英译汉竞赛原文
- 格式:doc
- 大小:40.00 KB
- 文档页数:4
OpticsManini NayarWhen I was seven, my friend Sol was hit by lightning and died. He was on a rooftop quietly playing marbles when this happened. Burnt to cinders, we were told by the neighbourhood gossips. He'd caught fire, we were assured, but never felt a thing. I only remember a frenzy of ambulances and long clean sirens cleaving the silence of that damp October night. Later, my father came to sit with me. This happens to one in several millions, he said, as if a knowledge of the bare statistics mitigated the horror. He was trying to help, I think. Or perhaps he believed I thought it would happen to me. Until now, Sol and I had shared everything; secrets, chocolates, friends, even a birthdate. We would marry at eighteen, we promised each other, and have six children, two cows and a heart-shaped tattoo with 'Eternally Yours' sketched on our behinds. But now Sol was somewhere else, and I was seven years old and under the covers in my bed counting spots before my eyes in the darkness.After that I cleared out my play-cupboard. Out went my collection of teddy bears and picture books. In its place was an emptiness, the oak panels reflecting their own woodshine. The space I made seemed almost holy, though mother thought my efforts a waste. An empty cupboard is no better than an empty cup, she said in an apocryphal aside. Mother always filled things up - cups, water jugs, vases, boxes, arms - as if colour and weight equalled a superior quality of life. Mother never understood that this was my dreamtime place. Here I could hide, slide the doors shut behind me, scrunch my eyes tight and breathe in another world. When I opened my eyes, the glow from the lone cupboard-bulb seemed to set the polished walls shimmering, and I could feel what Sol must have felt, dazzle and darkness. I was sharing this with him, as always. He would know, wherever he was, that I knew what he knew, saw what he had seen. But to mother I only said that I was tired of teddy bears and picture books. What she thought I couldn't tell, but she stirred the soup-pot vigorously.One in several millions, I said to myself many times, as if the key, the answer to it all, lay there. The phrase was heavy on my lips, stubbornly resistant to knowledge. Sometimes I said the words out of con- text to see if by deflection, some quirk of physics, the meaning would suddenly come to me. Thanks for the beans, mother, I said to her at lunch, you're one in millions. Mother looked at me oddly, pursed her lips and offered me more rice. At this club, when father served a clean ace to win the Retired-Wallahs Rotating Cup, I pointed out that he was one in a million. Oh, the serve was one in a million, father protested modestly. But he seemed pleased. Still, this wasn't what I was looking for, and in time the phrase slipped away from me, lost its magic urgency, became as bland as 'Pass the salt' or 'Is the bath water hot?' If Sol was one in a million, I was one among far less; a dozen, say. He was chosen. I was ordinary. He had been touched and transformed by forces I didn't understand. I was left cleaning out the cupboard. There was one way to bridge the chasm, to bring Solback to life, but I would wait to try it until the most magical of moments. I would wait until the moment was so right and shimmering that Sol would have to come back. This was my weapon that nobody knew of, not even mother, even though she had pursed her lips up at the beans. This was between Sol and me.The winter had almost guttered into spring when father was ill. One February morning, he sat in his chair, ashen as the cinders in the grate. Then, his fingers splayed out in front of him, his mouth working, he heaved and fell. It all happened suddenly, so cleanly, as if rehearsed and perfected for weeks. Again the sirens, the screech of wheels, the white coats in perpetual motion. Heart seizures weren't one in a million. But they deprived you just the same, darkness but no dazzle, and a long waiting.Now I knew there was no turning back. This was the moment. I had to do it without delay; there was no time to waste. While they carried father out, I rushed into the cupboard, scrunched my eyes tight, opened them in the shimmer and called out'Sol! Sol! Sol!' I wanted to keep my mind blank, like death must be, but father and Sol gusted in and out in confusing pictures. Leaves in a storm and I the calm axis. Here was father playing marbles on a roof. Here was Sol serving ace after ace. Here was father with two cows. Here was Sol hunched over the breakfast table. The pictures eddied and rushed. The more frantic they grew, the clearer my voice became, tolling like a bell: 'Sol! Sol! Sol!' The cupboard rang with voices, some mine, some echoes, some from what seemed another place - where Sol was, maybe. The cup- board seemed to groan and reverberate, as if shaken by lightning and thunder. Any minute now it would burst open and I would find myself in a green valley fed by limpid brooks and red with hibiscus. I would run through tall grass and wading into the waters, see Sol picking flowers. I would open my eyes and he'd be there,hibiscus-laden, laughing. Where have you been, he'd say, as if it were I who had burned, falling in ashes. I was filled to bursting with a certainty so strong it seemed a celebration almost. Sobbing, I opened my eyes. The bulb winked at the walls.I fell asleep, I think, because I awoke to a deeper darkness. It was late, much past my bedtime. Slowly I crawled out of the cupboard, my tongue furred, my feet heavy. My mind felt like lead. Then I heard my name. Mother was in her chair by the window, her body defined by a thin ray of moonlight. Your father Will be well, she said quietly, and he will be home soon. The shaft of light in which she sat so motionless was like the light that would have touched Sol if he'd been lucky; if he had been like one of us, one in a dozen, or less. This light fell in a benediction, caressing mother, slipping gently over my father in his hospital bed six streets away. I reached out and stroked my mother's arm. It was warm like bath water, her skin the texture of hibiscus.We stayed together for some time, my mother and I, invaded by small night sounds and the raspy whirr of crickets. Then I stood up and turned to return to my room.Mother looked at me quizzically. Are you all right, she asked. I told her I was fine, that I had some c!eaning up to do. Then I went to my cupboard and stacked it up again with teddy bears and picture books.Some years later we moved to Rourkela, a small mining town in the north east, near Jamshedpur. The summer I turned sixteen, I got lost in the thick woods there. They weren't that deep - about three miles at the most. All I had to do was cycle forall I was worth, and in minutes I'd be on the dirt road leading into town. But a stir in the leaves gave me pause.I dismounted and stood listening. Branches arched like claws overhead. The sky crawled on a white belly of clouds. Shadows fell in tessellated patterns of grey and black. There was a faint thrumming all around, as if the air were being strung and practised for an overture. And yet there was nothing, just a silence of moving shadows, a bulb winking at the walls. I remembered Sol, of whom I hadn't thought in years. And foolishly again I waited, not for answers but simply for an end to the terror the woods were building in me, chord by chord, like dissonant music. When the cacophony grew too much to bear, I remounted and pedalled furiously, banshees screaming past my ears, my feet assuming a clockwork of their own. The pathless ground threw up leaves and stones, swirls of dust rose and settled. The air was cool and steady as I hurled myself into the falling light.光学玛尼尼·纳雅尔谈瀛洲译在我七岁那年,我的朋友索尔被闪电击中死去了。
翻译竞赛汉译英参赛原文直挂云帆济沧海——海上丝绸之路特展中华民族的航海足迹,渊源悠久。
早在新石器时代,东南沿海的先民们就使用简单的航海工具,以坚韧的意志和开阔的胸襟不断探索未知领域,开辟着最早的海上航路。
汉武帝拓展八方之交流,在徐闻、合浦等地发舶远洋、通使互贸,也使中国作为东方大国的魅力更彰显于世界舞台。
历经两晋隋唐的发展,至宋元时期海外贸易达到鼎盛,广州、泉州、明州等国际性大港见证着当时帆樯鳞集的盛景。
明初,郑和下西洋创造了帆船时代航海的空前壮举。
此后,随着风起云涌的时代变迁,东西方文明不断交流与碰撞,中华民族开创的古代海上丝绸之路渐入尾声,新的全球化贸易体系开始形成并预示着新的机遇与挑战。
海上丝绸之路是古代东西方通过海路,以商贸为依托,承载文化、艺术交流的和平之路。
它以其深远的意义、广博的内涵,对世界文明的进程产生了巨大推动和影响。
本次展览荟萃沿海各省重要海丝遗存,不但折射出中国历代的流光风韵,再现波澜壮阔、横跨万里的航海图景,也在今天全球化视野下,进一步探索了古代东西方贸易和文化交流的深刻意义,有助于唤醒古老的海洋记忆,推动中华民族复兴的伟大进程。
中国与世界其他文明间的交流,很早便点燃跨越传递的火炬,而陆路和海路交通是其间最重要的渠道。
1877年普鲁士学者李希霍芬(Fendinand Von Richithofen)将陆路称为“丝绸之路”,与此相对应,又出现了“海上丝绸之路”的名称。
目前,海上丝绸之路已成为庞大的学术概念,涵盖海外交通、航海科技、宗教、民俗、中外陶瓷、城市发展、区域经济等众多课题。
古老的海路绵延东亚、东南亚、南亚、西亚至非洲东部,越两大洋经红海进入欧洲,串连起沿途星罗棋布的港口。
来自中国、印度、阿拉伯、埃及、罗马、希腊等民族的古代商人都曾通过转运或直航,致力于海上商道的开拓。
由于航路上往来着陶瓷、丝绸、茶叶、香料等诸多商品,又被称为“陶瓷之路”、“香料之路”、“茶叶之路”、“白银之路”等。
英译汉竞赛原文:How the News Got Less MeanThe 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 pragmaticreasons,” 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。
