5. Усний послідовний переклад (аудіозапису).

Завдання 1. Перекладіть наведені слова та вислови.

Завдання 2*. Знайдіть приклади використання даних лексичних одиниць у англомовних тлумачних словниках або інших оригінальних джерелах. Зверніть увагу на термінологічну полісемію.

Матеріали до перекладу:

to alter

to split up

to be linked to

retiremen

the Consumer Price Index

to exclude

sold workers down the river

6. Теоретичне питання:

Завдання 1. Дайте відповідь на наступне питання:

Переклад абревіатур, телескопізмів та скорочень в публіцистичному тексті.

Заняття 6. "Наука (Science)"

1. Словникова робота з теми "Science":

Завдання 1. Ознайомтеся з запропонованими матеріалами (текст для письмового перекладу, додаткові матеріали).

Завдання 2*. Складіть тематичний словник (знання слів, виділених курсивом, обов'язкове), доповніть його словами та висловами з інших джерел.

2. Тема для усної бесіди: "Science".

Завдання 1*. Знайдіть додатковий матеріал з запропонованої теми (до 4000 знаків). Доповніть тематичний словник словами та висловами з додаткового тексту.

Завдання 2. Підготуйтеся зробити усне повідомлення (1–2 хвилини) з теми на основі тексту для перекладу та додаткового матеріалу, відповідати на питання одногрупників.

3. Тексти для письмового перекладу:

Завдання 1. Визначте функціональний стиль та жанр, до яких належить текст. Обґрунтуйте свою відповідь, виходячи з жанрово-стилістичних ознак тексту та спираючись на приклади з тексту.

Завдання 2*. Перекладіть текст письмово. Зверніть увагу на умовні скорочення, структуру тексту оригіналу та їх відтворення відповідно до жанрово-стилістичних вимог мови перекладу.

Завдання 3**. Підготуйтеся до виразного читання текстів оригіналу та перекладу.

Завдання 4**. Будьте готові обстоювати власні перекладацькі рішення.

Severe Diet Doesn’t Prolong Life, at Least in Monkeys

By GINA KOLATA

Published: August 29, 2012

For 25 years, the rhesus monkeys were kept semi-starved, lean and hungry. The males’ weights were so low they were the equivalent of a 6-foot-tall man who tipped the scales at just 120 to 133 pounds. The hope was that if the monkeys lived longer, healthier lives by eating a lot less, then maybe people, their evolutionary cousins, would, too. Some scientists, anticipating such benefits, began severely restricting their own diets.

The results of this major, long-awaited study, which began in 1987, are finally in. But it did not bring the vindication calorie restriction enthusiasts had anticipated. It turns out the skinny monkeys did not live any longer than those kept at more normal weights. Some lab test results improved, but only in monkeys put on the diet when they were old. The causes of death — cancer, heart disease — were the same in both the underfed and the normally fed monkeys.

Lab test results showed lower levels of cholesterol and blood sugar in the male monkeys that started eating 30 percent fewer calories in old age, but not in the females. Males and females that were put on the diet when they were old had lower levels of triglycerides, which are linked to heart disease risk. Monkeys put on the diet when they were young or middle-aged did not get the same benefits, though they had less cancer. But the bottom line was that the monkeys that ate less did not live any longer than those that ate normally.

Rafael de Cabo, lead author of the diet study, published online on Wednesday in the journal Nature, said he was surprised and disappointed that the underfed monkeys did not live longer. Like many other researchers on aging, he had expected an outcome similar to that of a 2009 study from the University of Wisconsin that concluded that caloric restriction did extend monkeys’ life spans.

But even that study had a question mark hanging over it. Its authors had disregarded about half of the deaths among the monkeys they studied, saying they were not related to aging. If they had included all of the deaths, there was no extension of life span in the Wisconsin study, either.

“This shows the importance of replication in science,” Steven Austad, interim director of the Barshop Institute for Longevity and Aging Studies at the University of Texas Health Science Center in San Antonio. Dr. Austad, who was not involved with either study, said that the University of Wisconsin study “was not nearly as conclusive as it was made out to be” and that the new study casts further doubt on the belief that caloric restriction extends life.

But other researchers still think that it does, and one of the authors of the new study, Julie A. Mattison, said it was still possible that some benefit would be revealed. The study is continuing until the youngest monkeys are 22 years old. While the data pretty much rule out any notion that the low-calorie diet will increase average life spans, there still is a chance that the study might find that the diet increases the animals’ maximum life span, she said.

Meanwhile, some others said that the Wisconsin study made them reluctant to dismiss the idea that low-calorie diets result in longer life.

“I wouldn’t discard the whole thing on the basis of one study, when another study in the same species showed an increase in life span,” said Eric Ravussin, director of the nutritional obesity research center at the Pennington Biomedical Research Center in Louisiana. “I would still bet on an extension of life.”

The idea that a low-calorie diet would extend life originated in the 1930s with a study of laboratory rats. But it was not until the 1980s that the theory took off. Scientists reported that in species as diverse as yeast, flies, worms and mice, eating less meant living longer. And, in mice at least, a low-calorie diet also meant less cancer.

It was not known whether the same thing would hold true in humans, and no one expected such a study would ever be done. It would take decades to get an answer, to say nothing of the expense and difficulty of getting people to be randomly assigned to starve themselves or not.

Література: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/30/science/low-calorie-diet-doesnt-prolong-life-study-of-monkeys-finds.html?pagewanted=all

4. Додаткові матеріали:

http://www.nytimes.com/