中国译协《中国翻译》编辑部与上海师范大学天华学院联合举办第二十六届“韩素音青年翻译奖”竞赛，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：
一、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。
二、《中国翻译》2014年第1期以及中国译协网（www.tac-online.org.cn）“韩素音青年翻译奖”竞赛专栏刊登竞赛规则、竞赛原文；参赛报名表请到中国翻译协会网站“韩素音青年翻译奖”专栏下载。
三、参赛者年龄：45岁以下（1969年1月1日后出生）。
四、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。
五、参赛译文和参赛报名表格式要求：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，文档命名格式为“XXX（姓名）英译汉”或“XXX（姓名）汉译英”。参赛报名表文档命名格式为“XXX（姓名）英译汉参赛报名表”或“XXX（姓名）汉译英参赛报名表”。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。
六、参赛方式及截稿日期：请参赛者于2014年5月31日（含）前将参赛译文及参赛报名表以电子文档附件形式发送至hansuyin2012@vip.163.com，发送成功的文档得到自动回复后，请勿重复发送。如需查询是否发送成功，可在2014年6月10日至7月10日之间拨打电话（010）68997177。本届竞赛不再接收打印稿。
七、汇款方式及注意事项：参赛者在提交参赛译文后，交寄报名费50元，如同时参加两项竞赛，请交报名费 100元。未交报名费的参赛译文无效。
（一）银行转账：
户名：中国翻译协会
开户行：中国工商银行北京百万庄支行
账号：0200001409089010159
＊请在“汇款附言”栏注明“XXX（姓名）韩奖报名费”。
（二）邮局汇款：
1、填制汇款单时请务必选择“商务汇款”商务客户号：111320065；
2、收款人姓名栏务必填写：中国翻译协会；
3、请在附言栏内注明——“XXX（姓名）参赛报名费”字样；
4、汇款地址：北京市西城区百万庄大街24号邮编：100037
八、本届竞赛设一、二、三等奖和优秀奖若干名。2014年第6期（11月15日出版）《中国翻译》杂志将公布竞赛结果。
九、本届竞赛颁奖典礼将于2014年底举行，竞赛获奖者将获邀参加颁奖典礼。
十、请随时登录中国译协网（www.tac-online.org.cn）或新浪微博 @中国译协 @中国翻译杂志社，了解本届竞赛最新信息。
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，电话：010-68997177；68990246 传真：010-68995951
电子信箱：hansuyin2012@vip.163.com
第二十六届“韩素音青年翻译奖”竞赛原文
英译汉竞赛原文：
How the News GotLess Mean
The most read article of all time onBuzzFeed contains no photographs of celebrity nip slips and no inflammatoryranting. It’s a series of photos called “21 pictures that will restore yourfaith in humanity,” which has pulled in nearly 14 million visits so far. AtUpworthy too, hope is the major draw. “This kid just died. What he left behindis wondtacular,” an Upworthy post about a terminally ill teen singer, earned 15million views this summer and has raised more than $300,000 for cancerresearch.
The recipe for attracting visitors tostories online is changing. Bloggers have traditionally turned to sarcasm andsnark to draw attention. But the success of sites like BuzzFeed and Upworthy, whosephilosophies embrace the viral nature of upbeat stories, hints that the Webcraves positivity.
The reason: social media. Researchers arediscovering that people want to create positive images of themselves online bysharing upbeat stories. And with more people turning to Facebook and Twitter tofind out what’s happening in the world, news stories may need to cheer up inorder to court an audience. If social is the future of media, then optimisticstories might be media’s future.
“When we started, the prevailing wisdom wasthat snark ruled the Internet,” says Eli Pariser, a co-founder of Upworthy.“And we just had a really different sense of what works.”
“You don’t want to be that guy at the partywho’s crazy and angry and ranting in the corner— it’s the same for Twitter orFacebook,” he says. “Part of what we’re trying to do with Upworthy is givepeople the tools to express a conscientious, thoughtful and positive identityin social media.”
And the science appears to supportPariser’s philosophy. In a recent study from the Massachusetts Institute ofTechnology, researchers found that “up votes,” showing that a visitor liked acomment or story, begat more up votes on comments on the site, but “down votes”did not do the same. In fact, a single up vote increased the likelihood thatsomeone else would like a comment by 32%, whereas a down vote had no effect.People don’t want to support the cranky commenter, the critic or the troll. Nordo they want to be that negative personality online.
In another study published in 2012, JonahBerger, author of Contagious: Why Things Catch On and professor of marketing atthe Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, monitored the moste-mailed stories produced by the New York Times for six months and found thatpositive stories were more likely to make the list than negative ones.
“What we share [or like] is almost like thecar we drive or the clothes we wear,” he says. “It says something about us toother people. So people would much rather be seen as a Positive Polly than aDebbie Downer.”
It’s not always that simple: Berger saysthat though positive pieces drew more traffic than negative ones, within thecategories of positive and negative stories, those articles that elicited moreemotion always led to more shares.
