Clean Up Your English - NILU

Editorial
Editorial: Language Pollution
Clean Up Your English
Avoiding Superfluous Words in Scientific Reporting
1 Introduction
Dmitry N. Tychinin *
Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Plants and
Microorganisms, Russian Academy of Sciences,
13 Prospekt Entuziastov, Saratov 410015, Russia;
e-mail: ra4cft@ibppm.saratov.su
Scientists' need for an adequate command of English has probably
never been greater. The worldwide acceptance of English
as the primary language of publication dictates that if we want
to make our voices heard by the international research community,
we must write English. But if we want our message to
be understood as intended and our results to be estimated at
their true worth, we must learn to write good English – that
'which gives the sense in the fewest short words' [1].
Much of the European research output is now published in
English, both in international journals and as translations of
papers published simultaneously in other languages. As a science
translator and editor, I notice that even accepted papers
sometimes suffer from linguistic deficiencies, and many are returned
to the authors for language improvement before scientific
review. The reason is not so much bad grammar as bad
style. Some typical referees' comments:
• The difficulty I had in reading this manuscript does not stem
from the authors' imperfect grasp of English. Indeed, their
English is generally good. What they lack is not a mastery
of English, but the ability to convey their ideas as simply
and directly as possible.
• The paper is generally written in a language that is understandable
but would benefit from some rewriting in places.
• Although the English in the manuscript is generally adequate,
the use of inappropriate words makes the text confusing.
The key characteristic of scientific writing is clarity [1]. A technical
report must contain as few words as necessary for readers
to comprehend it. When authors use more words, they usually
*Dmitry N. Tychinin was born in Saratov, Russia, in 1970. He studied in the
Philology Faculty at N.G. Chernyshevsky Saratov State University, graduating
in 1992 with the Diploma degree with specialisation in English Language
and Literature. Since 1992, he has been with the Russian Academy
of Sciences’ Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Plants and
Microorganisms, Saratov, where he has taught English courses for 2 years.
He is now leading translator at the institute’s Scientific and Technical Information
Unit. He has 21 translations published, including 19 refereedjournal
articles and 2 book contributions. His interests are in the craft of
scientific writing and editing.
ESPR – Environ Sci & Pollut Res 8 (4) 227 – 229 (2001)
© ecomed publishers, D-86899 Landsberg, Germany and Ft. Worth/TX, USA • Tokyo, Japan Mumbai, India Seoul, Korea
Language Pollution
sacrifice clarity. They are not entirely to blame, of course. The
second-language-teaching practice is still very much directed
towards helping specialists to acquire mostly a reading and
speaking knowledge of English. Few institutions of higher learning
in Europe [2] and very few in Russia offer academic-writing
courses. As a result, scientists are often unable to express
themselves simply and neatly in written English. When developing
a paper, they rely on bilingual dictionaries, which contain
no usage or style notes. They translate word by word what
they think in the native language and leave it at that. No wonder
such manuscripts tend to be verbose and hard to follow.
For a true environmentalist, writing-style improvement is not a
matter of choice at will; it is part of his or her green thinking. As
Rudolf Flesch [3] puts it, 'In this age of general pollution, clear,
simple language is just as important as clean air, land, and water'.
In this brief note, I adopt Flesch's eco-oriented approach to present
my thoughts on how to eliminate superfluous words in our reporting.
These words are so numerous that they make papers
breathe heavily, so volatile that no manuscript seems to remain
unaffected by them, so persistent that they hamper (or even prohibit)
the appreciation of our results. Extensive lists of these 'waste'
[1] or 'plague' [4] words are available in books [1,5] and over the
Internet (e.g. [4,6]). Here, I list and discuss more such words and
phrases, taken from my own collection.
2 Green-Writing Tips: Assuming an assumption
Distinguishing features of scientific English are politeness and
the avoidance of strong knowledge claims [7]. In trying to sound
non-aggressive, we, non-native speakers, sometimes go too far.
