ESR Reading and Translation (lecture 11)
Reading a Scientific Paper
Although it is tempting to read the paper straight through as you would do with most text, it is more efficient to organize the way you read. Generally, you first read the Abstract in order to understand the major points of the work. The extent of background assumed by different authors, and allowed by the journal, also varies as just discussed.
One extremely useful habit in reading a paper is to read the Title and the Abstract and, before going on, review in your mind what you know about the topic. This serves several purposes. First, it clarifies whether you in fact know enough background to appreciate the paper. If not, you might choose to read the background in a review or textbook, as appropriate.
Second, it refreshes your memory about the topic. Third, and perhaps most importantly, it helps you as the reader integrate the new information into your previous knowledge about the topic. That is, it is used as a part of the self-education process that any professional must continue throughout his/her career.
If you are very familiar with the field, the Introduction can be skimmed or even skipped. As stated above, the logical flow of most papers goes straight from the Introduction to Results; accordingly, the paper should be read in that way as well, skipping Materials and Methods and referring back to this section as needed to clarify what was actually done. A reader familiar with the field who is interested in a particular point given in the Abstract often skips directly to the relevant section of the Results, and from there to the Discussion for interpretation of the findings. This is only easy to do if the paper is organized properly. Codewords
Many papers contain shorthand phrases that we might term 'codewords', since they have connotations that are generally not explicit. In many papers, not all the experimental data are shown, but referred to by \reasons of space; the practice is accepted when the authors have documented their competence to do the experiments properly (usually in previous papers). Two other codewords are \that the data are not of publishable quality or that the work is part of a larger story that will one day be published. The latter means different things to different people, but one connotation is that the experiment was done only once. Difficulties in reading a paper
Several difficulties confront the reader, particularly one who is not familiar with the field. As discussed above, it may be necessary to bring yourself up to speed before beginning a paper, no matter how well written it is. Be aware, however, that although some problems may lie in the reader, many are the fault of the writer.
One major problem is that many papers are poorly written. Some scientists are poor writers. Many others do not enjoy writing, and do not take the time or effort to ensure that the prose is clear and logical. Also, the author is typically so familiar with the material that it is difficult to step back and see it from the point of view of a
reader not familiar with the topic and for whom the paper is just another of a large stack of papers that need to be read.
Bad writing has several consequences for the reader. First, the logical connections are often left out. Instead of saying why an experiment was done, or what ideas were being tested, the experiment is simply described. Second, papers are often cluttered with a great deal of jargon. Third, the authors often do not provide a clear road-map through the paper; side issues and fine points are given equal air time with the main logical thread, and the reader loses this thread. In better writing, these side issues are relegated to Figure legends, Materials and Methods, or online Supplemental Material, or else clearly identified as side issues, so as not to distract the reader. Another major difficulty arises when the reader seeks to understand just what the experiment was. All too often, authors refer back to previous papers; these refer in turn to previous papers in a long chain. Often that chain ends in a paper that describes several methods, and it is unclear which was used. Or the chain ends in a journal with severe space limitations, and the description is so compressed as to be unclear. More often, the descriptions are simply not well-written, so that it is ambiguous what was done.
Other difficulties arise when the authors are uncritical about their experiments; if they firmly believe a particular model, they may not be open-minded about other possibilities. These may not be tested experimentally, and may even go unmentioned in the Discussion. Still another, related problem is that many authors do not clearly distinguish between fact and speculation, especially in the Discussion. This makes it difficult for the reader to know how well-established the “facts” under discussion are. One final problem arises from the sociology of science. Many authors are ambitious and wish to publish in trendy journals. As a consequence, they overstate the importance of their findings, or put a speculation into the title in a way that makes it sound like a well-established finding. Another example of this approach is the \Sentence Title\which presents a major conclusion of the paper as a declarative sentence (such as “Lex A is a repressor of the recA and lexA genes”). This trend is becoming prevalent; look at recent issues of Cell for examples. It's not so bad when the assertive sentence is well-documented (as it was in the example given), but all too often the assertive sentence is nothing more than a speculation, and the hasty reader may well conclude that the issue is settled when it isn't.
These last factors represent the public relations side of a competitive field. This behavior is understandable, if not praiseworthy. But when the authors mislead the reader as to what is firmly established and what is speculation, it is hard, especially for the novice, to know what is settled and what is not. A careful evaluation is necessary, as we now discuss. Exercises
I. Read the passage and decide whether the following statements are truth or false. Write T for True and F for False in the brackets.
1. An efficient reader should read a paper straight through to acquire a whole idea. ( ) 2. When reading a paper, it is a good habit to read the Title and the Abstract and review in your mind what you know about the topic. ( )
3. The paper should be read straight from the Introduction to Results. ( )
4. Codewords have connotations that are generally well-defined in the text. ( ) 5. Typically the author familiar with the material will be more thoughtful of his reader. ( )
6. An author uncritical of his own experiment may refuse to explore other possibilities. ( )
7. It is easy for the reader to distinguish between facts and speculation in the paper. ( ) 8. An Assertive Sentence Title is unacceptable even if it is well-documented. ( ) 9. Trendy journal mislead authors to publish ill-documented paper. ( )
10. A careful evaluation is needed to distinguish speculation from established conclusion. ( ) II. Read the passage again, and complete the following items.
1. In order to understand the major point of the work, you should first read:______ 2. When reading in a familiar field, you can skim or even skip:_____ 3. The three typical codewords:____
4. In better writing, the side issues are dealt with in the following ways:
5. Another problem faced by the readers is that when they seek to understand just what the experiment was, they may find:______
Translation Techniques（1）:
Subordinate Clauses ----Nominal Clauses
English subordinate clauses are classified into six groups, namely, subject clauses, object clauses, predicative clauses, appositive clauses, attributive clauses, and adverbial clauses. Since the first four of them function as nouns in a complex sentence, they are generally called nominal clauses, In this section we are going to find some specific methods of translating English nominal clauses. 1. Subject Clauses
1) Subject Clauses Introduced by Pronouns: The clauses begin with such pronouns as what, whatever, whoever. When they are translated into Chinese, they may generally remain their original position.
Whatever he saw and heard on his trip gave him a very deep impression. 译文：
What he told me was only half-truth. 译文：
2) “It” Functions as a Formal Subject: In this case, the subject clause may either precede or follow the principal clause.
It doesn't make much difference whether he attends the meeting or not. 译文：
It seemed inconceivable that the pilot could have survived the crash. 译文：
2. Object Clauses
Generally speaking, there is no need to change the position of object clauses in translation. In some cases, however, when “it” functions as the formal object of a complex sentence, or sometimes, when the object clause is preceded by a preposition,
lecture 11(学生材料)
