第一篇：城市的迷失譯文 第26屆韓素音杯（精選）

城市的迷失

Cities in Lost

作者：盧思嵐 譯者：程君 江漢大學外國語學院

沿著瑗琿—騰沖線，這條1935年由胡煥庸先生發(fā)現(xiàn)并命名的中國人口、自然和歷史地理的分界線，我們看到，從遠距離貿(mào)易發(fā)展開始的那天起，利益和權(quán)力的滲透與分散，已經(jīng)從根本結(jié)構(gòu)上改變了城市的狀態(tài)：城市在膨脹，人在疏離。里爾的阿蘭（Alain）的話到今天仍然振聾發(fā)聵：“金錢萬能，不是凱撒萬能?！?/p>

Observing the Ai hui—Teng chong line on the map, drawn by a Chinese scholar Hu huan yong ① in 1935 , people may conclude the gradual changes in population, natural environment and historical geography between eastern and western part of China.Along the line, we can see the penetration and decentralization of capital and power since the very first day of long-distance trade development, which have changed the state of cities in their fundamental structures.Alain de Lille ②’swords:“ Money, but not Caesar is everything now.” still enlighten the benighted nowadays.在古羅馬，柱子是按照人的比例劃分的；到了文藝復興時期，人就是世界上最美好的尺度。今天的中國城市里，裁彎取直的河渠，向四面八方擴張的交通，膨脹碩大的以便于接納更多商業(yè)行為的城市廣場與建筑立面，都在告訴人們建設(shè)背后的權(quán)力與資本才是審美標準。直到有一天，回過頭來看到自己的孩子站在為車輛交通鋪開的、滿是塵土的路上，我們才發(fā)現(xiàn)，城市的大，卻容不下一個讓孩子們展開笑顏的機會。

I n ancient Rome, marble orders were designed according to the proportion of human body.During the renaissance, human beings were praised as the perfect standard for artistic measuring.However, in China today, cities have witnessed that rivers have been artificially made straight, roads have been radiated to all directions and more skyscrapers have been constructed for attracting business.These phenomena are telling people that power and capital, not architectures themselves are criteria for aesthetic appreciation.Until one day, when we find our children are standing on a busy dusty road, exclusive to vehicles, we begin to realize that a big city could not grant an opportunity for children to wear a smile.規(guī)劃和設(shè)計的弊病，不在于追求利益這件事情本身，而在于追求利益和權(quán)利時的鬼迷心竅，把人類其他的需要都忘記得一干二凈。城市數(shù)量在變多、規(guī)模在擴大、城鄉(xiāng)結(jié)構(gòu)在解體，但城市的性質(zhì)和目的，卻被忘卻了：最聰明的人不再懂得社會生活的形式，而最無知的人卻準備去建設(shè)社會生活的形式。

The maladies of city planning and designing are not the pursuit for capital, but the obsession for money and power, ignoring any other basic needs of human.Currently, cities are increasing in number, expanding in size, dissolving the original city-country life.Meantime, the purpose of constructing cities have been totally neglected.Now, the most sagacious scholars have forgotten the form of social life.Ironically, the most unenlightened officials are ready to construct the social style.城市大了，人小了。人們和他們的城市息息相關(guān)而又格格不入。人們不能獲得有悖于商業(yè)世界、內(nèi)容更充實更滿意的生活手段，成為了旁觀者、讀者、聽眾和消極的觀察者。于是，我們年復一年不是真正地生活著，而是間接地生活著，遠離內(nèi)在的本性。這些本性，掠過照片沉默和迷茫的臉孔，偶然從天空飄過的風箏看到，偶然從孩子們看到鴿子時臉上的笑靨看

