Different Conceptual Approaches to Understand Health Care Information Systems

词汇学定义解释1. Word --- A word is a minimal free form of a language that has a given sound and meaning and syntactic funtion.2. Morpheme --- A morpheme is the minimal significant element in the composition of words.3. Free morphemes or Content morphemes (Free root) --- They are morphemes that may constitute words by themselves : cat, walk.4. Bound Morphemes or Grammatical morphemes --- They are morphemes that must appear with at least one other morpheme, either bound or free : Catts, walk+ing.5. Bound root --- A bound root is that part of the word that carries the fundamental meaning just like a free root. Unlike a free root, it is a bound form and has to combine with other morphemes to make words. Take -dict- for example: it conveys the meaning of "say or speak" as a Latin root, but not as a word. With the prefix pre-(=before) we obtain the verb predict meaning "tell beforehand".6. Affixes --- Affixes are forms that are attached to words or word elements to modify meaning or funtion.7. Inflectional morphemes or Inflectional affixes --- Affixes attaches to the end of words to indicate grammatical relationships are inflectional ,thus known as inflectional morphemes.There is the regular plural suffix -s(-es) which is added to nouns such as machines, desks.8. Derivational morphemes or Derivational affixes --- Derivational affixes are affixes added to other morphemes to create new words.9. Prefixes --- Prefixes are affixes that come before the word, such as, pre+war.10. Suffixes --- suffixes are affixes that come after the word, for instance, blood+y.Derivational morphemes/ derivational affixes --- A process of forming new words by the addition of a word element. Such as prefix, suffix, combing form to an already existing word.Prefixation ---- is the formation of new words by adding prefix or combing form to the base. (It modify the lexical meaning of the base)Suffixation--- is the formation of a new word by adding a suffix or combing form to the base and usually changing the word-class of the base. Such as boy. Boyish (noun- adjective)11. Root --- A root is the basic form of a word which cannot be further analysed without total loss of identity.下⾯我画了个图，把上⾯的定义形象的表达出来：12. Opaque Words--Words that are formed by one content morpheme only and cannot be analysed into parts are called opaque words, such as axe, glove.13. Transparent Words--Words that consist of more than one morphemes and can be segmented into parts are called transparent words: workable(work+able), door-man(door+man).14. Morphs--Morphemes are abstract units, which are realized in speech by discrete units known as morphs. They are actual spoken, minimal carriers of meaning.15. Allomorps--Some morphemes are realized by more than one morph according to their position in a word. Such alternative morphs are known as allomorphs. For instance, the morpheme of plurality {-s} has a number of allomorphs indifferent sound context, e.g. in cats /s/, in bags /z/, in match /iz/.16. Derivation or Affixation--Affixation is generally defined as the formation of words by adding word-forming or derivational affixes to stems. This process is also known as derivation.17. Prefixation--Prefixation is the formation of new words by adding prefixes to stems.18. Suffixation--Suffixation is the formation of new words by adding suffixes to stems.19. Compounding（Compositon）--Compounding is a process of word-formation by which two independent words are put together to make one word. E.g. hen-packed; short-sighted.20. Conversion--Conversion is the formation of new words by converting words of one class to another class. This process of creating new words without adding any affixes is also called zero-derivation. E.g. dry (a.)-->to dry.21. Back-formation-- is a process of word-formation by which a word is created by the deletion of a supposed affix. E.g. editor entered the language before edit.22. Abbreviation ( shortening )-- is a process of word-formation by which the syllables of words are abbreviated or shortened.23. Abbreviation includes four types : I. Clipped words II. Initialisms III. Acronyms IV. Blends.I. Clipped words--are those created by clipping part of a word, leaving only a piece of the old word. E.g. telephone-->phone, professional-->pro.II. Initialisms--are words formed from the initial letters of words and pronounced as letters. E.g. IMF/ai em ef/=International Monetary Fund.III. Acronyms--are words formed from the initial letters of word and pronounced as words. E.g. NATO/'neito/=North Atlantic Treaty Organization.IV. Blends--are words that are combined by parts of other words. E.g. smoke+fog=smog.24. Polysemy--The same word may have two or more different meanings. This is known as "polysemy". The word "flight", for example, may mean "passing through the air", "power of flying", "air of journey", etc.Two approaches to polysemy: Diachronic and SynchronicDiachronically, we study the growth or change in the semantic structure of a word , or how the semantic structure of a word has developed from primary meaning to the present polysemic state .Synchronically, we are interested in the comparative value of individual meanings and the interrelation between the central meaning and the secondary meanings.Two processes leading to polysemy: Radiation and concatenationRadiation : Semantically, radiation is the process in which the primary or central meaning stands at the center while secondary meanings radiate from it in every direction like rays.Concatenation : is a semantic process in which the meaning of a word moves gradually away from its first sense by successive shifts, like the links of a chain, untill there is no connection between the sense that is finally developed and the primary meaning.25. Homonyms--are generally defined as words different in meaning but either identical both in sound and spelling or identical『a.同⼀的，完全相同的』 only in sound or spelling.26. Perfect Homonyms--are words identical both in sound and spelling,but different in meaning。

