TPS News

並非所有與學術議題相關的文章，就能稱之為「學術文章」。本篇專欄將節錄不同學術議題的內容，分析常見的寫作錯誤，並分享潤修與寫作的技巧。
Not all articles written on academic topics are written in proper academic English. In this "This is not academic writing" column we examine short excerpts from academic texts to illustrate common writing errors and explain how to correct them.

Unacceptable 不被認可的文章

“The origins of many medical protocols and products—from organ transplants to bypass surgery to vaccines—are in animal research. So it is unfortunate that people don’t appreciate the contributions of animals to the control and curing of disease. I think this absence of respect is indicative of the general public disrespect for the rights of animals. Everyone should talk to doctors and medical researchers to gain fresh understanding of the valuable contributions of animals to human health.”

The previous paragraph is an honest expression of alarm about how some people regard animals. However, it fails to pass muster as academic writing because it is couched in the language of an editorial. In declaring that under-appreciation of animals is “unfortunate,” the writer renders a judgment rather than elucidates an idea. Beginning a sentence with “I think” is personally tendentious. Exhorting readers to act (“Everyone should talk to…”) is more editorializing. The writer seems to have abandoned research-based scholarly exploration in favor of polemics and posturing. A more academic approach appears below.
本段文章如實傳達了作者對部份人士不當對待動物的憂慮，然而，寫作技巧之拙劣，實無法稱之為學術的寫作，因為本文所使用的語言，更像是在閱讀報紙的社論文章。作者將不重視動物犧牲的行為，稱之為unfortunate，這樣的用詞只是作者的主觀判斷，卻未澄清或闡述任何進一步的觀點；使用I think作為句首開頭，極度反應出強調的個人立場；行文間呼籲讀者行動Everyone should talk to…的描述，更是曝露出屬於社論的言論風格。整篇文章似乎已非植基於以學術研究為基礎的理性探索，反而轉向訴諸於論辯與表態的偏見與立場。符合學術風格的文章，刊登如下：


Acceptable 認可的文章

“The origins of numerous medical protocols and products—from organ transplants to bypass surgery to vaccines—are in animal research. Yet public surveys in the last decade indicate little public understanding of the contributions of animals to common medical procedures and treatment of disease. A correlation seems to exist between this general unawareness and increasing reports of animal cruelty. However, doctors and medical researchers as a rule do not mirror this ignorance about the beneficial relationship of animal research and human health.”

Answer: “principle” should be “principal.”

“Sociological research across several decades has concluded that the basic family unit—mother, father, children—continues to play the principal societal role introduced in primitive communities.”

Error: The writer falls victim to a common mistake, misusing one word that sounds like another. Specifically, “principle” was used instead of “principal.” The homophones are similar in meaning—each can connote a central or commanding characteristic—but the shades of meaning are different enough that they cannot be interchanged. The sentence should read, the family unit plays “the principal societal role,” meaning that it has a decisive or primary influence on society. The best academic writing parses words carefully so that ideas can be communicated with precision.
本句的作者犯了一個常見的錯誤，就是混淆了兩個發音相近的字彙。更明確的說，此處的principle應該改為principal。這兩個同音字意義上也有近似之處，都與主要、威權等概念有關—但兩者的意義仍有差距，不能混用。這個句子應該讀作the family unit plays the principal societal role，意思是家庭成員對於社會具有決定性與重大的影響力。學術寫作在追求卓越之際，作者應謹慎選用字詞，以精準地傳達想法。

下列的句子中，包含了一個錯誤，可能是文法、拼法或是標點符號的錯誤。我們將提供統一超商/星巴克咖啡NTD200元的購物禮券，給予今天前三名挑出正確錯誤、寫出正確答案的粉絲。正確的解答與獲獎的粉絲姓名，將於明天公佈於本TPS的專頁。請將你的答案寫在下方，獲得免費購物禮券的幸運兒可能就是你哦!

The sentence below contains 1 grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation error. The first three (3) TPS Fans to respond with the corrected sentence will win a NTD200 7-11/Starbucks Gift Certificate. The corrected sentence and the names of the winners will be published tomorrow on this TPS Fans page. Please post your answers below. Good luck!



題目Contest Sentence:



“Sociological research across several decades has concluded that the basic family unit—mother, father, children—continues to play the principle societal role introduced in primitive communities.”

