为推动国内翻译人才的培养进程，促进BTI、MTI方向的发展，乃至DTI的建立，以及整个翻译学科的发展和中外文化交流，研究和践行许渊冲先生的翻译理念，继2017年“首届许渊冲翻译大赛”所取得的良好反响，兹定于2018年举办“第二届许渊冲翻译大赛”。本次大赛由山西大同大学许渊冲翻译与比较文化研究院、《解放军外国语学院学报》编辑部联合主办，辽宁省翻译学会、大连外国语大学、《语言文化研究》编辑部协办，本届大赛仍分英译汉和汉译英两种类型，设立一等奖、二等奖、三等奖、优秀奖和优秀组织奖五个奖项，参赛者可任选一种或两种。欢迎海内外广大翻译工作者和爱好者比秀佳译，共鉴达雅。

 

一、赛程

1、《解放军外国语学院学报》于2018年第1期发布启事及原文，第5期发布获奖结果，《语言文化研究》、许渊冲翻译与比较文化研究院网站、协办单位网站同时公布相关信息。

2、投稿截止时间：2018年6月30日24时。

 

二、参赛要求

1、参赛者国籍、年龄、性别、学历不限，不接受合作译稿，一经发现取消比赛资格。

2、仅第一次投稿有效，不接受再投稿件，只接受电子投稿，不接受纸质稿。

3、截稿之日前，妥善保存译文，勿在媒体上公布，违者取消参赛资格并承担一切后果。

4、参赛译文一经发现抄袭或雷同，即取消参赛资格，且投稿即视为同意并自愿遵守赛事规定。

 

三、奖项设置

1、“英译汉”“汉译英”各设一等奖1名，二等奖2名，三等奖3名，优秀奖若干名。

2、一、二、三等奖颁发证书、奖金和奖品，优秀奖颁发证书和奖品。

 

四、参赛费用

1、参加一项缴纳50元，两项缴纳则100元，不缴纳参赛费的稿件无法进入评审程序。

2、邮局汇款地址：山西省大同市兴云街1号山西大同大学许渊冲翻译与比较文化研究院（邮编037001），联系人：吕红周，电话：13393521012（附言写明姓名+参赛类型）；另可微信支付报名费，微信号：lvhongzhou7777（附言写明姓名+参赛类型）。

 

五、投稿规范

1、参赛译文发送至电子邮箱：xycfyds@163.com （参加两项比赛，请发送两封邮件，各带附件），邮件主题为：姓名+英译汉（或汉译英），同时以附件发送个人信息（姓名、性别、年龄、单位/学校、地址、邮编、Email、电话）。

2、译文格式：宋体（英译汉）/Times New Roman（汉译英），黑色，小四号，1.5 倍行距，两端对齐（译文中请勿留个人信息）。

 

六、大赛组委会

 

　　为保证赛事的公平、公正、透明，特成立大赛组委会，负责大赛的组织、实施和评审工作，地点设在山西大同大学。

顾问委员会

　　党争胜、董洪川、黄友义、李锡胤、李亚舒、许钧、杨俊峰、尹承东、许渊冲

评审委员会主任

李亚舒

评委

白丽梅、卞建华、曹进、陈国兴、陈勇、常乐、董广才、董君、段满福、范敏、冯正斌、龚晓斌、桂清扬、胡安江、贾洪伟、寇福明、李承兴、李春姬、李丽华、李玉良、李占喜、李正栓、廖正刚、林正军、刘迎春、马军、马世奎、潘智丹、彭萍、仇云龙、沈鞠明、苏鹏、孙继成、陶友兰、王和平、王金波、王军、王秋生、王维波、武恩义、巫和雄、云虹、张红、张晓华、张政、周杰、闫怡恂、杨元刚、杨增成、尹洪山、余丽、袁凤识、张德让、张思洁、赵刚、朱义华、朱跃

七、联系方式

　　联系人：贾洪伟（手机：18600941401），吕红周（手机：13393521012）

　　传真： 0532-7563538

　　地址：山西省大同市南郊区大同大学外国语学院许渊冲翻译与比较文化研究院（037001）

　　大同大学许渊冲翻译与比较文化研究院

  《解放军外国语学院学报》编辑部 

 辽宁省翻译学会 

 大连外国语大学翻译学院 

 《语言文化研究》编辑部 

附大赛原文：

 

第二届许渊冲翻译大赛英译汉原文

A Contract in the Context of Semiotics

[1] A contract, basically, is an agreement between two (or more) persons, creating mutual legal obligations between them. In its essence, it is a legally and morally binding promise to do something or refrain from doing something. The “something” is called the subject matter of the contract, which must be legal. It is illegal to contract against good morals or national security, for example.

[2] There is no set (verbal) formula to enter into a contract. Written contracts are as a rule supposed to set out what the parties actually intend, while the intent of orally-made and other informal agreements is, from a legal standpoint, not definitely fixed. Interpretation may there be necessary in order to clarify parties’ intentions. It is the task of the trial judge to make the implicit explicit by inference from the evidence available to him or her (the written and/or oral agreement corroborated by conduct by parties).

[3] The consensual basis of contract, its first formal requirement, implies that parties (called promisor and promise) agree voluntarily and in good faith to enter into a common enterprise involving future actions, thereby yielding some portion of their freedom of behavior in the future. The will of parties is, in law, considered to be manifested in the fact that, to the effect of the contract a definite offer or proposal from one party has been consciously and willingly accepted, without new terms, by the other party. An offer not clearly and explicitly put forth and/or not freely and knowingly accepted makes no contract, --- or better, it makes a defective contract. Thus, if A asks B to promise some future performance, and B makes no answer indicating his (present) willingness to do so at some (future) time, B has made no promise.

