(翻译)The Science of Scientific Writing

科学写作的科学

本篇作者是George D. Gopen和Judith A. Swan，最初发表在美国科学家杂志上。

0 引言

段(1)~(2)重点在于为了更好地提高写作，就得明白读者如何阅读，而不是完全是作者的自娱。

  (1)科学很难去解读。多数人认为其困难有一定的必要性，是出于科学概念、数据和分析的极度复杂性。而我们认为不一定只可意会不可言传。本文中列举了一系列修饰原则，它们能够使得科学问题的沟通更加清晰而不至于过度简化。结果是实质性的，而不仅仅是美观，即提高写作质量实际上也能提高思考的质量。

 (1) Science is often hard to read. Most people assume that its difficulties are born out of necessity, out of the extreme complexity of scientific concepts, data and analysis. We argue here that complexity of thought need not lead to impenetrability of expression; we demonstrate a number of rhetorical principles that can produce clarity in communication without oversimplifying scientific issues. The results are substantive, not merely cosmetic: Improving the quality of writing actually improves the quality of thought.

  (2)科学论述的基本目的不单单是信息和思想的呈现，而更是实际中的交流或者沟通。尽管作者可能不乐意将所有正确的数据转化为句子和段落，但是更重要的是我们需要让大多数的读者准确接收作者所想的东西。因此，为了更好地提高写作，就得明白读者如何阅读。借助于修辞学，语言学和认知心理学等领域，这种理念开始可以付诸实践。它有助于产生一种基于读者期望这一概念的方法论。

 (2) The fundamental purpose of scientific discourse is not the mere presentation of information and thought, but rather its actual communication. It does not matter how pleased an author might be to have converted all the right data into sentences and paragraphs; it matters only whether a large majority of the reading audience accurately perceives what the author had in mind. Therefore, in order to understand how best to improve writing, we would do well to understand better how readers go about reading. Such an understanding has recently become available through work done in the fields of rhetoric, linguistics and cognitive psychology. It has helped to produce a methodology based on the concept of reader expectations.

1 Writing with the Reader in Mind: Expectation and Context

专业术语：读者期望，语境context，

以下温度的例子说明两点：表格等结构比单纯文字描述更具有可读性；语境放左边，重要信息放右边更符合读者习惯或者说读者期望

  (3)读者也不仅仅是阅读，他们也在尝试诠释文中所表达的意思。对于同样一段文字，“一千个读者眼中则有一千个哈姆雷特”。读者期望是认知学中的概念，它的意思是读者根据从文章结构中获得的线索，对文中的内容做出许多重要的解释性决定。

 (3) Readers do not simply read; they interpret. Any piece of prose, no matter how short, may “mean” in 10 (or more) different ways to 10 different readers. This methodology of reader expectations is founded on the recognition that readers make many of their most important interpretive decisions about the substance of prose based on clues they receive from its structure.

  (4)本质与结构的这种相互作用可以通过一个简单的表格展现。现在我们举例一个液体温度随时间变化的例子，每三分钟测量一次数据并记录成表。这些数据可以通过很多书面结构表示，比如以下两种情况：

 (4) This interplay between substance and structure can be demonstrated by something as basic as a simple table. Let us say that in tracking the temperature of a liquid over a period of time, an investigator takes measurements every three minutes and records a list of temperatures. Those data could be presented by a number of written structures. Here are two possibilities:

这里说的实质应该是指原始数据，然后结构就是指表现这些数据的图表等。

  (5)准确说来两张表格都展示了同样的信息，但是读者通常发现第二种更容易去解释，或者说读懂。也许是因为第二种更为人们熟知。但是，但是，更重要的是，第二种表的结构为读者提供了易于理解的语境(时间)，在该语境中，重要信息以产生规律性期望的方式出现在左侧。 有趣的结果以不太明显的模式出现在右侧，这也是表格所要体现的点。

 (5)Precisely the same information appears in both formats, yet most readers find the second easier to interpret. It may be that the very familiarity of the tabular structure makes it easier to use. But, more significantly, the structure of the second table provides the reader with an easily perceived context (time) in which the significant piece of information appears on the left in a pattern that produces an expectation of regularity; the interesting results appear on the right in a less obvious pattern, the discovery of which is the point of the table.

  (6)但是如果把表格两边对调，就很难去阅读，如下

 (6)If the two sides of this table are reversed, it becomes much harder to read.

  (6) 因为我们通常从左到右阅读，所以更倾向将语境放在左边，这也是我们可以更加高效地熟知读者的地方。我们倾向将新的、重要的信息放在右边，因为这样能够更加吸引读者。

 (6) Since we read from left to right, we prefer the context on the left, where we can more effectively familiarize the reader. We prefer the new, important information on the right, since its job is to intrigue the reader.

  (7)如果将信息放置在大多数读者希望找到的位置，则可以更轻松，更统一地解释信息。读者的这些需求和期望不仅影响表格和插图的解释，还影响文章本身的解释。读者对文章结构中的哪一部分会遇到实质性内容有相对固定的期望，如果作者可以意识到这些位置，那么他们可以更好地控制读者对呈现信息的每部分认知和重视程度。好的作家凭直觉就可以意识到这些期望。这就是为什么他们的文章具有我们所谓的“塑形”。

 (7) Information is interpreted more easily and more uniformly if it is placed where most readers expect to find it. These needs and expectations of readers affect the interpretation not only of the tables and illustrations but also of prose itself. Readers have relatively fixed expectations about where in the structure of the prose they will encounter particular items of its substance. If writers can become consciously aware of these locations, they can better control the degrees of recognition and emphasis a reader will give to the various pieces of information being presented. Good writers are intuitively aware of these expectations; that is why their prose has what we call “shape.”

以下主要抽象阐述科学写作的原则应从读者期望着手

  (8) 在最大的话语单元层面上，读者期望的这一基本概念也许最明显。(论述但愿被定义为具有开头和结尾的任何事物：从句，句子，部分，文章等，最大的即长文章)。例如，一篇论文通常分为几个部分，一般包括简介、实验方法、结果和讨论。如果这些部分相互混淆(比如结果部分中出现过多的实验细节，或者当讨论和结果混在一起)，读者通常同样会感到困惑。在较小的话语单元中，功能部分通常不会有明确划分，但读者始终具有明确的期望，他们会在特定位置搜索某些信息。如果这些结构性期望不断相悖，读者将被迫将精力从理解段落的内容转移到弄清其结构。随着内容的复杂性适度增加，错误解释或未解释的可能性将大大增加。

 (8) This underlying concept of reader expectation is perhaps most immediately evident at the level of the largest units of discourse. (A unit of discourse is defined as anything with a beginning and an end: a clause, a sentence, a section, an article, etc.) A research article, for example, is generally divided into recognizable sections, sometimes labeled Introduction, Experimental Methods, Results and Discussion. When the sections are confused—when too much experimental detail is found in the Results section, or when discussion and results intermingle— readers are often equally confused. In smaller units of discourse the functional divisions are not so explicitly labeled, but readers have definite expectations all the same, and they search for certain information in particular places. If these structural expectations are continually violated, readers are forced to divert energy from understanding the content of a passage to unraveling its structure. As the complexity of the content increases moderately, the possibility of misinterpretation or noninterpretation increases dramatically.

我们在这里介绍了一些将这种方法论应用于科学文献中的研究报告的结果。我们从论文)已发表或已接受或已发表)中摘录了几段，并提出了一些应用从读者期望中获得的原则来重写它们的方法。 但我们并未试图将段落转换为“普适英语”以供大众使用。即我们既没有减少专业术语，也没有削弱科学性。我们并不是为了简化而是为阐述明晰而努力。

We present here some results for applying this methodology to research reports in the scientific literature. We have taken several passages from research articles (either published or accepted or publication) and have suggested ways of rewriting them by applying principles derived from the study of reader expectations. We have not sought to transform passages into “plain English” for the use of the general public; we have neither decreased the jargon nor diluted the science. We have striven not for simplification but for clarification.