很多字詞並非表面所見的意思，字詞的組合會產生不同的解釋。這樣的慣用法，我們稱之為「比喻」。一個成功的比喻，作者本身必須相當瞭解字詞的源起。以下的句子為讀者介紹一個比喻及其來源。
Imagery buries itself in language and takes on new meaning. The transplanted and transformed sets of words are called “figures of speech.” For a figure of speech to be effective, however, a writer must first understand the original meaning of the phrase. The following sentence contains a common figure of speech. Its original meaning is explained.

“Cystic fibrosis cooks up a bitter syrup in the body, blocking lung, pancreatic and other organ functions and leaving the sufferer vulnerable to fatal infections.”
患有囊腫纖維症的患者，如同體內正熬煮劇苦的糖漿一般，阻塞肺部與胰臟，並且破壞其他器官機能，使患者無力抵抗致命的感染。

“Cooks up a bitter syrup” alludes to stovetop creation of syrup through cooking of sugar or sap, water, and various flavoring agents. Syrup is notable for its dense viscosity, which is evident in its slow, even spread across the top of a pancake. Syrup is sticky and tends to uniformly coat whatever surface it encounters.
「Cooks up a bitter syrup」暗指用爐子熬煮混合了砂糖、植物汁液、水與其他調味料以製成的稠狀糖漿。糖漿的特點在於濃稠黏滯，若在鬆餅上淋上糖漿，就能觀察到它緩慢、均勻的流動特質。糖漿具有黏性，往往會鋪滿所接觸的平面範圍。

As used in an academic paper, the figure of speech denotes the slow spread of a thick coat of mucus across the interior surface of lungs and other organs, thus impairing the function of the organs and threatening the life of an individual. To say the disease “cooks up” the mucus refers to the disease’s creative process in which an unusually thick mucus is secreted. To call it a “bitter syrup” both distinguishes the mucus from sweet edible syrup and acknowledges the unhappy impact on an individual’s health.
在學術文章中，這個用法表示體內濃稠的有害黏液已逐漸緩慢的擴散至人體肺部與其附近的器官，破壞了原本器官的功能，更危及生命。“cooks up” 這個動作意指疾病逐漸發展，也就是異常濃稠的黏液是逐漸分泌所造成。作者使用 “bitter syrup”一詞，則是將黏液與一般既定印象中香甜味美的糖漿作出區別，點出此疾病對患者健康的衝擊與不利影響。

This is not academic writing 學術文章不是這麼寫的
並非所有與學術議題相關的文章，就能稱之為「學術文章」。本篇專欄將節錄不同學術議題的內容，分析常見的寫作錯誤，並分享潤修與寫作的技巧。
Not all articles written on academic topics are written in proper academic English. In this "This is not academic writing" column we examine short excerpts from academic texts to illustrate common writing errors and explain how to correct them.

Unacceptable 不被認可的文章

“To have the voices singing in counterpoint in "Eleanor Rigby" was the bright idea of George Martin, who also wrote music for the two violas, two cellos and four violins that played behind the singers. Martin was more responsible than anyone else for creating the song’s unique sound. The music producer also decided to place the recording microphones right next to the instruments so that the instruments’ harshness wouldn’t be filtered out. In another bold move, he had the musicians play their stringed instruments without vibrating the strings.”

Sloppy wording can convey the gist of a subject, but it cannot communicate with exactness. The foregoing paragraph, which analyzes the recording of a popular song, is an example of poor word choices. “The bright idea,” for example, is an inexcusably colloquial expression. “Wrote music for” is a wordy equivalent of the more concise “composed.” The listing of eight instruments can be expressed economically as an octet. To say the song has a “unique” sound seriously diminishes the restrictive nature of unique. And playing a stringed instrument “without vibrating the strings” is to not make a sound at all—surely not what a writer intends to convey. A more succinct and precise version of the paragraph appears below.
鬆散、模糊的用詞儘管仍能傳達想法，卻無法精準地與讀者溝通。本段文章討論流行歌曲的錄製，其中用詞選字有多處明顯失當。舉例而言，the bright idea太口語，實在不應出現；wrote music for太累贅，不如以精簡的composed呈現；洋洋灑灑列出八樣樂器，不如寫出八重奏octet來的簡潔；告訴讀者曲子具有獨特的聲音，詮釋的方式不當，反而無法凸顯unique本身獨一無二的意義與價值；最後，作者聲稱演奏絃樂器時，不需震動琴絃—顯然表示一聲未出—作者想傳達的本意應非如此。更簡潔、準確的寫法，刊登如下。


