久久亚洲国产成人影院-久久亚洲国产的中文-久久亚洲国产高清-久久亚洲国产精品-亚洲图片偷拍自拍-亚洲图色视频

您現(xiàn)在的位置: Language Tips> Columnist> Zhang Xin  
 





 
Read between the lines
[ 2007-09-07 14:37 ]

Scanning Salon.com, I came across a good example for explaining the idiom "read between the lines", which has been a topic I want to address for some time.

First, definition. To read between the lines is to guess someone's real feelings and meanings from something they actually write.

Political observers understand this perfectly. If, say, a politician is reported to have resigned because of "personal" reasons, you can often be sure that the said politician has just been removed from power, and perhaps brutally. He's the loser of the latest round of power struggle. In other words, the reasons are anything but "personal". Similarly, if someone has done the same for "health" problems, you can be certain they are NOT ill. He has no physical ailment but may develop one later – "health" problems may catch up with him soon if he can't successfully deal with the depression he suffers from being sacked.

Likewise, when a government spokesman says that the leadership is one of "unity and harmony", you can infer pretty safely that the leaders can't stand each other.

In diplomatic writing, we often see meetings between heads of governments described as "frank", "cordial" and so forth. Cordial means that the leaders are exchanging pleasantries only – telling each other what they want to hear. If the discussion is described as "frank", on the other hand, that means the leaders hate each other and are making sure the other person knows it. The Economist magazine, for example, routinely describes "frank discussion" as "a diplomat's word for a fallout," or fierce quarrels short of "trading blows" and "dispatching gunboats", also Economist terminologies. Next, the very "diplomat" may be expelled for involving in "activities deemed incompatible with his status", which is euphemism, usually for spying.

That's exaggerating it, I know. But, with media increasingly owned and controlled by fewer people and fewer interest groups, isn't it better to err on the side of caution? You'd better stay aware and alert of these things so as not to be taken for a ride. The public needs a healthy cynicism regarding TV, newspapers as well as anything from cyberspace. After all, propaganda does two things, usually simultaneously – it propagates some facts and ideas while it goes out of its way to hide others.

Anyways, the latest example I have concerns a Financial Times report about China. It is alarmingly titled "Chinese military hacked into Pentagon".

"Sounds like the 'China threat' is very much alive!", writes Andrew Leonard in his How The World Works column. Leonard read in between the lines of the FT report on Tuesday and saw the other side of the story, as is evidenced by the way he titles his article – "U.S. military routinely hacks into Chinese networks".

That's exactly what he read in between the lines of the FT report. Leonard says:

 How the World Works doesn't doubt that the dance between the world's preeminent superpower, the U.S., and the No. 1 contender for the throne, China, could someday turn into an ugly showdown. But the Financial Times' choice for a headline, "Chinese military hacked into Pentagon," could be accused of rhetorical alarmism, and not just because most of the information accessed during the attack appears to have been unclassified.

Later in the same article:

The PLA regularly probes U.S. military networks – and the Pentagon is widely assumed to scan Chinese networks – but U.S. officials said the penetration in June raised concerns to a new level because of fears that China had shown it could disrupt systems at critical times.

Scan? Scan? What does that mean?Is it the same as "probe"? Or could one even say, "The Pentagon is widely assumed to regularly hack into Chinese networks"?

And:

        An editorial in the Financial Times running along with its "scoop" even observes:

Yet it is probably also right to assume that the U.S. and other western governments are busy infiltrating the computer systems of foreign governments. It is therefore disingenuous to complain too vigorously when those same foreign governments become good at doing it back.

Infiltrating? Isn’t that the same as "hacking"? Or, to be semiotically precise, "cracking"?

Yes, it's a fine world for the West to "infiltrate" Chinese systems because they're just "scanning". The world becomes dangerous (to the present international powers that be, that is) if countries like China begin to be "doing it back". Then the "scanning" becomes "hacking".

The real danger is a world to be run by a single voice. And the biggest danger is if you can't read between the lines.

 

About the author:
 

Zhang Xin is Trainer at chinadaily.com.cn. He has been with China Daily since 1988, when he graduated from Beijing Foreign Studies University. Write him at: zhangxin@chinadaily.com.cn, or raise a question for potential use in a future column.

 
 
相關(guān)文章 Related Stories
 
         
 
 
 
 
 
         

 

 

 
 

48小時(shí)內(nèi)最熱門(mén)

     
  “交通協(xié)管員”怎么說(shuō)
  Loose cannon:無(wú)視規(guī)矩的人
  事實(shí)勝于雄辯
  癡情的祈禱:My prayer
  Click《人生遙控器》(精講之八)

本頻道最新推薦

     
  Read between the lines
  “中山門(mén)”在英語(yǔ)里究竟應(yīng)該怎么表達(dá)
  Learning the value of money
  Cold turkey: Can you dig it?
  是故意“不顧”還是“顧不上”?

論壇熱貼

     
  怎么翻譯“你冤枉我”?
  “不服” 怎么翻譯
  how to say “舉手之勞”
  參加BBC在線競(jìng)賽 獲免費(fèi)倫敦游機(jī)會(huì)!
  Penny for your thoughts?
  怎么翻譯‘公益廣告'






主站蜘蛛池模板: 国产综合在线观看视频 | 一本大道香蕉久在线不卡视频 | 欧美在线看欧美高清视频免费 | 在线观看91精品国产入口 | 国产午夜精品理论片小yo奈 | 中文字幕高清在线天堂网 | 欧美天堂| 精品亚洲视频在线观看 | 欧美性视频xxxxxxxx | 亚洲偷自拍另类图片二区 | 国内久久久 | 在线观看 国产 | 精品久久一区二区三区 | 看欧美的一级毛片 | 99精品99| 美国三级大片 | 国产精品视_精品国产免费 国产精品视频久 | 在线午夜影院 | 欧美午夜激情影院 | 欧美日韩中 | 三级精品 | 欧美一级香蕉毛片 | 91久久青青草原线免费 | 国产高清精品自在久久 | 一级毛片在线 | 国产成人系列 | 久久精品中文字幕不卡一二区 | 日韩欧美在线视频 | 99久久免费看国产精品 | 欧美视频一区二区三区四区 | 国产成人免费在线视频 | 91九色精品国产 | 久久久网久久久久合久久久久 | 欧美一区二区精品系列在线观看 | 亚洲精品成人中文网 | 国产99视频精品免视看9 | 国产波多野结衣中文在线播放 | 日韩在线一区二区三区视频 | 日本黄区 | 日韩免费高清一级毛片在线 | 毛片网站在线 |