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. This column examines short excerpts from academic texts to illustrate common writing errors and to explain how to correct them.
Unacceptable 不被認可的文章
“The unearthed calendar caught the archaeologists by surprise because it seemed to be a combination of modern and ancient calendars, and that was not a good thing. The calendar clearly was post-Gregorian in its arithmetic, yet it showed Roman events and holidays that everyone believes the Roman civilization stopped celebrating before Pope Gregory ascended to the papacy. The team leader, Dr. Geoffrey Antiopas, called his team together in the field office to resolve the questions raised by the unpleasant find. The fear that hovered over everything was that finding a calendar that might not be authentic tainted the entire dig. If the calendar were officially determined to be fraudulent, it threw into question if any of the discovered material was legitimate discovery.”
This paragraph about a jittery scientific field team is quite interesting despite its flaws. The writing illustrates the power of “story,” of the power of a strong topic or argument to compensate for weak writing. A superior paper will have both a strong subject and strong writing. Anyway, the writing is mostly weak for its wordiness and casual wording. The phrase “and that was not a good thing” is an almost comic comment inserted without any context. In another place, the writer asserts that “everyone believes” something, a sweeping remark of universal dimension—everyone? The writer also describes the calendar discovery as “unpleasant” when in fact detecting fraud always is good, if unfortunate. All in all, this is rather sloppy writing.
略過缺點不談，這段描寫感到緊張的科學考察團相當有趣。強調「故事」本身的力道、強健的主題或是論點的力度，能彌補文筆方面的疲弱。好的文章具備強而有力的主題外，也包括有力的寫作手法。亦即，過度雕琢或閒適的文筆會削弱文章的力道。像這句「and that was not a good thing」，在缺乏前後文解釋的情況下，突然插入本句評論顯得相當可笑。另外，作者斷言「眾人皆信」某事物，這話說得過為籠統，與everyone有何干係呢？作者也提到日曆的發現相當「不愉快」。其實若不幸被騙，能偵破這類詐騙事件總歸是件好事。總之，這段文章相當馬虎。
Acceptable 認可的文章
“The unearthed calendar surprised the team of archaeologists because it seemed a compound of modern and ancient calendars. It clearly was post-Gregorian in its arithmetic, yet it depicted Roman events and holidays that scholars believe the Roman civilization stopped celebrating prior to Pope Gregory. Dr. Geoffrey Antiopas assembled his team in the field office to resolve the questions raised by the find. The underlying team fear was that the calendar’s presence at the site could taint the entire dig. Were the calendar officially determined to be fraudulent, it would raise the question about how much, if any, of the excavated material was legitimate discovery.”
Not all articles written on academic topics are written in proper academic English. This column examines short excerpts from academic texts to illustrate common writing errors and to explain how to correct them.
Unacceptable 不被認可的文章
“The unearthed calendar caught the archaeologists by surprise because it seemed to be a combination of modern and ancient calendars, and that was not a good thing. The calendar clearly was post-Gregorian in its arithmetic, yet it showed Roman events and holidays that everyone believes the Roman civilization stopped celebrating before Pope Gregory ascended to the papacy. The team leader, Dr. Geoffrey Antiopas, called his team together in the field office to resolve the questions raised by the unpleasant find. The fear that hovered over everything was that finding a calendar that might not be authentic tainted the entire dig. If the calendar were officially determined to be fraudulent, it threw into question if any of the discovered material was legitimate discovery.”
This paragraph about a jittery scientific field team is quite interesting despite its flaws. The writing illustrates the power of “story,” of the power of a strong topic or argument to compensate for weak writing. A superior paper will have both a strong subject and strong writing. Anyway, the writing is mostly weak for its wordiness and casual wording. The phrase “and that was not a good thing” is an almost comic comment inserted without any context. In another place, the writer asserts that “everyone believes” something, a sweeping remark of universal dimension—everyone? The writer also describes the calendar discovery as “unpleasant” when in fact detecting fraud always is good, if unfortunate. All in all, this is rather sloppy writing.
略過缺點不談，這段描寫感到緊張的科學考察團相當有趣。強調「故事」本身的力道、強健的主題或是論點的力度，能彌補文筆方面的疲弱。好的文章具備強而有力的主題外，也包括有力的寫作手法。亦即，過度雕琢或閒適的文筆會削弱文章的力道。像這句「and that was not a good thing」，在缺乏前後文解釋的情況下，突然插入本句評論顯得相當可笑。另外，作者斷言「眾人皆信」某事物，這話說得過為籠統，與everyone有何干係呢？作者也提到日曆的發現相當「不愉快」。其實若不幸被騙，能偵破這類詐騙事件總歸是件好事。總之，這段文章相當馬虎。
Acceptable 認可的文章
“The unearthed calendar surprised the team of archaeologists because it seemed a compound of modern and ancient calendars. It clearly was post-Gregorian in its arithmetic, yet it depicted Roman events and holidays that scholars believe the Roman civilization stopped celebrating prior to Pope Gregory. Dr. Geoffrey Antiopas assembled his team in the field office to resolve the questions raised by the find. The underlying team fear was that the calendar’s presence at the site could taint the entire dig. Were the calendar officially determined to be fraudulent, it would raise the question about how much, if any, of the excavated material was legitimate discovery.”
Posted at 2013-02-01 13:26:27
最新回應