Appearance
Table of Contents
Text&Translation
A euphemism is commonly defined as an auspicious or exalted term (like "sanitation engineer")that is used in place of a more down-to-earth term (like"garbage man"). People who are partial to euphemisms stand accused of being"phony"or trying to hide what it is they are really talking about. And there is no doubt that in some situations the accusation is entirely proper. For example, one of the more detestable euphemisms I have come across in recent years is the term"Operation Sunshine", which is the name the U.S. Government gave to some experiments it conducted with the hydrogen bomb in the South Pacific. It is obvious that the government, in choosing this name, was trying to expunge the hideous imagery that the bomb evokes²and in so doing committed, as I see it, an immoral act. This sort of process—giving pretty names to essentially ugly realities— is what has given euphemizing such a bad name. And people like George Orwell³have done valuable work for all of us in calling attention to how the process works. But there is another side to euphemizing that is worth mentioning, and a few words here in its defense will not be amiss⁴.
委婉语，通常被定义为一种吉利或高尚的措辞（如“环卫工程师”），用来替代更为朴实的说法（如“垃圾工”）。那些偏爱使用委婉语的人被指责为“虚伪”或试图掩盖他们真正谈论的内容。毫无疑问，在某些情况下，这种指责完全是有道理的。例如，近年来我遇到的一个最令人厌恶的委婉语是“阳光行动”，这是美国政府对其在南太平洋进行的氢弹试验所起的代号。显然，政府在选择这个名称时，试图抹去氢弹所引发的可怕景象，在我看来，这种做法本身就是一种不道德的行为。这种将丑陋现实冠以美好名称的做法，正是委婉语臭名昭著的原因。像乔治·奥威尔这样的人，通过唤起人们对这种运作方式的关注，为我们所有人做出了宝贵的贡献。但是，委婉语还有值得一提的另一面，在此为其辩护几句也不为过。
To begin with, we must keep in mind that things do not have "real"names, although many people believe that they do. A garbage man is not "really"a"garbage man," any more than he is really a "sanitation engineer." And a pig is not called a"pig"because it is so dirty, nor a shrimp a "shrimp"because it is so small. There are things, and then there are the names of things, and it is considered a fundamental error in all branches of semantics to assume that a name and a thing are one and the same. It is true, of course, that a name is usually so firmly associated with the thing it denotes that it is extremely difficult to separate one from the other. That is why, for example, advertising is so effective. Perfumes are not given names like "Bronx Odor," and an automobile will never be called “The Lumbering Elephant." Shakespeare was only half right in saying that a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. What we call things affects how we will perceive them. It is not only harder to sell someone a "horse mackerel'"sandwich than a "tuna fish"sandwich, but even though they are the "same"thing, we are likely to enjoy the taste of tuna more than that of the horse mackerel. It would appear that human beings almost naturally come to identify names with things, which is one of our more fascinating illusions. But there is some substance to this illusion. For if you change the names of things, you change how people will regard them, and that is as good as changing the nature of the thing itself.
首先，我们必须牢记，事物并没有“真实”的名称，尽管许多人认为它们有。一个垃圾工并非“真的”就是“垃圾工”，正如他并非真的就是“环卫工程师”一样。猪之所以被称为“猪”，并不是因为它很脏；虾之所以被称为“虾”，也不是因为它很小。事物存在，然后才有事物的名称，而在语义学的各个分支中，将名称和事物混为一谈被认为是一个根本性的错误。当然，一个名称通常与其所指代的事物紧密相连，以至于很难将两者分开，这也是广告之所以如此有效的原因。香水不会被命名为“布朗克斯气味”，汽车也永远不会被称为“笨拙的大象”。莎士比亚说玫瑰换个名字也一样芬芳，这话只说对了一半。我们如何称呼事物会影响我们对事物的感知。将“竹荚鱼”三明治卖给别人不仅比“金枪鱼”三明治更难，而且即使它们是“同一”事物，我们可能也会觉得金枪鱼的味道比竹荚鱼更好。人类似乎很自然地会将名称与事物联系起来，这是我们最迷人的错觉之一。但是这种错觉也有一定的道理。因为如果你改变事物的名称，你就会改变人们看待它们的方式，这就如同改变了事物本身的性质。
Now, all sorts of scoundrels know this perfectly well and can make us love almost anything by getting us to transfer the charm of a name to whatever worthless thing they are promoting. But at the same time and in the same vein⁹, euphemizing is a perfectly ntelligent method of generating new and useful ways of perceiving things. The man who wants us to call him a "sanitation engineer" instead of a“garbage man” is hoping we will treat him with more respect than we presently do. He wants us to see that he is of some importance to our society. His euphemism is laughable only if we think that he is not deserving of such notice or respect¹⁰. The teacher who prefers us to use the term“culturally different children" instead of"slum children" is euphemizing, all right", but is doing it to encourage us to see aspects of a situation that might otherwise not be attended to².
