外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯

1、精選優(yōu)質(zhì)文檔-傾情為你奉上精選優(yōu)質(zhì)文檔-傾情為你奉上專心-專注-專業(yè)專心-專注-專業(yè)精選優(yōu)質(zhì)文檔-傾情為你奉上專心-專注-專業(yè) 畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)/論文外 文 文 獻(xiàn) 翻 譯 院 系 新聞與法學(xué)學(xué)院 專 業(yè) 班 級(jí) 姓 名 文 獻(xiàn) 出 處 Online Information Review 評(píng) 分 指 導(dǎo) 教 師 2016年 12 月 6 日畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)/論文外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯要求：1外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯的內(nèi)容應(yīng)與畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)/論文課題相關(guān)。2外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯的字?jǐn)?shù)：非英語專業(yè)學(xué)生應(yīng)完成與畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)/論文課題內(nèi)容相關(guān)的不少于2000漢字的外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯任務(wù)（其中，漢語言文學(xué)專業(yè)、藝術(shù)類專業(yè)不作要求），英語專業(yè)學(xué)生應(yīng)完成不少于2000

2、漢字的二外文獻(xiàn)翻譯任務(wù)。格式按華中科技大學(xué)武昌分校本科畢業(yè)設(shè)計(jì)/論文撰寫規(guī)范的要求撰寫。3外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯附于開題報(bào)告之后：第一部分為譯文，第二部分為外文文獻(xiàn)原文，譯文與原文均需單獨(dú)編制頁碼（底端居中）并注明出處。本附件為封面，封面上不得出現(xiàn)頁碼。4外文文獻(xiàn)翻譯原文由指導(dǎo)教師指定，同一指導(dǎo)教師指導(dǎo)的學(xué)生不得選用相同的外文原文。第一部分：譯文 媒介政策的范式轉(zhuǎn)變：一種新的傳播政策范式 傳播和媒介政策的出現(xiàn) 傳播政策的出現(xiàn)始于追求國家利益與工商業(yè)企業(yè)利益之間的互動(dòng)。政府和產(chǎn)業(yè)界通過特權(quán)、 法規(guī)和一些限制來追求共同利益。一般而言，政策指的是為實(shí)現(xiàn)某些目標(biāo)而有意識(shí)制定的（公 共）方案，以及實(shí)現(xiàn)方案的方法和

3、時(shí)間進(jìn)度表。政府政策的特定內(nèi)容反映了特定時(shí)期和地點(diǎn)政 府與產(chǎn)業(yè)界的交易以及權(quán)力與利益之間的平衡。從這個(gè)層面上說，雖然在20世紀(jì)，政府在形式 上變得更加民主，全球化的浪潮也愈演愈烈，政府和產(chǎn)業(yè)界的權(quán)力和利益之間的交易并沒有多 大改變。然而即使是這樣，媒介政策領(lǐng)域也發(fā)生了巨大的變化，這尤其反應(yīng)在傳播技術(shù)的演變 以及在“后工業(yè)”社會(huì)（或是更多地被稱為“信息社會(huì)”）中傳播重要性的提高。雖然在幾百年之前，國家就出于控制、財(cái)政和戰(zhàn)略的目的，對(duì)交通和旅游進(jìn)行干預(yù)和管制， 但如果說傳播政策在自19世紀(jì)中期電話發(fā)明以來的一系列電子媒介出現(xiàn)以前就有了，那就錯(cuò)了。 在本文中，我們將傳播政策階段分為三個(gè)連續(xù)的階段：（

4、1)新興傳播業(yè)政策階段，（2)公共 服務(wù)媒介政策階段，和（3)新傳播政策范式階段。 傳播政策的一般形態(tài)媒介政策的主要元素撇開時(shí)間的變化與環(huán)境的差異不說，媒介政策和電信政策的主要元素包括：所追求的目標(biāo) 或目的、界定目標(biāo)的價(jià)值觀念和標(biāo)準(zhǔn)、被政策規(guī)范的各種內(nèi)容和傳播服務(wù)；不同的傳播渠道（主 要有印刷出版、有線電視、衛(wèi)星電視、廣播和電信）以及相應(yīng)的政策措施和實(shí)施方法（主要包 含于法律、法規(guī)、自律和市場慣例）。這個(gè)社會(huì)傳播系統(tǒng)的普遍模型是從政策制定者的角度來描繪的，這些元素也是人為組合到 一起的，它并不能被普遍性地運(yùn)用到所有的國家。另外這個(gè)模型也顯得有點(diǎn)過時(shí)，因?yàn)楦鱾€(gè)國 家的社會(huì)體制和傳播技術(shù)在一段時(shí)間

