欢迎访问临沂高译翻译有限公司官方网站!
新闻动态
联系我们
  • 高译翻译
  • 电 话:0539-8368292
  • 手 机:18854962002
  • 邮 箱:gaoyifanyi@163.com
  • 地 址:临沂市兰山区临西五路与水田路交汇路西
当前位置:主页 > 资讯中心 > 新闻动态
新闻动态

2018年上半年翻译赛事

时间:2018-01-31 08:59 作者:admin 点击:

一、第二届许渊冲翻译大赛

为推动国内翻译人才的培养进程,促进BTI、MTI方向的发展,乃至DTI的建立,以及整个翻译学科的发展和中外文化交流,研究和践行许渊冲先生的翻译理念,继2017年“首届许渊冲翻译大赛”所取得的良好反响,兹定于2018年举办“第二届许渊冲翻译大赛”。欢迎海内外广大翻译工作者和爱好者比秀佳译,共鉴达雅。

附大赛原文:

第二届许渊冲翻译大赛英译汉原文
A Contract in the Context of Semiotics
[1] A contract, basically, is an agreement between two (or more) persons, creating mutual legal obligations between them. In its essence, it is a legally and morally binding promise to do something or refrain from doing something. The “something” is called the subject matter of the contract, which must be legal. It is illegal to contract against good morals or national security, for example.
[2] There is no set (verbal) formula to enter into a contract. Written contracts are as a rule supposed to set out what the parties actually intend, while the intent of orally-made and other informal agreements is, from a legal standpoint, not definitely fixed. Interpretation may there be necessary in order to clarify parties’ intentions. It is the task of the trial judge to make the implicit explicit by inference from the evidence available to him or her (the written and/or oral agreement corroborated by conduct by parties).
[3] The consensual basis of contract, its first formal requirement, implies that parties (called promisor and promise) agree voluntarily and in good faith to enter into a common enterprise involving future actions, thereby yielding some portion of their freedom of behavior in the future. The will of parties is, in law, considered to be manifested in the fact that, to the effect of the contract a definite offer or proposal from one party has been consciously and willingly accepted, without new terms, by the other party. An offer not clearly and explicitly put forth and/or not freely and knowingly accepted makes no contract, --- or better, it makes a defective contract. Thus, if A asks B to promise some future performance, and B makes no answer indicating his (present) willingness to do so at some (future) time, B has made no promise.
[4] To qualify as a valid and legally binding contract, there must be mutuality, or exchange of promises. Under a contract, one party undertakes an obligation, thereby giving the other, to whom the obligation is owed, a claim against him, her, or itself, which consists in the right to have a performance of the terms of the contract. By this token, parties do not share benefits and burdens, but each party has his, her, or its definite privileges and responsibilities arising from the contract.
[5] Contracting parties must further be competent, that is, they must have the proper legal capacity to enter into a contractual agreement. As a case in point, a contract entered into by a minor (or a mentally disabled person) is a defective, hence voidable, transaction. It is not void, and therefore still creates legally binding obligations on a competent party, unless the minor (or mentally disabled person) repudiates it. This may happen in person or through a guardian acting on his or her behalf.
[6] However, a contract is not binding, and therefore void (and not merely voidable), if it is lacking what is called, in legal jargon, “consideration”. A bare and gratuitous promise is generally insufficient ground to create, for the one party, an enforceable duty to deliver any (material or immaterial) goods, not for the other, to take and pay for them. The obligation resting upon each party only exists “in consideration of” the act or promise of the other, --- meaning that neither is bound unless both are bound. Consideration is, in the Anglo-American legal system (the so-called common law), the essence and backbone of legal contract. It is also known as the quid pro quo (“what for what”, “something for something”) mentioned in the title of this Chapter because of the analogy to the scholastic aliquid stat pro aliquo, which exemplifies the semiotic sign relation and is (like quid pro quo) rooted in equivalence. Quid pro quo indicates that something must be given in return for the promise; that there must be some bargain; that a responsibility incurred by the one party must be matched by a corresponding benefit gained by the other. Consideration pits the promise to give (often, to pay) against the promise to do, thereby highlighting the thing of value each party agrees to give in exchange for what he or she receives by the bargain. This thing of value, or consideration, is the reason for which the contract is made.
[7] Semiotics being, essentially, the study of how verbal and nonverbal messages are created, sent, received, understood, interpreted, and otherwise used, it is clearly the case that contract is a semiotic problem. Here we must distinguish a contract as a written document from contract as a communicative act or event. Though different, both are facts of law and both are semiotic signs.
[8] The written document, or contract form, is an object which is a sign because of the verbal signs (signs of Thirdness) it is codified in. when filled out and signed, it serves as a genuine Third, or sign of law. In accordance with Peirce’s classification of signs, it must be characterized as a symbolic sign strongly tinged with indexicality. More specifically, it is proposition, or dicent symbolic legisign which on being signed by parties (and, if necessary, co-signed by one or more witnesses, an attorney, and/or notary public) will acquire the status of an argument, or argumentative symbolic legisign. The mixed, symbolic - indexical nature of the contract is signified in the appearance of the formal, written contract but can also be recognized (though perhaps in a less explicit form) in informal contracts –- agreements, that is, which may result from an exchange or letters or even from casual acts.