如今，各种各样的恶棍都深谙此道，他们可以让我们喜欢上几乎任何东西，只要他们能让我们将一个好名字的魅力转移到他们所推销的任何毫无价值的东西上。但与此同时，同样道理，委婉语也是一种非常明智的方法，可以产生新的、有用的看待事物的方式。一个人希望我们称他为“环卫工程师”而不是“垃圾工”，是希望我们能比现在更加尊重他。他希望我们认识到他对社会的重要性。只有当我们认为他不值得如此关注或尊重时，他的委婉语才会显得可笑。一位老师更喜欢我们使用“文化差异儿童”而不是“贫民窟儿童”这样的说法，诚然，这是在使用委婉语，但他这样做是为了鼓励我们看到一些原本可能不会被注意到的情况。
The point I am making is that there is nothing in the process of euphemizing itself that is contemptible. Euphemizing is contemptible when a name makes us see something that is not true or diverts our attention from something that is. The hydrogen bomb kills. There is nothing else that it does. And when you experiment with it, you are trying to find out how widely and well it kills. Therefore, to call such an experiment "Operation Sunshine" is to suggest a purpose for the bomb that simply does not exist. But to call"slum children""culturally different" is something else. It calls attention, for example, to legitimate reasons why such children might feel alienated from what goes on in school i grant that sometimes such euphemizing does not have the intended effect. It is possible for a teacher to use the term "culturally different" but still be controlled by the term"slum children"s(which the teacher may believe is their"real"name)."Old people" may be called“senior citizens'”, and nothing might change. And“lunatic asylums'”may still be filthy, primitive prisons though they are called "mental institutions". Nonetheless, euphemizing may be regarded as one of our more important intellectual resources for creating new perspectives on a subject.
我想说的是，委婉语本身并没有什么可鄙之处。当一个名字让我们看到不真实的东西或转移我们对真实东西的注意力时，委婉语才是可鄙的。氢弹会杀人，这是它唯一的作用。当你进行氢弹试验时，你是在试图找出它杀伤的范围和威力。因此，将这种试验称为“阳光行动”是暗示了氢弹的一个根本不存在的目的。但是把“贫民窟儿童”称为“文化差异儿童”则是另一回事。例如，它提醒人们注意为什么这些孩子可能会对学校里发生的事情感到疏离的一些正当理由，我承认有时这种委婉的说法并没有达到预期的效果。一个老师可能会使用“文化差异”这个词，但仍然受“贫民窟儿童”这个词的支配（老师可能认为这是他们的“真实”名字）。“老年人”可以被称为“银发族”，但一切可能都不会改变。“疯人院”即使被称为“精神病院”，也可能仍然是肮脏、原始的监狱。尽管如此，委婉语可以被视为我们创造新的视角的重要智力资源之一。
The attempt to rename "old people""senior citizens" was obviously motivated by a desire to give them a political identity, which they not only warrant" but which may yet have important consequences. In fact, the fate of euphemisms is very hard to predict. A new and seemingly silly name may replace an old one (let us say, "chairperson" for"chairman") and for years no one will think or act any differently because of it. And then, gradually, as people begin to assume that"chairperson" is the“real' and proper name(or“senior citizen” or“"tuna fish'or“sanitation engineer'"), their attitudes begin to shift, and they will approach things in a slightly different frame of mind. There is a danger, of course, in supposing that a new name can change attitudes quickly or always. There must be some authentic tendency or drift in the culture to lend support to the change, or the name will remain incongruous and may even appear ridiculous. To call a teacher a"facilitator" would be such an example. To eliminate the distinction between"boys"and"girls"by calling them"childpersons" would be another.
将“老年人”改称为“银发族”的尝试，显然是出于赋予他们政治身份的愿望，这不仅是他们应得的，而且还可能产生重要的后果。事实上，委婉语的命运很难预测。一个新的、看似愚蠢的名字可能会取代旧的名字（例如，用“chairperson”代替“chairman”），并且多年来没有人会因此而有任何不同的想法或行为。然后，逐渐地，当人们开始认为“chairperson”是“真实”和恰当的名字（或“银发族”、“金枪鱼”或“环卫工程师”）时，他们的态度开始转变，他们会以一种略微不同的心态来看待事物。当然，认为一个新名字可以快速或始终改变人们的态度是危险的。文化中必须存在某种真实的趋势或潮流来支持这种变化，否则这个名字将保持不协调，甚至可能显得荒谬。把老师称为“协调员”就是一个例子。通过称呼“男孩”和“女孩”为“儿童人”来消除他们之间的区别则是另一个例子。
But to suppose that such changes never "amount to anything" is to underestimate the power of names. I have been astounded not only by how rapidly the name "blacks" has replaced "Negroes"(a kind of euphemizing in reverse") but also by how significantly perceptions and attitudes have shifted as an accompaniment to the change.
