Editorial
Language Pollution
Editorial: Language Pollution
Clean Up Your English Avoiding Superfluous Words in Scientific Reporting
Dmitry N. Tychinin * Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Plants and Microorganisms, Russian Academy of Sciences, 13 Prospekt Entuziastov, Saratov 410015, Russia; e-mail:
[email protected]
1
Introduction
Scientists' need for an adequate command of English has probably never been greater. The worldwide acceptance of English as the primary language of publication dictates that if we want to make our voices heard by the international research community, we must write English. But if we want our message to be understood as intended and our results to be estimated at their true worth, we must learn to write good English – that 'which gives the sense in the fewest short words' [1]. Much of the European research output is now published in English, both in international journals and as translations of papers published simultaneously in other languages. As a science translator and editor, I notice that even accepted papers sometimes suffer from linguistic deficiencies, and many are returned to the authors for language improvement before scientific review. The reason is not so much bad grammar as bad style. Some typical referees' comments: • The difficulty I had in reading this manuscript does not stem from the authors' imperfect grasp of English. Indeed, their English is generally good. What they lack is not a mastery of English, but the ability to convey their ideas as simply and directly as possible. • The paper is generally written in a language that is understandable but would benefit from some rewriting in places. • Although the English in the manuscript is generally adequate, the use of inappropriate words makes the text confusing. The key characteristic of scientific writing is clarity [1]. A technical report must contain as few words as necessary for readers to comprehend it. When authors use more words, they usually
* Dmitry N. Tychinin was born in Saratov, Russia, in 1970. He studied in the Philology Faculty at N.G. Chernyshevsky Saratov State University, graduating in 1992 with the Diploma degree with specialisation in English Language and Literature. Since 1992, he has been with the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Plants and Microorganisms, Saratov, where he has taught English courses for 2 years. He is now leading translator at the institute’s Scientific and Technical Information Unit. He has 21 translations published, including 19 refereedjournal articles and 2 book contributions. His interests are in the craft of scientific writing and editing.
sacrifice clarity. They are not entirely to blame, of course. The second-language-teaching practice is still very much directed towards helping specialists to acquire mostly a reading and speaking knowledge of English. Few institutions of higher learning in Europe [2] and very few in Russia offer academic-writing courses. As a result, scientists are often unable to express themselves simply and neatly in written English. When developing a paper, they rely on bilingual dictionaries, which contain no usage or style notes. They translate word by word what they think in the native language and leave it at that. No wonder such manuscripts tend to be verbose and hard to follow. For a true environmentalist, writing-style improvement is not a matter of choice at will; it is part of his or her green thinking. As Rudolf Flesch [3] puts it, 'In this age of general pollution, clear, simple language is just as important as clean air, land, and water'. In this brief note, I adopt Flesch's eco-oriented approach to present my thoughts on how to eliminate superfluous words in our reporting. These words are so numerous that they make papers breathe heavily, so volatile that no manuscript seems to remain unaffected by them, so persistent that they hamper (or even prohibit) the appreciation of our results. Extensive lists of these 'waste' [1] or 'plague' [4] words are available in books [1,5] and over the Internet (e.g. [4,6]). Here, I list and discuss more such words and phrases, taken from my own collection. 2
Green-Writing Tips: Assuming an assumption
Distinguishing features of scientific English are politeness and the avoidance of strong knowledge claims [7]. In trying to sound non-aggressive, we, non-native speakers, sometimes go too far. To quote O'Connor and Woodford [5]: Beware of hedging over uncertainties or suppositions: 'It may seem reasonable to suggest that necrotic effects may possibly be due to involvement of some toxin-like substances' contains eight degrees of uncertainty and only means 'Necrosis may be due to toxins'. The following sentence does not contain eight degrees of uncertainty. But it has two: 'We assume that these elements possibly consist of raw ore dust'.
ESPR – Environ Sci & Pollut Res 8 (4) 227 – 229 (2001) © ecomed publishers, D-86899 Landsberg, Germany and Ft. Worth/TX, USA • Tokyo, Japan • Mumbai, India • Seoul, Korea
227
Editorial
Language Pollution Let us think a moment. The sentence says 'possibly', which labels it clearly as an assumption. Consequently, is there a need to assume an assumption? Let us make it either These elements possibly consist of raw ore dust or We assume that these elements consist of raw ore dust.
the significant content of the paper. An effect title is too general and does not tell readers even the absolute minimum of what 'effect' (inhibitory? stimulatory?) authors have in mind.
Similarly, 'We assume that these elements may consist of raw ore dust' makes us sound a bit more timid than we want to. Here, a choice should be made between 'We assume' and 'may'. One degree of uncertainty is enough.
It is safe to substitute the words for almost in this type of sentence: 'Essentially/Virtually no information is available on the effects of ammonia and phosphate on biosludge settleability'.