5、內(nèi)會(huì)發(fā)生重大的改變。為了闡明這個(gè)模型所表達(dá)的信息和 解釋的方便，我們首先需要回顧一下政策制定的幾個(gè)連續(xù)階段，因?yàn)檫@些政策不僅在傳播系統(tǒng) 上留下了歷史痕跡，也影響著當(dāng)今媒介政策所遇到的挑戰(zhàn)。我們將首先討論早期新興的媒介和 傳播政策階段，這個(gè)階段大約持續(xù)到二戰(zhàn)。它不僅打開了改變世界的大門，而且與電視這個(gè)大 眾媒介交相輝映地發(fā)展著。新型傳播政策：政策制定者仍然面臨許多困境和未解決的問題。對(duì)于一個(gè)國家來說，這些主要的問題有: 定義公共領(lǐng)域媒介的范圍和目標(biāo)；經(jīng)濟(jì)手段、法規(guī)和自律等政策方式的選擇；為所有媒介領(lǐng)域?qū)ふ乙恢碌脑瓌t和管制框架；如何定義和制定國家文化媒介政策；如何平衡傳播自由以及社會(huì)需求。政策融合

6、？在科技的影響下，通過選擇相同的目標(biāo)、原則和方式應(yīng)用于統(tǒng)一的管制法規(guī)，媒介政策是 否回趨于融合？這樣的觀點(diǎn)已經(jīng)獲得了廣泛的支持25并得以施行（如2002年英國傳播法案），但 是這個(gè)問題并不能以簡單地以是”或不是”來回答。雖然有理由淡化各種媒介之間的界限， 但對(duì)所有不同的媒介服務(wù)都使用同一種法規(guī)是沒有必要的。歐洲現(xiàn)在的趨勢是：盡管鼓勵(lì)整體 性的政策思考，但也鼓勵(lì)發(fā)展各國獨(dú)立的國家法規(guī)權(quán)利機(jī)構(gòu)來控制公共領(lǐng)域的媒介運(yùn)作。當(dāng)前 有足夠的理由要求擁有一個(gè)連貫一致的政策體系(特別對(duì)待自由和多樣性），但這并不意味著整 齊劃一地處理所有媒介內(nèi)容（廣告、藝術(shù)、新聞、色情等等）。因?yàn)槊浇閮?nèi)容與受眾都存在著 明顯的

7、不同。所以，針對(duì)不同的用途使用不同的法規(guī)是可能的、甚至是必須的。公眾的傳播自 由還是非常重要的，也不應(yīng)該讓任何一個(gè)單一的機(jī)構(gòu)對(duì)某種傳播方式施加過多的壓力，而且對(duì) 待不同的媒介也應(yīng)該有特例和特殊的措施。另外，同樣重要的一個(gè)方面是：為了保障傳播所影 響的受眾/公民的利益，我們也應(yīng)該保留一塊政治和社會(huì)文化價(jià)值觀的領(lǐng)域。 新傳播政策范式的核心原則 盡管還存在許多未知情況，我們?nèi)杂杏嗟貫榕d起的新政策范式的核心原則提一些暫時(shí)的看 法。這些看法基于科技、政策和經(jīng)濟(jì)變化的趨勢，以及現(xiàn)存公認(rèn)的社會(huì)和政治限制。雖然公共 服務(wù)廣播和普遍電信服務(wù)還不太可能從政治議事日程上消失，技術(shù)融合、傳播市場自由化以及 信息和傳播

