even if they try. In anyrecording or articulation
no matter how haphazard or confused
each word resides in one or moredistinct structural locations. The resulting structure
even more than the meanings of individual words
significantly influences the reader during the act of interpretation. The question then becomes whetherthe structure created by the writer (intentionally or not) helps or hinders the reader in the process ofinterpreting the scientific writing. The writing principles we have suggested here make conscious for the writer some of the interpretiveclues readers derive from structures. Armed with this awareness
the writer can achieve far greatercontrol (although never complete control) of the readerâs interpretive process. As a concomitantfunction
the principles simultaneously offer the writer a fresh re-entry to the thought process thatproduced the science. In real and important ways
the structure of the prose becomes the structure of thescientific argument. Improving either one will improve the other. The methodology described in this article originated in the linguistic work of Joseph M. Williams of theUniversity of Chicago
Gregory G. Colomb of the Georgia Institute of Technology and George D.Gopen. Some of the materials presented here were discussed and developed in faculty writingworkshops held at the Duke University Medical School. BibliographyWilliams
Joseph M. 1988. Style: Ten Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Scott
Foresman
& Co. Colomb
Gregory G.
and Joseph M. Williams. 1985. Perceiving structure in professional prose: a multiply determinedexperience. In Writing in Non-Academic Settings
eds. Lee Odell and Dixie Goswami. Guilford Press
pp. 87-128. Gopen
George D. 1987. Let the buyer in ordinary course of business beware: suggestions for revising the language of theUniform Commercial Code. University of Chicago Law Review 54:1178-1214. Gopen
George D. 1990. The Common Sense of Writing: Teaching Writing from the Reader’s Perspective. To be published.
Menu