但是，如果认为这种改变永远“不会有任何意义”，那就低估了名字的力量。我感到惊讶的是，“黑人”这个名字不仅迅速取代了“黑鬼”（一种反向的委婉语），而且人们的观念和态度也随着这种变化发生了重大转变。
The key idea here is that euphemisms are a means through which a culture may alter its imagery and by so doing subtly change its style, its priorities, and its values². I reject categorically the idea that people who use"earthy"language² are speaking more directly or with more authenticity than people who employ euphemisms. Saying that someone is "dead"is not to speak more plainly or honestly than saying he has "passed away." It is, rather, to suggest a different conception of what the event means. To ask where the"shithouse"is, is no more to the point than to ask where the "restroom"is. But in the difference between the two words, there is expressed a vast difference in one's attitude toward privacy and propriety. What I am saying is that the process of euphemizing has no moral content. The moral dimensions²⁴ are supplied by what the words in question express, what they want us to value and to see. A nation that calls experiments with bombs “Operation Sunshine" is very frightening. On the other hand, a people who call“garbage men”"sanitation engineers" can't be all bad.
这里的关键思想是，委婉语是一种手段，通过这种手段，一种文化可以改变其意象，从而巧妙地改变其风格、优先事项和价值观。我断然拒绝这样一种观点，即使用“朴实”语言的人比使用委婉语的人说话更直接或更真实。说某人“死了”并不比说他“去世了”更直白或更诚实。相反，这是暗示对该事件含义的不同理解。问“茅房”在哪里，并不比问“洗手间”在哪里更切中要害。但是在这两个词之间的差异中，表达了一个人对隐私和礼仪态度的巨大差异。我想说的是，委婉语的过程没有道德内涵。道德维度是由相关词语所表达的内容、它们希望我们重视和看到的内容所提供的。一个将炸弹试验称为“阳光行动”的国家是非常可怕的。另一方面，一个称“垃圾工”为“环卫工程师”的民族也不会坏到哪里去。
Summary
This article delves into the multifaceted nature of euphemisms, challenging the common perception of them as mere tools for deception or obfuscation. While acknowledging that euphemisms can be misused, as in the case of "Operation Sunshine" masking the destructive nature of hydrogen bomb experiments, the author argues for a more nuanced understanding. The central thesis is that euphemisms are not inherently good or bad; their moral value depends on the context and intent behind their use. The author contends that names and things are not intrinsically linked, and altering language can reshape perceptions and even the nature of the thing itself. This power can be harnessed for manipulation, but it can also serve as a catalyst for positive change by introducing new perspectives and values. The article concludes that the process of euphemizing is morally neutral, with its ethical implications derived from the underlying message and the values it promotes.
这篇文章深入探讨了委婉语的多面性，挑战了人们通常认为委婉语仅仅是欺骗或混淆视听的工具的看法。虽然承认委婉语可能被滥用，例如用“阳光行动”来掩盖氢弹试验的破坏性，但作者主张更细致入微的理解。文章的核心论点是，委婉语本身无所谓好坏，其道德价值取决于其使用的背景和意图。作者认为，名称和事物之间没有内在联系，改变语言可以重塑观念，甚至改变事物本身的性质。这种力量可以被用来操纵，但也可以通过引入新的视角和价值观来充当积极变革的催化剂。文章的结论是，委婉语的过程本身在道德上是中性的，其伦理含义源于其所传达的潜在信息和其所倡导的价值观。
Analysis
"A euphemism is commonly defined as an auspicious or exalted term (like "sanitation engineer") that is used in place of a more down-to-earth term (like "garbage man")."
中文解释： 这句话定义了委婉语，它是一种用吉祥或高尚的术语（如“sanitation engineer”环卫工程师）来代替更通俗易懂的术语（如“garbage man”垃圾工）的表达方式。这句话的复杂性在于其对比结构，“auspicious or exalted”与“down-to-earth”形成对比，突出了委婉语提升或美化原意的作用。“auspicious”和“exalted”通常带有积极的宗教或精神内涵，而“down-to-earth”则强调实际和朴实。通过将“sanitation engineer”和“garbage man”作为例子，作者说明了委婉语如何通过将日常工作与更受尊敬的概念联系起来来提升其社会地位。这个句子理解起来的难点在于需要理解“auspicious”、“exalted”和“down-to-earth”这些词汇的精确含义和它们之间的对比关系。
"It is obvious that the government, in choosing this name, was trying to expunge the hideous imagery that the bomb evokes and in so doing committed, as I see it, an immoral act."
