 |
当前位置：首页 >> 个人服务 >> 预览个人简历信息 提醒：任何一种简历保密设置，都不会影响您在线投递简历。 |
|
| 个人信息 |
| 姓 名： |
译员 [编号]:3163 |
性 别： |
|
|
| 擅长专业： |
|
出生年月： |
|
|
| 民 族： |
|
所在地区： |
广东 广州 |
|
| 文化程度： |
|
所学专业： |
|
|
| 毕业时间： |
0 |
毕业学校： |
|
|
| 第一外语： |
|
等级水平： |
|
|
|
| 口译等级： |
|
工作经历： |
0 年 |
|
|
| 翻译库信息 |
| 可翻译语种： |
英语 |
|
|
| 目前所在地： |
广东 广州 |
| 可提供服务类型： |
笔译、口译 |
| 每周可提供服务时间： |
每天 |
| 证书信息 |
| 证书名称： |
英语专业四级TEM-4 |
|
| 获证时间： |
2009/4/1 |
|
| 获得分数： |
68 |
|
|
| 工作经历 |
| 工作时期： |
2011/7/1--2011/8/1 |
|
| 公司名称： |
广州市伊帆贸易有限公司 |
|
| 公司性质： |
民营企业 |
| 所属行业： |
采购/贸易 |
| 所在部门： |
市场部 |
|
| 职位： |
外贸业务助理 |
| 自我评价： |
我在这份工作中学到了很多跟外贸相关的知识，同时也提高了我的英语实践能力。我的主要工作内容如下：
61548 上传产品信息到公司的中英文网站上，及负责回复客户查询。
61548 搜索并上传“服装外贸资讯”，提议增加“美食”、“酒店”等附带资讯服务，被经理采纳。
61548 到国外各大B2B网站上发布公司产品信息，通过多种途径寻找国外客户。
61548 参与公司新品牌“Jetadore”的策划与推广，与同事共同提出推广方案。
|
|
|
| 工作时期： |
2011/4/1--2011/5/1 |
|
| 公司名称： |
环球市场有限公司 |
|
| 公司性质： |
合资企业 |
| 所属行业： |
采购/贸易 |
| 所在部门： |
市场部 |
|
| 职位： |
酒店推广大使 |
| 自我评价： |
这份工作提高了我的英语交际能力。我的主
要工作内容如下：
61548 与白云国际中心酒店及广州亚细亚酒店的公关部经理洽谈交易会期间双方“共赢合作”的具体细则。
61548 在酒店大堂及穿梭巴士上派发公司的采购指引及相关宣传产品。
61548 使用电脑中查询易系统记录外商的采购需求，并留下他们的名片。
|
|
|
| 工作时期： |
2011/7/1--2011/8/1 |
|
| 公司名称： |
杭州晨鹰科技有限公司 |
|
| 公司性质： |
民营企业 |
| 所属行业： |
电子/半导体/仪表仪器 |
| 所在部门： |
销售部 |
|
| 职位： |
2011中外安防产品采购洽谈会随身翻译 |
| 自我评价： |
61548 陪同杭州晨鹰科技有限公司的销售部经理与外国客商洽谈合作事宜，对“合作共赢”理念有更深理解。
61548 得到外国客商的赞许，应邀参加中外客商晚宴及安防协会组织的“珠江夜游”。
61548 帮助公司同越南，瑞典及新加坡的一些客商建立了合作关系。
|
|
|
| 工作时期： |
2011/9/1--2011/10/1 |
|
| 公司名称： |
上海一口天装饰艺术有限公司 |
|
| 公司性质： |
民营企业 |
| 所属行业： |
设计/创意 |
| 所在部门： |
销售部 |
|
| 职位： |
展会翻译 |
| 自我评价： |
61548 向国内外客商宣传公司的工艺品，提供产品报价，交换名片及下单。
61548 为更好服务公司，我将自己定位为“销售人员”，积极主动地询问老板关于产品制作工艺，目标市场等相关问题，之后主动向客商介绍公司的产品。
61548 工作得到老板的认可，已连续两届受邀当任其翻译。
|
|
|
| 工作时期： |
2010/11/1--2010/12/1 |
|
| 公司名称： |
亚运会广州外事办专项志愿者 |
|
| 公司性质： |
其它 |
| 所属行业： |
在校学生 |
| 所在部门： |
广州外事服务办公室 |
|
| 职位： |
国际要人接待 |
| 自我评价： |
61548 策划泰国泰国农业合作部共三四十人来穗游览日程。
61548 陪同泰国官员观赛、游览广州名胜古迹，出席“泰国水果节”等活动。
61548 表现突出，获得“广州亚运会优秀志愿者”称号及广州市外办“亚运会杰出贡献奖”。
|
|
|
| 笔译案例信息 |
| 案例标题： |
Culture of Poverty’ Makes a Comeback |
|
| 原文： |
For more than 40 years, social scientists investigating the causes of poverty have tended to treat cultural explanations like Lord Voldemort: That Which Must Not Be Named.
