:::
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 professor faulted me for using rhetorical questions in my paper. I believe that the questions moved the paper along and served the reader well. What can I do to convince the professor of this?
我的教授認為不該在論文中使用反詰問句，但我認為反詰問句能推動文章發展，有助閱讀，我該怎麼說服教授？
I’m not sure you are in a position to convince professors of anything. Rather, they are in a position of authority precisely because they are more learned than you. For the most part, professors are the convincers and teachers and students are the learners. Yet a really good professor keeps an open mind on the off chance that he or she might yet have something to learn. So I don’t fault you for challenging an authorized view of academic writing. The tension thus created might shake out a new classroom paradigm.
你的學術資格可能不足以說服教授，因為教授學識比你淵博，所以擁有一定的學術威望。一般而言，教授負責說服與教導，學生負責學習。不過，如果真有需要學習之處，優秀的教授會虛心學習，所以我不會指責你挑戰學術寫作權威的想法，挑戰所帶來的張力或許有助創造新的課堂教學模式。
As for employing rhetorical questions, my first response is to ask, do you really mean questions— plural? That is, did you insert a question, or maybe two, in your paper, or was your paper rife with them? And were they truly rhetorical? A rhetorical question is intended to draw attention to a subsequent statement. Example: “Is the sky blue?” generally is not rhetorical; it actually is asked to elicit a response. Whereas, “So why is the sky blue?” is an introduction to, perhaps, a comment about a person’s state of mind.
至於反詰問句，我想先問清楚，你的文章中的反詰問句有正確使用嗎？你的文章是插入一兩個問句，或整篇文章都充斥著問句？重要的是，這些問句真的都是反詰問句嗎？反詰問句的用意在讓人注意後續的陳述。像是「天空是藍色的嗎？」並非反詰問句，而是用於引發回應。而「天空又為什麼是藍色的？」則是引介，其後或許接著介紹某人的心境。
While some professors frown on any use of rhetorical questions, others appreciate the power of such a question to introduce a point. It is a literary device that can effectively help bracket and, thus, organize and facilitate orderly expression of thoughts. Yet if the questions are overused—more than two of these questions probably are too many in a paper—they become patronizing and ineffective. My point? Don’t ask a question in a paper unless it really helps advance the narrative.
有些教授覺得文章不該出現任何反詰問句，有些則認為可以藉反詰問句引入重點。反詰問句是種文學技巧，能將想法有效地分類、組織，進而使表達更有條理。然而反詰問句若使用過量，在文章中出現兩次以上，就會顯得像在擺架子，效果也不佳。我的想法是，除非真的對敘事有幫助，否則不要在文章中使用問句。
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 professor faulted me for using rhetorical questions in my paper. I believe that the questions moved the paper along and served the reader well. What can I do to convince the professor of this?
我的教授認為不該在論文中使用反詰問句，但我認為反詰問句能推動文章發展，有助閱讀，我該怎麼說服教授？
I’m not sure you are in a position to convince professors of anything. Rather, they are in a position of authority precisely because they are more learned than you. For the most part, professors are the convincers and teachers and students are the learners. Yet a really good professor keeps an open mind on the off chance that he or she might yet have something to learn. So I don’t fault you for challenging an authorized view of academic writing. The tension thus created might shake out a new classroom paradigm.
你的學術資格可能不足以說服教授，因為教授學識比你淵博，所以擁有一定的學術威望。一般而言，教授負責說服與教導，學生負責學習。不過，如果真有需要學習之處，優秀的教授會虛心學習，所以我不會指責你挑戰學術寫作權威的想法，挑戰所帶來的張力或許有助創造新的課堂教學模式。
As for employing rhetorical questions, my first response is to ask, do you really mean questions— plural? That is, did you insert a question, or maybe two, in your paper, or was your paper rife with them? And were they truly rhetorical? A rhetorical question is intended to draw attention to a subsequent statement. Example: “Is the sky blue?” generally is not rhetorical; it actually is asked to elicit a response. Whereas, “So why is the sky blue?” is an introduction to, perhaps, a comment about a person’s state of mind.
至於反詰問句，我想先問清楚，你的文章中的反詰問句有正確使用嗎？你的文章是插入一兩個問句，或整篇文章都充斥著問句？重要的是，這些問句真的都是反詰問句嗎？反詰問句的用意在讓人注意後續的陳述。像是「天空是藍色的嗎？」並非反詰問句，而是用於引發回應。而「天空又為什麼是藍色的？」則是引介，其後或許接著介紹某人的心境。
While some professors frown on any use of rhetorical questions, others appreciate the power of such a question to introduce a point. It is a literary device that can effectively help bracket and, thus, organize and facilitate orderly expression of thoughts. Yet if the questions are overused—more than two of these questions probably are too many in a paper—they become patronizing and ineffective. My point? Don’t ask a question in a paper unless it really helps advance the narrative.
有些教授覺得文章不該出現任何反詰問句，有些則認為可以藉反詰問句引入重點。反詰問句是種文學技巧，能將想法有效地分類、組織，進而使表達更有條理。然而反詰問句若使用過量，在文章中出現兩次以上，就會顯得像在擺架子，效果也不佳。我的想法是，除非真的對敘事有幫助，否則不要在文章中使用問句。