到。

Cities have been evolved into spacious metropolis while metropolitans are confined and entrapped in narrow spaces.It seems that citizens feel totally disoriented.Actually people in the city are firmly interrelated with their inseparable land but forlornly interjected by the secular lifestyle.It’s quite difficult for them to find a contented lifestyle without jeopardizing commercialized world, but easy to switch roles to onlookers, readers and audience, the negative observers to know the city.We live year after year not truthfully but rather meaninglessly remaining aloof to our natural instincts.Sometimes, we can’t find any hint of nature from the silent faces in photos.But it only flashes when people notice a kite flying in the sky or are fascinated by children’s flowery smiles when playing with pigeons on the square.人與城市的分離，讓人無所適從；讓人欣慰的是，大家都沒有忘記要生活這件事。城市最早作為神祗的家園，代表了永恒的價值、安慰和神的力量。過去人與人的隔離與區(qū)別，將不能維持下去；城市最終體現(xiàn)的不再是一個神化了的統(tǒng)治者的意志，而是城市每一個個體和全體的意志；它不再是沖突本身，而成為了為日常生活的矛盾與沖突、挑戰(zhàn)與擁抱提供生動舞臺的容器；藝術(shù)與思想有一天也能閃現(xiàn)在城市的角落，與人們的生活相交織。也許到了這一天，我們才能真正說，城市讓生活更美好。

Urban residents feel very lost because our human beings and cities are alienated.To our relief, people will never forget how to live in cities.Functioned as the sacred land for deities, cities originally represented the eternal power of the Providence.Now cities serve for ordinary individuals rather than God-likes almighty dominants.Therefore, the alienation between people and cities is no longer to be maintained.Additionally, a city may not be regarded as the entity of collisions.Instead, it has become a stage or container for citizens to debate, to quarrel, to challenge and to embrace each other.Finally, perhaps artistic ideas and great philosophy, like a torch in dark nights, would be flaming and interweaving with our daily lives in the future.Only on that day could we confidently profess: “Better city, Better life.”

Appendix:

①Hu huan yong(1901-1998)Chinese geographer who initiated “Ai hui-Teng chong line”.②Alain de Lille(1144-1203)British Philosopher in medieval age.原文載于《南風窗》2013年18期，有刪節(jié)

第二篇：第22屆韓素音翻譯大賽 英譯漢 參考譯文

隱藏在科技王國后的文學世界

當我還是一個“探索文學”的男孩，我曾想如果大街上每個人都熟知普魯斯特、喬伊斯、T·E·勞倫斯、帕斯捷爾納克和卡夫卡，那該多好。稍后我才明白平民大眾對高雅文化有多么抵觸。作為一個年輕的拓荒者，林肯讀過普魯塔克、莎士比亞和《圣經(jīng)》，但是那時他是林肯。

后來，在中西部駕車、乘巴士或火車游歷的時候，我經(jīng)常去參觀一些小城鎮(zhèn)的圖書館。在愛阿華州基奧卡克縣和密歇根州本頓港的圖書館里，我發(fā)現(xiàn)讀者們都借閱普魯斯特和喬伊斯的著作，甚至是斯威沃和安德烈·別雷的作品，D·H·勞倫斯也是他們的最愛之一。有時我會聯(lián)想到上帝愿意放棄毀滅罪惡深重的索多瑪城，只為了城里有十個義人。并不是說基奧卡克縣和邪惡的索多瑪城有任何相似之處，也不是說普魯斯特筆下的夏呂斯男爵被引誘到密歇根本頓港定居。而是我似乎有種持久的民主的渴望——在最不可能的地方尋找高雅文化存在的證據(jù)。

我做小說作家已經(jīng)有十幾年了，而從一開始我就意識到這是個不太可取的職業(yè)。在二十世紀三十年代，一個芝加哥的舊鄰居告訴我他寫小說給通俗大眾閱讀?！班従觽兌己闷鏋槭裁次也蝗フ乙环萋殬I(yè)。他們看我總是到處閑逛，修剪樹叢或者漆刷籬笆，而不是在工廠里工作。但我是一個作家，我的文章是賣給《商船隊》小說期刊和《勇士騎兵》雜志的?！彼殖類灥卣f，“他們不會認為那是一種職業(yè)?！彼蛭以V苦也許因為注意到我是個書呆子氣的孩子，比較可能會同情他；又或者他是在告誡我不要特立獨行。但那時候已經(jīng)為時晚矣。

也是在一開始的時候，我就被警告小說已經(jīng)接近了衰落階段，就像城壁城市或者十字弓那樣都是過時的事物。沒有人喜歡和歷史有分歧。奧爾斯瓦爾德·斯賓格勒是三十年代初最受廣泛閱讀的作家之一。他教育世人：我們疲倦老舊的文明已經(jīng)非常接近終結(jié)，年輕人們應該避開文學和藝術(shù)，去擁抱機械化并成為工程師。

