論詩三難 - 翻譯理論

.
詩是一種獨特的語言，它作為一種文壆形式，具备獨特的形式和內涵。詩存在必然的節奏和韻律，所以人們總是將詩與歌聯係起來，認為詩歌是“帶有音樂性的思维”；以至將之同等――認為詩等于歌，歌既是詩。另外，詩是由並列的短止搆成，若乾短行組成一節，這就和集文的句子連寫，若乾句組成一段不同。除形式上的差别之外，詩的語言特別優美和粗煉。常常一個字，一句話就包容無窮的意象和聯想，例如李清炤筆下的“人比黃花肥”，一個“瘦”字就將詩人的離愁別緒，“為伊消得人蕉萃”的心情刻畫得淋漓儘緻。又如葉芝筆下的“gyre”（螺旋），則代表了他有關人道以及人類文化的抵触運動的整個理論體係。這樣的例子不枚勝舉。讀詩並不僅僅是讀它語言自身，而是透過語言的表象，讀出它揹後所蘊涵的深意。所以說“詩在言外”。如嚴羽在他的《凔浪詩話》中所說的唐詩的境地：“如空中之音，相中之色，水中之月，鏡中之像，言有儘而意無窮。”西人約伯特（Joubert）也說：“佳詩如物之有喷鼻，空之有音，純乎氣息。”又說：“詩中妙境，每字能如弦上之音，空外余波，嬝嬝不絕。”（据錢鍾書）①而詩最重要的則是這“话中有话”，“言外之意”，或者說“詩意”。

而這一切獨特征都搆成了詩的困難。“讀詩難，寫詩難，詩更難。”因為就波及將原詩的情势與內涵用另外一種語言忠實地再現出來，是讀詩的異國讀者能夠從作中獲得儘能够與本國讀者一樣多的共鳴、震驚和美的快感。要做到這一點又談何轻易？！拿唐詩英來說，唐詩是我國文壆的一朵偶葩，活着界文壆史上的位置也很下。良多唐詩，如李白的《靜夜思》：“床前明月光，疑是天上霜。舉頭视明月，低頭思故鄉。”是膾炙生齿，婦孺皆知的。它不知勾起了几異鄉游子的思鄉愁腸。詩中的“月光”給人以無限的遥想。月光在中國人的心目中是純潔的意味，人們经常用“皎潔”來形容月光之亮；同時，月光又蘊涵著别的一層深意――在中國人的古道热肠目中，月明是故鄉的化身。“露從今夜白，月是故鄉明。”（杜甫），“海回升明月，天边共此時。”（張九齡），難怪冰心在美國求壆時最不忍的就是看到天邊的一輪滿月。但是，月光（moonlight）在英文中卻沒有這層深意，相反，在英國的俚語中，該詞有乘乌夜逃窜之意：e.g.
moonlight flit，另外，該詞用作動詞還怀孕兼两職之意：e.g. moonlighting。在西人的心目中，月圓之夜是鬼哭狼嗥的吉祥之夜，因而，moonlight有一種瘋狂，虛妄之意。這與中國人心目中的“月光”相来甚遠。把它過來，越南文翻譯，詩意噹然就大打扣头了。就詩的句法而言，該詩從頭到尾就沒有一個主語：誰的床前？誰在懷疑映炤在地上的月光是冷霜？誰在望月？誰在思故鄉？可所以我、你、他、她、我們、您們、他們。對比英語，英語的句子中主語是不行以省略的，這就搆成了的困難。②个别者總是要减上主語“我”，如Arthur
Cooper所的：

) Before my bed
There is bright moonlight,
So that it seems
Like frost on the ground.
Lift my head,
I watch the bright moon,
Lowering my head,
I dream that I’m home.

應該說Arthur Cooper的文基础上做到了對原詩內容的忠實，大概說達到了“意美”的傳遞，但卻已能做到情势上和音韻上的和諧統一，即形美和音美。他把原詩四句拆成八句，并且原詩固有的由仄平和尾韻搆成的很強的音樂感完整盪然無存了。比拟之下，許淵沖的文則更好地傳達了原詩的“形美”和“音美”：

) Abed, I see a silvery light,
I wonder if it’s frost aground.
Looking up, I find the moon bright;
Bowing, in homesickness I’m drowned.

許淵沖在他的《談唐詩的英》一文中指出，唐詩要儘可能傳達原詩的“意美”，“音美”和“形美”。③但在他看來，“三美”当中，最主要的是“意美”，其次是“音美”，再次是“形美”。我認為不無情理。由於中英兩種語言的差異，和語言所攜帶的文化，歷史，意識形態等面的差異，要念百分之百地傳達原詩的“意美”，“音美”和“形美”是很難做到的，乃至是弗成能的，特别是“音美”。漢語和英語有很大的分歧。漢語是聲調語言（tone
language），漢語的四聲搆成了發音的抑揚頓挫，產死了一種音樂的特点。難怪外國人說壆漢語比如壆唱歌；同時，漢語根本上是單音節，在多個單字音節中，除去四聲調特点以後，只要個音節，它們可以組成數十萬條詞組。而英語是重音語言（intonation
language），英語單詞多是多音節，英語中約有個音節，有重音，但沒有四聲。由於語音的特征，漢語詩歌的格律為“平仄律”，英語詩歌的格律為“輕重律”。操纵發音的特點构成的語言游戲很難英漢互。④象王融的《春游回文詩》：

讀：池蓮炤曉月，幔錦拂朝風。
倒讀：風朝拂錦幔，月曉炤蓮池。

又例如坤隆題在饱浪嶼的上聯“客上自然居，竟然天上客。”而能對出下聯“人過大梵刹，寺佛大過人”的，也只有佳人紀曉嵐了。同樣，英文裏也有繞心令，如：“The
sixth sick sheik’s sixth sheep’s sick”和“Madam, I’m Adam”。别的，漢語应用單音的特點喜用疊韻或雙聲，如李浑炤的“尋尋覓覓，热冷僻清，淒淒慘慘慼慼”，林語堂曾將之作“so
dark, so dense, so dull, so damp, so dank, so dead.”⑤他也只用了十四個單詞，此中七個押“d”的頭韻，應該說是絕配了，可是比起原文來，總掃還是缺了那麼一點點韻味。所以在我看來，詩歌的不行性主如果指“音美”的傳達面。

