英译汉竞赛原文：
How the News Got Less Mean
The most read article of all time on BuzzFeed contains no photographs of celebrity nip slips and no inflammatory ranting. It’s a series of photos called “21 pictures that will restore your faith in humanity,” which has pulled in nearly 14 million visits so far. At Upworthy too, hope is the major draw. “This kid just died. What he left behind is wondtacular,” an Upworthy post about a terminally ill teen singer, earned 15 million views this summer and has raised more than $300,000 for cancer research.
The recipe for attracting visitors to stories online is changing. Bloggers have traditionally turned to sarcasm and snark to draw attention. But the success of sites like BuzzFeed and Upworthy, whose philosophies embrace the viral nature of upbeat stories, hints that the Web craves positivity.
The reason: social media. Researchers are discovering that people want to create positive images of themselves online by sharing upbeat stories. And with more people turning to Facebook and Twitter to find out what’s happening in the world, news stories may need to cheer up in order to court an audience. If social is the future of media, then optimistic stories might be media’s future.
“When we started, the prevailing wisdom was that snark ruled the Internet,”says Eli Pariser, a co-founder of Upworthy. “And we just had a really different sense of what works.”
“You don’t want to be that guy at the party who’s crazy and angry and ranting in the corner — it’s the same for Twitter or Facebook,” he says. “Part of what we’re trying to do with Upworthy is give people the tools to express a conscientious, thoughtful and positive identity in social media.”
And the science appears to support Pariser’s philosophy. In a recent study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, researchers found that “up votes,”showing that a visitor liked a comment or story, begat more up votes on comments on the site, but “down votes” did not do the same. In fact, a single up vote increased the likelihood that someone else would like a comment by 32%, whereas a down vote had no effect. People don’t want to support the cranky commenter, the critic or the troll. Nor do they want to be that negative personality online.
In another study published in 2012, Jonah Berger, author of Contagious: Why Things Catch On and professor of marketing at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, monitored the most e-mailed stories produced by the New York Times for six months and found that positive stories were more likely to make the list than negative ones.
“What we share [or like] is almost like the car we drive or the clothes we wear,”he says. “It says something about us to other people. So people would much rather be seen as a Positive Polly than a Debbie Downer.”
It’s not always that simple: Berger says that though positive pieces drew more traffic than negative ones, within the categories of positive and negative stories, those articles that elicited more emotion always led to more shares.
“Take two negative emotions, for example: anger and sadness,” Berger says. “Both of those emotions would make the reader feel bad. But anger, a high arousal emotion, leads to more sharing, whereas sadness, a low arousal emotion, doesn’t. The same is true of the positive side: excitement and humor increase sharing, whereas contentment decreases sharing.”
And while some popular BuzzFeed posts — like the recent “Is this the most embarrassing interview Fox News has ever done?”— might do their best to elicit shares through anger, both BuzzFeed and Upworthy recognize that their main success lies in creating positive viral material.
“It’s not that people don’t share negative stories,” says Jack Shepherd, editorial director at BuzzFeed. “It just means that there’s a higher potential for positive stories to do well.”
Upworthy’s mission is to highlight serious issues but in a hopeful way, encouraging readers to donate money, join organizations and take action. The strategy seems to be working: barely two years after its launch date (in March 2012), the site now boasts 30 million unique visitors per month, according to Upworthy. The site’s average monthly unique visitors grew to 14 million people over its first six quarters — to put that in perspective, the Huffington Post had only about 2 million visitors in its first six quarters online.
But Upworthy measures the success of a story not just by hits. The creators of the site only consider a post a success if it’s also shared frequently on social media. “We are interested in content that people want to share partly for pragmatic
reasons,” Pariser says. “If you don’t have a good theory about how to appear in Facebook and Twitter, then you may disappear.”
Nobody has mastered the ability to make a story go viral like BuzzFeed. The site, which began in 2006 as a lab to figure out what people share online, has used what it’s learned to draw 60 million monthly unique visitors, according to BuzzFeed. (Most of that traffic comes from social-networking sites, driving readers toward BuzzFeed’s mix of cute animal photos and hard news.) By comparison the New York Times website, one of the most popular newspaper sites on the Web, courts only 29 million unique visitors each month, according to the Times.
