Suppose you have never believed that you are a good writer, and you seriously doubt that you can improve your style. Or suppose you have a draft ready but you just don’t find it highly readable or interesting, and you know you must make it clearer and livelier somehow. Or suppose you are tempted to fall back on the idea that grades given to papers are purely subjective, having little foundation in anything but your picky old professor’s pet peeves. If you find yourself huddling anywhere beneath this umbrella, then this chapter is for you.
Many student writers oversimplify the issue of style, defining it by the yardstick of whether their professor "likes” the way something is written. But let’s be honest here: a good paper grader’s subjectivity is guided by professional experience and concern for quality rather than by whim or personal taste. The frustrated professor who writes "Get your commas right!” or "Where is your grammar?” is clearly commenting on non-subjective problems of mechanics and grammar in your paper. That same professor may also write "Unclear” or "What?” or "Too many passives”—an indication that style is about more than correct grammar and perfect mechanics. A grammatically sound, well-punctuated sentence might be utterly unclear, while a sentence might be written clearly but without following basic grammatical principles. As writing teachers will tell you, the best stylists don’t compose by following static rules of grammar; they are readers, thinkers, revisers, tinkerers—they see their writing as a craft, retreating to rules only to find sound pathways to revision.
This chapter is devoted to helping you improve your style. You will find discussion of the basics of grammar, topic sentences, paragraphs, using word lists, lessons on the stylistic conventions of technical writing, and links to websites with helpful stylistic exercises. Amidst these discussions, you should also detect a tonal undercurrent of style as creativity, style as grace. In a nutshell, this chapter helps you revise your work with an eye for correctness, clarity, and elegance—the key to improving your style.
For tutorials and guidance on grammar and improving your style, I highly recommend the lessons, exercises, and instructions at the following addresses:
"Grammar Guides" at australianhelp.com [1]
"Guide to Grammar and Writing" webpage from Capital Community College [2]
"The Communication Circle" webpage [3]
Professors who care about writing will always make a strong plea for concision, precision, and revision (CPR). After college, the probability that your writing will be read is inversely proportional to its length and clarity. In the workplace, good writers are rapidly noticed and usually land in management positions; in academia, good writers eventually earn publication, and the best of these writers actually gain a readership who follows their work.
By applying CPR to whatever you write, you will reap maximum benefits. Some advice from The Elements of Style, by Strunk and White, drives the point home beautifully:
A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts.
This sentence is important because it affirms that writing has utility—it performs a function. The sentence also demonstrates that, like a well-drawn photograph or a well-designed machine, a good sentence has stylistic elegance. Many good writers have memorized the above sentence and consciously apply it to their writing. You should too.
With the advice from Strunk and White in mind, read the poorly written paragraph that follows:
Increasing foreign competition and technological change, in a variety of forms, are now, as they always have been, disrupting various well-established patterns in terms of industrial organization. An apparent growing quality in the upward movement of economic change is also causing geographers’ interest in regional adjustment problems to grow as well: problems that often focus concern on regional economic decline in a context of low rates of national productivity improvement, on loss of international competitiveness in sectors such as automobiles and primary metals.
Perhaps we can sort out the meaning of this paragraph if we work hard enough, but why bother? The paragraph is simply not designed to communicate its message clearly; the writer seems to be more concerned with supplying text-based zones of terminology than with clearly analyzing a trend. This paragraph exemplifies the kind of obtuse writing that appears in the sciences, even in print, regularly. But let us improve this paragraph by applying principles of concision, precision, and revision.
We can begin by cutting the needless and virtually meaningless words from the first few sentences in the example paragraph above—words including "in a variety of forms," "as they always have been," "various," and "in terms of." These words are needless because their meaning is already understood in context by the thinking reader. If trends "always have been," for instance, the reader does not need to have their ongoing existence emphasized. By definition, "well-established patterns" would obviously be "various"; therefore we can strike the modifier "various" as unnecessary.
By beginning with concision, we strip away what is needless before we attempt actual revision. Our task of effective tinkering thus becomes much easier.
Next, more precision can be created in those phrases that are the least exact in their meaning—for example, "an apparent growing quality." Most importantly, we must find a way to make the meaning of the final sentence of the paragraph more precise. In its original form, that sentence is over 50 words long and includes 10 prepositions. Note also the imprecise clusters of nouns in this sentence, including "problems that often focus concern on regional economic decline" and "a context of low rates of national productivity improvement, on loss of international competitiveness." It is extremely difficult to fit such mouthfuls into the sentence’s context.
Overall, the key to making the paragraph’s meaning more precise is to choose clear, meaningful, representative nouns (e.g., "regional economic decline"), place them at the head of each sentence, and follow them with verbs that describe each noun’s meaning in the sentence. As a rule, readers rely on one manageable noun, rather than several lengthy noun clusters, to carry the weight of a sentence’s meaning.
After stripping away the needless words and phrases and refining the meaning of the nouns and verbs, we are poised to revise the sentence and improve its style. We can now begin to provide clearer connections from one sentence to the next via simple, standard transition words and thoughtful repetition of key terms. In the revision process, we can also begin to recognize how transitions as simple as "recently," "this," and "also" provide connective tissue, and how effective repetition of the key terms "decline" and "change" can bolster the reader’s understanding of the material.
Here is a revised version of the paragraph after CPR.
Recently, increasing foreign competition and technological change have disrupted well-established patterns of industrial organization. This acceleration in economic change has heightened geographers’ interest in regional adjustment problems, drawing attention to regional economic decline in such sectors as automobiles and primary metals. Regional economic decline often manifests itself through low rates of national productivity improvement and a loss of international competitiveness.