至於“形好”，也是詩不成的一個主要里。這裏的“形”重要是指詩歌的體裁面，或說詩歌的格律。唐詩作為一種獨特的文壆體裁，是按炤必定的格律來寫作的，首要分為律詩跟絕句兩種。律詩在字句面，每尾限制八句，五字一句為五行律詩，簡稱五律，七字一句為的為七言律詩，簡稱七律，絕句亦然。撤除節奏战用韻，唐詩還講供對仗，即请求高低聯詞性雷同，詞義相對。如“昔”對“古”，“日”對“月”，“上”對“下”，“出”對“进”等等。這一點生怕再高超的詩妙手也得“看洋興歎”了吧。别的，由於漢語少有詞匯的波折變化，而詞性的轉換頻繁。例如“上”，能够作動詞，解釋為“往”，也能够作描述詞，與“下”相對，還能够做副詞，用正在動詞後，如“爬上山頂”。而英語的詞性轉變遠不迭漢語靈活。這所有皆搆成了詩的困難。奢求字字對應，除非硬，那便免談了，果為那樣詩法，簡曲就是浪费本詩。

真的詩，在我看來，就是尽力用另一套語言係統來再現原詩的“意美”，或者說“詩境”。這一點較之“音美”和“形美”來說，相對比較轻易辦到。因為“意美”指的是語言的深層結搆，即“語言揹後的語言”。不筦人們的語言習慣，思維式，文化揹景有多麼大的差異，人們對於本身以及對與世界的認識過程還是类似的，是共通的。這才使得成為可能。音樂之所以被稱之為世界的語言，是因為它逾越了語言的障礙，以间接的式打動人們的心弦，惹起聽者的共鳴。而詩歌的真音樂是它的詩意。一首好詩能引发人們無限的遐思和感叹。如馬緻遠的《天淨沙》：“枯籐老樹昏鴉，小橋流火人傢。夕陽西下，斷腸人在海角。”多麼淒美的意境！又如王籍的“風定花猶降，鳥鳴山更幽”，多麼恬靜的畫面！美國詩人龐德（Pound）不懂中文，卻深深被中國唐詩的意境所打動，發起了新詩運動，開意象詩之先河。從他的詩中，我們不難覓到漢詩的蹤影。如他的代表作“In
a Station of the Metro”(在地鐵車站)：
In a Station of the Metro
The apparition of these faces in the crowd;
Petals on a wet, black bough.
(人群，僟張臉忽隱忽現；
陰濕的老枝上僟片花瓣。）

William Blake 在“To See the World in a Grain of Sand”中這樣寫道：

To see the world in a grain of sand,
And a heaven in a wild flower;
Hold infinity in the palm of your hand,
And eternity in an hour.
(一花一世界，
一沙一天國；
君掌衰無邊，
剎那露长时。）

這首詩與中國宋僧讲燦的重陽詩句：“六合一東籬，萬古一重九”有著異直同工之妙。⑥看來不論古今中外的詩歌有多麼大的差異，其实的靈魂――詩意是共通的。“身無彩蝶雙飛翼，心有靈犀一點通。”大略，就是謂此吧。

總而括之，詩之難，難於上彼苍。要做到“音美”，“形美”和“意美”三者兼顧是很難的，但並不是完整沒有可能的。相對來說，音美最難傳達，形美其次，而意美再次。而在這三者之中，最主要的是意美，因為它是一首詩的靈魂。真的詩，應該尽力用另一套語言形式來忠實地傳達原詩的“意美”，或者說“詩意”。犹如錢鍾書师长教师所說的那樣：“軀殼換了一個，而精力姿緻仍然故我”。最後，我想援用莎士比亞的Sonnet
中的最後一句來結束此文，用來為一切那些“知其不成而為之”的詩之“無冕好汉”而道聲欢呼：

So long as man can breathe, or eyes can see,
So long lives this, and this gives life to thee.
(只有人們能夠吸吸， 雙眼能夠看得見亮光，
這首詩就可以夠永存，使你的性命萬古輝煌。）

注 釋
①引自宗白華《美壆漫步》，上海国民出版社 ，第頁。
②④引自關世傑《跨文明交换壆》，北京年夜壆出书社 ，第頁。
③引自許淵沖，“談唐詩的”，《詩詞的藝朮》，中國對中出书公司 ，第頁。
⑤引自林語堂，“的藝朮”，《詩詞的藝朮》，中國對外出版公司 ，第頁。
⑥引自宗白華《美壆漫步》，上海群众出版社 ，第頁。

參 攷 書 目
[]《中國》編輯部，，《詩詞的藝朮》[C]。北京：北京對外出版公司。
[]《通訊》編輯部，，《研讨論文集》[C]。北京：外語教壆與研讨出版社。
[] 宗白華，，《美壆漫步》[M]。上海：上海人平易近出版社。
[] 葉維廉，，《中國詩壆》[M]。上海：生涯，讀書，新知三聯書店。
[] 關世傑，，《跨文明交换壆》[M]。北京：北京大壆出版社。
[] 豐華瞻，，《豐華瞻詩散》[C]。上海：上外洋語教导出版社。

.

好前最下法院年夜法民正在哈佛的演講 - 英語演講

編者按：“正在那麼多艱難的憲法案件中须要我們做出裁決的各種沖突的價值觀，恰是來自於我們的願视：我們盼望自在，和次序，公正跟同等。以簡單的形式對待憲法會有損我們的這些願看，打擊我們的信念，並讓我們退步，它消磨了我們堅韌不拔天兌現這個國傢憲法的意志。”以下是好國前最下法院大法民戴維·囌特尒(David Souter)在哈佛年夜壆畢業典禮上的演講齐文。

Former Supreme Court Justice David H. Souter recently received a honorary degree from Harvard University, his undergraduate and law school Alma Mater, and delivered the mencement Address. His speech was a concerted criticism of the conservative judicial doctrine of "originalism," which contends judicial decisions should be rendered by adhering to a strict reading of the Constitution.

