The Study Context Background
COVER SHEET
This is the author-version of article published as:
Gable, Guy G. (2000) The alignment of client and consultant views. In Proceedings Adminstrative Sciences Association of Canada Conference, pages pp. 67-76, Montreal, ONT.
Please enter the information about this item. Fields mark Accessed from https://www.wendangku.net/doc/df17987268.html,.au
ASAC-IFSAM 2000 Conference Montreal, Quebec
Canada
Guy G. Gable Information Systems Management Research Centre
Queensland University of Technology
THE ALIGNMENT OF CLIENT AND CONSULTANT VIEWS Gable [1996a] validated a multidimensional measurement model of client success when en-gaging external consultants to assist with selection of computer based information systems.
Following on from that study and employing the same data, this paper seeks to compare cli-ent and consultant views on the seven model dimensions and to interpret disparities.
Background
The Study Context
The study unit of analysis is the computer based information system (CBIS) selection project. Firms studied are registered clients of the Singapore Local Enterprise Computerisation Program (LECP), a Singapore Government Program to encourage and assist local businesses to become more competitive through the adoption of information technology [Gable and Raman, 1992a]. By using LECP firms, certain potentially confounding variables have implicitly been controlled for (e.g. con-sultant minimum experience, client expectations). In addition, other factors, important to the study, are also beneficially homogenous (e.g. all are computer system selection projects, all projects in-volve an external IT consultant). All LECP projects involve two main players; the client project manager and the client's chosen consultant. The consultant's role in the selection project is to conduct feasibility and system studies, to develop system specifications and to evaluate and recommend a software house. The definition of a consultant is implicit in the LECP minimum registration criteria. The consultant must have: a tertiary or professional qualification in an IT related field; a minimum of 8 years work experience in executing or managing feasibility study, planning, analysis, design, de-velopment or implementation of information systems; and detailed references for at least three recent consulting projects in these experience areas. The consulting team may include but may not be lim-ited to junior consultants with a minimum of 3 years relevant work experience, and who satisfy the other two criteria. Reasons for focusing the study on the CBIS selection project are several. The selection project is characteristic of many engagements where the consultant is engaged to assist only with the identification of a solution. Also, it is important to distinguish between selection failure and implementation failure. It may seem tautological that a more successful selection project will yield a higher level of implementation success, yet a well-selected and good solution may be imple-mented badly. Conversely, effective implementation may compensate for a poor CBIS solution. Thus, it is important to assess consultant engagement success prior to commencing implementation of the consultant's recommendations in order to decide: (1) whether to proceed, (2) how to proceed (e.g. planning implementation strategy), and (3) whether to retain the consultant further (e.g. to man-age implementation).
The Study Model
Based on the literature and case studies, Gable [1996a] identified the seven correlated dimen-sions of client success with consultant engagement reflected in Figure 1. The model makes a primary distinction between results success and performance. Results include the consultant's recommenda-
ASAC-IFSAM-2000 Proceedings1
ASAC-IFSAM-2000 Proceedings 2tions and improvement in client understanding, thus yielding three main areas of engagement success assessment. Each of these three areas of assessment can be measured more or less objectively versus subjectively. The relatively more objective measures for recommendations, understanding, and per-formance are usage/acceptance of the consultant's recommendations, change in client understanding,and actual versus estimated resource requirements, respectively. The more subjective measure for each of the 3 areas of assessment is the client's level of satisfaction. Following are briefly described each of the model dimensions (see [Gable, 1996a] for detailed discussion).
Recommendations Acceptance : In management science/information systems implementation research, usage refers to usage of the information system or model implemented. In the context of a CBIS selection consultancy usage refers to the extent to which the client 'uses', accepts, or intends on acting upon the consultant's recommendations. Recommendations Satisfaction : Given the client's investment in the consultant's recommendation (e.g. the consultant's fees and client resources), usage or acceptance may not be entirely voluntary. A client may act on the consultant's recommendations or feel compelled to act, yet not be satisfied with the 'fit' of the recommended solution. It is thus important to also measure the level of client satisfaction with the consultant's recommendations.Understanding Improvement : Improved client understanding can facilitate more effective imple-mentation and greater independence. Also, to the extent that the client is better equipped to conduct future, similar projects with reduced external assistance, they are better off. Understanding Satisfac-tion : Regardless of how much (or little) the client's understanding has improved, they may be more or less satisfied with the level and adequacy of their understanding. Performance Objective : Per-formance Objective is the degree to which actual project resource and time requirements equal those originally estimated. Performance Reasonability: While the intention at the outset, for both the client and the consultant, may be to bring the project in on time and on budget, as the project unfolds con-tingencies may dictate deviations from the original plan. Staff turnover in the client firm, improving client understanding of requirements and changing client needs due to a rapidly changing external environment, are all contingencies largely beyond the control of the consultant. Performance Rea-sonability is intended to measure consultant performance in light of these contingencies. Perform-ance Satisfaction : Regardless of consultant time and cost performance, the client may be satisfied or dissatisfied with consultant performance. The client may be dissatisfied because they feel that the consultant did not give value for money, did not demonstrate necessary expertise or experience, or Recom m endations
A cceptance Recom m endations Satisfaction Understanding Im provem ent Understanding Satisfaction Perform ance Reasonability Perform ance Satisfaction Perform ance Objective
did not keep the client adequately informed. Clients can also be satisfied despite poor sched-ule/budget performance. To the extent that the client is satisfied with the consultant's overall per-formance, the engagement can be considered more successful.
The Study Methodology
The study commenced with a single exploratory pilot case followed by a more explanatory, cross-case analysis of five firms [Gable, 1991]. The case studies aided in model building, operationaliza-tion and validation of model constructs, and interpretation of study findings. In order to test the ‘a prior’ model, all firms registered with the LECP were surveyed. Separate questionnaires were mailed to clients and consultants. All survey instrument items are seven-point Likert-like scales (all instru-ment items are consistently counter-intuitive with, for example, smaller scores (e.g. 1) indicating a higher level of success, and larger scores (e.g. 7) indicating a lower level of success). All dimensions of the a priori model are measured from the client's perspective. Recommendations Acceptance is measured for each of the three main components of the consultant's recommendation: hardware, software, and a vendor. Client Understanding Improvement is the difference between client under-standing at the start and the end of consultant involvement. Understanding Improvement and Under-standing Satisfaction are measured for both the selection process and for information requirements. Consultants were felt to be adequately informed and objective to assess three of the model dimen-sions: Performance Objective, Understanding Improvement and Recommendations Satisfaction. Client response to the mail-out was 80% (67 of 85 clients who had completed selection - responses were received from 69 clients, two of which, for the purposes of this study, were unusable due to missing data). Thirty-two of 35 consultants surveyed, representing 21 consulting companies, re-sponded regarding their involvement in 78 (92%) of the 85 completed selection projects. Approxi-mately half of the projects were handled by 'Big6' consulting companies (The world's six largest audit/consulting companies. Big6 firms represented in the survey sample include: Arthur Andersen & Co., Coopers & Lybrand Associates Pte Ltd, Deloitte Haskins + Sells, Ernst & Young Pte Ltd, and Price Waterhouse).
Criterion validity. Factor 'based' scores [Gorsuch, 1983] were derived for each dimension measured from client data (21 items) and for each dimension measured from consultant data (10 items), through summing the Z-scores of those items which loaded heavily on a given factor (Standardising the scores removes the effects of individuals who generally give either high or low responses. Note that all subsequent analyses reported herein, were also repeated using raw scores, yielding highly similar results). This yielded the model depicted in Figure 1. Besides items referenced thus far, crite-rion measures of overall success were also elicited from clients and consultants. Results of paired T-tests of these items indicate no significant differences between the two respondent groups. Signifi-cant correlations and similarity across means, standard deviations and standard errors are also ob-served. These data evidence the validity of the criterion data items. With the objective of further assessing the content, construct and criterion validity of the factor solution (factor-based constructs), four composite measures of overall success were computed as follows: (1) Client Dimensions Aver-age is the simple average of the seven client dimensions of success. (2) Consultant Dimensions Av-erage is the simple average of the three consultant dimensions of success. (3) Combined Dimensions Average is the simple average of the Client Dimensions Average and the Consultant Dimensions Average. Simply averaging the Client and Consultant Dimensions Averages to yield the Combined Dimensions Average has the effect of weighting equally the client and consultant views, even though more client items are associated with more client success dimensions than for the consultant (the correlation coefficient for the Client and Consultant Dimensions Averages is .453, significant at the .001 level). (4) Combined Criterion Average is the simple average of Z-scores for the client and consultant success criterion items. Individual client and consultant success dimensions and the com-ASAC-IFSAM-2000 Proceedings3
posite constructs (1, 2 and 3 above) were correlated with the individual client and consultant success criterion items and their average (4 above). This method of validation assumes the criterion scores are valid; thus the extent to which each dimension or dimension average correlates with the criterion scores, is evidence of their criterion validity [Kerlinger, 1988]. Results of this analysis are reported in Table 1.
From Table 1, generally strong correlations with the three criterion scores are observed. In addition, correlations between the Client, Consultant and Combined Dimensions Averages (11, 12, and 13 in Table 1) and their respective criteria are large and significant thus further evidencing the criterion validity of both the dimensions averages and their component dimensions. This is also evidence of the additivity of the dimensions. Additionally, it is observed that the Combined Dimensions Average and the Combined Criterion Average correlate more strongly (r=.75) than do the corresponding measures for the client (r=.62) or consultant (r=.62), thus suggesting that client and consultant views sometimes reflect divergent bias and when summed they may be compensating.
