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.