The reticence was a legacy of the ugly battles that erupted after Daniel Patrick Moynihan , then an assistant labor secretary in the Johnson administration, introduced the idea of a “culture of poverty” to the public in a startling 1965 report . Although Moynihan didn't coin the phrase (that distinction belongs to the anthropologist Oscar Lewis ), his description of the urban black family as caught in an inescapable “tangle of pathology” of unmarried mothers and welfare dependency was seen as attributing self-perpetuating moral deficiencies to black people, as if blaming them for their own misfortune.
Moynihan's analysis never lost its appeal to conservative thinkers, whose arguments ultimately succeeded when President Bill Clinton signed a bill in 1996 “ending welfare as we know it.” But in the overwhelmingly liberal ranks of academic sociology and anthropology the word “culture” became a live grenade, and the idea that attitudes and behavior patterns kept people poor was shunned.
Now, after decades of silence, these scholars are speaking openly about you-know-what, conceding that culture and persistent poverty are enmeshed.
“We've finally reached the stage where people aren't afraid of being politically incorrect,” said Douglas S. Massey, a sociologist at Princeton who has argued that Moynihan was unfairly maligned.
The old debate has shaped the new. Last month Princeton and the Brookings Institution released a collection of papers on unmarried parents, a subject, it noted, that became off-limits after the Moynihan report. At the recent annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, attendees discussed the resurgence of scholarship on culture. And in Washington last spring, social scientists participated in a Congressional briefing on culture and poverty linked to a special issue of The Annals , the journal of the American Academy of Political and Social Science .
“Culture is back on the poverty research agenda,” the introduction declares, acknowledging that it should never have been removed.
The topic has generated interest on Capitol Hill because so much of the research intersects with policy debates. Views of the cultural roots of poverty “play important roles in shaping how lawmakers choose to address poverty issues,” Representative Lynn Woolsey, Democrat of California, noted at the briefing.
This surge of academic research also comes as the percentage of Americans living in poverty hit a 15-year high: one in seven, or 44 million.
With these studies come many new and varied definitions of culture, but they all differ from the '60s-era model in these crucial respects: Today, social scientists are rejecting the notion of a monolithic and unchanging culture of poverty. And they attribute destructive attitudes and behavior not to inherent moral character but to sustained racism and isolation.
To Robert J. Sampson, a sociologist at Harvard , culture is best understood as “shared understandings.”
“I study inequality, and the dominant focus is on structures of poverty,” he said. But he added that the reason a neighborhood turns into a “poverty trap” is also related to a common perception of the way people in a community act and think. When people see graffiti and garbage, do they find it acceptable or see serious disorder? Do they respect the legal system or have a high level of “moral cynicism,” believing that “laws were made to be broken”?
As part of a large research project in Chicago, Professor Sampson walked through different neighborhoods this summer, dropping stamped, addressed envelopes to see how many people would pick up an apparently lost letter and mail it, a sign that looking out for others is part of the community's culture.
In some neighborhoods, like Grand Boulevard, where the notorious Robert Taylor public housing projects once stood, almost no envelopes were mailed; in others researchers received more than half of the letters back. Income levels did not necessarily explain the difference, Professor Sampson said, but rather the community's cultural norms, the levels of moral cynicism and disorder.
The shared perception of a neighborhood — is it on the rise or stagnant? — does a better job of predicting a community's future than the actual level of poverty, he said.