Construct validity. Following is first summarised, evidence of the validity of the individual success dimensions and second, evidence in support of combining the dimensions to yield an overall measure of Success (which also further evidences the validity of the individual dimensions). The validity of the individual success dimensions was demonstrated primarily through factor analysis. The factor analysis results were quasi-confirmatory in that: (1) the a priori relationship between instrument items and success dimensions was specified; (2) a subset of success dimensions included in the a priori model correspond approximately with measures employed in previous research (i.e.. usage, performance and satisfaction); (3) success dimensions identified from factor analysis corresponded broadly with the a priori Success measurement model; (4) the three dimensions identified from con-sultant data corresponded directly with a subset of the seven dimensions identified from client data thereby validating a subset of the client factor structure in two independent samples; and (5) as pre-dicted, significant positive correlation among the dimensions was observed (demonstrated follow-ing). Strong correlation was observed between client and consultant dimensions and their respective success criterion (Table 1).
ASAC-IFSAM-2000 Proceedings4
Table 1 - Correlations Between Client and Consultant Success Constructs
and Client and Consultant Success Criterion Items
Client Consultant Combined
Mean Std Dev Criterion Criterion Criterion Client Success Dimensions(1)(2)[(1)+(2)]/2
1RA Recommendations Acceptance 3.13 2.060.28**0.38***0.41***
2RF Recommendations Satisfaction 3.66 1.320.65****0.26**0.59****
3UI Understanding Improvement 2.260.300.31**0.040.19*
4US Understanding Satisfaction 3.21 1.430.63****0.29**0.59****
5PR Performance Reasonability 3.14 1.380.19*0.43****0.38***
6PS Performance Satisfaction 2.99 1.460.61****0.33***0.6****
7PO Performance Objective 4.560.970.180.070.16 Consultant Success Dimensions
8RF Recommendations Satisfaction 3.240.970.150.61****0.46****
9UI Understanding Improvement(client) 3.150.700.24**0.32**0.35***
10PO Performance Objective 4.910.860.42***0.32**0.47**** Overall Measures of Success
11(a)Client Dimensions Average 3.250.880.62****0.37***0.63****
12(b)Consultant Dimensions Average 3.770.560.41***0.62****0.63****
13(c)Combined Dimensions Average 3.530.630.62****0.59****0.75****
Notes: **** p < .001 *** p < .01 ** p < .05 * p < .10
a) 11 = average of 1 to 7. b) 12 = average of 8 to 10. c) 13 = average of 11 and 12.
(reproduced from [Gable, 1996a])
Evidence in support of combining the success dimensions to yield an overall measure of success, included: (1) all client dimensions in the final model loaded on a single factor in second-order factor analysis, (2) the same was true of consultant dimensions, and (3) of all the success constructs, the overall measure showed the strongest associations with its hypothesised explanators [Gable and Sharp, 1992b] and predictors [Gable, 1996b]. As regards these last three points, it is observed that the Success construct has been previously validated in three models (the Success Dimensions Model [Gable, 1996a]; the Success Process Model [Gable and Sharp, 1992b]; and the Success Prediction Model [Gable, 1996b]).
Comparative Analysis
Associations among the model dimensions were analysed suggesting important implications. Table 2 is a matrix of correlations among the seven client dimensions and the three consultant dimensions. ASAC-IFSAM-2000 Proceedings5
Table 2 - Success Dimensions Correlation Matrix
(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10) CLIENT DIMENSIONS:RA RS UI US PR PS PO
(1)Recommendations Acceptance RA1
(2)Recommendations Satisfaction RS.23*1
(3)Understanding Improvement UI.40***.28**1
(4)Understanding Satisfaction US.32**.52****.47****1
(5)Performance Reasonability PR.31**.31**.34***.33***1
(6)Performance Satisfaction PS.47****.55****.56****.63****.50****1
(7)Performance Objective PO.29**.04.23*.36***.15.37***1
CONSULTANT DIMENSIONS:RS UI PO
(8)Recommendations Satisfaction RS.16.01.01.16.45****.17.071
(9)Understanding Improvement UI.24**.09.03.01.28**.33***.11.37***1
(10)Performance Objective PO.20*.32**.13.30**.49****.25**.13.19*.051 Note: **** p < .001 *** p < .01 ** p < .05 * p < .10
Correlations among client dimensions. The upper left quadrant of Table 2 reflects correlations among client success dimensions. Of the 21 client dimension pairs, 7 are significant at the .001 level, 5 at the .01 level, 5 at the .05 level, 2 at the .10 level, and 2 are non-significant. The generally strong, positive correlations among the dimensions is evidence of convergent validity. The fact that the observed correlations are substantively less than 1.0 is evidence of discriminant validity. In other words, this evidence suggests the dimensions represent separate but correlated measures of success (Gable [1996a] further demonstrated, through second-order factor analysis, how the dimensions load on a single overall measure of success).
The observed lack of correlation between Performance Objective and Recommendations Satisfaction seems sensible. One might expect that adhering too rigidly to initial time and budget estimates could yield a poorer fit than otherwise. The client pair with the second lowest correlation is Performance Objective and Performance Reasonability. Clients appear to clearly discriminate between the 'rea-sonability' of the consultant's performance in light of project contingencies, and their more objective assessment of consultant performance relative to initial estimates of project duration and fees (Per-formance Objective).
Correlations among consultant dimensions. Next looking at correlations among the consultant dimensions (lower right quadrant of Table 2), it is observed that Performance Objective and Under-standing Improvement are not significantly correlated. It is also observed that the corresponding cli-ent pair is among the weaker of the client correlations (r=.23). This makes intuitive sense. Where a consultant must work to an unrealistic schedule or budget for whatever reason (e.g. they have under-quoted, the client has stretched the project scope, or the consultant is ineffective), client education on requirements and the process is likely to be neglected and project documentation may be minimised -all of which reduce client understanding. It is observed that, for both clients and consultants, Per-formance Objective generally has the weakest correlations with other dimensions.
Correlations between client and consultant dimensions. The consultant dimensions have rela-tively stronger correlations with two client dimensions (lower left quadrant of Table 2): Performance Reasonability (r=.45, .28, .49) and Performance Satisfaction (r=.17, .33, .25). The strong correlation observed between the consultant's Performance Objective dimension and the client's Performance Reasonability dimension (r=.49) suggests that consultants, rather than objectively scoring their actual performance against their original estimates, report how 'reasonably' they performed taking account of project contingencies (e.g. client changes to information requirements or project scope, or prob-lems with resource availability). Referring to Table 1, it is noteworthy that two client dimensions, ASAC-IFSAM-2000 Proceedings6
Recommendations Acceptance and Performance Reasonability, have stronger correlations with the consultant success criterion than with the client criterion. The discrepancy is especially large for the client's Performance Reasonability dimension (r=.19 versus r=.43) implying that the consultant, in assessing overall client success (as measured by the consultant's criterion item), places relatively greater emphasis on the Performance Reasonability dimension than does the client.
The client Performance Satisfaction dimension is observed to be correlated at the .001 level with all other client dimensions except Performance Objective (.01 level). It is also significantly correlated with two of the three consultant dimensions and was the first client factor extracted in factor analy-sis, explaining 37.3% of the variance in the factor model. These data suggest that Performance Satis-faction may be the 'least misleading' single-dimension, surrogate measure of overall success. Interestingly, though the client's measure of Recommendations Satisfaction shows significant corre-lation with one of the three consultant dimensions (at the .05 level), it shows no correlation with the consultant dimension of the same name (r=.01). Thus, while the client and consultant measures of Recommendations Satisfaction are derived from broadly the same items [Gable, 1996a], they are un-correlated. Referring to column three of Table 1, it is observed that the client dimension having one of the largest correlations with the Combined Criterion Average is Recommendations Satisfaction (r=.59). The consultant Recommendations Satisfaction dimension also scores high against the Com-bined Criterion Average in Table 1 (r=.46). These findings suggest that both the client and consult-ant place significant emphasis on this dimension in their overall assessment of success, although they appear to have quite different views on the goodness of fit of the recommendations (Table 2). Similar observations to those made in the preceding paragraphs for Recommendations Satisfaction can be made for the Understanding Improvement dimension. Thus, while both clients and consultants again attribute significant importance to client Understanding Improvement (Table 1), they score this dimension quite differently (Table 2).
Discussion
Reconciling client and consultant views. Client and consultant scores for Recommendations Satis-faction and Understanding Improvement were found to be uncorrelated (r=.01 and .03 respectively in Table 2) and several explanations suggested. The Combined Criterion Average and Combined Di-mensions Average (Table 1) were observed to correlate more strongly (r=.75) than either the corre-sponding measures for the client (r=.62) or the consultant (r=.62), thus suggesting that client and consultant views may reflect divergent bias and when summed they may be compensating. Research conducted by Hammond [1974] suggests a possible further explanation for observed disparity be-tween client and consultant scores of the dimensions. Hammond examined the interface between the manager [client] and the management scientist [consultant] on engagements where a relatively un-structured problem requires a one-shot decision by the manager (not unlike a CBIS selection proj-ect). He identified eight factors that differentiate prototypical managers from management scientists: (1) goal orientation, (2) time horizon, (3) comparative expertise, (4) interpersonal style, (5) cognitive style, (6) problem definition, (7) validation of analysis, and (8) degree of structuredness required. Hammond found that managers concentrated on the sub-goals in their area of responsibility while the management scientists tried to maintain a more holistic or organisational perspective on issues. Man-agers also tended to be more pragmatic and concerned with the end-product than the management scientists who approached problems from a normative perspective with concern for the means by which the ends can be realised. The managers' time horizon for the analysis was shorter than that of the management scientists and the management scientists had greater expertise in formal decision making techniques. They also were found to differ in the interpersonal style that each brought to a ASAC-IFSAM-2000 Proceedings7
problem. While both types demonstrated a task orientation, the managers also tended to give greater priority to maintaining good relationships within the peer group. Management scientists tended to be the more explicit and consequently more narrow in defining problems and more analytical in their approach to problem solving. The managers validated an analysis in very intuitive ways while the management scientist relied on an examination of the internal logic of a model for validation. Fi-nally, management scientists tended to require a higher level of structuredness in comparison to managers.
