A survey-experiment at the University of Leeds, England, attempted to resolve two questions: (1) Are some grammatical structures more efficient than others in communicating scientific fact? and (2) Do students pursuing different academic disciplines have correspondingly different value systems with regard to technical writing and technical subject matter? The results of the survey, which sampled 300 students, indicated yes to both questions. Particularly ironic was the finding that the third-person passive voice, so commonly the style of twentieth-century technical English, is disadvantageous from a communication standpoint.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
MenzelD. H.JonesH. M., and BoydL. G., Writing a Technical Paper, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1961.
2.
AndrewsE., The History of Scientific English, R. R. Smith, New York, 1947.
3.
BarberC. L., Some Measurable Characteristics of Modern Scientific Prose, Gothenburg Studies in English, 14, pp. 21–43, 1962.
4.
HuddlestonR. D., Sentence and Clause in Scientific English, Report of the research project The Linguistic Properties of Scientific English, Communication Research Centre, Department of General Linguistics, University College, London, May 1968.
5.
SimpsonH. B., A Descriptive Analysis of Scientific Writing, Ph.D. dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 1965.
6.
SvartvikJ., On Voice in the English Verb, Mouton, The Hague, 1966.
7.
Technical Writing, Stylistics, and TG Grammar, Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 7:4, 1977.
8.
The Marsh-Carrington Letters: Part One, Connecticut Historical Society Bulletin, 42, October 1977.
9.
The People versus Smokey Bear: Metaphor, Argot, and CB Radio, Journal of Popular Culture, 13, Winter 1979.