第二届许渊冲翻译大赛英译汉原文A Contract in the Context of Semiotics[1] A contract, basically, is an agreement between two (or more) persons, creating mutual legal obligations between them. In its essence, it is a legally and morally binding promise to do something or refrain from doing something. The “something” is called the subject matter of the contract, which must be legal. It is illegal to contract against good morals or national security, for example.[2] There is no set (verbal) formula to enter into a contract. Written contracts are as a rule supposed to set out what the parties actually intend, while the intent of orally-made and other informal agreements is, from a legal standpoint, not definitely fixed. Interpretation may there be necessary in order to clarify parties’ intentions. It is the task of the trial judge to make the implicit explicit by inference from the evidence available to him or her (the written and/or oral agreement corroborated by conduct by parties).[3] The consensual basis of contract, its first formal requirement, implies that parties (called promisor and promise) agree voluntarily and in good faith to enter into a common enterprise involving future actions, thereby yielding some portion of their freedom of behavior in the future. The will of parties is, in law, considered to be manifested in the fact that, to the effect of the contract a definite offer or proposal from one party has been consciously and willingly accepted, without new terms, by the other party. An offer not clearly and explicitly put forth and/or not freely and knowingly accepted makes no contract, --- or better, it makes a defective contract. Thus, if A asks B to promise some future performance, and B makes no answer indicating his (present) willingness to do so at some (future) time, B has made no promise.[4] To qualify as a valid and legally binding contract, there must be mutuality, or exchange of promises. Under a contract, one party undertakes an obligation, thereby giving the other, to whom the obligation is owed, a claim against him, her, or itself, which consists in the right to have a performance of the terms of the contract. By this token, parties do not share benefits and burdens, but each party has his, her, or its definite privileges and responsibilities arising from the contract.[5] Contracting parties must further be competent, that is, they must have the proper legal capacity to enter into a contractual agreement. As a case in point, a contract entered into by a minor (or a mentally disabled person) is a defective, hence voidable, transaction. It is not void, and therefore still creates legally binding obligations on a competent party, unless the minor (or mentally disabled person) repudiates it. This may happen in person or through a guardian acting on his or her behalf.[6] However, a contract is not binding, and therefore void (and not merely voidable), if it is lacking what is called, in legal jargon, “consideration”. A bare and gratuitous promise is generally insufficient ground to create, for the one party, an enforceable duty to deliver any (material or immaterial) goods, not for the other, to take and pay for them. The obligation resting upon each party only exists “in consideration of” the act or promise of the other, --- meaning that neither is bound unless both are bound. Consideration is, in the Anglo-American legal system (the so-called common law), the essence and backbone of legal contract. It is alsoknown as the quid pro quo(“what for what”, “something for something”) mentioned in the title of this Chapter because of the analogy to the scholastic aliquid stat pro aliquo, which exemplifies the semiotic sign relation and is (like quid pro quo) rooted in equivalence. Quid pro quo indicates that something must be given in return for the promise; that there must be some bargain; that a responsibility incurred by the one party must be matched by a corresponding benefit gained by the other. Consideration pits the promise to give (often, to pay) against the promise to do, thereby highlighting the thing of value each party agrees to give in exchange for what he or she receives by the bargain. This thing of value, or consideration, is the reason for which the contract is made.[7] Semiotics being, essentially, the study of how verbal and nonverbal messages are created, sent, received, understood, interpreted, and otherwise used, it is clearly the case that contract is a semiotic problem. Here we must distinguish a contract as a written document from contract as a communicative act or event. Though different, both are facts of law and both are semiotic signs.[8] The written document, or contract form, is an object which is a sign because of the verbal signs (signs of Thirdness) it is codified in. when filled out and signed, it serves as a genuine Third, or sign of law. In accordance with Peirce’s classification of signs, it must be characterized as a symbolic sign strongly tinged with indexicality. More specifically, it is proposition, or dicent symbolic legisign which on being signed by parties (and, if necessary,co-signed by one or more witnesses, an attorney, and/or notary public) will acquire the statusof an argument, or argumentative symbolic legisign. The mixed, symbolic - indexical nature of the contract is signified in the appearance of the formal, written contract but can also be recognized (though perhaps in a less explicit form) in informal contracts –- agreements, that is, which may result from an exchange or letters or even from casual acts.。
第三届许渊冲翻译大赛汉译英原文[1] 茶和酒是千岁老友,但两人性格绝然相反。
一个是豪爽、狞猛、讲义气的汉子,一个是文静、宽厚、重情谊的书生。
[2] 茶为内功,无喧嚣之形,无激扬之态。
一盏浅注,清流,清气馥郁。
友情缓缓流动,谈兴徐徐舒张。
渐入友朋知己间性灵的深相映照。
[3] 酒为豪狂式的宣泄,茶为含蓄蕴藉式的内向情感。
[4] 酒入大脑,可产生摧毁性的强剌激。
茶具有舒缓的渗透性,潜入全身汗囊毛孔,缓缓生成温馨抚慰效应。
[5] 酒,饮前清香诱人,饮后浊气冲天,污及四邻空气。
茶,饮前淡淡清气,渗透入体,弥漫于不易觉察的周围空间。
[6] 人之或嗜酒,或嗜茶,或兼及双嗜,并非着意选择,更非精心安排。
其所以或癖者,有机缘,也有自然天成。
[7] 我嗜茶数十年,乃缘于出生绿茶之乡。
[8] 家乡小镇,坐落在大别山脚下。
山上山下,酒道不兴,茶道畅行。
毛尖、云雾、瓜片、小兰花,于峰顶、缓坡,漫漫成片。
茶馆,茶叶店,比肩林立。
[9] 幼时生于是乡,壮年又入太湖茶乡,机缘相伴而来。
因之曾种过茶,制过茶,品过茶。
[10] 茶之种,之制,之器,之藏,之饮,各有其术,各有其道,各有其情。
[11] 家乡小镇多茶馆。
外地亲友来访,往往不在家中落座饮茶。
浸泡于茶馆中,清茶,清谈,佐以清蔬淡点。
此似为待客仪规。
视主人钱囊奢、吝,客人风度文、鄙,而开台于雅座或大众厅。
[12] 我幼时,热水瓶属于高档奢侈用品。
普通人家盛茶,多用铜丝把紫砂壶,成提梁紫砂壶。
一壶容量,约相当于五磅热水瓶半瓶或一瓶。
将冲泡好热茶的紫砂壶,放进草编或棕丝编的茶焐中保暖。
考究点的老茶客,手捧巴掌大的小巧紫砂壶。
身边木炭炉上,坐着一把小铜壶,开水源源不绝地冲兑。
[13] 近若干年来,瓷杯、玻璃杯广为普及。
原系大众化的紫砂杯、壶,反而抬举成高档的饮器,更抬举成每件数千元上万元的极高档工艺品。
[14] 茶叶焦干,易碎。
茶叶店中,一桶茶叶卖到将尽时,桶底余茶,往往成了无叶片的茶叶末。
A Garden That Welcomes StrangersBy Allen LacyI do not know what became of her, and I never learned her name. But I feel that I knew her from the garden she had so lovingly made over many decades.我并不知道她的近况,以前也不曾得知她的名字。
然而我却觉得我从她几十年倾心照料的花园里了解了她。
The house she lived in lies two miles from mine – a simple, two-story structure with the boxy plan,steeply-pitched roof and unadorned lines that are typical of houses built in the middle of the nineteenth century near the New Jersey shore.她住在一所离我家两英里远的房子里——典型的十九世纪中页新泽西海边建筑:简单的双层结构,布局方正,房檐弯曲,线条古朴。
Her garden was equally simple. She was not a conventional gardener who did everything by the book, following the common advice to vary her plantings so there would be something in bloom from the first crocus in the spring to the last chrysanthemum in the fall. She had no respect for the rule that says that tall-growing plants belong at the rear of a perennial border, low ones in the front and middle-sized ones in the middle, with occasional exceptions for dramatic accent.她的花园也同样简单。
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 Staël (1766-1817) because in the adaptation of her notion of progress lies possible hope for the future of the humanities and the arts.[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 middle 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 percent from 2010. Perhaps the 13 percent cut would not have been so shocking if the NEH and NEA allocations did not represent a mere 2 percent of the total NSF allocation. The pill is even harder to swallow when one considers that, in 1979, the NEH and the NEA, respectively, received funding equivalent to approximately 16 percent of the NSF.[5] Salaries represent a second measure of the diminishing consideration for the humanities and the arts within university structures. The Oklahoma Faculty Survey by Discipline, a study that surveys the salaries of professors at 114 “Research University/Very High Research Activity”institutions, lists average salaries for all ranks of tenure-track faculty in a number of disciplines. According to the 2013-14 study, the average salary of a faculty member in the arts was $71,463; in English, $76,627; in philosophy and religious studies, $81,971; in physical sciences, $102,636; in engineering, $114,827; and in business management, $139,093. While salaries in 2013-14 increased from 2011-12 in the physical science, engineering, and business management, they decreased in the fine arts, English, and philosophy. If markets drive salaries, the arts and the humanities are clearly not high in market demand. This lack of demand for the humanities and the arts is further underscored in Governor Rick Scott's proposal that tuition rates for Florida state universities be frozen for students who major in “strategic areas”. Lizette Alvarez from the New York Times states of Scott’s proposal, “The message from Tallahassee could not be blunter: Give us engineers, scientists, health care specialists and technology experts. Do not worry so much about historians, philosophers, anthropologists and English majors.”From multiple perspectives, then, we see an explicit shift to STEM disciplines and a discouragement of humanities and arts education, whether in program development, faculty salaries, or student tuitions. Faced with what seems to be such overwhelming confirmation of aesthetic educators’ irrelevance to today’s understanding of national progress—namely, advancement in business, science and technology—aesthetic educators in the humanities and the arts are struggling to communicate to others outside our field, and to the public at large, our vital role.