TextCONSERVATION AND POLITICIANS
(1) Conservation and ecology are suddenly fashionable. (2) Politicians on both sides of the Atlantic are seizing on 'the environment' as a topical political ussue. (3) It seems, however, that they are in danger of missing the point. (4) Protecting our environment cannot be achieved simply by some magic new technology; nor by tinkering with our present system. (5) Saving the environment raises profound questions about some of fundamental assumptions of any society. (6) It is doubtful whether some of the politicians now climbing on the conservation bandwagon fully realise this point, or whether they would be so enthusiastic if they did. (7) Serious environmental conservation means that governments will have to set pollution standards, despite cries from the offending industries that their foreign competitors will benefit. (8) Politicians will have to face up to some extremely awkward decisions: for instance, whether to ban cars without anti-pollution devices. (9) There will have to be international agreements in which short-term national interests have to be sacrificed. (10) It means, in short, a more responsible view of man's relationship to his habitat.
Text Analysis
(1) What is environment? What is environmental conservation (protection)? Is there anything in common between a conservative and a conservationist? What do they want to conserve?(2) What is a politician? Is this word positive or derogatory? What continents lie on both sides of the Atlantic? How can one "seize on the environment"? Does that phrase imply disapprobation?(3) What is the difference between "to be in danger" and "to be in danger of doing smth."? What is "to miss the poinf'? What is "the point" in this case?(4) Why do people think of new technology as "magic"? What does "tinker" mean? What connotation has it got in the sentence?(5) How can the expression "to raise a question" be used? Does it mean here the same as "to call in question" or "to raise doubts"? What is an assumption? How is it used in politics? in philosophy? in everyday life?
(6) What is "to climb (or to get) on the bandwagon"? Is it a deserving or an undeserving action? What is meant here by "conservation bandwagon"?(7) What does the modal verb "to have to" imply? What are pollution standards? Does the word "cries" here mean "shouts", "protests" or "complaints"? Why are industries referred to as "offending"?(8) What is "to face up to smth."? Does it imply a pleasant or an unpleasant experience? What is an "awkward decision" for a politician? What is an "anti-pollution device"? Why should cars be provided with such devices? Will cars with such devices be cheaper or more expensive to make?(9) Why are national interests referred to here as "short-term"? In what way may they be sacrificed in protecting the environment?(10) What is "habitat"? How can the words "a responsible view of man's relationship to his habitat" be paraphrased?
|
|
|
Problem-Solving ExercisesA. Levels of Equivalence
I. Compare the following translations with the respective sentences in the text. State at what level of equivalence each of them is rendered into Russian.
1. Кажется, однако, что им грозит опасность упустить суть дела (3). 2. Окружающую нас среду нельзя уберечь с помощью какой-то новой техники, способной творить чудеса ... (4). 3. Охрана окружающей среды поднимает серьезные вопросы относительно основополагающих принципов любого общества (5). 4, Сомнительно, чтобы некоторые из политических деятелей, спешащих примкнуть к движению за охрану окружающей среды, полностью осознавали этот факт... (6).
II. At what level of equivalence would you translate sentence (2)? or sentence (8)?
III. Which of the following translations of sentence (1) is made at a higher level of equivalence?
a) Все вдруг заговорили об экологии и охране окружающей среды.
b) Экология и охрана окружающей среды стали вдруг модными темами.
IV. Compare the following translations of sentence (7). Which of them would you prefer (if either)? Give your reasons.
|
|
|
a) Серьезное сохранение окружающей среды означает, что правительства должны будут установить нормы загрязнения...
b) Если серьезно заниматься охраной окружающей среды, то правительствам придется принять принудительные меры против ее загрязнения...
V. Raise the level of equivalence of the following translation of sentence
(9): Краткосрочные национальные интересы будут принесены в жертву будущим международным соглашениям.
VI. Translate sentence (10) at the 4th level of equivalence.
VII. What arguments can you find to prove that sentence (4) should not be translated at the 5th level of equivalence?
VIII. What makes a word-for-word translation of sentence (2) impossible?
IX. What errors, if any, do you see in the following translation of sentence (8)?
Политиканам придется столкнуться лицом к лицу с крайне неудобными решениями, например, запретом на автомобили, не снабженные специальными устройствами, предотвращающими загрязнение атмосферы.
X. Translate the text. State what level of equivalence is achieved in each sentence.
Дата добавления: 2018-05-02; просмотров: 2736; Мы поможем в написании вашей работы! |
Мы поможем в написании ваших работ!