Технический перевод. Учебное пособие

Try this yourself, or you can set it as a challenge for a loved one you would like to torment. This problem is a paradox: by trying not to think of a thing you constantly have to be checking if you are still thinking of it – reinvoking precisely the thing you are trying not to think of.

The general solution for the white bear problem is to do something else, to avoid both thinking of the white bear and not thinking of the white bear. For earworms, the solution may be the same. Our inner ear, a vital part of our cognitive machinery for remembering and rehearsing sounds, has become infected with an earworm. This is a part of ourselves which is not under our control, so just sending in instructions to "shut up" is unlikely to be of much help (and has been shown to make it worse). Much better is to employ the inner ear in another task, preferably something incompatible with rehearsing the earworm.

If earworms survive because of their peculiarity, the hook that makes them catch, then my prediction for ridding yourself of an earworm is to sing songs that are similar. If your mind is poisoned by Brittany Spears' Toxic, for instance, then try singing Kylie Minogue's appropriately titled Can't Get You Out Of My Head. By my theory this will erode the uniqueness of the memory habitat that lets the earworm survive. Let me know if it works!

Text 9. The myth of the lone genius.

Genuine scientific progress is usually collaborative even if the nature of fame, and fiction, is to single out individuals, writes Quentin Cooper.

It is sixty years since Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor became Her Royal

Highness Queen Elizabeth the Second. Sixty years in which the planet has changed beyond recognition. As part of the Diamond Jubilee festivities the BBC asked the public to help select the sixty "New Elizabethans" – living or dead, British or not – who have had the most impact on life during her (or possibly Her) reign. Which in effect means fifty-nine since HRH herself is pretty much a shoe-in.

Given all the myriad ways science and technology have left their mark on the last 60 years, it's a list which you might expect scientists and inventors to dominate. And I've no problem thinking of worthy contenders. Indisputable geniuses like Sidney Stratton, Ned and Philip Brainard, Robert

61

Campbell and Alexander Hartdegen. Don't know them? More familiar may be Emmett Brown, Caractacus Potts or Eldon Tyrell.

Each is responsible for one or more world-changing inventions and breakthroughs. Unfortunately, as you will have no doubt figured out, each is also fictional.

Stratton, played by Alec Guinness, devises an indestructible fabric in wonderful Ealing comedy The Man In the White Suit; Brainard with a change of first name invents gravity-defying flying rubber in both The Absent Minded Professor and the Robin Williams remake Flubber; Campbell is Medicine Man Sean Connery curing cancer; and although in HG Wells' novel and the first film version he has no name, in the most recent remake it's Alexander Hartdegen who builds The Time Machine.

The time travel – by flying DeLorean – is rather more stylish from Doc Emmett Brown in the Back To The Future trilogy; Caractacus Potts also gets a car to fly and creates whistling confectionery in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang; and Eldon Tyrell gives life, and death, to Bladerunner's replicants.

"Nutty professor"

This may seem a long and very male list of characters who have come up with things that, if real, would be ranked among the greatest advances of all time. That's because it is. Well, apart from the "toot sweets" in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Now try to do the same for the individuals behind genuine inventions and breakthroughs. It's almost impossible.

You might say Watson or Crick for the structure of DNA – but while both did key work they also needed Rosalind Franklin and a host of other supporting characters. There is also far more to DNA than its structure. Or what about Tim Berners Lee who "invented" the World Wide Web? Undoubtedly "TimBL" was vital to its development but what about his less well lauded partner – Robert Callieau – or the many thousands of others who have left their mark on what it has become? And Ian Wilmut – the man who brought Dolly the Sheep to the world's attention? Sure enough, the paper that describes just how the world's first cloned mammal was "created" shows the names of at least four other scientists involved in the research.

It is a problem that can only get worse. Think of the growing number of "big science" projects, from the Human Genome to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC). All involve thousands of people working in myriad disciplines. Naming an individual who is single-handedly responsible for the project – and its findings – is an impossible task.

62

The Nobel Prizes – perhaps the organisation that has done the most to promote the idea of individual triumph – is already under pressure to change its ways. Last year's prize for dark energy came under fire from the Astronomer Royal – the Queen's own astronomer – for not accurately reflecting the true number of people who carried out the work. I don't envy the Nobel Committee faced with plucking out three individuals if – and when – the Higgs Boson is discovered at the LHC.