為了避免被淘汰，你挑戰(zhàn)并蔑視那些進化論歷史家們。我年輕的時候?qū)λ官e格勒是非常尊重的，但即使是那時我也無法接受他的結(jié)論——帶著尊重和仰慕，我在思想上讓他別來煩我。

六十年后，在最近一期《華爾街日報》上我又看到了以當代形式出現(xiàn)的舊斯賓格勒理論之爭。泰瑞·蒂喬特，不同于斯賓格勒，并沒有把大量的使人崩潰的歷史理論扔到我們身上。但還是有跡象可以看出他對那些證據(jù)做出了權(quán)衡、篩選和斟酌。

他提出“分裂的文化”的理論，還說他的觀點是非常有責任感和與時俱進的，并且經(jīng)過深思熟慮。他提出“作為技術(shù)的藝術(shù)形式”的說法。他告訴我們電影很快就可以被下載——意味著可以從一部電腦轉(zhuǎn)移到另一個裝置的記憶儲存里——并預言電影很快會像書本那樣出售。他還預言科學技術(shù)那近似魔術(shù)般的力量會把我們帶到新時代的起點，并總結(jié)：“一旦這發(fā)生以后，我猜想獨立的電影將取代小說，成為講述故事的最重要手段。

為了支持他的論證，蒂喬特先生還提及了書本銷售量預兆性的下跌和觀看電影人數(shù)的劇增：“對于30歲以下的美國人來說，電影已經(jīng)取代小說成為藝術(shù)表達的首要形式。”對此，蒂喬特先生還補充，像湯姆·克蘭西和史蒂芬·金這樣的流行小說家“每本書達到100萬冊的銷量最高點”，還特別提到：“美國全國廣播公司的電視劇《歡樂酒店》大結(jié)局那一集，相對比，有4200萬的觀眾收看。”

在大范圍上，電影是贏了?！靶≌f塑造民族談話的力量已經(jīng)變?nèi)酢保賳烫叵壬缡钦f。不過我一點都不確定當年《白鯨》或《紅字》是否曾經(jīng)對“民族談話”有過相當大的影響。在19世紀中期，給大眾留下深刻印象的是《湯姆叔叔的小屋》?！栋做L》是一本不那么流行的小說。

20世紀的文學杰作大多數(shù)都是由腦中沒有大眾概念的小說家所創(chuàng)作。普魯斯特和喬伊斯的小說都是在文化衰退期所寫的，并沒有打算要獲得榮耀和光輝的聲望。

蒂喬特先生在《華爾街日報》發(fā)表的文章沿襲了那些企圖發(fā)現(xiàn)新潮流的觀察者們所走的路徑。“根據(jù)一個最近的調(diào)查，數(shù)據(jù)顯示55%的美國人花在閱讀上的時間少于30分鐘??甚至有可能電影已經(jīng)取代了小說，不是因為美國人變笨了，而是因為小說是一種過時的藝術(shù)技術(shù)?！?/p>

“我們并不習慣把藝術(shù)形式看成是一種技術(shù)，”他說，“但是那就是它們本來的真面目，這意味著在技術(shù)的新發(fā)展下它們已經(jīng)處于日趨消亡的狀況?！?/p>

與技術(shù)的重要性一同吸引頭腦科學的年輕人的，可以看得出還有其他優(yōu)先的理由：你最好去做你大部分的同齡人正在做的事。成為百萬個電影觀眾中的一員，總強于成為區(qū)區(qū)幾千名讀者里的一個。此外，讀者在孤獨中閱讀，而觀眾則歸屬于一個龐大的群體。觀眾擁有人多勢眾的優(yōu)勢和機械化的力量。作為補充的還有避免技術(shù)上被淘汰的重要性，以及相比個人的思考（無論他有多么出眾）科學技術(shù)能夠更可靠地為我們解決問題——這種感覺非常具有吸引力。

