• ベストアンサー
  • 困ってます

英文と日本語訳があります。和訳は正しいですか?

Japanese in mixed groups often appear as if they have nothing to say and as a result, Americans end up dominating the conversation. Part of the reason, of course, is that discussions in such groups are usually conducted in English, the native language of Americans. 和訳 「そのような会合の場で 日本人は、何も話すことが無いように見える (ほとんど発言をしない)ので、 アメリカ人たちが話の中心になってしまう。 このような事が起こるのは、そうした会合での話し合いが もっぱらアメリカ人たちの母語である(U.S. の国語である)英語で 進められるのが当たり前になっていることが原因の一部であるのは 言うまでもない。」

共感・応援の気持ちを伝えよう!

  • 回答数2
  • 閲覧数157
  • ありがとう数1

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
  • Nakay702
  • ベストアンサー率81% (8146/10049)

>本日英文翻訳の質問を投稿させて頂くのですが、回答いただければ幸いです。 ⇒以下のとおりお答えします。翻訳調が消えて、かなり日本語らしい表現の訳文になっているように(ただし、幾分「補いすぎ」のところがあるように)思います。 >Japanese in mixed groups often appear as if they have nothing to say and as a result, Americans end up dominating the conversation. Part of the reason, of course, is that discussions in such groups are usually conducted in English, the native language of Americans. >「そのような会合の場で日本人は、何も話すことが無いように見える(ほとんど発言をしない)ので、アメリカ人たちが話の中心になってしまう。このような事が起こるのは、そうした会合での話し合いがもっぱらアメリカ人たちの母語である(U.S.の国語である)英語で進められるのが当たり前になっていることが原因の一部であるのは言うまでもない。」 ★Japanese in mixed groups ~:「(文化的に)混合した人々の会合では、日本人は~」。お訳の「そのような会合の場で」は先行文を想定した場合で、ここに与えられた文章(のみ)からは「そのような」は出てきませんね。カッコつきの前句をつけるなら、むしろ(文化的に)混合した人々の」くらいが適切かも知れません。 ★often appear as if they have nothing to say:「(日本人は)しばしば話すことが何も無いように見える(ので)」。確かに、結果として「ほとんど発言をしない」でしょうが、それは読む人の推測にまかせられる部分でしょう。(つまり、不要と思います。) ★as a result:「結果として、結果的に」。訳文に入れましょう。 ★Americans end up dominating the conversation:「アメリカ人が主導・牛耳るすることになる」。end upのニュアンスは、「(主導する)ことになってしまう」でしょうね。「中心になってしまう」だと、微妙に逸れた観が否めません。 ★Part of the reason, of course, is that ~:「~が原因の一部である、ということは言うまでもない」。この部分のお訳は素晴らしいと思います。 ★discussions in such groups are usually conducted in English:「そうした会合での討論は、通常、(アメリカ人の母語である)英語で行われる」。次項で言うべきことかも知れませんが、「(U.S.の国語である)」は不要と思います。 ★the native language of Americans:「アメリカ人の母語である英語」。ほとんどお訳のままですが、「アメリカ人たち」とする(「たち」を入れる)必要はないでしょう。英語では、2人以上なら必ず複数形を使わなければなりませんが、日本語では強いて複数であることを示す必要がある場合にのみ「たち」をつければいいのですから。ここで大事なことは、「(日本人でなく)アメリカ人が」という「区分」だと思います。 ⇒「(文化的に)混合した人々の会合では、日本人はしばしば話すことが何も無いように見えますので、結果的にアメリカ人が主導することになってしまうのです。そうした会合での討論は、通常、アメリカ人の母語である英語で行われることが原因の一部である、ということは言うまでもありません。」

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

質問者からのお礼

回答ありがとうございました。

その他の回答 (1)

  • 回答No.1

異なるグループにおいて、日本人達は発言することが何もないように見えるため、結局アメリカ人が会話で優位を占めるようになってしまう。 もちろん、理由の一つはそうしたグループでの議論がアメリカ人のネイティブ言語である英語で行われていることだ。 --------------------------- of course を、「言うまでもない」と訳すのはうまいですね。

共感・感謝の気持ちを伝えよう!

