小学英语单词大全(含中文翻译)

小学英语单词大全(含中文翻译)（通用5篇）

篇1：小学英语单词大全(含中文翻译)

小学-第1 册英语单词表小学英语单词大全

一．学习用品（school things）

钢笔pen铅笔pencil铅笔盒pencil-case尺子ruler书book书包schoolbag漫画书comic book明信片postcard报纸newspaper包bag橡皮eraser蜡笔crayon 卷笔刀sharpener 故事书story-book笔记本notebook 语文书Chinese book英语书English book数学书math book杂志magazine词典dictionary 二．人体（body）

脚foot头head脸face头发hair鼻子nose嘴mouth眼睛eye耳朵ear手臂arm手hand手指hand腿leg尾巴tail身体body 三．颜色（color）

红red 蓝blue 黄yellow 绿green 白white 黑black 粉红pink 紫purple 橙orange 棕brown 灰grey 四．动物（animals）

猫cat 狗dog 猪pig 鸭duck 兔rabbit马horse 大象elephant蚂蚁ant鱼fish鹰eagle鹿deer 海狸beaver 鸟bird蛇snake 老鼠mouse 松鼠squirrel熊bear 袋鼠kangaroo 猴monkey 熊猫panda 狮子lion老虎tiger 狐狸fox斑马zebra长颈鹿giraffe鹅goose母鸡hen火鸡turkey小羊lamb绵羊sheep山羊goat奶牛cow驴donkey鱿鱼squid龙虾lobster鲨鱼shark 海豹seal抹香鲸sperm whale虎鲸killer whale 五．人物（people）

朋友friend男孩boy女孩girl母亲mother父亲father 姐妹sister兄弟brother叔叔；舅舅uncle男人man女人woman先生Mr.小姐Miss女士lady妈妈mom爸爸dad父母parents（外）祖母grandma/grandmother（外）祖父grandpa/grandfather姑姑aunt儿子son婴儿baby堂（表）兄弟；堂（表）姐妹cousin小孩kid同学classmate 女王queen参观者visitor邻居neighbors校长principal 大学生university student笔友pen pal旅行者tourist人物people机器人robot

六． 职业（jobs）

教师teacher学生student医生doctor护士nurse司机driver 农民farmer 歌唱家singer（男）警察policeman作家writer男演员actor女演员actress画家artist电视台记者TV reporter工程师engineer会计accountant销售员salesperson清洁工cleaner棒球运动员baseball player售货员assistant（女）警察policewoman

七．食品、饮料（food and drink）

米饭rice面包bread牛肉beef牛奶milk水water蛋egg鱼fish豆腐tofu蛋糕cake热狗hot dog 猪肉pork汉堡包hamburger炸薯条French fries曲奇cookie饼干biscuit果酱jam面条noodle肉meat鸡肉chicken羊肉mutton蔬菜vegetable沙拉salad汤soup冰ice冰激凌ice-cream可乐Coke果汁juice茶tea咖啡coffee早餐breakfast午餐lunch晚餐dinner 十八.星期(week)

星期一Monday 星期二Tuesday 星期三Wednesday 星期四Thursday 星期五Friday 星期六Saturday星期日Sunday周末weekend 十九.月份(months)

一月份January(Jan.)二月份February(Feb.)三月份March(Mar.)四月份April（Apr）五月份May(May)六月份June(Jun)七月份July(Jul)八月份August(Aug.)九月份September(Sept.)十月份October(Oct.)十一月November(Nov.)十二月December(Dec.)二十.季节(seasons)

春spring 夏summer 秋fall冬winter 二十一.方位(directions)

南south北north东east西west左边left右边right 二十二.患病(illness)

发烧have a fever 疼痛hurt 感冒have a cold 牙疼have a toothache 头疼have a headache 喉咙疼have a sore throat 二十五.介词(prep.)

在…里in 在…上;在…时候on 在…下面under 在…的旁边near 在…后边behind 与…相邻next to 在…上面over 在…前面in front of

二十六.代词(pron.)

我I 他he 她she 它it 我们we 你;你们you 他(她,它)们they 我的my 我们的our 你的;你们的your 他的his 她的her 二十七.动词(v.)

进行体育运动play sports玩;踢play打架fight 游泳swim滑冰skate爬山climb mountains放风筝fly kites跳舞dance唱歌sing画画draw弹钢琴play the piano晨练;做广播操do morning exercises去远足go hiking堆雪人make a snowman植树plant trees pictures浇花water the flowers 照相take pictures 听音乐listen to music绘画paint去旅行take a trip阅读杂志read a magazine集邮collect stamps下棋play chess驾驶drive 飞fly跳jump走walk看look跑run爬climb荡swing划row踢kick骑ride停stop等wait爱love尝taste闻smell剪shear放put折fold寄send 买buy 卖sell 逛商店go shopping 吃eat 喝drink 有;吃have 像;喜欢like 帮助help 转弯turn 居住live 带take 教teach 去go 挤奶milk 猜guess 反弹bounce

回家go home 做家务do housework 睡觉sleep 上床睡觉go to bed 铺床make the bed 起床get up醒来wake up穿上put on脱掉take off挂起hang up穿wear

洗 wash洗衣服wash the clothes 喝水drink water 洗碗do the dishes 打扫clean 扫地sweep the floor 打扫卧室clean the bedroom打扫房间clean the room倒垃圾empty the trash收拾衣服put away the clothes 摆饭桌set the table做饭cook the meals 做晚饭cook dinner吃早饭eat breakfast 吃晚饭eat dinner 上学go to school上英语课have English class做作业do homework学习learn写信write a letter读书books看书read a book 写电子邮件write an e-mail 观察昆虫watch insects 读read 写write 看电视watch TV去看电影go to the cinema 思考think 使用计算机use the computer 玩电脑游戏play computers 工作work 接电话answer the phone 看望(外)祖父母visit my grandparents 研究study 见面meet欢迎welcome谢谢thank喂养feed传递pass展示show使用use打开open 关上close告诉tell寻找find照耀shine变成become感觉到feel 遇见meet 落下fall离开leave下车get off

二十八.疑问词

what(什么)when(什么时候)why(为什么)what color(什么颜色)what time(几点)what day(星期几)how old(年龄多大,几岁)how(怎样)how many(多少)how much(多少钱)how tall(多高)how heavy(多重)how long(多长)how big(多大)how large(面积多大)where(在哪里)which(哪一个)who(谁)whose(谁的)二十九.be动词am is are was were 三十.助动词do does did 三十一.情态动词can should would will

小学-第1 册英语单词表 Module 1 I 我 Am(I’an)是（我是）Hello 你好 Goodbye 再见 How 怎样 are 是 you 你 good 好的 morning早晨，上午 fine（身体）很好 thank 谢谢 Module 2 Ms 女士 Too 也 And 那么，和 boy 男孩 girl 女孩 what 什么 is(whai is)是（是什么）your 你的 name 名字 afternoon 下午 Mr 先生 Module 3 the 这（那）个些 door 门 please 请 window 窗户 blackboard 黑板 bird 鸟 desk 书桌 chair 椅子 Module 4 my 我的 it 它（它是）red 红色的 a 一个，一 panda 熊猫 blue 蓝色的 yellow 黄色的 green 绿色的 black 黑色的 dog 狗 cat 猫 cap 帽子 Module 5 many 许多 how many多少 one 一 two 二 three 三 four 四 five 五 six 六 seven 七 eight 八 nine 九 ten 十 eleven 十一 twelve 十二 hat 帽子 Module 6 this 这个 school 学校 pupil 小学生 classroom 教室 English 英语 teacher教师 that 那个 bag 书包 pencil 铅笔 pen 钢笔 book 书 Module 7 happy 快乐的 birthday 生日 here这里（这是）cake 蛋糕 old 年岁的 how old 多大 look 看 Module 8 no 不 not ist’t不（不是）yes 是的 help 救命（呼救）kite 风筝 where(where’s)哪里（在哪里）in 在….里面 bag 袋子 Module 9 family 家庭 mother 母亲 she(she’s)她（她是）father 父亲 he(he’s)他（他是）doctor 医生 grandpa祖父，外祖父 grandma 祖母，外祖母 sister 姐妹 me 我（宾格）brother 兄弟 driver 司机 policeman 警察 nurse 护士 farmer 农民 Module 10 body 身体 his 他的 head 头 arm 胳膊 leg 腿 foot 脚（单数）her 她的 nose 鼻子 eye 眼睛 mouth 嘴 ear 耳朵

Module 1 Song 歌曲 Favourite 特别喜爱的 toy 玩具 car 小汽车 ship 轮船 doll 洋娃娃 Module 2 they 它（他她）们 monkey 猴子 tiger 老虎 big 大的 lion 狮子 elephant 大象 small 小的 fat 胖的 look at 看着 tree 树 tall 高的 short 矮的 thin 瘦的 Module 3 like 喜欢 football 足球 basketball 篮球 table tennis乒乓球 riding bikes 骑自行车 swimming游泳 skipping 跳绳 Module 4 meat 肉 pass 传递 rice 米饭 mum 妈妈 noodles 面条（复数）fish 鱼 milk 牛奶 banbana 香蕉 pear 梨 orange 橘子 apple 苹果 Module 5 get up起床 at 在 o’clock 点钟 go to school上学 have lunch吃午饭 go home回家 watch TV看电视 go to bed上床睡觉 time 时间 half 半，一半 past 超过 have breakfast 吃早饭 have dinner 吃晚饭 Module 6 do 做 weekend 周末 Chinese 语文 Maths数学 Science 科学 Play 打 sleep 睡觉 today 今天 Music 音乐 Art 美术 PE体育 Module 7 for 给，为 about 关于 spring Festival春节 Chinese 中国的 New Year新年 Christmas 圣诞节 England 英国 sing 唱歌 give 给 present 礼物 eat 吃 Module 8 hot 热的 summer 夏天 spring 春天 warm 暖和的 fly 放 autumn 秋天 cool 凉爽 的 winter 冬天 cold 寒冷的 sunny 晴朗的 windy 有风的 Module 9 have got拥有 animal 动物 sport 运动 dress 连衣裙 coat 外套 sweater 毛线衫 has got 拥有

T-shirt T恤衫 by 乘坐，以..方式 bike 自行车 bus 公共汽车 go to work上班 walk 步行 Module 10 on 在..上面 box 盒子 under 在..下面 bedroom 卧室 park 公园 swim 游泳 lake 湖 snow 雪

Module 1 one 一个物品 purple 紫色的 pink 粉色的 white 白色的 orange 橙色的 point 分 winner 冠军 thirteen 十三 fourteen 十四 fifteen 十五 sixteen 十六 seventeen 十七 eighteen 十八 nineteen 十九 twenty 二十 Module 2 go straight on直着走 live 居住 road 道路，街道 excuse me对不起，打 扰 turn left 向左转 turn right 向右转 next to临近的，在..旁 边 supermarket 超市 station 车站 train火车 up 向上 hill 小山 down 向下 near 接近，临近house 房屋 Module 3 write 书写 letter 信件 picture 图画 friend 朋友 take pictures 照相 talk to 和..交谈 little 小的，年幼的 play with 玩，摆弄 listen to 听 read 阅读 Module 4 let′s 让我们 get on 上（车）lots of 许多 interesting 有趣的 thing 物品，东西 look at 看 people 人，人们 park 公园 lake 湖 row 划（船）boat 船 men 男人（复数）；人（复数）chess 象棋 drink 喝，饮用 hungry 饥饿的 Module 5 Chinese 中国的 fast food快餐 want 需要，想要 some 一些 make 制作 nice 美味的 chopsticks 筷子（复数）difficult 困难的，难用的 cook 烹饪，烧（菜）vegetable 蔬菜 love 喜爱 Module 6 can 能够 run 跑 fast 快 jump 跳 high 高 far 远 ride 骑，乘 flute 笛子 wash 洗，清洗 clothes 衣服 draw 画 Module 7 children 孩子（复数）tomorrow 明天 by plane 乘坐飞机 get up 起床 from 来自… China 中国 swim 游泳 sea 大海 visit 拜访，看望 stona 石头，石头的 animal 动物 Module 8 Sports Day 运动日 for 为了..，给..metre 米 every day 每天 good luck 好运气 come on 快点，赶快 high jump 跳高 long jump跳远 Module 9 soup 汤 sorry 抱歉，对不起 sweets 糖果（复数）bread 面包 turn on打开 light 灯 biscuit 饼干 fruit 水果 today 今天 come in 请进 of course 当然 Module 10 count 数数 January 1月 February 2月 March 3月 April 4月 May 5月 June 6月 party 聚会 July 7月 August 8月 September 9月 October 10月 November 11月 December 12月

