×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Soapbox: writing quality
3

Soapbox: writing quality

Soapbox: writing quality

(OP)
First I'd like to thank everyone who answered my recent spate of language questions.  Ordinarily I wouldn't turn to a bunch of engineers for a language question (see below) but at work I'm sequestered from my usual sources.


I realize I'm preaching to the converted here, since this is a forum for people who care about language issues, but...

Why do so many engineers not comprehend that their written product, whether it's a specification, a report, a conference paper, a letter to a client, whatever, is a reflection on them, every bit as much as the tie or shoes (ahem) they wear, and in fact more so because it reflects more on what's inside the skull (where engineering happens) than outside it?  Worse than that, they don't grasp that language and meaning have a specific relationship and if the language is messed up, the meaning may not be properly conveyed?  But even if the meaning survives, how can they be so totally oblivious to this basic aspect of presentation?

I've been editing submittals for a conference for the last two years.  Like, omigawd.  These papers are not only the basis for the conference presentations (and perhaps for us to decide that maybe we were wrong to accept their abstract) but will be published in the conference proceedings.  A poorly chosen necktie will become a fleeting memory, but people could be looking up and reading the paper for years to come.  And yet these authors seem to put a lot more thought into what they'll wear to give the presentation than to how their permanently published work will appear.

I am astounded at the lack of literacy.  Never mind subtle stuff like not bothering to figure out how to make greek symbols or subscripts with the word processor--the most basic rules of grammar and even spelling are violated.  This can be the case whether the author is an engineer, a research scientist, or a contractor.  How hard is it and how much time could it possibly take to hand the paper over to someone else to proofread?  A secretary, a friend, a spouse, a co-worker?  A high-school kid?

Not that I expect perfection.  Every time I look at something major I've written, I find something else wrong with it.  But come on, people, the basics!

End rant.  Say, Eng-Tips needs a "kvetch" icon, since neither "question" nor "helpful tip" really applies.

Hg

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

My peeve du jour: incorrect or non-existent paragraph spacing, not in formal documents but in day-to-day emails.

I can tolerate a certain level of improper grammar and spelling, and I make tpyos msyelf that I don't catch until after I hit send. But when I receive an email with detailed information on five separate and specific issues and everything is jumbled together in one huge paragraph, I'm compeled to insert the spacing myself before printing it out.

Maybe it's a sign of a weakening mind, or indicative of too many Powerpoint bullets, but I find it much easier to digest information when it's only one subject per chunk.

Grammar, spelling, punctuation, and format:  all important!

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

JNieuwsma
Et my peeve du jour - that I feel compeled to improve my speling.

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

(OP)
Paragraph spacing...yeah, I try to watch that.  Even if it feels to me like I'm still on the topic, if the chunk o' text is too big, I'll break it up anyway.  I may lose the subtle nuances (existing only in my own mind) of how the *real* break is *here*, when I add an extra paragraph break, but anything that's more than a few lines long is not going to get read thoroughly.  

Anything more than half again as long as the above paragraph really ought to get subdivided.  When I remember.

Hg

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Hg,

Your comments and efforts are appreciated. Good English usage does not vary much in the UK, Canada, USA, Australia or NZ. Charles Dickens and Mark Twain, Evelyn Waugh and Ernest Hemingway all had different styles, but their usage of the language was pretty much standardised.

However, colloquial regional English varies enormously, and in a discipline like Engineering that is full of rapidly evolving jargon there is enormous opportunity for clumsy writing.

Travellers learn to avoid colloquialisms that might confuse other English speakers. Report writers should use a standard vocabulary and standard grammar to enhance their communications.

Likewise engineers should be well enough educated and have a good enough vocabulary that report writers can use words of more than 2 syllables without fear of being misunderstood.

A lot of contributors to these language threads are mystified by apparent anomolous usages of similar words, without realising that they are trying to compare different parts of speech: nouns, adjectives and adverbs.

At the risk of sounding like a boring old fart, the teaching of English grammar is largely non-existant these days. My kids learnt more about grammar when they started learning foreign languages in high school than they did in any English class.

Jeff

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

(OP)
How nonexistent is it?  The people that I deal with professionally are mostly my age or older.  I learned grammar in school.

Then I found myself at an Ivy League university with classmates who couldn't put together a sentence.

