197. The Language of Bibliographies

.

Bibliographies are associated with a special vocabulary that can at times be confusing

THE NATURE OF BIBLIOGRAPHIES

A bibliography is a written list of sources relevant to a particular topic or text. The name has Greek roots: “biblos” (= book) and “graphy” (= name-writing). The kind of bibliography that I am primarily concerned with here typically accompanies a written text that is usually positioned before it. Sometimes it just names sources that have been consulted during the writing of the text, but more often it is a list of sources that the text has explicitly mentioned.

One well-known way of matching source mentions in a text with those in a bibliography is the “Harvard System”. This requires the mentions within the text to be abbreviated and located next to the information that has come from the source, and the mentions in the bibliography to be in an expanded, much fuller form. The typical form of the abbreviated references in this system is described elsewhere in this blog in 76. Tenses of Citation Verbs.

Here, I am not planning to describe how to write a bibliography, since practices vary quite considerably in different disciplines and cultures, and can easily be read about in some depth across the Internet. Instead, I wish to focus on various confusions that less experienced English speakers can encounter regarding the language associated with bibliographies.

.

ASSOCIATED LANGUAGE

1. Bibliography

The confusion that this word can cause is rather like that with the noun an elite (see 175. Tricky Word Contrasts 6, #7). The singular form refers to all of the sources listed in a bibliography. Its plural means not this but multiple lists of works. The name for a single work in a bibliography is either a reference or an entry. The first is perhaps a clearer description, but it can be confusing because it can also refer to an abbreviated in-text source mention.

Some bibliographies have the word Bibliography as their title, though many have the plural References instead. The two words often seem interchangeable. However, some university students say they are told to use the latter if they are just listing the sources that they consulted during their writing, rather than providing fuller information about abbreviated in-text references. This kind of referencing seems to be particularly expected in shorter types of writing like essays. Professional writing of a more formal kind, such as research papers, needs the more conventional matching of in-text and bibliographical references.

.

2. Editor

Bibliographies sometimes include this word in abbreviated form (ed. or plural eds.). It is not to be confused with publisher (see 81. Tricky Word Contrasts 2, #11). Publishers are mostly commercial companies. Their usual role is to process and sell other people’s written texts. This makes them responsible for such areas as the format, printing, advertising, distribution and legal recognition of texts. Editors are often hired by them.

Editors, on the other hand, deal with the content of texts that authors are hoping or expecting to have published. Some examine what is said, while others, known as copy editors, check how it is said (spelling, grammar, vocabulary, etc.). Others again have a special role when a planned publication is going to contain works by different authors: they have to decide how many works to include, which ones, and in what order, and they may add some commentary.

It is this kind of editor that is sometimes mentioned in a bibliography. Where it is not mentioned, perhaps surprisingly, is in references to the most obvious kind of multi-author publication, namely repeatedly-published periodicals, such as newspapers, magazines, blogs and academic journals. Rather, it is references to an article in a multi-author book – which are fairly unusual – that need to include an editor’s name.

To put an article from a multi-author book into a bibliography, it is normal to begin with the surname of the article’s author, followed by their forename or its initial and then the article title. Next, details of the book itself are given, usually after the word in. First there is the editor’s (or editors’) name(s) – forename often first – and then the crucial bracketed abbreviation (ed.) or (eds.). The rest gives the standard information for book entries (book title, place of publication, publisher), along with the relevant page number(s).

Note finally that publisher’s names are mentioned in bibliographies only for books or articles within them, not for the content of periodicals and many websites.

.

3. Edition

Confusingly, this word is as much about publishing as editing. It is mostly used of books that have been revised and published for a second or subsequent time, where it refers to a particular one of the various published forms. In bibliographies it tends to follow a number adjective (first or 1^st, second or 2^nd, etc.), but elsewhere it may follow an adjective like earlier, previous, older, later, new, recent, last, or the + publication year, e.g. the 2015 edition (see 136. Types of Description by Nouns, #3).

Despite the -tion ending, edition cannot be used as an “action” noun: it is only a countable noun expressing an “action outcome” (see 280. Alternative Meanings of “Action” Nouns). The main means of referring in a noun-like way to the process of editing a book is with the gerund editing: either the editing of the book or simply editing the book (see 70. Gerunds). The action noun that means “creating an edition” is publication.

