當前位置: 協會動態 > 資訊中心 >

CATTI杯第二十九屆韓素音青年翻譯獎競賽報名工作日前啟動

來源:中國翻譯協會   發布時間:2017-01-13
      CATTI杯第二十九屆韓素音青年翻譯獎競賽由中國翻譯協會和暨南大學聯合主辦,《中國翻譯》編輯部與暨南大學翻譯學院聯合承辦,中國外文局全國翻譯專業資格(水平)考試中心(CATTI)協辦。歡迎海內外廣大翻譯工作者和翻譯愛好者參賽。
  
     具體參賽規則如下:


      1.本屆競賽分別設立英譯漢和漢譯英兩個獎項,參賽者可任選一項或同時參加兩項競賽,競賽原文請參見《中國翻譯》2017年第1期或“中國翻譯”微信公眾號發布的內容。
      2.參賽者年齡:45歲以下(1972年1月1日后出生)。
      3.參賽譯文須獨立完成,杜絕抄襲現象,一經發現,將取消參賽資格。請參賽者在大賽截稿之日前妥善保存參賽譯文,請勿在書報刊、網絡等任何媒體公布自己的參賽譯文,否則將被取消參賽資格并承擔由此造成的一切后果。
 
      參賽報名流程: 

      關注“中國翻譯”微信公眾號 →  對話框內輸入“競賽報名” →  彈出報名表 →  填寫報名信息、選擇參賽組別(英譯漢或漢譯英) →  提交報名 →  支付報名費(30元) →  報名成功:收到“報名確認通知”(內含“報名憑據”) →  通過電子郵箱提交參賽譯文(每次報名只收到一個報名憑據,每個報名憑據只能提交一項參賽譯文,如參加兩項,可報名兩次。)
 
      參賽譯文提交要求:

    (一)請于2017年于5月31日(含)前將參賽譯文提交至hansuyin2012@vip.163.com。
    (二)參賽譯文應為WORD電子文檔,中文宋體、英文Times New Roman字體,全文小四號字,1.5倍行距。
    (三)郵件主題及參賽譯文文檔命名格式為:參賽組別 + 姓名 + 報名憑據,例如:英譯漢張三1122ee8903,提交譯文前請仔細核對報名憑據,確保無誤。
    (四)譯文正文內請勿書寫譯者姓名、地址等任何個人信息,否則將被視為無效譯文。每項參賽譯文一稿有效,恕不接收修改稿。

       發送參賽譯文得到自動回復后,請勿重復發送。如需查詢是否發送成功,可在2017年6月20日至7月20日之間撥打電話(010)68995951;68995956。

      競賽設一、二、三等獎和優秀獎若干名。一、二、三等獎將獲得證書、獎杯、獎金和紀念品,優秀獎將獲得證書和紀念品。2017年第6期(11月15日出版)《中國翻譯》雜志將公布競賽結果。競賽頒獎典禮將于2017年底舉行,競賽獲獎者將獲邀參加頒獎典禮。
 
      請登錄中國譯協網(www.stumppost.com)或關注“中國翻譯”微信公眾號,了解本屆競賽最新動態。
 
      聯系地址:北京市西城區百萬莊大街24號《中國翻譯》編輯部  郵編:100037
      電子信箱:hansuyin2012@vip.163.com
 
CATTI杯第二十九屆韓素音青年翻譯獎競賽評審委員會
 
 
英譯漢競賽原文:
 
The Concept of Intelligence in Cross-cultural Perspectives
 
      [1] One of the positive outcomes from so much research on the relationship between culture and intelligence is an expanded view of what intelligence may be, and how it may be conceptually related to culture. This issue is intricately intertwined with cross-cultural research on intelligence because one of the possible confounding factors in previous studies that documented cultural differences has been cultural differences in the very concept and meaning of intelligence.

      [2] Researchers in this area have discovered that many languages have no word that corresponds to our idea of intelligence. The closest Mandarin equivalent, for instance, is a Chinese character that means “good brain and talented”. Chinese people often associate this concept with traits such as imitation, effort, and social responsibility. Such traits do not constitute important elements of the concept of intelligence for most Americans.

      [3] African cultures provide a number of examples. The Baganda of East Africa use the word obugezi to refer to a combination of mental and social skills that make a person steady, cautious, and friendly. The Djerma-Songhai in West Africa use the term akkal, which has an even broader meaning – a combination of intelligence, know-how, and social skills. Still another society, the Baoule, uses the term n’glouele, which describes children who are not only mentally alert but also willing to volunteer their services without being asked.