Hammond goes on to observe that these 'sharp' differences between the management scientist and the decision maker constitute a main obstacle to the success of the engagement. This suggests that the level of client success will be lower the more divergent are client and consultant views. In order to test this proposition, the absolute value of the difference between the client and consultant success criterion items was used as a proxy measure of divergence between client and consultant views. This difference was then correlated with the client criterion item, the consultant criterion item, and the Combined Criterion Average, yielding r's of 0.39, 0.41 and 0.49 respectively, all significant at the .01 level, thereby supporting the proposition. Thus, observed differences between client and consultant views are further explained and the criterion validity of the model is further supported (it is reiterated that all instrument items are consistently counter-intuitive with smaller scores i.e. 1 indicating a higher level of success and larger scores i.e. 7 indicating a lower level of success, thus accounting for the positive correlation observed). These results further highlight the importance of aligning client and consultant goals for the engagement and the yardsticks employed in assessing progress towards goals.
The three consultant dimensions correlate most strongly with the client dimensions Performance Reasonability and Performance Satisfaction, suggesting that consultants attribute significant impor-tance to these two areas of client concern. This may also suggest that consultants should increase their emphasis on the other four dimensions of client success.
Data from both Tables 1 and 2 suggest the importance the client implicitly attributes to Understand-ing Improvement. The level of client understanding of their information requirements and of the selection process are important elements of client independence. Yet, as was observed in the case studies [Gable, 1991a], few of the case firms or consultants paid more than cursory attention to Turn-er's [1982] 'higher' intangible goals of the project: build consensus and commitment, facilitate client learning, and improve organisational effectiveness (all of which correspond closely with the dimen-sions - Understanding Satisfaction and Understanding Improvement). From the case studies and discussion with LECP administrators, it would appear that many clients are unwilling to explicitly pay for these intangibles, and perhaps for this reason (and because they are often the most difficult to provide), consultants are often unwilling to explicitly deliver them. The consultant's ability to facili-tate improvement in the client's understanding (to transfer knowledge) should be an important con-sideration in consultant selection. Clients who recognise the value of this less tangible dimension and yet attempt to squeeze consultants for as much informal education as possible, do the consultant a disservice and risk compromising the project outcome. They also risk jeopardising a potentially valuable ongoing relationship with the consultant.
It was earlier maintained that it is important to assess selection success before commencing installa-tion in order to decide: whether to proceed; how to proceed; and whether to retain the consultant further.
Whether to proceed. Those dimensions expected to have the greatest influence on the client's deci-sion to proceed or not with implementation are Recommendations Satisfaction and Recommenda-tions Acceptance. It seems tautological that one should accept and proceed with a solution that offers a good fit, ceteris paribus, and not proceed with an ill-fitting system. Though some correspondence is ASAC-IFSAM-2000 Proceedings8
observed between the client's assessment of Recommendations Satisfaction and their level of Rec-ommendations Acceptance (r=.23 in Table 2), this is a weaker association among the client dimen-sions suggesting that clients may sometimes feel compelled to accept a less than satisfactory solu-tion. Reasons for such phenomenon identified from the case studies include: inappropriate local software offerings ("it is the best of what is available"), a reluctance to commit energy and resources to repeat or extend the selection project as necessary, or a sensed need to proceed with a satisficing solution as a learning experience or as an interim measure. Alternatively, clients may sometimes feel constrained not to proceed with a solution that appears to offer a good fit (e.g. due to changed or-ganisational circumstances). The client's level of acceptance of the final recommendations is often difficult to predict. From the cases, reasons given for not fully accepting the consultant's recommen-dations included: (1) We never expected to follow their recommendations, but were using the project as a learning experience; (2) The whole exercise was simply a show for staff, and (3) Organisational circumstances changed (e.g. management had become preoccupied with other concerns, business had worsened, key staff changes had occurred). These phenomena may also explain the relatively small correlation observed between Recommendations Acceptance and Recommendations Satisfaction. The consultant has little control or influence over these contingencies and often the client will guard closely their hidden agenda (e.g. they may be reluctant to reveal significant worsening of business). In fact, the consultant is sometimes employed as a scapegoat. In all cases, it is suggested that honesty and openness offer the greatest potential for a mutually beneficial outcome; the consultant is thus better able to assist the client with their hidden agenda and a face-saving solution may be arrived at in the case of worsened circumstances.
How to proceed. Where the client decides to proceed with implementation, dimensions that may suggest a need to review the implementation strategy proposed by the consultant and vendor, are Understanding Satisfaction and Recommendations Satisfaction. A poor level of Understanding Satis-faction suggests that the client should seek improved understanding of their requirements and the proposed solution before commencing implementation. This can be achieved through further discus-sion with the proposed vendor, further software trials, general computer literacy training, and thor-ough review of existing systems and information requirements. Where a decision is made to proceed with implementation even though the proposed solution is not perceived to offer a good fit, measures can be taken to supplement the software and ameliorate its limitations. The functionality of the soft-ware may be modified, extended, or contained through manual procedures, software package pa-rameter settings, supplementary software packages, or custom modifications by the vendor or another third party. The adoption of additional manual procedures will require related documentation and user training, thus increasing the responsibilities of users for the smooth running of the system. A decision to supplement the software with other packages or to modify the software, requires that the client have a deep understanding of the system's limitations and the proposed extensions. While some vendors and consultants will have adequately addressed these issues in the selection project, others will not. Where the issues have been adequately addressed, this should be reflected in the client's assessment of Recommendations Satisfaction.
Whether to retain the consultant. The decision to engage or not engage the consultant further is another important aspect of 'how to proceed'. Dimensions expected to have greatest influence on the client's decision to retain the consultant's services in implementation are Performance Reasonability and Performance Satisfaction. The more satisfied the client - the more reasonably they feel the con-sultant performed given project contingencies - the more likely they are to retain the consultant fur-ther. Also, to the extent that the client holds the consultant responsible for perceived poor Recom-mendations Satisfaction or poor Understanding Improvement, the consultant is less likely to be fur-ther retained. While the focus of the study is on client success, the client was also asked, 'Was the consultant invited (or will you invite them) to assist you with implementation of your chosen sys-tem?' On a one-to-seven scale, clients indicated whether this was likely (yes) or unlikely (no). Table 3 ASAC-IFSAM-2000 Proceedings9
indicates correlations between the 'likelihood' score and the client dimensions of success. As pre-dicted, Performance Reasonability, Performance Satisfaction, Recommendations Satisfaction and Understanding Improvement have the largest correlations with Likelihood. Performance Objective is again observed to have the smallest correlation. None of the consultant dimensions were significantly correlated with likelihood at the .05 level, perhaps suggesting that consultants have great difficulty in predicting follow-on work.
Table 3 - Correlations Between ‘Likelihood’ and Client Dimensions of Success
Recommendation Recommendation Understanding Understanding Performance Performance Performance Acceptance Satisfaction Improvement Satisfaction Reasonability Satisfaction Objective Likelihood of.27**.30**.39***.24**.44****.47****0.1 Follow-on Work
Notes: **** p < .001 *** p < .01 ** p < .05 * p < .10
Model validity. In support of findings in [Gable, 1996a], the validity of the success measurement model has been further evidenced by significant correlations observed in this analysis between the success dimensions and the criterion measures. Based on his [1996a] findings, Gable suggested excluding Performance Objective from the model. Evidence from the current study in further support of this includes: of the client dimensions, Performance Objective has the weakest inter-correlations with other client dimensions; it is not significantly correlated with any of the consultant dimensions; the consultant’s measure of Performance Objective correlates strongly with the client Performance Reasonability dimension suggesting that the consultant measures 'reasonability' rather than 'actual' performance versus 'estimated' performance; and the Combined Criterion Item is significantly corre-lated with all of the consultant dimensions and all client dimensions excepting Performance Objec-tive. While these results concur with Gable’s [1996a] analyses, in the case studies several consult-ants expressed the view that clients place substantial emphasis on initial project estimates (Perform-ance Objective) and use these to leverage additional services from the consultant. The evidence indi-cates otherwise. It is suggested that clients place relatively less emphasis on initial estimates and are much more 'reasonable' in their assessments than many consultants perceive. Also, the client Per-formance Objective dimension was found not to be significantly correlated with either the client's or the consultant's overall assessment of success. These findings suggest that consultants not focus too myopically on alternatives that conform to potentially unrealistic early estimates. Instances of prob-lems stemming from the alluded to myopia were observed in the case studies, further suggesting that consultants who attempt to adhere rigidly to initial estimates, perhaps to the detriment of the other dimensions of success, have misplaced priorities.
Study limitations. While strong evidence of the study model's validity has been presented, interpre-tation of associations among the dimensions has been a-theoretical in nature (though following di-rectly from the data and analyses). Further theory driven, preferably longitudinal research into this largely unexplored and important area is warranted. One objective of future research should be to further test interpretations of associations presented in this paper. Throughout the study, due to a dearth of prior empirical research on consultants, analogies have been implicitly and explicitly drawn between the client/consultant relationship and other relationships of academic and practical interest; the user/analyst, the manager/management scientist, and the manager/researcher. The user/analyst analogy has been relied upon implicitly through reference to the IS implementation literature. To what extent the findings of this study are applicable to these analogous relationships, is unclear and is an area for further study. The 'externalness' of the consultants studied may be a particularly rele-vant differentiating characteristic. Ultimately, problems of external validity are not solvable in any ASAC-IFSAM-2000 Proceedings10
conclusive way. Further research in other settings employing the constructs developed in this study may shed additional light on the generalizabilty of the findings.
