CATTI二级口译精讲第34讲讲义

篇章口译

From 1980 to 1997, 23 of America's 25 largest cities gained population more slowly than their metropolitan areas or lost population while the metropolitan area gained people. Even Sunbelt cities like Phoenix, Dallas, and Houston are growing more slowly than their suburbs. Cities have lost disproportionate numbers of middle- and upper-income households who form the backbone of economically strong communities1. //

From 1989 to 1996, 7.4 million upper- and middle-income households left cities for suburbs while only 3.5 million moved from suburb to city. Median household incomes of cities and suburbs thus continue to diverge. In 1989 suburban median income was 58 percent higher than central-city median income. By 1996 the chasm had widened to 67 percent. //

The impact of decentralization trends, of course, extends well beyond cities. Sprawling development patterns are destabilizing many of the suburbs that surround America's cities. Older suburbs are experiencing the same challenges as cities: failing schools, persistent crime, and the loss of jobs and businesses to other, further out suburbs2. Even suburban areas that are developing rapidly are finding that explosive growth has its drawbacks, especially in the form of overcrowded schools, but also in long commutes and the inability of local governments to pay for new roads, sewers, and other infrastructure. //

In the wake of decentralizing economies, central cities remain the residence of "choice" for low- and moderate-income families.3 While poverty has declined in central cities, urban poverty rates are still twice as high as suburban poverty rates, 18.8 percent as against 9.0 percent in 1997. Cities and older suburbs are also disproportionately home to families whose earnings are above the poverty level, but below median income (national median income is $37,000 a year, and 200 percent of the poverty level for a family of three is $27,000 a year4). //

The demographic composition of cities is important for several reasons. The incomes of the working poor and other low-income families have not kept pace with the rising costs of health care, housing, child care, transportation, and other necessities. Cities, therefore, are more likely to have residents who lack health insurance and struggle with the burdens of housing and child care. //

For example, slightly more than half of the households who have "worst-case housing needs" (that is, pay more than 50 percent of their income for rent or live in substandard housing) reside in central cities. Almost a quarter of the families who live in cities do not have health insurance, compared with 15 percent of suburban families. //

Cities are not just home to too many poor families; they are also home to neighborhoods where poverty is concentrated.5 From 1970 to 1990, the number of people living in neighborhoods of high poverty where the poverty rate is 40 percent or more nearly doubled from 4.1 million to 8 million. As Paul Jargowsky and others have shown, concentrated poverty is principally an urban (and racial) phenomenon6. //

The implications of concentrated poverty are severe. People in these neighborhoods often face a triple whammy: poor schools, weak job information networks, and scarce jobs. They are more likely to live in female-headed households and have less formal education than residents of other neighborhoods. //

Welfare reform is where the challenges of decentralizing opportunities and concentrating poverty come together.7 Many of the jobs that welfare recipients need cannot be found in their neighborhoods or even in their own cities. Not surprisingly, cities have a rising share of the welfare caseloads in their states, even as welfare rolls drop.8 Philadelphia is now home to 12 percent of all Pennsylvanians, but 49 percent of Pennsylvanians on welfare. Baltimore has 58 percent of the state's caseload and only 13 percent of the state's residents. //

Public school populations more or less mirror the populations of the neighborhoods in which the schools are located. In 1996, for example, 75 of the public schools in the Greater Washington, D.C., region had more than three-quarters of their students eligible for free or reduced-cost lunches. All but three of these schools were located in the poor neighborhoods of the central city. //

There is a strong correlation between a school's share of low-income students and poor performance by its students on standardized tests. In her studies of U.S. student performance, Diane Ravitch has found that fourth graders from high-poverty neighborhoods have dramatically lower scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress than their suburban counterparts. Although nearly two-thirds of suburban children achieve "basic" levels in reading, less than a quarter of children from high-poverty neighborhoods do so. Only about a third achieve basic levels in math and science, half the fraction of suburban students.//

Poor student performance, of course, is not just a product of concentrating poor students. As Ravitch has written, "too many big-city school systems have failed to use resources wisely, set clear academic standards, improve teacher recruitment and compensation, and, most important, increase achievement." //

Cities are not different just because of who lives there. They are generally older than their suburbs and show signs of age. Many cities were once home to manufacturing industries that have decamped for the suburbs or other nations9, leaving behind empty buildings and polluted lots. These lots either remain underused, creating a drag on tax rolls, property values, and general neighborhood morale10 or require expensive cleanup investments. The infrastructure, the roads, bridges, sewer lines, subway tunnels, school buildings, and the like in cities is old and has all too often been undermined by years of deferred maintenance11.

