|
|
|
译网情深 » 列出所有讨论区 » » 讨论区: 【译网情深】 » » » 主题: GRE阅读短文翻译系列 |
||
| 打印 2012-5-19 14:29:42 |
|
|
| 文章作者 冬云 于 2005-11-7 22:39:07 |
|
RE: 我的动机是什么，大家都很清楚。因为我所做的无非就是所有在这坛子上混的译者都在做或将要做的事而已，光明正大、无可厚非。既然我发表的是译文，那无论怎么讨论，总应该针对译文本身的是非阐述各自的意见和理由。撇开文章直追动机，这显出你清高呢还是显出你卑微呢？你当然可以认为我的翻译存在错误，但你的观点是否正确，那又另当别论了。我欢迎任何批评意见，但批评者本人也应该有接受反批评的雅量和勇气。我们的对话都贴在上面，清浊自辨，我就不多说了。 |
| 文章作者 微行 于 2005-11-7 23:25:44 |
|
RE: 套一句行话，大家都是出来混的。或许我的方式不对，sorry |
| 文章作者 陳池 于 2005-11-7 23:40:22 |
|
RE: 冬冬，lthough these observations are true, Pessen overestimates their importance by concluding from them that the undoubted progress toward inequality in the late eighteenth century continued in the Jacksonian period and that the United States was a class-ridden, plutocratic society even before industrialization. 這句你的確翻譯得有問題。 |
| 文章作者 陳池 于 2005-11-7 23:51:44 |
|
RE: z政治學碩士也好，古文學碩士也罷 翻譯遮一段先 ，實力說話嗎 A classic issue in social psychology is how group decisions involving risk differ from individuals making the same decision alone. Group polarization describes the fact that groups will arrive at a more extreme risk attitude than the average pre-deliberation risk attitude of individual group members, i.e., can be more risky or more conservative. We propose that one important factor determining the extent of polarization in group decisions is the regulatory fit between the decision-making orientation of the members of the group and the cultural norm about the correct risk attitude for the decision—whether one should be normatively risky (e.g., considering alternative job offers early in one’s career) or normatively conservative (e.g., considering alternative retirement options). Regulatory fit occurs when the manner of making a decision sustains (rather than disrupts) the regulatory orientation of a person or group (Higgins, 2000). Persons and groups can make decisions with a promotion focus orientation toward advancement and accomplishment or a prevention focus orientation toward security and responsibility (Higgins, 1997). A promotion focus is concerned with the presence or absence of positive outcomes (gains and non-gains), whereas a prevention focus is concerned with the absence or presence of negative outcomes (non-losses and losses). Making a decision in a risky or eager manner involves trying for “hits” (ensuring gains) and ensuring against errors of omission (non-gains), and thus it sustains or fits a promotion focus. Making a decision in a conservative or vigilant manner involves being careful (ensuring non-losses) and ensuring against errors of commission (losses), and thus it sustains or fits a prevention focus. People prefer to make decisions in a manner that fits their regulatory focus orientation. Thus, both individuals and groups prefer risky decisions when in a promotion focus and conservative decisions when in a prevention focus (Levine et al., 2000). Promotion and prevention orientations can be chronic or they can be situationally induced. Individuals’ chronic promotion and prevention orientations can be measured using the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire (RFQ) (Higgins et al., 2000). This 11-item questionnaire measures both varying levels of promotion motivation and, independently, varying levels of prevention motivation. The validity and reliability of this measure have been demonstrated cross-culturally in English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Hebrew, German, and Italian. The RFQ has been used, together with experimental manipulations of eager versus vigilant decision means, to study how regulatory fit (promotion + eager; prevention + vigilant) increases the perceived monetary value of a chosen alternative. It has also been used, together with (Prospect Theory) “gain/loss” framing, to examine how regulatory fit (promotion + “gain” framing; prevention + “loss” framing) increases negotiation performance, satisfaction and