WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “FEW” AND “A FEW”?

The expression “a few” means a small number.

 e.g. “‘I can climb for a few more years,’ he told the BBC before the 23rd attempt one week ago.”

 The Sherpa interviewed here is hopeful that he can continue climbing for several more years.


 We use “few” as an adjective to emphasise a small number.

 Omitting “a” from the above sentence (i.e. ‘I can climb for few more years’) would subtly change the meaning of the sentence, suggesting that the Sherpa cannot climb for much longer.


 Another example: “Few people allowed themselves to be engaged beyond accepting leaflets.”

 This stresses that the campaign described was unsuccessful, as the number of people engaged was extremely small.

 If “a few” replaced “few” in the above quote (i.e. “A few people allowed themselves to be engaged beyond accepting leaflets”), it would give the sentence a more hopeful tone, indicating that at least some people were engaged by the campaign, even though it was only a small number.


Generally, “few” emphasises the smallness of a number, while “a few” can make the tone of a sentence more optimistic; a small number of something desirable is usually better than none.


Photo credit: Gunther Hagleitner (Creative Commons)

GOOGLE SCHOLAR AS AN EDITING TOOL

In academic research, new words are being invented at a much faster rate than dictionaries (even online ones) can keep up with, while existing words are constantly changing their function and/or meaning.

How, then, does an editor decide whether an unfamiliar word is a misspelling or a ‘valid’ word that hasn’t yet made it into the dictionary, or whether a word that the dictionary lists as a verb can now be accepted as a noun?

As an editor, I would initially consult an online dictionary. (My personal favourites are the Oxford and  Collins dictionaries.) If my chosen word isn’t in a dictionary, I search for it in Google Scholar.

Use of Google Scholar to check words/phrases is based on the number of hits; however, incorrect words and phrases frequently return a significant number of hits, so finding a word on Google Scholar does not guarantee that it is correctly spelled; clearly, many errors pass the editing process.

Provided that there is a significant number of hits, comparing one version of a word with another based on the number of hits is a reasonably reliable way to decide which version to use. Even dictionary spellings are based on which ones are most commonly used, so this is an acceptable strategy.

For example, should “photo-caged” or “photocaged” be used in a scientific paper? (Neither is in the dictionary.) The former returns 440 hits while the latter returns 3,800. I would therefore use the latter as this is most commonly used.

Google Scholar frequently suggests corrections/improvements.
e.g. A search for the phrase “our manuscript titled” returns 101 hits, while the suggested correction, “our manuscript entitled” returns 800. (Suggested corrections do not always return more hits and may be incorrect, so should be checked with a new search.)

It should be noted that this is not a fail-safe method of ensuring correct writing; sometimes, errors outnumber correct versions. Here's an example:
The phrase “No conflict of interest exits in the submission of this manuscript” returns 528 hits. Clearly, this is incorrect and “exits” should be changed to “exists”; however, the correct phrase “No conflict of interest exists in the submission of this manuscript” returns only 214 hits - less than half the number for the incorrect phrase. This technique is therefore best combined with a good knowledge of English and the subject in question.

This is based on my own editing experience. I hope it is helpful.

MICROSOFT 'FIND' FUNCTION AS AN EDITING TOOL

The ‘Find’ tool in Microsoft Word is invaluable for editing, as it searches for a character, word or phrase and shows how many times this occurs within a manuscript. Up and down arrows (Figure 1) within the navigation panel are used to identify all the occurrences of the search subject.

 Figure 1.

As errors in manuscripts are often repeated, I use ‘Find’ to ensure that all recurring errors are identified and corrected. Additionally, I routinely use it to search for frequently occurring errors, including misuse of ‘respectively’; missing commas before ‘which’; incorrect use of hyphens, en-dashes and minus signs; double spaces and spaces before punctuation.

Left or right brackets may be omitted. When their numbers differ, I scroll through each instance of the most frequently occurring bracket to identify the missing one(s). Where right parentheses outnumber left ones, this may be because the author has used only right parentheses to label parts of figures (e.g. ‘a)’).

With hyphenated words, ‘Find’ can be used to ensure consistency by searching for occurrences of a given word pair, first hyphenated and then unhyphenated.

