首届许渊冲翻译大赛-原文
首届许渊冲翻译大赛英译汉原文：
Resolving Conflicts and Possible Outcomes
[1] There are many ways through which people can resolve conflicts between warring factions. These warring factions can be as few as two individuals, or they might be large people groups like countries. However, the ways of resolving conflicts do not all work in any one given situation? A person or groups of people ought to decide upon which the best way of resolving a given conflict is. A model of dual concern might be assumed where an individual tries to strike a balance between the concern he has for other people and the concern he has for himself. On the one hand he may choose to be assertive and have things done his way. On the other hand, he may choose to be empathetic, and do things according to the way the other person feels things ought to be done.
[2] When engaged in a conflicting situation, some people might decide to resolve the conflict by staying aloof of the problem. To these people staying aloof is the best way of letting things get resolved. They prefer no active participation in seeing to it that the situation is resolved. They do not care much about what other people feel in the circumstances. They do not think much about their personal feelings either. High conflict situations are not best resolved with this kind of approach, however, because things can easily run out of control.
[3] An example of such a situation is when a group of employees go on strike and the management sits back to see what might happen, without taking any active role in what is going on. The strike might escalate into such bad situations as burning of company assets by the disgruntled employees or even roughing up of the employers. A bad situation grows worse in that case, because the employees feel that the aloofness of the management does not address their concerns. The management, however, feels that the assertiveness of the employees ought to have been toned down. If consensus could be reached between the two parties it would be at the point where the management has taken an active role in addressing the employees’ grievances. The employees, on the other hand, ought not to be greatly aggrieved, seeing that at least their cries are being heard by a management that cares for them. It is rather unfortunate that a number of people who fall into this trap are the so called faithful. They let things be, and say to themselves and to others that things shall be sorted out by divine intervention. However, things ought to be done differently, because not everyone has the same beliefs or religious leanings. Many people sere different deities and some believe in a deity that asks them to help themselves before deity comes to their aid. Therefore, instead of their faith being a source of respite, it fuels the flames of conflict for some people.
[4] Another way of resolving conflict is by adorning a compromising attitude. Such an attitude says to oneself and to others that it is good to be fair to both sides of the conflict. Such people are ready to listen to the arguments on both sides and to yield a bit to the demands of the other side. They also expect the other side of the conflict to yield to some of their demands, hence being fair. In the case study above, for example, the employees would be expected to yield to some of the demands of management while the management also gives in to some of the demands of its employees. Ideally, not all demands from each side shall be met, but a balance can be struck wherein some of the wants from each side shall be addressed. Like in the previous case, the more assertive of the two groups will be expected to yield a bit, by being conciliatory. This will be expected of the employees who hold the management in ransom by their actions. Being fair would not see the employees flare up into a fracas situation of burning and looting. Being fair would also see the management taking an active role in the resolution of the conflict rather than sitting back and watching as situation change from bad to worse.
[5] Conflict does not have to be a bad thing or a nasty experience. Where there are two or more people interacting with different interests at heart, disagreements are inevitable. However, such disagreements might be a source for better understanding of each other and even greater cohesion. In the workplace scenario above, conflict might have arisen out of one employee’s obsession with letting the management know about everything that goes on while they are not being watched. The conflict of interests comes in with the other employees being opposed to close supervision. It is further aggravated by the fact that one of their peers would like to make a good name for oneself by making the rest of them look bad in the presence of their superiors.
[6] Solving such a conflict might require one to have high levels of assertiveness as well as empathy. With these traits he can easily cooperate with his contenders to reach an amicable solution to their conflict. Such an individual is not only interested in his own welfare but has a heightened interest in the welfare of the people he contends with, as well. He shall cooperate with the other people to find a solution with which they shall all be agreeable. His cooperation might tend to favor the side of the fellow employees, or it might be in favor of the management. However, what would a person caught in the middle of such a conflict do? Through discussion with both parties, people get to be aware of the points of views that their contenders have. In effect, they do not undermine the goals of each other.
[7] There are three possible outcomes to any conflict resolution endeavor. Each of these outcomes depends on how the conflict resolution exercise is carried out. In the first place, a conflict resolution exercise might work in favor of both sides concerned. Since both parties win in the end, this is called a win-win situation. The first type of conflict resolution that was mentioned in this dialogue would never amount to a win-win situation. Not both parties win in the end. This is because one of the parties stays aloof from the goings on of the resolution process.
[8] Since its stand is neither here nor there, it becomes rather difficult to tell whether things are going the way they should for this group of people. Whether they win or lose is not the issue for this group, but rather, they only want tranquility in the end. They want peace but they are not ready to work or to fight for it. Maybe, therefore, one might be right in assuming that when peace prevails in the end, then that is a win situation for the people who do not want to stand up for what they believe in. It may be rightly opined that these people are cowards who do not have enough spine with which to face up to other people, even though they might be transgressed against.
