:::
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: I have don’t have any problem writing a scholarly paper. The words come easily to me. My problem is organizing a paper so that it flows logically and effectively. Any suggestions?
寫作學術性文章對我來說並不難，因為我自認可以輕易寫出想寫的句子。我的障礙在於無法組織文章，既能讀起來合乎邏輯，又能有效傳達意義。有什麼好建議嗎？
I am reminded of what the publisher of one of my early books said to me. “Professor,” he said, “the way you write is fine. But what I like best is the way you think.” I was taken back by his remark because I pride myself on my writing. Yet it was the thinking behind the writing that sold my book. The lesson for me—and for you—is that froth, no matter how artfully it is whipped up, does not satisfy like language grounded in solid information and genuine insight. Papers with logic and substance stick to the ribs.
這個問題讓我想起之前為我出版一套叢書的出版主編，他告訴我：「教授，你的文章寫得不錯，但我最喜歡的還是你的思考方式。」他的話讓我相當意外，因為我一向以自己的文筆自豪，然而真正賣出這些著作的，仔細來說的確是文章背後的思考過程。我從中學到一個教訓—你也應該引以為惕—那就是，泡沫打得再細緻美妙，都不如奠基於穩固知識與深刻洞見的語言令人滿意。具備合理的邏輯與內容，才能稱之為充實的論文。
So in all likelihood your problem isn’t one of organization, but of rationalization. That is, in boasting of your writing skills, you are covering up your failure to think through a paper before sitting down to write it. Even if you are a good writer—and I have no idea if you are—an academic paper is first of all a thinking person’s document. Do you really think through a thesis? Do you thoroughly research a subject? If you will build your paper on a foundation of fact, rather than word finesse, you will experience success.
所以，你的癥結不在論文的組織性，而是合理性。換句話說，當你吹捧自己的寫作技巧時，你其實在掩飾動筆前沒有先將文章結構通盤想好的缺失。就算你的寫作技巧非常好—事實是否真是如此，我無從得知—學術論文畢竟是思考者的創作。你是否認真的將論文通透想過？你是否通盤研究過該項主題？論文若是建築在事實基礎上，而非注重文辭修飾，你的作品將更加成功。
What’s more, logical organization of a paper usually becomes evident in the course of research. Let’s say you uncover a revelatory fact while compiling data—not a game-changer, perhaps, but definitely a piece of new information. The uncovered tidbit suddenly becomes a possible introductory tease for your paper and a pivot point for the body of the work. Even when writing is weak, strong information can pull a paper together, whereas strong writing cannot hide weak research. Think, then write, and your paper will flow.
除此之外，論文的邏輯組織通常會在研究過程中變得更明確。假設在匯整資料時，你發現相關的新事實—也許不致於讓整篇文章改頭換面，但的確是發前人之所未發。就這樣，突然間的新發現可成為文章開頭的引子，也可成為正文內容的關鍵論證。就算文筆不佳，具說服力的事實也能縱貫全文綱領；然而，文筆再怎麼優美，則絕對無法隱藏研究內容淺薄的缺失。謹記，「先思考，再下筆」，你自然能寫出行雲流水的論文。
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: I have don’t have any problem writing a scholarly paper. The words come easily to me. My problem is organizing a paper so that it flows logically and effectively. Any suggestions?
寫作學術性文章對我來說並不難，因為我自認可以輕易寫出想寫的句子。我的障礙在於無法組織文章，既能讀起來合乎邏輯，又能有效傳達意義。有什麼好建議嗎？
I am reminded of what the publisher of one of my early books said to me. “Professor,” he said, “the way you write is fine. But what I like best is the way you think.” I was taken back by his remark because I pride myself on my writing. Yet it was the thinking behind the writing that sold my book. The lesson for me—and for you—is that froth, no matter how artfully it is whipped up, does not satisfy like language grounded in solid information and genuine insight. Papers with logic and substance stick to the ribs.
這個問題讓我想起之前為我出版一套叢書的出版主編，他告訴我：「教授，你的文章寫得不錯，但我最喜歡的還是你的思考方式。」他的話讓我相當意外，因為我一向以自己的文筆自豪，然而真正賣出這些著作的，仔細來說的確是文章背後的思考過程。我從中學到一個教訓—你也應該引以為惕—那就是，泡沫打得再細緻美妙，都不如奠基於穩固知識與深刻洞見的語言令人滿意。具備合理的邏輯與內容，才能稱之為充實的論文。
So in all likelihood your problem isn’t one of organization, but of rationalization. That is, in boasting of your writing skills, you are covering up your failure to think through a paper before sitting down to write it. Even if you are a good writer—and I have no idea if you are—an academic paper is first of all a thinking person’s document. Do you really think through a thesis? Do you thoroughly research a subject? If you will build your paper on a foundation of fact, rather than word finesse, you will experience success.
所以，你的癥結不在論文的組織性，而是合理性。換句話說，當你吹捧自己的寫作技巧時，你其實在掩飾動筆前沒有先將文章結構通盤想好的缺失。就算你的寫作技巧非常好—事實是否真是如此，我無從得知—學術論文畢竟是思考者的創作。你是否認真的將論文通透想過？你是否通盤研究過該項主題？論文若是建築在事實基礎上，而非注重文辭修飾，你的作品將更加成功。
What’s more, logical organization of a paper usually becomes evident in the course of research. Let’s say you uncover a revelatory fact while compiling data—not a game-changer, perhaps, but definitely a piece of new information. The uncovered tidbit suddenly becomes a possible introductory tease for your paper and a pivot point for the body of the work. Even when writing is weak, strong information can pull a paper together, whereas strong writing cannot hide weak research. Think, then write, and your paper will flow.
除此之外，論文的邏輯組織通常會在研究過程中變得更明確。假設在匯整資料時，你發現相關的新事實—也許不致於讓整篇文章改頭換面，但的確是發前人之所未發。就這樣，突然間的新發現可成為文章開頭的引子，也可成為正文內容的關鍵論證。就算文筆不佳，具說服力的事實也能縱貫全文綱領；然而，文筆再怎麼優美，則絕對無法隱藏研究內容淺薄的缺失。謹記，「先思考，再下筆」，你自然能寫出行雲流水的論文。