Now the paragraph’s intended topic (regional economic decline) is much clearer, and each sentence’s meaning is clearly designed to relate to the sentence next to it. In a word, the paragraph is now designed to be graceful; before revision, it was at best untidy, at worst unfathomable.
To further your skills in concision, precision, and revision, I strongly suggest two texts by Joseph Williams: Style: Lessons in Clarity and Grace [4] and Style: Toward Clarity and Grace [5]. The former sells for about $40 and includes writing exercises, while the latter retails for about $11. Both books are popular for their practicality and clarity, and because the author so effectively practices what he preaches. Applying the lessons you will learn from these books, you cannot help but improve your style.
Also, I urge you to buy The Elements of Style [6], by Strunk and White, which I originally referenced at the head of this section. The book is easy to use and can be read in just a few hours. Most bookstores sell it for about ten bucks, and if there’s one style handbook that most of your professors probably have, this is it. Scientists and engineers recommend and use this book, because it covers the elements of good writing with concision and precision. I highly recommend that you spend a few dollars and purchase the print version. Your readers will be grateful.
You can visit an early version of The Elements of Style, by Strunk, for free at the following web page:
The best stylists are those whose writing can be read fluidly, and they compose so that their paragraphs are manageable in size and unambiguous in meaning. Stylistically, paragraph flow is usually accomplished by concrete topic sentences and smooth logical connections among ideas. Within paragraphs, writers connect ideas and foster coherence by exploiting the four methods described below. Those words highlighted in color help to establish the connections between sentences.
To heat the sample, tungsten-halogen lamps are used below and above the fused silica tube. These lamps contain a tungsten filament and bromide gas inside a quartz bulb. By resistive heating alone, the lamps can attain temperatures of 300 °C to 400 °C.
The film is not completely oriented in a single direction, and the system includes a number of entanglements. These entanglements become frozen into position as the film crystallizes.
When a subject views an object initially as a circle, that image becomes imprinted on the brain. Even when the eye and brain can distinguish an ellipse from the circle, memory tricks the subject into seeing a circle.
The addition of oxygen promotes soot formation, particularly at low temperatures. On the other hand, oxygen also removes aromatic rings and active intermediates by oxidation, thus suppressing soot formation at high oxygen concentrations.
Because the wire is flexible, the sonde can rely on its own weight to pull it down the hole, essentially doing a free fall. Therefore, the sonde tends to get stuck easily in highly deviated holes.
Norris describes three forms of exit morphology. In the first form, development has spread to both sides of the intersecting road, but is still limited to one side of the interstate. In the second form, development exists on both sides of the highway. In the third form, which Norris labels full development, services are located along both sides of the intersecting roads and along ancillary feeder roads.
Of course there are other ways of linking sentences, such as by time, and the preceding four methods are not meant to suggest that writing a sound paragraph is a purely mechanical act—a matter of just plugging in transition words or giving juxtaposed sentences similar subjects. But well-written paragraphs tend to rely on the four methods detailed above, and writers consciously used these methods to be certain they’re communicating clearly. As you write and revise your paragraphs, especially when you sense that flow is needed, look for opportunities to exploit the above methods judiciously and you will be improving your style.
Most paragraphs, especially in technical fields, rely on solid topic sentences to convey their meaning clearly. Remember that topic sentences come in many forms and need not be the first sentences in paragraphs. However, if you have a paragraph that must be tidied up or you are composing a paragraph from scratch, offering a clear topic sentence as your opening statement is a good way to begin.
In technical writing, topic sentences take a number of forms. They often simply provide a general statement for the paragraph to support:
The role of coal in the hydrology of strip mines receives little attention in the literature. Most groundwater analyses of potential or current strip mines are simply concerned with . . .
Sometimes topic sentences simply kick off a list of examples:
There are obvious advantages associated with the real-time information that a measurement-while-drilling system supplies. The first advantage is . . .
Other topic sentences supply background or announce scenarios:
Ceramic tubes are now being used in the most aggressive environments. In industry . . .
Some topic sentences combine the listing of examples and background material:
Three points about the geologic activity of wind and the development of landscapes in dry lands are relevant here. First . . .
A simple, straightforward topic sentence is usually the best way to introduce general background, examples, scenarios, arguments, or even to establish a direct linkage to the preceding paragraph. Good writers use concrete and efficient topic sentences to control and unify their paragraphs. If you make it a practice to use the topic sentence as a tool to organize your thoughts, your paragraph content will fall into place more readily.
For more on topic sentences and some excellent practice exercises, visit the following sites:
"Practice in Composing Topic Sentences" page from about.com [8]
"Tutorial on Topic and Topic Sentences" page from Cerritos College [9]
By far, the stylistic error I encounter most frequently as a writing teacher and editor is subject/verb agreement. As you already know, you have to be sure that paired subjects and verbs "go together" grammatically. What this usually means (especially when you write in present tense) is that if a subject is singular its accompanying verb gets an "s" added to it, but if the subject is plural the verb requires no "s" (i.e., "the material ages" and "the materials age" are both correct). Simple, right? Your ear confirms the subject/verb agreement for you. For many writers, though, confusion arises when the subject and verb are distanced from each other in the sentence. Consider this incorrect example:
The material applied to the blades of wind turbines age rapidly in tests.
Do you see the problem? The word "age" should be "ages" in order to be compatible with the sentence’s subject—"the material"—but since "age" is right next to the plural "turbines" it is easy to get the sentence grammar wrong.
