Differences between ordinary and academic writing
The following are more typical of ordinary, colloquial, non-scientific, or non-technical
writing, versus academic, technical, and scientific writing.
ordinary / informal writing
academic / technical writing
structure
Fairly flexible structures
Rigid article or essay structure, e..g.,
literature review; experimental design,
materials and procedures; data results;
discussion of results; general discussion
genre
Writing that is more colloquial or Formal, rigid styles like essay, lab report,
conversation in style
case study, research paper, thesis, literature
review
sentence
structure
Simple sentences; sentences
combined by coordination
(coordinate / independent
clauses, 등위절)
Sentences combined more often by
subordination (subordinate / dependent
clauses – 종속절), and participle phrases
introductions
Introductions are more general;
may begin with more common,
familiar knowledge, or attentiongetting statements
More specific, leading specifically to an
explicit thesis statement; intros more
informative and concise, and often seem
more direct or dry in style
topic
sentences
Topic sentences may be at the
start or end of a paragraph, or
omitted altogether.
Paragraphs usually start with a concise,
direct statement of the main point,
followed by supporting arguments or
evidence
topic
transitions
Shifts to new topics sometimes
by means of there is/are
expressions; reshifts to previous
topics with expressions like as
to, as for, regarding, as regards,
speaking of...
Shifts to new topics and reshifts done
simply by starting sentences with full
noun subjects, paragraph breaks, and
transitions (yet, however, in contrast...); few
reshift markers or there is/are expressions;
relatively less use of expressions like as to,
as for, regarding, as regards, speaking of...
vocabulary
Simpler and higher-frequency
vocabulary; more phrasal verbs
Lower-frequency vocabulary; more
complex words, with many multisyllabic
words from Latin and Greek
vocabulary
usage
Some redundancy or repetition
of words or ideas
Highly dense text; very concise; very
precise expression; minimal repetition
(except for sentence subjects)
1
ordinary / informal writing
academic / technical writing
vocabulary
choice
Words are used with more
common meanings (e.g., ‘theory’
= conjecture)
Words have more specific, technical
meanings (e.g., ‘theory’ =conceptual
framework)
demonstratives
Demonstratives (this, that, these,
those) used to refer to immediate
antecedents or referents –
previously mentioned things or
persons
Demonstratives, especially ‘this,’ often
used to refer to discourse referents –
previously mentioned ideas, phrases,
sentences, e.g.: “this [fact, situation, etc.]
merits further study,” “this situation /
result / matter poses problems for...” and
“the common use of X differs from that
in academic parlance”
sentence
subjects
Sentences begin with animate
and personal nouns, personal
pronouns (including first or
second person pronouns)
Sentences begin with full noun phrases;
repetition of full nouns for clarity across
sentences; pronouns, if used, are third
person
verb choice
More modals, phrasal verbs,
common verbs; verbs more
often refer to actions (and thus,
subjects are agents or doers of
actions)
Fewer modals or phrasal verbs; Latinate /
Greek verbs; more abstract and relational
verbs (e.g., ‘correlate, is consistent with)
for concepts and conceptual relations
verb forms
More active verbs, get-passive
(e.g., ‘got replaced’)
More passive voice (be-passive, e.g., ‘was
replaced’)
nouns
Fewer nominalizations
More nominalizations, leading to a denser
style (see below)
tone
More personal, even subjective;
less formal (e.g., ‘cool study’ or
‘fishy analysis’)
More impersonal and authoritative; more
formal (e.g., ‘rigorous and insightful study’
or ‘questionable analysis’)
Technical vocabulary
Many words in academic discourse have more specific and complex meanings than
in more ordinary writing. For example, in ordinary parlance, ‘theory’ means ‘conjecture,
idea, hypothesis, something that has not been proven’; but in science, a theory is a
complex, explanatory, scientific conceptual framework, and a scientific theory can be one
that has been proven and accepted, or one that is not yet proven (thus, the theory of
evolution is by no means an hypothesis or conjecture, but a proven and universally
accepted theory). Likewise, the ordinary use of ‘correlation’ differs from that of
quantitative research, where ‘correlation’ indicates a statistical relationship that meets
certain statistical criteria (like statistical significance). Some terms like ‘statistical
significance’ may be opaque or alien to a person who has not studied statistics or who has
not been taught the concept properly. Even ordinary terms like ‘gravity’ has a different
nuance; in ordinary parlance, it is simply a force that makes objects fall, but a physicist’s
understanding and usage of the term ‘gravity’ is more technical and precise. ‘Mass’ and
‘matter’ may mean the same thing to non-scientists, but these are very different concepts
2
for physicist.