Module1 nice 好的，友善的 a bit 有一点 shy 害羞的 clever 聪明的 naughty 淘气的 cool 酷的 little 小的，年幼的 cute 可爱的 Module2 capital首都 about关于

beautiful美丽的 long 长的 wide 宽的 many 很多的 river 河流 old 古老的 famous 著名的 Module3 take 带走，拿走 picnic 野餐 great 太好了 ball 球 why 为什么 because 因为 so 所以 homework 家庭作业 help 帮助 Monday 星期一 Tuesday 星期二 Wednesday 星期三 Thursday 星期四 Friday 星期五 Saturday 星期六 Sunday 星期日 Module4 robot 机器人 everything 所有事情 one day 有一天，总有一天 housework 家务 learn 学习our 我们的 weather 天气 Module5 than 比… old 年长的 young 年轻的 strong 强壮的 Mount Qomolangma珠穆朗玛峰 the Great Wall 长城 the Summer palace 颐和园 Module6 voice 声音 think 认为 better 更好的 first 第一个 agree 同意 worse 较差的 quiet 安静的 bad 差的 pop music 流行音乐 Module7 country 国家 east 东，东边 project 综合实践活动 also 也 call 称作 speak 说（某种语言）right 正确的 city 城市 west 西，西边 cousin 表（堂）兄（弟妹姐）there 那里 north 北，北边 south 南，南边 Module8 who 谁 grandparent（外）祖父（母）then 在那时 me 我（宾格）hair 头发 so 如此地，多么地 Module9 phone 打电话 yesterday 昨天 day 一天 him 他（宾格）laugh 笑 dance 跳舞 stop 停止 last 刚过去的，最近的 Module10 happen 发生 ride 骑，乘 then 然后 thirsty 口渴的 watermelon 西瓜 carry 携带，运送 bump 磕，碰 stomachache 胃疼 cold 感冒 headache 头疼 fever 发烧 fell off（fall off的过去式）跌落 Went（go的过去式）去… bought（buy的过去式）购买 had（have的过去式）吃，患（病）

Module1 when什么时候 back回来，回到 home回家，到家 those那些 ice cream 冰激凌 with 和..一起 finish吃完 hurry 赶紧，匆忙 hurry up 快点 wait 等待 drop 落下，掉下 dear 亲爱的 met（meet的过去式）遇见 ran（run的过去式）跑 Module2 need 需要 food 食物 shopping list 购物单 cheese 奶酪 how much 多少（用于不可数名词）kilo 千克，公斤 juice 果汁 box 盒 bottle 瓶 Module3 the British Museum 大英博物馆 the London Eye伦敦眼 wheel 轮，轮状物 wonderful 令人惊奇的 understand 明白，理解 postcard 明信片 hour 小时 mountain 山 Module4 mine 我的 yours 你（们）的 argue 争吵 matter 麻烦事，困难 wear 穿 hers 她的 his 他的 line 绳子 clean 干净的 whose 谁的 Module5 enough 足够的 give 给 every 每个，每一 everyone 每人，人人 them它（他，她）们 careful小心的 Module6 well 好地 team 队，组 control控制 badly不好地 really真正地，确实地 catch 接住，抓住 fantastic 极好的，极出色的 Module7 programme节目 useful 有用的 blind 盲的，失明的 deaf 聋的 hear 听到 firemen 消防

员（复数）mum 妈妈 sausage 香肠 sit 坐 sit down 坐下 chick 小鸟 Module8 exercise 体操，运动 playground 操场 before 在..前 skip 跳（绳）coffee 咖啡 tea 茶 bell 铃 rang（ring的过去式）鸣，响 Module9 feel 感觉到 sad 难过的 miss 想念 bored 无聊的 angry 生气的 nothing 没什么 secret 秘密 tell 告诉 surprise 使人意外的，意外 tired 疲倦的，劳累的 grandfather 祖父，外祖父 farm 农场 game 比赛 lost（lose的过去式）丢失 smell 闻到 Module10 Should应该 Cross穿过 dangerous危险的 hold 抓住，握住 hand 手 say 说话，讲话 in a hurry 匆忙

Module1 life生活 different不同的 ago以前 any任何，一些 television电视机 grandchildren（外）孙子（女）us我们（宾格）grandmother（外）祖母 lady女士，夫人 fire炉火 radio收音机 telephone电话 field田地 hope希望 Module 2 learnt（learn的过去式）学习these这些 dancer舞蹈演员 class班级 study学习hard努力的 retired退休的 Module 3 egg鸡蛋 email电子邮件 sandwich三明治 traditional传统的 delicious美味的，可口的 hamburger汉堡 ate（eat的过去式）吃 gave（give的过去式）给 drank（drink的过去式）喝 tonight在今夜，今晚 Module 4 library图书馆 find找到 CD-ROM电脑光盘 bring带来，拿来 use使用 card卡片 easy简单的 information信息 timetable时间表，时刻表 dictionary字典 newspaper报纸 Module 5 light轻的 broken坏的，破的 heavy重的 pocket口袋，兜二 hard困难的 Module 6 photo照片 stay停留 week星期，周 parent父亲，母亲 rode骑（马）horse马 climb攀登，爬 holiday假日 Module 7 message信息 another另一个 idea主意，想法 office办公室 busy忙碌的 Module 8 suggest建议 quickly快地，迅速地 excited激动的，兴奋的 America美国 Chinese中国人 kind种类 dragon龙 same相同的 circle圆，圆圈 Module 9 wore穿 women女人 actor演员 told讲，告诉 joke笑话 funny滑稽的 after在……以后 show演出 ready准备好的 soon不久 bed床 room房间 history历史 question问题 borrow借来 evening傍晚 Module 10 list目录，清单 airport机场 shoe鞋 ticket票 toothbrush牙刷 arrive到达 taxi出租车 flat公寓 building建筑物 made（make过去式）做 again再一次

Module1 life生活 different不同的 ago以前 any任何，一些 television电视机 grandchildren（外）孙子（女）us我们（宾格）grandmother（外）祖母 lady女士，夫人 fire炉火 radio收音机 telephone电话 field田地 hope希望 Module 2 learnt（learn的过去式）学习these这些 dancer舞蹈演员 class班级 study学习hard努力的 retired退休的 Module 3 egg鸡蛋 email电子邮件 sandwich三明治 traditional传统的 delicious美味的，可口的 hamburger汉堡 ate（eat的过去式）吃 gave（give的过去式）给 drank（drink的过去式）喝 tonight在今夜，今晚 Module 4 library图书馆 find找到 CD-ROM电脑光盘 bring带来，拿来 use使用 card卡片 easy简单的 information信息 timetable时间表，时刻表 dictionary字典 newspaper报纸 Module 5 light轻的 broken坏的，破的 heavy重的 pocket口袋，兜二 hard困难的 Module 6 photo照片 stay停留 week星期，周 parent父亲，母亲 rode骑（马）horse马 climb攀登，爬 holiday假日 Module 7 message信息 another另一个 idea主意，想法 office办公室 busy忙碌的 Module 8 suggest建议 quickly快地，迅速地 excited激动的，兴奋的 America美国 Chinese中国人 kind种类 dragon龙 same相同的 circle圆，圆圈 Module 9 wore穿 women女人 actor演员 told讲，告诉 joke笑话 funny滑稽的 after在……以后 show演出 ready准备好的 soon不久 bed床 room房间 history历史 question问题 borrow借来 evening傍晚 Module 10 list目录，清单 airport机场 shoe鞋 ticket票 toothbrush牙刷 arrive到达

taxi出租车 flat公寓 building建筑物 made（make过去式）做 again再一次 Module 1 hamburger汉堡 cola可乐 dollar美元 cent美分 enjoy享用 Module 2 duck鸭子 noisy吵闹的 Module 3 shine照耀 everyone每个人 out of往外…….wrong错误的 Module 4 card卡片,贺卡 careful小心的 balloon气球 fly away飘走 stairs楼梯(常复)mess混乱,脏乱 Module 5 trumpet小号 ring响 doorbell门铃 loudly大声的 Module 6 baseball棒球 team队,组 spaceship宇宙飞船 space太空 Module 7 flew(fly的过去式)飞 became(become的过去式)成为 spent(spend的过去式)度过 hour小时 son儿子 proud自豪的,骄傲的 pilot飞行员 Module 8 born生于 child孩子(单数)as在…..的时候 later后来 drew(draw的过去式)画 letter字母 herself她自己 all over到处 world世界 model模范 Module 9 laugh笑 cup杯子 understand理解,明白d mistake Module 10 middle school 中学 study学习practice练习worry 担心

篇2：小学英语单词大全(含中文翻译)

一．学习用品（school things）

钢笔pen铅笔pencil铅笔盒pencil-case尺子ruler书book书包schoolbag漫画书comic book明信片postcard报纸newspaper包bag橡皮eraser蜡笔crayon 卷笔刀sharpener 故事书story-book笔记本notebook 语文书Chinese book英语书English book数学书math book杂志magazine词典dictionary

二．人体（body）

脚foot头head脸face头发hair鼻子nose嘴mouth眼睛eye耳朵ear手臂arm手hand手指hand腿leg尾巴tail身体body

三．颜色（color）

红red 蓝blue 黄yellow 绿green 白white 黑black 粉红pink 紫purple 橙orange 棕brown 灰grey

四．动物（animals）

猫cat 狗dog 猪pig 鸭duck 兔rabbit马horse 大象elephant蚂蚁ant鱼fish鹰eagle鹿deer 海狸beaver 鸟bird蛇snake 老鼠mouse 松鼠squirrel熊bear 袋鼠kangaroo 猴monkey 熊猫panda 狮子lion老虎tiger 狐狸fox斑马zebra长颈鹿giraffe鹅goose母鸡hen火鸡turkey小羊lamb绵羊sheep山羊goat奶牛cow驴donkey鱿鱼squid龙虾lobster鲨鱼shark 海豹seal抹香鲸sperm whale虎鲸killer whale

五．人物（people）

朋友friend男孩boy女孩girl母亲mother父亲father 姐妹sister兄弟brother叔叔；舅舅uncle男人man女人woman先生Mr.小姐Miss女士lady妈妈mom爸爸dad父母parents（外）祖母grandma/grandmother（外）祖父grandpa/grandfather姑姑aunt儿子son婴儿baby堂（表）兄弟；堂（表）姐妹cousin小孩kid同学classmate 女王queen参观者visitor邻居neighbors校长principal 大学生university student笔友pen pal旅行者tourist人物people机器人robot

六． 职业（jobs）

教师teacher学生student医生doctor护士nurse司机driver 农民farmer 歌唱家singer（男）警察policeman作家writer男演员actor女演员actress画家artist电视台记者TV reporter工程师engineer会计accountant销售员salesperson清洁工cleaner棒球运动员baseball player售货员assistant（女）警察policewoman

七．食品、饮料（food and drink）

米饭rice面包bread牛肉beef牛奶milk水water蛋egg鱼fish豆腐tofu蛋糕cake热狗hot dog 猪肉pork汉堡包hamburger炸薯条French fries曲奇cookie饼干biscuit果酱jam面条noodle肉meat鸡肉chicken羊肉mutton蔬菜vegetable沙拉salad汤soup冰ice冰激凌ice-cream可乐Coke果汁juice茶tea咖啡coffee早餐breakfast午餐lunch晚餐dinner 十八.星期(week)

星期一Monday 星期二Tuesday 星期三Wednesday 星期四Thursday星期五Friday星期六Saturday星期日Sunday周末weekend

十九.月份(months)

一月份January(Jan.)二月份February(Feb.)三月份March(Mar.)四月份April（Apr）五月份May(May)六月份June(Jun)七月份July(Jul)八月份August(Aug.)九月份

September(Sept.)十月份October(Oct.)十一月November(Nov.)十二月December(Dec.)二十.季节(seasons)

春spring夏summer秋fall冬winter

二十一.方位(directions)

南south北north东east西west左边left右边right

二十二.患病(illness)

发烧have a fever疼痛hurt感冒have a cold牙疼have a toothache头疼have a headache喉咙疼have a sore throat

二十五.介词(prep.)