To include a book with multiple editions in a bibliography, it is customary to highlight the one that was actually consulted, writing a phrase like third (or 3^rd) edition immediately after the title (the abbreviation ed. may be allowed too). This is done even though the publication date in a reference is already a clue to which edition is being referred to.

.

4. Copy, Issue, Number and Volume

Academic and professional journals are a type of periodical: their title refers not to a single publication, but to a multiplicity with different content but the same overall title, editor(s) and general format, published repeatedly after time intervals of the same length. The interval may be as long as one or two years, or as short as a week, but is typically two to four months. A common name for a version of a journal that has been published at one particular time is an issue. A physical form of an issue, as kept for example in a library, is a copy.

Most journals give each new issue a new number in a sequence, and this number generally needs to be mentioned in a bibliography. The numbering system is not always the same. Issues with a year or more in between are likely to be simply marked with a single number that increases by one each time. In a bibliography, this number is very often written by itself near the end of an entry, just after the journal title.

On the other hand, when there are multiple issues of a journal in a single year, two numbers are often used. The first increases by one whenever an issue is the first of a new calendar year, but stays the same otherwise; the second increases by one with every issue in the same calendar year, but starts again at one in a new year. Thus, in year A, the issue numbers might run from 25, 1 to 25, 4 and those in year A+1 might start at 26, 1. The first of these numbers is usually called the volume, the second the number, words that a bibliography will sometimes include in abbreviated form: vol. 25, no. 2. Bibliographies do not use the word issue.

It is not just in bibliographies that knowledge of such terminology is useful. Here is a text that was not fully comprehended by participants in one of my past reading seminars:

(a) (The debate) came to a head during the 1994 UN international conference on population and development in Cairo, but the debate there tended to center on urban issues. In this number of Ceres, contributors broaden the focus, examining the courses and causes of fertility decline through history.

The readers’ unfamiliarity with academic journals meant that they did not recognise the bibliographical meaning of number, and hence could not deduce that Ceres was the name of a journal. For more about deduction in reading, see 177. How to Guess Meanings in a Text.

.

5. Title

In itself the word title is not very problematic (though see 178. How to Write a Heading). In the context of bibliographies, however, confusion can be caused by the fact that a reference to an article in a book or journal needs to mention two titles: the article title and the book/journal title.

The difference between these two title types is usually highlighted by their format: article titles in ordinary lettering (often without any capital letters except at the very start), book/journal titles in italics (with capital letters starting the main words, as in headings).

.

6. Bibliography-Related Abbreviations

The following abbreviations commonly refer to or appear within bibliographies. For an explanation of those marked *, see 130. Formal Abbreviations.

ed. = editor / edition

eds. = editors

*ff.

*et. al.

*ibid.

no. = number

*op. cit.

p. or pg. = page

pp. = pages

*qv.

vol. = volume

81. Tricky Word Contrasts 2

.

Some pairs of words are easily confused because of close similarities in spelling and/or meaning

THE PROBLEM OF TRICKY WORD CONTRASTS

Most users of English have encountered vocabulary items that are easily confused because they resemble each other in spelling and/or meaning. Some of these – for example principle/principal – are particularly well-known because they are often explained in English language coursebooks. However, many others are not found there and can remain unexplained and sometimes not even recognised.

It is vocabulary pairs like this, especially ones that are likely to occur in professional writing, that are the focus of the present post, just as they are of various others with a similar title (see the “Posts on Specific Words” page for a complete list). Other Guinlist posts that deal with vocabulary confusions include 16. Ways of Distinguishing Similar Words,  44. Troublesome Prepositional Verbs,  94. Essay Instruction Words and 211. General Words for People.

For some grammar confusions, see 129. Differences between Necessity Verbs, 133. Confusions of Similar Structures and 217. Tricky Grammar Contrasts. For some pronunciation ones, see 144. Words that are Often Heard Wrongly.
.

