第28届韩素音青年翻译比赛英译汉原文及参考译文

英译汉竞赛原文

On Irritability

Irritability is the tendency to get upset for reasons that seem – to other people – to be pretty minor. Your partner asks you how work went and the way they ask makes you feel intensely agitated. Your partner is putting knives and forks on the table before dinner and you mention (not for the first time) that the fork should go on the left hand side, not the right. They then immediately let out a huge sigh and sweep the cutlery onto the floor and tell you that you can xxxx-ing do it yourself if you know better. It was the most minor of criticisms and technically quite correct. And now they’ve exploded.

There is so much irritability around and it exacts a huge daily cost on our collective lives, so we deserve to get a lot more curious about it: what is really going on for the irritable person? Why, really, are they getting so agitated? And instead of blaming them for getting het up about “little things”, we should do them the honour of working out why, in fact, these things may not be so minor after all.

The journey begins by recognising the role of fear in irritability in couples. Behind most outbursts are cack-handed attempts to teach the other person something. There are things we’d like to point out, flaws that we can discern, remarks we feel we really must make, but our awareness of how to proceed is panicked and hasty. We give cack-handed, mean speeches, which bear no faith in the legitimacy (even the nobility) of the act of imparting advice. And when our partners are on the receiving end of these irritable “lessons”, they of course swiftly grow defensive and brittle in the face of suggestions which seem more like mean-minded and senseless assaults on their very natures rather than caring, gentle attempts to address troublesome aspects of joint life.

The prerequisite of calm in a teacher is a degree of indifference as to the success or failure of the lesson. One naturally wants for things to go well, but if an obdurate pupil flunks trigonometry, it is – at base – their problem. Tempers can stay even because individual students do not have very much power over teachers’ lives. Fortunately, as not caring too much turns out to be a critical aspect of successful pedagogy.

Yet this isn’t an option open to the fearful, irritable lover. They feel ineluctably led to deliver their “lessons” in a cataclysmic, frenzied manner (the door slams very loudly indeed) not because they are insane or vile (though one could easily draw these conclusions) so much as because they are terrified; terrified of spoiling what remains of their years on the planet in the company of someone who it appears cannot in any way understand a pivotal point about conversation, or cutlery, or the right time to order a taxi.

One knows intuitively, when teaching a child, that only the utmost care and patience will ever work: one must never shout, one has to use extraordinary tact, one has to make ten compliments for every one negative remark and one must leave oneself plenty of time…

All this wisdom we reliably forget in love’s classroom, sadly because increasing the level of threat seldom hastens development. We do not grow more reasonable, more accepting of responsibility and more accurate about our weaknesses when our pride has been wounded, our integrity is threatened and our self-esteem has been violated.

The complaint against the irritable person is that they are getting worked up over “nothing”. But symbols offer a way of seeing how a detail can stand for something much bigger and more serious. The groceries placed on the wrong table are not upsetting at all in themselves. But symbolically they mean your partner doesn’t care about domestic order; they muddle things up; they are messy. Or the question about one’s day is experienced as a symbol of interrogation, a lack of privacy and a humiliation (because one’s days rarely go well enough).

The solution is, ideally, to concentrate on what the bigger issue is. Entire philosophies of life stir and collide beneath the surface of apparently petty squabbles. Irritations are the outward indications of stifled debates between competing conceptions of existence. It’s to the bigger themes we need to try to get.

In the course of discussions, one might even come face-to-face with that perennially surprising truth about relationships: that the other person is not an extension of oneself that has, mysteriously, gone off message. They are that most surprising of things, a different person, with a psyche all of their own, filled with a perplexing number of subtle, eccentric and unforeseen reasons for thinking as they do.

The decoding may take time, perhaps half an hour or more of concentrated exploration for something that had until then seemed as if it would more rightfully deserve an instant.

We pay a heavy price for this neglect; every conflict that ends in sour stalemate is a blocked capillary within the heart of love. Emotions will find other ways to flow for now, but with the accumulation of unresolved disputes, pathways will fur and possibilities for trust and generosity narrow.

A last point. It may just be sleep or food: when a baby is irritable, we rarely feel the need to preach about self-control and a proper sense of proportion. It’s not simply that we fear the infant’s intellect might not quite be up to it, but because we have a much better explanation of what is going on. We know that they’re acting this way – and getting bothered by any little thing – because they are tired, hungry, too hot or having some challenging digestive episode.