在…里in在…上;在…时候on在…下面under在…的旁边near在…后边behind与…相邻next to在…上面over在…前面in front of

二十六.代词(pron.)

我I他he她she它it

我们we你;你们you他(她,它)们they

我的my我们的our你的;你们的your他的his她的her

二十七.动词(v.)

进行体育运动play sports玩;踢play打架fight 游泳swim滑冰skate爬山climb mountains放风筝fly kites跳舞dance唱歌sing画画draw弹钢琴play the piano晨练;做广播操do morning exercises去远足go hiking堆雪人make a snowman植树plant trees pictures浇花water the flowers 照相take pictures 听音乐listen to music绘画paint去旅行take a trip阅读杂志read a magazine集邮collect stamps下棋play chess驾驶drive 飞fly跳jump走walk看look跑run爬climb荡swing划row踢kick骑ride停stop等wait爱love尝taste闻smell剪shear放put折fold寄send

买buy卖sell逛商店go shopping吃eat喝drink有;吃have像;喜欢like帮助help转弯turn 居住live 带take教teach去go挤奶milk猜guess反弹bounce

回家go home做家务do housework睡觉sleep上床睡觉go to bed铺床make the bed起床get up醒来wake up穿上put on脱掉take off挂起hang up穿wear

洗 wash洗衣服wash the clothes 喝水drink water洗碗do the dishes打扫clean扫地sweep the floor打扫卧室clean the bedroom打扫房间clean the room倒垃圾empty the trash收拾衣服put away the clothes

摆饭桌set the table做饭cook the meals 做晚饭cook dinner吃早饭eat breakfast 吃晚饭eat dinner

上学go to school上英语课have English class做作业do homework学习learn写信write a letter读书books看书read a book 写电子邮件write an e-mail 观察昆虫watch insects 读read写write 看电视watch TV去看电影go to the cinema思考think使用计算机usethecomputer玩电脑游戏play computers

工作work 接电话answer the phone 看望(外)祖父母visit my grandparents研究study 见面meet欢迎welcome谢谢thank喂养feed传递pass展示show使用use打开open 关上close告诉tell寻找find照耀shine变成become感觉到feel遇见meet 落下fall离开leave下车get off

二十八.疑问词

what(什么)when(什么时候)why(为什么)what color(什么颜色)what time(几点)

what day(星期几)how old(年龄多大,几岁)how(怎样)

how many(多少)how much(多少钱)

how tall(多高)how heavy(多重)how long(多长)how big(多大)how large(面积多大)

where(在哪里)which(哪一个)who(谁)whose(谁的)

二十九.be动词

amisarewaswere

三十.助动词

dodoesdid

三十一.情态动词

篇3：探析英语原声电影片名的中文翻译

关键词：英文原声电影,片名翻译,翻译策略

电影是一门综合艺术, 也是一个创意产业。随着对外文化交流的发展, 中国电影越来越受到世界的关注, 同时每年也有大量优秀的国外影片被引进中国。片名, 作为一部电影的点睛之笔也成为影视片的商标和品牌, 具有独特的商业价值。片名的翻译属于跨文化交际活动, 要求译者既要跨越中西文化障碍, 不被原片名的内容和形式所束缚, 运用恰当的翻译策略表现原片信息, 同时也要符合目标语观众的文化和审美习惯。

1 西片中文译名的现状

当前西片译名参差不齐、缺乏统一标准, 常常出现一个片多个翻译的现象, 比如Pretty Woman在大陆、香港和台湾就有《漂亮女人》《风月俏佳人》《麻雀变凤凰》等不同的翻译。而近年来网络的迅速发展使得译名更加多样化, 比如The Rock在网络上就曾被翻译为《石头》《石破天惊》《勇闯夺命岛》等;为了追求影片高票房, 片名翻译的商业化气息亦愈发严重, 像Mission Impossible在不同地区就分别被译为《不可完成的任务》《无法完成的使命》《谍中谍》。同一部电影片名的中文翻译之多之乱常常令大众深感困惑, 非常不利于外语影片的交流传播。

2 影响电影片名中文翻译的因素分析

(1) 文化差异

作为中西文化的桥梁, 翻译能促进两种文化融合, 但就翻译本身而言却并非只是纯粹的语言之间的转化。影视翻译作为跨文化交际的桥梁就必须跨越不同文化之间的差异。正如翻译家奈达所说:“对于真正成功的翻译而言, 熟悉两种文化甚至比掌握两种语言更为重要, 因为词语只有在其作用的文化背景中才有意义。” (罗进德, 2003) 作为一部电影的名字就是其所属文化的典型代表。在电影名称翻译中如果能关注到其所承载的文化积淀, 将会快速拉近目标文化观众的距离, 从而收到意想不到的效果。电影作为一种重要的艺术表现形式, 来源于生活且高于生活, 体现电影内容的片名自然也是来源文化艺术的独特反映形式。Meet Parents被译为《拜见岳父大人》堪称译文中的上等作品, 因为它贴切地将影片的故事情节与中国文化完美结合, 观众从片名就能判断出这是一部基调欢快的喜剧影片。

(2) 思想意识

由于独特的地理环境、生活方式和历史进程, 东西方人具有不同的思维方式和价值观念。著名翻译学家傅雷认为“我人重综合, 重归纳, 重暗示, 西人则重分析。”中国人讲究题目的概括归纳, 常常选取高度凝练、意境深远的电影片名, 如《无影无踪》《大闹天宫》《卧虎藏龙》《舞会迷案》《私人定制》等;而西方电影片名则多采用影响剧情发展的要素如时间、地点、人物、事件等作为片名, 如:Casablanca (《卡萨布兰卡》) , Cinderella (《灰姑娘》) , Harry Potter (《哈利·波特》) , The Hobbit (《霍比特人》) 等。

(3) 审美观念

中国传统美学的核心是“意境美”, “朦胧美”则是意境的核心;西方美学的最高境界则是追求“写实”。由于深受中国传统审美习惯的影响, 译者在翻译外来影片时也体现出浓郁的中国风。中文译名常采用四字结构, 如《星际穿越》 (Interstellar) 、《急速蜗牛》 (Turbo) 、《怪物大学》 (Monsters University) 等。英文电影的片名讲究头韵、尾韵和押韵来展现语言的音律美。如The Two Tower (《双塔骑兵》) , Batman (《蝙蝠侠》) , Beauty and the Beast (《美女与野兽》) 等。

(4) 票房回报

要拍好一部电影常常需要花费成百上千万的资金成本, 因此市场反馈即电影票房也是电影制作方和发行方必须考虑的一个重要因素。观众首先接触的就是电影片名, 是否能吸引观众走进影院观看, 对于电影票房非常重要。但是翻译者也不能单纯为了眼球经济而偏离影片主题, 一味求新、求怪, 制造噱头。译者翻译时在充分把握目标语文化特征和审美情趣的基础上可以大胆创新, 创作观众喜闻乐见的电影标题, 激发观众观看欲望从而产生良好的经济效益。

3 电影片名中文翻译的方法

在考虑了文化差异、思想意识、审美观念和经济价值这些因素后, 译者在影片片名翻译时常常采用以下几种方法:

(1) 直译法

直译法就是“根据源语和译语的特点, 在最大限度内保持源语片名的形式和意义来进行翻译”。如:America beauty (《美国美人》) , Ice Age (《冰河世纪》) , Out of Africa (《走出非洲》) , Snow Queen (《冰雪女王》) , Avatar (《阿凡达》) , Swan Lake (《天鹅湖》) 等。有些影片依据其发音特点将其片名直译成中文, 如墨西哥经典电影Yesenia在中国放映时译为《叶塞尼亚》就保持了电影片名的原汁原味并散发出浓浓的异域风情, 给观众带来独特的艺术体验。

(2) 意译法

有时候一部英文电影的片名有丰富的内涵, 简单的直译很难圆满表达原作的思想。强行直译可能会失去原片特色, 令人费解。这时候通常会采用意译法。意译法主要有情感翻译、人物翻译和情节翻译三种情况。好莱坞经典电影Waterloo Bridge (《魂断蓝桥》) 被认为是电影译名意译的典范绝妙之作, 译者将“滑铁卢桥”巧译为“蓝桥”, 用“魂断”暗示其悲剧性结局, 不仅与原片名高度吻合, 而且显现凄美的诗情画意。Despicable Me (《神偷奶爸》) , French Kiss (《情定巴黎》) 也是情感翻译的佳作代表。Cleopatra (《埃及艳后》) 就是按人物翻译的佳作代表, Cleopatra是女主人公的名字, 译为《埃及艳后》不仅点出故事的背景国度, 也标明人物的身份特点。同样有异曲同工之妙的是Forest Gump被译做《阿甘正传》。按故事情节翻译的Home Alone译名《小鬼当家》, 中文片名既深化内涵且妙趣横生, 也更符合目的语观众的心理接受和文化期待。还有一批被中国影迷广为流传的电影译名如Speed (《生死时速》) , The Croods (《疯狂原始人》) , Furious 7 (《速度与激情7》) , Sleepless in Seattle (《西雅图不眠夜》) , You’ve got in mail (《网络情缘》) 。

(3) 混合译法

译者在翻译电影片名时既要遵循原则, 还要有丰富的文化背景知识, 才能准确还原原片风格。不少英语电影的片名在中文翻译时采用混合翻译法, 就是将直译法与意译法相结合。如美国电影Frozen (《冰雪奇缘》) 就是混合译法的典范。这部影片是迪士尼成立90周年的纪念作品, 改编自安徒生童话《白雪皇后》, 讲述安娜和克里斯托夫寻找安娜的姐姐“冰雪皇后”艾莎, 并破解她的冰封魔咒的故事。中华文化既言简意赅又博大精深, 单词Frozen本身是“冰雪, 凝固”的意思, 加上“奇缘”两个汉字就意境深远了, 会让观众好奇并激起他们强烈的观看欲望。类似的译例还有Shoot First (《先发制人》) , Patton (《巴顿将军》) , Toy story (《玩具总动员》) 等, 准确又贴切, 非常符合中国观众的审美习惯。

4 结语

作为影片形象识别的标志, 电影译名至关重要。在从一种语言转化为另一种语言的二次创作过程中应充分考虑目标观众的认知语境, 一个好的译名能让影片焕发出新的活力和神韵。在英文片名翻译实践中无论采用哪种方法, 译者都应务实严谨, 既要忠实于原影片背景又要充分考虑中西文化差异, 才能创作出文字优美、脍炙人口的佳译, 促进文化艺术的交流传播。

参考文献

[1]何跃敏.当前西片译名中的问题与对策[J].中国翻译, 2007 (4) .

[2]龙千红.英语电影片名佳译赏析——兼谈电影翻译对译者的要求[J].西安外国语学院学报, 2013 (9) .

