:::
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 不被認可的文章
“During four decades of observing chimpanzees in Tanzania, Jane Goodall found some presumed truths about the animal’s behavior to be wildly untrue. She also shattered a few myths about anthropological methods. In her study of several chimp families, for example, Goodall learned to recognize each individual and to give each a name. She thus anthropomorphized the chimps—attributed to the chimps human characteristics—an approach that some of her scientific peers found wanting. Her unconventional methods stemmed from Goodalls’ background as an unlettered researcher, the absence of dogma giving her freer reign in her studies.”
This paragraph about a famed anthropologist and her discoveries passes muster if merely skimmed. More careful reading finds weaknesses. The “four decades” reference can be more simply expressed as “40 years.” In the second sentence, “presumed truths” can be more succinctly stated as “assumptions.” The phrase “found wanting” is not wrong, but it is imprecise; “criticized as unscientific” specifically states her peers’ complaint. In the last sentence, the phrase “freer reign” is a common misuse of “reign” instead of “rein,” and is further weakened by the absence of the modifier “intellectual.” Can you find the two errors in the use of the apostrophe to denote possession? One is “animal’s…” instead of “animals’…” What is the other?
本段文章描述著名的人類學家珍古德以及她的研究發現，大略讀過後看來沒有問題，但仔細讀後就會找到一些缺陷。“Four decades” 可以寫成 “40 years” 就好，第二句 “presumed truths”（假定的事實）改成 “assumptions”`（假設）會更精簡。“Found wanting” （缺失）並沒有錯，但改成 “criticized as unscientific” （不科學）更精確，以具體點出同儕的批評。最後一句 “freer reign” 犯了常見的錯誤，誤將 “rein”（拘束）寫成 “reign”（疆域）了，此外若加上 “intellectual” 會更清楚。有兩個代表所有格的符號有誤，其中一個是“animal’s…” 應改為 “animals’…”，另一個你找得到嗎？
Acceptable 認可的文章
“During 40 years of observing chimpanzees in Tanzania, Jane Goodall found some assumptions about the animals’ behavior to be false. She also dispelled a few myths about anthropological methods. In her study of chimp families, for example, Goodall learned to recognize each individual and to give each a name. She thus anthropomorphized the chimps—attributed to the chimps human characteristics—an approach that some of her scientific peers criticized as unscientific. Her unconventional methods stemmed from Goodall’s background as an unlettered researcher, the absence of dogma giving her freer intellectual rein in her studies.”
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 不被認可的文章
“During four decades of observing chimpanzees in Tanzania, Jane Goodall found some presumed truths about the animal’s behavior to be wildly untrue. She also shattered a few myths about anthropological methods. In her study of several chimp families, for example, Goodall learned to recognize each individual and to give each a name. She thus anthropomorphized the chimps—attributed to the chimps human characteristics—an approach that some of her scientific peers found wanting. Her unconventional methods stemmed from Goodalls’ background as an unlettered researcher, the absence of dogma giving her freer reign in her studies.”
This paragraph about a famed anthropologist and her discoveries passes muster if merely skimmed. More careful reading finds weaknesses. The “four decades” reference can be more simply expressed as “40 years.” In the second sentence, “presumed truths” can be more succinctly stated as “assumptions.” The phrase “found wanting” is not wrong, but it is imprecise; “criticized as unscientific” specifically states her peers’ complaint. In the last sentence, the phrase “freer reign” is a common misuse of “reign” instead of “rein,” and is further weakened by the absence of the modifier “intellectual.” Can you find the two errors in the use of the apostrophe to denote possession? One is “animal’s…” instead of “animals’…” What is the other?
本段文章描述著名的人類學家珍古德以及她的研究發現，大略讀過後看來沒有問題，但仔細讀後就會找到一些缺陷。“Four decades” 可以寫成 “40 years” 就好，第二句 “presumed truths”（假定的事實）改成 “assumptions”`（假設）會更精簡。“Found wanting” （缺失）並沒有錯，但改成 “criticized as unscientific” （不科學）更精確，以具體點出同儕的批評。最後一句 “freer reign” 犯了常見的錯誤，誤將 “rein”（拘束）寫成 “reign”（疆域）了，此外若加上 “intellectual” 會更清楚。有兩個代表所有格的符號有誤，其中一個是“animal’s…” 應改為 “animals’…”，另一個你找得到嗎？
Acceptable 認可的文章
“During 40 years of observing chimpanzees in Tanzania, Jane Goodall found some assumptions about the animals’ behavior to be false. She also dispelled a few myths about anthropological methods. In her study of chimp families, for example, Goodall learned to recognize each individual and to give each a name. She thus anthropomorphized the chimps—attributed to the chimps human characteristics—an approach that some of her scientific peers criticized as unscientific. Her unconventional methods stemmed from Goodall’s background as an unlettered researcher, the absence of dogma giving her freer intellectual rein in her studies.”