約翰·契弗很久以前曾告訴過我，讓他堅持下去的，正是他的讀者們，以及全國各地寫信支持他的人。他在工作的時候，總會覺得他的讀者和通信者們，就藏在草坪后面的小樹林里默默關(guān)注著他。他說：“如果我不在腦海中想象著他們，我就會懈怠?！?小說家萊特·莫里斯也力勸我去買一個電動打字機，并說他從不關(guān)掉他的機器。“不寫字的時候，我就聽電流的聲音，”他說，“那讓我感覺自己是有陪伴的，我們就像是在談天?！?/p>

我很想知道蒂喬特先生會如何使他那個“作為技術(shù)的藝術(shù)形式”理論與這樣的癖好相一致。也許他會爭辯，這兩位作家在某種程度上已將他們自己從“大眾文化的影響”中孤立出來。蒂喬特先生至少有一個值得稱贊的地方：他認為自己找到了將電影這種大眾文化與少數(shù)人欣賞的高雅文化結(jié)合起來的方法。然而，他卻對“百萬”的事物很感興趣：百萬的鈔票，百萬的讀者，百萬的觀眾。

看電影是“每個人”都要做的事情，蒂喬特先生如是說。他說得何其正確啊?；氐?0世紀，年齡在8至12歲之間的孩子在每個星期六都排長隊買五分錢的電影票，為了看上周六未播完的前半段故事里那個危機如何得到解決。女主人公就在火車頭撞上她的幾秒之前獲得了解救。然后是下一集，然后是新聞短片和《小頑童》。最后還有一部湯姆·米克斯主演的西部影片，或者是珍妮·蓋諾主演的關(guān)于一位年輕新娘和她丈夫在閣樓里的幸福故事，又或者是格洛麗亞·施旺森、蒂達·巴拉、華萊士·比里、阿道夫·門吉歐和瑪麗·德雷斯勒等明星的作品。當然還有卓別林的《淘金記》，而《淘金記》和杰克·倫敦筆下的故事僅差一步之遙。

那時觀眾和讀者之間是沒有沖突的。沒有人來指導我們閱讀，我們?nèi)孔约骸Ｎ覀兘逃约?，讓自己變得有文化。我們發(fā)現(xiàn)或創(chuàng)造富有想象的精神生活。因為我們可以閱讀，我們也從中學會了寫作?？措娪鞍娴摹督疸y島》后再去閱讀小說版，并不會讓我覺得混淆。在吸引我們的注意力這一點上，電影和小說并不存在競爭。

美國還有一個更引人注目的反常之處就是我們的少數(shù)民族是如此的眾多，數(shù)目龐大。說我們有百萬個少數(shù)民族也不足為奇。不過倒是有一個事實，那就是百萬個有修養(yǎng)的美國人正處于一種與其他有文化的人相分隔的狀態(tài)。如果你喜歡，他們是奇弗的讀者，他們是那么龐大而無法隱藏的一個群體。這個國家的文學部門沒能讓他們遠離書本——無論是新還是舊的著作。我和我的朋友基斯·波茨弗德都強烈地認為：如果有很多讀者“誤入歧途”，那么這些讀者中可能就存在著作家。

你只需出版一本類似《文學界》的雜志，就可以了解更多關(guān)于他們的細節(jié)。只要給予鼓勵，過去默默無聞、沒有希望的作家就會浮出水面。對于我們的報紙，一位早期讀者曾經(jīng)這樣寫過：“它的內(nèi)容是如此的新穎，注重人與人之間關(guān)系的互動，天然真實而沒有絲毫矯揉做作，讓人讀得全神貫注?！彼⒁獾綀蠹埳蠜]有廣告，問道：“這是可能的嗎？可以維持嗎？”她稱它為“一劑消除我們萎縮的人性的良藥”。在信的最后，我們這位讀者還補充說：“對較老的一代人來說，我們應當想起我們原來是怎樣的人，我們應該怎樣做。”

這就是我和基斯·波茨弗德對我們的“文學小報”的期望，而且這兩年來它都如我們所期待地運行著。我們就像一對烏托邦式的伙伴，覺得自己對文學有著一份責任。我希望我們不要像那些好心卻幫倒忙的人——在這個路上已經(jīng)沒有馬匹的年代，還給市政廳廣場捐贈飲馬的水槽。