有关比较二者观念不同的英语作文英文回答：In the realm of intellectual discourse, contrasting viewpoints ignite the flames of debate, revealing the multifaceted nature of human thought. Two such perspectives that have long captured the fascination of scholars and laypeople alike are those of rationalism and empiricism. While both philosophies seek to explain the nature of knowledge and the sources from which it is derived, they embark upon this endeavor through vastly different paths.Rationalists, such as René Descartes, posit that the human mind possesses innate ideas, or apriori knowledge, that are independent of sensory experience. They argue that reason alone is capable of discerning these fundamental truths, which serve as the foundation for all subsequent knowledge. Descartes famously asserted, "Cogito, ergo sum" ("I think, therefore I am"), suggesting that the act of thinking itself provides irrefutable proof of one's ownexistence.Empiricists, on the other hand, espouse the belief that all knowledge is derived from sensory experience. They contend that the mind is a blank slate at birth, and thatit gradually acquires knowledge through interactions with the external world. John Locke, a prominent empiricist, argued that all ideas originate in sensations, either directly through the five senses or indirectly through reflection on those sensations.The contrast between these two perspectives is further highlighted by their respective views on the role of observation and experimentation. Rationalists prioritize deduction, or the process of drawing logical conclusions from accepted premises. They believe that true knowledge can be obtained through the analysis of self-evident truths without the need for empirical verification. In contrast, empiricists emphasize induction, or the process ofinferring general principles from observed patterns. They argue that knowledge is tentative and subject to revision based on new evidence.This fundamental distinction between rationalism and empiricism has had a profound impact on various fields of human inquiry, including philosophy, science, and education. Rationalists have traditionally played a dominant role in disciplines such as mathematics and logic, where abstract reasoning and deduction are paramount. Empiricists, on the other hand, have been instrumental in the development of natural sciences such as physics and biology, where observation and experimentation are essential for understanding the natural world.In education, rationalism advocates for a top-down approach, emphasizing the transmission of knowledge from teacher to student. Students are presented with established principles and theories, which they are expected to accept and apply. Empiricism, on the other hand, favors a bottom-up approach, encouraging students to actively engage with the material and draw their own conclusions based on their observations.Despite their differences, both rationalism andempiricism have contributed significantly to our understanding of the world and the nature of knowledge. Rationalism provides a framework for organizing and systematizing knowledge, while empiricism ensures that our beliefs are grounded in empirical evidence. By embracing the strengths of both perspectives, we can achieve a more comprehensive and nuanced view of reality.中文回答：理性主义与经验主义。