第二届许渊冲翻译大赛汉译英原文
[1] 经济战略纵深存在时和空两个维度。空间纵深方面,可以从区域、产业和市场几个方面来考察:从区域角度看,战略纵深一方面来自一国的幅员辽阔和地大物博,更重要的是根据自然资源禀赋和区域发展规划,形成具有比较优势的区域产业和产品优势,呈现“互为补充、相互带动、梯次发展”的格局;从产业结构看,第一产业特别是高附加值农业、第二产业特别是高端制造业、第三产业特别是现代服务业,呈“核心行业优势明显、整体结构协调发展”的局面;从市场角度看,在全球化背景下,同时拥有国内和国际两个巨大市场,在大力开拓国际市场的同时,拥有具有较大回旋余地的国内市场。用时间的标尺来衡量战略纵深,则主要是对一国的体制、机制和制度环境对经济潜力的影响加以考察,其中政治和社会稳定的预期、市场体系和投融资体制的效能、社会保障制度的健全与完备、教育和科研水平对经济和产业提供的智力资源等,决定一个国家经济运行的稳定性、经济危机的自我修复能力,事关一国经济发展的潜能。
[2] 经济战略纵深的本质是经济安全。从近代西班牙、荷兰等以商业繁荣为基础的强权经济昙花一现,到亚洲金融危机东亚诸国泡沫破裂引发的经济断层危机,背后的原因林林总总,其经济结构的脆弱性却是不可否认的共性问题。历史经验说明,没有经济纵深就谈不上经济安全。经济安全代表着一国经济在整体上主权独立、基础稳固、运行稳健、增长稳定、发展持续,在国际经济生活中有一定的自主性、防卫力和竞争力,能够避免或化解可能的局部的或全局性的危机。具体内容上,包括一国经济结构内部的协调,国民经济产业部门之间基本保持平衡,工业体系基本完善,基础产业稳固,不存在制约国民经济发展的瓶颈,尤其是不存在无法通过进口加以补充的瓶颈产业。从供给方面看,产业结构与要素结构基本吻合,资源利用较为充分,而且能够按照比较优势的原则发展主导产业参与国际分工;从需求方面看,产品能基本满足国内的基本需求。一个具有战略纵深的经济体系应该是一个具有自身结构不断升级的结构,而不是始终依赖外国产业转移的僵化结构;应当是一个在外部动荡环境下能承受冲击的结构,而不是在外部冲击下缺乏调节机制的结构。实践表明,没有合理的民族工业支撑的商业繁荣属于依赖型繁荣,是不可持续的,一如历史上的西班牙和荷兰;没有合理协调的产业机构基础上的“大进大出、两头在外”的跳跃式经济增长和断层型的发展模式,只是低收入国家甚至中等收入国家的权宜之计,一如深陷亚洲金融危机泥潭的东南亚国家。

二、韩素音国际翻译大赛

从2018年起“韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛”正式更名为“韩素音国际翻译大赛”。欢迎海内外广大翻译工作者和翻译爱好者参赛。

