CATTI杯第二十九届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛（有报名费）
大赛名称：CATTI杯第二十九届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛 参赛截止日期：2017年于5月31日报名费：30元（单项） CATTI杯第二十九届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛由中国翻译协会和暨南大学联合主办，《...大赛名称：CATTI杯第二十九届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛 参赛截止日期：2017年于5月31日报名费：30元（单项） CATTI杯第二十九届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛由中国翻译协会和暨南大学联合主办，《中国翻译》编辑部与暨南大学翻译学院联合承办，中国外文局全国翻译专业资格（水平）考试中心（CATTI）协办。欢迎海内外广大翻译工作者和翻译爱好者参赛。 具体参赛规则如下：
1.本届竞赛分别设立英译汉和汉译英两个奖项，参赛者可任选一项或同时参加两项竞赛，竞赛原文请参见《中国翻译》2017年第1期或“中国翻译”微信公众号发布的内容。
2.参赛者年龄：45岁以下（1972年1月1日后出生）。
3.参赛译文须独立完成，杜绝抄袭现象，一经发现，将取消参赛资格。请参赛者在大赛截稿之日前妥善保存参赛译文，请勿在书报刊、网络等任何媒体公布自己的参赛译文，否则将被取消参赛资格并承担由此造成的一切后果。
参赛报名流程：
关注“中国翻译”微信公众号 → 对话框内输入“竞赛报名” → 弹出报名表 → 填写报名信息、选择参赛组别（英译汉或汉译英） → 提交报名 →
支付报名费（30元） →
报名成功：收到“报名确认通知”（内含“报名凭据”） →
通过电子邮箱提交参赛译文（每次报名只收到一个报名凭据，每个报名凭据只能提交一项参赛译文，如参加两项，可报名两次。）
参赛译文提交要求：
（一）请于2017年于5月31日（含）前将参赛译文提交至hansuyin2012@vip.163.com。
（二）参赛译文应为WORD电子文档，中文宋体、英文Times New Roman字体，全文小四号字，1.5倍行距。
（三）邮件主题及参赛译文文档命名格式为：参赛组别 + 姓名 + 报名凭据，例如：英译汉张三1122ee8903，提交译文前请仔细核对报名凭据，确保无误。
（四）译文正文内请勿书写译者姓名、地址等任何个人信息，否则将被视为无效译文。每项参赛译文一稿有效，恕不接收修改稿。
发送参赛译文得到自动回复后，请勿重复发送。如需查询是否发送成功，可在2017年6月20日至7月20日之间拨打电话（010）68995951；68995956。
竞赛设一、二、三等奖和优秀奖若干名。一、二、三等奖将获得证书、奖杯、奖金和纪念品，优秀奖将获得证书和纪念品。2017年第6期（11月15日出版）《中国翻译》杂志将公布竞赛结果。竞赛颁奖典礼将于2017年底举行，竞赛获奖者将获邀参加颁奖典礼。
请登录中国译协网（www.tac-online.org.cn）或关注“中国翻译”微信公众号，了解本届竞赛最新动态。
联系地址：北京市西城区百万庄大街24号《中国翻译》编辑部 邮编：100037
电子信箱：hansuyin2012@vip.163.com
CATTI杯第二十九届韩素音青年翻译奖竞赛评审委员会 英译汉竞赛原文：
The Concept of Intelligence in
Cross-cultural Perspectives
[1] One of the positive outcomes from so much research on the relationship
between culture and intelligence is an expanded view of what intelligence may
be, and how it may be conceptually related to culture. This issue is intricately
intertwined with cross-cultural research on intelligence because one of the
possible confounding factors in previous studies that documented cultural
differences has been cultural differences in the very concept and meaning of
intelligence.
[2] Researchers in this area have discovered that many languages have no word
that corresponds to our idea of intelligence. The closest Mandarin equivalent,
for instance, is a Chinese character that means “good brain and talented”.
Chinese people often associate this concept with traits such as imitation,
effort, and social responsibility. Such traits do not constitute important
elements of the concept of intelligence for most Americans.
[3] African cultures provide a number of examples. The Baganda of East Africa
use the word obugezi to
refer to a combination of mental and social skills that make a person steady,
cautious, and friendly. The Djerma-Songhai in West Africa use the
term akkal,
which has an even broader meaning – a combination of intelligence, know-how, and
social skills. Still another society, the Baoule, uses the term n’glouele,
which describes children who are not only mentally alert but also willing to
volunteer their services without being asked.
