专 业 解 决 各 种 回 国 学 历 学 位 问 题QQ810087972 没有通过 回 国 认 证 的同学大概有以下几种情况 1 所有材料真实.但资料不全,无法提供完全齐整的原件 2 获得真实国外 最 终 学 历 学 位,但 国 外 本 科 学 历 就 读经历存在问题或缺陷 3 获得真实国外 最 终 学 历 学 位,并取得使馆回国证明.但 国 内 学 历 经 历 存 在 问 题 4 学分转移,联合办学等情况 无 法 认 证 的 5 递交留服中心 答复是 不 予 认 证 或 不 在 认 证 范 围 留洋特办国（境）外学历学位认证服务中心: QQ810087972 免费咨询 为留学归来的同学们提供优质服务. 快速递送-加速你的办理时间
|
Text Linguistics and Translation: an Empirical Perspective to UN English-Chinese Translation Sometimes, having had a surfeit of human society and gossip, and worn out all my village friends, I rambled still farther westward than I habitually dwell, into yet more unfrequented parts of the town,” to fresh woods and pastures new,” or, while the sun was setting, made my supper of huckleberries and blueberries on Fair Haven Hill, and laid up a store for several days. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � Introduction � Text Linguistics Text linguistics is a branch of linguistics that deals with text as a communication system. Generally, this concerns the organization of language above sentences, clauses and phrases, therefore focusing on the larger linguistic units such as written texts. Yunxing Li （2000）quotes Beaugrande (1980) as saying, “text linguistics would constitute the verbal domain of semiotics, dealing with the entire range from one-word texts (e.g., ‘Fire!’) to texts as vast as The Divine Comedy.” � Text and Discourse According to Robert de Beaugrande and Wolfgang Dressler, text is “a communicative occurrence which meets seven standards of textuality”, namely: cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativity, situationality and inter-textuality (1981). Basil Hatim further defines it as “Text or the set of mutually relevant intentions that serve an overall rhetorical purpose (e.g. to counter-argue)”. He also points out: “each element enters into a discourse relation with other elements which ultimately make up the unit text” (1997). In general, when a reader starts to read a text, he first of all captures a series of individual elements, such as words, phrases or clauses, etc. According to Hatim, these elements are grouped in sentences in the order in which they appear on the page. These sentences singly or collectively serve some overall rhetorical purpose. Each element is active in fulfilling a rhetorical function in relation to other elements. It is these discourse relations that enable us to identify sequences of elements which ultimately make up the unit of text. In terms of differences between discourse and text, Hatim defines the discourse as “modes of speaking and writing which involve participants in adopting a particular attitude towards areas of socio-cultural activity (e.g. racist discourse, bureaucratese, etc.)”(1997). Roughly speaking, discourse focuses on the ideological dimension of a speech, written or spoken, while text in turn is the final configuration of the discourse in a continuous whole. This is the distinction that he adopts in his theory. However, he also admits that “a different distinction is sometimes made between discourse analysis as the study of spoken interaction and text linguistics as the study of written interaction” (Baker, 1998). For the sake of simplification, this paper does not try to make either of the above distinctions. Text analysis, by going beyond words, phrases and sentences as points of reference, provides a theoretical framework for deciphering the intended meaning a text as a whole manages to bring out. And the translator’s task is “to bring entire systems of mother-tongue linguistic as well rhetorical conventions to bear on the act of textual transfer and to match them to with those of another language” (Hatim, 1997). The present paper doesn’t pretend to provide a panacea to all the problems in the UN document translation, but it does endeavour to reveal some of the questions in English to Chinese translation of UN by trying, tentatively, to apply to them some of the principles of text linguistics, in the hope of shedding some light on their solutions. My analysis will focus on the differences between the two languages and the attempted suggestions of appropriate translations in accordance with the above principles. � Text Structure and Text Types The ability to identify the structure of a text is vital to the understanding of a particular ST and thus helps the translator to decide upon the corresponding structure in the TL. Text structure relates to the semantic and syntactic arrangements of a text, which uses different text types to serve different rhetorical