2017年catti英語筆譯初級模擬題：孤兒院不利于兒童智力發(fā)展
【英譯漢】
Orphanages Stunt Mental Growth 1
By BENEDICT CAREY
Psychologists have long believed that growing up in an institution like an orphanage stunts children's mental development but have never had direct evidence to back it up. Now they do, from an extraordinary years-long experiment in Romania that compared the effects of foster care with those of institutional child-rearing.
The study found that toddlers placed in foster families developed significantly higher I. Q.'s by age 4, on average, than peers who spent those years in an orphanage. The difference was large - eight points 2- and the study found that the earlier children joined a foster family, the better they did. Children who moved from institutional care to families after age 2 made few gains on average, though the experience varied from child to child. 3 Both groups, however, had significantly lower I. Q.'s than a comparison group of children raised by their biological families.
Some developmental psychologists had sharply criticized the study and its sponsor for researching a question whose answer seemed obvious. But previous attempts to compare institutional and foster care suffered from serious flaws, mainly because no one knew whether children who landed in orphanages were different in unknown ways from those in foster care.
Experts said the new study should put to rest any doubts about the harmful effects of Institutionalization 4_ and might help speed up adoptions from countries that still allow them. 5 " Most of us take it as almost intuitive that being in a family is better for humans than being in an orphanage," said a psychologist at the University of Wisconsin, who was not involved in the research. "But other governments don't like to be told how to handle policy issues based on intuition." "What makes this study important," he went on, "is that it gives objective data to say that if you're going to allow international adoptions, then it's a good idea to speed things up and get kids into families quickly. 6 In recent years many countries, including Romania, have banned or sharply restricted American families from adopting local children. In other countries, adoption procedures can drag on for many months. In 2006, Americans adopted 20,679 children from abroad, more than half of them from China, Guatemala and Russia.
The researchers approached Romanian officials in the late 1990s about conducting the study.
The country had been working to improve conditions at its orphanages, which became infamous in the early 1990s as Dickensian warehouses for abandoned children. After gaining clearance from the government, the researchers began to track 136 children who had been abandoned at birth.
They administered developmental tests to the children, and then randomly assigned them to continue at one of Bucharest's six large orphanages, or join an adoptive family. The foster families were carefully screened and provided "very high-quality care".
On I. Q. tests taken at 54, months, the foster children scored an average of 81, compared to 73 among the children who continued in an institution 8.The children who moved into foster care at the youngest ages tended to show the most improvement, the researchers found. The comparison group of youngsters who grew up in their biological families had an average I. Q. of 109 at the same age. "Institutions and environments vary enormously across the world and within countries," "but I think these findings generalize to many situations, from kids in institutions to those in abusive households and even bad foster care arrangements." In setting up the study, the researchers directly addressed the ethical issue of assign/ng children to institutional care, which was suspected to be harmful. "If a government is to consider alternatives to institutional care for abandoned children, it must know how the alternative compares to the standard care it provides." they wrote.
Any number of factors common to institutions could work to delay or blunt intellectual development, experts say: the regimentation, the indifference to individual differences in children's habits and needs; and most of all, the limited access to caregivers, who in some institutions can be responsible for more than 20 children at a time. The evidence seems to say that for humans, kids need a lot of responsive care giving, an adult who recognizes their distinct cry, knows when they're hungry or in pain, and gives them the opportunity to crawl around and handle different things, safely, when they're ready.
