I’m reading Natalie Angier’s 1999 book “Woman: An Intimate Geography”, a review of biological research on women’s bodies that challenge evolutionary explanations for gender stereotypes. Angier is a journalist who writes science pieces for the New York Times. I am fascinated by the ease with which she is writing about phenomena as complex as, for example, “apoptosis”:
“The millions of eggs that we women begin with are cleanly destroyed through an innate cell program called apoptosis. The eggs do not simply die -they commit suicide. Their membranes ruffle up like petticoats whipped by the wind and they break into the hearts of neighboring cells. By graciously and melodramatically getting out of the way, the sacrificial eggs leave their sisters plenty of hatching room. I love the word apoptosis, the onomatopoeia of it: a-POP-tosis. The eggs pop apart like poked soap bubbles, a brief flash of taut, refracted light and then, ka-ping!”
Scientific terminology explained in everyday language (let’s disregard “onomato-WHAT?”) and imagery in such an engaging way and with a natural authority. Isn’t this the whole point of WAC/WID? I often wonder how I can best solve the tension between “Use your own words” and “Learn the disciplinary vocabulary” when I see students use disciplinary terminology in sentences to show that they are aware of its existence, with no evidence of a real understanding of the concepts. In his well-known piece David Bartholomae talked about our expectations of students to “invent the university”, that is, to adopt the discourses of particular disciplines in which they are writing. But we want them to do this in a way that shows that they actually grasped the significance of those discourses. Of course we don’t foolishly expect them all to be Natalie Angier. But I wonder to what extent we expose students to this kind of “beautiful” scientific writing. Any examples from the syllabi you are working with?
Baruch is, for the most part, a business school.
Suppose, in a business report or letter, the author wrote in Natalie Angier’s style.
What do you suppose the affect on the recipient would be?
I would be, from the point of view of a business person, put off. The points, I think, would be clouded in pedantic puffery.
Reply to James Drogan
I see your point, Jim, but consider this: exposure to the sort of writing that Nida talks about can help students learn to write in styles appropriate to other genres in other disciplines. We want them to be sensitive to differences between the genres, discourses, and audiences of different disciplines. Sure we can’t expect our students to write just like the preeminent writers in discipline xyz by the end of the semester, but we can expect them to pick up a thing or two from reading some excellent examples of writing in that discipline, especially if we guide them along. Helping students develop the vocabulary to write as a budding young practitioners in biology, anthropology, economics, marketing, finance, etc. is an important part of enabling them to become skilled, effective writers.
Reply to Mikhail
“Operators, or Verbal false Limbs”
I think many of us struggle with writing and whether or not we admit it, we want to write “well”. This means writing that is not just grammatically correct, but compelling. Teaching our students to do that is sometimes easier, I think, then practicing such writing in our own research. My discipline, political science, is notorious for bad, unclear writing with lots of jargon, whether it is political philosophy or comparative politics. Because so many of our own professors stress content and not language, it is hard to learn to write well.
Here is an essay that had a big impact on me when I first read it a few years ago. Since English is my second language, I struggled with this perhaps more than most. So I was happy to hear Orwell’s advice: “If you simplify your English, you are freed from the worst follies of orthodoxy.”
http://www.george-orwell.org/Politics_and_the_English_Language/0.html
Orwell’s other advice (written in 1946):
(i) Never use a metaphor, simile or other figure of speech which you are
used to seeing in print.
(ii) Never use a long word where a short one will do.
(iii) If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
(iv) Never use the passive where you can use the active.
(v) Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word or a jargon word if you
can think of an everyday English equivalent.
(vi) Break any of these rules sooner than say anything barbarous.
Reply to Agnieszka
Point well-made and taken, Mikhail. I lack a grasp of the variety of styles to which students are introduced at Baruch.
Which brings to mind a question of the variety of styles that exist. Where would I find a good synopsis of these?
Let me end with a story.
IBM used a system called PROFS (Professional Office System) before the advent of the PC, and the e-mail and IM we have today. I found it disconcerting that the default grammar level in the system was eighth grade.
Perhaps that supports my point.
Anyway, I always welcome our discussions.
Jim
Reply to James Drogan