2 Reader Expectations for the Structure of Prose

这是本文的第一个示例，原文如下：

Here is our first example of scientific prose, in its original form:

The smallest of the URF’s (URFA6L), a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H-ATPase subunit 8 gene. The functional significance of the other URF’s has been, on the contrary, elusive. Recently, however, immunoprecipitation experiments with antibodies to purified, rotenone-sensitive NADH-ubiquinone oxido-reductase [hereafter referred to as respiratory chain NADH dehydrogenase or Complex I] from bovine heart, as well as enzyme fractionation studies, have indicated that six human URF’s (that is, URF1, URF2, URF3, URF4, URF4L, and URF5, hereafter referred to as ND1, ND2, ND3, ND4, ND4L, and ND5) encode subunits of Complex I. This is a large complex that also contains many subunits synthesized in the cytoplasm.

以下第一次去掉生僻词后的效果依然难以阅读，说明科学写作不仅仅在于科学术语的难以理解。

随便问十个人为什么这段那么难读，估计九个会说科学术语难理解，而有几个会觉得需要更专业的背景知识。这些问题只是困难的一部分。下面是初步简化后的段落，并暂时去除了一些生僻词：

Ask any ten people why this paragraph is hard to read, and nine are sure to mention the technical vocabulary; several will also suggest that it requires specialized background knowledge. These problems turn out to be only a small part of the difficulty. Here is the passage again, with the difficult words temporarily lifted:

The smallest of the URF’s (URFA6L), an [A] has been identified as a [B] subunit 8 gene. The functional significance of the other URF’s has been, on the contrary, elusive. Recently, however, [C] experiments, as well as [D] studies, have indicated that six human URF’s (1-6) encode subunits of Complex I. This is a large complex that also contains many subunits synthesized in the cytoplasm.

现在应该更容易阅读，但是这段还是比较难，读者还是会产生一系列问题：第一句跟最后一句有什么联系？第三句是不是跟第二句矛盾？URF的重要性是否还是难以捉摸？这段是想让引导我们对URF’s展开更多的讨论还是Complex I，还是两者都有？

It may now be easier to survive the journey through the prose, but the passage is still difficult. Any number of questions present themselves: What has the first sentence of the passage to do with the last sentence? Does the third sentence contradict what we have been told in the second sentence? Is the functional significance of URF’s still “elusive”? Will this passage lead us to further discussion about URF’s, or about Complex I, or both?

稍微了解主题并不能消除所有的困惑。此段落的目标读者可能需要拥有至少两项基本的技术信息：首先，“ URF”代表“Uninterrupted Reading Frame”，它指的是了以编码蛋白质的方式组织的一段DNA。 第二，ATPase和NADH氧化还原酶都是能量代谢的核心酶复合物。尽管此信息可能会给您带来一定的舒适感，但它几乎无法回答需要回答的解释性问题。因此似乎读者不仅受科学术语的困扰。

Knowing a little about the subject matter does not clear up all the confusion. The intended audience of this passage would probably possess at least two items of essential technical information: first, “URF” stands for “Uninterrupted Reading Frame,” which describes a segment of DNA organized in such a way that it could encode a protein; second, both ATPase and NADH oxido-reductase are enzyme complexes central to energy metabolism. Although this information may provide some sense of comfort, it does little to answer the interpretive questions that need answering. It seems the reader is hindered by more than just the scientific jargon.

为了解决这个问题，我们需要阐明一些关于读者如何阅读的东西。我们接下来展开第一个读者期望

To get at the problem, we need to articulate something about how readers go about reading. We proceed to the first of several reader expectations.

2.1 Subject-Verb Separation

再看上文引用段落的第一句话。它相对较长，有42个单词，但这并不是造成其冗杂的主要原因。 长句子不一定难以阅读，它们只是很难写。我们应该曾经看到过100多个单词的句子，这些句子容易且有说服力地流向它们明确划分的目的地。这些精巧的句子都具有一些共同点：它们的结构是按读者需要和期望的顺序来向读者提供信息的。

Look again at the first sentence of the passage cited above. It is relatively long, 42 words; but that turns out not to be the main cause of its burdensome complexity. Long sentences need not be difficult to read; they are only difficult to write. We have seen sentences of over 100 words that flow easily and persuasively toward their clearly demarcated destination. Those well-wrought serpents all had something in common: Their structure presented information to readers in the order the readers needed and expected it.

示例段落的第一句则恰好相反：由于非常常见的结构缺陷，它加重了读者的负担，并妨碍了读者的阅读。注意，语法主语（“最小”）与其动词（“已被识别”）之间相距23个单词，占句子的一半以上。读者希望动词后面紧跟一个语法主题。而介于主语和动词之间的任何长度的内容都被理解为是打断，因此也被认为是次要的。

The first sentence of our example passage does just the opposite: it burdens and obstructs the reader, because of an all-too-common structural defect. Note that the grammatical subject (“the smallest”) is separated from its verb (“has been identified”) by 23 words, more than half the sentence. Readers expect a grammatical subject to be followed immediately by the verb. Anything of length that intervenes between subject and verb is read as an interruption, and therefore as something of lesser importance.

读者期望源自对语法解析的迫切需求，只有通过动词的出现才能满足。没有动词，我们不知道主语在做什么，或者句子的全部含义。因此，读者会将注意力集中在动词的到达上，并且抵触中间的大断性片段，不以其重。而这种打断持续的时间越长，打断性片段中实际上包含重要信息的可能性也越大；但是它的结构性位置决定了它将继续被是做打断性信息。不幸的是，读者往往到很晚才发现中间重要性信息的真正价值，即直到句子结束，而没有在主语-动词间的打断之外产生任何有价值的东西。

The reader’s expectation stems from a pressing need for syntactic resolution, fulfilled only by the arrival of the verb. Without the verb, we do not know what the subject is doing, or what the sentence is all about. As a result, the reader focuses attention on the arrival of the verb and resists recognizing anything in the interrupting material as being of primary importance. The longer the interruption lasts, the more likely it becomes that the “interruptive” material actually contains important information; but its structural location will continue to brand it as merely interruptive. Unfortunately, the reader will not discover its true value until too late—until the sentence has ended without having produced anything of much value outside of the subject-verb interruption.

在该段的第一句中，很难评估中间片段的相对重要性。 可以想象，该材料可能非常重要，在这种情况下，作者应该将其移位以显示其重要性。这是将其融入到句子结构中的一种方法：

In the first sentence of the paragraph, the relative importance of the intervening material is difficult to evaluate. The material might conceivably be quite significant, in which case the writer should have positioned it to reveal that importance. Here is one way to incorporate it into the sentence structure:

The smallest of the URF’s is URFA6L, a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene; it has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H-ATPase subunit 8 gene.

另一方面，中间的内容可能仅仅是将注意力从更重要的想法转移开的地方。 在这种情况下，作者应该删除它，从而使文章可以更直接地驱使读者转向其重要点：

On the other hand, the intervening material might be a mere aside that diverts attention from more important ideas; in that case the writer should have deleted it, allowing the prose to drive more directly toward its significant point:

The smallest of the URF’s (URFA6L) has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H-ATPase subunit 8 gene*

只有作者才能告诉我们这些修改中的哪一个更准确地反映了他的意图。

Only the author could tell us which of these revisions more accurately reflects his intentions.

这些修改使我们产生了第二组读者期望。无论大小如何，每个话语单元都将发挥单一作用，从而达到单一目的。在一个句子中，期望该点出现在保留用于强调的特定位置。

These revisions lead us to a second set of reader expectations. Each unit of discourse, no matter what the size, is expected to serve a single function, to make a single point. In the case of a sentence, the point is expected to appear in a specific place reserved for emphasis.

