韩素音英文翻译

It’s Time to Rethink ‘Temporary’

We tend to view architecture as permanent, as aspiring to the sta tus of monuments. And that kind of architecture has its place. But so does architecture of a different sort. For most of the first decade of the 2000s, architecture was about the statement building. Whether it was a controversial memorial or an impossibly luxurious condo towe r, architecture’s raison d’être was to make a lasting impression. A rchitecture has always been synonymous with permanence, but should it be?

In the last few years, the opposite may be true. Architectural bi llings are at an all-time low. Major commissions are few and far betw een. The architecture that’s been making news is fast and fleeting: pop-up shops, food carts, marketplaces, performance spaces. And while many manifestations of the genre have jumped the shark (i.e., a Toys R Us pop-up shop), there is undeniable opportunity in the temporary: it is an apt response to a civilization in flux. And l ike many prevailing trends — collaborat ive consumption (a.k.a., “sh aring”), community gardens, barter and trade —“temporary” is so retro that it’s become radical.

In November, I had the pleasure of moderating Motopia, a panel at University of Southern California’s School of Architecture, with Ro bert Kronenburg, an architect, professor at University of Liverpool a nd portable/temporary/mobile guru. Author of a shelf full of books on

the topic, including “Flexible: Architecture that Responds to Chang e,” “Portable Architecture: Design and Technology” and “Houses in Motion: The Genesis,” Kronenburg is a man obsessed.

Mobility has an innate potency, Kronenburg believes. Movable envi ronments are more dynamic than static ones, so why should architectur e be so static? The idea that perhaps all buildings shouldn’t aspire to permanence represents a huge shift for architecture. Without that burden, architects, designers, builders and developers can take advan tage of and implement current technologies faster. Architecture could be reusable, recyclable and sustainable. Recast in this way, it coul d better solve seemingly unsolvable problems. And still succeed in cr eating a sense of place.

In his presentation, Kronenburg offered examples of how portable, temporary architecture has been used in every aspect of human activi ty, including health care (from Florence Nightingale’s redesigned ho spitals to the Airstream trailers used as mobile medical clinics duri ng the Kennedy Administration), housing (from yurts to tents to archi tect Shigeru Ban’s post-earthquake paper houses), culture and commer ce (stage sets and Great Exhibition buildings, centuries-old Bouqinis tes along the Seine, mobile food, art and music venues offering every thing from the recording of stories to tasty crème brulees.) Kronenburg made a compelling argument that the experimentation in herent in such structures challenges preconceived notions about what

buildings can and should be. The strategy of temporality, he explaine d, “adapts to unpredictable demands, provides more for less, and enc ourages innovat ion.” And he stressed that it’s time for end-users, designers, architects, manufacturers and construction firms to rethin k their attitude toward temporary, portable and mobile architecture.

This is as true for development and city planning as it is for ar chitecture.

City-making may have happened all at once at the desks of master planners like Daniel Burnham or Robert Moses, but that’s really not the way things happen today. No single master plan can anticipate the evolving and varied needs of an increasingly

diverse population or achieve the resiliency, responsiveness and flexibility that shorter-term, experimental endeavors can. Which is n ot to say long-term planning doesn’t have its place. The two work we ll hand in hand. Mike Lydon, founding

principal of The Street Plans Collaborative, argues for injecting spontaneity into urban development, and sees these temporary interve ntions (what he calls “tactical urbanism”) as short-term actions to effect long-term change.

Though there’s been tremendous media atten tion given to quick an d cheap

projects like San Francisco’s Pavement to Parks and New York’s “gutter cafes,” Lydon sees something bigger than fodder for the sty le section. “A lot of these things were not just fun and cool,” he says. “It was not just a bott om-up effort. It’s not D.I.Y. urbanism. It’s a continuum of ideas, techniques and tactics being employed at all different scales.”

“We’re seeing a lot of these things emerge for three reasons,”Lydon continues. “One, the economy. People have to be more cre ative about getting things done. Two, the Internet. Even four or five years ago we couldn’t share tactics and techniques via YouTube or Faceboo k. Something can happen randomly in Dallas and now we can hear about it right away. This is feeding into this idea of growth, of bi-coasta l

competition between New York and San Francisco, say, about who do es the cooler, better things. And three, demographic shifts. Urban ne ighborhoods are gentrifying, changing. They’re bringing in people lo oking to improve neighborhoods themselves. People are smart and engag ed and working a 40-hour week. But they have enough spare time to get involved and this seems like a natural step.”