[9] A win-win result of conflict resolution is the best result that one can achieve. It results in greater cohesion among group members than before the conflict caused a rift between them. They also get to learn more about each other’s way of thinking and what things can cause them to be drawn apart. In future, they will not fear conflicting situations, but they would rather strive to keep away from those things that divide them. They will strive for those things that cause them to be drawn closer together as a single unit.
[10] The other result of a conflict resolution is where one side wins and the other loses. In such a case, no workable consensus has been reached. One side of the conflict is way too aggressive while the other is too empathetic. The aggressive side is bound to have its way over the empathetic side. Thus, the aggressive side wins while the empathetic side loses. This example of a scenario is called a win-lose situation because one side wins while the other side loses. It would be likened to an employer-employee conflict situation in which the employee has a field day over the employer, with all the employee’s demands being met. The employer’s demands, on the other hand are not heeded to. Otherwise, the employer might be too high handed towards the employee. Following such a situation, the employer ends up sacking the employee for reasons such as insubordination.
首届许渊冲翻译大赛汉译英原文：
家教有方
[1] 中国人历来都很重视家庭教育。当孩子成就大事业、取得大成就的时候，人们都会说“教子有方”。宋人袁彩著的《袁氏示范》论述了有关幼儿的家庭教育问题。《四库全书》称之为“颜氏家训之亚也”。在家庭教育方面，它们特别强调父母的言行，因为父母是孩子的第一任老师。过去中国传统的家庭为三世同堂，甚至有些是四世同堂，几代人在一个居住空间，形成了各种复杂的伦理关系和家教。在这些关系中，其核心人物是父母。父母是沟通上一代和下一代的关键，只有父母做到敬老慈幼，才能给儿女做出好的榜样来。中华民族向来具有尊师重教的优良传统——“子不教，父之过”的组训家喻户晓，甚至作为有些家庭安身立命的座右铭。而子女不论贫贱富贵，都要励精图治，勤奋苦读，为国献力，光宗耀祖。
[2] 清代朱用纯的《朱字家训》和《弟子规》是传统的教子经典之作。《朱子家训》以“修身”“齐家”“治国”“平天下”为宗旨，集儒家为人处世方法之大成。这本书简明地总结了教子治家、育子成才的成功经验，至今还有值得我们借鉴的地方。例如，一粥一饭，当思来之不易；半丝半缕，恒念物力维艰；祖宗虽远，祭祀不可不诚；子孙虽愚，经书不可不读；居身务期简朴，教子要有义方，等等。这些传统的儒家教育经典绵延了几千年，在中国占据了至尊的地位，扎根于老百姓心中，人们把“忠厚传家久，诗书继世长”等雕刻在门额上，作为日常行为的准则。
[3] 《弟子规》初名《训蒙文》，是根据朱熹的《童蒙须知》改编而成的。《弟子规》是对青少年的道德规范，尤其对尊敬父母、尊重师长、衣食住行、为人处世等方面提出了具体的要求。对社会健康发展、儿童成长、人才培育等起到了重要的作用。清代重新编撰了《教子图说》又是传代故事的传承。其中有孟母三迁、陶母拒礼、远母持家以及欧阳修之母因家里贫寒用荆条教子习字的故事，等等。这些故事不仅在民间广为流传，而且成为母亲教育子女的良好教材。
[4] 《家训》一书是圣人对学生的训示。在这本书里，首先教育学生要重视道德教育：“弟子规，圣人训。首孝悌，次谨信。泛爱众，而亲仁，有余力，则学文。”所谓孝悌，就是孝顺，属于儒家传统观念的范畴，对当今社会仍有借鉴意义。对老人尊重有礼，与同辈和谐相处，仍然是我们今天行为规范的内容之一。“朝起早，夜眠迟”“即出言，信为先”“见人善，即思齐”“勿谄富，勿骄贫”等内容，就是教育少年要勤劳、诚信、从善，不要嫌贫谄富，等等。所有这些和我们今天提倡的和谐社会是一脉相承的。
[5] 这些教育内容最初不是孩童入学馆之后才讲授的，而是由父母亲以口传身教的形式代代相传的。农村有些家庭把这些简练、生动而又蕴含丰富的格言用毛笔书写出来，贴在堂屋的厅堂上，作为教子的警示。
[6] 中国家庭历来重视言传身教。母亲是儿童出生后接触到的第一个人，也是孩子最初的老师，所以中国教育特别重视母亲的言行对孩子的影响。虽然幼儿教育丰富多彩，从儿童兴趣出发，开发智商，注重德、智、体全面发展，但是中国传统教育体制“惟有读书高的思想根深蒂固，认为读书作官才是孩子教育、成长的重中之重，所以我们一定要辨别分析，对古代好的东西继承，错误的东西一定要批判。
Resolving Conflicts and Possible Outcomes
[1] There are many ways through which people can resolve conflicts between warring factions. These warring factions can be as few as two individuals, or they might be large people groups like countries. However, the ways of resolving conflicts do not all work in any one given situation? A person or groups of people ought to decide upon which the best way of resolving a given conflict is. A model of dual concern might be assumed where an individual tries to strike a balance between the concern he has for other people and the concern he has for himself. On the one hand he may choose to be assertive and have things done his way. On the other hand, he may choose to be empathetic, and do things according to the way the other person feels things ought to be done.
