城市的迷失译文 第26届韩素音杯（精选）

第一篇：城市的迷失译文 第26届韩素音杯（精选）

城市的迷失

Cities in Lost

作者：卢思岚 译者：程君 江汉大学外国语学院

沿着瑗珲—腾冲线，这条1935年由胡焕庸先生发现并命名的中国人口、自然和历史地理的分界线，我们看到，从远距离贸易发展开始的那天起，利益和权力的渗透与分散，已经从根本结构上改变了城市的状态：城市在膨胀，人在疏离。里尔的阿兰（Alain）的话到今天仍然振聋发聩：“金钱万能，不是凯撒万能。”

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.在古罗马，柱子是按照人的比例划分的；到了文艺复兴时期，人就是世界上最美好的尺度。今天的中国城市里，裁弯取直的河渠，向四面八方扩张的交通，膨胀硕大的以便于接纳更多商业行为的城市广场与建筑立面，都在告诉人们建设背后的权力与资本才是审美标准。直到有一天，回过头来看到自己的孩子站在为车辆交通铺开的、满是尘土的路上，我们才发现，城市的大，却容不下一个让孩子们展开笑颜的机会。

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.规划和设计的弊病，不在于追求利益这件事情本身，而在于追求利益和权利时的鬼迷心窍，把人类其他的需要都忘记得一干二净。城市数量在变多、规模在扩大、城乡结构在解体，但城市的性质和目的，却被忘却了：最聪明的人不再懂得社会生活的形式，而最无知的人却准备去建设社会生活的形式。

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。人们和他们的城市息息相关而又格格不入。人们不能获得有悖于商业世界、内容更充实更满意的生活手段，成为了旁观者、读者、听众和消极的观察者。于是，我们年复一年不是真正地生活着，而是间接地生活着，远离内在的本性。这些本性，掠过照片沉默和迷茫的脸孔，偶然从天空飘过的风筝看到，偶然从孩子们看到鸽子时脸上的笑靥看

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.人与城市的分离，让人无所适从；让人欣慰的是，大家都没有忘记要生活这件事。城市最早作为神祗的家园，代表了永恒的价值、安慰和神的力量。过去人与人的隔离与区别，将不能维持下去；城市最终体现的不再是一个神化了的统治者的意志，而是城市每一个个体和全体的意志；它不再是冲突本身，而成为了为日常生活的矛盾与冲突、挑战与拥抱提供生动舞台的容器；艺术与思想有一天也能闪现在城市的角落，与人们的生活相交织。也许到了这一天，我们才能真正说，城市让生活更美好。

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.原文载于《南风窗》2013年18期，有删节

第二篇：第22届韩素音翻译大赛 英译汉 参考译文

隐藏在科技王国后的文学世界

当我还是一个“探索文学”的男孩，我曾想如果大街上每个人都熟知普鲁斯特、乔伊斯、T·E·劳伦斯、帕斯捷尔纳克和卡夫卡，那该多好。稍后我才明白平民大众对高雅文化有多么抵触。作为一个年轻的拓荒者，林肯读过普鲁塔克、莎士比亚和《圣经》，但是那时他是林肯。

后来，在中西部驾车、乘巴士或火车游历的时候，我经常去参观一些小城镇的图书馆。在爱阿华州基奥卡克县和密歇根州本顿港的图书馆里，我发现读者们都借阅普鲁斯特和乔伊斯的著作，甚至是斯威沃和安德烈·别雷的作品，D·H·劳伦斯也是他们的最爱之一。有时我会联想到上帝愿意放弃毁灭罪恶深重的索多玛城，只为了城里有十个义人。并不是说基奥卡克县和邪恶的索多玛城有任何相似之处，也不是说普鲁斯特笔下的夏吕斯男爵被引诱到密歇根本顿港定居。而是我似乎有种持久的民主的渴望——在最不可能的地方寻找高雅文化存在的证据。

我做小说作家已经有十几年了，而从一开始我就意识到这是个不太可取的职业。在二十世纪三十年代，一个芝加哥的旧邻居告诉我他写小说给通俗大众阅读。“邻居们都好奇为什么我不去找一份职业。他们看我总是到处闲逛，修剪树丛或者漆刷篱笆，而不是在工厂里工作。但我是一个作家，我的文章是卖给《商船队》小说期刊和《勇士骑兵》杂志的。”他十分愁闷地说，“他们不会认为那是一种职业。”他向我诉苦也许因为注意到我是个书呆子气的孩子，比较可能会同情他；又或者他是在告诫我不要特立独行。但那时候已经为时晚矣。