The fact is, though, that the same physiological causes get to us all our lives. When we are tired, we get upset more easily; when we feel very hungry, it takes less to bother us. But it is immensely difficult to transfer the lesson in generosity (and accuracy) that we gain around to children and apply it to someone with a degree in business administration or a pilot’s license, or to whom we have been married for three-and-a-half years.

We should try to see irritability for what it actually is: a confused, inarticulate, often shameful attempt to get us to understand how much someone is suffering and how urgently they need our help. We should – when we can manage it – attempt to help them out.

参考译文

说说易怒

易怒是动辄为一些在旁人看来微不足道的小事而恼怒的现象。比如伴侣问起你工作的情况，询问的方式令你大为不快。又比如当他正为晚餐摆放刀叉，你提醒说（不是第一次了）叉子应该放在左侧，而非右侧。对方旋即一声粗叹，将刀叉一下扫落在地，冲你大吼，你摆得好，你就xxx自己来啊。你压根儿就没怎么批评他，且完全在理，可对方却大发雷霆。

易怒现象比比皆是，使我们的共同生活每天都为之付出昂贵的代价，所以我们更有必要对之深入探究：易怒之人到底是怎么了？他们究竟因何如此光火？我们不应责备他们为“丁点儿小事”而火冒三丈，而是应该伸出援手，帮助他们找出个中原因，毕竟，这些事情未必就是区区小事。

首先要认识忧惧在伴侣间的易怒情绪中所起的作用。大多数发脾气的情况是因为一方用拙劣的方式说教另一方。有些事情是我们想要指出来的，有些缺陷是我们能够发现的，有些话是我们觉得必须说的，但却没有斟酌该怎么说，显得急三火四、口无遮拦。本来提建议是正当（甚至是高尚）的行为，我们却说得很拙劣、很刻薄。我们的伴侣一听到这些让人来气的“说教”，自然心生抵触，脾气一点就着，在他们看来，这些建议不是试图以温柔关爱的方式解决共同生活中的问题，倒更像是对他们品性的恶意中伤、无端攻击。

教师能否心平气和，在一定程度上取决于他是否超然于教学的成败之外。当老师的自然希望诸事顺利，但若一个学生总是不开窍，三角学考砸了，这说到底是他自己的问题。个别学生并不能对教师的生活有多大的影响，因此教师才能够保持冷静。值得庆幸的是，不过度在意才是教育成功至关重要的一个方面。

可是忧惧、易怒的爱人却做不到这一点。他们之所以会情不自禁地用突然翻脸、暴跳如雷的方式来“教训”（伴随着砰的一声摔门声）对方，并不是因为他们失去理智或心存恶念（尽管很容易得出这样的结论），而是因为他们害怕：害怕自己在这世上的下半辈子被伴侣毁掉，因为他抓不住说话的要领，连刀叉也摆不好，甚至连叫辆出租车都会搞错时间。

直觉告诉我们，教育孩子要付出极大的爱心和耐心才会有效果：对孩子切勿吼叫，你得运用超凡的智谋，要批评一句，你得表扬十句，切忌操之过急……

然而在爱的课堂上，我们准会把这些明智之举抛诸脑后，这很悲哀，因为越是咄咄逼人，越不利于对方的成长。一旦傲气受损，人格遭贬，自尊蒙创，我们并不会更加通情达理，更加敢于担当，更有自知之明。

人们常抱怨易怒者“无端”发火。但是见微知著，小事的背后可能隐含着更大、更严重的问题。食品杂物放错了桌子，本来算不了什么，却象征着你的爱人不在乎家里的整洁，乱摆乱放，邋里邋遢。今天过得如何这样的问题，则会被视同为一种盘问，是对隐私的侵犯，甚至是一种羞辱（因为日子总难尽如人意）。

理想的解决方案是从大处着眼。小吵小闹的背后其实是整个人生观的冲突。发怒只是表象，遮盖的是不同生活理念之间的龃龉。这些大问题才是需要我们去弄清楚的。

在探讨的过程中，对双方关系你甚至会面对那个令你惊诧不已的真相：对方并不是你自己的延伸、又莫名其妙地与你违拗失和。世间万物，伴侣最难参透：对方是一个不同的人，有着自己的心性，所思所想充满了种种微妙、古怪和匪夷所思的理由，令人困惑不解。

