790 日本物理学会誌 第 21 巻 第 11 号
Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists
Anthony J. LEGGETT
Introduction construction, and proportionately less on These notes are emphatically not intend- ʻmicroscopicʼ ones like the correct use of ed as a comprehensive guide to the writing ʻaʼ and ʻtheʼ; prepositions, which most of scientific English; I am sure there already Japanese writers seem to consider a major exist many good books devoted to this pur- point of difficulty in writing English, I have pose. However, during my work over the scarcely mentioned, not only because this is past year correcting the English of papers the sort of point for which one can easily submitted to ʻProgressʼ I noticed that cer- refer to dictionaries but because I believe tain patterns of mistake turned up over again; the reader can usually correct any mistake many of these, it seemed, could be avoided for himself with very little mental effort. by the use of a fairly simple rule. These Thirdly, the usefulness of a set of notes such notes, therefore, are simply an attempt to as this is much reduced if the rules given eliminate some of the more common errors become too complicated. Therefore, rather and sources of obscurity which sometimes than give a complicated set of rules which make ʻJapanese Englishʼ difficult to read. would ensure correctness 100% of the time, The main guiding principles I have used I have often preferred to give a simple rule are the following. First, it is much more which will be right 95% of the time, pro- important that the English written by Japa- vided that in the other 5% of cases it is un- nese authors be clear and easily readable likely to lead to confusion. I do not claim than that it be elegant. Therefore, in a sit- that anyone who tries to follow the advice uation where there is a choice between an given here will write beautiful or even in- elegant form of expression which, however, variably correct English; but I hope that may easily lead to confusion if misused and what he writes will be clear and readable a less elegant but practically ʻfoolproofʼ one, and that any mistakes he does make will be I have never hesitated to recommend the minor ones. latter. Secondly, the importance of avoiding The order in which the subject-matter a mistake is roughly proportional to the a- is arranged is, roughly speaking, from ʻmac- mount of misunderstanding it may entail and roscopicʼ to ʻmicroscopicʼ; consequently, the /or the amount of psychological ʻwear and points covered in the earlier sections are of tearʼ it may cause on the readerʼs nerves. more fundamental importance but the advice Accordingly, I have spent a good deal of given is necessarily somewhat general and space on ʻmacroscopicʼ points like sentence vague, while the latter sections cover more
Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists 791 detailed points where fairly precise rules can ably, the vast majority of your readers will usually be given. I hope any notation used share the Western European background, it will be self-explanatory (ʻA → Bʼ means A is necessary to make allowance for this fact. is incorrect and B is the correct replace- Of course, this problem is less important in ment). Most of the sentences quoted as ex- scientific writing than in some other kinds, amples of typical errors are either entirely my and the vast majority of Japanese physicists own invention or are substantially changed obviously recognize and make allowances for from their original forms; it is not claimed it; however, when it is not recognized the that they necessarily make sense as physics. resulting confusion is so deep-seated that it I should like to express my gratitude to is worth emphasizing in some detail. Here Dr. K. Nishikawa, who generously devoted are some ways in which I believe acceptable a good deal of time to constructive criticism modes of expression may differ in English of these notes. The responsibility for the and in Japanese. opinions expressed remains of course entire- 1) In Japanese it seems that it is often ly my own. legitimate to state a number of thoughts in such a way that the connection between § 1 General them, or the meaning of any given one, only At first sight, it is tempting to think becomes clear when one has read the whole that the problem of writing good English is paragraph or even the whole paper. This solved if one can write good Japanese and is not so in English; each sentence should then give a perfect translation. I believe be completely intelligible in the light only this is not necessarily true. ʻJapanese En- of what has already been written. More- glishʼ* has the peculiar property that it can over, the connection between one thought be grammatically perfect and yet, if not and the next should be completely clear when completely unintelligible, at least ʻopaqueʼ it is read; for instance, if you deviate from and baffling to the average English reader. the ʻmain lineʼ of the thought to explore a This property is often shared by English side-track, this should be made clear at the translations (even by expert translators) of point where the side-track starts, not where articles written originally in Japanese; it is it finishes. Perhaps this is best illustrated clearly, therefore, not due to bad translation. by the following diagram, where the ʻdi- I believe, therefore, it is necessary to recog- rection of readingʼ is from left to right: nize that some patterns of thought which are acceptable in Japanese may be unintelligible or puzzling in English (and, no doubt, vice versa). Moreover, ways of saying things which make sense against a Japanese back- ground may either be nonsense or give quite (A) (B) the wrong impression when interpreted a- gainst a Western European one. (For in- To an English reader, the Japanese pattern stance, if you state a conclusion tentatively often seems to be like (A), whereas only (B) or indefinitely, a Japanese reader will under- is usually allowable in English. Notice also stand that this is because you do not wish that the tree in (B) has only a few branches; to be too blunt or assertive, but a European in English it is usually not a good thing to reader will often conclude simply that you wander too far off the ʻmain trackʼ.* are not really sure about it). Since, presum- 2) In English the sequence of thought should always be made quite explicit, even * Hereafter abbreviated J. E. * If you want to make a lengthy excursion, it is often better to do so in a footnote. 