Unit 5
Unit 5
Table of Contents
Audio
Text&Translation
Despite all the current fuss and bother about the extraordinary number of ordinary illiterates who overpopulate our schools, small attention has been given to another kind of illiterate, an illiterate whose plight is, in many ways, more important, because he is more influential. This illiterate may, as often as not, be a university president, but he is typically a Ph.D., a successful professor and textbook author. The person to whom I refer is the straight-A illiterate, and the following is written in an attempt to give him equal time with his widely publicized counterpart.
尽管时下对于充斥校园的寻常文盲数量之众已是喧嚣扰攘，然则另有一类文盲，其困境实则更为堪忧，影响力亦更为深远，却鲜为世人所瞩目。此类文盲，往往可能是大学校长，通常亦是博士、著作等身的知名教授。我所指的，正是那些“高分文盲”。本文旨在抛砖引玉，望其能获得与那些备受关注的寻常文盲同等的审视。
The scene is my office, and I am at work, doing what must be done if one is to assist in the cure of a disease that, over the years, I have come to call straight-A illiteracy. I am interrogating, I am cross-examining, I am prying and probing for the meaning of a student's paper. The student is a college senior with a straight-A average, an extremely bright, highly articulate student who has just been awarded a coveted fellowship to one of the nation's outstanding graduate schools. He and I have been at this, have been going over his paper sentence by sentence, word by word, for an hour. "The choice of exogenous variables in relation to multi-colinearity," I hear myself reading from his paper, "is contingent upon the derivations of certain multiple correlation coefficients." I pause to catch my breath. "Now that statement," I address the student—whom I shall call, allegorically, Mr. Bright—"that statement, Mr. Bright, what on earth does it mean?" Mr. Bright, his brow furrowed, tries mightily. Finally, with both of us combining our linguistic and imaginative resources, finally, after what seems another hour, we decode it. We decide exactly what it is that Mr. Bright is trying to say, what he really wants to say, which is: "Supply determines demand."
场景设于我的办公室。我正埋首工作，试图疗救一种我多年来称之为“高分文盲症”的顽疾。我细细盘诘，反复推敲，竭力探寻学生论文的真意。这位学生乃是大四翘楚，成绩全优，天资聪颖，口齿伶俐，且刚刚荣获国内顶尖研究生院一份令人艳羡的奖学金。一个钟头以来，我与他逐字逐句，反复研读他的论文。“关于多重共线性下外生变量之抉择，”我听见自己念出纸上的文字，“取决于若干多重相关系数之推演。”我停顿片刻，理了理思绪。“那么这句话，”我转向这位学生——不妨讽喻地称他为布莱特先生——“布莱特先生，这句话究竟所指为何？”布莱特先生眉头紧锁，绞尽脑汁。最终，在我们两人倾尽各自的语言与想象之力，又耗费了仿佛一个钟头之后，方才破译了这句话。我们终于弄明白布莱特先生竭力想要表达、他真正想说的意思是：“供给决定需求。”
Over the past decade or so, I have known many students like him, many college seniors suffering from Bright's disease. It attacks the best minds, and gradually destroys the critical faculties, making it impossible for the sufferer to detect gibberish in his own writing or in that of others. During the years of higher education it grows worse, reaching its terminal stage, typically, when its victim receives his Ph.D. Obviously, the victim of Bright's disease is no ordinary illiterate. He would never turn in a paper with misspellings or errors in punctuation; he would never use a double negative or the word "irregardless." Nevertheless, he is illiterate, in the worst way: he is incapable of saying, in writing, simply and clearly, what he means. The ordinary illiterate—perhaps providentially protected from college and graduate school—might say: "Them people down at the shop better stock up on what our customers need, or we ain't gonna be in business long." Not our man. Taking his cue from years of higher education, years of reading the textbooks and professional journals that are the major sources of his affliction, he writes: "The focus of concentration must rest upon objectives centered around the knowledge of customer areas so that a sophisticated awareness of those areas can serve as an entrepreneurial filter to screen what is relevant from what is irrelevant to future commitments." For writing such gibberish he is awarded straight As on his papers (both samples quoted above were taken from papers that received As), and the opportunity to move, inexorably, toward his fellowship and eventual Ph.D.