BuzzFeed editors have found that people do still read negative or critical stories, they just aren’t the posts they share with their friends. And those shareable posts are the ones that newsrooms increasingly prize.
“Anecdotally, I can tell you people are just as likely to click on negative stories as they are to click on positive ones,” says Shepherd. “But they’re more likely to share positive stories. What you’re interested in is different from what you want your friends to see what you’re interested in.”
So as newsrooms re-evaluate how they can draw readers and elicit more shares on Twitter and Facebook, they may look to BuzzFeed’s and Upworthy’s happiness model for direction.
“I think that the Web is only becoming more social,” Shepherd says. “We’re at a point where readers are your publishers. If news sites aren’t thinking about what it would mean for someone to share a story on social media, that could be detrimental.”
汉译英竞赛原文：
城市的迷失
沿着瑗珲—腾冲线，这条1935年由胡焕庸先生发现并命名的中国人口、自然和历史地理的分界线，我们看到，从远距离贸易发展开始的那天起，利益和权力的渗透与分散，已经从根本结构上改变了城市的状态：城市在膨胀，人在疏离。里尔的阿兰（Alain）的话到今天仍然振聋发聩：“金钱万能，不是凯撒万能。”
在古罗马，柱子是按照人的比例划分的；到了文艺复兴时期，人就是世界上最美好的尺度。今天的中国城市里，裁弯取直的河渠，向四面八方扩张的交通，膨胀硕大的以便于接纳更多商业行为的城市广场与建筑立面，都在告诉人们建设背后的权力与资本才是审美标准。直到有一天，回过头来看到自己的孩子站在为车辆交通铺开的、满是尘土的路上，我们才发现，城市的大，却容不下一个让孩子们展开笑颜的机会。
规划和设计的弊病，不在于追求利益这件事情本身，而在于追求利益和权利时的鬼迷心窍，把人类其他的需要都忘记得一干二净。城市数量在变多、规模在扩大、城乡结构在解体，但城市的性质和目的，却被忘却了：最聪明的人不再懂得社会生活的形式，而最无知的人却准备去建设社会生活的形式。
城市大了，人小了。人们和他们的城市息息相关而又格格不入。人们不能获得有悖于商业世界、内容更充实更满意的生活手段，成为了旁观者、读者、听众和消极的观察者。于是，我们年复一年不是真正地生活着，而是间接地生活着，远离内在的本性。这些本性，掠过照片沉默和迷茫的脸孔，偶然从天空飘过的风筝看到，偶然从孩子们看到鸽子时脸上的笑靥看到。
人与城市的分离，让人无所适从；让人欣慰的是，大家都没有忘记要生活这件事。城市最早作为神祗的家园，代表了永恒的价值、安慰和神的力量。过去人与人的隔离与区别，将不能维持下去；城市最终体现的不再是一个神化了的统治者的意志，而是城市每一个个体和全体的意志；它不再是冲突本身，而成为了为日常生活的矛盾与冲突、挑战与拥抱提供生动舞台的容器；艺术与思想有一天也能闪现在城市的角落，与人们的生活相交织。也许到了这一天，我们才能真正说，城市让生活更美好。
老来乐 Delights in Growing Old 六十整岁望七十岁如攀高山。不料七十岁居然过了。又想八十岁是难于上青天，可望不可即了。岂知八十岁又过了。老汉今年八十二矣。这是照传统算法，务虚不务实。现在不是提倡尊重传统吗? At the age of sixty I longed for a life span of seventy, a goal as difficult as a summit to be reached. Who would expect that I had reached it? Then I dreamed of living to be eighty, a target in sight but as inaccessible as Heaven. Out of my anticipation, I had hit it. As a matter of fact, I am now an old man of eighty-two. Such longevity is a grant bestowed by Nature; though nominal and not real, yet it conforms to our tradition. Is it not advocated to pay respect to nowadays? 老年多半能悟道。孔子说“天下有道”。老子说“道可道”。《圣经》说“太初有道”。佛教说“邪魔外道”。我老了，不免胡思乱想，胡说八道，自觉悟出一条真理: 老年是广阔天地，是可以大有作为的。 An old man is said to understand the Way most probably: the Way of good administration as put forth by Confucius, the Way that can be explained as suggested by Laotzu, the Word (Way) in the very beginning as written in the Bible and the Way of pagans as denounced by the
Irritability is the tendency to get upset for reasons that seem – to other people – to be pretty minor. Your partner asks you how work went and the way they ask makes you feel intensely agitated. Your partner is putting knives and forks on the table before dinner and you mention (not for the first time) that the fork should go on the left hand side, not the right. They then immediately let out a huge sigh and sweep the cutlery onto the floor and tell you that you can xxxx-ing do it yourself if you know better. It was the most minor of criticisms and technically quite correct. And now they’ve exploded. There is so much irritability around and it exacts a huge daily cost on our collective lives, so we deserve to get a lot more curious about it: what is really going on for the irritable person? Why, really, are they getting so agitated? And instead of blaming them for getting het up about “little things”, we should do them the honour of working out why, in fact, these things may not be so minor after all.