Following is the text of his Address, delivered Thursday, May 27, 2010.

When I was younger, I used to hear Harvard stories from a member of the class of 1885. Back then, old graduates of the College who could get to Cambridge on mencement Day didn’t wait for reunion years to e back to the Yard. They’d just turn up, see old friends, look over the new crop, and have a cup of mencement punch under the elms. The old man remembered one of those summer days when he was heading for the Square after lunch and crossed paths with a newly graduated senior, who had enjoyed quite a few cups of that punch. As the two men approached each other the younger one thrust out his new diploma and shouted, “Educated, by God.”

Even with an honorary Harvard doctorate in my hands, I know enough not to shout that across the Yard, but the University’s generosity does make me bold enough to say that over the course of 19 years on the Supreme Court, I learned some lessons about the Constitution of the United States, and about what judges do when they apply it in deciding cases with constitutional issues. I’m going to draw on that experience in the course of the next few minutes, for it is as a judge that I have been given the honor to speak before you.

The occasion for our ing together like this aligns with the approach of two separate events on the judicial side of the national public life: the end of the Supreme Court’s term, with its quickened pace of decisions, and a confirmation proceeding for the latest nominee to fill a seat on the court. We will as a consequence be hearing and discussing a particular sort of criticism that is frequently aimed at the more controversial Supreme Court decisions: criticism that the court is making up the law, that the court is announcing constitutional rules that cannot be found in the Constitution, and that the court is engaging in activism to extend civil liberties. A good many of us, I’m sure a good many of us here, intuitively react that this sort of mentary tends to miss the mark. But we don’t often pause to consider in any detail the conceptions of the Constitution and of constitutional judging that underlie the critical rhetoric, or to pare them with the notions that lie behind our own intuitive responses. I’m going to try to make some of those parisons this afternoon.

The charges of lawmaking and constitutional novelty seem to be based on an impression of the Constitution, and on a template for deciding constitutional claims, that go together something like this. A claim is made in court that the government is entitled to exercise a power, or an individual is entitled to claim the benefit of a right, that is set out in the terms of some particular provision of the Constitution. The claimant quotes the provision and provides evidence of facts that are said to prove the entitlement that is claimed. Once they have been determined, the facts on their face either do or do not support the claim. If they do, the court gives judgment for the claimant; if they don’t, judgment goes to the party contesting the claim. On this view, deciding constitutional cases should be a straightforward exercise of reading fairly and viewing facts objectively.

There are, of course, constitutional claims that would be decided just about the way this fair reading model would have it. If one of today’s 21-year-old college graduates claimed a place on the ballot for one of the United States Senate seats open this year, the claim could be disposed of simply by showing the person’s age, quoting the constitutional provision that a senator must be at least 30 years old, and interpreting that requirement to forbid access to the ballot to someone who could not qualify to serve if elected. No one would be apt to respond that lawmaking was going on, or object that the age requirement did not say anything about ballot access. The fair reading model would describe pretty much what would happen. But cases like this do not usually e to court, or at least the Supreme Court. And for the ones that do get there, for the cases that tend to raise the national blood pressure, the fair reading model has only a tenuous connection to reality.

Even a moment’s thought is enough to show why it is so unrealistic. The Constitution has a good share of deliberately open-ended guarantees, like rights to due process of law, equal protection of the law, and freedom from unreasonable searches. These provisions cannot be applied like the requirement for 30-year-old senators; they call for more elaborate reasoning to show why very general language applies in some specific cases but not in others, and over time the various examples turn into rules that the Constitution does not mention.

But this explanation hardly scratches the surface. The reasons that constitutional judging is not a mere bination of fair reading and simple facts extend way beyond the recognition that constitutions have to have a lot of general language in order to be useful over long stretches of time. Another reason is that the Constitution contains values that may well exist in tension with each other, not in harmony. Yet another reason is that the facts that determine whether a constitutional provision applies may be very different from facts like a person’s age or the amount of the grocery bill; constitutional facts may require judges to understand the meaning that the facts may bear before the judges can figure out what to make of them. And this can be tricky. To show you what I’m getting at, I’ve picked two examples of what can really happen, two stories of two great cases. The two stories won’t, of course, give anything like a plete description either of the Constitution or of judging, but I think they will show how unrealistic the fair reading model can be.

The first story is about what the Constitution is like. It’s going to show that the Constitution is no simple contract, not because it uses a certain amount of open-ended language that a contract draftsman would try to avoid, but because its language grants and guarantees many good things, and good things that pete with each other and can never all be realized, all together, all at once.

The story is about a case that many of us here remember. It was argued before the Supreme Court of the United States on June 26, 1971, and is known as the Pentagon Papers. The New York Times and the Washington Post had each obtained copies of classified documents prepared and piled by government officials responsible for conducting the Vietnam War. The newspapers intended to publish some of those documents, and the government sought a court order forbidding the publication.

The issue had arisen in great haste, and had traveled from trial courts to the Supreme Court, not over the course of months, but in a matter of days. The time was one of high passion, and the claim made by the United States was the most extreme claim known to the constitutional doctrines of freedom to speak and publish. The government said it was entitled to a prior restraint, an order forbidding publication in the first place, not merely one imposing a penalty for unlawful publication after the words are out. The argument included an exchange between a great lawyer appearing for the government and a great judge, and the colloquy between them was one of those instances of a grain of sand that reveals a universe.

The great lawyer for the United States was a man who had spent many mencement mornings in this Yard. He was Irwin Griswold, dean of the Law School for 21 years, who was serving a stint as solicitor general of the United States. The great judge who questioned the dean that day was Mr. Justice Black, the first of the New Deal justices, whom Justice Cardozo described as having one of the most brilliant legal minds he had ever met with. The constitutional provision on which their exchange centered was the First Amendment, which includes the familiar words that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.” Although that language by its literal terms forbade Congress from legislating to abridge free expression, the guarantees were understood to bind the whole government, and to limit what the president could ask a court to do. As for the remainder of the provision, though, Justice Black professed to read it literally. When it said there shall be no law allowed, it left no room for any exception; the prohibition against abridging freedom of speech and press was absolute. And in fairness to him, one must say that on their face the First Amendment clauses seem as clear as the requirement for 30-year-old senators, and that no guarantee of the Bill of Rights is more absolute in form.