CONCLUSIONS
Comparison of client and consultant views on client success indicates: (1) broad agreement on the goals for the consultancy (refer to prior discussion on the validity of the dimensions - addressed in detail in [Gable, 1996a]), (2) significant differences on perceived progress achieved toward the goals, (3) a significant inverse relationship between the magnitude of the differences observed and the level of client success, (4) relatively greater consultant emphasis on their own performance, and (5) relatively greater client emphasis on client learning. These findings highlight the importance of aligning client and consultant goals for the engagement and the yardsticks employed in assessing progress towards these goals. Cushing [1990] suggests that anticipated 'friction' can be controlled using strategies that induce goal congruence. Henderson [1990] suggests that shared goals can sus-tain the partnership when expected benefit flows are not realised. Shared goals also offer a common ground from which to negotiate solutions in areas where there is goal conflict. One approach to achieving a closer correspondence between client and consultant views on success, is for the client to refer to the dimensions identified in this study in their 'request for proposal' and for the consultant to do so in their proposal. Also, the validated study instruments (see [Gable, 1996a]) can be adapted to assess internal or external consultants, internal or external auditors, analysts, or management scien-tists, involved in IT selection projects, long-range planning projects, effectiveness reviews, or other helping projects where recommendations are a main end-result. Scoring of the individual dimensions following solution identification but preceding implementation, can be useful in deciding whether to proceed, how to proceed and whether to retain the consultant further. In addition to consultants con-cerning themselves with client success, clients must concern themselves with consultant success. When a consultant is required to work to an unreasonable schedule or budget, the quality of the project outcome is likely to be compromised along one of the less tangible dimensions that have not been explicitly contracted for, and possibly along the more tangible dimensions.
References
Gable. "Consultant Engagement For Computer System Selection: A Pro-Active Client Role in Small Enterprises," Information & Management, (20:2), 1991a, pp.83-93.
____________ Sharp, John A. "Outsourcing Assistance With Computer System Selection: A Suc-cess Factors Model," Proceedings of The 1992 Hawaii International Conference on Systems Sci-ence (HICSS-25), January 1992,
."Client Success When Engaging External Consultants,” Management Science, (42:8), 1996a, pp.1175-1198.
ASAC-IFSAM-2000 Proceedings11
."Outsourcing IT Advice: A Success Prediction Model,” Information Systems Conference of New Zealand, Palmerston North, New Zealand, October 1996b.
and Raman, K.S. "Government Initiatives for I.T. Adoption in Small Businesses: Experiences of the Singapore Small Enterprise Computerization Program," International Informa-tion Systems, Vol 1, No 1, 1992, pp.68-93.
Gorsuch, R.L. Factor Analysis, 2nd ed. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc., 1983. Henderson, J.C. "Plugging Into Strategic Partnerships: The Critical IS Connection," Sloan Man-agement Review, (31:3), Spring 1990, 7-18.
Kerlinger, F.N. Foundations of Behavioral Research, 3rd edition, Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1988.
Turner, A.N. "Consulting is More Than Giving Advice," Harvard Business Review, (Sep-Oct 1982), 120-129.
ASAC-IFSAM-2000 Proceedings12
精品—忠言逆耳助我行作文-忠言逆耳助我行议论文三篇