Essentially, virtually
Nature By means of
The three-word variant of 'by', 'with', or 'through' is particularly unfit for titles, which, as Day [1] reminds us, should contain only words useful for indexing purposes. Therefore, Determination of Arsenic in Soils by Gas Chromatography is more acceptable than 'Determination of Arsenic in Soils by Means of Gas Chromatography'.
'Material of a protein nature' is not especially revealing. Whether the material in question is fully protein should be stated clearly. As the ESPR Instructions for Authors put it, 'Restrict to hard facts'! Sticklers for nature, here is a quick grammar tip: When the word is modified by a noun functioning as an adjective, the indefinite article is obligatory: of a carbohydrate nature. I have seen the article omitted, but I know this to be unidiomatic English.
Currently
It is better to substitute currently for now, especially in sentences that have their main verbs in the Present Continuous tense: We are now analysing a number of other mutants in vitro. With now, we will jump easily over the beginning to what we are after (that is, the message). But it may be even better to use nothing at all: We are analysing a number of other mutants in vitro. The use of currently is strongly discouraged with the verb 'continue' and with words and expressions that indicate per se the currentness of the moment: Experiments are under way/in progress/ongoing/continuing to investigate these possibilities. The molecular events triggering these physiological and biochemical adjustments are under investigation. Effective writing vs. writing for effect
Let me quote from a referee's evaluation sheet: 'Effect is one of the most overused words in science. It conveys almost no information, since everything is some kind of an effect'. I keep in mind that referee's comment each time I start working on a text. A 'necrotic effect' is necrosis; an 'adverse effect', strictly speaking, should be explained; and the sentence, 'This gives rise to the effect of synchronisation', may sound like an abbreviated thought about synchronisation effects on something else. Constructions such as 'to have a stimulatory effect', 'to have a deleterious effect', 'to have a protective effect', etc. can be changed to simpler English: • to have an adverse effect on – to be adverse to • to have a beneficial effect on – to be beneficial for/to • to have a deleterious effect on – to be deleterious to • to have a fatal effect on – to be fatal to • to have a harmful effect on – to be harmful to • to have an inhibitory effect on – to be inhibitory to, to inhibit • to have a protective effect on – to be protective of/towards, to protect • to have a retarding effect on – to retard • to have a stimulating/stimulatory effect on – to be stimulatory to, to stimulate Titles beginning with '(The) Effect of...' have a history of use but seem to no longer be in fashion. Today's referees feel increasingly negative towards them. The reason is simple: A title, according to Day [1], is defined as the fewest possible words that highlight
228
Phase, stage, step
These can also be 'waste' words. For example, we often write: 'The first/next step of our work was to measure... (say, As concentrations in soils)'. Look at the fragment in italics. Its only role is to introduce the second part of the sentence, carrying the message ('measure As concentrations in soils'). But its length (seven words plus the definite article) does more to tire than to interest readers. Let us switch to plain, active English: We first/next measured As concentrations in soils. Sounds better. Here are similar cases. Look to the left and then to the right. Same meaning, less space! • at the early stages of – early in • it is an essential phase in – it is essential for So-called
Most dictionaries make no distinction between so-called (with a hyphen) and so called (without a hyphen). Fortunately, there are exceptions. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, for example, has this to say: so-called 1. In predic. use (prop. without hyphen): Called or designated by that name. 2. In attrib. use (hyphened): Called or designated by this name or term, but not properly entitled to it or correctly described by it [8]. The non-hyphened so called with its 'neutral' meaning is perfectly acceptable in a research manuscript: The reaction mass (RM) is so called because it is a complex mixture of the endproducts of detoxification reactions. Not so with its hyphened version: it implies that something is not worthy of its name. 'The so-called flushing bioreactor' sounds as if you were critical about the poor reactor to the point of contempt, which is surely not what you have in mind. If you are just in doubt whether the term you are referring to is commonly accepted in the literature and wish to express that thought, here are possible ways out: • Use quotation marks (which will indicate that '...you as writer are not responsible for this form of words' [9]): Clones that appeared to be 'cured' were screened for plasmid content.
ESPR – Environ Sci & Pollut Res 8 (4) 2001
Editorial •
Use quotation marks and insert a reference: The next step is the formation of the 'true inducer' from cellodextrins (Jones 2000). Or include an explanatory remark: At some point these maternally supplied products are supplemented by transcription from the embryo's own genome (the 'nuclear substance' in Boveri's formulation). • Use 'neutral' phrases like what is called, what is termed/known as, or as it is called: In this way, we obtain what is called a frequency curve. These are usually called 'jackpots'. So-called is more characteristic of colloquial than written speech. Sometimes it seems to be used merely for the sake of a colloquial touch, as in 'This means that a so-called "coarse grained" (i.e. lower resolution) picture is sought'. But here, again, if you enclose a term in quotation marks (and even explain it there and then), you never need so-called. Combining so-called with quotes is not permissible. Tautology: Will you repeat it again?
