题目内容

历史研究的方法论——1999年英译汉及详解【F1】While there are almost as many definitions of history as there are historians, modern practice most closely conforms to one that sees history as the attempt to recreate and explain the significant events of the past.Caught in the web of its own time and place, each generation of historians determines anew what is significant for it in the past. In this search the evidence found is always incomplete and scattered; it is also frequently partial or partisan. The irony of the historian"s craft is that its practitioners always know that their efforts are but contributions to an unending process.【F2】Interest in historical methods has arisen less through external challenge to the validity of history as an intellectual discipline and more from internal quarrels among historians themselves.While history once revered its affinity to literature and philosophy, the emerging social sciences seemed to afford greater opportunities for asking new questions and providing rewarding approaches to an understanding of the past. Social science methodologies had to be adapted to a discipline governed by the primacy of historical sources rather than the imperatives of the contemporary world.【F3】During this transfer, traditional historical methods were augmented by additional methodologies designed to interpret the new forms of evidence in the historical study.Methodology is a term that remains inherently ambiguous in the historical profession.【F4】There is no agreement whether methodology refers to the concepts peculiar to historical work in general or to the research techniques appropriate to the various branches of historical inquiry.Historians, especially those so blinded by their research interests that they have been accused of "tunnel method", frequently fall victim to the"technicist fallacy". Also common in the natural sciences, the technicist fallacy mistakenly identifies the discipline as a whole with certain parts of its technical implementation.【F5】It applies equally to traditional historians who view history as only the external and internal criticism of sources, and to social science historians who equate their activity with specific techniques. 【F3】

查看答案

搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈

更多问题

智力测验的初衷及价值——1992年英译汉及详解Intelligence at best is an assumptive construct—the meaning of the word has never been clear.【F1】There is more agreement on the kinds of behavior referred to by the term than there is on how to interpret or classify them.But it is generally agreed that a person of high intelligence is one who can grasp ideas readily, make distinctions, reason logically, and make use of verbal and mathematical symbols in solving problems. An intelligence test is a rough measure of a child"s capacity for learning, particularly for learning the kinds of things required in school. It does not measure character, social adjustment, physical endurance, manual skills, or artistic abilities. It is not supposed to—it was not designed for such purposes.【F2】To criticize it for such failure is roughly comparable to criticizing a thermometer for not measuring wind velocity.The other thing we have to notice is that the assessment of the intelligence of any subject is essentially a comparative affair.【F3】Now since the assessment of intelligence is a comparative matter we must be sure that the scale with which we are comparing our subjects provides a "valid" or "fair" comparison.It is here that some of the difficulties which interest us begin. Any test performed involves at least three factors: the intention to do one" s best, the knowledge required for understanding what you have to do, and the intellectual ability to do it.【F4】The first two must be equal for all who are being compared, if any comparison in terms of intelligence is to be made.In school populations in our culture these assumptions can be made fair and reasonable, and the value of intelligence testing has been proved thoroughly. Its value lies, of course, in its providing a satisfactory basis for prediction. No one is in the least interested in the marks a little child gets on his test; what we are interested in is whether we can conclude from his mark on the test that the child will do better or worse than other children of his age at tasks which we think require "general intelligence".【F5】On the whole such a conclusion can be drawn with a certain degree of confidence, but only if the child can be assumed to have had the same attitude towards the test as the others with whom he is being compared, and only if he was not punished by lack of relevant information which they possessed. 【F2】