中文解释： 这句话指出，政府选择“阳光行动”这个名称，显然是为了消除氢弹引发的可怕形象，而在我看来，这样做是不道德的行为。这句话的复杂性在于它对政府动机的批判以及嵌套的观点表达。“expunge”是一个强有力的动词，表示彻底清除或抹去，暗示政府试图掩盖氢弹的真实破坏力。“hideous imagery”指的是氢弹带来的毁灭和死亡的恐怖画面。“in so doing”表明作者认为试图掩盖事实的行为本身就是不道德的。“as I see it”是一个插入语，表明这是作者的个人观点，增强了批判的力度。理解这句话的难点在于理解“expunge”这个词的强烈含义，以及作者对政府试图掩盖事实行为的道德批判。
"There are things, and then there are the names of things, and it is considered a fundamental error in all branches of semantics to assume that a name and a thing are one and the same."
中文解释： 这句话阐述了事物与其名称之间的区别，并指出在语义学的所有分支中，将名称和事物混为一体是一个根本性的错误。这句话的抽象性在于它讨论的是一个哲学概念，即名称与事物之间的关系。它强调了名称的独立性，即名称只是用来指代事物的符号，而不是事物本身。 “fundamental error in all branches of semantics”强调了这种区别的重要性，并表明这是一个被广泛接受的语言学原则。理解这句话的难点在于把握名称与事物之间关系的抽象概念，以及理解其在语义学中的重要性。
"Perfumes are not given names like 'Bronx Odor,' and an automobile will never be called 'The Lumbering Elephant.'"
中文解释： 这句话用了两个生动的例子来说明人们通常不会用与产品形象相悖的名称来命名产品。这句话的复杂性在于它使用了反面例子和比喻。“Bronx Odor”是一个虚构的香水名称，它将“Bronx”这个地名与“Odor”这个通常带有负面含义的词（气味）联系起来，暗示这款香水气味难闻。 “The Lumbering Elephant”是一个汽车名称，它将汽车比作笨重的大象，暗示这款汽车笨拙、缓慢。这两个例子都利用了人们对词汇的联想来创造幽默效果，并强调了名称选择的重要性。理解这句话的难点在于理解这两个例子背后的反差和比喻意义。
"The man who wants us to call him a 'sanitation engineer' instead of a 'garbage man' is hoping we will treat him with more respect than we presently do. He wants us to see that he is of some importance to our society. His euphemism is laughable only if we think that he is not deserving of such notice or respect."
中文解释： 这句话分析了“sanitation engineer”这个委婉语背后的动机，即希望通过改变称呼来获得更多的尊重和社会认可。这句话的复杂性在于它深入探讨了人们的心理和社会期望。“sanitation engineer”这个委婉语试图通过将工作与工程领域联系起来，提升其专业性和重要性。 “He wants us to see that he is of some importance to our society”表明，这个人希望通过改变称呼来改变人们对他的看法，让他觉得自己对社会有贡献。最后一句“His euphemism is laughable only if we think that he is not deserving of such notice or respect”指出，委婉语是否可笑取决于我们是否认为这个人值得这样的关注和尊重，从而将问题引向了社会对不同职业的价值判断。理解这句话的难点在于理解委婉语背后隐藏的社会期望和人们对职业的价值判断。
"A nation that calls experiments with bombs 'Operation Sunshine' is very frightening. On the other hand, a people who call 'garbage men' 'sanitation engineers' can't be all bad."
中文解释： 这句话通过对比两个例子，说明了委婉语的滥用和合理使用之间的区别，并暗示了语言背后反映出的价值观。这句话的复杂性在于它使用了对比和反语。“A nation that calls experiments with bombs 'Operation Sunshine' is very frightening”这句话直接批判了用美好词汇掩盖暴力行为的做法，暗示了这个国家的危险性。 “On the other hand”引出了对比， “a people who call 'garbage men' 'sanitation engineers' can't be all bad”这句话使用了反语，表面上是在说一个称呼“垃圾工”为“环卫工程师”的民族“坏不到哪里去”，实际上是在暗示这个民族可能更注重社会和谐和尊重。通过对比，作者强调了委婉语的道德价值取决于其使用的语境和目的。理解这句话的难点在于理解“can't be all bad”这句话中的反语含义，以及理解作者通过对比想要表达的深层含义。