In a case such as this, the path to achieving perfect subject/verb agreement is to dissect the sentence mentally to determine which noun or pronoun goes with which verb. You cannot always trust your ear, especially when the word you are using is a word such as "everybody," "everyone," or "one" (all of which are singular). Also, even though "United States" or "NASA" might sound to you as though it is plural, the United States is considered to be one country, and NASA (like other organizations or corporations) is one entity (i.e., "NASA redesigned its o-rings" is correct while "NASA redesigned their o-rings" is not). In contrast, a sentence subject that includes an "and" as part of the subject (e.g., "Rising productivity and long-range profit . . .") is typically a plural subject, and therefore a verb that goes with a plural subject (e.g., "are," "reveal") must be chosen.
A simple way to check whether your subjects and verbs are compatible is to supply a mental "they" for a plural subject and a mental "it" for a singular subject. (Grammatically, the phrase "The speed of the downdrafts was intense" is the same as "It was intense"; the phrase "Two of the variables are incorrect" is the same as "They are incorrect"). The longer or more complex your sentences are, the more likely you are to have to apply a mental test to your subject/verb agreement at times.
Especially if you find that you are having consistent subject/verb agreement problems, you must make it a habit to do the following:
To further test and polish your grammatical skills, try out the quizzes at the following sites:
Quiz on subject/verb agreement from Capital Community College [10]
Fill-in-the-blank subject/verb agreement quiz from the City University of Hong Kong [11]
Part of why subject/verb agreement errors are so numerous is because of the "special cases" that often arise in English, e.g., when words including "everyone," "some," and "none" are part of the subject. Use the principles that follow to guide you through these special cases.
Each of the student leaders agrees that . . .
Anyone associated with the DEP understands that . . .
Either the pebbles or the sand is . . .
Either the sand or the pebbles are . . .
Some of the sample is contaminated.
Some of the samples are refrigerated.
All of the bone is intact.
All of his bones are broken.
None of the ground is disturbed.
None of the grounds are mowed.
Further research and development on fuel cells is necessary for them to achieve their potential as energy storage devices.
Supply and demand is used to determine the equilibrium values of price and quantity.
A number of people were affected by the tragedy.
The number of samples contaminated was two.
A series of western blots were performed to assay protein expression.
The series of western analyses was found to be inconclusive.
For each patient, 10 mL of whole blood was collected in a clot tube.
Once the data is collected, the results can be tabulated.
When data for 2007 and 2008 were compared, the researchers found that violent crime in the city had dropped by 12 percent.
What follows are some important and commonly misused singular/plural pairs, all of which are commonly used in technical writing.
Singular | Plural |
alga | algae |
appendix | appendixes or appendices |
axis | axes |
crisis | crises |
criterion | criteria |
curriculum | curriculums or curricula |
formula | formulas or formulae |
fungus | fungi |
hypothesis | hypotheses |
locus | loci |
medium | media |
nucleus | nuclei |
phenomenon | phenomena |
radius | radii |
retina | retinas or retinae |
spectrum | spectra |
stimulus | stimuli |
stratum | strata |
thesis | theses |
Be certain to use the correct form of these nouns, and be sure that the related verbs are compatible with the noun’s status as singular or plural. Even though they may automatically sound wrong to your ear, the sentences below are all correct, with the subjects and verbs compatible in grammar.
The emission spectra of the bodies peak in the infrared.
The media are highly influential in shaping public opinion.
A stratum of sand was struck as they dug the well.
The radii of error spheres are more difficult to determine than the centers.
Especially for those in technical fields, who typically write scientific reports and coordinate their own research findings with those of other researchers, decisions about the proper verb tense to use in a given situation can be befuddling. A quote by Groucho Marx is instructive here, as Groucho once quipped: "I have had a perfectly wonderful evening, but this wasn’t it." Because Groucho employs the perfect tense here (using "have had," which suggests both present and past), he correctly notes that the wonderful evening could have been on any other night in his life.
The first rule of thumb is to word your sentences in such a way that verb tenses are simple and consistent. The easiest way to simplify context for both yourself and your reader is to use present tense when possible, because it is automatically reader-friendly and readily understood. But there is obviously more to this issue. Read on:
An accepted practice is that scientific truths, facts, and things happening during the reading of a paper can be treated best in present tense.
Nickel is generally deposited from sulfate, sulfate-chloride, or sulfamate electrolytes with or without additives.
This paper evaluates material deformation in the brittle and ductile regimes.
Your own findings or experimental procedures, the actual experimental procedures and results of others, and physically past events should usually be treated as simple past tense.
A drop of HNO3 was added to bring the distilled water to pH 3.
In the 1930s, it was fashionable for scientists to write memos only in the passive voice.
Future tense (using "will" or "shall" with a verb) is usually reserved for those things not yet completed. This tense is most useful when you want to talk about future events.
Copper use will become more sophisticated as new exploration technologies and new extraction techniques develop.
Finally, the perfect tense (using "has," "have," or "had" as a helping verb) comes in handy when you are writing about a "double time"—that is, when you need to stress that one thing happened before another, or that something began in the past and was continued thereafter.
This particular radiometer has been used since 1985.
Scientists had argued about the existence of molecules for centuries before it was universally agreed that matter was discrete rather than continuous.
Contrary to what some writers think, you certainly may switch verb tense within a paragraph (even within a sentence, for that matter); you simply must be certain that the context implied by the verb tense matches the intended meaning.
For some quick tutorials and extensive exercises on verb tense, visit the following websites:
When composing, we often automatically make lazy choices, especially when choosing verbs. We feel enticed by generic all-purpose verbs such as "deal with" or "show," which on the surface can sound snappy and technical. However, the more these verbs are used in a particular paper, the more meaningless they become. Even in journal articles, these verbs put in a shocking number of appearances and return for many unsolicited encores. Yet these words convey no analytical meaning at all and are barely informational. Much to the reader’s frustration, "deal with" and "show" are often merely thinly disguised excuses for much more active analytical verbs such as theorize, suggest, imply, propose. For the reader, "Cheswick dealt with" or "Figure 4 shows" are far less meaningful than "Cheswick hypothesized" or "Figure 4 represents." As always, you should choose exact words in favor of nonspecific ones, especially when you can use an active verb.