Lydon isn’t advocating an end to planning but encourages more sh ort-term doing, experimenting, testing (which can be a far more satis fying alternative to waiting for projects to pass). While this may no t directly change existing codes or zoning

regulations, that’s O.K. because, as Lydon explains, the practic es employed “shine a direct light on old ways of thinking, old polic ies that are in place.”

The Dallas group Build a Better Block — which quickly leapt from a tiny

grass-roots collective to an active partner in city endeavors —has demonstrated that when you expose weaknesses, change happens. If their temporary interventions

violate existing codes, Build a Better Block just paints a sign i nforming passers-by of that fact. They have altered regulations in th is fashion. Sometimes — not always — bureaucracy gets out of the wa y and allows for real change to happen.

Testing things out can also help developers chart the right cours e for their projects. Says Lydon, “A developer can really learn what’s working in the neighborhood from a marketplace perspective — it co uld really inform or change their plans. Hopefully they can ingratiat e themselves with the neighborhood and build community. There is real potential if the developers are really looking to do that.”

And they are. Brooklyn’s De Kalb Market, for example, was suppos ed to be in place for just three years, but became a neighborhood cen ter where there hadn’t been much of one before. “People gravitated towards it,” says Lydon. “People like going there. You run the risk

of people lamenting the loss of that. The developer would be smart to integrate things like the community garden — [giving residents an] opportunity to keep growing food on the site. The radio station c ould get a permanent space. The beer garden could be kept.”

San Francisco’s PROXY project is similar. Retail, restaurants an d cultural spaces housed within an artful configuration of shipping c ontainers, designed by Envelope Architecture and Design, were given a five-year temporary home on

government-owned vacant lots in the city’s Hayes Valley neighbor hood while

developers opted to sit tight during the recession. Affordable ho using is promised for

the site; the developers will now be able to create it in a neigh borhood that has become increasingly vibrant and pedestrian-friendly.

On an even larger scale, the major developer Forest City has been testing these ideas of trial and error in the 5M Project in downtown San Francisco. While waiting out the downturn, the folks behind 5M h ave been beta-testing tenants and uses at their 5th & Mission locatio n, which was (and still is) home to the San Francisco Chronicle and n ow also to organizations like TechShop, the co-working space HubSoma, the art gallery Intersection for the Arts, the tech company Square a

nd a smattering of food carts to feed those hungry, hardworking tenan ts. A few years earlier, Forest City

would have been more likely to throw up an office tower with some luxury condos on top and call it a day: according to a company vice president, Alexa Arena, the

recession allowed Forest City to spend time “re-imagining places for our emerging economy and what kind of environment helps facilitat

e that.”

In “The Interventionist’s Toolkit,” the critic Mimi Zeiger wro

te that the real success for D.I.Y. urbanist interventions won’t be based on any one project but will “happen when w e can evaluate the m ovement based on outreach, economic impact, community empowerment, en trepreneurship, sustainability and design. We’re not quite there yet.”

She’s right. And one doesn’t have to search for examples of tem porary projects that not only failed but did so catastrophically (see: Hurricane Katrina trailers, for example). A huge reason for tactical urbanism’s appeal relates to politics. As one

practitioner put it, “We’re doing these things to combat the sl owness of government.”

But all of this is more than a response to bureaucracy; at its be

st it’s a bold

expression of unfettered thinking and creativity … and there’s certainly not enough of that going around these days. An embrace of t he temporary and tactical may not be perfect, but it could be one of the strongest tools in the arsenal of city-building we’ve got.

汉译英：

语言与社会身份

一个人的语言与其在社会中的身份其实密不可分。记得我在澳大利亚生活时，一位邻居要竞选议员，他便每天早上起来练习发音，以令自己的讲话让人听起来悦耳、有身份。

的确，语言是一个人社会身份的标志，特别是在多民族、多元文化的社会里。所谓“身份”，也是一种知识结构，表明你来自那个社会群体的文化背景、知识程度甚至地理位置等。

语言会影响对于相应文化的认知。例如，有人调查发现，对于讲双语的中国人，在用中文问到其关于文化观念等问题时，他们的回答显然比用英文问他们此类问题时显示出更多的中国人的做派。有意思的是，当讲广东话的港澳人被用普通话问到关于中国的文化、信仰等问题时，他们的回答往往比听到用广东话问到此类问题时的回答更接近西方人的表达方式。

