语言与文风2014npr.org
我们使用的小词，呃，能揭示隐藏的兴趣
Our Use of Little Words Can, Uh, Reveal Hidden Interests
导读
这篇 NPR 报道介绍 Pennebaker 的功能词研究：我们常忽略的“我”等小词，可能透露地位、兴趣和关系；文中举了邮件等例子。对写作者的价值在于提醒：人称和语气不是装饰，会塑造读者对立场与权威的感知。不过评论也提醒要区分相关与因果、注意语境，别把“我”多简单等同于低地位。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
判断“我”字频率时先看场景：自我介绍、主动联系和提供背景会自然增加第一人称，别直接当作地位或心态证据。
- 02
用“我认为”“我的经验是”标明观点不是示弱，而是邀请对话、避免把分歧写成断言。
- 03
警惕权威写作把观点写成“事实”：少用“我”可能制造客观、不可协商的语气，写作者要自觉选择而非默认。
- 04
写科学或研究类内容少用“人类根本做不到”这类绝对化夸张，并如实说明旧文重发或材料来源。
HN 评论精选
“我”频率可能源于自我介绍和语境需求，而非权力意识。
“我们面对有权者时更常使用‘我’，因为更在意自我表现。”但这难道不简单是因为写冷邮件时需要介绍自己并提供一点背景吗？这似乎能合理解释文中两个例子。
bnegreve查看英文原文
> We use "I" more when we talk to someone with power because we're more self-conscious. Isn't it simply because you need to introduce yourself and provide a bit of context when you write an unsolicited email? That seems to be a reasonable explanation for the two examples from the post...
自我介绍和标示观点是语境与对话礼仪，不是地位或不确定性；相关不等于因果。
这个假设，至少所举例子，存在严重误解。自我介绍时必须明确指涉自己，传达“我是谁、背景如何”的信息；这不是低地位信号，而是提供必要语境的必需。若省略这些信息或代词，介绍会显得残缺或不友好。教授把这点与低地位混同，原因大概是：高地位者常被别人主动联系，而对方需要自我介绍，高地位者已为人所知。根本上，该假设混淆了相关与因果。其次，明确标出某些观点是“看法”，并非出于自卑或不确定；在需要讨论的场合（如 HN），这是恰当信号。我提及自己和视角，不是要你无视我的观点，而是邀请你从我的位置看，并邀请你提出其他视角，而不必双方都被迫以“错了！事实是这样：……”开头；你可以回应“我的经验是……”。
Udo查看英文原文
There are severe misconceptions in this hypothesis, or at least in the examples that are being presented. When you are introducing yourself, you have to refer to yourself explicitly. You are trying to convey information about who you are and what your background is. That's not a sign of low status, it's a necessity to transport essential context. If you try to leave that information out, or if you just omit the pronoun, your introduction will inevitably sound broken or unfriendly. I'm guessing the reason why this is being conflated with low status by the professor is simple: if you're high-status, other people initiate contact a lot more often than you do. And when they initiate contact, they need an introduction, whereas you are already known to them. At a fundamental level, this hypothesis as it's being described muddles correlations and causes. Secondly, I'd like to point out that clearly marking certain points as opinion does not come from a perspective of inferiority or uncertainty. Especially in a setting where discussion is warranted, such as here on HN, it's an appropriate signal. When I refer to myself and my perspective, I'm not asking you to disregard my point of view, I'm inviting you to see things from where I'm standing, and I'm also inviting you to present other perspectives without either of us being pressured to lead with assertions like "WRONG! Here's how it really is: [text]". Instead, you are afforded the option to respond with "My experience has been different. Here's why: [text]".
权威写作常把观点伪装成客观事实。
“你会发现与多数人想的完全不同：地位更高的人更少用‘我’。”一个假设：高地位者学会以显得更客观、权威、不容谈判或辩论的方式表达想法。隐含假设是：你的话传达观点，他们的话传达事实。
analog31查看英文原文
>>> What you find is completely different from what most people would think. The person with the higher status uses the word "I" less. Here's a hypothesis. The higher status person has learned to express their thoughts in a way that makes them seem more objective and authoritarian -- and less susceptible to negotiation or debate. The implicit assumption is that your words convey opinions, but their words convey facts.
科学写作应避免“人类做不到”式夸张，并明确交代旧文重发。
事实上，Pennebaker 说，即便母语中，这些功能词对我们基本不可见。“你听不到它们，”他说，“人类就是做不到。”有一整类人靠可靠地做到这一点为生，他们叫演员，而且不止演员擅长。科学讨论中的这种夸张可能吸引一些读者，但很可能疏远至少同样多的人。本文早前版本 2012 年在 NPR 播出。哇——只在末尾补了三四句新话。我希望他们把这条警告放在文章开头而非结尾。
anigbrowl查看英文原文
In fact, says Pennebaker, even in our native language, these function words are basically invisible to us. "You can't hear them," Pennebaker says. "Humans just aren't able to do it." There's an entire class of people who make a profession out of being able to do that reliably. They're called actors, and they're not the only people who are good at this. This sort of hyperbole in discussions of science may engage some readers but probably alienates at least as many more. An earlier version of this story ran on NPR in 2012. Wow - just 3 or 4 new sentences tacked onto the end. I wish they had put this warning at the beginning of the article rather than the end.
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