亚博yb(Political Science)

亚博yb是從國內、國際和比較的角度來研究政治和權力。它需要了解政治思想、意識形態、機構、政策、程序和行為,以及團體、階級、政府、外交、法律、戰略和戰爭。

優譯堂亚博atus在亚博yb領域具有深厚的專業知識,擁有亚博yb和相關學科,如政治史、政治哲學、政治經濟學、世界政治史、國際政治等相關學科的學科專業翻譯師、雙語校對以及英語母語學科專家編輯,且已翻譯了大量此領域相關的論文,並協助諸多學術作者成功在國際知名SCI/EI/SSCI期刊上發表高水準論文。

  • 原始文稿
  • 翻譯後的檔案
  • 雙語核對後的檔案
  • 編修後的檔案
  • 完稿

其中一個最廣泛使用的審議程序是由詹姆斯•菲甚金設計的協商性民意調查。在他們的文章《協商性民意調查:從實驗到社區資源》中,菲甚金和辛西婭•法拉爾呈現了這個程序在美國和世界各地許多社區從一個思想實驗轉變為民主實踐時所涉及的理論和實際問題。他們將協商性民意調查定義為「在公民根據信息及意識到其他公民的觀點而作出謹慎的判斷之前後進行的民意調查」(菲甚金和法拉爾,2005:68)。他們認為,協商性民意調查是一種獨特的公眾諮詢形式,結合了兩個關鍵價值觀:政治平等和審議。政治平等指的是平等地考慮每個人的偏好;審議指的是一個參與者根據各競爭論點的優點來權衡它們的討論過程。在他們看來,優質的審議應當滿足四個標準:(a) 完整性:問題一方提供的論點由另一方的論點應答,然後又由第一方回答之程度;(b) 信息:人們所使用的信息是合理和準確的之程度;(c) 意識:有關人士希望根據問題的優點作出決定之程度;及(d) 多樣性:審議者代表相關人口的全方位觀點之程度。

翻譯: 您學科領域的翻譯師翻譯您的原稿

One of most important deliberative procedures is deliberative polling designed by James Fishkin. In article Deliberative Polling : from Experiment to Community Resource, James Fishkin, and Cynthia Farrar presents the theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of this procedure from a thought experiment to a democratic practice in different communities in the United States and around the world. They define the deliberative as “a poll of citizens before and after they had the chance to arrive at considered judgments based on information and exposure to the views of their fellow citizens” (Fishkin and Farrar, 2005: 68). Fishkin and Farar argue that the deliberative poll is a distinctive form of public consultation that combines two key values, political equality and deliberation, political equality means equal consideration of everyone preferences, and deliberation means a process of discussion in which people weigh competing arguments on their merits. In their opinions, for a quality deliberation there are four standards that should be met - (a) Completeness: the extent which arguments offered on one side of an issue are answered by arguments from another side, which are then answered in turn; (b) Information: the extent which information that people employ is reasonable and accurate; (c) Consciousness: the extent which people participate with the aim of deciding the issue on its merits;and (d) Diversity: the extent which those who deliberate represent the diversity of viewpoints in the relevant population.

雙語核對:雙語核對師依照原文檢查譯文是否正確,並修正錯誤

One of the 1mostimportant deliberative procedures2 is deliberative polling, which was3designed by James Fishkin. In the article Deliberative Polling : FfromExperiment to Community Resource, James Fishkin, and Cynthia Farrar presents present the theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of this procedure from athought experiment to a democratic practice in different numerous 4communitiesin the United States and around the world. They define the deliberative polling 5as “a poll of citizens before and after they had the chance to arrive atconsidered judgments based on information and exposure tothe views of their fellow citizens” (Fishkin and Farrar, 2005: 68). Fishkin and Farr6arargue that thedeliberative polling7 is a distinctive form of publicconsultation that combines two key values, political equality and deliberation,political equality means  equal consideration of everyone’spreferences, and deliberation means a process of discussion in which peopleweigh competing arguments on their merits. In their opinions, for a qualitydeliberation there are four standards that should be met -: (a) Completeness:the extent towhich arguments offered on one side of an issue are answered byarguments from another side, which are then answered in turn; (b) Information:the extentto8 which information that people employ is reasonable andaccurate; (c) Consciousness: the extent to which people participate with theaim of deciding the issue on its merits; and (d) Diversity: the extent to whichthose who deliberate represent the diversity of viewpoints in the relevantpopulation.

