Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Language in Society.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:52:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Language in Society
2I,
477-485.
Sociolinguisticimplicationsof academicwriting
EUGENE
A. NIDA
Academic writing, as the way in which scholars write about their research and
findings, differs significantly from one author to another in difficulty of vocabulary, complexity of syntax, and organization of content. Such writing
is often called "technical writing" or "scientific writing," and the three principal levels of difficulty may be usefully illustrated by the language registers
employed in (i) the technical journals of learned societies, (2) Scientific
American, and (3) Natural History, published by the Museum of Natural
History of New York City.
The concern of this article is the academic language of most technical journals, which are crucial for thousands of graduate students, especially in the
developing countries of the world. These people desperately need meaningful access to the kinds of information that is indispensable if such societies
are to "catch up" in such broad areas as health, nutrition, energy, ecology,
communication, and sociology, as well as in such restricted fields as metallurgy, robotics, astrophysics, nuclear physics, cytology, radiology, and aerodynamics. Almost go percent of scientific publications come out first in
English, but many people who need such information have only limited competence in the English language. They may have English dictionaries, but
these are often out of date, especially in the areas of technical vocabulary.
Furthermore, the real problems in comprehending academic writing are pri?
1992
477
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:52:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EUGENE
A.
NIDA
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:52:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLINGUISTIC
IMPLICATIONS
OF ACADEMIC
WRITING
guage deal with so-called ergative structures, which occur in many languages
and which are often regarded as structurally awkward and semantically arbitrary. The first article sets up semantic criteria for explaining the seemingly
illogical choices made by speakers in marking the subject of intransitive
verbs, and the second presents an historical explanation for the development
of such structuresin quite different types of languages. Even experienced linguists often fail to understand or appreciate ergative case relations, in which
for the most part the grammatical object of transitive verbs and the subject
of intransitive verbs have the same markers, whereas the subject of transitive verbs is marked in a different manner.
The article in American Anthropologist is likewise very relevant for understanding the way in which meanings are constructed by speech communities. It contains a number of crucial insights for all the behavioral sciences
as well as for the humanities, and it proposes a solid basis for developing a
theory of cognition.
In order to illustrate some of the problems of technical writing in learned
journals, a number of different features are discussed, as they occur in Language and in American Anthropologist. The major classes of difficulties include vocabulary, attributive phrases, series of prepositional phrases, highly
generic expressions, adverbials, redundancy, parenthetical expressions, and
sentence length.
A certain number of technical terms are inevitable in academic writing, especially if these are crucial for distinguishing otherwise misleading ideas or
are central to some new insights or principles. But in the articles in Language,
the following illustrative terms are not integral to the text: macrarolehood,
make more sense to say a clitic whichmarksnounphraseshavingquantifiers, because that is precisely the role of the clitic in question.
One might very well expect that in an article about human behavior many
fewer rare terms would appear, but the treatment of cognitive processes in
the American Anthropologist has an oversupply of high-level vocabulary, for
example, intersubjectivity, superorganic, transpersonal, comparandum, particularism, atheoretical, incommensurability, essentialist, and phenomenologically. The term intersubjectivityis used simply to speak about the sharing
479
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:52:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EUGENE
A.
NIDA
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:52:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLINGUISTIC
IMPLICATIONS
OF ACADEMIC
WRITING
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:52:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EUGENE
A.
NIDA
One may arguethat this long sentenceis reallya seriesof five sentences
combinedby semicolons,but the mereformattingof sucha sentenceis likely
to frightenawaymanypotentialreaders.And even if they do understandall
the words and the relationsbetweenwords, they are likely to miss the significantlayeringof the sequence,in whicheach successivephraserepresents
a developmentalstagein humanhistoryand an increasinglycomplexpattern
of sensoryinput and cognitiveoutput.
