Writing Scientific English (eBook)

Chapter 1An introduction to scientific English

It is well-known that, in grammatical terms, languages are more perfect the older they are and that they always become gradually worse, from high Sanskrit down to English jargon, this patchwork cloak of thoughts stitched together from rags of heterogeneous material.

(Bekanntlich sind die Sprachen, namentlich in grammatischer Hinsicht, desto vollkommener, je älter sie sind, und werden stufenweise immer schlechter – vom hohen Sanskrit an bis zum englischen Jargon herab, diesem aus Lappen heterogener Stoffe zusammengeflickten Gedankenkleide.)

ARTHUR SCHOPENHAUER

The chapter begins by looking at the advantages and disadvantages of English as the language of scientific communication, presents some guidelines on how to write the formal English found in scientific writing and ends by suggesting a basic vocabulary for written scientific communication.

1.1Advantages and disadvantages of English

English has become today's language of science through historical events, not through any inherent characteristics that make it better suited to the task. Fortunately, English does have many positive characteristics that make it suitable for scientific writing. However, some negative ones also make it less than ideal. The positive characteristics include a relatively straightforward grammar and an enormously rich vocabulary; the irregular pronunciation and the inconsistent spelling are two negative ones.

The straightforward grammar makes it relatively simple to construct sentences. The order of words is uncomplicated and there is no need to worry about the gender of nouns or about the appropriate ending of an adjective. Changes in the verb endings are also limited. Nevertheless, it is the verbs, with their large number of tenses, that do cause the most difficulty in applying English grammar.

English's richness of vocabulary gives writers a tremendous flexibility in the words they can choose. Where does this wonderful richness of vocabulary originate? One source lies in English's French, German and Scandinavian roots. As a consequence, English often has both a French- and a German-based word for the same thing or concept. The pairs of words “infancy” and “childhood”, “judicious” and “wise”, “malady” and “sickness” and “transmit” and “send” are just a few examples. A second source of variety in English is the habit of English-speaking people to absorb words from other languages. For instance, the word “robot” originates from the word in many Slav languages for work; in contrast, the words “alcohol” and “elixir” have an Arabic origin. The excellent website www.krysstal.com/borrow.html lists the hundreds of words that English has assimilated over the centuries. Schopenhauer was quite correct in describing English as a patchwork language.

In his book “Mother Tongue: The English Language”, Bill Bryson states that this richness ofvocabulary gives English an advantage over many other languages. He proposes that a language with a wider vocabulary has more ways to express the same thought. This may be true, but a wide vocabulary is not necessary to express one's ideas. The writer Ernest Hemingway was famous for using a limited range of words. Nevertheless, he was still able to articulate powerful emotions and describe profound thoughts.

The two negative characteristics of English mentioned above do, however, place it at a distinct disadvantage compared to other languages. The irregular and often seemingly perverse pronunciation means that even native English speakers will have no idea how to pronounce a word with which they are unfamiliar. How difficult is it then for non-native speakers to learn to pronounce English correctly? How can one explain that the important scientific words “mature” and “nature” are pronounced differently? How could a young person who had lived for a year in Hollywood as a teenager and who spoke English with an excellent American accent mispronounce the words “nitrogen” and “oxygen”? These two gases are not normally words that teenagers frequently use. Without having heard their pronunciation, it is hard to know that they rhyme with Ben and not with bean. This book is, however, only concerned with writing. A discussion on the vagaries of pronunciation can wait for another day.

Spelling is, in contrast, essential for accurate scientific writing. It is vital that students are aware of the problems. The most frequent ones are presented in box 1.1, with suggestions how a famous native German speaker might terminate them. Perhaps these changes will one day become reality. Until then, spelling will remain an item to be considered carefully in scientific manuscripts. One way of reducing the difficulties is to switch on a spellchecker and set it to correct when typing. Special words or abbreviations that are specific to a particular field can be constantly added to the main dictionary. In this way, the spellchecker can be trusted to correct spelling during typing. If it cannot correct a word, then that word will need attention. If you do not like your spellchecker to make decisions itself, turn off this option and manually check the words marked by the spellchecker. There is nothing wrong with this; you may even learn something. It is simply more time-consuming.

A spellchecker is, however, not perfect. At present, a spellchecker will fail to determine whether a word should be written in the singular or plural. Furthermore, it cannot deal with words that do exist in a language but that are used incorrectly. The thirteen sentences in box 1.2 provide twelve such words. See if you can find them. Remember to keep an eye open for such errors when you read your work.

The grammar checker of Word 2019 is also a useful tool. It detects repeated words, sentences that do not start with a capital letter and unnecessary spaces. Its range also extends to more complex difficulties such as highlighting incomplete sentences, marking a lack of agreement between the subject and verb (e. g. “the majority of scientists is conservative”, not “the majority of scientists are conservative”) and highlighting incorrect tense constructions.

Like spellcheckers, grammar checkers are not foolproof and are to be used with care. Nevertheless, even if they are inaccurate, you still have to work out why the grammar checker has queried your writing. Anything that makes you contemplate what you have written and consider other possibilities will positively contribute to the quality of your text.