When editing academic papers, I scan numbered reference citations to ensure that they are cited in numerical order. When these are enclosed in square brackets, they can be easily checked by using ‘Find’ to search for a left or right square bracket. I also use ‘Find’ to search for ‘fig’, ‘table’ and ‘scheme’, where appropriate, to check that all the graphics in a paper have been cited.

Character searches are useful for checking units when editing scientific papers, e.g. to check that spaces are present/absent between the value and the unit, depending on the unit and style requirements.

I edit documents in both British and US English, which means changing spelling and grammar that is specific to US English to the British version, and vice versa.
When editing documents in British English, searching for ‘z’ can identify many US spellings, as these tend to replace the ‘ise’ at the end of British words with ‘ize’ (e.g. neutralise/neutralize). Oxford commas (which are more commonly used in US English) can be identified, if required, by searching for ‘, and’.
When editing US English manuscripts, searching for ‘our’ identifies British spellings, since US words frequently replace ‘our’ in British spellings with ‘or’; for example, behaviour (behavior), colour (color) and favour (favor). A search for ‘ise’ also identifies British English words for which US spellings replace the ending ‘ise’ in British spellings with ‘ize’. However, some words (such as comprise) retain ‘ise’ in US English.
Words related to sulphur are spelled with ‘ph’ in British spellings and ‘f’ in the US; searching for ‘sulf’ identifies US spellings while searching for ‘sulph’ identifies British ones.

These tips are based on my own editing experience. I hope they are useful.

© Linda Watson, 2018

WORD COUNT REDUCTION

Good academic writing should be concise. Many academic journals specify word counts for different types of papers. Particularly, abstracts are frequently restricted to 150–250 words. This post offers a few tips for reducing your word count without losing content.

Nouns can often be used as adjectives (see earlier post); however, be aware that a few journals forbid this. (Check the author guidelines/instructions for your chosen journal.)

Words and phrases that contribute no information to the text (sometimes called filler words) can be deleted. These include:
actually;
etc.;
and so on;
indeed;
in order to (change to "to");
is located in (remove "located");
it was found that;
some;
the existence of.

Phrases can often be replaced with a single word or a shorter phrase (shown in brackets); for instance,
a lot of (many);
as a result (consequently);
at the same time (simultaneously);
a variety of (various);
carried out (performed or conducted);
has/have been (can sometimes be replaced with was/were);
in addition (additionally);
in general (generally);
in length (long);
in particular (particularly);
in the case of (for);
is still (remains);
need(s) to (must);
on the basis of (based on);
on the other hand (however);
point of view (viewpoint);
take place (occur).

Where the word "again" follows a verb, it can sometimes be deleted and the verb preceded with re-; e.g. "modified again" can be replaced with "remodified".

The words "colour" or "coloured" are unnecessary if the colour is specified; e.g. "blue crystals" rather than "blue-coloured crystals".

Where the word "not" precedes an adjective, both words can sometimes be replaced with a single word; e.g. "unnecessary" rather than "not necessary".

I hope this is helpful. The above points are based on my own editing experience.

ACADEMIC WRITING: USING NOUNS AS ADJECTIVES

When a noun is used as an adjective, it should (almost) always be singular, e.g. "metal-modified" rather than "metals-modified" and "electrode-based" rather than "electrodes-based".


Exceptions are:

• materials science – Although the Oxford Dictionary includes both "material science" and "materials science", the latter is more commonly used in scientific writing.
• use of "data" and "media" as adjectives, e.g. "data acquisition" and "media company". [1]
• clothes (clothes hanger), sports (sports bag), customs (customs office), accounts (accounts book), arms (arms store) [2]

If you are unsure whether a plural or singular noun should be used as an adjective, you can use Google Scholar to check this. For example, a search for "nanoparticle arrays" gives 26,000 results, while a search for "nanoparticles arrays" gives 1,200.

Using nouns as adjectives can improve the flow of your writing and also reduces the word count; for instance, "reaction product" (2 words) is more concise than "product of the reaction" (4 words).

It should be noted, however, that some publishers do not like nouns to be used as adjectives [3], so it is best to consult the author guidelines for your chosen journal before writing your paper.

PLACING OF 'USED'

Before a noun

When 'used' is placed before a noun as an adjective, it generally means 'second-hand' (used by someone else).

e.g. This garage sells used cars.