2.2 The Stress Position

读者自然而然地强调句子结尾处的内容，这是一种语言常识。我们将该位置称为“强调位置”。如果作者意识到这种趋势，他可以将重要信息安排在“强调位置”上。结果将大大增加了读者和作者将相同的内容视为值得重点强调的可能性 因此，句子的结构本身可以帮助说服读者理解句子内容的相对价值。

It is a linguistic commonplace that readers naturally emphasize the material that arrives at the end of a sentence. We refer to that location as a “stress position.” If a writer is consciously aware of this tendency, she can arrange for the emphatic information to appear at the moment the reader is naturally exerting the greatest reading emphasis. As a result, the chances greatly increase that reader and writer will perceive the same material as being worthy of primary emphasis. The very structure of the sentence thus helps persuade the reader of the relative values of the sentence’s contents.

将更多的精力引导到句末倾向似乎与我们随时间的推移工作的方式相对应。在开始阅读每个新句子时，我们倾向于采取“精神呼吸”之类的方式，从而唤起了我们关注语法展开的重点。 当我们认识到该句子接近末尾时，我们就开始呼气。呼气产生一种强调感。此外，我们很高兴在工作结束时获得回报，使得持续的努力有所值得。从令人兴奋的内容开始，到黯然失色的结束，这常常使我们失望，破坏了我们的动力。 我们并不是从草莓脆饼开始的，然后一直吃到西兰花。

The inclination to direct more energy to that which arrives last in a sentence seems to correspond to the way we work at tasks through time. We tend to take something like a “mental breath” as we begin to read each new sentence, thereby summoning the tension with which we pay attention to the unfolding of the syntax. As we recognize that the sentence is drawing toward its conclusion, we begin to exhale that mental breath. The exhalation produces a sense of emphasis. Moreover, we delight in being rewarded at the end of a labor with something that makes the ongoing effort worthwhile. Beginning with the exciting material and ending with a lack of luster often leaves us disappointed and destroys our sense of momentum. We do not start with a strawberry shortcake and work our way up to the broccoli.

当作者将句子的强调内容放在强调位置以外的任何位置时，可能会发生以下两种情况之一。两者都不好。首先，读者可能会发现显然不值得强调的材料占据着强调位置。在这种情况下，读者必须在没有任何其他结构线索的情况下辨别出句子中的其他内容哪些最有可能成为重点，而没有第二种结构性迹象可以依靠。在冗长，密集或复杂的句子中，读者的机会将激增，以至于无法正确解释散文。第二种可能性甚至更糟：即使作者不打算作出任何强调，读者也会发现似乎无法接受强调的东西占据了"强调位置"。在这种情况下，读者可能会着重这种冒名顶替的内容，而作者将失去一个重要的机会来正面影响读者的解释过程。

When the writer puts the emphatic material of a sentence in any place other than the stress position, one of two things can happen; both are bad. First, the reader might find the stress position occupied by material that clearly is not worthy of emphasis. In this case, the reader must discern, without any additional structural clue, what else in the sentence may be the most likely candidate for emphasis. There are no secondary structural indications to fall back upon. In sentences that are long, dense or sophisticated, chances soar that the reader will not interpret the prose precisely as the reader intended. The second possibility is even worse: The reader may find the stress position occupied by something that does not appear capable of receiving emphasis, even though the writer did not intend to give it any stress. In that case, the reader is likely to emphasize this imposter material, and the writer will have lost an important opportunity to influence the reader’s interpretive process.

强调位置的规模可能因句而异。有时它由一个单词组成，有时它会延伸到几行。决定性因素即：强调位置与句法闭合时刻一致。当读者知道该子句或句子中除了当前正在阅读的内容外，什么都没有，那么读者已经到达强调位置的开头。因此，如果已清楚地宣布一个完整列表（编号和缩进列表）已经保留为该句子的全部内容，则可以占据该句子的重音位置。反过来，该列表的每个成员可能都有其自己的内在强调位置，因为每个成员可能会产生自己的句法闭合。

The stress position can change in size from sentence to sentence. Sometimes it consists of a single word; sometimes it extends to several lines. The definitive factor is this: The stress position coincides with the moment of syntactic closure. A reader has reached the beginning of the stress position when she knows there is nothing left in the clause or sentence but the material presently being read. Thus a whole list, numbered and indented, can occupy the stress position of a sentence if it has been clearly announced as being all that remains of that sentence. Each member of that list, in turn, may have its own internal stress position, since each member may produce its own syntactic closure.

在句子中，可以通过使用适当使用的冒号或分号来形成次要强调位置；按照语法惯例，这些标点符号之前的材料必须能够完整地独立存在。因此，只要对每条新的，有价值的信息中间进行句法闭合，就可以轻易地将句子扩展到数十个单词。我们对原始句子的修改之一可以作为示例：

Within a sentence, secondary stress positions can be formed by the appearance of a properly used colon or semicolon; by grammatical convention, the material preceding these punctuation marks must be able to stand by itself as a complete sentence. Thus, sentences can be extended effortlessly to dozens of words, as long as there is a medial syntactic closure for every piece of new, stress-worthy information along the way. One of our revisions of the initial sentence can serve as an example:

The smallest of the URF’s is URFA6L, a 207-nucleotide (nt) reading frame overlapping out of phase the NH2-terminal portion of the adenosinetriphosphatase (ATPase) subunit 6 gene; it has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H -
ATPase subunit 8 gene.

通过使用分号，我们建立了第二个强调位置，以容纳可能需要强调的第二条信息。

By using a semicolon, we created a second stress position to accommodate a second piece of information that seemed to require emphasis.

现在基于读者期望，我们有三项修饰原则：首先，语法主题应尽快跟上动词； 其次，无论大小，每个话语单元都应发挥单一作用或提出观点。 第三，意在强调的信息应出现在句法闭合点上。 使用这些原则，我们可以开始阐明示例文章的问题。

We now have three rhetorical principles based on reader expectations: First, grammatical subjects should be followed as soon as possible by their verbs; second, every unit of discourse, no matter the size, should serve a single function or make a single point; and, third, information intended to be emphasized should appear at points of syntactic closure. Using these principles, we can begin to unravel the problems of our example prose.

请注意原段落的第三句(62词)中的主谓语分离：

Note the subject-verb separation in the 62-word third sentence of the original passage:

Recently, however, immunoprecipitation experiments with antibodies to purified, rotenone-sensitive NADH-ubiquinone oxido-reductase [hereafter referred to as respiratory chain NADH dehydrogenase or Complex I] from bovine heart, as well as enzyme fractionation studies, have indicated that six human URF’s (that is, URF1, URF2, URF3, URF4, URF4L, and URF5, hereafter referred to as ND1, ND2, ND3, ND4, ND4L, and ND5) encode subunits of Complex I. This is a large complex that also contains many subunits synthesized in the cytoplasm.

在主语(“experiments”)后，读者必须先经过27个单词（包括三个连词with,to.from，一个中括号打断和一个“as well as”)才能接上动词"have indicated"，而这个动词竟然毫无信息量，虎头蛇尾得令人失望。还没等回过神来，读者又到了同样情况的that从句这里，其中新主语（“six human URF’s”）与其动词（“encode”）之间又叉开20个单词。

After encountering the subject (“experiments”), the reader must wade through 27 words (including three hyphenated compound words, a parenthetical interruption and an “as well as” phrase) before alighting on the highly uninformative and disappointingly anticlimactic verb (“have indicated”). Without a moment to recover, the reader is handed a “that” clause in which the new subject (“six human URF’s) is separated from its verb (“encode”) by yet another 20 words.