近十年来，我见过许多像他这样的学生，许多患有“布莱特症”的大学毕业生。此症专攻头脑最优秀者，逐步蚕食其思辨能力，使其对自己或他人文字中的空洞晦涩浑然不觉。在高等教育的数年间，此症愈演愈烈，待到患者取得博士学位，往往已是病入膏肓。显而易见，“布莱特症”患者并非寻常文盲。他的文章绝无拼写或标点谬误，亦从不使用双重否定或诸如“irregardless”之类的不规范词语。然而，他却是最可悲的文盲：他无法用书面语言简洁明了地表达自己的真实意图。那些寻常文盲——或许是苍天庇佑，免受了大学和研究生院的“熏陶”——可能会说：“店里那帮人最好多进些顾客要的货，不然咱们这买卖可就黄了。”我们的高材生则不然。他从多年的高等教育中，从那些构成其病灶的教科书与专业期刊中汲取“灵感”，写道：“吾人必须聚焦于以客户领域知识为核心之目标，俾使对此等领域之精深认知，可充当创业筛选机制，以从未来诸般承诺中甄别相关与否之因素。”就因写出这般诘屈聱牙的文字，他的论文竟能获得全优（上引两个例子均出自获A的论文），并由此无法逆转地迈向奖学金和最终的博士学位。
As I have suggested, the major cause of such illiteracy is the stuff—the textbooks and professional journals—the straight-A illiterate is forced to read during his years of higher education. He learns to write gibberish by reading it, and by being taught to admire it as profundity. If he is majoring in sociology, he must grapple with such journals as the American Sociological Review, journals bulging with barbarous jargon, such as "ego-integrative action orientation" and "orientation toward improvement of the gratificational-deprivation balance of the actor" (the latter of which monstrous phrases represents, to quote Malcolm Cowley, the sociologist's way of saying "the pleasure principle"). In such journals, Mr. Cowley reminds us, two things are never described as being "alike." They are "homologous" or "isomorphic." Nor are things simply "different." They are "allotropic." In such journals writers never "divide anything." They "dichotomize" or "bifurcate" things.
正如前文所述，此类文盲现象的罪魁祸首，便是那些“高分文盲”在高等教育期间被迫啃读的材料——教科书与专业期刊。他们通过阅读这些晦涩的文字而习得如此笔法，并被教导要将此等表述奉为高深学问。倘若他主修社会学，便不得不钻研《美国社会学评论》之类的期刊，这些刊物充斥着诸如“自我统合行动导向”以及“旨在改善行动者满足-匮乏平衡之导向”等生硬拗口的行话（马尔科姆·考利曾指出，后一个冗长费解的短语，不过是社会学家用以表达“快乐原则”的说法罢了）。考利先生提醒我们，在此类期刊中，两事物从不被描述为“相似”，而是被称为“同源的”或“同构的”；事物也并非简单地“不同”，而是“异形的”；作者从不“划分”任何事物，而是将其“作二分法处理”或“使其一分为二”。
Summary&Mindmap
English Summary The article discusses "straight-A illiteracy," a phenomenon where highly educated individuals, despite academic excellence (often Ph.D.s or professors), are incapable of writing clearly and concisely. The author argues this is more concerning than common illiteracy due to the influence these individuals wield. This "disease" is attributed to their extensive exposure to and imitation of convoluted, jargon-laden academic texts and professional journals during higher education, which they learn to mistake for profundity. The condition typically worsens with advanced education, rendering them unable to detect or avoid gibberish in their own or others' writing.
中文概括 本文探讨了一种“全A文盲”现象：许多受过高等教育、学业优异的人（常为博士或教授）反而无法用简洁明了的文字表达思想。作者认为，鉴于这些人的社会影响力，这种“文盲”比普通文化水平低下者的问题更为严重。这种“病症”源于他们在高等教育中长期阅读并模仿充斥着晦涩术语和复杂句式的学术著作与专业期刊，并错误地将这种文风等同于深刻。通常，教育程度越高，此问题越严重，最终导致他们无法识别自己或他人写作中的空话套话。
Analysis
Sentence: "Despite all the current fuss and bother about the extraordinary number of ordinary illiterates who overpopulate our schools, small attention has been given to another kind of illiterate, an illiterate whose plight is, in many ways, more important, because he is more influential."
