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
“Fish have been a staple of man’s diet for at least 40,000 years; archaeologists have uncovered evidence from that long ago of ancient human consumption of the saltwater and freshwater fishes in eastern Asia. Methods of catching them through the millennia have ranged from skewering the fishes with spears to capturing them in submerged baskets. In ensuing centuries, the baskets changed into netting and the spears into hooks and lines, and most of the fishes changed into something else, too. One fish that didn’t change—the coelacanth—dates back about 360 million years. Occasionally a living specimen of the large fish with glowing green eyes is caught by unsuspecting fishermen.”
This passage gives a rudimentary introduction to the practice of fishing. Unfortunately, the writer displays only rudimentary understanding of language. A cliché—“a staple of man’s diet”—is more accurately and pleasingly stated this way: “eaten by humans.” The writer gets wordy—“skewering the fish with spears”—when a simple “spearing the fish” will do. It is unknown why the writer consistently uses the awkward-sounding “fishes” when “fish” is commonly accepted as the plural form of the word. And the modifier “about” is used inappropriately in “about 360 million years,” as if the writer is uncertain if it was 360 million years ago or, perhaps, just 359 and a half million years ago! What other questionable language usage do you see?
這段文章初步介紹捕魚的方法，很可惜，作者的寫作技巧也很初步。首先，與其用 “a staple of man’s diet”（人類的主食）這種陳腔濫調，不如用 “eaten by humans”（為人所食用）來得精確適當。而 “skewering the fish with spears”（用魚叉叉魚）也太囉嗦，簡單說 “spearing the fish”（叉魚）就可以了。此外，作者不知為何一直用 “fishes” 這個拗口的詞，通常 “fish” 即可當作複數名詞。此外 “about 360 million years”（約三億六千萬年）這裡 “about” 一詞也用得不恰當，作者是想確認到底是三億六千萬年前，還是只有三億五千九百五十萬年前嗎？你還看到其他有問題的用法嗎？
Acceptable 認可的文章
“Fish have been eaten by humans for at least 40,000 years; archaeologists have uncovered evidence from that long ago of ancient consumption of the saltwater and freshwater creatures by eastern Asian people. Methods of capture through the millennia have ranged from spearing the fish to enclosing them in submerged baskets. In ensuing centuries, the basketry evolved into netting and the spears into hook-and-line devices, and most of the fish evolved, too. One that hasn’t—the coelacanth—dates back 360 million years. Occasionally, a living specimen of the large fish with phosphorescent green eyes is hauled to the surface by startled fishermen.”
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
“Fish have been a staple of man’s diet for at least 40,000 years; archaeologists have uncovered evidence from that long ago of ancient human consumption of the saltwater and freshwater fishes in eastern Asia. Methods of catching them through the millennia have ranged from skewering the fishes with spears to capturing them in submerged baskets. In ensuing centuries, the baskets changed into netting and the spears into hooks and lines, and most of the fishes changed into something else, too. One fish that didn’t change—the coelacanth—dates back about 360 million years. Occasionally a living specimen of the large fish with glowing green eyes is caught by unsuspecting fishermen.”
This passage gives a rudimentary introduction to the practice of fishing. Unfortunately, the writer displays only rudimentary understanding of language. A cliché—“a staple of man’s diet”—is more accurately and pleasingly stated this way: “eaten by humans.” The writer gets wordy—“skewering the fish with spears”—when a simple “spearing the fish” will do. It is unknown why the writer consistently uses the awkward-sounding “fishes” when “fish” is commonly accepted as the plural form of the word. And the modifier “about” is used inappropriately in “about 360 million years,” as if the writer is uncertain if it was 360 million years ago or, perhaps, just 359 and a half million years ago! What other questionable language usage do you see?
這段文章初步介紹捕魚的方法，很可惜，作者的寫作技巧也很初步。首先，與其用 “a staple of man’s diet”（人類的主食）這種陳腔濫調，不如用 “eaten by humans”（為人所食用）來得精確適當。而 “skewering the fish with spears”（用魚叉叉魚）也太囉嗦，簡單說 “spearing the fish”（叉魚）就可以了。此外，作者不知為何一直用 “fishes” 這個拗口的詞，通常 “fish” 即可當作複數名詞。此外 “about 360 million years”（約三億六千萬年）這裡 “about” 一詞也用得不恰當，作者是想確認到底是三億六千萬年前，還是只有三億五千九百五十萬年前嗎？你還看到其他有問題的用法嗎？
Acceptable 認可的文章
“Fish have been eaten by humans for at least 40,000 years; archaeologists have uncovered evidence from that long ago of ancient consumption of the saltwater and freshwater creatures by eastern Asian people. Methods of capture through the millennia have ranged from spearing the fish to enclosing them in submerged baskets. In ensuing centuries, the basketry evolved into netting and the spears into hook-and-line devices, and most of the fish evolved, too. One that hasn’t—the coelacanth—dates back 360 million years. Occasionally, a living specimen of the large fish with phosphorescent green eyes is hauled to the surface by startled fishermen.”
Posted at 2012-01-05 11:18:48
最新回應