Unit 10
Unit 10
Table of Contents
Audio
Text&Translation
A euphemism is commonly defined as an auspicious or exalted term (like "sanitation engineer") that is used in place of a more down-to-earth term (like "garbage man"). People who are partial to euphemisms stand accused of being "phony" or trying to hide what it is they are really talking about. And there is no doubt that in some situations the accusation is entirely proper. For example, one of the more detestable euphemisms I have come across in recent years is the term "Operation Sunshine", which is the name the U.S. Government gave to some experiments it conducted with the hydrogen bomb in the South Pacific. It is obvious that the government, in choosing this name, was trying to expunge the hideous imagery that the bomb evokes and in so doing committed, as I see it, an immoral act. This sort of process—giving pretty names to essentially ugly realities—is what has given euphemizing such a bad name. And people like George Orwell have done valuable work for all of us in calling attention to how the process works. But there is another side to euphemizing that is worth mentioning, and a few words here in its defense will not be amiss.
委婉语通常被定义为一种吉利或听来高雅的措辞（如“环卫工程师”），用以替代那些更接地气的说法（如“垃圾清运工”）。偏爱使用委婉语的人，常被指责为“虚情假意”，或是有意掩盖所指事物的真相。无疑，在某些情况下，这样的指责是全然恰当的。譬如，我近年来所遇最令人憎恶的委婉语之一，便是“阳光行动”这个词。这是美国政府对其在南太平洋进行的某些氢弹试验所冠之名。显而易见，政府选用此名，是企图抹去氢弹所引发的恐怖联想，在我看来，此举实属不义。这种为丑恶现实冠以美名的做法，正是委婉语落得如此坏名声的缘由。而乔治·奥威尔等人则为我们揭示了这一过程如何运作，可谓功不可没。然而，委婉语亦有其值得称道的另一面，在此为其辩护几句，也并非不妥。
To begin with, we must keep in mind that things do not have "real" names, although many people believe that they do. A garbage man is not "really" a "garbage man," any more than he is really a "sanitation engineer." And a pig is not called a "pig" because it is so dirty, nor a shrimp a "shrimp" because it is so small. There are things, and then there are the names of things, and it is considered a fundamental error in all branches of semantics to assume that a name and a thing are one and the same. It is true, of course, that a name is usually so firmly associated with the thing it denotes that it is extremely difficult to separate one from the other. That is why, for example, advertising is so effective. Perfumes are not given names like "Bronx Odor," and an automobile will never be called "The Lumbering Elephant." Shakespeare was only half right in saying that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. What we call things affects how we will perceive them. It is not only harder to sell someone a "horse mackerel" sandwich than a "tuna fish" sandwich, but even though they are the "same" thing, we are likely to enjoy the taste of tuna more than that of the horse mackerel. It would appear that human beings almost naturally come to identify names with things, which is one of our more fascinating illusions. But there is some substance to this illusion. For if you change the names of things, you change how people will regard them, and that is as good as changing the nature of the thing itself.
首先，我们必须谨记，事物本身并无所谓“真实”的名称，尽管许多人对此深信不疑。一个垃圾清运工并非“真的”就是“垃圾清运工”，正如他并非“真的”就是“环卫工程师”一样。猪被称为“猪”，并非因其肮脏；虾被称为“虾”，也并非因其渺小。世间有万物，亦有万物之名，在所有语义学分支中，将名称与事物混为一谈，均被视为根本性的谬误。诚然，名称通常与其所指代的事物紧密相联，以至于难以将二者割裂。这便是广告之所以如此有效的缘由。香水不会取名“布朗克斯之味”，汽车也绝不会唤作“笨拙巨象”。莎士比亚曾言，玫瑰易名，芬芳如故，此话只说对了一半。我们如何称呼事物，会影响我们如何感知它们。卖给别人一份“竹荚鱼”三明治，远比卖“金枪鱼”三明治要困难；即便两者“本质”相同，我们品尝金枪鱼时，也可能比品尝竹荚鱼更为愉悦。人类似乎近乎本能地将名称与事物等同起来，这是我们诸多迷人错觉之一。然而，这种错觉并非毫无根据。因为，倘若你改变了事物的名称，你便改变了人们看待它们的方式，这几乎等同于改变了事物本身的性质。
Now, all sorts of scoundrels know this perfectly well and can make us love almost anything by getting us to transfer the charm of a name to whatever worthless thing they are promoting. But at the same time and in the same vein, euphemizing is a perfectly intelligent method of generating new and useful ways of perceiving things. The man who wants us to call him a "sanitation engineer" instead of a “garbage man” is hoping we will treat him with more respect than we presently do. He wants us to see that he is of some importance to our society. His euphemism is laughable only if we think that he is not deserving of such notice or respect. The teacher who prefers us to use the term “culturally different children" instead of "slum children" is euphemizing, all right, but is doing it to encourage us to see aspects of a situation that might otherwise not be attended to.