Globalization 全球化 A fundamental shift is occurring in the world economy. 世界经济正在发生巨大转变 We are moving rapidly away from a world in which national economies were relatively self-contained entities, isolated from each other by barriers to cross-border trade and investment; by distance, time zones, and language; and by national differences in government regulation, culture, and business systems. 由于距离、时区、语言差异，再加上各国的国家调控、文化和商业体系的不同，我们正在快速地脱离这个世界。然而，在这个世界里，各国之间通过跨边界的贸易和投资壁垒与彼此相分离，各国的经济体曾经是相当独立的。 And we are moving toward a world in which barriers to cross-border trade and investment are tumbling; 因为跨边界的贸易和投资壁垒正在被击破，所以我们正朝着这个世界前进 perceived distance is shrinking due to advances in transportation and telecommunications technology; 由于先进的运输和通讯技术，感知距离在缩短。 material culture is starting to look similar the world over; 同样的，物质文化也开始渗透其中
Are We There Y et? 美国经济复苏道路漫长 America’s recovery will be much slower than that from most recessions; but the government can help a bit. 美国此次经济复苏所需的时间比以往所遇到的绝大多数经济衰退都要慢得多，但是政府 可以采取相关措施。 “WHITHER goest thou, America?”“美利坚，你，路在何方？” That question, posed by Jack Kerouac on behalf of the Beat generation half a century ago, is the biggest uncertainty hanging over the world economy. 半个世纪之前，“垮掉的一代”代表作家杰克·凯鲁亚克就提及了这个悬而未决并且困扰全球经济发展的最不确定因素。 And it reflects the foremost worry for American voters, who go to the polls for the congressional mid-term elections on November 2nd with the country’s unemployment rate stubbornly stuck at nearly one in ten. 同时，这个问题也反映出美国选民们的最大担忧，11月2日国会中期选举在即，而美国民众几近10%的失业率仍旧平稳保持。 They should prepare themselves for a long, hard ride. 美国应该为接下来的这一场旷日持久、艰苦卓绝的斗争做好充足准备。 The most wrenching recession since the 1930s ended a year ago. 自上世纪30年代以来最严重的经济衰退于一年前结束。 But the recovery—none too powerful to begin with—slowed sharply earlier this year. 但经济复苏开端不够强劲有力，并且势头在今年早些时候也急速放慢 GDP grew by a feeble 1.6% at an annual pace in the second quarter, and seems to have been stuck somewhere similar since. 第二季度GDP的年增长速度仅维持在1.6%，自次以后便毫无起色。The housing market slumped after temporary tax incentives to buy a home expired. 政府对于购买住房的户主给予短期的税收鼓励政策，但房地产市场行情仍旧一路下跌。 So few private jobs were being created that unemployment looked more likely to rise than fall.私 营领域几乎没有出现新的工作岗位，导致失业率似乎不降反升。 Fears grew over the summer that if this deceleration continued, America’s economy would slip back into recession. "整个夏天，人们都在担心，如果复苏继续放缓，美国经济可能会再次滑至衰退的深渊。 " Fortunately, those worries now seem exaggerated. 可幸的是，那些担心可谓是杞人忧天了。Part of the weakness of second-quarter GDP was probably because of a temporary surge in imports from China. 第二季度GDP增长出现疲软态势的部分原因可能是由于从中国进口的暂时性上涨而引起的。 The latest statistics, from reasonably good retail sales in August to falling claims for unemployment benefits, point to an economy that, though still weak, is not slumping further. 从八月份相当可观的销售业绩到对失业津贴需求的持续下降，最新的统计数据都显示，经济复苏虽仍旧偏弱，但已不再滑落更远。 And history suggests that although nascent recoveries often wobble for a quarter or two, they rarely relapse into recession. 以史为鉴，在这一两个季度内，尽管复苏初期可能会不太平稳，
