I believe Carl is correct in nominating style manuals as the source of the
problem. There was a time when newspapers, publishing houses, government
departments etc.each had their own "style guide" (note, "guide" not
"manual") to assist internal authors with their publications. Increasingly
however, guides have given way to manuals, and the dominant one is the
Federal Government endorsed (propably too weak a description) publication
"Style manual: for authors, editors, and publishers" 6th edition (2002),
which appears to have influence in Australian publishing way beyond the
Commonwealth Government's many agencies.This manual was (to quote from the
Australian Government website) "revised for the Australian Government by a
consortium of communication and publishing professionals" and "provides
guidance and recommendations for anyone faced with the task of preparing
material for publication in either print or electronic format".
A quick glance at the members of this consortium reveals that they indeed
are involved in the publishing industry, but of more interest to me was that
only one (of at least 10) appeared to come from an academic linguistics
background.
None of this answers the question posed by previous correspondents as to why
previously capitalized bird species names are no longer capitalized, but the
decision appears to be part of a broad momentum to make published works more
accessible to all readers, regardless of intended audiences and
well-established and logical linguistic conventions. It is, in effect, yet
another example of "dumbing-down" and the oxymoronic statement of "one size
fits all".
I would be interested to hear what Sean Dooley, as editor of the old
Wingspan and new Australian Birdlife, thinks of the reach of style manuals,
and what guides him in publishing the magazine. (Interestingly I note in the
first edition of the magazine that the front cover uses non-capitalized
"birdlife", but the editorial refers to the magazine as " Australian
Birdlife")
Russ Lamb, Maleny,SEQ
|
