Without concrete examples, it is sometimes very difficult to understand Craig's positions. Craig writes: And I don't think most people on the list would have trouble with the idea that much technical writing (much writing in academic disciplines) is badly written. *************** It would have been nice had he given us examples instead of asserting it. It is interesting he cites a made up example from Orwell: Orwell takes on the issue in Politics and The English Language. "Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that..." is the opening of his rewrite of Ecclesiastes. "I looked around and I saw..." ************* Remember in the last exchange Craig used Halliday to assert that science writing is "dysfunctional." Here, at last, we get an example. There is a certain kind of self-importance that comes from imitating the forms of technical discourse, and sometimes it seems highly dysfunctional.Here's a quick example from a journal I just found close at hand: "Another reason that students' critical thinking might be unwittinlgly limited through oral discussion without written translation might be the passion and eloquence with which the instructor's theoretical position is communicated." "Might be" is main verb. Everything before it is a single noun phrase subject, everything after it a single noun phrase complement. All the processes are buried within the noun phrases. It's the kind of language we would not expect in speech, and it is much more difficult to understand than it needs to be, even in context. Bad writing is easy to come by. I'm surprised by the request. OK, let's look at this sentence again to understand Craig's claim it is bad writing. [Another reason that students' critical thinking might be unwittinlgly limited through oral discussion without written translation] might be [the passion and eloquence with which the instructor's theoretical position is communicated.] I don't pretend to be a stylist, but I find the sentence understandable. The two might be's, one in the appositive (I never knew that we would describe a structure with an appositive as a simple noun phrase) and then one as the predicate of the main clause is a little jarring. I would have changed one. It is unclear to me how such sentences push the language to be "dysfunctional." I know I would not duplicate the two "might be's" deliberately. The sentence does have a "heavy subject." The grammatical subject has an appositive that defines the next reason why students' critical thinking might be limited. These structures, according to Perera, come late in kid writing. It would have been nice if Craig could have provided us with his rewrite. How would he have unpacked all of those "processes" buried in the noun phrases? If I recall correctly, he has proposed that we should aid our colleagues in other disciplines because THEIR discourse has become "dysfunctional." This "might be" an occasion for him to show us what his proposal means in practice. Finally, I wonder what "science" this example is taken from. Biology? Psychology? Psycholinguistics? Bob Yates, University of Central Missouri To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list" Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/