• ベストアンサー
  • すぐに回答を!

すみませんが英語に自信のある人はご協力をお願いします。

すみませんが英語に自信のある人はご協力をお願いします。 次の文の和訳を知りたいです。 For example,it is suggested that animals do not modify their signals to address one individual rather than another,and in this sense that they address no one in particular. This is certainly not true in specific instances,such as the exchange of calls between mating birds,or between the African honey guide and the honey badger that follows the bird. But even where it is true,in insect colonies and hunting packs,it is a characteristic of social organization and not of language. The animal addresses no one in particular because it addresses everyone in the community.The only individual that the animal does not know how to address is itself;so that its shortcoming is not that it cannot turn monologue into dialogue,but that it cannot turn it into soliloquy.The bee that tries to dance in an almost empty hive fails to read its context,but the dance remains a signal and not a private act.For the dance has been evolved by a process of natural selection whose effect is constantly to improve its social efficiency.The same pressure of selection has shaped all animal calls and gestures to make them,in general,signals that instruct the whole community. 文章は人間と動物のlanguageの違いを述べた文章です。 よろしくお願いします。長ければThe only individualの前まででもお願いします。

共感・応援の気持ちを伝えよう!

  • 回答数2
  • 閲覧数117
  • ありがとう数12

質問者が選んだベストアンサー

  • ベストアンサー
  • 回答No.2
  • bakansky
  • ベストアンサー率48% (3502/7239)

For example, it is suggested that animals do not modify their signals to address one individual rather than another, and in this sense that they address no one in particular. たとえば、動物は対象に応じて異なった合図をするということはない。だからその意味では、ある対象を特定して合図をするということはないといえる。 This is certainly not true in specific instances, such as the exchange of calls between mating birds, or between the African honey guide and the honey badger that follows the bird. 例外もある。たとえば番いの鳥同士の呼び声や、あるいはアフリカの蜜標とミツアナグマの場合も鳥の場合と同じだ。 But even where it is true, in insect colonies and hunting packs, it is a characteristic of social organization and not of language. 昆虫のコロニーとか共同した狩りとか、そういう例はあるにせよ、それは言語に由来するというより、社会組織上の問題である。 The animal addresses no one in particular because it addresses everyone in the community. 動物はそのコミュニティのすべての構成員に合図を送るのであって、特定のものに合図しているのではない。 * 「The only individualの前まで」ざっと訳してみました。なお、私は「英語に自信のある人」ではなくて、道楽で独修しているだけの者ですので、正確かどうかは保証の限りではありません。

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

よく分かりました。ありがとうございます。But even where it is trueのitは何を指すのでしょうか。後、but that it cannot turn it into soliloquyのitはdialogueを指すのでしょうか?それともmonologueを指すのでしょうか? 教えていただくとありがたいです。

その他の回答 (1)

  • 回答No.1
  • SPS700
  • ベストアンサー率46% (15265/32935)

 動物は、個人目当てに信号を発するのはなく、集団が目標だ、(で例が挙げてあって)  動物が交信できないのは、自分自身だけだ、だから対話は出来ても独白が出来ない。(例はミツバチの踊り)  これが要約です。この著者は人間の「独り言」を自分自身と話し合っていると考えているようですね。あまり頭のいい人ではないみたい。

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

ありがとうございました。

関連するQ&A

  • 英語に自信のある方、英訳お願い致します。

    The aim of the physician in the treatment of insanity is to bring the means at his command to bears, directly or indirectly,on the disordered nerve element.But,in striving to do this,he soon learns with how many bodily organs and fuctions he has really to do. To call mind a function of the brain may lead to much misapprehention,if it be thereby supposed that the brain is the only organ which is concerned in the function of mind.There is not an organ in the body which is not in intimate relation with the brain by means of its paths of nervous communication,which has not ,so to speak,a special correspondence with it through internuncial fibres,and which does not,therefore affect more or less plainly and specially its[its=the brain's]function as an organ of mind.It is not merely that apalpitating heart may cause anxiety and apprehension,or a disordered liver[may cause]gloomy feelings,but there are reasons to believe that each organ has its specific influence on the constitution and function of mind:an influence not yet to be set forth scientifically,because it is exerted on that unconscious mental life which is the basis of all that we consciously feel and think. Were the heart of one man to be placed in the body of another it would probably make no difference in the circulation of the blood,but it make a real difference in the temper of his mind.So close is the physiological sympathy of parts in the commonwealth of the body that it is necessary in the physiological study of mind to regard it as a function of the whole organism,as comprehending the whole bodily life.