我們無法猜測在這個國家各個遙遠的角落里生活著多少個自發(fā)的文學鑒賞家和文學愛好者。但我們所掌握的少量事實可以表明，他們見到我們出版的報紙時很高興，心懷感激。他們想得到比既得的更多，新穎的科學技術(shù)無法滿足他們的迫切需求。

第三篇：23屆韓素音翻譯大賽英譯漢譯文

路漫漫其修遠兮

美國經(jīng)濟復蘇的進程會比以往任何經(jīng)濟蕭條之后都慢很多，但政府或許能幫上一點小忙。

“爾欲何往，美利堅？”半個世紀前，“垮掉的一代”的代表杰克·凱魯亞克提出的這個問題，是懸在世界經(jīng)濟頭上的最大的不定性因素。而且，它反映了美國選民們最大的擔憂，他們要頂著全國失業(yè)率卡在一成，而且居高不下的嚴峻形勢，去參加11月2號舉行的國會中期選舉。他們要為打持久戰(zhàn)、攻堅戰(zhàn)做好準備。

1930年以來最棘手的經(jīng)濟蕭條終于在一年前結(jié)束了。但復蘇的進程在起步階段并不強勁，而且在今年年初突然變緩。第二季度的GDP（國民生產(chǎn)總值）年增長速度只有可憐的1.6%，而且自那之后，就一直萎靡不振。從短期的稅收鼓勵購房政策到期后，房產(chǎn)市場就一瀉千里。所以，我們在私營方面幾乎沒有創(chuàng)造什么工作崗位，失業(yè)率不降反升。整個夏天充斥著恐慌，因為如果復蘇的速度持續(xù)走低，美國經(jīng)濟又會重新陷入蕭條的困境。

幸運的是，現(xiàn)在這種擔憂似乎被夸大了。第二季度GDP疲軟的部分原因也許是從中國進口的暫時激增。從八月可喜的零售業(yè)績，到對失業(yè)補貼的需求持續(xù)減少，最新的數(shù)據(jù)都表明，盡管現(xiàn)在經(jīng)濟仍然很疲軟，但不會再繼續(xù)下跌了。而歷史證實，就算最初的經(jīng)濟復蘇在一兩個季度內(nèi)會有搖擺，經(jīng)濟蕭條卻很少會故態(tài)復萌。就現(xiàn)在來說，最有可能發(fā)生的是美國經(jīng)濟會在大約2.5個百分比的速度下緩慢增長：雖然比沒有速度強，但也慢得難以給失業(yè)率帶來什么明顯的改善。

為什么通常美國經(jīng)濟都會在蕭條后反彈，但這次的前景卻一片黯淡呢？這是因為過去大多數(shù)的經(jīng)濟蕭條都是緊縮的貨幣政策造成的，政策放寬了，需求也就反彈了。但這次經(jīng)濟蕭條是金融危機造成的。而通常發(fā)生金融危機之后，從蕭條中的復蘇都是疲軟和緩慢的，原因是銀行系統(tǒng)需要修復，資產(chǎn)負債表需要重建。一般來說，債務減持的過程要持續(xù)七年左右，這意味著美國要在2014年才能從中抽身。一些家庭通過一些手段以非同尋常的速度減少債務負擔，但就算是最樂觀的估計，漫漫長征路也才剛剛走過一半。

前途之爭

美國最大的問題是，政客們還是必須得承認，美國經(jīng)濟免不了要打一場漫長的拉鋸戰(zhàn)，更不用說為之后的結(jié)果做準備了。偶有勇敢的官員敲響警鐘，說失業(yè)率要“維持在較高水平”。但政治上的爭論更多的是經(jīng)濟蕭條該歸咎于誰，而不是提出一些有想象力的方法去給復蘇增添點活力。

共和黨人說巴拉克·奧巴馬的“大政府”傾向解釋了經(jīng)濟萎靡的原因，而高失業(yè)率證明了財政刺激不是個好主意。實際上，政府的“壯大”到今天為止，大部分都是暫時性的和不可避免的；長期一些的政府“壯大”進程要更合適些，也更能反映奧巴馬和他前任的政策。而且，高失業(yè)率證明經(jīng)濟刺激失敗的觀點大錯特錯。經(jīng)濟蕭條的規(guī)律告訴我們，如果沒有財政刺激，蕭條會更加嚴重。

