Academic English Writing Common Errors — Content Errors

學術英文寫作常見錯誤 Tilburg University

The content of these notes is partly from the CIS Premaster Academic English Course of Tilburg University. The instructor is Dr. Simone Ashby & Diana Schmalzried (coordinator). Please inform me if there is any copyright infringement.

這篇文章會講到學術英文在「內容」的部分的寫作常見錯誤，希望對一些在外奮鬥的中文母語者有點幫助。這些筆記的內容部分來自蒂爾堡大學的CIS Premaster 學術英文課程，講師是 Simone Ashby 和 Diana Schmalzried。純粹教育目的並無盈利，如有侵權請告知。

Clarity 明晰性

• Idea or assertion is vague 想法或陳述模糊的
  e.g., “The social comparison theory explains social comparison as a process where people compare themselves to others to form a proper self-image (Festinger, 1954)”;
  “These social issues are addressed in many different ways, from talking about it with style to talking about it in an aggressive manner.”
  （如何不同、怎樣的 social comparison?）
• Idea or assertion lacks proper foregrounding 想法或陳述缺乏適當的前提或背景，直接提出一個非常識的現象卻沒有引用任何出處。常識的例子如：太陽從東方升起無庸置疑。
  e.g., “This is because GTA is a ‘living world’ with a culture, as it regulates human behavior so that people can be successful and survive (Zielke et al., 2009)”;
  “According to Galegher and Kraut (1994), some of the social concerns were a fair and equal division of roles during writing, coordination of individual contributions, seeking one another’s perspectives on their writing, and co-authorship”;
  “High sensation seeking adolescents are more likely to be affected to cultivation and are more likely to start smoking and drinking because a high sensation seeking personality increases their positive mindset about drinking and smoking.”
• Idea or assertion is too abstract and needs to be more concrete 想法或陳述過於抽象，像是怎樣判斷「有爭議」, e.g., “controversial vs. noncontroversial YouTube content”
• Idea or assertion lacks examples 想法或陳述缺少例證, e.g., “This social comparison through social media has multiple effects on teenagers’ self-esteem.”
• Idea or assertion requires additional explanation/development 有些比較複雜的陳述還需要額外的解釋，不能忽略或跳過
  e.g., “Due to the repetition of violence and the learning of an aggression-related perception, aggression gets embedded in the user’s personality (Anderson et al., 2010)”;
  “Fifa also works with a system where the user can buy in-game credits to buy loot boxes to obtain in-game items.”
• Idea or assertion is overly obvious 不要下非常武斷的結論或陳述，保持學術的彈性討論空間。在學術中還有一個專有詞Hedging，他的意思是「委婉的英文語句」
  e.g., “As a result, engagement in the actual behavior, doing plastic surgery, is more likely when there is a strong intention to engage.”

Evidence-based reasoning 循證推理

• Circular logic 每個論證都要保持良好的邏輯
  e.g., “Internet gaming disorder was added to the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, which makes it a mental illness.”
• Logical leap 避開邏輯上的跳躍
  e.g., “As a result, children can easily identify with the perpetrator of abuse.”
• Argument lacks supporting ideas/evidence/sub-arguments 論點不可缺乏支持的想法/證據/子論點
  e.g., “…but because loot boxes require zero skill and time to open and provide unlimited in-game items, users will often pay money to take the easy path (King et al., 2020).”

