:::
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. 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
“Historic records show the hurricane pounded ashore nearly 200 miles further south than forecast, catching businesspeople unawares. Naked plate glass windows shattered when struck by 70 mph winds and airborne projectiles. Flying shards sliced into boxes and stuck in walls and display cabinets. Torrents whipped through the windows and ruined inventory and marketing materials. As in every catastrophe, irony showed its face. The owner of a store selling paper was relieved to find his windows unbroken, yet water ran out the door when he opened it: The violent storm had triggered the store’s sprinkler system and flooded the inside of the building.
The writer is guilty of questionable word choices and assumptions. The very first word in the excerpt is wrong. The records are not “historic,’’ that is, momentous in and of themselves; they are “historical,” meaning they contain history. “Further” does not specifically mean distance (it can also mean time), but “farther” does and would have been a better choice in this sentence. “Naked” plate glass windows? That is a stretch, when the intent of the usage is to show they are unprotected. “Flying shards” could mean shards of wood or brittle plastic; it should have been modified to mean broken glass. The same is true of “torrents” without the words “of water.” In short, the writer reached for brevity and sacrificed clarity in the doing, a bad bargain.
作者在文字的選擇和使用上犯了幾個錯誤，特別是節錄段落的第一個字就是錯的。記錄不該是「historic」；這裡應該將重點放在記錄本身，使用「historical」，表示這些記錄包括過去發生的事件。「Further」並不單指距離上的差異（這個詞也能用在時間上），但是「farther」卻僅能用於實際距離上。因此，這裡比較適合用「farther」這個字。另外，什麼是「naked」玻璃窗？作者應該是想要表示窗戶暴露在外未受到保護，卻誤用錯字。「Flying shards」可能是木頭或塑膠碎片，所以將這個部分加以改寫，強調是碎玻璃。同樣的情形也發生在「torrent」上，少了「of water」。總之,作者為了達到文章簡練而犧牲了文意清晰，可謂得不償失。
Acceptable 認可的文章
“Historical records show the hurricane surged ashore nearly 200 miles farther south than forecast, catching businesspeople unprepared. Unprotected plate glass windows shattered under the force of 70 mph winds and airborne projectiles. Flying shards of glass sliced into boxes and embedded themselves in walls and display cabinets. Torrents of rain whipped through the window openings and ruined inventory and marketing materials. As in every catastrophe, irony showed up. The owner of a paper goods store was relieved to find his windows intact, yet water ran out the door when he opened it: The storm had triggered the sprinkler system and flooded the building.
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
“Historic records show the hurricane pounded ashore nearly 200 miles further south than forecast, catching businesspeople unawares. Naked plate glass windows shattered when struck by 70 mph winds and airborne projectiles. Flying shards sliced into boxes and stuck in walls and display cabinets. Torrents whipped through the windows and ruined inventory and marketing materials. As in every catastrophe, irony showed its face. The owner of a store selling paper was relieved to find his windows unbroken, yet water ran out the door when he opened it: The violent storm had triggered the store’s sprinkler system and flooded the inside of the building.
The writer is guilty of questionable word choices and assumptions. The very first word in the excerpt is wrong. The records are not “historic,’’ that is, momentous in and of themselves; they are “historical,” meaning they contain history. “Further” does not specifically mean distance (it can also mean time), but “farther” does and would have been a better choice in this sentence. “Naked” plate glass windows? That is a stretch, when the intent of the usage is to show they are unprotected. “Flying shards” could mean shards of wood or brittle plastic; it should have been modified to mean broken glass. The same is true of “torrents” without the words “of water.” In short, the writer reached for brevity and sacrificed clarity in the doing, a bad bargain.
作者在文字的選擇和使用上犯了幾個錯誤，特別是節錄段落的第一個字就是錯的。記錄不該是「historic」；這裡應該將重點放在記錄本身，使用「historical」，表示這些記錄包括過去發生的事件。「Further」並不單指距離上的差異（這個詞也能用在時間上），但是「farther」卻僅能用於實際距離上。因此，這裡比較適合用「farther」這個字。另外，什麼是「naked」玻璃窗？作者應該是想要表示窗戶暴露在外未受到保護，卻誤用錯字。「Flying shards」可能是木頭或塑膠碎片，所以將這個部分加以改寫，強調是碎玻璃。同樣的情形也發生在「torrent」上，少了「of water」。總之,作者為了達到文章簡練而犧牲了文意清晰，可謂得不償失。
Acceptable 認可的文章
“Historical records show the hurricane surged ashore nearly 200 miles farther south than forecast, catching businesspeople unprepared. Unprotected plate glass windows shattered under the force of 70 mph winds and airborne projectiles. Flying shards of glass sliced into boxes and embedded themselves in walls and display cabinets. Torrents of rain whipped through the window openings and ruined inventory and marketing materials. As in every catastrophe, irony showed up. The owner of a paper goods store was relieved to find his windows intact, yet water ran out the door when he opened it: The storm had triggered the sprinkler system and flooded the building.