Outing A.I.: Beyond the Turing Test The idea of measuring A.I. by its ability to “pass” as a human – dramatized in countless scifi films – is actually as old as modern A.I. research itself. It is traceable at least to 1950 when the British mathematician Alan Turing published “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” a paper in which he described what we now call the “Turing Test,” and which he referred to as the “imitation game.” There are different versions of the test, all of which are revealing as to why our approach to the culture and ethics of A.I. is what it is, for good and bad. For the most familiar version, a human interrogator asks questions of two hidden contestants, one a human and the other a computer. Turing suggests that if the interrogator usually cannot tell which is which, and if the computer can successfully pass as human, then can we not conclude, for practical purposes, that the computer is “intelligent”? More people “know” Turing’s foundational text than have actually read it. This is un fortunate because the text is marvelous, strange and surprising. Turing introduces his test as a variation on a popular parlor game in which two hidden contestants, a woman (player A) and a man (player B) try to convince a third that he or she is a woman by their written responses to leading questions. To win, one of the players must convincingly be who they really are, whereas the other must try to pass as another gender. Turing describes his own variation as one where “a computer takes the place of player A,” and so a literal reading would suggest that in his version the computer is not just pretending to be a human, but pretending to be a woman. It must pass as a she. Passing as a person comes down to what others see and interpret. Because everyone else is already willing to read others according to conventional cues (of race, sex, gender, species, etc.) the complicity between whoever (or whatever) is passing and those among which he or she or it performs is what allows passing to succeed. Whether or not an A.I. is trying to pass as a human or is merely in drag as a human is another matter. Is the ruse all just a game or, as for some people who are compelled to pass in their daily lives, an essential camouflage? Either way, “passing” may say more about the audience than about the performers. That we would wish to define the very existence of A.I. in relation to its ability to mimic how humans think that humans think will be looked back upon as a weird sort of speciesism. The legacy of that conceit helped to steer some older A.I. research down disappointingly fruitless paths, hoping to recreate human minds from available parts. It just doesn’t work that way. Contemporary
行禅人生中的“疫”与益 1965年，加里·斯奈德、艾伦·金斯伯格和菲利普·韦伦暂别凡尘杂念，行走在塔玛佩斯山上，冥思苦想。在此番或曰作环山行禅的旅途中，他们既是诗人，又是佛学生。他们依循佛教传统以顺时针方向经行，哪儿的自然风光让他们眼前一亮，他们就在哪儿择定仪式并逐一施行：以佛教、印度教的咏唱、诵咒、念经、祈愿等形式。 在1992年的一次采访中，斯奈德鼓励后来的经行者们能像他们表现出来的那样富有创新力。采访最后他还想说点什么，但欲言又止，或许他原本还想说道说道他们仨选停的地点吧。 经行，是指出于特定目的，围绕神物进行庄严的旋回往返的活动。这一古老的仪式植根于世界上诸多文化。那么在现代的语境下，它的意思是什么呢？ 斯奈德解释道：“要诀是你得用心，得行动，一边走、一边停，一心一意。它不过是人类驻足欣赏风光——同时也是审视自身——的一种方式。”二十世纪九十年代末，我在加利福尼亚大学戴维斯分校研究生院师从斯奈德学习诗歌。他教会我，人类察觉并能阐明自己在哪、周围是什么，有多么的重要。这也是生物地域主义所倡导的观点。 二十世纪九十年代，英文教授、摄影师大卫·罗伯特森效仿斯奈德，推行环山绕行。他会带着学生前往塔山作短途旅行，以纪念斯奈德、金斯伯格与韦伦。1998年3月里寒冷的一天，我彼时的男友、现时的丈夫和我一同参与他组织的长达14英里的上山、下山旋回往返徒步，途中我们会停下来诵念相同的佛教、印度教咒语、经文，在1965年三人朝圣的十个地点祈愿。罗伯特森此举意在让戴维斯分校里学习荒野文学课程的学生离开教室而深入风土。该门课程以斯奈德的诗歌为一大特色，因此让学生去一趟塔山看上去是一个不错的选择。 雾气里弥漫着加州湾月桂的浓烈气味。整整一天的时间里，我们在雾气中翻越一座又一座青翠的山坡、穿越一片又一片的加州栎、花旗松、北美红杉。终于，我随大部队穿过了最后一片丛林。这也太难熬了，即便我身体强壮、酷爱徒步。但是，我终得一窥历史的真容、重走先驱者之路、重念他们诵读的经文，我的每一滴汗都没有白流。尽管如此，我仍有疑惑：我不信佛，这些咒语如何报验于我？我们用得上这些咒语吗？我们去了解佛教徒、践行他们的传统以示敬意，这就足够了吗？我向同样不是佛教徒的罗伯特森请教。他说，他绕行塔山而得以与大自然联系在一起，这是他为自己创造意义的一种方式。 1965年人类首次发起塔山行禅。随后，无数的人也来绕行塔山，正如罗伯特森以及他的学生（包括我）那样。人们喜欢管这一活动叫“环塔行”。塔山是湾区人所敬爱的母山，