"Good quality used toys are also very welcome." (Article in The Bolton News)

After a noun

e.g. All chemicals used were of analytical grade.

The above sentence is found in many scientific papers. It means that all the chemicals that were used in a particular experiment or series of experiments were of analytical grade. In this context, 'used' should always be placed after the noun.

All used chemicals were of analytical grade.

Placing 'used' before the noun implies that the chemicals are 'second-hand'. Although this grammatically incorrect phrase has crept into some published papers, 98% of papers containing this phrase (according to Google Scholar) place 'used' after the noun.

CONTRACTIONS

A contraction is "a shortening of a word or group of words" (Collins English Dictionary). Usually, the missing letters are replaced by an apostrophe.

For example:

cannot → can't

does not → doesn't
we will → we'll
would not → wouldn't

Contractions can be used in informal writing or in conversation. When used in conversation, they help to make speech sound more natural.

Contractions are generally not considered acceptable in formal writing, such as academic papers or job applications. In formal writing, words and phrases should be written out in full.

VERB AGREEMENT: VOLUME AND MASS

I frequently proofread scientific papers containing statements like, fifty millilitres of [chemical] was/were poured into a flask.

Previously, I would have always used the plural form, 'were' in this context, reasoning that fifty millilitres is a plural quantity. This view was challenged recently, which led me to find out what the experts had to say on the subject. According to 'English Grammar for Dummies', 'was' should be used.

"In grammar, treat them as singular whenever we think of them as a lump."
(English Grammar for Dummies, L J Ward & G Woods)

(The other books I consulted did not mention this issue.)

This view is supported by American Journal Experts; similarly, the ACS (American Chemical Society) Style Guide states that, "Units of measure are treated as collective nouns that take a singular verb."

I have now stopped changing 'was' to 'were' in sentences like this.

A quick look at some online forums made it clear that there are differing views on the matter.
(e.g. Protocol Online, English Language & Usage Stack Exchange, Word Reference)

Many organisations produce style guides, although most of those I found online did not mention this issue.

The following style guides state that a singular verb should be used in the above context.

MacMillan Cancer Support
NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence)
University of Cincinnati
University of South Carolina
Wiley-Blackwell

I was only able to find one manual that required the use of a plural verb for plural units of measurement.

American Physiological Society

It appears therefore, that the consensus is that a singular verb should be used for units of measure.

Please feel free to comment if you have a view on this.

RESPECTIVELY

Some writers seem to be particularly fond of the word, “respectively,” so much so that they scatter it, like confetti, within their documents. 😊 Alternatively, it is tagged, indiscriminately, onto the ends of sentences.

It is stated in the Oxford Dictionary that “respectively” means “in the order already mentioned.”


Example

The estimated populations of Scotland and England in 2013 were 5.3 million and 53.9 million, respectively.

The use of “respectively” in this sentence indicates that the population estimates are listed in the same order as the countries. (It was estimated that there were 5.3 million people in Scotland and 53.9 million people in England.)


It would not be correct to write:

In the year ending 30th June 2013, there were 792,400 births and 580,300 deaths in the UK, respectively.

In this case, the word “respectively” is redundant as both figures refer to the UK.


(Figures are provided by the Office for National Statistics.)


Other appropriate uses of “respectively” are:

“The Lego Movie sequel is pencilled in for a 2018 release, with the Ninjago and Batman films pegged for 2016 and 2017, respectively.”

(“Respectively” indicates that the expected release years, 2016 and 2017, refer to the Ninjago and Batman films, in that order.)


“The cost of filling up the tank and stocking up on groceries fell year-on-year by 16.2% and 2.5%, respectively, in January and led to the lowest levels of consumer price inflation seen since the 1960s.”

(The cost of filling up the tank fell by 16.2%, while the cost of stocking up on groceries fell by 2.5%.)


“Respectively” should be used only when two or more pieces of information refer back to the same number of previously mentioned items. (In the previous examples, the two release years refer to two films, and the two percentages refer to two budget items.)


Photo credits: Jörg Brinckheger (Creative Commons) & Minale Tattersfield (Creative Commons)

Updated Saturday 21 March 2020