8、的迅速擴(kuò)張要求我們對(duì)傳播政策進(jìn)行一次不同的概念化思考。如果對(duì)未來的估計(jì)是 正確的，以下三個(gè)概念將對(duì)新傳播政策模型起核心作用：傳播自由、使用權(quán)、和控制傳播自由應(yīng)該是未來所有傳播政策的主要目標(biāo)。傳播自由可以被表述為負(fù)面和正面兩個(gè)方 面。對(duì)前者來說，它指信息傳播者獨(dú)立于政府（沒有審查），獨(dú)立于經(jīng)濟(jì)或阻礙訊息自由交流 的其它力量（如，經(jīng)濟(jì)壟斷和其他主導(dǎo)市場的力量），也包括社會(huì)和政治壓力。從正面來說， 自由指人在社會(huì)中所能進(jìn)行的自由活動(dòng)，如參加政治議題的市民辯論，或表達(dá)藝術(shù)創(chuàng)意。這兩 方面的規(guī)定都是政策目標(biāo)所需要的。傳播法規(guī)與傳播系統(tǒng)在許多不同的方面相關(guān)，即，傳播業(yè)的市場結(jié)構(gòu)，傳播參與者的市場 行為或傳

9、播的內(nèi)容。傳播自由的負(fù)面主要與市場結(jié)構(gòu)和市場行為相關(guān)，而正面自由主要與內(nèi)容 和使用權(quán)相關(guān)，而后者也是我們關(guān)注的第二個(gè)核心原則。對(duì)于互聯(lián)網(wǎng)來說，三個(gè)核心原則中的兩個(gè)對(duì)其政策制定有一定啟發(fā)，即，自由和使用權(quán)。 互聯(lián)網(wǎng)從一開始起就帶有自由的屬性，雖然如果沒有政府最初的贊助，它也許不會(huì)發(fā)展至今。 由于多種原因，互聯(lián)網(wǎng)的使用權(quán)已經(jīng)被廣泛的接納為政策目標(biāo)。盡管互聯(lián)網(wǎng)政策的發(fā)展與前文 所提到的傳播政策歷史有些許相似，但未來的互聯(lián)網(wǎng)政策依舊不可預(yù)測。互聯(lián)網(wǎng)第一階段的發(fā) 展以經(jīng)濟(jì)和商業(yè)利益為目標(biāo)，而我們現(xiàn)在進(jìn)入的是以控制公眾利益為目標(biāo)的第二階段。目前還 有很多問題等待解決：對(duì)傳播行為和內(nèi)容（公眾利益）采取什么樣

10、的控制手段？什么樣的負(fù)責(zé) 限度是適合的？任何新出現(xiàn)的傳播政策范式都必須對(duì)上述問題做出回應(yīng)。文獻(xiàn)來源：本文原載于歐洲傳播雜志（European Journal of Communication，2003，18-2:181 - 207)。本文的早期 版本曾在1998年作為會(huì)議論文發(fā)表，并被編入R. Picard的演變中的媒介市場第二部分：外文文獻(xiàn)原文 Media Policy Paradigm ShiftsTowards a New Communications Policy Paradigm The emergence of communications and media policyThe

11、origins of communications policies lie in the interaction between the pursuit of national interests by states and the operations of commercial/ industrial enterprises. Both government and industry have sought mutual advantage by way of privileges, regulations and restrictions. Policies in general re

12、fer to conscious (public) projects for achieving some goal, together with the proposed means and time schedule for achieving them. The specific content of government policies reflects the deal made in the particular time and place and the balance of power and advantage between government and industr

13、y. At this level of generality, not a great deal has changed, despite the general transition during the 20th century to more democratic forms of government and increasing trends towards globalization. Even so, in the field of media policy there have been significant developments, especially reflecti

14、ng the changing technologies of communication and the increased importance of communication in postindustrial societies, which are more often known as information societies.Although for centuries there have been state interventions and regulations relating to transport and travel, for purposes of co

15、ntrol, finance or for strategic reasons, it would be anachronistic to speak of communications policies before the series of electronic inventions beginning with the electric telegraph in the mid-19th century. In this article, we identify three main phases of communications policy-making. We may labe

16、l these consecutive phases as (I) the phase of emerging communications industry policy, (II) the phase of public service media policy, and (III) the phase of a new communications policy paradigm.The general shape of communications policyThe main elements or factors of policy for media and telecommun

