Download Universitetet i Oslo

UNIVERSITETET I OSLO
DET HUMANISTISKE FAKULTET
-------------------------------
Mappeoppgave II i
TRANS1110 - Oversettelsesteori- og metode
Vår 2007
Utlevering: Tirsdag 13. mars 2007
Innlevering: Tirsdag 20. mars 2007
Oppgavesettet er på 3 sider, forsiden medregnet.
Oppgavesettet består av to oppgaver som begge skal besvares
Sensur: <Dato 3 uker etter siste eksamensdag i emnet>
1
1. Avisen Vårt Land planlegger en serie artikler om profilerte
miljøforkjempere og de problemer de møter i sitt miljøpolitiske
arbeid. Oversett vedlagte artikkel Green talk but no green walk? som
én av disse artiklene for Vårt Land.
2. Redegjør for forskjellene mellom ekvivalensorientert og funksjonal
oversettelsesteori. Tolk deretter oversettelsesoppdraget i oppgave 1
ut fra hvert av de toeretiske ståsted og vis med eksempler fra denne
oversettelsen hvordan dette kan føre til forskjellige språklige valg i
målteksten.
Green talk but no green walk?
Al Gore is the latest green campaigner to be accused of being a hypocrite.
But would the world really be better off if he'd stayed home with the lights
off, asks Mark Lynas
Mark Lynas
Thursday March 1, 2007
Guardian
Hands up anyone who isn't a hypocrite. Come on, own up. Who out there actually lives by every one
of the principles they profess to uphold? And why has it suddenly gone so quiet? When it comes to
ourselves, it seems, we are quick to realise that life is full of grey areas and being pure and virtuous is
never as easy - nor even as desirable - as it might appear. That does not stop us sitting in judgment of
others, however, particularly those whose message we are unwilling to hear, and who, deep down, we
would dearly love to see exposed as two-faced and, well, hypocritical.
2
Hence Al Gore's "exposure" yesterday. "As the spokesman of choice for the global warming
movement, Al Gore has to be willing to walk the walk, not just talk the talk, when it comes to home
energy use," complained Drew Johnson of the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, highlighting
that Gore's mansion in Nashville uses 20 times as much energy as the average American household.
Yes, the TCPR is a right-wing anti-environmental lobby group. But even so, its barbs hit home.
The reason is simple: it is hard to trust someone who says one thing and does another. When I first
saw Gore's movie An Inconvenient Truth, several people in the audience were muttering darkly about
the irony of him taking so many flights to promote a message that would require people to, er, reduce
their flights. As someone who writes books and gives talks on climate change myself (both of which
occasionally require me to fly), I have noticed how people often delight in pointing to the contradictions
inherent in my own lifestyle. "Still jetting around the world to save us from climate change?" asked an
acquaintance snidely last week.
So why this obsession with hypocrisy? The motives of the rightwing campaign against Gore are
obvious: if the accusers can smear the man, then they can also undermine his message. Similar
campaigns have been run against London's mayor, Ken Livingstone - arguing that he uses too many
taxis, for example - in order to undermine his effectiveness as one of the only political leaders in the
world to show real vision and leadership on climate change. Likewise, the charges levelled against
Prince Charles for flying to the US with a large entourage to pick up an environmental award, as well
as knocking McDonald's while selling high-fat Duchy Originals pasties, foster the impression that the
Prince - and his green obsessions - are all a bit ridiculous.
At a deeper level, the effects of this blame game can be even more damaging. There is perhaps a
"chilling effect" to the hypocrisy witch-hunt, where prominent people who might support green causes
keep their mouths shut for fear of having their energy bills fished out of their bins at night by some
snooping tabloid hack. Each time a potential "green hero" is shot down in flames, we all feel that little
bit more cynical about politicians, leaders and society in general. Cynicism breeds selfishness and a
de facto acceptance of the status quo - no cynic ever led a movement for positive change. In this
sense, charging someone with hypocrisy serves to reinforce denial: "You're a hypocrite, so why should
I do what you tell me?" Or the more disempowering: "If even you can't do it, how can I?" The practical
outcome is that lightbulbs go unchanged, lofts uninsulated and bicycles unridden. And greenhouse
gas emissions continue to soar.
This denial response is also why, on the other hand, no one likes a greenie who is not a hypocrite.
Climate activists I know who do walk the walk (eschewing all flights, for example) look prim and
obsessive, as if they are out of touch with the concerns and pressures faced by ordinary people. It is
fine for BBC Newsnight's "ethical man" to be a tongue-in-cheek reporter, but if it is the head of
Greenpeace who is totally pure and virtuous, then that is seen as just annoying.
The charge of hypocrisy against environmentalists may also be illegitimate as well as irrelevant. In my
view, Gore was right to rack up thousands of air miles in his campaign to raise awareness of climate
change: the political shift he has helped to engineer, particularly in America, has been truly profound,
and is one of the few real causes for optimism on climate change today. If he had stayed at home in
Tennessee with the lights and heating off, wearing organic woolly jumpers and feeling generally good
about himself, we would have a lot further to travel in terms of awareness-raising than we do now.
Being a purist may be comforting, but it is unlikely to change the world.
3