  • 英語に自信のある方 和訳お願いします

    The aim of the physicianin the treatment of insanity is to bring the means at his command to bear, directly or indirectly , on the disordered nerve elemnt. But, in striving to do this, he soon learns with how many bodily organs and functionshe has really to do. to callmind a function of the brain may lead to much misapprehension, if it be thereby supposed that the brain is the only organ which is concerned in the function of mind. There is not an organ in the body which is not in intimate relation with the brain by means of its paths of nervous communication, which has not , so to speak, a special corresopondance with it through internuncial fibres, and which does not, therefore, affect more or less plainly and specially its[ist=the brain's] function as an organ of mind. It is not merely that a parpitating heart may cause anxiety and apprehension, or a disorderedliver[may cause] gloomy feelings, but there are good reasons to believe that eachorgan has its specific influence on the constituiton and function of mind; an influence not yet to be set forth scientifically., because it is exerted on that unconscious mental life which is the basis of all that we consciously feel and think. were the heart of one man to be placed in the body of another it would probably make no difference in the circulation of the blood, but it might make a real difference in the temper of his mind. so close is the physiological sympathy of parts in the commonwealth of the body that it is necessary in the physiological study of mind to regard it as a function of the whole organism, as complehending the whole bodily life.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    Two points have to be observed with regard to this criterion, in whichever verbal form we may choose to express it. The first is that it is not rigidly exclusive either, on the one hand, of a possibly mental character in apparently non- mental adjustments, or, conversely, of a possibly non-mental character in apparently mental adjustments. For it is certain that failure to learn by individual experience is not always conclusive evidence against the existence of mind; such failure may arise merely from an imperfection of memroy, or from there not being enough of the mind-element present to make the adjustments needful to meet the novel circum stances. Conversely, it is no less certain that some parts of our own nervous system, which are not concerned in the phenomena of consciousness, are nevertheless able in some measure to learn by individual experience. The nervous apparatus of the stomach, for instance, is able in so con siderable a degree to adapt the movements of that organ to the requirements of its individual experience, that were the organ an organism we might be in danger of regarding it as dimly intelligent. Still there is no evidence to show that non-mental agents are ever able in any considerable measure thus to simulate the adjustments performed by mental ones ; and therefore our criterion, in its practical application, has rather to be guarded against the opposite danger of defying the presence of mind to agents that are really mental For, as I observed in " Animal Intelligence," " it is clear that long before mind has advanced sufficiently far in the scale of development to become amenable to the test in question, it has probably begun to dawn as nascent subjectivity. In other words, because a lowly organized animal does not learn by its own individual experience, we may not therefore con clude that in performing its natural or ancestral adaptations to appropiate stimuli, consciousness, or the mind-element, is wholly absent ; we can only say that this element, if present, reveals no evidence of the fact. But, on the other hand, if a lowly organized animal does learn by its own individual experience, we are in possession of the best available evi dence of conscious memory leading to intentional adaptation. Therefore, our criterion applies to the upper limit of non- mental action, not to the lower limit of mental[action]''.

  • 英語の翻訳に自信がある方お願い致します。

    英語の翻訳に自信がある方お願い致します。 ※ポイント欲しさに翻訳機械で翻訳したのを載せる様な方はご遠慮願います。 It is a long journey, in more ways than one, from Lantern Yard to Raveloe, from dissenting chapel to village church.Not surpisingly,Silas,his faith shattered,does not go out of his way to discover what kind of religion might be available to him in his new place of residence. Lantern Yard was all he knew.Had he been of mind to investigate,he would have discovered that religion in Raveloe is a different matter altogether than the fierce and narrow faith he has been fed at Lantern Yard. the narrator is at pains to point out that Raveloe has not only seen nothing of the Industrial Revolution,it has not been affected by “puritan earnestness”-the kind that flourished in many of the dissenting chapels.People in Raveloe are not in the habit of applying a stern morality to their own lives,and the do not judge their neighbors in that way either.

