※ 引述《upyours2 (好多好多要學)》之銘言：
: 手上有一份課程名稱需要翻譯
: 我查了台大中文所的課程網頁
: 發現他們專題有兩種翻法
: 像:
: 「台灣近代史專題研究 」翻成 "SEMINAR ON HISTORY OF MODERN TAIWAN"
: 「台灣民間文學專題上」翻成 "TOPICS ON TAIWAN FOLK LITERATURE(1)"
: 還有的是special topics
: 請問專題到底該翻成哪種？這兩種又有什麼差異？
為避免相關爭論換湯不換藥地繼續惡性循環，
請勿對本篇推文或是回文，謝謝。
﹝如果有推文的話，我會把它修掉喔；至於回文，這次我絕對是不會再回﹞
雖然我個人不認為翻成seminar或是topics有差；但如果有被要求一
定要強調『專題』或是『研究』的話，有一個變通的方法是在課程
名稱部分不加『seminar』或是『topics』等字樣，而在課程敘述的
部分強調這堂課是seminar﹝如果同時也有課程敘述需要翻譯的話；
至於只有課程名稱需要翻譯的情況下，我還是會採取同樣的方式﹞。
以上面的例子為例：
台灣近代史專題研究→ History of Modern Taiwan
Method of Instruction: seminar
名稱裡面不見得一定需要有『topics』或是『seminar』的字眼。
seminar在北美一般就是指開給advanced students的小班﹝或是類似，
但共同特徵是小班制﹞；但在有些歐洲的學校，seminar有可能會是指
大型的lecture course﹝換言之，不見得是指『專題』或是『研究』﹞。
至於『topics』，說實在其實除了有『這堂課會focus在某個領域』的
意味之外，並沒有太大的意義。以實際經驗來說，一堂課程名稱裡有
『topics』字樣的課大概百分之七八十或以上會是seminar﹝當然，
例外的情況也是有可能的﹞。像是POL422Y1 Topics in Soviet
and Post-Soviet Politics這堂課就是seminar。
http://www.chass.utoronto.ca/polsci/information/undergrad/
courses/fall_winter/courses_offered/400_level.htm#POL422Y
以這堂課的名字來說，為什麼會有『topics』這個字？那是因為這堂
課的重點在於ethnonationalism在蘇聯政治中的角色。換句話來說，
『topics』這個字在整個課程名稱內有『the course will be limited
to certain topics of the subject』的意味。以今年的POL422來說，
topics指的是ethnonationalism、subject指的是Soviet and Post-
Soviet Politics；而topics可能每年都不一樣，端看教授決定；而
也不見得是每年都是同一個教授教。再者，就算課程名稱裡沒有
『topics』的字眼，教授如果不想每年都教同樣的內容，也是可以的；
而且也不見得每年都是同一個教授教。
所以，我想，在這方面來說，就算是中文裡的『專題研究』、『專題
研討』或是『專題』等名詞也不見得能表現出『topics』這個字在英
文原文課程名稱裡所表現出的含意﹝subtleties of meaning﹞。
[補充]
至於『special topics』，通常是指那種比較不常見或是少見的topics
﹝這樣好像有點『有解釋等於沒解釋』？ ^^"﹞。舉個例子：
SES 2999 Special Topics: Indigenous Peoples and Media
(http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~cmce/graduate%20studies.htm)
這裡為什麼要特別用『special topics』而不只是『topics』？
因為多少由於加拿大國內政治的關係，"Indigenous People and Media"
算是新的、非主流、或是小眾的學術領域，在這個領域研究的學者不多，
相關著作也不多。像這種不常見的研究領域﹝research areas/subjects﹞，
可以或是會被標為『special topics』。
[補充２]
關於上面提到的『課程裡面不見得一定需要有「topics」或是「seminar」
的字眼』，以例子來說明：
ENG468H1S L0101 Critical Methods: On Deconstruction
(http://www.utoronto.ca/english/undergraduate/descriptions/
200607/468s0101.htm)
這是一堂seminar course﹝見method of instruction﹞，但在課程
名稱裡並沒有使用到seminar這個字。
ENG440Y1Y L0101 Studies in Renaissance Literature:
Shakespearean Tragedy & Tragicomedy
(http://www.utoronto.ca/english/undergraduate/descriptions/
200607/440y0101.htm)
這堂先前曾被luciferii拿來做例子的課，同樣也是一堂seminar course
﹝見method of instruction﹞，但在課程名稱裡同樣並沒有使用到seminar
這個字。
至於課程名稱裡的『Studies in Renaissance Literature』，那僅算是
categorical label。詳見：
(http://www.utoronto.ca/english/undergraduate/time0607.htm#400)
[Note #3]
In defence to luciferii's comment regarding the use of wikipedia
definition:
1) My comments re: seminar in North America:
The descripion/comment was NOT derived from wikipedia, but from
general observation. What's said on wikipedia merely serves as
corroboration; or rather, my general observation corroborates
what's being said on wikipedia.