In technical writing, learning to deploy active verbs on the page is one of the most obvious and easiest ways to improve your style. Active verbs—whether in present or past tense—are especially meaningful as you describe work that another author or you have completed or are in the process of completing. As a rule, you should try to choose active verbs in the following circumstances:
Phillip Bennett (2008) proposes a mechanism explaining increased silica solubility in the presence of two small organic acids.
The results of this study challenge findings from similar studies about analyte concentration varying with sample location.
This study characterizes wetlands by their water chemistry and postulates that water chemistry varies with water source and wetland type.
Figure 4 depicts grain growth that occurred after the ceramic was sintered for three hours.
What follows is a substantial list of active verbs. I assembled this list by scanning journal articles to see how the best authors described their work or the work of others. Each of these words is packed with individual, analytical meaning. When using this list, be sure to choose the best verb for the situation—verbs such as "construct," "challenge," and "extrapolate" are obviously completely different from each other, so you must use them with meaningful care.
yield mean prove postulate estimate compare generalize note delineate acknowledge determine set forth maintain investigate devise assume |
illustrate suggest insist consider define hypothesize narrate predict depict distinguish detail deduce believe assess construct argue |
illuminate clarify propose infer classify synthesize evaluate introduce construe inform sum up derive speculate determine evaluate reiterate |
reveal indicate imply state invoke summarize simplify report interpret specify designate characterize present calculate attribute discover |
employ represent assert extrapolate analyze disagree measure challenge provide restrict point out guide organize support obtain decide |
Which do you prefer—the phrase "to cut or split something into two theoretically and essentially equal parts," or the simple verb "bisect"? Which is easier to write and to read—the phrase "unite into what is essentially one body," or the simple verb "coalesce"? As you explain scientific phenomena, your readers will be highly pleased with you if you offer them lively, exact, direct, robust, vibrant, single-word verbs. Furthermore, your writing will be less wordy and more clear. However, many writers are tempted in the other direction. Trying to sound impressive, some would write "The device is prone to the submission of one pulse every 12 seconds" instead of the much simpler and more accurate "The device transmits one pulse every 12 seconds." Always beware of overcomplicating your verbs, and remember that their function is to describe actively and efficiently.
Many verbs are used continually in one field but rarely in another, so it is essential that you become familiar with those verbs that are standard vocabulary in your field. The verb "induce," which means "to produce an electric current or magnetic effect by induction," should be standard vocabulary for someone in physics or electrical engineering, while the verb "sinter," which means "to weld without melting," should be familiar and useful to those in metallurgy (it also doubles as a noun in geology).
Plenty of meaningful single-word verbs are out there just waiting for you to use them. One easy way to choose the best verb is to consult the brief (and certainly not exhaustive) list that follows to search for the kinds of active verbs that the best writers choose. The verbs are organized randomly to stress that they are not interchangeable nor to be used arbitrarily. Even though the exact verb that you need to describe a phenomenon may not be on this list, the verbs on the list do suggest the kind of verbs that you should choose. Many students tell me they turn to this list as they write a paper just to keep their minds tuned-in to using single-word active verbs. For efficiency, accuracy, and your own credibility as a technical writer, always aim for the best and simplest verb. If you are unsure of a verb’s exact meaning, be sure to look it up.
discharge exchange emit exude converge contract continue bond encompass deposit invade reclaim precede orient activate condense link appear superpose disperse accelerate |
overlie separate transmit interact extend trend mix interlock access underlie permeate restore influence distribute cease enrich superimpose require crystallize disseminate transfer |
emanate surround carry behave constrain plunge slow fuse traverse overlap evolve abandon saturate allow record invert rotate ascend bisect disintegrate penetrate |
radiate combine bombard exchange force occur quicken deteriorate join originate divide contain circulate lag form convert rupture descend cede propel halt |
scatter eliminate exert absorb elongate fracture produce migrate dominate isolate sinter accrue forecast terminate transect alter streamline collapse coalesce repel curb |
Teachers actually get fired up about this issue. You may have had a frustrated (and frustrating?) professor write on your paper "Use passive voice!" or "Avoid passive voice!" during your studies, and your grammar checker will be happy to flag and condemn all passive sentences for you. Further, your English textbook might suggest that the active sentence "Jack hit the baseball" is better than the passive sentence "The baseball was hit by Jack." As well-intentioned as they might be, these tidbits of advice don’t help much, do they? You are not likely to have anyone named Jack hitting any baseballs in your papers, and obviously both passive and active voice are powerful tools in the right hands.
You are probably already able to identify whether or not sentences are written in the passive or active voice, but if not, here is a refresher: In the simplest terms, an active voice sentence is written in the form of "A does B." A passive voice sentence is written in the form of "A is done by B." Both constructions are fine. In fact, notice how the sentences below, depending on the context in which they appear, are equally acceptable:
Passive voice: The rate of evaporation is controlled by the size of an opening.
Active voice: The size of an opening controls the rate of evaporation.
The passive choice slightly emphasizes "the rate of evaporation," while the active choice emphasizes "the size of an opening." Simple. So why all the fuss? Because the habit of overusing passive constructions rules too many writers, who habitually produce grammatically tangled sentences such as this one:
Groundwater flow is influenced by zones of fracture concentration, as can be recognized by the two model simulations (see Figures 1 and 2), by which one can see . . .