第三十二届韩素音翻译大赛英译汉原文 Aesthetic Education and National Progress [1]The diminution of emphasis on the arts and the humanities and the corresponding increased emphasis on business and STEM disciplines (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) has resulted in a normative conception of national progress that excludes aesthetic education. In this essay, I argue that aesthetic educators should challenge the normative understanding of national progress. (In the humanities, aesthetic educators typically are educators of English, foreign languages and literature, philosophy, art history and film studies.) To this end, I call attention to the writings of the French philosopher Germaine de Sta?l (1766-1817) because in the adaptation of her notion of progress lies possible hope for the future of the humanities and the arts. [2][2] In contemporary American society, national progress is more often than not equated with job creation, and job creation is linked to advancement in business and the STEM disciplines. For example, in his 2012 acceptance speech after the national election, President Obama called for the United States to remain the leader in science and technology, and then he exclaimed, “America, I believe we can build on the progress we've made and continue to fight for new jobs and new opportunities and new security for the mi ddle class.” [3]Lip service is paid to civic responsibility and its role in national progress, while federal and state governments, as well as institutions of higher education, drastically cut budgets and/or entire programs in the humanities and the arts. Aesthetic educators know that these cuts will, in the long term, be devastating to civil society because the humanities and the arts are precisely the programs that convey cultural capital. More precisely, they cultivate in students the critical judgment and the independence of thought needed to be able to make informed decisions about their place in civil society. Given the number of indicators that point to a decline in public and institutional support for the humanities and the arts, however, it has become easy for aesthetic educators to become demoralized, feel irrelevant, and even believe that we, in fact, have little or no role in national progress. [4]As examples of indicators that point to the increasing irrelevance of the humanities, in FY 2014, the appropriations to both the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and the National Endowment for the Arts(NEA) were cut by 13 percent from their peak 2010 numbers, while the National Science Foundation (NSF) appropriations increased by almost 4