Acceptable 認可的文章

“The contrapuntal play of voices in "Eleanor Rigby" is attributed to George Martin, who also composed a score for the string octet that backed the singers. Martin essentially was responsible for the song’s signature sound. The gifted producer captured the raw feed of the instrumentation by placing recording microphones unusually close to the instruments and by having the musicians play their stringed instruments without undulating vibrato.”

Answer: “is” should be “are.”

“Neither the commanding centurion, nor the Roman soldiers, are treated unsympathetically by historians of the period.”

Error: The mix of subjects confused the writer of this sentence. The compound subjects “soldiers” and “centurion” are paired unequally, in a sense, because the first is plural and the second singular. The pairing is grammatical, however, and the applicable rule is that the plural subject should be placed next to the verb, with which it should agree. Therefore, the sentence should read, “Neither the commanding centurion, nor his Roman soldiers, are treated…” This writing mistake is No. 4 of 10 Common Writing Errors That Can Spell “Rejection” for Your Manuscript, which are posted elsewhere on The Published Scholar site.
這句話的作者混淆了兩個不同的主詞。Soldiers和centurion並非對等的主詞，因為一個是複數，另一個是單數。但此處這樣列舉兩個主詞並未違反文法規則，正確的寫法應該是讓動詞接在複數主詞之後，以達成正確的主動詞一致。正確的句法為“Neither the commanding centurion, nor the Roman soldiers, are(were) treated…” 這樣的寫作錯誤可參照本專頁所張貼之「10 個導致退稿的常見寫作錯誤之四：Avoid Error of Agreement When Using Correlative Conjunctions」。

下列的句子中，包含了一個錯誤，可能是文法、拼法或是標點符號的錯誤。我們將提供統一超商/星巴克咖啡NTD200元的購物禮券，給予今天前三名挑出正確錯誤、寫出正確答案的粉絲。正確的解答與獲獎的粉絲姓名，將於明天公佈於本TPS的專頁。請將你的答案寫在下方，獲得免費購物禮券的幸運兒可能就是你哦!
The sentence below contains 1 grammatical, spelling and/or punctuation error. The first three (3) TPS Fans to respond with the corrected sentence will win a NTD200 7-11/Starbucks Gift Certificate. The corrected sentence and the names of the winners will be published tomorrow on this TPS Fans page. Please post your answers below. Good luck!

題目Contest Sentence:

“Neither the commanding centurion, nor the Roman soldiers, is treated unsympathetically by historians of the period.”

很多字詞並非表面所見的意思，字詞的組合會產生不同的解釋。這樣的慣用法，我們稱之為「比喻」。一個成功的比喻，作者本身必須相當瞭解字詞的源起。以下的句子為讀者介紹一個比喻及其來源。
Imagery buries itself in language and takes on new meaning. The transplanted and transformed sets of words are called “figures of speech.” For a figure of speech to be effective, however, a writer must first understand the original meaning of the phrase. The following sentence contains a common figure of speech. Its original meaning is explained.

“A study of 150 mothers revealed that 25 percent of the women exclusively breastfed their babies and genuinely enjoyed, like clover by a beehive, the sweet maternal connection.”
一項針對150名讓寶寶純喝母奶的母親所進行的研究顯示，百分之二十五的受試者，就像守候在蜂巢旁的幸運草一般，真誠地滿足於奉獻母愛的甜美。

“Like clover by a beehive” is an allusion to the pollination activity of bees in fields of the legume called clover. The interaction of plant and insect helps the plant to bear fruit or establish itself and the bee to collect nectar necessary to make honey. The mutually beneficial natural activity has several derivative benefits for people, including regeneration of soil-renewing stands of clover and widespread availability of sweet, sweet honey.
「蜂巢旁的幸運草」一詞，意指蜜蜂會在幸運草這類豆科植物所生長的地區，進行授粉活動，植物與昆蟲的互動，不但能讓植物本身得以結實累累，也能讓蜜蜂採集足夠的花蜜以製造蜂蜜。這種彼此互益的自然行為也給予人類許多額外的獲益，像是翻新土壤使幸運草得以綿延生長，而滋味甜美的蜂蜜可遍佈各地。

