委婉語課文翻譯

1、A euphemism is commonly defined as an auspicious or exalted term (like “sanitation engineer”) that is used in place of a more down-to-earth term (like “garbage man”). People who are partial to euphemisms stand accused of being “phony” or trying to bide what it is they are really talking about. And t

2、here is no doubt that in some situations the accusation is entirely proper. For example, one of the more detestable euphemisms I have come across in recent years is the term “Operation Sunshine,” which is the name the U. S. Government gave to some experiments it conducted with the hydrogen bomb in t

3、he South Pacific. It is obvious that the government, in choosing this name, was trying to expunge the hideous imagery that the bomb evokes and in so doing committed, as I see it, an immoral act. This sort of process giving pretty names to essentially ugly realities is what has given euphemizing such

4、 a bad name. And people like George Orwell have done valuable work for all of us in calling attention to how the process works. But there is another side to euphemizing that is worth mentioning, and a few words here in its defense will not be amiss. To begin with, we must keep in mind that things do

5、 not have “real” names, although many people believe that they do. A garbage man is not “really” a “garbage man,” more than he is a “sanitation engineer.” And a pig is not called a “pig” because it is so dirty, nor a shrimp a “shrimp” because it is so small. There are things, and then there are the

6、names of things, and it is considered a fundamental error in all branches of semantics to assume that a name and a thing are one and the same. It is true, of course, that a name is usually so firmly associated with the thing it denotes that it is extremely difficult to separate one from the other. T

7、hat is why, for example, advertising is so effective. Perfumes are not given names like “Bronx Odor,” and an automobile will never be called “The Lumbering Elephant.” Shakespeare was only half right in saying that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. What we call things affects how we will

8、 perceive them. It is not only harder to sell someone a “horse mackerel” sandwich than a “tuna fish” sandwich, but even though they are the “same” thing, we are likely to enjoy the taste of tuna more than that of the horse mackerel. It would appear that human beings almost naturally come to identify

9、 names with things, which is one of our more fascinating illusions. But there is some substance to this illusion. If you change the names of things, you change how people will regard them, and that is as good as changing the nature of the thing itself. Now, all sorts of scoundrels know this perfectl

10、y well and can make us love almost anything by getting us the charm of a name to whatever worthless thing they are promoting. But at the same time and in the same vein, euphemizing is a perfectly intelligent method of generating new and useful ways of perceiving things. The man who wants us to call

11、him a “sanitation engineer” instead of a “garbage man” is hoping we will treat him with more respect than we presently do. He wants us to see that he is of some importance to our society. His euphemism is laughable only if we think that he is not deserving of such notice or respect. The teacher who

12、prefers us to use the term “culturally different children” instead of “slum children” is euphemizing, all right, but is doing it to encourage us to see aspects of a situation that might otherwise not be attended to. The point I am making is that there is nothing in the process of euphemizing itself

13、that is contemptible. Euphemizing is contemptible when a name makes us see something that is not true or diverts our attention from something that is. The hydrogen bomb kills. There is nothing else that it does. And when you experiment with it, you are trying to find out how widely and well it kills

14、. Therefore, to call such an experiment “Operation Sunshine” is to suggest a purpose for the bomb that simply does not exist. But to call “slum children” “culturally different” is something else. It calls attention, for example, to legitimate reasons why such children might feel alienated from what

15、goes on in school. I grant that sometimes such euphemizing does not have the intended effect. It is possible for a teacher to use the term “culturally different” but still be controlled by the term “slum children” (which the teacher may believe is their “real” name). “Old people” may be called “seni

16、or citizens,” and nothing might change. And “l(fā)unatic asylums” may still be filthy, primitive prisons though they are called “mental institutions.” Nonetheless, euphemizing may be regarded as one of our more important intellectual resources for creating new perspectives on a subject. The attempt to r

17、ename “old people” “senior citizens” was obviously motivated by a desire to give them a political identity; which they not only warrant but which may yet have important consequences。 In fact, the fate of euphemisms is very hard to predict. A new and seemingly silly name may replace an old one (let u

18、s say, “chairperson” for “chairman”) and for years no one will think or act any differently because of it. And then, gradually, as people begin to assume that “chairperson” is the “real” and proper name (or “senior citizen” or “tuna fish or sanitation engineer”), their attitudes begin to shift, and

19、they will approach things in a slightly different frame of mind. There is a danger, of course, in supposing that a new name can change attitudes quickly or always. But to suppose that such changes never amount to anything is to underestimate the power of names. I have been astounded not only by how