篇4：广告英语单词的特点与翻译策略

【关键词】广告 英语单词 语言特点 翻译策略

广告作为产品的宣传媒介，是商品市场繁荣的标志之一，也是全球经济发展的助推剂，它构建了产品和消费者之间的桥梁。随着商品经济的飞速发展，广告语言作为一门新兴的商业应用语言，逐渐开始发挥自身的语言特色，帮助企业的商品带来更高的价值。但是，由于各个国家的历史文化不同，广告通过语言所传达出来的信息在不同的文化背景下也就有了不同的解读。

一、广告英语单词的语言特点

1.简明易懂的广告词汇。广告的特点就是在尽可能短的时间里传达尽可能多的信息，从而达到成本最低化和效益最大化，尤其是设计简约的广告更会给人过目不忘、意犹未尽之感。比如，耐克的广告语——“JUST DO IT”（想做就做）它虽然是一句粗口，但是简短有力、指向明确，和商品所传达出来青春叛逆、我行我素的风格不谋而合。

2.创新的广告词汇。广告商为了创造销售额，在广告的创意和设计上总是想方设法。这就体现在根据原词所创造出来的富有意义的新奇词汇。比如 The Orangemostest 是将Orange、Most和est连起来，表现饮料在质量和纯度上的高标准，给人无与伦比的感觉。

3.语义双关的广告词汇。利用英语中一些单词同音或是同义的关系，把他们放在特点的语言环境中，使这些单词拥有了双重的含义，表达出产品的宗旨，是广告中最为常用的一种方法。比如Weight-Watcher冰淇淋的广告语：Spoil yourself and not spoil your figure.（放心吃吧，别担心体重。）将spoil作为一个双关词汇，一方面向消费者传达了尽情享受的产品理念，又解除了消费者对于甜食所造成的体重困扰。尤其是对于女生，这种轻松幽默的气氛化解了保持形体的艰辛感。

4.关键词汇的重复使用。广告中将单词进行重复使用可以增强产品的力度，加深消费者的印象，从而在潜意识中引导消费者做出选择。比如Deliciousiy simple！Simple delicious！（美味的简单！简单的美味！）将delicious和simple重复运用，朗朗上口，使人情不自禁的留恋唇齿间的味道。还有Train of kings.kings of trains.（众王之车，众车之王）仅仅用了三个单词就体现出了非凡的气势。

5.指向明确的广告词汇。产品的所有功能不可能在几十甚至十几秒的广告中都得到充分的阐释。因此要想吸引到消费者，就要抓住产品最主要的特点，用明确的语言进行表达，使得消费者在有相关需求的时候，脑海中首先浮现的这个产品。比如七喜饮料的Fresh up with Seven up.产品的名称和广告语合二为一，明确指向饮料的特点，通过积极正面的能量传递，使其在同类饮料中脱颖而出。

6.词性灵活的广告词汇。在广告中运用一些词性灵活的单词，可以使产品和消费者在内心的距离更贴近，使产品更富有人性。比如fresh作为一个形容词，运用在实物产品广告中，给人以新鲜又美味的安心感；还有The most sensational place to wear satin on your lips.将口红比作丝绸，既表达了口红的质感，又传递出一种诱惑力。

二、广告英语单词的翻译策略

1.认识到发音的差异化，在翻译的过程中融入本土化思维。汉语和英语的发音机制完全不同，同意语往往不会产生同一感，自然对它的心理反应也就不同了。比如Cocacola在进入中国市场后，国人对它的翻译很是下了一番功夫，几经周折定下了“可口可乐”这四个字，既保持了英语中单词的平仄，又遵循了国人喜乐吉祥的人生追求，才从最初的无人问津变成年轻和活力的标配。从此打开了中国市场。

2.尊重文化差异，重视单词传递的文化含义。东西方文化之间的差异，国与国之间的传统差别，这些都是客观的存在，他们既是民族的象征又是历史的积淀。因此，在翻译的过程中，对这些文化习俗给予充分的尊重。比如英语俗语中用white feather形容临阵脱逃，那么在对“白翎”翻译的时候就不能直接译成white feather。还有黑人牙膏被直译为Darkie，这个单词在西方文化重视对黑人的蔑称，由此引发的种族歧视问题会对品牌有毁灭性的打击。在对文化差异的尊重上，还有一种方式，就是将原文的文字完全舍去不用，采用对应的形象效果，永阳可以达到目的。比如中国人将红色看作是喜庆的标志，但是西方却认为这是暴力和危险的标志。因此“Shining Star ”的效果显然要比“Red Star ”好。

3.深度挖掘单词的含义，注重创造性的翻译。广告本身的特点就是天马行空、不拘一格。因此，在对文字词语的翻译过程中，按部就班、一一对应只能说是一个最基本的工作。如何在保持广告原意的基础上，對其进行二度创作，从而使产品大放异彩，这才是一个成功翻译的意义所在。

结语：广告在全球一体化的经济交流中已经从地位渐重变为无处不在了。它在成本效益比、流通性和跨文化能力方面都是其他工具所不能比拟的。因此，对于英语中单词的使用技巧和深层次含义我们要有一个灵活多样的认识与理解，使语言在我们的处理下超越表面的含义，发挥出其作为语言独有的特点与魅力，这也就是我们在翻译的过程中所说的策略。恰当的策略运用满足了消费者的心理需求，加深了品牌认可度，从而促进了经济的繁荣与文化的交流。

参考文献：

[1]童琼.论广告英语的语言特点[D].西安电子科技大学.2001.

[2]刘宝才.广告英语的语言特点及翻译[D].上海外国语大学. 2005.

篇5：小学英语单词大全(含中文翻译)

社会成本问题

RONALD COASE 罗纳德·科斯

Ronald Coase is Professor Emeritus at University of Chicago LawSchool and a Nobel Laureate in Economics.This article is fromThe Journal of Law and Economics(October 1960).Several passages devoted to extended discussions of legal decisions

have been omitted.罗纳德·科斯在芝加哥大学法学院名誉教授和诺贝尔经济学奖得主。本文是其外法学与经济学杂志（1960年10月）。专门的法律问题的决定的延伸讨论的几个

段落已被省略。

I.THE PROBLEM TO BE EXAMINED This paper is concerned with those actions of business firms which have harm-ful effects on others.The standard example is that of a factory the smoke from which has harmful effects on those occupying neighbouring properties.The economic analysis of such a situation has usually proceeded in terms of a divergence between the private and social product of the factory, in which economists have largely followed the treatment of Pigou in The Economies of Welfare.The conclusion to which this kind of analysis seems to have led most economists is that it would be desirable to make the owner of the factory li-able for the damage caused to those injured by the smoke, or alternatively, to place a tax on the factory owner varying with the amount of smoke produced and equivalent in money terms to the damage it would cause, or finally, to exclude the factory from residential districts(and presumably from other areas in which the emission of smoke would have harmful effects on others).It is my contention that the suggested courses of action are inappropriate, in that they lead to results which are not necessarily, or even usually, desirable.一、要检查的问题

本文关注的是这些行动的企业有伤害他人有用的影响。标准的例子是，一个工厂的烟雾从那些占领邻近物业的有害影响。在这种情况下的经济分析，通常已在工厂的私人和社会产品之间的分歧方面着手，在经济学家们基本上遵循治疗庇古福利经济。这种分析的结论，似乎使大多数经济学家是工厂里的烟雾，或者受伤的人造成的损害能够使雇主，这将是可取的，上放置一个税在金钱方面的损害，或最后，它会导致排除住宅区（大概是从其他地区排放的烟雾将有对他人有害影响）工厂厂主不同的金额产生的烟雾，相当于。行动的建议的课程是不合适的，因为它们导致的结果是不一定，甚至是通常情况下，可取的，它是我的论点。

II.THE RECIPROCAL NATURE OF THE PROBLEM The traditional approach has tended to obscure the nature of the choice that has to be made.The question is commonly thought of as one in which A inflicts harm on B and what has to be decided is: how should we restrain A? But this is wrong.We are dealing with a problem of a reciprocal nature.To avoid the harm to, B would inflict harm on A.The real question that has to be decided is: should A be allowed to harm B or should B be allowed to harm A? The problem is to avoid the more serious harm.I instanced in my previous article the case of a confectioner the noise and vibrations from whose machinery disturbed a doctor in his work.To avoid harming the doctor would inflict harm on the confectioner.The problem posed by this case was essentially whether it was worth while, as a result of restricting the methods of production which could be used by the confectioner, to secure more doctoring at the cost of a reduced supply of confectionery products.Another example is afforded by the problem of straying cattle which destroy crops on neighbouring land.If it is inevitable that some cattle will stray, all increase in the supply of meat can only be obtained at the expense of a decrease in the supply of crops.The nature of the choice is clear: meat or crops.What answer should be given is, of course, not clear unless we know the value of what is obtained as well as the value of what is sacrificed to obtain it.To give another example, Professor George J.Stigler instances the contamination of a stream.If we assume that the harmful effect of the pollution is that it kills the fish, the question to be decided is: is the value of the fish lost greater or less than the value of the product which the contamination of the stream makes possible.It goes almost without saying that this problem has to be looked at in total and at the margin.二、互惠性的问题

传统的做法往往掩盖作出的选择，自然。这个问题通常被认为作为一个在B上一个敌人造成的伤害和什么要决定的是：我们应该如何抑制一个？但这是错误的。我们正在处理的互惠性质的问题。为了避免伤害，B将A上造成的危害，真正的问题，必须决定是：应该允许A损害B或应允许B伤害吗？问题是要避免更严重的伤害。我在我以前的文章中实例化一个糕点师的噪音和振动机械不安医生在他的工作情况。为了避免伤及医生会造成伤害的糕点。基本上这种情况下所造成的问题是它是否值得，作为一种限制方法可以用于糕点生产的结果，以争取更多的糖果产品的供应减少，成本篡改。另一个例子是给予由偏离破坏邻近土地上的农作物的牛的问题。如果这是不可避免的，一些牛会偏离，只能获得所有的肉类供应增加作物供应减少开支。选择的性质是明确的：肉类或农作物。应给予什么样的答案是，当然，不明确的，除非我们知道得到什么价值，以及什么牺牲得到它的价值。给另一个例如，教授乔治·J.斯蒂格勒实例流的污染。如果我们假定污染的有害影响是，它杀死的鱼，将要决定的问题是：是鱼的价值损失大于或小于流的污染，使产品的价值。当然，几乎没有说，这个问题要看着总保证金。