Skopos theory: a retrospective assessmentAndrew Chesterman[2010a In W. Kallmeyer et al. (eds), Perspektiven aufKommunikation. Festschrift für Liisa Tittula zum 60.Geburtstag. Berlin: SAXA Verlag, 209-225.]1. IntroductionIt is often said, especially by laymen, that translation does not really have a theory. Not true: it has lots! (Well, it depends what you want to call a theory; but still...) But at least it does not have a general theory, right? Translation Studies has produced at best only a mixture of fragmentary theories. – This claim is not quite true either: we have several candidates which present themselves as general theories of translation. One them is skopos theory.It is now about a quarter of a century since the publication of Reißand Vermeer’s classic work,Grundlegung einer allgemeinen Translationstheorie (1984), and even longer since the earliest publications on a functional approach to translation. Skopos theory, as aparticular type of general functional theory, seems fairly well established on the map of translation studies, and is duly mentioned in all the textbooks. But how well has it stood the test of time? My aim here is to offer a general retrospective assessment of the theory, also taking account of some more recent criticism.2. Axiomatic assumptionsAny theory rests on basic assumptions that are not tested within a given research paradigm, but are taken as given, self-evident, based on common sense and logic. We must start from somewhere, after all. But of course we can always query these assumptions if we wish, standing outside the paradigm. Some of them may be only implicit, hidden. But good theories aim to make all the relevant assumptions as explicit as possible, for instance as axioms from which the rest of the theoretical claims can be deduced. Skopos theory is unusual among other theories of translation, in that it has this form of a deductive, “syntactic” theory based on a small number of explicit axioms. In the 1984 version, these are called “rules” (Regeln). I give them here in summarized form (in the original German, from Reiß and Vermeer 1984: 119), followed by some brief initial explications and comments.1. Ein Translat ist skoposbedingt.2. Ein Translat ist ein Informationsangebot in einer Zielkultur und–sprache über ein Informationsangebot in einer Ausgangskulturund –sprache.3. Ein Translat bildet ein Informationsangebot nicht-umkehrbareindeutig ab.4. Ein Translat muß in sich kohärent sein.5. Ein Translate muß mit dem Ausgangstext kohärent sein.6. Die angeführten Regeln sind untereinander in der angegebenenReihenfolge hierarchisch geordnet (“verkettet”).Ad 1: Skopos theory thus assumes that a translation always has a skopos (a purpose), even though this may not always be clear (ibid.: 21). This skopos may often differ from that of the source text (surely a useful point). The skopos is the highest determining factor influencing the translator’s decisions. Elsewhere (ibid.: 96), the rule is phrased: “Die Dominante aller Translation is deren Zweck.” The theory assumes that the skopos is oriented towards to the intended target recipients: all translations have such a readership; even if you cannot always specify them, there are al ways “there” (ibid.: 85). – I will return below to problems of definition.Ad 2: The theory assumes that language is embedded in culture. Translation is seen as a subtype of more general cultural transfer (Reißand Vermeer 1984: 13). The “information offer” concept relates to the underlying theory of communication, whereby a sender “offers” information to a receiver. This information is assumed by the sender to be “interesting” to the receiver (ibid.: 76, 103), and, if the communicative act is successful, it will be interpreted by the receiver in a way that is compatible with the sender’s intention and does not give rise to a “protest” (ibid.: 67, 106).Ad 3: Translations are not normally reversible; and a given source text has many possible translations.Ad 4: Intratextual coherence is assumed to exist to the extent that the text makes sense to the receiver, that it is compatible with the receiver’s cognitive context, as in any form of communication. Note that rules 4 and 5 have a clear prescriptive form, unlike the others.Ad 5: This fidelity rule assumes that the translation represents the source text, in some way which is relevant to the skopos. The theory recognizes a range of equivalence types.Ad 6: This rule is of a different status from the others, and, as part of a general theory, problematic. We might at least want to query the order of rules 4 and 5 as being universally valid.Immediately after giving this summary, the authors claim that these rules are “probably” the only general rules of translation (ibid.: 120). All further development of the theory would then be filling in more detail, providing rules for the analysis of the target situation, establishing conditions for the selection of different translation strategies, and so on (ibid.: 85).A last initial comment: at the very beginning of the book, the authors define “theory”, quite reasonably, thus: “Unter ‘Theorie’ versteht man die Interpretat ion und Verknüpfung von ‘Beobachtungsdaten’” (ibid.: vii). This definition nevertheless seems to be rather at odds with the way they actually present their theory. The argument of the book does not start with empirical observations or inductive generalizations, but proceeds deductively. Examples are given to support claims, but many of them seem to be invented.In a later publication, Vermeer (1996: 12f) contextualizes skopos theory explicitly as a form of action theory. Here too he sets out a number of axioms (now called, in English, “theses”), as follows, ending at about the point where the previous list (above) began:1. All acting presupposes a “point of departure”, i.e. an actor’sposition in space and time, convictions, theories, etc., includingtheir respective history.2. All acting is goal-oriented.3. From a variety of possibilities [...] that action will be chosenwhich one believes one has the best reasons for choosing under the prevailing circumstances. The reason(s) may not be conscious forthe actor.4. Given the prevailing circumstances, an actor tries to reach theintended goal by what seem to him the/an optimal way, i.e., forwhich he believes he has the best overall reason(s).5. Translating is acting, i.e. a goal-oriented procedure carried out insuch a way as the translator deems optimal under the prevailingcircumstances.6. Thesis 5 is a general thesis valid for all types of translating[including interpreting].7. In translating, all potentially pertinent factors (including thesource text on all its levels) are taken into consideration as far asthe skopos of translating allows and/or demands. [Emphasisoriginal]8. The skopos of (translational) acting determines the strategy forreaching the intended