毕业论文外文翻译-框架构建议程设置和启动效应：三种媒体效应模式的演进.doc

（外文资料翻译两篇。） 1. Framing, Agenda Setting, and Priming: The Evolution of Three Media Effects Models Dietram A. Scheufele & David Tewksbury This special issue of Journal of Communication is devoted to theoretical explanations of news framing, agenda setting, and priming effects. It examines if and how the three models are related and what potential relationships between them tell theorists and researchers about the effects of mass media. As an introduction to this effort, this essay provides a very brief review of the three effects and their roots in media-effects research.Based on this overview, we highlight a few key dimensions along which one can compare,framing, agenda setting, and priming. We conclude with a description of the contexts within which the three models operate, and the broader implications that these conceptual distinctions have for the growth of our discipline. Parsimony versus precision: framing, agenda setting, and priming The three models we focus on in this issueframing, agenda setting, and priminghave received significant scholarly attention since they were introduced. Agenda setting refers to the idea that there is a strong correlation between the emphasis that mass media place on certain issues (e.g., based on relative placement or amount of coverage) and the importance attributed to these issues by mass audiences (McCombs & Shaw, 1972). As defined in the political communication literature, Priming refers tochanges in the standards that people use to make political evaluations(Iyengar & Kinder, 1987, p. 63). Priming occurs when news content suggests to news audiences that they ought to use specific issues as benchmarks for evaluating the performance of leaders and governments. It is often understood as an extension of agenda setting. There are two reasons for this: (a) Both effects are based on memory-based models of information processing. These models assume that people form attitudes based on the considerations that are most salient (i.e., most accessible) when they make decisions (Hastie & Park, 1986). In other words, judgments and attitude formation are directly correlated with “the ease in which instances or associations could be brought to mind” (Tversky & Kahneman, 1973, p. 208); (b) based on the common theoretical foundation, some researchers have argued that priming is a temporal extension of agenda setting (Iyengar & Kinder, 1987). By making some issues more salient in peoples mind (agenda setting), mass media can also shape the considerations that people take into account when making judgments. Framing differs significantly from these accessibility-based models. It is based on the assumption that how an issue is characterized in news reports can have an influence on how it is understood by audiences. Framing is often traced back to roots in both psychology and sociology (Pan & Kosicki, 1993).The psychological origins of framing lie in experimental work by Kahneman and Tversky (1979, 1984), for which Kahneman received the 2002 Nobel Prize in economics (Kahneman, 2003). They examined how different presentations