民主黨人在孰是孰非上有他們自己的評判標準，他們認為是華爾街的妄為造成了這個問題，并且對高收入者征收更高額的稅款是解決方案的一部分。這就是奧巴馬在中期選舉前通過立法，優(yōu)先確保讓布什制訂的減稅政策的受益者擴展到所有人的原因，而這個政策原本是為收入超過25萬美元的家庭制定的，并且今年年底即將到期。

這種做法給短期復蘇帶來了不必要的風險。美國在1937年和日本在1997年的經(jīng)歷，有力地證明了不合時機的增稅會讓本就虛弱的經(jīng)濟重回蕭條。更高的稅收，與財政刺激的逐漸減少和國家的經(jīng)濟緊縮政策，會令本就疲軟的增長率更加無力。更少有人發(fā)覺，奧巴馬給中產(chǎn)階級永久減稅的財政計劃也會令中期預算的爛攤子更爛。工欲善其事，必先利其器

在理想狀況下，現(xiàn)在美國將致力于中期稅收改革，削減開支以控制預算，同時為保證寬松的財政政策留出空間。但這只是盲目的華盛頓支持者們腦袋一熱，空想出來的。如今的目標只能是更平穩(wěn)的：給虛弱的經(jīng)濟補充營養(yǎng)，把不確定性降到最低，還有準備好未來財政辯論的材料。為此，國會應當將布什的減稅政策延期至2013年。然后在所有的政策到期，經(jīng)濟穩(wěn)固了之后，進行一次嚴厲的財政清查。

一套更寬泛的政策可以幫助我們更快地解決這種頭重腳輕的問題。應當優(yōu)先考慮鼓勵更多的抵押債務來進行資產(chǎn)減值。差不多四分之一的美國人要還的抵押貸款比他們的房子價值還高。在這種情況改變之前，取消抵押贖回權(quán)案例增長和房產(chǎn)價格下跌的惡性循環(huán)會持續(xù)下去。我們有多種意見可供選擇，從修改破產(chǎn)法讓法官重組抵押債務，到授權(quán)特別委托人改低貸款賬目數(shù)值。這些方案都有其缺點，但是，與日本給僵尸公司提供的貸款極其相似，泡在一池臭水里的抵押貸款，會腐蝕金融系統(tǒng)，并危害經(jīng)濟復蘇。

清理房產(chǎn)市場可以通過讓人們更容易地移居到有工作的地方，來輔助降低美國的失業(yè)率。但是我們還需要做到更多來打破失業(yè)率居高不下的僵局。削減工資稅和利用信貸來降低雇傭成本會起到一點作用。（很遺憾，醫(yī)療改革的作用正相反，至少對于小企業(yè)是這樣。）政客們還要絞盡腦汁，更多地考慮就業(yè)培訓的問題，因為一些工人缺少新工作所需要的專業(yè)技能。

美國人民習慣了長途跋涉。美國的人民和政客們越早地承認復蘇還有漫漫長路要走，他們就會越快地到達目的地。

第四篇：第27屆韓素音翻譯大賽譯文參考(英譯中)

The Posteverything Generation

“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.我從來沒有指望通過上文學理論課來了解我們這一代人的特征，或美國大學不斷變化的景象。這門課實際是這樣的，你和其他面容疲憊的大二學生一起坐在房間后面，他們身穿緊身牛仔褲和印有俏皮話的T恤，戴著黑框眼鏡和超大的復古耳機，等課堂的結(jié)束后，你就會情緒高漲地在去吃午餐的路上邊走邊聽威爾克的音樂。我差不多就是這樣上課的：一邊聽什么結(jié)構(gòu)主義、形式主義、性別理論和后殖民主義的話題，一邊用我的iPod搜好聽的音樂，也沒時間去理會伊坦·弗洛美提出的資本主義壓迫下的父權(quán)社會是什么樣的。但當我們開始研究后現(xiàn)代主義時，一些觀念引起了我的共鳴，讓我提起精神，重新審視這個看似冷漠的大學生活。