[6] As demoralizing as the perceived irrelevance of arts and humanities education may be and as disappointing as our attempts to articulate our relevance have been, we may be able to begin to find hope and purpose in renewed debate around how we think about “progress”and, more precisely, the role of aesthetic education in “progress”. The writings of Germaine de Staël are particularly illuminating because they situate aesthetic education squarely in the progress of the nation and have bearing on the dilemma facing the humanities and the arts today. Her prescient philosophy turns the definition of progress on its head and could give aesthetic educators a powerful tool to fight for the increased relevance and vitality of the humanities and the arts in the broader notion of progress.[7] Germaine de Staël’s notion of progress—namely, the alignment of the perfectibility of the human mind (accretion of knowledge) with the perfectibility of the human species (interplay between individual morality and public morality) —has direct bearing on the difficulties that we as aesthetic educators are having today in articulating our essential role in national progress. Obviously, both types of progress (perfectibility of the human mind and perfectibility of the human species) are essential to the progress of the nation, but Germaine de Staël argues convincingly that they must align. Aesthetic educators might thus remind the public that business and the STEM disciplines neither have as their mandate the watchful alignment of individual and public morality (the vector that guarantees freedom and the continual perfectingof the nation) nor do they have as their directive resistance against dogma. Furthermore, investment in STEM at the expense of the arts and the humanities parallels the Enlightenment’s obsession with progress as defined as the conservation and accretion of empirical knowledge and material gain. This obsession, at least in Germaine de Staël’s view, contributed to the neglect of the interior moral life of the individual. It, furthermore, diminished emphasis on moral responsibility and independence of judgment, which consequently led to increased partisanship, culminating in the fanaticism of the Reign of Terror. While it is hard to imagine the advent of a Reign of Terror in the United States, it can be argued that obsession with unbridled advancement in science and business at the expense of aesthetic education could lead to the weakening of individual morality—defined by Staël as the devotion to freedom, human rights, and the possibility of collective happiness for all.[8] If Germaine de Staël were alive today, she might argue that the solution to our current humanities and arts crisis is a relatively simple one. First, argue for national progress to be understood as the alignment of the perfectibility of the human mind with the perfectibility of the human species. Scientific advancement at the expense of the watchful alignment of individual and public morality poses a threat to the stability of our nation. Consequently, any call for national progress must include sufficient support of and funding for precisely the disciplines (the humanities and the arts) that have this alignment as their mandate. Secondly, encourage educational models that allow for the combination of a “useful”subject that contributes to a knowledge-based economy and a subject in which they will receive an aesthetic education.。
江苏科技大学第十届翻译大赛英译汉竞赛原文Bob Dylan, Bill Murray and Henry Kissinger: Whenhonorees don’t want their prizeOn Sunday night, the ever-elusive Bill Murray is expected to take the stage at the Kennedy Center and accept the Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, an award he actively avoided receiving. Last week he told The Washington Post’s Geoff Edgers, “I really thought if I don’t answer the phone for awhile, maybe they’ll just move on to someone else.”They didn’t. They called and called, and then had other people call, and eventually, Murray gave in.This month, the same tactic was used by the Swedish Academy, who is responsible for awarding the Nobel prizes. Bob Dylan won the prize for Literature. The Academy called his manager. The press called his representatives. Dylan has yet to say a word. “One can say that it is impolite and arrogant. He is who he is,” one of the Academy members told the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter this week.When the prize is bestowed on Dec. 10, it appears there’s a good chance Dylan won’t show up. So will he still get to become the first musician to receive the Nobel for literature?If the Academy follows the precedent set by the many award-giving institutions that have been snubbed throughout history, the answer is yes. In the world of prestigious prizes, the honor is yours whether you like it or not. Pick any well-known award, and there’s a good chance its chosen winners haven’t all deigned to make themselves available for the ceremony. For some, the snub is a statement. When Marlon Brando won an Academy Award for “The Godfather,” he boycotted the ceremony and sent a Native American actress named Sacheen Littlefeather in his place. She took the stage, waved away the award and told the audience that Brando couldn’t accept the award because of the treatment of American Indians by the film industry.Others seem to have little interest in the theatrics that usually surround award acceptance. Katharine Hepburn won four Oscars, but never showed up to claim them. “As for me, prizes are nothing,” she once said. “My prize is my work.” Woody Allenwon’t show up to the Oscars, either. His biographer Eric Lax told NPR that’s b ecause Allen, like his character in “Annie Hall,” quotes Sigmund Freud: “I would never want to belong to any club that would have someone like me for a member.”Some famous snubbers give no reasoning. Maggie Smith has been nominated for nine Emmys, and has won four times. She’s never showed up. When this year’s Emmy host Jimmy Kimmel announced another Smith win this year, he said, “Maggie, if you want this, it will be in the lost and found.” The 81-year-old Smith responded via a PBS Twitter account: “If Mr.Kimmel could please direct me to the lost and found office I will try and be on the next flight.”The world of Nobel prizes is far less star-studded than that of entertainment awards, but it’s hardly free of cold shoulders. The most notable came in 1973, when the Peace Prize was awarded to Vietnamese politician Le Duc Tho and then-U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who negotiated a cease-fire agreement meant to bring about an end to the Vietnam War. But the conflict was two years away from ending. Awarding Tho and Kissinger the prize was so controversial, two members of the Nobel selection committee resigned in protest. Vietnam’s Tho refused it outright. Kissinger didn’t show at the ceremony, and tried to return the medal.But not once in the Nobe l committee’s 115-year history has it allowed a prize to be revoked or returned. Once it’s awarded, it’s awarded for life. In the case of Dylan, this history hasn’t stopped naysayers from calling for a do-over. While Dylan has showed up to accept awards in the past —including the Presidential Medal of Freedom — now, he seems to have no interest. Why give a prize to someone who doesn’t want it?His fans see his indifference as a charming characteristic of his mysterious persona. His critics hold it up as just another reason why a man so prominent shouldn’t have been chosen in the first place.“Bob Dylan now has a chance to do something truly great for literature: reject the Nobel Prize for Literature,” poet Amy King exp ressed to PEN America, a writers association. “He can take a stand and declare that fame and ease of consumption should not play a role in determining merit when it comes to focusing the public eye on one writer’s books.” Dylan certainly could try to reject the prize. But first, he’d have to acknowledge that he won it. (779字)汉译英竞赛原文请你把脚步放轻些一个人要赢得人们的尊敬,绝不是靠权威、靠装潢、靠强迫就能得到的。