精品—忠言逆耳助我行作文|忠言逆耳助我行议论文三篇 忠言逆耳助我行议论文(一) 在我小时候，因为不听妈妈的话，结果差点就丢了小命，到至今都有些后怕。 事情是这样的，那是一年夏天的中午，我和姐姐吃晚饭后，就在一起嘀嘀咕咕的商量着一会到河边去玩会水，我和姐姐正说着，姐姐正说着，妈妈突然拍了拍我们说：热了在家洗洗澡，我和姐姐拿起书包就跑，我们两个一看，氺好深!我和姐姐不约而同的喊了一声，然后扔下书包就往水边跑，然后各自坐在了一边，脚垂到水里，在水中脚溅起的浪花，在加上又刮来一清风，感觉凉快多了。过了一会姐姐说：你往那边去去，我往你那边坐坐。我猛地点点头，然后小心地往那边移了移，谁知，突然一只脚踩空了，而后陷进了泥土里不知不觉，另一只脚就漂了起来，然后我才知道我掉进了水里，就要刮跑了。这时我条件反射似的一只手突然从水里伸了出来，当时的水都把我整个人都埋住了，姐姐看到这个情况，吓了一跳，赶紧拉着我的手，特别有力的把我往上拉，嘴里还喊着上来，快上来。这时姐姐班的几个男生从旁边经过，开玩笑的说了生：哎，你在捞鱼啊!我妹掉里面了，快过来帮帮忙。听到姐姐说有人掉河里了，那个男生立马跑过来，叫我：哎，把你另一只手伸出来。当时我听到了那个声音，就赶快把手伸了出去，在姐姐和那位哥哥地帮助下，我被拉了出来，看着那位哥哥，我个姐姐说：谢谢你!而那位哥哥却说：没事，以后不要再来这里玩了。然后就走了。但是我的鞋子也被刮跑了一只，然后又跑回家换了一双。不过谁知这件事让妈妈知道了，然后狠狠地教训了我们一下，生气地说：跟你们说了多少遍了，不准往河边去，就在家洗洗，不听话，这次知道了吧!我和姐姐都乖乖地点了点头。从那以后我和姐姐就听了妈妈的话，再也没有去河边玩了。然后我也受到了教训，现在只要有深水，我就特别地害怕。 经过了这件事，我记得了妈妈地许多不可以，因为那些不可以，都是对我好，那些逆耳忠言，也是对我好，它们就像一盏盏指路的明灯，指引我们走向正确的道路。 忠言逆耳助我行议论文(二) 曾几何时，在流言蜚语中派回，找不到方向;曾几何时，在他人的言语中迷茫，不知路在何方。只因为没有忠诚的劝诫，前途一片迷茫。直到现在，才懂得逆耳忠言对我们的谆谆教育。 不曾忘却：忠言逆耳利于行，良药苦口利于病。回眸史册，商纣王，不听忠诚劝告，亲手把自己的国家埋葬;蔡恒公不听扁鹊的建议，最后只能把自己的命搭上。 有人说，那已成为历史，距现在已经相当遥远，不知道的参考。那么说说在我身上所发生的吧! 上中学后，我的几个好朋友都迷上了网络游戏，经常三五成群偷偷的跑去上网，他们也常常告诉我网络游戏如何好玩，在里面想干什么就干什么无不痛快。终于，在他们的勾引下，我也步入其中。刚开始，只觉得好玩，便三番两次的和他们同去，渐渐地我也迷恋上了她。 可是好运总不能永远陪伴我。有一次，我和他们玩得正高兴的时候，老师来了。老师对我说：千万不要网络游戏迷惑了你们，那样，他会毁了你们的一生。我明白老师是为我们好的，可是一旦迷恋上她，就别想一下摆脱它。我仍然是我行我素，只是去的次数逐渐减少。 直到发生了一件事，我才彻底摆脱它。那是星期六的一天，我有去玩了。却没想到爸爸也跟着我，我刚到门口，爸爸的大手拉着我往家去。回到家中，免不了皮肉之苦，过了一会儿，爸爸的气消了，对我一阵心灵教育：孩子，你知道吗，网络游戏对你来说有什么好处呢，网络是一把双刃剑，你总是看到它坏的一面。你自己好好想想，你今后怎么办吧。 从那以后，我再也没有越雷池半步。而同伴的成绩一次不如一次。我这才惊觉老师，爸爸的忠言在帮助我们抵制不良诱惑啊。 忠言逆耳利于行。我终于明白了这个道理。 忠言逆耳助我行议论文(三)
忠言逆耳利于行精选作文
忠言逆耳利于行精选作文 篇一：忠言逆耳利于行 我们每个人都爱听好听话，但是人生道路不可能事事都一帆风顺。假如我们一直伴着好听话成长，一直执迷不悟地沉醉于自己所谓的一点点成绩，那么我们就永远不可能成长。成长的道路上，一定会有人在我们的耳边说着不好听的话，说着令我们难堪的话，或长辈，或兄弟姐妹，或朋友。我们也许会生气，也许会厌恶，但是这些不那么好听的话却能激励我们进步，教诲我们成长，这就是——忠言逆耳利于行。 唐代的名臣魏征经常向唐太宗进谏，甚至有时当面指出唐太宗的不足，弄得唐太宗经常下不来台，甚至扬言要杀掉魏征。但是就是这样的忠臣，这样逆耳的话语，却时时刻刻提醒着唐太宗，勉励着唐太宗。魏征的《谏太宗十思疏》，唐太宗每天早上朗读它一遍，因为它无时无刻不催促着唐太宗为民造福，做一个明君。这是忠言逆耳利于行的正面例子。反之，历史上也一定有反面例子。比如比干劝商纣王不能横征暴敛反被剖心，伍子胥劝吴王杀掉勾践夫妇不成反被杀害。所以忠言不是对所有人都能产生积极影响，有的人一点就通，能够虚心接受别人的意见，有的人却夜郎自大，至死不悟。 但是现代社会和古代不同，我们更应该认真聆听逆耳忠言，更加
需要接受逆耳忠言。对待逆耳的话，我们应该保持一个清醒的头脑，一个冷静的心理，不让自己产生误解，也不让自己消极。我有一位朋友，她很直率，很坦诚，而且十清楚白事理。但是正是因为她的直率、坦诚有时也会很令我难堪，会让我下不来台。我刚开始会很不解，很迷惑，甚至会不耐烦。但是认真想想，她所说的其实不那么好听的话却一直对我有益，一直渐渐地渗透着我。我终于知道，那些只会对自己说好话的朋友，是损友，会让自己沾沾自喜从而一点一点退步；然后一直指出自己不足的朋友，让自己渐渐进步的朋友才是真正的益友。 良药苦口利于病，忠言逆耳利于行。但愿这句传颂千古的至理名言能够就这样传颂、弘扬下去，经久不衰，历久弥新。 篇二：忠言逆耳助我行 “看看你考的这点儿分！还是班长呢，你也不嫌丢人！我看你这学期就没把心思放在学习上，整天熬夜有什么用啊？你看人家考得好的，有几个是天天熬到十一、二点的？就你这样的成绩，别说考一中了，二中都不一定能考上！我看你再这样下去的话，还不如复读呢！”……(中国精选作文网 t262) 家长会后，便怒气冲冲地拿着成绩单来找我。爸爸批评的话语如同一盆冷水，把我从头浇到底，让我那因放假而欢愉的心情霎时从云间跌倒谷底。想起爸爸方才严厉的话语，不悦的心情霎时又被而委屈吞没…… 不就是考砸一次吗？有什么大不了的？还说得那么严重，我的分
《葛底斯堡演讲》三个中文译本的对比分析
《葛底斯堡演讲》三个中文译本的对比分析 葛底斯堡演讲是林肯于19世纪发表的一次演讲,该演讲总长度约3分钟。然而该演讲结构严谨,富有浓郁的感染力和号召力,即便历经两个世纪仍为人们津津乐道,成为美国历史上最有传奇色彩和最富有影响力的演讲之一。本文通过对《葛底斯堡演讲》的三个译本进行比较分析,从而更进一步加深对该演讲的理解。 标签：葛底斯堡演讲,翻译对比分析 葛底斯堡演讲是美国历史上最为人们所熟知的演讲之一。1863年11月19日下午,林肯在葛底斯堡国家烈士公墓的落成仪式上发表献词。该公墓是用以掩埋并缅怀4个半月前在葛底斯堡战役中牺牲的烈士。 林肯是当天的第二位演讲者,经过废寝忘食地精心准备,该演讲语言庄严凝练,内容激昂奋进。在不足三分钟的演讲里,林肯通过引用了美国独立宣言中所倡导的人权平等,赋予了美国内战全新的内涵,内战并不仅是为了盟军而战,更是为了“自由的新生(anewbirthoffreedom)”而战,并号召人们不要让鲜血白流,要继续逝者未竞的事业。林肯的《葛底斯堡演讲》成功地征服了人们,历经多年仍被推崇为举世闻名的演说典范。 一、葛底斯堡演说的创作背景 1.葛底斯堡演说的创作背景 1863年7月1日葛底斯堡战役打响了。战火持续了三天,战况无比惨烈,16万多名士兵在该战役中失去了生命。这场战役后来成为了美国南北战争的一个转折点。而对于这个位于宾夕法尼亚州,人口仅2400人的葛底斯堡小镇,这场战争也带来了巨大的影响——战争遗留下来的士兵尸体多达7500具,战马的尸体几千具,在7月闷热潮湿的空气里,腐化在迅速的蔓延。 能让逝者尽快入土为安,成为该小镇几千户居民的当务之急。小镇本打算购买一片土地用以兴建公墓掩埋战死的士兵,然后再向家属索要丧葬费。然而当地一位富有的律师威尔斯(DavidWills)提出了反对意见,并立即写信给宾夕法尼亚州的州长,提议由他本人出资资助该公墓的兴建,该请求获得了批准。 威尔斯本打算在10月23日邀请当时哈佛大学的校长爱德华(EdwardEverett)来发表献词。爱德华是当时一名享有盛誉的著名演讲者。爱德华回信告知威尔斯,说他无法在那么短的时间之内准备好演讲,并要求延期。因此,威尔斯便将公墓落成仪式延期至该年的11月19日。 相比较威尔斯对爱德华的盛情邀请,林肯接到的邀请显然就怠慢很多了。首先,林肯是在公墓落成仪式前17天才收到邀请。根据十九世纪的标准,仅提前17天才邀请总统参加某一项活动是极其仓促的。而威尔斯的邀请信也充满了怠慢,
逆耳忠言助我行作文【初中初三800字】
逆耳忠言助我行 喝一口手中母亲刚熬好的中药，苦涩立即在我口中漫延开来，“咳咳咳……”我立即吐了出来并故意大声地咳着。母亲在我旁边看着，摇摇头：“唉，‘良药苦口利于病，忠言逆耳利于行’这道理你怎么就是不懂呢？” “良药苦口利于病，忠言逆耳利于行”我在心中默念。手不由得颤抖了一下，老师那充满不屑和鄙视的话突然在我耳际响起…… “凭你这资质，根本就不可能会有所成就，你永远也别妄想成功。这就是整天只知道胡思乱想的结局。”老师就这样当着全班人的面，把我那满是红叉的作业本展示出来，并用不屑的语气对我说了这句话。他的话深深地刺痛了我的心，我低着头，不敢面对老师那鄙视的目光。班上的同学小声地讨论着，我听到全班同学都对老师的话表示赞同，我感到很多人都带着同情的眼光地看着我，但我知道更多的是幸灾乐祸……一阵寒风向我吹来，泪水也簌簌流下，“你们会后悔的！”我在心中愤恨地说道。 从此，我在学校依然像以前一样我行我素，让老师对我的行为叹气，让所有人都以为我依然无药可救，可是我知道，我早已不再是以
前的我了，上课我会很专心地听讲，吸收老师所传授的知识，回家后也暗暗努力地学习。终于我等到了机会，在期中考，我取得了惊人的进步。可我却没有表现出太多的惊喜，我继续努力着，努力着……就在我一次次得到优异的成绩后，我收敛了我的叛逆，我只在老师的办公桌上放了一张字条“我只想证明给某些人看，他的看法是错误的！”成功的喜悦冲昏了我的头脑，以至于我没有留意到老师对我欣慰的嘴角上扬的弧度…… 自从小学毕业后，我就再也没有回去母校，因为那里有太多不好的回忆。可我却不知道，由于那段奋斗的时光让我能够比别人更快地适应中学繁忙的学习生活，而这一切，都是我一直所“讨厌”的老师给予的。 “良药苦口利于病，忠言逆耳利于行，妈，我知道了。”我将手中的药一饮而尽，然后向母校的方向跑去……
高二作文：忠言逆耳利于行议论文800字
忠言逆耳利于行 人生的旅途中总会有许多的岔路口，然而成功的巅峰却只有一个。成功的人，不是因为他们有多么优秀，而是因为他们能接受逆耳忠言、苦口良药，所以我们要明辨并接受逆耳忠言，才能成功。 逆耳忠言如镜，以之可鉴得失。魏征屡次顶撞太宗，太宗能明鉴受之，方得贞观之项羽刚愎自用，仅因几句忠告之言，竟疏远了亚父范增，终被迫乌江之刎。孟尝君接受冯燰买义之言，终居相位数十年。魏征之言可定大逆不道之罪，却能点出太宗治国之得失，范增之言逆耳，却蕴含成功之道，冯燰之言难以让孟尝君接受，却为他指出了治理封地的得失，可以说没有接受他们三人的忠告，就不会有贞观之治和孟尝娇君的富贵，忠言虽然逆耳，但却是歧途上的最佳警钟。 逆耳忠言如星，以之可明方向。清王朝内部以天朝上国自居，却不顾“欲求超胜，必须贯通”之忠言，终尝闭关锁国之恶果，楚杯王不听屈原连齐抗秦之忠言，终于客死它乡。秦穆公不听蹇叔之忠言，终落得大败而归。徐光启的话指明了中国应有的发展方向，却冲击了满清“骑射为本”的思想，倘若清王朝不是对其不屑一顾，怕是就不会再有所谓的半殖民半封建的中国了吧；若是楚怀王信屈原忠言，远离秦使张化的糖衣炮弹，怕是也不会有秦王朝的统一吧；若是穆公听取蹇叔之言，也不会受其大败之辱吧。由此可见，忠言虽然逆耳，却能使人悬崖勒马，重归正途。 逆耳忠言如令，可以定成败。仲达的兵马已达城下，却因猜疑而回绝了攻城之请，反是错失良机。子产告诫子太叔以猛政治民，但子