792 日本物理学会誌 第 21 巻 第 11 号 when, in Japanese, it would be legitimate a statement, possibly because it is thought to leave the reader to fill in the connection presumptuous to impose oneʼs own views on for himself. A common vice of J. E. is the the reader without conceding that there are writing of sentences like ʻIt is uncertain possible alternatives. This notion is com- whether this resonance should be assigned pletely foreign to most Western readers, and to the (56) or (82) representation, though they will usually be unable to make the Jones has suggested that its spin is 1/2ʼ ʻmental jumpʼ necessary to appreciate it; (where the reader is left to fill in ʻwhich, if you state your opinion vaguely because if true, would force us to assign it to the you want to leave room for various possible (56) representationʼ). Of course, to some interpretations besides your own, they will extent what you may safely leave out de- often simply take this as a sign of vague and pends on the degree of background know- muddled thinking. Therefore, try to be as ledge you are presuming in the reader, but definite and assertive as possible, even it it is much better to be over-explicit than feels a little unnatural. If you have definite, not explicit enough. Western readers some- concrete reservations about your views, or times compare J. E. to a classical Japanese conclusions, then state them explicitly (in a painting; the reader has to fill in most of footnote if necessary); if not, then donʼt try the picture for himself. If he is used to to soften the force of your assertion at all. doing this, of course, it presents no great In particular, it is almost hopeless to try to difficulty, but most English readers are not translate phrases like “であろう”, “といって and the effect is merely bewilderment. よいのではないかと思われる”, “と見てもよい” 3) In English it is essential to be pre- etc. into English (see also section 6); if you cise and unambiguous. You may sometimes find you have to think out your sentence in feel that it is advantageous to leave a cer- Japanese and then translate it (a process tain amount of ambiguity in a statement, which is of course not to be recommended ——a certain amount of ʻroom for manoeuvreʼ but may be unavoidable for many people) as it were; but this is never allowable in then before translating change the first to English. Ask yourself continually ʻwhat である and leave out the second and third exactly does this sentence mean?ʼ If you altogether. canʼt answer this question, it is usually best 5) To an English reader, Japanese (and to leave the sentence out altogether. Sim- J. E.) often seems vague and diffuse——there ilarly, when you write an ʻitʼ (or ʻwhich,ʼ seem to be many clauses or sentences which or ʻthis,ʼ etc.) always ask yourself ʻwhat?ʼ add nothing substantial to the meaning. In An ʻitʼ in English should always refer to English, on the contrary, every clause should something definite,* and moreover something ʻpull its weightʼ. In particular, it is a very which has already been mentioned in the bad habit to imply vaguely that there is text (it may of course be something quite something more to be said unless you intend complicated, like ʻthe fact that . . . . ʼ —— in to say it explicitly. Thus, sentences like this case the word ʻfactʼ itself of course the following should usually be avoided:* need not have occurred). Too many Japa- nese writers appear to use ʻitʼ to refer to ʻThis may give a very definite picture.ʼ something which they have in their minds ʻThis may be viewed from the stand- and they expect the reader to have in his! 4) Japanese seems to have a strong tendency to avoid too definite or assertive * The isolated examples given here are in fact unlikely to lead to very serious confusion. * Except of course in certain special grammat- To give an example of a sentence of this type ical constructions, such as it is clear that . . . .ʼ which could completely baffle the reader would require writing out the whole context. Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists 793
point of various considerations.ʼ extent this is true, but this is a small defect ʻIt will be essential to study the problem and it is very much less wearing on the from this point of view.ʼ nerves to read a succession of short sen- ʻThis is useful not only for . . . . but also tences, with the connection between each for examination of the effect from vari- properly indicated, than to have to try to ous sides.ʼ sort out a long and ill-constructed one.* The shorter the sentence, the less the chances of Such sentences are quite legitimate if they serious ambiguity. So, if your sentence is introduce an explicit discussion; for instance, more than 40 words long, you should think the first is all right if you go on to describe seriously whether you cannot break it up the ʻdefinite pictureʼ or the second if you with at least a semi-colon (see below); as to go on to enumerate the ʻvarious considera- the average length of a sentence,** 20 words tionsʼ. However, it is definitely a sign of is a good average to aim at and even 15 is bad writing in English to use them in iso- probably not too short. Remember in any lation as a substitute for an explicit discussion. case that the English sentence is a system of If this were merely a matter of good style strictly limited capacity, it can tolerate only one might afford to neglect it without serious a few subsidiary clauses and these must all confusion; however, I believe it is just such be fitted tightly into the sentence structure. sentences which make a major contribution There is no analogue of the Japanese ʻsus- to the peculiar ʻopaquenessʼ of some J. E.. pensiveʼ construction in English. The fol- The point is that the English reader is not lowing points should be given special atten- usually expecting such sentences in isolation, tion: and therefore if you make ʻmicroscopicʼ a) If you have an important idea to ex- (grammatical and other) mistakes in it he press, donʼt put it in a subsidiary clause. will often be unable to guess the intended Instead, start a new sentence. For example, meaning from the context. Therefore, if consider the following sentence: you donʼt want to state an idea or set of ideas explicitly, donʼt refer to them at all. ʻCompared with the Nagoya model, these To summarize: make sure that your newer models seem to be rather more argument runs as a logical sequence and that plausible in explaining the mechanism no essential steps are left unwritten, be as binding the baryons and leptons, by precise, unambiguous and explicit as you introducing a third quantum number can, and donʼt hesitate to state your con- besides the usual isotopic spin and hy- clusions boldly and definitely. Once this is percharge and by considering the ex- done the problem of writing good English isting baryons and bosons to represent is indeed largely reduced to the problem of a neutral state of this quantum number, good translation. although they must generally produce many particles so far undiscovered, as a § 2 Sentence Construction result of the increased number of ele- Write short sentences. ments and the reduced symmetry.