Providing English Services for Scientists
Visit Us on Facebook:
  • Home
  • English
    • Our Services
    • Pricing and Payment
    • About Us
  • Français
    • Nos Services
    • Tarifs et Règlement
    • A Propos de Nous
  • Español
    • Nuestros Servicios
    • Precios y Formas de Pago
    • Acerca de Nosotros
  • Italiano
    • I Nostri Servizi
    • Prezzi e Pagamento
    • Chi siamo
  • Deutsch
    • Unsere Dienstleistungen
    • Preise und Bezahlung
    • Über uns
  • 中文
    • 我們的服務
    • 價格
    • 關於我
  • Client Comments
  • Speaking Science Blog

Reader Expectations, Part 3:  Finding Logical Gaps

8/29/2012

0 Comments

 
Thus far in our exploration of Dr. George Gopen and Dr. Judy Swan's advice to scientific writers (found in their article "The Science of Scientific Writing"), we've learned the importance of close subject-verb placement, the proper use of stress positions, and the benefits of appropriately structured topic positions.  The real strength of these techniques, however, lies in their ability to identify logical gaps, areas where important information has been unconsciously omitted. To illustrate this, let's take a look at Gopen and Swan's next example.

"The enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation between the nucleoside bases 2'deoxyguanosine (dG) and 2'deoxycytidine (dC) has been determined by direct measurement. dG and dC were derivatized at the 5' and 3' hydroxyls with triisopropylsilyl groups to obtain solubility of the nucleosides in non-aqueous solvents and to prevent the ribose hydroxyls from forming hydrogen bonds. From isoperibolic titration measurements, the enthalpy of dC:dG base pair formation is -6.65±0.32 kcal/mol."

We can see some familiar issues right away: the subject is separated from the verb in the first sentence; "enthalphy" is mentioned in the first and last sentences, but nowhere in between; and the new material worthy of emphasis in the second sentence is not immediately apparent. By making some assumptions about the relative importance of the new material introduced here, Gopen and Swan produce the following revision:

"We have directly measured the enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation between the nucleoside bases 2'deoxyguanosine (dG) and 2'deoxycytidine (dC). dG and dC were derivatized at the 5' and 3' hydroxyls with triisopropylsilyl groups; these groups serve both to solubilize the nucleosides in non-aqueous solvents and to prevent the ribose hydroxyls from forming hydrogen bonds. From isoperibolic titration measurements, the enthalpy of dC:dG base pair formation is -6.65±0.32 kcal/mol."

We're starting to get an idea of what the original authors did, but we're no clearer on the connection between the derivatization with triisopropylsilyl groups and the measurement of enthalpy than we were before: once the sentences have been restructured to highlight the link between one topic and the next, it only becomes more apparent that that linkage isn't there.  In all likelihood, the connection between the derivatization and the enthalpy measurements was so obvious to the authors that it never occurred to them to make it explicit, and some specialized readers might also be able to "jump" the logical gap.  For those without extensive background in this area, however, Gopen and Shaw supply what they think the missing information might be, and complete their revision thusly:

"We have directly measured the enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation between the nucleoside bases 2'deoxyguanosine (dG) and 2'deoxycytidine (dC). dG and dC were derivatized at the 5' and 3' hydroxyls with triisopropylsiyl groups; these groups serve both to solubilize the nucleosides in non-aqueous solvents and to prevent the ribose hydroxyls from forming hydrogen bonds. Consequently, when the derivatized nucleosides are dissolved in non-aqueous solvents, hydrogen bonds form almost exclusively between the bases. Since the interbase hydrogen bonds are the only bonds to form upon mixing, their enthalpy of formation can be determined directly by measuring the enthalpy of mixing. From our isoperibolic titration measurements, the enthalpy of dG:dC base pair formation is -6.65±0.32 kcal/mol."

With the two linking sentences inserted into the paragraph, the connection between each sentence and the next become clear, and the paragraph becomes understandable even by those whose last experience with chemistry was during their undergraduate years.  Here, the power of a thorough understanding of reader expectations becomes apparent: with these guidelines in mind, it is possible to create writing that is accessible to nearly everyone, not just to the specialists in your own narrow field. When writing your own manuscripts, it is also worthwhile to remember that even specialist reviewers and readers often have limited time to read the literature. They will thank you for making the experience more efficient!


I'd intended to wrap up our study of reader expectations this week, but there's still one major topic left to cover. In the interest of keeping the blog posts short and easily digestible, I decided to postpone the last topic, with a recap of all the major reader expectations, until next time.  If you can't stand the suspense, head on over to The American Scientist to check out the original article!


0 Comments

Reader Expectations, Part 2

8/7/2012

0 Comments

 
In my previous post, I summarized some of Dr. George Gopen and Dr. Judy Swan's advice to scientific writers, set out in their article "The Science of Scientific Writing."  They start out by explaining that readers expect to find grammatical subjects and their respective verbs close together, and that any information placed between subjects and verbs is unconsciously viewed as an aside to the main action of the sentence.  The authors also spend a great deal of time explaining the concept of the "stress position", the position at the end of a sentence or phrase where readers expect to find the most important material.  As writers, however, simply placing important information where readers expect to find it doesn't completely fulfill our responsibility.  In order to really understand a passage, readers must have a context in which to mentally situate all of the emphasized material.  To illustrate this, Gopen and Swan introduce the concept of the "topic position".