LIST OF CONTRASTS

1.  “Responsively” versus “In Response”

English resembles various other languages in possessing numerous adverbs which, like responsively, can be made into a similar-looking preposition phrase. In most cases, such pairs are very similar in meaning, the distinguishing factor being something other than meaning, such as sentence position (see 85. Preposition Phrases and Corresponding Adverbs). However, responsively does differ significantly in meaning from in response, and is hence sometimes misused.

In the majority of cases, in response is likely to be the correct choice. It just shows that an utterance is a response to something external to the speaker – usually the words of another person. Responsively, by contrast, indicates more than this. The primary meaning of its related adjective responsive is “willing and quick to respond”, and this idea of rapid, willing response is carried over into the adverb.

.

2.  “On the Top of” versus “On Top of”

The first of these, with the, just conveys the basic meaning of top, namely “highest part”, and is typically found before physical top-possessing ideas like a hill or a cake. The use without the could still communicate the same meaning (on top of a hill), but it could alternatively mean “in addition to”, as in:

(a) The claimant suffered personal injury on top of financial loss.

This is an example of a metaphorical meaning (see 229. Metaphorical Prepositions), also expressible with besides. On top of seems more easily classifiable as a multi-word preposition than on the top of. For further idiomatic contrasts involving the, see 235. Special Uses of “the”, #8.
.

3.  BE SUPPOSED TO versus BE INTENDED TO

These passive verbs can both help to name the purpose of something, but supposed is negative, suggesting that the purpose is unlikely to be achieved. A typical sentence might be:

(b) Parking charges are … to discourage car use.

Supposed here would express scepticism about the ability of parking charges to achieve their purpose, whereas intended would merely state the purpose without indicating any opinion. A synonym of intended would be aimed at (+ -ing: see 226. Words with Complicated Grammar 2, #3). Instead of supposed, one could say meant. For more words that suggest falseness of an idea, see 319. Superficiality. For more ways of expressing a purpose, see 60. Purpose Sentences with “for”.

A tricky feature of both verbs is that their meanings change when they become active instead of passive. SUPPOSE loses its purpose-indicating meaning completely and becomes more like BELIEVE. INTEND still expresses a purpose, but differently from AIM (see 114. Tricky Word Contrasts 3, #5 and 195. Tricky Word Contrasts 7, #2).

Moreover, the “believe” meaning of SUPPOSE can also be expressed by BE SUPPOSED TO. Indeed, sentence (b) could be understood in this way (“People believe that parking charges discourage…”). This means SUPPOSE needs to be treated with special care.
.

4.  “Aspects” versus “Respects”

Aspects usually refers to parts or components of an abstract idea like “problem”, “love” or “behaviour” (see 196. Saying what is inside Things). However, respects is preferred to express a similar meaning in one specific but common situation. Consider this:

(c) Einstein modified Newton’s theory in various respects.

The message here is that various parts of Newton’s theory were modified. The reason why respects is preferred to aspects is nothing more than the preposition in. This preposition seems always to rule out the use of aspects after it, and respects seems always to require it. However, ways is sometimes preferred to respects.

A context where in…respects is particularly likely to be found is comparisons, e.g. differs in some respects or is greater in three respects (see 82. Common Errors in Making Comparisons).
.

5.  “Effect” versus “Affect”

This confusing pair is sometimes explained in coursebooks. The first, beginning with “e”, is mostly a noun meaning “an impact”. It can be used alone, e.g. The effect was …, or combined with HAVE to express an action (see 116. Rarer Uses of HAVE):

(d) Climate has a great effect on culture.

Affect, beginning with “a”, is a verb meaning “cause to be different”. It too could be used in (d): the underlined words could become greatly affects. Changing the adjective great into the adverb greatly recognises that affects is a verb and not a noun (see 120. Six Things to Know about Adverbs, #2).

Adding to the confusion, effect (with “e”) is also a verb meaning “cause to happen”. For example, effecting a change is causing a change to happen. Contrast this with affect a change, which would mean “cause a change to be different”.
.

6.  “Underline” versus “Underlie”

It is easy not to notice the second “n” in underline. This word means “draw a line under”, or (metaphorically) “emphasise”. Without “n”, the meaning is basically “be under” or, metaphorically, “cause” (see 306. Ways of Giving a Reason, #3). The cause is usually implied to be hidden. Here are the two words in use:

(e) The road accident rate underlines (emphasises) the need for lower speed limits.

