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
“Reusing abandoned structures by using them for other uses is a practice that was popular many thousand years before zoning was introduced. Obviously, the same good brains that gave early societies the idea to construct shelters for living, trading, or meeting also produced the idea of using the structures for something else entirely when the mix of needs changed. This is perfectly clear to everyone in archaeological digs, which uncover different kinds of artifacts at different levels of digging at a site. While modern regulations preclude willy-nilly reuse of structures in a municipal system, the controlled practice of re-using buildings continues, with warehouses becoming houses and homes turning into shops.”
This paper excerpt suffers from wordiness, a casual tone, and misleading grammar, among other weaknesses. The first sentence manages to incorporate “reusing,” “using” and “uses” in the first 10 words, which is overuse of a root word. The balance of the sentence is notable for oblique, general, and passive components. The second sentence begins with an “obvious” overstatement and contains a superfluous “entirely.” The third sentence insinuates universal clarity, which always is presumptuous. Then the writer misrepresents archaeological excavations: The use of a comma and “which” implies all “digs” uncover different artifacts at different levels, rather than it being true of only some of them. What other word problems do you see?
這段文章有許多缺點，例如文字冗贅、太過口語，造成誤解的文法等等。第一個句子中，開頭前十個字就擠入太多相同字根的字，包括 “reusing,”、“using”、“uses”，句子拐彎抹角、空泛，而且被動語態太多。以 “obvious” 開頭的第二個句子言過其實，而且 “entirely” 是多餘的。第三個句子則妄自揣度，以為所有人都清楚句子描述的事，接著對考古遺址的說法也有誤，在 “which” 前加了一個逗號，表示所有 “digs”（坑洞）都在不同地層找到不同的人工物，但實際上只有部分遺址有這種發現。你是否還看到其他錯誤？
Acceptable 認可的文章
“Reusing abandoned structures by adapting them to other uses is an urban practice that predates zoning by several millennia. The same human mental capacity that led early societies to construct shelters for living, trading, or meeting sparked in them the idea of repurposing the structures when the mix of needs changed. This is clear in archaeological excavations that uncover different kinds of artifacts at different periods of a structure’s occupation. While modern urban regulations preclude random reuse of structures, the controlled practice of re-adaptation continues, with warehouses becoming houses and homes becoming shops.”
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
“Reusing abandoned structures by using them for other uses is a practice that was popular many thousand years before zoning was introduced. Obviously, the same good brains that gave early societies the idea to construct shelters for living, trading, or meeting also produced the idea of using the structures for something else entirely when the mix of needs changed. This is perfectly clear to everyone in archaeological digs, which uncover different kinds of artifacts at different levels of digging at a site. While modern regulations preclude willy-nilly reuse of structures in a municipal system, the controlled practice of re-using buildings continues, with warehouses becoming houses and homes turning into shops.”
This paper excerpt suffers from wordiness, a casual tone, and misleading grammar, among other weaknesses. The first sentence manages to incorporate “reusing,” “using” and “uses” in the first 10 words, which is overuse of a root word. The balance of the sentence is notable for oblique, general, and passive components. The second sentence begins with an “obvious” overstatement and contains a superfluous “entirely.” The third sentence insinuates universal clarity, which always is presumptuous. Then the writer misrepresents archaeological excavations: The use of a comma and “which” implies all “digs” uncover different artifacts at different levels, rather than it being true of only some of them. What other word problems do you see?
這段文章有許多缺點，例如文字冗贅、太過口語，造成誤解的文法等等。第一個句子中，開頭前十個字就擠入太多相同字根的字，包括 “reusing,”、“using”、“uses”，句子拐彎抹角、空泛，而且被動語態太多。以 “obvious” 開頭的第二個句子言過其實，而且 “entirely” 是多餘的。第三個句子則妄自揣度，以為所有人都清楚句子描述的事，接著對考古遺址的說法也有誤，在 “which” 前加了一個逗號，表示所有 “digs”（坑洞）都在不同地層找到不同的人工物，但實際上只有部分遺址有這種發現。你是否還看到其他錯誤？
Acceptable 認可的文章
“Reusing abandoned structures by adapting them to other uses is an urban practice that predates zoning by several millennia. The same human mental capacity that led early societies to construct shelters for living, trading, or meeting sparked in them the idea of repurposing the structures when the mix of needs changed. This is clear in archaeological excavations that uncover different kinds of artifacts at different periods of a structure’s occupation. While modern urban regulations preclude random reuse of structures, the controlled practice of re-adaptation continues, with warehouses becoming houses and homes becoming shops.”
Posted at 2011-12-22 10:25:00
最新回應