如果我们应用对剩下的例句应用上面提到的三项原则:首先，语法主题应尽快跟上动词； 其次，无论大小，每个话语单元都应发挥单一作用或提出观点。 第三，意在强调的信息应出现在句法闭合点上，每个句子都可以有很多修订版本。这些修订可能在结构上向读者指示要赋予信息的各种权重和平衡的方式上，彼此之间可能有很大不同。如果作者将所有值得强调的内容放在强调位置上，那么我们作为读者团体就更有可能对这些句子做统一的解读。

If we applied the three principles we have developed to the rest of the sentences of the example, we could generate a great many revised versions of each. These revisions might differ significantly from one another in the way their structures indicate to the reader the various weights and balances to be given to the information. Had the author placed all stress-worthy material in stress positions, we as a reading community would have been far more likely to interpret these sentences uniformly.

我们以“可能性”来讨论这个问题，因为我们认为它的含义不仅仅在于话语本身；“含义”需要文本和读者的共同参与。给定无限个解读者，所有句子都可以无限解读的。但是，作为读者团体，我们倾向于就从特定表述中提取出某一些最有可能的含义达成默契。我们不能让使一个句子只有一层含义。我们只能提高大多数读者倾向于按照我们的意图来解读我们的话语的可能性。在作者更加自觉地意识到这里提出的各种期望之后，才能取得如斯成功。

We couch this discussion in terms of “likelihood” because we believe that meaning is not inherent in discourse by itself; “meaning” requires the combined participation of text and reader. All sentences are infinitely interpretable, given an infinite number of interpreters. As communities of readers, however, we tend to work out tacit agreements as to what kinds of meaning are most likely to be extracted from certain articulations. We cannot succeed in making even a single sentence mean one and only one thing; we can only increase the odds that a large majority of readers will tend to interpret our discourse according to our intentions. Such success will follow from authors becoming more consciously aware of the various reader expectations presented here.

这是前面例子中的修订版之一：

Here is one set of revisionary decisions we made for the example:

The smallest of the URF’s, URFA6L, has been identified as the animal equivalent of the recently discovered yeast H-ATPase subunit 8 gene; but the functional significance of other URF’s has been more elusive. Recently, however, several human URF’s have been shown to encode subunits of rotenone-sensitive NADH-ubiquinone oxido-reductase. This is a large complex that also contains many subunits synthesized in the cytoplasm; it will be referred to hereafter as respiratory chain NADH dehydrogenase or Complex I. Six subunits of Complex I were shown by enzyme fractionation studies and immunoprecipitation experiments to be encoded by six human URF’s (URF1, URF2, URF3, URF4, URF4L, and URF5); these URF’s will be referred to subsequently as ND1, ND2, ND3, ND4, ND4L, and ND5.

调整句长既不成问题，也不是解决办法。可以看到，此处修订后的版本并不明显短于原始版本，但是它很容易解读。我们确实删除了某些单词，但不是基于冗长考虑。（特别是我们修订的最后一句话）。

Sheer length was neither the problem nor the solution. The revised version is not noticeably shorter than the original; nevertheless, it is significantly easier to interpret. We have indeed deleted certain words, but not on the basis of wordiness or excess length. (See especially the last sentence of our revision).

句子太长时该如何呢？可读性公式的建立者们会让我们相信，如果句子超过一定数量的单词（最喜欢的是29个）那么句子将难以理解。但是我们不这么认为，我们已经看到了只有10个单词却几乎无法理解的句子，也看到即使是100个单词的句子也能较为轻松地对付。为了取代字数限制的概念，我们提供如下定义：如果句子中有比当前强调位置更合适的强调位置，那么称该句子太长。此时如果没有强调位置的线索来定位需要强调的内容，那么读者可能使用自己的方法来判断句中的那一部分可能是重要的。

When is a sentence too long? The creators of readability formulas would have us believe there exists some fixed number of words (the favorite is 29) past which a sentence is too hard to read. We disagree. We have seen 10-word sentences that are virtually impenetrable and, as mentioned above, 100-word sentences that flow effortlessly to their points of resolution. In place of the word-limit concept, we offer the following definition: A sentence is too long when it has more viable candidates for stress positions than there are stress positions available. Without the stress position’s locational clue that its material is intended to be emphasized, readers are left too much to their own devices in deciding just what else in a sentence might be considered important.

在修订的例段中，我们对哪些部分需要忽略哪些部分需要强调做了一定的决策。即将主语和动词放在一起以减轻读者的语法负担，或者把值得强调的内容放在强调位置上，并且舍弃无法判断重要联系的内容。这样一来，我们就获得了一个更清晰的段落，但还不一定能反映出作者的意图。它仅反映了我们对作者意图的解读。但是结构上的问题越多，大多读者将越无法完全按照作者的意图理解话语。

In revising the example passage, we made certain decisions about what to omit and what to emphasize. We put subjects and verbs together to lessen the reader’s syntactic burdens; we put the material we believed worthy of emphasis in stress positions; and we discarded material for which we could not discern significant connections. In doing so, we have produced a clearer passage—but not one that necessarily reflects the author’s intentions; it reflects only our interpretation of the author’s intentions. The more problematic the structure, the less likely it becomes that a grand majority of readers will perceive the discourse in exactly the way the author intended.

许多读者（甚至可能是作者）可能会不同意我们的某些选择。若如此，则这种分歧正凸显了我们的观点，即原始内容或未能清晰地传达其思想及联系。如果我们碰巧和您一样解读了相同的段落，那么我们可以提出不同的观点：没有人需要像我们所做的那样辛苦，来深掘这点篇幅的单个段落。

It is probable that many of our readers—and perhaps even the authors—will disagree with some of our choices. If so, that disagreement underscores our point: The original failed to communicate its ideas and their connections clearly. If we happened to have interpreted the passage as you did, then we can make a different point: No one should have to work as hard as we did to unearth the content of a single passage of this length.

2.3 The Topic Position

总结一下关于强调位置的原则，我们有句谚语：“将最好的留在最后”。 总结关于句子另一端(如句首)的原则（我们将其称为主题位置），我们有一个谚语上的矛盾，即“第一要紧”。 在强调位置处，读者需要并且期望封闭和充实； 在主题位置，读者需要并期望有观点和背景。 由于阅读理解受主题位置中所显示内容的影响很大，因此作者应格外谨慎地控制句子开头出现的内容。

To summarize the principles connected with the stress position, we have the proverbial wisdom, “Save the best for last.” To summarize the principles connected with the other end of the sentence, which we will call the topic position, we have its proverbial contradiction, “First things first.” In the stress position the reader needs and expects closure and fulfillment; in the topic position the reader needs and expects perspective and context. With so much of reading comprehension affected by what shows up in the topic position, it behooves a writer to control what appears at the beginning of sentences with great care.

句子开头的信息为读者建立了一个以句子为单位斟酌该句的视角：读者期望一个话语单元成为有关谁首先出现的故事。 “蜜蜂驱散花粉”和“花粉被蜜蜂驱散”是关于同一事实的两个不同但同样可观的句子。前者告诉我们有关蜜蜂的一些信息，后者则告诉我们有关花粉的一些信息。后者的被动性本身并不影响其质量；实际上，如果“花粉被蜜蜂驱散”出现在一段旨在告诉我们有关花粉的连续故事的段落中，它将是两者中更好的一句，此时花粉的故事会是一个被动的故事。

The information that begins a sentence establishes for the reader a perspective for viewing the sentence as a unit: Readers expect a unit of discourse to be a story about whoever shows up first. “Bees disperse pollen” and “Pollen is dispersed by bees” are two different but equally respectable sentences about the same facts. The first tells us something about bees; the second tells us something about pollen. The passivity of the second sentence does not by itself impair its quality; in fact, “Pollen is dispersed by bees” is the superior sentence if it appears in a paragraph that intends to tell us a continuing story about pollen. Pollen’s story at that moment is a passive one.

