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
“Two pragmatic books on political life often compared are the ‘Arthashastra’ of ancient India and ‘The Prince’ of early 16th-century Italy. While each is a coldly calculating text for preserving a tyrant’s reign, the Indian writings are especially cold-blooded in their recommended use of extreme violence to eliminate inside and outside threats to a seat of power. Suggested measures to hang on to power include the rationale for a king killing his own family members to lessen the political threat, and the case for torture as a political weapon. The influence of these soulless propositions on the course of political history are hotly debated.”
A professor reading the passage critically would find numerous faults. The writer repeatedly is incautious about use of adjectives. Examples: Describing a reign as a “tyrant’s” reign could be disputed by a historian who considered it benevolent. Violence is needlessly characterized as “extreme.” Propositions are described as “soulless,” which invites all kinds of conjecture. On the other hand, a missing adjective hurts the writing: internal and external “threats” apparently are deemed to be real because the writer doesn’t modify them with the word “perceived.” Other failings: “Hang on to power” is colloquial expression at best; in the last sentence, the singular subject “influence” was mistakenly given a plural verb, “are.” What other weaknesses do you see?
如果教授仔細讀這篇文章，就會發現好幾個問題。作者好幾次使用形容詞都不太謹慎，例如，歷史學家可能會認為以 “tyrant’s”（暴君式）來形容政權太「悲天憫人」，此外，也不需要用 “extreme” （極端）來形容暴力；以 “soulless” （沒有靈魂／無血無淚）形容書中的建議會引發不實臆測。另一方面，缺乏必要的形容詞也讓文章有瑕疵，例如，因為沒有形容詞 “perceived” （感覺到的）修飾來自內外的 “threats” （威脅），讀者可能以為威脅確實存在，而 “hang on to power” （抓著權力不放）頂多只能算是口語的說法；且最後一句單數主詞 “influence” 誤用了複數動詞 “are”。你還看得出其他缺點嗎？
Acceptable 認可的文章
“Two pragmatic sets of writing on political life often compared are the ‘Arthashastra’ treatise of ancient India and ‘The Prince’ of early 16th-century Italy. While each stridently calculates how to preserve a reign at any cost, the Indian writings are especially conscience-less in recommending use of violence to eliminate perceived internal and external threats to a seat of power. Suggested measures to maintain power include a rationale for a king killing his own family members to lessen the political threat, and the justification for torture as a political tool. The influence of these radical propositions on the course of political history still is debated.”
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
“Two pragmatic books on political life often compared are the ‘Arthashastra’ of ancient India and ‘The Prince’ of early 16th-century Italy. While each is a coldly calculating text for preserving a tyrant’s reign, the Indian writings are especially cold-blooded in their recommended use of extreme violence to eliminate inside and outside threats to a seat of power. Suggested measures to hang on to power include the rationale for a king killing his own family members to lessen the political threat, and the case for torture as a political weapon. The influence of these soulless propositions on the course of political history are hotly debated.”
A professor reading the passage critically would find numerous faults. The writer repeatedly is incautious about use of adjectives. Examples: Describing a reign as a “tyrant’s” reign could be disputed by a historian who considered it benevolent. Violence is needlessly characterized as “extreme.” Propositions are described as “soulless,” which invites all kinds of conjecture. On the other hand, a missing adjective hurts the writing: internal and external “threats” apparently are deemed to be real because the writer doesn’t modify them with the word “perceived.” Other failings: “Hang on to power” is colloquial expression at best; in the last sentence, the singular subject “influence” was mistakenly given a plural verb, “are.” What other weaknesses do you see?
如果教授仔細讀這篇文章，就會發現好幾個問題。作者好幾次使用形容詞都不太謹慎，例如，歷史學家可能會認為以 “tyrant’s”（暴君式）來形容政權太「悲天憫人」，此外，也不需要用 “extreme” （極端）來形容暴力；以 “soulless” （沒有靈魂／無血無淚）形容書中的建議會引發不實臆測。另一方面，缺乏必要的形容詞也讓文章有瑕疵，例如，因為沒有形容詞 “perceived” （感覺到的）修飾來自內外的 “threats” （威脅），讀者可能以為威脅確實存在，而 “hang on to power” （抓著權力不放）頂多只能算是口語的說法；且最後一句單數主詞 “influence” 誤用了複數動詞 “are”。你還看得出其他缺點嗎？
Acceptable 認可的文章
“Two pragmatic sets of writing on political life often compared are the ‘Arthashastra’ treatise of ancient India and ‘The Prince’ of early 16th-century Italy. While each stridently calculates how to preserve a reign at any cost, the Indian writings are especially conscience-less in recommending use of violence to eliminate perceived internal and external threats to a seat of power. Suggested measures to maintain power include a rationale for a king killing his own family members to lessen the political threat, and the justification for torture as a political tool. The influence of these radical propositions on the course of political history still is debated.”
Posted at 2011-09-30 10:10:06
最新回應