To quote O'Connor and Woodford [5]:
Beware of hedging over uncertainties or suppositions: 'It may
seem reasonable to suggest that necrotic effects may possibly
be due to involvement of some toxin-like substances' contains
eight degrees of uncertainty and only means 'Necrosis may be
due to toxins'.
The following sentence does not contain eight degrees of uncertainty.
But it has two: 'We assume that these elements possibly
consist of raw ore dust'.
227

Language Pollution
Let us think a moment. The sentence says 'possibly', which labels
it clearly as an assumption. Consequently, is there a need
to assume an assumption? Let us make it either These elements
possibly consist of raw ore dust or We assume that these elements
consist of raw ore dust.
Similarly, 'We assume that these elements may consist of raw
ore dust' makes us sound a bit more timid than we want to.
Here, a choice should be made between 'We assume' and 'may'.
One degree of uncertainty is enough.
By means of
The three-word variant of 'by', 'with', or 'through' is particularly
unfit for titles, which, as Day [1] reminds us, should contain
only words useful for indexing purposes. Therefore, Determination
of Arsenic in Soils by Gas Chromatography is more
acceptable than 'Determination of Arsenic in Soils by Means of
Gas Chromatography'.
Currently
It is better to substitute currently for now, especially in sentences
that have their main verbs in the Present Continuous tense: We
are now analysing a number of other mutants in vitro. With now,
we will jump easily over the beginning to what we are after (that
is, the message). But it may be even better to use nothing at all:
We are analysing a number of other mutants in vitro.
The use of currently is strongly discouraged with the verb 'continue'
and with words and expressions that indicate per se the
currentness of the moment: Experiments are under way/in
progress/ongoing/continuing to investigate these possibilities.
The molecular events triggering these physiological and biochemical
adjustments are under investigation.
Effective writing vs. writing for effect
Let me quote from a referee's evaluation sheet: 'Effect is one of
the most overused words in science. It conveys almost no information,
since everything is some kind of an effect'. I keep in
mind that referee's comment each time I start working on a
text. A 'necrotic effect' is necrosis; an 'adverse effect', strictly
speaking, should be explained; and the sentence, 'This gives
rise to the effect of synchronisation', may sound like an abbreviated
thought about synchronisation effects on something else.
Constructions such as 'to have a stimulatory effect', 'to have a
deleterious effect', 'to have a protective effect', etc. can be
changed to simpler English:
to have an adverse effect on – to be adverse to
to have a beneficial effect on – to be beneficial for/to
to have a deleterious effect on – to be deleterious to
to have a fatal effect on – to be fatal to
to have a harmful effect on – to be harmful to
to have an inhibitory effect on – to be inhibitory to, to inhibit
to have a protective effect on – to be protective of/towards,
to protect
to have a retarding effect on – to retard
to have a stimulating/stimulatory effect on – to be stimulatory
to, to stimulate
Titles beginning with '(The) Effect of...' have a history of use but
seem to no longer be in fashion. Today's referees feel increasingly
negative towards them. The reason is simple: A title, according
to Day [1], is defined as the fewest possible words that highlight
Editorial
the significant content of the paper. An effect title is too general
and does not tell readers even the absolute minimum of what
'effect' (inhibitory? stimulatory?) authors have in mind.
Essentially, virtually
It is safe to substitute the words for almost in this type of sentence:
'Essentially/Virtually no information is available on the
effects of ammonia and phosphate on biosludge settleability'.
Nature
'Material of a protein nature' is not especially revealing. Whether
the material in question is fully protein should be stated clearly.
As the ESPR Instructions for Authors put it, 'Restrict to hard
facts'!
Sticklers for nature, here is a quick grammar tip: When the word
is modified by a noun functioning as an adjective, the indefinite
article is obligatory: of a carbohydrate nature. I have seen the
article omitted, but I know this to be unidiomatic English.
