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
“The origins of many medical protocols and products—from organ transplants to bypass surgery to vaccines—are in animal research. So it is unfortunate that people don’t appreciate the contributions of animals to the control and curing of disease. I think this absence of respect is indicative of the general public disrespect for the rights of animals. Everyone should talk to doctors and medical researchers to gain fresh understanding of the valuable contributions of animals to human health.”
The previous paragraph is an honest expression of alarm about how some people regard animals. However, it fails to pass muster as academic writing because it is couched in the language of an editorial. In declaring that under-appreciation of animals is “unfortunate,” the writer renders a judgment rather than elucidates an idea. Beginning a sentence with “I think” is personally tendentious. Exhorting readers to act (“Everyone should talk to…”) is more editorializing. The writer seems to have abandoned research-based scholarly exploration in favor of polemics and posturing. A more academic approach appears below.
本段文章如實傳達了作者對部份人士不當對待動物的憂慮，然而，寫作技巧之拙劣，實無法稱之為學術的寫作，因為本文所使用的語言，更像是在閱讀報紙的社論文章。作者將不重視動物犧牲的行為，稱之為unfortunate，這樣的用詞只是作者的主觀判斷，卻未澄清或闡述任何進一步的觀點；使用I think作為句首開頭，極度反應出強調的個人立場；行文間呼籲讀者行動Everyone should talk to…的描述，更是曝露出屬於社論的言論風格。整篇文章似乎已非植基於以學術研究為基礎的理性探索，反而轉向訴諸於論辯與表態的偏見與立場。符合學術風格的文章，刊登如下：
Acceptable 認可的文章
“The origins of numerous medical protocols and products—from organ transplants to bypass surgery to vaccines—are in animal research. Yet public surveys in the last decade indicate little public understanding of the contributions of animals to common medical procedures and treatment of disease. A correlation seems to exist between this general unawareness and increasing reports of animal cruelty. However, doctors and medical researchers as a rule do not mirror this ignorance about the beneficial relationship of animal research and human health.”
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
“The origins of many medical protocols and products—from organ transplants to bypass surgery to vaccines—are in animal research. So it is unfortunate that people don’t appreciate the contributions of animals to the control and curing of disease. I think this absence of respect is indicative of the general public disrespect for the rights of animals. Everyone should talk to doctors and medical researchers to gain fresh understanding of the valuable contributions of animals to human health.”
The previous paragraph is an honest expression of alarm about how some people regard animals. However, it fails to pass muster as academic writing because it is couched in the language of an editorial. In declaring that under-appreciation of animals is “unfortunate,” the writer renders a judgment rather than elucidates an idea. Beginning a sentence with “I think” is personally tendentious. Exhorting readers to act (“Everyone should talk to…”) is more editorializing. The writer seems to have abandoned research-based scholarly exploration in favor of polemics and posturing. A more academic approach appears below.
本段文章如實傳達了作者對部份人士不當對待動物的憂慮，然而，寫作技巧之拙劣，實無法稱之為學術的寫作，因為本文所使用的語言，更像是在閱讀報紙的社論文章。作者將不重視動物犧牲的行為，稱之為unfortunate，這樣的用詞只是作者的主觀判斷，卻未澄清或闡述任何進一步的觀點；使用I think作為句首開頭，極度反應出強調的個人立場；行文間呼籲讀者行動Everyone should talk to…的描述，更是曝露出屬於社論的言論風格。整篇文章似乎已非植基於以學術研究為基礎的理性探索，反而轉向訴諸於論辯與表態的偏見與立場。符合學術風格的文章，刊登如下：
Acceptable 認可的文章
“The origins of numerous medical protocols and products—from organ transplants to bypass surgery to vaccines—are in animal research. Yet public surveys in the last decade indicate little public understanding of the contributions of animals to common medical procedures and treatment of disease. A correlation seems to exist between this general unawareness and increasing reports of animal cruelty. However, doctors and medical researchers as a rule do not mirror this ignorance about the beneficial relationship of animal research and human health.”
Posted at 2011-04-28 14:50:17
最新回應