perceived fairness. Using the RFQ, groups can be experimentally created that vary in their proportion of chronic promotion or prevention members. The RFQ can also be used to determine the proportion of chronic promotion or prevention members in established groups. Promotion and prevention orientations can be situationally induced by having people think about either their promotion goals (“What do you ideally want to accomplish? What are your hopes and aspirations?) or their prevention goals (“What do you believe you ought to achieve? “What are your duties and obligations?”). Studies have also used this experimental method to induce a promotion or a prevention focus, together with experimental manipulations of eager versus vigilant decision means, to study how regulatory fit increases the value of a chosen alternative. Studies have also shown that it is possible to use such situational inductions to manipulate the promotion or prevention focus of groups (Levine et al., 2000). Studies on regulatory fit, both when promotion and prevention are chronic and when they are situationally induced, have found various effects of regulatory fit. Regulatory fit increases the intensity or strength of activity engagement, which in turn can increase performance. When imagining prospective events during decision making, regulatory fit increases the imagined pleasure of positive events and the imagined pain of negative events. When a decision is made with regulatory fit, people are more satisfied with the decision and evaluate it more favorably. They also “feel right” about their decision and believe that what they did was right and fair. Finally, the value experienced when making a decision with regulatory fit is transferred to the outcome of the decision, such that the outcome is perceived as more valuable. These regulatory fit effects have been shown to be independent of just the positive or negative mood of the decision makers (Higgins, 2000; Higgins et al., 2003). There are two ways in which promotion focus decision-makers could make a decision that would produce these kinds of regulatory fit effects: (a) The decision is made in a risky (eager) manner; and (b) The decision is made with “gain” (gains and non-gains) as the reference point or standard. There are also two ways in which prevention focus decision-makers could make a decision that would produce regulatory fit effects: (a) The decision is made in a conservative (vigilant) manner; and (b) The decision is made with “loss” (non-losses and losses) as the reference point or standard. Research in this project will examine the following three hypotheses, among others: (II) Members of a group will participate more and be more influential in the decision when their promotion or prevention focus (chronic or situationally-induced) fits (a) the normative manner of the decision to be made (i.e., promotion + risky norm; (III) prevention + conservative norm) and (b) the gain/loss framing of the decision (i.e., promotion + gain framing; prevention + loss framing)—in comparison to non-fit conditions (i.e., promotion + conservative norm; prevention + risky norm; promotion + loss framing; prevention + gain framing). (II) The higher the proportion of group members whose promotion or prevention focus fits the norm about how the decision should be made, the more the final decision will polarize toward that norm (i.e., a risky shift or a conservative shift), and the more the group will value their decision and believe that it was made in a fair way. (III) A risky shift will be especially strong, highly valued and seen as fair when there is a high proportion of promotion group members, a risky norm and gain framing. A conservative shift will be especially strong, highly valued and seen as fair when there is a high proportion of prevention group members, a conservative norm and loss framing. In addition to