The Smell of the Lamp: Bad Writing in the Behavioural Sciences
Mots-clés :
Academic writing, Behavioural sciences, Reification, Scholarly communicationRésumé
An academic who writes badly does so for one or more of three reasons: He (or she) may be insufficiently sophisticated in the uses of the language; he probably shares the peculiar linguistic habits of an insular community of academics; and he may be under some distortive pressure from the habits of thought and language inculcated by his particular discipline. Writers in the fields of human science, in particular, are led and even encouraged to deploy reifications copiously and incautiously, to neglect such rhetorical problems as the clarifying of contrast or comparison, and to fall into traps set by the seeming similarities of syntax or metaphor. In all this they are typically beguiled by the demands for quantification and generalization that dominate their disciplines, and by some rather simplistic assumptions about the nature of language.
Références
Hirsch, E. D. The philosophy of composition. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Ogden, C. K., & Richards, I. A. The meaning of meaning. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Jovanovich, 1959.
Richards, I. A. Practical criticism. New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1929.
Shaughnessy, M. P. Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford University Press, 1977.
Téléchargements
Publié-e
Comment citer
Numéro
Rubrique
Licence

Cette œuvre est sous licence Creative Commons Attribution - Pas d'Utilisation Commerciale - Pas de Modification 4.0 International.
La Revue canadienne de l’éducation utilise la licence CC BY-NC-ND de Creative Commons.