The cross-cultural transfer of educational technology: A myth

This paper argues that technologies can never be transferred from one culture to another. The implementation by Costa Rica of the Open University system of technologies developed in England is used as a case in point. The paper focuses on the non-applicability of using the term “transfer” with its attendant connotations, to signify the implementation of similar technologies in different cultures; differentiates between system specific and culture specific problems in the process of this implementation: and discusses the interaction of three cultures in the process of “transferring” a system of technologies from one of these cultures to another. The Open University system of technologies is described as it exists in England and the system specific problems of these technologies are delimited. The system of technologies is then “transferred” to Costa Rica and the culture specific problems discussed as seen by two evaluators from yet a third culture (the United States). The expectations of individuals from all three cultures (English, Costa Rican and U.S.) are raised in tight of these culture specific problems.     

试从彼得·纽马克的翻译批评理论解读诗歌翻译——以《黑人话河》为例

诗之可译本是不言而喻的。但是译诗也确实很难,因为译诗首先是内容的准确把握,其次是形式,形式是内容的延伸,所以既要准确把握内容,又要兼顾形式。在评价一篇译诗的好坏时,往往要运用翻译批评理论,彼得·纽马克的翻译批评理论恰恰是很好的方法指导,文章就将尝试着运用其理论对傅浩所译的兰斯顿·休斯的一篇诗歌进行简要的分析。     

Cultural styles of persuasion

The study explores the hypothesis that persuasion can be carried out in a combination of three basic styles: the factual-inductive, the axiomatic-deductive, and the affective-intuitive. The weight of each of these three basic styles differs from culture to culture. The paper begins with the presentation of some earlier research on this question. The styles adopted by the representatives of the United States, the Soviet Union, and the Arab countries in the course of debates in the Security Council of the United Nations are then analyzed. The analysis confirms the hypothesis of there being in each case a dominant style as described above. The results of the study should be considered as preliminary: there exists a possibility of bias among the judges; the sample, even though sufficiently large for statistical purposes, is limited to the discussion of one dispute; the style of other nationalities is not investigated. It is hoped that additional results will be presented in the near future.