解读这一切可能要花些时间，本来似乎须臾就能想明白的事情，这时候却需要花半个小时甚至更多的时间来专心探究。

我们为这一疏忽付出了沉重的代价；每一次不欢而散的争吵，都像爱的心房中一条堵住的毛细血管，尽管情感会暂时寻找其他路径继续流动，但随着不了了之的争吵日积月累，情感的通道将积尘生垢，留给彼此之间信任和宽容的空间则越来越窄。

最后一点，易怒可能仅仅与睡和吃有关: 婴儿烦躁不安时，我们从不觉得要教他们自我控制、注意分寸。这并非仅仅因为我们担心婴儿的智力水平尚不足以理解这些，而是因为我们对婴儿的哭闹有更好的解释。我们知道他们如此表现——动不动就为微不足道的小事哭闹——是因为累了，饿了，太热了或者消化出了什么问题。

但事实上，同样的生理原因会困扰我们一生。累了，我们就更容易心烦，饿了，我们就更容易发火。但是我们从养育孩子上学会的宽容（和精准的判断），要用到有着工商管理文凭或飞机驾照的成人身上，或者用到已经结婚三年半的伴侣身上，就绝非易事了。

我们应该努力弄清易怒到底是怎么回事儿：易怒者茫然失措、笨嘴拙舌、有失体面的行为，其实是想让我们明白他们有多痛苦，多么迫切地需要我们的帮助。而我们应该——在力所能及的情况下——设法帮他们走出困境。

（集体讨论，朱一凡、刘华文执笔）

”

译文评析

细微之处见真章

朱一凡  刘华文

本届韩素音青年翻译大赛英译汉原文选自《哲学家邮报》（Philosopher’s Mail）网站。网站的写手虽皆为哲学家，所载文章却朴实平白，以朴素的生活哲学为主，试图帮助读者解决生活中的种种困顿。此次大赛所选的On Irritability一文语言平实，通俗易懂，作者将伴侣之间日常的龃龉与忧虑娓娓道来，文中的“他”与“她”在生活中随处可见，颇能令读者感同身受。翻译该文时，译者对原文意义的整体把握并不难，然而细微之处却有不少需要仔细推敲，也是评判译文质量高下的重要标杆。

此次参赛的译文整体质量较好，多数译文对原文大意的把握较为准确，译文中不乏可圈可点之处，这反映了参赛者较为扎实的语言功底和不错的翻译素养。译文在语言风格上呈现出百花齐放的势头，有的译文以古体书写，凝练紧凑、韵味十足，有的译文广用时下流行语，俏皮活泼、充满时代感，译文多样的风格充分体现了译者在翻译中的主体性和创造性，展现了年轻一代译者的风采。当然，译文中也存在一些较为普遍的问题，有的译文文采飞扬却脱离了原文，有些译文紧贴原文，却牺牲了通顺和美感。翻译毕竟不是创作，译者主体性的发挥不应以牺牲原文为代价。译者毕竟是带着镣铐的舞者，既要在原文的天地中起舞又要舞姿优雅。竞赛英译汉评审组在拟定参考译文的过程中，秉着准确传达原文意义、重现原文语言风格的宗旨，同时兼顾译文的流畅通顺，力图使译文能够为更多读者接受。本文将在参考译文的基础上，试对此次参赛译文中一些容易疏忽犯错的细节予以讨论。

一、 抽象名词耐思量

相较于汉语，英语中名词有着不一样的复杂性，尤其是表示动作、状态、品质、情感等的抽象意义的名词时常给翻译带来麻烦。英语的抽象名词具有“虚”、“泛”、“静”、“隐”的特点，意会容易言传却难。译者时而要避实就虚，时而要避虚就实，时而要以静化动，时而要变隐为显。On Irritability一文中就颇有几处抽象名词的翻译值得仔细斟酌。

例1. Irritability is the tendency to get upset for reasons that seem – to other people – to be pretty minor.

例2. We give cack-handed, mean speeches, which bear no faith in the legitimacy (even the nobility) of the act of imparting advice.

例1是该文的开篇语，通过给易怒下定义，引入了文章的话题。句中的抽象名词 “tendency” 是一个外壳名词（shell noun），只有将其后面短语或从句的意义套入后，方产生完整的意义。由于 “tendency” 本身意义虚空，因而容易漏译，又由于其后紧跟后置定语，如果像不少译文那样将其译作“……的倾向”，则文气略显拖沓。这里不妨转换词性，译作副词“动辄”或“容易”用来修饰动词“恼怒”为好。例2中的两个抽象名词 “legitimacy” 和 “nobility” 均用来修饰 “the act of imparting advice” ，如直接译为“提建议的正当性、高尚性”则略显欧化，如译作“全然没有善言应有的善念甚至善心”则略显文气，几番斟酌下来，评审组认为亦可将两个抽象名词化作形容词来译此句，处理成“本来提建议是正当（甚至是高尚）的行为”。

例3. We should try to see irritability for what it actually is: a confused, inarticulate, often shameful attempt to get us to understand how much someone is suffering and how urgently they need our help.