One of the seriousobstaclesto readercomprehensionis the tendencyof
some writersto employa greatmanyabbreviations.Standardabbreviations,
such as e.g., i.e., ibid., and cf., pose no problem,but the firstillustrativearticle in Language has close to 40 abbreviations,for example, UH (Unaccusative Hypothesis),ReiG (RelationalGrammar),GB (Government-Binding
theory),RRG (Role and ReferenceGrammar),LS (LogicalStructure),A/Everbs(verbstakingavereor essereauxiliariesin Italian).But some abbreviations are not specificallydefinedand are presumablyusedonly on the basis
of a previousauthor'susage.This meansthat the articlepresupposesthat all
readersare relativelywell acquaintedwith the relevantliterature.Fourteen
abbreviationsare listed in an initial footnote, but to read this articleefficiently, a person must be eitherwell acquaintedwith the subjectmatteras
treatedby variousauthorsor be able to assimilatequicklyand to constantly
bear in mind a long seriesof letter symbols.
A numberof featuresof academicwritingand publicationsare not directly
relatedto the processof comprehension,but do affect reader'sattitudestowarda scholarlytext. In some instances,bibliographicalreferencesin a text
seem morelike name-droppingthan legitimatemeansof callingattentionto
otherimportantcontributionsto the subjectin question.Readersare too often remindedof some arbitraryassignmentsin undergraduatecourses in
which professorsrequiredas many footnotes as typed pages and twice the
numberof bibliographicalitemsas footnotes. An articlethat has morethan
25 percentof the space occupiedby footnotes almost alwaysdrivespotential readersaway.
Some editorshavetriedto overcomethe scarefactorin footnotesby having them collectedat the end of the article,wherethey may be psychologicallylessthreatening.Butif a footnoteis trulyrelevant,it needsto be as close
as possibleto the place whereit is applicable,and this usuallymeansthat it
should be incorporatedinto the text itself. Footnotes designedonly or primarilyto makean articleappearscholarlyshouldbe red-penciledby editors.
482
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:52:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLINGUISTIC
IMPLICATIONS
OF ACADEMIC
WRITING
Summaries often cover too much of the content, and they do so in such
highly generic language that many readers find such summaries very formidable. As a result they are inclined to give up on the article. Note the following summary of the article in American Anthropologist:
Cultural cognition is the product of two different sorts of meaning: (a) the
(objective) semiotic organization of cultural texts or models, and (b) the
(subjective) processes of meaning construction through which cultural symbols become available to consciousness as "experience." This article proposes a way to bridge these two kinds of meaning by considering how
cultural knowledge is grounded in sensory experience. Several cognitive
processes (schematization, synesthesia, secondary intersubjectivity)are proposed for linking the objectively available schemata found in cultural practices and the processes of meaning construction by which individuals
appropriate symbols to consciousness. The nature of the relation between
public symbols and individual experience is discussed in relation to a number of current issues in post-structuralist culture theory. (9)
Summaries should not only indicate what an article is about, but they
should also say something about the relevance of what is being discussed.
Only in this way can readers have sufficient information to guide them in
identifying content and determining the significance of the treatment.
Appendices are helpful in some instances, but in most cases the contents
are better treated in another article. Unless appendices consist primarily of
statistical data or charts requiring special formats or paper, they should be
incorporated into a text. In many instances, appendices are only fillers and
in some instances only a place to hide dubious data. Editors are fully justified in having such material composed in smaller type.
Small type is also an excellent way for editors to indicate that some parts
of an article may be much less valuable to readers. This is especially helpful in instances in which writers have bitten off much more than they can
chew but would be bitterly resentful if any part of their text was to be axed.
The use of mathematicallike formulas seems to be increasing in some journals dealing with human behavior, language, and literature. Formulas are excellent devices for condensing a great deal of information and showing
certain interrelations in graphic form. But the use of such formulas and the
incorporation of statistical evidence does not necessarily make the contents
of an article any more true or intelligible, even though it may make the article seem more impressive. At one university in the eastern part of the United
States, the faculty insisted that a dissertation dealing with semantic correspondences between two languages had to be treated statistically or it could
not meet the university's standards for scholarly endeavor. There was absolutely no way in which statistical evidence could validate judgments about
semantic correspondences, fuzzy boundaries, and overlapping sets, especially
483
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:52:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
EUGENE
A.