也是在一开始的时候，我就被警告小说已经接近了衰落阶段，就像城壁城市或者十字弓那样都是过时的事物。没有人喜欢和历史有分歧。奥尔斯瓦尔德·斯宾格勒是三十年代初最受广泛阅读的作家之一。他教育世人：我们疲倦老旧的文明已经非常接近终结，年轻人们应该避开文学和艺术，去拥抱机械化并成为工程师。

为了避免被淘汰，你挑战并蔑视那些进化论历史家们。我年轻的时候对斯宾格勒是非常尊重的，但即使是那时我也无法接受他的结论——带着尊重和仰慕，我在思想上让他别来烦我。

六十年后，在最近一期《华尔街日报》上我又看到了以当代形式出现的旧斯宾格勒理论之争。泰瑞·蒂乔特，不同于斯宾格勒，并没有把大量的使人崩溃的历史理论扔到我们身上。但还是有迹象可以看出他对那些证据做出了权衡、筛选和斟酌。

他提出“分裂的文化”的理论，还说他的观点是非常有责任感和与时俱进的，并且经过深思熟虑。他提出“作为技术的艺术形式”的说法。他告诉我们电影很快就可以被下载——意味着可以从一部电脑转移到另一个装置的记忆储存里——并预言电影很快会像书本那样出售。他还预言科学技术那近似魔术般的力量会把我们带到新时代的起点，并总结：“一旦这发生以后，我猜想独立的电影将取代小说，成为讲述故事的最重要手段。

为了支持他的论证，蒂乔特先生还提及了书本销售量预兆性的下跌和观看电影人数的剧增：“对于30岁以下的美国人来说，电影已经取代小说成为艺术表达的首要形式。”对此，蒂乔特先生还补充，像汤姆·克兰西和史蒂芬·金这样的流行小说家“每本书达到100万册的销量最高点”，还特别提到：“美国全国广播公司的电视剧《欢乐酒店》大结局那一集，相对比，有4200万的观众收看。”

在大范围上，电影是赢了。“小说塑造民族谈话的力量已经变弱”，蒂乔特先生如是说。不过我一点都不确定当年《白鲸》或《红字》是否曾经对“民族谈话”有过相当大的影响。在19世纪中期，给大众留下深刻印象的是《汤姆叔叔的小屋》。《白鲸》是一本不那么流行的小说。

20世纪的文学杰作大多数都是由脑中没有大众概念的小说家所创作。普鲁斯特和乔伊斯的小说都是在文化衰退期所写的，并没有打算要获得荣耀和光辉的声望。

蒂乔特先生在《华尔街日报》发表的文章沿袭了那些企图发现新潮流的观察者们所走的路径。“根据一个最近的调查，数据显示55%的美国人花在阅读上的时间少于30分钟„„甚至有可能电影已经取代了小说，不是因为美国人变笨了，而是因为小说是一种过时的艺术技术。”

“我们并不习惯把艺术形式看成是一种技术，”他说，“但是那就是它们本来的真面目，这意味着在技术的新发展下它们已经处于日趋消亡的状况。”

与技术的重要性一同吸引头脑科学的年轻人的，可以看得出还有其他优先的理由：你最好去做你大部分的同龄人正在做的事。成为百万个电影观众中的一员，总强于成为区区几千名读者里的一个。此外，读者在孤独中阅读，而观众则归属于一个庞大的群体。观众拥有人多势众的优势和机械化的力量。作为补充的还有避免技术上被淘汰的重要性，以及相比个人的思考（无论他有多么出众）科学技术能够更可靠地为我们解决问题——这种感觉非常具有吸引力。

约翰·契弗很久以前曾告诉过我，让他坚持下去的，正是他的读者们，以及全国各地写信支持他的人。他在工作的时候，总会觉得他的读者和通信者们，就藏在草坪后面的小树林里默默关注着他。他说：“如果我不在脑海中想象着他们，我就会懈怠。” 小说家莱特·莫里斯也力劝我去买一个电动打字机，并说他从不关掉他的机器。“不写字的时候，我就听电流的声音，”他说，“那让我感觉自己是有陪伴的，我们就像是在谈天。”

我很想知道蒂乔特先生会如何使他那个“作为技术的艺术形式”理论与这样的癖好相一致。也许他会争辩，这两位作家在某种程度上已将他们自己从“大众文化的影响”中孤立出来。蒂乔特先生至少有一个值得称赞的地方：他认为自己找到了将电影这种大众文化与少数人欣赏的高雅文化结合起来的方法。然而，他却对“百万”的事物很感兴趣：百万的钞票，百万的读者，百万的观众。

