唐義均　趙天銥

Passage 1

In 2009， Time magazine hailed an online math program1 piloted at three New York City public schools， as one of the year’s 50 best innovations. Each day， the software generated individualized math “playlists” for students who then chose the “modality” in which they wished to learn—software， a virtual teacher or a flesh-and-blood one.2 A different algorithm sorted teachers’ specialties and schedules to match a student’s needs. “It generates the lessons， the tests and it grades the tests，” one veteran instructor marveled.

Although the program made only modest improvements in students’ math scores and was adopted by only a handful of New York schools （not the 50 for which it was slated）， it serves as a notable example of a pattern that Andrea Gabor charts in “After the Education Wars.” For more than three decades， an unlikely coalition of corporate philanthropists， educational technology entrepreneurs and public education bureaucrats has spearheaded a brand of school reform characterized by the overvaluing of technology and standardized testing and a devaluing of teachers and communities. The trend can be traced back to a hyperbolic 1983 report， “A Nation at Risk，” issued by President Ronald Reagan’s National Commission on Excellence in Education. Against the backdrop of an ascendant Japanese economy and consistent with President Reagan’s disdain for public education （and teachers’ unions）， “A Nation at Risk” blamed America’s ineffectual schools for a “rising tide of mediocrity” that was diminishing America’s global role in a new high-tech world.

Policymakers turned their focus to public education as a matter of national security， one too important （and potentially too profitable） to entrust to educators. The notion that top-down decisions by politicians， not teachers， should determine what children need was a thread running through the bipartisan 2001 No Child Left Behind Act， the Obama administration’s Race to the Top and state-initiated Common Core standards， and the current charter-driven agenda of Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos.3 “Accountability” became synonymous with standardized tests， resulting in a testing juggernaut4 with large profits going to commercial publishing giants like Pearson.

The education wars have been demoralizing for teachers， over 17 percent of whom drop out within their first five years. No one believes that teaching to the test is good pedagogy， but what are the options when students’ future educational choices， teachers’ salaries and retention and， in some states， the fate of entire schools rest on student test scores？ In meticulous detail， Gabor documents reform’s institutional failings. She describes the turns in New York City’s testing-obsessed policies， the undermining of Michigan’s once fine public schools and the heartbreaking failure of New Orleans to remake its schools after Hurricane Katrina.

【參考譯文】

2009年，《時代》雜志將紐約市三所公立學校試點的一個在線數(shù)學程序譽為年度50佳創(chuàng)新之一。該軟件每天都會為學生生成個性化的數(shù)學“選課列表”，學生可以選擇自己想學的“模塊”——軟件、虛擬教師或真人教師。該程序的另一種不同的算法對教師的專業(yè)和時間安排進行分類，以滿足學生的需求。一位資深教師贊嘆道：“這款軟件能生成課程，布置測驗并批改?！?/p>

雖然這個程序在提高學生數(shù)學成績方面收效不大，并且只有少數(shù)幾所紐約學校采用（而不是計劃的50所），但安德烈婭·加博爾在其《教育戰(zhàn)之后》一書中詳細介紹某個模式時仍將它作為值得注意的范例推出。30多年來，不太可能結盟的企業(yè)慈善家、教育技術企業(yè)家和公共教育官僚帶頭發(fā)起了一場教育改革，其特點是重技術和標準化測試，輕教師和社區(qū)。這一風潮可以追溯到1983年發(fā)布的一份夸大其詞的報告《危情中的國家》，該報告出自羅納德·里根總統(tǒng)時期的國家優(yōu)教委員會。在日本經(jīng)濟蒸蒸日上的背景下，為了迎合里根總統(tǒng)對公共教育（以及教師工會）的不屑，該報告指責低效無能的美國學校“庸才輩出”，而這些碌碌之輩正在削弱美國在新興高科技領域的全球影響力。

政策制定者將重點轉向公共教育，視之為國家安全問題，該問題至關重要（而且可能一本萬利），所以不能托付給教育工作者。有觀念認為，孩子們需要什么，應該由政客自上而下的決策來決定，而非教師。從2001年兩黨通過的《一個兒童不能落法案》，到奧巴馬政府的“奮勇爭先”撥款及國家發(fā)起的“共同核心”國標倡議，再到美國教育部長貝齊·德沃斯針對特許學校提出的改革議題，這一觀念貫穿始終。“成績責任制”成為了標準化考試的同義詞，催生出龐大的考試產(chǎn)業(yè)，其巨額利潤流向培生等商業(yè)出版巨頭。

