영어번역사 -TCT1급2교시[사회과학]기출문제2
*******
******
********************************
영어번역사 TCT 1급 2교시 [사회과학] 기출문제2
※ 다음 3문제 중 1문제를 선택하여 한국어로 번역하시오. [50점]
[문제 2]
The state is a particular type of social organization and in so far as it has intelligible
meaning or function it is an agency of the community it regulates. Under all conditions
it is a logical confusion to identify the state with the community, with the people, the
nation, the country. The people engage in myriad activities, enter into myriad
relationships, that by no stretch of language can be called political. The people
display myriad differences of opinion, thought, morals, creed, and culture. The
government of the state may formally suppress them, but they are still there, no longer
in the state system. Unfortunately language abets the confusion of thought. The same
words―"United States," "England," "Germany"―denotes both the state and the nation-
community. We say indifferently, "the United States makes a treaty" and "The United
States is recovering from a depression." The first sentence refers to the state, the
second to the country. We speak of the "national" debt―it is the debt of the state, not
the country; it is in fact owed to the country. When we say that "Germany overthrew
the Weimar Republic," we mean that the people, or a part of the people, overthrew the
state, we do not mean that the state overthrew itself. As soon as we begin to think
about it we perceive that the state and the community are two different things, that the
state is not the community but the political organization of the community. The customs
of the people may conflict with the laws of the state. Men and women, as social
beings, are not merely citizens of states. They act in other relationships. Their
thoughts, their strivings, their fears and hopes, their beliefs, their affections and
interests, their family life, lie largely outside the scheme of government altogether. In
war or in grave crisis the state commandeers the community, demanding that the
citizens forget their other relationships, their other interests, but the cost is always
heavy. Only at an immense temporary sacrifice does the state even approach the
universal partnership that orators such as Edmund Burke have called it. Now what
democracy does is to establish through constitutional forms the principle that the
community is more inclusive than, greater than, the state. In many older forms of state,
in ancient empires, the distinction was implicit. The scheme of day life, the customs of
the people, remained almost untouched by government except for incursions by the
taxgatherer and the occasional disruptions of war.
출처: 에듀윌
[영어번역사][영어번역사자격증]
영어번역사 -TCT1급2교시[사회과학]기출문제3
영어번역사 TCT 1급 2교시 [사회과학] 기출문제3
※ 다음 3문제 중 1문제를 선택하여 한국어로 번역하시오. [50점]
[문제 3]
It seems to me that the most important fact about society is that it is composed of
individuals, is completely determined by them, and is completely describable in terms
of their activities. There is nothing else―no state or other sort of super-thing, as is
often assumed, particularly by those with a metaphysical bias in their thinking. For,
given a detailed description of the activities of all the individuals in a society, then one
has the material from which one may deduce everything that can be said about the
society. This proposition is often not understood. For one thing, it is sometimes felt
that the converse proposition ought to hold, and the converse proposition obviously
does not hold. Because if one is given everything that can be said about a society as
society, one is not thereby in a position to say everything that can be said about the
component individuals. "Society" is a word that applies only to certain aspects of an
aggregate of individuals. The proposition is also often misunderstood because it is
taken to imply that an individual in society displays no traits except those that could
have been inferred from his behavior in an environment in which there were no other
individuals. This, I believe, is a mistake. But the proposition that a society is the total
of its individual components has nothing to do with the proposition that in a society the
individual displays properties that could not have been inferred from his behavior in a
nonsocial environment. The individual is determined by his total environment, and
social environment counts just as much and possibly more than the impersonal
environment of "nature." In fact, acceptance of the proposition is by no means
inconsistent with the recognition, upon which modern psychologists so delight to
insist, that the most important factors in shaping the personality of the individual today
are social in origin. Insistence on the value of the individual seems to satisfy some
deep instinctive demand in the genius of our people and our tradition, and as such we
may be grateful for it. But the current philosophical arguments by which we seek to
justify the value which we thus place on the individual seem to me not sound, for they
often rest on a metaphysical basis or such religious considerations as that all human
souls were created by God and are of equal in His sight.
출처: 에듀윌
[영어번역사][영어번역사자격증]영어번역사 -TCT1급2교시[사회과학]기출문제3
영어번역사 TCT 1급 2교시 [사회과학] 기출문제3
※ 다음 3문제 중 1문제를 선택하여 한국어로 번역하시오. [50점]
[문제 3]
It seems to me that the most important fact about society is that it is composed of
individuals, is completely determined by them, and is completely describable in terms
of their activities. There is nothing else―no state or other sort of super-thing, as is
often assumed, particularly by those with a metaphysical bias in their thinking. For,
given a detailed description of the activities of all the individuals in a society, then one
has the material from which one may deduce everything that can be said about the
society. This proposition is often not understood. For one thing, it is sometimes felt
that the converse proposition ought to hold, and the converse proposition obviously
does not hold. Because if one is given everything that can be said about a society as
society, one is not thereby in a position to say everything that can be said about the
component individuals. "Society" is a word that applies only to certain aspects of an
aggregate of individuals. The proposition is also often misunderstood because it is
taken to imply that an individual in society displays no traits except those that could
have been inferred from his behavior in an environment in which there were no other
individuals. This, I believe, is a mistake. But the proposition that a society is the total
of its individual components has nothing to do with the proposition that in a society the
individual displays properties that could not have been inferred from his behavior in a
nonsocial environment. The individual is determined by his total environment, and
social environment counts just as much and possibly more than the impersonal
environment of "nature." In fact, acceptance of the proposition is by no means
inconsistent with the recognition, upon which modern psychologists so delight to
insist, that the most important factors in shaping the personality of the individual today
are social in origin. Insistence on the value of the individual seems to satisfy some
deep instinctive demand in the genius of our people and our tradition, and as such we
may be grateful for it. But the current philosophical arguments by which we seek to
justify the value which we thus place on the individual seem to me not sound, for they
often rest on a metaphysical basis or such religious considerations as that all human
souls were created by God and are of equal in His sight.
출처: 에듀윌
[영어번역사][영어번역사자격증]