of essentially identical decision-making scenarios influence peoples choices and their evaluation of the various options presented to them. The sociological foundations of framing were laid by Goffman. In order to efficiently process new information, Goffman argues, individuals therefore apply interpretive schemas or“primary frameworks”(Goffman, 1974, p. 24) to classify information and interpret it meaningfully.Framing therefore is both a macrolevel and a microlevel construct (Scheufele,1999). As a macroconstruct, the term “framing” refers to modes of presentation that journalists and other communicators use to present information. This does not mean, of course, that most journalists try to spin a story or deceive their audiences. Frames, in other words, become invaluable tools for presenting relatively complex issues, such as stem cell research, efficiently and in a way that makes them accessible to lay audiences because they play to existing cognitive schemas. As a microconstruct, framing describes how people use information and presentation features regarding issues as they form impressions. Sorting out the differences An explication of the relationships between agenda setting (and priming) and framing needs to bridge levels of analysis and answer (a) how news messages are created,(b) how they are processed, and (c) how the effects are produced. The development of a conceptual model that adequately explains the three effects should therefore address the relationships among them related to these three questions. Failing to do so will leave the field with a confusing set of concepts and terminologies. From: Journal of Communication 2007(1) 框架构建，议程设置和启动效应：三种媒体效应模式的演进 概括与精确：框架构建，议程设置和启动效应 这期传播期刊是新闻框架，议程设置和启动效应的理论解释特刊。它检验这三个模式是否和如何相关，它们之间有哪些潜在关系能给研究大众传媒效应的理论家和研究者以启示。在此我们抛砖引玉，简单地回顾了这三种效应和它们在媒介效应研究中的根源。在回顾地基础上，我们指出可以比较启动效应，框架和议程设置的几个层面。我们的结论描述了启动效应，框架和议程设置关系间互相作用的环境，并指出这些理论差异对我们学科成长的意义。在这个问题上，我们要关注的三种媒体效应的模式分别是框架构建，议程设置和启动效应这些媒体效应模式自从被学者提出后就收到了学术界的广泛关注。议程设置指的是这样一种理念，媒体对某些问题的着重强调和受众对这些问题的重要性的认识之间存在着巨大的联系。（麦库姆斯，肖，1972）在政治传播学的文献中，启动效应被定义做“人们进行政治评价的标准的变化”。当新闻报道中的信息暗示观众要去用具体的标准去评价政府和领导人的表现的时候，启动效应就开始展现效果了。启动效应时常被看作议程设置的一种延伸效应。 具体原因有如下两点：首先，两种效应都是建立在以记忆为基础的信息处理模式上。这些模式假设，当人们在做出决定的时候，人们的态度是建立在自己最先想到的事情上的。换言之，与人们的态度和判断形成直接相关的是一种“事物可以被轻易想起”的感觉。其二，这两种效应都建立在相同的理论基础之上。某些研究学者认为启动效应是对议程设置时间上的延长。通过使得某些问题在受众的脑海中更为凸显，大众媒体可以塑造受众在进行判断时要考虑的事实。框架构建和其他几种无障碍模式极为不同。框架构建基于这样的一种假设：媒体的新闻报道塑造一则新闻的方式会对受众对改则新闻的理解产生一定影响。框架构建理论可以在心理学和社会学中找到其源头。框架设置的心理学研究起源开始于卡内曼和特韦尔斯基的实验性研究，并且卡内曼也因为此项研究获得了2002年的诺贝尔经济学奖。 他们研究了，在基本想通的决策场景中不同的表述方式是如何影响人们最终的选择以及他们对选项的价值判断。戈夫曼为框架设置奠定了其社会学理论基础。戈夫曼认为，为了更加高效地出来新的信息，人们会运用“解释模式”或“初级框架”去对信息进行分类整理并进行字面的解释。因此，框架构建即是一个宏观的概念，同时也是一个微观的概念。作为一个宏观概念，框架构建指的是记者和其他传播者传播新闻的一种方式。当然这并不意味着所有的记者都是编造故事或者欺骗读者。 厘清差异 框架构建可以用于高效率地展现像肝细胞研究这样的较为复杂的话题，框架构建可以发挥已有的认知模式使得观众感觉新闻真实更加可接近。如果作为一个宏观概念来理解，框架构建描述了人们在脑海中形成印象的时候是如何运用到信息和与主题相关的展示手段的特点。要想解释清楚议程设置，启动效应和框架构建三者之间的关系首先需要结合多个层次的分析，其次要回答一下三个问题：新闻是如何产生的，新闻是如何被加工的，媒体效应是如何产生的。一个能够完全解释这三者间关系的概念模型应该能够对以上这三个问题进行解答，如若不能，则还仅仅只是一些让人疑惑的空泛概念和术语。