- 中文解释： 尽管当前社会对充斥校园的、数量惊人的普通文盲（指基本读写能力欠缺者）大感小题大做和忧虑不已，但另一种文盲却鲜受关注，而这种文盲的困境，因其更具影响力，在许多方面反而更为重要。
- 剖析：
- 超长句与复杂结构： 这是一个由 "Despite" 引导的让步状语从句开头的复合句，主句是 "small attention has been given..."。
- 习惯用语： "fuss and bother" 意为“大惊小怪，无谓的烦扰”。
- 多层修饰： "the extraordinary number of ordinary illiterates who overpopulate our schools" 中，"extraordinary" 修饰 "number"，"ordinary" 修饰 "illiterates"，"who overpopulate our schools" 是修饰 "illiterates" 的定语从句。
- 抽象表达： "plight" 指困境、苦境。
- 对比与强调： 句子通过对比（普通文盲 vs. 另一种文盲；受到的关注度；重要性）来引出文章的核心议题。
- 剖析：
- 中文解释： 尽管当前社会对充斥校园的、数量惊人的普通文盲（指基本读写能力欠缺者）大感小题大做和忧虑不已，但另一种文盲却鲜受关注，而这种文盲的困境，因其更具影响力，在许多方面反而更为重要。
Sentence: "This illiterate may, as often as not, be a university president, but he is typically a Ph.D., a successful professor and textbook author."
- 中文解释： 这种文盲很可能是一位大学校长，但他更典型的是一位博士、一位成功的教授和教科书作者。
- 剖析：
- 习惯用语： "as often as not" 是一个固定搭配，意为“通常，多半，很可能”，表达一种概率较高的可能性，而非字面上的“不经常”。
- 对比与典型性： 句子用 "may...be" 和 "is typically" 形成了对比，前者指出一种可能性（大学校长），后者点明了更普遍的特征（博士、教授、教科书作者），暗示了这种“文盲”在高知群体中的普遍性。
- 剖析：
- 中文解释： 这种文盲很可能是一位大学校长，但他更典型的是一位博士、一位成功的教授和教科书作者。
Sentence: "The choice of exogenous variables in relation to multi-colinearity," I hear myself reading from his paper, "is contingent upon the derivations of certain multiple correlation coefficients."
- 中文解释： “关于多重共线性问题，外生变量的选择，” 我听见自己读着他论文里的这句话，“是取决于某些多元相关系数的推导结果的。”
- 剖析：
- 专业术语（Jargon）： "exogenous variables" (外生变量), "multi-colinearity" (多重共线性), "multiple correlation coefficients" (多元相关系数) 都是统计学或经济学领域的专业术语，对于非专业人士来说理解困难。
- 复杂句式与嵌套引语： 这是一个直接引语，主干是 "The choice...is contingent upon..."。作者通过 "I hear myself reading from his paper" 这个插入语，强调了这是学生论文的原话。
- 抽象表达： "contingent upon" 意为“取决于，视…而定”，"derivations" 指推导过程或结果。整个句子用非常学术化和间接的方式表达了一个决策依据。作者后文揭示这句话的本质意思是“供给决定需求”，以此凸显学术八股文的空洞。
- 剖析：
- 中文解释： “关于多重共线性问题，外生变量的选择，” 我听见自己读着他论文里的这句话，“是取决于某些多元相关系数的推导结果的。”
Sentence: "The ordinary illiterate—perhaps providentially protected from college and graduate school—might say: 'Them people down at the shop better stock up on what our customers need, or we ain't gonna be in business long.'"
- 中文解释： 普通的文盲——也许是老天保佑他们没上过大学和研究生院——可能会说：“商店里那帮人最好把顾客需要的东西备足了，不然我们这生意就做不久了。”
- 剖析：
- 讽刺性插入语： "—perhaps providentially protected from college and graduate school—" 这个破折号之间的插入语带有强烈的讽刺意味。"Providentially" (幸运地，天意般地) 暗示没受过高等教育反而“幸免于难”，避免了学会那种晦涩的“全A文盲”式表达。
- 俚语与非标准语法： 引号内的话语使用了非正式甚至不规范的口语，如 "Them people" (应为 Those people)，"ain't gonna" (应为 are not going to)。这与“全A文盲”刻意追求的“规范”和“深刻”形成对比。
- 表达效果对比： 此句通过展示普通人直白、有效的沟通方式，反衬出“全A文盲”辞不达意、故作高深的问题。
- 剖析：
- 中文解释： 普通的文盲——也许是老天保佑他们没上过大学和研究生院——可能会说：“商店里那帮人最好把顾客需要的东西备足了，不然我们这生意就做不久了。”
Sentence: "Taking his cue from years of higher education, years of reading the textbooks and professional journals that are the major sources of his affliction, he writes: 'The focus of concentration must rest upon objectives centered around the knowledge of customer areas so that a sophisticated awareness of those areas can serve as an entrepreneurial filter to screen what is relevant from what is irrelevant to future commitments.'"
