打算開始通過精讀的方法訓練英文閱讀能力，詞匯掌握，已經寫作能力，是受到這一篇文章的啟發。
文中所述方法，與一般概念中的精讀不同，不限于詞語選擇和造句分段，而是引領讀者關注表達過程中邏輯的鋪陳、情緒的帶入、內容的呈現、對于細節濃縮還是鋪陳的不同處理。
當然，對于大部分的學習者，基本的詞匯擴展和語法運用尚未熟稔，仍然是繞不開的步驟。因此，我為自己設定了以下的精讀框架，多做精讀作業，力求在表達的形與質上皆有進益。
精讀框架
首先，逐段掃清語句障礙，掌握不熟悉的詞法和句法
- 詞法：同義替換，助記
- 句法：特別句式仿寫
其次，依據小鹿的方法完成十步觀察
Abstract
(complete and concise)Steps of the main argument
A functional outline
(using precise and expressive verbs)Intended audiences (with examples)
Ways of involving readers (with examples)
Ways of dealing with other scholars in the field
Describing the essay's voice
(stands, personality, intention, attitude...)Evaluating the essay's line of logic
(clear or not? fuzzy parts? suggestions to fix?)Functioning of the opening
(engaging or not? )Functioning of the ending
附小鹿原文：
Write a very brief abstract (a few sentences), starting with, "In a nutshell, X argues that ...." Polish this; make it as complete AND as concise as possible.
Divide the essay into sections, identifying the important steps of the argument. Think about what size units feel right for this purpose. If the author has divided the essay into sections (subheadings, dividers of some sort), you almost certainly need to subdivide further and identify smaller units. On the other hand, it doesn't need to be paragraph by paragraph either.
Write a "functional" or "dynamic" outline using these divisions, that is, focus on what the author does in each section. ("The author raises the question . . . " "the author refutes . . . " "the author distinguishes between . . . "). Take care over the verbs: make them as precise and expressive as possible. Let's agree to ban generics like "says" or "states." Be sparing with "explains."
What is this essay's intended audience? Be specific: in most cases, the audience will be broadly academic. But within that? Is the essay addressed to specialists in a small field/ people already familiar with the texts and/or main issues, or does it seek to include literary scholars more broadly? Does it seek to include readers beyond literary studies? Beyond academia? How can you tell? Identify a few good examples of what you're describing.
How does the essay involve its readers? Does it directly address us? Take us along? Coopt us? Antagonize us? Puzzle us? Find good examples.
How does the essay deal with other scholars in the field? Does it quote a lot? Effectively? Does it provide an overview of previous scholarship? Does it insert itself into that broader field, or try to distinguish itself from it? Does it build on other people's work, or bounce off it? Does it use "strawmen" (i.e., weak arguments introduced solely for the purpose of being knocked over)? Is it collegial, antagonistic . . . ? Find good examples.
How would you describe the essay's voice? (You can even play games if you like: how do you picture the author? How does she look/what does she wear/age? Where does he sit as he writes? How do you imagine his or her speaking voice sounds? Now try to account for these impressions: where do they come from?) Is the author trying to establish a voice, or seeking to remain neutral?
Is the essay clearly argued? Does it mean to be "easy" to follow, or is it aiming to challenge and puzzle you? Are there places where you get lost? Why is that? Would you advise the author to fix that? How?
Look at the opening paragraph (or paragraphs—you decide what constitutes "the opening"). Divide it into functional steps, much as you did for the whole essay in 2. and 3. What does the author do to introduce the problem/question/issue we'll be looking at? How does the author motivate you to enter into the discussion with her? Does the author give a "thesis statement" or preview his or her conclusion? Entirely/partially? How? Do you like the opening paragraph(s)?
Look at the ending: how does the author leave things? Is there a summation? A looking ahead to further questions? Some kind of special effect? Is it effective?
Note any other observations that didn't come under any of these questions.
版權所有，轉載請注明出處和鏈結
微博：@小鹿撞兔老師
http://weibo.com/deerdreams
微信公共號：小鹿撞兔留學申請教室