其实，对于学习外语的华人来讲，大部分的还不是真正意义上的所谓“双语人”，而是“双语使用者”；后者是在语言与表达层次，而前者则是思维与生活习性。但是，这个过程并不是静止的，而是可以转换的。

所以，语言学习者所学习的实际上是一种社会关系，一种他所理解的跨越时空所形成的关系。因而，他所面对的不仅仅是语言学的，而更是多重、变换着的社会身份问题。

研究还表明，一个人的讲话风格并非是固定不变的，而是随着社会环境和讲话对象而变化的。一般来讲，个人讲话有一种趋同的倾向（即随大流），但有时也会有趋异倾向（即显示自己的特征）。譬如，我回到北京时，我的“北京腔”自觉就浓了很多；而我的英国朋友在澳大利亚时，其“英国腔”保持得更为明显，不知是否有意显出其身份。

人们在适应异国文化的过程中，对于自己母语的态度，也会有积极或消极两种选择。有的人，在积极投入其他主流文化的同时，有意消弱自己的母语能力；有的人，反而更加强、突出了这方面，认为是一种优势。

一般来讲，若某一社会群体所讲、所用的语言是为社会所尊敬的那一种（如在英国，以女王为代表的贵族所讲的语言），会有更高的社会优越感，而其成员也会有意显示出与众不同，以保持其正面的群体特性。当然，也难免会有他人向这一群体的讲话方式靠拢。

一个人的语言，还可成为他人对其进行评判的对象。据研究，可以从中判断出其社会地位、教育程度、善良与否、智力、能力甚至财富等。

可见，语言对个人之意义。如果说服装是人的形体修饰，那么语言便是人的综合价值的外在体现。所以，语言就不应当被视为仅仅是一种工具，而应是一种素质。

译文：

英译汉

是时候反思“暂时性建筑物”了

正如渴求着不朽功业的永恒一般，我们也追逐着建筑物的永恒。永恒的建筑物自有其栖身之所，而风格迥异的另外一种建筑物也同样拥有自己的社会地位。

在21世纪前二十年的大多数时候，大部分的建筑都是声明类建筑。不管是有争议的纪念碑还是奢华到不可思议的公寓大楼，其目的都是留下长久的印象。建筑已经成为了永恒的代名词，但是他们真的应该是这样的吗？

近几年来，与之相反的作用倒是更有可能真实存在的。建筑比林斯指数（建筑比林斯指数反映建筑比林斯和建筑支出之间存在将近九到十二个月的滞后差距）达到了史上最低。大型的建筑委任极少出现。能称得上是新闻的大多是能够在短时间内迅速完成的建筑，比如弹出式商店、食物车、集市和表演控制室。尽管这种类型的建筑是渔翁得利（比如Toys R Us弹出式商店），但不可否认的是，在这种暂时性的建筑中还是有诸多机会的：它是对一种变动中的文化的恰当的反应。正如其他众多流行趋势---合作消费（如“拼”），社区花园，以物易物等方式一样，“暂时性建筑”是如此的受欢迎，一时间刮起了一股“复古风”。

十一月份，我有幸同利物浦大学的便携临时机动建筑领域的专家，罗伯特·克罗嫩鲍教授，共同主持了南加州大学建筑学院的理想都市环境（严格限制使用机动车辆的）座谈小组。克罗嫩鲍教授在这一研究对象上出版了许多书籍，包括有《灵活性：回应变化的建筑》《便携式建筑物：设计与技术》和《运动中的房子：起源》，克罗嫩鲍是一个痴迷于此方面研究的人。

克罗嫩鲍相信移动性有一种与生俱来的潜力。动态的环境要比静态的更有活力，那么为什么建筑要是静态的存在呢？所有的建筑物都不应该寻求永恒，这一

观点对建筑界来说是一次巨大的改变。没有了静态的束缚，建筑师，设计师，施工人员和开发商能够更快地利用和实施当前的技术。建筑物可重复循环持续使用。若以这种方式重塑建筑物，将能够解决诸多目前看似无法解决的问题。而且还能成功的创造出空间感。