附大赛原文:
地名中的传统文化含量
中国具有悠久的文明历史,留下了丰富多彩的历史篇章。历史有时间与空间这两个维度,直白地说,历史就是人们在一定的时间和特定空间创造的事件。时间是流动的,“逝者如斯夫,不舍昼夜”。空间却相对的固化,“人生代代无穷已,江月年年只相似。”(张若虚《春江花月夜》)。读万卷书,行万里路。书中所见是历史的时间地图;路中所见是历史的空间地理。而空间地理首先是从地名反映出来的。
年轻的时候读书,有机会到河南、陕西、山西、甘肃等地考察,每每见到《史记》、《资治通鉴》中常见的历史地名,在现实中就呈现在我走过的这条路旁的界标上,总是感慨万千,油然升起一种穿越历史时空的苍茫感。中国悠久的历史和文化仿佛就在身边,并不那么遥远。地名是故乡的第一记忆。西晋末年,永嘉南渡,不少北方士民,被战争所驱迫,离乡背井,迁徙到遥远的南方去,他们不知道什么时候能回到故土。于是,设置了很多侨置的州县,沿用北方故土的名字。用地名保留故乡记忆是人类共同的感情。大航海之后的殖民扩张时代,欧洲人到了美洲、澳洲,给自己新的居住地,安上故乡的旧地名,这在美国、加拿大、澳大利亚,可以说是比比皆是,司空见惯。
由此想到,当下的中国,许多地名是否能很好地保留祖先的历史记忆,传导深厚的历史文化底蕴?值得我们反思。
比如说,今天许多省域的简称。安徽,境内有皖江,简称皖,自有其道理,其实安徽最深刻的记忆是徽。陕西简称陕,其实陕县在河南,陕之西并不是陕,而“秦”恰恰是陕西最深刻的记忆。又如,县级机构的设立是秦汉创建郡县制国家体制的基础要素之一。而郡县制是中国悠久历史中最具特色的制度。相反,区与市,却是很晚近的行政体制,中国历史上的市不是行政区划,现在作为行政区划的市是从日本移植过来的。可是,随着我国城市化的扩大,县改为市,成为普遍的事情,也许将来有一天,中国最古老的文化符号之一—“县”,就会逐渐消失。
人类社会发展过程中,会丢弃一些传统的文化符号,这是正常现象。但是,这种丢弃一定有某种特定原因。否则人们一定是想方设法地保存历史记忆。联合国的非物质遗产申遗,大约就是鼓励这种行为。而地名的历史文化深度和广度,甚至要超过许多被保护的物质文化遗产。究其原因,在一段时期内,与历史和文化虚无主义有关。民国初年,北洋政府甚至禁止中医公开营业,许多中国传统的节日也被取消,包括正旦(俗称过年),代之以阳历新年。后来大约群众的习惯力量太强大,才改成了春节。现在我们都把过年叫春节。许多地名的更改,改得越没有历史味道,就显得越进步、越新潮,就跟这种思潮有关。
近几年来,国家恢复了许多传统节日,把这些传统节日定为法定假日,这是一种提倡,一种态度。过节是人的需求,一种文化和情感的需求。就像节日的问题一样,我觉得有些被历史与文化虚无主义所妄改的地名,也应该正本清源,还其历史面目。对于各地的历史地名,进行一次拨乱反正,也许正当其时。

On Inequality
In the past four decades, studies of rising inequality in the United States have typically focused on the bottom 90 percent of earners. Economists have produced rigorous evidence demonstrating how trends in technology, trade, unionization, and minimum wages have shaped the fortunes of those Americans. Global labor-market forces have pushed up the demand for highly skilled workers and have led to steadily increasing wages for those with a college education. The same forces have led to declining or stagnant wages for those with lower levels of education. And a decline in unionization rates and the fall in the real value of the minimum wage have exacerbated the downward pressures on middle- and low-wage workers.

Less well understood are the causes of the tremendous surge in income among extremely high earners, meaning the upper 1.0, 0.1, and 0.01 percent. From a policymaking point of view, the most important question is how much of the ultrarich’s income reflects activity, such as technological innovation, that benefits the broader economy. If, in contrast, the income of the biggest earners is produced by pursuits that are less broadly beneficial, such as high-frequency stock market trading, then higher taxes at the top would pose fewer economic costs.