As used in an academic paper about a study of satisfied breast-feeding mothers, the simile denotes the natural synergism of mother and child. Like a clover plant, a breast-feeding mother naturally offers her child the nectar that produces growth and induces further bonding. The writer additionally expressed the character of the relationship using the clover-bee analogy by calling breastfeeding “the sweet maternal connection.”
在學術文章中，討論到身為母親心滿意足的餵哺母乳，暗喻母親與寶寶之間與生俱來的自然連繫；就像幸運草一樣，餵哺母乳的母親，本能性地提供子女所需的養分，使子女得以成長、茁壯，並增進彼此的關係，為之更加緊密。作者油然而生一句用以形容這樣的親密關係，那就是將餵哺母乳的行為，稱之為「母愛的甜美」。

並非所有與學術議題相關的文章，就能稱之為「學術文章」。本篇專欄將節錄不同學術議題的內容，分析常見的寫作錯誤，並分享潤修與寫作的技巧。
Not all articles written on academic topics are written in proper academic English. In this "This is not academic writing" column we examine short excerpts from academic texts to illustrate common writing errors and explain how to correct them.

Unacceptable 不被認可的文章

“Over-fishing of coastal waters brings lots of tragic consequences. The environmental impacts are extraordinary, including a dramatic reduction in the kinds and types of fishes in areas where commercial fishermen used to count on catching them. Natural development of species can be altered when only the biggest specimens are pulled from the sea. The environment in the water isn’t helped either when imbalances are created that gum up the natural order of things.”

This writing is marked by imprecision. The impact of over-fishing is couched in such vague terms as “lots of” and “extraordinary” and “dramatic reduction.” Rounded expressions of scale are dangerous because one man’s “lots of” is another man’s “few,” particularly without supporting data. The results of over-fishing are called “tragic,” but beware of universal assertions. A vegetarian in the Tibetan mountains might think over-fishing an interesting topic, but would he see it as tragedy? Do you see other glaring examples of poor academic writing?
這篇文章充滿許多模糊的字詞表達。過度捕撈所造成的影響，在lots of、extraordinary、dramatic reduction這些含糊的字眼下反而顯得柔弱無力。這類描述程度的籠統字眼非常危險，尤其在沒有數據佐證下， 一個人認定的lots of對另一個人而言可能不過是few而以。作者以 “tragic(悲劇性)” 形容過度捕撈的結果，但千萬小心這類在世界上普遍存在的宣言。居住於西藏山區的素食主義者也許會認為過度捕撈是個有趣的主題，所以在他眼裡這不見得是悲劇一件。大家不妨仔細觀察，你是否也找得出其他明顯的不恰當字眼呢？

Acceptable 認可的文章

“Over-fishing of coastal waters brings significant consequences. The environmental impact is evident, including a measurable reduction in fish variety and population in formerly reliable commercial fishing grounds. Natural development of species is retarded when selective netting culls only the biggest specimens from schools. Undersea ecology is altered as well when imbalances are artificially created that interrupt systemic and interconnected processes.”

Correct Best Answer: Replace “versatile” with “variable.”

“Successful classrooms are so variable that it is difficult for researchers to distinguish crucial factors separating learning students from failing ones.”

Words that look alike, sometimes even sound alike, can pop into the mind while composing a paper. Conveyed from the mind to the computer screen, a word can continue to look correct, but, in fact, turns meaning on its head. In this instance, successful classrooms may be “versatile,” but versatility does not obscure truth. Whereas successful classrooms being “variable” in their make-up does cloud the issue for researchers, who are trying to sort out what does and does not contribute to learning environments.
有些字拼法相似，甚至連讀音都相近，很容易在寫作時一起從腦海裡冒出來。從腦中的印象到電腦螢幕上打字出來，一個字看起來可能依然言之有理，但其實已扭曲了文章的意思。以這個例子而言，成功的課堂學習方式也許可以用“versatile(易變的、反覆無常的)” 來形容，但這個詞並不會模糊對事物的理解。如果說要達到成功的課堂學習，其方法各有不同 “variable”，就可以意會到研究者的困惑，那就是不同的因素太多，難以分辨哪些對促進學習環境真的有貢獻。