ʼ This may seem unnecessary advice since random sampling shows that the average This sentence (76 words) is much too long sentence in ʻProgressʼ is already a good deal shorter than that in ʻPhys. Rev.ʼ; you * To some extent jerkiness can be avoided by may in fact sometimes hear Westerners criti- replacing some of the full stops with semi- cize J. E. on the grounds that the sentences colons (see below). are too short and it reads jerkily. To some ** That is, (number of words)/(number of periods plus semi-colons). 794 日本物理学会誌 第 21 巻 第 11 号 on general grounds. In addition there are with ʻasʼ ʻsimilarly toʼ or ʻby (in) . . . . -ing.ʼ presumably three different important ideas A very common and misleading type of case in it: 1) The newer models are better than is the following: the Nagoya model in explaining the binding mechanism. 2) The origin of this superi- ʻWe find that the function F (x) has an ority is the introduction of a third quantum infinite range but the magnetization number, etc.. 3) Nevertheless they predict below Tc does not tend to a finite value, many particles so far undiscovered. Each as was suggested by Brown.ʼ of these ideas deserves a sentence, or at least a main verb, to itself. Thus, From this sentence as it stands the read- er who is unfamiliar with Brownʼs work may ʻCompared . . . . leptons. This is because draw any one of three conclusions about his they introduce . . . . number. However, suggestion: they must . . . . symmetry.ʼ 1) The function F has a finite range and the magnetization does not tend This point applies particularly to sen- to a finite value. tences containing a long relative clause as 2) The magnetization does not tend to the final part. For instance, consider: a finite value (no conclusion about F) 3) The magnetization tends to a finite ʻFrom eq. (3.10) we get the final result value. that the inelastic shadow scattering must It is easy to remove the ambiguity by break- dominate the cross-section above a few ing the sentence up into two, either by a tens of BeV, if we assume SU (6) sym- full stop or by a semi-colon (see below). metry and take the parameter to have According as the meaning is 1), 2) or 3) we a reasonably small value, which is in should write: strong disagreement with the experi- 1) ʻWe find . . . . value. These results mental results unless we assume a very agree with the suggestion of Brown.ʼ peculiar form for the function f (S), as 2) ʻWe find . . . . value. This second re- was shown by Brown from consider- sult agrees with . . . .ʼ ations of crossing symmetry.ʼ 3) ʻWe find . . . . value. This second re- sult conflicts with . . . ʼ Again this sentence is too long, and in This is not necessarily always the most addition the fact that the result is in dis- natural way of removing the ambiguity but agreement with experiment is an important it is by far the safest. Compare also the new point. Thus, sentence:
ʻFrom . . . . value. This result is . . . . sym- ʻThis feature seems to be disadvanta- metry.ʼ geous to the collective nature of the excitation . . . . especially in bringing a- (Another good reason for breaking up the bout a large transition probability.ʼ sentence in this way is that as it stands it is not clear what the ʻwhichʼ refers to—— As it stands it is not clear whether this see also below (section 3)). means that the feature in question does or b) Donʼt suspend a subordinate clause does not bring about a large transition pro- or phrase at the end of a sentence when it bability (though I think most readers would is not perfectly clear what it refers to. Be assume that it does). Again, a straightfor- especially careful with clauses beginning ward way of removing the ambiguity is to Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists 795 start a new sentence: ʻIn particular, it it is much better to put a semi-colon: ʻ. . . . ; brings about . . . .ʼ or ʻIn particular, it can- this (result) . . . .ʼ etc.. In most cases it is not bring about . . . .ʼ largely a matter of taste whether to use a semi-colon or a full stop. (But remember In short, whenever you are tempted to that it is unusual for a sentence to contain write a subsidiary clause after the main one, more than one semi-colon.) However, ample ask yourself whether it wouldnʼt be better use of the semi-colon will help to avoid over- to start a new sentence. This may some- clumsy sentences while giving a less jerky times be the less elegant alternative but, effect than a sequence of completely detached provided it is grammatically possible, it is sentences. rarely wrong and the gain in intelligibility usually amply compensates for the loss in Keep qualifying phrases and clauses to what elegance! they qualify. Consider the sentence: Use of the semi-colon. Too many Japanese authors (like many ʻWe investigate the scattering of pions English ones, unfortunately) seem unaware by protons at a few MeV, paying special of the existence of this punctuation mark (;). attention to the problem of the imagi- Roughly speaking, it is used to break up a nary part of the phase shifts, which was long sentence when the ideas are too closely previously discussed by Jones, who as- connected to be put in separate sentences; sumed a hard-sphere potential, in the it indicates a break in the thought consider- SU3 modelʼ ably stronger than that implied by a comma but weaker than that implied by a full stop As it stands it is not clear whether ʻin the (period). For grammatical purposes it is SU3 modelʼ refers to ʻdiscussed by Jonesʼ equivalent to a full stop. Thus, consider or to ʻwe investigate.ʼ In either case it the sentence. should follow the verb directly ʻdiscussed in the SU3 modelʼ or ʻwe investigate, in the ʻHigh energy scattering above a few SU3 model, . . . .ʼ (Actually this sentence GeV is investigated as the shadow scat- would in any case better be broken up, with tering of multiple production, for which a semi-colon after ʻshiftsʼ.) phenomenological, peripheral and uncor- Similarly consider: related jet models are used.ʼ ʻThe theory can explain the magnetic In this sentence the clause beginning ʻfor moments of the baryons, the approxi- whichʼ is important enough to stand by mate SU (6) symmetry scheme satisfiied itself, but since it is so short and so close- by all lowlying resonances and the fact ly connected with the rest of the sentence that the scattering amplitudes appear to a full stop would give an unnecessarily jerky be well predicted by the Smith formula effect. Thus, use a semi-colon: in a unified way.ʼ