在其描述中，克罗嫩鲍列出了许多有关便携暂时式建筑如何应用与人类生活的各个层面的例子，其中概括了卫生保健（从弗洛伦斯·南丁格尔的修订的医院到肯尼迪党政时期使用气流拖车当流动诊所），房屋（从圆顶帐篷到旅行帐篷再到日本建筑师坂松的震后纸房屋），文化与商业（场景布置，万国博览会建筑，塞纳河旁几个世纪之久的旧书店，流动食物摊，以及在美味鸡蛋布丁故事中记载的、提供一切东西的艺术与文化场馆

克罗嫩鲍给出了一个有趣的论证，那就是存在于这种结构中的固有的实验法挑战了预想的有关建筑物能够是且应该是什么样的观念。他解释说：“暂时性随着不可预知的需求而改变，或多或少地提供或是鼓励了创新。他强调说，是最终用户、设计者、建筑师、制造商和建筑公司重新思考他们对于暂时性便携移动建筑的态度的时候了。

如建筑一般，对于发展和城市规划，这个也同样是真理。在丹尼尔·伯纳姆或是罗伯特·莫斯等大师级的总规划师桌子上，城市养成也许就是突然间发生的事，但是在今天却不是这样的。没有哪个总规划能预测不断增涨的人口发展变化中的需求，或是实现短期实验性尝试能够做到的弹性、反应性和灵活性。这并不意味着长期规划就没有了自己的地位。这两者相互联系使得自身正常运作。发现了街上计划协作原则的麦克·莱顿支持城市发展自然化，将这些暂时性处置（他称之为“战略性都市化”）看作是影响长期变化的短期行动。

尽管曾有大量的媒体关注一些如旧金山的路面公园和纽约的地沟咖啡馆等快速低廉的工程，莱顿将比素材大的东西视为风格区域。“这样子的很多东西都不够有趣不够酷，”他说，“他们没有尽全力。那不是DIY城市化，那叫观念、技术和在不同规模上使用不同策略的连续体。

“目前见到的这类物体有三种原因，”莱顿继续说，“一是经济。人们必须更加创新地完成工作。二是互联网。甚至在四到五年以前，我们还没办法通过油管或是脸谱分享战略和技术。也许达拉斯发生了无序事件，现在我们可以立刻得知。这个促进了纽约和旧金山双海岸之间的创意的成长，也就是说，看谁做出的东西更酷更好。三是人口变化。城市居民区正在中产阶级化。这使得人们自己也指望着改善社区。人们很聪明也很忙碌，每周工作40小时。不过他们有足够的空余时间参与这件事，这看起来是很自然的一步。

莱顿并非主张不再使用计划，而只是鼓励更多的短期活动，实验和测试(这个相对于等待着项目通过可能更加的令人满意)而已。尽管这并不能直接改变现有的规划或是区域划分规则，那也没关系。因为莱顿说，采用的这项实践是在旧有的思想方式和适当的政策上发挥作用的。

达拉斯集团“建设更好的街道”---迅速地从草根集团飞跃成为城市建设的活跃伙伴---声明当你将缺点暴露的时候，变化就会发生。如果他们的暂时性设置侵犯了现有的准则，“建设更好的街道”就会画出一个标记告知行人这一事实。他们已经照这样改变了规程。有时候—当然并不总是这样---官僚机构会出面运行真正的变化发生。

测试也可以为开发商们绘制出正确的项目进程。莱顿说：“开发商真的可以从集市的角度学一下，街道是怎样运行的---那真的能够告知或是改变他们的计

划。他们很有可能用街道来迎合自己并建设社区。如果开发商真的用心去做的话，潜力是无穷的。

事实就是如此。比如说，布鲁克林的迪卡尔布本来只应存在三年的，但最终却成为了一个街道中心，在这一带，之前还没有过那么多这样的例子。“之所吸引，”莱顿说，“并且喜欢去那里。而你则将冒着人们为失去它而悲哀的险。开发商将会聪明地整合这类社区花园（一个能够让居民们在那里种菜的地方）一样的地方。无线电台将会永久存在，露天啤酒店也能够得以保留。”

旧金山的代理项目与之极为相似。零售店，餐馆和文化场所安置于一个由信封建筑与设计公司设计的船形的巧妙结构中。在经济不景气的时候，开发商们选择了静观其变，该项目被放置于政府拥有的空地---海耶斯谷街区---达五年之久。经济适用房被许诺建在这一地段，开放商们现在可以在愈加活力四射和行人友好的街区中创造它了。

