江畔何人初见月，江月何年初照人？--- Argument中疑问句的用法和误区
本文系寄托天下作者原创，转载请保持文章完整，并请务必注明真实作者和出处----本来这篇东西是准备写给6GAW备考后期的童鞋们纠正误区的，因为我自己也是6G忙不过来推到现在才写。考虑到10G的童鞋们可能还没有在文中自然的用到问句这种比较高级的行文手段，又添加了一些内容。一篇文章中的问句，通常情况下来说，有两种不同的作用：
1.引起读者的兴趣，让她们把更多的注意力放在你接下来需要讨论的方面。
2.表达一种强调语气，这些问题或者是不言自明，毋需回答；或者是问得人无言以对，无法回答，其作用是强调自己观点的正确性。
在Argument这种学术性，逻辑性很强的驳论文当中，问句运用的更多是属于第二种作用，加强自己文章的语气，力争驳到作者哑口无言。从辩论的角度来看，这是通过用作者的观点无法解释的方面来证明其错误性，当然，也是最有辩驳力的一种手段。
或许，有的童鞋会觉得因为AW更加注重的是逻辑和段落结构，问句的作用并非有想象当中的那么重要；有的童鞋会认为在文章中用问句联接上下文会很别扭很困难，花时间去练习不值得；更有的“模板至上”童鞋，看了这篇文章可能会到处找一个带着问句的模板凑合用用就行。
的确，AW的核心是逻辑，然而ETS从来没有说过“用词，语法和修辞不纳入打分考虑范围”吧？恰恰相反，虽然没有明文要求，ETS对5，6分范文的comments当中无一例外，大力的赞扬了它们的standard written English和syntactic sophistication，从这里我们就可以很容易的看出一些好的句式变化和修辞手段对最终成绩的影响力了。
那么，如何在恰当的时候用上问句来为你的文章增色？如何正确的使用问句，避免进入一些误区？
按照惯例，首先从ETS的官方范文里面找铁证：
2------Topic: University of Claria
Discuss how well reasoned you find this argument.
The University of Claria is generally considered one of the best universities in the world because of its instructors' reputation, which is based primarily on the extensive research and publishing record of certain faculty members.In addition, several faculty members are internationally renowned as leaders in their fields.
For example, many of the faculty from the English department are regularly invited to teach at universities in other countries.Furthermore, two recent graduates of the physics department have gone on to become candidates for the Nobel Prize in Physics.And 75 percent of the students are able to find employment after graduating.Therefore, because of the reputation of its faculty, the University of Claria should be the obvious choice for anyone seeking a quality education.
在这个题目的推荐6分范文里，用到了大量的问句，因此通过研究这些资料和对应ETS给出的评语，我们就可以对问句的用法有一个比较权威性的回答：
首先是范文的第一段的最后一句话：
The Physics and English departments are internationally known, but these are only two of the areas in which one might study.
Other departments are not listed; is this because no others are worth mentioning, or because no other departments bothered to turn in their accomplishments and kudos to the publicity office?
可以很容易看出，这句问话是属于上文提到的第二种问句，通过一针见血怀疑题目是刻意的隐瞒了一些信息，来指出题目逻辑上的漏洞。
其次是范文的第三段的最后一个板块，作者运用了大量的问句，这些问句群正是误导学习范文的中国学生的罪魁祸首。由于没有仔细的研究和思考这些问句的作用和来历，让单纯看文章的学生走向了一个误区：哦，原来段落可以这么写，不停的反问就行了。于是盲目的模仿之，创造了不少“四不像”文章。
我们先来分析一下作者这段话里面，这么多问句都是干什么用的（为了充分详细的解释清楚，我直接引用了整个段落，并把每个问句单独列一行）：
This evaluation of the University of Claria is too brief, and too general.Nothing is mentioned about the quality of overall education; it only praises the accomplishments of a few recent graduates and professors.More important than invitations to teach elsewhere, which might have been engineered by their own departmental heads in an attempt to remove them from the campus for a semester or two, is the relationship between teacher and student.Are the teaching faculty approachable?
Are they helpful?
Have they an interest in passing on their knowledge?
Are they working for the future benefit of the student or to get another year closer to retirement?
How enthusiastic are the students about the courses being taught and the faculty members who teach those classes?
Are there sufficient classes available for the number of students?
Are the campus buildings accessible; how is the University handling all those cars?
Is the University a pleasant, encouraging, interesting, challenging place to attend school?
What are its attitudes about education, students, student ideas and innovations, faculty suggestions for improvement?