purposes. Some of the text types of UN documents are formulaic. For example, in the structure of resolutions or decisions: X…, recalling…, noting with satisfaction…, reaffirming…, in the preamble; 1. encourages…, 2. urges…, 3. decides…, in the operational. Also in the views, opinions or decisions concerning communications: X…, meeting on…, having concluded…, adopts the following decision or views, followed by the texts which are also formulaic in macro-structure. Most of them are less formulaic and more predictable. Moreover, texts have a variety of structures; i.e. different text types exhibit different structure formats. According to Hatim’s classification (1997), there are three basic types (each with their sub-types): exposition, argumentation and instruction. Texts constructed according to text structure conventions and translated according to the corresponding text structure formats in the TL are easier to read, understand, and remember. Let’s see the following example. Text 1 Responding to a concrete, reasonable and most of all doable proposal by permanently asking questions and waiting for instructions hardly seems consistent with the classical pledge that reads “President, rest assured of the entire flexibility and the full cooperation of my delegation”. //Let us not complain about a lack of political will. There is certainly a very strong political will in all corners of the Council chamber, no matter whether delegations support the P 6 Presidential draft decision or not. Then again, let us look around. We deplored at length the 2005 NPT Review Conference, the outcome of the United Nations Summit and the 2006 Small Arms and Light Weapons Review Conference, but we applauded the positive results at the 2006 CCW and BWC review conferences. Chinese translation: 通过没完没了地提问题和等待指示的态度对一项具体、合理和最重要的是可行的提案作出反应，几乎同如下典型保证南辕北辙：“主席，请确信我国代表团的高度灵活性和充分的合作”。// 让我们不要抱怨缺乏政治意愿。无论代表团支持六主席的决定草案与否，在国联议事厅的每一个角落都有很强烈的政治意愿。 那么让我们再环视一下，我们对2005年《不扩散条约》审查会议、联合国首脑会议和2006年小武器和轻武器审查会议的结果确感遗憾，但我们对2006年特定常规武器和生物毒素武器审查会议的积极成果则鼓掌喝彩…。 This is an argumentative text. According to Hatim (1990), there are two methods of argument, one is, through-argument, which involves citing a thesis and arguing it through, and the other is counter-argument, which involves citing a thesis to be opposed, then presenting an opposition, before finally substantiating. The first sentence of the above example is a thesis to be argued against, which the second sentence opposes; this implies the lack of political will. The second paragraph is the substantiation, or rather I would say, a through-argument of the second part of the first paragraph. Texture 營n the production of text, the text producer has in his mind an imaginary targeted reader and has to employ all kinds of linguistic devices to make it operational. In this context, an important notion is texture. By definition, texture refers to the various devices used in making a sequence of sentences in text operational, the most noteworthy devices being cohesion and coherence. Cohesion ensures that the various elements of a text are bound together by virtue of both lexical and grammatical relationships. Coherence is the logical or conceptual dimension of the text. It is realized through effective manipulation of surface cohesive devices. The translator should not only be able to identify the coherence of the text by way of its grammatical organization of cohesion, but also be well versed in tapping all the linguistic resources in the TL to make the target text (TT) a cohesive and coherent whole. � � The example cited above involves two types of argument: counter-argument, thesis cited to oppose, and through-argument, thesis cited to argue through. The Chinese version fails to reproduce the structure of a counter-argument in the first paragraph. While there is no lexical marker for the opposition in the English version, there has to be a sort of device to mark the transition in Chinese to achieve coherence. Therefore in the place of “//”, there should be a conjunction which indicates contrast. In this case, it is ＂但是＂(but) that should be added. However, the Chinese version succeeds in identifying the structure of the remaining text through to the end, which is apparently a through-argument. It provides substantiation to the thesis of the existence of political will by way of a concessive structure (“We deplored…, but we applauded…”). Here, “then again” is rightly identified in the Chinese version as an element denoting addition, rather than contrast. However, in order