第十七届韩素音翻译大赛英译汉部分原文Beauty (excerpt)Judging from the scientists I know, including Eva and Ruth, and those I’ve read about, you can’t pursue the laws of nature very long without bumping into beauty. “I don’t know if it’s the same beauty you see in the sunset,” a friend tells me, “but it feels the same.” This friend is a physicist, who has spent a long career deciphering what must be happening in the interior of stars. He recalls for me this thrill on grasping for the first time Dirac’s equations describing quantum mechanics, or those of Einstein describing relativity. “They’re so beautiful,” he says,” you can see immediately they have to be true. Or at least on the way toward trut h.” I ask him what makes a theory beautiful, and he replies, “Simplicity, symmetry, elegance, and power.”Why nature should conform to theories we find beautiful is far from obvious. The most incomprehensible thing about the universe, as Einstein said, is that it’s comprehensible. How unlikely, that a short—lived biped on a two--bit planet should be able to gauge the speed of light, lay bare the structure of an atom, or calculate the gravitational tug of a black hole. We’re a long way from understanding everything, but we do understand a great deal about how nature behaves. Generation after generation, we puzzle out formulas, test them, and find, to an astonishing degree, that nature agrees. An architect draws designs on flimsy paper, and her buildings stand up through earthquakes. We launch a satellite into orbit and use it to bounce messages from continent to continent. The machine on which I write these words embodies hundreds of insights into the workings of the material world, insights that are confirmed by every burst of letters on the screen, and I stare at thatscreen through lenses that obey the laws of optics first worked out in detail by Issac Newton.By discerning patterns in the universe, Newton believed, he was tracing the hand of God. Scientists in our day have largely abandoned the notion of a Creator as an unnecessary hypothesis, or at least an untestable one. While they share Newton’s faith that t he universe is ruled everywhere by a coherent set of rules, they cannot say, as scientists, how these particular rules came to govern things. You can do science without believing in a divine Legislator, but not without believing in laws.I spent my teenage years scrambling up the mountain of mathematics. Midway up the slope, I staggered to a halt, gasping in the rarefied air, well before I reached the heights where the equations of Einstein and Dirac would have made sense. Nowadays I add, subtract, multiply, and do long division when no calculator is handy, and I can do algebra and geometry and even trigonometry in a pinch, but that is about all that I’ve kept from the language of numbers. Still, I remember glimpsing patterns in mathematics that seemed as bold and beautiful as a skyful of stars.I’m never more aware of the limitations of language than when I try to describe beauty. Language can create its own loveliness, of course, but it cannot deliver to us the radiance we apprehend in the world, any more than a photograph can capture the stunning swiftness of a hawk or the withering power of a supernova. Eva’s wedding album holds only a faint glimmer of the wedding itself. All that pictures or words can do is gesture beyond themselves toward the fleeting glory that stirs our hearts. So I keep gesturing.“All nature is meant to make us think of paradise,”Thomas Merton observed. Because the Creation puts on a nonstop show, beauty is free and inexhaustible, but we need training in order to perceive more than the most obvious kinds. Even 15 billion years or so after the Big Bang, echoes of that event still linger in the form of background radiation, only a few degrees above absolute zero. Just so, I believe, the experience of beauty is an echo of the order and power that permeate the universe. To measure background radiation, we need subtle instruments; to measure beauty, we need alert intelligence and our five keen senses.Anyone with eyes can take delight in a face or a flower. You need training, however, to perceive the beauty in mathematics or physics or chess, in the architecture of a tree, the design of a bird’s wing, or the shiver of breath through a flute. For most of human history, the training has come from elders who taught the young how to pay attention. By paying attention, we learn to savor all sorts of patterns, from quantum mechanics to patchwork quilts. This predilection brings with it a clear evolutionary advantage, for the ability to recognize patterns helped our ancestors to select mates, find food, avoid predators. But the same advantage would apply to all species, and yet we alone compose symphonies and crossword puzzles, carve stone into statues, map time and space.Have we merely carried our animal need for shrewd perceptions to an absurd extreme? Or have we stumbled onto a deep congruence between the structure of our minds and the structure of the universe?I am persuaded the latter is true. I am convinced there’s more to beauty than biology, more than cultural convention. It flows around and through us in such abundance, and in such myriad forms, as to exceed by a wide margin any mereevolutionary need. Which is not to say that beauty has nothing to do with survival: I think it has everything to do with survival. Beauty feeds us from the same source that created us. It reminds us of the shaping power that reaches through the flower stem and through our own hands. It restores our faith in the generosity of nature. By giving us a taste of the kinship between our own small minds and the great Mind of the Cosmos, beauty reassures us that we are exactly and wonderfully made for life on this glorious planet, in this magnificent universe.I find in that affinity a profound source of meaning and hope.A universe so prodigal of beauty may actually need us to notice and respond, may need our sharp eyes and brimming hearts and teeming minds, in order to close the circuit of Creation.美在其中(节选)我认识的科学家,像伊凡和卢斯,还有我通过阅读了解的科学家,普遍认为人们在探索自然界规律的过程中,很快便能与美不期而遇。
附件3翻译竞赛中译英参赛原文一、向美好的旧日时光道歉美好的旧日时光,渐行渐远。
在我的稿纸上,它们是代表怅惘的省略的句点;在我的书架上,它们是那本装帧精美,却蒙了尘灰的诗集;在我的抽屉里,它们是那张每个人都在微笑的合影;在我的梦里,它们是我梦中喊出的一个个名字;在我的口袋里,它们是一句句最贴心的劝语忠言……现在,我坐在深秋的藤椅里,它们就是纷纷坠落的叶子。
我尽可能接住那些叶子,不想让时光把它们摔疼了。
这是我向它们道歉的唯一方式。
向纷纷远去的友人道歉,我不知道一封信应该怎样开头,怎样结尾。
更不知道,字里行间,应该迈着怎样的步子。
向得而复失的一颗颗心道歉。
我没有珍惜你们,唯有期盼,上天眷顾我,让那一颗颗真诚的心,失而复得。
向那些正在远去的老手艺道歉,我没能看过一场真正的皮影戏,没能找一个老木匠做一个碗柜,没能找老裁缝做一个袍子,没能找一个“剃头担子”剃一次头……向美好的旧日时光道歉,因为我甚至没有时间怀念,连梦都被挤占了。
琐碎这样一个词仿佛让我看到这样一个老人,在异国他乡某个城市的下午,凝视着广场上淡然行走的白鸽,前生往事的一点一滴慢慢涌上心来:委屈、甜蜜、心酸、光荣……所有的所有在眼前就是一些琐碎的忧郁,却又透着香气。
其实生活中有很多让人愉悦的东西,它们就是那些散落在角落里的不起眼的碎片,那些暗香,需要唤醒,需要传递。
就像两个人的幸福,可以很小,小到只是静静地坐在一起感受对方的气息;小到跟在他的身后踩着他的脚印一步步走下去;小到用她准备画图的硬币去猜正反面;小到一起坐在路边猜下一个走这条路的会是男的还是女的……幸福的滋味,就像做饭一样,有咸,有甜,有苦,有辣,口味多多,只有自己体味得到。
但人性中也往往有这样的弱点:回忆是一个很奇怪的筛子,它留下的总是自己的好和别人的坏。
所以免不了心浮气躁,以至于总想从镜子里看到自己十年后的模样。
现在,十年后的自己又开始怀想十年前的模样了,因为在鬓角,看见了零星的雪。
大赛原文一:The central figure in the story, the satanic Dr Mallako, lives in Mortlake, where he wreaks havoc on the lives of his respectable suburban neighbors by encouraging them to develop to the full the less respectable sides of their nature: the destructive jealousies, hatreds and ambitions, which previously they have kept hidden and unexpressed and the existence of which they have denied even to themselves. The nameless narrator of the story is a scientist, who, seeing what has become of his neighbors under the influence of Dr Mallako, tries to resist the strange urge he himself has to become one of the doctor’s clients. In an effort to shake off what he feels to be an insane and dangerous obsession with Dr Mallako, he plunges himself feverishly into “a very abstruse scientific investigation”. But it is no good. Driven underground, the urge yet remains, and the doctor appears to him in his nightmares: “Each night I would wake in a cold sweat, hearing the ghostlyvoice saying ‘COME!’”From talking to his neighbors, the narrator realizes that the doctor’s power lies in his ability to read “secret thoughts” and to bring them out into the open, “like monsters of the deep emerging from their dark caves to bring horror to the crews of whalers”. The realization is a challenge to his hitherto optimistic view of human nature, and he begins to despair at the thought that all people, even the most conventional and respectable, have a dark side; that each and every one of them has some nasty secret about themselves that they keep hidden. Reflecting on this, he becomes “increasingly filled with a general detestation of mankind”. Dr Mallako, he realizes, is not a uniquely evil person, but simply the catalyst for the evil that lies within all of us:…in his malignant min d, in his cold destructive intellect, are concentrated in quintessential form all the baseness, all the cruelty, all the helpless rage of feeble menaspiring to be Titans…in many who are timidly respectable there lurks the hope of splendid sin, the wish to dominate and the urge to destroy.Eventually, the narrator becomes completely possessed with the desire to punish the sinful, that is, the entire human race. He thus invents and builds a device designed to boil all the water on the earth, contemplating with satisfaction as he does so the vision of the world getting hotter and drier and the unbearable thirst of mankind growing until, at last, “in a universal shriek of madness, they will perish”. After that, he reasons, “there will be no more Sin”, the planet will become dead like the moon, “and it will then be as beautiful and as innocent”.