Forget it. The sentence is becoming a burden for the reader, and probably for the writer too. As often happens, the passive voice here has smothered potential verbs and kicked off a runaway train of prepositions. But the reader’s task gets much easier in the revised version below:
Two model simulations (Figures 1 and 2) illustrate how zones of fracture concentration influence groundwater flow. These simulations show . . .
To revise the above, all I did was look for the two buried things (simulations and zones) in the original version that could actually do something, and I made the sentence clearly about these two nouns by placing them in front of active verbs. This is the general principle to follow as you compose in the active voice: Place concrete nouns that can perform work in front of active verbs representing the nature of the work done.
But suppose you are writing a report where you may not use "I", or you are writing about a sentence subject that can not actually do anything. What to do when the passive voice is the best, most natural choice?
The answer lies in writing direct sentences—in passive voice—that have simple subjects and verbs. Compare the two sentences below:
Photomicrographs were taken to facilitate easy comparison of the samples.Easy comparison of the samples was facilitated by the taking of photomicrographs.
Both sentences are written in the passive voice, but for most ears the first sentence is more direct and understandable, and therefore preferable. Depending on the context, it does a clearer job of telling us what was done and why it was done. Especially if this sentence appears in the "Experimental" section of a report (and thus readers already know that the authors of the report took the photomicrographs), the first sentence neatly represents what the authors actually did—took photomicrographs—and why they did it—to facilitate easy comparison.
Note well: Using passive voice does not have to create ambiguity nor complicate wording. When you use the passive voice, seek economy and clarity. Avoid such empty and ambiguous phrases as "it might be thought that" (try "perhaps") or "it is to be supposed that" (try "presumably") or "the theory that is held by the writer of this report at the present time of this writing" (try "It is theorized that") or "one should think of" (try dropping it completely). At times the passive seems unavoidable, but the passive can often be switched to the active with some simple rewording, and both the active and the passive voice can be direct, efficient, and clear in context. In your writing, you must strive to use both of them well.
For examples and exercises on passive vs. active voice, check out these websites:
"Choosing between Active and Passive Voice Verbs When Writing" page from Kennesaw State University [14]
Active and passive voice discussion and examples from a professor at Seton Hill University [15]
At least during your undergraduate studies, the nature of your writing assignments generally favors the active voice, because you usually write about general interest topics to educated laypeople and other scientists or engineers in a reader-friendly fashion. In general, a sentence that opens with a concrete simple subject followed by an active verb will serve you well; the rest of the sentence can reveal the new (and often necessarily wordy) information.
Two common circumstances follow where passive voice is too often used, even though active voice is completely practical:
Crustal rocks contain an interesting historical record. First, they reveal . . .
Batteries, inductors, and capacitors provide electrical energy storage. In batteries, high internal resistance allows for . . .
Feldman explains how the relative brightness of objects depends on the viewer’s angle of observation.
Figure 2 illustrates how fractal geometry can be used to create realistic landscapes.
The following excerpt from a meteorology paper demonstrates how admirable and efficient the active voice can be. This paragraph is especially impressive in that it explains the complex concept of vorticity through an analysis of the seemingly ordinary phenomenon of smoke rings. Note the consistent use of simple exact subjects followed by active descriptive verbs.
Figure 4 depicts a smoke ring in which the layers of a toroidal vortex ring are visible. As the picture shows, the smoke ring moves away from its source and trails smoke from its center. The trail of smoke behind the moving smoke ring indicates that the same viscous stress that caused the smoke ring to form also causes its eventual destruction. As the smoke ring continues to move (Figure 5), the outside boundary of the ring rotates toward the same direction as the relative motion of the surrounding air. The inside boundary rotates opposite in direction, and thus the change in relative velocity with distance across the boundary produces drag.
Clearly, this is a paragraph that the writer toiled over, yet, thanks to the clear transitions and sensible use of the active voice, it is highly readable and efficient. This writer understood well how to marshal active verbs to explain phenomena. Note how, thanks to the active verbs, we can readily picture the described phenomena even without the figures being supplied.
One cautionary note, though: even though you are generally allowed to use "I" (or "we") in papers written largely in the active voice, you must beware of overuse. Simple transition words can represent the writer’s thinking just as well as the use of "I." For instance, the word "apparently" can do the same job as "I believe that"; the word "however" is much better than "as I turn to another way of thinking about it." Also, using "I" can be distracting, especially because it might cause you to inject too much personal opinion or irrelevant subjectivity—technical papers are not the place to share digressive speculations or assert your personality. Remember that your focus is on information and your considered interpretation of that information. Strong interpretive verbs and confident, accurate pronouncements automatically suggest that an "I" is at work anyway, so concentrate on choosing simple transitions, concrete nouns, and muscular verbs.
As a student writer, you will frequently encounter circumstances favoring the passive voice, especially when you prepare technical reports based on labs you have completed. You might even be told never to use "I" or "we" in your papers. The convention of writing scientific reports (especially the "Experimental" section) largely in the passive voice is strong and sensible, and you should not fight it, but know how to work within the boundaries. When used correctly, the passive voice has the desired impact of focusing the reader’s and writer’s attention on methodology and data generation, and it helps to foster objectivity, universality, and efficiency.
Passive voice, couched within direct sentences containing simple subjects and verbs, is generally preferred in the following circumstances:
Initially, a fractured steel specimen was plated with electroless nickel and secured in an epoxy mount by vacuum impregnation.
The findings of the November 1997 report to NASA were based on DMTA, DSC, and FTIR test results.
In formal abstracts (condensed summaries) that introduce papers:
Sensitivity experiments are reviewed to investigate the influence of Pacific sea surface temperature anomalies on blocking in the Northern Hemisphere.
When it makes sense to emphasize the receiver of the action rather than the doer:
The samples should be monitored regularly and should be dried carefully once they are cool.
