雖然這篇interpreting意思鄉民發文沒有被收入到精華區：在interpreting意思這個話題中，我們另外找到其它相關的精選爆讚文章
在 interpreting意思產品中有5篇Facebook貼文，粉絲數超過7萬的網紅Eric's English Lounge，也在其Facebook貼文中提到， ［教育時評］什麼是批判性思考？ Surely we have all heard business executives, policy makers, civic leaders, and educators talking about the term “critical thinking...
同時也有10000部Youtube影片，追蹤數超過2,910的網紅コバにゃんチャンネル，也在其Youtube影片中提到，...
-
interpreting意思 在 コバにゃんチャンネル Youtube 的最讚貼文
2021-10-01 13:19:08![post-title]()
-
interpreting意思 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的精選貼文
2021-10-01 13:10:45![post-title]()
-
interpreting意思 在 大象中醫 Youtube 的最讚貼文
2021-10-01 13:09:56![post-title]()
interpreting意思 在 Eric's English Lounge Facebook 的精選貼文
［教育時評］什麼是批判性思考？
Surely we have all heard business executives, policy makers, civic leaders, and educators talking about the term “critical thinking.” But what exactly is it? Why is it considered so useful and important?
我們一定都聽過企業領導者、政策制定者、公民領袖以及教育工作者談論批判性思考。 但這到底是什麼？為何它被認為有效且重要呢？
To a certain extent we all know what “critical thinking” means — it means high-quality thinking. Some might say that is the opposite of illogical or irrational thinking, but this definition still seems vague. Is critical thinking the same as analytical thinking? What about creative thinking?
在某種程度上，我們都知道「批判性思考」的意思——意即優質的思考。也許有些人會說此異於不合邏輯或非理性的思考。但這樣的定義似乎還是很模糊。批判性思考是否與分析性思考一樣？那創造性思考呢？
★★★★★★★★★★★★
Let’s explore the concept further through examples, and use our critical thinking skills together. To come up with a more concrete definition, let us answer the following questions:
讓我們從幾個面向進一步探討這個問題，並一起運用批判性思考。為了提出更具體的定義，就讓我們回答下列問題：
1. What would happen if we did not have critical thinking?
若我們不具備批判性思考會有什麼影響？
2. When do we use critical thinking?
我們何時該使用批判性思考？
3. Can you think of examples of critical thinking?
你能想到有關批判性思考的例子嗎？
4. How do we assess critical thinking?
我們該如何評價批判性思考？
5. Does critical thinking involve working with other people? Why or why not?
批判性思考是否需要與他人合作？為什麼？
By answering these questions, our definition of critical should be becoming more tangible.
藉由回答這些問題，我們對批判的定義應會變得更加明確。
★★★★★★★★★★★★
From experience, most now know that critical thinking is thinking that has a purpose (proving a point, interpreting what something means, solving a problem), and critical thinking can be a collaborative process. Without it, we wouldn't be able to solve complex problems without definite answers in and outside the classroom.
We are bombarded with information and problems on a daily basis in our society today. We need critical thinking to help us process information and solve these problems.
從經驗中，多數人現在知道批判性思考是帶有「目的」的思考（證明觀點、解決問題、詮釋某一事物的意涵），而批判性思考可以是一個協作的過程。沒有它，我們將會遭遇極大的麻煩，因為無論是在課內或課外，當我們在解決複雜的問題時必會遇到困難。在當今的社會中，我們每天都會遭受各種資訊與問題的轟炸。我們需要批判性思考來幫助我們處理資訊並解決這些問題。
If you would like to know the skills involved in critical thinking and listen to a podcast on the topic, leave “What are critical thinking skills?” in the comments. I will post another article on the topic next week if there's enough interest.
若同學想更深入了解批判性思考到底涵蓋了哪些技能，並收聽相關的podcast，歡迎在留言區回覆「What are critical thinking skills?」。若有相當數量的人感興趣，我將於下星期分享第二篇文章～
★★★★★★★★★★★★
參考文獻：
Facione, P. A. (2011). Critical thinking: What it is and why it counts. Insight assessment, 2007(1), 1-23.
McPeck, J. E. (2016). Critical thinking and education. Routledge.
圖片出處：Me thinking about dinner.