[4] Because of the enormous differences in the ways cultures define
intelligence, it is difficult to make valid comparisons from one society to
another. That is, different cultures value different traits (their definition of
“intelligence”) and have divergent views concerning which traits are useful in
predicting future important behaviors (also culturally defined). People in
different cultures not only disagree about what constitutes intelligence but
also about the proper way to demonstrate those abilities. In mainstream North
American society, individuals are typically rewarded for displaying knowledge
and skills. This same behavior may be considered improper, arrogant, or rude in
societies that stress personal relationships, cooperation, and
modesty.
[5] These differences are important to cross-cultural studies of intelligence
because successful performance on a task of intelligence may require behavior
that is considered immodest and arrogant in Culture A (and therefore only
reluctantly displayed by members of Culture A)but desirable in Culture B (and
therefore readily displayed by members of Culture B). Clearly, such different
attitudes toward the same behavior could lead researchers to draw inaccurate
conclusions about differences in intelligence between Culture A and Culture
B.
[6] Another reason it is difficult to compare intelligence cross-culturally is
that tests of intelligence often rely on knowledge that is specific to a
particular culture; investigators based in that culture may not even know what
to test for in a different culture. For example, one U.S. intelligence test
contains the following question: “How does a violin resemble a piano?” Clearly,
this question assumes prior knowledge about violins and pianos – quite a
reasonable expectation for middle-class Americans, but not for people from
cultures that use different musical instruments.
[7] Our expanding knowledge about cultural differences in the concept of
intelligence has had important ramifications for our theoretical understanding
of intelligence in mainstream American psychology as well. Although traditional
thinking and reasoning abilities have dominated views of intelligence in the
past, in recent years psychologists have begun to turn their attention to other
possible aspects of intelligence. Until very recently, for example, creativity
was not considered a part of intelligence; now, however, psychologists are
increasingly considering this important human ability as a type of intelligence.
Other aspects of intelligence are also coming to the forefront. A psychologist
has suggested that there are really seven different types of intelligence:
logical mathematical, linguistic, musical, spatial, bodily kinesthetic,
interpersonal, and intrapersonal. According to this scheme, not only do the core
components of each of these seven types of intelligence differ, but so do some
sample end-states (such as mathematician versus dancer). His theory of multiple
intelligences has broadened our understanding of intelligence to include other
areas besides “book smarts”.
[8] Perhaps the field is coming to realize that intelligence in its broadest
sense may be more aptly defined as “the skills and abilities necessary to
effectively accomplish cultural goals”. If your culture’s goals, for example,
involve successfully pursuing a professional occupation with a good salary in
order to support yourself and your family, that culture will foster a view of
intelligence that incorporates cognitive and emotional skills and abilities that
allow for pursuing such an occupation. Those skills and abilities may include
deductive reasoning, logical thought, verbal and mathematical skills – the sorts
of skills that are fostered in contemporary American culture. If your culture’s
goals, however, focus more on the development and maintenance of successful
interpersonal relationships, working with nature, or hunting and gathering,
intelligence will more aptly be viewed as the skills and abilities related to
such activities.
[9] On one level, therefore, people of all cultures share a similar view of
intelligence – a catchall concept that summarizes the skills and abilities
necessary to live effectively in one’s culture. At the same time, however,
cultural differences naturally exist because of differences in how cultures
define goals and skills and abilities needed to achieve those goals. Future
research will need to delve into these dual processes, searching for
commonalities as well as differences across cultures and exploring what
contextual variables affect intelligence-related behaviors, and why.