Grammar may be like math (actually it's a lot like math)--there's a nice orderly set of rules, but a lot of people just don't get it, even if they do have to go through it in school.  And then other people don't understand how anyone could possibly not get it.

Hg

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

That is an interesting point, HgTX.  I believe that some of us were fortunate enough to have good English teachers who knew correct grammar and enforced it.  I know an English teacher in a "good" school district who says her colleagues don't teach grammar.  They don't like it, or more likely, they don't get it.  How they can keep a job is beyond me.

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

(OP)
What I really meant was people not getting the specific grammar rules, rather than the general importance thereof, which is a related but separate concern.

What I meant was that just as some otherwise fairly bright people can't seem to do arithmetic, others don't percieve the patterns of language that are grammar.  So when they're taught it in school it just seems like an arbitrary bunch of rules that they manage to memorize just enough of to pass, but that's about it.  (Kind of how I approached calculus the first time, before I understood the abstract system underlying it.)

And then they grow up and they're not in school and no one makes them do that weird arbitrary stuff any more, and so they don't.  And they are genuinely puzzled when other people point out mistakes.

To get back to your point, those are the people who won't comprehend the importance of teaching grammar, because they never really comprehended what it was in the first place.

I would have expected primary- or secondary-school English teachers not to be in that group, though--wouldn't they have to pass certain grammar tests just to get their teaching certificates?  So they'd be in another group--people who "get" grammar, but not why it's important to pass on to their students.  

Come to think of it, I don't remember how late into school we did grammar.  There may have come a point where they assumed we already knew it and didn't have to drill us specifically on that, instead just picking up mistakes as they occurred here and there in written assignments.  I think I remember having a grammar textbook all through junior high though.  So I could maybe see a high school English teacher not teaching grammar just as a high school math teacher wouldn't teach addition.  Maybe.

Hg

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

I remember studying phonics in first grade (still remember murmur diphthongs..), and diagramming sentences in fourth grade, then again more intensively in ninth grade.  Parochial education in the US was very good to me.  I've turned into a pathological proofreader, a nemesis to all whose documents I review.

We work with scopes of work from NASA personnel.  It is amazing how much misunderstanding a poorly written document can generate when hours and dollars are involved.  The time to learn grammar is when you're very young and learning everything else.  That's when you learn best.  It's not very constructive to teach remedial grammar to degreed Engineers.

I've heard that the SAT will now have a handwritten essay as part of the grading.  Should we start another post about handwriting?

Larry

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

(OP)
Even before the SAT II, the English achievement test (companion to the SAT along the lines of a subject GRE) had an essay component, which they introduced the year I took it.

I had to learn to type when I was 13 because I can't write nicely without taking a *very* long time.  Apparently I managed to more or less hold it together at a barely readable level on that exam, because I did okay, but usually even I can barely read my own writing.

We had penmanship class in 4th grade.  I learned how to painstakingly craft letters one at a time.  I never learned how to keep things legible at a reasonable writing pace.  I plead lack of hand-eye coordination.

It comes down to the same presentation & communication aspects we've been talking about all along.  In the US, for formal professional situations handwriting is not appropriate anyway, so we're down to communication in quick informal snippets.  Not too much of an invitation to trouble, but every once in a while the writer isn't around for us to ask what they meant.

Let's not go into doctors and illegible prescriptions and the health risks thereof.

Hg

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Diagramming sentences. Yeah, I remember that.  What was the point?  I don't recall actually learning anything about grammar by doing that, and I certainly couldn't diagram a sentence now.

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

We had grammar, parsing and analysis, until the end of 7th grade (1st year of high school) here in Australia. After that it was assumed that we knew and understood it all.

At UNSW in the sixties, engineers had to do "humanities". We did one hour per week of English for a year, half grammar and half literature. By then the accepted view of grammar had become: "English is a living, evolving language, and common usage will eventally become accepted as standard grammar" That was the beginning of the rot.

In literature we read, analysed and discussed "The Snows of Kilimanjaro", "The Sun Also Rises", "Huckleberry Finn" and some turgid thing by C.P. Snow. It took me twenty years to begin to appreciate Hemingway after that... and the lecturer was an American!

However, I found it easy to get good marks in the English and other humanities, a fact which has often made me wonder if I should have done Arts instead of Engineering

Jeff

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Sum es es sumus estes sunt. Eram eras erat eramus erates erant. Via viae viae viam...

