语言与文风2009chronicle.com编辑精选
50年糟糕语法建议
50 years of bad grammar advice
导读
这篇文章介绍语言学家Pullum对经典写作指南《The Elements of Style》的批评，认为其语法建议过时且有害。评论者则反驳Pullum的偏激，强调这本小书仍有价值，并提醒写作者：规则作为箴言和参考往往比严格指令更实用，学习写作应亲自阅读原作而非依赖二手批评。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
写作规则（如“省略不必要的词”）作为反复提醒的箴言，比当作严格指令更实用。
- 02
学习写作应亲自阅读经典原作，不要只记标题或依赖二手批评。
- 03
批评他人写作时，自身文字应足够好，否则说服力不足。
- 04
简洁生动的表达常需把“there be”或被动结构改为主动有力的动词。
HN 评论精选
Pullum的批评有失公允，S&W的书仍有价值。
Pullum有些好观点，比如反对‘that’和‘which’的无谓区分，但他激烈的谴责显得像学术怨气，错误描述了这本简洁、有用甚至优美的书。他常批评写作教师而非书本身；他对被动语态的挑剔忽略了S&W的优雅改写，如“Dead leaves covered the ground”比“There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground”更生动简洁。
bbg查看英文原文
Pullum makes some good points -- his objection to the irrelevant distinction between 'that' and 'which' is apt -- but I believe that his starkly opinionated denunciation reeks of silly academic spleen and ultimately mischaracterizes this concise, helpful, and even beautiful little book. First, although Pullum inveighs against Strunk and White, he tends to direct his barbs not toward the book itself, but toward writing teachers. For example: "Sadly, writing tutors tend to ignore this moderation, and simply red-circle everything that looks like a passive...." This mode of criticism is rather like blaming the Bible for the sins of the Inquisition -- you can do it, but your criticism falters right away by missing the true target. Where Pullum does criticize the book itself, he accuses it of harboring a fussy and decontextualized view of language. Unfortunately, this very criticism can be directed back at Pullum. For example, when he criticizes the absence of a passive verb in this sentence: "There were a great number of dead leaves lying on the ground", Pullum ignores Strunk and White's elegant and concise rephrase: "Dead leaves covered the ground." Here, "covered", an active, transitive verb taking the direct object "ground", conveys vividly what the verbose and pale construction "were lying", coupled with the prepositional phrase "on the ground", does not. Pullum's fussiness about the meaning of the word "passive" obscures S&W's point: vividness and brevity come together nicely in the active construction. Pullum falls into an abyss of self-contradiction when he concludes Strunk and White do not understand grammar: "But despite the "Style" in the title, much in the book relates to grammar, and the advice on that topic does real damage. It is atrocious. Since today it provides just about all of the grammar instruction most Americans ever get, that is something of a tragedy." Once again Pullum faults The Elements for the sins of its followers, not for its own qualities. But what is most important here is that Pullum first argues (implausibly) that The Elements is a grammar book, and then (incomprehensibly) accuses S&W of having written about grammar when they should have confined themselves to writing about style! Finally, Pullum uncharitably criticizes The Elements as a "bunch of trivial don't-do-this prescriptions." He ignores the fact that S&W explicitly recommend that writers "Put statements in positive form" (section II.19), and follow through on this prescription themselves when they recommend such practices as: "Use definite, specific, concrete language," "Keep related words together," and "Omit needless words." (Pullum criticizes this last recommendation on the ground that it unhelpfully fails to show which words are needless. Once again, Pullum fails to cite S&W's paragraph-long discussion of the matter or to recognize that they offer over a dozen illustrative examples.) To be sure, the Elements is not a perfect book. For one thing, language is not a static object admitting of a timeless description. Furthermore, I would not argue that everyone should use The Elements as guiding light; "de gustibus non disputandum," as Cicero said, about tastes there can be no argument (meaning that tastes do not admit of rational arguments). So if you don't like the book, fine. Still, Pullum's blinkered mischaracterization of the book serves only to get him another publication in his CV, not to enlighten his readership. Although I may be blinkered myself by having grown to love this book in college, I wholeheartedly recommend it as one of the finest and most timeless style manuals available.
Pullum的批评文字本身写得不够好。
要想令人信服地做这种批评，你得写得比E.B.White好，这很难。Pullum那句“The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem...”显得笨拙，不如直接说“doesn't deserve its reputation”。
pg查看英文原文
To pull something like this off convincingly, you have to write better than E. B. White, which is pretty hard to do. The Elements of Style does not deserve the enormous esteem in which it is held by American college graduates. Ug. What a clinker. He sounds like Hector Dexter. And he's not even saying what he means to. Undergrads like the book too; surely he's not deliberately excluding them? He should have just written: The Elements of Style doesn't deserve its reputation.
规则作为口号或提醒对写作实践有用。
“Omit needless words”作为指令可能无用，但作为箴言很有用。写作很多是编辑和重构，反复提醒自己这些原则很好。
mattmaroon查看英文原文
"Many are useless, like "Omit needless words."" Useless as instructions, perhaps, but highly useful as mantras. Much of writing is editing/refactoring, in which case it's great to repeat to yourself "omit needless words", "Be clear", and "Do not explain too much" as you do it.
书很好，要亲自读，不要只看标题或二手批评。
文章除了前13个词外都是垃圾。《The Elements of Style》优雅，提升了我的写作和编程。精华在内容、例子和写作本身，不在标题。那4个句子不是被动语态例子，而是应转为主动语态的“there is”结构。不要二手转述，自己读这本书。
mkyc查看英文原文
I credit the article for giving me cause to celebrate on this 16th, but all past its thirteenth word is trash. The Elements of Style is an elegant book that has improved both my writing and my programming. It will improve yours. It would improve Pullum's, if he ever bothers to read it. The meat isn't in the titles but rather in the content, the examples, and the writing itself. "Do not inject _irrelevant_ opinion" makes a poor title. So too does "Be alert for those needless words that you're bound to write". The titles are just reminders. Don't read just the titles. Read the whole book. The 4 sentences mentioned are not examples of passives. They are examples of "there is" and "could be X" expressions that should be converted into a forceful active voice. Read the book carefully. Criticisms of teachers and universities are irrelevant. How often do students read their texts carefully? Yet the book is short and clear. Don't get a second-hand account - not from a teacher, not from a friend, not from me, and certainly not from [this ignorant pedant] Pullum. Read the book yourself. The book is a wonderful reference, too. Buy or borrow it and read it. Read it three times.
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