ʻHigh energy . . . . production; phenome- Here it looks as if ʻin a unified wayʼ qual- nological . . . . used.ʼ ifies ʻpredictedʼ whereas it presumably is actually meant to refer to ʻexplain.ʼ Thus In many other cases, when you are tempted we should write ʻThe theory can explain in to start the second part of a sentence a unified way the magnetic moments . . . . with ʻ. . . . , which . . . .ʼ or ʻ . . . . , and it . . . .ʼ Smith formula.ʼ Try to avoid qualifying a 796 日本物理学会誌 第 21 巻 第 11 号 word by more than one phrase or clause; if which remains finite as x → 0.ʼ this is unavoidable it is generally better to b) ʻWe find the solution of eqs. (8-10), put the shorter and less important one first. which remains finite as x → 0.ʼ Thus, e.g. ʻWe can carry out the integration Sentence (a) implies that there are (or at in a straightforward way by making the sub- least may be) other solutions which do not stitution x y 2 and transforming to polar remain finite; it identifies the solution which coordinatesʼ (not ʻwe can . . . integration by we find. Sentence (b) on the other hand making . . . . coordinates in a straightforward implies that the solution is unique (other- wayʼ). Above all, make sure that qualify- wise the ʻtheʼ would be replaced by ʻaʼ (see ing clauses and phrases qualify something section 9)) and, further, states that it remains which is actually in the sentence, not some- finite. In this case and in many similar ones thing in your mind. Typical of a common we could rewrite (b) as: fault in J. E. is the sentence ʻThe proton and neutron masses are different by considering ʻWe find the solution of eqs. (8-10); this the effect of the pion cloud.ʼ ʻBy consider- remains finite as x → 0.ʼ ingʼ here is obviously meant to qualify some unwritten verb like ʻunderstandʼ or ʻexplainʼ, In fact it is probably better to rewrite it but this is not allowable in English, so we this way whenever it is grammatically pos- must write, e.g. ʻWe can understand (ex- sible. But, in any case, remember that the plain) the fact that the proton and neutron insertion or omission of a comma can change masses are different by considering . . . .ʼ (or, the meaning entirely. of course, ʻthe proton are different be- Generally speaking, a relative pronoun cause of the effect . . . .ʼ) This particular ex- (in either of the senses a) or b) ) should im- ample is fairly easy to disentangle, but I have mediately follow the noun to which it refers. read many similar ones where this mistake (This is always true for type-b sentences) could make the sentence quite unintelligible. ʻSome solutions were obtained by Jones In short: remember that in English ev- which satisfy (3.9.)ʼ is best avoided;* and ery subsidiary clause and phrase must have ʻthe pion parity which is emitted in the a definite place in the sentence structure, reactionʼ is never allowable (it is the pion and that as far as possible this place should which is. emitted, not the parity). A com- be clearly indicated by the sentence order. mon case in which this rule does not apply Donʼt hang subsidiary clauses on to the end is when the noun is qualified by some other of a sentence if you are not sure just where phrase as well as by the relative clause: e.g. they fit in——start a new sentence instead. ʻthe solution of eqs. (8-10) which remains § 3 Relative Clauses (..ʻwhich . . . .ʼ, ʻwho finiteʼ [type (a)], . . . .ʼ, etc.) ʻthe solution found by Smith, which re- English distinguishes quite sharply be- mains finiteʼ [type (b)]. tween two types of relative clauses (as far as I know, Japanese does not make this dis- Be very careful to avoid ambiguity, however, tinction explicitly): those which identify and in this kind of sentence; in the above examples those which describe or state a further fact both grammar and sense tells us that about the subject of the clause. In the second ʻwhichʼ must refer to ʻsolutionʼ and not to type a comma is put before the ʻwhichʼ, in ʻeqs. (8-10)ʼ or to ʻSmithʼ, but in other cases the first it is omitted. Thus, distinguish the it may not be obvious. Consider for instance: two sentences: a) ʻWe find the solution of eqs. (8-10) * This construction is sometimes legitimate but it is difficult to give a general rule. Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists 797
ʻLet us consider the solutions of the ʻwhichʼ as referring to the last noun to which equations which were found by Jonesʼ grammar and sense permits it to refer (that [type (a)] is, to ʻequationsʼ and ʻspaceʼ in the examples ʻOne then gets periodic solutions to the given above). Remember that the use of dynamical equations, which agree with ʻthatʼ and ʻthoseʼ in conjunction with ʻwhichʼ those found by Jonesʼ [type (b)]. is confined to type-a relative clauses.
Did Jones find the equations or the solutions ? Make sure ʻwhichʼ actually refers to some- A reader with a detailed background know- thing. ledge of the subject may know, but you A type-b relative clause occasionally ap- should never take such background know- pears not to refer to any noun which actu- ledge for granted if you can possibly avoid ally appears in the sentence, as in: it by rewriting the sentence in an unambig- uous form. In a type-b sentence this is very ʻThis argument predicts that the spin easily done by starting a new sentence after of U is 3/2, which is in contradiction ʻequationsʼ: ʻ. . . . equations; these equations with experiment.ʼ agree . . . .ʼ or ʻ. . . . equations; these solutions agree . . . .ʼ as the case may be. Case (a) is Here the ʻwhichʼ actually refers to ʻ[the rather more difficult; a somewhat inelegant prediction] that the spin is 3/2ʼ. However, but foolproof way of removing the ambig- this kind of usage is full of pitfalls and I uity is to replace the ʻtheʼ in front of the would therefore advise Japanese writers not noun to which the ʻwhichʼ refers by ʻthoseʼ: to use it if they can possibly avoid it; one of the most widespread vices of J.E. is the ʻLet us consider those solutions of the writing of relative clauses which apparently equations which were found by Jonesʼ do not refer to anything. It is almost al- or ways possible to avoid this by beginning a ʻLet us consider the solutions of those new sentence and referring to the noun ex- equations which were found by Jones.ʼ plicitly: e.g.