(f) Excessive salt intake often underlies (invisibly causes) high blood pressure.
.

7. “Failure(s)” versus “Failing(s)”

Failure is a noun that can express the same action meaning as the verb FAIL (“the action of failing”), being then what I call an “action” noun:

(g) Failure to follow this advice may result in serious accident.

As the absence of any word before singular failure here shows, this use is, like that of most action nouns, uncountable (see 14. Action Outcomes). Also like most action nouns, it is replaceable in sentences like (g) with the “gerund” (-ing) form of the verb, failing (see 131. Uses of “Action” Nouns). This gerund is not the same as failing(s) above because, like any gerund, it cannot be made plural (see 240. Nouns that End with “-ing”).

When failure is an action noun it can, like the verb FAIL, link with a following to (infinitive) verb – failure to follow above (see the end of 239. Noun Phrases Made with a “to” Verb).

A further feature of many action nouns that failure shares is ability to be used in a countable way to refer to something associated with the relevant action, namely a person or project that has failed (see 19. Activity Locations):

(h) The first attempts to fly were failures.

By contrast, the noun failing only has a countable use, and never expresses the action meaning of the verb FAIL. It means “weakness” or “flaw”. One might say, for example, that a person or a project had a major failing or many failings.

.

8.  “Plant” versus “A Plant”

Many nouns have both a countable form (usable with a or plural -s) and an uncountable form (not usable with a or -s), the meaning being slightly different in each case (see 14. Noun Countability Clues 1).

The noun plant, however, has completely different meanings in its countable and uncountable forms, suggesting they are actually two different words with the same spelling (see 6. Homonyms and Homographs), rather than different uses of the same word. Uncountable plant means “heavy machinery” while countable a plant usually means the familiar “growing botanical organism”.

Complicating matters further is the fact that a plant occasionally has an alternative meaning, again completely different from the others: “building or buildings devoted to an industrial process”, as in a nuclear power plant or a bottling plant.

Another word with very different countable and uncountable meanings is company. The countable form a company means a commercial business, whereas uncountable company means people who are with somebody.

.

9.  “Amount” versus “Number”

These two nouns often accompany of and another noun, as in a large amount of money. The choice between them depends on the countability of this other noun: number with countable nouns (generally plural), amount with uncountable ones.

With no following of, the noun determining whether to use amount or number will usually be earlier:

(i) A crowd of people stood outside. A large number were shouting.

(j) Alcohol in moderation can be beneficial. Large amounts, however, are harmful.

.

10.  “Concern(ed) With/About/For”

The meanings of concerned change according to the preposition. Concerned with means “involved” or “associated” (e.g. problems concerned with driving). In this case, concerned is a “past” participle of the verb CONCERN.

On the other hand, concerned with either about or for is an adjective meaning “worried” (see 245. Adjectives with a Participle Ending). The prepositions make slight modifications to this basic meaning. It is not unusual for a single adjective meaning to be closely associated with different prepositions in this way (see 134. Words with a Variable Preposition, #1).

The choice between about and for depends mainly on whether the noun after them names a bad situation (e.g. drug abuse) or its sufferer (e.g. drug abusers):

(k) Most doctors are concerned about drug abuse.

(l) Most doctors are concerned for/about drug abusers.

If there is a difference between the prepositions in (l), it is perhaps that for suggests worry about the future welfare of the people mentioned after it, whereas about links the worry more with what they are doing now.

.

11.  “Editor” versus “Publisher”

Editors make judgements about the content of publications – what is said, how it is said, and (when there are multiple authors) who says it and in what order. In a bibliography, an editor is named only when reference is being made to an article in a multi-author book (see 197. The Language of Bibliographies). The name is normally recognisable from the abbreviation (ed.) – plural (eds.) – written after it (see 130. Formal Abbreviations).

Publishers, on the other hand, are companies that make publications available to the public. They are responsible for all aspects of producing a publication, including the hiring of editors. In a bibliography, publishers’ names are given for all books but not for periodicals. They are usually positioned after a book’s title.