在一个更大的范围内，主要开发商森林之城已经在市中心的旧金山，在5M

项目中测试了这些尝试错误法的创意。在等待经济低迷离去的时期，5M背后的

人们已经进行了β测试并用在第五任务地点，这个曾经是而且现在任然是旧金山纪事报的故乡，并且现在还是一些诸如宠物技能，合作协作区哈布萨玛，艺术长廊聚焦点，科技公司方正和一些分散的食物餐车（用以填饱那些饥饿的努力工作的租户的肚子）的所在地。几年前，森林之城本来更有可能在顶上建造一座带有豪华公寓的办公塔，并且如要求一般在一天之内完成：根据一家公司的副总经理，亚历克莎·艾瑞娜的说法，寂静衰退使得森林之城有时间重新规划我们紧急情况下经济的地位，以及运用何种环境能够帮助达到这一目的。

在《干涉主义的工具箱》一书中，批评家米米·柴格尔写到，真正的DIY

城市化设置不是建立在任何一个项目上，而是“当我们能够在延伸、经济影响，社区许可、企业家精神，可持续性和设计的基础上，评估运动的时候。我们现在还没有达到那一境界。“

她是对的。一个人不需要寻求失败到悲惨的短暂项目的例子（比如卡特里娜飓风拖车）呼吁战略性城市化的一个重大理由与政治有关。正如一位创业者所说：“我们做这些事情，是为了同政府的低效率作斗争。”

但是所有的这些都只不过是对官僚主义的一种反应罢了，最好的结果就是一次自由思想和创造的勇敢表达······这对于现在社会正在发生的事情是远远不够的。拥抱暂时性和战略性可能并不完美，但是在我们得到的城市建设的兵工厂里，它可以成为最强的工具。

汉译英

Language and social identity

One’s language is closely connected with his social status. When I lived in

Australia, a neighbor of mine was going to run for senator. He th en practiced

pronunciation every morning so that he could sound like sweet-sou nding and posted.

There is no doubt that language is the sign of one’s social iden tity, especially in a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. The so

-called status is a kind of knowledge structure which shows the cultu ral background, knowledge level and even

geographical position of the social group you come from.

Knowledge will influence the cognize of relevant culture. For exa mple, Chinese people who are bilinguals will be more Chinese school l ike when they are asked questions about cultural ideas in Chinese tha n when asked in English. Interestingly, people from HK and Macau’s a nswer on questions like china’s culture and beliefs are different wh en they are asked in mandarin and Cantonese. When they are asked in C hinese, their answer will be closer to the way how westerns express t hemselves.

Actually, for Chinese who learn foreign language, most of them ar e just users of double language instead of real “bilingual”. The fo rmer is on the level of language

and expressing, while the latter is on the level of thinking and living habits. However, this is not a still process and the two are t ransitional.

Therefore, what language learners learn is actually a kind of soc ial relation

crossing the space and time formed by what he understands. Hence, what he faces is not only the linguistics, but also the multiple and changing social status problems.

The research also shows that one’s speaking style will change wi th the social environment and the talking objects. Generally, individ ual speaking has a trend towards convergence (that is to follow the c rowd.); but sometimes they have trends towards divergence (that is to show his own characteristics). For example, my Beijing tune naturall y became more obvious, while when my Britain friends stayed in Austra lia, their British tune are more obvious and I don’t know whether th ey were doing it on purpose to show their identity.

During the process of adapting to a foreign culture, people will have positive or negative choice toward their native language. Some p eople weaken their ability on native language purposely while getting into the swing of other dominant culture. While the other make it st ronger and standing-out and regard it superiority.

Generally speaking, if a social group is using the language which receives respect in society (like in Britain, the language spoke by the noble represented by the queen.), they will have higher social su periority and the members will also purposely show their differences so that they can maintain their frontal group features. Of course, it is also hard to avoid that there will be people approaching to the w ay this group speak.

A person’s language can also be the object by which the other pe ople can judge him. A ccording to the research, we can see one’s soci

al status, education level, kindness or not, intelligence, ability an

d even fortune.

It is thus clear about the meaning the language to individual. If we say that

clothing is one’s physical ornaments, then lan guage is the exter nal expression of his comprehensive value. Therefore language shouldn’t be regarded just as a tool but more a kind of quality.