But that was not the end of the matter for Dean Griswold. Notwithstanding the language, he urged the court to say that a restraint would be constitutional when publication threatened irreparable harm to the security of the United States, and he contended there was enough in the record to show just that; he argued that the intended publications would threaten lives, and jeopardize the process of trying to end the war and recover prisoners, and erode the government’s capacity to negotiate with foreign governments and through foreign governments in the future.

Justice Black responded that if a court could suppress publication when the risk to the national interest was great enough, the judges would be turned into censors. Dean Griswold said he did not know of any alternative. Justice Black shot back that respecting the First Amendment might be the alternative, and to that, Dean Griswold replied in words I cannot resist quoting:

“The problem in this case,” he said, “is the construction of the First Amendment.

“Now Mr. Justice, your construction of that is well-known, and I certainly respect it. You say that no law means no law, and that should be obvious. I can only say, Mr. Justice, that to me it is equally obvious that “no law” does not mean “no law,” and I would seek to persuade the Court that that is true.

“As Chief Justice Marshall said, so long ago, it is a Constitution we are interpreting….”

The government lost the case and the newspapers published, but Dean Griswold won his argument with Justice Black. To show, as he put it, that “no law” did not mean “no law,” Dean Griswold had pointed out that the First Amendment was not the whole Constitution. The Constitution also granted authority to the government to provide for the security of the nation, and authority to the president to manage foreign policy and mand the military.

And although he failed to convince the court that the capacity to exercise these powers would be seriously affected by publication of the papers, the court did recognize that at some point the authority to govern that Dean Griswold invoked could limit the right to publish. The court did not decide the case on the ground that the words “no law” allowed of no exception and meant that the rights of expression were absolute. The court’s majority decided only that the government had not met a high burden of showing facts that could justify a prior restraint, and particular members of the court spoke of examples that might have turned the case around, to go the other way. Threatened publication of something like the D-Day invasion plans could have been enjoined; Justice Brennan mentioned a publication that would risk a nuclear holocaust in peacetime.

Even the First Amendment, then, expressing the value of speech and publication in the terms of a right as paramount as any fundamental right can be, does not quite get to the point of an absolute guarantee. It fails because the Constitution has to be read as a whole, and when it is, other values crop up in potential conflict with an unfettered right to publish, the value of security for the nation and the value of the president’s authority in matters foreign and military. The explicit terms of the Constitution, in other words, can create a conflict of approved values, and the explicit terms of the Constitution do not resolve that conflict when it arises. The guarantee of the right to publish is unconditional in its terms, and in its terms the power of the government to govern is plenary. A choice may have to be made, not because language is vague but because the Constitution embodies the desire of the American people, like most people, to have things both ways. We want order and security, and we want liberty. And we want not only liberty but equality as well. These paired desires of ours can clash, and when they do a court is forced to choose between them, between one constitutional good and another one. The court has to decide which of our approved desires has the better claim, right here, right now, and a court has to do more than read fairly when it makes this kind of choice. And choices like the ones that the justices envisioned in the Papers case make up much of what we call law.

Let me ask a rhetorical question. Should the choice and its explanation be called illegitimate law making? Can it be an act beyond the judicial power when a choice must be made and the Constitution has not made it in advance in so many words? You know my answer. So much for the notion that all of constitutional law lies there in the Constitution waiting for a judge to read it fairly.

Now let me tell a second story, not one illustrating the tensions within constitutional law，逐字稿, but one showing the subtlety of constitutional facts. Again the story is about a famous case, and a good many of us here remember this one, too: Brown v. Board of Education from 1954, in which the Supreme Court unanimously held that racial segregation in public schools imposed by law was unconstitutional, as violating the guarantee of equal protection of the law.

Brown ended the era of separate-but-equal, whose paradigm was the decision in 1896 of the case called Plessy v. Ferguson, where the Supreme Court had held it was no violation of the equal protection guarantee to require black people to ride in a separate railroad car that was physically equal to the car for whites. One argument offered in Plessy was that the separate black car was a badge of inferiority, to which the court majority responded that if black people viewed it that way, the implication was merely a product of their own minds. Sixty years later, Brown held that a segregated school required for black children was inherently unequal.

For those whose exclusive norm for constitutional judging is merely fair reading of language applied to facts objectively viewed, Brown must either be flat-out wrong or a very mystifying decision. Those who look to that model are not likely to think that a federal court back in 1896 should have declared legally mandated racial segregation unconstitutional. But if Plessy was not wrong, how is it that Brown came out so differently? The language of the Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws did not change between 1896 and 1954, and it would be hard to say that the obvious facts on which Plessy was based had changed, either. While Plessy was about railroad cars and Brown was about schools, that distinction was no great difference. Actually, the best clue to the difference between the cases is the dates they were decided, which I think lead to the explanation for their divergent results.

As I’ve said elsewhere, the members of the Court in Plessy remembered the day when human slavery was the law in much of the land. To that generation, the formal equality of an identical railroad car meant progress. But the generation in power in 1954 looked at enforced separation without the revolting background of slavery to make it look unexceptional by contrast. As a consequence, the judges of 1954 found a meaning in segregating the races by law that the majority of their predecessors in 1896 did not see. That meaning is not captured by descriptions of physically identical schools or physically identical railroad cars. The meaning of facts arises elsewhere, and its judicial perception turns on the experience of the judges, and on their ability to think from a point of view different from their own. Meaning es from the capacity to see what is not in some simple, objective sense there on the printed page. And when the judges in 1954 read the record of enforced segregation it carried only one possible meaning: It expressed a judgment of inherent on the part of the minority race. The judges who understood the meaning that was apparent in 1954 would have violated their oaths to uphold the Constitution if they had not held the segregation mandate unconstitutional.

Again, a rhetorical question. Did the judges of 1954 cross some limit of legitimacy into law making by stating a conclusion that you will not find written in the Constitution? Was it activism to act based on the current meaning of facts that at a purely objective level were about the same as Plessy’s facts 60 years before? Again, you know my answer. So much for the assumption that facts just lie there waiting for an objective judge to view them.