教育戰(zhàn)爭使教師們士氣低落，逾17%的教師在從教頭五年就退出了這一行業(yè)。沒有人相信應試教學是教學良方，但當學生未來的教育選擇、教師的工資和留用，甚至某些州整個學校的命運皆取決于學生的考試成績，那還有什么選擇余地呢？加博爾一絲不茍地記錄下改革的制度缺陷。她描述了紐約市深陷應試的教育政策一變再變，敘述了密歇根州曾經(jīng)優(yōu)秀的公立學校遭到削弱，講述了卡特里娜颶風過后的新奧爾良重建學校時遭遇慘痛失敗。

Passage 2

Angkor is one of the most important archaeological sites in Southeast Asia. For several centuries， Angkor was the centre of the Khmer Kingdom. With impressive monuments， several different ancient urban plans and large water reservoirs， the site is a unique concentration of features testifying to an exceptional civilization. Temples， exemplars of Khmer architecture， are closely linked to their geographical context as well as being imbued with symbolic significance. The architecture and layout of the successive capitals bear witness to a high level of social order and ranking within the Khmer Empire. Angkor is therefore a major site exemplifying cultural， religious and symbolic values， as well as containing high architectural， archaeological and artistic significance.

The Angkor complex encompasses all major architectural buildings and hydrological engineering systems from the Khmer period. All the individual aspects illustrate the intactness of the site very much reflecting the splendor of the cities that once were. The site integrity， however， is put under dual pressures： endogenous： exerted by more than 100，000 inhabitants distributed over 112 historic settlements scattered over the site， who constantly try to expand their dwelling areas; exogenous： related to the proximity of the town of Siem Reap5， the seat of the province and a tourism hub.

Angkor is one of the largest archaeological sites in operation in the world. Tourism represents an enormous economic potential but it can also generate irreparable destructions of the tangible as well as intangible cultural heritage. Many research projects have been undertaken， since the international safeguarding program was first launched in 1993. The scientific objectives of the research （e.g. anthropological studies on socio-economic conditions） result in a better knowledge and understanding of the history of the site， and its inhabitants that constitute a rich exceptional legacy of the intangible heritage. The purpose is to associate the “intangible culture” to the enhancement of the monuments in order to sensitize the local population to the importance and necessity of its protection and preservation and assist in the development of the site as Angkor is a living heritage site where Khmer people in general， but especially the local population， are known to be particularly conservative with respect to ancestral traditions and where they adhere to a great number of archaic cultural practices that have disappeared elsewhere.6

Moreover， the Angkor Archaeological Park is very rich in medicinal plants， used by the local population for treatment of diseases. The Preah Khan temple is considered to have been a university of medicine and the Neak Poan7 an ancient hospital.

【參考譯文】

吳哥是東南亞最重要的考古遺址之一。有好幾個世紀，吳哥都曾是高棉王國的中心。這里有宏大的紀念碑、幾個不同的古城區(qū)和大型水庫，博采眾長、獨具一格，呈現(xiàn)出一個與眾不同的文明。寺廟是高棉建筑的典范，這不僅與當?shù)氐牡乩憝h(huán)境息息相關，而且浸透著象征意義。歷代都城的建筑和布局見證了高棉王國內(nèi)部高度發(fā)展的社會秩序與社會等級。因此，吳哥作為一處重要的歷史遺跡，不僅體現(xiàn)了文化價值、宗教價值和象征價值，而且蘊含著很大的建筑意義、考古意義和藝術意義。

吳哥建筑群囊括了高棉時期所有的重大建筑和水文工程系統(tǒng)，方方面面均證明了該遺址的完整性，充分體現(xiàn)了都城一度的輝煌。然而，遺址完整性面臨著雙重壓力。其一是內(nèi)生壓力：逾10萬居民分布在該遺址零零散散的112處歷史聚居區(qū)內(nèi)，他們不斷嘗試擴大自身的居住區(qū);其二是外生壓力：與該地毗鄰的暹粒鎮(zhèn)休戚相關，暹粒鎮(zhèn)不僅是省府所在地，還是一處旅游集散中心。