That is because genuine scientific progress is usually collaborative and collective even if the nature of fame, and fiction, is to single out individuals and hand them all the credit. We like to make heroes, and a century ago stories about dashing, dynamic inventors saving the day, and the world, through their indefatigable ingenuity were so popular they even had their own name – Edisonades, inspired by the famously sweaty Thomas Edison. Such tales peaked in popularity long before EAM Windsor became QE2. Now even in fantasies in which a scientist makes some amazing advance, they are usually portrayed as nutty, absent-minded, eccentric or plain weird.

So it will be interesting to see which scientists, if any, end up being allotted a place among the New Elizabethans. For all their incalculable influence on life as we now live it, few have changed anything singlehandedly, while many who have made a significant difference have achieved little or no public recognition. Unlike their fictional counterparts, the scientists who have transformed our world seldom get starring roles, just an uncredited cameo as part of the crowd.

Text 10. Is language unique to humans?

Animals communicate with each other, and sometimes with us. But that's where the similarity between animals and us ends, as Jason Goldman explains.

When Alex unexpectedly passed away after only thirty-one years of life,

his last words to his dearest friend were, "You be good. See you tomorrow. I love you". A touching sentiment indeed, but all the more impressive because Alex was an African Grey Parrot. Over the course of thirty years of work between psychologist Irene Pepperberg and Alex, purchased from a Chicago pet store at one year of age, the parrot amassed a vocabulary of some 150 words. According to one report, he was able to recognize fifty different objects, could count quantities up to six, and could distinguish among seven colours and five shapes. He also understood the ideas of "bigger" and "smaller", and "same" and "different".

63

Alex isn't the only non-human to display such talents. Kanzi is a 31-year-old male bonobo who lives in a small social group with others of his species at the Great Ape Trust in Des Moines, Iowa. Bonobos, together with chimpanzees, are our closest living relatives. After years of working with primatologist Sue Savage-Rumbaugh, Kanzi can now understand several thousand words, and can communicate using a kind of keyboard that contains around 400 visual symbols called lexigrams.

Then there's Rico, a border collie who knows the labels of around 200 different items, and can retrieve them on command. Compared to Alex and Kanzi, this might not seem particularly impressive or interesting. However, Rico can learn the label of an item that he's never seen before after only hearing the word once. If there are 20 items in front of him, 19 of which he already knows the labels for, and he is instructed to retrieve an item using a word he had never heard before, Rico can infer that the unfamiliar item matches with the unfamiliar word. Weeks later, he still remembers the pairing. This process of word-learning, called fast-mapping, is identical to the process through which young children learn new words.

Not to be outdone by the feathered or furry, there's the female Atlantic bottlenose dolphins Akeakamai and Phoenix who lived at the Kewalo Basin Marine Mammal Laboratory in Honolulu, Hawaii. A famous paper by marine biologist Louis Herman and colleagues in 1984 described Akeakamai and Phoenix's abilities to understand sentences in visual or acoustic artificial languages.

The researchers gave the dolphins instructions constructed entirely of familiar words, but in various combinations that would only be understood by knowing the grammar of the sentences, not just the vocabulary. For example, "Phoenix Akeakamai Over" was an instruction for Phoenix to swim to Akeakamai and jump over her, while "Akeakamai Surfboard Fetch Speaker" instructed Akeakamai to get the surfboard and bring it to the speaker. In each case the dolphin had to interpret the verb "over" or "fetch" according to the noun: did "fetch" apply to the surfboard or to the speaker, for instance?

Language barrier

Primates, birds, cetaceans, dogs and other species have proven able, through extensive training, to understand human words and simple sentences. And as Ed Yong explained, in some exceptional cases, such as Kanzi and Alex, they've even been able to engage in two-way communication with humans.

64

However, language is more than a process through which meaning is attached to words or short sentences. Language might be described as the ability to take a finite set of elements (such as words), and using a set of rules (grammar and syntax) to create infinite combinations, each of which is comprehensible. Given this definition, it is perhaps not surprising then that cognitive psychologists sometimes speak of a "grammar of action".

Like sentences, the catalogue of human actions is infinite. We stretch, bend, and kick. We build bridges and prepare meals. We perform an endless variety of dance routines. We make paper airplanes. A complex action, like hammering a nail, can be broken down into its constituent actions – grasping, striking, reaching – just as a sentence can be broken into its units – nouns, verbs, adjectives. In 1951, cognitive psychologist Karl Lashley proposed a link between language and action. "Not only speech", he wrote, "but all skilled acts seem to involve the same problems of serial ordering, even down to the temporal coordination of muscular contractions in such a movement as reaching and grasping". Just as a stream of speech does not contain explicit pauses between words, fluid actions like nail hammering do not contain breaks between their components. Yet humans effortlessly parse speech streams and action sequences into their parts.