大赛原文二:When he was a child, Russell writes in his Autobiography, he was “unusually prone to a sense of sin”. When he was asked to name his favorite hymn, he chose “weary of earth andladen with my sin”. A natural consequence of his secrecy was a troubled conscience, the feeling that his secrets were perpetually liable to be discovered. When, one morning during the family’s daily prayer meeting, Lady Russell read the parable of the Prodigal Son, Bertie said to her: “I know why you did that – because I broke my jug.” When she later repeated the story with great amusement, he felt still more humiliated (“Most of my vivid early memories are of humiliations”). She did no t realize, he wrote, “that she was responsible for a morbidness which had produced tragic results in her own children.”When Bertie was seven, some relief from the oppressive atmosphere of Pembroke Lodge came when the Russells took a house in London for a few months and Bertie and Frank began for the first time to see something of their other grandmother, Lady Stanley of Alderley, and her remarkable family. Lady Stanley was an aristocrat of a quite different stamp from LadyRussell. A few years older than Lady Russell, she had grown up in the atmosphere of robust rationalism that had prevailed in Britain before the succession of Victoria, and, Russell recalls, was “contemptuous of Victorian goody-goody priggery”.As might be expected, she took a great liking to Frank and a corresponding dislike to Bertie, whom she dismissed as “just like his father”. She had a large family of four sons and four daughters, most of them talented, all of them argumentative, and none of them shy. They terrified Bertie and enchanted Frank. Of the sons, Henry was a Muslim, Lyulph an atheist and Algernon a Roman Catholic priest. On Sunday they would all gather for lunch and engage each other in vigorous and unrestrained debate, each contradicting the other and shouting at the top o f their voices. “I used to go to those luncheons in fear and trembling,” Bertie remembered, “since I never knew but what the whole pack would turn on me.” Frank, on the other hand, feltperfectly at home: “It was full of instruction, entertainment and plea sure… I heard matters freely discussed; I was allowed to speak for myself… I loved it.”Frank came to love the Stanleys as warmly as he hated the Russells, and Lady Stanley’s house at 40 Dove Street became for him a second home, a welcome break from Pembroke Lodge. Bertie remained – to all outward appearances at least – a loyal and devoted Russell. When he looked back on the two families in his old age, however, he found that his sympathies had changed: “I owe to the Russells shyness, sensitiveness, and metaphysics; to the Stanleys vigour, good health, and good spirits. On the whole, the latter seems a better inheritance than the former.”。
翻译竞赛英译汉参赛原文Africa on the Silk RoadThe Dark Continent, the Birthplace of Humanity . . . Africa. All of the lands south and west of the Kingdom of Egypt have for far too long been lumped into one cultural unit by westerners, when in reality, nothing could be further from the truth. Africa is not one mysterious, impenetrable land as the legacy of the nineteenth Century European explorers suggests, it is rather an immensely varied patchwork of peoples that can be changed not only by region and country but b y nature’s way of separating people – by rivers and lakes and by mountain ranges and deserts. A river or other natural barrier may separate two groups of people who interact, but who rarely intermarry, because they perceive the people on the other side to be “different” from them.Africa played an important part in Silk Road trade from antiquity through modern times when much of the Silk Road trade was supplanted by European corporate conglomerates like the Dutch and British East India Companies who created trade monopolies to move goods around the Old World instead. But in the heyday of the Silk Road, merchants travelled to Africa to trade for rare timbers, gold, ivory, exotic animals and spices. From ports along the Mediterranean and Red Seas to those as far south asMogadishu and Kenya in the Indian Ocean, goods from all across the continent were gathered for the purposes of trade.One of Africa’s contributions to world cuisine that is still widely used today is sesame seeds. Imagine East Asian food cooked in something other than its rich sesame oil, how about the quintessential American-loved Chinese dish, General Tso’s Chicken? How ‘bout the rich, thick tahini paste enjoyed from the Levant and Middle East through South and Central Asia and the Himalayas as a flavoring for foods (hummus, halva) and stir-fries, and all of the breads topped with sesame or poppy seeds? Then think about the use of black sesame seeds from South Asian through East Asian foods and desserts. None of these cuisines would have used sesame in these ways, if it hadn’t been for the trade of sesame seeds from Africa in antiquity.Given the propensity of sesame plants to easily reseed themselves, the early African and Arab traders probably acquired seeds from native peoples who gathered wild seeds. The seeds reached Egypt, the Middle East and China by 4,000 –5,000 years ago as evidenced from archaeological investigations, tomb paintings and scrolls. Given the eager adoption of the seeds by other cultures and the small supply, the cost per pound was probably quite high and merchants likely made fortunes offthe trade.Tamarind PodsThe earliest cultivation of sesame comes from India in the Harappan period of the Indus Valley by about 3500 years ago and from then on, India began to supplant Africa as a source of the seeds in global trade. By the time of the Romans, who used the seeds along with cumin to flavor bread, the Indian and Persian Empires were the main sources of the seeds.Another ingredient still used widely today that originates in Africa is tamarind. Growing as seed pods on huge lace-leaf trees, the seeds are soaked and turned into tamarind pulp or water and used to flavor curries and chutneys in Southern and South Eastern Asia, as well as the more familiar Worcestershire and barbeque sauces in the West. Eastern Africans use Tamarind in their curries and sauces and also make a soup out of the fruits that is popular in Zimbabwe. Tamarind has been widely adopted in the New World as well as is usually blended with sugar for a sweet and sour treat wrapped in corn husk as a pulpy treat or also used as syrup to flavor sodas, sparkling waters and even ice cream.Some spices of African origin that were traded along the Silk Road have become extinct. One such example can be found in wild silphion whichwas gathered in Northern Africa and traded along the Silk Road to create one of the foundations of the wealth of Carthage and Kyrene. Cooks valued the plant because of the resin they gathered from its roots and stalk that when dried became a powder that blended the flavors of onion and garlic. It was impossible for these ancient people to cultivate, however, and a combination of overharvesting, wars and habitat loss cause the plant to become extinct by the end of the first or second centuries of the Common Era. As supplies of the resin grew harder and harder to get, it was supplanted by asafetida from Central Asia.Other spices traded along the Silk Road are used almost exclusively in African cuisines today – although their use was common until the middle of the first millennium in Europe and Asia. African pepper, Moor pepper or negro pepper is one such spice. Called kieng in the cuisines of Western Africa where it is still widely used, it has a sharp flavor that is bitter and flavorful at the same time –sort of like a combination of black pepper and nutmeg. It also adds a bit of heat to dishes for a pungent taste. Its use extends across central Africa and it is also found in Ethiopian cuisines. When smoked, as it often is in West Africa before use, this flavor deepens and becomes smoky and develops a black cardamom-like flavor. By the middle of the 16th Century, the use and trade of negro pepper in Europe, Western and Southern Asia had waned in favor of black pepper importsfrom India and chili peppers from the New World.Traditional Chinese ShipGrains of paradise, Melegueta pepper, or alligator pepper is another Silk Road Spice that has vanished from modern Asian and European food but is still used in Western and Northern Africa and is an important cash crop in some areas of Ethiopia. Native to Africa’s West Coast its use seems to have originated in or around modern Ghana and was shipped to Silk Road trade in Eastern Africa or to Mediterranean ports. Fashionable in the cuisines of early Renaissance Europe its use slowly waned until the 18th Century when it all but vanished from European markets and was supplanted by cardamom and other spices flowing out of Asia to the rest of the world.The trade of spices from Africa to the rest of the world was generally accomplished by a complex network of merchants working the ports and cities of the Silk Road. Each man had a defined, relatively bounded territory that he traded in to allow for lots of traders to make a good living moving goods and ideas around the world along local or regional. But occasionally, great explorers accomplished the movement of goods across several continents and cultures.Although not African, the Chinese Muslim explorer Zheng He deserves special mention as one of these great cultural diplomats and entrepreneurs. In the early 15th Century he led seven major sea-faring expeditions from China across Indonesia and several Indian Ocean ports to Africa. Surely, Chinese ships made regular visits to Silk Road ports from about the 12th Century on, but when Zheng came, he came leading huge armadas of ships that the world had never seen before and wouldn’t see again for several centuries. Zheng came in force, intending to display China’s greatness to the world and bring the best goods from the rest of the world back to China. Zheng came eventually to Africa where he left laden with spices for cooking and medicine, wood and ivory and hordes of animals. It may be hard for us who are now accustomed to the world coming on command to their desktops to imagine what a miracle it must have been for the citizens of Nanjing to see the parade of animals from Zheng’s cultural Ark. But try we must to imagine the wonder brought by the parade of giraffes, zebra and ostriches marching down Chinese streets so long ago –because then we can begin to imagine the importance of the Silk Road in shaping the world.。