examining the above three hypotheses, the project will also explore the possibility that established groups can construct over time a shared reality about the promotion or prevention orientation of the group that is, to some extent at least, independent of the individual group members’ regulatory focus. To begin to examine this possibility, the standard RFQ measure will be modified to ask individual respondents about a group to which they belong rather than than about themselves as an individual. In addition to this new group RFQ, transcripts of group deliberations will be coded in terms of statements that have a promotion orientation and statements that have a prevention orientation. Not only would this provide an additional, convergent measure for a group’s overall regulatory focus, but it would allow us to begin investigating whether the regulatory focus of a group becomes increasingly consensual over time, as well as the possibility that deliberations on particular types of problems tend to produce a particular group focus over time (i.e., a situational or task effect). References Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52, 1280-1300. Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: Value from fit. American Psychologist, 55, 1217-1230. Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., Taylor, A. (2000). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology, 30,1-23. Higgins, E. T., Idson, L. C., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D. C. (2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1140-1153. Levine, J. M., Higgins, E. T., & Choi, H-S. (2000). Development of strategic norms in groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 82, 88-101. |
| 文章作者 boyuan 于 2005-11-8 0:23:02 |
|
RE: Many critics of Emily Bronte’s novel Wuthering Heights see its second part as a counterpoint that comments on, if it does not reverse, the first part, where a “romantic” reading receives more confirmation. 对于Emily Bronte的小说《呼啸山庄》，许多批评家视其第二部分为第一部分的对应，认为它如果不是与第一部分正相反对，也是在对其进行评述；而第一部分也确实比第二部分更富有浪漫气息。 Seeing the two parts as a whole is encouraged by the novel’s sophisticated structure, revealed in its complex use of narrators and time shifts. 但对讲述者和时间变迁的复杂运用所体现的小说本身的精密结构却支持将两部分看成是一个整体。 Granted that the presence of these elements need not argue an authorial awareness of novelistic construction comparable to that of Henry James, their presence does encourage attempts to unify the novel’s heterogeneous parts. 即使不必用这些因素来证明作者对小说结构的关注堪与Henry James相媲美，它们也的确支持将小说的不同成分统一起来的努力。 However, any interpretation that seeks to unify all of the novel’s diverse elements is bound to be somewhat unconvincing. 然而，任何企图将小说的所有歧异因素都笼在一起的诠释注定要显得有点牵强。 我的观点： counterpoint意思是a contrasting but parallel element or item (对应部分），这一点lz翻译本身没错，但未准确连贯理解整个段落的思路。 上述前三句话都是关于many critics的观点：即many critics认为小说的两个部分是一个连贯的整体（为何？因为第二部分可视为第一部分的对应部分）； 第二句话中seeing the two parts as a whole 的暗含主语是many critics, 这句话承接前一句话的意思，不存在转折，不应用“但”； 第三句话较难：注意这里elements 是指narrators and time shifts, 而Henry James是美国“意识流”作家代表之一（以叙述时人称和意识不连贯为特点）。该句子大意：尽管这种转换叙述者和时间的手法不能与henry james小说中的作者主体意识相提并论，但这种手法确实容易让人把小说种截然不同的部分作为一个整体。 最后一句话提出作者自己的观点，也是对前面many critics的观点的否定。 “微行”的理解基本是对的。 顺便提及：lz第一贴子中把distintiveness翻译成“引人注目”有误。 |
| 文章作者 冬云 于 2005-11-8 0:39:21 |
|
RE: 此文由 陳池 发表 冬冬，lthough these observations are true, Pessen overestimates their importance by concluding from them that the undoubted progress toward inequality in the late eighteenth century continued in the Jacksonian period and that the United States was a class-ridden, plutocratic society even before industrialization. 這句你的確翻譯得有問題。 哦。这是有可能的。一般情况下，我不是很满意原文和译文表面上的对应，而总是追求原文与译文功能与逻辑上的一致，就这段话而言，我认为基本准确地表达了原文的意思以及各部分之间的内在关联。限于个人水平，我的认识可能存在着严重的偏差。请先生给予具体的指导，谢谢！ |
| 文章作者 冬云 于 2005-11-8 1:12:08 |
|