  1. [冠詞] [文法]
    添加冠詞修改文法。
  2. [複數] [文法]
    修改單複數以符合正確文法。
  3. [語言]
    由於後面沒有限定,這裡限定以提升可讀性。
  4. [精準性] [誤譯] [加強印象]
    這裡numerous communities要比diverse/different communities更貼近原意。
  5. [不當省略]
    增加了缺字。
  6. [錯字] [風格/特別指示]
    修正錯字。
  7. [一致性]
    修改了該詞,以保持一致性。
  8. [可讀性]
    增加了 "to",以改善措辭和可讀性。

編修:英文母語編修師改善文章整體的流暢度與呈現方式

One of the 1mostimportant widely used deliberative procedures2 is deliberative polling, which was3designed by James Fishkin. In theirarticle Deliberative Polling : Ffrom Experiment toCommunity Resource, James4 Fishkin,and Cynthia Farrar presents present thetheoretical and practical issues involved5in the transformationdeveloping ofthis procedure from a thought experiment to a democratic practice that has been used in different numerous 6communities in the United States and around the world. They define the deliberative polling 7as“a poll of citizens before and after they had the chance to arrive atconsidered judgments based on information and exposure to the views of theirfellow citizens” (Fishkin and Farrar, 2005: 68). Fishkinand Farr8ar They argue that thetheir 9deliberative polling10method is a distinctive form of public consultation that combines two key values,: political equality and deliberation,. By political equality, they means  equal consideration of everyone’spreferences, and by deliberation, they refer to  meansa process of discussion in which people participants11 weigh competing arguments on theirmerits. In their opinionsview, for a high-qualitydeliberation there are four standardscriteria12 that should be met -: (a) Ccompletenessor:the extent to13which arguments offered on one side of an issue are answered byarguments from another side, which are then answered in turn; (b) iInformation i.e.: the extent to which theinformation that people employ is reasonable and accurate; (c) cConsciousnessor:the extent towhich those involved desire to decide 14people participate with the aim of deciding theissue on its merits; and (d) dDiversity: the extent to which those whodeliberate represent the diversity full range of viewpoints in the relevantpopulation.

  1. [冠詞] [文法]
    添加冠詞修改文法。
  2. [複數] [文法]
    修改單複數以符合正確文法。
  3. [語言]
    由於後面沒有限定,這裡限定以提升可讀性。
  4. [重複] [語言]
    因為全名已經介紹過了,所以可以用姓來指代作者。
  5. [明確性][語言]
    改善選詞讓文意更加明確。
  6. [精準性] [誤譯] [加強印象]
    這裡numerous communities要比diverse/different communities更貼近原意。
  7. [不當省略]
    增加了缺字。
  8. [錯字] [風格/特別指示]
    修正錯字。
  9. [一致性]
    修改了該詞,以保持一致性。
  10. [重複 & 贅詞] [語言]
    刪除了方法的名稱,以避免重複並提高可讀性。
  11. [可讀性 & 文意清晰度] [語言]
    改寫使文章更流暢,讓文章更通順且易於理解。在學術寫作中,避免冗長和曲折的句子相當。因此,把這句話拆成兩句。
  12. [術語選擇] [學科專家]
    這裡用“Criteria”更合適。
  13. [可讀性]
    增加了 "to",以改善措辭和可讀性。
  14. [可讀性 & 文意清晰度]
    重新措辭,以提高可讀性。


完稿:翻譯完成品準時遞交給客戶

One of the most widely used deliberative procedures is deliberative polling, which was designed by James Fishkin. In their article Deliberative Polling: From Experiment to Community Resource, Fishkin and Cynthia Farrar present the theoretical and practical issues involved in developing this procedure from a thought experiment to a democratic practice that has been used in numerous communities in the United States and around the world. They define deliberative polling as “a poll of citizens before and after they had the chance to arrive at considered judgments based on information and exposure to the views of their fellow citizens” (Fishkin and Farrar, 2005: 68). They argue that their method is a distinctive form of public consultation that combines two key values: political equality and deliberation. By political equality, they mean equal consideration of everyone’s preferences, and by deliberation, they refer to a process of discussion in which participants weigh competing arguments on their merits. In their view, for a high-quality deliberation there are four criteria that should be met: (a) completeness or the extent to which arguments offered on one side of an issue are answered by arguments from another side, which are then answered in turn; (b) information i.e. the extent to which the information that people employ is reasonable and accurate; (c) consciousness or the extent to which those involved desire to decide the issue on its merits; and (d) diversity: the extent to which those who deliberate represent the full range of viewpoints in the relevant population.