to bring the communicative purpose to the fore, this kind of concessive structure is expressed in Chinese using the conjunctions “虽然…, 但是”(although…, but). While ungrammatical in English, this kind of structure is grammatically required in expressing concession in the Chinese language. The above Chinese translation of this sentence fails to identify this relationship because it only follows closely the source text (ST) structure and does nothing to make it cohesive and coherent in the TT. The addition of “虽然…”(Although) at the beginning of the Chinese sentence is absolutely necessary. Therefore, as far as my understanding of the structure of the ST and mastery of the TL goes, the above-mentioned text would be better translated as follows: 牎爸飨胂嘈盼业拇硗沤骶×榛睿浞趾献鳌保馐俏颐锹偶凰氖难裕扌葜沟靥岢鑫侍猓戎噶睿杂Χ圆唤鼍咛搴侠恚易钪匾氖强尚械奶岚福坪鹾苣阉凳茄孕幸恢隆５牵颐遣荒芩嫡馐侨狈φ我庠浮？梢钥隙ǖ厮担还芨鞔硗攀侵С只故欠炊粤飨木龆ú莅福硎绿镂蘼勰母鼋锹涠疾环η苛业恼我庠浮� 再则，看看我们周围发生的一切吧。对2005年《不扩散条约》审查会议的失败，联合国首脑会议以及2006年小武器和轻武器审查会议结果的不尽人意，我们久久不能释怀，但我们欢呼2006年《常规武器公约》和《生物武器公约》审查会议取得积极成果。 � The Challenges to the Translator Different cultures and the language systems that bear them have different ways of realizing a text（textual conventions）. The challenge for a translator, in his capacity as a mediator between source text (ST) and target text (TT), is not only to identify how a text hangs together by way of textual conventions, including lexical and syntactic norms, but also to reveal the intended meaning and transfer the information into TL in such a way as to achieve the basic quality of hanging together. The task is all the more difficult and problematic when it comes to English and Chinese languages, being diametrically distant with each other, sharing few similarities and in structure, form and logical relationships. For they belong to two entirely different language families with their own ways of saying things. On the surface there is morphology, syntax, text structure etc; digging deeper, there is logic, culture, world outlook, ways of mapping the world, etc., to name but a few. � Anaphora and Coherence Text 2 In formulating strategies, programs and projects for financing the agreed incremental costs of activities concerning desertification under its focal area of land degradation or through activities that combat desertification and mitigate the effects of drought in other focal areas, the GEF, through its Secretariat and Implementing and Executing Agencies, will duly take into account the provisions of the UNCCD and the relevant decisions of its Conference of the Parties relating to policies, strategies and program priorities. Chinese Translation 在全环基金土地退化中心领域下，或通过其他中心领域防治荒漠化和减轻干旱影响活动，就荒漠化问题所开展的活动方面，全环基金在拟订Ф议定增加费用的供资战略、方案和项目时，将通过Ф秘书处以及执行机构和行政机构，适当考虑《荒漠化公约》的规定及其缔约方会议有关政策、战略和方案重点的决定。 Back translation (Concerning,) under CEF land degradation focal area, or through other focal areas’ combating desertification and mitigating effects of drought activities, CEF in formulating Ф agreed incremental costs financing strategies, programs and projects，will through Ф Secretariat and Implementing and Executing Agencies, duly take into account UNCCD’s provisions and its Parties Conference’s relevant policies, strategies and program priorities’ decisions. The back translation is only a rough one, as is impossible to reveal all the details in the structure. Apart from the absence of definite articles and possessive “of” structure in Chinese, one of the issues at stake in the above TL translation relates to the question of anaphora, which in linguistics is often understood as the grammatical function of referring back to the antecedent, as in “the GEF, through its Secretariat and Implementing and Executing Agencies…”. Here “its” is an anaphoric expression of “GEF”. But in the second line of the English text, we found another “its”, which is a cataphora (referring forward), a common grammatical function in English. However, unlike English, which is subject-prominent, Chinese is mainly topic-prominent, i.e. the most important elements of a text should be strutting out conspicuously at the onset and followed by comments thereof. So it is impossible for the Chinese translation to follow this kind of English structure. In the case of the first “its”, the Chinese translator has to read on to find out exactly which element in the text it refers to and then bring it to the fore, hence the forwarded“全环基金” (GEF) in the translation. Another related issue is zero anaphora, ellipsis vis-à-vis English syntactic structure. It can be seen from the back translation that the two underlined “its” are