William Julius Wilson , whose pioneering work boldly confronted ghetto life while focusing on economic explanations for persistent poverty, defines culture as the way “individuals in a community develop an understanding of how the world works and make decisions based on that understanding.”
For some young black men, Professor Wilson, a Harvard sociologist, said, the world works like this: “If you don't develop a tough demeanor, you won't survive. If you have access to weapons, you get them, and if you get into a fight, you have to use them.”
Seeking to recapture the topic from economists, sociologists have ventured into poor neighborhoods to delve deeper into the attitudes of residents. Their results have challenged some common assumptions, like the belief that poor mothers remain single because they don't value marriage.
In Philadelphia, for example, low-income mothers told the sociologists Kathryn Edin and Maria Kefalas that they thought marriage was profoundly important, even sacred, but doubted that their partners were “marriage material.” Their results have prompted some lawmakers and poverty experts to conclude that programs that promote marriage without changing economic and social conditions are unlikely to work.
Mario Luis Small, a sociologist at the University of Chicago and an editor of The Annals' special issue, tried to figure out why some New York City mothers with children in day care developed networks of support while others did not. As he explained in his 2009 book, “Unanticipated Gains,” the answer did not depend on income or ethnicity, but rather the rules of the day-care institution. Centers that held frequent field trips, organized parents' associations and had pick-up and drop-off procedures created more opportunities for parents to connect.
Younger academics like Professor Small, 35, attributed the upswing in cultural explanations to a “new generation of scholars without the baggage of that debate.”
Scholars like Professor Wilson, 74, who have tilled the field much longer, mentioned the development of more sophisticated data and analytical tools. He said he felt compelled to look more closely at culture after the publication of Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein's controversial 1994 book, “The Bell Curve,” which attributed African-Americans' lower I.Q. scores to genetics.
The authors claimed to have taken family background into account, Professor Wilson said, but “they had not captured the cumulative effects of living in poor, racially segregated neighborhoods.”
He added, “I realized we needed a comprehensive measure of the environment, that we must consider structural and cultural forces.”
He mentioned a study by Professor Sampson, 54, that found that growing up in areas where violence limits socializing outside the family and where parents haven't attended college stunts verbal ability, lowering I.Q. scores by as much as six points, the equivalent of missing more than a year in school.
Changes outside campuses have made conversation about the cultural roots of poverty easier than it was in the '60s. Divorce, living together without marrying, and single motherhood are now commonplace. At the same time prominent African-Americans have begun to speak out on the subject. In 2004 the comedian Bill Cosby made headlines when he criticized poor blacks for “not parenting” and dropping out of school. President Obama , who was abandoned by his father, has repeatedly talked about “responsible fatherhood.”
Conservatives also deserve credit, said Kay S. Hymowitz, a fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute, for their sustained focus on family values and marriage even when cultural explanations were disparaged.
Still, worries about blaming the victim persist. Policy makers and the public still tend to view poverty through one of two competing lenses, Michèle Lamont , another editor of the special issue of The Annals, said: “Are the poor poor because they are lazy, or are the poor poor because they are a victim of the markets?”
So even now some sociologists avoid words like “values” and “morals” or reject the idea that, as The Annals put it, “a group's culture is more or less coherent.” Watered-down definitions of culture, Ms. Hymowitz complained, reduce some of the new work to “sociological pablum.”
“If anthropologists had come away from doing field work in New Guinea concluding ‘everyone's different,' but sometimes people help each other out,” she wrote in an e-mail, “there would be no field of anthropology — and no word culture for cultural sociologists to bend to their will.”
Fuzzy definitions or not, culture is back. This prompted mock surprise from Rep. Woolsey at last spring's Congressional briefing: “What a concept. Values, norms, beliefs play very important roles in the way people meet the challenges of poverty.”