Phase, stage, step
These can also be 'waste' words. For example, we often write:
'The first/next step of our work was to measure... (say, As concentrations
in soils)'.
Look at the fragment in italics. Its only role is to introduce the
second part of the sentence, carrying the message ('measure As
concentrations in soils'). But its length (seven words plus the
definite article) does more to tire than to interest readers. Let
us switch to plain, active English: We first/next measured As
concentrations in soils. Sounds better.
Here are similar cases. Look to the left and then to the right.
Same meaning, less space!
at the early stages of – early in
it is an essential phase in – it is essential for
So-called
Most dictionaries make no distinction between so-called (with a
hyphen) and so called (without a hyphen). Fortunately, there are
exceptions. The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical
Principles, for example, has this to say:
so-called 1. In predic. use (prop. without hyphen): Called or
designated by that name. 2. In attrib. use (hyphened): Called
or designated by this name or term, but not properly entitled
to it or correctly described by it [8].
The non-hyphened so called with its 'neutral' meaning is perfectly
acceptable in a research manuscript: The reaction mass
(RM) is so called because it is a complex mixture of the endproducts
of detoxification reactions. Not so with its hyphened
version: it implies that something is not worthy of its name.
'The so-called flushing bioreactor' sounds as if you were critical
about the poor reactor to the point of contempt, which is
surely not what you have in mind.
If you are just in doubt whether the term you are referring to is
commonly accepted in the literature and wish to express that
thought, here are possible ways out:
Use quotation marks (which will indicate that '...you as writer
are not responsible for this form of words' [9]): Clones that
appeared to be 'cured' were screened for plasmid content.
228 ESPR – Environ Sci & Pollut Res 8 (4) 2001

Editorial
Use quotation marks and insert a reference: The next step is
the formation of the 'true inducer' from cellodextrins (Jones
2000). Or include an explanatory remark: At some point these
maternally supplied products are supplemented by transcription
from the embryo's own genome (the 'nuclear substance'
in Boveri's formulation).
Use 'neutral' phrases like what is called, what is termed/known
as, or as it is called: In this way, we obtain what is called a
frequency curve. These are usually called 'jackpots'.
So-called is more characteristic of colloquial than written speech.
Sometimes it seems to be used merely for the sake of a colloquial
touch, as in 'This means that a so-called "coarse grained"
(i.e. lower resolution) picture is sought'. But here, again, if you
enclose a term in quotation marks (and even explain it there
and then), you never need so-called. Combining so-called with
quotes is not permissible.
Tautology: Will you repeat it again?
A major group of language pollutants is formed by tautologies
– the needless saying of the same idea, usually in different words.
A useful list of the common tautologies found in general writing
is available electronically [6]. Following are some examples
from science literature:
'A surprising and unexpected result': An unexpected result
will emphasise the unexpectedness while eliminating the
redundancy of the synonym 'surprising'.
'Buffer solution': Someone has been clever at solving his or
her problems with a chemical buffer. That is what 'buffer
solution' may suggest. If this is not the intended meaning,
we should use buffer alone.
'Contain/include something as part of one's structure': The
second portion of this fragment is unlikely to add much to
a sentence. To contain is 'to have in it' and to include is 'to
contain as a constituent part of a whole' [8]. Either of the
verbs used alone will do.
'Demonstration example': An example is demonstrative by
definition.
'For a full and complete Guide to Authors please refer to...':
Even journal editors do not follow their own recommendations
sometimes. I wonder whether one has ever seen a full
and incomplete Guide to Authors.
'Future outlook': Outlook is 'the prospect for the future'
[8] by definition. Hence, Conclusions and Outlook, not
'Conclusions and Future Outlook'.
'HPLC chromatography': 1. Spell the abbreviation out, and
you will spot the error: 'high-performance liquid chromatography
chromatography'. 2. Repeat step 1 when you have
doubts about 'GC-MS spectrometry', 'SDS-PAGE electrophoresis',
etc.
