韩素音翻译大赛原文

韩素音翻译大赛原文（通用4篇）

篇1：韩素音翻译大赛原文

2015年韩素音翻译大赛原文

中国译协《中国翻译》编辑部、中国外文局翻译专业资格考评中心、宁波大学联合举办 “CATTI杯”第二十七届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛 来源： 中国译协网

中国译协《中国翻译》编辑部、中国外文局翻译专业资格考评中心、宁波大学联合举办的“CATTI杯”第二十七届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛已正式启动，欢迎海内外广大翻译工作者和翻译爱好者参赛。具体参赛规则如下：

本届竞赛分别设立英译汉和汉译英两个奖项，参赛者可任选一项或同时参加两项竞赛。

《中国翻译》2015年第1期、中国译协网（）和全国翻译专业资格（水平）考试网（）和全国翻译专业资格（水平）考试网（.It is in the rapidly developing ability to communicate ideas and frustration in chatrooms instead of on the streets, and channel them into nationwide projects striving earnestly for moderate and peaceful change: we are the generation of Students Taking Action Now Darfur;we are the Rock the Vote generation;the generation of letter-writing campaigns and public interest lobbies;the alternative energy generation.College as America once knew it – as an incubator of radical social change – is coming to an end.To our generation the word “radicalism” evokes images of al Qaeda, not the Weathermen.“Campus takeover” sounds more like Virginia Tech in 2007 than Columbia University in 1968.Such phrases are a dead language to us.They are vocabulary from another era that does not reflect the realities of today.However, the technological revolution, the moveon.org revolution, the revolution of the organization kid, is just as real and just as profound as the revolution of the 1960’s – it is just not as visible.It is a work in progress, but it is there.Perhaps when our parents finally stop pointing out the things that we are not, the stories that we do not write, they will see the threads of our narrative begin to come together;they will see that behind our pastiche, the post generation speaks in a language that does make sense.We are writing a revolution.We are just putting it in our own words.

篇2：韩素音翻译大赛原文

We tend to view architecture as permanent, as aspiring to the status of monuments.And that kind of architecture has its place.But so does architecture of a different sort.For most of the first decade of the 2000s, architecture was about the statement building.Whether it was a controversial memorial or an impossibly luxurious condo tower, architecture’s raison d’être was to make a lasting impression.Architecture has always been synonymous with permanence, but should it be? In the last few years, the opposite may be true.Architectural billings are at an all-time low.Major commissions are few and far between.The architecture that’s been making news is fast and fleeting: pop-up shops, food carts, marketplaces, performance spaces.And while many manifestations of the genre have jumped the shark(i.e., a Toys R Us pop-up shop), there is undeniable opportunity in the temporary: it is an apt response to a civilization in flux.And like many prevailing trends — collaborative consumption(a.k.a., “sharing”), community gardens, barter and trade — “temporary” is so retro that it’s become radical.In November, I had the pleasure of moderating Motopia, a panel at University of Southern California’s School of Architecture, with Robert Kronenburg, an architect, professor at University of Liverpool and portable/temporary/mobile guru.Author of a shelf full of books on the topic, including “Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Change,” “Portable Architecture: Design and Technology” and “Houses in Motion: The Genesis,” Kronenburg is a man obsessed.Mobility has an innate potency, Kronenburg believes.Movable environments are more dynamic than static ones, so why should architecture be so static? The idea that perhaps all buildings shouldn’t aspire to permanence represents a huge shift for architecture.Without that burden, architects, designers, builders and developers can take advantage of and implement current technologies faster.Architecture could be reusable, recyclable and sustainable.Recast in this way, it could better solve seemingly unsolvable problems.And still succeed in creating a sense of place.In his presentation, Kronenburg offered examples of how portable, temporary architecture has been used in every aspect of human activity, including health care(from Florence Nightingale’s redesigned hospitals to the Airstream trailers used as mobile medical clinics during the Kennedy Administration), housing(from yurts to tents to architect Shigeru Ban’s post-earthquake paper houses), culture and commerce(stage sets and Great Exhibition buildings, centuries-old Bouqinistes along the Seine, mobile food, art and music venues offering everything from the recording of stories to tasty crème brulees.)Kronenburg made a compelling argument that the experimentation inherent in such structures challenges preconceived notions about what buildings can and should be.The strategy of temporality, he explained, “adapts to unpredictable demands, provides more for less, and encourages innovation.” And he stressed that it’s time for end-users, designers, architects, manufacturers and construction firms to rethink their attitude toward temporary, portable and mobile architecture.This is as true for development and city planning as it is for architecture.City-making may have happened all at once at the desks of master planners like Daniel Burnham or Robert Moses, but that’s really not the way things happen today.No single master plan can anticipate the evolving and varied needs of an increasingly diverse population or achieve the resiliency, responsiveness and flexibility that shorter-term, experimental endeavors can.Which is not to say long-term planning doesn’t have its place.The two work well hand in hand.Mike Lydon, founding principal of The Street Plans Collaborative, argues for injecting spontaneity into urban development, and sees these temporary interventions(what he calls “tactical urbanism”)as short-term actions to effect long-term change.Though there’s been tremendous media attention given to quick and cheap projects like San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks and New York’s “gutter cafes,” Lydon sees something bigger than fodder for the style section.“A lot of these things were not just fun and cool,” he says.“It was not just a bottom-up effort.It’s not D.I.Y.urbanism.It’s a continuum of ideas, techniques and tactics being employed at all different scales.”