2. The Role of Media in the Imia/Kardak Crisis: The Importance of Media Influence and Its Limitations? Athanasios Manis It is widely acknowledged nowadays that media play an important role in the formation of state policies along the traditional elements of state power, such as the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The technological advancement in media sector during the last decades as well as the third wave of democratisation has rendered media an appealing power of influence on public opinions, and, by extension, on the traditional elements of state power. However, the influence is not only top-down, but also bottom-up, especially if one considers that a number of private media exists along a small number of state media. Private media following the rule of market have to be tuned to the expectations of their client-public opinion. In this case, media act as a conduit of public opinions ideas, sentiments and expectations. In order to test medias influence on the domain of politics, foreign policy has been selected as the domain where media influence has the least likely effects. Considering the fact that state officials perceive the implementation of foreign policy as prerogative of traditional elements of state power, such as the executive and the legislature, a case study in which media play a crucial role in comparison with past events will shed light on the extent that media influence decisions of foreign policy, as well as on the circumstances under which influence takes place. A good case study to that end is the Imia/Kardak crisis between Greece and Turkey. The Imia/Kardak crisis erupted in 1996 and was one among many that characterise Greek-Turkish relations during the last fifty years. If one opens a Greek or Turkish book of history or a book on Greek-Turkish relations, it is easy to understand the degree to which hostility and competition existed -at least until 1999- at a state level, not to mention at a societal one, between the two neighbouring countries. Therefore, one could ask what an analysis of the Imia/Kardak crisis might add to the understanding of the Greek-Turkish relations,One possible reason for further analysis of the Imia/Kardak dispute, apart from the fact that the crisis added an “unknown” until then dispute to the Aegean problem or problems6 as far as the status quo of islets and rocks is concerned, is the role that media played as a distinctive actor in both countries, by competing in or contributing to the states attempts to implement their respective foreign policies. Thus, an examination of this case will give us the opportunity to assess the role that media played in the conduct of Greek and Turkish foreign policy during this particular event, and subsequently to draw some conclusions concerning the interrelation of foreign policy and media. At first glance, the crisis could be divided into two parts, although both parts are interrelated. In the first part, the vessel accident happens, the secret exchange of verbal notes follows, in which the Greek-Turkish disagreement over the status of Imia/Kardak rocks is expressed, and finally the freeze of the dispute for “unknown” time evolves, while in the second part, media bring the whole problem to the forefront, they actively promote tension, aggravation of the difference follows, the two countries are on the brink of war, and finally American diplomatic intervention comes up and disengagement of both countries from the crisis occurs. Journal of Communication2007(9) 媒体在伊米亚柯大科危机中扮演的角色：媒体影响的重要性极其局限性 现如今，人们已经广泛承认，媒体已经和行政、立法和执法的国家权利一样在国家的政策制定中扮演着重要的角色。