I tend to use some colloquial words such as would, could, should that are not properly academic. Capable of is better than could do-- I realized that they are natural to me because my life is all about woulda, shoulda, coulda. My thesaurus is okay but not for academics and it doesn't include verbs. I saw nothing better on Amazon. In my field, writers substitute an ordinary word with a lesser known longer, usually more obscure word. Appears more professional and polished and much more rewriting.
In humanities or social sciences, do you do this?
Quote from: Myword on May 07, 2020, 11:54:47 AM
I tend to use some colloquial words such as would, could, should that are not properly academic.
I disagree. Would, could, and should are important modal terms. Perhaps we use them more than most in philosophy, or perhaps we put them to special use, but to my mind there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. We also say 'I' all the time.
I tend to avoid contractions (but I'm unusual in doing so), and I obviously don't cuss (although I'm rather foul-mouthed IRL).
Quote
Capable of is better than could do
Nah. 'Capable of' smacks of sesquipedalianism to me. It's a try-hard kind of locution.
Are you experiencing actual professional problems or are you looking for something on which to worry?
I have seen people whose speech/writing patterns were causing them professional difficulties. However, I've seen it go all ways depending on audience. Using too many obscure words with zero informalities in some contexts for some audiences can be as bad as limited vocabulary with many informal constructions.
Quote from: Parasaurolophus on May 07, 2020, 01:00:36 PM
Quote from: Myword on May 07, 2020, 11:54:47 AM
I tend to use some colloquial words such as would, could, should that are not properly academic.
I disagree. Would, could, and should are important modal terms. Perhaps we use them more than most in philosophy, or perhaps we put them to special use, but to my mind there's absolutely nothing wrong with them. We also say 'I' all the time.
I tend to avoid contractions (but I'm unusual in doing so), and I obviously don't cuss (although I'm rather foul-mouthed IRL).
Quote
Capable of is better than could do
Nah. 'Capable of' smacks of sesquipedalianism to me. It's a try-hard kind of locution.
I agree with this. I remember being told that it's better to avoid contractions (can't, won't, etc.) but the terms you're talking about seem entirely fine to me.
This is a non-problem. Of course you can use those words.
Write clearly. Use all the words you need, but only those words. If a short word is better than a long word, use it. If the long word says something important that the short word doesn't, use it instead. But only if you need that something.
If you need "could," then by all means, use "could." Use contractions. Use the first person singular. (Scratch that -- it's a terrible sentence. What I mean is this: "Say 'I.'" See the difference?) I've published six academic books and three dozen articles or book chapters. My favorite sentence I've ever published is "Here's where things get trippy."
Pretension is unbecoming, especially in academic writing. So is sloppiness. The key is in cultivating your ability to discern the difference.
Quote from: Myword on May 07, 2020, 11:54:47 AM
In humanities or social sciences, do you do this?
Ha! Do we do this in the humanities? Learning to write and talk in obscure ways was at least 50% of my grad school training. Fortunately, things have begun to change. I was never particularly good at writing like that or deciphering such writing.
All writing professors and experts agree on writing well. I am very aware of that, because I have been told that all my life and is good advice when I write for the public. Judging from comments from referees and reading in philosophy, religion, science etc. it is evident that published academic prose is often very different. Dry, boring, long winded, filled with hypothetical semantic distinctions and the author's assumption that all readers know every term and every nuance, pretentious latin phrases, acronyms and so on. The idea is if an article or book is too clear and easy then it must be shallow and unimportant, amateurish. Not true, unless you are famous.
This is not new. William James in 19th century, who despised unclear obtuse writing (bless him) wrote that philosophical sentences could be written arbitrarily substituting any abstract word (like Being) and it would pass for profundity. Of course, if editors agree with your thesis, they may overlook the style. The feminist journal with fake articles might occur in Christian God-loving journals, as well. Here's a real example when I was an undergraduate.
A professor reviewed an author's book, reading aloud. The author listened. Then he was asked: what do you think about the review? He replied: I don't know. I couldn't understand it!"
I just don't like the word plethora.
Quote from: Myword on May 08, 2020, 08:40:59 AM
All writing professors and experts agree on writing well. I am very aware of that, because I have been told that all my life and is good advice when I write for the public. Judging from comments from referees and reading in philosophy, religion, science etc. it is evident that published academic prose is often very different. Dry, boring, long winded, filled with hypothetical semantic distinctions and the author's assumption that all readers know every term and every nuance, pretentious latin phrases, acronyms and so on. The idea is if an article or book is too clear and easy then it must be shallow and unimportant, amateurish. Not true, unless you are famous.
I think you're making some rather broad generalizations. At least in my humanities field, I would say that clear writing is generally preferred.
Quote from: Myword on May 08, 2020, 08:40:59 AM
Judging from comments from referees and reading in philosophy, religion, science etc. it is evident that published academic prose is often very different. Dry, boring, long winded, filled with hypothetical semantic distinctions and the author's assumption that all readers know every term and every nuance, pretentious latin phrases, acronyms and so on.
I can't speak to other fields, but the goal of writing in the sciences is actually to be as clear and concise as possible. Not always achieved, but that is the goal. It will seem "very difficult" for those outside the field, but for the intended audience of other scientists in that field the technical terms and acronyms are familiar and convey precise meanings.