[10] Awareness of cultural differences in intelligence raises difficult
questions concerning testing and the use of test scores. Should bias in testing
be eliminated at the expense of the predictive validity of the test? Many
educational institutions and business organizations today face this difficult
question, which is compounded by legal ramifications and the constant threat of
litigation. Perhaps we need to give consideration to yet another aspect of
intelligence – that is, our attitudes regarding intelligence. A cross-cultural
understanding of differences in the definitions and processes of intelligence
should help to deepen our appreciation and respect for cultures different from
our own, and help us to find similarities as well as differences among
people. 汉译英竞赛原文：
启蒙的真谛
[1]
“启蒙”的本义是开启蒙昧，识字读书，明白事理。在中国古代，人们从小要接受“蒙学”，才能成为有教养的人，否则就是“教化未开”。据说，早年被启蒙到了什么程度，决定其日后可达到的智力高度。
[2] 同样，人类社会从传统向现代转型的过程，也与启蒙相伴随；没有启蒙就没有现代化。
[3]
然而，作为现代话语的“启蒙”，却源自于近代西方。在人类历史上，近代启蒙思想和启蒙运动首发于17世纪后期的英国，后传播到法国、德国等欧洲国家，波及北美，19世纪后期又影响到日本、中国等亚洲国家。
[4]
正是由于西方有了洛克、斯密、伏尔泰、卢梭、狄德罗等启蒙思想家，才有了之后欧美的工业革命、市场经济和宪政体制。在中国，自晚清时期出现近代启蒙思想后，中国知识分子在“救亡图存”的背景下，借助西方近代思想，改造中国传统文化，塑造新型国民，引发了洋务运动、戊戌变法、新文化运动等。特别是在当代，1978年关于“实践是检验真理的唯一标准”的大讨论，极大地解放了人们的思想，带来了之后“改革开放”的巨大成果。由此，思想的力量可见一斑。
[5]
长期以来，人们对于启蒙运动有一种误解，认为那是先知先觉的知识分子和哲人启发、教育、训导被启蒙者，因而“启蒙”成了及物动词，其宾语是未开化的芸芸众生。其实，根据现代启蒙思想家康德的解释，启蒙的本质不是“他启”而是“自觉”，即人们从由自我原因的不成熟状态（在缺乏指导下无力运用自我理性的状态）中觉醒，其根源并非是人们缺乏理性，而是缺乏对理性的运用。
[6] 这种真知灼见至今闪烁着理性的光芒。
[7]
在西方，启蒙思想的支撑源于人们对于客观规律的认知，如哥白尼的“日心说”、牛顿的“万有引力”、伽利略的“宇宙论”等，认为整个宇宙中的一切物体都遵守同一定律，进而冲破千年的宗教束缚，将这一理性思考引入了人类社会，从而开创了一个不断进取的新时代。在中国，几千年的封建农业社会，使得科技落后、法治传统缺乏，只是受到近代西方启蒙思想（包括马克思主义）的影响，才引入了科学、民主、法治的概念，开始与世界文明接轨。
[8]
在这一历史大潮中，中国现在比历史上任何时期都更接近中华民族的伟大复兴。正如“一带一路”被越来越多的国家认识到不是中国的独角戏，而是沿途民族的大合唱，每个中国人对于客观与主观世界的深刻、自觉的理性开发，最终将汇集于前所未有的“中国梦”的实现。
（来源《中国翻译》杂志2017年第1期） 附件:
历届与中国译协《中国翻译》编辑部 联合主办/承办韩奖竞赛的单位 1989 （第1届）
江西省翻译工作者协会1990 （第2届） 陕西省翻译工作者协会1991 （第3届） 天津翻译工作者协会1992 （第4届） 江苏省翻译工作者协会1993 （第5届） 福建省翻译工作者协会1994 （第6届） 重庆市翻译工作者协会1995 （第7届） 广州翻译工作者协会、广州科技翻译协会1996 （第8届） 南京翻译家协会1997 （第9届） 湖南省翻译工作者协会、长沙铁道学院《外语与翻译》编辑部1998 （第10届） 上海科技翻译学会、上海大学1999 （第11届） 商务印书馆2000 （第12届） 南开大学2001 （第13届） 广东外语外贸大学2002 （第14届） 清华大学2003 （第15届） 外交学院2004 （第16届） 苏州大学2005 （第17届） 中南大学2006 （第18届） 上海外国语大学2007 （第19届） 澳门理工学院2008 （第20届） 中国人民大学2009 （第21届） 北京大学2010 （第22届） 上海对外贸易学院2011 （第23届） 对外经济贸易大学2012 （第24届） 首都师范大学、暨南大学2013 （第25届） 天津财经大学2014 （第26届） 上海师范大学天华学院2015 （第27届） 宁波大学2016 （第28届） 上海交通大学2017 （第29届） 暨南大学信息出自：中国翻译协会官网，信息版权及活动解释权归本活动主办方所有。