中英互译比赛原文中英互译比赛原文英译汉竞赛原文:The Posteverything GenerationI 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 anexplanation 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 airwaves 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 arenot 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 the rationale, we sign away our civil liberties, we say nothing when the Supreme Court uses Brown v. Board of Education to outlaw desegregation, andwe sit back to watch the carnage on the evening news.On campus, we sign petitions, join organizations, put our names on mailing lists, make small-money contributions, volunteer a sp are hour to tutor, and sport an entire wardrobe’s worth of Live Strong bracelets advertising our moderately priced opposition to everything from breast cancer to global warming. But what do we really stand for? Like a true postmodern generation we refuse to weave together an overarching narrative to our own political consciousness, to present a cast of inspirational or revolutionary characters on our public stage, or to define a specific philosophy. We are a story seemingly without direction or theme, structure or meaning – a generation defined negatively against what came before us. When Al Gore once said “It’s the combination of narcissism and nihilism that really defines postmodernism,” he might as well have been echoing his entire generation’s critique o f our own. We are a generation for whom even revolution seems trite, and therefore as fair a target for bland imitation as anything else. We are the generation of the Che Geuvera tee-shirt.Jameson calls it “Pastiche” –“the wearing of a linguistic mask, s peech in a dead language.” In literature, this means an author speaking in a style that is not his own – borrowing a voice and continuing to use it until the words lose all meaning and the chaos that is real life sets in. It is an imitation of an imitation, something that has been re-envisioned so many times the original model is no longer relevant or recognizable. It is mass-produced individualism, anticipated revolution. It is why postmodernism lacks cohesion, why it seems to lack purpose or direction. For us, the post-everything generation, pastiche is the use and reuse of the old clichés of social change and moraloutrage – a perfunctory rebelliousness that has culminated in the age of rapidly multiplying non-profits and relief funds. We live our lives in masks and speak our minds in a dead language – the language of a society that expects us to agitate because that’s what young people do. But how do we rebel against a generation that is expecting, anticipating, nostalgic for revolution?How do we rebel against parents that sometimes seem to want revolution more than we do? We don’t. We rebel by not rebelling. We wear the defunct masks of protest and moral outrage, but the real energy in campus activism is on the internet, with websites like . It is in the rapidly developing ability to communicate ideas and frustration in chatrooms instead of on the streets, and channel them into nationwide projects striving earnestly for moderate and peaceful change: we are the generation of Students Taking Action Now Darfur; we are the Rockthe Vote generation; the generation of letter-writing campaigns and public interest lobbies; the alternative energy generation.College as America once knew it – as an incubator of radical social change – is coming to an end. To our generation the word “radicalism” evokes images of al Qaeda, not the Weathermen. “Campus takeover” sounds more like Virginia Tech in 2007 than Columbia University in 1968. Such phrases are a dead language to us. They are vocabulary from another era that does not reflect the realities of today. However, the technological revolution, the revolution, the revolution of the organization kid, is just as real and just as profound as the revolution of the 1960’s – it is just not as visible. It is a work in progress, but it is there. Perhaps when our parents finally stop pointing out thethings that we are not, the stories that we do not write, they will see the threads of our narrative begin to come together; they will see that behind our pastiche, the post generation speaks in a language that does make sense. We are writing a revolution. We are just putting it in our own words.汉译英竞赛原文:保护古村落就是保护“根性文化”传统村落是指拥有物质形态和非物质形态文化遗产,具有较高的历史、文化、科学、艺术、社会、经济价值的村落。
第九届“郑州大学—《英语世界》杯”翻译大赛英译汉原文The Whoomper FactorBy Nathan Cobb【1】As this is being written, snow is falling in the streets of Boston in what weather forecasters like to call “record amounts.” I would guess by looking out the window that we are only a few hours from that magic moment of paralysis, as in Storm Paralyzes Hub. Perhaps we are even due for an Entire Region Engulfed or a Northeast Blanketed, but I will happily settle for mere local disablement. And the more the merrier.【1】写这个的时候,波士顿的街道正下着雪,天气预报员将称其为“创纪录的量”。
从窗外望去,我猜想,过不了几个小时,神奇的瘫痪时刻就要来临,就像《风暴瘫痪中心》里的一样。
也许我们甚至能够见识到《吞没整个区域》或者《茫茫东北》里的场景,然而仅仅部分地区的瘫痪也能使我满足。
当然越多越使人开心。
【2】Some people call them blizzards, others nor’easters. My own term is whoompers, and I freely admit looking forward to them as does a baseball fan to April. Usually I am disappointed, however; because tonight’s storm warnings too often turn into tomorrow’s light flurries.【2】有些人称它们为暴风雪,其他人称其为东北风暴。
英译汉竞赛原文:How the News Got Less MeanThe 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 m edia, 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 m ore 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 sh areable 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. W hat 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 h appiness 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, t hat could be detrimental.”。
英译汉原文:Are We There Yet?America’s recovery will be much slower than that from most recessions; but the government can help a bit.“WHITHER goest thou, America?” 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. 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. They should prepare themselves for a long, hard ride. The most wrenching recession since the 1930s ended a year ago. But the recovery—none too powerful to begin with—slowed sharply earlier this year. GDP grew by a feeble 1.6% at an annual pace in the second quarter, and seems to have been stuck somewhere similar since. The housing market slumped after temporary tax incentives to buy a home expired. So few private jobs were being created that unemployment looked more likely to rise than fall. Fears grew over the summer that if this deceleration continued, America’s economy would slip back into recession. Fortunately, those worries now seem exaggerated. Part of the weakness of second-quarter GDP was probably because of a temporary surge in imports from China. 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. And history suggests that although nascent recoveries often wobble for a quarter or two, they rarely relapse into recession. For now, it is most likely that America’s economy will crawl along with growth at perhaps 2.5%: above stall speed, but far too slow to make much difference to the jobless rate. Why, given that Am erica usually rebounds from recession, are the prospects so bleak? That’s because most past recessions have been caused by tight monetary policy. When policy is loosened, demand rebounds. This recession was the result of a financial crisis. Recoveries after financial crises are normally weak and slow as banking systems are repaired and balance-sheets rebuilt. Typically, this period of debt reduction lasts around seven years, which means America would emerge from it in 2014. By some measures, households are reducing their debt burdens unusually fast, but even optimistic seers do not think the process is much more than half over.Battling on the busAmerica’s biggest problem is that its politicians have yet to acknowledge that the economy is in for such a long, slow haul, let alone prepare for the consequences. A few brave officials are beginning to sound warnings that the jobless rate is likely to “stay high”. But the political debate is more about assigning blame for the recession than about suggesting imaginative ways to give more oomph to the recovery. Republicans argue that Barack Obama’s shift towards “big government” explains the economy’s weakness, and that high unemployment is proof that fiscal stimulus was a bad idea. In fact, most of the growth in government to date has been temporary and unavoidable; the longer-run growth in government is more modest, and reflects the policies of both Mr Obama and his predecessor. And the notion that high joblessness “proves” that stimulus failed is simply wrong. Th e mechanicsof a financial bust suggest that without a fiscal boost the recession would have been much worse. Democrats have their own class-warfare version of the blame game, in which Wall Street’s excesses caused the problem and higher taxes on high-earners are part of the solution. That is why Mr. Obama’s legislative priority before the mid-terms is to ensure that the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of this year for households earning more than $250,000 but are extended for everyone else. This takes an unnecessary risk with the short-term recovery. America’s