Again, the sentence ʻThis argument predicts that the spin of U is 3/2; this prediction is in contradic- ʻWe consider the irreducible subspaces tion with experiment.ʼ of the space to which P and Q belongʼ (The same warning, incidentally, applies may be ambiguous under certain circum- equally to ʻthisʼ and ʻitʼ——see section 1) stances; it can be made unambiguous by rewriting it, according to the meaning, §4 ʻAnyʼ and ʻAllʼ especially either as in Negative Sentences Consider the following two cases: ʻWe consider those irreducible subspaces
of the space to which P and Q belongʼ (a) 1 0, 2 0, 3 0, 4 0 or as (b) 1 0, 2 0, 3 0, 4 0 ʻWe consider the irreducible subspaces of that space to which P and Q belong.ʼ We can describe each, of these cases in a number of ways: ((3)-(5) would of course be If you do not do this, then generally speak- correct only in an appropriate context) ing an English reader will tend to take the (a) 1) ʻAll of the ʼs are different from zero.ʼ 798 日本物理学会誌 第 21 巻 第 11 号 2) ʻNone of the ʼs are equal to zero.ʼ ʻThis series never convergesʼ is much more 3) ʻWe have set all of the ʼs different from natural. On the whole it is better to replace zero.ʼ ʻnot . . . . anyʼ by ʻnoneʼ or ʻnoʼ whenever 4) ʻWe have set none of the ʼs equal to you can;* thus 4a) is preferable to 5a) under zero.ʼ most circumstances. 5) ʻWe have not set any of the ʼs equal to zero.ʼ ʻAnyʼ and ʻallʼ in positive sentences. (b) 1) ʻSome of the ʼs are different from zero.ʼ The sentences 2) ʻNot all of the ʼs are equal to zero.ʼ 3) ʻWe have set some of the ʼs different a) ʻAll higher-order terms may be neg- from zero.ʼ lectedʼ and 4) ʻWe have not set all of the ʼs equal to b) ʻAny higher-order terms may be neg- zero.ʼ lectedʼ
However, We can never say* have a similar but not identical meaning, a) Implies that higher-order terms certainly ex- ʻAny of the ʼs are not equal to zeroʼ ist; b) makes no such implication, but simply or says that if they do exist, they may be neg- ʻAll of the ʼs are not equal to zeroʼ lected. ʻAnyʼ is especially common before a relative clause, e.g.: It is best to use the rule that ʻanyʼ can never directly precede a negative, though it can ʻAny interaction which breaks the sym- follow it (as in (5a)). If you are tempted to metry will change the resultsʼ write, e.g., ʻAny mesons are not stable,ʼ think carefully whether you mean ʻʼNo mesons The rule about ʻanyʼ not preceding a nega- are stableʼ (= ʻall mesons are unstableʼ) or tive does not apply, of course, if the negative ʻNot all mesons are stableʼ (= ʻsome mesons is in the relative clause; thus the above ex- are unstableʼ). In my experience, Japanese ample could be rewritten. writers who write ʻany . . . . are not ʻusually mean ʻnone . . . . areʼ; on this assumption the ʻAny interaction which does not conserve following replacements should be made: the symmetry will change the results.ʼ
ʻAny problems . . . . do not occurʼ → ʻno § 5 ʻOnlyʼ, ʻMainlyʼ, ʻNot Onlyʼ problems . . . . occurʼ The positioning of ʻonlyʼ is very impor- ʻAnything . . . .cannot be doneʼ → ʻnoth- tant.** Contrast the three sentences: ing . . . . can be doneʼ 'We can do nothing' 1) ʻOnly the spin-orbit interactions re- ( or ) normalize the lifetimeʼ (i.e. other in- 'We cannot do anything' teractions do not renormalize it). ʻAnyone . . . . has not provedʼ → ʻno-one 2) ʻThe spin-orbit interactions only has proved.ʼ renormalize the lifetimeʼ (i.e. they ʻThis series does not ever convergeʼ is not have no other effect). actually wrong, since the ʻeverʼ (which is a- nalogous to ʻanyʼ) follows the negative, but * In this respect usage is different in spoken and
written English. * ʻAll . . . . are notʼ occurs occasionally in spoken ** Here I discuss only the adverbial use of ʻonlyʼ. English in sense (b). However, it is practically The adjectival use does not usually give trouble. unknown in written English. Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists 799
3) ʻThe spin-orbit interactions renor- correct, is unlikely in practice to lead to seri- malize only the lifetimeʼ (i.e. they do ous misunderstanding.) not renormalize anything else). Finally (a somewhat disconnected point): It is best to try always to put ʻonlyʼ immedi- ʻWe have introduced only one free para- ately before the word which it qualifies. meterʼ but ʻx is introduced as the only free Thus, if f x, y x 2 y 2 , g x, y y 2 write parameterʼ (not ʻonly oneʼ). Also note ʻThe ʻonly f is a function of xʼ while if f x, y x 2 , only free parameters are x and yʼ (not ʻThe write ʻf is a function only of xʼ Avoid ʻfʼ is free parameters are only x and yʼ). only a function of xʼ or ʻf only is a function of xʼ which are often ambiguous. If in doubt, § 6 ʻMay beʼ/ʻCan beʼ/ʻIsʼ it is often possible to rewrite the sentence to ʻMay beʼ is not the equivalent of ʻであろ make the point quite clear: e.g. we could re- うʼ, which indeed is practically untranslatable write 1), 2) and 3) above respectively as into English (cf. section 1). The sentence ʻy may be a function of xʼ implies that you (the 1) ʻIt is only the spin-orbit interactions writer) donʼt know whether y is a function of which renormalize the lifetime.ʼ x or not; if you use ʻmay beʼ merely because 2) ʻThe only effect of the spin-orbit in- you think ʻy is a function of xʼ sounds too teractions is to renormalize the life- blunt, the average English reader will be time.ʼ completely baffled. ʻMayʼ in English has two 3) ʻThe only thing renormalized by the main uses: 1) to indicate uncertainly, e.g. spin-orbit interactions is the lifetime.