![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
As an editor, I work primarily with authors for whom English is a second or even third language. Most are writing about fairly thorny science, which adds another layer of complexity. In that context, you'd be forgiven if you predicted that I run into more than my fair share of hideously written and incomprehensible prose.
Surprisingly, that's not the case. In fact, many of my foreign authors are better writers in their second language than many of my English authors are in their first language. Formerly, I'd considered the problem to arise from the degree of care an author takes when they begin writing: English authors seem to take less care choosing their words because they're writing in their native tongue, whereas authors writing in their second language realize that they aren't experts and take much more care finding the right word.
Logical though that explanation may be, it's also wrong—or at least incomplete. Musing upon this today, after a fairly rough edit, I discovered a nuance so obvious it had never occurred to me before: the problem relates more to carelessness of thought than it does to incorrect word choice or defective grammar.
For example, my first edit today was a test of endurance, even though the words were correct and the grammar was reasonably clear. The problem arose because the authors had not spent much time thinking about what they needed to say before they started saying it, and didn't think much about the evidence they would need to evince to support their thoughts. My second edit today is a breeze by comparison, even though the word choice is frequently incorrect and the grammar often shaky, because the authors clearly spent some time thinking about what they wanted to say before trying to say it.
A poorly worded, grammatically shakey paper can be surprisingly easy to edit when (as in the second paper today) the thought process is clear and logical. In that case, any problems with the wording can be resolved by simply following the author's logic from point A to point C and asking what words or sentence structure (point B! eureka!) would be required to complete their thought process. Mystery words are no longer so serious an obstacle when you know what word really should fall into the gap between A and C, and what word would be synonymous with the incorrect word that currently occupies that gap.
When the thought process is muddy, as in my first paper today, even using words correctly, in correct grammatical order, won't help because the leaps of logic are too wide for even a nimble editor to easily bridge.
Interesting.
Surprisingly, that's not the case. In fact, many of my foreign authors are better writers in their second language than many of my English authors are in their first language. Formerly, I'd considered the problem to arise from the degree of care an author takes when they begin writing: English authors seem to take less care choosing their words because they're writing in their native tongue, whereas authors writing in their second language realize that they aren't experts and take much more care finding the right word.
Logical though that explanation may be, it's also wrong—or at least incomplete. Musing upon this today, after a fairly rough edit, I discovered a nuance so obvious it had never occurred to me before: the problem relates more to carelessness of thought than it does to incorrect word choice or defective grammar.
For example, my first edit today was a test of endurance, even though the words were correct and the grammar was reasonably clear. The problem arose because the authors had not spent much time thinking about what they needed to say before they started saying it, and didn't think much about the evidence they would need to evince to support their thoughts. My second edit today is a breeze by comparison, even though the word choice is frequently incorrect and the grammar often shaky, because the authors clearly spent some time thinking about what they wanted to say before trying to say it.
A poorly worded, grammatically shakey paper can be surprisingly easy to edit when (as in the second paper today) the thought process is clear and logical. In that case, any problems with the wording can be resolved by simply following the author's logic from point A to point C and asking what words or sentence structure (point B! eureka!) would be required to complete their thought process. Mystery words are no longer so serious an obstacle when you know what word really should fall into the gap between A and C, and what word would be synonymous with the incorrect word that currently occupies that gap.
When the thought process is muddy, as in my first paper today, even using words correctly, in correct grammatical order, won't help because the leaps of logic are too wide for even a nimble editor to easily bridge.
Interesting.