對高考「破英文」的一點補充

在蕭愷一批評本屆英文科高級程度會考的其中一段考題為「破英文」（語義不明，大抵是爛英文之意）後，網友紛紛在其網頁回應，事情逐漸水落石出，而蕭亦再次補充他的論點。在此我也補充一下自己的看法。首先，再看一次有問題的段落：

The researchers looked at 58 people who had recently started a relationship and compared their neutrophin protein levels with those in both the same number of people in long-term relationships and the same number of single people. In those who had just started a relationship, levels of the NGF protein, which causes well-known signs of uneasiness such as sweaty palms and the feeling of having 'butterflies in the stomach', were significantly higher. Of the 39 people from the original sample who were still in the same new relationship after a year, the levels of NGF had returned to normal.

根據蕭的讀者細心搜尋，我們現在相信以上文字其實在自 BBC 的報導，而這報導又是基於數名意大利學者的研究結果。BBC 的原文是這樣的：

They looked at 58 people who had recently started a relationship and compared the protein levels in the same number of people in long-term relationships and single people.

In those who had just started a relationship, levels of a protein called nerve growth factors, which causes tell-tale signs such as sweaty palms and the butterflies, were significantly higher.

Of the 39 people who were still in the same new relationship after a year, the levels of NGF had been reduced to normal levels.

而這是意大利學者的部份研究摘要：

Plasma levels of NGF, BDNF, NT-3 and NT-4 were measured in a total of 58 subjects who had recently fallen in love and compared with those of two control groups, consisting of subjects who were either single or were already engaged in a long-lasting relationship. NGF level was significantly higher (p<0.001) in the subjects in love [mean (SEM): 227 (14) pg/ml] than in either the subjects with a long-lasting relationship [123 (10) pg/ml] or the subjects with no relationship [149 (12) pg/ml]. Notably, there was also a significant positive correlation between levels of NGF and the intensity of romantic love as assessed with the passionate love scale (r=0.34; p=0.007). No differences in the concentrations of other NTs were detected. In 39 subjects in love who—after 12–24 months—maintained the same relationship but were no longer in the same mental state to which they had referred during the initial evaluation, plasma NGF levels decreased and became indistinguishable from those of the control groups.

現在再看蕭原本的批評。首先是 'looked at'。蕭認為 looked at 的意思不明，而我上次則說這是標準的學術用語。有趣的是，在意大利學者的原文中並無運用此詞，這詞其實是 BBC 記者用的。到底它是否那麼難明白，閣下可自行判斷。

其次是 'the feeling of having'。從行文角度看，這幾個字毫無疑問是多餘的。之前我認為作者加上此數個字是為了照顧讀者，而蕭老師現在亦補充說這是為了照顧學生的理解能力。

最富爭議的，其實是試題中的這段落（下稱「紅色段落」）：

... compared their neutrophin protein levels with those in both the same number of people in long-term relationships and the same number of single people.

段落本身和之前的 'looked at' 一樣，初時大家都以為是學術文章的原文，但原來在意大利學者和 BBC 的文章中均沒有此句。後來蕭指出，擬題員之所以如此改寫，原來是為了問學生，參與實驗的人數究竟是 A. 58 couples, B. 116 couples, C. 116 people 還是 D. 174 people! 很明顯，擬題員其實把本來簡明的文字改寫得累贅了。但是經改寫後的句子是否那麼難以明白，則見仁見智。蕭批評它「文句不通，詞序大亂。甚麼叫 with those in both the same number?」這恐怕是由於他誤以為 'those' 指的是參與實驗者。在他網誌留言的另一位英文老師 Agnes Chan 亦有同樣誤解。她說：「而 those 的用法，正常用法應該是指之前所描述的一班人，如果推斷沒錯，應該是指剛拍拖的那班人」。

老實說，比起所謂「破英文」，我其實更擔心這些英文老師的理解力。為甚麼 those 指的必須是人？聽見名曲 'Those were the days'，難道你會問「邊 D人係 the days 呀」？在上述試卷當中，those 很明顯指的是 neutrophin protein levels。連續有兩位老師錯解 those 一字，真令人摸不著頭腦。這紅色段落雖不簡潔，但也不失直接。我敢打賭以英語為母語的青少年中，起碼有七成在讀第一遍時便能讀通。

其實甚麼是爛英文，甚麼是優美的文章，雖然大體上可有共識，但灰色地帶甚廣。譬如蕭愷一就建議把問題段落的首句如此改寫：

The researchers studied the neutrophin protein levels of 58 people who had recently started a relationship, and then compared the result with two other groups of the same size: people in long-term relationships and single people.

甚麼叫 compared the result with two other groups? 到底 result（＝結果，是死物）怎樣可以和人作比較？蕭這樣寫其實很有語病。若說這就是 good style of writing 的話，我真的無話可說。至於 BBC 的原文，雖然簡潔，但它並沒說清楚到底拍了拖很久和沒在拍拖的人是各自有 58 個，還是加起來有 58 個。相對地，意大利學者的文章和紅色段落就說得很清楚。

大部份人所寫的英文，包括今次惹來討論的高考卷文章，質素都是介乎好壞兩個極端之間。若凡不是最好的便打成爛英文，實在太過誇張。但蕭的讀者卻多數跟隨蕭非難考評局。對後者為了顧及學生的理解能力，用心良苦地加上 'the feeling of having...'，他們不但不領情，還要揶揄。這點我很替考評局和擬題員感到不值。

不過環繞紅色段落的討論，倒是帶出了一個深層問題。要留意，紅色段落雖非 BBC 或者意大利學者的原文，但是類似的較繁瑣的句式亦出現於意大利學者的研究摘要當中 ('NGF level was significantly higher ... in the subjects in love ... than in either the subjects with a long-lasting relationship ... or the subjects with no relationship') 。所以，將較佳的 BBC 原文改寫成較累贅的紅色段落雖不可取，但是像紅色段落這種句子，在現實中或者在考試以外還是存在的。這種不算洗煉的文字，可否作閱讀理解考試用？

我不能解答這個問題，因為它沒有絕對的答案。在我來說，閱讀理解所測試的，應是考生閱讀一般水平的文章（也就是這個世界中大部份的文章）的能力，所以考評局不應只選簡潔優美的文章。不過也有人認為以寫得「論論盡盡」的文章作考試用，就好像要他們「斷估」，亦有人擔心考生誤認考卷的文章為範文。這些憂慮也有道理。

我有興趣的反而是在蕭愷一的網站所看到的一種偏見。蕭和他的部份讀者似乎認為，像今次高考卷這種文章，是象牙塔中人才會寫的累贅文字。這種偏見包含兩個錯誤。第一，它暗示了非學術的文章便不會弄得累贅。這真是奇怪的想法。第二，他們以為寫學術文章的人喜歡故意把文字弄得艱深。但正所謂「有頭髮邊個想做癩痢」，除了在某些學術範疇（聽聞經濟學是其一），誰不想把文章寫得淺白易懂？只是大部份學者的文字水平有限，能夠有不太多文法錯誤已是萬幸。想寫優美的文章？即使有時間亦未必有能力做到。學術文章不好看，正好反映了在來自五湖四海的人當中，不能期待每一個人也能寫一手好文章這個事實，可說是現實世界的一種縮影。