看电影是“每个人”都要做的事情，蒂乔特先生如是说。他说得何其正确啊。回到20世纪，年龄在8至12岁之间的孩子在每个星期六都排长队买五分钱的电影票，为了看上周六未播完的前半段故事里那个危机如何得到解决。女主人公就在火车头撞上她的几秒之前获得了解救。然后是下一集，然后是新闻短片和《小顽童》。最后还有一部汤姆·米克斯主演的西部影片，或者是珍妮·盖诺主演的关于一位年轻新娘和她丈夫在阁楼里的幸福故事，又或者是格洛丽亚·施旺森、蒂达·巴拉、华莱士·比里、阿道夫·门吉欧和玛丽·德雷斯勒等明星的作品。当然还有卓别林的《淘金记》，而《淘金记》和杰克·伦敦笔下的故事仅差一步之遥。

那时观众和读者之间是没有冲突的。没有人来指导我们阅读，我们全靠自己。我们教育自己，让自己变得有文化。我们发现或创造富有想象的精神生活。因为我们可以阅读，我们也从中学会了写作。看电影版的《金银岛》后再去阅读小说版，并不会让我觉得混淆。在吸引我们的注意力这一点上，电影和小说并不存在竞争。

美国还有一个更引人注目的反常之处就是我们的少数民族是如此的众多，数目庞大。说我们有百万个少数民族也不足为奇。不过倒是有一个事实，那就是百万个有修养的美国人正处于一种与其他有文化的人相分隔的状态。如果你喜欢，他们是奇弗的读者，他们是那么庞大而无法隐藏的一个群体。这个国家的文学部门没能让他们远离书本——无论是新还是旧的著作。我和我的朋友基斯·波茨弗德都强烈地认为：如果有很多读者“误入歧途”，那么这些读者中可能就存在着作家。

你只需出版一本类似《文学界》的杂志，就可以了解更多关于他们的细节。只要给予鼓励，过去默默无闻、没有希望的作家就会浮出水面。对于我们的报纸，一位早期读者曾经这样写过：“它的内容是如此的新颖，注重人与人之间关系的互动，天然真实而没有丝毫矫揉做作，让人读得全神贯注。”她注意到报纸上没有广告，问道：“这是可能的吗？可以维持吗？”她称它为“一剂消除我们萎缩的人性的良药”。在信的最后，我们这位读者还补充说：“对较老的一代人来说，我们应当想起我们原来是怎样的人，我们应该怎样做。”

这就是我和基斯·波茨弗德对我们的“文学小报”的期望，而且这两年来它都如我们所期待地运行着。我们就像一对乌托邦式的伙伴，觉得自己对文学有着一份责任。我希望我们不要像那些好心却帮倒忙的人——在这个路上已经没有马匹的年代，还给市政厅广场捐赠饮马的水槽。

我们无法猜测在这个国家各个遥远的角落里生活着多少个自发的文学鉴赏家和文学爱好者。但我们所掌握的少量事实可以表明，他们见到我们出版的报纸时很高兴，心怀感激。他们想得到比既得的更多，新颖的科学技术无法满足他们的迫切需求。

第三篇：23届韩素音翻译大赛英译汉译文

路漫漫其修远兮

美国经济复苏的进程会比以往任何经济萧条之后都慢很多，但政府或许能帮上一点小忙。

“尔欲何往，美利坚？”半个世纪前，“垮掉的一代”的代表杰克·凯鲁亚克提出的这个问题，是悬在世界经济头上的最大的不定性因素。而且，它反映了美国选民们最大的担忧，他们要顶着全国失业率卡在一成，而且居高不下的严峻形势，去参加11月2号举行的国会中期选举。他们要为打持久战、攻坚战做好准备。

1930年以来最棘手的经济萧条终于在一年前结束了。但复苏的进程在起步阶段并不强劲，而且在今年年初突然变缓。第二季度的GDP（国民生产总值）年增长速度只有可怜的1.6%，而且自那之后，就一直萎靡不振。从短期的税收鼓励购房政策到期后，房产市场就一泻千里。所以，我们在私营方面几乎没有创造什么工作岗位，失业率不降反升。整个夏天充斥着恐慌，因为如果复苏的速度持续走低，美国经济又会重新陷入萧条的困境。

幸运的是，现在这种担忧似乎被夸大了。第二季度GDP疲软的部分原因也许是从中国进口的暂时激增。从八月可喜的零售业绩，到对失业补贴的需求持续减少，最新的数据都表明，尽管现在经济仍然很疲软，但不会再继续下跌了。而历史证实，就算最初的经济复苏在一两个季度内会有摇摆，经济萧条却很少会故态复萌。就现在来说，最有可能发生的是美国经济会在大约2.5个百分比的速度下缓慢增长：虽然比没有速度强，但也慢得难以给失业率带来什么明显的改善。