omitted in the Chinese. As Chinese is parataxis-centered, and English is hypotaxis-centered, the former, therefore, has a lot less pronouns than the latter, especially possessive pronouns. Although there are possessive forms in Chinese such as 他的(his), 她的(her), 它的(its) and他们的(their)，they are used sparingly and are often implicit in the context. Repetition is another means to achieve coherence, as pronouns are less used in Chinese, so “全环基金” (GEF) is repeated in the main clause. � Inductive vs. Deductive Discourse According to R. Scollon and S. Scollon (1995), in inductive discourse, the line of argument examines firstly the minor points of the argument before deriving the main point as a conclusion from those arguments; whereas in deductive discourse, a topic is introduced at the beginning of a discourse and then the minor or supporting arguments are presented afterwards. Generally, English tends to be deductive, whereas Chinese adheres to the inductive pattern. Take text 3 as an example. The numbers in the boxes in the original text reflect the natural sequence of the SL; in the Chinese translation, they represent the corresponding elements in the original text as is shown in the back translation. This is to reveal the different sequences that the two languages respectively follow in forming a text. Text 3 � 1The Advisory Committee requested UNHCR to comply with the Board of Auditors recommendations concerning the practice of retaining staff members 2who have completed a standard assignment in one duty station and 3being considered for appointment to another, 4on special leave with pay, 5in view of the high costs to the Organization. Chinese Translation 2工作人员在一个工作地点结束了标准任期，3而调任到另一工作地点的问题正考虑中，4因此在休带薪特假。5但鉴于这些工作人员对难民署的费用太高，1咨询委员会请难民署遵守审计委员会关于工作人员留任做法的建议。 Back translation 2Staff members have completed a standard assignment in one duty station 3and the question of appointment to another is being considered, 4so they are on special leave with pay. 5But, in view of the high costs to the Organization, 1The Advisory Committee requested UNHCR to comply with the Board of Auditors recommendations concerning the practice of retaining. The above back translation is done focusing on the structure of the Chinese without changing the word order in some phrases or omitting those elements as “the”and possessive “of”, which are non-existent in Chinese. Its purpose is to show the sequence of constituent elements of the text. The Chinese translation regroups the text into two sentences; the first corresponds to 2, 3 and 4 in the original text, the second to 5 and 1. The background information, the less important part of the text, is provided in the first sentence. Being the more important part of the text cluster, the second sentence follows as a conclusion. Then in between, we have to usher in a conjunction “但”（but）to bring out the intended meaning and mark the logic flow in the Chinese text. And also at sentence level, it is obvious from the back translation that the causal relation is reversed (5 “in view of…” comes before 1 “The Advisory Committee requested UNHCR to…”), since the basic schema to express this kind of relationship differs between the two languages: it is “Y, because X” in English, whereas in Chinese it is “because X, Y”. It is important to indicate that, in view of the above reversal of the line of thinking and reasoning, this proves to be all the more complicated with citations in quotation marks, proposed texts for an agreement under negotiation and revisions of the wording in an agreement; where the text of reference has been translated into Chinese. In this respect, the Chinese translator has to rack his brains to fit the different components into a coherent whole. An English text, such as follows, would be a tough test to the conjuring power of the Chinese translator. The numerals in square brackets are added by the author and the words therein are those proposed text for negotiation: Text 4 [1Ensure] that appropriate risk reduction measures are [2mainstreamed into] alt. [3considered 4in formulating] [5relevant] multilateral and bilateral development programmes, [6in disaster prone countries] including those related to poverty reduction, natural resource management, urban development [7and climate change adaptation]. In another example, the discussion of a draft instrument, the translation reveals the complicated procedures in which the Chinese translator not only has to match the reading of the original text (of discussion) with the Chinese textual conventions, but is also obliged to 1) translate the suggested amendments into Chinese, 2) consult the Chinese text of the draft, of which the English version is under consideration, 3) identify the right position of the translated amendments in the Chinese text of the draft, and 4) return to translation, keeping in mind the above points. This then often entails lexical reordering and re-choosing, and syntactic reconstruction, even if it merely involves a pronoun or a preposition. For example: Text 5 One governmental representative suggested replacing “their” in the first sentence of the article before the word “original”, with “the” and adding “of the parties” after “intent”. Chinese Translation 一位政府代表建议将该条第1句中“原来”一词之前的“其”字改为“各方的”。 Back Translation One governmental representative suggested replacing “their” in the first sentence of the article before the word “original” with “parties’”. � � Reprise Texts From all the above-cited texts, we may also deduce that reprise texts, one of the important features of UN documentation, do not necessarily make a translator’s work easier. The translation of reprises is not as simple as cutting and pasting. Rather, it comprises all 4 of the above-mentioned steps, at least on syntactic and lexical levels. Amongst other things, on the latter level, it also involves, in view of consistency, necessary adjustment of different choices of terms and diction. In this context, Hatim and Mason (1990) also talk about mediation and intertextuality. They argue, “It would be wrong to consider intertextuality simply as a mechanical process. A text is not merely an amalgamation of ‘bits and pieces’ culled from other texts. Nor should intertextuality be understood as the mere inclusion of the occasional reference to another text. Rather, citations, references, etc., will be brought into a text for some reason. The motivated nature of this intertextual relationship may be explained in terms of such matters as text function or overall communicative purpose. ” What is more, “the reference might involve minimal mediation by those who share, say, a western culture, but maximal mediation for those readers from other cultural background”（Hatim and Mason, 1990）. In the present case, it also involves a mediating process in which a translator manages to link the reprises with the related TT he/she is translating into.As Beaugrande points out, “Cohesion is affected when surface structures are shared or borrowed among separate texts. Coherence of a single text may be evident only in view of the overall discourse” (1981). � � Subject vs. Topic Prominence Another salient difference between English and Chinese is that generally speaking, the former is subject-prominent (SP) while the latter is topic-prominent (TP). Jigang Cai (2003) quotes Jack Richards (Longman Dictionary of Applied Linguistics, 1985) as saying, “A subject prominent language is a language in which the grammatical units of subject and predicate are basic to the structure of sentences and in which sentences usually have subject-predicate structure. A topic prominent language is one in which the information units of topic and comment are basic to the structure of sentences.” � The late Chinese linguist Zhao Yuanren points out that “The grammatical meaning of subject and predicate in a Chinese sentence is topic and comment, rather that actor and action (1965)”. 燜or instance, The meeting rose at 1 p.m. 下午1时休会。(1 pm rose the meeting.) The English sentence is obviously an SP construction, while the Chinese translation is manifestly a TP structure with “1 p.m.” as the topic and the rest of the sentence as the comment. Here are more examples in which an SP pattern is transformed into a TP schema in Chinese: Text 6 One of the main constraints in the assessment of vulnerability and adaptation in non Annex I Parties was the lack of data to meet the demands of the methodologies for these assessments, as well as Parties’ inability to conduct the type of vulnerability and adaptation assessments that would generate results reliable enough to be incorporated into national planning processes. Chinese Translation 评估非附件一缔约方的脆弱性和适应性，一大制约是缺乏数据，无法达到开展这种评估的方法所提出的要求; 而且，缔约方缺乏能力，开展不了能产生可靠结果， 从而能纳入国家规划进程的那种脆弱性和适应性评估。 In tackling the above texts at syntactic level, the strategy a Chinese translator adopts will be no other than to transform the SP construction into TP one. Otherwise coherence will necessarily suffer. Therefore, it is essential for a Chinese translator to identify the topic that is talked about in the sentence and transpose it to the initial position in the Chinese text, and then follow it with comments. In the case of text 6, “the assessment of vulnerability and adaptation in non Annex I Parties” is considered as the topic (a verbalized phrase in Chinese) and the rest of the text comment. Again, let’s look at the second juxtaposition, the noun phrase of “Parties’ inability…” is broken into various syntactic components and “Parties’ inability” is identified as the topic and clausified following the relevant requirements of Chinese textuality. The remaining part is the comment, which in turn is expressed using the inductive thought pattern (see the section: Inductive vs. Deductive). The element “(to be) unable to…” should not be regarded as the predicate of the subject “the Parties”, because subject and predicate functions are only semantically but not syntactically required. In topic-prominent constructions, coherence is achieved through means of semantic and sense relations as well as the lexical and syntactic order by following the natural sequence of lines of thought. In English on the contrary，the same ideas are organized in terms of sequence and logic, using clauses to form a complex sentence by means of function words and inflections. As a Chinese scholar once pointed out that an English sentence resembles a tree, from the trunk (main clause) of which many branches (subordinate clause) grow, whereas a Chinese sentence resembles a bunch of bamboo with many shoots coming out independently. � Another characteristic of Chinese as a topic prominent language is that: “the passive voice appears as a marginal construction, rarely used in speech. The relative insignificance of the passive… [can be explained by] the topic, not the subject, that plays a more significant role in sentence construction. Any noun phrase can be the topic of a sentence without registering anything on the verb. It is, therefore, natural that the passive construction is not as widespread in [topic prominent] languages as it is in [subject prominent] languages ” (Li and Thompson, 1975). Let’s refer back to text 4 above. To translate such passive structures as “…measures are [mainstreamed into] alt. [considered in formulating]… development programmes”, the Chinese translator has to resort to various means to circumvent passive structures in the Chinese text (cf. explanation for the translation of text 4). � Conclusion Chinese and English are two languages which are a world apart in all respects—morphology, phraseology, syntax, textuality, rhetorical conventions and so on; this inevitably reflects the thought patterns and specific cultures of different peoples and societies. This paper is my first attempt to explore the possible impact of certain principles of text linguistics on the work of the Chinese translators in the UN and to look for areas where the contrastive study of linguistics can bring insights to our work. The points I have raised here are only the tip of an iceberg vis-à-vis those we are encountering in our work. In fact, as soon as we begin to consider UN translation, we are aware of the multifarious nature of the text subject-matters on one hand—human rights, international law, environment, trade and development, etc.—, as well as genres, on the other,—thematic reports, summary reports, legal instruments (binding and non-binding), communications to a human rights organ and opinions or views thereon—, just to name but a few. Moreover, in a multilingual and multicultural setting such as the UN, the so-called original English texts are often hybrids, written by non-native English speakers or simply translated into English from the other UN official languages and sometimes from non-official languages. This is an added dimension for text analysis in the context of UN translation, which remains a domain thus far inadequately explored. However, since text linguistics as applied to translation studies examines various micro textual constituents from the perspective of a macro text structure, the structure of the original text does provide a crucial framework for guiding the decision-making process in translation. As far as English-Chinese translation is concerned (this may also apply to other language combinations), text analysis is valuable in 1) providing useful clues for the comprehension of a difficult or hybrid ST; 2) helping us in determining strategies from both macro and micro point of views; 3) guiding us to abide by the textual conventions of the Chinese language and thus avoiding translationese; 4) providing us with a possible theoretical benchmark to judge whether or not a translated text works and the reasons why（Bill Fraser，1998）. In conclusion, as far as my studies go, text analysis is a promising tool for realizing translations that are both coherent and cohesive. � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 燝eneva, 4 February 2008 � Baker, Mona. (1998) Routledge Encyclopedia of Translation Studies. Routledge Beaugrande, Robert de & Dressler, Wolfgang. (1981) Introduction to Text Linguistics. London: Longman. Fraser, Bill. (1998) “The New Rhetoric:How discourse analysis can help translators”，http://ec.europa.eu. 燙ai, Jigang (蔡基刚)，（2003）A Contrastive Study of Writing and Rhetoric in English and Chinese(英汉写作修辞对比). Fudan University, Shanghai (上海复旦大学) Hatim, Basil & Mason, Ian. (1990) Discourse and the Translator. New York: Longman. Hatim, Basil. (1997) Communication Across Cultures: Translation Theory and Contrastive Text Linguistics. UK: Exeter Li & Thompson(1975). Cited by Andrew Methven in Voice Changes in Translation - A Comparative Study of Active and Passive Voice in Chinese and English. Li, Yunxing (李运兴), (2000) Text Approach to Translation: an Introduction (语篇翻译引论). China Translation and Publishing Corporation(中国对外翻译出版公司 ) Newmark, Peter. (1991) A Textbook of Translation. London: Prentice Hall. Nord, Christiane, (2006) Text Analysis in Translation. Theory, Methodology, and Didactic Application of a Model for Translation-Oriented Text Analysis. Second Edition. Amsterdam/New York, NY. Scollon，Ron & Scollon, Suzanne Wang, (1995) Intercultural Communication: a Discourse Approach. Blackwell Publishers. Widdowson, H.G. (2004) Text, Context, Pretext: Critical Issues in Discourse Analysis. Oxford: Blackwell. Zhao, Yuanren. （1968）A Grammar of Spoken Chinese. Berkeley: University of California Press. � � � � � � 彭博签命令 所有机构设协调员 文件须附六外语 电话提供口译 http://www.worldjournal.com/wj-ny-news.php?nt_seq_id=1748945 纽约市有40%的家庭每天使用的不是英文，有180万民众属英语程度有限（LEP），为了使所有纽约民众都有公平的机会接触和使用市府提供的各项服务，彭博签署了第120号行政命令。根据该命令，每个市府机关要在45天以内指定一位语言服务协调员（Language Access Coordinator），该协调员将监管该机构的语言服务政策，并在2009年1月1日前制定一个施行计画。该施行计划必须要考虑到四个要素，包括使用该机构服务的英语程度有限人数、他们使用的频率、提供语言服务或信息的重要性或是由于缺乏有关服务带来的不便，以及该机构可利用的资源及提供语言服务的成本。 西班牙文、中文、俄文、韩文、意大利文，和法国克里奥尔语是纽约移民中使用最多的六种语言。在第120号行政命令要求下，所有市府机构要把“必要的公共文件”（essential public documents）翻译成六种语言，提供包括电话翻译在内的翻译服务，训练前台工作人员和经理们的语言服务能力，在显眼的地方张贴可提供免费翻译服务的告示，对各机构的语言服务建立适当的监督和评比机制，并对有语言服务需要的民众进行宣传活动让他们知晓有这些服务。 应邀出席签字仪式的不少移民机构代表欢喜至极，纽约移民联盟（New York Immigration Coalition）行政总监洪贞和表示，“这是具有历史意义的一天”，是移民们争取十多年的胜利成果。她尤其感谢市议员刘醇逸提出的73号地方法案（Local Law 73），该法由市长彭博签署于2003年生效，要求纽约市卫生局（DOHMH），儿童服务管理局（ACS）和人力资源管理局（HRA）都要提供少数族裔语言服务。迄今，除以上机构外，311中心可以提供170多种语言服务，市教育局也有八种语言服务。 见证这一历史时刻的亚洲人平等会副行政总监陈倩雯和唐人街住客协会代表翁晓玲在会后表示，多年来他们一直与房屋局有关方面要求双语服务，也为移民争取英语学习机会，许多努力终于有了成果。签字仪式上还有移民代表激动高呼“彭博是下届总统”，气氛相当热闹。 2008-07-23 缺乏宣导材料、服务组织等 亚美儿童和家庭联盟盼市府正视 http://www.worldjournal.com/wj-ny-news.php?nt_seq_id=1732362 【《世界日报》记者刘爽纽约报导】亚美儿童和家庭联盟（CACF）16日发布的一份报告指出，在纽约市的移民家庭对孩子进行早期教育困难重重，包括缺乏适合各社区的宣导材料、专业人士和服务组织等，政府也没有给予相应的支持，更有移民家长直言，担心使用公共资源的帮助会影响其公民申请，透露许多移民家庭的担忧，该联盟希望市府和多方组织能正视移民家庭的需要。 纽约市儿童早期教育包括为工作家庭提供0至13岁孩子看护的儿童看护 (child care)，为三至五岁孩子提供入学n柋负椭橇⒌难敖逃苹� (head start)，为四岁孩童提供的学前班。教育局、宗教机构、非营利机构都有开办这些服务，也有个人提供此类服务，其中包括一些无执照者。 这份名为《冲破障碍：纽约市移民家庭和早期儿童教育》(Breaking Down Barriers: Immigrant Families & Early Childhood Education in New York City) 的报告，是对孟加拉、中国、多明尼加、海地、韩国和俄罗斯等，六个在纽约市增长最快的族裔儿童早期教育所进行的调查。 调查结果显示，纽约市缺乏正确翻译和尊重各地区文化的阅读材料及专业儿童看护人员；没有足够有效传达移民社区的宣传活动和看护服务；没有训练儿童看护人员处理来自移民家庭儿童的问题；儿童看护费用昂贵，市府没有提供足够资金发展和维护儿童看护项目；市府没有有效地回覆来自移民家庭的要求，多是推诿了事。 报告中引用一位韩裔家长的话，他担心如果使用公共资源的帮助，将影响他的公民申请，道出了不少移民家庭的担忧。还有一位俄裔家长表示，让孩子学习俄罗斯文化和语言很重要，他希望自己的孩子将来能说俄语。想让子女具有双语能力的家长并不在少数，但现有儿童看护人员很难提供这些服务。 亚美儿童和家庭联盟行政总监何永康表示，华裔社区很多新移民家长不了解或是害怕使用现有的资源，其实很多免费或低费用的儿童看护服务，不要求家长提供社会安全号码。另外，语言翻译和服务需要精确到每个社区而不仅仅是种族，比如讲粤语和讲国语的华人对语言就有不同的要求，同一文字也有不同的理解，希望有关机构在提供语言服务的时候，能将此列入考虑。另外，他指民众有问题的时候会拨打311，可是接线人员也只是把电话转给各个分管的部门，转来转去还是不能解决问题。 该报告最后要求提高相关机构的语言服务能力和增强儿童看护人员的文化敏感度，让各个社区的移民家庭都了解周围可用的儿童看护服务，增加对市府儿童服务机构和民间儿童福利组织的拨款，进行对移民家庭早期儿童教育的评估和数据收集。 2008-06-17 http://www.worldjournal.com/wj-ny-news.php?nt_seq_id=1732364 【《世界日报》记者刘爽纽约报导】市议会16日就药品的翻译说明举行公听会，许多民众对此表示有强烈需求。市议员乔亚 (Eric Gioia) 和市公益维护人高邦 (Betsy Gotbaum) 表示正在起草一份提案，要求药品标识 (label) 和药品服用说明要有多种语言翻译，并且要求纽约市的药店张贴告示，说明所有英语不熟练的顾客都有权利要求免费的语言帮助和翻译服务，包括口头翻译和药物的翻译说明。 高邦表示，让顾客了解所服用的药物，这是一项基本权利，提供翻译并不是件昂贵或是困难的任务。市议员瑞维拉(Joel Rivera)表示，不能让不懂英语的民众猜测如何正确服药，这样的结果将是毁灭性的。 不少移民16日中午聚集在市政厅外示威，举著“没有翻译的药物是危险的”牌子抗议。 市议员刘醇逸表示，不提供翻译不仅仅是个语言问题，更是对非英语移民们的歧视。药品关乎生命、大到药品公司、保险公司，小到药房都要提供语言翻译服务，有些说明书其实只需翻译一次，并没有太大开销，一定要通过立法来要求这些商家正视问题并著手解决。 