2) My comments re: seminar in Europe:
Again, the similarity between my comment and what's being
said on wikipedia is coincidental. Indeed, my understanding
on the issue came from the following corroborating event:
French scholar Michel Foucault's 1975-76 public lecture course
at the College de France, which was entitled "Society Must be
Defended." Each of the lectures was also referred to as
"seminar," followed by the date on which it was delivered.
(ex. "Seminar: January 28, 1976")
Seeing that the "Society Must be Defended" series was delivered
as public lecture course, it is safe to assume that the
lecture course was large. Further, seeing that each of the
lectures was also referred to as a "seminar," it is safe to
assume that each seminar was also a large lecture course.
3) Mere similarities in opinions warrant neither "direct copying"
nor "incorrect translation."
The accusation by luciferii is by no means grounded on merit.
[Note 4]
Re: lucefierii's comment on the history of the term "seminar"
1) European system vs. North American system:
One needs to be careful when comparing the education systems
in Europe and North America. The English language is a diverce
language that has a rich history and influence from other
cultures (by this, I'm referring to European cultures other
than British). In this regard, it's dangerous to understand
the meaning of a term wihtout its historical, social and cultural
context.
Further, the meanings of words evolve through time. Although
what luciferii said about what "seminar" meant when Daniel Coit
Gilman introduced the term to the U.S. may be true (let's suppose
so), what "seminar" meant back then may not necessarily be
exactly the same as what it means now.
As indicated above, I've no problem with how "seminar" may be
defined differently in [contemporary] North America and in
Europe. It's merely a case of temporal and spacial diversities
within one language. During my professor's time (when he was an
undergrad), they referred their professors as "tutors".
[Note 5]
Re: the interchangability between "seminar" and "lecture"
Again, in defence to luciferii's accusation:
I cannot stress enough that never in any of my replies I stated
that "[in the North American context], 'seminar' and 'lecture'
are interchangeable."
What I said, particularly referring to the North American context,
was: "A seminar may be a lecture, but the reverse is not necessarily
true," which by no means indicates the [unconditional] inter-
changeability between "seminar" and "lecture."
luciferii's accusation, based on the false interpretation that
" 'seminar' and 'lecture' are [unconditionally] interchangeable,"
is again not grounded on merit.
──
應該不會再有想到要再補充的東西了，一直上上下下好麻煩﹝翻桌﹞
--
"Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects,"
-Lester B. Pearson
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 74.98.239.53
※ 編輯: finavir 來自: 74.98.239.53 (02/05 08:15)
※ 編輯: finavir 來自: 74.98.239.53 (02/05 08:36)
※ 編輯: finavir 來自: 74.98.239.53 (02/05 09:54)
※ 編輯: finavir 來自: 74.98.239.53 (02/05 15:24)
※ 編輯: finavir 來自: 74.98.239.53 (02/05 15:26)
※ 編輯: finavir 來自: 74.98.239.53 (02/05 16:04)
※ 編輯: finavir 來自: 74.98.239.53 (02/05 16:16)
※ 編輯: finavir 來自: 74.98.239.53 (02/05 16:22)
※ 編輯: finavir 來自: 74.98.239.53 (02/05 16:27)
※ 編輯: finavir 來自: 74.98.239.53 (02/05 16:41)