[4] To qualify as a valid and legally binding contract, there must be mutuality, or exchange of promises. Under a contract, one party undertakes an obligation, thereby giving the other, to whom the obligation is owed, a claim against him, her, or itself, which consists in the right to have a performance of the terms of the contract. By this token, parties do not share benefits and burdens, but each party has his, her, or its definite privileges and responsibilities arising from the contract.

[5] Contracting parties must further be competent, that is, they must have the proper legal capacity to enter into a contractual agreement. As a case in point, a contract entered into by a minor (or a mentally disabled person) is a defective, hence voidable, transaction. It is not void, and therefore still creates legally binding obligations on a competent party, unless the minor (or mentally disabled person) repudiates it. This may happen in person or through a guardian acting on his or her behalf.

[6] However, a contract is not binding, and therefore void (and not merely voidable), if it is lacking what is called, in legal jargon, “consideration”. A bare and gratuitous promise is generally insufficient ground to create, for the one party, an enforceable duty to deliver any (material or immaterial) goods, not for the other, to take and pay for them. The obligation resting upon each party only exists “in consideration of” the act or promise of the other, --- meaning that neither is bound unless both are bound. Consideration is, in the Anglo-American legal system (the so-called common law), the essence and backbone of legal contract. It is also known as the quid pro quo (“what for what”, “something for something”) mentioned in the title of this Chapter because of the analogy to the scholastic aliquid stat pro aliquo, which exemplifies the semiotic sign relation and is (like quid pro quo) rooted in equivalence. Quid pro quo indicates that something must be given in return for the promise; that there must be some bargain; that a responsibility incurred by the one party must be matched by a corresponding benefit gained by the other. Consideration pits the promise to give (often, to pay) against the promise to do, thereby highlighting the thing of value each party agrees to give in exchange for what he or she receives by the bargain. This thing of value, or consideration, is the reason for which the contract is made.

[7] Semiotics being, essentially, the study of how verbal and nonverbal messages are created, sent, received, understood, interpreted, and otherwise used, it is clearly the case that contract is a semiotic problem. Here we must distinguish a contract as a written document from contract as a communicative act or event. Though different, both are facts of law and both are semiotic signs.

[8] The written document, or contract form, is an object which is a sign because of the verbal signs (signs of Thirdness) it is codified in. when filled out and signed, it serves as a genuine Third, or sign of law. In accordance with Peirce’s classification of signs, it must be characterized as a symbolic sign strongly tinged with indexicality. More specifically, it is proposition, or dicent symbolic legisign which on being signed by parties (and, if necessary, co-signed by one or more witnesses, an attorney, and/or notary public) will acquire the status of an argument, or argumentative symbolic legisign. The mixed, symbolic - indexical nature of the contract is signified in the appearance of the formal, written contract but can also be recognized (though perhaps in a less explicit form) in informal contracts –- agreements, that is, which may result from an exchange or letters or even from casual acts.

第二届许渊冲翻译大赛汉译英原文

[1] 经济战略纵深存在时和空两个维度。空间纵深方面，可以从区域、产业和市场几个方面来考察：从区域角度看，战略纵深一方面来自一国的幅员辽阔和地大物博，更重要的是根据自然资源禀赋和区域发展规划，形成具有比较优势的区域产业和产品优势，呈现“互为补充、相互带动、梯次发展”的格局；从产业结构看，第一产业特别是高附加值农业、第二产业特别是高端制造业、第三产业特别是现代服务业，呈“核心行业优势明显、整体结构协调发展”的局面；从市场角度看，在全球化背景下，同时拥有国内和国际两个巨大市场，在大力开拓国际市场的同时，拥有具有较大回旋余地的国内市场。用时间的标尺来衡量战略纵深，则主要是对一国的体制、机制和制度环境对经济潜力的影响加以考察，其中政治和社会稳定的预期、市场体系和投融资体制的效能、社会保障制度的健全与完备、教育和科研水平对经济和产业提供的智力资源等，决定一个国家经济运行的稳定性、经济危机的自我修复能力，事关一国经济发展的潜能。

[2] 经济战略纵深的本质是经济安全。从近代西班牙、荷兰等以商业繁荣为基础的强权经济昙花一现，到亚洲金融危机东亚诸国泡沫破裂引发的经济断层危机，背后的原因林林总总，其经济结构的脆弱性却是不可否认的共性问题。历史经验说明，没有经济纵深就谈不上经济安全。经济安全代表着一国经济在整体上主权独立、基础稳固、运行稳健、增长稳定、发展持续，在国际经济生活中有一定的自主性、防卫力和竞争力，能够避免或化解可能的局部的或全局性的危机。具体内容上，包括一国经济结构内部的协调，国民经济产业部门之间基本保持平衡，工业体系基本完善，基础产业稳固，不存在制约国民经济发展的瓶颈，尤其是不存在无法通过进口加以补充的瓶颈产业。从供给方面看，产业结构与要素结构基本吻合，资源利用较为充分，而且能够按照比较优势的原则发展主导产业参与国际分工；从需求方面看，产品能基本满足国内的基本需求。一个具有战略纵深的经济体系应该是一个具有自身结构不断升级的结构，而不是始终依赖外国产业转移的僵化结构；应当是一个在外部动荡环境下能承受冲击的结构，而不是在外部冲击下缺乏调节机制的结构。实践表明，没有合理的民族工业支撑的商业繁荣属于依赖型繁荣，是不可持续的，一如历史上的西班牙和荷兰；没有合理协调的产业机构基础上的“大进大出、两头在外”的跳跃式经济增长和断层型的发展模式，只是低收入国家甚至中等收入国家的权宜之计，一如深陷亚洲金融危机泥潭的东南亚国家。