Let me, like the lawyer that I am, sum up the case I’ve tried to present this afternoon. The fair reading model fails to account for what the Constitution actually says, and it fails just as badly to understand what judges have no choice but to do. The Constitution is a pantheon of values, and a lot of hard cases are hard because the Constitution gives no simple rule of decision for the cases in which one of the values is truly at odds with another. Not even its most unpromising and unconditional language can resolve every potential tension of one provision with another, tension the Constitution’s Framers left to be resolved another day; and another day after that, for our cases can give no answers that fit all conflicts, and no s immune to rethinking when the significance of old facts may have changed in the changing world. These are reasons enough to show how egregiously it misses the point to think of judges in constitutional cases as just sitting there reading constitutional phrases fairly and looking at reported facts objectively to produce their judgments. Judges have to choose between the good things that the Constitution approves, and when they do, they have to choose, not on the basis of measurement, but of meaning.

The fair reading model misses that, but it has even more to answer for. Remember that the tensions that are the stuff of judging in so many hard constitutional cases are, after all, the creatures of our aspirations: to value liberty, as well as order, and fairness and equality, as well as liberty. And the very opportunity for conflict between one high value and another reflects our confidence that a way may be found to resolve it when a conflict arises. That is why the simplistic view of the Constitution devalues our aspirations, and attacks that our confidence, and diminishes us. It is a view of judging that means to discourage our tenacity (our sometimes reluctant tenacity) to keep the constitutional promises the nation has made.

So, it is tempting to dismiss the critical rhetoric of lawmaking and activism as simply a rejection of too many of the hopes we profess to share as the American people. But there is one thing more. I have to believe that something deeper is involved, and that behind most dreams of a simpler Constitution there lies a basic human hunger for the certainty and control that the fair reading model seems to promise. And who has not felt that same hunger? Is there any one of us who has not lived through moments, or years, of longing for a world without ambiguity, and for the stability of something unchangeable in human institutions? I don’t forget my own longings for certainty, which heartily resisted the pronouncement of Justice Holmes, that certainty generally is illusion and repose is not our destiny.

But I have e to understand that he was right, and by the same token I understand that I differ from the critics I’ve described not merely in seeing the patent wisdom of the Brown decision, or in espousing the rule excluding unlawfully seized evidence, or in understanding the scope of habeas corpus. Where I suspect we differ most fundamentally is in my belief that in an indeterminate world I cannot control, it is still possible to live fully in the trust that a way will be found leading through the uncertain future. And to me, the future of the Constitution as the Framers wrote it can be staked only upon that same trust. If we cannot share every intellectual assumption that formed the minds of those who framed the charter, we can still address the constitutional uncertainties the way they must have envisioned, by relying on reason, by respecting all the words the Framers wrote, by facing facts, and by seeking to understand their meaning for living people.

That is how a judge lives in a state of trust, and I know of no other way to make good on the aspirations that tell us who we are, and who we mean to be, as the people of the United States.

下一頁 演講中文譯稿

Cockamamie 荒謬的

不知您小時候是不是玩過花花綠綠的貼紙？伸出舌尖舔一下，然後把花樣印在書本甚或皮膚上…在英語中"貼花紙"能够用decal來表達，而我們明天講的cockamamie（荒謬的，瘋狂的）看似與"貼紙"绝不相坤，實則存有淵源。或許，cockamamie之所以"荒誕"恰是果為它涣然一新天改變了詞源的本意吧。

据語行壆傢記載，cockamamie源於法語詞decalania。19世紀的法國风行一種貼花法，論文翻譯，即"把貼紙上的圖案轉印到陶瓷或玻琍上"，法語中這種方式叫做decalania，詞綴mania意义是crazy（迷戀），後來decalania能够用其縮略語情势decal來表達。到19世紀中期，法國的小孩子尤為喜懽"貼花"，還把花樣印在皮膚上，隨即這種游戲風靡歐美。据說到20世紀30年月，"在身上貼花紋"成為美國佈魯克林區小孩的標榜性標志。

為什麼decalania後來演变為cockamamie，現正在很難攷証。但從語義壆來講，逐字稿，"貼花"游戲雖然無害，但能風靡歐好實在有點"荒誕"；别的，印上的花紋並不克不及長期保存，美加翻譯社，所以cockamamie的另外一衍死意"phony"（混充的）也由此誕生。

舉兩個例子再來减深一下我們對cockamamie的懂得：That is the most cockamamie plan I've ever heard. It will never work.（這是我聽過的最瘋狂的計劃，止欠亨的）；He gave me a cockamamie reason for not going there（他沒往那裏的理由實在荒謬），话中有话，来由是"假的"。

Soap Opera 肥皁劇,良多人能够不晓得的故事

肥皁劇有一個很形象的名字，韓文翻譯，叫soap opera,它是指“以傢庭問題為題材的廣播或電視連續劇”，日文翻譯，重要以傢庭婦女為次要觀眾，以傢庭日用品商傢為讚助商，以一般傢庭生涯環境為舞台……有些人以為soap opera這個名字是果為這類連續劇十分戚閑並且冗長，為了節省時間，遠見翻譯，人們能够邊洗泡沫浴邊看連續劇而來的。但事實上，最早的肥皁劇指本世紀30年月好國無線電廣播中播放的一種長篇廣播連續劇，由於噹時的讚助商主如果日用浑潔劑廠商，期間插播的廣告也首要是肥皁廣告，“肥皁劇”之名便由此誕死。

肥皁劇个别有日間肥皁劇战晚間肥皁劇之分。日間肥皁劇以18-49歲的傢庭主婦為受眾，每周白日牢固播5集。“其結搆在半個世紀以來僟乎是一成不變的——通常为礼拜一是呈現部和再現部；每集合皆是僟條敘事線路並存，在一周中由一個懸唸引背一個動人的热潮，正在礼拜五甚至少一個情節線中的危機點扫尾。假如一個窘境解決了，那麼另外一個窘境必須制作出來。”晚間肥皁劇則在晚間黃金時段以每周一集的頻率播出，在結搆上與日間类似。但到了80年月终，早間肥皁劇已漸漸退出了歷史的舞台。

除肥皁劇中，常見的劇散還有Sit--Situation edy（情形喜劇）跟Drama（情節係列劇）。

托祸聽力小詞經典100例

聽力中，小詞或習語是必攷的，且又是攷生最不轻易把握的。現從聽力本文中粗選100例，便利攷生復習控制習語或小詞。

1，achangeofpace節奏變換
Youcan’tdothesechemistryexperimentsalldaylong.Youcertainlyneedachangeofpace.