That is to say, there is no one "good writing style", there are good writing styles for accomplishing particular purposes for particular audiences.
Quote from: Puget on May 08, 2020, 11:11:09 AM
Quote from: Myword on May 08, 2020, 08:40:59 AM
Judging from comments from referees and reading in philosophy, religion, science etc. it is evident that published academic prose is often very different. Dry, boring, long winded, filled with hypothetical semantic distinctions and the author's assumption that all readers know every term and every nuance, pretentious latin phrases, acronyms and so on.
I can't speak to other fields, but the goal of writing in the sciences is actually to be as clear and concise as possible. Not always achieved, but that is the goal. It will seem "very difficult" for those outside the field, but for the intended audience of other scientists in that field the technical terms and acronyms are familiar and convey precise meanings.
In principle, that's true of the humanities, too, although as we're discussing on a different thread about "bad" writing, many people see jargon in the humanities as unnecessary and an act of bad faith. I don't think it's inherently bad, but it certainly doesn't endear writers who use jargon to readers who think that arguments in the humanities should be easily digestible.
(I stand by what I wrote above though, about using the words you need. Sometimes writers need jargon. Often they don't.)
Quote from: traductio on May 08, 2020, 11:40:18 AM
Quote from: Puget on May 08, 2020, 11:11:09 AM
Quote from: Myword on May 08, 2020, 08:40:59 AM
Judging from comments from referees and reading in philosophy, religion, science etc. it is evident that published academic prose is often very different. Dry, boring, long winded, filled with hypothetical semantic distinctions and the author's assumption that all readers know every term and every nuance, pretentious latin phrases, acronyms and so on.
I can't speak to other fields, but the goal of writing in the sciences is actually to be as clear and concise as possible. Not always achieved, but that is the goal. It will seem "very difficult" for those outside the field, but for the intended audience of other scientists in that field the technical terms and acronyms are familiar and convey precise meanings.
In principle, that's true of the humanities, too, although as we're discussing on a different thread about "bad" writing, many people see jargon in the humanities as unnecessary and an act of bad faith. I don't think it's inherently bad, but it certainly doesn't endear writers who use jargon to readers who think that arguments in the humanities should be easily digestible.
(I stand by what I wrote above though, about using the words you need. Sometimes writers need jargon. Often they don't.)
Yes. When I get irritated is when I have to read something three times to figure out what the writer is talking about and realize that you could translate it into a perfectly simple sentence or two without losing any important meaning or nuance. It is different when the writer is using language that isn't easy to understand outside the field, but is doing it because they are engaging in very particular conversations with other scholars and theories. That kind of thing isn't really my cup of tea, but it isn't inherently terrible.
Quote from: Caracal on May 08, 2020, 12:18:48 PM
Yes. When I get irritated is when I have to read something three times to figure out what the writer is talking about and realize that you could translate it into a perfectly simple sentence or two without losing any important meaning or nuance. It is different when the writer is using language that isn't easy to understand outside the field, but is doing it because they are engaging in very particular conversations with other scholars and theories. That kind of thing isn't really my cup of tea, but it isn't inherently terrible.
I'm with you there -- that's why the ability to discern what's necessary -- and what's not! -- is something I try to help my students cultivate. But it ain't easy.
Personally, the best writing in the humanities should be a rarefied "conversational" tone with appropriate jargon and only appropriate jargon.
Quote from: Myword on May 07, 2020, 11:54:47 AM
I tend to use some colloquial words such as would, could, should that are not properly academic. Capable of is better than could do-- I realized that they are natural to me because my life is all about woulda, shoulda, coulda. My thesaurus is okay but not for academics and it doesn't include verbs. I saw nothing better on Amazon. In my field, writers substitute an ordinary word with a lesser known longer, usually more obscure word. Appears more professional and polished and much more rewriting.
In humanities or social sciences, do you do this?
My observation about the writing style in social science and humanities writing is that oftentimes obscure or overly sophisticated language is used to mask the fact that the content is rather trivial. This is stark contrast with the natural sciences where the subject matter is inherently difficult to communicate and therefore one is taught to keep things easy and concise.
It goes without saying that this is a very rough generalization.
YES The article or book appears more rigorous, especially with formal logic, trivial examples and in some fields unnecessary equations and vague abstract terms. In the end. the writer has said little or nothing very new, and it is published in good journals and book companies. It is the reverse of good writing: making the subject even harder to understand. As if they don't care who will read them. I had a friend who does that...he told me he didn't know how to be clear. Many psychology studies are like that.
Good training (discovered by accident) is to write for journalism.
You have to clarify, be concise (column inches are precious) and know what you're talking about.
Your editor and everyone else in the world could read and comment on it.
And if it's too abstruse, or ridiculously verbose, those comments could do you out of a by-line.
And you don't want THAT...
M.
Quote from: Myword on May 17, 2020, 09:18:40 AM
YES The article or book appears more rigorous, especially with formal logic, trivial examples and in some fields unnecessary equations and vague abstract terms.
I agree that logic-chopping is bad. Here in philoland, we call it the Rutgers school of writing, and it's awfully dreary and not very informative. It does have its place, however.
"Capable of" is different than "do," which is why we need both, along with could, should, would and all the rest of the words.
I'm a professional academic writing coach who splits my time between social science and science departments. Please don't try to sound academic. Sound clear. Be clear. Say what you mean. Everyone will appreciate it.