Professor Pedantic 教授的考究學問
TPS的編輯教授在此歡迎關於學術文章的所有詢問，當然，其實他並沒有足夠的時間給你。他擁有終身教職的教授身份，也是著名的學術巨作作者。即便如此，他仍大方地接受你們的詢問。將關於學術方面的詢問寫在下方，你將獲得教授的親自指導，陶冶對學術的探索與啟發。
The professor awaits your query on academic writing, though in all honesty, he doesn’t have a lot of time for you. He is a tenured full professor and working on yet another magnificent academic tome. Even so, he has graciously consented to entertain your question. Submit it and prepare to be edified.
QUESTION: How often should I restate my premise as I work my way through my paper?
寫論文時，請問我應該多久重申一次論文的立論前提？
Restating a premise is not necessary, per se. That is, while a thesis introduced at the front of a paper should be revisited in the paper’s conclusion, the central proposition of a paper generally doesn’t have to appear again and again verbatim throughout a paper. Unless the structure of a paper lends itself to such repeated use of a particular declaratory sentence, subtle allusions are sufficient. They will keep the point of a paper in front of a reader. They will serve as guideposts as a reader moves though the paper, reminders of where reader and writer are headed together.
立論前提本身無須一再重申，雖然假設應該在論文開頭提及，並在結論時重新敘述，但論文中心前提不必在整篇文章中一字不漏地反覆陳述。除非論文結構本身適合重複使用某一句陳述句，否則略微暗示就夠了。這樣就能夠將論點呈現在讀者眼前，像路標一樣在整篇文章中引導讀者，提醒讀者何時應與作者取得共識。
Some repetition of the central purpose of a paper is a good idea, because it gives a paper coherence, pulling it together like a drawstring, capturing and holding a reader’s interest. Without such a common thread running through it, a paper is apt to wander into interesting but largely irrelevant tangents. Such detours do not contribute significantly to understanding. Quite the contrary: The further a writer strays from a core subject, the more difficulty the writer will have smoothly transitioning back. Abrupt jogs in exposition leave readers nonplussed.
重複幾次論文的中心論點是好事，能讓文章連貫，像束繩一樣將文章組織在一起，抓住讀者的興趣。論文若沒有這條共通的主旨，就很容易走偏方向，文章段落也許有趣但彼此缺乏關連。這樣曲折迂迴的寫法對理解沒有什麼幫助，作者偏離核心主題愈遠，愈難流暢地轉回正題。要是突然重提中心論點，會讓讀者覺得摸不著頭緒。
So at key points, allude to the premise using synonyms, or describe it anew in the course of giving anecdotal or clinical examples. If a premise has a key word, drop it in (in proper context) throughout the body of the paper. This subliminal referencing to the premise ensures that a reader remains focused throughout his reading without explicitly being asked to do so. In the end, the logical development of a subject and systematic revelation of new information should reinforce a premise at every step without additional aids, but it is wise to use every tool.
所以，在關鍵的地方可以用同義詞暗示前提，或是在描述軼事或臨床範例時，用另一種方式重複前提。若前提有個關鍵字，可適時於通篇論文中提點。以不引人注意的方式重申前提，能讓讀者在閱讀整篇文章時保持專注，但又不必明確要求讀者照做。最後，若主題發展合理、提出新訊息時有條不紊，每一步都在強化論文的前提，無須額外輔助；不過，善用所有輔助方式也是聰明的做法。
The professor awaits your query on academic writing, though in all honesty, he doesn’t have a lot of time for you. He is a tenured full professor and working on yet another magnificent academic tome. Even so, he has graciously consented to entertain your question. Submit it and prepare to be edified.
QUESTION: How often should I restate my premise as I work my way through my paper?
寫論文時，請問我應該多久重申一次論文的立論前提？
Restating a premise is not necessary, per se. That is, while a thesis introduced at the front of a paper should be revisited in the paper’s conclusion, the central proposition of a paper generally doesn’t have to appear again and again verbatim throughout a paper. Unless the structure of a paper lends itself to such repeated use of a particular declaratory sentence, subtle allusions are sufficient. They will keep the point of a paper in front of a reader. They will serve as guideposts as a reader moves though the paper, reminders of where reader and writer are headed together.
立論前提本身無須一再重申，雖然假設應該在論文開頭提及，並在結論時重新敘述，但論文中心前提不必在整篇文章中一字不漏地反覆陳述。除非論文結構本身適合重複使用某一句陳述句，否則略微暗示就夠了。這樣就能夠將論點呈現在讀者眼前，像路標一樣在整篇文章中引導讀者，提醒讀者何時應與作者取得共識。
Some repetition of the central purpose of a paper is a good idea, because it gives a paper coherence, pulling it together like a drawstring, capturing and holding a reader’s interest. Without such a common thread running through it, a paper is apt to wander into interesting but largely irrelevant tangents. Such detours do not contribute significantly to understanding. Quite the contrary: The further a writer strays from a core subject, the more difficulty the writer will have smoothly transitioning back. Abrupt jogs in exposition leave readers nonplussed.
重複幾次論文的中心論點是好事，能讓文章連貫，像束繩一樣將文章組織在一起，抓住讀者的興趣。論文若沒有這條共通的主旨，就很容易走偏方向，文章段落也許有趣但彼此缺乏關連。這樣曲折迂迴的寫法對理解沒有什麼幫助，作者偏離核心主題愈遠，愈難流暢地轉回正題。要是突然重提中心論點，會讓讀者覺得摸不著頭緒。
So at key points, allude to the premise using synonyms, or describe it anew in the course of giving anecdotal or clinical examples. If a premise has a key word, drop it in (in proper context) throughout the body of the paper. This subliminal referencing to the premise ensures that a reader remains focused throughout his reading without explicitly being asked to do so. In the end, the logical development of a subject and systematic revelation of new information should reinforce a premise at every step without additional aids, but it is wise to use every tool.
所以，在關鍵的地方可以用同義詞暗示前提，或是在描述軼事或臨床範例時，用另一種方式重複前提。若前提有個關鍵字，可適時於通篇論文中提點。以不引人注意的方式重申前提，能讓讀者在閱讀整篇文章時保持專注，但又不必明確要求讀者照做。最後，若主題發展合理、提出新訊息時有條不紊，每一步都在強化論文的前提，無須額外輔助；不過，善用所有輔助方式也是聰明的做法。
Posted at 2012-06-01 15:07:48
最新回應