The existence of aging infrastructure is complicated by the dysfunction of urban governance. Many urban systems and bureaucracies have simply ceased to function in an efficient or streamlined fashion. As Mark Alan Hughes notes, Philadelphia has 15 separate bureaucracies with some responsibility for disposing of urban land.12 //

In other cities, similar horror stories abound13 with regard to school reconstruction, the delivery of basic services, and infrastructure repair. The hard fact of life14 is that newer suburbs are easier, cheaper, more predictable places to do business. In most places, doing business with or within a city is still a headache, which costs time and money. //

(Excerpts from "Enough of the Small Stuff! Toward a New Urban Agenda" by Bruce Katz, The Brookings Review, Summer 2000 Vol.18 No.3, pp.4-9)

口译讲评Comments on Interpretation

1．"Cities have lost disproportionate numbers of middle- and upper-income households who form the backbone of economically strong communities."此句较长，口译时按汉语习惯，可以将它拆为转折关系的复合句，译为"而他们"。"disproportionate"原意是"不成比例的"，这里实际就是"大量"的意思。

2．"the loss of jobs and businesses to other, further out suburbs." 将名词"loss"译为动词"流失（到）"，变短语为句子，使译文更通顺地道。"further out suburbs"意思是"更远的郊区"。

3．"central cities remain the residence of 'choice' for low- and moderate-income families."
这句话既可按原文结构译为："市中心仍是中低收入家庭的‘选择’居住地"，也可以改变原 文的主谓语结构，译为："中低收入家庭仍然选择居住在市中心"。

4．"200 percent of the poverty level for a family of three is $27,000 a year"此句直译为："一个三口之家贫困标准的200%是一年2.7万美元"，不符合中文的表达 习惯，应稍做变通，译为"一个三口之家的贫困标准是一年1.35万美元"。

5．"Cities are not just home to too many poor families; they are also home to neighborhoods where poverty is concentrated."此句出现了两个"home to"结构，为避免重复，使译文更漂亮，可以采用不同的汉语表达方 式，如"栖身之所"、"所在地"等。

6．"concentrated poverty is principally an urban (and racial) phenomenon." "concentrated
poverty"直译是"集中的贫困"，不符合汉语表达习惯，译为："贫困的集中化"则更为合适。

7．"Welfare reform is where the challenges of decentralizing opportunities and concentrating poverty come together."此句的难点在"where"，可以调整原句结构，把主句变成短语做地点状语，从句变为主句，译为："在福利改革中，机会分散和贫困集中这两重挑战碰到了一起"。

8．"cities have a rising share of the welfare caseloads in their states, even as welfare rolls drop." "welfare caseloads"指"领福利金的个案数量"，"welfare rolls"是领福利金者的名单，这里实际 就是指"领福利金的人数"。

9．"Many cities were once home to manufacturing industries that have decamped for the suburbs or other nations, ""decamp"意思是"撤营"，为与之呼应，并准确地传达原文的神韵，可将"home"译为"大本营"，全句译为："许多城市一度是制造业的大本营，而今制造业迁往郊区甚至国外，"。

10．"creating a drag on tax rolls, property values, and general neighborhood morale " "to create a drag on"原意是"拖延"、"使滞后"、"拖后腿"，考虑到汉语的搭配，这里可译为："对造成了负面影响"。

11．"deferred maintenance " 原意是"拖延的维修"，口译时可以正话反说，译为"未及时维修"。

12．"Philadelphia has 15 separate bureaucracies with some responsibility for disposing of urban land."这里关键要准确理解和表达"some"这个词的含义，它表示"不确定的一些"。结合上下文来
看，作者是要说，城市的各行政机构和职能部门权利交叉、职责不清，所以可以译为："费城就有15个不同的行政机构多少有权处置城市土地"。

13．"similar horror stories abound " "horror stories"不是"恐怖故事"，这里指"可怕的事情"、"可怕的现象"，"abound"是"丰富"的意思，这里可译为"很多"，或"比比皆是"。

14．"The hard fact of life " 可以意译为："明显事实"或"明摆着的事实"。

从1980年到1997年，全美最大的25个城市中有23个的人口增长比其周边地区缓慢、或者在其周边地区人口增长的同时却人口减少。就连凤凰城、达拉斯和休斯顿等阳光地带城市的增长速度也比其郊区缓慢。城市的中上收入家庭大量流失，而它们是形成经济实力雄厚的社区的中坚力量。//

从1989年到1996年，740万个中上收入家庭从市区迁往郊区，但只有350万户从郊区迁往市区。因此，市区和郊区家庭平均收入差距持续增大。1989年郊区家庭平均收入比市中心家庭平均收入高58%。至1996年这一差距扩大到了67%。//