[2] When engaged in a conflicting situation, some people might decide to resolve the conflict by staying aloof of the problem. To these people staying aloof is the best way of letting things get resolved. They prefer no active participation in seeing to it that the situation is resolved. They do not care much about what other people feel in the circumstances. They do not think much about their personal feelings either. High conflict situations are not best resolved with this kind of approach, however, because things can easily run out of control.
[3] An example of such a situation is when a group of employees go on strike and the management sits back to see what might happen, without taking any active role in what is going on. The strike might escalate into such bad situations as burning of company assets by the disgruntled employees or even roughing up of the employers. A bad situation grows worse in that case, because the employees feel that the aloofness of the management does not address their concerns. The management, however, feels that the assertiveness of the employees ought to have been toned down. If consensus could be reached between the two parties it would be at the point where the management has taken an active role in addressing the employees’ grievances. The employees, on the other hand, ought not to be greatly aggrieved, seeing that at least their cries are being heard by a management that cares for them. It is rather unfortunate that a number of people who fall into this trap are the so called faithful. They let things be, and say to themselves and to others that things shall be sorted out by divine intervention. However, things ought to be done differently, because not everyone has the same beliefs or religious leanings. Many people sere different deities and some believe in a deity that asks them to help themselves before deity comes to their aid. Therefore, instead of their faith being a source of respite, it fuels the flames of conflict for some people.
[4] Another way of resolving conflict is by adorning a compromising attitude. Such an attitude says to oneself and to others that it is good to be fair to both sides of the conflict. Such people are ready to listen to the arguments on both sides and to yield a bit to the demands of the other side. They also expect the other side of the conflict to yield to some of their demands, hence being fair. In the case study above, for example, the employees would be expected to yield to some of the demands of management while the management also gives in to some of the demands of its employees. Ideally, not all demands from each side shall be met, but a balance can be struck wherein some of the wants from each side shall be addressed. Like in the previous case, the more assertive of the two groups will be expected to yield a bit, by being conciliatory. This will be expected of the employees who hold the management in ransom by their actions. Being fair would not see the employees flare up into a fracas situation of burning and looting. Being fair would also see the management taking an active role in the resolution of the conflict rather than sitting back and watching as situation change from bad to worse.
[5] Conflict does not have to be a bad thing or a nasty experience. Where there are two or more people interacting with different interests at heart, disagreements are inevitable. However, such disagreements might be a source for better understanding of each other and even greater cohesion. In the workplace scenario above, conflict might have arisen out of one employee’s obsession with letting the management know about everything that goes on while they are not being watched. The conflict of interests comes in with the other employees being opposed to close supervision. It is further aggravated by the fact that one of their peers would like to make a good name for oneself by making the rest of them look bad in the presence of their superiors.
[6] Solving such a conflict might require one to have high levels of assertiveness as well as empathy. With these traits he can easily cooperate with his contenders to reach an amicable solution to their conflict. Such an individual is not only interested in his own welfare but has a heightened interest in the welfare of the people he contends with, as well. He shall cooperate with the other people to find a solution with which they shall all be agreeable. His cooperation might tend to favor the side of the fellow employees, or it might be in favor of the management. However, what would a person caught in the middle of such a conflict do? Through discussion with both parties, people get to be aware of the points of views that their contenders have. In effect, they do not undermine the goals of each other.
[7] There are three possible outcomes to any conflict resolution endeavor. Each of these outcomes depends on how the conflict resolution exercise is carried out. In the first place, a conflict resolution exercise might work in favor of both sides concerned. Since both parties win in the end, this is called a win-win situation. The first type of conflict resolution that was mentioned in this dialogue would never amount to a win-win situation. Not both parties win in the end. This is because one of the parties stays aloof from the goings on of the resolution process.
[8] Since its stand is neither here nor there, it becomes rather difficult to tell whether things are going the way they should for this group of people. Whether they win or lose is not the issue for this group, but rather, they only want tranquility in the end. They want peace but they are not ready to work or to fight for it. Maybe, therefore, one might be right in assuming that when peace prevails in the end, then that is a win situation for the people who do not want to stand up for what they believe in. It may be rightly opined that these people are cowards who do not have enough spine with which to face up to other people, even though they might be transgressed against.