ʼ ʻthis series may not convergeʼ ʻthe experi- mental data may be erroneousʼ 2) to indicate Very similar remarks apply to ʻmainlyʼ permissibility (in this sense it is often replace (or ʻchieflyʼ ʻprincipallyʼ etc.) In sentences able by ʻcanʼ), e.g. ʻWe may approximate 2) and 3) ʻonlyʼ could be replaced by ʻmainlyʼ this term by . . . .ʼ ʻthis term may not be neg- with the analogous meaning in each case. In lectedʼ. ʻMayʼ is never used in English just sentence 1) this is also grammatically pos- to make a sentence sound more polite (the sible but for some reason it sounds rather connection between politeness and vagueness odd and 1) would usually be rewritten ʻIt is is completely unknown in English); so, if mainly the spin-orbit interactions which . . . .ʼ your sentence does not fit either of the above cases, donʼt use it. If you feel you must find ʻNot onlyʼ: Like ʻonlyʼ, this refers to the an equivalent for であろう at all costs, probab- word which it directly precedes. Thus, e.g.. ly the best is ʻwe may say that . . . .ʼ(sense (2) of ʻmayʼ); but it is much better to be blunt ʻNot only x but [also] y is divergent.ʼ and have done with it (cf. section 1) (ʻwe may ʻx is not only divergent but [also] mean- say that y is a function of xʼ sounds odd since ingless.ʼ this is presumably not a matter of opinion !). ʻx not only diverges but [also] contains a Note also that although ʻit may be interesting factor T -1ʼ /plausible/possible that . . . .ʼ is not wrong, it is more usual to replace the ʻmay beʼ by ʻisʼ. If the ʻnot onlyʼ refers to the whole clause it ʻIt is shown (proved, demonstrated)ʼ al- is usually necessary to invert the order, e.g.. most always refers to a definite occasion, very rarely to the fact that something can be pro- ʻNot only does x diverge but x contains a ved, has been proved at some indefinite time factor T -1ʼ in the past, or has been proved by the author but not published. Thus, ʻIt is (was, has been) (However, ʻnot only x divergesʼ, though in- shown in ref. (6) that Z3 is finiteʼ or ʻIt is. 800 日本物理学会誌 第 21 巻 第 11 号 shown in the Appendix that . . . . ʼ, butʻ It can Examples: be shown that Z3 is finite [but we shall not bother to do so here]ʼ. If this remark pre- ʻinverse relation of eq. (7)ʼ → ʻrelation cedes a proof, then use ʻcan beʼ: e.g. ʻIt can inverse to eq. (7)ʼ be shown as follows that Z3 is finite: . . . .ʼ ʻexchanged particles between themʼ → Similarly ʻThe cross-section can be calculated ʻparticles exchanged between themʼ as follows: . . . .ʼ Also note ʻ f x can be rewrit- ʻisobaric state of the initial oneʼ → ʻstate ten in the form . . . .ʼ (ʻis rewrittenʼ is some- isobaric to the initial oneʼ times allowable but ʻcan beʼ is hardly ever ʻidentical equations with (3.7)ʼ → equa- wrong.*) tions identical with (to) (3.7)ʼ ʻIt is thought (believed) that . . . .ʼ almost ʻrelative order of magnitude toʼ → ʻorder always means ʻit is thought by people (physi- of magnitude relative toʼ cists) in general that . . . .ʼ not ʻI believe ʻan intermediate stage of the first twoʼ that . . . .ʼ. Thus ʻit is believed that the nucle- → ʻa stage intermediate between the us consists of protons and neutronsʼ but ʻThe first twoʼ present author believes that this result is in- correctʼ. Similarly ʻV is regarded as an ef- Be specially careful not to write, e.g. fective fieldʼ means it is so regarded by ʻtheir intermediate stageʼ instead of ʻthe physicists in general; if, on the contrary, stage intermediate between them.ʼ or its this is a view which you are proposing, say identical equationʼ for ʻan equation identical ʻV may be regarded as an effective fieldʼ with itʼ. Always think twice before transla- (sense (2) of ʻmayʼ). ting その by ʻitsʼ or ʻtheirʼ. ʻItsʼ, ʻtheirʼ Other common errors of this type: etc. can replace only ʻof it (them)ʼ and even then the replacement is not always correct. ʻis notedʼ→ʻis to be notedʼ or ʻmay be In particular, if the ʻofʼ is directly con- notedʼ or ʻshould be notedʼ nected to an adjective or adverb, as in ʻin- ʻis desired (that) . . . .ʼ → ʻis to be desiredʼ dependent ofʼ the replacement is never cor- or ʻis desirableʼ** rect; thus, ʻthe independent solutions of the ʻis emphasizedʼ → ʻis to be emphasizedʼ wave equationʼ can be replaced by ʻits in- or ʻshould be emphasizedʼ dependent solutionsʼ, (or, though less natu- ʻis hopedʼ → ʻmay be hopedʼ or ʻis to be rally, ʻthe independent solutions of itʼ), but hopedʼ ʻthe solutions which are independent of x, cannot be replaced by ʻits (i.e. xʼs) inde- With regard to the last, however, distinguish pendent solutionsʼ——we must write ʻthe ʻit is to be hoped that this question will be solutions independent of itʼ. When in doubt investigatedʼ (= I hope someone else will in- it is probably safer on average to write ʻof vestigate it) from ʻit is hoped to investigate it (them)ʼ. this questionʼ (= I intend to investigate it An even more misleading type of error is myself). one like the following:
§7 Qualified Adjectives etc. ʻthis is a gauge-transformation invariant If an adjective or participle is qualified of the electron operators.ʼ by a phrase, it must immediately precede it. Here ʻof the electron operatorsʼ qualifies * ʻWe rewrite f(x) in the form . . . .ʼ is of course ʻgauge-transformationʼ; we must therefore equally good. rewrite the clause ** However, note ʻit is desired to express y in terms of xʼ (= we wish to express . . . .) Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists 801
ʻthis is an invariant with respect to gauge- 'We must look for a metal which has a transformation of the electron operatorsʼ. high transition temperature.'
