:::
Professor Pedantic 教授的考究學問
【學術專欄】
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: In introducing a new subject in my paper, I wrote, “The dictionary defines…” My professor objected to the general dictionary citation. Is it better to give the name of the dictionary?
我在論文裡介紹新的主題時，寫道：「根據字典定義…」；但我的教授對這樣籠統地引用字典並不贊同。寫出字典的名稱是不是比較好？
Giving the name of a dictionary sourced for a particular citation is not a bad idea because being specific usually is better than being general. Such details give a paper weight and credibility. This rule would hold true for other citations, including encyclopedias and other reference materials. On the other hand, if a source is one of meager standing in academia—such as Wikipedia—it might be better to generalize and hope the professor doesn’t notice. In conversation or writing, dropping a name always is done to impress, so choose names carefully.
為某句引用寫出字典名稱也不壞，因為具體一般勝過籠統，有了字典名稱一類的細節，可以賦予論文份量與可信度，這項規則也適用百科全書等其他參考資料的引用。話說回來，如果資料來源的學術性較低－例如維基百科，或許還是籠統一點，然後希望教授不要注意到比較好。無論談話或寫作，提到名稱多半是為了讓人留下印象，所以要精心挑選。
That said, introducing a new element in a paper with the phrase, “The Cambridge (or Webster’s or whatever) dictionary defines…” often is no more than a cliché. In such cases, it is inserted not to substantiate what follows, but to help pad a paper. The writer is not as interested in establishing the legitimacy of a fact as he is in reaching a minimum level of words in a paper. A professor who reads such a padded paper is apt to have a quite opposite complaint—that identifying the source of a citation is another example of writing extra words to say nothing.
儘管如此，在論文中介紹新的內容時，如果寫：「根據劍橋字典（或韋氏字典等隨便一本字典）的定義…」，多半只是陳腔濫調，不會讓接下來的內容更具體，只能用來充版面。作者這樣寫不像是要讓論證更合理，比較像要湊論文字數。教授讀到這樣濫竽充數的文章，抱怨的可能剛好相反－在論文裡寫出這種引用文獻的來源，看起來就是要充篇幅。
So, unless the subject being introduced is especially esoteric and some extra authority is needed to properly establish its meaning, the best way for a writer to define a new element in a paper is to do so in his own words. Rather than use a dictionary as a crutch, use it as a foundation for a definition of one’s own creation. Original expression—imagine that! Academic writers sometimes forget that they are writing rather than transcribing. As writers, they are asked to put their thoughts and findings on paper using their own vocabularies and individual writing skills.
所以，除非你介紹的主題特別深奧，需要其他權威適當定義，否則寫論文時，定義新主題最好的方式就是用自己的話來表達。不要把字典當拐杖依靠，應該把它當作基礎，從中創造自己的定義。表達應該充滿原創力，多用點想像力！我們寫作學術文章時，有時候會忘記自己是在創作，而不是抄寫。寫作時，應該用自己的用語及寫作技巧，在論文裡闡述自己的想法與發現。
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: In introducing a new subject in my paper, I wrote, “The dictionary defines…” My professor objected to the general dictionary citation. Is it better to give the name of the dictionary?
我在論文裡介紹新的主題時，寫道：「根據字典定義…」；但我的教授對這樣籠統地引用字典並不贊同。寫出字典的名稱是不是比較好？
Giving the name of a dictionary sourced for a particular citation is not a bad idea because being specific usually is better than being general. Such details give a paper weight and credibility. This rule would hold true for other citations, including encyclopedias and other reference materials. On the other hand, if a source is one of meager standing in academia—such as Wikipedia—it might be better to generalize and hope the professor doesn’t notice. In conversation or writing, dropping a name always is done to impress, so choose names carefully.
為某句引用寫出字典名稱也不壞，因為具體一般勝過籠統，有了字典名稱一類的細節，可以賦予論文份量與可信度，這項規則也適用百科全書等其他參考資料的引用。話說回來，如果資料來源的學術性較低－例如維基百科，或許還是籠統一點，然後希望教授不要注意到比較好。無論談話或寫作，提到名稱多半是為了讓人留下印象，所以要精心挑選。
That said, introducing a new element in a paper with the phrase, “The Cambridge (or Webster’s or whatever) dictionary defines…” often is no more than a cliché. In such cases, it is inserted not to substantiate what follows, but to help pad a paper. The writer is not as interested in establishing the legitimacy of a fact as he is in reaching a minimum level of words in a paper. A professor who reads such a padded paper is apt to have a quite opposite complaint—that identifying the source of a citation is another example of writing extra words to say nothing.
儘管如此，在論文中介紹新的內容時，如果寫：「根據劍橋字典（或韋氏字典等隨便一本字典）的定義…」，多半只是陳腔濫調，不會讓接下來的內容更具體，只能用來充版面。作者這樣寫不像是要讓論證更合理，比較像要湊論文字數。教授讀到這樣濫竽充數的文章，抱怨的可能剛好相反－在論文裡寫出這種引用文獻的來源，看起來就是要充篇幅。
So, unless the subject being introduced is especially esoteric and some extra authority is needed to properly establish its meaning, the best way for a writer to define a new element in a paper is to do so in his own words. Rather than use a dictionary as a crutch, use it as a foundation for a definition of one’s own creation. Original expression—imagine that! Academic writers sometimes forget that they are writing rather than transcribing. As writers, they are asked to put their thoughts and findings on paper using their own vocabularies and individual writing skills.
所以，除非你介紹的主題特別深奧，需要其他權威適當定義，否則寫論文時，定義新主題最好的方式就是用自己的話來表達。不要把字典當拐杖依靠，應該把它當作基礎，從中創造自己的定義。表達應該充滿原創力，多用點想像力！我們寫作學術文章時，有時候會忘記自己是在創作，而不是抄寫。寫作時，應該用自己的用語及寫作技巧，在論文裡闡述自己的想法與發現。
