Scientific writing: attributing actions to inanimate objects

Question

I have always believed that sentences such as

This (paper/report/section/work/chapter/...) describes ...

should be avoided in scientific work, as they attribute an action (describing) to an inanimate object (e.g., a paper). I have therefore always opted for variations of

In this paper, we describe ...

I am now reviewing some student's work and would correct this (for him to learn, not to penalize him in any way). Looking around on the web, though, I cannot find any evidence that writing "this paper describes" or similar is wrong, and do not want to correct my student for not making a mistake. If it matters, neither the student nor I are native speakers of English.

Is there any rule?

Answer 1

This is a matter of style, so I doubt there's a concrete rule. You could certainly use the APA Style & Grammar guide to support your point, specifically Section 4.11. However, this is more nuanced than apparent at first sight.

I will first state the relevant text/links, followed by some caveats and nuances which may be worth considering.

Quoting from this useful page (emphasis mine):

Anthropomorphism is the attribution of human characteristics to nonhuman entities, objects, or concepts. It results in ambiguity or misleading communication and thus should be avoided in APA style. However, common usage in academic writing includes some phrases such as "the results suggest" that, although examples of anthropomorphism, are acceptable for use because they do not lead to confusion.

And from here:

Correct usage: The theory addresses
Incorrect usage: The theory concludes
Rationale usage: A theory might address, indicate, or present, but researchers (not theories) conclude.

Now, the caveats. @Schmuddi has correctly pointed out that some examples on the first link directly address your specific point. These examples, all of which are considered applicable are :

This section addresses

This paper focuses on

The results suggest

The study found

The data provide evidence that

Thus, the specific example seems above board based on general perception as well as the APA guide.

A broader question is whether the APA guide is infallible; @DanRomik and @Wrzlprmft have correctly observed that the APA judgment on what constitutes anthropomorphism is somewhat arbitrary, and some examples contain a logical fallacy, such as :

The theory concludes

The fallacy is that a theory cannot logically conclude anything, so anthropomorphism is moot. A section, manuscript, article, or comment can. In these cases, one must decide if the usage is appropriate. (Of course conclude has two meanings, deduce and end, and we are talking about the former. It is possible for a theory to conclude a lecture.)

This brings us back to the beginning; this is a matter of style, so in ambiguous cases, one must apply one's own judgment. APA recommends rewriting when in doubt:

If you are unsure whether a construction constitutes anthropomorphism, try rewording the sentence or choosing a different verb.

My personal suggestion would be to do so if the rewritten sentence doesn't become clumsy, wordy, or otherwise unnatural. As a teacher, probably it is best to make students aware of these conventions and leave the choice to them.

Answer 2

Your premise that inanimate objects are not capable of action is false. Does the Earth not revolve around the sun? Do leaves not fall on the ground? Is the book “Crime and Punishment” not a thought-provoking work? And didn’t you yourself just write that certain sentences attribute actions to inanimate objects?

The types of phrasing you listed aren’t an example of anthropomorphism, despite what another answer says. It would be anthropomorphism to say that a report believes or feels something. Saying it describes something is simply a factual statement consistent with the dictionary definition of the verb “describe”.

Answer 3

This answer suggests writers should prefer inanimate actions.

I agree with Dan's answer, that a paper can describe or explain something. I'd even say it can conclude something, that is what the section called "Conclusions" does. None of these things suggest that the paper is a sentient entity, just that our use of language includes talking about inanimate objects doing things.

When writing a paper, there is actually a reason to prefer "This paper describes" over "In this paper, we describe"; the former is less verbose. Being less verbose has a few advantages;

1. It respects the readers time.
2. It's harder to make reading errors on shorter sentences. All else being equal, a shorter sentence is clearer.
3. You or the publisher are more likely to spot all writing errors in a shorter text.

Answer 4

These are questions of taste more than questions of grammar. "This paper describes ..." isn't wrong, but it does put the paper rather than what's being described first. If possible, start with the result. The abstract might read:

29 and 29₂₉ = 67 are both prime. We explore that curiosity and find connections to deep questions on the distribution of the primes: the prime number theorem, Dickson’s conjecture, and Zhang’s bounded prime gap theorem.

Then I prefer "We explore" to "This paper explores".

In the text, name the author where possible. Use

In [reference 6] Gauss proved ..

rather than

[Reference 6] proves ...