What is language, then, if it can describe the way we process actions as well as the way we manipulate words? Understand from this perspective, language is not a method of communication, per se, but a rather method of computation. Other animals clearly communicate with one another, sometimes in fairly elaborate ways. Whale sing, monkeys howl, birds chirp. Lizards bob their heads up and down to communicate, and some squid do it by regulating the colouration of their skin cells. But none of these processes can be explained by language.

What makes human language unique is not that it allows us to communicate with each other, but that it allows us to do so with infinite variety. A monkey can scream to warn its troopmates of an approaching predator, or alert them to a cache of tasty food, but it can't communicate something like "doesn't that hawk have a funny looking beak?" or "with a little salt, this fig would taste divine". It certainly can't create nonsensical yet understandable sentences like "Colourless green ideas sleep furiously".

No, only humans can utter that sort of grammatical nonsense.

Text 11. Differences in Brain Function may Explain Male-Female Aptitudes for Charts and Chatter.

Scientists have shed new light on why women are better listeners than men and why men are better at map reading.

65

A study using the latest brain scanner technology found that men and women activate different parts of the brain when they carry out tests linked with these tasks. "Maybe science sometimes just proves what we already know", said Dr. Tonmoy Sharma of the Institute of Psychiatry, London. The study, presented to the Human Brain Mapping meeting in Dusseldorf, may show why men are less talkative, for example.

"When you think of conversations with a female colleague, we are normally quiet and lost for words", said Dr. Sharma, who headed the research team. He used a technique called functional magnetic resonance imaging to show the brain in action.

Twenty people, 10 men and 10 women, performed two tasks to test language and memory skills while undergoing brain scans. Earlier studies revealed that men have better spatial skills, which is linked to the use of working memory, so that they find it easier to read maps and distinguish right from left. However, women are better at processing complex verbal information, which Dr. Sharma tested with a language task.

Dr. Sharma designed the tests so that both sexes could perform them equally well: if men had become frustrated while performing the test, and vice versa, the brain scans could have become confused – for instance by heightened activity in areas of the brain linked to frustration or disappointment.

He did find different patterns of brain activity that could shed light on why men excel at one task and women the other. During the memory task, men activated the supplementary motor area more than women. The region, found in the frontal lobe of the brain, is involved in spatial skills, such as map reading, among a variety of activities such as intention. However, in the language task, women showed stronger activation than men of a region called the dorsolateral prefrontal gyrus, a region found on both sides of the brain that is involved in manipulating information.

The memory task was conducted by showing the volunteers a sequence of letters and asking them to press a button when they recognized a certain sequence. The language task was tested by giving volunteers a word and asking them to judge if it was living or nonliving. This kind of work on sex differences could have implications for conditions such as schizophrenia and depression, where the incidence is linked to gender.

Dr. Sharma said: "Further brain imaging research on gender differences could help explain the higher incidence of depression in women or why men succumb to schizophrenia at an earlier age than women".

This is not the first time that such sex differences have been identified. Several years ago, Prof. Ruben Gur and colleagues at the University of Pennsylvania Medical Centre used a different brain scanner technique to

66

study whether there were sex differences in metabolism in the areas of the brain that control emotions and cognition.

The scanner revealed that the region that is thought to control more "action-oriented" emotional responses was more active in men, while the higher centre of the brain thought to control more "symbolic" emotional responses was more active in women.

The findings supported the possibility that men are more biologically inclined to express themselves physically, such as through aggression, and women are biologically disposed to talk things through, said Prof. Gur.

67

Appendix

1. Внимательно изучите приведённый список слов, которые имеют сходное звучание и написание в русском и английском языках, но не совпадают по значению.

