第27届韩素音翻译大赛译文参考(英译中)

The Posteverything Generation

“后”一切的一代

I never expected to gain any new insight into the nature of my generation, or the changing landscape of American colleges, in Lit Theory. Lit Theory is supposed to be the class where you sit at the back of the room with every other jaded sophomore wearing skinny jeans, thick-framed glasses, an ironic tee-shirt and over-sized retro headphones, just waiting for lecture to be over so you can light up a Turkish Gold and walk to lunch while listening to Wilco. That’s pretty much the way I spent the course, too: through structuralism, formalism, gender theory, and post-colonialism, I was far too busy shuffling through my Ipod to see what the patriarchal world order of capitalist oppression had to do with Ethan Frome. But when we began to study postmodernism, something struck a chord with me and made me sit up and look anew at the seemingly blasé college-aged literati of which I was so self-consciously one.

我从来没有指望通过上文学理论课来了解我们这一代人的特征，或美国大学不断变化的景象。这门课实际是这样的，你和其他面容疲惫的大二学生一起坐在房间后面，他们身穿紧身牛仔裤和印有俏皮话的T恤，戴着黑框眼镜和超大的复古耳机，等课堂的结束后，你就会情绪高涨地在去吃午餐的路上边走边听威尔克的音乐。我差不多就是这样上课的：一边听什么结构主义、形式主义、性别理论和后殖民主义的话题，一边用我的iPod搜好听的音乐，也没时间去理会伊坦·弗洛美提出的资本主义压迫下的父权社会是什么样的。但当我们开始研究后现代主义时，一些观念引起了我的共鸣，让我提起精神，重新审视这个看似冷漠的大学生活。

According to my textbook, the problem wi th defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible. The difficulty is that it is so...post. It defines itself so negatively against what came before it –naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism –that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is. It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all. It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it. Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society. The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious. But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism – what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself – is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world.

根据我的课本，从定义的角度来说，后现代主义是很难定义的。我们所面临的困难是它太···“后”了。它的定义消极地否定了先于它的自然主义、浪漫主义和疯狂的现主义革

命---因此有时很难看清它到底指什么。它否认任何事物都可以很好地或甚至是完全解释出来。它是模仿性的、分离的、陌生的，并且有时会威胁到根本不理解它的传统主义者。虽然它出现在战后的西方国家，但迄今为止还没有一个合理的解释，后现代主义态度对国家和社会的未来到底意味什么。这个话题引起了我的好奇心，因为在充斥着空文理论的阶级下，后现代主义是一本打开的书，引诱着年轻人和充满好奇心的人。但我对它感兴趣还因为这个关于后现代主的问题--- “后”一切运动如此紧谨慎地界定自己，如今却面临着更大的有关政治和流行文化的问题，而它所说的似乎正是我身边这些不顾一屑的朋友们。

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 generati on 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.

作为一个大学生，我们也生活在一个非常“后”的时代：后冷战时代、后工业、后婴儿潮时期、后9.11时代···文学评论家詹姆逊在他一篇著名的文章中提到了“后现代主义,或晚期资本主义的文化逻辑”，他甚至叫我们为“后文化人”。我们这一代人生活在世纪战争的末端和推翻文明的革命时期，专制的社会制度被推翻了，这使得我们比其他任何社会历史时期的人都有更多的特权和机会。我们这一时代能够成为实现任何目标的时代。

And yet do we take to the streets and the airwaves an d say “here we are, and this is what we demand”? Do we plant our flag of youthful rebellion on the mall in Washington and say “we are not leaving until we see change! 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, and we sit back to watch the carnage on the evening news.