§ 8 ʻAʼ vs ʻTheʼ vs Nothing Probably this is one of the most difficult ʻX theoryʼ vs ʻThe X theoryʼ. This is not points in the whole of the English language an important point but a fairly definite rule for most foreigners (not only for Japanese!). can be given. If X is the subject-matter of Luckily it does not usually cause serious con- the theory, then ʻX theoryʼ: e.g. ʻsolid-state fusion if you get it wrong, so I only mention theoryʼ ʻelectromagnetic theoryʼ ʻsupercon- a few points. ductivity theoryʼ. When X describes the ʻTheʼ usually implies in some sense the postulates or methods of the theory, or names uniqueness of the object you are talking a- its author (s), then ʻthe X theoryʼ: e.g. ʻthe bout, while ʻaʼ (or in the case of the plural, quark theoryʼ ʻthe BCS theoryʼ ʻthe quantum the absence of an article) implies its non- theory of radiationʼ. Thus, Professor Yu- uniqueness. Thus, kawa formulated ʻthe meson theory [of nu- ʻThe solution of (3.9) is given by (3.10)ʼ clear forces]ʼ but Schweber et al.ʼs book deals implies that this solution is unique, while ʻA with ʻmeson theoryʼ. Possibly in 1976 there solution of (3.9) is given by (3.10)ʼ implies will be ʻquark theoryʼ but at present there is at least that there may be other solutions. only ʻthe quark theoryʼ! Compare the following pairs of sentences: In general, however, I would advise au- thors not to worry overmuch about ʻaʼ and ' f x is an analytic function of x.' ʻtheʼ; there are many other points which ' f x is the function of x defined by deserve more attention. (3.11.)' § 9 Singular vs Plural ' f x is a Bessel function' (there are The following nouns are never or very many Bessel functions but only one rarely used in the plural.* Airy function.) Nature, character, behaviour, notation, ' f x is the Airy function.' knowledge, information, (experimental) sup- port, agreement,** emission, scattering, ad- 'Two components of the momentum vice, encouragement. commute with H.' (assuming the sys- In general abstract nouns describing a tem is three - dimensional). process or action are used in the singular un- 'The three components of the momen - less you are referring to a number of different tum commute with H.' occasions on which the action took place. A very common example is ʻdiscussionʼ: thus. 'Very small values of t are unphysical' 'The very small values of t given by ʻWe give a discussion of this point in sec- tion 5ʼ (not ʻsome discussionsʻʼ), eq. (6) are unphysical.' but 'We regard x and y as quantities inde - ʻThe discussions of this point given in pendent of R' refs. (7) and (8) are inadequate.ʼ
'We regard x and y as the only unknown (However,ʻthe discussion of this point given quantities in this equation.' in ref. (7) is inadequateʼ.) It is also conven- The fact that the noun in question is qualified by a type-a relative clause (section 3) does * On the rare occasions when they can be used not necessarily imply that it must take ʻtheʼ: in the plural, the singular is equally correct. e.g. ** In physics contexts, at least ! 'We must look for the metal which has the highest transition temperature.' 802 日本物理学会誌 第 21 巻 第 11 号 tional to thank oneʼs colleagues for ʻhelpful common in English than 具体的 in Japanese; discussionsʼ. it is best to confine it to phrases like ʻa con- ʻSituationʼ is used in the plural only when crete exampleʼ or ʻwe chose a concrete form it refers to two or more distinct cases. Thus, for the potentialʼ. ʻThis may give some very ʻThis situation is to be expectedʼ (not ʻthese concrete imagesʼ is typical J. E.:* if you situationsʼ) but ʻThere is a superficial resem- must say it at all (cf. section 1) say ʻThis may blance between our case and that studied by give a very definite (clear) pictureʼ. ʻStand- Smith, but the two situations are really en- pointʼ is also much less common in English tirely different.ʼ than 立場 in Japanese; ʻfrom the standpoint ʻExperimentʼ: one usually uses the sin- of . . . .ʼ is often best replaced by ʻin connec- gular if the sense is general, e.g. ʻin agree- tion with [the fact that . . . .]ʼ or ʻin the light ment with experimentʼ ʻaccording to experi- of (the fact that) . . . .ʼ Much the same applies mentʼ ʻconflicts with experimentʼ ʻtake the to ʻviewpointʼ. The words aspect, character, values of from experimentʼ. However, ʻthe nature, characteristics, features, circum- experiments of Jonesʼ ʻhigh-energy p-p scat- stances, situation seem to be particularly trou- tering experimentsʼ. (Distinguish, incidental- blesome for Japanese authors; I can only re- ly, ʻexperimentsʼ from ʻexperimental dataʼ: commend you to study their use when you One usually says, for instance, ʻthe experi- read English papers, or use a dictionary mental data are subject to a large errorʼ.) which gives a large number of examples. The following nouns are normally used Here is an example of the correct use of each: in the plural when the sense is general; they are used in the singular only when you are ʻThis equation has a Markoffian charac- referring to one particular property, etc: terʼ Features, properties, aspects, character- ʻThe true nature of istics, circumstances. Thus, e.g.: ʻlet us ex- the forces binding the baryons amine (the properties/some features/various the random- phase approximation aspects/the characteristics) of this problem.ʼ is still not understood.ʼ ʻIn these circumstances . . . .ʼ, but, e.g.: ʻThe ʻThe solution (4.3) has a number of in- solution (2.8) has the peculiar property/fea- teresting features.ʼ ture/characteristic of being invariant under ʻThe principal characteristics of the so- the interchange of x and y.ʼ ʻA disturbing a- lution are as follows.ʼ spect of this situation is that . . . .ʼ ʻThe un- ʻVarious aspects of this problem remain fortunate circumstance that f diverges makes insufficiently explored.ʼ it impossible to . . . .ʼ ʻIn view of the circumstances mention- Notice in particular that one always says ed above, experimental detection may ʻtransformation propertiesʼ ʻsymmetry pro- prove difficult.ʼ pertiesʼ but (usually), ʻHermitian propertyʼ ʻThe situation here is entirely analogous (this is the property of being Hermitian, to that encoimtered in p-p scattering.ʼ whereas ʻtransformation propertiesʼ does not simply mean the property of being transform- In certain cases two or three of these words ed). may be interchangeable (cf. the example in section 9), but it is rash to assume that this § 10 Words to Avoid or Use with Care is always so. ʻImageʼ is practically never used in sci- entific literature.* ʻConcreteʼ is much less * ʻConcrete imageʼ = コンクリートで造った仏像. In this kind of case there is really no good * Except of course in a technical sense, as in translation of 具体的. ʻthe image of the Fermi surfaceʼ. Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists 803
§ 11 Miscellaneous Note the following expressions which are Note the following pairs, which are often listed roughly in order of increasing strength: confused: ʻX is a little larger/somewhat larger/rath- 'Ferromagnetism is usually attributed er larger/considerably larger/a good to the electron spins.' deal larger/very much larger than Y.ʼ 'The electron spins are usually invoked ʻX is fairly large/quite large/rather large to explain ferromagnetism.' /very large.ʼ