Compared with the richest people and families in the early 1900s, when large fortunes often came from inherited assets, today’s superrich are acquiring a larger share of their income in the form of earnings. About 60 percent of the income of the top one percent in the United States today is labor income. Some economists talk about the rise of “supersalaries” or “supermanagers”: top executives of large corporations, primarily in the financial industry, who enjoy very generous compensation packages. They disagree, however, about whether the income earned by such executives reflects the efficient working of a market for talent, in which case their pay reflects their value, or whether the massive compensation packages result from a bargaining process that is shaped by regulations, institutions, and social norms.

Others highlight the role of technological developments in creating substantial economic rewards for those who possess specific skills and in reducing the employment security of less skilled workers.

Still others maintain that the primary factors driving the rise in executive pay at the top are not technology or imperfect markets but eroded social norms, questionable corporate-governance practices, and declining unionpower.

Another essential set of questions about inequality centers on whether wealth concentration negatively affects economic growth, shared prosperity, and democratic institutions. Since lower-income households have a higher propensity to spend out of their earnings than do higher-income ones, the more wealth held by high-income households, the less overall spending the economy might see. Another potential problem is that wealthy Americans tend to vote for (and lobby for) lower taxes; increased wealth concentration, then, could lead to harmful reductions in government spending on public goods such as education and infrastructure.

Even if the income of top earners reflects genuinely worthwhile contributions to society and does not impede economic growth, today’s extreme inequality does threaten social cohesion. Economists and policymakers need not worry about inequality and should instead focus on reducing poverty and expanding opportunity.

In the winner-take-all economy of the contemporary United States, the gap between the top and the bottom has grown so large that it undermines any reasonable notion of equal opportunity. As inequality has increased, the country has witnessed a fraying of communities and institutions and deepening divisions along socioeconomic lines. Children from high-income homes are pulling further and further ahead of their less advantaged peers in terms of education, which means it is far less likely that children born into middle- or low-income homes will experience upward economic mobility.

Inequality also harms American society by encouraging negative perceptions of the economy and one’s prospects for upward mobility. If Americans view the system as rigged against them and see economic success as out of reach, they might give up on the celebrated American ideals of hard work and meritocracy. Research shows that young men are more likely to drop out of high school if they live in places with higher levels of income inequality, all else being equal. This is consistent with evidence produced by psychologists showing that beliefs about inequality negatively affect people’s expectations of social mobility.

The alarmingly low rates of labor-force participation among young Americans and those of prime working age might also be driven, at least in part, by a sense of malaise shaped by today’s high levels of income inequality. Labor-force participation among American men aged 25 to 54 has fallen steadily since the mid-1960s, a trend that has been sharper in the United States than in other advanced economies.

A growing body of evidence now indicates that inequality in the United States threatens to create intergenerational poverty traps, greatly reduce social mobility, and marginalize entire swaths of the population. Such effects are sure to have political ramifications.

Many economists assume that no matter what policy remedies for extreme inequality emerge, wealthy elites will marshal their considerable influence to maintain their position and privileges. But they do not explore those potential policies at great length, nor do they consider the precise mechanisms that would shape pushback from the elites. In 2016, the Brexit vote and the American presidential election revealed the strength of populist and nationalist sentiments among voters who gleefully rejected the elite classes in both the United Kingdom and the United States.

When it comes to the problem of income and wealth inequality in the United States, there are no silver bullets. But policymakers have many levers available to them. The best evidence suggests that the United States could have a more progressive federal income tax code without incurring substantial economic costs. Tax reform should focus on expanding the tax base by closing loopholes and eliminating regressive features such as the mortgage-interest tax deduction, which benefits only high-income homeowners, and the carried-interest loophole, which benefits only those involved in private-equity finance.

The federal government should take the additional revenue such steps would generate and invest it in programs that would increase the country’s economic potential. That would include improvements to public infrastructure, expanded access to high-quality childcare and preschool programs, and more spending on programs that assist economically disadvantaged youth. Government commitments to public universities and community colleges must be strengthened. At the same time, institutions of higher education must focus on helping their students build the skills they will need to succeed in a competitive, rapidly changing labor market. These types of investments are crucial if the United States is to remain a land of opportunity.

上一篇:翻译的四个历史驱动因素

下一篇:人事部一级笔译