然而，我们会走上街头，在电视广播中说“我们在这儿，这就是我们想要的”吗？我们会把年轻的叛逆之旗挂在华盛顿商区，并说“我们不会离开，直到看到改变！我们的特权让我们更为广泛地接受教育，而教育和观念扩大了我们的视野，我们想要一个更好的世界，因为这是我们的权利”？似乎我们在做一些相反的事。我们在没有质疑合理性的情况下参与战争，我们签订不平等条约放弃公民自由，当最高法院使用布朗法案时时我们没作任何反应。

On campus, we sign petitions, join organizations, put our names on mailing lists, make small-money contributions, volunte er a spare 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 cri tique of 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.

在校园里，我们在情愿书上签名，加入各种组织，把自己名字添加到各种邮件通讯录中，捐力所能及的钱，做一个小时的家教志愿者，为乳腺癌和全球变暖贡献力量。可是我们代表什么呢？就像真正的后现代一代那样，我们无法编制出丰富的政治抱负，无法在公共舞台上展示出我们股无形和革命性的特征，也没有哲学。我们没有方向或主题，结构或意义，我们只是在否定先前的东西。阿尔·戈尔曾经说过：“自我陶醉和虚无主义真正定义了后现代主义”，他似乎是在呼吁整整一代人批判自己。我们只是被我们之前的一切所定义，因此就像乏味的模仿秀一样。我们是穿切·格瓦拉T恤的一代。

Jameson calls it “Pastiche” –“the wearing of a linguistic mask, speech 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 moral outrage – 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?

詹姆逊称之为“模仿”---“带着语言的面具，说着空头语言”。在文学中，这意味着一个作家用不是他本身风格的语言说话---借用外界的声音，并且一直使用直到它失去所有的意义，而混乱就是现实的生活。这是一个模仿的模仿，并且被重新设想了很多次，原有的模式也不再相关或不再能辨认出来。这是批量生产的个人主义，是一场预期的革命。这就是为什么后现代主义缺乏凝聚力，为什么它似乎缺乏目的和方向。对我们后一切的一代人来说，模仿是使用和重用旧社会的变化和道德愤怒的陈词滥调，快速增长的非营利组织和救济基金是敷衍了事的造反。我们生过在面具之下，说着一些空话来表达我们的思想---这个这会希望我们去引发骚动，因为这就是年强人该做的事。但是我们如何反抗期待、怀念革命的那一代呢？

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 th e real energy in campus activism is on the internet, with websites like https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2012088169.html,. 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 Rock the Vote generation; the generation of letter-writing campaigns and public interest lobbies; the alternative energy generation.

我们如何去反叛有时候比我们更想闹革命的父母？我们不反叛，不反叛就是我们的反叛。我们带着抗议和到的愤怒的口罩，但是我们真正的精力并没在学业上，而是在互联网上。这是一个在聊天室交流思想和受挫感的快速发展时代，为了稳健和平的变革而游行示威：我们是学生在达富尔地区采取行动的一代；我们是摇滚选票的一代；我们是发起写信活动和建立公共利益团体的一代；是使用替代能源的一代。

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 https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2012088169.html, 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 the things 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.

我们以往所知的美国大学即将结束。对我们这一代人来说，与激进主义相关的是基地组织，而不是气象员。“校园接管”听起来不像1968年的伯克利分校，而更像2007年的弗吉尼亚州理工学院。那种说法在当今已经不存在了，它们的表达是来自另一个时代，并不反映当今的现实。可是，科技革命这一还在继续的革命，就像20 世纪60 年代的革命一样真实而深刻——只是不那么明显而已。它是正在推进中的未完成的事业，但它实实在在地存在。也许等到我们的父母不再说他们样样都好而我们一无是处时，他们或许会明白，我们的叙述已经汇聚在一起，在模仿的背后，后一切的一代说的话也有一定的意义。我们在书写革命，我们在用自己的语言书写革命。

韩素音翻译大赛原文

Irritability is the tendency to get upset for reasons that seem – to other people – to be pretty minor. Your partner asks you how work went and the way they ask makes you feel intensely agitated. Your partner is putting knives and forks on the table before dinner and you mention (not for the first time) that the fork should go on the left hand side, not the right. They then immediately let out a huge sigh and sweep the cutlery onto the floor and tell you that you can xxxx-ing do it yourself if you know better. It was the most minor of criticisms and technically quite correct. And now they’ve exploded. There is so much irritability around and it exacts a huge daily cost on our collective lives, so we deserve to get a lot more curious about it: what is really going on for the irritable person? Why, really, are they getting so agitated? And instead of blaming them for getting het up about “little things”, we should do them the honour of working out why, in fact, these things may not be so minor after all.

