逗号、连字符和“which”
如果以上述三种形式使用错误，将导致写作意思表达模糊，进而引起读者的误解。例如，“Because Aβ42 levels were elevated in 75% of AD patients in studies using our method [6,7], it is critical to obtain fresh samples”，如果把“method”后的逗号移到“patients”后面(或在这里再加入新的逗号)将完全改变句子的意思。同样，在短语“calcium-induced calcium release”中，如果删除了连字符也将完全改变句子的意思。如果使用了连字符，“calcium-induced”是复合性形容词，修饰名词“calcium release”；如果不使用连字符“induced”则是动词，描述“effect of calcium on calcium release”。因此，使用连字符构成的复合性形容词对于避免误解是非常重要的。然而，介词和形容词之间是不需要加连字符的，例如“highly intense staining”和“high-intensity staining”都是正确的，但是“highly-intense staining”的用法是错误的。

•    “Glutamate receptors mediated synaptic plasticity…” (此句子告诉作者Glu受体参与突触可塑性生成)
•    “Glutamate receptor-mediated synaptic plasticity…” (与Glu受体相关的突触可塑性成了句子的主语；注意这里“receptor”由复数形式改为单数形式，但并不是指单一一种受体而是泛指受体)

“which”一字如果使用不当，也可引发诸多混淆。它常与“that”混用。“that”和“which”都引导用于修饰名词的从句，但“that”用于引导限定性从句，而“which”用于引导非限定性从句。例如，“the sections that were positive for GFP were subjected to cell counting procedures”，在这个句子中，“that”引导的是限定性从句明确规定了是哪些切片用于细胞计数。相比之下，“the sections, which were positive for GFP, were subjected to cell counting procedures”，在这个句子中，对用于细胞计数的切片的规定相当宽松，可能指的是前一个句子或相临句子中提及的切片。提及GFP阳性的从句可以向读者提供一些额外的信息，但对于理解该句子的意义来说并非必不可少；也就是说，它是可有可无的。考虑到“which”的这种角色，研究人员在撰写论文时应明确“which”一词确切指代的东西 — 有时指代的是该词所紧跟的事物(这是最常见的)，有时指代的则是该句子的主语。例如，“microglia migrated to the site of the lesion, which was associated with increased levels of ED-1”，这个句子就写得含混不清，因为我们很难确定“which”所指的到底是lesion，还是migration of microglia。如果读者可能会对此类句子产生疑惑，最好是推翻重写；例如，可以改为“migration of microglia to the site of the lesion was associated with increased levels of ED-1”，也可改为“microglia migrated to the site of the lesion, and immunohistochemical analysis revealed increased levels of ED-1 at this site”。两者均无歧义。

•    “Data were normalised to the housekeeping gene actin, which was used as an internal reference…” (在这个句子中, “which”指代的是actin，因此actin也就是该从句的主语)
•    “Data were normalised to the internal reference housekeeping gene actin, revealing increases in the levels of…” (如果在后续从句中提及所分析的资料，使用“which”不仅没有必要，反而会引发歧义)



Commas, hyphens and “which”
Used incorrectly these three elements of writing can introduce ambiguities, and the potential for subsequent misunderstanding, into your writing. For example, in the sentence “Because Aβ42 levels were elevated in 75% of AD patients in studies using our method [6,7], it is critical to obtain fresh samples”, moving the comma after method to follow the word “patients” (or addition of a new comma there) would completely change the meaning. Similarly, in the phrase “calcium-induced calcium release”, omission of the hyphen completely changes the meaning of the sentence. When the hyphen is present “calcium-induced” is a compound adjective modifying the noun “calcium release”; when the hyphen is absent, “induced” is a verb describing the effect of calcium on calcium release. Thus, it is critically important to use hyphens with such compound adjectives to avoid misunderstandings. However, no hyphen is required to combine an adverb and an adjective; for example “highly intense staining” and “high-intensity staining” are both correct, but “highly-intense staining” is not.

•    “Glutamate receptors mediated synaptic plasticity…” (tells the reader that Glu receptors are involved in the development of synaptic plasticity).
•    “Glutamate receptor-mediated synaptic plasticity…” (identifies synaptic plasticity involving Glu receptors as the subject of the sentence; note the change from plural to singular because “receptor” is being used in a general sense and not to refer to a single receptor).

The word “which”, when used incorrectly, can also induce considerable confusion. It is often used incorrectly instead of “that”. Both introduce clauses that modify nouns, but “that” should be used to introduce defining or restrictive clauses and “which” should be used to introduce non-defining or non-restrictive clauses. For example, in “the sections that were positive for GFP were subjected to cell counting procedures”, the “that” introduces a defining clause that defines exactly which sections were subjected to cell counting. By contrast, in “the sections, which were positive for GFP, were subjected to cell counting procedures”, the sections that were subjected to cell counting are rather loosely defined, possibly referring to sections that have been described in the previous or recent sentences. The clause about GFP positivity provides the reader with additional information, but is not essential to understand the meaning of the sentence; that is, it is disposable. Because “which” is used in this way, writers need to ensure that it is absolutely clear what the “which” is actually referring to, possibly whatever immediately precedes it (most commonly) or possibly the main subject of the sentence. For example, the sentence “microglia migrated to the site of the lesion, which was associated with increased levels of ED-1” is somewhat vague, because it is unclear if the “which” is referring to the lesion or to the migration of microglia. If there is ever any doubt about such a sentence, it is best to rephrase it completely; for example “migration of microglia to the site of the lesion was associated with increased levels of ED-1” or “microglia migrated to the site of the lesion, and immunohistochemical analysis revealed increased levels of ED-1 at this site”, both of which are unambiguous.

•    “Data were normalised to the housekeeping gene actin, which was used as an internal reference…” (here, the “which” refers to actin, which is therefore the subject of the following clause).
•    “Data were normalised to the internal reference housekeeping gene actin, revealing increases in the levels of…” (to refer to the analyzed data in a subsequent clause, “which” would be inappropriate and introduce an ambiguity).

Dr Daniel McGowan
分子神经学博士
理文编辑学术总监



相关专题：论文写作
转载本文请联系原作者获取授权，同时请注明本文来自理文编辑科学网博客。
链接地址：https://blog.sciencenet.cn/blog-288924-542044.html

上一篇：比较（Comparisons)
下一篇：投稿：最后检查