  • 英語に自信のある方 和訳お願いします

    Now, when we compare teh account of the creation and of man given by the doctrine of evolution with that given in the Bible, we see at once that the two are in different regions. The purpose of giving the accounts is diffrent; the spirit and character of the accounts is different; the details are altogether different. The comparison must take note of the difference of spirit and aim before it can proceed at all. It is then quite certain, and even those who contend for the literal interpretation of this part of the Bible will generally admit, that the purpose of the revelation is not to teach science at all. It is to teach great spiritual and moral lessons, and it takes the factsof nature as they appear to ordinary people.When the creation of man is mentioned there is clearly no intention to say by whta processes this creation was effected or how much time it took to work out those processes. The narrative is not touched by the question, 'Was this a single act done in a moment or a process lasting throughmillions of years?' The writerof the Book of Genesis sees the earth peopled,as we may say, by many varieties of plants of animals. he asserts that God made them all, and made them resemble each other and differ from each other He knows nothing and says nothing of the means used to produce their resemblances or their diferrences. he takes them as he see them , and speakes of their creation as God's work. Had he been commisoned to teach his people the science of the matter, he would have had to put a most serious obstacle in the way of their faith. They would have found it almost impossible to belive in a process of creation so utterly unlike all their own experience. And it would have been quite useless to them besides, since their science was not in such a condition as to enable them to coordinate this doctrine with any other. As science it would have been dead; and as spiritual truth it would have been a hindrance.

  • 英語翻訳できるかた

    One of the criticisms that seems to be a recurring part of deconstruction's existence and operation is that it runs the risk of pushing its analysis to the extreme, thus producing nonsense. Derrida's style is wonderfully slippery and bewilderingly convoluted, especially at those moments where he pursues the limits of a concept or idea, and it is sometimes not difficult to see how this can become resistance in itself. この文章です。 英語得意な方翻訳お願いします。。。

  • 英語に自信のある方和訳お願い致します

    Admitting as is historically and in fact the case , that it was the mission of the Hebrew race to lay the foundation of religion upon the earth, and that Providence used this people specially for this purpose, is it not our businessand ourduty to look and see how this has reall been done? notformingfor ourselves theories of what a revelation ought to be or [of] how we, if entrusted with the task, would have made one, but enquiring ho it haspleased God to do it. In all his theoriesof the world, man has at first deviated widely from the truth,and has only gradually come to see how far otherwise God has ordered things than the first daring speculator had supposed. It has been popularly assumed that the Bible, bearing the stampof divine authority, must be complete, perfect, and unimpeachble in all itsparts, and a thousand difficulties and incoherent doctrines have sprung out of this theory. Men have proceeded in the matterof theology, as they did with physical sciencebefore inductive philosophy sent them to the feet of nature and bid them learnin patience and obedience the lessons whichsh[she=nature] had to teach. Dogma and groundless assumption occupy the place of modest enquiry after truth, while at the same time the upholders of these theories claim credit for humility and submissivenss. Thisis exactly inverting the fact; the humble scholr of trut is not he who, taking his stand upon the traditions of rabbins,Christian fathers, or schoolmen, insists upon bending facts to his unyielding standard, but he who is willing to accept such teaching as it has pleased Divine Providence to afford, without murmuring that it has not been furnished more copiously or clearly.