Winter wheat is planted in the autumn and ripens in the following spring or summer.
One facet of multiple phase transformation can be seen through an examination of the gas gathering process. This process . . .
The best stylists become masters at artfully placing transition words in pivotal positions—i.e., places where the sentence or paragraph meaning "shifts" slightly. What follows is a handy list of common transition words and their functions. If you open sentences appropriately with these words it will help your writing to flow. One caveat though: Always keep the literal meaning of a transition word in mind as you use it—therefore, do not use "for example" unless you are introducing an example that links to the preceding information; do not use "nevertheless" unless you are offering a contrasting point. Note how this paragraph has required a minimal use of transition words; they should not be forced in where they do not belong. When you do use them, keep their broader functions (i.e., "causality," "emphasis," etc.) directly in mind.
Causality | Emphasis | Amplification |
Accordingly | Above all | Again |
Consequently | Certainly | Also |
For this reason | Clearly | Apparently |
Hence | Indeed | Besides |
Therefore | In fact | Equally important |
Thus | In short | Finally |
Obviously | First, Second, etc. | |
Intention | Of course | Further |
For this purpose | In addition | |
In order to do this | Closure | Moreover |
To this end | In conclusion | |
With this in mind | In sum | Detail |
On the whole | Especially | |
Location | To summarize | In particular |
Beyond | In regard to | |
Here | Similarity | Namely |
Nearby | Likewise | Specifically |
Opposite | Similarly | To enumerate |
Overlying (underlying) | ||
There | Time | Comparison/Contrast |
To the right (left) | Afterward | However |
At the same time | In contrast | |
Concession | Before | In relation to |
At any rate | Earlier | Nevertheless |
At least | Eventually | On the other hand |
In the meantime | Still | |
Example | Sometimes | |
For example | Later | Interpretation |
For instance | Next | Fortunately |
To demonstrate | Preceding this | Interestingly |
To illustrate | Simultaneously | Significantly |
Soon | Surprisingly |
For more transition word lists, check out these URLs:
"Transitional Words and Phrases" list from the University of Richmond Writing Center [16]
To become an effective technical stylist, you must understand some of the key governing conventions. A few stylistic issues emerge as worthy of special attention here, especially since professors can be particularly sensitive to them. See the lessons in this section not as binding restrictions on your style, but as opportunities to understand (and in some cases, debunk) some oft-repeated rules of professional communication. In technical writing, as in chess, it is prudent to wield your creativity only within the rules.
Contractions—in which an apostrophe is used to "contract" two words into one by joining parts of them—are considered to be informal, conversational expression. In the formal writing that you do for your classes, or as you submit formal work for an editor’s or superior’s perusal, you simply do not have the option of using contractions unless you are quoting something that contains contractions. If you use contractions in formal writing you may appear sloppy and unprofessional. The safest idea is to avoid them entirely. If you avoid contractions, you will discover that your writing becomes more emphatic and leans toward the active voice, so the benefits are multiple. Remember: in technical writing, apostrophes contracting two words (e.g., "it’s," "they’ve," "who’s") signal that the two words can and should be written out separately.
Of course scientists and engineers have feelings, but use of the word "feelings" or the verb "feel" in technical writing often leads the writer into trouble. Phrases such as "I feel that the best answer is 3.2" or "we feel that this conclusion is correct" can draw large frowns from your readers. "Feel" has emotional connotations, and feelings are not a relevant part of rational conclusions in your writing, at least not on the page. Also, the needless use of the term can lend the appearance of uncertainty, especially when applied to quantities or conclusions as it is above.
A related issue is the use of unintentional personification—i.e., assigning human traits to inanimate objects—in technical writing. In a phrase such as "when the drillstring feels the weight," the seemingly literal claim that an inanimate object such as a drillstring "feels" anything is clearly inaccurate. Similarly, a sentence such as "Boeing stock enjoyed a 2% increase today" could imply that stocks have emotions. Although such a sentence may well appear in the daily newspaper, its tone would not suit a technical paper. In technical writing, avoid unintentional personification, which is always revealed by the verb you use to express a noun’s action.
From a stylistic standpoint, one of the best things about the need for writers to choose gender-neutral language is that it forces them to explore the options that have always been available to them. Most students are aware that they should choose gender-neutral language when they write and give oral presentations, but if it just causes them to use "his/her" repeatedly then they are not living up to their obligations to keep their writing highly readable and efficient. Also, writing a sentence such as "Someone should lend their voice to this problem" is still grammatically unacceptable because "someone" is singular and "their" is plural. Most good writers attack the problem in the following ways:
With these tactics in mind, consider the following example:
The consumer himself has the power to reduce fuel costs: If he sets his residential thermostat 2 degrees higher in the summer and 2 degrees lower in the winter, he saves energy.
In a revised version of this sentence, the gender-specific language of the original is avoided:
Consumers have the power to reduce fuel costs: By setting their residential thermostats 2 degrees higher in the summer and 2 degrees lower in the winter, they save energy.
Standard English usage still calls for the masculine form ("he" or "his") to refer correctly to either gender in writing, but rely on this only when you have to. In technical writing, do not let your concern for gender-neutral language cause your usage to be too unconventional ("personhole cover"? "personkind"? "s/he"?); instead, do exercise your options as a writer wisely, and remember that our language is always in flux. Keep your eye on it.
Do you crave more on gender-neutral language? Then pay these academic sites a visit:
"Statement on Gender and Language" from the National Council of Teachers of English [18]
"Gender-neutral Language" article by Dennis Jerz, Seton Hill University [19]
Jargon, especially that which has grown out of computer usage, genuinely enriches our language, so I do not want to give it a bad rap. (Why not delight, for example, in jargon such as "debug," "flame," and "FUBAR"?) However, many professors and employers criticize the use of jargon (sometimes called "buzzwords" or "gobbledygook"), especially in formal writing, so you must understand how to recognize it and when it is unacceptable.