The following types of vocabulary are also more typical of formal writing.
• Reporting verbs: More formal, specific verbs like report, note, cite, indicate, claim, posit,
discuss, suggest are used to report what others have written, rather than informal verbs
like say, mention.
• Classifier / evaluative nouns: class, type, category, issue, matter, problem
• Explicit cause – result expressions: outcome, yield, produce, result, leads to, contributes to,
correlates with, effect, finish
• Objective evaluative expressions: advantage, disadvantage, problem, advantage, angle, aspect,
attempt, branch, category, circumstance, class, consequence, course [of action], criterion, deal,
disadvantage, drawback, element. fact, facet, factor, form, item, motive, period, plan, problem, reason.
stage, term, type. Words with a neutral, objective tone are used rather than overly negative
or positive terms.
Topic sentences
A more informal or less skilled topic sentence is the “self-announcing” topic
sentences.
I want to argue that this policy will not only fail to bring about any positive results, but
in fact will ultimately compromise the quality of classroom teaching.
Also, some writers may write in a less fluid style like this.
Korean texts have been analyzed by applied linguist Eggington. He shows that Korean
texts are characterized by indirectness and nonlinear development. A four-part pattern,
ki-sung-chon-kyul, typical of Korean prose, contributes to the nonlinearity (Conner,
1996:45).
Nominalizations
It is more common in technical writing to reduce an entire phrase or idea to a single noun
phrase; e.g.:
simple, less formal
nominalization
Gutenberg invented the printing press, which
allowed people to disseminate information
Gutenberg’s invention of the printing
press revolutionized the dissemination
of information
we applied...; how we applied...; where we
applied...
our application of...
how we directed the research; the direction
that our research took
the direction of our research
3
The following example shows how scientific writing uses nominalizations, passive
verbs, and participle phrases. The original1 on the left compares with the less formal
rewording on the right.
more formal (original)
less formal (modified)
Human cellular models of Alzheimer’s
disease (AD) pathogenesis would enable
the investigation of candidate pathogenic
mechanisms in AD and the testing and
developing of new therapeutic strategies.
Human cellular models of Alzheimer’s
disease (AD) pathogenesis would enable
us to investigate candidate pathogenetic
mechanisms in AD, and would enable us
to test and develop new therapeutic
strategies.
We report the development of AD
pathologies in cortical neurons generated
from human induced pluripotent stem
(iPS) cells derived from patients with
Down syndrome.
We report on how we developed AD
pathologies in cortical neurons that were
generated from human induced
pluripotent stem (iPS) cells that were
derived from patients with Down
syndrome.
These cortical neurons processed the
transmembrane APP protein, resulting in
secretion of the pathogenic peptide
fragment amyloid-β42 (Aβ42).
These cortical neurons processed the
transmembrane APP protein, which
resulted in secretion of the pathogenic
peptide fragment.
Production of Aβ peptides was blocked
by a γ-secretase inhibitor.
Aβ peptides were not produced, because
they were blocked by a γ-secretase
inhibitor.
Finally, hyperphosphorylated tau protein,
a pathological hallmark of AD, was
found to be localized to cell bodies and
dendrites in iPS cell–derived cortical
neurons from Down syndrome patients,
recapitulating later stages of the AD
pathogenic process.
Finally, we found that hyperphosphorylated tau protein, a pathological hallmark
of AD, was localized to cell bodies and
dendrites in iPS cell–derived cortical
neurons from Down syndrome patients.
This recapitulates later stages of the AD
pathogenic process.
References
1. Conner, Ulla. (1996). Contrastive Rhetoric. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2. Snow, Catherine E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about
science. Science, 328, 450-452. [and references therein]
3. Swales, J. M. & Feak, C. B. (2004). Academic writing for graduate students. 2nd ed. Michigan:
University of Michigan Press.
1 Original text from Y. Shi, P. Kirwan, J. Smith, G. MacLean, S. H. Orkin, F. J. Livesey. (2012). A Human Stem Cell
Model of Early Alzheimer’s Disease Pathology in Down Syndrome. Science Translational Medicine, 4, 124ra29.
4
5