  • 日本語訳お願いします。急いでます。

    Animals in the wild lead lives of compulsion and necessity within an unforgiving social hierarchy in an environment where the supply of fear is high and the supply of food low and where territory must constantly be defended and parasites forever endured. Animals in the wild are, in practice, free neither in spase nor in time, nor in their personal relations. In theory an animal could pick up and go, defying all the social conventions and boundaries proper to its species. But such an event is less likely to happen than for a member of our own species, say a shopkeeper with all the usual ties ― to family, to friends, to society ― to drop everything and walk away from his life with only the spare change in his pockets and the clothes on his frame. If human beings, boldest and most intelligent of creatures, won't wander from place to place, why would an animal, which is by temperament far more conservative? For that is what animals are, conservative, one might even say reactionary. The smallest changes can upset them. They want things to be just so, day after day, month after month. Surprises are highly disagreeable to them. You see this in their spatial relations? An animal inhabits its space, whether in a zoo or in the wild, 'in the same way chess pieces move about a chessboard. There is no more happenstance, no more "freedom," involved in the whereabouts of a lizard or a bear or a deer than in the location of a knight on a chessboard. Both speak of pattern and purpose.In the wild, animals stick to the same paths for the same pressing reasons, season after season. In a zoo, if an animal is not in its normal place in its regular posture at the usual hour, it means something. Animals are territorial. That is the key to their minds. Only a familiar territory will allow them to fulfill the two relentless imperatives of the wild:the avoidance of enemies and the getting of food and water. A biologically sound zoo enclosure is just another territory, peculiar only in its size and in its proximity to human territory. Such an enclosure is subjectively neither better nor worse for an animal than its condition in the wild;so long as it fulfills the animal's needs, a territory, natural or constructed, simply is, without judgment, a given, like the spots on a leopard. One might even argue that if an animal could choose with intelligence, it would opt for living in a zoo, since the major difference between a zoo and the wild is the absence of parasites and enemies and the abundance of food in the first, and their respective abundance and scarcity in the second. Think about it yourself. Would you rather be put up at the Ritz Hotel with free room service and unlimited access to a doctor or be homeless without a soul to care for you? But animals are incapable of such discernment. Within the limits of their nature, they make do with what they have.

  • 英文の翻訳をお願いいたします

    どなたか以下の英文を翻訳できる方が居ましたらぜひお願いいたします。 As this book seeks to demonstrate, the visual world and its producers, its users and its designers, are engaged in a heated debate over the status of design - who has ownership of it, who is qualified to do it, and how we receive and interpret it, It is in a period of evolution, and requires more developed and rigorous understanding. It may seem odd to say this , but whatever your view of the discussion in this chapter, it should ve clear that design is not simp;y a visual medium; it is a social and, as we have identified, a political one. It just happens to be most apparent visually in the messages sent to us by commerce, media and government, and the subtler but equally important messages we send each other in our everyday practices. Like an iceberg, 90 per cent of visual communication is hidden beneath the surface. And, just like an iceberg, it is the invisible 90 per cent that provides the raw power of visual communication. So, there we end this overview of some of the key ideas that are involved in the study and under standing of visual communication and its relationship with design. Undoubtedly, like some of the practitioners interviewed for the book, you will disagree with some of it. Hopefully some of it will have challenged your own positon on this subject.

  • 和訳お願い致します。

    Without, therefore, entertaining the question as to the connexion between Body and Mind, it is enough to say that under any view concerning the nature of this connexion, we are justified in drawing a distinction between activities which are accompanied by feelings, and activities which, so far as we can see, are not so accompanied. If this is allowed, there seems, to be no term better fitted to convey the distinction than the term Choice ; agents that are able to choose their actions are agents that are able to feel the stimuli which determine the choice. Such being our Criterion of Mind, it admits of being otherwise stated, and in a more practically applicable manner, in the following words which I quote from " Animal Intelli gence :" — " It is, then, adaptive action by a living organism in cases where the inherited machinery of the nervous system does not furnish data for our prevision of what the adaptive action must necessarily be — it is only here that we recognize the objective evidence of mind. The criterion of mind, therefore, which I propose, and to which I shall adhere throughout the present volume, is as follows : — Does the organism learn to make new adjustments, or to modify old ones, in accordance with the results of its own individual experience ? If it does so, the fact cannot be merely due to reflex action in the sense above described ; for it is impossible that heredity can have provided in advance for innovations upon or alterations of its machinery during the lifetime of a particular individual".