Автор: Пользователь скрыл имя, 20 Февраля 2013 в 14:45, контрольная работа
Basic translation devices.
1. What are the basic translation devices?
The basic translation devices are partitioning and integration of sentences, transportation of sentence parts, replacement, addition and omission of words and word combinations, and a special type of transformations called antonymous translation.
Variant 10.
I. ANSWER THE FOLLOWING THEORETICAL QUESTIONS:
Basic translation devices.
1. What are the basic translation devices?
The basic translation devices are partitioning and integration of sentences, transportation of sentence parts, replacement, addition and omission of words and word combinations, and a special type of transformations called antonymous translation.
2. What is partitioning and integration? Define them and give examples. Describe transposition as a variety of inner partitioning.
Partitioning is either replacing in translation of a source sentence by two or more target ones or converting a simple source sentence into a compound or complex target one.(Ex. Come along and see me singing one evening. – Приходь коли-небудь увечері – побачиш, як я співаю.)
Integration is the opposite of partitioning; it implies combining two or (seldom) more source sentences into one target sentence. (Ex. Я люблю усіх своїх друзів. Якщо хтось із них довго не телефонує – починаю плакати. – I love all my friends and even start crying should too much time pass without speaking to them.)
Transposition is a peculiar variety of inner partitioning in translation meaning a change in order of the target sentence syntactic elements (Subject, Predicate, Object) as compared with that of the source sentence dictated either by peculiarities of the target language syntax or by the communication intent.
3. What is replacement? Define it. What are the basic types of replacements in practical translation? Give examples
Replacement is any change in the target text at the morphological, lexical and syntactic levels of the language when the elements of certain source paradigms are replaced by different elements of target paradigms.
Basic types of replacement in practical translation are:
4. What is addition? Give definition and examples.
Addition in translation is a device intended for the compensation of structural elements implicitly present in the source text or paradigm forms missing in the target language.( Green Party federal election money. – Гроші Партії Зелених, призначені на федеральні вибори.).
5. What is omission? Give examples of Ukrainian-English translation.
Omission is reduction of the elements of the source text considered redundant from the viewpoint of the target language structural patterns and stylistics .(null and void – недійсний).
2. Translate into Ukrainian, making necessary transformations.
Primaries – попередні вибори, academia – наукова спільнота, turnout (at the polls) – явка на вибори, caucus – закриті збори членів політичної партії, Ministry of Health – Міністерство охорони здоров’я, the Exchequer – Міністерство фінансів, to investigate - розглядати, to accommodate – надавати,розміщати; airborne – повітрянодесантний, breeze – чутки,сварка; refinery – очисний завод, publicist – фахівець з міжнародного публічного права,журналіст,публіцист; body of independent judges – незалежний суд, null and void - недійсний, rejected and omitted - знехтуваний, as far back as - ?, he is a head and shoulders above his comrades - головнокомандувач, prim and proper – правильний, належний; continue in full force and effect – продовжувати на повну силу, she was not like a bird – вона була постійною.
3. Read and translate the text:
The world criminal court.
America should drop its hostility, and its allies should allay its fears.
The doubts are understandable, but the cause is worthy. Supporters of the long-planned international criminal court were preparing to celebrate the 60th ratification of the treaty drawn up to establish it. As the Economist went to press this week, supporters of the long-planned international criminal court were preparing to celebrate the 60th ratification of the treaty draw up to establish it. With that With threshold crossed , the court’s creation will at last be assured, years sooner than anyone thought possible. Fulfilling a promise made after the Nuremberg trials more than 50 years ago, the court will provide a permanent forum for trying the world’s most despicable criminals-mass murderers, war criminals and plotters of genocide or ethnic cleansing – who have often committed their deeds knowing they would never have to answer for them. But this great blow against impunity comes at a price. The court’s creation has opened a rift between the United States and its allies just as the Bush administration seeks co-operation in its war against ter- rorism and tries to rally support for action against Iraq.
America has opposed the court ever since the idea was first approved by 120 other countries in 1998 at a United Nations treaty conference in Rome. America’s opposition has hardened under George Bush. Even Bill Clinton, who signed the treaty just before he left office, made it clear he had no intention of ratifying. He merely wanted, or so he said, to leave Mr Bush the option of keeping America engaged in planning how the court would function. Instead, the Bush administration is apparently choosing to make no attempt to shape the court and its work.