作者的TS是：“UC的评估过于笼统”，下面他指出UC仅仅凭借少数毕业生和教授的成就来断定自己学校的high quality是不科学的，更有效的断定方法应该是师生之间是否有效的互动。然后用了一堆的疑问句来支持这个alternative point，从而达到了否定原来题目中的assertion的目的。
从上面的分析我们可以看出两点：
1.所有的这么长一串的问句，彼此间关联的结构到底是递进，还是并列我们先不谈，仅从分类上就能发现它们全部是属于第二种情况的问句：通过让人无言以对的问题，表达强调的意思。
2.所有这么长一串问句的作用，功能性的目的仅仅是为了支持作者提出的那个alternative point，而不是为了引起下文，更不是为了表达作者的疑惑，因此是属于无需回答的问题。
现在我要指出童鞋们学习这篇文章，模仿使用问句的过程中，最常见的一个误区。
咱们来看板油的习作，来自seagullhere 童鞋的argument235中的一段论述：
Last but not the least, the manager only mentions that shifting its programming from rock-and-roll music to a continuous news format, but he or she fails to inform us the kind of the news. Is the news about politics, sports or economics? Furthermore, is it possible for the radio station to report the news without stop? Can the listeners accept the continuous news without feeling boring? Clearly, the manager’s suggestion needed to be further considered.
这段论述，从中间的furthermore开始，前后的话题是不同的，前面的关注焦点是kind of the news,后面的焦点则是…完全看不出来，很混乱，恩不过我们现在也不是讨论论述焦点的问题，所以先忽略吧，just focus on问句。
seagullhere童鞋的第一个问句"Is the news about politics, sports or economics?"毫无疑问，是属于我们所讨论的第二种问句表强调。然而不幸的是，在这个问句的前面她并没有提出明确的alternative points，仅仅说了一下题目里面没有指出kind of the news。那么没有这种kind of the news，作者的话为什么就不可信了？说不定failed to inform the kind of the news对作者观点的可信度一点都没有影响呢？此外seagullhere童鞋的提到的3个方面：politics, sports,和economics为什么能证明作者没有考虑周到？后文并没有详细解释，自然也就让人怀疑。
反观官方范文的问句，哪一条不是首先提出一个与题目观点矛盾的观点，然后证明自己是对的，从而证明是错的？最为关键的是，范文中的反问句，绝对没有说单纯的提到某几个方面就算完了的，我们回顾一下这个范文里的问句： Other departments are not listed; is this because no others are worth mentioning, or because no other departments bothered to turn in their accomplishments and kudos to the publicity office? 作者详细的分析了 not listed 的可能的原因:no worth？bothered?相对来说，作者的问句都是详细的解释清楚了他质疑的原因的。他可没有直接反问：“how about other departments such as philosophy, engineering, and international relationship?”吧？
再来看furthermore后面的两个问句：is it possible for the radio station to report the news without stop? Can the listeners accept the continuous news without feeling boring? 显然我更倾向于把它归结到第一种问句当中，通过询问来引发读者的兴趣。但是，问完了以后呢？段落就直接结束了！那么读者的兴趣被钓到半空中，他们怎么办？尝试过半途而废的感觉么？想像过某个异性通过主动的行动，成功引起了你的兴趣让你想入非非以后突然消失的感觉么？问句的作用是勾起别人的兴趣，你既然都勾起了，就要负责解释清楚，论证段落里面拿出一个问句就宣布论证结束，比一个陈述句就结束的后果更严重！
最后我们回到官方范文的最后一个分析段，之所以把它放在最后说，是因为我个人觉得这一段写的并不好，不值得借鉴，放在后面提一下，大家引以为戒：
What about that 75% employment record?Were those students employed in the field of their choice, or are they flipping burgers and emptying wastebaskets while they search for something they are trained to do.A more specific statement about the employability of students from this University is needed in order to make the argument forceful.
这一段就是典型的问完勾起兴趣了以后就匆匆结尾的段落，我个人觉得原因可能是作者限时时间差不多到了，毕竟他已经在前面写了相当多的内容和信息量。事实上，ETS对这段话的评价也同样不高：Although the fourth paragraph ("What about that75% employment record?") interrupts this discussion, the essay is, on the whole,…算是一个小小的败笔了，但是考虑到限时写作和前文的强悍论证，它并不会影响整篇文章得满分。
最后要说明的是，我的观点也只是个人感想，必定存在问题，只是希望能以此开拓大家的思路，帮助大家更好的破解ARGUMENT。 本帖最后由 bernina 于 2009-6-8 19:11 编辑
啊，上来就抢到了如此珍贵的沙发，开心的不得鸟 很不错呀~~疑问句用好了是可以添彩的，很有用哈~~感谢版主~~~ 顶之。 随LS而来，顶牛排6！ 看过留名！ 赞。 学习了~ 不错，继续学习,版主对argu理解的很深！ 分析的真好 支持 要好好的学习一下！ 太厉害了。。还有五天考试了。。我觉得自己来不及了。。 good~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~··
页:
[1]