STYLE GUIDE REVIEW

Style Guide Review Stephen Romanelli University of Central Florida

STYLE GUIDE REVIEW

Abstract This paper engages in a discussion about the rhetoric of style guides, their relationship to publishing, and their role in discourse communities by reviewing two style guides: The Chicago Manual of Style and The Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association. It draws on a number of texts, mainly excerpts from the two style guides mentioned above, but also from Gregory Smiths Documentation style as a rhetorical device: A comparative analysis of two bibliographic systems, and John Swales The Concept of a Discourse Community. These two articles serve as the foundation for my rhetorical discussion of style guides, and support my conclusion that the values of a discourse community determine what style guide is followed for the purposes of publication.

STYLE GUIDE REVIEW

Style Guide Review The differences between the two style guides I have chosen to review, the Chicago Manual of Style (CMOS), and the Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (PM), make important statements about discourse communities that have different values. Editors and authors of such publications, who are bound ethically to a manuscript and a discourse community, follow publication guidelines in the style guides closely in order to fulfill the expectations of the discourse communities they serve. The PM states in its introduction to the publication process that The author, editor, and publisher share a responsibility for the ethical and efficient handling of the manuscript. This responsibility begins when the editor receives the manuscript and extends through the life of the published article (APA Manual of Style, 2010, p. 225). While this ethical handling of a manuscript is not limited to a community that uses the PM, I found that the values of a discourse community guide editors and authors to make different choices about the content that they publish. Why Publication Matters Gregory Smith (2007) states, in his article entitled Documentation Style as Rhetorical Device: A Comparative Analysis of Two Bibliographic Systems, that publication styles are not arbitrary, but rather shape and are shaped by the discourse communities that they serve (p. 4). The publication style of a document gives a certain amount validity to whoever reads it. Readers will know it has been reviewed and accepted for production by others who are firmly grounded in the beliefs and opinions of a particular field of study. Even though a typical reader may or may not consider themselves a part of that field, there are expectations that hold weight among other members. The use of a style guide in publication helps scholars recognize and accept (or dispute)

STYLE GUIDE REVIEW

the work of another scholar. Im using the term scholar here to identify someone who is both a reader and a writer, someone who has contributed in some way to the discourse community and is able to recognize its parameters based on their knowledge of the body of work that composes it. However, one does not need to be a scholar to be part of a discourse community. A scholar is simply considered one who is perhaps more capable of determining what works adhere to the goals of the community. Potential membership does not require that you be a well read expert on a subject, only that you have some connection to the beliefs or ideals of that community, and a desire to contribute to it. According to John Swales (1990), a distinguished writer known for his work on the subject of discourse communities, one characteristic that defines a discourse community is that A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms to provide information and feedback (p. 5). Here he is stating that a member of a discourse community not only has access to a means of communication, but uses it. Publication is a mechanism that allows statements to be made. The Publication Process as Outlined in CMOS and the PM As I have just examined, publication is key to how discourse communities communicate and grow. Style guides are essential to publication because they allow scholars to accept or dispute the work of an author who seeks to contribute to that community. The specific process for publication that is outlined in each style guide is meant to serve readers in different ways, and therefore guide the decisions made by editors and authors while preparing a manuscript for publication. An editor or author referring to CMOS, whether they are experienced or not, is mainly concerned with issues of language and the technical layout of the document, while those

STYLE GUIDE REVIEW

referring to the PM are more concerned with the steps preceding final publication because the document they aim to make is something thats original to the field in question, something that will perhaps be referenced in later works. Editing Roles Both guides recognize the role of the editor to be one of responsibility. Without an efficient editor, the reader can end up confused or distracted by technical errors as well as misled by flawed structure. Because of this crucial role the editor plays, each guide prioritizes the responsibilities of editors differently. The PM (2010) states that Journal editors look for manuscripts that (a) contribute significantly to the content area covered by the journal, (b) communicate with clarity and conciseness, and (c ) follow style guidelines (p. 226). An editor in this instance has the responsibility to check if the manuscript even qualifies for publication before moving on to issues of style. Since the PM is a guide for those wishing to create primary sources, an editor checks to see that a manuscript builds on the body of work that has gone into the field in question. A discourse community using the PM has no need to waste time and resources on making sure a document is formatted perfectly if the content is not considered a significant contribution. On the other hand, the editor that consults CMOS is working under much different assumptions. In their overview of the history of the style guide, they state that in addition to consulting with scholars and publishing professionals, observations from the Manuals readers and, especially, those who wrote to the Q&A, were pored over and weighed, many of them guiding important aspects of the revision (History of the Chicago Manual of Style, 2010). Its clear from statements like this that CMOS values the opinions of editors everywhere, and all