'The nucleus consists of protons and (Actually in the second row ʻfairlyʼ ʻquiteʼ neutrons.' and ʻratherʼ are almost indistinguishable.) 'Protons and neutrons constitute the ʻNamelyʼ vs ʻthat isʼ: ʻNamelyʼ is used nucleus.' when you are about to name or identify something you have already described: e.g. If f x, y f x , then ʻUsing the best available data, namely these ' f is independent of y.' of Brown . . .ʼ or ʻThere is one difficulty. '[The value of] y is irrelevant to f .' Namely, the integral in (3.1) does not con- (unusual) verge.ʼ ʻThat isʼ is used to introduce an If f x, y x 2 exp y 4 , then explanation of something you have said, e.g. ʻRegion II, that is, the region in which the ' f is sensitive to the value of y.' heavy mesons play a dominant role . . . .ʼ or 'The value of y is critical for f . ' ʻThe validity of this procedure is doubtful. (unusual) That is, it is not clear that we can replace . . . .ʼ ʻNecessarily does not . . . .ʼ vs ʻdoes not In my experience ʻthat isʼ is right 90% of necessarilyʼ: ʻCPT invariance does not nec- the time, especially at the beginning of a essarily imply T invarianceʼ but ʻIf the mass sentence. of the fission fragments is greater than that of the parent nucleus, then fission necessarily ʻwill be able to be replacedʼ → ʻcan be does not occurʼ (=cannot occur). The second replacedʼ use is however rare and best avoided. ʻmay have a possibility toʼ → ʻmay be ʻBothʼ vs ʻthe twoʼ: ʻBothʼ in English able toʼ or ʻcanʼ has the sense of 両方とも; thus ʻboth the re- ʻsuggests us thatʼ → ʻsuggests thatʼ normalization constants are equal to unityʼ ʻformulae (expressions) for f ʼ (not ʻof f ʼ) but ʻthe two renormalization constants cancel ʻconditions (restrictions) imposed on M one another.ʼ ʻBoth renormalization cons- by rotational invarianceʼ (not ʻto Mʼ) tants are equalʼ (i.e. to one another) → ʻthe ʻeffect of the Coulomb terms on Sʼ (not two r. cs. are equalʼ. ʻto Sʼ) ʻQuiteʼ vs ʻconsiderablyʼ: The meaning ʻX can be expressed (rewritten) in terms of these two words is often very similar but of Yʼ(not ʻby Yʼ) ʻconsiderablyʼ is usually used only when a ʻconstruct the wave function from Bloch comparison is stated or implied. Thus ʻx wavesʼ (not ʻwithʼ) is considerably larger than yʼ ʻx is con- ʻX is insensitive in comparison with Yʼ siderably reduced butʼ ʻx is quite largeʼ. but ʻX is less sensitive than Yʼ Actually ʻquiteʼ is a rather ambiguous* word ʻassociate A with Bʼ (not ʻtoʼ) and it is often safer to replace it by ʻratherʼ. ʻThe concerned baryonʼ → ʻThe baryon concernedʼ * ʻThe effect is quite strongly suppressedʼ = is ʻa summation over pʼ (not ʻof pʼ) ʻsuppreed to a large extent but not complete- p ly.ʼ ʻThe effect is quite suppressedʼ = ʻcom- pletely suppressed.ʼ 804 日本物理学会誌 第 21 巻 第 11 号 ʻour interesting amplitudeʼ → ʻthe am- interaction cannot be more than a few keVʼ plitude of interest to usʼ but ʻDetection of this effect requires a field ʻWe pick up the ring graphsʼ → ʻpick outʼ of several million oerstedsʼ. When neither or ʻisolateʼ or ʻselect for special treat- emphasis is needed ʻa fewʼ is usually used, mentʼ e.g.: ʻpp scattering at a few BeV is investi- gated.ʼ ʻoperating X on →ʻoperating with ʻBased onʼ. This is an adjectival phrase
X on ʼ and as such must qualify a noun. Sentences like ʻBased on the Landau theory, the mag- § 12 Minor Stylistic Points netic susceptibility is investigatedʼ are very Try not to start sentences with ʻandʼ, bad English;* we should write ʻOn the basis ʻbutʼ, ʻsoʼ.* Instead of ʻandʼ use ʻmoreoverʼ of the Landau theory, the m.s. is investi- or ʻfurtherʼ, instead of ʻbutʼ use ʻhoweverʼ gatedʼ. However, ʻwe give a treatment or ʻneverthelessʼ; instead of ʻsoʼ use ʻthere- based on the Landau theoryʼ is correct, since foreʼ or ʻhenceʼ. Donʼt end sentences with ʻbased onʼ qualifies ʻtreatmentʼ. ʻtooʼ or ʻhoweverʼ (or indeed any conjunc- ʻWe had betterʼ sounds very colloquial: tion), though ʻhoweverʼ is sometimes allow- it is best replaced by ʻit is best to . . . .ʼ able at the end of a very short sentence. In the sentence ʻX and Y are equal to Be careful about starting sentences with each otherʼ the ʻto each otherʼ can usually ʻThenʼ. It is not legitimate to use this in the be left out without any danger of ambiguity. sense of ʻthereforeʼ. Japanese authors are Events ʻtake placeʼ (or ʻoccurʼ) but poles probably confused by sequences like: ʻLet us (of propagators etc.) ʻoccurʼ or ʻappearʼ (not suppose the series converges. Then we can take place). replace . . . .ʼ The ʻthenʼ here does not mean ʻthereforeʼ; the sense is ʻwhen (or if) we have ʻThe functions Fiʼsʼ → ʻthe Fiʼsʼ or, supposed the series to converge, then we better,ʻthe functions Fiʼ. can . . . .ʼ Although the use of ʻthenʼ for ʻthere- ʻThe Okubo-Marshak formulaʼ but ʻO- foreʼ is not a serious mistake, it is very wide kubo and Marshak have shown . . . .ʼ spread and worth watching out for. (never ʻOkubo-Marshak have shownʼ.) ʻEspeciallyʼ usually qualifies an adjective or adverb (ʻIt is especially important to . . . .ʼ) Of course a few Western names are actu- not a whole clause. At the beginning of a ally hyphenated (Gell-Mann, Lennord-Jones, sentence it should usually be replaced by ʻIn etc.) particularʼ. ʻSomewhatʼ vs ʻmore or lessʼ: ʻThis is あとがき more or less established experimentallyʼ 今回京都大学の小林稔先生から, Leggett 氏の means roughly ʻThe experimental evidence “Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for is not completely conclusive but it is very Japanese Physicists”が送られて来ました。これは同 good.ʼ ʻMore or lessʼ is not the equivalent 氏がこの一年間京都大学に滞在中 Progress of Theo- of 多少. ʻSomewhatʼ is roughly equivalent to retical Physics の Language Consultant として英 ʻratherʼ or ʻquiteʼ (see section 11) (e.g. ʻthis 文の校訂をされた経験をもとに, 特に日本の物理学者 is a somewhat doubtful procedure.ʼ) を対象に書かれたものです。会誌編集委員会で協議し ʻA fewʼ vs ʻsevenalʼ: ʻA fewʼ tends to たところ, これは会員が英語の論文を書くのにも, 閲 emphasize the smallness of the number in- volved, while ʻseveralʼ tends to emphasize its * Despite the fact that they occasionally appear largeness. Thus, e.g. ʻThe strength of this in Phys. Rev.!
* This is another point in which spoken and (scientific) written English differ. Notes on the Writing of Scientific English for Japanese Physicists 805
読者が英文をなおすのにも非常に役立つと考え, これ 間 Pines 教授のもとで超流動の研究をし, 65年9月 を掲載することにしました。 から, 京都大学理学部物理学教室松原研究室に客員研 なお, Anthony James Leggett 氏について簡単に 究者として滞在し, その間, 上記プログレスの投稿論 紹介します。1961年 Oxford 大学を卒業, 64年 文の英文校閲をされたわけです。外国語については多 tel Haar 教授の指導のもとで学位をとり, Research くの国語を解し, 日本語も非常に上手です。 Associate として, Illinois 大学に行き, 64～65年の (編集委)