韩素英翻译比赛原文

参赛原文： 英译汉原文 Hidden Within Technology’s Empire, a Republic of Letters When I was a boy “discovering literature”, I used to think how wonderful it would be if every other person on the street were familiar with Proust and Joyce or T. E. Lawrence or Pasternak and Kafka. Later I learned how refractory to high culture the democratic masses were. Lincoln as a young frontiersman read Plutarch, Shakespeare and the Bible. But then he was Lincoln. Later when I was traveling in the Midwest by car, bus and train, I regularly visited small-town libraries and found that readers in Keokuk, Iowa, or Benton Harbor, Mich., were checking out Proust and Joyce and even Svevo and Andrei Biely. D. H. Lawrence was also a favorite. And sometimes I remembered that God was willing to spare Sodom for the sake of 10 of the righteous. Not that Keokuk was anything like wicked Sodom, or that Proust?s Charlus would have been tempted to settle in Benton Harbor, Mich. I seem to have had a persistent democratic desire to find evidences of high culture in the most unlikely places. For many decades now I have been a fiction writer, and from the first I was aware that mine was a questionable occupation. In the 1930?s an elderly neighbor in Chicago told me that he wrote fiction for the pulps. “The people on the block wonder why I don?t go to a job, and I?m seen puttering around, trimming the bushes or painting a fence instead of working in a factory. But I?m a writer. I sell to Argosy and Doc Savage,” he said with a certain gloom. “They wouldn?t call that a trade.” Probably he noticed that I was a bookish boy, likely to sympathize with him, and perhaps he was trying to warn me to avoid being unlike others. But it was too late for that. From the first, too, I had been warned that the novel was at the point of death, that like the walled city or the crossbow, it was a thing of the past. And no one likes to be at odds with history. Oswald Spengler, one of the most widely read authors of the early 30?s, taught that our tired old civilization was ve ry nearly finished. His advice to the young was to avoid literature and the arts and to embrace mechanization and become engineers.

2015年韩素音翻译大赛翻译原文

The Posteverything Generation I never expected to gain any new insight into the nature of my generation, or the changing landscape of American colleges, in Lit Theory. Lit Theory is supposed to be the class where you sit at the back of the room with every other jaded sophomore wearing skinny jeans, thick-framed glasses, an ironic tee-shirt and over-sized retro headphones, just waiting for lecture to be over so you can light up a Turkish Gold and walk to lunch while listening to Wilco. That’s pretty much the way I spent the course, too: through structuralism, formalism, gender theory, and post-colonialism, I was far too busy shuffling through my Ipod to see what the patriarchal world order of capitalist oppression had to do with Ethan Frome. But when we began to study postmodernism, something struck a chord with me and made me sit up and look anew at the seemingly blasé college-aged literati of which I was so self-consciously one. According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s i mpossible. The difficulty is that it is so...post. It defines itself so negatively against what came before it –naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism –that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is. It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all. It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it. Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society. The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious. But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism –what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself – is spoke to a larger question about the political and