関連するQ&A

  • 英文とその訳があります。訳は正しいですか?

    Japanese in mixed groups often appear as if they have nothing to say and as a result, Americans end up dominating the conversation. Part of the reason, of course, is that discussions in such groups are usually conducted in English, the native language of Americans. 和訳 色々な人が混ざったグループ内での日本人はしばしば、あたかも何も言うことはないように見えるので、その結果、アメリカ人が会話を独占することになります。勿論理由の一つは、通常そうしたグループ内でのディスカッションが、アメリカ人の母国語である英語で行われるということです

  • 英文と日本語訳があります。和訳は正しいですか?

    Americans therefore value promptness. One is expected to arrive a few minutes before an official appointment AND expected to leave prompty at the end of the appointment. During the appointment, both sides are expected to get down the reason American business appointments are shorter. Daily office calendars are usually split up into 15-minute units. Anyone needing more time, say 30 minutes, asks for double time in advance. 日本語訳 よってアメリカ人は迅速性を尊重します。正式なアポイントメントの2,3分前に到着し、そしてアポイントメントが終われば速やかに去るものと思っています。アポイントメントの間で両方が、アメリカ式ビジネスアポイントメントがより短くなるために本題に入ることが求められていると思っています。日々のオフィス用カレンダーはたいてい15分単位に分けられています。もっと時間がほしい人、例えば30分ほしい人は前もって2倍の時間を要求します。

  • 英文と日本語訳があります。日本語訳は正しいですか?

    Americans therefore value promptness. One is expected to arrive a few minutes before an official appointment AND expected to leave prompty at the end of the appointment. During the appointment, both sides are expected to get down the reason American business appointments are shorter. Daily office calendars are usually split up into 15-minute units. Anyone needing more time, say 30 minutes, asks for double time in advance. 日本語訳 よってアメリカ人は迅速性を尊重します。正式なアポイントメントの2, 3分前に到着し、「そしてまた」、アポイントメントが終わればさっさと立ち去るものと思われています。アポイントメントの間は、両者ともアメリカのビジネスアポイントメントがなぜ(時間的により)短かいのかを飲み込んで(*理解して)いることが期待されています 。日常の事務用カレンダーは、通常15分ずつの単位に分けられています。もっと長い時間、例えば30分が必要な人は、前もって2倍分の時間を要求します。

  • 英文と日本語訳があります。和訳は正しいですか?

    Finally, the whole ceremony surrouding the exchange of business cards and the small talk that follow s seems a waste of time. Americans have been known to hand out business cards like playing cards to hte Japanese they meet, or even place them in a stack for people to pick up. Westerners also want to dispense with the small talk as soon as possible and "get down to business" so as not to waste their own time or that of the other party. 日本語訳 最後に、名刺交換や名刺交換後の雑談をめぐる儀式は、全て時間の無駄に見える。アメリカ人は、面会する日本人に対して自分の名刺をトランプのカードのように配ったり、人々が一枚ずつ取っていくように積み重ねてある束いうようなことまですると知られている。西洋の人々は、雑談もできるだけ早く切り上げて「本題に入り」、自分の時間も相手の時間も無駄にしないようにしたいと思う。

  • 英文と日本語訳があります。翻訳は正しいですか?

    Americans who are in important positions would not make a big fuss about where they sit in a car for another reason. Americans strongly believe in equality as an ideal. Someone who is of high statues is expected to minimize his own importance. The people around him are also expected not to make too much of a fuss over him. An important person who is nice to the "little guy" is respected. 日本語訳 重要な地位にあるアメリカ人は、別の理由もあって車内でどこに座るかについて大げさに騒ぐようなことはしないでしょう。アメリカ人は、理想としての平等を強く信じています。高い地位にいる人は、自身の重要度を抑えた振る舞いをすることが期待されるのです。彼の周りの人たちもまた、彼のことで大騒ぎしないことが望まれます。「平凡な人」に印象の良い重要人物が尊敬されるのです。

  • 英文と和訳があります。和訳は正しいですか?

