The example below (an Abstract) shows how to analyse a text that is full of redun- dancy and produce a version that sheds the redundancy and is thus more dynamic.
Being concise is important not just in terms of reducing the number of words and potential mistakes but also in increasing readability and impact.
Below are the kinds of explanations you could use to explain where and how to reduce redundancy:
technologies - ICT stands for ‘Information and Communications Technology’, thus technologies is redundant and ICT should be made plural (ICTs).
ignition keys - ignition adds no extra information.
produced worldwide - unless the author states that the gases are only produced in one particular location then it is clear to the reader that this is a worldwide phenomenon.
which is a non-debatable global priority - this is fi rmly established information that all readers will be aware of (whether they agree with it or not).
recognized as - recognized by whom? Presumably by the scientifi c (and polit- ical) community. This information is implicit and is therefore probably not necessary.
indeed - this is an example of a link word that adds no extra information and, if the paragraph is structured correctly, such link words may be redundant.
today - unless stated otherwise, it is clear that the time reference is now so today is unnecessary.
in the next few years and the forthcoming - the use of will clearly indicates that this is a future event and, given that readers are likely to be ICT people, they will already know the time-scale. In any case, if the action was not in the very near future, pre- sumably the author would have used a more accurate indication (e.g. in 10–15 years ).
in this paper - given that this is part of an Abstract, the reader knows that the text refers to the associated paper.
original version revised version ICT technologies are expected to hold the
ignition key to the reduction of the greenhouse gases produced worldwide which is a non- debatable global priority. The importance of
“greening of the Internet” therefore is recognized as a primary design goal of the future global network infrastructures. Indeed the Internet today already accounts for about 2% of the total world energy consumption but with the current trend of shifting offl ine services online this percentage will grow signifi cantly in the next few years and it will be pushed further by the forthcoming Internet-based platforms that require always-on connectivity. In this paper we present … (101 words)
ICTs hold the key to reducing greenhouse gases. Greening the Internet is a primary design goal of future global network infra structures.
The Internet already accounts for about 2% of total world energy consumption and, now that offl ine services are being shifted online , this percentage will grow signifi cantly and will be further fueled by the forthcoming Internet-based platforms that require always-on connectivity. We present … (64 words)
The revised version also makes use of other tricks to make the original version more concise; again these are indicated in italics.
key to the reduction of becomes key to reducing - this is an example of using a verb instead of a noun (Sect. 5.4). In this case, the verb is in the -ing form because it comes after a preposition ( key + to + - ing ).
but with the current trend of shifting offl ine services online becomes now that offl ine services are being shifted online - this change is not strictly necessary but the present continuous already contains the idea of a current trend.
The abstract could also be restructured as follows:
The Internet accounts for about 2% of total world energy consumption and ICTs hold the key to reducing this aspect of greenhouse gases. Now that offl ine ser- vices are being shifted online, this percentage will grow signifi cantly and will be further fuelled by the forthcoming Internet-based platforms that require always- on connectivity. Greening the Internet is thus a primary design goal of future global network infrastructures. We present …
The revised version is no less ‘elegant’ or ‘scientifi c’ than the original version.
However, there is a 30% loss of redundancy (61 vs. 104 words) which translates into:
1. 30% more readability - I have yet to read a referee’s report that complained that the English was too simple or too easy to read!
2. 30% less chance for making mistakes in English – clearly, the less your students write the fewer potential mistakes they can make
3. 30% more space available for your students to give the reader useful information
4. 30% less paper, ink and energy used - not only do we need to ‘green’ the Internet;
we need to ‘green’ our writing too!
The take-home story that you can give your students is:
• It takes more than three hours to read 30000 characters. If you reduce the paper by 30%, you will spend one hour less reading / revising it.
• If you have your paper corrected by a scientifi c editor, the cost will strictly depend on the number of words. So if you write less, it will cost you less to have the paper revised.
• If you use 30% fewer words, it will take up to 30% less time to revise and proofread. The fi rst few times you attempt to write in a concise way it will probably take you longer because you have to think more. But when writing concisely becomes a habit it will certainly take you less time.