This attitude is unwise and unnecessary. Even if the court’s design is flawed, as America claims, such flaws can de remedied better through more diplomacy and negotiation than through conformation. Britain and France, fellow permanent members of the UN Security Council, as well as nearly all America’s other NATO partners, believe he court can be made into a valuable institution. And despite American opposition, they have been willing to push ahead with it much faster than anyone expected/ even in the aftermath of September 11th , when their support for America has been at its height. In truth, and contrary to the fears of the administration, the legitimate use of force, by America or anyone else.
Americans opposing the court say that it will include judges and prosecutors from different countries, trained in different system of law, espousing different notions of justice, and that some will not come from democracies. An even bigger worry is that the court might be used to restrain the military operations of the world’s pre-eminent power, and per-haps to bring “political” prosecution against its leaders.
America’s allies have not been indifferent to its concerns. Indeed, they have done their utmost to meet them. American lawyers and diplomats have played a central role in writing many of the court’s rules and crucially, the definitions of the crimes it will cover. The court will be able to pursue a case without the agreement of a three-judge panel. The Security Council can suspend any case it extremely unlikely that the court will unleash rogue prosecutor on the world, bringing indictments against American leaders for justifiable actions such as intervening in Afghanistan. America’s NATO allies, themselves participants in the Afghan war and with peacekeeping troops in harm’s way elsewhere, have as mush interest as America does in avoiding that outcome.
And yet, despite these reassurances, America still has doubts. No one can deny that the courts something of an experiment. America’s proper response to this uncertainty, though, ought to be not hospitality but wait-and-see neutrality. If there is a risk, it is a small one. Like the Hague tribunal-a temporary affair set up by the UN with responsibility for Rwanda and ex-Yugoslavia-the new court will have no army or police force of its own, but will rely on national governments, and mostly on the great powers, for mush of its evidence and the arrest of suspects. If it acts recklessly, or without widespread international support, it will be ignored.
A successful court, on the other hand, would embody values of international law and the protection of civilians championed by successive American governments since the second world war. America has been the chief instigator and biggest financial backer of the Hague tribunals. In fact, it was America’s success in winning support for the creation of those tribunals that persuaded its allies that a permanent criminal court was feasible. Slobodan Milosevic, Serbia’s former dictator, is now on trial in the Hague only because America first provided the evidence needed to indict him, and then threatened to withhold aid to Serbia if it did not surrender him.
The task now facing America’s allies is to overlook the Bush administration’s hostility to the court, and to dispel its fears by ensuring that, when the court is established next year, it actually operates as the responsible and effective institution they have promised. The court’s backer should do something more. They should demonstrate to Mr Bush that the court could yet be a useful weapon in his campaign to bring about a safer and more civilised world by announcing to Saddam Husein that, if he commits further atrocities, against his own people or other, they will seek to indict him.
An indictment to remember
Under the terms of the court’s treaty, it has no jurisdiction over crimes committed before July 1st , when the treaty formally goes into effect. So the court cannot be used to try Mr. Hussein for his past crimes. But a warning from America’s allies that the he could stand trial for any future atrocities would show Mr Bush that they support his aim of restraining Mr Hussein, even if they still hesitate at the idea of going to war with him. Mr Hussein would scoff at such a warning. Mr Milosevic also once laughed at the idea that he would ever have to answer for his actions before a court of law.
