:::
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 無法認可的文章
“The classic background of many of the early agronomists, including Sanginga and Borlaug, shows the power of book-learning in the schooling of modern soil scientists. Their contributions were not all “by guess and by golly.” Heck no! They leaned on the thinking of 19th-century farmer-scientists and then put in their own ideas. I suspect even the earliest farm thinkers got some of their stuff from somebody else, though what they got didn’t amount to much.”
While the previous paragraph communicates coherently, it violates several recommended principles of academic writing. The “book-learning” phrase is purely colloquial, as is “by guess and by golly.” Such informal and casual phraseology is not appropriate for academic papers. The “heck no!” emotive outburst has no place in rational scholarly writing. “I suspect…” is an inappropriate first-person intrusion into the text and a weak assertion to boot. Finally, several other colloquial phrases—“leaned on the thinking” … “put in their own ideas” … “some of their stuff” … “amount to much”—might be all right for conversation, but they are too imprecise for an academic paper. The original version of the paragraph appears below.
這段文章看似條理分明，事實上已違反許多學術英文的撰寫大忌。 “book-learning”只有口語時才會使用，“by guess and by golly” 也是一樣。不正式與隨性的用語不適合在正式的學術文章出現。抒發情緒的用詞，如“heck no!”，更不可表現在專業、理性的學術性文章中。以第一人稱“I suspect…”為句首切入內文不但不恰當，本句更透露出作者對研究發表主張不堅定的態度。最後，其它口語化的用詞，如 “leaned on the thinking” … “put in their own ideas” … “some of their stuff” … “amount to much” 等等，或許可應用於日常會話，然而，站在學術性文章的角度來說，用詞的技巧實在不夠嚴謹。此段文章編輯潤飾後內容，刊登如下。
Acceptable 認可的文章
“The classic background of many of this century’s agronomists, including Sanginga and Borlaug, highlights the efficacy of formal study in the education of modern soil scientists. Their contributions were not all intuitive. Rather, they incorporated into their thinking the corpus of 19th-century agricultural knowledge before adding incomparably to its mass. Even the earliest recorded agronomic thinkers were derivative, though necessarily from less pure sources.”
在這個時代經典的農藝學家，例如Sanginga Borlaug，是現代土壤科學教育領域正統研究中最具代表性的人物。他們的傑出貢獻並非單憑運氣或是直覺，相反的，在公開發表理論前，他們早已將自己的思想融合19世紀農藝知識。即使早期資料紀錄顯示，當時農藝界衍生出其它的思想學派，也鮮少來自正統學派理論。
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 無法認可的文章
“The classic background of many of the early agronomists, including Sanginga and Borlaug, shows the power of book-learning in the schooling of modern soil scientists. Their contributions were not all “by guess and by golly.” Heck no! They leaned on the thinking of 19th-century farmer-scientists and then put in their own ideas. I suspect even the earliest farm thinkers got some of their stuff from somebody else, though what they got didn’t amount to much.”
While the previous paragraph communicates coherently, it violates several recommended principles of academic writing. The “book-learning” phrase is purely colloquial, as is “by guess and by golly.” Such informal and casual phraseology is not appropriate for academic papers. The “heck no!” emotive outburst has no place in rational scholarly writing. “I suspect…” is an inappropriate first-person intrusion into the text and a weak assertion to boot. Finally, several other colloquial phrases—“leaned on the thinking” … “put in their own ideas” … “some of their stuff” … “amount to much”—might be all right for conversation, but they are too imprecise for an academic paper. The original version of the paragraph appears below.
這段文章看似條理分明，事實上已違反許多學術英文的撰寫大忌。 “book-learning”只有口語時才會使用，“by guess and by golly” 也是一樣。不正式與隨性的用語不適合在正式的學術文章出現。抒發情緒的用詞，如“heck no!”，更不可表現在專業、理性的學術性文章中。以第一人稱“I suspect…”為句首切入內文不但不恰當，本句更透露出作者對研究發表主張不堅定的態度。最後，其它口語化的用詞，如 “leaned on the thinking” … “put in their own ideas” … “some of their stuff” … “amount to much” 等等，或許可應用於日常會話，然而，站在學術性文章的角度來說，用詞的技巧實在不夠嚴謹。此段文章編輯潤飾後內容，刊登如下。
Acceptable 認可的文章
“The classic background of many of this century’s agronomists, including Sanginga and Borlaug, highlights the efficacy of formal study in the education of modern soil scientists. Their contributions were not all intuitive. Rather, they incorporated into their thinking the corpus of 19th-century agricultural knowledge before adding incomparably to its mass. Even the earliest recorded agronomic thinkers were derivative, though necessarily from less pure sources.”
在這個時代經典的農藝學家，例如Sanginga Borlaug，是現代土壤科學教育領域正統研究中最具代表性的人物。他們的傑出貢獻並非單憑運氣或是直覺，相反的，在公開發表理論前，他們早已將自己的思想融合19世紀農藝知識。即使早期資料紀錄顯示，當時農藝界衍生出其它的思想學派，也鮮少來自正統學派理論。