goal.One might wonder about the apparent underlying assumption here that human behaviour is necessarily always rational –if these axioms aresupposed to be descriptive (on which more below). Another underlying assumption, to which we shall return, is the assumption of optimality: that the translator (always) acts in an optimal way.3. Conceptual contributionQuite apart from any other merits, a theory may contribute new concepts to a field. These may aid theoretical thinking in general, as well as description and explanation, and may be taken up and adapted by other theories. New theoretical concepts are interpretive hypotheses, to be tested pragmatically in use (see further e.g. Chesterman 2008). Two aspects of this potential conceptual contribution will be mentioned here, beginning with the central concepts themselves.3.1. Key terms and conceptual distinctionsSome of the earliest criticism of skopos theory had to do with some of its definitions, or the lack of them (see Koller 1990, on functional theories more generally; Kelletat 1986; Hebenstreit 2007). We can also ask whether the relation between the set of terms and the set of necessary concepts is an appropriate one. Are there too many terms, or too few?Skopos is said to be a synonym of Zweck (purpose)or Funktion(Reiss and Vermeer 1984: 96), but “function” itself is not explicitly defined in the same context. Perhaps it could be glossed as “intended effect”. But: effect on whom? Intended receivers, or any and all receivers? And intended by whom? Is it only the client’s intention that counts? What about the source author’s? The publisher’s? When does an effect begin, and end? What about heterogeneous effects? How do we actually measure effects? Furthermore, if skopos equals function, we may wonder why a new term is needed. Confusingly, the Germanterm Funktion is used in several senses, including the mathematical one. Two of these senses do indicate an interesting distinction: “external function” is said to denote the translator’s general o bjective of making a living, whereas “internal function” refers to the skopos of a given translation (or translation process) (ibid.: 4). This external function seems very close to the term telos proposed in Chesterman and Baker (2008), to describe a trans lator’s ideological motivation for working as a translator, either generally as a career or on some specific, perhaps chosen, assignment.Later, Vermeer (1996: 7-8) seeks to distinguish three related concepts as follows: the intention is what the client wants to do;the skopos is what the translation is for; and the function is the “text purpose as inferred, ascribed by recipient”. But there remain problemshere. Are these distinctions necessary? When might an intention clash with a skopos? Function, in particular, remains an unclear concept. Recipients are not a homogeneous set, and may well ascribe very different functions. Even a model reader may react differently on different occasions. And besides, actual reception should surely be distinguished from intended function. Both intentions and functions may be virtually impossible to access, particularly if the translations studied are distant in time or space. – The conceptual and terminological confusion here has not been resolved (see e.g. Nord 1997: 27f; Sunwoo 2007).Another problematic term is that of coherence, used both to refer to the similarity relation of equivalence between source and target, and to the intratextual interpretability of the translation itself. These seem very different concepts, and one wonders why the theory uses the same term. Since we already have “equivalence”, and this term is used in skopos theory too, why do we need a new term? We also already have “similarity”, if something looser than “equivalence” is wanted.A translation is defined in the second axiom as an offer of information about a source text (which is itself another such offer, about something else). This interpretation of the relation between source and target is much weaker than any notion of equivalence, weaker even than relevant similarity (although Reiss and Vermeer do refer occasionally tothe offer as being a “simulating” one, e.g. p. 80, 105). It does not appear to constrain the “offer” in any way, except insofar as the offer is assumed to be “interesting” to the receivers and is “coherent” with the source text. Here again we can ask: does this term really earn its place?Regarding the German term Translation itself, we can appreciate the way in which skopos theory (following a German tradition in Translation Studies) uses this to cover both written and oral translation: this is a neat solution we have not managed to imitate in English, and which has subsequently been widely accepted. There will, however, always be argument about the appropriate extension of the term. Kelletat (1986) and Koller (1990) think the skopos notion of translation is too broad because of the way it downgrades the importance of the source text and thus allows very free translations, adaptations etc., within the concept. Kelletat (1986: 15) even suggests the Reiss/Vermeer definition would include the whole of Latin literature! In my view, on the contrary, it is too narrow, if it is taken to exclude non-optimal translations.The theory’s use of the term “adequacy” (Adäquatheit) also merits a comment. The term was already familiar from other approaches, particularly Toury’s (e.g. 1980). But skopos theory defines it differently, not as a retrospective relation of closeness between target and source but as a prospective one between the translation, the source text and the skopos (Reiss and Vermeer 1984: 139). This skopos-sense of adequacy isso easily confused with the Toury-sense that scholars now either have to specify which sense is intended or give up using the term altogether. It is risky to give a new sense to an already established term.Skopos theory, like other functional approaches, has also contributed to a more differentiated conceptualization of the agents involved in the translation process. Instead of simply having a sender and a receiver, we have learned to distinguish between writer, client, translator, publisher, recipient, addressee and so on. In this sense, skopos theory has helped to shift the discipline towards a more sociological approach.3.2. Underlying metaphorical structureA good theory’s concepts do not exist in isolation, but in a network of relations. This network may be more or less consistent in terms of its metaphorical structure. Martín de León (2008) has recently drawn attention to some interesting problems in the underlying metaphorical conceptualization of skopos theory. She argues that the theory combines two different metaphors: TRANSFER and TARGET. This suggests a lack of conceptual consistency, insofar as the metaphors are incompatible.The TRANSFER metaphor describes the movement