20120626

從修改朋友的一篇論文說起

朋友電郵給我一篇論文,一萬二千多字的,相當長,不過,他的意思只是想我「執一執」他的英文,我便花了幾個小時撿出我認為不妥當的字詞或語句,並加以改正或提出建議。這位朋友算是我的後輩,但跟我頗投契,我喜見他用功為學,樂意花時間替他修改文章,也希望他繼續努力,早日學有所成,拿到博士學位。

我很高興見到他的英文比兩年前進步了很多,是十分明顯的進步,這麼短的時間有這麼大的進步,是我從未見過的;相信這是因為他有文字天份,卻不自滿,加上適當的學習環境和力求進步,結果便一日千里了。可喜可賀。據我所知,他主要倚重直覺的學習,靠多讀多寫,以收耳濡目染、潛移默化之效;這方法對有天份的人來說固然有效,然而,如果能加上「古德明式」的苦學方法(即英文有疑問或不肯定之處一定查字典辭書),必然會進步更快,而且不會知其然而不知其所以然,筆下一字一句,都明白為何是寫對了,別人錯了的地方,如要指出,也有能力解釋是如何地錯。

大家不要以為英文寫得多便自然會越寫越好,我見過一些人寫了三十多年英文依然毫無進步,甚至有越寫越差的;最典型的是我從前的一個朋友:自以為英文不錯,單憑直覺學習,少查字典辭書,卻又喜歡寫「高深複雜」的語句,於是養成越來越多的寫作壞習慣,積習難改,就算天天寫英文,也不會有進步。

我看過香港某些大學的碩士和博士論文撮要,其中不乏「嚇死人」的英文。其實,有些大學教授的英文也不好,但仍然有論文在學術期刊登出。何解?相信這不是個秘密吧,原來香港的大學會撥款給教授聘請專人修改論文的英文 --- 「出街」的文章見得人,並不表示教授的英文不錯。

13 則留言:

  1. 不只英文,現時有些中港台的「教授」連中文也「嚇死人」,好端端一句說話硬要轉十幾個彎來說,加上洋式句法,真悲哀。

    Z.

    回覆刪除
  2. But papers written by Philosophers can't be too bad? I can't imagine someone without a good understanding of English can excel in the department of philosophy.

    f

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Well, let me give you an example. The following is a passage from a published article; the author is a philosophy professor in HK (a full professor) :

      "The impression of the 'transcendental' sense given to people by Davidson’s principle of charity may be due to its expressing in a very general way and its seemingly a priori characteristic. However, if we pay ample attention to some of the concrete examples which are usually used by Davidson to illustrate the applicability of the principle, this impression may be different."

      This is very bad English. The first sentence is not even grammatical.

      刪除
    2. 好奇,請問王sir怎樣找到這個例子?

      刪除
    3. Well, he is not just a full professor, but a chair professor. But considering the fact that he was educated in Taiwan and HK and his AOS is Chinese philosophy, his poor command of English may be excusable...

      刪除
    4. //請問王sir怎樣找到這個例子?//

      - 我猜想這位哲學教授的英文可能不好,便去找他的論文來看看,隨便就找到這兩句。

      刪除
    5. //his AOS is Chinese philosophy//

      - But he describes himself as "an analytic philosopher with special interest in Chinese philosophy and comparative philosophy".

      //his poor command of English may be excusable...//

      - Yes, I would agree that it's understandable.

      刪除
    6. Although his first sentence is complicated, I can't see why it is not grammatical. Could you explain why please?

      city

      刪除
    7. "its expressing in a very general way" is ungrammatical because "express" is a transitive verb (i.e. it has to have an object).

      I think what the author means to say is that the principle of charity gives people such and such an impression because it is expressed in a very general way and because it seems to be an a priori principle. Accordingly, the object of "express" is the principle of charity, and "its expressing in a very general way" should be "its being expressed in a very general way".

      刪除
    8. I see. I had learnt the difference between transitive and intransitive verbs in secondary school, but I soon forgot.
      You've taught me something again, thanks Mr. Wong.

      city

      刪除