    Years ago, I conducted an intercultural workshop which had an equal number of Americans and Japanese in the group. One of the first things I did was to ask the Americans to count to five before they said something. Whenever an American started to respond immediately to another member of the group, I held up my hand and began to count slowly to five. Much to my own surprise, usually one of the Japanese members would start speaking cautiously during those five seconds. 英文和訳 何年も前、私は同じ数のアメリカ人と日本人が参加した 異文化コミュニケーション・ワークショップ を実施しました。最初に私がしたことの一つは、アメリカ人に対して、何か言う前に5つ数えるよう頼むことでした。一人のアメリカ人がグループの他のメンバーに即座に反応し始めた時には、私は常に手を挙げてゆっくりと5つ数え始めました。自分自身とても驚いたことに、大抵の場合日本人メンバーの一人が、こうして数えている5秒の間にに恐る恐る話し始めたのです。

  • 英文和訳

    When a cloud of toxic gas escaped from a U.S. factory in Bhopal,India,in 1984,killing thousands of people,Americans said it couldn't happen at home. という文で、 When a cloud of toxic gas escaped from a U.S. factory in Bhopal,India,in 1984, の部分は、 「1984年にインドのボパールにあるアメリカの工場で毒ガスの煙が流出した時、」 と訳せたのですが、残りの部分とどうもうまくつながりません。 自分では、 killing thousands of people, 「何千という人々を殺して、」 Americans said it couldn't happen at home. 「アメリカ人は本国で起こることができなかったと言った」 となりました。 どなたかアドバイスお願いします。

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    This caused controversy among other Kurdish nationalists, as it excluded the Van region (possibly as a sop to Armenian claims to that region). Emin Ali Bedir Khan proposed an alternative map which included Van and an outlet to the sea via Turkey's present Hatay Province. Amid a joint declaration by Kurdish and Armenian delegations, Kurdish claims on Erzurum vilayet and Sassoun (Sason) were dropped but arguments for sovereignty over Ağrı and Muş remained. Neither of these proposals was endorsed by the treaty of Sèvres, which outlined a truncated Kurdistan, located on what is now Turkish territory (leaving out the Kurds of Iran, British-controlled Iraq and French-controlled Syria). However, even that plan was never implemented as the Treaty of Sèvres was replaced by the Treaty of Lausanne. The current Iraq–Turkey border was agreed in July 1926. Also article 63 grants explicitly full safeguard and protection to the Assyro-Chaldean minority. This reference was later dropped in the Treaty of Lausanne. Armenia was recognized as an established state by the signed parties. (Section VI "Armenia", articles 88-93). See also: Wilsonian Armenia and First Republic of Armenia British Mandate of Iraq Main article: Mandatory Iraq The details as reflected in the treaty regarding the British Mandate of Iraq were completed on 25 April 1920 at the San Remo conference. Oil concession in this region was given to the British-controlled Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC) which had held concessionary rights to the Mosul Vilayet (province). With elimination of the Ottoman Empire with this treaty, British and Iraqi negotiators held acrimonious discussions over the new oil concession. The League of Nations voted on the disposition of Mosul, and the Iraqis feared that, without British support, Iraq would lose the area. In March 1925, the TPC was renamed the "Iraq Petroleum Company" (IPC), and granted a full and complete concession for a period of 75 years. The three principles of the British Balfour Declaration regarding Palestine were adopted in the Treaty of Sèvres: ARTICLE 95: The High Contracting Parties agree to entrust, by application of the provisions of Article 22, the administration of Palestine, within such boundaries as may be determined by the Principal Allied Powers, to a Mandatory to be selected by the said Powers. The Mandatory will be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on 2 November 1917 by the British Government, and adopted by the other Allied Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    Preparations for operations in Flanders began in 1915, with the doubling of the Hazebrouck–Ypres rail line and the building of a new line from Bergues–Proven which was doubled in early 1917. Progress on roads, rail lines, railheads and spurs in the Second Army zone was continuous and by mid-1917, gave the area the most efficient supply system of the BEF. Several plans and memoranda for a Flanders offensive were produced between January 1916 and May 1917, in which the writers tried to relate the offensive resources available to the terrain and the likely German defence. In early 1916, the importance of the capture of the Gheluvelt plateau for an advance further north was emphasised by Haig and the army commanders. On 14 February 1917, Colonel C. N. Macmullen of GHQ proposed that the plateau be taken by a mass tank attack, reducing the need for artillery; in April a reconnaissance by Captain G. le Q Martel found that the area was unsuitable for tanks. On 9 February, General Rawlinson, commander of the Fourth Army, suggested that Messines Ridge could be taken in one day and that the capture of the Gheluvelt plateau should be fundamental to the attack further north. He suggested that the southern attack from St. Yves to Mont Sorrel should come first and that Mont Sorrel to Steenstraat should be attacked within 48–72 hours. After discussions with Rawlinson and Plumer and the incorporation of Haig's changes, Macmullen submitted his memorandum on 14 February. With amendments the memorandum became the GHQ 1917 plan. A week after the Battle of Messines Ridge, Haig gave his objectives to his Army commanders: wearing out the enemy, securing the Belgian coast and connecting with the Dutch frontier by the capture of Passchendaele ridge, followed by an advance on Roulers and Operation Hush, an attack along the coast with an amphibious landing. If manpower and artillery were insufficient, only the first part of the plan might be fulfilled. On 30 April, Haig told Gough the Fifth Army commander, that he would lead the "Northern Operation" and the coastal force, although Cabinet approval for the offensive was not granted until 21 June.