experience in 1937 and Japan’s in 1997 are powerful evidence that ill-timed tax rises can tip weak economies back into recession. Higher taxes at the top, along with the waning of fiscal stimulus and belt-tightening by the states, will make a weak growth rate weaker still. Less noticed is that Mr. Obama’s fiscal plan will also worsen the medium-term budget mess, by making tax cuts for the middle class permanent.Ways to overhaul the engineIn an ideal world America would commit itself now to the medium-term tax reforms and spending cuts needed to get a grip on the budget, while leaving room to keep fiscal policy loose for the moment. But in febrile, partisan Washington that is a pipe-dream. Today’s goals can only be more modest: to nurture the weak economy, minimize uncertainty and prepare the ground for tomorrow’s fiscal debate. To that end, Congress ought to extend all the Bush tax cuts until 2013. Then they should all expire—prompting a serious fiscal overhaul, at a time when the economy is stronger.A broader set of policies could help to work off the hangover faster. One priority is to encourage more write-downs of mortgage debt. Almost a quarter of all Americans with mortgages owe more than their houses are worth. Until that changes the vicious cycle of rising foreclosures and falling prices will continue. There are plenty of ideas on offer, from changing the bankruptcy law so that judges can restructure mortgage debt to empowering special trustees to write down loans. They all have drawbacks, but a fetid pool of underwater mortgages will, much like Japan’s loans to zombie firms, corrode the financial system and harm the recovery. Cleaning up the housing market would help cut America’s unemployment rate, by making it easier for people to move to where jobs are. But more must be done to stop high joblessness becoming entrenched. Payroll-tax cuts and credits to reduce the cost of hiring would help. (The health-care reform, alas, does the opposite, at least for small businesses.) Politicians will also have to think harder about training schemes, because some workers lack the skills that new jobs require. Americans are used to great distances. The sooner they, and their politicians, accept that the road to recovery will be a long one, the faster they will get there.译文:我们到达目的地了吗?与大多数衰退之后的复苏相比,这次美国经济的复苏会慢得多。
2013年韩素音翻译大赛英译汉竞赛原文Globalization A fundamental shift is occurring in the world economy. 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. And we are moving toward a world in which barriers to cross-border trade and investment are tumbling; perceived distance is shrinking due to advances in transportation and telecommunications technology; material culture is starting to look similar the world over; and national economies are merging into an interdependent global economic system. The process by which this is occurring is commonly referred to as globalization. Correspondent: Globalization has been one of the most important factors to affect business over the last twenty years. How is it different from what existed before? Companies used to export to other parts of the world from a base in their home country. Many of the connections between exporting and importing countries had a historical basis. Today, to be competitive, companies are looking for bigger markets and want to export to every country. They want to move into the global market. To do this many companies have set up local bases in different countries. Two chief executives will talk about how their companies dealt with going global. Percy Barnevik, one of the world’s most admired business leaders when he was Chairman of the international engineering group ABB and Dick Brown of telecommunications provider Cable & Wireless. Cable & Wireless already operates in many countries and is well-placed to take advantage of the increasingly global market for telecommunications. For Dick Brown globalization involves the economies of countries being connected to each other and companies doing business in many countries and therefore having multinational accounts. Dick Brown: The world is globalizing and the telecommunications industry is becoming more and more global, and so we feel we’re well-positioned in that market place. You see currency markets are more global tied, economies are globally connected, more so nowadays with expanded trade, more and more multinational accounts are doing business in many, many more countries. We’re a company at Cable & Wireless now, well-positioned to carry the traffic and to provide the services to more and more companies that now need to get to five countries or twelve countries, we’re often there. Correspondent: When Percy Barnevik became head of the international engineering group ABB, his task was to make globalization work. He decided to divide the business into over a thousand smaller companies. In this way he believed the company could be both global and local. In answering the question “How do you make globalization work?”, Percy Barnevik describes the “global glue” that keeps the many different people in ABB together. He then looks at the need to manage the three contradictions of company: it is decentralized but centrally controlled, it is big and small at the same time and it is both global and local. Percy Barnevik: We have now for ten years after our big merger created a “global glue” where people are tied together, where they don’t internally compete, but support each other, and you have global leaders with global responsibility and your local managers working with their profit centers, and if you have the right, so to say, agenda for these people and the right structure, you can use a scale of economy and your advantages of bigness but being small. We used to say you have three contradictions: decentralized and still centrally controlled, big and small, global and local, and, of course, to try to make these contradictions work together effectively, then I think you have a big organizational competitive edge. Correspondent: Globalizations can bring advantage to a business, but how does a company go global? Dick Brown mentions three ways companies can achieve “globalness”. Firstly, companies can work together in alliances. Secondly, they can acquire or buy other companies, and thirdly they can grow organically by expanding from their existing base. Dick Brown: Well, as you go global, and a handful or more of companies are going to really push out, in my view, to be truly global companies, andsome of them, maybe all of them, will also work to be local. They’ll be local in chosen markets and global in their ability to carry their customers’ needs from continent A to continent B. We want to be one of the companies that’s both global and local. Alliances are one way to be global, it’s not the only way to be global; you can acquire your way to “globalness”, you can organically grow your way to “globalness”, you can have alliances which help you get global quicker, so you take your pick. Percy Barnevik: You have to start from the top with local people who understand language, culture and so on, and I think in this global world where the East is coming up now, that’s a winning recipe. Correspondent: ABB already found the winning recipe. Its theory of globalization has become the company’s working practice. So how do you make theory work in practice? Percy Barnevik believes that successful globalization involves getting people to work together, overcoming national, cultural barriers and making the organization customer-driven. Percy Barnevik: You see the easy thing is to have the theory, but then to make the systems work, to make people really work together, to trust each other — Americans, Europeans, Asians, to get over these national cultural barriers and create a common glue, ABB, and then make them customer-driven. If you can achieve that, and create that culture deep down then I think you have an important competitive edge.Correspondent: What Dick Brown and Percy Barnevik have shown is that there are different routes to globalization and that companies have to work hard to succeed in going global. Actually one of the disadvantages of the Global Strategy is that integrated competitive moves can lead to the sacrificing of revenues, profits, or competitive positions in individual countries — especially when the subsidiary in one country is told to attack a global competitor in order to convey a signal or divert that competitor’s resources from another nation. The challenges managers of transnational corporations face are to identify and exploit cross-border synergies and to balance local demands with the global vision for the corporation. Building an effective transnational organization requires a corporate culture that valuesglobal dissimilarities across cultures and markets.【标题解读】写作分析:何谓全球化?回答这个问题的过程就是就是人类对客观事物的认识过程,即“定义”的过程,换句话说,“定义”就是界定一种事物的本质(即意义)的说明。