STYLE GUIDE REVIEW

those who are concerned with ensuring a document is in the best condition it can be. Typically, if a document is in the hands of a freelance editor or copy editor, it means that they are working with an author who is intending to be published very soon. As such, CMOS offers practical advice for editors and authors who are looking for a solid framework for a manuscript across several fields. By taking a closer look at the sections in CMOS, it becomes clear that one of the main purposes of this style guide is to get a manuscript ready for publication in a technical sense, sort of like a tune up for the words on the page. Very specific instructions are given for every component that can be standardized, such as the naming and numbering of pages: The front of the leaf, the side that lies to the right in an open book, is called recto. The back of the leaf, the side that lies to the left, is the verso. Rectos are always odd-numbered, versos always evennumbered (The Chicago Manual of Style, 2010, p. 4). CMOS also gives a comprehensive reference for how to mark on paper and electronically. Much of this type of information is helpful to editors, who are responsible for handling the layout and organization of the document, as well as making sure the language is clear and concise. Editors who look for practical advice about language and proper formatting will find this guide an extremely comprehensive aid. Authorship Roles Overall, the guidelines for publication outlined in CMOS deal with a standardized layout of a manuscript. Chapter one is titled Books and Journals, and is divided into two main parts: Parts of a Book, and Parts of a Journal (p. 3). By just glancing at the list of sections, an author can get a very solid idea of how to put these components together. Making sure the parts of the manuscript are all there and in the right order are important to the role of an author

STYLE GUIDE REVIEW

consulting CMOS. Their section entitled Elements to be Furnished advises that before manuscript editing begins, an author should plan to provide the publisher with any of the elements in the list that follows that are to be included in the work (Chicago Manual of Style, 2010, p. 57). Just like in the PM, CMOS outlines certain conditions to consider before submitting a work for publication. In contrast, the PM is not very concerned with the technical layout of the document. The majority of the sections on the publication process deal with ethical concerns and the many steps a document must take in order to reach final publication. An author in this case is responsible for formatting a document that enhances clarity and readability and facilitates peer reviews, copyediting, and typesetting (Publication Manual of the APA, 2010, p. 228). All of the choices made by authors when preparing their manuscript lead up to an acceptance or rejection of that manuscript after it has gone to peer review. Acceptance requires that the author get it right the first time, because the PM clearly states that after a manuscript is accepted, no further changes may be made by the author to the manuscript other than those recommended by the copyeditor (Publication Manual of the APA, 2010, p. 227). Rejection means that the content of the manuscript is considered outside the scope of the journal in question, that there is a design flaw or false information presented, or simply that the contribution made by the manuscript is not significant (Publication Manual of the APA, 2010, p. 227). Another reason why the PM doesnt have much in it about formatting is because CMOS has become a standard for the basic layout of manuscripts. These matters are best left to be consolidated to one source. In fact, the PM references a CMOS rule when they recommend that authors use a serif typeface, with short light lines projecting from the top or bottom of a main

STYLE GUIDE REVIEW

stroke of a letter (Publication Manual of the APA, 2010, p. 228). It is logical to conclude that guidelines in CMOS are designed to be acceptable across all fields of study, and that editors and authors consulting the PM, even if they are considered experts of that field, are not above the standards of CMOS that are considered foundational to the publication process. Conclusion Discourse communities value publication because it allows statements to be made and reviewed, and therefore accepted or disputed by members. Swales(1990) characteristic of discourse communities using participatory mechanisms marks publication as a necessary process for those who consider themselves to be members of a discourse community, as well as a process that relies on feedback from other members (p. 5). This exchange of information happens in all discourse communities in some way or another. Specific considerations for publication are made in the PM because the significance of the manuscript takes priority over basic technical layout, and because comprehensive guides like CMOS have already set what are considered to be standards for publication by scholars and editors across numerous fields. Authors and editors referring to CMOS have a particular focus on issues of style rules and the layout of a book or journal in getting ready for publication, while those referring to the PM are focused on the ethical responsibilities that carry throughout the life of the manuscript. The values held by a discourse community will determine the choice of which style guide is used, and to what extent they hold authors and editors ethically responsible for the published content.

STYLE GUIDE REVIEW

References Chicago manual of style (16th ed.). (2010). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago. University of Chicago (2010). History of the chicago manual of style. In Chicago manual of style online. Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association (6th ed.). (2010). American Psychological Association. Smith, G. A. (2007). Documentation style as a rhetorical device: A comparative analysis of two bibliographic systems. Faculty Publications and Presentations. Retrieved from: http:// digitalcommons.liberty.edu/lib_fac_pubs/26 Swales, J. (1990). The Concept of Discourse Community. In Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings (21-32). Boston: Cambridge University Press