NIDA
as there were no possible means for employing measurable parameters. Finally, however, the student found a way to test naive reader reactions to sets
of corresponding meanings in a manner that seemed sufficiently "scientific"
but that in reality was only deceptive window dressing. The results did look
impressive, even though they did not make sense.
The sociolinguistic implications of typical academic writing are enormous.
In the first place, increasing specialization of learning results in more diverse
academic dialects. Scholarly societies are rapidly breaking up into subdisciplines, and at meetings of learned societies there are relatively few joint sessions but a rapidly growing number of special-interest groups. Journals are
multiplying at an enormous rate throughout the scholarly world. And as one
can readily see from journal articles, there is a rapidly growing academic jargon in each of the subdisciplines. Specialized activities and ideas inevitably
give rise to a proliferation of in-group dialects, as symbols of belonging and
as means of internal communication.
The educated public is generally ready to accept the fact that scientists
must use technical terms in talking about chemistry, physics, biology, and
astronomy, but they often react quite negatively to seemingly unnecessary
technical vocabulary when talking about language. They cannot understand
why the language used to talk about language is so complex and difficult to
comprehend. In fact, two highly placed officials in foundations funding research in areas of human behavior have insisted that there is no point in making grants to scholars who apparently cannot talk about language except by
means of words that are almost unintelligible to most well-informed speakers of that language. Some linguists have, of course, been able to write clearly
and effectively about complex language phenomena, for example, Leonard
Bloomfield, Edward Sapir, George A. Miller, Dwight Bolinger, Roman
Jakobson, Paul Friedrich, Dell Hymes, William Labov, and many others.
The same is also true in the area of anthropology, in which many writers can
deal with highly complex patterns of behavior in exquisitely clear ways.
Specialization, however, almost inevitably leads to a degree of elitism,
which in turn is often lacking in a sense of social responsibility. Some specialists regard their work as a matter of pure theory with little or no relation
to social usefulness, the typical rationale for the ivory tower complex. Some
technology companies have to hire special staff to write up scientific findings in such a way that nonspecialists can understand, and some companies
have even required scientists to take courses in how to write intelligibly. But
difficult academic writing is not restricted to English. It is a worldwide phenomenon and seems to get increasingly worse.
Part of the difficulty may be due to the lack of interdisciplinary contacts,
in which meaningful conversation requires setting aside the semantically condensed terminology for the sake of talking with rather than past others. Is
it also possible that a focus on mastering a technology has forced people to
484
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:52:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
SOCIOLINGUISTIC
IMPLICATIONS
OF ACADEMIC
WRITING
regard education as acquiring information and skills rather than critical judgment? Do we seek knowledge or wisdom? Are we willing to be beneficiaries
of a society without being willing to reciprocate in making our findings as
widely acceptable as possible?
The publication of scholarly research represents a vicious circle. The researchers inevitably develop a professional dialect, and when they write, they
normally have in mind the in-group who use the same dialect and who will
be the ultimate judges of the validity of the findings. Journals tend to be increasingly specialized in language and content, and some editors feel that
highly technical language enhances the reputation of their publications. Some
of those who purchase such journals may also enjoy the elitism of in-group
identification by being able to understand the specialized vocabulary. Accordingly, there seems to be no way of breaking into this circle apart from
a radical shift in social sensitivity on the part of publishers, editors, and
scholars, but the motivation for such a change seems increasingly remote.
Perhaps scholars should learn to write on at least two different levels: technical and semipopular. And if they do begin to do so, they will soon discover
that the process of intralanguage translating (because that is essentially what
would be involved) will significantly enhance their basic insights and clarify
what they wish to communicate. There is no better way to brush away the
cobwebs of fuzzy thinking than to restate a complex proposition in simpler
language.
REFERENCES
Garrett, A. (I990). The origin of NP split ergativity. Language 66:261-96.
Shore, B. (I99I). Twice-born, once conceived: Meaning construction and cultural cognition.
American Anthropologist 93:9-27.
Van Valin, R.D., Jr. (iggo). Semantic parameters of split intransitivity. Language 66:22i-6o.
485
This content downloaded from 95.186.253.178 on Tue, 19 Jan 2016 15:52:24 UTC
All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions