高英写作11-15课翻译.doc

11 Our Unfortunate Convicts我们不幸的囚徒the Prison Commissioners say the results of imprisonment must be: retributory (the word vindictive is not in official use), deterrent, and reformative. 译文 1当人们最后不得不想一想, 他们对我们的不幸的囚徒都做了些什么的时候, 他们想不好,越想越乱,以致于只会把事情搞得更糟。比方说, 监狱委员会官方列出要达到的目的是: 服刑必须罪有应得(官方不用“报复”这个词); 第二, 要能够惩前毖后, 惩一儆百; 第三, 要能够将犯人改造成新人。 pneumonia, 肺炎 n. infection of lungs 译文 2但是，如果你想惩罚一个人，你就得恨（包括恨铁不成钢），就得伤害他的自尊心。而你要改造他，你就得爱他，感化他，使他进步。但是伤害了自尊心就不能使人进步。想用同一个操作又惩罚又改造一个人，就完全象你想用惩罚和治疗结合起来处理一个患肺炎的人。你说，患肺炎的人会传染给其他人，对社会有害，他如果注意健康就不会得肺炎，所以你就认为他应该受到严惩，惩罚他的疏忽, 惩罚他的肺脏虚弱，从而防止别人学他样子。于是，你就扒光了他的衣服，让他在雪地里站上一夜。而你又承认，你有责任，尽可能地恢复他的健康，让他带着健康的肺出院（离开），于是你就得请一位医生，同时负责惩罚他和给他配咳嗽药。但咳嗽药还得苦得不能再苦，因为你怕惯坏了这个病人。发布这样命令的监狱委员会，要么是弱智，要么就是热中于惩罚病人，一点也不想给他治病。 at stake, 危险，危如累卵 adv. very dangerously 译文 3如果我们的监狱长们想把惩罚和道德上的改造结合在一起，那么他们就会坠入同样的进退维谷的境地。人们告诉我们，他们从来就没有忘记要改造人，但是他们却下令并实际上系统地摧残（羞辱）犯人的自尊心。我们从一个监狱牧师那里得知，他并不能改造犯人, 因为 他“认为让犯人相互表示基督精神和表示社会道德是没有用的。”对于监狱长们的这个自相矛盾的唯一能使人感到的安慰就是，他们怎么写报告说明他们良心上不太好受。因为这些折磨人的人本能地感到他们是在说谎，感到他们是伪君子但是，这些矛盾只有把他们放在一起才看得出而监狱委员会把它们隔开好几页来写，一般读者的记忆力，看起来，如果不是利害攸关，是不会把这二部分联系起来的 Reader and purpose Ex. 1 Shaws readers are judicial officials, prison commissioners and those who are interested in British and American prisons. Organization Ex. 2 the authors first step is to define the term imprisonment traditionally, that is, he explains what the traditional penological theory has been. Ex. 3 In paragraph 2, Shaw begins to expose the contradiction in the first sentence. In the third sentence he explicitly points out the contradiction And men are not improved by injuries. Ex. 4 The analogy begins with as if in the fourth sentence. Analogy is a method of exposition that uses extended comparison, explaining something unknown or unfamiliar in terms of a known or familiar one. Shaw assumes that the criminals nature is responsible for the crime he commits. cough lozenges reformative practice pulmonary weakness criminals nature severe lesson punishment doctor warden Board of Commissioners Committee of Prison Commissioners this analogy does not actually prove the folly of the system of punishment because the two situation are not exactly the same. The moral responsibility for each case is not similar either: a person who suffers from pneumonia is innocent, but a person who commits a crime is guilty. Physical defect is pardonable, but the criminals offense is not pardonable. Here, the analogy does not constitute a logical proof; it is only an effective method in argumentation and persuasion.Ex. 5Shaw returns to the subject of prisons when he uses the phrase in the same dilemma to apply his analogy.Shaw repeats the contradiction to remind the reader of the contradiction.He supports his argument by referring to what the prisons authorities say and what they do: We are told.yet., and to be more convincing he quotes exactly what a chaplain says, he does not think , which is contradictory to reformation.Ex. 6Shaws main purpose is to argue that the traditional penological theory is contradictory. This part from lines 34-42 is ad hominem, having little connection with his main purpose.The value of this part is obvious: he extends his condemnation from the penological theory to the people who make it.SentencesEx. 7Deter and reform have lost emphasis.He emphasizes the two words in order to reinforce the contradictionEx. 8the three sentences are cast in a syllogistical form to deduct a contradictory conclusion since men are no improved by injuries. Punish and reform are also contradictory, that is, you can either punish or reform someone, but you cannot do both. The impossibility of doing both can be seen more clearly in the following syllogism. If you go to Guangzhou, you must go southwards. If you go to Shenyang, you have to go northwards. You cannot go both south and north at the same time.The second sentence has a pattern parallel to the first and helps to form a neat syllogism, preparing the way for a contradictory conclusion, which is then exposed more clearly.Ex. 9The sentence is argueing.to deter others from following his example. The ideas in it are placed in a sequence that follows natural thinking: a man with pneumonia is a danger; then you think of the cause of the disease that he has not taken care of his health; so you resolve to punish him to give him a lesson and to deter the others. This is the logical thinking. If you do not mention the reason first (he has not taken proper care of himself), you cannot jump to the decision to punish him. There would be a missing link in the natural thinking and your resolution to punish would be groundless.DictionEx. 