2006年 07月 04日
ガイドライン2:哲学論文の書き方3 |
2. 下書きを書く
自分の議論について考えをめぐらし、論文のアウトラインが書けたら、下書きを書く準備ができたことになる
Once you've thought about your argument, and written an outline for your paper, then you're ready to sit down and compose a complete draft.
シンプルな散文で書くべし
専門家ぶった言い回しなど無用
Don't shoot for literary elegance. Use simple, straightforward prose. Keep your sentences and paragraphs short. Use familiar words. We'll make fun of you if you use big words where simple words will do. These issues are deep and difficult enough without your having to muddy them up with pretentious or verbose language. Don't write using prose you wouldn't use in conversation: if you wouldn't say it, don't write it.
You may think that since your TA and I already know a lot about this subject, you can leave out a lot of basic explanation and write in a super-sophisticated manner, like one expert talking to another. I guarantee you that this will make your paper incomprehensible.
If your paper sounds as if it were written for a third-grade audience, then you've probably achieved the right sort of clarity.
非常に難解で複雑な文体をもつ哲学者がいたとしても、それを見習うことなかれ。彼は文体で高く評価されているのではない。
In your philosophy classes, you will sometimes encounter philosophers whose writing is obscure and complicated. Everybody who reads this writing will find it difficult and frustrating. The authors in question are philosophically important despite their poor writing, not because of it. So do not try to emulate their writing styles.
論文の構成を明確にせよ
You should make the structure of your paper obvious to the reader. Your reader shouldn't have to exert any effort to figure it out. Beat him over the head with it.
どうしたらそれを達成できる?
まず、次のような接続詞を利用すること
because, since, given this argument
thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, consequently
nevertheless, however, but
in the first case, on the other hand
These will help your reader keep track of where your discussion is going.
接続詞を使うときには、間違って使わないこと!
Be sure you use these words correctly! If you say "P. Thus Q." then you are claiming that P is a good reason to accept Q. You had better be right. If you aren't, we'll complain. Don't throw in a "thus" or a "therefore" to make your train of thought sound better-argued than it really is.
他の方法:そこまで達成したこと、次に何を行おうとするかを述べる
Another way you can help make the structure of your paper obvious is by telling the reader what you've done so far and what you're going to do next. You can say things like:
I will begin by...
Before I say what is wrong with this argument, I want to...
These passages suggest that...
I will now defend this claim...
Further support for this claim comes from...
For example...
これらを差し挟むことにより、議論はずっとわかりやすくなる
These signposts really make a big difference. Consider the following two paper fragments:
...We've just seen how X says that P. I will now present two arguments that not-P. My first argument is...
My second argument that not-P is...
X might respond to my arguments in several ways. For instance, he could say that...
However this response fails, because...
Another way that X might respond to my arguments is by claiming that...
This response also fails, because...
So we have seen that none of X's replies to my argument that not-P succeed. Hence, we should reject X's claim that P.
I will argue for the view that Q.
There are three reasons to believe Q. Firstly...
Secondly...
Thirdly...
The strongest objection to Q says...
However, this objection does not succeed, for the following reason...
Isn't it easy to see what the structure of these papers is? You want it to be just as easy in your own papers.
最後:どれが自分の意見で、どれが他の哲学者の意見かをはっきりさせること
A final thing: make it explicit when you're reporting your own view and when you're reporting the views of some philosopher you're discussing. The reader should never be in doubt about whose claims you're presenting in a given paragraph.
You can't make the structure of your paper obvious if you don't know what the structure of your paper is, or if your paper has no structure. That's why making an outline is so important.
コンパクトに書け、しかし自分で十分に説明せよ
Be concise, but explain yourself fully
To write a good philosophy paper, you need to be concise but at the same time explain yourself fully.
These demands might seem to pull in opposite directions. (It's as if the first said "Don't talk too much," and the second said "Talk a lot.") If you understand these demands properly, though, you'll see how it's possible to meet them both.
コンパクトに!という要求の意味
We tell you to be concise because we don't want you to ramble on とりとめもなく書く about everything you know about a given topic, trying to show how learned and intelligent you are. Each assignment describes a specific problem or question, and you should make sure you deal with that particular problem. Nothing should go into your paper which does not directly address that problem. Prune out 削るeverything else. It is always better to concentrate on one or two points and develop them in depth than to try to cram in too much. One or two well-mapped paths are better than an impenetrable jungle.