“We’re seeing a lot of these things emerge for three reasons,” Lydon continues.“One, the economy.People have to be more creative about getting things done.Two, the Internet.Even four or five years ago we couldn’t share tactics and techniques via YouTube or Facebook.Something can happen randomly in Dallas and now we can hear about it right away.This is feeding into this idea of growth, of bi-coastal competition between New York and San Francisco, say, about who does the cooler, better things.And three, demographic shifts.Urban neighborhoods are gentrifying, changing.They’re bringing in people looking to improve neighborhoods themselves.People are smart and engaged and working a 40-hour week.But they have enough spare time to get involved and this seems like a natural step.”

Lydon isn’t advocating an end to planning but encourages more short-term doing, experimenting, testing(which can be a far more satisfying alternative to waiting for projects to pass).While this may not directly change existing codes or zoning regulations, that’s O.K.because, as Lydon explains, the practices employed “shine a direct light on old ways of thinking, old policies that are in place.”

The Dallas group Build a Better Block — which quickly leapt from a tiny grass-roots collective to an active partner in city endeavors — has demonstrated that when you expose weaknesses, change happens.If their temporary interventions violate existing codes, Build a Better Block just paints a sign informing passers-by of that fact.They have altered regulations in this fashion.Sometimes — not always — bureaucracy gets out of the way and allows for real change to happen.Testing things out can also help developers chart the right course for their projects.Says Lydon, “A developer can really learn what’s working in the neighborhood from a marketplace perspective — it could really inform or change their plans.Hopefully they can ingratiate themselves with the neighborhood and build community.There is real potential if the developers are really looking to do that.”

And they are.Brooklyn’s De Kalb Market, for example, was supposed to be in place for just three years, but became a neighborhood center where there hadn’t been much of one before.“People gravitated towards it,” says Lydon.“People like going there.You run the risk of people lamenting the loss of that.The developer would be smart to integrate things like the community garden — [giving residents an] opportunity to keep growing food on the site.The radio station could get a permanent space.The beer garden could be kept.”

