|
PP答疑
Test 1-3
Television's contribution to family life in the United States has been an equivocal one. For while it has, indeed, kept the members of the family from dispersing, it has not served to bring them together. By dominating the time families spend together, it destroys the special quality that distinguishes one family from another, a quality that depends to a great extent on what a family does, what special rituals, games, recurrent jokes, familiar songs, and shared activities it accumulates.
“Like the sorcerer of old,” writes Urie Bronfenbrenner, “the television set casts its magic spell, freezing speech and action, turning the living into silent statues so long as the enchantment lasts. The primary danger of the television screen lies not so much in the behavior it produces---although there is danger there---as in the behavior it prevents: the talks, games, the family festivities, and arguments through which much of the child's learning takes place and through which character is formed. Turning on the television set can turn off the process that transforms children into people.”
Of course, families today still do special things together at times: go camping in the summer, go to the zoo on a nice Sunday, take various trips and expeditions. But the ordinary daily life together is diminished---that sitting around at the dinner table, that spontaneous taking up of an activity, those little games invented by children on the spur of the moment when there is nothing else to do, the scribbling, the chatting, the quarreling, all the things that form the fabric of a family, that define a childhood. Instead, the children have their regular schedule of television
programs and bedtime, and the parents have their peaceful dinner together. But surely the needs of adults are being better met than the needs of children, who are effectively shunted away and rendered untroublesome.
If the family does not accumulate its backlog of shared experiences, shared everyday experiences that occur and recur and change and develop, then it is not likely to survive as anything other than a caretaking institution.
电视对美国家庭生活的贡献是可疑的。因为，虽然它确实能够阻止一家老小各自疏离独处，它也并没能起到把家里的成员集合到一起的作用。(“一起”是指在一起互相交流和依赖，而不仅仅是呆在一间房子里。因而文中用了斜体字)。通过独占家人共处的时间，电视机破坏了家庭的品质，这个品质让一个家庭区别于另一个家庭，这个品质（的形成）在很大程度上依赖于如下这些事情：一个家庭做什么，这个家庭注重什么样的家庭礼仪和规矩，玩什么样的游戏，重复什么样的玩笑，唱什么样的歌谣，以及共同参加什么样的活动。
“就像旧时代的魔术师一样”， Urie Bronfenbrenner 写道，“电视机念出它的咒语，冻住了所有人的语音和行动，把活着的人变成了静静的雕像, 这情形会一直保持不变，只要魔法还在持续。电视屏幕的主要危险并不完全存在于它所引发的（家庭）行为中——虽然这些被引发的行为中还是含有一定的危险——更多地，是存在于它所阻止了的（家庭）行为中。这些被电视屏幕所阻止的家庭行为包括：家庭成员间的谈话聊天，游戏，家庭聚餐欢宴，以及争论。正是通过这些活动，家里孩子们的众多的学习行为得以发生，孩子的性格也在这些活动中被培养。打开电视机可以说就关掉了把孩子转变为成人的过程。
当然，现代家庭偶尔还是会在一起做些特别的事情：夏天一起出去野营，在晴朗的星期天出去逛逛动物园，参加各类旅行和探险。但是在一起度过的真正普通的日常生活还是减少了。这些真正普通的起居生活包括：围坐在餐桌前的平常日子，家里人一时兴起开展的活动，孩子们没事可做的时候临时想出来的那些小游戏，那些胡乱写下的纸条，轻松的聊家常，家里人之间的争执，还有所有那些形成家庭构造的事务，那些为童年（这个单词）做定义（或者说“名词解释”）的平常日子。代替这一切的是，孩子们有自己的规律性的看电视时间和上床时间，父母亲们因而享有了他们自己的安静就餐的时间。但是，我们可以肯定地说，成年人的需求比孩子们的需求被更好地得到了满足，而孩子们则被有效地 （从成年人的生活中）移开而（被）变得不再那么招惹麻烦。
（“被”这个字在这里可以不必翻译出来，原文是are rendered.）
render vt.呈递, 归还, 着色, 汇报, 致使, 放弃,
表演, 实施 vi.给予补偿 n.交纳, 粉刷, 打底
v. 使成为…：使成为；制成：
The news rendered her speechless.
这个消息使她变得默默无言
如果这样的家庭不赶紧增加家庭成员共同享有的经历的储备，也就是共享的日常生活经历的储备——这些经历会发生，重新再来，然后改变，发展——那么，这个家庭最终会变得和一家幼儿园相差不远。 | 
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
楼主
发表于 2005-9-8 23:36:00