20、rapidly the name “blacks” has replaced “Negroes” (a kind of euphemizing in reverse) but also by how significantly perceptions and attitudes have shifted as an accompaniment to the change. The key idea here is that euphemisms are a means through which a culture may alter its imagery and by so doing s

21、ubtly change its style, its priorities, and its values. I reject categorically the idea that people who use “earthy” 1anguage are speaking more directly or with more authenticity than people who employ euphemisms. Saying that someone is “dead” is not to speak more plainly or honestly than saying he

22、has “passed away.” It is, rather, to suggest a different conception of what the event means. To ask where the “shithouse” is, is no more to the point than to ask where the “restroom” is. But in the difference between the two words, there is expressed a vast difference in ones attitude toward privacy

23、 and propriety. What I am saying is that the process of euphemizing has no moral content. The moral dimensions are supplied by what the words in question express, what they want us to value and to see. A nation that calls experiments with bombs “Operation Sunshine” is very frightening. On the other

24、hand, a people who call “garbage men” “sanitation engineers” cant be all bad. 翻譯: 委婉語通常被定義為一個用一個吉祥或頌揚(yáng)的詞匯，像“衛(wèi)生工程師”來替代一個更加就事論事的詞，像“清潔工”。喜歡用委婉語的人通常受人指責(zé)虛偽或者企圖掩飾他們真正想要說的事情。毫無疑問，有些情況下這種指責(zé)是完全合理的。比如，今年來我所見過的最讓人惡心的是“陽光行動”這一術(shù)語，它指的是美國政府在南太平洋進(jìn)行氫彈的實(shí)驗(yàn)。很明顯，在選擇這一術(shù)語時(shí)，政府企圖消除炸彈在人們心中引發(fā)的恐怖形象，這在我看來是相當(dāng)不道德的行為。這種將一些很漂亮的名稱加在

25、很丑陋的事情頭上的行為讓委婉語臭名遠(yuǎn)揚(yáng)。有像喬治.奧維爾的人為我們所有人做了很珍貴的工作，他們喚起人們對這類委婉語的使用過程的注意。但委婉語的使用有另外一面值得一提，在這里為委婉語辯護(hù)幾句不會有錯。首先，我們必須意識到事物本身并沒有“真正”的名字，盡管有許多人認(rèn)為有。一個清潔工不論其名字是“清潔工”還是一個“衛(wèi)生工程師”，其本質(zhì)是一樣的。 一頭豬被人們叫成“豬”，并不是因?yàn)樗K，一只蝦被稱為“蝦”并不是因?yàn)樗?。先有事事物存在然后才有事物的名字，如果認(rèn)為事物和它們的名字是等同和一一對應(yīng)的關(guān)系的話就犯了語義學(xué)中最基本的一個錯誤。當(dāng)然，一個名字往往與它指稱的事物緊密聯(lián)系以至于很難將兩者區(qū)分開來。這

26、就是為什么一種香水在打廣告的時(shí)候不取名叫“布朗克斯區(qū)臭氣”，一臺汽車絕不會被稱之為“木象”的原因。莎翁說“一朵玫瑰不論叫什么名字都一樣香”，這一說法不完全準(zhǔn)確。事物的名稱影響我們對它們的感知。雖然“馬鮫魚”三明治和“金槍魚”三明治指的是一個東西，但前者不僅難賣的多，而且我們可能覺得它的口味要差一些。也許看起來人類幾乎自然而然將事物和它們的名字聯(lián)系起來，這是我們的奇妙的幻覺。但這種幻覺存在一定得道理，因?yàn)槿绻愀淖兪挛锏拿郑憔透淖兞巳藗儗λ鼈兊目捶?，這就好改變了這事物本身的本質(zhì)特性?，F(xiàn)在所有的無賴都非常清楚他們能通過將他們推銷的百無一用的產(chǎn)品取一個好聽的名字來使我們愛上他們的產(chǎn)品。但是同時(shí)以同樣的方式，委婉表達(dá)是一種非常智慧的方法是人產(chǎn)生感知事物新穎且有用的方法。希望人們稱其為“衛(wèi)生工程師”而非“清潔工”的人希望人們給以他比現(xiàn)在更多的尊重。他希望我們看到他對社會的重要性。如果我們認(rèn)為他們不值得這樣的關(guān)注或尊重，那他這樣的委婉才顯得可笑。老師傾向于我們使用“文化不同的孩子”這一表達(dá)而不是“貧民區(qū)小孩”，這種委婉表達(dá)是可行的，這樣做是鼓勵我們看到現(xiàn)實(shí)生活中我們沒有關(guān)注的一些方面。我想說的是委婉表達(dá)本身是沒有值得鄙視的。只有當(dāng)