San Francisco’s PROXY project is similar.Retail, restaurants and cultural spaces housed within an artful configuration of shipping containers, designed by Envelope Architecture and Design, were given a five-year temporary home on government-owned vacant lots in the city’s HayesValley neighborhood while developers opted to sit tight during the recession.Affordable housing is promised for the site;the developers will now be able to create it in a neighborhood that has become increasingly vibrant and pedestrian-friendly.On an even larger scale, the major developer Forest City has been testing these ideas of trial and error in the 5M Project in downtown San Francisco.While waiting out the downturn, the folks behind 5M have been beta-testing tenants and uses at their 5th & Mission location, which was(and still is)home to the San Francisco Chronicle and now also to organizations like TechShop, the co-working space HubSoma, the art gallery Intersection for the Arts, the tech company Square and a smattering of food carts to feed those hungry, hardworking tenants.A few years earlier, Forest City would have been more likely to throw up an office tower with some luxury condos on top and call it a day: according to a company vice president, Alexa Arena, the recession allowed Forest City to spend time “re-imagining places for our emerging economy and what kind of environment helps facilitate that.”

In “The Interventionist’s Toolkit,” the critic Mimi Zeiger wrote that the real success for D.I.Y.urbanist interventions won’t be based on any one project but will “happen when we can evaluate the movement based on outreach, economic impact, community empowerment, entrepreneurship, sustainability and design.We’re not quite there yet.”

She’s right.And one doesn’t have to search for examples of temporary projects that not only failed but did so catastrophically(see: Hurricane Katrina trailers, for example).A huge reason for tactical urbanism’s appeal relates to politics.As one practitioner put it, “We’re doing these things to combat the slowness of government.”

But all of this is more than a response to bureaucracy;at its best it’s a bold expression of unfettered thinking and creativity … and there’s certainly not enough of that going around these days.An embrace of the temporary and tactical may not be perfect, but it could be one of the strongest tools in the arsenal of city-building we’ve got.汉译英：

语言与社会身份

一个人的语言与其在社会中的身份其实密不可分。记得我在澳大利亚生活时，一位邻居要竞选议员，他便每天早上起来练习发音，以令自己的讲话让人听起来悦耳、有身份。的确，语言是一个人社会身份的标志，特别是在多民族、多元文化的社会里。所谓“身份”，也是一种知识结构，表明你来自那个社会群体的文化背景、知识程度甚至地理位置等。

语言会影响对于相应文化的认知。例如，有人调查发现，对于讲双语的中国人，在用中文问到其关于文化观念等问题时，他们的回答显然比用英文问他们此类问题时显示出更多的中国人的做派。有意思的是，当讲广东话的港澳人被用普通话问到关于中国的文化、信仰等问题时，他们的回答往往比听到用广东话问到此类问题时的回答更接近西方人的表达方式。

其实，对于学习外语的华人来讲，大部分的还不是真正意义上的所谓“双语人”，而是“双语使用者”；后者是在语言与表达层次，而前者则是思维与生活习性。但是，这个过程并不是静止的，而是可以转换的。

所以，语言学习者所学习的实际上是一种社会关系，一种他所理解的跨越时空所形成的关系。因而，他所面对的不仅仅是语言学的，而更是多重、变换着的社会身份问题。

研究还表明，一个人的讲话风格并非是固定不变的，而是随着社会环境和讲话对象而变化的。一般来讲，个人讲话有一种趋同的倾向（即随大流），但有时也会有趋异倾向（即显示自己的特征）。譬如，我回到北京时，我的“北京腔”自觉就浓了很多；而我的英国朋友在澳大利亚时，其“英国腔”保持得更为明显，不知是否有意显出其身份。人们在适应异国文化的过程中，对于自己母语的态度，也会有积极或消极两种选择。有的人，在积极投入其他主流文化的同时，有意消弱自己的母语能力；有的人，反而更加强、突出了这方面，认为是一种优势。

一般来讲，若某一社会群体所讲、所用的语言是为社会所尊敬的那一种（如在英国，以女王为代表的贵族所讲的语言），会有更高的社会优越感，而其成员也会有意显示出与众不同，以保持其正面的群体特性。当然，也难免会有他人向这一群体的讲话方式靠拢。