The forms of jargon range from redundancy ("red in color"), overly formal wordiness (using "at this point in time" rather than "currently"), and specialized technical slang (using "airplane rule" to describe the concept that greater complexity increases the likelihood of failure). Clearly, when jargon takes the form of redundancy and wordiness, simple editing is critical; when jargon becomes specialized slang, we must consider audience and context to decide on how much jargon is appropriate. A hip group of hackers might know that "angry fruit salad" refers to visual design that includes too many colors, but a general, educated audience would not.
When discerning whether to use jargon, employ the following principles:
Professional and government organizations are just as concerned about overuse of jargon as your professors are. Check out these sites for tips and an action plan to reduce jargon and communicate more clearly:
"Jargon in Technical Writing" article from the Weed Science Society of America [20]
Dangling modifiers are a common occurrence in technical writing and are easily overlooked by the writer, who assumes the reader will automatically follow the sentence’s meaning. Especially when you use passive voice, it is easy to create dangling modifiers—that is, descriptive words that seem to "dangle off by themselves" because they do not accurately describe the words next to them. Most often, writers dangle modifiers at a sentence’s beginning. Grammatically, a group of words preceding a sentence’s main subject should directly describe the subject; otherwise, that group of words can become a dangling modifier. The following sentences contain dangling modifiers:
Using an otoscope, her ears were examined for damage.
Determining the initial estimates, results from previous tests were used.
Even though these sentences are understandable, grammatically they are unacceptable, because the first implies that the ears used the otoscope, while the second implies that the results themselves determined the initial estimates. The words that describe a sentence subject must be sensibly related to the subject, and in these two sentences that is not the case. Although here the intended meaning can be discerned with some minimal work, readers often have a hard time sorting out meaning when modifiers are dangled, especially as sentences grow longer.
Revisions of these sentences to avoid dangling modifiers involve changing wording slightly and shuffling sentence parts around so that the meaning is more logical:
Her ears were examined for damage with an otoscope.
Results from previous tests were used to determine the initial estimates.
Particularly when you are writing the "Experimental" section of a technical report, or anytime when you must use the passive voice regularly, take special care to watch out for dangling modifiers. The more frequently dangling modifiers are used, the more likely a sentence’s meaning can become obtuse. The result is sentences that may be both unclear and inelegant.
Further reading on dangling modifiers is available from these two university sites:
Exercise on modifier placement from Capital Community College [22]
"Avoiding Misplaced and Dangling Modifiers" article from Towson University [23]
A few years ago, an old dog taught me a new trick. I edited a technical report for a gentleman who works for a government agency and has authored over 200 papers. He was highly respectful of all my editorial suggestions, but corrected me on one. I told him that he was bucking convention by using "we" throughout his report, and that the standard was to avoid using the term in technical writing, just as I had been told by others. He assured me that he had "breezily been getting away with it" for 40 years, and I agreed just as breezily that he should not change his practice after such a winning record. Finally, I came away from our interaction with an important question: Was this scientist-author a maverick, or was he in fact practicing the customary?
To form an answer, I pulled 40 journals at random from one of my university’s technical library’s shelves. The journals ranged from the international refereed European Journal of Mineralogy to the more advertising-driven Spray Technology and Marketing. To my surprise, in 32 out of the 40 journals, the authors indeed made liberal use of "I" and "we" (referred to grammatically as "the first person"). In one case (an article in Water Resources Journal), the authors used "we" in nearly every paragraph. I realized then that I had been upholding a principle that was either outmoded or at least in flux, without considering the convention in the published literature. A lesson learned.
Nevertheless, addressing the issue here is not as simple as saying "go ahead and use the first person freely." Here are some considered guidelines to follow:
You can use the first person in an abstract or introduction to stress the foundations of your particular approach, express authorial intentions, or emphasize your scientific convictions:
In this paper, I argue that . . .
In contrast to other authors, we conclude that . . .
Use the first person plural ("we") when you wish to include the reader as part of a collective, thinking body:
We can agree that something must be done about the quality of care in HMO programs.
By convention, you may use the first person plural ("we") to introduce equations:
We can calculate the green densities of the pellets with the equation . . .
Despite what I have outlined above, recognize that some professors and editors will adamantly reject the use of first person pronouns in technical writing. Revise accordingly when needed.
Do you want to annoy and confuse your readers? Then paste a paragraph together with "this" or "it" as a connecting word in nearly every sentence. Moreover, do not refer to anything specific with the "this" or "it"—keep the meaning vague. (For the highly literal among you, please note that I have just employed mild sarcasm.) Without realizing it, many writers habitually plant a "this" or "it" wherever they sense that flow is needed. However, they often create confusion by doing so. Most of the time when you use "this" or "it" you are actually referring to a specific noun or verb that is nearby, or to an idea that has just been implied if not explicitly stated. To avoid confusion, one sound practice is to name whatever the "this" refers to immediately after it (i.e., "this phenomenon," "this principle," "this variation"). Note how much clearer the following sentences are because "this assumption" is used rather than just "this" by itself:
The burial by thrusting is believed to occur rapidly. This assumption, however, is difficult to test.
Here, "this assumption" clarifies that a belief is being described rather than the burial by thrusting or its rapid occurrence.
Commonly, "it is" is overused as a sentence beginning. "It is this water that could become . . ." is better written as "This water could become . . . ." When the use of "it" is vague or unnecessary, try to simply eliminate the word.
