(July 17, 2006 舊文)

最近讀報,深感一種標準缺席的危機,上網搜尋到這一篇評論指南,試譯之與大家共享。將譯文裡的文章改成時事,對於時事的評論亦應如是。

Commentary Guide
評論指南

Contributed by Jim Crosswhite, English
From History of Literary Criticism

Write each commentary as a letter to the writer of the paper you are reviewing. The purpose of the commentary is to help the writer to produce the best revision possible. In the body of the letter, answer the questions which seem most important for the particular paper you are reading. Always answer questions #1and #3.

評論的撰寫應如同寫一封信給你所要評論的文章的作者,其目的是幫助該作者修改本文成為更好的版本。這樣一封信的內容,應是由你對於以下一些問題的回答所組成的,永遠要回答問題1和問題3,再加上那些與文章性質相關的重要的問題的回答。

Commentary Guide: First Version
Critic:_____________________________
Writer:______________________________

(所要評論的文章標題)
評論人:
作者:


Part One
第一部份

1. What question is the paper trying to answer? What is the question at issue? Is this really an interesting question for this audience? Can the writer make progress toward answering this question in a short paper?
1. 原文裡要回答的問題為何? 為何該問題是重要的? 這個問題對原文的讀者來說是個有趣的問題嗎? 作者是否在其文章裡對這個問題的回答做出貢獻?

2. Do you have the background information you need to understand the question at issue? Is there anything more that needs to be done to show you why the issue is interesting/important/worth one's time?
2. 你是否有足夠的背景知識了解作者所提出的問題? 或是你需要作者進一步闡述為何這個問題是有趣的/重要的/值得花時間來探討的?

3. What answer does the paper give?
3. 原文裡對於這個問題的回答為何?

4. Does the paper support its answer with good reasoning, appropriate examples, quotations, definitions, etc.?
4. 原文裡的回答是否有足夠的理由和推理、適當的舉例、引述他人的言論、或明確的定義?

 

5. Who is the implied audience for this paper? Who would be at least to some degree persuaded by it? What assumptions would such an audience share with the writer?
5. 誰會是該文章的讀者? 誰會受此文的影響而認同作者的觀點,這些讀者和作者有那些共同的假設?

6. Who would reject the reasoning of this paper? Who would be persuaded very little or not at all? What would such people say in response to this paper? Does the paper recognize at least to some degree the objections that could be made to its line of reasoning?
6. 誰會不認同這篇文章的論點?誰會幾乎不受影響?這些人會如何回應這篇文章呢?原文裡的推論有任何關於這些反向論點的著墨嗎?

7. What is the structure of the paper? Does it follow from the central purpose of reasoning with the audience about the question? Do some parts of the paper seem out of place?
7. 原文的架構為何?它是否總是緊扣主旨向讀者解說作者對於問題的推理?是否有部份段落脫離主旨?

8. Has the writer demonstrated a sufficient knowledge of the readings for the course, and have the readings been used well to reason about the question?
8. 作者是否對於同個命題的相關論述具備充足的知識並在原文裡清晰的呈現出來,這些相關論述是否被適當的引用在作者的論點之中?

9. Has the writer earned his or her conclusion? If not, what more could he or she do?
9. 作者的結論是否是水到渠成?如果不是,他應該如何加強?



Part Two
第二部份

10. What expectations does the title of the paper create? What does the title lead you to believe?
10. 作者預期從文章標題達到什麼效果?你讀了標題以後引導你作了什麼猜想?

11. What expectations does the first paragraph create? Based on a reading of the first paragraph, what do you expect the rest of the paper to do?
11. 作者預期從文章的第一個段落達到什麼效果?你讀了第一個段落以後,你預期接下來的文章會講些什麼?

12. Is the paragraphing appropriate? Are the transitions between the paragraphs effective? Do the paragraphing and the transitions help to clarify the line of reasoning?
12. 文章的分段是否合理?段落間的轉折是否有效?文章的分段與轉折是否推進並闡明了作者的推理?

 

13. Do the paragraphs all contribute to the aim of the paper or do some seem to be off task?
13. 每一個段落是否都對命題有所貢獻,或是有些部份不切題旨?

14. How does the paper end? Does the ending have a clear relation to what has come before it??
14. 這篇文章如何結尾?它的結尾是否和前面的段落有清楚的關連?

15. Are there sentence-level problems in the paper? Which one or two kinds of problem seem to cause the most difficulty?
15. 文章裡是否有文句上的問題,以致於導致理解上的困難?

16. What is the single strongest part of the paper? Why?
16. 什麼是這篇文章最強的部份?為什麼?

 

* 原文網址: http://tep.uoregon.edu/resources/exchange/writing/guidelines/commentaryguidejc.html

創作者介紹

iron.snow.ball

ironsnow 發表在 痞客邦 PIXNET 留言(0) 人氣()


留言列表 (0)

發表留言