      [4] Because of the enormous differences in the ways cultures define intelligence, it is difficult to make valid comparisons from one society to another. That is, different cultures value different traits (their definition of “intelligence”) and have divergent views concerning which traits are useful in predicting future important behaviors (also culturally defined). People in different cultures not only disagree about what constitutes intelligence but also about the proper way to demonstrate those abilities. In mainstream North American society, individuals are typically rewarded for displaying knowledge and skills. This same behavior may be considered improper, arrogant, or rude in societies that stress personal relationships, cooperation, and modesty. 

      [5] These differences are important to cross-cultural studies of intelligence because successful performance on a task of intelligence may require behavior that is considered immodest and arrogant in Culture A (and therefore only reluctantly displayed by members of Culture A)but desirable in Culture B (and therefore readily displayed by members of Culture B). Clearly, such different attitudes toward the same behavior could lead researchers to draw inaccurate conclusions about differences in intelligence between Culture A and Culture B.

      [6] Another reason it is difficult to compare intelligence cross-culturally is that tests of intelligence often rely on knowledge that is specific to a particular culture; investigators based in that culture may not even know what to test for in a different culture. For example, one U.S. intelligence test contains the following question: “How does a violin resemble a piano?” Clearly, this question assumes prior knowledge about violins and pianos – quite a reasonable expectation for middle-class Americans, but not for people from cultures that use different musical instruments.

      [7] Our expanding knowledge about cultural differences in the concept of intelligence has had important ramifications for our theoretical understanding of intelligence in mainstream American psychology as well. Although traditional thinking and reasoning abilities have dominated views of intelligence in the past, in recent years psychologists have begun to turn their attention to other possible aspects of intelligence. Until very recently, for example, creativity was not considered a part of intelligence; now, however, psychologists are increasingly considering this important human ability as a type of intelligence. Other aspects of intelligence are also coming to the forefront. A psychologist has suggested that there are really seven different types of intelligence: logical mathematical, linguistic, musical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal. According to this scheme, not only do the core components of each of these seven types of intelligence differ, but so do some sample end-states (such as mathematician versus dancer). His theory of multiple intelligences has broadened our understanding of intelligence to include other areas besides “book smarts”.

      [8] Perhaps the field is coming to realize that intelligence in its broadest sense may be more aptly defined as “the skills and abilities necessary to effectively accomplish cultural goals”. If your culture’s goals, for example, involve successfully pursuing a professional occupation with a good salary in order to support yourself and your family, that culture will foster a view of intelligence that incorporates cognitive and emotional skills and abilities that allow for pursuing such an occupation. Those skills and abilities may include deductive reasoning, logical thought, verbal and mathematical skills – the sorts of skills that are fostered in contemporary American culture. If your culture’s goals, however, focus more on the development and maintenance of successful interpersonal relationships, working with nature, or hunting and gathering, intelligence will more aptly be viewed as the skills and abilities related to such activities.

      [9] On one level, therefore, people of all cultures share a similar view of intelligence – a catchall concept that summarizes the skills and abilities necessary to live effectively in one’s culture. At the same time, however, cultural differences naturally exist because of differences in how cultures define goals and skills and abilities needed to achieve those goals. Future research will need to delve into these dual processes, searching for commonalities as well as differences across cultures and exploring what contextual variables affect intelligence-related behaviors, and why.

      [10] Awareness of cultural differences in intelligence raises difficult questions concerning testing and the use of test scores. Should bias in testing be eliminated at the expense of the predictive validity of the test? Many educational institutions and business organizations today face this difficult question, which is compounded by legal ramifications and the constant threat of litigation. Perhaps we need to give consideration to yet another aspect of intelligence – that is, our attitudes regarding intelligence. A cross-cultural understanding of differences in the definitions and processes of intelligence should help to deepen our appreciation and respect for cultures different from our own, and help us to find similarities as well as differences among people.
 