[9] A win-win result of conflict resolution is the best result that one can achieve. It results in greater cohesion among group members than before the conflict caused a rift between them. They also get to learn more about each other’s way of thinking and what things can cause them to be drawn apart. In future, they will not fear conflicting situations, but they would rather strive to keep away from those things that divide them. They will strive for those things that cause them to be drawn closer together as a single unit.
[10] The other result of a conflict resolution is where one side wins and the other loses. In such a case, no workable consensus has been reached. One side of the conflict is way too aggressive while the other is too empathetic. The aggressive side is bound to have its way over the empathetic side. Thus, the aggressive side wins while the empathetic side loses. This example of a scenario is called a win-lose situation because one side wins while the other side loses. It would be likened to an employer-employee conflict situation in which the employee has a field day over the employer, with all the employee’s demands being met. The employer’s demands, on the other hand are not heeded to. Otherwise, the employer might be too high handed towards the employee. Following such a situation, the employer ends up sacking the employee for reasons such as insubordination.
首届许渊冲翻译大赛汉译英原文：
家教有方
[1] 中国人历来都很重视家庭教育。当孩子成就大事业、取得大成就的时候，人们都会说“教子有方”。宋人袁彩著的《袁氏示范》论述了有关幼儿的家庭教育问题。《四库全书》称之为“颜氏家训之亚也”。在家庭教育方面，它们特别强调父母的言行，因为父母是孩子的第一任老师。过去中国传统的家庭为三世同堂，甚至有些是四世同堂，几代人在一个居住空间，形成了各种复杂的伦理关系和家教。在这些关系中，其核心人物是父母。父母是沟通上一代和下一代的关键，只有父母做到敬老慈幼，才能给儿女做出好的榜样来。中华民族向来具有尊师重教的优良传统——“子不教，父之过”的组训家喻户晓，甚至作为有些家庭安身立命的座右铭。而子女不论贫贱富贵，都要励精图治，勤奋苦读，为国献力，光宗耀祖。
[2] 清代朱用纯的《朱字家训》和《弟子规》是传统的教子经典之作。《朱子家训》以“修身”“齐家”“治国”“平天下”为宗旨，集儒家为人处世方法之大成。这本书简明地总结了教子治家、育子成才的成功经验，至今还有值得我们借鉴的地方。例如，一粥一饭，当思来之不易；半丝半缕，恒念物力维艰；祖宗虽远，祭祀不可不诚；子孙虽愚，经书不可不读；居身务期简朴，教子要有义方，等等。这些传统的儒家教育经典绵延了几千年，在中国占据了至尊的地位，扎根于老百姓心中，人们把“忠厚传家久，诗书继世长”等雕刻在门额上，作为日常行为的准则。
[3] 《弟子规》初名《训蒙文》，是根据朱熹的《童蒙须知》改编而成的。《弟子规》是对青少年的道德规范，尤其对尊敬父母、尊重师长、衣食住行、为人处世等方面提出了具体的要求。对社会健康发展、儿童成长、人才培育等起到了重要的作用。清代重新编撰了《教子图说》又是传代故事的传承。其中有孟母三迁、陶母拒礼、远母持家以及欧阳修之母因家里贫寒用荆条教子习字的故事，等等。这些故事不仅在民间广为流传，而且成为母亲教育子女的良好教材。
[4] 《家训》一书是圣人对学生的训示。在这本书里，首先教育学生要重视道德教育：“弟子规，圣人训。首孝悌，次谨信。泛爱众，而亲仁，有余力，则学文。”所谓孝悌，就是孝顺，属于儒家传统观念的范畴，对当今社会仍有借鉴意义。对老人尊重有礼，与同辈和谐相处，仍然是我们今天行为规范的内容之一。“朝起早，夜眠迟”“即出言，信为先”“见人善，即思齐”“勿谄富，勿骄贫”等内容，就是教育少年要勤劳、诚信、从善，不要嫌贫谄富，等等。所有这些和我们今天提倡的和谐社会是一脉相承的。
[5] 这些教育内容最初不是孩童入学馆之后才讲授的，而是由父母亲以口传身教的形式代代相传的。农村有些家庭把这些简练、生动而又蕴含丰富的格言用毛笔书写出来，贴在堂屋的厅堂上，作为教子的警示。
[6] 中国家庭历来重视言传身教。母亲是儿童出生后接触到的第一个人，也是孩子最初的老师，所以中国教育特别重视母亲的言行对孩子的影响。虽然幼儿教育丰富多彩，从儿童兴趣出发，开发智商，注重德、智、体全面发展，但是中国传统教育体制“惟有读书高的思想根深蒂固，认为读书作官才是孩子教育、成长的重中之重，所以我们一定要辨别分析，对古代好的东西继承，错误的东西一定要批判。