“Take two negative emotions, for example:anger and sadness,” Berger says. “Both of those emotions would make the readerfeel bad. But anger, a high arousal emotion, leads to more sharing, whereassadness, a low arousal emotion, doesn’t. The same is true of the positive side:excitement and humor increase sharing, whereas contentment decreases sharing.”
And while some popular BuzzFeed posts —like the recent “Is this the most embarrassing interview Fox News has everdone?” — might do their best to elicit shares through anger, both BuzzFeed andUpworthy recognize that their main success lies in creating positive viralmaterial.
“It’s not that people don’t share negativestories,” says Jack Shepherd, editorial director at BuzzFeed. “It just meansthat there’s a higher potential for positive stories to do well.”
Upworthy’s mission is to highlight seriousissues but in a hopeful way, encouraging readers to donate money, joinorganizations and take action. The strategy seems to be working: barely twoyears after its launch date (in March 2012), the site now boasts 30 millionunique visitors per month, according to Upworthy. The site’s average monthlyunique visitors grew to 14 million people over its first six quarters — to putthat in perspective, the Huffington Post had only about 2 million visitors inits first six quarters online.
But Upworthy measures the success of astory not just by hits. The creators of the site only consider a post a successif it’s also shared frequently on social media. “We are interested in contentthat people want to share partly for pragmatic reasons,” Pariser says. “If youdon’t have a good theory about how to appear in Facebook and Twitter, then youmay disappear.”
Nobody has mastered the ability to make astory go viral like BuzzFeed. The site, which began in 2006 as a lab to figureout what people share online, has used what it’s learned to draw 60 millionmonthly unique visitors, according to BuzzFeed. (Most of that traffic comesfrom social-networking sites, driving readers toward BuzzFeed’s mix of cuteanimal photos and hard news.) By comparison the New York Times website, one ofthe most popular newspaper sites on the Web, courts only 29 million uniquevisitors each month, according to the Times.
BuzzFeed editors have found that people dostill read negative or critical stories, they just aren’t the posts they sharewith their friends. And those shareable posts are the ones that newsroomsincreasingly prize.
“Anecdotally, I can tell you people arejust as likely to click on negative stories as they are to click on positiveones,” says Shepherd. “But they’re more likely to share positive stories. Whatyou’re interested in is different from what you want your friends to see whatyou’re interested in.”
So as newsrooms re-evaluate how they candraw readers and elicit more shares on Twitter and Facebook, they may look toBuzzFeed’s and Upworthy’s happiness model for direction.
“I think that the Web is only becomingmore social,” Shepherd says. “We’re at a point where readers are yourpublishers. If news sites aren’t thinking about what it would mean for someoneto share a story on social media, that could be detrimental.”
汉译英竞赛原文：
城市的迷失
沿着瑗珲—腾冲线，这条1935年由胡焕庸先生发现并命名的中国人口、自然和历史地理的分界线，我们看到，从远距离贸易发展开始的那天起，利益和权力的渗透与分散，已经从根本结构上改变了城市的状态：城市在膨胀，人在疏离。里尔的阿兰（Alain）的话到今天仍然振聋发聩：“金钱万能，不是凯撒万能。”
在古罗马，柱子是按照人的比例划分的；到了文艺复兴时期，人就是世界上最美好的尺度。今天的中国城市里，裁弯取直的河渠，向四面八方扩张的交通，膨胀硕大的以便于接纳更多商业行为的城市广场与建筑立面，都在告诉人们建设背后的权力与资本才是审美标准。直到有一天，回过头来看到自己的孩子站在为车辆交通铺开的、满是尘土的路上，我们才发现，城市的大，却容不下一个让孩子们展开笑颜的机会。
规划和设计的弊病，不在于追求利益这件事情本身，而在于追求利益和权利时的鬼迷心窍，把人类其他的需要都忘记得一干二净。城市数量在变多、规模在扩大、城乡结构在解体，但城市的性质和目的，却被忘却了：最聪明的人不再懂得社会生活的形式，而最无知的人却准备去建设社会生活的形式。
城市大了，人小了。人们和他们的城市息息相关而又格格不入。人们不能获得有悖于商业世界、内容更充实更满意的生活手段，成为了旁观者、读者、听众和消极的观察者。于是，我们年复一年不是真正地生活着，而是间接地生活着，远离内在的本性。这些本性，掠过照片沉默和迷茫的脸孔，偶然从天空飘过的风筝看到，偶然从孩子们看到鸽子时脸上的笑靥看到。
人与城市的分离，让人无所适从；让人欣慰的是，大家都没有忘记要生活这件事。城市最早作为神祗的家园，代表了永恒的价值、安慰和神的力量。过去人与人的隔离与区别，将不能维持下去；城市最终体现的不再是一个神化了的统治者的意志，而是城市每一个个体和全体的意志；它不再是冲突本身，而成为了为日常生活的矛盾与冲突、挑战与拥抱提供生动舞台的容器；艺术与思想有一天也能闪现在城市的角落，与人们的生活相交织。也许到了这一天，我们才能真正说，城市让生活更美好。