漢譯英競賽原文:
啟蒙的真諦
 
      [1] “啟蒙”的本義是開啟蒙昧,識字讀書,明白事理。在中國古代,人們從小要接受“蒙學”,才能成為有教養的人,否則就是“教化未開”。據說,早年被啟蒙到了什么程度,決定其日后可達到的智力高度。

      [2] 同樣,人類社會從傳統向現代轉型的過程,也與啟蒙相伴隨;沒有啟蒙就沒有現代化。

      [3] 然而,作為現代話語的“啟蒙”,卻源自于近代西方。在人類歷史上,近代啟蒙思想和啟蒙運動首發于17世紀后期的英國,后傳播到法國、德國等歐洲國家,波及北美,19世紀后期又影響到日本、中國等亞洲國家。

      [4] 正是由于西方有了洛克、斯密、伏爾泰、盧梭、狄德羅等啟蒙思想家,才有了之后歐美的工業革命、市場經濟和憲政體制。在中國,自晚清時期出現近代啟蒙思想后,中國知識分子在“救亡圖存”的背景下,借助西方近代思想,改造中國傳統文化,塑造新型國民,引發了洋務運動、戊戌變法、新文化運動等。特別是在當代,1978年關于“實踐是檢驗真理的唯一標準”的大討論,極大地解放了人們的思想,帶來了之后“改革開放”的巨大成果。由此,思想的力量可見一斑。

      [5] 長期以來,人們對于啟蒙運動有一種誤解,認為那是先知先覺的知識分子和哲人啟發、教育、訓導被啟蒙者,因而“啟蒙”成了及物動詞,其賓語是未開化的蕓蕓眾生。其實,根據現代啟蒙思想家康德的解釋,啟蒙的本質不是“他啟”而是“自覺”,即人們從由自我原因的不成熟狀態(在缺乏指導下無力運用自我理性的狀態)中覺醒,其根源并非是人們缺乏理性,而是缺乏對理性的運用。

      [6] 這種真知灼見至今閃爍著理性的光芒。

      [7] 在西方,啟蒙思想的支撐源于人們對于客觀規律的認知,如哥白尼的“日心說”、牛頓的“萬有引力”、伽利略的“宇宙論”等,認為整個宇宙中的一切物體都遵守同一定律,進而沖破千年的宗教束縛,將這一理性思考引入了人類社會,從而開創了一個不斷進取的新時代。在中國,幾千年的封建農業社會,使得科技落后、法治傳統缺乏,只是受到近代西方啟蒙思想(包括馬克思主義)的影響,才引入了科學、民主、法治的概念,開始與世界文明接軌。

      [8] 在這一歷史大潮中,中國現在比歷史上任何時期都更接近中華民族的偉大復興。正如“一帶一路”被越來越多的國家認識到不是中國的獨角戲,而是沿途民族的大合唱,每個中國人對于客觀與主觀世界的深刻、自覺的理性開發,最終將匯集于前所未有的“中國夢”的實現。
 
(來源《中國翻譯》雜志2017年第1期)
  
附件:  
 
歷屆與中國譯協《中國翻譯》編輯部 聯合主辦/承辦韓獎競賽的單位
 
1989 (第1屆) 江西省翻譯工作者協會
1990 (第2屆) 陜西省翻譯工作者協會
1991 (第3屆) 天津翻譯工作者協會
1992 (第4屆) 江蘇省翻譯工作者協會
1993 (第5屆) 福建省翻譯工作者協會
1994 (第6屆) 重慶市翻譯工作者協會
1995 (第7屆) 廣州翻譯工作者協會、廣州科技翻譯協會
1996 (第8屆) 南京翻譯家協會
1997 (第9屆) 湖南省翻譯工作者協會、長沙鐵道學院《外語與翻譯》編輯部
1998 (第10屆) 上??萍挤g學會、上海大學
1999 (第11屆) 商務印書館
2000 (第12屆) 南開大學
2001 (第13屆) 廣東外語外貿大學
2002 (第14屆) 清華大學
2003 (第15屆) 外交學院
2004 (第16屆) 蘇州大學
2005 (第17屆) 中南大學
2006 (第18屆) 上海外國語大學
2007 (第19屆) 澳門理工學院
2008 (第20屆) 中國人民大學
2009 (第21屆) 北京大學
2010 (第22屆) 上海對外貿易學院
2011 (第23屆) 對外經濟貿易大學
2012 (第24屆) 首都師范大學、暨南大學
2013 (第25屆) 天津財經大學
2014 (第26屆) 上海師范大學天華學院
2015 (第27屆) 寧波大學
2016 (第28屆) 上海交通大學
2017 (第29屆) 暨南大學
 
 
點擊:
返回頁首 返回上一頁
翁公粗大挺进王丽霞高潮嗨文㊣我故意没有穿内裤坐公车让㊣老少交玩tube少老配㊣日本rapper一姐潮水
<蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>| <蜘蛛词>|