|
English-Chinese
Translation:
The
standardized educational or psychological tests that are widely used to
aid in selecting, classifying, assigning, or promoting students, employees
and military personnel have been the target of recent attacks in books,
magazines, .the daily press, and even in Congress. The target is wrong,
for in attacking the tests, critics divert attention from the fault that
lies with ill-informed or incompetent users. The tests themselves are
merely tools, with characteristics that can be measured with reasonable
precision under specified conditions. Whether the results will be
valuable, meaningless, or even misleading depends partly upon the tool
itself but largely upon the users.
All
informed predictions of future performance are based upon some knowledge
of relevant past performance: school grades, research productivity, sales
records, or whatever is appropriate. How well the predictions will be
validated by later performance depends upon the amount, reliability, and
appropriateness of the information used and on the skill and wisdom with
which it is interpreted. Anyone who keeps careful score knows that the
information available is always incomplete and that the predictions are
always subject to error.
Standardized tests should be considered in this context. They provide a
quick, objective method of getting some kinds of information about what a
person learned, the skills he has developed, or the kind of person he is.
The information so obtained has, qualitatively, the same advantages and
shortcomings as other kinds of information. Whether to use tests, other
kinds of information, or both in a particular situation depends,
therefore, upon the evidence from experience concerning comparative
validity and upon such factors as cost and availability.
In
general, the tests work most effectively when the qualities to be measured
can be most precisely defined and least effectively when what is to be
measured or predicted can not be well defined. Properly used, they provide
a rapid means of getting comparable information about many people.
Sometimes they identify students whose high potential has not been
previously recognized, but there are many things they do not do. For
example, they do not compensate for gross social inequality, and thus do
not tell how able an under-privileged youngster might have been had he
grown up under more favorable circumstances.
Chinese-English Translation
有一次，几个中国人到一位比较富裕的美国人家里去做客。主人引他们参观自己的住所，中国客人说：“你们的房子多好啊。非常漂亮。”
主人听了十分高兴，按美国习惯笑着回答说：“谢谢。”有些中国客人对她的回答感到意外。后来，在餐桌上谈话时，主人对大学毕业不久的中国女翻译说：“你的英语很好，很流利。”女翻译谦虚他说：“不！不！我的英语说得很不好。”主人没想到她会这样回答，感到有些迷惑不解。
那位美国主妇的回答是否像有些中国人认为的那样“不够谦虚”呢？
那位年轻的中国女翻译的回答是否像美国主人听起来那样“不够诚恳”呢？
其实，美国主妇的回答并非不谦虚，中国女翻译回答也不是不诚恳。讲英语的人听到别人赞扬，一般说“谢谢”，表示接受，说明自己认为对方的赞扬是诚心诚意的，所赞扬的事是值得赞扬的。因此不应“假装自卑”或“故作谦虚”。但是，对中国人来说，听到别人赞
扬时，通常要表示受之有愧，做得很不够；或者说自己的成就不过是由于侥幸，或者说是客观条件造成的，等等，而接受赞扬则意味着有骄做自满情绪或缺乏教养。因此，上述两种回答引起不同反应是由于双方语言习惯不同。他们都根据各自的风俗去理解别人所说的话。
|