17、ications policy, leaving aside the question of changes over time and differences between contexts, consist of: the goals or objectives to be pursued; the values and criteria by which goals are defined or recognized; the variouscontent and communication services to which policy applies; the different

18、 distribution services (mainly print publishing, cable, satellite and broadcast dissemination and telecommunications); and finally the appro-priate policy measures and means of implementation (mainly embodied in law, regulation, self-regulation or market practices).The goal of economic welfare has b

19、een subject to changing definitions as far as communication is concerned. Minimum requirements are for infrastructure provisions that allow a national economy to function efficiently in production and market terms. Increasingly, under conditions of an information society, the communication system is

20、 an integral part of the economy and forms an important and elaborate market in its own right. Relevant values aside from general ones of efficiency, employment and profitability include those of innovation and interconnection.This general model of the social communications system viewed according t

21、o the perspective of policy-makers is an artificial composite of elements that will not apply to all national cases very well. It is also anachronistic, combining national experiences over a long period during which society and communication technology have been changing considerably. In order to ma

22、ke more sense of the information and interpretations it summarizes, we need to sketch the successive phases of policy-making which have each left their mark on communication systems and still exert an influence on the way the challenges of today are handled. In the description that follows we make a

23、n initial distinction between an early stage of emerging policy for media and communications that lasted approximately until the watershed of the Second World War, which opened the way for change in much of the world and also coincided with the rise of television as a major mass medium.New communica

24、tion policy:Policy makers still face many difficulties and unsolved problems. For a country, these main problems: the scope and objectives of the definition of public domain media; economic means, regulation and self-discipline, policy choice; for all areas of the media for consistent principle and

25、regulation framework, how to define and develop the national culture media policy; how to balance the communication freedom and social demand. Policy convergence? Under the influence of science and technology, through the choice of the same objectives, principles and methods applied to a unified reg

26、ulatory laws and regulations, whether the media policy tends to convergence? This view has been widely supported and can be implemented (for example, the British Communications Act of 2002), but the problem can not be answered with a simple yes or no to answer the 25 question. While there are reason

27、s to dilute the boundaries between different media, it is not necessary to use the same regulations for all different media services. Europe is now the trend is: Despite the encouragement of the overall policy thinking, but also to encourage the development of independent state laws and regulations

28、of the country to control the media operations of the public sphere. Currently there are enough reason to ask to have a coherent policy system (especially towards freedom and diversity), but this does not mean that the whole uniform handling of all media content (advertising, art, news, sex, etc.).

29、Because the media content and the audience are obviously different. So it is possible and necessary to use different regulations for different purposes. Public freedom of communication is still very important, and should not allow any single institution to put too much pressure on a certain mode of

30、transmission, but also the treatment of different media should have a special case and special measures. In addition, one important aspect is that, in order to protect the interests of the audience / citizens, we should also keep a political and social cultural values.Looking for the new policy para

31、digmAlthough much remains uncertain, there is scope for making a provisional judgement concerning the core principles of the emerging paradigm. This can be based on certain clear trends in technology, policy and economics, plus a recognition of social and political inputs and constraints. Although p

32、ublic service broadcasting and universal tele-communications service are unlikely to disappear from the political agenda, convergence in technology, liberalization of communication markets and information and communication abundance demand a different conceptualization of communications policy. Free

33、dom of communication should remain the main objective of any communications policy to be designed. Freedom can be expressed negatively as well as positively (Lichtenberg, 1990). In the former respect it refers to the independence of communication participants from government (no censorship), from ec

34、onomic and other forces hindering exchange of messages (e.g. economic monopolies and other dominant market positions) as well as from social and political pressure groups. In its positive aspect, freedom refers to all those activities people in society can be enabled to do with their freedom, e.g. t

35、o contribute to the civic debate on politics or to express artistic creativity. There should be provision for both aspects as policy goals.Communication regulation relates to different dimensions of the communications system, that is the structure of the communication market, the market conduct of c

36、ommunication participants or the content of communication (see McQuail, 1992: 8796). Negative freedom of communication relates mainly to market structure and market conduct, whereas positive freedom primarily relates to content and also requires attention to our second principle, that of access.As far as the Internet is concerned, the implications for policy are clear enough in respect of two of the three basic prin