If the stress position is usually found at the end of a sentence, the topic position is usually found at the beginning, identifying the subject under discussion and providing context for all subsequent information.  Consider two of Gopen and Shaw's examples:  "Bees disperse pollen," and "Pollen is dispersed by bees."  On the surface, both sentences seem to give us the exact same information.  However, with "bees" in the topic position, we would expect to find the first sentence in a paragraph about bees.  The second sentence, instead, tells a story about pollen, presumably leading the reader on to more information about pollen.  Here, the topic position gives us the context for all following information. 

The topic position also serves another important function: it links old information, previously presented in the text, to new information that will appear in the subsequent stress position.  By properly exploiting topic and stress positions, the writer can present information seamlessly and logically, in a manner that is both easy to understand and pleasing to read; this is what professional writers refer to as the "flow" of a passage.  However, improper use of both can lead to chaos in a seemingly well-constructed paragraph.  Case in point: Gopen and Shaw's next example, taken from an actual published paper.

"Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are approximately uniform. Therefore, in first approximation, one may expect that large ruptures of the same fault segment will occur at approximately constant time intervals. If subsequent main shocks have different amounts of slip across the fault, then the recurrence time may vary, and the basic idea of periodic mainshocks must be modified. For great plate boundary ruptures the length and slip often vary by a factor of 2. Along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the recurrence interval is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock."

Here I'm going to quote Gopen and Shaw directly, because I can't express it any better than this:
"This is the kind of passage that in subtle ways can make readers feel badly about themselves. The individual sentences give the impression of being intelligently fashioned: They are not especially long or convoluted; their vocabulary is appropriately professional but not beyond the ken of educated general readers; and they are free of grammatical and dictional errors. On first reading, however, many of us arrive at the paragraph's end without a clear sense of where we have been or where we are going. When that happens, we tend to berate ourselves for not having paid close enough attention. In reality, the fault lies not with us, but with the author."

The main problem with this passage, they explain, is that the topic positions are constantly occupied by new material, in the place where readers expect to find context and linkage with old material.  Because of this, it's difficult to determine exactly what story is being told:  is it about the rate at which tectonic plates move? The recurrence time between shocks?  The San Andreas fault?  The topics jump around so much that one could read the passage through two or three times and not be entirely sure.  Instead of finding the topics of the sentences in their expected positions at the beginning, as readers we must instead search through the passage and pick out the information that seems to be repeated relatively often, which we must then assume to be the topic of the entire paragraph.  Many of the sentences seem to provide information about recurrence time, though this never explicitly appears in the topic position of any given sentence.  If old material is not found in the topic position, it's also difficult to determine what, exactly, is the new information worthy of emphasis in each sentence.  Using the assumption that the paragraph is about the recurrence interval between earthquakes, Gopen and Shaw proceed to highlight the most likely candidates for the available topic positions (linking backwards) and stress positions (important material presented for the first time), and they rewrite the passage as follows:

"Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are roughly uniform. Therefore, nearly constant time intervals (at first approximation) would be expected between large ruptures of the same fault segment. [However?], the recurrence time may vary; the basic idea of periodic mainshocks may need to be modified if subsequent mainshocks have different amounts of slip across the fault. [Indeed?], the length and slip of great plate boundary ruptures often vary by a factor of 2. [For example?], the recurrence intervals along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock."

Although the paragraph is more slightly more readable, the logical gaps between sentences remain.  To fill them, Gopen and Shaw propose "however", "indeed", and "for example", but only the original authors could tell us whether these connecting words represent their intended meaning.  Even in the revised version, it is still unclear exactly what the authors are preparing us for in the rest of their article.  Will we learn more about earthquake prediction?  Or the difficulties in earthquake prediction?  Something else entirely?  Although the paragraph is structurally more sound after editing, its deficiencies in communication become much more obvious.

To improve the flow and readability of texts, then, Gopen and Shaw provide the following guideline:

"Put in the topic position the old information that links backward; put in the stress position the new information you want the reader to emphasize."

In this way, the writer is consistently providing context for readers, while drawing their attention to the material most deserving of emphasis.  By using the topic position to link backwards, sentences flow seamlessly from one to the next, without logical gaps, while the stress positions contain the "take-home message" right where the readers expect to find it. 

More to come!  Stay tuned....

References:
Gopen, G. and J. Shaw. "The Science of Scientific Writing." American Scientist. Nov.-Dec., 1990.  Accessed from http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/the-science-of-scientific-writing/.
0 Comments

    About This Blog

    A place for ideas, thoughts, and discussions running around Providing English Services for Scientists HQ

    Archives

    August 2013
    April 2013
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012

    Categories

    All
    Advice
    Analysis
    English As A Foreign Language
    Etymology
    Grammar
    Style
    Writing

    RSS Feed

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
Photo used under Creative Commons from Xtremo