语言与文风2017theamericanscholar.org编辑精选
把英语作为第二语言来写作（2009）
Writing English as a Second Language (2009)
导读
这篇文章讨论非母语者如何把英语写得清楚有力，主张用简短的日常词汇、直截了当的句式和口语化的表达，并给出清晰、简洁、简短等原则。对写作者来说，它提供了可操作的自查清单，也引出词源、文体和语体差异等值得进一步思考的问题。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
选词时看现代用法而不是词源：优先选能准确达意、常见且能让句子变短的词。
- 02
把绕弯子的套话改成直白的日常说法，例如用“Before we fixed our money problems”替代“Prior to the implementation of the financial enhancement”。
- 03
写作要像跟人说话一样自然，同时留意不同文体和词语的微妙语气，别把口语化原则绝对化。
- 04
清晰易读是值得追求的目标，不要为了显得高深而故意写得晦涩。
HN 评论精选
词源不重要，现代用法才重要；作者的原则对，但例子自相矛盾。
有趣的是，在把“Prior to the implementation of the financial enhancement”改成“Before we fixed our money problems”这个例子里，那些糟糕的拉丁词被换成了别的拉丁词（fixed、money、problem 都有拉丁词根）。就连那份“盎格鲁-撒克逊词表”里也有一个明显非盎格鲁-撒克逊的词（chair，经法语来自拉丁语）。重要的不是词源，而是现代用法。考虑替换表达时，应选用：a. 以必要精度传达原意（清晰），b. 常用（简洁），c. 让句子短（简短）。所以我同意作者推荐的原则，但不同意他的例子。我发现文中三条原则处处被违背，也许是有意为之，但读起来不像。
yorwba查看英文原文
It is amusing that in the example of replacing "Prior to the implementation of the financial enhancement.” by “Before we fixed our money problems.” the bad Latin words are replaced by other Latin words. ("fixed", "money", "problem" all have Latin roots.) Even the list of Anglo-Saxon words has a decidedly non-Anglo-Saxon word ("chair", via French from Latin). What matters is not the origin of a word, but its modern usage. When you consider alternative ways to express a concept, use the words that a. convey the intended meaning with the necessary precision (Clarity), b. are commonly used (Simplicity) and c. result in short sentences (Brevity). So I agree with the principles the author recommends, but I disagree with the examples. I find all three principles broken throughout the text, and although that might have been deliberate, it certainly doesn't feel like it.
清晰易读应是目标，故意晦涩往往是为了显得深刻。
还有法语！例如 John Searle 评论 Michel Foucault：“‘不要含糊’、‘不要啰嗦，要简短’、‘要有条理’、‘避免晦涩’是方式准则的四条。我认为这些常被违反。事实上，有些哲学流派——我并不同情它们——或多或少系统性地违反这些准则。我不知道有没有跟你说过这个故事：我曾和一位著名的法国哲学家朋友交谈，我说‘你到底为什么写得这么糟，pourquoi écris-tu si mal’，他说：‘你看，如果我写得像你那么清楚，巴黎人不会把我当回事。他们会觉得那是幼稚天真。’……在法国，你得有10%让人看不懂，否则人们不会觉得深刻。”我认为这是英语学术圈的一大贡献：应当努力让人容易理解。
vilhelm_s查看英文原文
And French! E.g. John Searle's comment on Michel Focault, > 'Don't be ambiguous', 'don't be too wordy, be brief', 'be orderly' and 'avoid obscurity' are the four Maxim's of manner. And I think those are frequently violated. In fact, there are certain schools of philosophy---not once I'm sympathetic with---where they are more or less systematically violated. I don't know if I've told you this story but I once had a conversation with a famous French philosopher who's a friend of mine and I said to him "Why the hell do you write so badly, pourquoi écris-tu si mal", and he said, "Look, if I wrote as clearly as you do people in Paris wouldn't take me seriously. You know, they would think it's childlike and naive." [...] In France you got to have 10% incomprehensible otherwise people won't think it's deep. (http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_and_the_obscurantism_in_french_philosophy.html) I think this is one of the great contributions of the anglophone academic sphere, the idea that you should try to aim to be easy to understand.
英语写作应直截了当，避免绕弯子。
一位朋友曾请我翻译他写给一家美国公司关于设备维修的信。我很快意识到葡萄牙语和英语的主要区别：葡萄牙语写得非常绕，英语则直截了当。所以如果逐字翻译，那封信会写成：“尊敬的先生，我通过这封信，向您带来关于我所购买设备所遭遇缺陷的消息……”听起来有点中世纪。
forinti查看英文原文
A friend once asked me to translate a letter he had written to a US company about some equipment of his that needed maintenance. I quickly realized the main difference between Portuguese and English: in Portuguese, you write in a very roundabout way and in English you are straight to the point. So, if I had translated that letter word by word, it would go something like this: Dear Sir, I bring to you, by way of this letter, knowledge of the defects that have befallen the equipment I purchased in... Sounds a bit medieval.
口语化原则不能忽视文体和词语的微妙语气差异。
这话虽然没错，但是不是忽略了文体风格之类的概念？每个词不都有自己独特的味道，可能微妙地暗示某些东西吗？比如强调“individual”这个词，可能会突出个体性的一面（也许我对英语的理解有误，但在我的母语里确实如此）。
drdaeman查看英文原文
> Don’t say anything in writing that you wouldn’t comfortably say in conversation. Writing is talking to someone else on paper or on a screen. While true, doesn't this ignore the concept of styles and related stuff? And doesn't every word has its own distinct flavor, that may subtly imply something? Like saying "individual" with a certain emphasis on the word, may put some stress on the aspect of individuality (maybe I'm wrong about English, but it surely works like this in my native language).
同类还值得读
像说话一样写作
Write like you talk
这篇短文主张写作应像说话一样自然、清晰，避免装腔作势的书面腔。
语言与文风2015 · 647 分 · 272 评4 条写作要点编辑精选法律语言难懂源于写作不佳，而非专业概念
Poor writing, not specialized concepts, drives difficulty with legal language
这是一项认知科学研究：法律文本难懂，主要不是因为充斥专业术语，而是因为写作者把句子写得又长又绕、修饰语层层嵌套、回指距离过远。
语言与文风2022 · 559 分 · 322 评5 条写作要点编辑精选写得简单
Write Simply
保罗·格拉汉姆在这篇短文里主张：好文章应该写得简单——用日常词汇、短句、直白的结构，不为显得聪明而堆砌复杂表达。
语言与文风2021 · 484 分 · 330 评4 条写作要点编辑精选Tortured phrases：科学写作中出现的一种可疑文风
Tortured phrases: A dubious writing style emerging in science
《自然》新闻报道了一种在科学论文中蔓延的怪现象：原本标准的术语被同义替换软件改写成了古怪说法，比如把 "cloud computing" 写成 "haze figuring"。
语言与文风2021 · 329 分 · 256 评4 条写作要点编辑精选乔治·奥威尔 1940 年对《我的奋斗》的书评
George Orwell's review of Mein Kampf (1940)
这是奥威尔1940年对《我的奋斗》的书评。
语言与文风2014 · 305 分 · 240 评4 条写作要点编辑精选