III.THE PRICING SYSTEM WITH LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE I propose to start my analysis by examining a case in which most economists would presumably agree that the problem would be solved in a compeletely satisfactory manner: when the damaging business has to pay for all damage caused and the pricing system works smoothly(strictly this means that the operation of a pricing system is without cost).A good example of the problem under discussion is afforded by the case of straying cattle which destroy crops growing on neighbouring land.Let us sup-pose that a farmer and cattle-raiser are operating on neighbouring properties.Let us further suppose that, without any fencing between the properties, an increase in the size of the cattle-raiser’s herd increases the total damage to the farmer’s crops.What happens to the marginal damage as the size of the herd increases is another matter.This depends on whether the cattle tend to follow one another or to roam side by side, on whether they tend to be more or less restless as the size of the herd increases and on other similar factors.For my immediate purpose, it is immaterial what assumption is made about marginal damage as the size of the herd increases.Given that the cattle-raiser is liable for the damage caused, the additional annual cost imposed on the cattle-raiser if he increased his herd from, say, 2 to 3 steers is $3 and in deciding on the size of the herd, he will take this into account along with his other costs.That is, he will not increase the size of the herd unless the value of the additional meat produced(assuming that the cattle-raiser slaughters the cattle)is greater than the additional costs that this will entail, including the value of the additional crops destroyed.Of course, if, by the employment of dogs, herdsmen, aeroplanes, mobile radio and other means, the amount of damage can be reduced, these means will be adopted when their cost is less than the value of the crop which they prevent being lost.Given that the annual cost of fencing is $9, the cattle-raiser who wished to have a herd with 4 steers or more would pay for fencing to be erected and maintained, assuming that other means of attaining the same end would not do so more cheaply.When the fence is erected, the marginal cost due to the liability for damage becomes zero, except to the extent that an increase in the size of the herd necessitates a stronger and therefore more expensive fence because more steers are liable to lean against it at the same time.But, of course, it may be cheaper for the cattle-raiser not to fence and to pay for the damaged crops, as in my arithmetical example, with 3 or fewer steers.It might be thought that the fact that the cattle-raiser would pay for all crops damaged would lead the farmer to increase his planting if a cattle-raiser came to occupy the neighbouring property.But this is not so.If the crop was previously sold in conditions of perfect competition, marginal cost was equal to price for the amount of planting undertaken and any expansion would have reduced the profits of the farmer.In the new situation, the existence of crop damage would mean that the farmer would sell less on the open market but his receipts for a given production would remain the same, since the cattle-raiser would pay the market price for any crop damaged.Of course, if cattle-raising commonly involved the destruction of crops, the coming into existence of a cattle-raising industry might raise the price of the crops involved and farmers would then extend their planting.But I wish to confine my attention to the individual farmer.I have said that the occupation of a neighbouring property by a cattle-raiser would not cause the amount of production, or perhaps more exactly the amount of planting, by the farmer to increase.In fact, if the cattle-raising has any effect, it will be to decrease the amount of planting.The reason for this is that, for any given tract of land, if the value of the crop damaged is so great that the receipts from the sale of the undamaged crop are less than the total costs of cultivating that tract of land, it will be profitable for the farmer and the cattle-raiser to make a bargain whereby that tract of land is left uncultivated.This can be made clear by means of an arithmetical example.Assume initially that the value of the crop obtained from cultivating a given tract of land is $12 and that the cost incurred in cultivating this tract of land is $10, the net gain from cultivating the land being $2.I assume for purposes of simplicity that the farmer owns the land.Now assume that the cattle-raiser starts operations on the neighbouring property and that the value of the crops damaged is $1.In this case $11 is obtained by the farmer from sale on the market and $1 is obtained from the cattle-raiser for damage suffered and the net gain remains $2.Now suppose that the cattle-raiser finds it profitable to increase the size of his herd, even though the amount of damage rises to $3;which means that the value of the additional meat production is greater than the additional costs, including the additional $2 payment for damage.But the total payment for damage is now $3.The net gain to the farmer from cultivating the land is still $2.The cattle-raiser would be better off if the farmer would agree not to cultivate his land for any payment less than $3.The farmer would be agreeable to not cultivating the land for any payment greater than $2.There is clearly room for a mutually satisfactory bargain which would lead to the abandonment of cultivation.* But the same argument applies not only to the whole tract cultivated by the fanner but also to any subdivision of it.Suppose, for example, that the cattle have a well-defined route, say, to a brook or to a shady area.In these circumstances, the amount of damage to the crop along the route may well be great and if so, it could be that the farmer and the cattle-raiser would find it profitable to make a bargain whereby the farmer would agree not to cultivate this strip of land.But this raises a further possibility.Suppose that there is such a well de-fined route.Suppose further that the value of the crop that would be obtained by cultivating this strip of land is $10 but that the cost of cultivation is $11.In the absence of the cattle-raiser, the land would not be cultivated.However, given the presence of the cattle-raiser, it could well be that if the strip was cultivated, the whole crop would be destroyed by the cattle.In which case, the cattle-raiser would be forced to pay $10 to the farmer.It is true that the farmer would lose $1.But the cattle-raiser would lose $10.Clearly this is a situation which is not likely to last indefinitely since neither party would want this to happen.The aim of the farmer would be to induce the cattle-raiser to make a payment in return for an agreement to leave this land uncultivated.The farmer would not be able to obtain a payment greater than the cost of fencing off this piece of land nor so high as to lead the cattle-raiser to abandon the use of the neighbouring property.What payment would in fact be made would depend on the shrewdness of the farmer and the cattle-raiser as bargain-ers.But as the payment would not be so high as to cause the cattle-raiser to abandon this location and as it would not vary with the size of the herd, such an agreement would not affect the allocation of resources but would merely alter the distribution of income and wealth as between the cattle-raiser and the farmer.I think it is clear that if the cattle-raiser is liable for damage caused and the pricing system works smoothly, the reduction in the value of production elsewhere will be taken into account in computing the additional cost involved in increasing the size of the herd.This cost will be weighed against the value of the additional meat production and, given perfect competition in the cattle industry, the allocation of resources in cattle-raising will be optimal.What needs to be emphasized is that the fall in the value of production elsewhere which would be taken into account in the costs of the cattle-raiser may well be less than the damage which the cattle would cause to the crops in the ordinary course of events.This is because it is possible, as a result of market transactions, to discontinue cultivation of the land.This is desirable in all cases in which the damage that the cattle would cause, and for which the cattle-raiser would be willing to pay, exceeds the amount which the farmer would pay for use of the land.In conditions of perfect competition, the amount which the farmer would pay for the use of the land is equal to the difference between the value of the total production when the factors are employed on this land and the value of the additional product yielded in their next best use(which would be what the farmer would have to pay for the factors).If damage exceeds the amount the farmer would pay for the use of the land, the value of the additional product of the factors employed elsewhere would exceed the value of the total product in this use after damage is taken into account.It follows that it would be desirable to abandon cultivation of the land and to release the factors employed for production elsewhere.A procedure which merely provided for payment for damage to the crop caused by the cattle but which did not allow for the possibility of cultivation being discontinued would result in too small an employment of factors of production in cattle-raising and too large an employment of factors in cultivation of the crop.But given the possibility of market transactions, a situation in which damage to crops exceeded the rent of the land would not endure.Whether the cattle-raiser pays the farmer to leave the land uncultivated or himself rents the land by paying the land-owner an amount slightly greater than the farmer would pay(if the farmer was himself renting the land), the final result would be the same and would maximise the value of production.Even when the farmer is induced to plant crops which it would not be profitable to cultivate for sale on the market, this will be a purely short-term phenomenon and may be expected to lead to an agreement under which the planting will cease.The cattle-raiser will remain in that location and the marginal cost of meat production will be the same as before, thus having no long-run effect on the allocation of resources.三、损害赔偿责任的定价制度 我建议开始我的分析，通过审查案件，其中多数经济学家大概会同意将在完全令人满意的方式解决问题的破坏性业务时支付所有所造成的损害和定价体系工程进展顺利（严格来说，这意味着定价制度的运作是无成本）。

正在讨论的问题的一个很好的例子是误入牛毁坏庄稼邻近土地上生长的情况下给予。让我们支持对一个农民和牛募集邻近物业经营。让我们进一步假设，没有任何围栏之间的属性，在牛募集的畜群规模的增加而增加农民的作物的总伤害。会发生什么情况，以增加畜群的大小的边际损害的，则是另一回事。这取决于牛是否会跟随一个或是否他们往往是牛群的增加和规模上其他类似的因素或多或少不安，漫游并排。对于我的直接目的，它是无关紧要的假设边际损害为增加畜群的大小。

鉴于这是承担，造成损害的额外费用的牛的序幕征收，如果他增加从2至3阉他的畜群的牛是$3，并在决定牛群的大小，他将考虑到这一点，随着他的其他费用。也就是说，他不会提高畜群的大小，除非额外的肉产生的价值（假设牛的序幕屠宰的牛）的额外费用，这将意味着，包括摧毁了其它作物的价值更大。当然，如果就业的狗，农牧民，飞机，移动无线电和其他手段，可以减少损失数额，这些手段将通过他们的成本是低于价值的作物，它们可以防止丢失。由于是在击剑成本是$9，在牛的提出者谁希望有一群4装载机或更多将围篱支付到被架设和维护，假设，其他手段达到同样的目的，不是做这样更便宜。当围栏架设，由于损害赔偿责任的边际成本变为零除的程度，在牛群规模的增加，需要一个更强大，因此更昂贵的围栏，因为更多的公牛有责任向它倾斜在同一时间。但是，当然，这可能是牛募集便宜没有围墙受损的作物，在我算术例如，作为3个或更少的公牛，并支付。

有人可能会认为牛募集将支付所有损坏庄稼的事实将导致农民增加他的种植牛募集来占据邻近物业。但事实并非如此。如果以前在完全竞争的条件下出售作物，边际成本等于价格进行种植量，任何扩大农民的利润将减少。在新形势下，农作物损失的存在就意味着农民将在公开市场上出售的，但他的收入为一个给定的生产将保持不变，因为牛募集支付任何破坏作物的市场价格。当然，如果养牛通常涉及毁坏庄稼，到一个养牛业存在的到来可能会引发涉及农民将扩大其种植的农作物的价格。但我希望把我的个体农民的关注。

我曾经说过，占领邻近由牛募集的属性不会导致农民增加的生产量，或者更准确的种植量。事实上，如果有任何影响的养牛，它会减少种植量。这样做的原因是，任何土地道，如果受损作物的价值是如此之大，从出售完好作物的收入少于培育，大片土地的总成本，这将是为农民和牛的序幕，留下大片土地荒废，使讨价还价，即有利可图。这可以通过一个算术例子明确。最初假设，作物耕种的土地道获得的价值是12美元，在培育这一大片土地所需的费用是$ 10，$ 2耕种土地的净收益。我想简单，农民拥有土地的目的。现在假设，在牛的提出者开始，损坏农作物的价值$ 1.In这种情况下$ 11获得由农民从销售市场和$ 1是从的牛的序幕获得损害遭受的邻近物业经营净收益仍然为2美元。现在想，在牛的提出者认为它盈利增加他的畜群的大小，即使损坏的数量上升到3美元;的额外肉类生产的价值大于的额外费用，包括了额外的$ 2支付损坏。但损害的支付总额是$ 3。农民耕种土地的净收益仍然是2元。牛的序幕，将是富裕农民都同意，如果不培养他的土地，任何支付不到3美元。农民将没有培养任何大于$ 2支付土地的认同。显然是这将导致放弃种植一个双方都满意的讨价还价的余地。*但同样的论点不仅适用于整个道由电风扇培养的，而且也给它的任何细分。假设，例如，牛有一个明确的路线，比方说，一条小溪或阴凉的区域。在这种情况下，对沿线作物受损金额也可能是巨大的，如果是这样，可能是，农民和牛募集会发现是有利可图的讨价还价，农民同意不以培养狭长土地。

但是，这引发了进一步的可能性。假设有这样一个罚款的好路线。进一步假设，作物的价值将获得通过培育这个地带是10元，但种植成本11元。在牛募集的情况下，土地不会种植。然而，给予牛募集的存在，它可能是，如果带钢培养，整个作物将牛销毁。在这种情况下，牛募集将被迫支付10美元的农民。这是真正的农民将损失$1。但牛的序幕，将失去10美元。显然，这是一个情况，这是不可能无限期地持续下去，因为任何一方都不希望这种情况发生。农民的目的是诱导牛募集的支付换取了一项协议，离开这片土地荒废。农民将无法获得支付大于围栏这片土地的成本，也没有这么高，导致牛募集放弃使用邻近物业。哪些付款将在事实上将取决于作为讨价还价的精明的农民和牛募集。但作为付款就不会那么高，容易引起牛募集放弃这个位置，因为它不会随畜群的大小，这样的协议不会影响资源的分配，但仅仅是改变的分布牛提出者和农民之间的收入和财富。

我认为这是明确的，如果牛募集造成的损失承担责任和定价体系工程进展顺利，其他地方减少产值将考虑在计算涉及的额外费用，提高畜群的大小。这笔费用将额外的肉类生产的价值权衡，完美的比赛，在养牛业，养牛将是最佳的资源分配。需要强调的是，牛募集费用，将考虑在其他地方的生产价值的下降可能是小于牛会导致在日常事件对农作物的损害。这是因为它是可能的，作为市场交易的结果，停止种植的土地。在所有情况下的破坏，会导致牛，牛募集愿意支付超过数额的农民支付土地使用，这是可取的。在完全竞争的条件下，农民支付土地使用量等于总生产值之间的差异的因素时，在这片土地上雇用和其他产品的价值在他们的未来产生最好的使用（这是什么农民将不得不支付的因素）。如果损害超过数量的农民支付土地使用，其他地方就业的因素更多的产品价值将超过在此使用的产品总价值的考虑后损坏。它如下放弃种植的土地，并释放其他地方生产的因素，这将是可取的。一个程序，它只是提供付款为牛，但是这并没有让被停止种植的可能性造成作物受损将导致太小，养牛和太大的就业因素的生产要素的就业在作物的种植。但考虑到市场交易的可能性，这种情况在对农作物的损害超过土地租金，就不能忍受。是否牛募集支付农民离开土地荒废，或自己租土地，由土地所有者支付金额略高于农民将支付（如果农民自己租用的土地），最终的结果将是相同的，将最大限度地提高生产的价值。即使诱导农民种庄稼，它不会是有利可图的培养，在市场上出售，这将是一个纯粹的短期现象，预期可能会导致根据该协议将停止种植。牛募集将保持在该位置和肉类生产的边际成本会像以前一样，因此，资源的分配上没有长期的效果。