10 Look uppunitive, intended as punishment, punishing resolve, to decide, to determine negligence, carelessness pulmonary, concerning the lungs imbecile, a person of weak mind, low intelligence hypocrites, people who say one thing and do another, dishonest people Ex. 11Both retributory and vindictive mean punishing. However, retributory is a formal, dignified word. Vindictive suggests that the action taken is based on feeling rather than reason. The choice of words implies that the prison officials refine their wording to avoid possible social charges. The quotation marks around retributory and the following parenthetical remark implies that the prison officials are hypocrites.Ex. 12Cough lozenges taste a little sweet. However, this little comfort to the patient is called to pamper the culprit to be too kind to the patient. This analogy, when applied to the imprisonment policy, is a satirical thrust at the authors opponents.Ex. 13Examples of Shaws frankness: deliberately order, systematic humiliation, the tormentors, liars and hypocrites.Candor makes its ideas sharper and clearer, and leave no room for reconciliation. It might be a fault when it becomes slander or insult, when it is exaggerated irrationally, or when it is overused. According to the rules of argument, these labels are appropriate and deserving, not name-calling. Ex. 14A dilemma is a position that makes one very hard to choose between two courses of action. Shaw exposes the contradiction between punishment and reformation, and thus forces his opponents in dilemma by using an analogy.Ex. 15Shaws real intention is that convicts are mishandled by the prison officials. In this sense, they are unfortunate. But the word unfortunate might be misinterpreted as Shaws sympathy for the prisoners who have committed crime, or even worse.Ex. 16Mr. Rowell argues by analysis and by making reference to historical facts while Shaw argues mainly by making an analogy and by appealing to reason and emotions. Rowell adopted a matter of fact tone while Shaw a satiric tone.12 The Third Knights Speech 第三个骑士的发言T. S. Eliot T. S.艾略特 New words recur to, persist, repeat, return under dog, one at a disadvantage fair play, play that follows the rules, fairness, treatment that is fair and just Archbishop, chief bishop 大主教 hard-headed, realistic clap-trap, pretentious or empty speech Analysis of the text 1 I should like first to recur to a point that was very well put by our leader, Reginald redVidnEld Fitz Urse E:z: that you are Englishmen and therefore your sympathies are always with the under dog. It is the English spirit of fair play. He flatters Now the worthy Archbishop, whose good qualities I very much admired, disarms the reader, and sets the tone of his argument has throughout been presented as the under dog. But is this really the case? I am going to appeal not to your emotions but to your reason. You are hard-headed sensible people flatters , as I can see, and not to be taken in by emotional clap-trap. I therefore ask you to consider soberly: what were the Archbishops aims? and what are King Henrys aims? In the answer to these questions lies the key to the problem. establishes the lines along which he will proceed Skills: When you speak or write, always try to flatter and disarm the audience or reader. These two skills are useless in argument, but they are very powerful in motivation and persuasion. 译文 1首先，我想再讲一下我们的领导，吴哲讲的，你们是英国人，所以你们总是同情失败者。这就是英国人公平竞争的精神。我非常敬佩我们可敬的大主教。人家一直把他当成彻底的失败者。但这是真的吗？我不打算煽动你们，只和你们讲讲道理。我知道，你们都是务实而精明的人。不会掉进感情的圈子。所以我请你们冷静地考虑一下，主教的目的是什么，亨利国王的目的又是什么。全部事件的关键，就在对这两个问题的回答之中。 Analysis Because the kingdom was in a divided state of chaos, the king was to restore order to curb the excessive power of local government, to systematise judiciary, and to have a union of spiritual and temporal administration under the central government. Because Becket had whole-heartedly supported the Kings designs, and in various official relations showed that he was very well qualified to fill the posts of Chancellor and Archbishop. However, when the King appointed him Archbishop, he resigned the office of Chancellor, and affirmed immediately that there was a higher order than that of the Kings. The logic seems perfectly right. But we dont know why Becket did this. Was he at his free will or was he reluctant to do, for example was ordered to do? 