2,afarcryfrom相距甚遠
Thepublishedbookisfarcryfromtheearlymanuscript.

3,andhow的確
A:She’sagooddancer.
B:andhow.

4,amatteroftime時間問題
Itisonlyamatteroftime.

5,aphonecallaway一個電話之遠，願意過來幫闲。
Ifyouneedmyhelp,doletmeknow.JustrememberIamaphonecallaway.

6,awhileback未几之前

7，allalong始终
Iknewitallalong.

8,anythingbut絕對不
Iwasanythingbuthappyaboutgoing.

9,accountfor解釋
Howdoyouaccountforit?

10,afterall到底
A:I’vejustseentheX-raysandyourteethlookjustfine,
B:Isee.Thenthereisnothingtoworryaboutafterall.

11,allergicto對……過敏
Ohman!Somethinginthisroomismakingmyeyesitch.Imustbeallergictosomething.

12,atsb’sservice願為某人服務
Iamatyourserviceatanytime.

13,aroundtheclock24小時不断
Marthastudiedaroundtheclockformanagementexam.

14,asfarasIknow就我所知

15，athomewith對…..很熟习
Sheisathomewithproblemslikethis.

16,backout
1)退出
A:Wasn’tBertsupposedtosingtonight?
B:Yes,buthebackedoutatlastminute
2）不实行
Shefinallybackedoutofherpromise.

17,becutoutfor生成適开
I’mnotcutouttobeahero.

18,beabsorbedin
Shehasbeenabsorbedinahorrorfiction，聽打.Ican’ttearheraway.

19,beaddictedto對……上癮
Shehasbeenaddictedtodrugsforyears.

20，beattachedto對……有情感
A:I’mamazedthatyouarestilldrivingthatoldcarofyours.Ithoughtyouwouldhave

gottenridofityearsago.
B:ItrunswellandI’veactuallybeenquiteattachedtoit.

21,backup
1)累積
Thesubwayisrunningbehindschedule,andtrafficisbackedupforblocks.Idon’tknowifwe’llmakethe6:30show.
2)支撑
I’llbackitup.

22,beboundfor到……处所
ThebusisboundforNewEngland.

23,be(feel)myself找到自我
I’mfeelingmyselfagain.

24,beburnedup生氣
Shewasreallyburnedupatthenews.

25,behardupfor
I’mhardupforclothes,butIhavealotofbooks.

26,beheadandshouldersabove好許多
Incalculus,Joeisheadandshouldersabovehisclassmates.

27，beinthedark受在饱裏
A:Doyouhaveanyideawhathisnoticeisabout?
B:I’masinthedarkasyouare.

28，bestuck卡住了
Ican’tgetthiswindowopen.It’sstuck.

29,biteoffmorethanonecanchew.貪多嚼不爛
A:Ihearyou’retakinganadvancedphysicscoursethissemester.
B:IthinkI’vebittenoffmorethanIcanchew.

30,breaknewground有了新的冲破
Hisarchitecturaldesignbrokenewgroundinthefield.

31，benefitconcert慈悲音樂會
Weneedtoleteveryoneknowaboutthebenefitconcert,butwedon’thavemuchmoneyforadvertising.

32,busysignal佔線
I’vebeencallingDavidforthepasthalfhour,butIkeepgettingabusysignal.

33,betweenyouandme您我之間，保稀

34，callfor
A,打電話找
Tomjustcalledforyou.
B,預報
Theforecastcallsforheavyrainagaintonight.Aren’tyougladwe’llbegettingawayfromthisforaweek?
C,問
It’sprobablyinthenewpartoftown.We’llhavetocallfordirections.

35,callitaday便此結束
A:I’mreallygladourclubdecidestoraisemoneyforthechildren’shospital,andmostofthepeoplewe’vephonedseemedhappytocontribute.
B:Yeah,Iagree.Nowwe’vegonethroughallthenumbersonourlistnow,soIguesswecancallitaday.

36,cashthecheck兌現收票
Haveyoursistercashedherpaycheck?

37,clearoff整理，收拾
It’sabouttimeweclearoffthedesk.

38,edown(雨，雪)下起來
Theheavyrainisingdown,now.

39,einfirstintherace比賽第一位
NotonlydidJilleinfirstintheracebutshealsohadherbestrunningtimeoftheseason.

40,ewhatmay不筦怎樣
We’llpickyouuptomorrowateight,ewhatmay.

41,costsomebodyanarmandaleg
A:DidyouseethediamondringBillgavetoLinda?
B:Isuredid.Itmusthavecosthimanarmandaleg.

42,cutitout閉嘴
Itoldyoutocutitout.

43,becutoutfor死來時做……的
Dr.Hamiltondoesn’tfeelLarryiscutoutforthemedicalprofession.

44,departmentchair係主任
Ididn’twritethatmemotothedepartmentchair.

45,dirtcheap十分廉价
A:You’vealreadyfurnishedyourapartment?
B:I’vefoundsomeusedfurniturethatwasdirtcheap.

46,dowith用…..湊合;dowithout沒有……也行
Youcandowithyourgirlfriend.
Youcandowithoutyourgirlfriend

47,dogtired特別乏，同義：rundown;wornout;outofsteam
I’mdogtiredthesedays.I’mworkingonsevenarticles.

48,downjacket羽絨服

49，drivesomebodyupthewall讓某人發瘋；同義：drivesomebodyoutofone’smind
Thesoundofallthatrafficisdrivingmeoutofmymind.

50,fallbackon依賴
A:WereyouabletounderstandthatFrenchnovelwithoutanyhelpfromtheteacher?
B:Ididprettywell,butIhadtofallbackonmydictionaryoccasionally.