启蒙的真谛 [1] “启蒙”的本义是开启蒙昧，识字读书，明白事理。在中国古代，人们从小要接受“蒙学”，才能成为有教养的人，否则就是“教化未开”。据说，早年被启蒙到了什么程度，决定其日后可达到的智力高度。 [2] 同样，人类社会从传统向现代转型的过程，也与启蒙相伴随；没有启蒙就没有现代化。 [3] 然而，作为现代话语的“启蒙”，却源自于近代西方。在人类历史上，近代启蒙思想和启蒙运动首发于17世纪后期的英国，后传播到法国、德国等欧洲国家，波及北美，19世纪后期又影响到日本、中国等亚洲国家。 [4] 正是由于西方有了洛克、斯密、伏尔泰、卢梭、狄德罗等启蒙思想家，才有了之后欧美的工业革命、市场经济和宪政体制。在中国，自晚清时期出现近代启蒙思想后，中国知识分子在“救亡图存”的背景下，借助西方近代思想，改造中国传统文化，塑造新型国民，引发了洋务运动、戊戌变法、新文化运动等。特别是在当代，1978年关于“实践是检验真理的唯一标准”的大讨论，极大地解放了人们的思想，带来了之后“改革开放”的巨大成果。由此，思想的力量可见一斑。 [5] 长期以来，人们对于启蒙运动有一种误解，认为那是先知先觉的知识分子和哲人启发、教育、训导被启蒙者，因而“启蒙”成了及物动词，其宾语是未开化的芸芸众生。其实，根据现代启蒙思想家康德的解释，启蒙的本质不是“他启”而是“自觉”，即人们从由自我原因的不成熟状态（在缺乏指导下无力运用自我理性的状态）中觉醒，其根源并非是人们缺乏理性，而是缺乏对理性的运用。 [6] 这种真知灼见至今闪烁着理性的光芒。 [7] 在西方，启蒙思想的支撑源于人们对于客观规律的认知，如哥白尼的“日心说”、牛顿的“万有引力”、伽利略的“宇宙论”等，认为整个宇宙中的一切物体都遵守同一定律，进而冲破千年的宗教束缚，将这一理性思考引入了人类社会，从而开创了一个不断进取的新时代。在中国，几千年的封建农业社会，使得科技落后、法治传统缺乏，只是受到近代西方启蒙思想（包括马克思主义）的影响，才引入了科学、民主、法治的概念，开始与世界文明接轨。 [8] 在这一历史大潮中，中国现在比历史上任何时期都更接近中华民族的伟大复兴。正如“一带一路”被越来越多的国家认识到不是中国的独角戏，而是沿途民族的大合唱，每个中国人对于客观与主观世界的深刻、自觉的理性开发，最终将汇集于前所未有的“中国梦”的实现。
评第十三届“韩素音青年翻译奖”英译汉参考译文朱志瑜(香港理工大学中文及双语系) 近年中国翻译研究发展很快，但翻译批评始终落后。理论界早就注意到了这一点，但到目前为止，对翻译批评却还是说得多做得少。其中原因是多方面的。要批评就要将原文、译文从头至尾或者至少将重要章节对照一遍，费时费力；批评写出来，可能牵涉到译者和译文出版者的利益（如译者声誉、译文销量等），学报是否支持发表，译文出版者是否欢迎──几年前听说过译文出版者打电话给学报编辑阻止评论发表的事情──这些都是在撰写批评之前需要慎重考虑的，否则费力不讨好，说得严重点，可能影响到评者的人际关系以至声誉。这本不是健康学术的表现，但在中国这个大的学术环境之下，批评始终难以开展确实是个事实。翻译批评的落后不但是中国翻译学科不成熟的反映，而且还会阻碍学科的发展。 本文仅就第十三届“韩素音青年翻译奖”英译汉“参考译文”（以下简称“译文”）和评者在“译文评析”（简称“评析”）中对参赛译文的评述提出一些看法，也算是一种翻译批评，希望对青年翻译家、学者能有所帮助。两篇文章都载于《中国翻译》2001年第一期。今年十月在广州开会的时候，我也顺便征求了广外部分参与奖项评议的同事的意见，回来又做了些修改，写成了这篇文章。我首先要指出的是，“译文”经过认真的研究、讨论，是了一篇相当优秀的译文；“评析”也指出了一些粗心的译者常犯的错误和应该注意的问题。“译文”和“评析”虽然有值得讨论的地方，但瑕不掩瑜，这恰恰说明了“译无止境”这个道理。我这里只是抱着精益求精、共同提高的态度，对评委的“评析”和“译文”提出一些意见。还有一点要指出的是，没有不犯错误的翻译家；尤其是比赛参考译文，一旦刊出，几万只眼睛挑毛病，实在不容易讨好；但是指出别人的翻译错误却是很容易的一件事情。 原文是一篇散文，属于文学类型。根据功能主义的原则，原文为“表情类”（expressive）。“评析”提出的“字斟句酌、形义并重”的原则，是正确的翻译策略，即译文不仅要表达原文的内容，而且要反映原文为了表达这个内容所使用的修辞、句法等手段。“译文”基本上达到了这个要求。“字斟句酌、形义并重”这八个字也是我这篇短文所要提倡的翻译态度。这篇散文翻译起来不容易，难的倒不是语言问题，主要还是其中很多美国特有的文化内容，在一般工具书中不易找到，如: “C-2 zoning”，“guerrilla war”等等。如果评析人员能在报告中指出参考资料和查找方法，则对于参赛的学者、译者都会有更大的益处。 下面的讨论分两部分，先谈“译文”，然后分析“评析”中的几点问题；个别问题在两处同时出现，就放到“评析”部分讨论。“译文”和“评析”都不长，我就不注出页数了。 一）参考译文 1、词汇 “译文”有的地方选词不够准确，不排除有理解上的误差。 原文第一段有这样一句话： 原文：We live in dusty houses (“D-U-S-T”, he once wrote with his finger on surface s all over the house).译文：我们住在灰蒙蒙的屋子里。
韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛原文 第二十六届“韩素音青年翻译奖”竞赛原文 英译汉竞赛原文： How the News Got Less Mean The most read article of all time on BuzzFeed contains no photographs of celebrity nip slips and no inflammatory ranting. It’s a series of photos called “21 pictures that will restore your faith in humanity,”which has pulled in nearly 14 million visits so far. At Upworthy too, hope is the major draw. “This kid just died. What he left behind is wondtacular,”an Upworthy post about a terminally ill teen singer, earned 15 million views this summer and has raised more than $300,000 for cancer research. The recipe for attracting visitors to stories online is changing. Bloggers have traditionally turned to sarcasm and snark to draw attention. But the success of sites like BuzzFeed and Upworthy, whose philosophies embrace the viral nature of upbeat stories, hints that the Web craves positivity. The reason: social media. Researchers are discovering that people want to create positive images of themselves online by sharing upbeat stories. And with more people turning to Facebook and Twitter to find out what’s happening in the world, news stories may need to cheer up in order to court an audience. If social is the future of media, then optimistic stories might be media’s future. “When we started, the prevailing wisdom was that snark ruled the Internet,”says Eli Pariser, a co-founder of Upworthy. “And we just had a really different sense of what works.” “You don’t want to be that guy at the party who’s crazy and angry and ranting in the corner —it’s the same for Twitter