读者也希望处于主题位置的内容能够为他们提供联系（向后看）和语境（向前看）。主题位置的信息通过使读者将其反向联系到上文的讨论，为即将到来的内容解读作准备。尽管联系和语境可以从多种来源获得，但它们主要来自读者在该特定论述中已经读到的内容。我们将这种已经熟悉的、先前介绍的内容称为“旧信息”，否则在话语中首次出现的内容是“新信息”。 当新信息的重要性足以使得到强调时，它在强调位置处将发挥最佳作用。

Readers also expect the material occupying the topic position to provide them with linkage (looking backward) and context (looking forward). The information in the topic position prepares the reader for upcoming material by connecting it backward to the previous discussion. Although linkage and context can derive from several sources, they stem primarily from material that the reader has already encountered within this particular piece of discourse. We refer to this familiar, previously introduced material as “old information.” Conversely, material making its first appearance in a discourse is “new information.” When new information is important enough to receive emphasis, it functions best in the stress position.

当旧信息始终处于主题位置时，它可以帮助读者构建论证的逻辑流程：它将注意力集中在讨论的一个特定环节上，既向后倾又向前倾。 相反，如果主题位置始终被无法建立联系语境的内容占据，那么读者将很难感知与前一句子的联系以及新句子在整个段落发展中的预期作用。

When old information consistently arrives in the topic position, it helps readers to construct the logical flow of the argument: It focuses attention on one particular strand of the discussion, both harkening backward and leaning forward. In contrast, if the topic position is constantly occupied by material that fails to establish linkage and context, readers will have difficulty perceiving both the connection to the previous sentence and the projected role of the new sentence in the development of the paragraph as a whole.

这里给出第二个接下来要讨论的论文例段：

Here is a second example of scientific prose that we shall attempt to improve in subsequent discussion:

Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are approximately uniform. Therefore, in first approximation, one may expect that large ruptures of the same fault segment will occur at approximately constant time intervals. If subsequent mainshocks have different amounts of slip across the fault, then the recurrence time may vary, and the basic idea of periodic mainshocks must be modified. For great plate boundary ruptures the length and slip often vary by a factor of 2. Along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the recurrence interval is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock.

这种段落可以以微妙的方式使读者对自己产生不适感。 单个句子给人以时尚的印象：它们没有特别长或令人费解。 他们的词汇是适当的专业知识，但不超出受过一般教育的读者的理解范围； 并且没有语法和切题错误。然而，初读到段尾时许多人还不知道写了什么以及之后如何展开。发生这种情况时，我们往往会因没有集中注意力而自责。实际上，错不在于我们，而在于作者。

This is the kind of passage that in subtle ways can make readers feel badly about themselves. The individual sentences give the impression of being intelligently fashioned: They are not especially long or convoluted; their vocabulary is appropriately professional but not beyond the ken of educated general readers; and they are free of grammatical and dictional errors. On first reading, however, many of us arrive at the paragraph’s end without a clear sense of where we have been or where we are going. When that happens, we tend to berate ourselves for not having paid close enough attention. In reality, the fault lies not with us, but with the author.

我们可以通过仔细查看每个句子的主题位置中的信息来提炼问题：

We can distill the problem by looking closely at the information in each sentence’s topic position:

Large earthquakes
The rates
Therefore . . . one
subsequent mainshocks
great plate boundary ruptures
the southern segment of the San Andreas fault the smaller the standard deviation . . .

这些信息中的大部分是在本段中首次出现，也正是读者寻找旧信息的位置。结果，故事的重点不断在变化。只考虑主题位置中的内容，即便只有两个读者也不大可能对该段构造出完全相同的故事。

Much of this information is making its first appearance in this paragraph—in precisely the spot where the reader looks for old, familiar information. As a result, the focus of the story contains shifts. Given just the material in the topic positions, no two readers would be likely to construct exactly the same story for the paragraph as a whole.

如果我们尝试将每个句子与其邻句的联系拼凑起来，我们会注意到某些旧信息不断出现。比如关于地震之间的重现时间，就看到很多次：第一句话介绍了地震之间的非随机间隔的概念；第二句话告诉我们，由于构造板块的运动造成的复发率基本一致。第三句话补充说，大地震的复发率也应该是可以预见的。第四句补充说，复发率在某些情况下会有所不同；第五句增加了有关一个特定变化的信息；第六句话增加了加利福尼亚州的复发率示例；最后一句话告诉我们有关如何统计地描述复发率的一些信息。“复发率”的重复构成了该段中旧信息的主要内容。不幸的是，它很少出现在句子的开头以保持故事的连续性。

If we try to piece together the relationship of each sentence to its neighbors, we notice that certain bits of old information keep reappearing. We hear a good deal about the recurrence time between earthquakes: The first sentence introduces the concept of nonrandom intervals between earthquakes; the second sentence tells us that recurrence rates due to the movement of tectonic plates are more or less uniform; the third sentence adds that the recurrence rate of major earthquakes should also be somewhat predictable; the fourth sentence adds that recurrence rates vary with some conditions; the fifth sentence adds information about one particular variation; the sixth sentence adds a recurrence-rate example from California; and the last sentence tells us something about how recurrence rates can be described statistically. This refrain of “recurrence intervals” constitutes the major string of old information in the paragraph. Unfortunately, it rarely appears at the beginning of sentences, where it would help us maintain our focus on its continuing story.

在阅读中，正如大多数经验中一样，我们需要在适应新环境之前去熟悉新环境。连续用新信息开头旧信息结尾会同时在开头丧失舒适和方向感以及在句末失去充实感。这误导了读者到底讲述了谁的故事并给读者增加了新信息的负担，即必须将新信息带到句子中才能与之前的讨论联系起来，这就造成了作者希望读者强调哪种材料的歧义。所有这些干扰因素都迫使读者耗费过多的精力来解读文章结构，而仅剩下一点精力可用于解读内容。

In reading, as in most experiences, we appreciate the opportunity to become familiar with a new environment before having to function in it. Writing that continually begins sentences with new information and ends with old information forbids both the sense of comfort and orientation at the start and the sense of fulfilling arrival at the end. It misleads the reader as to whose story is being told; it burdens the reader with new information that must be carried further into the sentence before it can be connected to the discussion; and it creates ambiguity as to which material the writer intended the reader to emphasize. All of these distractions require that readers expend a disproportionate amount of energy to unravel the structure of the prose, leaving less energy available for perceiving content.

我们可以开始按照以下三项要点修改例段：

1. 用于向后联系的的旧信息出现在主题位置
2. 人物或故事主题出现在主题位置
3. 新的值得强调的信息出现在重点位置

We can begin to revise the example by ensuring the following for each sentence:

1. The backward-linking old information appears in the topic position.
2. The person, thing or concept whose story it is appears in the topic position.
3. The new, emphasis-worthy information appears in the stress position.

现在基于哪些内容值得强调的假设，这是提出的修改版：

Now, based on these assumptions about what deserves stress, here is our proposed revision:
Large earthquakes along a given fault segment do not occur at random intervals because it takes time to accumulate the strain energy for the rupture. The rates at which tectonic plates move and accumulate strain at their boundaries are roughly uniform. Therefore, nearly constant time intervals (at first approximation) would be expected between large ruptures of the same fault segment. [However?], the recurrence time may vary; the basic idea of periodic mainshocks may need to be modified if subsequent mainshocks have different amounts of slip across the fault. [Indeed?], the length and slip of great plate boundary ruptures often vary by a factor of 2. [For example?], the recurrence interval along the southern segment of the San Andreas fault is 145 years with variations of several decades. The smaller the standard deviation of the average recurrence interval, the more specific could be the long term prediction of a future mainshock.