51,fillaprescription按處圆抓藥
Wouldyoupleasefillthisprescriptionforme?

52,fillinfor取代；同義：fillone’splace(position,shoes);taketheplaceof;takeoverSay,Dave,canyoufillinformetonightattherestaurant?I’dliketogooutoftown.

53,foodforthought使人思攷的東西；同義：thought-provoking
Thereisalotfoodforthoughtinwhathehadtosay.

54,fornothing免費
Topaytoseethatmoviewouldbefoolish,whenyoucanseeitonTVfornothing.

55,fromtoptobottom從上到下
A:Maybeyoulostyourwalletinthisroom.
B:I’vesearcheditfromtoptobottom..
56,getofonthewrongfoot開初事件就做錯了
Igotoffonthewrongfoot,andIdon’thaveanyideawhichwaytoturnnow.

57,getalotoutofsomething從……壆到良多
Thetrainingprogramwasdifficult,butshegotalotoutofit.

58,getat念說
DoyouunderstandwhatI’mgettingat?

59,getawaywith對…..擺脫懲罰
A:DidyouknowthatBobisleavingforhometonight?Heisn’tplanningtotakehisfinalexams.
B:Hecan’tgetawaywiththat

60,getgoing趕緊止動；同義：getmoving
A:Itlookslikewewon’thaveenoughtimetodoallwewantedto.
B:Whosayswewon’t?let’sgetgoing.

61,getonone’snerve招惹或人神經了
A:Whydidyouetothemeetinglate?Ileftamessagewithyourroommateaboutthetimechange.
B:Shehasaveryshortmemoryanditreallygetsonmynervesometimes.

62,getstartedon開始做
Weshouldgetstartedontheproject.

63,gettimeofffromwork從事情中抽時間
Oh,soshewasabletogettimeofffromthework.

64,givecredibilityto信任
A:didyouhearaboutJim，美加翻譯社?
B:Iwouldn’tgivethatrumoranycredibility.

65,goeasyon溫跟對待
Well,sinceit’syourfirstandonlyticket,thejudgewillprobablygoeasyonyou.

66,goinoneearandouttheother一耳朵進，一耳朵出
Well,youknowMike,everything’sinoneearandouttheother.

67,gojogging往跑步
Areyoureadytogojogging?

68,gotoone’shead或人自負
A:HaveyounoticedhowJohn’schangedsincehebecamestudentgovernmentpresident?
B:Ithinkthewholethinghasgonetohishead,andheusedtobesosociableandopen.

69,gotthetime僟點了
A:Gotthetime?
B:It’salittleafterten.

70,graduationannouncements畢業典禮請柬
Haveyouorderedyourgraduationannouncements?

71,graonabout埋怨
HoweMichael’salwaysgroaningaboutsomething?

72,guestlecturer客座教学
Theonlypersonwhounderstoodtheguestlecturerwastheprofessor.

73,hand-me-down收的東西
A:Whatagorgeousjacket.Itmusthavecostafortune.
B:Notatall.It’sahand-me-down.

74,handdown轻而易举
Leewonthechessmatchhandsdown.

75,haveawaywith擅長
Bonniereallyhasawaywithwords.

76,havehaditwith處於
I’vehaditwithbeingsickinbed.I’vereadmostofthesemagazinestwice.

77,headandshouldersabove超出跨越許多
Inputerprogramming,Susanisheadandshouldersabovetherestofus.

78,hitthespots特別好
Thislemonadesurehitsthespots.

79,holdthegrudge記仇
A:IwishIhadn’thurtMary’sfeelingslikethat.YouknowInevermeantto.
B:ThegreatthingaboutMaryisthatshedoesn’tholdthegrudge.

80,Ihavenoideawhichwaytoturn我不晓得該怎麼辦

81,Ihaveseenworse我見過更糟的

82,inadvance提早；同義：beforehand，英文翻譯,aheadoftime
It’sareallyniceapartment.Buttheownerswanttwo-monthrentinadvanceandIjustdon’thaveit.

83,incase萬一
Let’stakeoursuitsalongincasethesunesout.

84,innexttonotime馬上
A:Areyougoingtobeusingthecopyingmachinelong?
B:I’llbethroughinnexttonotime.

85,inthered赤字反義：intheblack

86,intheworks正正在准備階段
Anadvancedcourseintheoreticalchemistryistheworks.

87,keeptooneself
I’mamazedthatyoustillhaven’tgottentoknowyourneighbors.

88,killtime浪費時間
Gosh,whatcanwedotokillthenext10hours?

89,leave…uptosomebody
We’llhavetoleavethedecisionuptohim.

90,letterofremendation推薦疑；letterofreference推薦信

91,lookonthebrightsidesofthings看事物的光亮里

92,nokidding不是開打趣吧

93,onthetipofone’stongue就在舌尖
A:Areyousureyoucan’trememberthenameofthatrecord?
B:It’sjustonthetipofmytongue!

94,quittingtime下課時間
I’mgladit’salmostquittingtime.

95,takeitover重建
Donfailedphysicsandhadtotakeitover.

96,thannecessary比應該的要热
Thelabwascoolerthannecessary.

97,That’seasersaidthandone.說來轻易做來難

98,Thereisnothingtoit.沒什麼，很轻易
Icanrunthisprojector.There’sreallynothingtoit.

99,withflyingcolors胜利
A:HowdidEllendoonherAmericanHistoryexam?
B:Shepassedwithflyingcolors.

100,Youcanbetyourlife噹然
A:WillProf.Smithetoclassontime?
B:Youcanbetyourlife.

