语言与文风2021nature.com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
导读
《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"。这类"被折磨的短语"往往是论文经过地下翻译或改写服务、为规避查重而产生的痕迹，已成为识别问题论文的信号。对写作者来说，它提醒我们：术语不能随意换词，刻意"换个说法"反而会暴露写作上的偷懒与不可信。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
专业术语是固定搭配，不要为了"避免重复"而用同义词替换，cloud computing 就是 cloud computing。
- 02
改写他人句子来规避查重，只会留下更明显的痕迹；引用就规范引用，转述要用自己的理解重写。
- 03
如果英语（或任何写作语言）不是强项，宁可找专业润色或合作者，也不要照抄审稿意见或范文的措辞。
- 04
投稿前自查：文中是否有读起来别扭、连自己都不确定含义的短语，那通常就是机器翻译或改写残留的信号。
HN 评论精选
用同义词替换软件改写，常是为了掩盖抄袭而非真正重写，反而留下更明显的证据。
一位审稿人讲述亲身经历：他曾指出某投稿误用了某个技术术语，并在保密审稿意见里给出定义和解释，请作者修改。修订稿回来时，作者几乎逐字抄用了他的解释。编辑同意以抄袭为由拒稿，可几年后他在另一本期刊上又看到这篇论文，抄袭段落还在，只是很多措辞被换成了这类"被折磨的短语"。他认为这些作者未必伪造研究，只是英语不好，觉得抄现成的通顺句子比学会写好英语更容易，这可以理解但不能被原谅。他也同意原文观点：这只是冰山一角。
atrettel查看英文原文
I have encountered something similar to this for a submission that I reviewed for a scientific journal. I will not list any names or give much detail past those generalities, but I pointed out that the authors were misusing a particular technical term. In my review I defined the term and explained it briefly. I asked the authors to revise their submission accordingly. The paper was not bad but the authors did not know English very well, so it was quite difficult to read. That was its main problem. However, when I received the revised submission, I noticed that the authors plagiarized my definition and explanation almost word for word (from my confidential review). I pointed this out to the editors and they said to just reject the paper with the stated reason being plagiarism, which I did. The journal ended up rejecting the article, but I discovered it a few years later in a different journal. The plagiarized section remained, but the authors swabbed out a lot my phrases for these kind of "tortured phrases". That said, the authors did not fabricate their research (as far as I can tell). They just did not know English well, so it was easier to just copy things that you know are phrased well than to learn to write English well. As the saying goes, do not attribute to malice what can be explained by ignorance or laziness. That does not excuse it but it makes it more understandable. I agree with the article that this is probably just the tip of the iceberg. There are likely many more lesser evils being committed with similar tools that are just much more difficult to spot. I would not have noticed my particular example if I were not a reviewer for the paper, for example. It makes me wonder how big the problem really is.
机器式同义替换会把固定术语拆解成荒谬的字面直译，一眼就能看出问题。
列举了一批令人捧腹的"被折磨的短语"实例：把 signal to noise 写成 "flag to clamor"，PDA（个人数字助理）写成 "individual computerized collaborator"，cloud computing 写成 "haze figuring"，data warehouse 写成 "information stockroom"，CPU 写成 "focal preparing unit"，voice recognition 写成 "discourse acknowledgement"，mean square error 写成 "mean square blunder"，random access 写成 "arbitrary right of passage"，random forest 写成 "arbitrary timberland"，random value 写成 "irregular esteem"，sentiment analysis 写成 "notoriety examination"。
FabHK查看英文原文
Some of these tortured phrases are great. My favourites: "flag to clamor" for signal to noise "individual computerized collaborator" for PDA (personal digital assistant) "haze figuring" for cloud computing "information stockroom" for data warehouse "focal preparing unit" for CPU "discourse acknowledgement" for voice recognition "mean square blunder" for MSE (mean square error) "arbitrary right of passage" for random access "arbitrary timberland" for random forest "irregular esteem" for random value ETA: "notoriety examination" for sentiment analysis
拼写检查与翻译工具的错误替换若不经人复核，会一路混过评审，最终当众出丑。
他说很想在办公室里偶尔用这类怪短语开个玩笑，比如把 continuous integration 写成 "ceaseless incorporation"，顺便看看有没有人真的读他的笔记。他也提到类似经历：上世纪 90 年代在一家日资美国公司，日本高管和助理不熟悉美国技术行话，常常接受拼写检查器给出的离谱替换建议，结果出现了一份叫 "Data Whorehousing"（本应是 data warehousing）的演示文稿，居然经过多轮评审和排练，最后在全美 IT 部门大会上播放。
neoCrimeLabs查看英文原文
I'm very tempted to introduce tortured phrases at work for occasional humor. For example, who needs "continuous integration" when you have "ceaseless incorporation"? Sometimes it's nice to see if anyone reads my notes. In all seriousness though, I've experienced something similar before at a Japanese run American corporation as far back as the 90's. The problem was Japanese executives and executive assistants who didn't know American tech-jargon often resulted in accepting mangled suggestions by the spell-checker. A notorious example was the "Data Whorehousing" presentation, which somehow made it through several reviews and rehearsals before being presented to the entire American IT department at an all-hands meeting. Clearly this made an impact as I remember it 23(ish) years later!
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乔治·奥威尔《政治与英语》（1946）
George Orwell, “Politics and the English Language” (1946)
这篇是奥威尔1946年的经典文章，讨论政治语言如何用委婉语、模糊措辞和陈腐隐喻来掩盖暴力与不可辩护之事。
语言与文风2016 · 301 分 · 150 评4 条写作要点编辑精选