原始段落存在的许多问题现在首次浮出水面。是不是第一句话或第二句话中没有随机间隔发生地震的原因？建议的“但是”，“确实”和“例如”的选择在这些点上是否表达了联系？（所有这些连接在原始段落中都未作清楚说明。）如果“例如”是一个不准确的过渡语，那么San Andreas断层实例如何准确地连接到“变化2倍的破裂”？作者是否在争辩说，由于断层运动经常发生变化，因此复发率必须有所不同吗？还是作者准备让我们进行讨论，尽管存在这种差异，我们仍然如何能够预测地震？最后一个问题仍然没有得到回答，因为最后一句话留下了经常发生的地震。鉴于这是本文的第一段，文章最有可能讨论哪种类型的地震？总而言之，我们现在更加了解该段落在初读时并未传达给我们多少信息。可以看到，我们最大的困难并不是由于阅读技巧上的不足，而是由于作者缺乏对读者的结构需求的理解。

Many problems that had existed in the original have now surfaced for the first time. Is the reason earthquakes do not occur at random intervals stated in the first sentence or the second? Are the suggested choices of “however,” “indeed,” and “for example” the right ones to express the connections at those points? (All these connections were left unarticulated in the original paragraph.) If “for example” is an inaccurate transitional phrase, then exactly how does the San Andreas fault example connect to ruptures that “vary by a factor of 2? Is the author arguing that recurrence rates must vary because fault movements often vary? Or is the author preparing us for a discussion of how in spite of such variance we might still be able to predict earthquakes? This last question remains unanswered because the final sentence leaves behind earthquakes that recur regularly. Given that this is the first paragraph of the article, which type of earthquake will the article most likely proceed to discuss? In sum, we are now more aware of how much the paragraph had not communicated to us on first reading. We can see that most of our difficulty was owing not to any deficiency in our reading skills but rather to the author’s lack of comprehension of our structural needs as readers.

根据经验，新旧信息的错放成为当今美国专业写作中的首要问题。问题的根源不难发现：大多数作家都是线性地（从左到右）并且随着时间不断地创作文章的。 当他们开始造句时，他们通常的主要焦虑是如何在重要的新灵感溜掉之前就抓住它。他们很自然地急于在纸上记录新信息，然后他们可以在闲暇时制作与先前的论述联系起来的情境内容。始终如一地做这些事情的作家，更多地是出于自己的需要来减轻自己的信息负担，而不是满足读者对接收内容的需要。 读者期望的方法论明确地表达了读者的需求，从而使作者有意识地认识到结构性问题以及解决问题的方法。

In our experience, the misplacement of old and new information turns out to be the No. 1 problem in American professional writing today. The source of the problem is not hard to discover: Most writers produce prose linearly (from left to right) and through time. As they begin to formulate a sentence, often their primary anxiety is to capture the important new thought before it escapes. Quite naturally they rush to record that new information on paper, after which they can produce at their leisure the contextualizing material that links back to the previous discourse. Writers who do this consistently are attending more to their own need for unburdening themselves of their information than to the reader’s need for receiving the material. The methodology of reader expectations articulates the reader’s needs explicitly, thereby making writers consciously aware of structural problems and ways to solve them.

澄清说明：许多听到此结构建议的人倾向于将其简化为以下规则：“将旧信息置于主题位置，将新信息置于强调位置。” 这样的规则是不可能的。 由于按照定义，所有信息都是旧信息或新信息，因此主题位置和强调位置之间的空间也必须填充新旧信息。 因此，原则（而非规则）应说明如下：“在主题位置放置向后链接的旧信息； 在强调位置处放置希望读者强调的新信息。”

这里向后链接的意思应该就是由旧信息或者语境链接后面的重点信息

A note of clarification: Many people hearing this structural advice tend to oversimplify it to the following rule: “Put the old information in the topic position and the new information in the stress position.” No such rule is possible. Since by definition all information is either old or new, the space between the topic position and the stress position must also be filled with old and new information. Therefore the principle (not rule) should be stated as follows: “Put in the topic position the old information that links backward; put in the stress position the new information you want the reader to emphasize.”

2.4 Perceiving Logical Gaps

当旧信息根本不在句子中出现时，无论是在主题位置还是在其他位置，读者都将自己构建逻辑链接。通常，这种联系在作者脑海中非常清晰以至于似乎没有必要陈述。此时，作家就低估了阅读过程中固有的困难和模棱两可。我们的第三个示例试图说明如何注意旧信息和新信息的位置从而知晓作者在何处忽略了表达基本联系。

When old information does not appear at all in a sentence, whether in the topic position or elsewhere, readers are left to construct the logical linkage by themselves. Often this happens when the connections are so clear in the writer’s mind that they seem unnecessary to state; at those moments, writers underestimate the difficulties and ambiguities inherent in the reading process. Our third example attempts to demonstrate how paying attention to the placement of old and new information can reveal where a writer has neglected to articulate essential connections.
The enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation between the nucleoside bases 2’deoxyguanosine (dG) and 2’deoxycytidine (dC) has been determined by direct measurement. dG and dC were derivatized at the 5’ and 3’ hydroxyls with triisopropylsilyl groups to obtain solubility of the nucleosides in non-aqueous solvents and to prevent the ribose hydroxyls from forming hydrogen bonds. From isoperibolic titration measurements, the enthalpy of dC:dG base pair formation is -6.65+0.32 kcal/mol.

尽管阅读文章的困难可能部分源于其丰富的专业技术术语，但更多的困难可以归因于其结构性问题。这些问题现在已经很熟悉了：比如我们不确定在什么时候都在讲述谁的故事。 在第一句中，主语和动词被广泛分开；第二句话只有一个强调位置，但是可能需要强调的信息却有两三条-“solubility . . . solvents,” “prevent . . . from forming hydrogen bonds”以及 “triisopropylsilyl groups.” 这些视角暗示了以下修订策略：

Although part of the difficulty of reading this passage may stem from its abundance of specialized technical terms, a great deal more of the difficulty can be attributed to its structural problems. These problems and now familiar: We are not sure at all times whose story is being told; in the first sentence the subject and verb are widely separated; the second sentence has only one stress position but two or three pieces of information that are probably worthy of emphasis—“solubility . . . solvents,” “prevent . . . from forming hydrogen bonds” and perhaps “triisopropylsilyl groups.” These perceptions suggest the following revision tactics:

1. 倒装首句，以使（a）主语-动词之间不间断，并且（b）在强调位置引入“ dG”和“ dC”作为新的有趣信息。（请注意，倒装句子需要声明进行了measure的人；由于作者进行了首次直接measure，因此在主题位置处最好直接声明作者的代词即we。）
2. 由于“dG” 和“dC”在第二句中成为了旧信息，因此需要将其置前到主题位置
3. 由于“triisopropylsilyl groups”是重要的新信息，因此需要建立一个强调位置。
4. “Triisopropylsilyl groups” 接下来成为了描述其影响的从句的旧信息，因此要放置到从句中的主题位置
5. 通过使用标记词“both.”来提醒读者，期望达到两种不同的效果。“Both”提醒读者两个新信息将到达一个强调位置。

1. Invert the first sentence, so that (a) the subject-verb complement connection is unbroken, and (b) “dG” and “dC” are introduced in the stress position as new and interesting information. (Note that inverting the sentence requires stating who made the measurement; since the authors performed the first direct measurement, recognizing their agency in the topic position may well be appropriate.)
2. Since “dG” and “dC” become the old information in the second sentence, keep them up front in the topic position.
3. Since “triisopropylsilyl groups” is new and important information here, create for it a stress position.
4. “Triisopropylsilyl groups” then becomes the old information of the clause in which its effects are described; place it in the topic position of this clause.
5. Alert the reader to expect the arrival of two distinct effects by using the flag word “both.” “Both” notifies the reader that two pieces of new information will arrive in a single stress position.

