Memorandum
To: Topics: Editing the Style of Tech Pubs (Eng 4/572) Participants
From: Roland Nord
Date: July 28, 2016
Re: Readability analysis (Readability.doc)
Please use Word’s grammar and style checker to analyse a sample of your prose; then,
comment on the usefulness of the feedback that you received.
Analysis of your own writing sample
In a memo to me, please reproduce one or more paragraphs (a total of 12-20 sentences)
of your writing. I suggest that you use the same piece of prose that used for the
assignment for which you were to identify sentence types (Sentence_patterns_y3i.doc).
Check your settings for the grammar and style checker:
Office 97-2003
Office 2007
1.
Click Tools > Options.
1.
Click Office Button; then, click
Word Options.
2.
Click Spelling & Grammar tab; then,
under Grammar, click Show readability
statistics and in the Writing style box,
select Grammar & Style.
2.
Click Proofing.
In the When correcting spelling and
grammar in Word section, select Show
readability statistics. For Writing Style,
select Grammar & Style.
Click Settings to select grammar and
style options; then click OK.
3.
Click OK.
3.
Click OK.
July 28, 2016
-2-
Roland Nord
Then, run the grammar and style checker:
Office 97-2003
1.
Highlight your passage. (Don’t check your
entire memo.)
2.
Click Tools > Spelling and Grammar.
3.
Examine the suggestions. (You may want
to copy and paste them to a table as I
did.) But do not make any changes in your
passage.
4.
When prompted to continue checking your
document, click No.
5.
When your Readability Statistics window
appear, press Alt-PrtScn; then, click OK
to close the Readability statistics window.
6.
Position your cursor where you’d like to
insert a copy of the Readability Statistics;
then, press Ctrl-V.
Office 2007
2.
Click Review ; then, in the Proofing
section, click ABC  Spelling &
Grammar.
Save your document as Readability _y3i.doc (e.g., Readability _rdn.doc), replacing the y3i
with your three initials.
Readability stats for passage from Jone’s Technical Writing Style (5-6)
Some of the bias against style in technical prose can be seen in definitions of stylistics.
Definitions of stylistics reflect a preoccupation with literary rather than technical prose.
A typical dictionary definition of stylistics is “an aspect of literary study that emphasizes
the analysis of various elements of style (as metaphor and diction).”14 In A Dictionary of
Stylistics, Katie Wales defines stylistics as “the study of style,”15 but she notes a confusion
of stylistics with literary stylistics, “literary because it tends to focus on literary texts.”16
Wales offers the helpful distinction of general stylistics: “a cover term to cover the analyses
of non-literary varieties of language.”17
Perhaps the major reason stylistics traditionally has been preoccupied with literary rather
than scientific and technical prose is that literary prose appears to be more emotive or
more expressive. However, this view simplifies a complex issue. Scientific and technical
prose is often very expressive of the individual self. In Science as Writing, David Locke
offers a compelling argument in defense of the expressiveness of scientific prose: “…I
vigorously deny that traditional assessment in literary and scientific camps that one, if
not the, discriminating feature between literary language and scientific language is that the
former is expressive and the latter is not.”18 Locke is careful not to suggest “that all
scientific language is highly expressive or that all scientific language is equally
expressive.”19 What Locke argues is “that scientific language can be expressive…of the
individual self and expressive of ideas and of powerful feelings.”20 Locke knows that the
writing in most scientific journals shows little expressiveness, but he believes there is a
July 28, 2016
-3-
Roland Nord
residue even in these publications. Within the discourse community of a particular
scientist, the expressiveness is there for all to see: “Scientists who know well the workers
in their particular field will know precisely who wrote a given paper, whether or not the
name appears on it, and they will know equally well what the author’s feelings are about
the work reported.
Stylistic suggestions. The grammar and style checker flagged six passages, four of
which concerned spelling out the footnote number from the previous sentence. (The
style checkers seems to have ‘interpreted’ that number as the first word of a sentence.)
Flagged passages and suggested revisions
Passage
Suggestion
Some of the bias against style in technical prose can be
seen in definitions of stylistics.
Passive voice (consider revising)
16 Wales offers the helpful distinction of general stylistics:
“a cover term to cover the analyses of non-literary
varieties of language.”
Spell out number (consider revising)
Within the discourse community of a particular scientist,
the expressiveness is there for all to see: “Scientists who
know well the workers in their particular field will know
precisely who wrote a given paper; whether or not the
name appears on it, and they will know equally well what
the author’s feelings are about the work reported.
paper;
… who wrote a given paper; whether or
not…
The first flagged passage I (or Jones) could certainly improve by using active voice; for
example,
Definitions of stylistics reveal a bias against style in technical prose.
I can easily ignore the frequent suggestion to spell out superscripted numerals (the
footnote numbers); the spelling and style checker simply doesn’t ‘understand’ the context
in which I’m using the numerals.
The final flagged passage falls within a quotation. In this case, the comma correctly sets
off a parenthetical phrase. However, even if I were convinced that the author’s use was
in error, I can’t change the author’s words or punctuation, although I might recheck the
passage to be sure that I’ve reproduced the passage accurately.
Readability statistics. I’ve inserted
screenshots of the readability statistics as well as
the word count statistics.
First, note that the readability statistics and the
word count supply two different word totals:
337 and 329 (respectively). The totals are close
and I haven’t the time or interest to determine
which, if either, is correct.
July 28, 2016
-4-
Roland Nord
Both functions identify my passage as consisting of
2 paragraphs, and the style and grammar checker
correctly identifies that my passage consists of 13
sentences; however, the readability statistics incorrectly
calculates the average sentences per paragraph (13/2)
as 13.
Although the grammar and style checker flagged one
instance of passive voice (approximately 7% of the
sentences in this sample), the readability statistics show
0% passive sentences.
Caution. It’s tough to say how characteristic the passage is of Jone’s style because the
passage contains a number of quotations—text that Jone’s has only partially
incorporated into his own. I suggest sampling and testing a number of other passages
from the book before attempting to draw any conclusions about Jone’s writing style.