语言与文风2015newyorker.com编辑精选
为什么学术写作那么“学术”？
Why Is Academic Writing So Academic?
导读
这篇《纽约客》文章追问：学术写作为什么晦涩难懂、圈外人难以进入。评论区把原因拆成几层：术语与引用带来的精确性需求、作者本身的写作能力、非母语写作，以及学科日益孤岛化。对写作者的价值在于，它逼你思考“精确”与“可读”之间如何取舍，以及读者意识到底有多重要。
可以直接用的写作要点
- 01
术语是圈内的高效缩写：动笔前先想清楚“我写给谁看”，再决定用行话还是大白话。
- 02
公式化结构能兜住信息——先掌握本领域的标准结构，把内容说清楚，再谈个人风格。
- 03
跨领域写作时，主动补上圈内人默认的背景和术语解释，否则内容再好也会被编辑判为“太专业”。
- 04
别把晦涩都推给“专业性”：有些难读只是没写好、没为读者着想。
HN 评论精选
术语和引用是领域内的高效沟通工具，晦涩往往源于精确性需求，而非故弄玄虚。
学术写作虽然程度较轻，但和让法律文书读起来令人恼火的是同一个问题：对精确性的需求。此外还有对参考文献的需求——不只是引用，还有口头指涉。术语如果不是某个群体或领域共同使用的一套具体、有功能的关键词和指称，又是什么呢？术语在学术界是高效的，是一种共同标准。我用本领域的术语写作，同行就知道我在说什么，而且精确地知道。遗憾的是，这比费劲造一个巧妙的说法去描述一个已经有现成（虽然难听）词汇的现象要高效得多。
jonnathanson查看英文原文
Academic writing suffers, albeit to a lesser degree, from the same problem that has made legalese so annoying to read: the need for specificity. Also, a need for references. Not just citations, but verbal references. What is jargon, after all, if not a specific and functional set of keywords and referents used in common by a given group or field? Jargon is efficient in academia. It is a common standard. If I write something in my field's jargon, people in that field will know what I'm talking about, and precisely what I'm talking about. This is more efficient, sadly, than trying to turn a clever phrase to describe a phenomenon there's already a perfectly dreadful word for.
学术文风晦涩部分源于作者写作能力不足和公式化写作的兜底作用；新媒介正迫使学者面对传统套路失效的场面。
我觉得作者忽略了一种可能：很多学者就是写不好。很多领域的学术写作极其公式化，正是为了让关键信息无论作者写作水平如何都能传达出去。再加上很多学者用非母语写作，即使母语写作能力强，也未必能转化为长篇、随性的英文散文。不过我同意文章所说，做学术（或观察学术的演进）现在是个有意思的时刻。我很难相信那种通俗写作或道金斯的作品会取代学术期刊枯燥古板的文风。正在发生的是，新的传播方式把学者推到了传统套路失灵的场景里。
jballanc查看英文原文
I think what the author is missing is the possibility that many academics are simply bad writers. Academic writing in many fields is extremely formulaic just so that the relevant information can be communicated regardless of the writing skill of the author. Add to that the fact that many academics are writing in a language that is not their first, so even if they had considerable skill in their mother tongue, there is no guarantee that will translate to long-form, casual English prose. That said, I do agree with the article that it is an interesting time to be an academic, or at least to be observing the progress and development of academia. I highly doubt that populist writing in the vein of "Bad Astronomy" or (heaven forfend) the works of Dawkins will ever replace the dry, staid prose of the academic journal. What is happening is that new means of communicating information are forcing academics into media where the traditional formulae leave them in the lurch.
学科已成孤岛，跨领域可读性的成本极高——但也许这正是问题所在。
这让我想起格罗滕迪克最近的讣告。两位极有名的数学家应《自然》之邀为他写讣告，他们写得基本能让非数学读者看懂，但《自然》最终以“过于专业”为由退稿。仿佛每个学科都成了一座孤岛。我投数学论文时，完全不设想非数学人会读；反过来说，我也不会把它写成非数学人能读的样子。我猜各领域大体如此。我也不确定这一定是坏事：要让每篇文章都能被另一个领域看懂，极其困难且耗时。又或者，这恰恰就是问题所在？
mixedmath查看英文原文
I am reminded of the recent obituary of Grothendieck: http://www.dam.brown.edu/people/mumford/blog/2014/Grothendieck.html Two extremely well-known mathematicians were asked by Nature to write an obituary for the late Grothendieck. They wrote it to be mostly understood by a nonmathematical audience, but Nature ultimately rejected the obituary on it being too technical. It is almost as if each discipline has become an island. When I submit a math paper, I do not at all imagine a nonmathematician will read it. But then again, I also do not write it so that nonmathematicians could read it. I suspect this is largely the same across different fields. I'm also not certain if this is necessarily bad; it would be tremendously hard and time-consuming to make each article understandable to another field. Or maybe this is precisely the problem?
推荐 Pinker 关于学术文风的经典分析，可作为延伸阅读。
另一个视角来自 Pinker 的文章《为什么学术写作这么糟》（附链接）。
cottonseed查看英文原文
Another perspective from Pinker: http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Academics-Writing-Stinks/148989/
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