'The cleaning solution increases the cleaning capability of a
corresponding cleaning process...': No comment needed.
Tool: Render it unto the workman
Many of us are not engaged in manual work, and none wear
aprons or overalls. Yet, we call each other workers and have
'tools'. In scientist hands, almost anything becomes a 'tool':
plants, bacteria, enzymes, even antibodies. Well, in the sense of
'a means of effecting something; an instrument' [8], the word
has long ago become an empty cliché used at every step, making
the writing stale. Let us not forget that tool is still strongly
suggestive of 'a mechanical implement for working upon something,
as by cutting, striking, rubbing, or other process, in any
Language Pollution
manual art or industry; usu., one held in and operated directly
by the hand, but including also certain simple machines, as the
lathe' [8]. Whereas trees and grasses are often called 'remediation
tools', they are really not much of a tool. You may say this is
literalism, but is devaluation of the word any better?
Toxic
I am very fond of this editorial comment – I think anyone writing
for an ecology journal should keep it in mind:
Avoid the use of unqualified emotive terms such as 'toxic'
when describing biological activity; they should be replaced
with 'active', 'fungitoxic', 'phytotoxic', 'insecticidal', 'insect
toxic', etc., accurately reflecting the content of use.
Suppose we report, 'We used a buffer to wash the bacterial
cells', or call a manuscript 'The Use of Plants To Remediate
Contaminated Soils' – will that be OK with our referees? I
daresay no. Plain as it may seem, there are people who keep
writing this way paper after paper. Editors are resilient, however
– and they must be: if you are a scientist, be precise.
With which
It is verbose to write: 'Such isolates provide excellent model systems
with which to study virus-phytoplankton interactions'. Leave
the 'with which' out; the sentence will make perfectly good sense!
3 Better English Next Time!
I hope that the above notes will be of some help to non-Englishspeaking
scientists who write, translate, or edit research papers
in the English language. I am open to e-mail discussions of English
use and misuse in scientific reporting. If you have your own
'pet hates', unfit for the language of science, please share them
with me. Your feedback would be very much appreciated!
Acknowledgements. It is a pleasure to thank Kevin Bruhn, Jeffrey
Bryson, Chris Hamann, Fred Hutson, George Johnson, Rich Turner,
Richard Vipond, and Vera Webb for many discussions and expert comments
on English style and usage. Thanks are also due to Paul Kosterin
of this institute for his encouragement and help.
References
[1] Day RA (1998): How To Write and Publish a Scientific Paper, 5th ed.
Oryx Press, Phoenix, Ariz
[2] Luttikhuizen F (1996): The ins and outs of scientific writing.
Microbiología SEM 12, 477–480
[3] Flesch R (1972): Say What You Mean. Harper and Row, New York
[4] Darling C (2000): Plague words and phrases. Guide to Grammar and
Writing. Retrieved July 30th, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://
webster.commnet.edu/grammar/plague/htm
[5] O'Connor M, Woodford FP (1975): Writing Scientific Papers in English:
An ELSE-Ciba Foundation Guide for Authors. Associated Scientific
Publishers, Amsterdam
[6] Mann M (2000): Deadwood phrases. Authors Guide. Retrieved July
30th, 2001, from the World Wide Web: http://www.pnl.gov/ag/usage/
deadwood.html
[7] Corbett J (1992): Encoding Nature: Writing science in English. FEMS
Microbiol Lett 100, 39–44
[8] Little W, Fowler HW, Coulson J (1977): The Shorter Oxford English
Dictionary on Historical Principles, 3rd ed. Oxford University Press,
Oxford
[9] Greenbaum S, Whitcut J (1990): Longman Guide to English Usage,
Spec. ed. Russky Yazyk Publishers, Moscow
ESPR – Environ Sci & Pollut Res 8 (4) 2001 229