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.根據(jù)我的課本，從定義的角度來說，后現(xiàn)代主義是很難定義的。我們所面臨的困難是它太···“后”了。它的定義消極地否定了先于它的自然主義、浪漫主義和瘋狂的現(xiàn)主義革命---因此有時很難看清它到底指什么。它否認任何事物都可以很好地或甚至是完全解釋出來。它是模仿性的、分離的、陌生的，并且有時會威脅到根本不理解它的傳統(tǒng)主義者。雖然它出現(xiàn)在戰(zhàn)后的西方國家，但迄今為止還沒有一個合理的解釋，后現(xiàn)代主義態(tài)度對國家和社會的未來到底意味什么。這個話題引起了我的好奇心，因為在充斥著空文理論的階級下，后現(xiàn)代主義是一本打開的書，引誘著年輕人和充滿好奇心的人。但我對它感興趣還因為這個關(guān)于后現(xiàn)代主的問題---“后”一切運動如此緊謹慎地界定自己，如今卻面臨著更大的有關(guān)政治和流行文化的問題，而它所說的似乎正是我身邊這些不顧一屑的朋友們。

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.作為一個大學生，我們也生活在一個非?！昂蟆钡臅r代：后冷戰(zhàn)時代、后工業(yè)、后嬰兒潮時期、后9.11時代···文學評論家詹姆遜在他一篇著名的文章中提到了“后現(xiàn)代主義,或晚期資本主義的文化邏輯”，他甚至叫我們?yōu)椤昂笪幕恕?。我們這一代人生活在世紀戰(zhàn)爭的末端和推翻文明的革命時期，專制的社會制度被推翻了，這使得我們比其他任何社會歷史時期的人都有更多的特權(quán)和機會。我們這一時代能夠成為實現(xiàn)任何目標的時代。

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，我們會走上街頭，在電視廣播中說“我們在這兒，這就是我們想要的”嗎？我們會把年輕的叛逆之旗掛在華盛頓商區(qū)，并說“我們不會離開，直到看到改變！我們的特權(quán)讓我們更為廣泛地接受教育，而教育和觀念擴大了我們的視野，我們想要一個更好的世界，因為這是我們的權(quán)利”？似乎我們在做一些相反的事。我們在沒有質(zhì)疑合理性的情況下參與戰(zhàn)爭，我們簽訂不平等條約放棄公民自由，當最高法院使用布朗法案時時我們沒作任何反應。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.在校園里，我們在情愿書上簽名，加入各種組織，把自己名字添加到各種郵件通訊錄中，捐力所能及的錢，做一個小時的家教志愿者，為乳腺癌和全球變暖貢獻力量?？墒俏覀兇硎裁茨兀烤拖裾嬲暮蟋F(xiàn)代一代那樣，我們無法編制出豐富的政治抱負，無法在公共舞臺上展示出我們股無形和革命性的特征，也沒有哲學。我們沒有方向或主題，結(jié)構(gòu)或意義，我們只是在否定先前的東西。阿爾·戈爾 曾經(jīng)說過：“自我陶醉和虛無主義真正定義了后現(xiàn)代主義”，他似乎是在呼吁整整一代人批判自己。我們只是被我們之前的一切所定義，因此就像乏味的模仿秀一樣。我們是穿切·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?

詹姆遜稱之為“模仿”---“帶著語言的面具，說著空頭語言”。在文學中，這意味著一個作家用不是他本身風格的語言說話---借用外界的聲音，并且一直使用直到它失去所有的意義，而混亂就是現(xiàn)實的生活。這是一個模仿的模仿，并且被重新設(shè)想了很多次，原有的模式也不再相關(guān)或不再能辨認出來。這是批量生產(chǎn)的個人主義，是一場預期的革命。這就是為什么后現(xiàn)代主義缺乏凝聚力，為什么它似乎缺乏目的和方向。對我們后一切的一代人來說，模仿是使用和重用舊社會的變化和道德憤怒的陳詞濫調(diào)，快速增長的非營利組織和救濟基金是敷衍了事的造反。我們生過在面具之下，說著一些空話來表達我們的思想---這個這會希望我們?nèi)ヒl(fā)騷動，因為這就是年強人該做的事。但是我們?nèi)绾畏纯蛊诖?、懷念革命的那一代呢?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.我們?nèi)绾稳シ磁延袝r候比我們更想鬧革命的父母？我們不反叛，不反叛就是我們的反叛。我們帶著抗議和到的憤怒的口罩，但是我們真正的精力并沒在學業(yè)上，而是在互聯(lián)網(wǎng)上。這是一個在聊天室交流思想和受挫感的快速發(fā)展時代，為了穩(wěn)健和平的變革而游行示威：我們是學生在達富爾地區(qū)采取行動的一代；我們是搖滾選票的一代；我們是發(fā)起寫信活動和建立公共利益團體的一代；是使用替代能源的一代。