- 中文解释： 他从多年的高等教育、从阅读那些构成其“病症”主要来源的教科书和专业期刊中得到“启发”（或模仿其风格），于是写道：“关注的重心必须置于那些围绕客户领域知识的目标之上，以便对这些领域的精细认知能够充当一种创业的筛选机制，用以从未来的投入中辨别出哪些是相关的，哪些是无关的。”
- 剖析：
- 超长句与复杂结构： 句子由现在分词短语 "Taking his cue from..." 开头，引出主句 "he writes: '...'"。引号内的内容本身就是一个结构极其复杂的长句。
- 习惯用语/隐喻： "Taking his cue from" 意为“从…得到暗示/模仿…的榜样”。"affliction" (痛苦，折磨) 在此指代作者所说的 "straight-A illiteracy" 这种病症，带有贬义。
- 抽象名词堆砌与冗余表达： 引号内的句子充斥着抽象名词如 "focus of concentration" (关注的焦点，实际只需 "focus")，"objectives centered around the knowledge of customer areas" (围绕客户领域知识的目标，非常绕)，"sophisticated awareness" (精细的认知)，"entrepreneurial filter" (创业过滤器，一个隐喻)，"future commitments" (未来的承诺/投入)。这些词语使得句子冗长且难以理解。
- 目的状语从句： "...so that a sophisticated awareness...can serve..." 结构复杂，进一步增加了阅读难度。这句话是作者批判的“学术八股文”的典范，意思模糊，表达低效。
- 剖析：
- 中文解释： 他从多年的高等教育、从阅读那些构成其“病症”主要来源的教科书和专业期刊中得到“启发”（或模仿其风格），于是写道：“关注的重心必须置于那些围绕客户领域知识的目标之上，以便对这些领域的精细认知能够充当一种创业的筛选机制，用以从未来的投入中辨别出哪些是相关的，哪些是无关的。”
Sentence: "In such journals, Mr. Cowley reminds us, two things are never described as being 'alike.' They are 'homologous' or 'isomorphic.' Nor are things simply 'different.' They are 'allotropic.' In such journals writers never 'divide anything.' They 'dichotomize' or 'bifurcate' things."
- 中文解释： 科利先生提醒我们，在那些期刊里，两样东西从不被描述为“相似的”(alike)，它们是“同源的”(homologous)或“同构的”(isomorphic)。事物也并非简单地“不同”(different)，它们是“同素异形的”(allotropic，此处引申为差异的)。在那些期刊里，作者从不“划分任何东西”(divide anything)，他们将事物“二分”(dichotomize)或“使其分叉”(bifurcate)。
- 剖析：
- 引用与举例： 作者引用马尔科姆·考利 (Malcolm Cowley) 的观察，通过具体词汇的替换来揭示学术期刊中滥用专业术语以显得“高深”的现象。
- 不常见词汇/专业术语： "homologous", "isomorphic", "allotropic", "dichotomize", "bifurcate" 都是相对不常用或特定领域的词汇，它们被用来替代更简单、更通用的日常词汇 "alike", "different", "divide"。
- 平行结构与对比： 句子使用了平行结构 ("two things are never... They are...", "Nor are things simply... They are...", "writers never... They...") 来清晰地展示这种词汇替换模式，增强了批判效果。这句话指出了学术界语言异化、追求晦涩的倾向，正是这种倾向培养了“全A文盲”。
- 剖析：
- 中文解释： 科利先生提醒我们，在那些期刊里，两样东西从不被描述为“相似的”(alike)，它们是“同源的”(homologous)或“同构的”(isomorphic)。事物也并非简单地“不同”(different)，它们是“同素异形的”(allotropic，此处引申为差异的)。在那些期刊里，作者从不“划分任何东西”(divide anything)，他们将事物“二分”(dichotomize)或“使其分叉”(bifurcate)。