A major group of language pollutants is formed by tautologies – the needless saying of the same idea, usually in different words. A useful list of the common tautologies found in general writing is available electronically [6]. Following are some examples from science literature: • 'A surprising and unexpected result': An unexpected result will emphasise the unexpectedness while eliminating the redundancy of the synonym 'surprising'. • 'Buffer solution': Someone has been clever at solving his or her problems with a chemical buffer. That is what 'buffer solution' may suggest. If this is not the intended meaning, we should use buffer alone. • 'Contain/include something as part of one's structure': The second portion of this fragment is unlikely to add much to a sentence. To contain is 'to have in it' and to include is 'to contain as a constituent part of a whole' [8]. Either of the verbs used alone will do. • 'Demonstration example': An example is demonstrative by definition. • 'For a full and complete Guide to Authors please refer to...': Even journal editors do not follow their own recommendations sometimes. I wonder whether one has ever seen a full and incomplete Guide to Authors. • 'Future outlook': Outlook is 'the prospect for the future' [8] by definition. Hence, Conclusions and Outlook, not 'Conclusions and Future Outlook'. • 'HPLC chromatography': 1. Spell the abbreviation out, and you will spot the error: 'high-performance liquid chromatography chromatography'. 2. Repeat step 1 when you have doubts about 'GC-MS spectrometry', 'SDS-PAGE electrophoresis', etc. • 'The cleaning solution increases the cleaning capability of a corresponding cleaning process...': No comment needed. Tool: Render it unto the workman
Many of us are not engaged in manual work, and none wear aprons or overalls. Yet, we call each other workers and have 'tools'. In scientist hands, almost anything becomes a 'tool': plants, bacteria, enzymes, even antibodies. Well, in the sense of 'a means of effecting something; an instrument' [8], the word has long ago become an empty cliché used at every step, making the writing stale. Let us not forget that tool is still strongly suggestive of 'a mechanical implement for working upon something, as by cutting, striking, rubbing, or other process, in any
ESPR – Environ Sci & Pollut Res 8 (4) 2001
Language Pollution manual art or industry; usu., one held in and operated directly by the hand, but including also certain simple machines, as the lathe' [8]. Whereas trees and grasses are often called 'remediation tools', they are really not much of a tool. You may say this is literalism, but is devaluation of the word any better? Toxic
I am very fond of this editorial comment – I think anyone writing for an ecology journal should keep it in mind: Avoid the use of unqualified emotive terms such as 'toxic' when describing biological activity; they should be replaced with 'active', 'fungitoxic', 'phytotoxic', 'insecticidal', 'insect toxic', etc., accurately reflecting the content of use. Suppose we report, 'We used a buffer to wash the bacterial cells', or call a manuscript 'The Use of Plants To Remediate Contaminated Soils' – will that be OK with our referees? I daresay no. Plain as it may seem, there are people who keep writing this way paper after paper. Editors are resilient, however – and they must be: if you are a scientist, be precise. With which
It is verbose to write: 'Such isolates provide excellent model systems with which to study virus-phytoplankton interactions'. Leave the 'with which' out; the sentence will make perfectly good sense! 3
Better English Next Time!
I hope that the above notes will be of some help to non-Englishspeaking scientists who write, translate, or edit research papers in the English language. I am open to e-mail discussions of English use and misuse in scientific reporting. If you have your own 'pet hates', unfit for the language of science, please share them with me. Your feedback would be very much appreciated! Acknowledgements. It is a pleasure to thank Kevin Bruhn, Jeffrey Bryson, Chris Hamann, Fred Hutson, George Johnson, Rich Turner, Richard Vipond, and Vera Webb for many discussions and expert comments on English style and usage. Thanks are also due to Paul Kosterin of this institute for his encouragement and help.
References [1] Day RA (1998): How To Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, 5th ed. Oryx Press, Phoenix, Ariz [2] Luttikhuizen F (1996): The ins and outs of scientific writing. Microbiología SEM 12, 477–480 [3] Flesch R (1972): Say What You Mean. Harper and Row, New York [4] Darling C (2000): Plague words and phrases. Guide to Grammar and Writing. Retrieved July 30th, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http:// webster.commnet.edu/grammar/plague/htm [5] O'Connor M, Woodford FP (1975): Writing Scientific Papers in English: An ELSE-Ciba Foundation Guide for Authors. Associated Scientific Publishers, Amsterdam [6] Mann M (2000): Deadwood phrases. Authors Guide. Retrieved July 30th, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pnl.gov/ag/usage/ deadwood.html [7] Corbett J (1992): Encoding Nature: Writing science in English. FEMS Microbiol Lett 100, 39–44 [8] Little W, Fowler HW, Coulson J (1977): The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford [9] Greenbaum S, Whitcut J (1990): Longman Guide to English Usage, Spec. ed. Russky Yazyk Publishers, Moscow
229