为什么通常美国经济都会在萧条后反弹，但这次的前景却一片黯淡呢？这是因为过去大多数的经济萧条都是紧缩的货币政策造成的，政策放宽了，需求也就反弹了。但这次经济萧条是金融危机造成的。而通常发生金融危机之后，从萧条中的复苏都是疲软和缓慢的，原因是银行系统需要修复，资产负债表需要重建。一般来说，债务减持的过程要持续七年左右，这意味着美国要在2014年才能从中抽身。一些家庭通过一些手段以非同寻常的速度减少债务负担，但就算是最乐观的估计，漫漫长征路也才刚刚走过一半。

前途之争

美国最大的问题是，政客们还是必须得承认，美国经济免不了要打一场漫长的拉锯战，更不用说为之后的结果做准备了。偶有勇敢的官员敲响警钟，说失业率要“维持在较高水平”。但政治上的争论更多的是经济萧条该归咎于谁，而不是提出一些有想象力的方法去给复苏增添点活力。

共和党人说巴拉克·奥巴马的“大政府”倾向解释了经济萎靡的原因，而高失业率证明了财政刺激不是个好主意。实际上，政府的“壮大”到今天为止，大部分都是暂时性的和不可避免的；长期一些的政府“壮大”进程要更合适些，也更能反映奥巴马和他前任的政策。而且，高失业率证明经济刺激失败的观点大错特错。经济萧条的规律告诉我们，如果没有财政刺激，萧条会更加严重。

民主党人在孰是孰非上有他们自己的评判标准，他们认为是华尔街的妄为造成了这个问题，并且对高收入者征收更高额的税款是解决方案的一部分。这就是奥巴马在中期选举前通过立法，优先确保让布什制订的减税政策的受益者扩展到所有人的原因，而这个政策原本是为收入超过25万美元的家庭制定的，并且今年年底即将到期。

这种做法给短期复苏带来了不必要的风险。美国在1937年和日本在1997年的经历，有力地证明了不合时机的增税会让本就虚弱的经济重回萧条。更高的税收，与财政刺激的逐渐减少和国家的经济紧缩政策，会令本就疲软的增长率更加无力。更少有人发觉，奥巴马给中产阶级永久减税的财政计划也会令中期预算的烂摊子更烂。工欲善其事，必先利其器

在理想状况下，现在美国将致力于中期税收改革，削减开支以控制预算，同时为保证宽松的财政政策留出空间。但这只是盲目的华盛顿支持者们脑袋一热，空想出来的。如今的目标只能是更平稳的：给虚弱的经济补充营养，把不确定性降到最低，还有准备好未来财政辩论的材料。为此，国会应当将布什的减税政策延期至2013年。然后在所有的政策到期，经济稳固了之后，进行一次严厉的财政清查。

一套更宽泛的政策可以帮助我们更快地解决这种头重脚轻的问题。应当优先考虑鼓励更多的抵押债务来进行资产减值。差不多四分之一的美国人要还的抵押贷款比他们的房子价值还高。在这种情况改变之前，取消抵押赎回权案例增长和房产价格下跌的恶性循环会持续下去。我们有多种意见可供选择，从修改破产法让法官重组抵押债务，到授权特别委托人改低贷款账目数值。这些方案都有其缺点，但是，与日本给僵尸公司提供的贷款极其相似，泡在一池臭水里的抵押贷款，会腐蚀金融系统，并危害经济复苏。

清理房产市场可以通过让人们更容易地移居到有工作的地方，来辅助降低美国的失业率。但是我们还需要做到更多来打破失业率居高不下的僵局。削减工资税和利用信贷来降低雇佣成本会起到一点作用。（很遗憾，医疗改革的作用正相反，至少对于小企业是这样。）政客们还要绞尽脑汁，更多地考虑就业培训的问题，因为一些工人缺少新工作所需要的专业技能。

美国人民习惯了长途跋涉。美国的人民和政客们越早地承认复苏还有漫漫长路要走，他们就会越快地到达目的地。

第四篇：第27届韩素音翻译大赛译文参考(英译中)

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。

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.我们以往所知的美国大学即将结束。对我们这一代人来说，与激进主义相关的是基地组织，而不是气象员。“校园接管”听起来不像1968年的伯克利分校，而更像2007年的弗吉尼亚州理工学院。那种说法在当今已经不存在了，它们的表达是来自另一个时代，并不反映当今的现实。可是，科技革命这一还在继续的革命，就像 20 世纪 60 年代的革命一样真实而深刻——只是不那么明显而已。它是正在推进中的未完成的事业，但它实实在在地存在。也许等到我们的父母不再说他们样样都好而我们一无是处时，他们或许会明白，我们的叙述已经汇聚在一起，在模仿的背后，后一切的一代说的话也有一定的意义。我们在书写革命，我们在用自己的语言书写革命。

第五篇：韩素音翻译大赛试题

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.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。

可见，语言对个人之意义。如果说服装是人的形体修饰，那么语言便是人的综合价值的外在体现。所以，语言就不应当被视为仅仅是一种工具，而应是一种素质。