IV.THE PRICING SYSTEM WITH NO LIABILITY FOR DAMAGE I now turn to the case in which, although the pricing system is assumed to worksmoothly(that is, costlessly), the damaging business is not liable for any of the damage which it causes.This business does not have to make a payment to those damaged by its actions.I propose to show that the allocation of resources will be the same in this case as it was when the damaging business was liable for damage caused.As I showed in the previous case that the allocation of resources was optimal, it will not be necessary to repeat this part of the argument.I return to the case of the farmer and the cattle-raiser.The farmer would suffer increased damage to his crop as the size of the herd increased.Suppose that the size of the cattle-raiser’s herd is 3 steers(and that this is the size of the herd that would be maintained if crop damage was not taken into account).Then the farmer would be willing to pay up to $3 if the cattle-raiser would reduce his herd to 2 steers, up to $5 if the herd were reduced to 1 steer and would pay up to $6 if cattle-raising was abandoned.The cattle-raiser would therefore receive 53 from the farmer if he kept 2 steers instead of 3.This $3 foregone is therefore part of the cost incurred in keeping the third steer.Whether the $3 is a payment which the cattle-raiser has to make if he adds the third steer to his herd(which it would be if the cattle-raiser was liable to the farmer for damage caused to the crop)or whether it is a sum of money whichhe would have received if he did not keep a third steer(which it would be if the cattle-raiser was not liable to the farmer for damage caused to the crop)does not affect the final result.In both cases $3 is part of the cost of adding a third steer, to be included along with the other costs.If the increase in the value of production in cattle-raising through increasing the size of the herd from 2 to 3 is greater than the additional costs that have to be incurred(including the $3 damage to crops), the size of the herd will be increased.Otherwise, it will not.The size of the herd will be the same whether the cattle-raiser is liable for damage caused to the crop or not.It may be argued that the assumed starting point—a herd of 3 steers—was arbitrary.And this is true.But the farmer would not wish to pay to avoid crop damage which the cattle-raiser would not be able to cause.For example, the maximum annual payment which the farmer could be induced to pay could not exceed $9.the annual cost of fencing.And the farmer would only be willing to pay this sum if it did not reduce his earnings to a level that would cause him to abandon cultivation of this particular tract of land.Furthermore, the farmer would only be willing to pay this amount if he believed that, in the absence of any payment by him, the size of the herd maintained by the cattle-raiser would be 4 or more steers.Let us assume that this is the case.Then the farmer would be willing to pay up to $3 if the cattle-raiser would reduce his herd to 3 steers, up to $6 if the herd were reduced to 2 steers, up to $8 if one steer only were kept and up to $9 if cattle-raising were abandoned.It will be noticed that the change in the starting point has not altered the amount which would accrue to the cattle-raiser if he reduced the size of his herd by any given amount.It is still true that the cattle-raiser could receive an additional $3 from the farmer if he agreed to reduce his herd from 3 steers to 2 and that the $3 represents the value of the crop that would be destroyed by adding the third steer to the herd.Although a different belief on the part of the farmer(whether justified or not)about the size of the herd that the cattle-raiser would maintain in the absence of payments from him may affect the total payment he can be induced to pay, it is not true that this different belief would have any effect on the size of the herd that the cattle-raiser will actually keep.This will be the same as it would be if the cattle-raiser had to pay for damage caused by his cattle, since a receipt foregone of a given amount is the equivalent of a payment of the same amount.It might be thought that it would pay the cattle-raiser to increase his herd above the size that he would wish to maintain once a bargain had been made, in order to induce the farmer to make a larger total payment.And this may be true.It is similar in nature to the action of the farmer(when the cattle-raiser was liable for damage)in cultivating land on which, as a result of an agreement with the cattle-raiser, planting would subsequently be abandoned(including land which would not be cultivated at all in the absence of cattle-raising).But such manoeuvres are preliminaries to an agreement and do not affect the long-run equilibrium position, which is the same whether or not the cattle-raiser is held responsible for the crop damage brought about by his cattle.It is necessary to know whether the damaging business is liable or not for damage caused since without the establishment of this initial delimitation of rights there can be no market transactions to transfer and recombine them.But the ultimate result(which maximises the value of production)is independent of the legal position if the pricing system is assumed to work without cost.四、无损害赔偿责任的电价体系

现在我想谈谈案中，虽然定价体系工作的顺利开展（即，无成本），损坏业务是不会造成任何损害承担责任。此业务并没有使那些破坏其行动付款。我建议，以表明在这种情况下，资源的分配将是相同的，因为它是破坏性的企业造成的损失承担责任时。正如我在前面的例子表明，最佳的资源分配，它不会是必要的重复这部分的说法。我回到了农民和牛募集的情况下。农民会受到他的牛群的规模增加作物的伤害增加。假设牛募集的畜群的大小是3装载机（，这将保持对作物的损害，如果不考虑畜群的大小）。那么，农民将是愿意以支付高达3美元的牛的提出者是否会减少他的畜群2装载机，高达500如果牛群被减少到1引导和将支付高达6元如果养牛被遗弃。牛序幕从农民将因此获得53，如果他保持2装载机，而不是3。这个耗资3损失，因此在保持第三督导所需的费用的一部分。无论是3美元，是1支付其中的牛的提出者有，如果他增加了第三次带领他的羊群（其中它会是在牛的提出者是否可农民对作物造成的损害）或是否它是1钱，他将已收到的，如果他不保持第三督导（这将是牛募集到农民对作物造成的损害不承担任何责任）的总和，不影响最终结果。在这两种情况下$ 3是第三督导，与其他费用一起被列入成本的一部分。大于，以将招致包括的$ 3损坏农作物的额外成本，通过增加大小鬼从2至3养牛生产价值的增加是否，牛群的规模将是增加。否则，它不会。畜群的大小将是相同的牛募集是否是作物或造成的损失承担责任。

它可能被认为是武断的假定出发点了3肉牛畜群。这是真实的。但农民不希望要避免牛募集将无法造成的农作物损失。例如，可诱导农民支付每年最高支付不能超过9美元。击剑的成本。和农民只会愿意支付这笔如果它没有减少他的收入水平，将导致他放弃这片土地特别是道种植。此外，农民才会愿意支付这笔款项，如果他相信，在任何由他支付的情况下，牛募集保持畜群的大小是4个或更多的指导。让我们假设是这种情况。那么，农民将是愿意以支付高达3美元的牛的提出者是否会减少他的牛群3装载机，6元如果牛群分别减少2装载机，至8元，如果1转向只被保持和上升到$9，如果养牛被遗弃。它将会看到，在起点的变化并没有改变的金额将拨归牛的序幕，如果他任何给定的金额减少了他的畜群规模。它是仍然真实，在牛的提出者可以接收从农民1额外的$3，如果他同意减少他的牛群3装载机2添加第三3美元表示的，将被破坏作物的价值引导到牛群。虽然部分农民对不同的信仰，对大小牛群，牛募集将保持在他付款的情况下（是否正当与否），可能会影响他可诱发支付的总支付，它是不正确的，这种不同的信仰，实际上将保持牛群牛募集规模上有任何的影响。这将是相同的，因为它会是牛的序幕，如果不得不支付他的牛造成的损害，因为收到一个给定的金额损失相当于支付相同数额。

它可能会认为这将支付的牛的序幕，以增加他的畜群以上的规模，他希望保持已经取得了一次讨价还价，以促使农民作出更大的支付总额。这可能是真实的。它在本质上是相似的农民行动（当牛募集的损害赔偿责任），在培养上，为土地了与牛募集的协议的结果，种植随后将被抛弃（包括土地，在养牛的情况下不能种植）在所有。但是，这些演习是达成协议的预赛和不影响长期均衡的位置，这是牛募集与否举行的关于他的牛所带来的农作物损失负责。

它是要知道是否是因为没有建立这种权利的初始划定不可能有没有市场交易，转让和重组造成的损害不承担责任或损害商业。但最终的结果（产值最大化）是独立的法律地位，如果定价体系被假定为无成本。

V.THE PROBLEM ILLUSTRATED ANEW

The harmful effects of the activities of a business can assume a wide variety of forms.An early English case concerned a building which, by obstructing currents of air, hindered the operation of a windmill.A recent case in Florida which cast a shadow on the cabana, swimming pool and sunbathing areas of a neighbouring hotel.The problem of straying cattle and the damaging of crops which was the subject of detailed examination in the two preceding sections, although it may have appeared to be rather a special case, is in fact but one example of a problem which arises in many different guises.To clarify the nature of my argument and to demonstrate its general applicability, I propose to illustrate it anew by reference to four actual cases.Let us first reconsider the case of Sturges v.Bridgman which I used as an illustration of the general problem In my article on “The Federal Communica-tions Commission.” In this case, a confectioner(in Wigmore Street)used two mortars and pestles in connection with his business(one had been in opera-tion in the same position for more than 60 years and the other for more than 26 years).A doctor then came to occupy neighbouring premises(in Wimpole Street).The confectioner’s machinery caused the doctor no harm until, eight years after he had first occupied the premises, he built a consulting room at the end of his garden right against the confectioner’s kitchen.It was then found that the noise and vibration caused by the confectioner’s machinery made it difficult for the doctor to use his new consulting room.“In particular...the noise prevented him from examining his patients by auscultation for diseases of the chest.He also found it impossible to engage with effect in any occupation which required thought and attention.” The doctor therefore brought a legal action to force the confectioner to stop using his machinery.The courts had lit-tle difficulty in granting the doctor the injunction he sought.“Individual cases of hardship may occur in the strict carrying out of the principle upon which we found our judgment, but the negation of the principle would lead even more to individual hardship, and would at the same time produce a prejudicial effect upon the development of land for residential purposes.”

The court’s decision established that the doctor had the right to prevent the confectioner from using his machinery.But, of course, it would have been possible to modify the arrangements envisaged in the legal ruling by means of a bargain between the parties.The doctor would have been willing to waive his right and allow the machinery to continue in operation if the confectioner would have paid him a sum of money which was greater than the loss of income which he would suffer from having to move to a more costly or less convenient location or from having to curtail his activities at this location or, as was suggested as a possibility, from having to build a separate wall which would deaden the noise and vibration.The confectioner would have been willing to do this if the amount he would have to pay the doctor was less than the fall in income he would suffer if he had to change his mode of operation at this location, abandon his operation or move his confectionery business to some other location.The solution of the problem depends essentially on whether the continued use of the machinery adds more to the confectioner’s income than it subtracts from doctor’s.But now consider the situation if the confectioner had won the case.The confectioner would then have had the right to continue operating his noise and vibration-generating machinery without having to pay anything to the doctor.The boot would have been on the other foot: the doctor would have had to pay the confectioner to induce him to stop using the machinery.If the doctor’s income would have fallen more through continuance of the use of this machinery than it added to the income of the confectioner, there would clearly be room for a bargain whereby the doctor paid the confectioner to stop using the machinery.That is to say, the circumstances in which it would not pay the confectioner to continue to use the machinery and to compensate the doctor for the losses that this would bring(if the doctor had the right to prevent the confectioner’s using his machinery)would be those in which it would be in the interest of the doctor to make a payment to the confectioner which would induce him to discontinue the use of the machinery(if the confectioner had the right to operate the machinery).The basic conditions are exactly the same in this case as they were in the example of the cattle which destroyed crops.With costless market transactions, the decision of the courts concerning liability for damage would be without effect on the allocation of resources.It was of course the view of the judges that they were affecting the working of the economic system-and in a desirable direction.Any other decision would have had “a prejudicial effect upon the development of land for residential purposes,” an argument which was elaborated by examining the example of a forge operating on a barren moor.which was later developed for residential purposes.The judges’ view that they were settling how the land was to be used would be true only in the case in which the costs of carrying out the necessary market transactions exceeded the gain which might be achieved by any rearrangement of rights.And it would be desirable to preserve the areas(Wimpole Street or the moor)for residential or professional use(by giving non-industrial users the right to stop the noise, vibration, smoke, etc., by injunction)only if the value of the additional residential facilities obtained was greater than the value of cakes or iron lost.But of this the judges seem to have been unaware.The reasoning employed by the courts in determining legal rights will often seem strange to an economist because many of the factors on which the decision turns are, to an economist, irrelevant.Because of this, situations which are, from an economic point of view, identical will be treated quite differently by the courts.The economic problem in all cases of harmful effects is how to maximise the value of production.In the case of Bass v.Gregory fresh air was drawn in through the well which facilitated the production of beer but foul air was expelled through the well which made life in the adjoining houses less pleasant.The economic problem was to decide which to choose: a lower cost of beer and worsened amenities in adjoining houses or a higher cost of beer and improved amenities.In deciding this question, the “doctrine of lost grant” is as relevant as the colour of the judge’s eyes.But it has to be remembered that the immediate question faced by the courts is not what shall be done by whom but who has the legal right to do what.It is always possible to modify by transactions on the market the initial legal delimitation of rights.And, of course, if such market transactions are costless, such a rearrangement of rights will always take place if it would lead to an increase in the value of production.五、存在问题的再目录

