Science paper
Running head: AN EXAMINATION OF MARTIN 1
Elements of Effective Writing: An Examination of Martin
Author Name
California State University, San Bernardino
NSCI 306
Due Date
Professor Taylor
EXAMINATION OF MARTIN 2
Elements of Effective Writing: An Examination of Martin
Careful language use is important in science writing, because the language an author uses
plays a role in the way the reader receives the intended purpose of the text. Language within a
written scientific text should be simple and unambiguous, and also meet the expectations of the
audience. A writer can use language as a tool to deliver information that is clear, simple, and
“facilitate[s] decoding of information without making [readers] expend undue time and effort re-
reading” (Goldbort, 2006, p. 10). “The fundamental purpose of scientific discourse is not the
mere presentation of information and thought, but rather its actual communication” (Gopen &
Swan, 1990, p. 550). In order to communicate scientific discourse, “scientists use the tool of
language responsibly and effectively to serve a scientific purpose, with the aim of convincing
their intended readers of that purpose’s value” (Goldbort, 2006, p. 2-3).
A look at Martin’s (1991) article, “The Egg and the Sperm,” will reveal that the article is
effectively written. The use of language in Martin’s article and how it is structured to achieve a
purpose will be examined. Other characteristics of effective science writing, such as clarity and
audience comprehension of the author’s intended purpose will also be looked at.
The structural organization in a piece of writing must be taken into consideration for a piece
to be written effectively. “The resulting structure, even more than the meanings of individual
words, significantly influences the reader during the act of interpretation” (Gopen & Swan, 1990,
p. 558). Writing that follows reader-centered structural principles improves the likelihood the
reader will understand the writer’s purpose accurately. Gopen and Swan (1990) describe these
principles and explain how the organization of words and ideas to fit into reader expectations of
where particular information is expected to be found within sentences, paragraphs, and in the
document as a whole.
EXAMINATION OF MARTIN 3
Many of the principles of reader-centered writing highlighted in Gopen and Swan (1990) can
be found throughout Martin’s article. One of the principles refers to the logical structural
organization that places the subject in the topic position and follows the subject with a verb that
expresses action. Some examples seen within Martin’s article include: “Textbook descriptions
stress” and “The descriptions imply” (Martin, 1991, p. 422, para. 2 and 1). Structuring sentences
in this manner clearly communicates the content to the reader. Another of Gopen and Swan’s
principles that can be found in Martin’s writing is placing “old” information before “new”
information to connect the ideas.
In all of the texts above, sperm are described as penetrating the egg, and specific
substances on a sperm’s head are described as binding to the egg. Recently, this
description of events was rewritten in a biophysics lab a John Hopkins University –
transforming the egg from the passive to the active party (Martin, 1991, p. 426, para. 2).
The logical placement of ideas within Martin’s article makes it easier for the reader to follow and
comprehend the ideas expressed and how they relate to each other and the article’s main purpose.
According to Hyland (2010), writers use facets such as organization, credibility, and reader
engagement, to “create a sense of proximity by textually constructing themselves and readers as
having shared interests and understandings” (p. 117). “[Proximity] is concerned with how writers
represent not only themselves and their readers, but also their material, in ways which are most
likely to meet their readers’ expectations” (Hyland, 2010, p. 117). Martin’s writing successfully
builds proximity with the intended audience. One way in which writers create proximity with
readers is by clearly taking a stance (Hyland, 2010). In the introduction paragraph, Martin clearly
EXAMINATION OF MARTIN 4
states the purpose of the article by saying, “Part of my goal in writing this article is to shine a
bright light on the gender stereotypes hidden within the scientific language of biology” (Martin
1991, p. 421). The use of the descriptive term “bright” is among the first of many examples of
how the language use in the article reflect Martin’s views on the subject being covered. Martin’s
use of words such as “extreme” and “startling” express her opinions about how language in
biology reflect our culture’s gender stereotypes. Many more examples throughout the article give
the reader a clear picture of what stance Martin is taking (Martin, 1991).
Proximity can also be established by the way writers chose to “explicitly address their
readers” (Hyland, 2010, p.125). Martin’s article uses questions and reader pronouns in order to
engage the audience. Questions such as, “How is it that positive images are denied to the bodies
of women?” and “Can we envision a less stereotypical view?” are used to give the reader a sense
of inclusion through rhetorical dialogue (Martin, 1991, p. 422; p. 431). Reader engagement is
also achieved by the use of the terms “us” and “we” that are seen throughout Martin’s article.
Writing in ways that include the reader “identifies the reader as someone who shares a point of
view or ways of seeing with the writer [and] sends a clear signal of membership by textually
constructing both the writer and the reader as participants” (Hyland, 2010, p.125).
Effective science writing is clear, has a logical flow of ideas, is reader-oriented, and
establishes a relationship between the reader and the writer as people who share a common goal
or understanding. Martin’s article satisfies all of these criteria to be considered an effective piece
of writing. Because the article is written effectively, the purpose of Martin’s article was
communicated successfully.
EXAMINATION OF MARTIN 5
References
Hyland, K. (2010). Constructing proximity: Relating to readers in popular and professional
science. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9, 116-127.
doi:10.1016/j.jeap2010.02.003
Goldbort, R. (2006). Writing for Science. New Haven, CT, USA: Yale University Press.
Gopen, G. D., & Swan, J. A. (1990). The science of scientific writing. American Scientist, 78(6),
(pp. 550-558). Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/29774235
Martin, E. (1991). The egg and the sperm: How science has constructed a romance based on
stereotypical male-female roles. In C. Nelson-McDermott, L. Buzzard, & D. LePan
(Eds.), Science and society: An anthology for readers and writers (pp. 421-437). Canada:
Broadview Press.