历史研究的方法论——1999年英译汉及详解【F1】While there are almost as many definitions of history as there are historians, modern practice most closely conforms to one that sees history as the attempt to recreate and explain the significant events of the past.Caught in the web of its own time and place, each generation of historians determines anew what is significant for it in the past. In this search the evidence found is always incomplete and scattered; it is also frequently partial or partisan. The irony of the historian"s craft is that its practitioners always know that their efforts are but contributions to an unending process.【F2】Interest in historical methods has arisen less through external challenge to the validity of history as an intellectual discipline and more from internal quarrels among historians themselves.While history once revered its affinity to literature and philosophy, the emerging social sciences seemed to afford greater opportunities for asking new questions and providing rewarding approaches to an understanding of the past. Social science methodologies had to be adapted to a discipline governed by the primacy of historical sources rather than the imperatives of the contemporary world.【F3】During this transfer, traditional historical methods were augmented by additional methodologies designed to interpret the new forms of evidence in the historical study.Methodology is a term that remains inherently ambiguous in the historical profession.【F4】There is no agreement whether methodology refers to the concepts peculiar to historical work in general or to the research techniques appropriate to the various branches of historical inquiry.Historians, especially those so blinded by their research interests that they have been accused of "tunnel method", frequently fall victim to the"technicist fallacy". Also common in the natural sciences, the technicist fallacy mistakenly identifies the discipline as a whole with certain parts of its technical implementation.【F5】It applies equally to traditional historians who view history as only the external and internal criticism of sources, and to social science historians who equate their activity with specific techniques. 【F1】

萨皮尔一沃尔夫假说的形成——2004年英译汉及详解The relation of language and mind has interested philosophers for many centuries.【F1】The Greeks assumed that the structure of language had some connection with the process of thought, which took root in Europe long before people realized how diverse languages could be.Only recently did linguists begin the serious study of languages that were very different from their own. Two anthropologist-linguists, Franz Boas and Edward Sapir, were pioneers in describing many native languages of North and South America during the first half of the twentieth century.【F2】We are obliged to them because some of these languages have since vanished, as the peoples who spoke them died out or became assimilated and lost their native languages.Other linguists in the earlier part of this century, however, who were less eager to deal with bizarre data from "exotic" language, were not always so grateful.【F3】The newly described languages were often so strikingly different from the well studied languages of Europe and Southeast Asia that some scholars even accused Boas and Sapir of fabricating their data.Na-tive American languages are indeed different, so much so in fact that Navajo could be used by the US military as a code during World War II to send secret messages.Sapir"s pupil, Benjamin Lee Whorf, continued the study of American Indian languages.【F4】Being interested in the relationship of language and thought, Whorf developed the idea that the structure of language determines the structure of habitual thought in a society.He reasoned that because it is easier to formulate certain concepts and not others in a given language, the speakers of that language think along one track and not along another.【F5】Whorf came to believe in a sort of linguistic determinism which, in its strongest form, states that language imprisons the mind, and that the grammatical patterns in a language can produce far-reaching consequences for the culture of a society.Later, this idea became to be known as the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, but this term is somewhat inappropriate. Although both Sapir and Whorf emphasized the diversity of languages, Sapir himself never explicitly supported the notion of linguistic determinism. 【F1】

历史研究的方法论——1999年英译汉及详解【F1】While there are almost as many definitions of history as there are historians, modern practice most closely conforms to one that sees history as the attempt to recreate and explain the significant events of the past.Caught in the web of its own time and place, each generation of historians determines anew what is significant for it in the past. In this search the evidence found is always incomplete and scattered; it is also frequently partial or partisan. The irony of the historian"s craft is that its practitioners always know that their efforts are but contributions to an unending process.【F2】Interest in historical methods has arisen less through external challenge to the validity of history as an intellectual discipline and more from internal quarrels among historians themselves.While history once revered its affinity to literature and philosophy, the emerging social sciences seemed to afford greater opportunities for asking new questions and providing rewarding approaches to an understanding of the past. Social science methodologies had to be adapted to a discipline governed by the primacy of historical sources rather than the imperatives of the contemporary world.【F3】During this transfer, traditional historical methods were augmented by additional methodologies designed to interpret the new forms of evidence in the historical study.Methodology is a term that remains inherently ambiguous in the historical profession.【F4】There is no agreement whether methodology refers to the concepts peculiar to historical work in general or to the research techniques appropriate to the various branches of historical inquiry.Historians, especially those so blinded by their research interests that they have been accused of "tunnel method", frequently fall victim to the"technicist fallacy". Also common in the natural sciences, the technicist fallacy mistakenly identifies the discipline as a whole with certain parts of its technical implementation.【F5】It applies equally to traditional historians who view history as only the external and internal criticism of sources, and to social science historians who equate their activity with specific techniques. 【F4】