contributors then set to work on what has become a most rewarding book.

As the writers submitted their chapters, my developmental editing focused on innovative thinking about questions, acceptable research methodologies, avoidance of excessive duplication among chapters, and incorporation of already published literature. On the second and third drafts, I focused more on voice, paragraph structure, sentence clarity, and formatting within my template restrictions.

The full manuscript went to Baywood in late September 2008, Baywood approved it in mid-November, and I sent the slightly revised files in early December. The manuscript is now (late April 2009) in typesetting. After proofing, correcting, and indexing, the book should appear in something like 15 weeks. I’m certainly happy to be working with a publishing firm that stresses the importance of high-quality procedures, including editing. Would I want to edit another anthology? Ask me after I’ve recovered from this one!

Posted on

Scholarship Winner: Lessons Learned As a Technical Editor

Daniel Beck

Editor’s Note: This year, the STC Technical Editing SIG offered scholarships to one undergraduate and one graduate student in technical communication. One part of the scholarship application was to describe a project or research that the applicant was involved in. We asked the scholarship winners to write a newsletter article summarizing their project or research. This is the second of such articles from our undergraduate scholarship winner.
This past spring, I took the last in a series of technical writing courses offered here at the University of Central Florida (UCF), creatively titled “Technical Documentation.” Unlike the two previous courses in the series, I was set loose with minimal supervision. My objective for the semester was to find a client, propose a project, and complete the work of the project entirely on my own. The instructor in the course would only review my work and provide substantial feedback once, at the middle of the semester.

I felt that the class was a terrific opportunity to try something I hadn’t done before. I had missed some opportunities to work as an editor in my technical communication coursework. With this course, I had an opportunity to take advantage of and get some much-needed experience working with the results of other writers’ work.

My part-time employer, the UCF’s Course Development and Web Services, had just the project for me. They had some documentation that was in desperate need of revision. UCF was transitioning from one Web e-learning platform to another. It was a somewhat painful process that I’m sure many people are familiar with — after spending years using one tool, thousands of users were ushered on to another.

The difficulty of this change was exacerbated by the lack of well-maintained documentation. The documentation provided by the software vendor had not been updated in years; it only somewhat reflected the software in use on UCF’s servers. Furthermore, the documentation was internally inconsistent. Supplements to the documentation produced by Course Development and Web Services were visually and textually inconsistent with the vendor-supplied documentation.

Naturally, I chose to overextend myself that semester by trying to single-handedly solve all of these problems. It was a long, tiring process of reviewing hundreds of pages of instructions and attempting to coordinate their strengths and mitigate their weaknesses. Pages and pages had to be entirely rewritten; dozens of screenshots had to be recreated to match the software in use. And throughout it all, the details of the project were left up to me.

Of course, I learned some interesting practical lessons. For instance, I “discovered” — probably in much the same way that Columbus “discovered” the Americas — a cheap trick for testing documentation out on an audience. In the day-to-day activities at Course Development and Web Services, I often responded to support requests via email from faculty members. Frequently I used portions of my documentation revision project as the basis for responses to email questions. It was easy, cheap testing. Instead of writing up one-off instructions for the faculty, I would send them portions of the documentation. I got unambiguous feedback without ever having to convince any faculty members to complete a survey or an interview: either the documentation resolved the issue or didn’t.

I also learned that my weakness for playing with flashy new technology might someday be a problem for me. I committed myself early on in the project to use a new project management tool that Course Development and Web Services had purchased. It was fun to learn, but I think I spent more time figuring out the tool than actually using it to get the job done. As it turns out, one person doesn’t need a project management tool, one person just needs a to-do list. While working alone, I found that the project management software was overkill for the amount of tracking and reporting I needed to do. I could imagine such a tool being useful for a team of writers, but for me it was just a distraction.

But the most important lessons I learned had to do with what it actually means to be a technical writer or editor. As the semester dragged on, I began to appreciate what other technical writers mean when they refer to the “lone technical writer,” a phrase I had heard often, but didn’t fully understand, despite many STC chapter meetings and two Summits. There is so much value in having at least the camaraderie, if not the outright assistance, of other writers working with you.

And it was that lesson that ultimately led to a big realization as to what it is about technical communication that really appeals to me. The loneliness of being the “lone technical writer” let me finally figure out that it’s not about the writing. Though long hours in front of a keyboard, actually writing, can be fun, it’s not the point to write or edit for its own sake. Rather, the point is to reach out to others in a fascinating and productive way. Since I did not have the benefit of being in the same room as those potential other people, I learned to ask myself, again and again, how can I make what I do an improvement for me, a future writer or editor, my coworkers, and my audience?