|
林柏仲老師 撰文 (Written by Eric Lin, AWEC Lecturer)
標題: The World After Trump
這次的文本分析挑選了Foreign Affairs這份在外交領域堪稱重量級的報章期刊，其中這篇討論川普上任後世界局勢的文章，相信有許多人關心並感興趣。我們分析了文章開頭的部份，目的在梳理其結構脈絡，以期能對讀者的寫作技巧有所啟發與裨益。而本文的用字精準簡練，便有待讀者們自行探索玩味了。
副標: How the System Can Endure
首先，我們可以觀察到副標題拋出了一個問題：「這個世界的秩序怎麼還能撐得下去呢？」可以想見作者在接下來的文章中，便要回答這個問題。這樣的「問題-解答」式的寫作結構很常見於學術寫作中，一個好的研究問題不但點出議題的重要性，也會直接地影響寫作結構的安排。
再繼續往下閱讀前，讀者可以先思考：圍繞此研究問題，接下來八個段落的結構該如何安排？
1 The warnings started long before Donald Trump was even a presidential candidate. For at least a decade, a growing chorus of foreign policy experts had been pointing to signs that the international order was coming apart.
第一段說明至少在川普競選的十年之前，專家早已預警世界的秩序正在崩塌。作者在此使用了long before的字眼，將時間軸拉到議題的最前端，說明事情的來龍去脈。這就像是我們在聽故事時，一開頭都會由「從前從前」開始，再順勢點出人、事、地、物。
2 Authoritarian powers were flouting long-accepted rules. Failed states were radiating threats. Economies were being disrupted by technology and globalization; political systems, by populism. Meanwhile, the gap in power and influence between the United States—the leader and guarantor of the existing order—and the rest of the world was closing.
第二段便是第一段主旨的細節與舉例（supporting details），所謂世界秩序的崩塌可由強權破壞規則、失敗國家、全球化經濟、民粹政治、以及美國影響力式微來說明。
3 Then came Trump's election. To those already issuing such warnings, it sounded the death knell of the world as it was. Even many of those who had previously resisted pessimism suddenly came to agree. As they saw it, the U.S.-led order—the post– World War II system of norms, institutions, and partnerships that has helped manage disputes, mobilize action, and govern international conduct—was ending for good. And what came next, they argued, would be either an entirely new order or a period with no real order at all.
第三段點出在這樣的世界局勢下，川普當選了美國總統。這個事件象徵著從二戰後既有的世界秩序已結束。讀者可以注意到，作者使用了then以及next來導引讀者沿著時間的序列前進，一步一步揭示舊世界秩序如何崩塌。
4 But the existing order is more resilient than this assessment suggests. There is no doubt that Trump represents a meaningful threat to the health of both American democracy and the international system.
第四段的語氣有所轉折，開頭的but，暗示了作者認為在這麼艱難的局勢下，我們以為已崩塌的世界秩序其實比想像中更堅韌。在學術寫作中通常這會是一個橋接功能的段落（transitional paragraph），目的是讓讀者能準備轉換到不同的思維路線。
此處的轉折非常細膩。因為在前三段用了非常多篇幅來確立形勢之險峻，如果一個轉折便直接提出新的想法，可能會讓讀者不能接受作者想提出的「舊有秩序還能有所作為」的想法。
因此開頭的but僅稍微暗示了文章的新方向，隨後繼續認定川普對世界秩序的破壞，代表作者並沒有推翻之前的想法。
5 And there is a nonnegligible risk that he could drag the country into a constitutional CRISIS, or the world into a crippling trade war or even an all-out nuclear war.
在第五段，作者甚至加強力道說川普總統可能引起法憲政危機與核戰。在此，作者在真正轉折前，繼續確立「舊秩序的崩塌」，但這並不與「舊秩序還能有所作為」衝突。
6 Yet despite these risks, rumors of the international order's demise have been greatly exaggerated. The system is built to last through significant shifts in global politics and economics and strong enough to survive a term of President Trump.
到了第六段以despite開頭，作者才真正做了轉折，帶出真正的想法，認為世界秩序已死的說法是誇大其辭，一個任期的川普打不倒世界既有的秩序。注意作者在四五六段，一步一步向讀者釐清可能的誤解後，最後才給出答案。
7 This more optimistic view is offered not as comfort but as a call to action. The present moment demands resolve and affirmative thinking from the foreign policy community about how to sustain and reinforce the international order, not just lamentations about Trump's destructiveness or resignation about the order's fate. No one knows for certain how things will turn out. But fatalism will become a self-fulfilling prophecy.
第七段確立了較為樂觀的立場，並給了問題的答案，也就是世界秩序之存續有賴大家共同努力維護。
8 The order can endure only if its defenders step up. It may be durable, but it also needs an update to account for new realities and new challenges. Between fatalism and complacency lies urgency. Champions of the order must start working now to protect its key elements, to build a new consensus at home and abroad about needed adjustments, and to set the stage for a better approach, before it's too late.
第八段以呼籲各界有所行動做總結。作者點出維護世界秩序相當急迫，必須儘快提出應對之道。
在此，我們可以總結這八段的結構。讀者可以注意到，作者在一二三段開始背景介紹，到四五六段進行轉折橋段，直到第七段較為直接地回應副標所帶出的問題，並在第八段呼籲行動總結。
這其實相當符合「問題-解答」式的寫作結構，作者首先介紹背景，就好比文獻回顧裡要有完整的背景交代，代表作者對議題的深廣有很好的掌握。然後為了提出自己的看法或解決之道，小心翼翼地在轉折處做鋪陳並釐清觀念，以期讀者能順利接受自己的論點，這也是我們在立論時可以學習的地方。最後點出文章結論的價值以及行動方案。
以上的結構，能幫助我們完整地論述一個研究問題與答案。
Sullivan, J. (2018). The World After Trump. Foreign Affairs, 97(2), 10-19.
(全文連結請參閱信件附檔)
|