一个人的语言，还可成为他人对其进行评判的对象。据研究，可以从中判断出其社会地位、教育程度、善良与否、智力、能力甚至财富等。

篇3：韩素音翻译大赛原文

“后”一切的一代

I never expected to gain any new insight into the nature of my generation, or the changing landscape of American colleges, in Lit Theory.Lit Theory is supposed to be the class where you sit at the back of the room with every other jaded sophomore wearing skinny jeans, thick-framed glasses, an ironic tee-shirt and over-sized retro headphones, just waiting for lecture to be over so you can light up a Turkish Gold and walk to lunch while listening to Wilco.That’s pretty much the way I spent the course, too: through structuralism, formalism, gender theory, and post-colonialism, I was far too busy shuffling through my Ipod to see what the patriarchal world order of capitalist oppression had to do with Ethan Frome.But when we began to study postmodernism, something struck a chord with me and made me sit up and look anew at the seemingly blasé college-aged literati of which I was so self-consciously one.我从来没有指望通过上文学理论课来了解我们这一代人的特征，或美国大学不断变化的景象。这门课实际是这样的，你和其他面容疲惫的大二学生一起坐在房间后面，他们身穿紧身牛仔裤和印有俏皮话的T恤，戴着黑框眼镜和超大的复古耳机，等课堂的结束后，你就会情绪高涨地在去吃午餐的路上边走边听威尔克的音乐。我差不多就是这样上课的：一边听什么结构主义、形式主义、性别理论和后殖民主义的话题，一边用我的iPod搜好听的音乐，也没时间去理会伊坦·弗洛美提出的资本主义压迫下的父权社会是什么样的。但当我们开始研究后现代主义时，一些观念引起了我的共鸣，让我提起精神，重新审视这个看似冷漠的大学生活。

According to my textbook, the problem with defining postmodernism is that it’s impossible.The difficulty is that it is so...post.It defines itself so negatively against what came before it – naturalism, romanticism and the wild revolution of modernism – that it’s sometimes hard to see what it actually is.It denies that anything can be explained neatly or even at all.It is parodic, detached, strange, and sometimes menacing to traditionalists who do not understand it.Although it arose in the post-war west(the term was coined in 1949), the generation that has witnessed its ascendance has yet to come up with an explanation of what postmodern attitudes mean for the future of culture or society.The subject intrigued me because, in a class otherwise consumed by dead-letter theories, postmodernism remained an open book, tempting to the young and curious.But it also intrigued me because the question of what postmodernism – what a movement so post-everything, so reticent to define itself – is spoke to a larger question about the political and popular culture of today, of the other jaded sophomores sitting around me who had grown up in a postmodern world.根据我的课本，从定义的角度来说，后现代主义是很难定义的。我们所面临的困难是它太···“后”了。它的定义消极地否定了先于它的自然主义、浪漫主义和疯狂的现主义革命---因此有时很难看清它到底指什么。它否认任何事物都可以很好地或甚至是完全解释出来。它是模仿性的、分离的、陌生的，并且有时会威胁到根本不理解它的传统主义者。虽然它出现在战后的西方国家，但迄今为止还没有一个合理的解释，后现代主义态度对国家和社会的未来到底意味什么。这个话题引起了我的好奇心，因为在充斥着空文理论的阶级下，后现代主义是一本打开的书，引诱着年轻人和充满好奇心的人。但我对它感兴趣还因为这个关于后现代主的问题---“后”一切运动如此紧谨慎地界定自己，如今却面临着更大的有关政治和流行文化的问题，而它所说的似乎正是我身边这些不顾一屑的朋友们。