译文 2国王的目标一直没有变。在已故的马蒂答女王的统治和愁眉苦脸的斯蒂芬篡夺朝纲的时候，王国已经四分五裂。我们国王看出要做的事是恢复秩序，结束地方政府为了自私的目的和煽动性的结果而造成的权力过大，把司法关系理顺。那时都乱套了：有三种法制和三个法庭，这就属于国王的，属于大主教的，和属于贵族们的。这里，我必须重复一下上一发言人所讲的观点。当已故的大主教任首相的时候，他全心全意地支持国王的设计。这是一个非常重要的问题。如果需要，我可以证明。后来国王打算要白克特把首相和大主教的办公室合而为一。没人否认，白克特是极其有能力的行政大臣。没有人嫉妒那一点。没有谁比他更适合马上兼任这两个职务。要是白克特和国王的意愿一致，我们早就有一个十全十美的国家，一个中央政府领导下的政教合一的国家了。 在处理官方各种关系中，我认识了白克特 （我都深知白克特的能力）；而且可以说我所认识的人中，没有谁比他更适合文职上的这个最高职务。但后来怎么样？国王一提名他为大主教，他就辞去了首相。他比牧师还牧师。他故意显示，带着挑衅味道地接受了苦行僧式的生活方式。 （让人感到有冒犯的味道）他公开地放弃了他此前一直支持的政策。他立即宣称说，尽管他是国王的臣仆，他认为有一个比我们的国王多年来一直着力创建的秩序还高的秩序。我不知道为什么这两个秩序（统治、领导、体制）不能相容，不能合二而一。 译文 3你们会同意我的观点。这种由一个主教造成的干扰，触犯了我们英国这样的民族的本能。到目前为止，我知道你们是同意的。我可以从你们的脸上看出来。为了把问题处理得正确一些 为了拨乱反正， 我们不得不采取你们不喜欢的非常手段。其实，没有谁比我们更不愿意采用暴力。非常不幸的是，有时要保持社会的正义，非要用暴力不可。在别的时候，你们可以通过议会投票来指责白克特，把他当做卖国贼处死。那时就没有谁要担当杀人犯的罪名了。现在不采用暴力， 再过一些时候，错过了这次的机会，甚至连议会投票这样的温和手段也不必要了。但是如果你们认为教会的权力应该从属于国家的利益，请注意，是我们采取了第一步。为了实现你们同意的国事，我们成了工具。我们是为你们服务的。我们获得了你们的赞同。如果我们有什么罪过的话，你们也逃脱不了责任。 （摘自大教堂的谋杀） Analysis The outline of the logic of the total argument: It is necessary to unite the kingdom to restore order. To achieve the unity of England, the church and the government must be united. The church must be subordinated to the central government. Becket refuses to join the offices of chancellor and Archbishop, so he must be dismissed as a traitor. Fallacy: the reason for calling him a traitor is not mentionedViolence is necessary to remove a traitor, Fallacy: the reason why violence is necessary is not mentioned therefore, Beckets assassination is justified. Reader and purpose Ex. 1 In this selection, the third knight argues deductively. Beginning with certain general principles, he infers from them a conclusion that, in his own mind at least, justifies the assassination of Becket. Of course, he adduces cites facts here and there to support some of the premises of his logic, but his method remains one of deductive rather than of inductive reasoning. His audience is the solid, bourgeois, English noble class. They dont want chaos and division. They need an orderly unified, rational, reliable, strong central government to protect them. These are the bases that his argument lies on. Every speaker has to meet his audiences needs. To make sure what his listeners hope to hear is called audience analysis. Audience analysis is the essence of an effective public speech and private talk. Ex. 2 As an argument, the third knights speech is less convincing because we dont know the reason of the resignation, the need of assassination, and the urgency of carrying it out. However, just because he flatters the audience, blackmails them, and puts on a face that he works in their interests, the ordinary audience wont find his fallacies in his speech. Organization Ex. 3 In paragraph 1 the knight very skillfully does three things: he flatters his audience at the beginning, then sets the tone of his argument in the middle, and at the end establishes the lines along which he will proceed. He does this because flattery disarms his audience and makes them blindly accept his false justification. Ex. 4 Although the bones of its logic are well hidden in the enthymemes 省略三段论, a syllogism in which a premise is implicit in which it develops, the argument in paragraphs 2 and 3 is essentially a syllogism, or rather linked syllogisms, which the paragraphing is used to separate. The beginning of the second paragraph develops the first premise: The Church must be subordinated to the State, otherwise the country will be divided and in great chaos as England was under the rules of the Usurper Stephen only a few years ago. And then in the second half of the paragraph, the Knight argues that Becket was upsetting this order. This is the minor premise. The audience can draw the conclusion that Becket must be removed. The Knight was sly, he doesnt mention it. He lets the audience do it. Ex. 5 In Paragraph 3 taking the conclusion of the second paragraph as its major premise: Becket must be removed, the Knight argues his minor premise: Violence is absolutely necessary for such removal and further draws his conclusion: Therefore Becket must be assassinated. He