The Science Of Scientific Writing Set C Coherence &Cohesion Coherence I Exercise 1 Coherence II Exercise 2 Cohesion Exercise 3 Final Page.
OVERVIEW: The way to well-written science
PART I: Paragraphs and Sentences
SET A: Paragraphs: The Maps Behind Them
SET B: Paragraphs: Using Maps to Meet Readers' Expectations
SET C: Paragraph Coherence and Cohesion
SET D: Sentences
SET E: Scientific Sections (including Methods)
SET F: Scientific Sections: The Discussion
SET G : Scientific Sections: The Introduction
SET H : The Paper as a Whole
Global Coherence II: minor mistakes
Further to the three major mistakes that can reduce coherence mentioned so far, we will now look at some less critical errors.
Minor mistake 1: Inconsistent narrative mode
In literary writing, a story is commonly either told from the first or third person perspective, and it would be very disconcerting for the reader if the writer switched between the two without very good reason. A scientific paper is more complicated in this respect because at certain points a first person perspective is more appropriate and at others, the less personal third person works better. We will consider this in more detail when we look at the sections of a paper later in the course. But below is an example where there is a disruptive switch in perspective which affects the overall coherence of the text:
Despite having some avian-reptilian features, the platypus is still considered a mammal. It has fur which, when examined in detail, is structurally similar to that of non-egg-laying mammals. The hair scales of the shaft show the typical mammalian shift in shape between the base and the tip. I also know that the platypus produces a milky secretion that is used to suckle the newborns. Hair and suckling of the young are features now universally acknowledged as definitive characteristics of the class Mammalia.
Minor mistake 2: Inconsistent discourse mode resulting from inconsistent tense use
Read the paragraph below and see if you can pick up its subtle flaw:
Despite having some avian-reptilian features, the platypus is still considered a mammal. It has fur which, when examined in detail, is structurally similar to that of non-egg-laying mammals. The hair scales of the shaft show the typical mammalian shift in shape between the base and the tip. The platypus also produced a milky secretion that is used to suckle the newborns. Hair and suckling of the young are features now universally acknowledged as definitive characteristics of the class Mammalia.
The problem lies in the fact that in three of the four sentences the main verb of the sentence is in the present tense, while "produced" in sentence three is past tense. In a scientific report, The present tense is typically used for description, while the past tense is an indicator of reporting. From the overall context of the paragraph it seems unlikely that the author wants the reader to think that they personally observed milk production by the platypus.
Minor mistake 3: Inconsistent terminology throughout the paragraph
Previously we considered how the landmark sentence can obscured if the terminology used in it is inconsistent with that of the sentences immediately before and after it. Inconsistent terminology can infect the coherence of the entire paragraph. There are several examples of this in the paragraph below. Perhaps the most jarring is the sudden introduction of the term "monotremes" in the final sentence.
Given that the platypus has a combination of reptilian and mammalian features, early biologists argued about it. This animal lays eggs and has a cloaca, that is, a single urinary-intestinal-reproductive opening. It has fur which, when examined in detail, is structurally similar to that of animals such as the dog, cat and the pig. As in these animals, the hair scales of the shaft show the typical shift in shape between the base and the tip. The duckbill produces a milky secretion that is used to suckle the newborns. Hair and suckling of the young are features universally acknowledged as characteristics of the mammals. Monotremes are now assigned to their own order within the class Mammalia.
Minor mistake 4: Inconsistent "register"
When speaking, we are all familiar with the different language modes we slip into in different social siuations. We use slightly different grammar, and choose different types of words, when we talk to, say, a judge in court and a five-year old relative. These different "sub-languages" are said to belong to different registers. Likewise, scientific reporting has its own register and there can even be subtle differences between different scientific disciplines.Your extensive reading of the scientific literature will probably already have given you a strong, perhaps intuitive, sense of the what is suitable language use in your own discipline, and you would likely avoid the rather extreme slip-up in the paragraph below.
Despite having some avian reptilian features, the platypus is still considered a mammal. It has fur which, when examined in detail, is structurally similar to that of non-egg-laying mammals. The hair scales of the shaft show the typical mammalian shift in shape between the base and the tip. When it comes to raising a brood, old mama platypus takes right good care of her small fry, she runs a regular 24-hour dairy down there in the burrow! Hair and suckling of the young are features now universally acknowledged as definitive characteristics of the class Mammalia.
Minor mistake 5: Inconsistent "voice"
The "voice" of a text is usually only considered when talking about literature, but it can be a powerful tool to exploit for advanced scientific writers. Voice refers to the image of the author projected in the reader's mind by the text. Most scientific papers do not project a voice at all, because the authors do not have the skill to make the text "come alive" in the reader's mind. It is in fact much more difficult to project a persona when writing a scientific report because of the high value that scientists give to objectivity. Any strategies to project a persona must be very subtle otherwise the writer runs the risk of appearing "unscientific".
I will not cover such strategies in detail here because they are too advanced. The only thing I want you to keep in the back of your mind is that in the early stages of your scientific career the persona you want to project is that of a very careful, unbiased researcher. This will make any arguments you need to make all the more convincing, exploiting what Aristotle referred to as the "ethos" aspect of persuasion (the other two being "logos" - logic - and "pathos" - emotion).
......