of an object from A to B, and assumes that the object (or some essence of it) does notchange en route. This means assuming some kind of equivalence, of course. As an underlying metaphor for translation (visible in the etymology of this word), it normally needs to reify some notion of meaning (referred to as the message in Holz-Mänttäri 1984). The client’s intention might also be regarded as an “object” that is to be preserved. However, the view of a translation as merely an “offer of information” about the source text appears to go against the TRANSFER metaphor.The theory’s notion of intertextual coherence also relates to this metaphor, albeit loosely. But how valid is this assumption that meaning is “there” in the text? Several contemporary models of cognition would argue that meaning always emerges via a process of interpretation, a process which depends on multiple variables and is not completely predictable (see e.g. Risku 2002). – In my view, both these positions are overstated. Surely some meanings are more obviously, objectively “there” in a text, while others are much less so and are open to interpretive variation. If no meanings were objectivizable at all, there would be no work for terminologists and no-one would dare to step into a plane.The TARGET metaphor on the other hand describes a process from a source along a path to a goal. It does not assume an unchanged, reified message. It implies that the translator can participate in constructing the meaning of the message and thus highlights notions ofintentionality and rationality. Skopos theory stresses the expertise and responsibility of the translator to select what needs to be translated and to translate it in the most appropriate manner. But this metaphor also prompts questions. Suppose a given process or action does not have a single goal but multiple ones, perhaps regarding heterogeneous receivers? And where actually is a goal located? Strictly speaking, the goal is not in the text but in the mind of the initiating agent, for whom the translation is merely a means to achieve a goal or goals. Further: where in the theory is there any space for an assessment of the goals themselves? Is it really enough to say that any end justifies the means? – We will take up the ethical dimension of this argument below.4. Ontological status of the theoryPerhaps the most debated problem of skopos theory has been its unclear ontological status. Does it aim to be a descriptive theory (of what is) or a prescriptive one (of what should be)? Does it describe a real world or an ideal, optimal one?This ambiguous status is already apparent in its axioms: axioms four and five are openly prescriptive, but the others are not. Reiss and Vermeeer say that there is no such thing as “the best” translation for agiven source text. “Es gibt nur das Streben nach Optimierung unter den jeweils gegebenen aktuellen Bedingungen” (1984: 113). – This is an interesting formulation. The “es gibt” looks like an existential, descriptive claim: it is a fact that translators strive, that they do their best. Well, how valid is this fact? We could reply that good translators do indeed do their best, most of the time, but surely there must also be many translators who merely do the minimum, at least sometimes. Professionals must often satisfice, after all. And there are many bad translators, of course (if a translator is anyone who does a translation, as a general theory should surely assume).It seems to me to be clear that skopos theory is essentially prescriptive, although it has some descriptive assumptions. It aims to describe how good translators, expert professionals, work; what good translations are like. It describes an ideal world (see also Chesterman 1998). Vermeer has acknowledged this (Chesterman 2001), saying that the theory seeks to describe optimal cases. Elsewhere, however, he also seems to suggest that functional theories in general are both descriptive and prescriptive:Skopos theory is meant to be a functional theoretical general theory covering process, product and, as the name says, function both ofproduction and reception. As a functional theory it does not strictlydistinguish between descriptive and (didactic) prescription.(Vermeer 1996: 26n)Although the term “functional” remains problematic, I find this claim curious. Consider for instance the analysis of the reception of translations in a given culture in a given period. This would be an analysis of how the translations “functioned” in the target culture (data might include all kinds of responses, critical reviews, library loans, size and number of editions published, allusions to the translations in other writings, use of the translations as source texts for further translations, or as literary influences; sales of commercial products advertised by the translations; changes in the social, political, religious or ideological conditions; and so on). The analysis would not need to be prescriptive in any way. Even if the analysis compared the reception with the inferred intentions of different clients, this would not imply a prescriptive approach.On the other hand, there is one obvious way in which prescriptive claims can be viewed descriptively, and that is by formulating them as predictive hypotheses, as argued in Chesterman (1999). Vermeer actually does precis ely this at one point (1996: 31): “if you translate in such and such a way then y will happen”. Such predictions can then be tested in the normal way, and the results can be generalized in the form of guidelines which, if followed, are reliablyassumed to lead to translations which do not give rise to negative feedback (“Protest” in skopos-theoretical terms). This, of course, is precisely what translator training courses teach. It is also what skopos theory aims to do. If you keep the skopos in mind, and translate accordingly, the result will be better than if you neglect the skopos.5. Empirical status of the theoryAs presented, skopos theory is not founded on a search for empirical regularities. This point has been made by many critics (e.g. Koller 1995: 215). We can nevertheless consider how its various assumptions and claims might be tested empirically. It is striking that very little such testing has actually been done. What kind of evidence would falsify or weaken its claims? I will f irst consider the theory’s descriptive adequacy, then comment on its explanatory adequacy and possible testable consequences.5.1. Descriptive adequacyAxioms two and three in the original list above are descriptive. Axiom two, on translation as an offer of information, is definitional. It is aninterpretive hypothesis, which can be glossed something like this: ‘in this theory, we claim that a translation is usefully interpreted as ...’