例3中的 “attempt”是行为抽象名词（张今，刘光耀，1996），施动者虽是人，但动作的发出者在英语中却故意隐去了，这是英语重客体思维的表现，如不做任何处理直译成中文，必然造成翻译腔。因而这里不妨“反客为主”，将人作为句子的主语，如例4可译为“易怒者茫然失措、笨嘴拙舌、有失体面的行为，其实是想让我们明白他们有多痛苦，多么迫切地需要我们的帮助。”明示动作的发出者，这更符合汉语主体性思维的特点。

例4. All this wisdom we reliably forget in love’s classroom, sadly because increasing the level of threat seldom hastens development.

例4中“development”的翻译是原文的一个难点，乍一看来“development”意义似乎很模糊，因而不少译者避实就虚，将此处译为“不利于事态的发展”、“于事无补”、“难以获得效果”等，当原文意义不定时，以虚译虚不失为一种好的译法，可避免将抽象化为具体可能带来的错译。但细审原文即会发现，此处的“development”既不是笼统的“事态”也不是“二人情感发展”，而是“the growth or advancement of the human character or personality”，因为“一个人越是受到威胁，越难以成长”。这与上文的为了让孩子成长需贬一褒十相呼应，又与下文的这句话相衔接：“We do not grow more reasonable, more accepting of responsibility and more accurate about our weaknesses when our pride has been wounded, our integrity is threatened and our self-esteem has been violated.”。在这一语境中，“development”的意义是指对方的“成长”，因此在译的时候不妨就将其明示化，译为“然而在爱的课堂上，我们准会把这些明智之举抛诸脑后，这很悲哀，因为越是咄咄逼人，越不利于对方的成长。”

二、妙用标点巧传意

标点符号看似微不足道，却能传递意义，在翻译中巧用标点符号，有时会有意想不到的效果。译文中就有这么几处的标点值得讨论。

例5. They feel ineluctably led to deliver their “lessons” in a cataclysmic, frenzied manner (the door slams very loudly indeed) not because they are insane or vile (though one could easily draw these conclusions) so much as because they are terrified; terrified of spoiling what remains of their years on the planet in the company of someone who it appears cannot in any way understand a pivotal point about conversation, or cutlery, or the right time to order a taxi.

例5中是用“；”连接了两个长句，不少译者这里直接用了句号，也有沿用分号的，或用逗号的。事实上，英语中“；”的用法与汉语有所差别，英语的分号既可以表示并列关系也可以表示解释关系 (Huddleston&Pullum, 2002:1742)。例句中的“；”表示后一句是对前一句的进一步说明和解释，因而可将其译为“：”明示原文的逻辑关系，处理为“他们之所以会情不自禁地用突然翻脸、暴跳如雷的方式来‘教训’（伴随着砰的一声摔门声）对方，并不是因为他们失去理智或心存恶念（尽管很容易得出这样的结论），而是因为他们害怕：害怕自己在这世上的下半辈子被伴侣毁掉，因为他抓不住说话的要领，连刀叉也摆不好，甚至连叫辆出租车都会搞错时间。”并如原文般重复“害怕”一词，以达到意义衔接的目的。

例6. They are that most surprising of things, a different person, with a psyche all of their own, filled with a perplexing number of subtle, eccentric and unforeseen reasons for thinking as they do.

例6是一个结构复杂的长句，原文用了多个逗号将各个成分串连在一起，各个成分之间的意义关系也相当复杂，句子的主干很短“They are that most surprising of things”，后面的部分都是对主干部分的解释说明，因而不妨在译的时候加上一个冒号或破折号，将原文的语义关系译出来，如译为“世间万物，伴侣最难参透：对方是一个不同的人，有着自己的心性，所思所想充满了种种微妙、古怪和匪夷所思的理由，令人困惑不解。”

例7. In the course of discussions, one might even come face-to-face with that perennially surprising truth about relationships: that the other person is not an extension of oneself that has, mysteriously, gone off message.