二十二届韩素音翻译大赛汉译英优秀译文

汉译英原文： 居在巷陌的寻常幸福 隐逸的生活似乎在传统意识中一直被认为是幸福的至高境界。但这种孤傲遁世同时也是孤独的，纯粹的隐者实属少数，而少数者的满足不能用来解读普世的幸福模样。 有道是小隐隐于野，大隐隐于市。真正的幸福并不隐逸，可以在街市而不是丛林中去寻找。 晨光，透过古色古香的雕花窗棂，给庭院里精致的盆景慢慢地化上一抹金黄的淡妆。那煎鸡蛋的“刺啦”声袅袅升起，空气中开始充斥着稚嫩的童音、汽车 启动的节奏、夫妻间甜蜜的道别，还有邻居们简单朴素的问好。巷陌中的这一切，忙碌却不混乱，活泼却不嘈杂，平淡却不厌烦。 巷尾的绿地虽然没有山野的苍翠欲滴，但是空气中弥漫着荒野中所没有的 生机。微黄的路灯下，每一张长椅都写着不同的心情，甜蜜与快乐、悲伤与喜悦，交织在一起，在静谧中缓缓发酵。谁也不会知道在下一个转角中会是怎样的惊喜，会是一家风格独特食客不断的小吃店？是一家放着爵士乐的酒吧？还是一家摆着高脚木凳、连空气都闲散的小小咖啡馆？坐在户外撑着遮阳伞的木椅上， 和新认识的朋友一边喝茶，一边谈着自己小小的生活，或许也是一种惬意。 一切，被时间打磨，被时间沉淀，终于形成了一种习惯，一种默契，一种文化。 和来家中做客的邻居朋友用同一种腔调巧妙地笑谑着身边的琐事，大家眯起的眼睛都默契地着同一种狡黠；和家人一起围在饭桌前，衔满食物的嘴还发着 含糊的声音，有些聒噪，但没人厌烦。 小巷虽然狭窄，却拉不住快乐蔓延的速度…… 随着城市里那些密集而冰冷的高楼大厦拔地而起，在拥堵的车流中，在污 浊的空气里，人们的幸福正在一点点地破碎，飘零。大家住得越来越宽敞，越来越私密。自我，也被划进一个单独的空间里，小心地不去触碰别人的心灵，也 不容许他人轻易介入。可是，一个人安静下来时会觉得，曾经厌烦的那些嘈杂回想起来很温情很怀念。 比起高楼耸立的曼哈顿，人们更加喜欢佛罗伦萨红色穹顶下被阳光淹没的古老巷道；比起在夜晚光辉璀璨的陆家嘴，人们会更喜欢充满孩子们打闹嬉笑的万航渡路。就算已苍然老去，支撑起梦境的应该是老房子暗灰的安详，吴侬软语的叫卖声，那一方氤氲过温馨和回忆的小弄堂。 如果用一双细腻的眼眸去观照，其实每一片青苔和爬山虎占据的墙角，是 墨绿色的诗篇，不会飘逸，不会豪放，只是那种平淡的幸福，简简单单。 幸福是什么模样，或许并不难回答。幸福就是一本摊开的诗篇，关于在城市的天空下，那些寻常巷陌的诗。 夜幕笼罩，那散落一地的万家灯火中，有多少寻常的幸福正蜗居在巷陌……

第二十六届“第二十六届“韩素音青年翻译奖”竞赛”竞赛原文

第二十六届“韩素音青年翻译奖”竞赛原文 英译汉竞赛原文： How the News Got Less Mean The most read article of all time on BuzzFeed contains no photographs of celebrity nip slips and no inflammatory ranting. It’s a series of photos called “21 pictures that will restore your fait h 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 c orner—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