That's about all of the detail I remember from my junior high Latin classes, but the structure and concepts of language in general sunk in a bit deeper. I certainly leared far more about English grammar in Latin and French classes than I ever did in English class, although the little bit of sentence diagramming we did helped.  Later on, the English department at my high school had a very good writing program, but by that time grammar and spelling were assumed.

Regardless of the school curriculum though, I think it was my home environment that matted most.  As the son of a communications professor and grade school teacher, any grammatical mistakes were quickly corrected.

As for handwriting, mine is terrible. Usually I print.

JN

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

JNieuwsma
Eratis not erates. Isn't it annoying that only the useless stuff gets retained by our brains over the years, and not the useful information !!

RE: Soapbox: writing quality


Hg and other contributors - Your soapbox is entirely justified and well-founded.

Trouble is, I guess that only engineers of a certain age and type of education are interested in this forum, because the others know they don't or can't do it right, so therefore it doesn't matter.

I'm in my mid-50s and had a formal English school education in which I learnt Latin, French and German as well as sciences etc. My school was effectively what used to be called a grammar school in England but I've never understood why they have this name. They didn't teach grammar to the exclusion of all else - in fact the foreign language teachers taught me more grammar than my English teacher. Perhaps grammar was seen as an important accomplishment and therefore a sign of good general education.

Whatever the reason, when asked recently why we say things like "If I were you" (instead of "If I was you"), I was able to say "because the conditional meaning demands a subjunctive". Blank looks all around. But at least I know why it's correct.

Interestingly, my word skills are valued quite highly by my employer (maybe I'm a crap engineer!), and so is the fact that I speak fluent French and a bit of German.

So these things can be important, and we should not be ashamed to keep standards of grammar, spelling and language at a high level.

Grammar schools disappeared in England (too elitist) - but now they are being reinstated, fee-paying, not state funded. I wonder why?

John

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

To correct harrisj, grammar schools didn't disappear in the UK, some clung on. Generally grammar schools were part of the state school system but wiser minds decided that it was unfair to denegrate a child to a lower demanding school based upon a test taken at 11 years. It was decided that a better option was to improve the academic achievement of all schools, and hence all children. Surprisngly the person who closed most grammar schools in the UK based on this philosophy was the infamous conservative 'milk-snatcher' Thatcher, as she was affectionately known.
Public (fee paying) schools are not grammar schools but are private schools. Why they are illogically called public, I have no idea. In fact public schools have charitable status which allows some tax exemption, which is the oddest thing I've ever heard.
Public schools don't work on the same principle of grammar schools, hwever, in that students are not chosen on academic ability but on their ability to pay the fees. You can see this in the results of Prince Harry who managed to scrape a C in Art and a D in History at Eton. It cannot be said then that grammar schools are being reinstated as fee-paying schools. Fee-paying schools have always existed as far as I know.   

corus

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Quote:

Why they are illogically called public, I have no idea.
They are called public because they are not state run ... they are funded by the fee-paying public.
The illogicality illogic ??? confusion in terms comes from the commonly accepted opposites ... public vs private.

from (the City of) Barrie, Ontario.

I tried sniffing Coke once, but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Yates-mea culpa! 'Tis Eratis, it is.

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

JNieuwsma
That's what English grammar schools do for you. jharris was right, English grammar was taught less than in foreign languages. Result : no one can beat me in French grammar !

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Gentleman- It is not only you "old" fogeys who care about spelling and grammar. Many of us young engineers care to.


"However I've found that in my professional life that good spelling and grammar are far more important than my math/science/engineering skills. Why you might ask since my job duties are more math and science related than english. However mostly people notice what I have to say when it is written. Using quality grammar and spelling especially shows respect for your reader, it also shows respect for yourself and is how people make their first impressions of you. "-copied from a post on NASIOC.com in reply to someone who asked about engineering as a career choice. (and did not use good grammar or spelling when they did it)


-nick

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

NickE,

A tiny quibble - "Many of us young engineers care too."

Regards,

Cory

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of Eng-Tips Fora.

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

CoryPad,

Not necessarily.

"Many of us young engineers care to (use correct grammar)".

I guess NickE is the only one who knows exactly what he meant.

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

(OP)
I don't know that I quite qualify for <<ingenieur d'une certaine age>>, but maybe d'un certain educational level.  I moved to another country and learned a second language at age 6, and learning another language with another set of rules makes one much more aware of what grammatical rules are (or that they exist to begin with).  It's hard to realize that about one's native language, but it's vital when acquiring another.  I guess that's why so many people reported in this thread that they learned far more about grammar in their foreign language classes.