吳哥是世界上還有人類生活居住的最大考古場地之一。旅游業(yè)象征著巨大的經(jīng)濟潛力，但同時也會對物質和非物質文化遺產(chǎn)造成難以彌補的毀壞。自1993年國際維護項目首次啟動以來，已經(jīng)開展了多個研究項目。這些研究項目的科學目標（如對社會經(jīng)濟狀況的人類學研究）使人們更深入地認識并了解該遺址的歷史，更好地了解當?shù)鼐用?，畢竟他們是這個豐富的、無與倫比的非物質文化遺產(chǎn)的一部分。吳哥是一處活的文化遺產(chǎn)地，這里的全體高棉人，尤其是當?shù)鼐用?，向來因循守舊，他們所堅守的許多古老文化習俗在其他地方早已消失殆盡，所以，開展這些研究的目的是將“非物質文化”與修繕文物聯(lián)系到一起，使當?shù)鼐用衩粲诒Ｗo的重要性和維護的必要性，從而幫助開發(fā)當?shù)氐倪z址。

此外，吳哥考古公園內(nèi)生長著豐富的藥本植物，供當?shù)鼐用裰尾≈?。人們一直視圣劍寺為一所醫(yī)學院，而把龍蟠寺當作一家古醫(yī)院。

【評注】

1. 本句中program的詞義應該根據(jù)下一句中的the software來確定，因此應譯為“程序”。the software（該軟件）回指前文的program，以達到前后呼應。

2. 本句難點在于兩個定語從句、一個同位語結構和一個隱喻的翻譯：第一個定語從句需采用重復先行詞的方法來處理，即重復students，第二個定語從句可譯為前置修飾語“自己想學的”。破折號后面的同位語可單獨成句：“軟件、虛擬教師或真人教師”。另外，句中的隱喻表達flesh-and-blood不能直譯為“血肉”，它是與“虛擬”相對的概念，即“真人”。

3. 《一個兒童不能落法案》是小布什（George W. Bush）總統(tǒng)時期通過的教育改革法案，旨在提高教學質量，讓每一個孩子都能有序進步，不落伍。charter-driven agenda是“針對特許學校提出的改革議題”，特許學校（public charter schools）是一種制度混合體，既像公立學校那樣免費，又像私立學校那樣獨立運營，但經(jīng)費來自政府，因此對政府機構負責。這一類學校需要單獨申請。部分特許學校由營利性的私營公司運營。如果學校管理不善或考試成績不佳，特許學校會面臨關門。

4. accountability是2001年《一個兒童不能落法案》中的一項非常重要的內(nèi)容，法案對各州規(guī)定了測試要求，對各州、各學區(qū)、各學校以及所有在校生的每一門課程都定下了嚴苛的成績責任標準和目標， 即每年都要有可衡量的、適度的成績進步。各級教育部門人員的工資與學生的考試成績掛鉤。因此，教師壓力巨大，這就是為什么下文提到“逾17%的教師在從教頭五年就退出了這一行業(yè)”的原因。本句中的隱喻juggernaut也不能直譯為“重型卡車”，應該用類似的漢語隱喻來翻譯，即“龐大的考試產(chǎn)業(yè)”。

5. 此句中的Siem Reap與the seat of the province and a tourism hub是同位語關系，可重復先行詞“暹粒鎮(zhèn)”，將它處理成獨立句，即“暹粒鎮(zhèn)不僅是省府所在地，還是一處旅游集散中心”。

6. 本句是CATTI實施以來，所考過的最長句子，包含83字。但實際上句子并不難譯，因為句子只包含了一個as引導的原因狀語從句和兩個where引導的并列定語從句。第二個where可不譯，即“吳哥是一處活的文化遺產(chǎn)地，這里的全體高棉人，尤其是當?shù)鼐用?，向來因循守舊，他們所堅守的許多古老文化習俗在其他地方早已消失殆盡”。

7. 本文中除了Angkor之外，其他地名（如Siem Reap“暹粒鎮(zhèn)”）在普通詞典中很難找到，但根據(jù)評分規(guī)則，不常見的地名可音譯。即便譯錯，也不扣分。例如，在考試中，你可以將Neak Poan譯為“尼克盤”或“尼克潘”，雖然正確的譯法是“龍蟠寺”或“盤蛇寺”（因寺內(nèi)有一座多頭蛇的雕像而得名）。? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? □