WORDLIST.
to drop a hostility – |
to allay fears
- |
despicable criminal - |
plotters of genocide організатори геноциду |
ethnic cleaning - |
to commit deeds - |
a blow against impurity - удар по бруду |
aftermath - |
to espouse different notions of justice – підтримувати різні варіанти трактування права |
to restrain the military operations – обмежувати, стримувати військові операції |
pre-eminent power - значна потуга |
to do utmost to meet concerns - бути повністю готовим до викликів |
crucially
- |
to pursue a case
- |
a three judge panel – |
to suspend a case - |
to misconceive - |
indictment
- |
reassurance
- |
temporary actions – |
to act recklessly - діяти необачно, нерозсудливо |
the Hague international tribunal – Гаагський міжнародний трибунал |
justifiable actions - |
to avoid an outcome – уникнути результату |
in harm’s way elsewhere – невідповідно, неадекватно |
to embody values of international law – втілювати основні засади міжнародного права |
to champion (a cause) - боротися за (справу) |
a chief instigator – |
to personable allies - переконувати союзників |
feasible
- |
to withhold aid – припинити допомогу |
to surrender - |
to overlook hostility to the court- побороти упереджене ставлення до суду |
to dispel fears - розсіяти побоювання |
to ensure
- |
to commit atrocities - вдаватися до жорстокості |
to seek to indict smb. - шукати шляхи для звинувачення кого-небудь |
under the terms of the court’s treaty – згідно з умовами угоди про запровадження суду |
to commit a crime - |
to go into effect - |
the aim of restraining – стримуючий фактор |
to scoff a warning - насміхатися з попередження |
to laugh an idea – |
I4. ANSWER THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS:
1.When was the treaty about the international criminal court`s creation signed?
The treaty about the international criminal court`s creation was signed 60 years ago.
2.What criminals will the court provide a permenent forum for?
The court will provide a permanent forum for trying the world’s most despicable criminals-mass murderers, war criminals and plotters of genocide or ethnic cleansing – who have often committed their deeds knowing they would never have to answer for them.
3.What has the court’s creation opened between the United States and its allies in its war against terrorism?
The court’s creation has opened a rift between the United States and its allies just as the Bush administration seeks co-operation in its war against terrorism and tries to rally support for action against Iraq.
4.How many countries have approved the court`s creation since 1998?
The creation of criminal court was first approved by 120 other countries in 1998 at a United Nations treaty conference in Rome.
5.Has America approved the court`s creation?
No, America has opposed the court even since the idea was approved by the other countries.
6.Why did the former US president sign the treaty without intention of ratifying it?
Bill Clinton signed the treaty just before he left office and he made it clear he had no intention of ratifying. He merely wanted, or so he said, to leave Mr. Bush the option of keeping America engaged in planning how the court would function.
7.Do all America`s NATO partners believe the court can be made into a valueable institution?
Yes, all America’s NATO partners believe the court can be made into a valuable institution.
8.Why does America oppose the court?
Americans opposing the court say that it will include judges and prosecutors from different countries, trained in different system of law, espousing different notions of justice, and that some will not come from democracies. An even bigger worry is that the court might be used to restrain the military operations of the world’s pre-eminent power, and perhaps to bring “political” prosecution against its leaders.
9.On what condition will the court be able to take up a case on?
The court will be able to pursue a case without the agreement of a three-judge panel.
10.What will be the Security Council duty?
The Security Council can suspend any case it extremely unlikely that the court will unleash rogue prosecutor on the world, bringing indictments against American leaders for justifiable actions such as intervening in Afghanistan.
11.What cases does the Hague tribunal take?
The Hague tribunal-a temporary affair set up by the UN with responsibility for Rwanda and ex-Yugoslavia the new court will have no army or police force of its own, but will rely on national governments, and mostly on the great powers, for mush of its evidence and t- he arrest of suspects. If it acts recklessly, or without widespread international support, it will be ignored.
12.Will the criminal court have army or police force of its own?
The criminal court will have no army or police force of its own, but will rely on national governments.
13.What values would the court embody?
The court would embody values of international law and the protection of civilians championed by successive American governments since the second world war.
14. Who is now on trial in The Hague?
Slobodan Milosevic, Serbia’s former dictator, is now on trial in the Hague only because America first provided the evidence needed to indict him, and then threatened to withhold aid to Serbia if it did not surrender him.
15.Will the court be a useful weapon in today`s compaign to bring about safer and more civilised world?
As for me, the court will not be a useful weapon in today’s campaign to bring about safer and more civilized world because under the terms of the court’s treaty, it has no jurisdiction over crimes committed before July 1st, when the treaty formally goes into effect. So the court cannot be used to try Mr. Hussein for his past crimes.
Информация о работе Контрольная работа по "Английскому языку"