詞匯
1.foster care家庭領(lǐng)養(yǎng)
2.institutional child-rearing機(jī)構(gòu)收養(yǎng)
3.orphanage孤兒院
4.comparison group對比組
5.biological families親生父母
6.developmental psychologists發(fā)展心理學(xué)家
7.adoption procedures領(lǐng)養(yǎng)手續(xù)
8.Guatemala危地馬拉
9.screen篩選
10.ethical issue倫理問題
11.abandoned children棄童
12.blunt使緩慢
13.responsive care giving及時的關(guān)愛
14.distinct cry獨(dú)特的需求
注釋
1.標(biāo)題宜簡潔。本標(biāo)題中孤兒院阻礙了誰的智力發(fā)展，并未交待。翻譯時，可直譯，保留標(biāo)題信息缺失，造成閱讀懸念。也可補(bǔ)充出信息，如“孤兒院不利于兒童智力發(fā)展”。
2.英語翻譯成漢語時，有時需要注意語氣的補(bǔ)足。此處The difference承接上段，建議添加“而且”或“兩者”之類的詞語，使語氣的過渡更自然。
3.本句包含英語中典型的后置狀語從句。翻譯時，建議前置�！岸�2歲后才從孤兒院進(jìn)人家庭的，雖然情況因人而異，但一般而言，智力發(fā)展不大�！�
4.句中put to rest any doubts about...意為“使人們停止懷疑……，使人們相信……”，institutionalization意為“把(某人)置于公共機(jī)構(gòu)照料之下”。此句意為：人們將不再懷疑孤兒院對孩子成長的負(fù)面作用。
5.句末them指前面提到的adoptions領(lǐng)養(yǎng)行為(而非執(zhí)行領(lǐng)養(yǎng)行為的人)，結(jié)合后文，可以理解指的是跨國領(lǐng)養(yǎng)。有些國家不允許外國人領(lǐng)養(yǎng)本國孤兒，因此，countries后接有定語從句，修飾并限制“國家”范圍，翻譯時，將定語從句提前。
6.本句翻譯時，要考慮到與上文“政府不喜歡憑直覺做事”的內(nèi)容相銜接。突出這個研究為結(jié)論提供了客觀數(shù)據(jù)，比直覺來得可靠。句中“you”指的是政府部門。建議翻譯為“這研究的意義在于，”他認(rèn)為，“它給出了客觀數(shù)據(jù)，說明如果你同意跨國領(lǐng)養(yǎng)，那么就請加快進(jìn)度，讓孩子們快些進(jìn)人家庭�！�
7.英國著名作家狄更斯出身貧寒，不到十歲，便被迫到一處陰暗的倉庫做童工。這一段悲慘經(jīng)歷后來反復(fù)出現(xiàn)在其作品中。他成功刻畫了多個貧苦無助的兒童形象，真切描繪出他們境遇的艱辛，催人淚下。文中使用“狄更斯小說式的倉庫”，以表現(xiàn)90年代早期羅馬尼亞孤兒院的條件之惡劣。
8.英語的詞匯銜接，可通過重復(fù)、上下義、近義、反義等手法。而重復(fù)占的比例較近義或上下義要低，而漢語中通過詞匯的重復(fù)達(dá)到銜接的情況更加多見。因此本句中“institution”與上文中“orphanage”呼應(yīng)，如翻譯成“機(jī)構(gòu)”，會造成一定困惑，直接點(diǎn)明為“孤兒院”更符合漢語習(xí)慣。
【參考譯文】
孤兒院不利于兒童智力發(fā)展
心理學(xué)家一直認(rèn)為，在孤兒院這種機(jī)構(gòu)長大的孩子，智力的發(fā)展會受到影響，但是他們從未找到直接的證據(jù)來證明這一點(diǎn)�，F(xiàn)在，他們找到了。在羅馬尼亞，進(jìn)行了一項很特別的實(shí)驗，歷經(jīng)數(shù)年，對家庭領(lǐng)養(yǎng)和機(jī)構(gòu)收養(yǎng)兩種方式對孩子智力的影響進(jìn)行了比較研究。
