Part two: Language
& vocabulary
My last post featured the first part of an interview with Dr
Alison George, an editor for New
Scientist magazine. She talked about how scientific papers are restructured
and presented in a more appealing way for the more general, New Scientist readership. In this post,
she talks about how the actual language used is different.
Dr Alison George: “A
journalist will try to avoid the "jargon heavy" language used in
scientific papers and adopt a simpler approach to conveying information. A case in point is my PhD thesis, for which I
gave the title: "The biodegradation
of anionic surfactants in the estuarine environment". In hindsight, I realise that I went out of my
way to use long words to make it sound serious.
This is typical of scientific papers. However, if I was explaining my
thesis to a friend, I'd say that my research was about whether the chemicals
found in shampoos and detergents are biodegradable.”
I ask whether the use of long words in academic papers is
really just about ‘sounding serious’ and on reflection, Alison admits, that
isn’t always strictly true. “For example,
to use "detergents" instead of "anionic surfactants" would
have made it easier to understand for the lay person, but is technically inaccurate.”
Vocabulary
differences: a specific case
To further illustrate her point about language differences,
Alison gave me an example of
an article she’d written for
New
Scientist about penguins and for comparison, the two
academic papers on which it was based.
She picks out a couple of phrases that were reworded to make
them more accessible. “
The first paper
used the words "synoptic survey" in the opening sentence and title. The
words "synoptic survey" would not be used in New Scientist, instead
we might say, "a survey of the entire coastline of Antarctica using
satellite images".
The bottom line is
this: although a scientific research paper and an article in New Scientist
might tackle the same topic, and both might deal with some tricky concepts, the
style they are written in is different. In New Scientist, we make strenuous
efforts to translate technical terminology and jargon into words that an
educated reader, without any specialist knowledge of the subject, should
understand.”
Lost vocabulary:
What exactly constitutes ‘technical terminology’ though? The
two examples above are clearly very specialist and arguably not very useful for
the average EAP student to spend time on, but what about the rest of the
language? If we compare the New Scientist
article with the first of the academic articles in terms of overall vocabulary,
we see any interesting difference:
|
New Scientist article
|
Original scientific paper
|
Top 2000 most frequent words
|
83%
|
74.5%
|
AWL* words
|
5%
|
14.5%
|
Other words
|
12%
|
11%
|
* Academic Word List
These stats are very broad-brush, but they do show that as
well as cutting the most specialist terminology, the New Scientist article also loses a lot of the general academic
vocabulary (here based on the AWL), which is probably exactly what EAP students do need. Just some of the vocabulary that gets lost in the edit here includes
words like: assess, consistent, distribution,
establish, evidence, factor, function, indicate, occur, variation; all
recognizably useful core academic words.
If so many EAP materials focus on teaching this core
academic vocabulary, it seems somewhat counterproductive to be using texts that
quite consciously feature significantly less of it.
Idiom and hyperbole:
So what is it that replaces the academic vocabulary in the New Scientist article? Well, it does contain
a higher proportion of high frequency words, which should make it more
accessible to the average non-native speaker student. This is good news, of
course, if you’re looking for input for a speaking lesson, say. However, there
are a couple of linguistics features which could work against its usefulness in
an EAP context.
Because New Scientist
articles are essentially targeted at a native speaker readership, they draw on
idiomatic language and cultural references to appeal to that audience. Take
these two short extracts:
“Fast-forward a few decades, and many colonies will be on
the road to extinction. Are we witnessing the last march of the emperor
penguins?” (> tricky idioms in ‘fast-forward a few decades’ and ‘on the road
to extinction’, plus the cultural reference to the documentary film ‘March of
the Penguins’, which gets another mention later in the piece)
“This extraordinary lifestyle has made the emperors famous.
They have even been held up as role models by evangelical Christians.” (>
again, the cultural reference here might take quite a bit of explaining to students
from some backgrounds!)
These type of issues might be a fun distraction in a General
English class, but are they really an effective use of class time for students
preparing for academic study? Again, I guess that’s down to context and the
amount of class time available, as well as the interests and priorities of your
students.
Perhaps of more concern, I think, for students trying to get
to grips with an academic style of writing is the type of language used to give
the story more impact for a general audience. The New Scientist article is littered with words like impossible, blockbuster, breath-taking,
catastrophic, disastrous, extraordinary, demise and vanish. This is exactly the
type of language that academic writers are careful to avoid, unless it’s very
carefully hedged (with seemingly,
apparently, potentially, etc.) It comes back to the point Alison made above
about the need to be completely accurate in academic writing. As EAP tutors, we
warn our students to avoid exaggeration and overgeneralization in their
writing, because we can foresee the comments which will come back from their
subject tutors.
This raises the question of whether it’s actually misleading
to present this type of text to students as an example of academic writing. How
will they know just what’s appropriate to use in their own writing and what’s
not? Yes, we can make mention of the differences, we can do a bit of genre
analysis even, but will students be able to make all those
distinctions for themselves, will they realize just what’s transferrable and
what isn’t?
So having looked in a bit more detail at the genre, is it helpful
to use articles from consumer magazines aimed at a general readership in an EAP
context? As Swales (2016) puts it:
“Genres are defined in terms of their communicative purposes” and from what
we’ve seen, the communicative purposes of these articles versus the kind of
academic texts that students will need to read as part of their studies are
clearly not the same. So, once again, I think, it comes back to the aims of the
lesson; these articles are clearly more fun and engaging than most academic
texts and because they’re aimed at a non-specialist audience, they’re more
suited to a mixed-discipline EAP class. However, if the aim is to prepare
students for the type of reading texts and language they’re going to need for
their future studies, not only are these articles unhelpful, but they could
actually prove a hindrance.
With special thanks to Alison George for taking the time to answer my questions, for being so enthusiastic about the topic and for providing some fascinating insights into the workings of New Scientist.
References:
Fretwell PT, LaRue MA, Morin P, Kooyman GL, Wienecke B,
Ratcliffe N, et al. (2012) An Emperor
Penguin Population Estimate: The First Global, Synoptic Survey of a Species
from Space. PLoS ONE 7(4): e33751. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033751
George A (2012) The
last march of the emperor penguins. New Scientist
Jenouvrier S, Holland M, Stroeve J, Barbraud J, Weimerskirch
H, Caswell H (2012)
Effects of climate change on an emperor penguin population:
analysis of coupled demographic and climate model. Global Change Biology 18 (9),
p.2756-2770
Swales J (2016)
Genre & English for Academic Purposes video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W--C4AzvwiU&feature=youtu.be
Labels: academic writing, authentic texts, AWL, EAP, genres, New Scientist magazine