:::
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: My friend Sammy’s professor was unkind, I believe, in writing that Sammy’s last paper was “incoherent.” Sammy is not an idiot and writes very well. For the paper to have been labeled as the work of a person with a screw loose almost destroyed Sammy’s self-confidence. Why would the professor say such a thing?
我朋友山米最近寫了一篇文章，指導教授給的評語是「支離破碎」，我覺得這位教授有點冷血。山米頭腦不錯，文章也寫得很好，獲得的文章評語卻是寫作時頭腦少根筋，對他打擊很大。那位指導教授為什麼要這樣說？
Sammy obviously has someone watching his back. However, if you are going to be a best friend, you should resist jumping so quickly to wrong conclusions. Professors have a hard enough time deciphering and grading the work of their students without having their words twisted against them. Rather than summarily concluding that Sammy’s professor harshly impugned your friend’s intelligence, you would have better served your friend by examining the word “incoherent.” In terms of writing a suitable academic paper, incoherent does not mean the same as unintelligible.
看來山米有個好朋友會照顧他，不過，要真正幫上山米，你不能這麼快就下錯誤的結論。教授要努力讀懂學生的文章和打分數，寫的評語卻往往遭扭曲原意，以為是在針對學生。如果你真的想幫忙朋友，就不能驟下結論，以為教授是苛刻批評山米不夠聰明，而應該探究「支離破碎」這個詞的意思。要討論如何寫出適當的學術文章，「支離破碎」並不等於「不知所云」。
What the professor was saying was that it was difficult, perhaps impossible, to follow the thread of Sammy’s exposition. When valid, that is a legitimate scholarly criticism. A paper that is not coherent—that is, bound together in logic and organization—does not effectively explain or argue its thesis. The words might be beautifully arranged and the topic an absolute zinger, but without orderly progression from introduction to conclusion, the reader of the paper is not well-served. When the reader is the writer’s professor, one can expect comments about incoherency.
教授的意思是，要理清山米文章的條理並不容易，或許根本做不到。如果屬實，這是很合理的學術批評。如果文章缺乏條理，也就是邏輯與組織不連貫，就無法有力地解釋或辯駁論點。即使用字遣詞優美，主題妙趣橫生，假使不能從引言順理成章推展到結論，讀起來就不容易，教授讀了自然會認為支離破碎。
To avoid such complaint, a writer should convey his thoughts in a way that another thinking person can follow without distraction. Not only should the logic and purpose of the paper advance step-by-step, the transition between sentences and paragraphs should be as seamless as possible. In a word, the work should flow. The key words should be repeated as often as needed to help a reader stay on course, and synonyms and substitute phrases should never confuse. In this way, a paper becomes coherent and cohesive and a reader never becomes confused.
寫作的人如果不想遭到這類批評，表達想法時就應該讓人能順利思考理解，不會感到困惑。除了必須按部就班提出文章的邏輯與論證，句子與段落也必須盡量銜接自然，簡單來說要流暢通順。並且應該多重複關鍵詞，讓讀者抓住重心，使用同義詞與代換詞句時也要避免誤解。如此一來，文章就能條理分明、前後連貫，讀起來就容易了。
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: My friend Sammy’s professor was unkind, I believe, in writing that Sammy’s last paper was “incoherent.” Sammy is not an idiot and writes very well. For the paper to have been labeled as the work of a person with a screw loose almost destroyed Sammy’s self-confidence. Why would the professor say such a thing?
我朋友山米最近寫了一篇文章，指導教授給的評語是「支離破碎」，我覺得這位教授有點冷血。山米頭腦不錯，文章也寫得很好，獲得的文章評語卻是寫作時頭腦少根筋，對他打擊很大。那位指導教授為什麼要這樣說？
Sammy obviously has someone watching his back. However, if you are going to be a best friend, you should resist jumping so quickly to wrong conclusions. Professors have a hard enough time deciphering and grading the work of their students without having their words twisted against them. Rather than summarily concluding that Sammy’s professor harshly impugned your friend’s intelligence, you would have better served your friend by examining the word “incoherent.” In terms of writing a suitable academic paper, incoherent does not mean the same as unintelligible.
看來山米有個好朋友會照顧他，不過，要真正幫上山米，你不能這麼快就下錯誤的結論。教授要努力讀懂學生的文章和打分數，寫的評語卻往往遭扭曲原意，以為是在針對學生。如果你真的想幫忙朋友，就不能驟下結論，以為教授是苛刻批評山米不夠聰明，而應該探究「支離破碎」這個詞的意思。要討論如何寫出適當的學術文章，「支離破碎」並不等於「不知所云」。
What the professor was saying was that it was difficult, perhaps impossible, to follow the thread of Sammy’s exposition. When valid, that is a legitimate scholarly criticism. A paper that is not coherent—that is, bound together in logic and organization—does not effectively explain or argue its thesis. The words might be beautifully arranged and the topic an absolute zinger, but without orderly progression from introduction to conclusion, the reader of the paper is not well-served. When the reader is the writer’s professor, one can expect comments about incoherency.
教授的意思是，要理清山米文章的條理並不容易，或許根本做不到。如果屬實，這是很合理的學術批評。如果文章缺乏條理，也就是邏輯與組織不連貫，就無法有力地解釋或辯駁論點。即使用字遣詞優美，主題妙趣橫生，假使不能從引言順理成章推展到結論，讀起來就不容易，教授讀了自然會認為支離破碎。
To avoid such complaint, a writer should convey his thoughts in a way that another thinking person can follow without distraction. Not only should the logic and purpose of the paper advance step-by-step, the transition between sentences and paragraphs should be as seamless as possible. In a word, the work should flow. The key words should be repeated as often as needed to help a reader stay on course, and synonyms and substitute phrases should never confuse. In this way, a paper becomes coherent and cohesive and a reader never becomes confused.
寫作的人如果不想遭到這類批評，表達想法時就應該讓人能順利思考理解，不會感到困惑。除了必須按部就班提出文章的邏輯與論證，句子與段落也必須盡量銜接自然，簡單來說要流暢通順。並且應該多重複關鍵詞，讓讀者抓住重心，使用同義詞與代換詞句時也要避免誤解。如此一來，文章就能條理分明、前後連貫，讀起來就容易了。