业务活动的有害影响，可以承担各种各样的形式。早期的英国案例，涉及建筑，阻碍气流，阻碍了风车的运作。在佛罗里达州的一个最近的案例涉及建筑的小屋投下了阴影，邻近酒店的游泳池和日光浴地区。误入牛和破坏性的作物，这是前两个部分的详细检查，虽然它可能已经出现，而成为一个特殊的情况的问题，实际上是一个问题，在许多不同的形式出现的一个例子。为了阐明我的论点的本质，并展示其普遍适用性，我建议重新参考四个实际案例来说明。

首先，让我们重新斯特奇斯诉布里奇曼的情况下，我在我的文章“联邦通信委员会。”在这种情况下的一般问题的说明，糕点（Wigmore街道）使用了迫击炮和杵在与他的业务（一直在歌剧中，60岁以上和其他在同一位置超过26年）的连接。医生后来占据邻近楼宇（在Wimpole街）。糕点机械医生造成任何伤害，直到8年后，他第一次占领的前提下，他建立了一个在他对糕点的厨房花园年底诊室。它然后被发现，糕点的机械噪声和振动造成难以医生用他的新诊室。“尤其是。。噪音阻止他检查他的病人听诊胸部疾病。他还发现了它不可能与从事任何职业，这需要思想和注意力的效果。“因此，医生带来了法律的行动，以迫使糕点停止使用他的机械。法院给予他寻求医生的禁令点燃地幔困难。“在严格执行的原则后，我们发现我们的判断，个别情况下可能会发生困难，但这一原则的否定甚至会导致更多的个人困难，将在同一时间产生不利影响的发展后1土地作住宅用途。“

让我们先来法院的判决确定，医生的权利，以防止糕点师用他的机械。但是，当然，这将有可能修改在法律裁决的安排设想通过各方之间的讨价还价。医生会愿意放弃他的权利，并让机器继续运作，如果糕点师将付给他一笔钱，这是大于收入的损失，他将遭受不利影响或移动到较为昂贵的不太方便的位置，或从他在这个位置，以减少活动，或者是作为一种可能性的建议，从建立一个单独的墙，这将缓和的噪声和振动。糕点会一直愿意这样做，如果他将不得不支付医生的金额小于收入下降，他将遭受如果他改变他的运作模式，在这个位置放弃他的行动或移动他的糖果业务一些其他的位置。问题的解决，根本上取决于是否继续使用的机械增加了更多的糕点师的收入比从医生的减去。但现在考虑的情况，如果糕点师曾赢得了这场官司。糕点，然后将有权利继续他的噪音和振动产生的机械操作，而无需支付任何费用医生。引导已在另一只脚：医生将不得不支付的糕点，以诱使他停止使用机器。如果医生的收入将通过继续使用这种机器比它添加到糕点的收入下降，显然是有，据此医生支付的糕点停止使用的机械讨价还价的余地。也就是说，的情况下，在其中它会不支付的糕点继续使用机械和以弥补的损失，这会带来医生（如果医生不得不以防止对糕点的用他的机器的权利）将是它会在医生的利益作出支付的糕点，这将促使他停止使用的机器（如糕点有经营权的机械）。正是在这种情况下的基本条件相同，因为他们在牛，庄稼被毁的例子。花钱的市场交易中，有关损害赔偿责任的法院的决定将是没有对资源分配的影响。这是当然的法官认为，他们影响的经济体系，在一个理想的方向工作。有任何其他决定“后，土地开发作住宅用途1的不利影响，”这是一个贫瘠的荒野上通过检查一个铁匠铺操作系统的例子阐述论点。后来发展为住宅用途。法官认为，他们要使用的土地是如何被解决，将是真实的，只有在案件中，开展必要的市场交易的成本超过可能被重排的任何权利方面所取得的收益。，这将是可取的，如果只保留价值的住宅或专业领域（Wimpole街或沼地）（非工业用户有权停止禁令的噪声，振动，烟雾等，通过）获得额外的住宿设施是大于蛋糕或丢失的铁的价值。但法官似乎已经不知道。

在确定的法律权利由法院聘请的推理往往会经济学家似乎很奇怪，因为许多因素上决定轮流，一个经济学家，不相干的。正因为如此，这是的情况下，从经济角度来看，相同的将被视为完全不同的法院。在所有情况下的有害影响的经济问题是如何最大限度地提高生产的价值。在巴斯诉格雷戈里新鲜空气的情况下制定通过的好，这有利于生产的啤酒，但污浊的空气，通过在毗邻的房子不太愉快的生活以及开除。经济问题是决定选择：啤酒更低的成本和恶化，毗邻的房屋或设施的啤酒和改进设施的成本较高。在决定这个问题，“批丢失的教义”，是法官的眼睛颜色有关。但要记住，法院所面临的切身问题不应当由谁来做什么，但谁拥有合法权利做什么。它始终是可能的修改市场上交易的初始权利的法律划界。当然，如果这样的市场交易是无成本，这样的权重排总是会发生，如果它会导致增加产值。

VI.THE COST OF MARKET TRANSACTIONS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT

The argument has proceeded up to this point on the assumption(explicit in Sections III and IV and tacit in Section V)that there were no costs involved in carrying out market transactions.This is, of course, a very unrealistic assump-tion.In order to carry out a market transaction it is necessary to discover who it is that one wishes to deal with, to inform people that one wishes to deal and on what terms, to conduct negotiations leading up to a bargain, to draw up the contract, to undertake the inspection needed to make sure that the terms of the contract are being observed and so on.These operations are often extremely costly, sufficiently costly at any rate to prevent many transactions that would be carried out in a world in which the pricing system worked without cost.In earlier sections, when dealing with the problem of the rearrangement of legal rights through the market, it was argued that such a rearrangement would be made through the market whenever this would lead to an increase in the value of production.But this assumed costless market transactions.Once the costs of carrying out market transactions are taken into account it is clear that such a rearrangement of rights will only be undertaken when the increase in the value of production consequent upon the rearrangement is greater than the costs which would be involved in bringing it about.When it is less, the granting of an injunction(or the knowledge that it would be granted)or the liability to pay damages may result in an activity being discontinued(or may prevent its being started)which would be undertaken if market transactions were costless.In these conditions the initial delimitation of legal rights does have an effect on the efficiency with which the economic system operates.One arrangement of rights may bring about a greater value of production than any other.But unless this is the arrangement of rights established by the legal system, the costs of reaching the same result by altering and combining rights through the market may be so great that this optimal arrangement of rights, and the greater value of production which it would bring, may never be achieved.The part played by economic considerations in the process of delimiting legal rights will be discussed in the next section.In this section, I will take the initial delimitation of rights and the costs of carrying out market transactions as given.It is clear that an alternative form of economic organisation which could achieve the same result at less cost than would be incurred by using the market value of production to be raised.As I explained many years ago, the firm represents such an alternative to organising production through market transactions.Within the firm individual bargains between the various cooperating factors of production are eliminated and for a market transaction is substituted an administrative decision.The rearrangement of production then takes place without the need for bargains between the owners of the factors of production.A landowner who has control of a large tract of land may devote his land to various uses taking into account the effect that the interrelations of the various activities will have on the net return of the land, thus rendering unnecessary bargains between those undertaking the various activities.Owners of a large building or of several adjoining properties in a given area may act in much the same way.In effect, using our earlier terminology, the firm would acquire the legal rights of all the parties and the rearrangement of activities would not follow on a rearrangement of rights by contract, but as a result of an administrative decision as to how the rights should be used.It does not, of course, follow that the administrative costs of organizing a transaction through a firm are inevitably less than the costs of the market transactions which are superseded.But where contracts are peculiarly diffi-cult to draw up and an attempt to describe what the parties have agreed to do or not to do(e.g.the amount and kind of a smell or noise that they may make or will not make)would necessitate a lengthy and highly involved docu-ment, and, where, as is probable, a long-term contract would be desirable, it would be hardly surprising if the emergence of a firm or the extension of the activities of an existing firm was not the solution adopted on many occasions to deal with the problem of harmful effects.This solution would be adopted whenever the administrative costs of the firm were less than the costs of the market transactions that it supersedes and the gains which would result from the rearrangement of activities greater than the firm’s costs of organising them.I do not need to examine in great detail the character of this solution since I have explained what is involved in my earlier article.But the firm is not the only possible answer to this problem.The admin-istrative costs of organising transactions within the firm may also be high, and particularly so when many diverse activities are brought within the control of a single organisation.In the standard case of a smoke nuisance, which may affect a vast number of people engaged in a wide variety of activities, the adminis-trative costs might well be so high as to make any attempt to deal with the problem within the confines of a single firm impossible.An alternative solution is direct government regulation.Instead of instituting a legal system of rights which can be modified by transactions on the market, the government may im-pose regulations which state what people must or must not do and which have to be obeyed.Thus, the government(by statute or perhaps more likely through an administrative agency)may, to deal with the problem of smoke nuisance, used(e.g.that smoke preventing devices should be installed or that coal or oil should not be burned)or may confine certain types of business to certain districts(zoning regulations).The government is, in a sense, a superfirm(but of a very special kind)since it is able to influence the use of factors of production by administrative decision.But the ordinary firm is subject to cheeks in its operations because of the competition of other firms, which might administer the same activities at lower cost and also because there is always the alternative of market transactions as against organisation within the firm if the administrative costs become too great.The government is able, if it wishes, to avoid the market altogether, which a firm can never do.The firm has to make market agreements with the owners of the factors of production that it uses.Just as the government can conscript or seize property, so it can decree that factors of production should only be used in such-and-such a way.Such authoritarian methods save a lot of trouble(for those doing the organising).Furthermore, the government has at its disposal the police and the other law enforcement agencies to make sure that its regulations are carried out.It is clear that the government has powers which might enable it to get some things done at a lower cost than could a private organisation(or at any rate one without special governmental powers).But the governmental admin-istrative machine is not itself costless.It can, in fact, on occasion be extremely costly.Furthermore, there is no reason to suppose that the restrictive and zoning regulations, made by a fallible administration subject to political pres-sures and operating without any competitive check, will necessarily always be those which increase the efficiency with which the economic system operates.Furthermore, such general regulations which must apply to a wide variety of cases will be enforced in some cases in which they are clearly inappropriate.From these considerations it follows that direct governmental regulation will not necessarily give better results than leaving the problem to be solved by the market or the firm.But equally there is no reason why, on occasion, such governmental administrative regulation should not lead to an improvement in economic efficiency.This would seem particularly likely when, as is normally the case with the smoke nuisance, a large number of people are involved and in which therefore the costs of handling the problem through the market or the firm may be high.There is, of course, a further alternative which is to do nothing about the problem at all.And given that the costs involved in solving the problem by regulations issued by the governmental administrative machine will often be heavy(particularly if the costs are interpreted to include all the consequences which follow from the government engaging in this kind of activity), it will no doubt be commonly the case that the gain which would come from regulating the actions which give rise to the harmful effects will be less than the costs involved in government regulation.The discussion of the problem of harmful effects in this section(when the costs of market transactions are taken into account)is extremely inadequate.But at least it has made clear that the problem is one of choosing the appro-priate social arrangement for dealing with the harmful effects.All solutions have costs and there is no reason to suppose that government regulation is called for simply because the problem is not well handled by the market or the firm.Satisfactory views on policy can only come from a patient study of how, in practice, the market, firms and governments handle the problem of harmful effects.Economists need to study the work of the broker in bring-ing parties together, the effectiveness of restrictive covenants, the problems of the large-scale real-estate development company, the operation of government zoning and other regulating activities.It is my belief that economists, and policy-makers generally, have tended to over-estimate the advantages which come from governmental regulation.But this belief, even if justified, does not do more than suggest that government regulation should be curtailed.It does not tell us where the boundary line should be drawn.This, it seems to me, has to come from a detailed investigation of the actual results of handling the problem in different ways.But it would be unfortunate if this investigation were undertaken with the aid of a faulty economic analysis.The aim of this article is to indicate what the economic approach to the problem should be.六、考虑市场交易成本

参数已进行到这一点（在第三节和第四节和第五节默契在明确）有开展市场交易不涉及成本的假设。当然，这是一个非常不现实的假设。为了进行市场交易，这是必要的，发现它是一个愿望，处理，告知人有意愿来处理和在什么条件下，进行讨价还价的谈判，起草合同，进行必要的检查，以确保合同条款等正在观察。无论如何，以防止将进行无成本定价体系工作的世界中，许多交易，这些操作往往非常昂贵，充分昂贵。