“CATTI杯”第二十七届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛原文

“CATTI杯”第二十七届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛 英译汉竞赛原文： The Posteverything Generation I never expected to gain any new insight into the nature of my generation, or the changing landscape of American colleges, in Lit Theory. Lit Theory is supposed to be the class where you sit at the back of the room with every other jaded sophomore wearing skinny jeans, thick-framed glasses, an ironic tee-shirt and over-sized retro headphones, just waiting for lecture to be over so you can light up a Turkish Gold and walk to lunch while listening to Wilco. That’s pretty much the way I spent the course, too: through structuralism, formalism, gender theory, and post-colonialism, I was far too busy shuffling through my Ipod to see what the patriarchal world order of capitalist oppression had to do with Ethan Frome. But when we began to study postmodernism, something struck a chord with me and made me sit up and look anew at the seemingly blasécollege-aged literati of which I was so self-consciously one. According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible. The difficulty is that it is so...post. It defines itself so negatively against what came before it – naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism – that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is. It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all. It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it. Although it arose in the post-war west (the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society. The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious. But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism – what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself – is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world. In many ways, as a college-aged generation, we are also extremely post: post-Cold War, post-industrial, post-baby boom, post-9/11...at one point in his famous essay, “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” literary critic Frederic Jameson even calls us “post-literate.” We are a generation that is riding on the tail-end of a century of war and revolution that toppled civilizations, overturned repressive social orders, and left us with more privilege and opportunity than any other society in history. Ours could be an era to accomplish anything. And yet do we take to the streets and the 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 are not leaving until we see change! Our eyes have been opened by our education and our conception of what is possible has been expanded by our privilege and we demand a better world because it is our right”? It would seem we do the opposite. We go to war without so much as questioning the rationale, we sign away our civil liberties, we say nothing when the Supreme Court uses Brown v. Board of Education to outlaw desegregation, and we 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 spare 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 of 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.

韩素音青年翻译奖赛13

第十三届“韩素音青年翻译奖”竞赛原文及参考译文（汉译英）2010-3-26 23:32|发布者: sisu04|查看: 881|评论: 0 摘要: 韩素音青年翻译奖 歌德之人生启示 宗白华 人生是什么？人生的真相如何？人生的意义何在？人生的目的是何？这些人生最重大最中心的问题，不只是古来一切大宗教家哲学家所殚精竭虑以求解答的。世界上第一流的大诗人凝神冥想，深入灵魂的幽邃，或纵身大化中，于一朵花中窥见天国，一滴露水参悟生命，然后用他们生花之笔，幻现层层世界，幕幕人生，归根也不外乎启示这生命的真相与意义。宗教家对这些问题的方法与态度是预言的说教的，哲学家是解释的说明的，诗人文豪是表现的启示的。荷马的长歌启示了希腊艺术文明幻美的人生与理想，但丁的神曲启示了中古基督教文化心灵的生活与信仰，莎士比亚的剧本表现了文艺复兴时人们的生活矛盾与权力意志。至于近代的，建筑于这三种文明精神之上而同时开展一个新时代，所谓近代人生，则由伟大的歌德以他的人格，生活，作品表现出它的特殊意义与内在的问题。 歌德对人生的启示有几层意义，几种方面。就人类全体讲，他的人格与生活可谓极尽了人类的可能性。他同时是诗人，科学家，政治家，思想家，他也是近代泛神论信仰的一个伟大的代表。他表现了西方文明自强不息的精神，又同时具有东方乐天知命宁静致远的智慧。德国哲学家息默尔（Simmel）说：“歌德的人生所以给我们以无穷兴奋与深沉的安慰的，就是他只是一个人，他只是极尽了人性，但却如此伟大，使我们对人类感到有希望，鼓动我们努力向前做一个人。“我们可以说歌德是世界一扇明窗，我们由他窥见了人生生命永恒幽邃奇丽广大的天空！ 再狭小范围，就欧洲文化的观点说，歌德确是代表文艺复兴以后近代人的心灵生活及其内在的问题。近代人失去了基督教对一超越上帝虔诚的信仰。人类精神上获得了解放，得到了自由；但也就同时失所依傍，彷徨摸索，苦闷，追求，欲在生活本身的努力中寻得人生的意义与价值。歌德是这时代精神伟大的代表，他的主著《浮士德》是这人生全部的反映与其问题的解决。歌德与其替身浮士德一生生活的内容就是尽量体验这近代人生特殊的精神意义，了解其悲剧而努力以解决其问题，指出解救之道。所以有人称他的浮士德是近代人的圣