. As such, the claim is not falsifiable, but is testable pragmatically, i.e. in use (see further Chesterman 2008). Has this interpretation been widely adopted and led to further hypotheses? Not notably, it seems. On the contrary, it has aroused some criticism, as it seems to allow the concept of translation to expand too far (e.g. Kelletat 1986).Axiom three states that translations are not reversible. This claim can certainly be tested empirically, via back-translation. In my view, the claim is too extreme. It would surely be more accurate to say that the smaller the unit of translation, the more reversible it is; that in cases of standardized translations – e.g. in multilingual glossaries of special fields or in the names of institutions, or in many idioms and proverbs, in numbers, etc. – reversibility may well be the norm. In other words, the claim needs to be restricted, made subject to other conditional factors such as size of translation unit, text type, skopos, and so on.There have been a few empirical studies recently which question some of the other basic assumptions of skopos theory. Koskinen (2008) examines the working conditions of EU translators. One of her findings is that in many cases, EU translations that are not intended for the general public are not directed at a target culture at all, but are oriented by the needs of the source institution (99-100). This goes against the skopostheory assumption that a translation should have optimal functionality for target culture addressees. However, this type of EU case is not evidence against the idea that a translation is primarily determined by its skopos. Here, the skopos is simply not a target-oriented one. Interestingly, Koskinen points out that the special requirements of this kind of translation are experienced as particularly problematic by translators who have been trained in a functional approach: their translation brief seems to conflict with the target-oriented way in which they have been trained to think.Furthermore, many professional translators do not work as autonomous individuals but as members of a team of experts, including terminologists, subject specialists, revisers, copyeditors and so on. Such conditions do not always support the skopos theory assumption that it is the translator who ultimately decides how to translat e, as the expert. (“Er entscheidet letzten Endes, ob, was, wie übersetzt/gedolmetscht wird.” Reiß and Vermeer 1984: 87.) One recent study illustrates this well: Nordman (2009) examines the complex process of Finnish-Swedish translation in the bilingual Finnish Parliament, and highlights interesting disagreements between the translator’s preferences and those of revisers or legal experts, and how these are resolved. The translators and revisers she studied seem to have different norm priorities. It is not always the translator’s views that prevail.Even in some literary translation the priority of the translator’s expertise has been questioned. In a questionnaire study dealing with poetry translation, Flynn (2004) queries the status of some of the factors which skopos theory assumes, including that of the dominance of the translator’s own expertise. Flynn found that the situational factors affecting the final form of the translation are more like sites of confrontation between the various agents involved, including publishers and proof-readers as well as translators. The translator does not necessarily always have the final say. Flynn’s results admittedly concern a particular type of translation only, in a particular (Irish) context; but again, we can point out that a general theory should be able to cope with all types.As another example of evidence against the assumption that it is the expert translator who makes the final decisions I cite an ongoing PhD project by Julia Lambertini Andreotti at Tarragona. She is a qualified court interpreter working with Spanish and English in California. The ethical code there requires that interpreters make no alteration to the register of the legal jargon as they translate. But since many of the clients are not well educated, they simply do not understand the legal terminology, and so do not understand what they are asked. As communication experts, the interpreters naturally wish to adapt theregister so that the clients can understand, but this is not allowed. The interpreters are simply not permitted to act as skopos theory assumes.One might argue that all such examples are cases where a translator is forced to act under duress, against the council of his own expertise, and thus in non-optimal conditions. They would thus fall outside the scope of skopos theory. Reiß and Vermeer explicitly exclude instances of “Translation unter Zwang” (1984: 101). – But there are multiple kinds and grades of duress, including unrealistic deadlines, legal constraints etc., which characterize much real-world translation and interpreting. Indeed, if there are in fact more non-optimal cases than optimal ones, skopos theory itself would deal only with special cases – surely not the intention of the skopos theorists. A general theory should be general enough to encompass all cases.From another point of view, note should be taken of studies on how translators perform under time pressure (e.g. Hansen 2002). These studies suggest that when professional experts work under unusual time pressure, they tend not to waste time pondering about the skopos or the target audience but simply stay on the surface of the text, translating fairly literally, without reformulations or other major shifts which might actually be appropriate for the readership. Here again we have professionals working in a non-optimal situation, without sufficient timefor normal working procedures. Under these conditions, the skopos assumptions seem not to represent what actually happens.Research such as these studies underlines the way in which skopos theory relates more to an ideal, optimal world than to the real and often suboptimal world of everyday translation. In this sense, some of the general descriptive claims and assumptions of the theory can easily be falsified, or forced into more conditioned formulations – if they are supposed indeed to apply to all translation, not just optimal translation done in optimal working conditions. And what about the undeniable existence of a great many really bad translations? These are nonetheless also translations, of a kind; but they are completely excluded from skopos theory. From the point of view of descriptive adequacy, then, the theory is inadequate. But if it is taken as a prescriptive theory, of course, this is not a valid criticism.5.2. Explanatory adequacyThe first axiom (in the German list above) is a causal one. From the point of view of the production of a translation, it states that the skopos is the most important conditioning factor. This has obvious prescriptive relevance. But retrospectively, as an answe r to the question “why is this。

