中國(guó)譯協(xié)《中國(guó)翻譯》編輯部與江蘇人文環(huán)境藝術(shù)設(shè)計(jì)研究院（中國(guó)譯協(xié)江蘇培訓(xùn)中心）聯(lián)合舉辦第二十四屆韓素音青年翻譯獎(jiǎng)競(jìng)賽。具體參賽規(guī)則如下：
一、本屆競(jìng)賽分別設(shè)立英譯漢和漢譯英兩個(gè)獎(jiǎng)項(xiàng)，參賽者可任選一項(xiàng)或同時(shí)參加兩項(xiàng)競(jìng)賽。
二、《中國(guó)翻譯》2012年第1期以及中國(guó)譯協(xié)網(wǎng)（www.tac-online.org.cn）韓素音青年翻譯獎(jiǎng)專欄刊登競(jìng)賽規(guī)則、競(jìng)賽原文；參賽報(bào)名表請(qǐng)到中國(guó)翻譯協(xié)會(huì)網(wǎng)站韓素音青年翻譯獎(jiǎng)專欄下載。
三、參賽者年齡：45歲以下(1967年1月1日后出生)。
四、參賽譯文須獨(dú)立完成，杜絕抄襲現(xiàn)象，一經(jīng)發(fā)現(xiàn)，將取消參賽資格。請(qǐng)參賽者在大賽截稿之日前妥善保存參賽譯文，請(qǐng)勿在書(shū)報(bào)刊、網(wǎng)絡(luò)等任何媒體公布自己的參賽譯文，否則將被取消參賽資格并承擔(dān)由此造成的一切后果。
五、參賽譯文和參賽報(bào)名表格式要求：參賽譯文應(yīng)為WORD電子文檔，中文宋體、英文Times New Roman字體，全文小四號(hào)字，1.5倍行距，文檔命名格式為“XXX（姓名）英譯漢”或“XXX（姓名）漢譯英”。參賽報(bào)名表文檔命名格式為“XXX（姓名）英譯漢參賽報(bào)名表”或“XXX（姓名）漢譯英參賽報(bào)名表”。譯文正文內(nèi)請(qǐng)勿書(shū)寫(xiě)譯者姓名、地址等任何個(gè)人信息，否則將被視為無(wú)效譯文。每項(xiàng)參賽譯文一稿有效，恕不接收修改稿。
六、參賽方式及截稿日期：請(qǐng)參賽者于2012年5月31日（含）前將參賽譯文及參賽報(bào)名表以電子文檔附件形式發(fā)送至hansuyin2012@vip.163.com，發(fā)送成功的文檔得到自動(dòng)回復(fù)后，請(qǐng)勿重復(fù)發(fā)送。如需查詢是否發(fā)送成功，可在6月10日至7月10日之間撥打電話（010）68997177。本屆競(jìng)賽不再接收打印稿。
七、參賽者在提交參賽譯文后，交寄報(bào)名費(fèi)50元，如同時(shí)參加兩項(xiàng)競(jìng)賽，請(qǐng)交報(bào)名費(fèi) 100元。匯款方式注意事項(xiàng)如下：
1.         填制匯款單時(shí)請(qǐng)務(wù)必選擇“商務(wù)匯款”商務(wù)客戶號(hào)：111320065；
2.         收款人姓名欄務(wù)必填寫(xiě)：中國(guó)翻譯協(xié)會(huì)；
3.         請(qǐng)?jiān)诟窖詸趦?nèi)注明——“XXX（姓名）參賽報(bào)名費(fèi)”字樣；
4.         匯款地址：北京市西城區(qū)百萬(wàn)莊大街24號(hào)  郵編：100037；
未交報(bào)名費(fèi)的參賽譯文無(wú)效。
八、本屆競(jìng)賽設(shè)一、二、三等獎(jiǎng)和優(yōu)秀獎(jiǎng)若干名，一、二、三等獎(jiǎng)獲得者將被授予獎(jiǎng)金、獎(jiǎng)杯、證書(shū)和紀(jì)念品，優(yōu)秀獎(jiǎng)獲得者將被授予證書(shū)和紀(jì)念品。2012年第6期(11月15日出版)《中國(guó)翻譯》雜志將公布競(jìng)賽結(jié)果。
九、本屆競(jìng)賽頒獎(jiǎng)典禮將于2012年秋舉行，競(jìng)賽獲獎(jiǎng)?wù)邔�獲邀參加頒獎(jiǎng)典禮。
十、請(qǐng)隨時(shí)登錄中國(guó)譯協(xié)網(wǎng)站了解本屆競(jìng)賽最新信息。
聯(lián)系地址：北京市阜外百萬(wàn)莊大街24號(hào)《中國(guó)翻譯》編輯部  郵編：100037，電話：(010) 68997177；68990246   傳真：（010)68995951
電子信箱：hansuyin2012@vip.163.com
 
第二十四屆韓素音青年翻譯獎(jiǎng)競(jìng)賽評(píng)審委員會(huì)
2012年1月
 
附1：第二十四屆“韓素音青年翻譯獎(jiǎng)”競(jìng)賽參賽報(bào)名表
附2：第二十四屆韓素音青年翻譯獎(jiǎng)競(jìng)賽競(jìng)賽原文
英譯漢：
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 Hayes Valley 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.
 
