:::
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
“The Danish study suggested that organic food is not better for consumers. Harvested fruit and vegetables didn’t vary very much in major and trace contents whether or not they were grown and cultivated using animal manure and no pesticides, or were grown with mineral fertilizers and pesticides. When the organically grown and conventionally grown produce was fed to animals, the animal’s retention of the elements differed very little regardless of how the crops were grown.”
This paragraph about food research isn’t unclear, but the writer of it was somewhat lazy. A critical rereading of it would have strengthened the paper considerably. For example, in saying organic food is “not better for consumers,” the writer is guilty of imprecision. It is “not better” in what way? And by “consumers,” does the writer mean eaters or buyers? That confusion is cleared away by saying the food is “not more healthful.” Further along, the alliterative “vary very” is an unfortunate and distracting combination of words. In the same sentence, the “whether or not” is wordy. In most instances, the conjunction “whether” will stand alone. And can you tell me what is wrong with the usage of the word “…animal’s…?” See below.
這段文章討論食品研究，意思還算清楚，但琢磨不夠仔細，若當初作者認真重讀文章，文章應該會更有力、更有可讀性。舉例來說，提到有機食物「對消費者沒有比較好」不夠精確。「沒有比較好」是哪裡不好？而「消費者」是指攝食者還是購買者？其實只要說有機食物「沒有比較健康」就能釐清文意。接下來，“vary very” 字首及語音相同，兩字連用會分散讀者注意力，不太恰當。同句 “whether or not” 也過於冗長，通常用連接詞 “whether” 即可。另外，“…animal’s…” 的用法也有問題，你發現了嗎? 請看潤修後的文章：
Acceptable 認可的文章
“The Danish study suggested that organic food is not more healthful. Harvested fruit and vegetables showed little variation in major and trace contents whether grown and cultivated using animal manure and no pesticides, or with mineral fertilizers and pesticides. When the organically grown and conventionally grown produce was fed to animals, the animals’ retention of the elements differed little regardless of the origin of the produce.”
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
“The Danish study suggested that organic food is not better for consumers. Harvested fruit and vegetables didn’t vary very much in major and trace contents whether or not they were grown and cultivated using animal manure and no pesticides, or were grown with mineral fertilizers and pesticides. When the organically grown and conventionally grown produce was fed to animals, the animal’s retention of the elements differed very little regardless of how the crops were grown.”
This paragraph about food research isn’t unclear, but the writer of it was somewhat lazy. A critical rereading of it would have strengthened the paper considerably. For example, in saying organic food is “not better for consumers,” the writer is guilty of imprecision. It is “not better” in what way? And by “consumers,” does the writer mean eaters or buyers? That confusion is cleared away by saying the food is “not more healthful.” Further along, the alliterative “vary very” is an unfortunate and distracting combination of words. In the same sentence, the “whether or not” is wordy. In most instances, the conjunction “whether” will stand alone. And can you tell me what is wrong with the usage of the word “…animal’s…?” See below.
這段文章討論食品研究，意思還算清楚，但琢磨不夠仔細，若當初作者認真重讀文章，文章應該會更有力、更有可讀性。舉例來說，提到有機食物「對消費者沒有比較好」不夠精確。「沒有比較好」是哪裡不好？而「消費者」是指攝食者還是購買者？其實只要說有機食物「沒有比較健康」就能釐清文意。接下來，“vary very” 字首及語音相同，兩字連用會分散讀者注意力，不太恰當。同句 “whether or not” 也過於冗長，通常用連接詞 “whether” 即可。另外，“…animal’s…” 的用法也有問題，你發現了嗎? 請看潤修後的文章：
Acceptable 認可的文章
“The Danish study suggested that organic food is not more healthful. Harvested fruit and vegetables showed little variation in major and trace contents whether grown and cultivated using animal manure and no pesticides, or with mineral fertilizers and pesticides. When the organically grown and conventionally grown produce was fed to animals, the animals’ retention of the elements differed little regardless of the origin of the produce.”