該研究發(fā)現(xiàn)，被領(lǐng)養(yǎng)的稚童，4歲時平均智商明顯高于在孤兒院呆了4年的同齡兒童，而且差距很大——高達(dá)8點(diǎn)。研究還表明，孩子越早被家庭領(lǐng)養(yǎng)，智商越高，而2歲后才從孤兒院進(jìn)入家庭的，雖然情況因人而異，但一般而言，智力發(fā)展不大。但是，這兩組兒童的智商均明顯低于由親生父母撫養(yǎng)的一個對照組。
有些發(fā)展心理學(xué)家對此項研究及其贊助人提出了尖銳的批評，認(rèn)為他們研究的問題，答案是不言自明的。但以前對孤兒院收養(yǎng)和家庭領(lǐng)養(yǎng)的對比實(shí)驗本身都存在嚴(yán)重缺陷，主要在于，誰也不知道那些進(jìn)孤兒院的孩子與進(jìn)家庭的孩子是否有什么不為人知的差異。專家稱，通過這次新的研究，人們將不再懷疑機(jī)構(gòu)收養(yǎng)的弊端，——而且能促使人們趕緊在法律允許的國家領(lǐng)養(yǎng)孩子。
“多數(shù)人憑直覺就知道，生活在家庭里比生活在孤兒院好，”威斯康辛大學(xué)一位沒有參加過此項研究的心理學(xué)家說道�！暗渌麌业恼⒉幌矚g別人教他們?nèi)绾胃鶕?jù)直覺處理政策問題�！薄斑@研究重要性在于，”他認(rèn)為，“它給出了客觀數(shù)據(jù)，說明如果你同意跨國領(lǐng)養(yǎng)，那么就請加快進(jìn)度，讓孩子們快些進(jìn)入家庭�！苯辏S多國家，包括羅馬尼亞，禁止或嚴(yán)格限制美國家庭領(lǐng)養(yǎng)當(dāng)?shù)貎和�。而在其他國家，領(lǐng)養(yǎng)手續(xù)可以拖上好幾個月。2006年，美國人共從海外領(lǐng)養(yǎng)了20679名兒童，其中超過一半來自中國、危地馬拉和俄羅斯。
90年代末，研究人員接觸過羅馬尼亞官員，希望在那里進(jìn)行些研究。當(dāng)時羅馬尼亞正在設(shè)法改善孤兒院的環(huán)境。90年代早期用條件極差的倉庫收容棄兒的做法，曾讓羅馬尼亞的孤兒院臭名遠(yuǎn)揚(yáng)。研究人員獲準(zhǔn)開始追蹤觀察136個棄嬰。他們對孩子做成長測試，然后隨機(jī)抽取，有些送往布加勒斯特的六大孤兒院收養(yǎng)，有些則送往經(jīng)過仔細(xì)篩選的領(lǐng)養(yǎng)家庭。能為孩子提供“高質(zhì)量的照料服務(wù)”。
在54個月后進(jìn)行的智商測試中，被家庭領(lǐng)養(yǎng)的孩子平均智商為81，而繼續(xù)留在孤兒院的孩子則為73。研究者發(fā)現(xiàn)，最早被家庭領(lǐng)養(yǎng)的孩子智力成長幅度最大。而對照組中在親生家庭成長的同齡兒童，平均智商達(dá)到109�！叭澜绮煌膰�、以及同一國家不同的機(jī)構(gòu)和環(huán)境，都千差萬別，”“但我想從這些研究結(jié)果中可以把它們分為許多不同的種類，包括收養(yǎng)機(jī)構(gòu)、暴力家庭，或者不合適的領(lǐng)養(yǎng)家庭�！�
在設(shè)定研究計劃時，研究人員提出了一個關(guān)于把孩子關(guān)到孤兒院的倫理問題，這種做法被疑對孩子有害�！叭绻紤]用其他方案替代孤兒院收容制度，那說明政府已經(jīng)認(rèn)定替代方案優(yōu)于現(xiàn)行制度�！毖芯空邆冞@樣寫道。
專家認(rèn)為，機(jī)構(gòu)收容中的任何共同因素都可能有延緩或阻礙智力發(fā)展的作用，包括嚴(yán)厲的控制和對孩子個人習(xí)慣和需求差異的漠視。最糟糕的是，孩子們和護(hù)理員接觸非常有限。
在一些孤兒院里，一位護(hù)理員要同時照顧20多個孩子。這些證據(jù)說明，孩子們需要及時的關(guān)愛，需要大人理解他們獨(dú)特的需求，知道他們何時饑餓何時痛苦，待他們足夠大了，會放手讓他們四處亂爬亂摸，并確保他們的安全。