当然，分散化趋势的影响远远超出了城市范围。无序扩张的发展格局破坏着全美各城市周围许 多郊区的稳定。年代较久的郊区经受着和市区同样的挑战：学校教育质量每况愈下、犯罪屡禁不止、就业和商 业机会流失到其他更远的郊区。即便是发展迅速的郊区也出现了爆炸式增长的弊端，尤其体现在学校过度拥 挤、上下班交通耗时长，以及当地政府无力出资建造新的道路、下水道和其他基础设施。//

尽管经济呈分散化发展，但中低收入家庭仍然选择居住在市中心。虽然市中心的贫困率已降 低，但市区贫困率却仍是郊区的两倍；1997年市区贫困率是18.8%，而郊区却只有9.0%。

许多收入高于贫困线却又低于平均线的家庭都选择在市区和年代较久的郊区安家落户，其数量 之多超乎寻常（全国平均线是年均2.7万美元，一个三口之家的贫困标准是一年1.35万美元）。//

城市的人口构成之所以重要，有几个原因。低收入工薪族和其他低收入家庭的收入跟不上持续 上涨的医疗保健、住房、儿童保育、交通和其他各项必需的开支。因此，城市居民更有可能缺少医疗保险，并
且还在住房和儿童保育的重担下苦苦挣扎。//

例如，“住房最困难”家庭（即租房费用超过收入的50%或住房不达标）中有略超过一半都居 住在市中心。将近1/4的城市家庭没有医疗保险，而郊区家庭中没有医疗保险的只有15%。//

城市不仅是太多贫困家庭的栖身之所，也是贫民窟所在地。从1970年到1990年，住在贫困率达40%或以上的高度贫困居民区的人口从410万增加到800万，几乎翻了一番。保尔•贾高斯基和其他专家都指出，贫困集中化主要是城市（和种族）的常见现象。//

贫困集中化的后果十分严重。这些居住区的居民经常面临着三重打击：学校质量差、工作信息 网络薄弱、就业机会少得可怜。和其他居民区相比，这里的家庭更可能由女性当家，居民接受的正规教育也更 少。//

在福利改革中，机会分散和贫困集中这两重挑战碰到了一起。许多靠福利维生的人在他们居住 的区域、甚至城市里都无法找到他们需要的工作。难怪虽然各州领福利金的人数减少了，但是其中城市居民所 占的比例却越来越大。//

宾夕法尼亚州12%的人口在费城，但该市领福利金的人数却占了宾夕法尼亚州总数的49%。巴尔 的摩市的人口只占马里兰州人口总数的13%，但该市领福利金的人数却占了州总数的58%。//

公立学校的学生构成或多或少反映了所在居住区的人口情况。例如，1996年，大华盛顿特区的75所公立学校中有超过3/4的学生有资格申请免费或减价午餐。这些学校中除了三所之外，其他的都位于市中心较贫困的居民区。//

学校中来自低收入家庭的学生的比例和学生在标准化考试中的表现好坏有明显关联。戴安•拉维奇对美国学生的表现进行了研究，她发现，在全国教育进展评估考试中，来自高度贫困居住区的四年级学生 的成绩比郊区同年级学生低得多。//

近2/3的郊区学生达到了“基本”阅读水平，而高度贫困居住区的学生只有不到1/4做到了这 点。在数学和科学方面，他们中只有约1/3达到了基本水平，仅占郊区学生达标人数的一半。//

当然，学生表现不佳并不仅仅是由于贫困学生过于集中造成的。拉维奇写道：“很多大城市的学校系统都没能合理利用资源、制订明确的教学标准、改善对教师的招聘及酬劳，而最主要的是没能提高成绩”//

人口构成并不能解释所有的城市问题。城市一般比郊区年代久远，显示出老化的迹象。许多城 市一度是制造业的大本营，而今制造业迁往郊区甚至国外，在城市里留下空空如也的厂房和遭到污染的土
地。//

这些土地要么未被充分利用，对税收、不动产价值和居住区的民心造成了负面影响，要么得花 昂贵的代价来清理。城市的基础设施 —道路、桥梁、下水道、地铁隧道、学校建筑和诸如此类的设施 — 都已陈旧，往往因为多年未 及时维修而逐渐损坏。//

城市管理功能的失调使基础设施老化的问题更加复杂。许多城市系统和行政机构根本再也无法 高效、顺畅地运作。马克•艾伦•休伊指出，费城就有15个不同的行政机构多少有权处置城市土地。//

在其他城市，在事关学校改建、提供基础服务，以及基础设施维修方面，类似的可怕现象比比 皆是。现实是明摆着的，在较新的郊区办事更容易、更低廉、不可预测性低。在大多数地方，与市区打交道或 在市区内办事仍是个费时伤财的大难题。//