太叔却以宽政治民，致使盗贼横行；夫差不听信伍子胥之忠言，终被勾践灭国。倘若他们听取了忠告，三国也许会提前结束，子太叔也许会与子产齐名，夫差也就不会亡国。因为忠言与他们内心的想法不符，就回绝其言，往往会引人走上失败之路。由此可见，忠言虽然逆耳，却能打开成功之门，避开失败的深渊。 当我们走在追求成功的路上的时候，请谨慎对待那些逆耳的建议，因为只有它们，才能给予我们真正的成功之路，当你拒绝了它们，也就亲手关闭了成功的大门，所以请接受逆耳忠言。
忠言逆耳利于行作文(初中初一800字).doc
忠言逆耳利于行作文（初中初一800字） “良药苦口，益于疾病；忠告逆耳，益于实践”的意思是:良药苦口，难下咽，却能治愈疾病。建议可能与自己的想法不同，但符合自己的利益。每个人都知道这个事实，但是很难做到。 唐太宗李世民任用人才。其中一个是一位名叫魏徵的部长。他敢于直言不讳并向他提出抗议。他经常和唐太宗打架，非常生气，唐太宗几次想杀他，但他都忍了。魏徵死后，唐太宗悲伤地说:“以铜为榜样，穿得得体。从过去学习，我们可以知道国家的兴衰。向他人学习，你就能看到收获和损失。”既然魏徵已经去世，是时候知道他的死讯了。“这种例子不仅在古代很常见，在现实生活中也很常见。 ”梅·许逊的雪比梅的白三倍，但是雪失去了它的香味.”这是我对父亲教诲的总结。 升到初中第一天后，我开始熟悉我的同学。因此，我父亲经常在午饭后和我谈论学校事务。当谈到一些名列榜首的女孩和一些不喜欢她们的女孩时，我的反应非常强烈。我父亲笑着对我说，“那是因为人们学习好，有资本。”“仍然有糟糕的研究！”我很快补充道。“这意味着他们口才很好，但你不能说他们好。”就这样，我被父亲打了。“没错，”我父亲补充道:我有时间问他们如何学习。“‘那帮老...’我在心里骂。很快就被遗忘了。 我父亲和我最后一次参加期末考试就要到了。我父亲告诉我，我不足以帮助我复习，于是我不耐烦地答应了。看到我不听，我父亲批评了我。在考试前几天的复习中，我父亲放弃了午睡时间来监督我的
学习。起初，我很不情愿。渐渐地，我开始全身心地投入到学习中，并且觉得我不能让父亲失望。在那段时间里，我还遇到了一个小学同学，她学习成绩很好。我记得父亲说过的话，并问她如何学习。她坦率地告诉了我。这样，我在班上得了第十名，数学得了第一名。 在回家的路上，风吹在树叶上，好像在为我鼓掌。在我父亲知道这件事之后，他嘴角露出一丝微笑，让我继续努力。 人们说，“没有压力，就没有动力。”在生活中，如果没有逆耳忠言，一个人似乎就失去了通往成功之路的风向标。因此，让我们接受那些不在我们心中的建议，驶向成功！
逆耳忠言助我行作文
逆耳忠言助我行作文 逆耳忠言助我行作文（一）： 入口即化的是蜜言，令人生畏的是谗言，唯有苦口逆耳的才是助我成长的忠言。 ――题记 亘古以来，人月交替，王朝兴衰，似乎构成了一个长久不变的规律：兴国之本是有敢于直谏的臣子与善于纳谏的明君，魏征的批评指责，曾令唐太宗咆啸：“我当杀此田舍翁！”但依然吸纳谏言，开创了贞观盛世！ 贞观四年，唐太宗打算大兴土木，建造乾阳店，给事张玄素说，在国家元气尚未恢复时，您这样做的过失比隋炀帝还大，甚至会得到同桀、纣一样的下常对如此尖锐的言辞，唐太宗非但没有动怒，而且理解了意见，下令缓建，还重赏了他。 唐太宗的这种气度是其之所以兴盛的原因。 拿破仑曾率领强大的军队征战，富尔顿告诉拿破仑，砍掉船上的桅杆，撤去风帆，不管刮什么风，不管什么天气，装上钢板，安上蒸汽机，就能够横渡英吉利海峡，但因用词不当，与拿破仑的思想有冲突，一气之下的拿破仑没采用他的推荐。试想，如果拿破仑静下心来，认真想一想，也许历史将改变。
为什么一些人听不进这些忠言呢！难道只因为话中多了分真诚与直接么！难道只有奉承的话才能取悦你们！为什么不为一个能直接指出自己不足的朋友而高兴呢！ 想想自已，有时不也是这样么！父母对自己有一句劝告，有一句评价，我们就会生气不听……上初中后，学习了这么多的历史事件，最后明白了，父母的话，哪一句不是“忠言”阿！正是父母的一句句，我才有了这天的成绩！ 阿！请铭记吧“逆耳忠言助我行”！ 逆耳忠言助我行作文（二）： “良药苦口利于病，忠言逆耳利于行。”的确，良药很苦，可它能治病，忠言逆耳，可它能帮你向成功更进一步。 那次，因为考试不好，我的情绪极差，那时，我多么想听到有人鼓励我，也许那些鼓励的话会使我一开始就振作起来，但是没有。有的只是一句句挫伤我自尊心的话。妈妈说：“你这次怎样考得这么差，这样的分数不属于你，我辛辛苦苦的养你这么多年，要得就是这个吗？你看×××以前学习不都没你好吗？但是此刻，人家不也比你好吗？你怎样就不能努力阿……” 我明白妈妈说的都是气话，那些话都是为我好，但是她根本不明白那些话对我的打击有多大。那次我几乎都快绝望了。都快对自己失去信心了。之后，我跑了出去，一个人漫步在大街上。
译文对比分析
话说宝玉在林黛玉房中说"耗子精"，宝钗撞来，讽刺宝玉元宵不知"绿蜡"之典，三人正在房中互相讥刺取笑。 杨宪益：Pao-yu，as we saw, was in Tai-yu?s room telling her the story about the rat spirits when Pao-chai burst in and teased him for forgetting the “green wax” allusion on the night of the Feast of Lanterns. 霍克斯: We have shown how Bao-yu was in Dai-yu?s room telling her the story of the magic mice; how Bao-Chai burst in on them and twitted Bao-yu with his failure to remember the …green wax? allusion on the night of the Lantern Festival; and how the three of them sat teasing each other with good-humored banter. 对比分析：杨宪益和霍克斯在翻译“耗子精”采用来了不同的处理方法，前者使用了异化”rat spirits”，后者用的是归化法”magic mice”,使用归化法更受英美读者的亲乃。但是二者同时采用了增译法，增添了the story，原文并没有。在翻译“宝玉不知绿烛之典”的“不知”，英文1用的是“forgetting”，而译文2用的是“with failure to ”，显然译文2更符合英美的表达习惯。 那宝玉正恐黛玉饭后贪眠，一时存了食，或夜间走了困，皆非保养身体之法。幸而宝钗走来，大家谈笑，那林黛玉方不欲睡，自己才放了心。 杨宪益：Pao-yu felt relieved as they laughed and made fun of each other, for he had feared that sleeping after lunch might give Tai-yu indigestion or insomnia that night, and so injure her health. Luckily Pao-chai?s arrival and the lively conversation that followed it had woken Tai-yu up. 霍克斯: Bao-yu had been afraid that by sleeping after her meal Dai-yu would give herself indigestion or suffer from insomnia through being insufficiently tired when she went to bed at night, but Bao-chai?s arrival and the lively conversation that followed it banished all Dai-yu?s desire to sleep and enabled him to lay aside his anxiety on her behalf. 对比分析：译文一对原文语序进行了调整，先说了“放心”，再说“担心”，但并不如不调整顺序的逻辑强。译文二只是用了一个“but”就把原文意思分层了两层，逻辑更加清晰，符合西方人注重逻辑的习惯。原文中的“谈笑”是动词，而两个译文版本都是译的“the lively conversation”，是名词，体现了汉语重动态，英文重静态的特点。 忽听他房中嚷起来，大家侧耳听了一听，林黛玉先笑道："这是你妈妈和袭人叫嚷呢。那袭人也罢了，你妈妈再要认真排场她，可见老背晦了。" 杨宪益：Just then, a commotion broke out in Pao-yu?s apartments and three of th em pricked up their ears. “It?s your nanny scolding Hai-jen,” announced Tai-yu. “There?s nothing wrong with Hai-jen, yet your nanny is for ever nagging at her. Old age has befuddled her.”