論文の中心問題をきちんと提示し、たえずそれを意識すべし。それに関連したことのみ書くべし。読者に推測させてはならない。
Formulate the central problem or question you wish to address at the beginning of your paper, and keep it in mind at all times. Make it clear what the problem is, and why it is a problem. Be sure that everything you write is relevant to that central problem. In addition, be sure to say in the paper how it is relevant. Don't make your reader guess.
自分で説明せよ!という要求の意味
よい論点があったら、それを一つの文で述べ、それでおしまい、というのはだめ。例を挙げるなどして、とにかくきちんと説明せよ。
評点をもらった後、「たしかにそう言いました。でも、私が言いたかったのは・・・」などと言って、抗議するのはよくない。とにかく自分が言いたいことを正確に言いなさい。上手に言えたかどうかも点数のうちに入ると心得るべし。
One thing I mean by "explain yourself fully" is that, when you have a good point, you shouldn't just toss it off in one sentence. Explain it; give an example; make it clear how the point helps your argument.
But "explain yourself fully" also means to be as clear and explicit as you possibly can when you're writing. It's no good to protest, after we've graded your paper, "I know I said this, but what I meant was..." Say exactly what you mean, in the first place. Part of what you're being graded on is how well you can do that.
自分の読者がそのトピックについて全然知らない、とあえて仮定しなさい。
Pretend that your reader has not read the material you're discussing, and has not given the topic much thought in advance. This will of course not be true. But if you write as if it were true, it will force you to explain any technical terms, to illustrate strange or obscure distinctions, and to be as explicit as possible when you summarize what some other philosopher said.
読者は怠け者で、お馬鹿で、意地悪だ、とみなすともっとよい
In fact, you can profitably take this one step further and pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean. He's lazy in that he doesn't want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn't want to figure out what your argument is, if it's not already obvious. He's stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized pieces. And he's mean, so he's not going to read your paper charitably. (For example, if something you say admits of more than one interpretation, he's going to assume you meant the less plausible thing.)
あなたが素材(テーマ)を理解していて、しかも、そのような読者を念頭に書くなら、評点Aをもらえる公算大!
If you understand the material you're writing about, and if you aim your paper at such a reader, you'll probably get an A.
自分の議論について考えをめぐらし、論文のアウトラインが書けたら、下書きを書く準備ができたことになる
Once you've thought about your argument, and written an outline for your paper, then you're ready to sit down and compose a complete draft.
シンプルな散文で書くべし
専門家ぶった言い回しなど無用
Don't shoot for literary elegance. Use simple, straightforward prose. Keep your sentences and paragraphs short. Use familiar words. We'll make fun of you if you use big words where simple words will do. These issues are deep and difficult enough without your having to muddy them up with pretentious or verbose language. Don't write using prose you wouldn't use in conversation: if you wouldn't say it, don't write it.
You may think that since your TA and I already know a lot about this subject, you can leave out a lot of basic explanation and write in a super-sophisticated manner, like one expert talking to another. I guarantee you that this will make your paper incomprehensible.
If your paper sounds as if it were written for a third-grade audience, then you've probably achieved the right sort of clarity.
非常に難解で複雑な文体をもつ哲学者がいたとしても、それを見習うことなかれ。彼は文体で高く評価されているのではない。
In your philosophy classes, you will sometimes encounter philosophers whose writing is obscure and complicated. Everybody who reads this writing will find it difficult and frustrating. The authors in question are philosophically important despite their poor writing, not because of it. So do not try to emulate their writing styles.
論文の構成を明確にせよ
You should make the structure of your paper obvious to the reader. Your reader shouldn't have to exert any effort to figure it out. Beat him over the head with it.
どうしたらそれを達成できる?
まず、次のような接続詞を利用すること
because, since, given this argument
thus, therefore, hence, it follows that, consequently
nevertheless, however, but
in the first case, on the other hand
These will help your reader keep track of where your discussion is going.
接続詞を使うときには、間違って使わないこと!
Be sure you use these words correctly! If you say "P. Thus Q." then you are claiming that P is a good reason to accept Q. You had better be right. If you aren't, we'll complain. Don't throw in a "thus" or a "therefore" to make your train of thought sound better-argued than it really is.
他の方法:そこまで達成したこと、次に何を行おうとするかを述べる
Another way you can help make the structure of your paper obvious is by telling the reader what you've done so far and what you're going to do next. You can say things like:
I will begin by...
Before I say what is wrong with this argument, I want to...
These passages suggest that...
I will now defend this claim...
Further support for this claim comes from...