英译中Word-of-mouth marketing is recognized as a powerful route from long-tail sales to blockbuster, whether one is talking about the latest fishy ice cream flavor or a Hollywood romantic comedy. In the age of social media and online networking sites, such as Twitter and Facebook, the potential for spreading the word could mean the difference between consumers seeing a product as the best thing since sliced bread or the most rotten of tomatoes. Chong Oh, Assistant Professor of Computer Information Systems at Eastern Michigan University, in Ypsilanti, Michigan, USA, has analyzed social media measures from the well-known microblogging Twitter and movie box-office data from " ." He found that not only does activity on Twitter, which is a surrogate for, or the online equivalent of actual word-of-mouth chatter, has a direct positive effect on how many people go to see a particular movie. Not surprising given its quarter of a billion global users. Moreover, he also demonstrated on the basis of this analysis that studio-generated content and online engagement with the putative audience has an indirect effect. His research is published in the International Journal of Information Systems and Change Management.Fundamentally, Oh's research shows that: "The more a movie studio is willing to engage with its followers via social media the more likely it is to have a higher WOM volume. This subsequently increases the likelihood of having a higher opening-weekend box office performance."Oh cites two very different outcomes with respect to two well-known movies. The first, John Carter, is a science fiction thriller released in 2012, that lost the studio $200 million and led to the resignation of its president. By contrast, Paranormal Activity, a low-budget movie from 2009 shot in a week on a $15,000 budget grossed $107 million at the box office. These, of course, are stark outliers, there are many more, and most movies lie somewhere between these two extremes. For the marketingdepartment ensuring that their next movie is a Paranormal rather than a Carter is partly, according to Oh, now down to online word-of-mouth.Simply having a presence (or profile) on social media is not sufficient. "The key activity of sending outgoing tweets in the seven days leading up to the release weekend was a good indicator that correlated to word-of-mouth volume buzz about the movie," Oh reports. He has some advice for movie marketers based on the findings from this research. "Social media represent an opportunity to reach an audience and establish relationships at a personal level that traditional advertising is not capable of achieving," he explains. "Incentives to encourage more interactions such as competition or tweets from the movie's cast members should go hand-in-hand with other advertisements to pump up word-of-mouth. He also suggests the same approach to social marketing might have a similar impact in other areas, such as music sales.。
英译汉竞赛原文:The Concept of Intelligence in Cross-cultural Perspectives[1]One of the positive outcomes from so much research on the relationship between culture and intelligence is an expanded view of what intelligence may be, and how it may be conceptually related to culture. This issue is intricately intertwined with cross-cultural research on intelligence because one of the possible confounding factors in previous studies that documented cultural differences has been cultural differences in the very concept and meaning of intelligence.[2]Researchers in this area have discovered that many languages have no word that corresponds to our idea of intelligence. The closest Mandarin equivalent, for instance, is a Chinese character that means “good brain and t alented”. Chinese people often associate this concept with traits such as imitation, effort, and social responsibility. Such traits do not constitute important elements of the concept of intelligence for most Americans.[3]African cultures provide a number of examples. The Baganda of East Africa use the word obugezi to refer to a combination of mental and social skills that make a person steady, cautious, and friendly. The Djerma-Songhai in West Africa use the term akkal, which has an even broader meaning –a combination of intelligence, know-how, and social skills. Still another society, the Baoule, uses the term n’glouele, which describes children who are not only mentally alert but also willing to volunteer their services without being asked.[4]Because of the enormous differences in the ways cultures define intelligence, it is difficult to make valid comparisons from one society to another. That is, different cultures value different traits(their definition of “intelligence”) and have divergent views conc erning which traits are useful in predicting future important behaviors (also culturally defined). People in different cultures not only disagree about what constitutes intelligence but also about the proper way to demonstrate those abilities. In main stream North American society, individuals are typically rewarded for displaying knowledge and skills. This same behavior may be considered improper, arrogant, or rude in societies that stress personal relationships, cooperation, and modesty.[5]These differences are important to cross-cultural studies of intelligence because successful performance on a task of intelligence may require behavior that is considered immodest and arrogant in Culture A (and therefore only reluctantly displayed by members of Culture A)but desirable in Culture B (and therefore readily displayed by members of Culture B). Clearly, such different attitudes toward the same behavior could lead researchers to draw inaccurate conclusions about differences in intelligence between Culture A and Culture B.[6]Another reason it is difficult to compare intelligence cross-culturally is that tests of intelligence often rely on knowledge that is specific to a particular culture; investigators based in that culture may not even know what to test for in a different culture. For example, one U.S. intelligence test contains the following question: “How does a violin resemble a piano?”Clearly, this question assumes prior knowledge about violin sand pianos – quite a reasonable expectation for middle-class Americans, but not for people from cultures that use different musical instruments.[7]Our expanding knowledge about cultural differences in the concept of intelligence has had important ramifications for our theoretical understanding of intelligence in mainstream American psychology as well. Although traditional thinking and reasoning abilities have dominated views of intelligence in the past, in recent years psychologists have begun to turn their attention to other possible aspects of intelligence. Until very recently, for example, creativity was not considered a part of intelligence; now, however, psychologists are increasingly considering this important human ability as a type of intelligence. Other aspects of intelligence are also coming to the forefront. A psychologist has suggested that there are really seven different types of intelligence: logical mathematical, linguistic, musical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. According to this scheme, not only do the core components of each of these seven types of intelligence differ, but so do some sample end-states (such as mathematician versus dancer). His theory of multiple intelligences has broadened our understanding of intelligence to include other areas besides “booksmarts”.[8]Perhaps the field is coming to realize that intelligence in its broadest sense may be more aptly defined as “the skills and abilities necessary to effectively accomplish cultural goals”. If your culture’s goals, for example, involve successfully pursuing a professional occupation with agood salary in order to support yourself and your family, that culture will foster a view of intelligence that incorporates cognitive and emotional skills and abilities that allow for pursuing such an occupation. Those skill sand abilities may include deductive reasoning, logical thought, verbal and mathematical skills – the sorts of skills that are fostered in contemporary American culture. If your culture’s goals, however, focus more on the development and maintenance of successful interpersonal relationships, working with nature, or hunting and gathering, intelligence will more aptly be viewed as the skills and abilities related to such activities.[9]On one level, therefore, people of all cultures share a similar view of intelligence – a catchall concept that summarizes the skills and abilities necessary to live effectively in one’s culture. At the same time, however, cultural differences naturally exist because of differences in how cultures define goals and skills and abilities needed to achieve those goals. Future research will need to delve into these dual processes, searching for commonalities as well as differences across cultures and exploring what contextual variables affect intelligence-related behaviors, and why.[10]Awareness of cultural differences in intelligence raises difficult questions concerning testing and the use of test scores. Should bias in testing be eliminated at the expense of the predictive validity of the test? Many educational institutions and business organizations today face this difficult question, which is compounded by legal ramifications and the constant threat of litigation. Perhaps we need to give consideration to yet another aspect of intelligence – that is, our attitudes regarding intelligence. A cross-cultural understanding of differences in the definitions and processes of intelligence should help to deepen our appreciation and respect for cultures different from our own, and help us to find similarities as well as differences among people.汉译英竞赛原文:启蒙的真谛[1]“启蒙”的本义是开启蒙昧,识字读书,明白事理。