Morality is a fundamental aspect of human society that guides our actions and decisions.It is a set of principles and values that dictate what is right and wrong,good and bad.In this essay,we will explore the importance of morality,its sources,and how it influences our lives.The Importance of MoralityMorality plays a crucial role in maintaining social order and harmony.It helps individuals to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable behaviors,promoting a sense of responsibility and respect for others.Without a moral compass,society would likely descend into chaos,as individuals would act solely based on their selfinterests without considering the consequences of their actions on others.Sources of MoralityThe sources of morality are diverse and can be traced to various influences such as:1.Religion:Many moral codes are derived from religious teachings,which often providea framework for ethical living.For instance,the Ten Commandments in Christianity,the Five Pillars of Islam,and the Dharma in Buddhism all offer guidance on moral conduct.2.Culture and Tradition:Cultural norms and traditions also shape moral values.What is considered moral in one culture may not be in another,reflecting the diversity of moral perspectives across the globe.3.Philosophy:Philosophers throughout history have contributed to the understanding of morality.For example,Immanuel Kants categorical imperative and John Stuart Mills utilitarianism offer different approaches to ethical decisionmaking.w:Legal systems often reflect and enforce moral standards,although they may not always align perfectly with individual or societal moral beliefs.5.Personal Experience and Reasoning:Individuals develop their own moral understanding through personal experiences,education,and reasoning.Influence of Morality on Personal and Social LifeMorality impacts both personal and social life in several ways:1.Personal Development:Moral values guide personal development by helpingindividuals to cultivate virtues such as honesty,integrity,and compassion.2.Relationships:Moral principles are essential in building and maintaining healthy relationships.Trust,respect,and empathy are all moral qualities that foster strong bonds between people.3.Professional Life:In the workplace,moral behavior is crucial for creating a fair and ethical environment.This includes principles such as honesty,fairness,and accountability.4.Societal Progress:Morality drives societal progress by encouraging actions that benefit the community as a whole,such as volunteering,philanthropy,and advocating for social justice.5.Conflict Resolution:Moral reasoning helps in resolving conflicts by promoting understanding,compromise,and the pursuit of justice.Challenges to MoralityDespite its importance,morality faces several challenges in contemporary society:1.Relativism:The idea that moral values are subjective and vary from person to person can lead to moral ambiguity and a lack of consensus on ethical issues.2.Materialism:The pursuit of material wealth and success can overshadow moral considerations,leading to unethical practices in the quest for personal gain.3.Technological Advancements:New technologies present ethical dilemmas,such as those related to artificial intelligence,genetic engineering,and data privacy,which challenge traditional moral frameworks.4.Globalization:The interconnectedness of the world can lead to clashes of moral values, as different cultures and belief systems interact.ConclusionMorality is an essential component of human existence,providing a guide for ethical behavior and contributing to the betterment of society.While challenges exist,the importance of moral values remains undeniable.It is through the cultivation andapplication of these values that we can hope to build a more just,compassionate,and harmonious world.。

