:::
This is not academic writing 學術文章不是這麼寫的
【寫作技巧】
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
“In a happy ending, the chamber orchestra musicians leapt into a movement that took away the breathe of listeners. A piano arpeggio started the movement. The pianist then handed over the piece to the chief violinist for an extended cadenza, who in turn gave it up to the brass section for a crescendoing ending. The affect of these eerily singular, though orchestrated, outbursts from diverse sections of the orchestra was an abandonment of musical tradition and then a welding together of it again in the dramatic ending. It is awesome what talented musicians can do when led by a truly marvelous maestro.
This review or analysis of a orchestral performance does not sing. Indeed, were it graded on its musicality, the writing would be criticized for sometimes being flat, other times slightly off key. It is most dissonant in its misspellings (“breathe” and “affect”). Its imagery of musicians handing over the piece from section to section doesn’t quite work either. In saying that musical “tradition” was abandoned and then welded together again, the writer rather awkwardly mixes metaphors. Finally, the concluding sentence seemed to slog. What else do you see?
這段文章評論分析交響樂團的表演，但本身就五音不全。說真的，若要評斷這段文章的音樂程度，有時太無精打采，有時則有點走音。最刺耳是拚錯字（「breathe」 應為「breath」，「affect」 應為「effect」）。描述吹奏不同樂器的音樂家接力演出時，用的比喻也有點失當，說音樂的「tradition」先是被拋棄，後來又接合在一起，兩個隱喻併用得不怎麼高明。最後，結尾的句子也有點拖沓吃力。你是否還看到其他問題？
Acceptable 認可的文章
“In a surprise ending, the chamber orchestra leapt into a movement that took away the breath of listeners. A piano arpeggio introduced the movement. It seamlessly yielded to an extended cadenza by the chief violinist, which segued into a crescendoing climax by the entire brass section. The effect of these isolated, yet orchestrated, outbursts from diverse stations across the orchestra was a shattering of musical expectations and then a re-fusing of them in the beautiful fireworks of the ending. It is wondrous what talented musicians can do at the drop of a baton.
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
“In a happy ending, the chamber orchestra musicians leapt into a movement that took away the breathe of listeners. A piano arpeggio started the movement. The pianist then handed over the piece to the chief violinist for an extended cadenza, who in turn gave it up to the brass section for a crescendoing ending. The affect of these eerily singular, though orchestrated, outbursts from diverse sections of the orchestra was an abandonment of musical tradition and then a welding together of it again in the dramatic ending. It is awesome what talented musicians can do when led by a truly marvelous maestro.
This review or analysis of a orchestral performance does not sing. Indeed, were it graded on its musicality, the writing would be criticized for sometimes being flat, other times slightly off key. It is most dissonant in its misspellings (“breathe” and “affect”). Its imagery of musicians handing over the piece from section to section doesn’t quite work either. In saying that musical “tradition” was abandoned and then welded together again, the writer rather awkwardly mixes metaphors. Finally, the concluding sentence seemed to slog. What else do you see?
這段文章評論分析交響樂團的表演，但本身就五音不全。說真的，若要評斷這段文章的音樂程度，有時太無精打采，有時則有點走音。最刺耳是拚錯字（「breathe」 應為「breath」，「affect」 應為「effect」）。描述吹奏不同樂器的音樂家接力演出時，用的比喻也有點失當，說音樂的「tradition」先是被拋棄，後來又接合在一起，兩個隱喻併用得不怎麼高明。最後，結尾的句子也有點拖沓吃力。你是否還看到其他問題？
Acceptable 認可的文章
“In a surprise ending, the chamber orchestra leapt into a movement that took away the breath of listeners. A piano arpeggio introduced the movement. It seamlessly yielded to an extended cadenza by the chief violinist, which segued into a crescendoing climax by the entire brass section. The effect of these isolated, yet orchestrated, outbursts from diverse stations across the orchestra was a shattering of musical expectations and then a re-fusing of them in the beautiful fireworks of the ending. It is wondrous what talented musicians can do at the drop of a baton.
