| |
次の英文を読んで以下の設問に答えよ。
There is certainly a good case for adopting an international language, whether it be English or Malaysian. Translating is an enormously costly and time-consuming business. (1) An internal survey by the European Community in 1987 found that it was costing it $15 a word, $500 a page, to translate its documents. One in every three employees of the European Community is engaged in translating papers and speeches. A third of all administration costs -- $700 million in 1987 -- was taken up with paying for translators and interpreters. Every time a member is added to the EC, as most recently with Greece, Spain, and Portugal, the translation problems multiply endlessly. Under the Treaty of Rome each member country's language must be treated equally, and it is not easy even in multilingual Brussels to find interpreters who can translate from Dutch into Portuguese or from Danish into Greek.
(2) A more compelling reason for an international language is the frequency and gravity of misunderstandings owing to difficulties of translation. The 1905 draft of a treaty between Russia and Japan, written in both French and English, treated the English control and French controler as the same when in fact the English form means "to dominate or hold power" while the French means simply "to inspect." The treaty nearly fell apart as a result. Several years ago, an agreement on Japanese and American trade relations was unintentionally delayed when at the end of a meeting, the Japanese leader said "Zensho shi masu," which was understood by the American side as "I will do it." However, the sense intended was "I will reserve a reply until I have time to consider in the matter more carefully."
That may seem a remarkably great difference between meanings. (3) But Japanese is particularly liable to such differences because it is at once so dense and complex and yet so full of subtlety. It has been suggested, in fact, that it is probably not possible to give accurate simutataneous Japanese-English translations because of the wide gap between how the two languages function. To take just one instance, in Japanese it is considered impolite to end a sentence with an unexpected flourish; in English it is a sign of public-speaking skills of the first order. English speakers, particularly in the context of business or political negotiations, favor frankness. The Japanese, by contrast, have a cultural dislike for directness and are often reluctant to give a simple yes or no answer. When a Japanese says "Kangae sasete kudasai" ("Let me think about it"), he or she actually means "no." (4) This has led many business people to assume they had an agreement or understanding that did not actually exist.
問１ 下線部(1)を日本語に直せ。ただし２番目の it の意味を明示すること。
問２ 下線部(2)を日本語に直せ。
問３ 下線部(3)を日本語に直せ。ただし such および it の意味を明示すること。
問４ 下線部(4)を日本語に直せ。ただし This の意味を明示すること。
[熊本大]
|
|