高二英语哲学讨论单选题30题1. In the philosophical debate, the term "metaphysics" refers to the study of _____.A. the nature of realityB. human behaviorC. social systemsD. language structure答案：A。

“metaphysics”意为形而上学，主要研究现实的本质。

选项B“human behavior”指人类行为；选项C“social systems”指社会系统；选项D“language structure”指语言结构。

在哲学讨论中，“metaphysics”通常指对现实本质的研究，故选A。

2. When discussing philosophy, the phrase "epistemology" is concerned with _____.A. moral valuesB. knowledge and beliefC. artistic expressionD. economic systems答案：B。

“epistemology”指认识论，主要涉及知识和信念。

选项A“moral values”是道德价值观；选项C“artistic expression”是艺术表达；选项D“economic systems”是经济系统。

哲学中“epistemology”侧重于知识和信念方面，所以选B。

3. In a philosophical context, "ontology" is the branch of philosophythat examines _____.A. beauty and aestheticsB. the nature of beingC. political theoriesD. logical reasoning答案：B。

人教版高三英语哲学练习题50题【含答案解析】1.The essence of things is often described as _____.A.appearanceB.substanceC.phenomenonD.illusion答案解析：B。

“substance”有“物质、实质”的意思，常用来描述事物的本质。

“appearance”是外表；“phenomenon”是现象；“illusion”是幻觉。

2.Which one represents the concept of dialectics?A.absolute staticB.relative dynamicC.unilateral viewD.mechanical thinking答案解析：B。

“relative dynamic”相对动态，符合辩证法的概念，辩证法强调事物是不断发展变化的。

“absolute static”绝对静止；“unilateral view”片面观点；“mechanical thinking”机械思维都不符合辩证法。

3.The core idea of materialism is centered around _____.A.spiritual existenceB.material existenceC.abstract conceptD.imaginary world答案解析：B。

唯物主义的核心思想是围绕物质存在。

“spiritual existence”精神存在；“abstract concept”抽象概念；“imaginary world”想象的世界都不符合唯物主义的核心。

4.The opposite of idealism is _____.A.realismB.materialismC.pragmatismD.skepticism答案解析：B。

唯心主义的对立面是唯物主义。

“realism”现实主义；“pragmatism”实用主义；“skepticism”怀疑主义都不对。

第一章：A word can be defined as afun dame ntal un it of speech and a minimum free form; with a unity of sound and meaning, capable of perform ing a give n syn tactic fun cti on The developme nt of En glish Vocabulary. ① Old English (OE) (449-1100)OE is chracterized by the frequent use of compo un ds. Some OE compo unds involving alliteration have survived in Modern English.About 85% of OE words are no Ion ger in use.② Middle En glish (1100-1500)ME is characterized by the str ong in flue nce of French followi ng the Norman Conquest in 1066. (law and gover nmen tal admi nistratio n)③ Moder n En glish (1500-the prese nt)The rapid growth of prese nt-day En glish vocabulary and its causes： A. marked progress of scie nce and tech no logy (software, hardware) B.socio-economic, political and cultural cha nges( credit card, fringe ben efit, pressure cooker) C. in flue nce of other cultures and Ianguages (maotai, sputnik) classification of English words according to different criteria 1. By origin : native words andloan words 。