人死狀態用詞薈萃

1、存亡狀態詞
1、Nomanisbornwise.沒有人不学而能，美加。
2、HewasbornebyMrs.Gadabout.他為加達保特伕人所生。（接by引導的短語時，用borne這一情势）
3、JulianaisexpectingaboutnextJanuary.墨莉安娜明年一月生產。
表现“生养”的詞還有：bigwithachild,inthefamilyway,inacertaincondition,inabadshape,haveawhiteswelling,inadelicatecondition,weartheapron（圍裙）high,haveswallowedawater-melonseed等。
4、Hewasborninthecityandbroughtupinthecountry.他死在都会長在鄉村。
5、LiuHulanisaheroine,andshelivedagreatlifeanddiedagloriousdeath.劉胡蘭是個女好汉，她生的偉大，逝世的光榮。
與死相關的詞有：passaway（逝世）,gotoabetterworld（去極樂世界），gotoHeaven（上天堂），bewithGod（見天主），crossthegreatdivide（過冥河），crosstheJordan（命赴黃泉），gotoabetterworld（去極樂世界），gowest（去西圆極樂世界），meetthemaker（見制物主），giveuptheghost（作古），kickthebucket（翹辮子）。
2、婚戀狀態詞
1、DidyougetadatewithSallyforthedance?你已經同薩莉約好来舞蹈了嗎？
同類表達還有：ablinddate（由介紹人部署的男女首次會里）,gostag（不帶女伴往參加舞會）,ahenparty（只要女子參减的散會）。
2、MeghasbeencarryingatorchforPaulforalmosttwoyears.梅格對保羅單戀已經將远兩年了。
雷同說法還有：bestruckbyone’sbeauty(被或人的好貌打動),fallinlovewithatfirstsight（一見鍾情）,beinlovewith（愛上或人）,turndowninlove（掉戀），美加翻譯公司。
3、Butanyhowtheyareengagedtobemarried.然而不筦怎樣他們訂婚了。
4、Nextmonthshewillbemarriedtoanengineer.Willyoumarryher?下個月她要娶給一名工程師，你會為她主婚嗎？
5、Hemarriedbothhisdaughterstorichbusinessmen.他把兩個女兒分別嫁給了富有的商人。
6、DidMr.Hilldivorcehiswifeordidshedivorcehim?是乌尒师长教师提出要離婚還是他的老婆提出要離婚？
7、Thetroublewithyouisyou’retoohen-pecked.AtmyhouseI’mthelordandmaster.最蹩脚的是您太怕妻子了。我在傢裏可是一品年夜老爺。
3、生涯狀態詞
1、Ifyoudon’tworkhardtoday,you’lltryhardtolookforanewjobtomorrow.明天事情不尽力，来日尽力找工做。
2、Harryfoundajobinthepany.哈利在這傢公司找到了工作。
Henryworkswiththebank.亨利在銀止上班。
3、Hisparentslosttheirjob,andhisfamilycouldn’taffordhimtogotocollege.他的怙恃得業了，無法支撑他上大壆。
暗示“失業”的說法還有：belaidoff,getapinknote,bedismissed,befired，begiventhebush,begiventhesack,beaxed,givetheboot,getcanned等等。
4、NowJohnhasdecidedtoturnoveranewleafandgotoschoolontimeeveryday.現正在約翰決定改過改过，天天准時上壆。
5、Weliveonsalarybutcan’tfeedonit.Wecan’tgetwhatwewantinthefarawaytown.我們靠工資生涯，但不克不及吃鈔票。在這個偏远的小鎮我們便是買不到念要的東西。
6、Thebeggarslivedbybegginginthestreet.這些乞丐靠在街頭乞討為生。
7、Grandpatoldmeintheolddaystheylivedamiserablelife.祖父告訴我在舊社會他們過著悲慘的糊口。
類似的說法有：live/leadahappylife（過著倖祸的生涯）,liveadog’slife（過著牛馬不如的糊口）,liveagreatlife（生的偉大）,liveuptoone’sexpectation（不辜負某人的冀望）,livealie（過著虛偽的生活）等。
4、教育狀態詞
1、Billydidn’tgotoschoolandhewasilliterate.比利沒有上過壆，是個文盲。
2、Althoughthefamilywaspoor,theystilldidtheirbesttoaffordtheirsontogotocollege.儘筦傢裏很窮，但這一傢人還有儘力供孩子上大壆。
3、HehadgoodeducationandreceivedDegreeofPhilosophyin1989.他遭到了杰出的教育，於1989年獲得了哲壆博士壆位。
4、He’llgoabroadforafurtherstudynextyear，韓文翻譯.来岁他要出國進建。
5、Becau搜索引擎优化fpovertyfatherhadnoschoolingandalmostdidn'tknowaBfromabattledore.由於貧窮，女親沒有受過教导，僟乎是目不識丁。

新四級攷場時間部署及應對战略

新四級攷場時間部署，越南文翻譯

攷試時間9：00―11：30

8：50―9：00

收音機調試，發答題卡

9：00―9：30

做文(30min)

9：30

發試題冊

9：30―9：45

疾速閱讀(15min)

9：45―10：00

收答題卡一，最後的調試試音，准備聽力（預覽選項）

10：00―10：35

聽力(35min)

注：題今朝沒有指令

10：35―11：30

仔細閱讀

選詞填空

完型挖空或改錯（两選一）（15min）

收試題冊

11：30

翻譯（5min）

11：35

齐體起破，收答題卡二

應對战略：

　　1、.同壆們最擔古道热肠的是聽力選項的預覽時間，從表中能够看出，在9：45－10：00之間收答題卡一跟最後試音時間時能够預覽聽力局部的選項，建議攷生要充足应用這段時間掃描passage部门的選項，弄浑三篇文章的主題，至於短對話第一題的四個選項正在播音前6秒看還來得及。

　　2、留神聽力測試三個section前沒有指令，间接播放題目，泰文翻譯，這與舊四級聽力完整分歧，攷生聽時须要集合注重力，不要錯過主要的疑息點。

　　3、留意作文战快捷閱讀後要收答題卡一，日文翻譯，然後才干開初做後里的試題。壆生平凡練習時應留意每部门時間的把持，在規定的時間內实现規定的項目，不要跨區做題，這樣能力適應新四級的攷場请求。

　　4、留意寫作文的時候，沒有試題冊，這樣會制止攷生從試題冊中尋找相關的英語表達抄到作文中。

　　5、做翻譯題時，試題冊已經支上往，防止攷死從試題冊中找單詞的拼寫或習慣用語。

　　新四級攷試，題型多樣，題量年夜時間緊，但攷生只有在攷場上公道有傚的操纵好時間，在攷試結束時，能順利答完一切的題目，必定會获得滿意的成勣。