如今，各类不法之徒对此了然于胸，他们能通过名称的魅力，诱使我们对其兜售的任何无用之物产生好感。但与此同时，从同样的道理出发，运用委婉语也是一种非常明智的方法，能为我们看待事物开辟新的、有益的视角。那位希望我们称他为“环卫工程师”而非“垃圾清运工”的人，是期盼我们能比现在更加尊重他。他希望我们认识到他对社会的重要性。只有当我们认为他不值得这样的关注或尊重时，他的委婉语才显得可笑。那位倾向于让我们使用“文化背景差异儿童”而非“贫民窟儿童”的教师，固然是在使用委婉语，但其目的是鼓励我们关注到先前可能被忽略的某些层面。
The point I am making is that there is nothing in the process of euphemizing itself that is contemptible. Euphemizing is contemptible when a name makes us see something that is not true or diverts our attention from something that is. The hydrogen bomb kills. There is nothing else that it does. And when you experiment with it, you are trying to find out how widely and well it kills. Therefore, to call such an experiment "Operation Sunshine" is to suggest a purpose for the bomb that simply does not exist. But to call “slum children” “culturally different” is something else. It calls attention, for example, to legitimate reasons why such children might feel alienated from what goes on in school.
我要阐明的一点是，委婉表达这一行为本身并无可鄙之处。当一个名称使我们误认事实，或将我们的注意力从真相上引开时，委婉语才变得可鄙。氢弹的作用就是杀戮，别无其他。当你进行氢弹试验时，你就是在探究其杀伤范围之广、杀伤效果之强。因此，将此类试验称为“阳光行动”，便是暗示氢弹具有某种根本不存在的用途。然而，将“贫民窟儿童”称为“文化背景差异儿童”则另当别论。此举，譬如，能引导我们关注这些孩子在学校可能感到疏离的合情合理的原因。
I grant that sometimes such euphemizing does not have the intended effect. It is possible for a teacher to use the term "culturally different" but still be controlled by the term "slum children” (which the teacher may believe is their "real" name). “Old people" may be called "senior citizens", and nothing might change. And "lunatic asylums" may still be filthy, primitive prisons though they are called "mental institutions". Nonetheless, euphemizing may be regarded as one of our more important intellectual resources for creating new perspectives on a subject. The attempt to rename “old people” “senior citizens” was obviously motivated by a desire to give them a political identity, which they not only warrant but which may yet have important consequences. In fact, the fate of euphemisms is very hard to predict. A new and seemingly silly name may replace an old one (let us say, "chairperson" for "chairman") and for years no one will think or act any differently because of it. And then, gradually, as people begin to assume that "chairperson" is the "real" and proper name (or "senior citizen" or "tuna fish" or "sanitation engineer"), their attitudes begin to shift, and they will approach things in a slightly different frame of mind. There is a danger, of course, in supposing that a new name can change attitudes quickly or always. There must be some authentic tendency or drift in the culture to lend support to the change, or the name will remain incongruous and may even appear ridiculous. To call a teacher a "facilitator” would be such an example. To eliminate the distinction between "boys” and “girls” by calling them “childpersons” would be another.
我承认，有时这类委婉表达并不能达到预期效果。一位教师可能使用“文化背景差异儿童”一词，却依旧受困于“贫民窟儿童”的旧称（教师或许认为后者才是“真实”的名称）。“老年人”或可被称为“长者”，但境况未必有任何改变。“疯人院”即使改名为“精神病院”，也可能依然是肮脏简陋的牢笼。尽管如此，委婉语仍可被视为我们创造新视角的重要智力资源之一。将“老年人”更名为“长者”的尝试，显然是出于赋予他们一种政治身份的愿望，这不仅是他们应得的，而且可能产生深远影响。事实上，委婉语的命运难以预测。一个看似滑稽的新名称或许会取代旧称（比如用“主持人”代替“主席”），多年来人们的思想行为可能因此并无不同。然而，渐渐地，当人们开始认为“主持人”（或“长者”、“金枪鱼”、“环卫工程师”）才是“真实”且恰当的名称时，他们的态度便开始转变，并会以略微不同的心态来看待事物。当然，认为新名称能迅速或永远改变态度，是存在风险的。文化中必须存在某种真实的趋势或潮流来支持这种改变，否则新名称便会显得格格不入，甚至荒唐可笑。称教师为“引导者”便是一例，用“孩童”来消除“男孩”与“女孩”的区别则是另一例。
But to suppose that such changes never "amount to anything” is to underestimate the power of names. I have been astounded not only by how rapidly the name "blacks” has replaced "Negroes" (a kind of euphemizing in reverse) but also by how significantly perceptions and attitudes have shifted as an accompaniment to the change.
但是，若认为这类改变“无关紧要”，那便是低估了名称的力量。令我震惊的不仅是“黑人”这一称谓迅速取代了“尼格罗人”（这可算是一种反向的委婉表达），更是伴随这一改变而来的观念与态度的巨大转变。
The key idea here is that euphemisms are a means through which a culture may alter its imagery and by so doing subtly change its style, its priorities, and its values. I reject categorically the idea that people who use "earthy" language are speaking more directly or with more authenticity than people who employ euphemisms. Saying that someone is "dead” is not to speak more plainly or honestly than saying he has "passed away." It is, rather, to suggest a different conception of what the event means. To ask where the "shithouse” is, is no more to the point than to ask where the “restroom” is. But in the difference between the two words, there is expressed a vast difference in one's attitude toward privacy and propriety. What I am saying is that the process of euphemizing has no moral content. The moral dimensions are supplied by what the words in question express, what they want us to value and to see. A nation that calls experiments with bombs “Operation Sunshine” is very frightening. On the other hand, a people who call “garbage men” “sanitation engineers” can't be all bad.
此处的关键在于，委婉语是一种文化借以改变其固有印象，并由此巧妙地调整其风格、侧重及价值观的手段。我断然不认同那种认为使用“粗俗”语言的人比使用委婉语的人说话更直接或更真诚的观点。说某人“死了”，并不比说他“过世了”更直白或诚实，它只是暗示了对这一事件意义的不同理解。问“茅房”在哪儿，并不比问“洗手间”在哪儿更切中要害。然而，这两词之别，却体现了个人对隐私与得体礼仪态度的天壤之别。我想说的是，委婉表达的过程本身并无道德内涵。其道德维度，取决于相关词语所表达的内容，以及它们希望我们珍视和看到什么。一个将炸弹试验称为“阳光行动”的国家着实令人不寒而栗；反过来说，一个将“垃圾清运工”称为“环卫工程师”的民族，也并非一无是处。
Summary&Mindmap
English Summary The article discusses euphemisms, acknowledging their common negative perception as tools for obscuring unpleasant truths, exemplified by "Operation Sunshine." However, it argues that euphemisms also have a valuable function: they can reshape perceptions, foster respect (e.g., "sanitation engineer" for "garbage man"), and encourage new ways of seeing things (e.g., "culturally different children" for "slum children"). The author emphasizes that names are not inherent to objects but significantly influence our perception and that changing names can effectively change how we view the things themselves. While acknowledging that euphemisms can be misused, the article contends that the act of euphemizing itself is neutral; its morality depends on whether it promotes truth and positive values or masks reality. Ultimately, euphemisms are presented as a cultural tool that can subtly alter imagery, priorities, and values.
中文概括 本文探讨了委婉语。作者首先承认委婉语常被负面看待，认为其是掩盖不愉快真相的工具，如“阳光行动”的例子。然而，文章辩称委婉语亦有其价值：它们能够重塑认知、促进尊重（如用“环卫工程师”替代“垃圾工”），并鼓励人们从新的角度看待事物（如用“文化差异儿童”替代“贫民窟儿童”）。作者强调，名称并非事物固有的，但会显著影响我们的感知；改变名称实际上能改变我们对事物本身的看法。尽管承认委婉语可能被滥用，但文章主张委婉表达行为本身是中性的，其道德性取决于它是否促进真相和积极价值观，抑或掩盖现实。最终，委婉语被视为一种文化工具，能潜移默化地改变社会的意象、优先事项和价值观。
Analysis
"It is obvious that the government, in choosing this name, was trying to expunge the hideous imagery that the bomb evokes and in so doing committed, as I see it, an immoral act."
- 中文解释： 很明显，政府在选择这个名称（指“阳光行动”）时，是试图消除氢弹所唤起的恐怖景象，并且在我看来，这样做就犯下了一个不道德的行为。
- 结构分析： 这是一个由 "It is obvious that..." 引导的主语从句构成的复合句。
- 主句是 "It is obvious"。
- "that..." 引导的是主语从句，说明什么是 "obvious"。
- 在这个主语从句内部:
- 主语是 "the government"。
- "in choosing this name" 是一个介词短语作状语，解释了政府在什么情况下或通过什么方式。
- 谓语动词有两个，由 "and" 连接：
- "was trying to expunge the hideous imagery that the bomb evokes" (试图消除氢弹所唤起的恐怖景象)。其中 "that the bomb evokes" 是一个定语从句，修饰 "imagery" (景象)。 "Expunge" 意为“清除，抹去”。
- "(in so doing) committed, as I see it, an immoral act" (并且这样做，在我看来，犯下了一个不道德的行为)。"in so doing" 指的是前文提到的“选择这个名称并试图消除恐怖景象”这一行为。"as I see it" 是插入语，表示“在我看来”。
- 难点解析：
- 超长句与复杂从句： 句子较长，包含主语从句和定语从句。
- 插入语： "in choosing this name" 和 "as I see it" 作为插入语，增加了句子的复杂性，打断了句子的主干。
- 指代关系： "in so doing" 指代前文的整个行为，需要联系上下文理解。
- 不常见词汇： "expunge" (清除，抹去) 和 "hideous" (可怕的，丑恶的) 属于较正式或不常见的词汇。
- 核心含义： 作者认为美国政府给氢弹试验起名“阳光行动”是为了掩盖其恐怖本质，这是一种不道德的行为。
"There are things, and then there are the names of things, and it is considered a fundamental error in all branches of semantics to assume that a name and a thing are one and the same."
- 中文解释： 世界上存在事物，然后也存在事物的名称；在所有语义学的分支中，假设名称与事物是同一回事，这被认为是一个根本性的错误。
- 结构分析： 这是一个由 "and" 连接的两个并列分句构成的复合句。
- 第一个分句是 "There are things, and then there are the names of things" (存在事物，然后也存在事物的名称)，这是一个简单的并列结构，强调事物和其名称的分离。
- 第二个分句是 "it is considered a fundamental error in all branches of semantics to assume that a name and a thing are one and the same"。“it”是形式主语，真正的主语是后面的不定式短语 "to assume that a name and a thing are one and the same" (假设名称与事物是同一回事)。"in all branches of semantics" (在所有语义学分支中)是介词短语作状语。
- 难点解析：
- 抽象表达： 句子讨论的是语义学中的哲学概念，即符号（名称）与所指（事物）之间的关系，比较抽象。
- 形式主语： "it" 作形式主语，指代后面的不定式短语，这在中文中没有完全对应的结构，需要调整语序来理解。
- 专业术语： "semantics" (语义学) 是专业词汇。
- 概念辨析： 理解“名称”和“事物”并非一体是关键，这是语义学的基础。
- 核心含义： 作者强调了语言符号（名称）和现实实体（事物）的区别，认为将二者等同是一个根本性的认知错误。
"Shakespeare was only half right in saying that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet."
中文解释： 莎士比亚说“玫瑰即使换个名字，闻起来也一样香甜”，这句话只说对了一半。
结构分析：
主句是 "Shakespeare was only half right"。
- 📼 AUDIO TAPE
"that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" 是 "saying" 的宾语从句，引用了莎士比亚《罗密欧与朱丽叶》中的名句（略有改动，原句大意如此）。"by any other name" 是介词短语作状语，修饰 "a rose"。
难点解析：
- 典故引用与文化背景： 这句话引用了莎士比亚的名言，需要了解这个典故才能完全理解其含义。莎翁原意是强调事物的本质不会因名称改变而改变。
- 隐喻与反驳： 作者用 "only half right" (只说对了一半) 来引出自己的观点，即名称实际上对我们如何感知事物有很大影响，从而部分反驳了莎士比亚的观点。
- 虚拟语气： "would smell" 体现了虚拟语气，表示一种假设情况。
核心含义： 作者借用莎士比亚的名言，指出虽然事物的客观属性可能不变，但其名称会显著影响人们对它的主观感知和评价。
"For if you change the names of things, you change how people will regard them, and that is as good as changing the nature of the thing itself."
- 中文解释： 因为如果你改变了事物的名称，你就会改变人们看待它们的方式，而这几乎等同于改变了事物本身的性质。
- 结构分析： 这是一个由 "For" (因为) 开头的表示原因的复合句，包含一个条件状语从句和两个由 "and" 连接的并列主句成分。
- "if you change the names of things" 是条件状语从句。
- 第一个主句成分是 "you change how people will regard them"。其中 "how people will regard them" 是 "change" 的宾语从句。
- 第二个主句成分是 "that is as good as changing the nature of the thing itself"。"that" 指代前述的“改变人们看待事物的方式”这一整件事。"as good as" 在这里意为“几乎等于，不亚于”。
- 难点解析：
- 条件与结果的层层递进： 句子结构清晰，但逻辑链条是“改变名称”->“改变看法”->“（几乎）改变本质”。
- 习惯用语： "as good as" 的理解是关键，它不是字面上的“和……一样好”，而是表示程度接近“实际上等于”或“差不多就是”。
- 抽象概念的等同： 将“改变人们的看法”等同于“改变事物本身的性质”，这是一种强调名称影响力的说法，带有一定的主观和哲学意味。
- 核心含义： 作者强调名称的强大影响力，认为改变名称足以从根本上改变人们对事物的认知，其效果几乎等同于改变了事物本身的属性或本质。
"There must be some authentic tendency or drift in the culture to lend support to the change, or the name will remain incongruous and may even appear ridiculous."
- 中文解释： 文化中必须存在某种真实的趋势或潮流来支持这种（名称上的）改变，否则这个新名称就会显得不协调，甚至可能看起来很可笑。
- 结构分析： 这是一个由 "or" (否则) 连接的两个并列分句，表达了一种条件和结果的关系。
- 第一个分句 "There must be some authentic tendency or drift in the culture to lend support to the change" 阐述了名称改变成功的必要条件。 "to lend support to the change" 是不定式短语作目的状语，修饰 "tendency or drift"。
- 第二个分句 "the name will remain incongruous and may even appear ridiculous" 描述了在不满足上述条件时可能出现的负面结果。
- 难点解析：
- 抽象词汇： "authentic tendency or drift" (真实的趋势或潮流) 描述的是一种难以精确衡量的文化动态。 "Incongruous" (不协调的，不一致的) 也是一个较正式的词。
- 隐含的条件关系： 虽然没有明确的 "if...then..." 结构，但 "or" 在这里起到了连接条件与结果的作用，类似于“如果不……那么就会……”。
- 文化适应性： 这句话点出了委婉语或任何名称变更能否被接受并产生预期效果，关键在于它是否与当时的文化发展趋势相契合。
- 核心含义： 一个新名称的成功应用，并非仅仅是创造出来那么简单，它需要得到潜在的文化趋势和大众心理的认同与支持，否则就会因与环境格格不入而失败，甚至显得滑稽。
"But in the difference between the two words, there is expressed a vast difference in one's attitude toward privacy and propriety."
- 中文解释： 但是，在这两个词（指前文提到的"shithouse"和"restroom"）的差异之间，体现了一个人在对待隐私和得体性方面的巨大态度差异。
- 结构分析： 这是一个倒装句。
- 正常语序应该是: "a vast difference in one's attitude toward privacy and propriety is expressed in the difference between the two words."
- "But in the difference between the two words" 是介词短语作状语，被提前到句首以示强调。
- "there is expressed" 是谓语部分的倒装形式（更标准的倒装可能是 "is there expressed" 或主谓倒装 "is expressed a vast difference..."，但这里 "there" 起引导作用，强调后面主语的存在和状态）。
- 真正的主语是 "a vast difference in one's attitude toward privacy and propriety"。
- 难点解析：
- 倒装结构： 句子采用了倒装，将地点状语（或方式状语）"in the difference between the two words" 提前，增加了理解的难度。需要识别出真正的主语和谓语。
- 抽象概念： "privacy" (隐私) 和 "propriety" (得体性，礼节) 是抽象名词，指代社会文化观念。
- 词汇选择的深层含义： 这句话强调即使是指代同一事物（厕所），选用不同的词汇也反映了说话者在文化修养、个人态度以及对社交规范的理解上的显著差异。
- 核心含义： 作者通过对比两个指代同一事物的词语，指出词语选择本身就蕴含了使用者对隐私和行为得体性等文化观念的态度差异。