例7的后半句是翻译的一个难点，文中的“not”一词辖制的是整个一句话，而不仅仅是“extension”一个词，不少译者忽略了这一点，将其译成了关系松散的两个小句，如：“另一半并不是我们的自我延伸，他们只是因为某些不得而知的原因与我们意志偶不相符”，这样译斩断了原文的意脉，不免遗憾，因而不妨尝试用“、”连接两部分，以突显其中紧密的关联性，译为“对方并不是你自己的延伸、又莫名其妙地与你违拗失和”。此外，从参赛译文的情况来看，对“extension”和“gone off message”的理解多有偏差，比如将“extension”译为“另一个你”、“身外之我”、“附属品”，或将“gone off message”译为“行为反常”、“偏离轨道”、“摆脱了束缚”等。作者在这里描述的是伴侣间一方对另一方一厢情愿的幻想，以为对方可以“想你所想、及你所及”，却意外地发现对方不受你的管控，因而不妨将“extension”直译为“延伸”，将“gone off message”译为“违拗失和”。

三、字词拿捏需谨慎

On Irritability一文通俗易懂，因而多数译者对文章的整体把握都较为准确，但在其中个别词的处理上，却常有欠缺。比如原文中的“怒”就有多种表达方法，如“explode”、“agitate”、“het up”、“brittle”、“frenzy”、“get worked up”，因而译文中也应力求灵活多变地将各种“怒”传译出来，如可分别用“大发雷霆”、“光火”、“火冒三丈”、“一点就着”、“暴跳如雷”、“发火”等来对译。再比如原文中前后照应重复使用的词，也当尽量同词同译，以突显其间的语篇关联，如第二段中“cack-handed”出现了两次，前后有所呼应，翻译时也应尽可能同词同译。第三段的“fear”与第五段的“fearful”前后呼应，翻译时需再现这种关联。此外，“fear”一词描写的是（过度）在意彼此的伴侣之间的情感，如用“缺乏安全感”、“胆怯”、“害怕”等则意思偏了，如处理成“担忧”、“忧虑”，程度上又浅了，无法与第五段中的“fearful”、“terrified”等词形成呼应之势，有译者将其译为“忧惧”，力图包容担忧、害怕两层意思在其中，不失为一种恰当的译法。下面再举几例，其中都有个别字词需要仔细斟酌。

例8. It was the most minor of criticisms and technically quite correct. And now they’ve exploded.

例8中“technically”字面上的意思是“从技术层面上看”，因而不少译文就此直译了，这般译法并不算错，却与该文的文风不符，很难想象在一篇生活小品文中出现这样的表述。也有译文转译为“客观上讲”、“严格意义上说”等，意思虽对却都不免生硬。细究“technically quite correct”的意思是在讲批评得在理，因而这里不妨处理成“完全在理”更为贴切。

例9. One naturally wants for things to go well, but if an obdurate pupil flunks trigonometry, it is—at base—their problem.

例9中“obdurate”一词本意表示顽固、固执，因而不少译者将其译为“固执”，但细究其义会发现这里的“obdurate”是说某个学生怎么教也教不会，并非是说其本性固执。也有译文将其译为“冥顽不灵”，意思上对了，却偏文了，原文用的是最普通的词，简白朴实，因而这里不妨选用更为口语化的“不开窍”更为妥帖。

例10. They feel ineluctably led to deliver their “lessons” in a cataclysmic, frenzied manner…

例11. All this wisdom we reliably forget in love’s classroom…

上面两例中容易出错的都是副词的翻译。例10中，不少译者把副词“ineluctably”译为“不可避免地”、“不受控制地”，甚至将其漏译。这里“ineluctably”是与“feel led to”连用，以表示伴侣之间一方教训另一方时情绪常有失控，因而译为“情不自禁地”更为准确。例11的“reliably”多被漏译，不少译者根据上下文的转折关系，译为了“却”，则丢掉了“reliably”原本的意思。此处或可处理成“然而在爱的课堂上，我们准会把这些明智之举抛诸脑后”，既译出了原文的转折意味，又保留“reliably”的本意。

例12. The decoding may take time, perhaps half an hour or more of concentrated exploration for something that had until then seemed as if it would more rightfully deserve an instant.