关于逆耳忠言助我行作文600字汇总5篇
关于逆耳忠言助我行作文600字汇总5篇 ——WORD文档，下载后可编辑修改—— 关于逆耳忠言助我行作文1 魏征直言进谏李世民，开辟了唐朝“贞观之治”的盛世;诸葛亮直谏后主刘禅，促成“宫中府中，俱为一体”的局面;邹忌婉谏齐王，达到“战胜于朝廷”的目的。这样的事例不胜列举，我们又怎能无动于衷? 于是我想到古有魏征、诸葛亮、邹忌上谏君主，兴国安邦，今有老师、朋友、亲人指点我，助我前行。 “你呀，做题正确率怎么那么低?脑子笨还是粗心大意，下次再这样，我就叫你家长来问问原因了。”看着那张被批改得“血淋淋”的试卷，老师这样对我说，尖锐的字眼像一把把尖刀直插心房，令人难以接受。我悻悻地走回教室，坐下细想了这前前后后的事，终于觉得是自己的失误。于是我在改进，从那以后，看到的便常是老师拿着试卷时满意的点头和嘴角扬起的弧度。 “你太自私了，从来不为别人着想，我不再是你的朋友了……”朋友的愤然离去留下一个满脸愕然的我。“我招你惹你了，平时对你不是挺好的吗，怎么说翻脸就翻脸?话还说得那么直，谁受得了啊?”我气愤地想着。我已不想去追问她离开的理由，望着天空中飞舞的雨丝，聆听着雨打白杨叶时有节奏的声响，记忆中春燕呢喃，终于觉得她的话很有道理。于是忧伤之中我也在改正。渐渐地，我开始懂得关心别人，多为别人着想。身边的朋友又多了起来，往日离开我的朋友，也
远远地向我招手…… “妈，我这次肯定能得第一名。”一次演讲比赛前，我信心满满地对妈妈说。妈妈摇着头说：“我看你这次可能不会成功，平时我都没看你怎么练习，孩子，不付出是不会有收获的。”说完转身就去洗碗了，可我分明看到她眼中的忧伤。“这什么家长啊，难道就不能鼓励一下孩子吗?怎么还泼冷水啊。”我不乐意地小声嘀咕着。果不其然，那次演讲我由于准备的不充分而讲得一塌糊涂。直到那时，我才明白妈妈的良苦用心，眼前又浮现出妈妈那天的背影，忽然想起汪国真的一句话：“背影，尽管有的很孤单，却让人如此难忘”。 成长路上，忠言逆耳;逆耳忠言，伴我前行。它们犹如大海上的风暴使大海深处风起云涌，焕然一新;它们犹如沙漠里的飞沙走石，让沙漠表面诡谲绮丽，妙趣横生。 我喜欢这些逆耳忠言，因为它们让我们的人生之路更加坦坦荡荡;我喜欢这些逆耳忠言，因为它们让我们的头脑更加清醒明朗;我喜欢这些逆耳忠言，因为它们使我们的人格更加完善健康。 我喜欢这些逆耳忠言，我感谢所有助我成长的人。 关于逆耳忠言助我行作文2 “看看你考的这点儿分!还是班长呢，你也不嫌丢人!我看你这学期就没把心思放在学习上，整天熬夜有什么用啊?你看人家考得好的，有几个是天天熬到十一、二点的?就你这样的成绩，别说考一中了，二中都不一定能考上!我看你再这样下去的话，还不如复读呢!”……家长会后，便怒气冲冲地拿着成绩单来找我。爸爸批评的话语如同一
《傲慢与偏见》译文对比分析
《傲慢与偏见》（节选一） Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen (An Except from Chapter One) 译文对比分析 节选文章背景：小乡绅贝内特有五个待字闺中的千金，贝内特太太整天操心着为女儿物色称心如意的丈夫。新来的邻居宾利(Bingley)是个有钱的单身汉，他立即成了贝内特太太追猎的目标。 1.It’s a truth u niversally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife. 译文一：凡是有钱的单身汉，总想娶位太太，这已经成了一条举世公认的道理。译文二：有钱的单身汉总要娶位太太，这是一条举世公认的真理。 2.However little known the feelings or views of such a man may be on his first entering a neighborhood, this truth is so well fixed in the minds of the surrounding families that he is considered as the rightful property of some one or other of their daughters. 译文一：这样的单身汉，每逢新搬到一个地方，四邻八舍虽然完全不了解他的性情如何，见解如何，可是，既然这样的一条真理早已在人们心中根深蒂固，因此人们总是把他看作是自己某一个女儿理所应得的一笔财产。 译文二：这条真理还真够深入人心的，每逢这样的单身汉新搬到一个地方，四邻八舍的人家尽管对他的性情见识一无所知，却把他视为某一个女儿的合法财产。 3.”My dear Mr. benne” said his lady to him one day ,”have you heard that nether field park is let at last?” 译文一：有一天班纳特太太对她的丈夫说：“我的好老爷，尼日斐花园终于租出去了，你听说过没有？” 译文二：“亲爱的贝特先生”一天，贝纳特太太对先生说：“你有没有听说内瑟费尔德庄园终于租出去了：” 4.Mr. Bennet replied that he had not. 译文一：纳特先生回答道，他没有听说过。 译文二：纳特先生回答道，没有听说过。 5.”But it is,” returned she:” for Mrs. long has just been here, and she t old me all about it.” 译文一：“的确租出去了，”她说，“朗格太太刚刚上这来过，她把这件事情的底细，一五一十地都告诉了我。” 译文二：“的确租出去了，”太太说道。“朗太太刚刚来过，她把这事一五一十地全告诉我了。”
高二作文：忠言逆耳利于行议论文800字_1
忠言逆耳利于行 一位父亲嘱咐即将独闯天下的孩子：“孩子，你要记住，当你取得了一点小成就时，不要被他人的美言所迷惑。永远记着：对你最好的人是指正你错误的人。” 古人云：“良药苦口利于病，忠言逆耳利于行。” 所以，请不要被美言与暂时的安逸所惑，要接受那些表面上难以接受实则益于我们的良言。 山口处的一个山洞，谁说里面一定住着妖魔鬼怪？它或许通往我们心仪已久的世外桃源。听似逆耳的忠言，是我们成功路上必不可少的支撑。巍巍朝堂上，臣子争相附和时，总是他直言利弊。下朝时，皇帝总是咬牙切齿，咆哮着：“会当杀死田翁！”却总是接纳他的建议。魏征的直言虽然逆耳，但千年来，“贞观之治”为人称道，“大唐盛世”令人向往，足见忠言的功用。忠言虽逆耳，却刺痛了听者的心，使其痛改前非，走向成功。 沙漠中的海市蜃楼，谁说它是迷途中错误的引导？它或许给迷途者走出沙漠的希望。看似不留情面的人，却是我们成功路上的恩人。一句“陛下虽得廉颇、李牧，弗能用也。”气得文帝恼羞成怒。思虑良久，文帝也只能责备“公奈何众辱我”。可因此有了冯唐持节赦魏尚的典故。冯唐的直言虽然逆耳，但苏轼的那句“持节云中，何日遣冯唐？”足见这一英明举措对后世的影响。忠言虽逆耳，却指出了听者的缺点，使其知错就改，走向成功。 良言是春风，唤醒沉睡的人；是雨露，洗涤蒙尘的心；是旭日，
照亮前行的路。楚汉战争时期，韩信的实力曾一跃超过项羽和刘邦。韩信没有采纳蒯通的建议称王，而是甘愿做刘邦手下，最终被斩于长乐宫钟室。他大喊：“悔不听蒯通之言，竟死于儿女子之手！”已无力回天。逆忠言者亡，顺忠言者昌。当年对蒯通劝其称王甚为不解的韩信，最终死在吕后手中时的顿悟，却已何其晚矣！ 大树沉醉在赞歌中不能自拔，将啄木鸟的美意拒之门外，最终落得痛苦倒下的悲惨下场。人若沉醉在美言中不能清醒认识自我时，请让逆耳的忠言萦绕耳畔吧，唤醒你，指引你。 从今天起，过滤掉美言与安逸，吸纳益于我们的良言。 良药苦口利于病，忠言逆耳利于行！
《乡愁》两个英译本的对比分析
《乡愁》两个英译本的对比分析 曹菊玲 （川外2013级翻译硕士教学1班文学翻译批评与鉴赏学期课程论文） 摘要：余光中先生的《乡愁》是一首广为人知的诗歌，曾被众多学者翻译成英文，本文将对赵俊华译本和杨钟琰译本进行对比分析，主要从原作的分析、译文的准确性、译文风格以及对原文意象的把握入手进行赏析，指出两译本的不足和精彩之处。 关键词：《乡愁》；原诗的分析；准确性；风格；意象的把握 1.原诗的分析 作者余光中出生于大陆，抗战爆发后在多地颠沛流离，最后22岁时移居台湾。20多年都未回到大陆，作者思乡情切，于上世纪70年代创作了这首脍炙人口的诗歌，但是当时大陆与台湾关系正处于紧张时期，思而不得的痛苦与惆怅包含于整首诗中。 全诗为四节诗，节与节之间完全对称，四句一节，共十六句，节奏感、韵律感很强，读起来朗朗上口。而且这首诗语言简洁，朴实无华，但是却表达了深刻的内涵。从整体上看，作者采取层层递进的方式，以时空的隔离和变化来推进情感的表达，最后一句对大陆的思念，一下子由个人哀愁扩大到国家分裂之愁，因而带有历史的厚重感。 【原诗】 乡愁 余光中 小时候／乡愁是一枚小小的邮票／我在这头／母亲在那头 长大后／乡愁是一张窄窄的船票／我在这头／新娘在那头 后来啊／乡愁是一方矮矮的坟墓／我在外头／母亲在里头 而现在／乡愁是一湾浅浅的海峡／我在这头／大陆在那头 【译诗】 (1) 赵俊华译 Homesick As a boy, I was homesick for a tiny stamp, —I was here, Mom lived alone over there. When grow up, I was homesick for a small ship ticket. —I was here,
落花生两英译本的对比分析
《落花生》两英译本的对比分析 【摘要】本文对张培基先生和刘士聪先生对《落花生》的英译本从接受美学的角度进行了对比分析。通过分析原文的写作目的，风格和语言特点从而对翻译的分析打下良好基础。举例对翻译的段落进行了对比分析，反映了译者的期待视野影响翻译目的，职业经历和翻译的基本观点影响期待视野。这一点对于文本不确定性和语义空白点的具体化十分重要。 【关键词】《落花生》；张培基；刘士聪；接受美学；翻译对比 一、原文的介绍 《落花生》是中国著名作家许地山创作的一篇具有深远意义的散文。他回忆了童年时发生的一件小事。父亲通过一件关于花生的小事讲述了生活哲理。 原文具有以下几个功能： 1、信息功能：它描述了童年发生的一件事及花生的特点和用途。 2、审美功能：文章的语言简单朴素清新自然。语言特点，内容和风格相得益彰，形成了浓厚的艺术吸引力。 3、表达功能：这篇散文表达了作者崇高的思想，即便是在动荡浑浊的旧时代，还应保持个人节操。 4、祈使功能：虽然描写的是不起眼的花生，却在字里行间向大家传递了人生哲学。那就是“那么，人要做有用的人，不要做伟大、体面的人了。” 二、两英译本对比分析 张先生和刘先生在翻译时都保留了原文的风格和特点。但他们的翻译风格还是有些不同的。 他们的期待视野影响其翻译目的。他们的职业经历影响他们翻译期待视野。张先生和刘先生都曾在出版社做过编辑，都潜心研究翻译事业。但是不同的是刘先生还有翻译教学的经历。和张先生相比，他更算的上是一个翻译教育学者。他投身于翻译教学和其他英语相关的学科研究中。从以上可以推断出，可能刘先生在翻译过程中遵循的规则更加严格，并且会更加的客观，也就是说学术的客观性会比较多，在翻译中自己主观理解的加入可能较少。这里有一个例子。原文：“那晚上的天色不大好，…”刘先生译文：“The weather was not very good that night but，….”张先生译文：“It looked like rain that evening，….”而“天色不太好”并不代表就是要下雨了。虽然对于这一句的翻译并不影响整体，但是作为一个翻译来说，并不应该加入过多的理所当然的想象。 除了翻译家的职业经历会影响他们的翻译表现和态度，他们对于翻译的基本看法，也会影响翻译工作。刘先生认为翻译的最高境界是对原文韵味的再现。译作“韵味”就是原作的艺术内涵通过译文准确而富有文采的语言表达时所蕴含的艺术感染力，这能引起读者的美感共鸣。除此之外，刘先生还强调要把译文作为独立的文本来看待。具体说来就是对译文美感和韵味的展现虽是从词句入手的，同时还应注意译文包括内容和风格的整体效果。当两者有了矛盾，要变通前者来适应后者。从以上不难看出，刘先生在翻译时非常注重两方面，一是对原文韵味的保留，也就是原文内容中所蕴含的艺术吸引力的保留，另一方面就是对翻译整体效果的追求要超越对词语句子的效果的追求。