I think MintJulep illustrates some of my earlier point.  When I was shown sentence diagramming in 4th grade, it was intuitively obvious to me what it all meant.  Not because the teacher did such a good job of explaining it, but because OF COURSE the sentence can be divided into those parts and they fit together a certain way.  I don't remember all the names given to those parts or the conventions used for grammar school diagramming (the field of linguistics uses a different set of conventions), but that was never the point--the point was to understand that sentence structure can be analyzed.

On the other hand, the fact that I don't remember anything about those coventions (I remember something about circling and underlining and putting phrases on stilts) maybe says that they're not the best way possible to illustrate sentence structure.  Generative linguistics uses a hierarchical notation (tree diagrams or brackets), which makes much more sense.  Unfortunately I don't know of any professional linguists who care to go lobby school textbook writers.

Hg

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

CoryPad- dangit I knew I was gonna get it for that one... In my head I said also and it came out as to and then I forgot the rule that says:

go to somewhere, too many also, two is enough....

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Quote:

Why do so many engineers not comprehend that their written product, whether it's a specification, a report, a conference paper, a letter to a client, whatever, is a reflection on them, every bit as much as the tie or shoes (ahem) they wear, and in fact more so because it reflects more on what's inside the skull (where engineering happens) than outside it?  Worse than that, they don't grasp that language and meaning have a specific relationship and if the language is messed up, the meaning may not be properly conveyed?  But even if the meaning survives, how can they be so totally oblivious to this basic aspect of presentation?

It goes beyond that, I'm afraid. In my experience, even the simple things like Purchase Orders and reference sketches from the customer and/or field technicians tend to be horrendously illegible. And please refrain from getting me started on public schools--in my little career through elementary, middle and high school I have no recollection whatsoever of these "sentence diagrams" you speak of.

To be quite honest, the vast majority of my development in the area of spelling/grammar did not take place until well after High School. Mainly because I participate in lots of message boards/online communities/forums--which tend to be discussions which are either political or religious in nature--and with necessity being the primary motivator and all, I picked up some things rather quickly over the past couple years.

...I believe that would be all I have to contribute to this thread at the moment...

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. -- H.L. Mencken

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Oh, and reading such marvelous works as Frank Herbert's Dune Saga and lots of other heady fare did not hurt, either.

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. -- H.L. Mencken

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Cory
    Many of the young engineers care to, but many of the old fogeys can't !

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Many of today's teachers don't teach proper grammatical skills because they themselves do not know them.  They have not been taught them.  The reasons that they were not taught include carelessness, political correctness, and other such factors that have slowly eroded the accepted standards of usage.

The reason these teachers still have jobs is because those who create and conduct the tests that qualify teachers also don't know proper grammatical skills, and are victims themselves of this erosion.

No one wants to teach mental discipline anymore; the teachers who are capable and interested are not allowed to by the administrators of education, for fear of offending the students or their families.  Without this discipline, any student (in or out of school) is denied ready access to the ability to reason and think analytically.  Without this ability, the student - child or adult - becomes nothing more than a peon or automaton of our society and culture.  Could this be a source of the deep frustration and alienation of youth in our culture today?  Our children are intelligent, capable people, craving knowledge and learning, and they are being denied these things.  We're not doing them any favors by coddling them and keeping them mental infants.  They deserve better than that, and as adults, they will only have to work that much harder to do things properly, once they realize what they have missed.

I often read books written in the 19th Century, and I literally feel my brain cells exercising as I digest the meaning of these texts.  I had a good education in elementary school, in grammar and writing, spelling and punctuation.  It was a dirt-poor parochial school, but I learned basics that have been my foundation for the last 40 years.  I do not envy our youth of today, and when I have any contact with a child today who expresses any interest such things, I do what I can to encourage his or her interest.  It's the least I can do.

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

I personally owe my use of proper grammar to the nagging of my mother; a favor I am happily sharing with my children.

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

No offence intended ... but perhaps she should have nagged you more.

I personally (unnecessary) owe my use of proper grammar to the nagging of my mother (who was nagging your mother?); a favor I am happily sharing with my children.[/i]

I owe my use of correct grammar to my mother nagging me (or ... to my mothers nagging); a favor I happily share with my children.