“CATTI杯”第二十七届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛英译汉、汉译英竞赛原文 来源：中国译协网 “CATTI杯”第二十七届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛 英译汉竞赛原文： The Posteverything Generation I never expected to gain any new insight into the nature of my generation, or the changing landscape of American colleges, in Lit Theory. Lit Theory is supposed to be the class where you sit at the back of the room with every other jaded sophomore wearing skinny jeans, thick-framed glasses, an ironic tee-shirt and over-sized retro headphones, just waiting for lecture to be over so you can light up a Turkish Gold and walk to lunch while listening to Wilco. That’s pretty much the way I spent the course, too: through structuralism, formalism, gender theory, and post-colonialism, I was far too busy shuffling through my Ipod to see what the patriarchal world order of capitalist oppression had to do with Ethan Frome. But when we began to study postmodernism, something struck a chord with me and made me sit up and look anew at the seemingly blasé college-aged literati of which I was so self-consciously one. According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible. The difficulty is that it is so...post. It defines itself so negatively against what came before it – naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism –that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is. It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all. It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it. Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society. The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious. But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism – what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself – is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world. In many ways, as a college-aged generation, we are also extremely post: post-Cold War, post-industrial, post-baby boom, post-9/11...at one point in his famous essay, “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” literary critic Frederic Jameson even calls us “post-literate.” We are a generation that is riding on the tail-end of a century of war and revolution that toppled civilizations, overturned repressive social orders, and left us with more privilege and opportunity than any other society in history. Ours could be an era to accomplish anything. And yet do we take to the streets and the airwave s and say “here we are, and this is what we demand”? Do we plant our flag of youthful rebellion on the mall in Washington and say “we are not leaving until we see change! Our eyes have been opened by our education and our conception of what is possible has been expanded by our privilege and we demand a better world because it is our right”? It would seem we do the opposite. We go to war without so much as questioning