这是基于以上决策的部分修订：

Here is a partial revision based on these decisions:
We have directly measured the enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation between the nucleoside bases 2’deoxyguanosine (dG) and 2’deoxycytidine (dC). dG and dC were derivatized at the 5’ and 3’ hydroxyls with triisopropylsilyl groups; these groups serve both to solubilize the nucleosides in non-aqueous solvents and to prevent the ribose hydroxyls from forming hydrogen bonds. From isoperibolic titration measurements, the enthalpy of dC:dG base pair formation is -6.65+0.32 kcal/mol.

现在，轮廓变得可见，但是仍然存在很大的逻辑空白。 读完第二句话后，我们希望能看到更多有关这两种影响的知识，这些影响足以使他们可以处于强调位置。但是，当我们在后面一句话中并未提及这些影响时，我们就会失去期望：“From isoperibolic titration measurements, the enthalpy of dC:dG base pair formation is -6.65+0.32 kcal/mol.” 作者们忽略了解释他们进行的推导（在第二句话中）和他们进行的测量（在第三句话中）之间的关系。 具有讽刺意味的是，这正是他们最希望在这里提出的观点。

The outlines of the experiment are now becoming visible, but there is still a major logical gap. After reading the second sentence, we expect to hear more about the two effects that were important enough to merit placement in its stress position. Our expectations are frustrated, however, when those effects are not mentioned in the next sentence: “From isoperibolic titration measurements, the enthalpy of dC:dG base pair formation is -6.65+0.32 kcal/mol.” The authors have neglected to explain the relationship between the derivatization they performed (in the second sentence) and the measurements they made (in the third sentence). Ironically, that is the point they most wished to make here.

此时尤其是精明的化学家读者可能会利用他们的专业知识，默默地提供缺失的联系。而其他读者则无所适从。这是我们认为作者要表达的意思的一个版本，另外还有两个句子需要核酸化学知识基础：

At this juncture, particularly astute readers who are chemists might draw upon their specialized knowledge, silently supplying the missing connection. Other readers are left in the dark. Here is one version of what we think the authors meant to say, with two additional sentences supplied from a knowledge on nucleic acid chemistry:

We have directly measured the enthalpy of hydrogen bond formation between the nucleoside bases 2’deoxyguanosine (dG) and 2’deoxycytidine (dC). dG and dC were derivatized at the 5’ and 3’ hydroxyls with triisopropylsilyl groups; these groups serve both to solubilize the nucleosides in non-aqueous solvents and to prevent the ribose hydroxyls from forming hydrogen bonds. Consequently, when the derivatized nucleosides are dissolved in non-aqueous solvents, hydrogen bonds form almost exclusively between the bases. Since the interbase hydrogen bonds are the only bonds to form upon mixing, their enthalpy of formation can be determined directly by measuring the enthalpy of mixing. From our isoperibolic titration measurements, the enthalpy of dC:dG base pair formation is -6.65+0.32 kcal/mol.

现在，每句都顺着之前的逻辑地进行。即便不知道处在哪里以及之前话语将要展开的脉络，我们也不会徘徊得离本句太远。并且最后一句的“measure”已成为旧信息，可以追溯到前一句的“measured directly”（它也实现了本段开始时“we have directly measured”的承诺。）。通过了解读者期望，我们能够发现不连续性，提出缩小代沟的策略，并重新安排文章结构，从而增加了科学内容的可及性。

Each sentence now proceeds logically from its predecessor. We never have to wander too far into a sentence without being told where we are and what former strands of discourse are being continued. And the “measurements” of the last sentence has now become old information, reaching back to the “measured directly” of the preceding sentence. (It also fulfills the promise of the “we have directly measured” with which the paragraph began.) By following our knowledge of reader expectations, we have been able to spot discontinuities, to suggest strategies for bridging gaps, and to rearrange the structure of the prose, thereby increasing the accessibility of the scientific content.

2.5 Locating the Action

本文最后一个例子加入了另外一个主要的读者期望。

Our final example adds another major reader expectation to the list.

Transcription of the 5S RNA genes in the egg extract is TFIIIA-dependent. This is surprising, because the concentration of TFIIIA is the same as in the oocyte nuclear extract. The other transcription factors and RNA polymerase III are presumed to be in excess over available TFIIIA, because tRNA genes are transcribed in the egg extract. The addition of egg extract to the oocyte nuclear extract has two effects on transcription efficiency. First, there is a general inhibition of transcription that can be alleviated in part by supplementation with high concentrations of RNA polymerase III. Second, egg extract destabilizes transcription complexes formed with oocyte but not somatic 5S RNA genes.

在这段话中，理解的障碍是如此之多，以至于似乎很难知道从哪里开始修订。幸运的是，我们从哪里开始都没有关系，因为处理任何一个结构性问题最终都会导致其他所有问题。

The barriers to comprehension in this passage are so many that it may appear difficult to know where to start revising. Fortunately, it does not matter where we start, since attending to any one structural problem eventually leads us to all the others.

通过观察句子的主题位置，可以发现一个困难的源头：我们无法说出这段话是关于谁的故事。故事的重点（即主题位置处的人、物）在每个句子中都发生了变化。如果我们搜索重复的旧信息以希望找到几个主题位置的好候选，那么就会发现东西太多：egg extract, TFIIIA, oocyte extract, RNA polymerase III, 5S RNA, and transcription等等。所有这些都在不同的地方再次出现，但是没有一个清楚地声明自己是主要重点。这段话似乎试图同时讲几个故事，但没有一个故事能占主导地位。

We can spot one source of difficulty by looking at the topic positions of the sentences: We cannot tell whose story the passage is. The story’s focus (that is, the occupant of the topic position) changes in every sentence. If we search for repeated old information in hope of settling on a good candidate for several of the topic positions, we find all too much of it: egg extract, TFIIIA, oocyte extract, RNA polymerase III, 5S RNA, and transcription. All of these reappear at various points, but none announces itself clearly as out primary focus. It appears that the passage is trying to tell several stories simultaneously, allowing none to dominate.

我们无法在这些故事中做出决策，因为作者没有告诉我们如何处理所有这些信息。我们知道玩家是谁，但是却不知道他们应该执行的动作。这违反了另一个重要的读者期望：读者期望句子的动作由动词表达。

We are unable to decide among these stories because the author has not told us what to do with all this information. We know who the players are, but we are ignorant of the actions they are presumed to perform. This violates yet another important reader expectation: Readers expect the action of a sentence to be articulated by the verb.

这是该例子中的动词

Here is a list of the verbs in the example paragraph:

is
is . . . is
are presumed to be
are transcribed
has
is . . . can be alleviated destabilizes

可以看出，该段落中实际发生的动作太少，主要是系动词。如果在动词中找不到这些动作，那么作为读者，我们就没有其他的结构性线索来找到它们的位置。我们每个人都必须做出个人的解释性猜测，作者再也无法控制读者的解读行为。

The list gives too few clues as to what actions actually take place in the passage. If the actions are not to be found in the verbs, then we as readers have no secondary structural clues for where to locate them. Each of us has to make a personal interpretive guess; the writer no longer controls the reader’s interpretive act.

更糟糕的是，这段话从未出现过重要行为。根据我们对该内容的最佳理解，连接这些参与者的动词是“limit” and inhibit.”。如果我们将这些动作表示为动词，并在可能的情况下将最频繁出现的信息（“egg extract” 和 “TFIIIA”）放在主题位置，则可以作出以下修订。

Worse still, in this passage the important actions never appear. Based on our best understanding of this material, the verbs that connect these players are “limit” and inhibit.” If we express those actions as verbs and place the most frequently occurring information—“egg extract” and “TFIIIA”—in the topic position whenever possible, we can generate the following revision.

In the egg extract, the availability of TFIIIA limits transcription of the 5S RNA genes. This is surprising because the same concentration of TFIIIA does not limit transcription in the oocyte nuclear extract. In the egg extract, transcription is not limited by RNA polymerase or other factors because transcription of tRNA genes indicates that these factors are in excess over available TFIIIA. When added to the nuclear extract, the egg extract affected the efficiency of transcription in two ways. First, it inhibited transcription generally; this inhibition could be alleviated in part by supplementing the mixture with high concentrations of RNA polymerase III. Second, the egg extract destabilized transcription complexes formed by oocyte but not by somatic 5S genes.