★★★★★★★★★★★★
interpreting意思 在 翻譯這檔事 Facebook 的最讚貼文
修潤英文
不久前，有個國際譯者協會會長寫一諫書呼籲國際社會介入促使金正恩釋放「犯錯」的口譯員，我說這英文寫作需要修潤，對一個專業譯者組織而言，顯得有些諷刺。經查，這位會長Aurora Humarán應是西班牙文母語，英文是外語，更應找英文母語的專業編輯或譯者幫忙潤稿，免得丟面子。以下建議的修改，以「最少的、必要的修改」爲標準，使之夠合乎英文用法，夠體面，可以刊登、出版。
[1] if true inexcusable 這插入成分寫得很笨拙，必須改。要表達的意思是：if the allegations are true, they are inexcusable。目前這樣寫，即使勉強不算真的錯誤，也造成讀者的剖析困難，例如，兩位網友就提出，是不是想表達 if truly inexcusable？不是的，如果是，語意邏輯就完全錯了。顯然，true inexcusable 擺在一起，容易造成誤解，無助於讀者將之斷開為 if true | inexcusable，改的方法很簡單，又以(a)較簡潔：
a. the allegations, inexcusable if true, that...
b. the allegations — if true, inexcusable — that...
[2] charged 前面最好加一個逗點，否則這麼長的一句，在這裡容易被誤讀成是「political prison camp」遭到指控。
[3] hurt 前面不可以有逗點，這是文法錯誤：英文的主詞和動詞之間不得加逗點。
原英文信如下（標示了應修改處。來源見留言）：
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS
The International Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters (IAPTI) is deeply concerned over the allegations【, if true inexcusable,】[1] that Interpreter Shin Hye-yong, who interpreted for the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea Leader Kim Jung Un at the Hanoi summit with U.S. President Donald Trump, was detained at a political prison camp【】[2] charged with undermining the Leader’s authority by, in the judgment of undisclosed sources, making a “critical interpreting mistake” when President Trump walked away from the negotiations.
As an international association devoted to the advancement of the profession and its practitioners, we are troubled by the process, charges, and detention of Ms. Shin, and invite the authorities to reconsider these actions.
Diplomatic interpreting is an invaluable tool governments use to avoid conflicts and settle differences. Actions like the ones reported by the international media in this case【,】[3] hurt peaceful dialogue, and have a chilling effect on the interpreter and diplomatic community worldwide.
Aurora Humarán
President
On behalf of IAPTI's Board
May 31, 2019
interpreting意思 在 翻譯這檔事 Facebook 的最讚貼文
修潤英文
不久前，有個國際譯者協會會長寫一諫書呼籲國際社會介入促使金正恩釋放「犯錯」的口譯員，我說這英文寫作需要修潤，對一個專業譯者組織而言，顯得有些諷刺。經查，這位會長Aurora Humarán應是西班牙文母語，英文是外語，更應找英文母語的專業編輯或譯者幫忙潤稿，免得丟面子。以下建議的修改，以「最少的、必要的修改」爲標準，使之夠合乎英文用法，夠體面，可以刊登、出版。
[1] if true inexcusable 這插入成分寫得很笨拙，必須改。要表達的意思是：if the allegations are true, they are inexcusable。目前這樣寫，即使勉強不算真的錯誤，也造成讀者的剖析困難，例如，兩位網友就提出，是不是想表達 if truly inexcusable？不是的，如果是，語意邏輯就完全錯了。顯然，true inexcusable 擺在一起，容易造成誤解，無助於讀者將之斷開為 if true | inexcusable，改的方法很簡單，又以(a)較簡潔：
a. the allegations, inexcusable if true, that...
b. the allegations — if true, inexcusable — that...
[2] charged 前面最好加一個逗點，否則這麼長的一句，在這裡容易被誤讀成是「political prison camp」遭到指控。
[3] hurt 前面不可以有逗點，這是文法錯誤：英文的主詞和動詞之間不得加逗點。
原英文信如下（標示了應修改處。來源見留言）：
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL TRANSLATORS AND INTERPRETERS
The International Association of Professional Translators and Interpreters (IAPTI) is deeply concerned over the allegations【, if true inexcusable,】[1] that Interpreter Shin Hye-yong, who interpreted for the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea Leader Kim Jung Un at the Hanoi summit with U.S. President Donald Trump, was detained at a political prison camp【】[2] charged with undermining the Leader’s authority by, in the judgment of undisclosed sources, making a “critical interpreting mistake” when President Trump walked away from the negotiations.
As an international association devoted to the advancement of the profession and its practitioners, we are troubled by the process, charges, and detention of Ms. Shin, and invite the authorities to reconsider these actions.
Diplomatic interpreting is an invaluable tool governments use to avoid conflicts and settle differences. Actions like the ones reported by the international media in this case【,】[3] hurt peaceful dialogue, and have a chilling effect on the interpreter and diplomatic community worldwide.
Aurora Humarán
President
On behalf of IAPTI's Board
May 31, 2019