  • 英文を日本語訳して下さい。

    Behind the Flandern I Stellung were the Flandern II Stellung and the Flandern III Stellung (still under construction). In his Operation Order of 27 June to the Fifth Army corps commanders, Gough gave the green line (third objective) as the main objective. Advances towards the red line, (fourth objective) were to be made by patrols of fresh troops, to take vacant ground that was tactically valuable, exploiting any German disorganisation in the first 24 hours. The Fifth Army plan was more ambitious than Plumer's version, which had involved a shallower advance of 1,000–1,750 yards (910–1,600 m) on the first day. Major-General John Davidson, Director of Operations at General Headquarters expressed concern that there was "ambiguity as to what was meant by a step-by-step attack with limited objectives". Davidson suggested reverting to an advance of no more than 1,500–3,000 yards (1,400–2,700 m), to increase the concentration of British artillery. Gough's reply stressed the need to plan for opportunities to take ground left temporarily undefended and that this was more likely in the first attack, that would have the benefit of a longer period of preparation. After discussions at the end of June, Haig endorsed the Fifth Army plan, as did Plumer the Second Army commander. The front held by the French extended 4.3 miles (7 km) from Boesinghe (Boezinge) to the north of Nordschoote (Noordschote), the ground to the north being a morass created by the Belgians, when they flooded the area during the Battle of the Yser in 1914. A paved road between Reninghe, Nordschoote and Drie Grachten ran on a bank just above the water level. Into the inundations ran the Kemmelbeek, Yperlee (Yser Canal) and Martjevaart. Between Nordschoote and the Maison du Passeur pillbox, the opposing lines were separated by a wide stretch of ground, which was mostly flooded. At the Maison du Passeur there was a French outpost on the east side of the Yperlee, connected with the west bank by a footbridge. From this point to Steenstraat, no man's land was about 200–300 yards (180–270 m) wide. From Boesinghe to Steenstraat the Yperlee running from Ypres, formed the front line.