Questions about writing style

[youllneverwalkalone]

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. 

[Myword]

  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.

[mamselle]

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.

[Parasaurolophus]

  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.

[wellfleet]

"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.