英语和汉语互译中的区别

英语和汉语的区别 一、英语重结构，汉语重语义 我国著名语言学家王力先生曾经说过：“就句子的结构而论，西洋语言是法治的，中国语言是人治的。”(《中国语法理论》，《王力文集》第一卷，第35页，山东教育出版社，1984年) 我们看一看下面的例子： Children will play with dolls equipped with personality chips, computers with inbuilt （成为固定装置的，嵌入墙内的；内在的，固有的）personalities will be regarded as workmates rather than tools, relaxation will be in front of smell television, and digital age will have arrived。 译文：儿童将与装有个性芯片的玩具娃娃玩耍，具有个性内置的计算机将被视为工作伙伴而不是工具，人们将在气味电视前休闲，到这时数字时代就来到了。 这句英语是由四个独立句构成的并列句，前三个句子都用简单将来时，最后一个句子用的是将来完成时，句子之间的关系通过时态、逗号和并列连词and表示得一清二楚。而汉语译文明显就是简单的叙述，至于句子之间的关系完全通过句子的语义表现出来：前三个句子可以看成是并列关系，最后一个句子则表示结果。 二、英语多长句，汉语多短句 由于英语是"法治"的语言，只要结构上没有出现错误，许多意思往往可以放在一个长句中表达；汉语则正好相反，由于是"人治"，语义通过字词直接表达，不同的意思往往通过不同的短句表达出来。正是由于这个原因，考研英译汉试题几乎百分之百都是长而复杂的句子，而翻译成中文经常就成了许多短小的句子。 例如：Interest in historical methods had arisen less through external challenge to the validity of history as an intellectual discipline （身心的锻炼，训练；纪律，风纪，命令服从；惩戒，惩罚；学科，科目）and more from internal quarrels among historians themselves. 译文：人们对历史研究方法产生了兴趣，这与其说是因为外部对历史作为一门知识学科的有效性提出了挑战，还不如说是因为历史学家内部发生了争吵。 英文原句是个典型的长句，由27个词组成，中间没有使用任何标点符号，完全靠语法结构使整个句子的意思化零为整：less through...and more from构成一个复杂的状语修饰动词arisen。在中文翻译中，"产生兴趣"这一重要内容通过一个独立的句子表达，两个不同的原因则分别由不同的句子表达，整个句子被化整为零。 三、英语多从句，汉语多分句 英语句子不仅可以在简单句中使用很长的修饰语使句子变长，同时也可以用从句使句子变复杂，而这些从句往往通过从句引导词与主句或其它从句连接，整个句子尽管表面上看错综复杂却是一个整体。汉语本来就喜欢用短句，加上表达结构相对松散，英语句子中的从句

英译中翻译套路

英译中翻译套路 此部分内容和“阅读理解，七选五，完形填空”关联性巨大，读不懂，做题就是玄学。 ◆谓语动词=助动词（情态动词）+ 实义动词 1.时态的翻译 ?注意事项： 时间：默认指的是“现在，过去，将来“，若有具体时间，则相应进行调整。 状态：共四种状态即“一般，进行，完成，完成进行“没有变化，对应相应的汉语意思直接翻译。 一般：经常做 进行：正在做 完成：已经做完了

完成进行：做完了还做/一直做 例句翻译： 1)Curiosity gave us all a natural awareness. 2)Fifteen years ago, I took a summer vacation in Lecce in Italy. 2.被动语态的翻译 形式：be + done一般通过by + n.引出动作的施加者。 A be + done by B译为A被B做了相应的事情。 ?注意事项： be + done对应的汉语意思，常见的有“被，受，给”等词，根据具体情况进行调整。 例句翻译： 1)Students are placed into classes according to their current language skills. 2)Learning materials are provided to students throughout their course, and there will never be more than 15 participants in each class. ◆名词性从句 根据主从复合句结构表先行判断结构，确定是名词性从句。 先译除引导词外的从句内容再加上引导词的意思。 When:…的那个时间