例12中的“decoding”与“then”都很值得推敲。“decoding”一词本身很好理解，即是“解码”或“解读”，但解读什么呢？“解读对方”或是“解读两性关系”似乎都可以讲的通，因而这里或许可以译的模糊一点，如“解读这些”或“解读这一切”。该句中的“then”指伴侣双方发生冲突、相互不能理解那一刻，不少译者将其漏译了，也有错译为“大概需要专心致志地研究半小时，然后你就会觉得自己早该在一瞬间就理解了”。为了译文的通顺自然、且符合汉语末尾焦点的习惯（高厚堃，1984：13），这里可以改变原文的语序，译为“本来似乎须臾就能想明白的事情，这时候却需要花半个小时甚至更多的时间来专心探究”。

例13. Emotions will find other ways to flow for now, but with the accumulation of unresolved disputes, pathways will fur and possibilities for trust and generosity narrow.

例13中的“narrow”一词用得十分巧妙，作者把爱比作心房，把争吵比作会造成血管堵塞的原因，因而这里的“narrow”是对应血管这一比喻意象的，有不少译者忽略了“narrow”在这里所具有的比喻意义，直接译为“彼此之间的信任与宽容也会减少”，意思虽对，原文的精妙之处却荡然无存，为了保留原文“窄”的意象，又能与“信任和宽容”搭配得当，不妨在其中加上“空间”二字，译为“留给彼此之间信任和宽容的空间则越来越窄”。

四、形神兼备添韵味

On Irritability一文的语言平实，用词不乏日常生活中的俗语、俚语，笔调轻松活泼，在翻译时也应兼顾原文的语言风格。比如对该篇题目的翻译，有不少译者译为“论易怒”，就略显正式了，根据原文的笔调，不妨译为“说说易怒”或“谈谈易怒”，更贴合原文的语言风格。

此外，原文的遣词造句也相当精妙，如排比句的运用就很是漂亮，如：

例14. There are things we’d like to point out, flaws that we can discern, remarks we feel we really must make, but our awareness of how to proceed is panicked and hasty.

该句中用“there be”句型突出强调了“things”、“flaws”和“remarks”三个名词，并引出了三个排比并列的短句，读上去朗朗上口，翻译时如能再现原文的强调和排比则会给译文增加不少韵味，因而这里或可处理成“有些事情是我们想要指出来的，有些缺陷是我们能够发现的，有些话是我们觉得必须说的，但却没有斟酌该怎么说，显得急三火四、口无遮拦。”

例15. One knows intuitively, when teaching a child, that only the utmost care and patience will ever work: one must never shout, one has to use extraordinary tact, one has to make ten compliments for every one negative remark and one must leave oneself plenty of time…

例15的后半句也是典型的排比句，在翻译时，要特别注意译文节奏的把控，方能再现原文的韵味。多数译者在翻译这一句的时候意思都相当准确，但往往欠缺的是节奏上的美感，这一句的翻译当用多个短句铺排，必要的重复也能增加节奏的美感，如可处理成“直觉告诉我们，教育孩子要付出极大的爱心和耐心才会有效果：对孩子切勿吼叫，你得运用超凡的智谋，要批评一句，你得表扬十句，切忌操之过急……”。

五、行百里者半九十

翻译是创造性的工作，不存在什么唯一的标准，评审组所提供的参考译文也不是范文，评审组在评判译文时，并不以是否贴近参考译文作为衡量译文高下的标准，而是既强调意义的准确，又重视灵活的妙译和译文的流畅。

青年译者在此次大赛中所表现出的整体较高的水准着实令人振奋，但有些译者暴露出的漏译、误译等不够谨慎的翻译态度也同样令人遗憾。此次的参赛译文在大意的把控上都较为准确，但具体字词的理解、拿捏却小错频现，“行百里者半九十”，青年译者要继续成长当给自己“先定个小目标”，从字、词、标点这些小处抓起，多琢磨，勤思考，方能有所进益。

本文对参考译文所做的评析，主要针对译文中较为广泛、突出的问题，但恐难做到面面俱到，如有不妥之处，也期待各位专家、读者的批评指正。

参考文献

[1] 高厚堃. 英语和汉语信息结构中的末尾焦点[J]. 外语教学与研究，1984（1）：7-13.

[2] 张今、刘光耀. 英语抽象名词研究[M]. 开封：河南大学出版社，1996.

[3] Huddleston, R. & G. K. Pullum. The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language[M]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

作者简介

朱一凡，上海交通大学副教授，硕士生导师。研究方向：汉英对比与翻译、语料库翻译学。

刘华文，上海交通大学教授，博士生导师。研究方向：认知与翻译、翻译诗学、译释学。