RE: 此文由 boyuan 发表 Many critics of Emily Bronte’s novel Wuthering Heights see its second part as a counterpoint that comments on, if it does not reverse, the first part, where a “romantic” reading receives more confirmation. 对于Emily Bronte的小说《呼啸山庄》，许多批评家视其第二部分为第一部分的对应，认为它如果不是与第一部分正相反对，也是在对其进行评述；而第一部分也确实比第二部分更富有浪漫气息。 Seeing the two parts as a whole is encouraged by the novel’s sophisticated structure, revealed in its complex use of narrators and time shifts. 但对讲述者和时间变迁的复杂运用所体现的小说本身的精密结构却支持将两部分看成是一个整体。 Granted that the presence of these elements need not argue an authorial awareness of novelistic construction comparable to that of Henry James, their presence does encourage attempts to unify the novel’s heterogeneous parts. 即使不必用这些因素来证明作者对小说结构的关注堪与Henry James相媲美，它们也的确支持将小说的不同成分统一起来的努力。 However, any interpretation that seeks to unify all of the novel’s diverse elements is bound to be somewhat unconvincing. 然而，任何企图将小说的所有歧异因素都笼在一起的诠释注定要显得有点牵强。 我的观点： counterpoint意思是a contrasting but parallel element or item (对应部分），这一点lz翻译本身没错，但未准确连贯理解整个段落的思路。 上述前三句话都是关于many critics的观点：即many critics认为小说的两个部分是一个连贯的整体（为何？因为第二部分可视为第一部分的对应部分）； 第二句话中seeing the two parts as a whole 的暗含主语是many critics, 这句话承接前一句话的意思，不存在转折，不应用“但”； 第三句话较难：注意这里elements 是指narrators and time shifts, 而Henry James是美国“意识流”作家代表之一（以叙述时人称和意识不连贯为特点）。该句子大意：尽管这种转换叙述者和时间的手法不能与henry james小说中的作者主体意识相提并论，但这种手法确实容易让人把小说种截然不同的部分作为一个整体。 最后一句话提出作者自己的观点，也是对前面many critics的观点的否定。 “微行”的理解基本是对的。 顺便提及：lz第一贴子中把distintiveness翻译成“引人注目”有误。 我的观点是：既然提到了“对应”，就说明二者不是连贯的、不构成一个整体。正如微行举的那两本《英语辞典》所解释的：counterpoint是指处于不同位置的两个人或两样东西之间存在的属性上的对应，既然处于不同位置下，怎么是一个整体呢？姑且按照先生的意见：我们试着重新翻译这几句： Many critics of Emily Bronte’s novel Wuthering Heights see its second part as a counterpoint that comments on, if it does not reverse, the first part, where a “romantic” reading receives more confirmation. 许多评论家把《呼啸山庄》的第二部分看成是第一部分的对应；这种对应体现在第二部分是对第一部分的评述，如果不是反对第一部分的话。在第一部分里，“浪漫的”解读获得到更多的肯定。 Seeing the two parts as a whole is encouraged by the novel’s sophisticated structure, revealed in its complex use of narrators and time shifts. 评论家把两部分看成是一个整体是受小说的精致结构支持的，小说的精致结构体现在它对讲述者和时间变迁的复杂运用上。 Granted that the presence of these elements need not argue an authorial awareness of novelistic construction comparable to that of Henry James, their presence does encourage attempts to unify the novel’s heterogeneous parts. 即使这些要素的呈现不需要证实作者对于小说结构的意识可与Henry James的意识相比，它们的呈现的确鼓励把小说的异质部分统一起来的努力。 第一句是说许多小说家认为小说的两部分具有相反的风格；第二句讲小说本身某些元素支持将小说两部分看成一个整体的观点；第三句则是对作者的创作意识进行评价，并承认小说的各部分是相异的而不是和谐连贯的。按照先生的理解，既然认为这三句话都是同一个主体（many critics）的观点，那么第一句的“对应”就与第二句的“整体”是一个意思了，这其实等于认同微行的观点：即对应就是整体。这样先生前面认为我对counterpoint的理解正确就落空了。换言之，先生是表面上承认我理解正确，暗地里却支持微行的理解。 关于“distinctiveness”，我翻译成“引人注目”应该说符合原意，独特的东西总是乍眼的。比如鹤立鸡群就是一种distinctiveness，这一现象难道不引人注目吗？如果先生有更好的翻译，欢迎不吝赐教。 |
| 文章作者 boyuan 于 2005-11-8 2:25:33 |
|
RE: 补充几句： 1）关于counterpoint，我指的是lz对此的翻译本身没错，但对其在“大环境”里的理解与我不同。第一句中many critics认为两个部分相对应（注意不是counterpart)（两个部分各有特点，也可能互为补充，这并不妨碍many critics认为它们属于同一个整体这一立场） 2）第二句可以这样解释：Why do many critics see the two parts a a whole? Because they have been led (prompted) to draw this conclusion by the complicated structure of the novel (complex techniques of narrators and time shifts are used). 3) 第三句中进一步阐述了，由于小说中运用了上述narrators and time shifts 手段（虽然比不上Henry James)，从而诱使many critics认为小说的两部份是一个统一的整体。这里encourage是“促使发生某一结果”的意思。 4）关于disintiveness, 可各自保留意见。 |
| 文章作者 冬云 于 2005-11-8 2:59:27 |
|
RE: 根据柯林斯辞典，counterpoint就是a kind of conterpart。 先生对第二句的扩展很明显增加了许多原句中所没有的东西，所以我很难认同这种扩句法。在先生的补充说明中，先生显然是站在微行的一边，即把counterpoint视作是整体。既然如此，先生再说我对counterpoint的翻译没错就很令人费解了。因为我的翻译是与我对特定词的理解联系在一起的，而我的理解是与微行先生有着显著分歧的。先生一方面认为我翻译没错，一方面又不承认我对特定词的理解，这有点自相矛盾吧？ |
| 文章作者 boyuan 于 2005-11-8 5:09:44 |
|
RE: 先说明一点，这里不存在站在哪一方立场的问题。我认为谁对某个问题的理解比较准确，就自然会赞同谁的理解。 恐怕lz真还没明白我的第一句话：关于counterpoint, 你翻译成“对应部分”字面上没错，整个第一句也基本没错，但是对整段文字的思路＆内在逻辑没有准确理解（第二句中用了“但”字即可看出）。前三句话的意思是紧密相连的，要结合在一起从逻辑上去理解；第二句看似突兀，其实不然，注意seeing the parts as a whole 的逻辑主语是many critics，我前面的英文扩展解释，是为了便于理解其内在逻辑。 、 如果你还是持原有理解，那么我想问一个问题：原文中many critics 到底认为两部分是一个整体呢，还是相反呢？ |
|
|
当前时区： +8 2012-5-19 14:29:42 |