|
|
| 译文： |
“贫困文化”重见天日
四十多年以来，研究贫困根源的社会科学家往往避而不谈文化因素，就好像那是连名字都不能提的伏地魔。
1965年，时任约翰逊政府劳工部副部长的丹尼尔•帕特里克•莫伊尼汉（Daniel Patrick Moynihan），发表了一份令人震惊的报告，向公众提出了“贫困文化”的说法，并由此引发了一场口舌恶战。之后社会学家便闭口不言贫困的文化根源。虽然莫伊尼汉并非这说法的首创者（这概念是人类学家奥斯卡•刘易斯创造的），但据他描述，城市黑人家庭陷入了无法逃脱的病态怪圈：未婚母亲充斥社区，人们过分依赖福利救济。这被视为把不曾消亡的道德缺陷归因于黑人自身，似乎在责怪他们该对自己的不幸负责。
莫伊尼汉的分析从未失去过对保守派的吸引力。1996年，比尔•克林顿总统签署法案，终止了无条件终身福利救助。保守派终于宣告胜出。但在极为自由的学术社会学和人类学行列中，“文化”一词成为一颗随时都可能爆发的手榴弹，对于不良的态度和行为模式使人们一直贫困这个观点，学者们也避而不谈。
现在，经过几十年来的沉默，这些学者正公开地谈论那个曾经讳莫如深的话题，承认文化与长期贫困间有紧密联系。
普林斯顿大学社会学家道格拉斯.S.梅西（Douglas S. Massey）讲到：“我们终于到了这个阶段，人们不再担心自己“政治上不正确”。他认为莫伊尼汉受到不公正的诽谤。
过去的口舌恶战引发了新一轮争论。上个月，普林斯顿大学和布鲁金斯学会发表了一系列有关未婚父母的文章。里面提到，这一话题自莫伊尼汉报告后已成为学者们研究的禁区。而最近在美国社会学协会的年会上，与会者探讨了文化学术研究再兴这一话题。今年春天，社会科学家在华盛顿参加了一场关于文化与贫困的简报会，此前，《美国政治和社会科学院纪事》也就此问题发行过一期特刊。
该特刊在引言部分指出：“文化已重回贫困研究的议程中”，并表示文化因素本不应该被忽视。
这一话题引起了美国国会的关注，因为该研究与政治辩论息息相关。如何看待贫困的文化根源，“对于立法者解决贫困问题有很大影响”简报会上加利福尼亚州民主党伍尔西众议员讲到。
这股学术研究热潮掀起的另一原因，是美国贫困人口达到15年新高：占美国总人口的七分之一，也即四千四百万人。
这些研究赋予文化多种多样的新定义，但在以下重要方面，它们和六十年代所提出的标志性观点有所不同。如今，社会科学家并不认为文化是导致贫困的单一不变的原因。在他们看来，消极的态度和行为不是与生俱来的道德缺陷，而是持久不变的种族歧视和隔离主义造成的。
哈佛大学社会学家罗伯特.J.桑普森（Robert J. Sampson）认为，文化的最佳诠释是“共识”。
他说：“我研究不平等问题，且主要关注贫困结构。”但他补充道，社区之所以会变成“贫困陷阱”，也跟人们如何共同看待社区成员的行为及思维有关。人们看到乱涂乱画和垃圾废物时，觉得可以接受，还是觉得秩序很混乱呢？他们是否尊重法律制度，而又或者藐视道德伦理，认为“法律就是用来被打破的”？
桑普森教授今年夏天走访不同的社区，做以下调查研究。这是芝加哥一个大型研究项目的一部分。他故意将贴好邮票、写好地址的信封丢在地上，看看究竟有多少人会捡起显然遗失的信件，并邮寄出去。因为是否关心他人是社区文化的一部分。
在一些社区，没有一封信件被寄出，如林荫大道，即臭名远扬的罗伯特.泰勒廉租公寓楼群先前的所在地。在其他地方，研究者收到了超过半数的信件。桑普森讲到，收入水平的差异并不一定会造成这种不同。真正的决定因素是社区的文化标准，藐视道德及秩序混乱的程度。
社区文化进步与否比现时的贫困水平更能预测一个社区的将来。
哈佛大学社会学家威廉•朱利叶斯•威尔逊（William Julius Wilsom）的开创性研究大胆直面贫民区生活，但着重探究长期贫困背后的经济因素。他认为文化体现在“社区中的个体怎样认识世界及基于这种认识如何做决定”。