2021必背作文摘抄——四大名著中值得背下来的金句,句句都能用到满分作文里
2021必背作文摘抄——四大名著中值得背下来的金句，句句都 能用到满分作文里 经典名著中往往藏着金句，摘抄下来弄懂意思，在写作文的时候它就是你拿高分的法宝了。 下面是四大名著里值得背下来弄懂的金句，本子准备好了吗？ 1《三国演义》 宁教我负天下人，毋教天下人负我。 鞠躬尽瘁，死而后已。 治世之能臣，乱世之奸雄。 良禽择木而栖，贤臣择主而事。 天下动之至易，安之至难。 举杯畅饮情何放，拔剑捐生悔已迟。 屈身守分，以待天时。 天下英雄，惟使君与操耳！ 势弱只因多算胜，兵强却为寡谋亡。 胜负兵家之常，何可自隳其志。 事定之后，乃计曲直，不亦善乎？ 生得其名，死得其所。 淡泊以明志，宁静而致远。 大丈夫处世，不能立功建业，不几与草木同腐乎！ 天下高见，多有相合 良药苦口利于病，忠言逆耳利于行。 龙游沟壑遭虾戏，凤入牢笼被鸟欺。 玉可碎而不可改其白，竹可焚而不可毁其节。 身虽损，名可垂于竹帛也。 2《西游记》 敢问路在何方？路在脚下。 道高一尺，魔高一丈。 海阔凭鱼跃，天高任鸟飞。 山高自有客行路，水深自有渡船人。 一叶浮萍归大海，人生何处不相逢。 人逢喜事精神爽，闷上心来磕睡多。
操心怎似存心好，争气不如忍气高。 人心生一念，天地尽皆知。善恶若无报，乾坤必有私。不信直中直，需防仁不仁。 有缘洗净忧疑病，绝念无私心自宁。 3《水浒传》 人无千日好，花无百园红。 送君千里，终须一别。 人无刚骨，安身不牢。 表壮不如里壮。 篱牢犬不入。 拳头上立得人，胳膊上走得马，人面上行得人。 骏马却驮痴汉走，美妻常伴拙夫眠。 柔软是立身之本，刚强是惹祸之胎。 欲求生快活，须下死工夫。 酒不醉人人自醉，花不迷人人自迷。 4《红楼梦》 满纸荒唐言，一把辛酸泪。都云作者痴，谁解其中味。世事洞明皆学问，人情练达亦文章。 侬今葬花人笑痴，他年葬侬知是谁？ 孤标傲世偕谁隐，一样花开为底迟。 机关算尽太聪明，反误了卿卿性命。 到头来都是为他人作嫁衣裳。 一畦春韭绿，十里稻花香。 一朝春尽红颜老，花落人亡两不知！ 寒塘渡鹤影，冷月葬花魂。 偷来梨蕊三分白，借得梅花一缕魂。 千里搭长棚，没有个不散的筵席。 滴不尽相思血泪抛红豆，开不完春柳春花满画楼。 二十年来辩是非，榴花开处照宫闱。 天上一轮才捧出，人间万姓仰头看。
译文对比评析从哪些方面
译文对比评析从哪些方面 匆匆英译文对比赏析 （1）匆匆 译文1：Transient Days 译文2：Rush （2）燕子去了，有再来的时候；杨柳枯了，有再青的时候；桃花谢了，有再开的时候。 译文1：If swallows go away, they will come back again. If willows wither, they will turn green again. If peach blossoms fade, they will flower again. 译文2：Swallows may have gone, but there is a time to return; willow trees may have died back, but there is a time of regreening; peach blossoms may have fallen, but they will bloom again.
（3）但是，聪明的，你告诉我，我们的日子为什么一去不复返呢?——是有人偷了他们罢：那是谁?又藏在何处呢?是他们自己逃走了罢：现在又到了哪里呢? 译文1：But, tell me, you the wise, why should our days go by never to return? Perhaps they have been stolen by someone. But who could it be and where could he hide them? Perhaps they have just run away by themselves. But where could they be at the present moment? 译文2：Now, you the wise, tell me, why should our days leave us, never to return? ----If they had been stolen by someone, who could it be? Where could he hide them? If they had made the escape themselves, then where could they stay at the moment? （4）我不知道他们给了我多少日子；但我的手确乎是渐渐空虚了。译文1：I don’t know how many days I am entitled to
材料作文：忠言逆耳利于行
材料作文：忠言逆耳利于行 材料作文：忠言逆耳利于行 在小时候，父母总给我们下了无数的规矩提了无数的要求。我们作为孩子在本该童真和快乐的年纪里当然是万般抵制的，但当我们一点一点长大并自己处理更多的人和事时不由得会想到，曾经那些逆耳甚至厌恶的话，好像是在帮助我们前进。 人生的足迹在风中一点点的踏下而心却好像总在逆风中受着历练。从小到大，少不了的就是妈妈的百般唠叨，她们的唠叨总是让我们心烦。但在风平浪静后有可曾想过她的话，或许她的话没有书中文字的美丽，但那包含她的爱。我的母亲总是给我立很多规矩，叫我一一遵守不能违反。我自然万般地抵触，在正是调皮捣蛋的年纪里没少挨妈妈的打。但她每次打完我又是心疼的安抚我，细细阐述那些基本的道理。岁月一天天的'流逝我也一天天的长大，而母亲的规矩少了取而代之是一句话：没有规矩，不成方圆。母亲的这句话伴着我走着，但我有的时候也会犯错误；那次在初中我竟然胆大到逃课打篮球，事情当然很快传到母亲那里。我回到家，
母亲看着我，她眼里淡淡的眼神让我低下了头，她走进屋里，哭了。她弯着的脊背仿佛一盆冷水泼醒了我，我也恍然明白，她自己为我和家付出了太多甚至牺牲了自己却得不到回报是有多痛，我狠狠地给自己两巴掌，我主动写好检查放在桌头，自己又去上学了。 在那之后，母亲原谅了我也恢复了往日的唠叨，我也真正明白那些话的意义，那些规矩的真正含义。毋庸置疑，父亲抑或是母亲说这些话是没有在意我们愿意还是不愿意，是因为他们知道这些话都是为了将来。我妈妈有一次在我的本子上写道：请原谅我的唠叨和立下的规矩，我知道你想要的是快乐和自由，但这些给不了将来的你选择生活的权利。我觉得，长大后当我有了自己的孩子，我也许还会这样告诉他，因为我也不希望将来他会恨我。 当我在风中度过青葱的岁月时，我忽然发现：当年那个唠叨的人渐渐跟不上我了，她或他脸上的皱纹更深了，他们老了，不再是往昔的年轻，却留下数不尽的忠言回荡在我耳畔。 【材料作文：忠言逆耳利于行】 1.忠言逆耳利于行的作文900字 2.忠言逆耳利于行作文500字 3.忠言逆耳利于行作文800字 4.忠言逆耳利于行初三750字作文
对《匆匆》的三个译本对比分析
对《匆匆》的三个译本对比分析 翻译大家常说好的翻译作品要忠于原文，完全了解原文的写作背景，作者的写作风格；并把握理解作者表达的思想感情，挖掘作者原作中的内涵，捕捉原作里的神韵之美，以及丰富的感情。为了对比散文《匆匆》的三个不同译本我他特意查了一下《匆匆》的写作背景，然后读了几遍原文，深深地体味了一下朱自清的写作情感。顿时，感受到了朱自清对时间流逝的无奈焦急和惋惜之情。再读《匆匆》，似乎在听一首好听灵动的音乐，那朴素平淡的抒情气氛，优美的了律动美，委婉流畅悠远的的音律美油然而生。然后再欣赏三个不同的译本，我或多或少感受到了三个译本各自不同的特点。 乍眼一看，我特别喜欢张培基先生的译本，我觉得他译的真好。因为我看他的译文时，感受到了原作丰富的思想感情，浓厚的感染力，以及原文的美和意境。但是经过仔细品味，我发现其实三个译本各有千秋，不能单单说谁译的好与不好，只能说谁翻译的比较准确，更能符合原文之美，原文之意，原文之味。 以下是我对三个译本的对比分析欣赏：（朱纯深，张培基，张梦井先生的译本） 对比一：题目。 朱纯深译文：Rush 张培基译文：Transient Days 张梦井译文：Days Gone By Rush的意思是快速移动；急促；有仓促之意。我认为时间虽然短暂，但也不至于仓促过往，rush 没有美感，也不符合原文所表达匆匆之意，不太妥帖。 Transien t的意思是转瞬即逝的,短暂的(continuing for only a short time )把时间匆匆流逝，时间短暂之意表达的淋漓尽致，似乎让人觉得时间犹如过往云烟，捉不住，摸不着，与原文匆匆之意相符合，且具有美感。 Go b y的意思是流逝,过去（to past）多指时间的推移，不能表达匆匆之意。 综上所述，Transient Days更为贴切，而其他两个就欠妥帖。 对比二： 朱纯深：Swallows may have gone, but there is a time to return; willow trees may have died back, but there is a time of re-greening; peach blossoms may have fallen, but they will bloom again. 张培基：If swallows go away, they will come back again. If willows wither, they will turn green again. If peach blossoms fade, they will flower again.