韩素音翻译大赛详解

比赛介绍：韩素音青年翻译大赛详解 韩素音其人： 韩素音，是中国籍亚欧混血女作家伊丽莎白·柯默（Elisabeth Comber）的笔名，原名周光湖（Rosalie Elisabeth Kuanghu Chow）。她的主要作品取材于20世纪中国生活和历史，主要用英语、法语进行写作，1952年，韩素音用英文写就的自传体小说《瑰宝》（A Many Splendoured Thing）一出版即在西方世界引起轰动，奠定了她在国际文坛上的地位。1955年，美国20世纪福克斯公司把《瑰宝》搬上银幕，译名《生死恋》（Love Is A Many Splendoured Thing）。韩素音女士现居瑞士。 韩素音青年翻译奖： 《中国翻译》杂志从1986年开始举办青年“有奖翻译”活动，1989年韩素音女士访华，提供了一笔赞助基金，以此设立了“韩素音青年翻译奖”。至2010年，“韩素音青年翻译奖”竞赛已经举办了二十二届，是目前中国翻译界组织时间最长、规模最大、影响最广的翻译大赛。每年获奖人员来自社会各界，比赛并非是从所有译文中选出最好的就评为第一名，很多时候会出现第一名空缺的现象，因为评委组是按照严格的标准来筛选译文，没有最优秀的，第一名的位置就会空缺，由此可见韩素音翻译大赛的权威性和严谨性。 参与方式： 韩素音青年翻译大赛由中国译协《中国翻译》编辑部主办（https://www.wendangku.net/doc/2012088169.html,/），每届比赛设英译汉和汉译英两部分，每部分给出一篇要求翻译的文章，参赛者可以只选择一项，或者两项都参与。注意，参赛者年龄为45岁以下——因为是青年翻译比赛。 参赛规则、竞赛原文和报名表会刊登在每年第一期，也即一月份的《中国翻译》杂志上，中国译协网站上也会有通知，大致规则如下： 1. 参赛译文须独立完成。参赛者在大赛截稿之日前需妥善保存参赛译文的著作权，不可在书报刊、网络等任何媒体公布自己的参赛译文，否则将被取消参赛资格并承担由此造成的一切后果。 2. 参赛译文请用空白A4纸打印（中文宋体、英文Times New Roman，小四，1.5倍行距）。译文前另附一页，将填好的参赛报名表打印或剪贴在此封面上。译文正文内请勿书写译者姓名、地址等任何个人信息，否则将被视为无效译文。每项参赛译文一稿有效，不接收修改稿。 3. 需在指定截稿日期前将译文寄往《中国翻译》编辑部，时间以寄出邮戳时间为准（注：比赛不接受电子稿，因此作品必须按照要求打印好以信件形式寄出），地址：北京市阜外百万庄大街24号《中国翻译》编辑部，邮编：100037，请在信封上注明“参赛译文”字样。 参赛者在交寄参赛译文的同时，交寄报名费40元，如同时参加两项竞赛，交报名费80元。汇款地址：北京市阜外百万庄大街24号《中国翻译》编辑部，邮编：100037。请在汇款单附言上注明“参赛报名费”字样。未交报名费的参赛译文无效。

第二十六届韩素音青年翻译大赛竞赛原文

第二十六届“韩素音”青年翻译大赛 竞赛原文 来源：中国译协网 英译汉竞赛原文： How the News Got Less Mean nip slips and no inflammatory ranting will restore your faith in humanity,” which has pulled in nearly 14 million visits so far. too, hope is the major draw. “This kid just died. What he left behind is 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 id entity 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