accurate – точный, а не аккуратный

actual – действительный, фактический, а не актуальный

advocate – сторонник, защитник, активист, человек, горячо отстаивающий какую-либо позицию, а не адвокат

apartment – квартира, а не апартаменты artist – художник, а не артист

aspirant – претендент, кандидат, а не аспирант biscuit – галета, сухарик, а не бисквит cabinet – шкаф, чулан, а не кабинет

camera – фотоаппарат, а не камера

Caucasian – человек белой расы (индоевропеец), а не кавказец cereal – каша, крупа, а не сериал

clay – глина, а не клей corpse – труп, а не корпус data – данные, а не дата

decade – десятилетие, а не декада (10 дней) deputy – не только депутат, но и заместитель direction – направление, а не дирекция

director – не только директор, но и режиссёр, дирижёр Dutch – голландский, а не датский

fabric – ткань, а не фабрика

familiar – чаще известный, знакомый, а не фамильярный fashion – образ действия, манера, мода, а не фасон fiction – чаще художественная литература, а не фикция genial – приятный, доброжелательный, а не гениальный intelligence – ум, интеллект, разведка, а не интеллигенция list – список, а не лист

magazine – журнал, а не магазин mayor – мэр города, а не майор motorist – автомобилист, а не моторист

multiplication – умножение, размножение, а не мультипликация pamphlet – чаще брошюра, а не памфлет

paragraph – абзац, заметка, а не параграф pasta – макаронные изделия, а не паста physician – врач-терапевт, а не физик

68

principal – директор школы, а не принципиальный prospect – перспектива, а не проспект

repetition – повторение, а не репетиция receipt – квитанция, чек, а не рецепт replica – точная копия, а не реплика satin – атлас, а не сатин

saucer – блюдце, а не соус stool – табуретка, а не стул

sympathy – сочувствие, а не симпатия trace – след, а не трасса

trap – капкан, ловушка, а не трап troops – войска, а не трупы

valet – помощник швейцара в гостинице, камердинер, а не валет wagon – чаще фургон, конная повозка, а не вагон

2. Обратите внимание на способы образования и значения следующих неологизмов, представленных в словаре новых слов.

affluenza (from affluent and influenza) – a psychological malaise supposedly affecting young wealthy people, symptoms of which include a lack of motivation, feelings of guilt, and a sense of isolation

aggregator – an Internet company that collects information about other companies' products and services and distributes it through a single Web site

areology (from Ares (Greek equivalent of the Roman war god Mars) + -ology (denoting a subject of study or interest) – the study of the planet Mars

Asiago (named after Asiago, the plateau and town in northern Italy where the cheese was first made) – a strong-flavoured cow's milk cheese made in northern Italy

barkitecture (from bark and architecture) – the art or practice of designing and constructing doghouses; the style in which a doghouse is designed or constructed

bicoastal – living on, taking place in, or involving both the Atlantic and Pacific coasts of the US

bioclimatology – the study of climate in relation to living organisms and especially to human health

broast (from broil and roast) – cook (food) by a combination of broiling and roasting

buildout – the growth, development, or expansion of something clonality – the fact or condition of being genetically identical, as to a

parent, sibling or other biological source

69

CRM – customer relationship management, denoting strategies that enable a company to organize and optimize its customer relations

cybrarian (from cyber- and librarian) – a librarian or researcher who uses the Internet as an information resource

ecolodge – a type of tourist accommodation designed to have the minimum possible impact on the natural environment in which it is situated

express lane (in a grocery store) – a checkout aisle for shoppers buying only a few items

flexecutive (from flexible and executive) – an executive or highlevel employee who has flexible hours and can choose to work in any location

gap year – a period, typically an academic year, taken by a student as a break between secondary school and higher education

global commons (usually plural) – any of the earth's ubiquitous and unowned natural resources, such as the oceans, the atmosphere, and space

heartsink patient (from the notion that the appearance of the patient makes the doctor's heart sink) – a patient who makes frequent visits to a doctor's office, complaining of persistent but unidentifiable ailments

hoteling – the short-term provision of office space to a temporary worker

kleptocrat (from Greek kleptes 'thief' + -crat) – a ruler who uses political power to steal their country's resources

life coach – a person who counsels and advises clients on matters having to do with careers or personal challenges

Maki (Japanese, from maku 'roll up' + -zushi, sushi) – a Japanese dish consisting of sushi and raw vegetables wrapped in seaweed

parachute – appoint or be appointed in an emergency or from outside the existing hierarchy

permalancer (from permanent and freelancer) – a long-term freelance, part-time, or temporary worker who does not have employee benefits

second-hand speech – conversation on a cell phone that is overheard by people nearby

shopgrifting – the practice of buying an item, using it, and then returning it for a full refund

stolen generation (Australian) – the Aboriginal people forcibly removed from their families as children between the 1900s and the 1960s, to be brought up by white foster families or in institutions

sympathetic smoker – a person who smokes only in the company of another smoker

70