作为有关“egg extract,”的故事，这段话仍然有待改进。 但是至少现在我们可以意识到作者尚未解释“limit” 和 “inhibit.”之间的联系。在我们看来，这种无限制的联系包含了两个假设：首先，转录限制是由卵提取物中存在的TFIIIA抑制剂引起的； 其次，可以通过将卵提取物加入卵母细胞提取物中并检查其对转录的影响来检测该抑制剂的作用。作为重要的科学读者，我们希望将精力集中在实验是否证明假设上。如果我们对那些假设可能是什么存有疑问，并且如果我们正将大部分精力用于识别文章的结构而不是其实质，那么我们就无法开始这样做。

As a story about “egg extract,” this passage still leaves something to be desired. But at least now we can recognize that the author has not explained the connection between “limit” and “inhibit.” This unarticulated connection seems to us to contain both of her hypotheses: First, that the limitation on transcription is caused by an inhibitor of TFIIIA present in the egg extract; and,second, that the action of that inhibitor can be detected by adding the egg extract to the oocyte extract and examining the effects on transcription. As critical scientific readers, we would like to concentrate our energy on whether the experiments prove the hypotheses. We cannot begin to do so if we are left in doubt as to what those hypotheses might be—and if we are using most of our energy to discern the structure of the prose rather than its substance.

3 Writing and the Scientific Process

我们在本文开始时认为，可以将通俗易懂的文章中表达的复杂思想变得可读且清晰，而又不会降低其复杂性。我们的科学写作实例一开始从阴天到几乎不透明，但是通过遵循以下结构原则，可以使所有这些都变得更加易于理解：

We began this article by arguing that complex thoughts expressed in impenetrable prose can be rendered accessible and clear without minimizing any of their complexity. Our examples of scientific writing have ranged from the merely cloudy to the virtually opaque; yet all of them could be made significantly more comprehensible by observing the following structural principles:

1. Follow a grammatical subject as soon as possible with its verb.
2. Place in the stress position the “new information” you want the reader to emphasize.
3. Place the person or thing whose “story” a sentence is telling at the beginning of the sentence, in the topic position.
4. Place appropriate “old information” (material already stated in the discourse) in the topic position for linkage backward and contextualization forward.
5. Articulate the action of every clause or sentence in its verb.
6. In general, provide context for your reader before asking that reader to consider anything new.
7. In general, try to ensure that the relative emphases of the substance coincide with the relative expectations for emphasis raised by the structure.

这些读者期望原则均不应视为“规则”，尽信书不如无书。出于两个原因，可能没有固定的算法来进行良好的写作。 首先，在任何给定的时刻，太多的读者期望正在发挥作用，以致于结构性决策仍然清晰易行。其次，任何读者的期望都可能违背良好的效果。事实证明，我们最好的设计师是我们最熟练的违规者。 但是为了实现这一目标，他们必须在大多数时间满足期望，从而让违规行为被视为特殊的时刻，值得注意。

None of these reader-expectation principles should be considered “rules.” Slavish adherence to them will succeed no better than has slavish adherence to avoiding split infinitives or to using the active voice instead of the passive. There can be no fixed algorithm for good writing, for two reasons. First, too many reader expectations are functioning at any given moment for structural decisions to remain clear and easily activated. Second, any reader expectation can be violated to good effect. Our best stylists turn out to be our most skillful violators; but in order to carry this off, they must fulfill expectations most of the time, causing the violations to be perceived as exceptional moments, worthy of note.

作家的个人风格是面对挑战性话语单元时倾向于做出的所有结构选择的综合。未能将新信息放在一个文档中诸多句子的强调位置的作家可能会在所有其他文档中重复这种无用的结构模式。 但是由于倾向于作出一致的选择，他们可以学习改善写作风格，从而永久性地纠正那些误导或加重读者负担的结构决策习惯。

A writer’s personal style is the sum of all the structural choices that person tends to make when facing the challenges of creating discourse. Writers who fail to put new information in the stress position of many sentences in one document are likely to repeat that unhelpful structural pattern in all other documents. But for the very reason that writers tend to be consistent in making such choices, they can learn to improve their writing style; they can permanently reverse those habitual structural decisions that mislead or burden readers.

我们认为，思想的实质和思想的表达是密不可分的，以至于任何一个的改变都会影响另一个的质量。 请注意，只有第一个示例（有关URF的段落）可以在方法学的基础上进行修改，以揭示接近完成的段落。在所有其他示例中，修订版都揭示了现有的概念空白和其他问题，这些缺陷以及其他问题已被功能失调的结构所淹没。

We have argued that the substance of thought and the expression of thought are so inextricably intertwined that changes in either will affect the quality of the other. Note that only the first of our examples (the paragraph about URF’s) could be revised on the basis of the methodology to reveal a nearly finished passage. In all the other examples, revision revealed existing conceptual gaps and other problems that had been submerged in the originals by dysfunctional structures.

填补空白需要额外的内容。在修改这些示例时，我们总结一点，即如果不提供思想之间的联系或完全丢弃一些现有内容，就无法进行进一步的展开。（在自己的文章上使用读者期望原则的作家不必猜测或推断；他们知道文章的意图。）从分析文章的结构开始，最终导致我们重新研究了文章的科学本质。

Filling the gaps required the addition of extra material. In revising each of these examples, we arrived at a point where we could proceed no further without either supplying connections between ideas or eliminating some existing material altogether. (Writers who use reader- expectation principles on their own prose will not have to conjecture or infer; they know what the prose is intended to convey.) Having begun by analyzing the structure of the prose, we were led eventually to reinvestigate the substance of the science.

科学的实质不只是发现和记录数据,它至关重要地扩展到包括解读行为。似乎没有作者的解读，科学文献是不完整的。如果没有每个读者的解读，该文件就不可能“存在”，这可能不是很明显。 换句话说，即使尝试，作家也不能“仅仅”记录数据。在任何录音或发音中，无论多么偶然或困惑，每个单词都位于一个或多个不同的结构位置。由此产生的结构甚至比单个单词的含义还要重要，它在解读过程中会极大地影响读者。然后，问题就变成了作者创造的结构（有意还是无意）在解释科学文章的过程中是帮助还是阻碍了读者。

The substance of science comprises more than the discovery and recording of data; it extends crucially to include the act of interpretation. It may seem obvious that a scientific document is incomplete without the interpretation of the writer; it may not be so obvious that the document cannot “exist” without the interpretation of each reader. In other words, writers cannot “merely” record data, even if they try. In any recording or articulation, no matter how haphazard or confused, each word resides in one or more distinct structural locations. The resulting structure, even more than the meanings of individual words, significantly influences the reader during the act of interpretation. The question then becomes whether the structure created by the writer (intentionally or not) helps or hinders the reader in the process of interpreting the scientific writing.

我们在这里提出的写作原则使作者意识到读者从结构中得出的一些解释性线索。有了这种认识，作者就可以对读者的解读过程进行更大程度的控制（尽管从不完全控制）。与此同时原则同时为作者提供了重新进入产生科学的思想过程的奇迹。文章的结构在现实和重要的方面成为科学论证的结构，改善任何一个都会改善另一个。

The writing principles we have suggested here make conscious for the writer some of the interpretive clues readers derive from structures. Armed with this awareness, the writer can achieve far greater control (although never complete control) of the reader’s interpretive process. As a concomitant function, the principles simultaneously offer the writer a fresh re-entry to the thought process that produced the science. In real and important ways, the structure of the prose becomes the structure of the scientific argument. Improving either one will improve the other.