通譯園地

【九屆通譯杯】大賽輔導-聽辨2

 2019-10-17    通譯翻譯|同聲傳譯

大賽輔導-聽辨2

 

         在賽前輔導-聽辨1的分享當中,本欄目給大家介紹了精聽的聽力練習方法。精聽的目的是提高聽辨能力的準確度,提高詞匯量。同時我們上次也提到了另一種練習聽辨能力的方法,那就是泛聽。

         現在很流行的一個概念是“沉浸式體驗”,可以說泛聽就是這樣的一種練習聽力的方式了,泛聽適用于大批量的聽力練習,在泛聽練習的過程當時,可以快速的使同學們對語言環境、英語口音熟悉起來,也是我們經常說的“磨耳朵”。在泛聽材料的選擇方面,通常我們可以選擇科普性質的較長的文章,或是對話和辯論。例如BBC24小時全天廣播,可以滿足同學們不管在何時何地都練習泛聽的要求,該電臺涵蓋的主題也是十分豐富,從航天航空到商業發展等等。

         在練習泛聽的時候,同學們應該注意語段或者探討內容的主題,抓住文章的中心思想和主要邏輯,不要過于糾結某一個詞的意思,要著重提高自己的理解能力。聽力練習告一段落后,推薦大家靜下心來,回想一下剛剛聽到的內容,自己做個英文總結,這種總結不一定非要以書面的形式呈現,可以是口頭的,但要注意在作總結練習的時候自己語法和句子的應用。

         接下來就請大家聽一下長度為3分鐘左右的一篇文章,并做泛聽練習。


參考文本:

Models for Arguments

Good morning, everyone. My name is David and I am good at arguing. So welcome to our introductory lecture on argumentation.

Why do we want to argue? Why do we try to convince other people to believe things that they don't want to believe? And is that even a nice thing to do? Is that a nice way to treat other human being, try and make them think something they don't want to think?

Well, my answer is going to make reference to three models for arguments.

The first model --- let's call this the dialectical model--- is that we think of arguments as war.

And you know what that's like. There is a lot of screaming and shouting and winning and losing.

And that's not really a very helpful model for arguing, but it's a pretty common and fixed one. I guess you must have seen that type of arguing many times--- in the street, on the bus or in the subway.

Let's move on to the second model. The second model for arguing regards arguments as proofs. Think of a mathematician's argument. Here's my argument. Does it work? Is it any good? Are the premises warranted? Are the inferences valid? Does the conclusion follow the premises? No opposition, no adversary--- not necessarily any arguing in the adversarial sense.

And there's a third model to keep in mind that I think is going to be very helpful, and that is arguments as performances. Argument has been in front of an audience. We can think of a politician trying to present a position, trying to convince the audience of something.

But there's another twist on this model that I really think is important; namely, that when we argue before an audience, sometimes the audience has a more participatory role in the argument; that is, you present your arguments in front of an audience who are like juries that make a judgment and decide the case.Let's call this model the rhetorical model, where you have to tailor your argument to the audience at hand.

Of those three, the argument as war is the dominant one. It dominates how we talk about arguments; it dominates how we think about arguments, and because of that, it shapes how we argue, our actual conduct in arguments. We want strong arguments, arguments that have a lot of punch, arguments that are right on target. We want to have our defenses up and our strategies all in order. We want killer arguments. That's the kind of argument we want. It is the dominant way of thinking about arguments.

When I'm talking about arguments, that's probably what you thought of, the adversarial model. But the war metaphor, the war paradigm or model for thinking about arguments, has, I think, negative effects on how we argue.

 

參考譯文:

論證的模式

大家早上好。

我叫大衛,擅長辯論。歡迎大家來聽這次辯論的介紹。

我們為什么想要辯論?為什么我們想要讓別人相信他們不愿相信的事情。這樣做到底好不好?這樣對待別人,試圖讓他們思考不想思考的事情,到底合不合適?

我的答案將涉及到三種辯論模式。

第一種模式,我們叫它辯證模式,這種模式中,我們把辯論看作戰爭。你也知道那是怎樣的情況。充斥著擾攘與成敗。這種模式對辯論幫助不大,卻很普遍,很常用。我猜你一定經常看到這種辯論:大街上,公交車上,地鐵里。

接下來我們看第二種模式。第二種論證模式把爭論作為驗證過程。想想數學家的論證。這是我的論點。這個論點有效嗎?有什么優點嗎?前提可以保證為真嗎?推斷有效嗎?結論與前提一致嗎?沒有反對方,沒有對抗,不需要任何反對的聲音與之爭論。

還有第三種模式,我覺得非常有用,它把辯論看作表演。辯論被呈現在觀眾面前。說到這里我們可以想到競爭某個職位的政客,試圖說服人們相信某些事。

但是我認為對這個模式的一個變化有必要指出,我們在觀眾面前辯論的時候,觀眾有時候會參與到辯論中。你將辯論呈現在觀眾面前,他們像陪審團一樣,做出決定,裁決案件。

我們把這個模式叫作修辭模式,你可以根據面前的觀眾修改辯論。

這三個模式中,將辯論當作戰爭的模式占主導地位。它使每當我們提起辯論,就是這種模式。這種模式基本代表了我們對辯論的理解,因此,它也影響著我們論證的方式以及在論證中我們的實際做法。我們需要強有力的辯論,直指目標。我們想把自己武裝起來,組織好策略去應對。我們想要擊敗對手。這是我們想要的辯論。這就是一種主流的辯論觀。

談到論證,你可能會想到對抗模式。但是我認為戰爭這個隱喻,將論證看作戰爭的范式或者模式對我們的辯論方式產生了消極作用。


腾讯广东麻将旧版本好友房1.5.0