漢譯英：
語(yǔ)言與社會(huì)身份
一個(gè)人的語(yǔ)言與其在社會(huì)中的身份其實(shí)密不可分。記得我在澳大利亞生活時(shí)，一位鄰居要競(jìng)選議員，他便每天早上起來(lái)練習(xí)發(fā)音，以令自己的講話讓人聽(tīng)起來(lái)悅耳、有身份。
的確，語(yǔ)言是一個(gè)人社會(huì)身份的標(biāo)志，特別是在多民族、多元文化的社會(huì)里。所謂“身份”，也是一種知識(shí)結(jié)構(gòu)，表明你來(lái)自那個(gè)社會(huì)群體的文化背景、知識(shí)程度甚至地理位置等。
語(yǔ)言會(huì)影響對(duì)于相應(yīng)文化的認(rèn)知。例如，有人調(diào)查發(fā)現(xiàn)，對(duì)于講雙語(yǔ)的中國(guó)人，在用中文問(wèn)到其關(guān)于文化觀念等問(wèn)題時(shí)，他們的回答顯然比用英文問(wèn)他們此類問(wèn)題時(shí)顯示出更多的中國(guó)人的做派。有意思的是，當(dāng)講廣東話的港澳人被用普通話問(wèn)到關(guān)于中國(guó)的文化、信仰等問(wèn)題時(shí)，他們的回答往往比聽(tīng)到用廣東話問(wèn)到此類問(wèn)題時(shí)的回答更接近西方人的表達(dá)方式。
其實(shí)，對(duì)于學(xué)習(xí)外語(yǔ)的華人來(lái)講，大部分的還不是真正意義上的所謂“雙語(yǔ)人”，而是“雙語(yǔ)使用者”；后者是在語(yǔ)言與表達(dá)層次，而前者則是思維與生活習(xí)性。但是，這個(gè)過(guò)程并不是靜止的，而是可以轉(zhuǎn)換的。
所以，語(yǔ)言學(xué)習(xí)者所學(xué)習(xí)的實(shí)際上是一種社會(huì)關(guān)系，一種他所理解的跨越時(shí)空所形成的關(guān)系。因而，他所面對(duì)的不僅僅是語(yǔ)言學(xué)的，而更是多重、變換著的社會(huì)身份問(wèn)題。
研究還表明，一個(gè)人的講話風(fēng)格并非是固定不變的，而是隨著社會(huì)環(huán)境和講話對(duì)象而變化的。一般來(lái)講，個(gè)人講話有一種趨同的傾向（即隨大流），但有時(shí)也會(huì)有趨異傾向（即顯示自己的特征）。譬如，我回到北京時(shí)，我的“北京腔”自覺(jué)就濃了很多；而我的英國(guó)朋友在澳大利亞時(shí)，其“英國(guó)腔”保持得更為明顯，不知是否有意顯出其身份。
人們?cè)谶m應(yīng)異國(guó)文化的過(guò)程中，對(duì)于自己母語(yǔ)的態(tài)度，也會(huì)有積極或消極兩種選擇。有的人，在積極投入其他主流文化的同時(shí)，有意消弱自己的母語(yǔ)能力；有的人，反而更加強(qiáng)、突出了這方面，認(rèn)為是一種優(yōu)勢(shì)。
一般來(lái)講，若某一社會(huì)群體所講、所用的語(yǔ)言是為社會(huì)所尊敬的那一種（如在英國(guó)，以女王為代表的貴族所講的語(yǔ)言），會(huì)有更高的社會(huì)優(yōu)越感，而其成員也會(huì)有意顯示出與眾不同，以保持其正面的群體特性。當(dāng)然，也難免會(huì)有他人向這一群體的講話方式靠攏。
一個(gè)人的語(yǔ)言，還可成為他人對(duì)其進(jìn)行評(píng)判的對(duì)象。據(jù)研究，可以從中判斷出其社會(huì)地位、教育程度、善良與否、智力、能力甚至財(cái)富等。
可見(jiàn)，語(yǔ)言對(duì)個(gè)人之意義。如果說(shuō)服裝是人的形體修飾，那么語(yǔ)言便是人的綜合價(jià)值的外在體現(xiàn)。所以，語(yǔ)言就不應(yīng)當(dāng)被視為僅僅是一種工具，而應(yīng)是一種素質(zhì)。

譯路通武漢翻譯公司整理

2012.7.8