OK ... let the counter attacks begin

from (the City of) Barrie, Ontario.

I tried sniffing Coke once, but the ice cubes got stuck in my nose

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Thanks Mom!


RE: Soapbox: writing quality

This thread started with the assumption that (good) engineers often are bad communicators. Especially when it comes to writing.

I do not agree at all.

Most good engineers that I work with write good reports, memos, e-mails, post-cards et cetera. I do get poorly written reports, e-mails and so on, but the people that produce them are mostly non-engineers or engineers that do not care that much about engineering either.

In my world, people that think that a job deserves to be well done think that all aspects of a job counts. There are many (in their own eyes) "good" engineers that write terrible reports. But if you try to understand what is in the report (takes some effort to do so) you will most likely find that there is nothing in it - or very little.

So, I think that you should do away with the prejudice that engineers are bad writers. I see no reason why they should be. And I see no evidence that they are any worse than most other professionals.

(I beg you to excuse my writing peculiarities. I am, after all, an engineer and a foreigner as well).

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

(OP)
Maybe engineers aren't any worse than most other professionals, but all that would mean is that professionals in general can't write.  That's even sadder.

I spend a LOT of time fixing really crappy writing.  I edit conference submittals and specifications that are supposed to be already in final shape.  So the engineers and scientists in question are people who've passed a conference vetting process, or who are generating the standards by which the national infrastructure will be built.  And no, they can't write.  A lot of them can write, but too many, including people I respect quite a bit as technical resources, can't.

Language barrier isn't always an excuse either (not that there's anything wrong with your post above).  Someone submitting a paper they've written in a language foreign to them should hand it over to a native speaker to check.  Last year I spent hours repairing a paper that was obviously written by the co-author whose native language was not English, when there were two American co-authors who could have gone over that paper before submittal.

I couldn't say about non-technical professions; the only time I get to read their written products is after they've been polished and published.

Hg

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Quote:

I owe my use of correct grammar to my mother nagging me (or ... to my mothers nagging); a favor I happily share with my children.

I owe my correct grammar usage to my Mother's constant nagging; a favor which I happily share with my children.

:D

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. -- H.L. Mencken

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

EDIT AGAIN:

I owe my correct grammar usage to my Mother's incessant nagging; a tradition I happily continue in raising my children.

The urge to save humanity is almost always only a false-face for the urge to rule it. -- H.L. Mencken

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

from HgTX: "...Maybe engineers aren't any worse than most other professionals, but all that would mean is that professionals in general can't write."

You're right.  It isn't just engineers, but pervasive across the entire business, commercial, and professional world.  It's not to single out professionals - but those who write well or who write poorly reflect the quality of their educations, no matter whether they design bridges or dig ditches.

I've noticed that many professionals who come to the States from other nations have remarkably good grammar and writing skills.  They are often humble about their ability to use the language - usually a second language for them - but they are often better than the "natives" they are working with who grew up with the language.

RE: Soapbox: writing quality

Great thread ... my compliments to all!

As stated by many, I will agree, poor language skills (both written and spoken) are a big pet peeve of mine.  A slip here and there, not a problem.  Continual and flagrant misuse, especially from educated individuals, has no excuse.  Maybe having english teachers as parents was a bad thing!  (NO it wasn't!)

Like HgTX, I get to review documents from time to time that could have heavy impact on the way others think or interpret new ideas, facts, and/or theories.  What truly puzzles (amazes?) me is the lack of language skills, especially within the higher education ranks (believe it or not, pHDs).  People hate to submit things my way.  My colored ink pens get a workout and a retirement at the same time!

Another pet peeve of mine is the "cut-n-paste" society we are living in.  I have just finished reviewing four reports (four more to go) that were basically the same report, edited for proper content pertaining to each subject.  Yes, it cuts down on time spent at the keyboard, but it doesn't do well to individualize the analysis.  And, these type documents harbor more grammatical errors than you'd care to believe - no matter how carefully they are put together.

I truly believe there are four teirs of people:  those that can write, those that can speak, those that do both equally well, and those that don't do either justice.  These individuals exist in every industry.  Just take a look around you.  Which do you see advancing?  Which do you see sinking?  Which do you see setting policy?  Think about it...

My 2-cents...
~NiM

PS:  Please pardon any language glitches ... I haven't had my coffee yet!

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources