外贸英语函电翻译中的词类转换技巧

随着国际商务的发展,外贸英语函电在商务中的作用愈加重要。因此外贸英语函电翻译的学习十分必要。翻译的概念和标准要求学生在外贸函电的翻译中能够结合语言特点和形式,根据具体情况,采用基本的翻译技巧——词类转换,使译文通顺畅达。     

英语修辞格押头韵探析

押头韵作为一种英语语音修辞方式,广泛应用于熟语、广告语、文学作品及书名、电视栏目和新闻的标题中,起到了重点突出、加深印象的作用,给读者以视觉美和音乐美的享受.     

网络聊天的教学适用性——试析英语公共聊天室键谈的语言特点

通过剖析以英语为母语网络公共聊天室言语的语言构成来考察交际的教学适用性。结果发现网络聊天言语行为四个组成部分，即发话行为、命题行为、施事行为和取效行为，与日常交际言语行为有着本质的不同，所以自然状态下的网络公共聊天室并不适用于教学。     

从《哈姆雷特》三个中译本看莎剧中修辞格的汉译

莎士比亚戏剧的魅力部分在于他在语言运用中别出心裁地采取了多种修辞格,这一点在其《哈姆雷特》中最为明显。《哈姆雷特》的三个典型中译本,有9种修辞格的翻译,因而产生不同的翻译效果。     

广告英语修辞浅谈

在激烈的商品市场竞争中,广告词作者总是深思熟虑,以新颖独特的词汇,简练的语句和巧妙的修辞手法,博取消费者对商品的依赖和喜爱.广告英语往往能通过各种各样的修辞手段和风趣幽默的语句给消费者留下深刻的印象.     

Free speech and the challenge of efficiency

Radical transformation has come to speech platforms in the Information Society 2.0, typified by the migration from newspapers to social media. The change has been spurred by disruptive efficiencies in digital platforms. First, information distribution has been altered by near-costless electronic reproduction. Second, traditional bundles -- packaging editorial content of publications or broadcast networks with general-interest advertising messages -- have been eclipsed by competitively superior news aggregation hubs. Third, specialized content, including advertising, has become more easily targeted and better supplied via “long tails.” Fourth, the democratization of “publishing” has transformed “editing” into “platform mediation.” The resulting changes in market organization have made vastly higher volumes of news and public affairs information – from exponentially more sources – easily available to mass market consumers. In so doing, they have rendered the “Walter Cronkite” consensus obsolete, creating social controversy and considerable backlash. Demands to regulate, or re-regulate, are frequently voiced across the political spectrum. Such policies as “public interest” licensing, public utility regulation, and the Fairness Doctrine are here evaluated.     

New school speech regulation as a regulatory strategy against hate speech on social media: The case of Germany's NetzDG

Germany's 2017 NetzDG law is an example of ‘new school speech regulation’ (Balkin, 2014), which restricts speech by coercing intermediaries into censoring users, rather than coercing speakers directly. It is the first such measure which specifically targets hate speech on social media, by requiring large platforms to operate complaints procedures which ensure illegal content is rapidly removed. Numerous other countries have since adopted similar regulations, indicating that states increasingly turn to new school speech regulation as a regulatory strategy to tackle hate speech on social media. This paper aims to evaluate the effectiveness of new school speech regulation in as a regulatory strategy to address online hate speech, taking NetzDG as a case study.A review of relevant empirical literature shows that many features of social media platforms actively promote or encourage hate speech. Key factors include algorithmic recommendations, which frequently promote hateful ideologies; social affordances which let users encourage or disseminate hate speech by others; anonymous, impersonal environments; and the absence of media ‘gatekeepers’. In mandating faster content deletion, NetzDG only addresses the last of these, ignoring other relevant factors. Moreover, reliance on individual user complaints to trigger platforms' obligations means hate speech will often escape deletion. Interviews with relevant civil society organisations confirm these flaws of the NetzDG model. From their perspectives, NetzDG has had little impact on the prevalence or visibility of online hate speech, and its reporting mechanisms fail to help affected communities.NetzDG represents an incremental, narrow approach to a complex sociotechnical problem which requires more fundamental regulatory reform. In this regard, it shows the limitations of censorship-based new school speech regulation. Rules which assert state authority by prescribing censorship of narrowly-defined content categories are ill-suited to large-scale, networked, algorithmically-curated social media, where other governance mechanisms influence user behaviour more than content deletion. The paper advocates a more systemic and preventive regulatory approach. Platforms should be required to take public interest considerations into account in all design and governance processes, aiming to shape platform environments to actively discourage users from posting or viewing hate speech, rather than simply deleting it afterwards.