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.我們以往所知的美國大學即將結(jié)束。對我們這一代人來說，與激進主義相關(guān)的是基地組織，而不是氣象員?！靶@接管”聽起來不像1968年的伯克利分校，而更像2007年的弗吉尼亞州理工學院。那種說法在當今已經(jīng)不存在了，它們的表達是來自另一個時代，并不反映當今的現(xiàn)實?？墒?，科技革命這一還在繼續(xù)的革命，就像 20 世紀 60 年代的革命一樣真實而深刻——只是不那么明顯而已。它是正在推進中的未完成的事業(yè)，但它實實在在地存在。也許等到我們的父母不再說他們樣樣都好而我們一無是處時，他們或許會明白，我們的敘述已經(jīng)匯聚在一起，在模仿的背后，后一切的一代說的話也有一定的意義。我們在書寫革命，我們在用自己的語言書寫革命。

第五篇：韓素音翻譯大賽試題

It’s Time to Rethink ‘Temporary’

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.漢譯英：

語言與社會身份

一個人的語言與其在社會中的身份其實密不可分。記得我在澳大利亞生活時，一位鄰居要競選議員，他便每天早上起來練習發(fā)音，以令自己的講話讓人聽起來悅耳、有身份。的確，語言是一個人社會身份的標志，特別是在多民族、多元文化的社會里。所謂“身份”，也是一種知識結(jié)構(gòu)，表明你來自那個社會群體的文化背景、知識程度甚至地理位置等。

語言會影響對于相應文化的認知。例如，有人調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，對于講雙語的中國人，在用中文問到其關(guān)于文化觀念等問題時，他們的回答顯然比用英文問他們此類問題時顯示出更多的中國人的做派。有意思的是，當講廣東話的港澳人被用普通話問到關(guān)于中國的文化、信仰等問題時，他們的回答往往比聽到用廣東話問到此類問題時的回答更接近西方人的表達方式。

其實，對于學習外語的華人來講，大部分的還不是真正意義上的所謂“雙語人”，而是“雙語使用者”；后者是在語言與表達層次，而前者則是思維與生活習性。但是，這個過程并不是靜止的，而是可以轉(zhuǎn)換的。

所以，語言學習者所學習的實際上是一種社會關(guān)系，一種他所理解的跨越時空所形成的關(guān)系。因而，他所面對的不僅僅是語言學的，而更是多重、變換著的社會身份問題。

研究還表明，一個人的講話風格并非是固定不變的，而是隨著社會環(huán)境和講話對象而變化的。一般來講，個人講話有一種趨同的傾向（即隨大流），但有時也會有趨異傾向（即顯示自己的特征）。譬如，我回到北京時，我的“北京腔”自覺就濃了很多；而我的英國朋友在澳大利亞時，其“英國腔”保持得更為明顯，不知是否有意顯出其身份。人們在適應異國文化的過程中，對于自己母語的態(tài)度，也會有積極或消極兩種選擇。有的人，在積極投入其他主流文化的同時，有意消弱自己的母語能力；有的人，反而更加強、突出了這方面，認為是一種優(yōu)勢。

一般來講，若某一社會群體所講、所用的語言是為社會所尊敬的那一種（如在英國，以女王為代表的貴族所講的語言），會有更高的社會優(yōu)越感，而其成員也會有意顯示出與眾不同，以保持其正面的群體特性。當然，也難免會有他人向這一群體的講話方式靠攏。

一個人的語言，還可成為他人對其進行評判的對象。據(jù)研究，可以從中判斷出其社會地位、教育程度、善良與否、智力、能力甚至財富等。

可見，語言對個人之意義。如果說服裝是人的形體修飾，那么語言便是人的綜合價值的外在體現(xiàn)。所以，語言就不應當被視為僅僅是一種工具，而應是一種素質(zhì)。