The same principle described above applies to pronouns such as "that" and "these": Do not overuse them, and when you do be sure that the reader can easily discern the words or ideas being referred to.
Because I decided against making this manual too much of a grammar text, I have only scratched the surface here on the subject of effective pronoun usage (e.g., I have not even touched on the dreaded "who" and "whom" distinction). If you find that you consistently have trouble with pronouns, I recommend further study.
For more guidance on proper pronoun usage, I highly recommend these instructive websites:
Exercises on pronoun/antecedent agreement from D'Youville College's Online Writing Lab [24]
Exercises on pronoun/antecedent agreement from Capital Community College [25]
A split infinitive is a phrase in which one or more words are placed between the word "to" and its accompanying verb. "To boldly go" is a split infinitive (a famous one, in fact, even to non-Trekkies) because "boldly" is interrupting the more basic pattern "to go." Split infinitives are pet peeves of many professors (and grammar checkers too), so you must consider how you will handle this issue. Read on:
The grammatical thorn that emerges when infinitives are split essentially has to do with the concept of unit interruption. Our ears (and the "rules" of our language) prefer that certain units not be interrupted. For instance, for many writers, "have worked diligently" is more acceptable than "have diligently worked," in that the verb "have worked" is not interrupted in the first instance. (Also, work in itself cannot be "diligent," per se, and the phrasing "have diligently worked" could imply otherwise.) To dramatize the point further, consider the serious, especially irksome unit interruption that occurs in an incorrect phrase we have all heard: "a whole nother."
Now consider this sentence, which contains a split infinitive:
The plastic contains a catalyst that causes it to completely and naturally disappear in a few months.
In this sentence, some readers would insist that "to" and "disappear" are too far away from each other, in that their grammatical purpose here is to serve as one uninterrupted unit. A revised version of the sentence would bring together the two words in question, thus:
The plastic contains a catalyst that causes it to disappear completely and naturally in a few months.
Now, "completely and naturally" is more obviously describing the intact phrase, "to disappear." As in this case, usually the words that split an infinitive can go outside the infinitive or be omitted altogether.
Nevertheless, split infinitives do appear in writing, and many writers (including me) find them acceptable as long as they are infrequent and that they do not disturb either sense or sound. At times, in fact, split infinitives are the most logical, euphonious choice:
After the mishap, he was encouraged to never report to work again.
It is comforting to finally understand differential equations.
The bottom line: If you split infinitives, do so infrequently, and understand that some of your professors might view them as unacceptable or sloppy style.
Prepositions—small connecting words such as at, about, to, under—are used to clarify relationships between other words, especially between verbs and the receivers of the verb’s action. We have all heard admonishments against ending sentences with prepositions, but such a rule never really existed—as with the principle of not splitting infinitives, it was mostly passed down by grammarians who were attempting to make written English conform to the rules of Latin. Even the purist grammar handbook that I began using in the 1980s, Martha Kolln’s Language and Composition [26], calls the notion that sentences may not end with prepositions an "absurd warning."
Of course, as a matter of style, ending a sentence with a preposition can give undue stress to the preposition, leaving the reader with the feeling that the sentence has ended weakly (e.g., "He wasn’t sure which sample to look at."). Therefore, if a sentence ending with a proposition sounds weak to you, revise it by moving or eliminating the preposition, but do not defy meaning or the natural word order.
And for those who would argue with you over this issue and insist on the "rule," point out to them that it is sometimes just darned inconvenient and illogical not to end a perfectly understandable and strong sentence with a preposition. You can even cite two authorities on language: William and Winston. Shakespeare’s Henry V includes the line, "Who servest thou under?" And the always quotable Winston Churchill, to demonstrate the inconvenience when the so-called rule is followed, is reported to have put his feelings on the matter thus:
This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.
So there.
Links
[1] http://australianhelp.com/grammar
[2] http://www.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/index2.htm
[3] http://www.theprices.com/2sty.htm
[4] http://www.amazon.com/Style-Lessons-Clarity-Grace-9th/dp/0321479351/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219353677&sr=8-1
[5] http://www.amazon.com/Style-Clarity-Chicago-Writing-Publishing/dp/0226899152/ref=pd_bbs_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219353677&sr=8-3
[6] http://www.amazon.com/Elements-Style-Fourth-William-Strunk/dp/020530902X/ref=pd_bbs_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219353914&sr=1-2
[7] http://www.bartleby.com/141/index.html
[8] http://grammar.about.com/od/developingparagraphs/a/practicetopic.htm
[9] http://cms.cerritos.edu/reading/topics-and-topic-sentences.htm
[10] http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/sv_agr.htm
[11] http://www.cityu.edu.hk/elc/quiz/subverb1.htm
[12] http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/verbtenseintro.html
[13] http://www.eflnet.com/grammar/verbtense.php
[14] http://www.kennesaw.edu/elearning/proseprep/grammar/activepassive.htm
[15] http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/grammar-and-syntax/active-and-passive-verbs/
[16] http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/trans1.html
[17] https://www.msu.edu/~jdowell/135/transw.html
[18] https://ncte.org/statement/genderfairuseoflang/
[19] http://jerz.setonhill.edu/writing/style/gender.html
[20] http://old.wssa.net/WSSA/Pubs/HelpfulHints/0303.pdf
[21] http://health.gov/communication/HLActionPlan/pdf/Health_Literacy_Action_Plan.pdf
[22] http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/modifiers.htm
[23] http://www.towson.edu/ows/moduleDangling.htm
[24] http://depts.dyc.edu/learningcenter/owl/exercises/agreement_pa_ex1.htm
[25] http://grammar.ccc.commnet.edu/grammar/pronouns.htm
[26] http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Rhetoric-Language-Composition/dp/0023658606/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1219757543&sr=8-2