knows that assassination is illegal, so he find some excuse to justify himself: at a later time condemnation of an Archbishop by vote of Parliament and execution of him as a traitor would become unnecessary. Ex. 6 The conclusion of the syllogism in Paragraph 2 is the major premise of the syllogism in Paragraph 3. Ex. 7 Outline of the text: It is necessary to unite the kingdom to restore order. To achieve the unity of England, the church and the government must be united. The church must be subordinated to the central government. Becket refuses to join the offices of chancellor and Archbishop, so he must be dismissed as a traitor. Violence is necessary to remove a traitor, therefore, Beckets assassination if justified. This logic is not faulty. It is valid. But valid syllogistic reasoning may not necessarily lead to a true conclusion when some premises may be wrong. Here the Knight does not tell us why Becket refused to hold two posts and neither he explains why the present situation is so urgent as to require a murder. Sentences Ex. 8 The Knights sentences are short and straightforward, and therefore easy for listener to follow. Besides lucidity clearness, such style has here another value. The sentence structure suggest that the Knight is a frank, honest, intelligent, sensible and vigorous man. Such a man is worthy of their trust, not all unjustifiable. Ex. 9 Though sometimes the sentences grow complicated, the skillful arrangement of punctuation, such as colon :, semi-colon ;, and dash , enumeration in ll. 19-20, parallel structure, such as in ll. 20-21, ll. 27-29, ll. 36-4, and similar structure, such as there are times, at another time, and at a later time still, helps keep them easy to follow. Ex. 10 In the last paragraph, the deliberate repetitions of we have not only bind the passage into unity, but also conveys the idea of noble-mindedness of working on others behalf at the risk of being called murderers. Ex. 11 The original is a periodical sentence, creating suspense and making the audience fixed in supporting him. The revision destroys this effect. Diction Ex. 12 Look up clap trap, empty, insincere and worthless speech or writing intended only to win praise and attention usurper, one who seizes power for himself, especially unlawfully seditious, being sinister in an attempt to use violence against a government, full of subversive activities, rebellious concur, agree with substantiate, supply evidence ostentatiously, in a showy way so as to let everyone know temperate, mild pretension, claim, demand of interests Ex. 13 As logician and as political speaker, the Knight is equally adept highly skillful. These make, indeed, a peculiar combination for, however well logic may serve the philosopher, it is weaker instrument for the needs of the politician, who must often persuade audiences immune to resist logic. The Knight knows that, so he seeks to move men by appealing to their self-esteem and to their prejudices as well as to their minds reason. In logic, this is called ad populum fallacy 诉诸人情. Thus he flatters at the beginning and at the end of his speech. For examples, agree with me, the instincts of a people like ours, I have your approval, I see in your face, instrumental, serve in your interests, etc. Ex. 14 Argumentum ad hominem 迎合对方偏见 means calculating to prejudice of the audience. Ex. 15 Unhappily in the context means unfortunately. It suggests a reluctant tone: the Knight is unwilling to use violence, but they have to when social justice is disturbed. Thus they are noble-minded and unselfish in murdering Becket. They engaged in murdering him only because it was a necessity. I should like first sounds more polite and less obtrusive than I shall first. Ex. 16 The tu quoque 你也一样 fallacy is one in argument which means If I am guilty, you are guilty too, and very body has share. This is false because it is a kind of blackmail: If i commit a crime for your benefit, you are as guilty as I am. Ex. 17 Although the Knight is not beyond using flattery and other fallacies, he does avoid more obvious excesses. A more impassioned speaker might have used high treason, travesty of justice in stead of chaos. The Knight tries to establish his public image as a frank and upright man. So he chooses some mild diction and never forgets to praise Becket. He plays tricks on his audien