威尔逊教授讲到，对一些年轻黑人而言，世界是这样运转的：“你如果不够强硬，就无法生存。如果可以拿到武器，就将它拿到手。因为当你身陷恶战时，你必须使用武器。”
社会学家试图从与经济学家不同的角度来探讨这个话题。他们已深入一些贫民区以求更好地了解当地居民的态度。他们的研究成果使一些广为接受的看法受到了质疑。例如人们普遍认为贫困母亲一直单身是因为她们不重视婚姻，而事情并非如此。
比如在费城，低收入母亲跟社会学家凯瑟琳•爱丁（Kathryn Edin）及马里奥•卡发拉斯（Maria Kefalas）说：她们认为婚姻是十分重要的，甚至是神圣的。但她们质疑自己的伴侣是否是“结婚的料”。社会学家的研究成果促使立法者及贫困专家得出这个结论：若不改变经济及社会状况，鼓励结婚的措施是不可能奏效的。
芝加哥大学社会学家马里奥•路易斯（Mario Luis Small）也即上文提到的《纪事》特刊的编辑之一，试图解释为何同在纽约市，同样把孩子送到日托所，有些母亲建立了相互扶持的社交网络，而有些却没有。2009年，他出版了《意外收获》一书，指出这并非取决于收入及种族差异，而是在于日托所的相关制度。那些经常组织幼儿园开放日，有规范化家长协会及接送制度的日托中心能给家长们更多交流的机会。
较年轻的学者，如斯莫教授（35岁），都认为贫困文化论掀起缘于新一代学者毋庸背负九十年代争论的思想包袱。
另外一些更为资生的学者，如威尔逊教授（74岁），则提出日渐全面的数据和日益精良的分析工具也是原因之一。1994年，查理斯﹒莫瑞（Charles Murray）及理查德•伯恩斯坦（Richard Herrnstein）出版了富有争议的《钟形曲线》，该书提出遗传因素导致非裔美国人智商得分较低。此书出版后，威尔逊教授觉得务必要更深入研究文化因素。
该书作者声称已有考虑家庭背景这个因素。威尔逊教授讲到，但“他们忽视了生活在种族隔离贫民区所带来的累积效应。
他补充道，“我认识到我们应综合考量环境因素，充分考虑社会结构和文化层面的影响。”
他提到桑普森教授（54岁）的一项研究。该研究发现在有些社区，暴力现象频发，限制社会交际，加上父母没有接受高等教育。在这样的环境下成长，孩子的语言能力会受阻，智商得分比平常人低差不多6分，而这相当于少接受了一年的学校教育。
较之六十年代，社会的变化使得人们可以更自由地畅谈贫困文化论。现在离婚、同居、单身母亲都很常见。同时，杰出的非裔美国人也开始大胆讨论这个话题。2004年，喜剧演员比尔•考斯比上了头条新闻，因他指责贫穷黑人没有尽到做父母的责任及孩子经常辍学。而被父亲遗弃的奥巴马总统则再三谈到为人父亲应有责任感。
保守派也理应得到称赞，因为即使在贫困文化论受到轻视时，他们依然持续关注家庭价值观与婚姻问题。来自保守派智库曼哈顿研究所的研究员凯﹒S﹒希莫威茨（Kay S. Hymowitz）如是说。
人们仍然担心穷人们会被责难为自作自受。《纪事》特刊的另一位编辑米歇尔﹒拉蒙（Michèle Lamont）讲到，社会上对贫困问题有两种截然不同的看法，而决策者及社会大众仍然倾向仅从其中一个角度出发。要么认为穷人们之所以穷是因为他们懒惰，要么认为是因为他们是市场经济的受害者？”
所以即使是现在，一些社会学家依然避免用“价值”和“道德”这样的字眼或不认同《纪事》提出的“群体文化或多过少具有连贯性”这一观点。希莫威茨女士抱怨道，模糊的文化定义使一些新的社会学研究工作沦为枯燥无味。
她在一封邮件中写道：“如果人类学家先前没有在新几内亚做实地考察，就简单地得出以下这一结论‘每个人都是不同的’，但有时人们会互相帮助减少差异，那么人类学早已不复存在，同时也没有文化这一领域可让社会学家畅所欲言了。
不管定义模糊与否，贫困文化已重见天日。这使得众议员伍尔西在今年春天的简报会上故作惊讶地说：“何其重要的一个概念啊。价值观念、社会规范及信仰在人们应对贫困挑战时，发挥重要作用。”
|
|
|
|
|
