Загальні вимоги до реферату

Реферат представляє собою текст особливого жанру, що має певні жанроформуючі особливості. Серед таких рис є узагальнено-відсторонений характер, лаконізм, підкреслена логічність. Ці особливості викладу обумовлюють й характер мовних засобів, які регулярно використовуються у рефераті. Серед головних лінгвістичних особливостей цього жанру можна виокремити переважання простих речень, неозначено-особових й безособових форм, прислівникових та дієприслівникових зворотів, обмеження використання різновидів форм часу, переважання пасиву, термінології та узагальнюючих слів, відсутність суб’єктивно-оцінних елементів.

Такий характер викладу забезпечується застосуванням спеціальних методів скорочення матеріалу: компресія та опущення.

Компресія досягається, загалом, наступними прийомами:

1. Генералізація, тобто узагальнений виклад змісту тексту.

Як правило, це досягається послідовним підсумком інформації.

2. Селекція, тобто вибір в самому тексті висловлювань, що підсумовують певну частину змісту. Такі висловлювання найчастіше можна побачити на початку чи у кінці абзацу.

3. Синтаксична та лексична компресія — заміна речень й словосполучень більш короткими зворотами.

Зазвичай, опускають такі елементи тексту, як:

1. Різноманітні повторювання як прямі, так й непрямі, включаючи різноманітні парафрази, різні способи вираження однієї й тої ж думки.

2. Усілякі подробиці, які деталізують чи ілюструють думку, конкретні приклади.

3. Так звані стилістичні прикраси: риторичні питання, епітети, метафори.

Успішне зіставлення рефератів вимагає від перекладача володіння цілою низкою вмінь:

1. Вміння швидко й повно охопити зміст тексту

2. Вміння за невеликий відрізок часу розібратися в тих проблемах, що розглядаються, шукати й знаходити необхідну інформацію у довідковій літературі.

3. Вміння оцінити відносну значимість й новизну окремих частин тексту, виділити головну думку та наміри автора.

4. Вміння чітко висловлювати свої думки, уникаючи многослів’я, повторів.

Вправа 3.1.

Перекладіть текст на українську мову, спираючись на теоретичний матеріал даного розділу.

THE STYLE OF DEMOCRACY

The British are said to have a high respect for the law. Although they may not have much respect for the present institutions of the law, this reputation is more or less true with respect to the principle of law. Of course, lots of crimes are committed, as in any other country, but there is little systematic law-breaking by large sections of the population. For example, tax evasion is not the national pastime that it is said to be in some countries.

However, while 'the law' as a concept is largely respected, the British are comparatively unenthusiastic about making new laws. The general feeling is that, while you have to have laws sometimes wherever possible it is best to do without them. In many aspects of life the country has comparatively few rules and regulations. This lack of regulation works both ways. Just as there are comparatively few rules telling the individual what he or she must or must not do so there are comparatively few rules telling the government what it can or cannot do. Two unique aspects of British life will make this clear.

First, Britain is one of the very few European countries whose citizens do not have identity cards. Before the 1970s, when tourism to foreign countries became popular (and so the holding of passport became more common), most people in the country went through life without ever owning a document whose main purpose was to identify them. British people are not obliged to carry identification with them. You do not even have to have your driving license with you in your car. If the police ask to see it, you have twenty-four hours to take it to them!

Second, and on the other hand, Britain is also the only country in Western Europe without a Freedom of Information Act. There is no law which obliges a government authority or agency to show you what information it has collected about you. In fact it goes further than that. There is a law (called the Official Secrets Act) which obliges many government employees not to tell anyone about the details of their work. It seems that in Britain, both your own identity and the information which the government has about your identity are regarded as, in a sense, private matters.

These two aspects are characteristic of the relationship in Britain between the individual and the state. To a large degree, the traditional assumption is that both should leave each other alone as much as possible. The duties of the individual towards the state are confined to not breaking the law and paying taxes. There is no national service (military or otherwise); people are not obliged to vote at elections if they can't be bothered; people do not have to register their changes of address with any government authority when they move house.

Similarly, the government in Britain has a comparatively free hand. It would be correct to call the country 'a democracy' in the general accepted sense of this word. But in Britain this democracy involves less participation by ordinary citizens in governing and lawmaking than it does in many other countries. There is no concept of these things being done 'by the people'. If the government wants to make an important change in the way that the country is run - to change for example, the electoral system or the powers of the Prime Minister - it does not have to ask the people. It does not even have to have a special vote in Parliament with an especially high proportion of MPs in favor. It just needs to get Parliament to agree in the same way as for any new law.

In many countries an important constitutional change cannot be made without a referendum in which everybody in the country has the chance to vote 'yes' or 'no'. In other countries, such as the USA, people often have the chance to vote on particular proposals for changing laws that directly affect their everyday life, on smoking in public places or the location of a new hospital, for example. Nothing like this happens in Britain. There has only been one countrywide referendum in British history (in 1975, on whether the country should stay in the European Community). In Britain democracy has never meant that the people have a hand in the running of the country; rather it means that the people choose who is to govern the country, and let them get on with it!

Вправа 2.1.

Перекладіть текст на українську мову. Зверніть увагу на стилістичні особливості тексту.

THE STYLE OF POLITICS

Despite recent changes such as the televising of Parliament, political life in Britain is still influenced by the traditional British respect for privacy and love of secrecy. It is also comparatively informal. In both Parliament and government there is a tendency for important decisions to be taken, not at official public meetings, or even at prearranged private meetings, but at lunch, or over drinks, or in chance encounters in the corridors of power. It used to be said that the House of Commons was "the most exclusive club in London". And indeed, there are many features of Parliament which cause its members (MPs) to feel special and to feel a special sense of belonging with each other, even among those who have radically opposed political philosophies. First, constitutional theory says that Parliament has absolute control over its own affairs and is, in fact, the highest power in the land. Second, there are the ancient traditions of procedure. Many of these serve to remind MPs of a time when the main division in politics was not between this party and that party but rather between Parliament itself and the monarch. Even the architecture of the Palace of Westminster (the home of both Houses of Parliament) contributes to this feeling. It is so confusing that only 'insiders' can possibly find their way around it.

These features, together with the long years of political stability, have led to a genuine habit of co-operation among politicians of different parties. When you hear politicians arguing in the House of Commons or in a television studio, you might think that they hate each other. This is rarely the case. Often they are good friends. And even when it is the case, both normally see the practical advantage of co-operation. The advantage is that very little time is wasted fighting about how political business is to be conducted fairly. For example, the order of business in Parliament is arranged by representatives of the parties beforehand so that enough time is given for the various points of view to be expressed. Another example is television advertising. By agreement, political parties are not allowed to buy time on television. Instead, each party is given a strict amount of time, with the two biggest parties getting exactly equal amounts. A very notable example is the system of "pairing" of MPs.

THE PAIRING SYSTEM

The pairing system is an excellent example of the habit of co­operation among political parties in Britain. Under this system, an MP of one party is 'paired' with an MP of another party. When there is going to be a vote in the House of Commons, and the two MPs know that they would vote on opposite sides, neither of them bother to turn up for the vote. In this way, the difference in numbers between one side and the other is maintained, while the MPs are free to get on with other work. The system works very well. There is never any 'cheating'.