In many ways, as a college-aged generation, we are also extremely post: post-Cold War, post-industrial, post-baby boom, post-9/11...at one point in his famous essay, “Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism,” literary critic Frederic Jameson even calls us “post-literate.” We are a generation that is riding on the tail-end of a century of war and revolution that toppled civilizations, overturned repressive social orders, and left us with more privilege and opportunity than any other society in history.Ours could be an era to accomplish anything.作为一个大学生，我们也生活在一个非常“后”的时代：后冷战时代、后工业、后婴儿潮时期、后9.11时代···文学评论家詹姆逊在他一篇著名的文章中提到了“后现代主义,或晚期资本主义的文化逻辑”，他甚至叫我们为“后文化人”。我们这一代人生活在世纪战争的末端和推翻文明的革命时期，专制的社会制度被推翻了，这使得我们比其他任何社会历史时期的人都有更多的特权和机会。我们这一时代能够成为实现任何目标的时代。

And yet do we take to the streets and the airwaves and say “here we are, and this is what we demand”? Do we plant our flag of youthful rebellion on the mall in Washington and say “we are not leaving until we see change!It would seem we do the opposite.We go to war without so much as questioning the rationale, we sign away our civil liberties, we say nothing when the Supreme Court uses Brown v.Board of Education to outlaw desegregation, and we sit back to watch the carnage on the evening news.然而，我们会走上街头，在电视广播中说“我们在这儿，这就是我们想要的”吗？我们会把年轻的叛逆之旗挂在华盛顿商区，并说“我们不会离开，直到看到改变！我们的特权让我们更为广泛地接受教育，而教育和观念扩大了我们的视野，我们想要一个更好的世界，因为这是我们的权利”？似乎我们在做一些相反的事。我们在没有质疑合理性的情况下参与战争，我们签订不平等条约放弃公民自由，当最高法院使用布朗法案时时我们没作任何反应。On campus, we sign petitions, join organizations, put our names on mailing lists, make small-money contributions, volunteer a spare hour to tutor, and sport an entire wardrobe’s worth of Live Strong bracelets advertising our moderately priced opposition to everything from breast cancer to global warming.But what do we really stand for? Like a true postmodern generation we refuse to weave together an overarching narrative to our own political consciousness, to present a cast of inspirational or revolutionary characters on our public stage, or to define a specific philosophy.We are a story seemingly without direction or theme, structure or meaning – a generation defined negatively against what came before us.When Al Gore once said “It’s the combination of narcissism and nihilism that really defines postmodernism,” he might as well have been echoing his entire generation’s critique of our own.We are a generation for whom even revolution seems trite, and therefore as fair a target for bland imitation as anything else.We are the generation of the Che Geuvera tee-shirt.在校园里，我们在情愿书上签名，加入各种组织，把自己名字添加到各种邮件通讯录中，捐力所能及的钱，做一个小时的家教志愿者，为乳腺癌和全球变暖贡献力量。可是我们代表什么呢？就像真正的后现代一代那样，我们无法编制出丰富的政治抱负，无法在公共舞台上展示出我们股无形和革命性的特征，也没有哲学。我们没有方向或主题，结构或意义，我们只是在否定先前的东西。阿尔·戈尔 曾经说过：“自我陶醉和虚无主义真正定义了后现代主义”，他似乎是在呼吁整整一代人批判自己。我们只是被我们之前的一切所定义，因此就像乏味的模仿秀一样。我们是穿切·格瓦拉T恤的一代。

Jameson calls it “Pastiche” – “the wearing of a linguistic mask, speech in a dead language.” In literature, this means an author speaking in a style that is not his own – borrowing a voice and continuing to use it until the words lose all meaning and the chaos that is real life sets in.It is an imitation of an imitation, something that has been re-envisioned so many times the original model is no longer relevant or recognizable.It is mass-produced individualism, anticipated revolution.It is why postmodernism lacks cohesion, why it seems to lack purpose or direction.For us, the post-everything generation, pastiche is the use and reuse of the old clichés of social change and moral outrage – a perfunctory rebelliousness that has culminated in the age of rapidly multiplying non-profits and relief funds.We live our lives in masks and speak our minds in a dead language – the language of a society that expects us to agitate because that’s what young people do.But how do we rebel against a generation that is expecting, anticipating, nostalgic for revolution?

