Abstract
Almost everybody loves a metaphor. Richards (1936) cracked the code with his tenor and vehicle theory, asserting that metaphor is itself an argument comprising two parts. Burke (1945) called metaphor a “device for seeing something in terms of something else. It brings out the thisness of a that, or that thatness of a this” (p. 503). Finally, Foss (1989) articulated metaphor as a step-by-step methodology. Sarah Read joins Richards, Burke, and Foss with her book Busting the Myth of the Communication Metaphor: How Technical Writing Conventions Perpetuate Injustice. Picking at metaphor, which in the context of technical writing could be seen as a festering sore that some have feared to touch let alone drain, she suggests that “exclusion is built into the most broadly held truisms about what makes for successful technical writing” (p. xii). We all use metaphors, but technical ones, which may be thought of as benign, can actually bring damage worth examining. This is a book for everybody who loves metaphors—and those who are rightfully suspicious of them.
The communication metaphor that Read talks about “is a complex of language practices, conventions, structures, and ideologies with historical, linguistic, and cultural origins that structure conventional language in scientific and technical writing” (p. 57). Read comments that she takes until Chapter 3 to discuss metaphor only because she first prioritizes telling what harm is being done and how to make individuals aware of the need for a solution. She explains the exigency of her book excellently in this section, bringing readers a call to action. When the communication metaphor is visible, change can occur for the better. Action is required.
Until change comes, though, injustice rears its head in technical writing through metaphor in a few ways. One way is in the silencing of indigenous voices. Read establishes metaphors as mutable. They appear across everyday contexts. Grocery lists, cooking instructions, emails, reports such as white papers, and user manuals are just a few examples. Metaphors that appear in these technical documents, Read explains, often privilege Western ways of thinking. Learning what the communication metaphor is and how it can perpetuate injustice is the tagline for the book as a whole.
At the end of the day, “good technical writing is clear, objective and can be understood quickly” (p. 89). Aside from presenting themes of injustice in technical writing through an indigenous and multifaceted lens, the book practices what it preaches. Its elegantly designed hard cover, small typeface, educational-yet-cartoonish drawings, bulleted lists, and logical table of contents make for an engaging reading experience. The technical details of the book, including its lack of stylistic and typographical mistakes, exemplify good technical writing as the book defines it, enticing the audience for the purpose of persuasion. This combination of strengths is rare in a market flooded with uncopyedited books on writing-studies subjects that do not seem to practice what they preach.
At every turn in this book's winding path toward linguistic justice, Read provides factoids and in-depth insight. Midway in the book, she makes the interesting point that two types of persuasion—writing and speaking—are totally different from each other (p. 128). As an example, she explains that writing, not speaking, is the focus of her book. In making this distinction between writing and speaking as means of persuasion, she increases readers’ interest in the process of breaking down the communication metaphor as a myth. She contrasts Standard American English (SAE) with White English Vernacular, an unfamiliar phrase to me that she explained so well that I felt excited to have learned something new. People who cannot speak SAE with perfect pronunciation may experience limitations in how they express themselves, a point that Read does not take lightly. But she does suggest that the boundaries between writing and speaking can be penetrable. So, although they are fully different, they can in some cases bleed into each other.
For readers who are interested in purchasing the book but have little time to read it all right away, I recommend that they at least read pages 165–170. Here, the author provides a helpful breakdown of the book's offerings by chapter. As a high school teacher at a charter school and an instructor of record at the freshman collegiate level, I am a huge proponent of vocabulary words. This section satisfied my craving for new words, and its organization according to chapter made it easy to find their definitions. Read's purpose is clearly for her audience to understand, retain, review, and, as the concluding section of the book tells us, act.
The book closes on a surprising note. Read ropes in generative artificial intelligence, noting that it cannot account for nonstandard versions of English. Mutability is needed, Read argues. Busting the Myth ends with a metaphor, naturally. If you want to know which one, I recommend buying the book.