在过去十年中的媒体领域内的科技进步和第三波民主化进程促使媒体可以对公众舆论产生强大的影响，同样也可以对传统的国家权利产生影响。然而，这种媒体影响却不仅仅只是自上而下的，也是自下而上的，尤其当我们想到现实状况是大量的私人媒体和少量的国家媒体并存的状况。为了对媒体对政治领域的影响进行验证，本文选取了本来最不可能收到媒体影响的外交政策作为研究对象。政府官员认为外交政策的之星是传统的国家权利的体现，例如行政和立法权利，在此案例研究中，笔者将媒体所扮演的角色和媒体在之前事件中扮演的角色进行对比，这样的比较能够充分说明媒体对于外交政策觉得的影响程度以及这种影响将会在何种情况下出现。这样的一个典型性例子就是发生在土耳其和希腊之间的伊米亚柯大科危机。米亚柯大科危机爆发于1996年，是在过去50年中希腊和土耳其外交关系中的标志性事件之一。如果人们打开了一本希腊和土耳其的历史书或者是两国关系的书籍，就不难理解为什么两国的敌对和竞争达到如此程度，到1999年时，这种敌意已经不仅仅是社会生活层面的，而已经上升到了国家层面上。因此，人们可能会产生这样的疑问，对伊米亚柯大科危机的分析将会在那些方面有利于我们对希腊土耳其关系的理解。 另一个要对伊米亚柯大科危机进行研究的理由，媒体在双方国家都扮演着独特的角色，促使着双方国家执行相应的外交政策。因此对此次危机事件的研究将有助于研究媒体在这个特殊事件中在希腊和土耳其的关系中所扮演的角色，并且可以得出媒体和两个外交政策之间关系的结论。 乍看之下，此次危机事件可以被分为两个部分，然而两个部分又是紧密相连的。在第一部分中，轮船意外事件发生，双方秘密进行对话，同时各自表示了对对方的不满情绪，并最终终止了对话。然而在第二个阶段中，媒体将这个问题带入到了最前沿，媒体开始激励夸大紧张的气氛，两国最终到了爆发战争的边远，最终由于美国的政治干预终止了两国危机的爆发。（可添页） 指导教师审阅意见： 外文翻译材料与论文选题直接相关，具有较大的指导意义。语言流畅，表达准确，符合要求。指导教师签名： 2011 年 11 月 15 日五分钟搞定5000字毕业论文外文翻译，你想要的工具都在这里!在科研过程中阅读翻译外文文献是一个非常重要的环节，许多领域高水平的文献都是外文文献，借鉴一些外文文献翻译的经验是非常必要的。由于特殊原因我翻译外文文献的机会比较多，慢慢地就发现了外文文献翻译过程中的三大利器：Google“翻译”频道、金山词霸（完整版本）和CNKI“翻译助手"。具体操作过程如下： 1.先打开金山词霸自动取词功能，然后阅读文献； 2.遇到无法理解的长句时，可以交给Google处理，处理后的结果猛一看，不堪入目，可是经过大脑的再处理后句子的意思基本就明了了； 3.如果通过Google仍然无法理解，感觉就是不同，那肯定是对其中某个“常用单词”理解有误，因为某些单词看似很简单，但是在文献中有特殊的意思，这时就可以通过CNKI的“翻译助手”来查询相关单词的意思，由于CNKI的单词意思都是来源与大量的文献，所以它的吻合率很高。 另外，在翻译过程中最好以“段落”或者“长句”作为翻译的基本单位，这样才不会造成“只见树木，不见森林”的误导。四大工具： 1、Google翻译： google，众所周知，谷歌里面的英文文献和资料还算是比较详实的。我利用它是这样的。一方面可以用它查询英文论文，当然这方面的帖子很多，大家可以搜索，在此不赘述。回到我自己说的翻译上来。下面给大家举个例子来说明如何用吧比如说“电磁感应透明效应”这个词汇你不知道他怎么翻译，首先你可以在CNKI里查中文的，根据它们的关键词中英文对照来做，一般比较准确。 在此主要是说在google里怎么知道这个翻译意思。大家应该都有词典吧，按中国人的办法，把一个一个词分着查出来，敲到google里，你的这种翻译一般不太准，当然你需要验证是否准确了，这下看着吧，把你的那支离破碎的翻译在google里搜索，你能看到许多相关的文献或资料，大家都不是笨蛋，看看，也就能找到最精确的翻译了，纯西式的！我就是这么用的。 2、CNKI翻译： CNKI翻译助手，这个网站不需要介绍太多，可能有些人也知道的。主要说说它的有点，你进去看看就能发现：搜索的肯定是专业词汇，而且它翻译结果下面有文章与之对应（因为它是CNKI检索提供的，它的翻译是从文献里抽出来的），很实用的一个网站。估计别的写文章的人不是傻子吧，它们的东西我们可以直接拿来用，当然省事了。网址告诉大家，有兴趣的进去看看，你们就会发现其乐无穷！还是很值得用的。 3、网路版金山词霸（不到1M）：4、有道在线翻译：翻译时的速度：这里我谈的是电子版和打印版的翻译速度，按个人翻译速度看，打印版的快些，因为看电子版本一是费眼睛，二是如果我们用电脑，可能还经常时不时玩点游戏，或者整点别的，导致最终SPPEED变慢，再之电脑上一些词典（金山词霸等）在专业翻译方面也不是特别好，所以翻译效果不佳。在此本人建议大家购买清华大学编写的好像是国防工业出版社的那本英汉科学技术词典，基本上挺好用。再加上网站如：google CNKI翻译助手，这样我们的翻译速度会提高不少。具体翻译时的一些技巧（主要是写论文和看论文方面） 大家大概都应预先清楚明白自己专业方向的国内牛人，在这里我强烈建议大家仔细看完这些头上长角的人物的中英文文章，这对你在专业方向的英文和中文互译水平提高有很大帮助。 我们大家最蹩脚的实质上是写英文论文，而非看英文论文，但话说回来我们最终提高还是要从下大工夫看英文论文开始。提到会看，我想它是有窍门的，个人总结如下： 1、把不同方面的论文分夹存放，在看论文时，对论文必须做到看完后完全明白（你重视的论文）；懂得其某部分讲了什么（你需要参考的部分论文），在看明白这些论文的情况下，我们大家还得紧接着做的工作就是把论文中你觉得非常巧妙的表达写下来，或者是你论文或许能用到的表达摘记成本。这个本将是你以后的财富。你写论文时再也不会为了一些表达不符合西方表达模式而烦恼。你的论文也降低了被SCI或大牛刊物退稿的几率。不信，你可以试一试 2、把摘记的内容自己编写成检索，这个过程是我们对文章再回顾，而且是对你摘抄的经典妙笔进行梳理的重要阶段。你有了这个过程。写英文论文时，将会有一种信手拈来的感觉。许多文笔我们不需要自己再翻译了。当然前提是你梳理的非常细，而且中英文对照写的比较详细。 3、最后一点就是我们往大成修炼的阶段了，万事不是说成的，它是做出来的。写英文论文也就像我们小学时开始学写作文一样，你不练笔是肯定写不出好作品来的。所以在此我鼓励大家有时尝试着把自己的论文强迫自己写成英文的，一遍不行，可以再修改。最起码到最后你会很满意。呵呵，我想我是这么觉得的。