For example...
これらを差し挟むことにより、議論はずっとわかりやすくなる
These signposts really make a big difference. Consider the following two paper fragments:
...We've just seen how X says that P. I will now present two arguments that not-P. My first argument is...
My second argument that not-P is...
X might respond to my arguments in several ways. For instance, he could say that...
However this response fails, because...
Another way that X might respond to my arguments is by claiming that...
This response also fails, because...
So we have seen that none of X's replies to my argument that not-P succeed. Hence, we should reject X's claim that P.
I will argue for the view that Q.
There are three reasons to believe Q. Firstly...
Secondly...
Thirdly...
The strongest objection to Q says...
However, this objection does not succeed, for the following reason...
Isn't it easy to see what the structure of these papers is? You want it to be just as easy in your own papers.
最後:どれが自分の意見で、どれが他の哲学者の意見かをはっきりさせること
A final thing: make it explicit when you're reporting your own view and when you're reporting the views of some philosopher you're discussing. The reader should never be in doubt about whose claims you're presenting in a given paragraph.
You can't make the structure of your paper obvious if you don't know what the structure of your paper is, or if your paper has no structure. That's why making an outline is so important.
コンパクトに書け、しかし自分で十分に説明せよ
Be concise, but explain yourself fully
To write a good philosophy paper, you need to be concise but at the same time explain yourself fully.
These demands might seem to pull in opposite directions. (It's as if the first said "Don't talk too much," and the second said "Talk a lot.") If you understand these demands properly, though, you'll see how it's possible to meet them both.
コンパクトに!という要求の意味
We tell you to be concise because we don't want you to ramble on とりとめもなく書く about everything you know about a given topic, trying to show how learned and intelligent you are. Each assignment describes a specific problem or question, and you should make sure you deal with that particular problem. Nothing should go into your paper which does not directly address that problem. Prune out 削るeverything else. It is always better to concentrate on one or two points and develop them in depth than to try to cram in too much. One or two well-mapped paths are better than an impenetrable jungle.
論文の中心問題をきちんと提示し、たえずそれを意識すべし。それに関連したことのみ書くべし。読者に推測させてはならない。
Formulate the central problem or question you wish to address at the beginning of your paper, and keep it in mind at all times. Make it clear what the problem is, and why it is a problem. Be sure that everything you write is relevant to that central problem. In addition, be sure to say in the paper how it is relevant. Don't make your reader guess.
自分で説明せよ!という要求の意味
よい論点があったら、それを一つの文で述べ、それでおしまい、というのはだめ。例を挙げるなどして、とにかくきちんと説明せよ。
評点をもらった後、「たしかにそう言いました。でも、私が言いたかったのは・・・」などと言って、抗議するのはよくない。とにかく自分が言いたいことを正確に言いなさい。上手に言えたかどうかも点数のうちに入ると心得るべし。
One thing I mean by "explain yourself fully" is that, when you have a good point, you shouldn't just toss it off in one sentence. Explain it; give an example; make it clear how the point helps your argument.
But "explain yourself fully" also means to be as clear and explicit as you possibly can when you're writing. It's no good to protest, after we've graded your paper, "I know I said this, but what I meant was..." Say exactly what you mean, in the first place. Part of what you're being graded on is how well you can do that.
自分の読者がそのトピックについて全然知らない、とあえて仮定しなさい。
Pretend that your reader has not read the material you're discussing, and has not given the topic much thought in advance. This will of course not be true. But if you write as if it were true, it will force you to explain any technical terms, to illustrate strange or obscure distinctions, and to be as explicit as possible when you summarize what some other philosopher said.
読者は怠け者で、お馬鹿で、意地悪だ、とみなすともっとよい
In fact, you can profitably take this one step further and pretend that your reader is lazy, stupid, and mean. He's lazy in that he doesn't want to figure out what your convoluted sentences are supposed to mean, and he doesn't want to figure out what your argument is, if it's not already obvious. He's stupid, so you have to explain everything you say to him in simple, bite-sized pieces. And he's mean, so he's not going to read your paper charitably. (For example, if something you say admits of more than one interpretation, he's going to assume you meant the less plausible thing.)
あなたが素材(テーマ)を理解していて、しかも、そのような読者を念頭に書くなら、評点Aをもらえる公算大!
If you understand the material you're writing about, and if you aim your paper at such a reader, you'll probably get an A.
by omg05
| 2006-07-04 08:39
| 哲学論文の読み方,書き方
|
Comments(0)