您的位置:四川外国语大学成都学院 >> 翻译系 >> 翻译公告 >> 【赛事公告】关于CATTI杯第二十九届韩

【赛事公告】关于CATTI杯第二十九届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛的通知

发布时间:2017/4/6     点击次数:1661

系内各班、各年级学生:
    现将CATTI杯第二十九届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛的通知转发给你们,欢迎全系学生参与本次翻译大赛。特别说明:本次比赛所有高翻班、翻译队学生必须参加;其他年级和班级学生鼓励参加;所有笔译组教师均须参与指导。
现附具体参赛通知及参赛原文如下:

    CATTI杯第二十九届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛由中国翻译协会和暨南大学联合主办,《中国翻译》编辑部与暨南大学翻译学院联合承办,中国外文局全国翻译专业资格(水平)考试中心(CATTI)协办。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:
    1.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,竞赛原文请参见《中国翻译》2017年第1期或“中国翻译”微信公众号发布的内容。
    2.参赛者年龄:45岁以下(1972年1月1日后出生)。
    3.参赛译文须独立完成,杜绝抄袭现象,一经发现,将取消参赛资格。请参赛者在大赛截稿之日前妥善保存参赛译文,请勿在书报刊、网络等任何媒体公布自己的参赛译文,否则将被取消参赛资格并承担由此造成的一切后果。
    参赛报名流程: 
    关注“中国翻译”微信公众号 →  对话框内输入“竞赛报名” →  弹出报名表 →  填写报名信息、选择参赛组别(英译汉或汉译英) →  提交报名 →  支付报名费(30元) →  报名成功:收到“报名确认通知”(内含“报名凭据”) →  通过电子邮箱提交参赛译文(每次报名只收到一个报名凭据,每个报名凭据只能提交一项参赛译文,如参加两项,可报名两次。)
    参赛译文提交要求:
   (一)请于2017年于5月31日(含)前将参赛译文提交至hansuyin2012@vip.163.com。
   (二)参赛译文应为WORD电子文档,中文宋体、英文Times New Roman字体,全文小四号字,1.5倍行距。
   (三)邮件主题及参赛译文文档命名格式为:参赛组别 + 姓名 + 报名凭据,例如:英译汉张三1122ee8903,提交译文前请仔细核对报名凭据,确保无误。
   (四)译文正文内请勿书写译者姓名、地址等任何个人信息,否则将被视为无效译文。每项参赛译文一稿有效,恕不接收修改稿。
    发送参赛译文得到自动回复后,请勿重复发送。如需查询是否发送成功,可在2017年6月20日至7月20日之间拨打电话(010)68995951;68995956。
    竞赛设一、二、三等奖和优秀奖若干名。一、二、三等奖将获得证书、奖杯、奖金和纪念品,优秀奖将获得证书和纪念品。2017年第6期(11月15日出版)《中国翻译》杂志将公布竞赛结果。竞赛颁奖典礼将于2017年底举行,竞赛获奖者将获邀参加颁奖典礼。
    
    请登录中国译协网(www.tac-online.org.cn)或关注“中国翻译”微信公众号,了解本届竞赛最新动态。
    联系地址:北京市西城区百万庄大街24号《中国翻译》编辑部  邮编:100037
    电子信箱:hansuyin2012@vip.163.com

CATTI杯第二十九届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛评审委员会
 

英译汉竞赛原文:

 

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.

 

汉译英竞赛原文:

启蒙的真谛

      [1] “启蒙”的本义是开启蒙昧,识字读书,明白事理。在中国古代,人们从小要接受“蒙学”,才能成为有教养的人,否则就是“教化未开”。据说,早年被启蒙到了什么程度,决定其日后可达到的智力高度。

      [2] 同样,人类社会从传统向现代转型的过程,也与启蒙相伴随;没有启蒙就没有现代化。

      [3] 然而,作为现代话语的“启蒙”,却源自于近代西方。在人类历史上,近代启蒙思想和启蒙运动首发于17世纪后期的英国,后传播到法国、德国等欧洲国家,波及北美,19世纪后期又影响到日本、中国等亚洲国家。

      [4] 正是由于西方有了洛克、斯密、伏尔泰、卢梭、狄德罗等启蒙思想家,才有了之后欧美的工业革命、市场经济和宪政体制。在中国,自晚清时期出现近代启蒙思想后,中国知识分子在“救亡图存”的背景下,借助西方近代思想,改造中国传统文化,塑造新型国民,引发了洋务运动、戊戌变法、新文化运动等。特别是在当代,1978年关于“实践是检验真理的唯一标准”的大讨论,极大地解放了人们的思想,带来了之后“改革开放”的巨大成果。由此,思想的力量可见一斑。

      [5] 长期以来,人们对于启蒙运动有一种误解,认为那是先知先觉的知识分子和哲人启发、教育、训导被启蒙者,因而“启蒙”成了及物动词,其宾语是未开化的芸芸众生。其实,根据现代启蒙思想家康德的解释,启蒙的本质不是“他启”而是“自觉”,即人们从由自我原因的不成熟状态(在缺乏指导下无力运用自我理性的状态)中觉醒,其根源并非是人们缺乏理性,而是缺乏对理性的运用。

      [6] 这种真知灼见至今闪烁着理性的光芒。

回顶部

四川外国语大学成都学院 翻译系     蜀ICP备 05014151号
Copyright © chengdu institute sichuan international studies university
中国·四川·成都   邮编:611844