Introduction

• Insufficient attempt to engage the reader 在第一段摘要和介紹中沒有讓讀者了解最重要的論點
  e.g., “Instagram is a social photo-sharing platform that everyone over the age of thirteen may use. The target audience is 18–34 years old (McLachlan, 2022). The platform exposes users to thinspiration content.”
• Initial paragraph(s) do not contribute to the narrative 第一個段落對後面的敘述沒有幫助
• Missing essential information 缺少基本訊息，像是研究動機、術語和定義、假設的證據、研究問題等等 (motivation for study, key terms, and definitions, evidence supporting hypothesis, research question)

Literature review

• Lack of clarity regarding which background study details pertain to which in-text citation 沒有明確說明哪些背景研究與哪些文本引用有關
  e.g., (i) “The social nature of CW has been emphasized by several scholars (Snow et al. 1987, Galegher & Kraut 1994, Lowry et al. 2004, Storch 2005, Masoumeh Shiri Aminloo 2013) […]”; (ii) “Some of the social concerns were fair and equal division of roles during writing, coordination of individual contributions, seeking one another’s perspectives on their writing, and co-authorship.”
• Findings lack sufficient context 調查結果缺乏足夠的背景，比如說底下這句直接跳到 Based on their analysis
  e.g.,” Based on their analysis, they concluded that playing violent video games is positively correlated with aggressive behavior and aggressive cognition.”
• Insufficient explanation of background literature 背景文獻解釋不充分，只有一兩句短短的帶過
  e.g., “Erol and Orth (2011) also argue that the teenage years are crucial for evolving healthy and realistic self-esteem”; “Gambling problems can also be linked with mental health problems and suicidal tendencies (Ronzitti et al. 2017).”

Relevance

• Content lacks relevance 內容缺乏相關性，像是底下這句引文和作者要探索的東西無關
  e.g., “Several studies conducted in the US have also revealed insufficient funding for plant conservation (Havens et al. 2014, Martin-Lopez et al. 2009; Laycock et al. 2011)” (in a paper focused on exploring digital solutions for mitigating plant blindness in young adults)
• Scientific and/or societal relevance are not demonstrated 未證明科學和/或社會相關性

Sources (i.e., Content Plagiarism)

• Missing source(s) 沒有標注來源，非常非常重要
  e.g., “Violent video games cause aggressive thoughts to be repeatedly activated”; “Over 90% of teenagers use social media”
• Unclear attribution 引用歸屬不明。如果在一個句子中包含多項引用，不能直接在句尾一次丟出一大堆引用訊息，需要分別標示好
  (note: even if several sentences include content from the same source, simply citing that source at the end of the last sentence is often not sufficiently clear for readers who do not know where the information in the other sentences comes from)
  e.g., “People perceive influencers as more credible when the influencers endorse products that fit with the influencer’s image. For instance, fitness influencers are more likely to be seen as credible if they endorse products like protein shakes rather than ice cream. In addition, product-influencer fit also appears to have a positive effect on consumer purchase intention (Janssen et al., 2021)”

請注意！先不管你的論文有沒有價值，抄襲這件事在整個學術界都非常在意這件事。不明確的歸屬和缺少來源是內容抄襲的形式，可能會導致嚴重後果（忘記也算！）。

Terminology 詞彙運用

• Inconsistent keywords 不一致的關鍵字。雖然學術論文強調要重新組句（paraphrasing），但關鍵詞在文中不要時常更換。
  e.g., (i) “The game is playable for every age, which means that children can be urged to buy loot boxes”; (ii) “Adolescents are therefore sensitive to this type of video game”; (iii) “The unpacking of the loot boxes (the visual, the sound and the animations) is designed to be appealing to the younger audience (Uddin, 2021)”
• Unexplained jargon 不要加入奇怪的行話，不過這只有在母語者中比較常發生，非母語者根本想不到這些。
  e.g., “Currently, their servers still access backend block storage.”
• Misuse of technical terms 不要亂用技術詞彙。
  注意，學術文本中的「correlation」一詞不要亂用，因為這表明已經進行了實際的相關性測試（actual correlation test）；如果不是這種情況，請找到另一種方式來表達你想說的話。
  e.g., “It is significant that men spend more time on YouTube than women, while women have more views”;
  “Celebrity endorsement is a familiar and significant strategy in the marketing world (Chiosa, 2012)”;
  “The results of these studies show that the correlation between gender and the number of likes and credibility from educational items and news items differ from each other”