在前面的章节中，与重排，通过市场的合法权益的问题进行处理时，有人认为，这种重排，将通过市场时，这将导致产值的增加。但这种假设不花钱的市场交易。一旦考虑到进行市场交易的成本很显然，这样的权重排时，将只进行重排后的生产值增加大于这将带来约涉及的费用。当它是少，授予强制令（或将被授予的知识）或支付损害赔偿的责任，可能会导致被停止活动的（或可能妨碍其正在启动），如果市场交易是无成本的，将进行。在这种情况下，初步划定的合法权利，也有经济体制与经营效率的影响。一个安排的权利，可能会带来更大的价值比任何其他的生产。但除非这是规定的权利的法律制度安排，达到相同的结果，改变，并通过市场相结合的权利的成本可能是最佳的安排，这种权利和生产更大的价值，它会带来如此巨大，可能永远无法实现。经济上的考虑在划定的法律权利的过程中发挥的部分将在下一节中讨论。在本节中，我将采取初步划定的权利和进行市场交易，给定的费用。

这是另一种形式的经济组织可以以更低的成本实现相同的结果，将利用市场发生将使产值提高。正如我解释了很多年前，该公司表示这种通过市场交易来组织生产的替代。在企业内部生产要素之间的各种合作的个人讨价还价被淘汰，市场交易取代行政决定。然后重新安排生产，而不需要对生产要素的所有者之间讨价还价的地方。一个地主有一大片土地的控制，考虑各种用途的土地纯收益的效果，各项活动的相互关系，将有可能把自己的土地，从而使开展的各项活动之间的不必要的讨价还价。大型建筑，或在某一领域的几个毗邻物业的业主可能在大致相同的方式行事。效果，在使用我们前面的术语，该公司将收购所有各方和重排的活动不会按照一个由合同权利的重排的合法权益，但作为一个行政决定的权利应该如何使用。

当然，它不遵循，通过企业组织交易的行政费用是不可避免的比被取代的市场交易成本。但合同是独有很难邪教组织制订和试图说明什么各方都同意这样做或不这样做（如气味或噪音，他们可能不会让的数量和种类）将须漫长和高度参与的实况，并在那里，是可能的，长期的合同将是可取的，这将是不足为奇的，如果出现公司或扩建现有企业的活动是不是解决问题的方法通过多次处理有害影响的问题。该解决方案将通过时，该公司的行政费用不到的，它取代了市场交易的成本和收益，这将导致重排的活动大于组织他们公司的成本。我不需要非常详细的检查，因为我已解释过什么是我以前的文章中涉及的这一解决方案的特点。

但该公司没有这个问题的唯一可能的答案。该公司筹办事务内的行政成本，也可能是高的，尤其是当许多不同的活动，在一个单一的组织控制。在烟雾滋扰的标准的情况下，这可能会影响广大的人在从事各种各样的活动，行政成本可能如此之高，使一个范围内来处理这个问题的任何企图单个企业是不可能的。另一种方法是政府直接调控。提起的权利的法律制度，这可以通过交易市场上的修改，而不是政府可能提高对法规，这说明人们必须或不能做，哪些必须遵守。因此，政府（法规或者更可能通过行政机关），处理与一定的生产方法应该或不应该被用来（应安装防止设备的egthat烟雾或烟雾滋扰的问题，法令煤或石油不应该被烧毁）或某些地区区划法规可能限制某些类型的业务。

从某种意义上说，政府是一个superfirm（但一个非常特殊的一种），因为它是能够通过行政决定影响生产要素的使用。但普通的公司是在其他公司的竞争，这可能会以较低的成本管理同样的活动，也因为其操作的脸颊，因为总是有替代市场交易，对组织在企业内部，如果行政成本成为太大了。政府是可以的，如果它希望，以避免完全的市场，坚决不能做。该公司拥有市场的协议，它使用的生产要素的所有者。正如政府可以征兵或扣押财产，所以它可以法令，生产要素只应在和这样一种方式使用。这种专制的方法节省了很多麻烦（那些做主办）。此外，政府已在其处置的警察和其他执法机构，以确保其法规进行。

很显然，政府有可能使其能够在较低的成本比私人组织（或在任何率没有特殊的政府权力之一）做一些事情的权力。但政府的行政机本身并不是无成本的。事实上，它可以是上一次极其昂贵的。此外，也没有理由认为，限制和区划法规，1犯错误行政受到政治压力措施和经营没有任何竞争力的检查，一定会永远是那些提高效率与经济体制的运作。此外，这样的一般规定必须适用于种类繁多的情况下将被强制在某些情况下，他们显然是不合适的。从这些方面考虑，政府直接监管不一定会提供更好的结果比离开市场或企业要解决的问题。但同样没有任何理由为什么，有时，这种政府的行政法规不应导致经济效率的改善。这似乎特别容易时，通常是烟雾滋扰的情况下，大量的人参与和因此在处理的问题，通过市场或公司的成本可能很高。

当然，这是在所有有关问题做了进一步的替代。并给予解决的问题，由政府行政机发出的规例所涉及的费用往往是沉重的（特别是如果费用被解释为包括从政府从事这类活动的后续的一切后果），它不会无疑是通常的情况下，增益来调节而引起的有害影响的行动将少于政府监管所涉及的费用。

在本节（当市场交易成本的考虑）的有害影响的问题的讨论是非常不足。但它至少已明确表示，问题是选择合适的处理的有害影响的社会安排。所有的解决方案成本，并没有任何理由假设政府监管，干脆就叫市场或企业，因为这个问题没有得到很好的处理。令人满意的政策意见只能来自病人的研究了如何在实践中，市场，企业和政府处理的有害影响的问题。经济学家需要研究的经纪人带来的各方一起工作的限制性条款的效力，大型房地产开发公司，政府区划和其他规管活动的运作问题。这是我的信念，经济学家和决策者，都倾向于高估的优势，从政府监管。但这样的信念，即使有理，不会做多建议应削减政府的监管。它并没有告诉我们应制定边界线。这一点，在我看来，有来自一个详细的调查，以不同的方式处理问题的实际效果。但它会是不幸的，如果这个调查是一个错误的经济分析的援助承诺。这篇文章的目的是要表明，经济的解决问题的方法应该是什么。

VII.THE LEGAL DELIMITATION OF RIGHTS AND THE ECONOMIC

PROBLEM

The discussion in Section V not only served to illustrate the argument but also afforded a glimpse at the legal approach to the problem of harmful effects.The cases considered were all English but a similar selection of American cases could easily be made and the character of the reasoning would have been the same.Of course, if market transactions were costless, all that matters(questions of equity apart)is that the rights of the various parties should be well-defined and the results of legal actions easy to forecast.But as we have seen, the situation is quite different when market transactions are so costly as to make it difficult to change the arrangement of rights established by the law.In such cases, the courts directly influence economic activity.It would therefore seem desirable that the courts should understand the economic consequences of their decisions and should, insofar as this is possible without creating too much uncertainty about the legal position itself, take these consequences into account when making their decisions.Even when it is possible to change the legal delimitation of rights through market transactions, it is obviously desirable to reduce the need for such transactions and thus reduce the employment of resources in carrying them out.A thorough examination of the presuppositions of the courts in trying such cases would be of great interest but I have not been able to attempt it.Nevertheless it is clear from a cursory study that the courts have often recognized the economic implications of their decisions and are aware(as many economists are not)of the reciprocal nature of the problem.Furthermore, from time to time, they take these economic implications into account, along with other factors, in arriving at their decisions.The American writers on this subject refer to the question in a more explicit fashion than do the British.Thus, to quote Prosser on Torts, a person may make use of his own property or...conduct his own affairs at the expense of some harm to his neighbours.He may operate a factory whose noise and smoke cause some discomfort to others, so long as he keeps within reasonable bounds.It is only when his conduct is unreasonable,in the light of its utilitliy and the harm which results [italics added], that it becomes a nuisance....As it was said in an ancient case in regard to candle-making in a town,“Le utility del chose excusera le noisomeness del stink.”

The world must have factories, smelters, oil refineries, noisy ma-chinery and blasting, even at the expense of some inconvenience to those in the vicinity and the plaintiff may be required to accept some not unreasonable discomfort for the general good.The standard British writers do not state as explicitly as this that a comparison between the utility and harm produced is an element in deciding whether a harmful effect should be considered a nuisance.But similar views, if less strongly expressed, are to be found.The doctrine that the harmful effect must be substantial before the court will act is, no doubt, in part a reflection of the fact that there will almost always be some gain to offset the harm.And in the reports of individual cases, it is clear that the judges have had in mind what would be lost as well as what would be gained in deciding whether to grant an injunction or award damages.Thus, in refusing to prevent the destruction of a prospect by a new building, the judge stated: I know no general rule of common law, which...says, that building so as to stop another’s prospect is a nuisance.Was that the case, there could be no great towns;and I must grant injunctions to all the new buildings in this town...The problem which we face in dealing with actions which have harmful effects is not simply one of restraining those responsible for them.What has to be decided is whether the gain from preventing the harm is greater than the loss which would be suffered elsewhere as a result of stopping the action which produces the harm.In a world in which there are costs of rearranging the rights established by the legal system, the courts, in cases relating to nuisance, in effect, making a decision on the economic problem and determining how resources are to be employed.It was argued that the courts are conscious of this and that they often make, although not always in a very explicit fashion, a comparison between what would be gained and what lost by preventing actions which have harmful effects.But the delimitation of rights is also the result of statutory enactments.Here we also find evidence of an appreciation of the reciprocal nature of the problem.While statutory enactments add to the list of nuisances, action is also taken to legalize what would otherwise be nuisances under the common law.The kind of situation which economists are prone to consider as requiring corrective government action is, in fact, often the result of government action.Such action is not necessarily unwise.But there is a real danger that extensive government intervention in the economic system may lead to the protection of those responsible for harmful effects being carried too far.七、作者权利的法律界定及经济问题

在第五节的讨论不仅有助于说明的论点，但也给予一瞥法律途径的有害影响的问题。考虑案件都是英语，但类似的选择了美国的情况下可以很容易地和推理的性质本来相同。当然，如果市场交易是无成本，所有这些事项除了股权问题是，各方的权利，应该是定义和法律行动的结果很容易预测的。但是，正如我们所看到的，情况是完全不同的市场交易时，是如此昂贵，使其难以改变法律规定的权利的安排。在这种情况下，法院直接影响经济活动。因此，这似乎是可取的，法院应了解他们的决定的经济后果，只要这是可能的，没有创造太多的法律地位本身的不确定性，应考虑到这些后果时，他们的决定。即使它是可能改变法律划定的权利，通过市场交易，这显然是可取的，以减少此类交易的需要，从而减少就业资源，在执行。

一个前提，法院在这种情况下试图彻底检查，将是极大的兴趣，但我一直无法尝试。尽管如此，它是从一个粗略的研究清楚，法院经常承认他们的决定对经济的影响，并意识到问题的互惠性质（如许多经济学家都没有）。此外，不时，他们考虑到这些经济的影响，加上其他因素，在到达他们的决定。对这一问题的美国作家，是指比英国更明确的方式问题。因此，引用普罗瑟侵权，可能使一个人使用自己的财产。。进行自己的事情，在牺牲一些伤害他的邻居。他可能操作的工厂，其噪音和烟雾，给他人造成一些不适，只要他保持在合理的范围之内。

世界必须有工厂，冶炼厂，炼油厂，嘈杂的马奇内里和爆破，甚至不惜牺牲一些不便，给那些在附近，原告可能会被要求接受一些不讲理的不适，在总体上是好的。

标准的英国作家没有明确说明，产生的效用和伤害之间的比较是在决定是否应被视为滋扰产生有害作用的元素。但类似的看法，如果那么强烈的表达，都可以找到。该学说的有害影响，法院将采取行动之前，必须是实质性的，是毫无疑问的一部分，将有几乎总是会有一些增益，以抵消伤害的事实反映。在个别情况的报告，很显然，法官已经在头脑里将失去什么在决定是否授予强制令或判给损害赔偿，以及将获得什么。因此，在拒绝一个新的建设，以防止破坏的前景，法官说：我知道没有普通法的一般规则。。说，该建筑物，以阻止他人的前景是造成滋扰。的情况下，不可能有伟大的城镇，而我在这个镇的所有新建筑物必须给予禁令。