语言与文风2012blogs.hbr.org
我不会雇用语法糟糕的人
I Won't Hire People Who Use Poor Grammar
导读
哈佛商业评论的一篇博文主张"不招语法差的人"，Hacker News 的评论从校对细节和真实招聘案例两方面做了反驳。值得写作者一读：它提醒你"语法"并不是一套放之四海皆准的铁律，真正的专业是明确声明并遵循某份公开的风格指南，同时把语法问题当作线索而非一票否决的判决。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
写完先自查：连主张"语法零容忍"的作者都写出了"People Who Use Poor Grammar"（应为 Grammar Poorly），别假设自己不会犯同类错误。
- 02
别把"通用英语语法"当成唯一标准：明确声明你遵循哪份风格指南（如芝加哥、AP），比凭直觉挑错更专业、也更站得住脚。
- 03
把语法问题当线索而非判决：它常指向阅读或写作经验不足、或不愿学习，值得追问，但不该一票否决。
- 04
区分硬错误与风格偏好（如牛津逗号）：把个人偏好当硬标准，会赶走好的作者和好的同事。
HN 评论精选
连"语法零容忍"的作者本人也犯用法错误；"通用英语语法"是神话，真正可要求的是遵循某份公开的风格指南。
为了说明"语法差"是个多么混乱的概念，我戴上昔日职业校对员的帽子通读了全文，标出我能挑出错的地方。"People Who Use Poor Grammar"应为"People Who Use Grammar Poorly"；"I have a 'zero tolerance approach'"应为"a zero-tolerance approach"；"people who mix up their itses"应为"its and it's"；破折号前后的空格也不对。我指出这些不是为了吹毛求疵或反唇相讥，而是想说明：存在一套可以普遍套用于写作的"英语语法"只是个神话。最多你能制定一份风格指南，或遵循现成的一份。要求员工能遵循一份已知的风格指南是合理的；但指望他们在没见过某份指南、多半还没有电脑辅助的情况下拿满分，且由自认为无需借助现成指南就能评分的人来评，就很愚蠢——就像面试时要求程序员背出 String.find 的参数顺序一样糟糕。
hythloday查看英文原文
Just to illustrate what a morass "poor grammar" is, I have, wearing my ex-professional proofreader hat, gone through the article to highlight the areas where I could find fault with the article for incorrect usage. People Who Use Poor Grammar should be: People Who Use Grammar Poorly. I have a "zero tolerance approach" should be: I have a zero-tolerance approach. people who mix up their itses should be: people who mix up its and it's. passed over for a job — even if should be: passed over for a job—even if. I don't point this out to be pedantic or to level at the author a tu quoque, but to point out that the idea of an "English grammar" that you can apply universally to writing is a myth. At best you can create a style guide, or follow an existing one. Expecting employees to be able to follow a known style guide is a reasonable request. Expecting them to score perfectly on a grammar test against a style guide they've never seen, without (presumably) computer assistance, when scored by someone who believes that they're capable of scoring a grammar test without recourse to existing style guides, is foolish, in exactly the same way that expecting a programmer to remember whether String.find take (needle, haystack) or (haystack, needle) as its arguments is a terrible interview technique.
语法差常是阅读写作经验不足或不愿学习的信号，但把风格偏好（如牛津逗号）也纳入零容忍就过犹不及。
我觉得这观点合理，简化一下论证：语法差往往是阅读或写作（或两者）经验不足的产物，或者是不愿学习的信号，这两者在招聘中都是危险信号。但另一方面，如果你的"零容忍"政策把我用牛津逗号这类事也算进去，那我多半也不想为你工作。
s_henry_paulson查看英文原文
I think it's a fair, but just to simplify the argument: Poor grammar often is an artifact of a person being inexperienced with reading, writing, or both. Either that or a sign of an unwillingness to learn. Both of these are red flags when hiring. On the other hand, if your "zero tolerance" policy includes things like my usage of an oxford comma, chances are I don't want to work for you.
别对语法非黑即白：一次仓促提交的糟糕表格背后可能是极优秀的人，教条会关掉意想不到的门。
即便这能保证文化契合，我也不会对语法这么非黑即白。几个月前我帮一个政府部门找架构师，要求既能写代码，又能与部门总监和供应商沟通到 CxO 层，语法和沟通能力显然很关键。流程是交简历加填表回答标准问题，过了截止时间不受理。我审的简历里有一份很突出：技术能力亮眼，超出政府部门的期待；但申请表答案很糟——第一段回答写到一半就断了，其余答案还有多处拼写错误。我很喜欢这份简历，还是请他来面试，结果他确实名副其实。表格潦草的原因是他当天下午 4 点才看到招聘广告，得赶在 5 点前提交，他听说过这个项目，非常想参与。他是我最成功的招聘之一。对任何事狂热教条，都会关上你根本想象不到的门。希望我永远不会变成那样。
Spearchucker查看英文原文
Even if this ensures a cultural fit I'd not be so binary about grammar. Just a few months ago I helped a government department find an architect. The brief boiled down to someone who can code, but can also liaise with department directors and its vendors, up to CxO level. Clearly grammar and communication ability in general was quite a key requirement. The recruitment process involved submitting a resume and answering standard questions in an application form. There was a deadline beyond which applications wouldn't be considered. Of all the resumes I reviewed one stood out. For two reasons. First, his technical ability, if the resume was to be believed, was impressive. More than a government department could hope for. The second reason was that his answers in the application form tanked. The very first paragraph answer simply stopped in mid-sentence. There were a number of spelling mistakes in the remaining answers. I really liked the resume, so I invited him in for an interview anyway. Turns out he is in fact as good as his resume suggested. The reason for the sloppy application form was that he only spotted the job advertisement at 4pm the day of the application deadline, and had to hustle to get his application in before 5pm. He'd heard about the project and was desperate to be a part of it. He's been one of the best hires I've made. Being fanatically dogmatic about anything in life closes doors you'd never have imagined were even there. I hope I never become that myopic.
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