纽约医学会 (New York Academy of Medicine) 2006年的一份调查报告显示，纽约市88%的药房每天都有英语非母语的顾客，但是一半被调查药房从来没有翻译过药品标识或是每周翻译少于一次。在2007年，移民维权组织 Make the Road New York 向州检察长办公室递交过一份投诉，点名皇后区、布碌仑和曼哈坦的16间药房不提供翻译服务。 在华埠和法拉盛的药房，尽管药品没有中文说明，但药店内的药剂师们大多讲中文，也愿意为顾客提供一定程度的解释。但不少从业者坦言，如果太忙时就无法为顾客解说，要是有印刷的中文说明就能避免一些人为翻译的疏忽或是错误。 2008-06-17 United Nations internship programme (Click this link to download circular) 1. The purpose of the present circular is to inform staff members about the arrangements for the internship programme at Headquarters pursuant to administrative instruction ST/AI/2000/9. I. Application procedure Eligibility requirements 2. The Secretary-General may accept interns provided the following conditions are met: (a) Applicants are enrolled in a degree programme in a graduate school (second university degree or higher) at the time of application and during the internship; or Internship periods 3. There are three internship periods each year: spring, mid-January to Submission of applications 4. Graduate students who meet the eligibility requirements for an internship with the United Nations and who wish to be considered must apply online at http://jobs.un.org, the United Nations Human Resources website, also known as “Galaxy”. Detailed instructions regarding the application procedure are also available online at http://www.un.org/Depts/OHRM/sds/internsh/index.htm. Required documents 6. Applicants who are selected will be requested to sign the “Internship agreement for the United Nations”, contained in the annex to instruction ST/AI/2000/9. They will also be requested to provide a medical certificate stating that they are in good health, a proof of enrolment in a health insurance plan covering them in the United States of America, and a proof of enrolment in graduate studies. II. Working conditions 7. The terms of the internship programme are set out in sections 3, 4 and 5 of instruction ST/AI/2000/9. Participation in the internship programme is normally full-time. Interns are expected to work five days per week in the department/office that has selected them, under the supervision of a staff member. During the internship session, interns will be provided with a desk, phone and computer access. Interns do not receive a salary or emoluments from the United Nations. III. Evaluation 10. At the end of the internship, the supervisor should prepare a written evaluation of the performance of the intern and organize a meeting with him or with her to provide constructive feedback. 趁着联译博客还能上帖，来个轻松点的，活跃一下气氛。欢迎大家跟帖试译，或者提出更多新的定义。 Compromise: The art of dividing a cake in such a way that everybody believes he got the biggest piece. Classic: Books which people praise but do not read. Smile: A curve that can set a lot of things straight. Office: A place where you can relax after your strenuous home life. Etc.: A sign to make others believe that you know more than you actually do. Committee: Individuals who can do nothing individually and sit to decide that nothing can be done together. Experience: The name men give to their mistakes. Philosopher: A fool who torments himself during life, to be spoken of when dead. Father: A banker provided by nature. Criminal: A guy no different from the rest … except that he got caught. Boss: Someone who is early when you are late and late when you are early. Politician: One who shakes your hand before elections and your confidence after. Doctor: person who kills your ills by pills, and kills you with his bills.
《洛杉矶时报》的原文有更详细的内容： 中国房产联合国大奖 喊价8万?
【本报广州二十七日电】 10月28日，一场标榜高规格、权威、极具影响力和行业震撼力「2007年中国房地产总评榜」将在北京钓鱼台国宾馆举行，将颁发联合国国际人居金奖，引起外界关注。 联合国国际人居金奖乍看与联合国人居奖形似，后者是由联合国颁发、全球人居领域规格最高奖。然据了解，联合国国际人居金奖却可直接用钱买下，底价8万元。 南方日报报导，打开中国房地产总评榜网站，左上角显示系列主办单位里面，联合国友好理事会名列第一。 网页上有报名回执表，要求材料送往北京市朝阳区建国路93号北京万达广场1号楼2505室，交给王栋。 广州某地产商透露，评选是假，收钱是真。他提出一份传真件，写明获奖企业宣传推广费价码：联合国大奖19.8万元(市级只限一家企业)、国际奖17.8万元、国内奖9.8万元。
另外「2007中国房地产总评榜组委会山东省分会」发布的价码则便宜些，联合国大奖15万元，国际奖10万-12万元；国内奖中，特别奖8万元，综合奖6万元，单项奖5万元。根据王栋报出底价：联合国大奖原价15万，现在最低8万；国内奖4万。
王栋透露，联合国大奖总共有10个名额，现在还剩4个；现在报来名单，得奖没有问题。
联合国友好理事会在中国的活动还真不少。全国巡回颁奖，外界质疑为洋人牙防组。联合国友好理事会的活动并不仅限于地产颁奖，而是涉及多个行业。去年至今，足迹已遍及全国多地。
作为一个以联合国命名的组织，一个在中国颁发众多富有权威感的国际大奖的组织，《w綈1刊》一篇报导揭露其中黑幕。报导说，今年6月，温州退休老师潘藻收到一份第七届全球论坛世界和谐大会邀请函，他立即交纳2万8000元参会费、3万元保证金，决定赴会。但最终没能去成，组织者称签证通不过，之后就再也联系不上。活动主办方之一正是联合国友好理事会。《w綈1刊》的这篇报导标题用上「洋人牙防组」。
在联合国网上根本查询不到联合国友好理事会，根据在2007全球人居环境论坛会刊介绍，该会成立于1985年，是联合国公共信息部属下的非政府、非赢利性国际组织。它有个英文网站，但页面极其简单。上面说，它在美国加州圣塔莫尼卡 (Santa Monica) 办公。
联合国系统驻华总协调机构、联合国系统驻华总代表——联合国开发计画署驻华代表处新闻官张薇说，「联合国驻华系统在中国有21个机构，其中根本没有友好理事会、地球理事会、世界和谐基金会。联合国并没有参与类似评奖活动；此类评奖活动根本没有得到我们的承认，我们正在对此进行调查。」
— 下一页 »
|