詹姆逊称之为“模仿”---“带着语言的面具，说着空头语言”。在文学中，这意味着一个作家用不是他本身风格的语言说话---借用外界的声音，并且一直使用直到它失去所有的意义，而混乱就是现实的生活。这是一个模仿的模仿，并且被重新设想了很多次，原有的模式也不再相关或不再能辨认出来。这是批量生产的个人主义，是一场预期的革命。这就是为什么后现代主义缺乏凝聚力，为什么它似乎缺乏目的和方向。对我们后一切的一代人来说，模仿是使用和重用旧社会的变化和道德愤怒的陈词滥调，快速增长的非营利组织和救济基金是敷衍了事的造反。我们生过在面具之下，说着一些空话来表达我们的思想---这个这会希望我们去引发骚动，因为这就是年强人该做的事。但是我们如何反抗期待、怀念革命的那一代呢？ How do we rebel against parents that sometimes seem to want revolution more than we do? We don’t.We rebel by not rebelling.We wear the defunct masks of protest and moral outrage, but the real energy in campus activism is on the internet, with websites like moveon.org.It is in the rapidly developing ability to communicate ideas and frustration in chatrooms instead of on the streets, and channel them into nationwide projects striving earnestly for moderate and peaceful change: we are the generation of Students Taking Action Now Darfur;we are the Rock the Vote generation;the generation of letter-writing campaigns and public interest lobbies;the alternative energy generation.我们如何去反叛有时候比我们更想闹革命的父母？我们不反叛，不反叛就是我们的反叛。我们带着抗议和到的愤怒的口罩，但是我们真正的精力并没在学业上，而是在互联网上。这是一个在聊天室交流思想和受挫感的快速发展时代，为了稳健和平的变革而游行示威：我们是学生在达富尔地区采取行动的一代；我们是摇滚选票的一代；我们是发起写信活动和建立公共利益团体的一代；是使用替代能源的一代。

篇4：韩素音的养生妙方

作家韩素音的保健公式：

多种营养：她认为：吃是很重要的，营养是健康的基础。在不过量的情况下，最好什么都吃，才不偏食。并且每天一定要吃含维生素C和矿物质较多的蔬菜。但她食量不大，自有限制，且吃得特别慢，还很少吃肥肉。

饱满情绪：韩素音年轻时，过着在家是阔小姐，出嫁是官太太的养尊处优生活。为了实现“医学才是我的生命”的理想，她22岁曾去成都小天竺街医院，学习和做过助产士工作。28到32岁之间，她只身在英国，仅靠每月30英镑的助学金，维持她和养女的生活，并获得了医学学士学位，成为一名医生。其间，与人合作的处女作《目的地重庆》，大大激发了她的创作欲。1952年在英国出版的小说《好事多磨》被美国好莱坞改编为电影《生死恋》在各地公映。她精神内守，不懈追求，用她自己的话说：“我始终不渝地把全部精力用在一条航道上“。

多多活动：韩素音对体育很有兴趣，如跑步、打球、登山、散步等。她最酷爱的活动是旅游，多年的旅游生活使她感受到：旅游首先可以调节神经功能，有效地消除“紧张状态病”;其次可以陶冶性情，开阔胸怀，激发创作灵感;另外，旅游还可以活跃生活，增加知识，益智健脑。她每年在瑞士只住5个月，其余的时间去各地旅游，亚洲、欧洲、美洲许多国家她都去过。她说过这样的话：“我的稿费有两种用途：买书和旅游。书可以作为精神食粮，而旅游则可以锻炼身体，开扩视野。”