日韩精品久久一区二区三区_亚洲色图p_亚洲综合在线最大成人_国产中出在线观看_日韩免费_亚洲综合在线一区

您現在的位置: 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: [email protected], or raise a question for potential use in a future column.

 
 
相關文章 Related Stories
 
         
 
 
 
 
 
         

 

 

 
 

48小時內最熱門

     
  吵架英語三十句
  尼日利亞議長叫停銀行“美女營銷”
  英語和漢語之間的詞匯空缺
  全國開展“無車日”活動
  五個手指怎么說

本頻道最新推薦

     
  Hocus pocus?
  英語和漢語之間的詞匯空缺
  Greener pasture?
  “江南”怎么譯
  Climate - a problem for all nations

論壇熱貼

     
   "電視選秀"怎么翻譯?
  how to translate "造星"
  how to translate "特供豬"?
  參加BBC在線競賽 獲免費倫敦游機會!
  how to say "代言"
  “試婚”怎么說






主站蜘蛛池模板: 一区二区视频在线 | 国产www视频 | 久久久一区二区 | 色欧美亚洲| 免费在线观看视频a | 精品欧美乱码久久久久久 | 国产精品v欧美精品v日韩精品 | 欧美va在线视频 | 日韩中文在线视频 | 久久婷婷综合中文字幕 | 久久精品小视频 | xxx 日本韩国 | 久久精品人人做人人爽 | 日本不卡在线一区二区三区视频 | 亚洲欧美日韩综合二区三区 | 久久久国产这里有的是精品 | 国产高清在线精品免费 | 欧美 国产 综合 | 国产成人18黄网站免费网站 | 一本一道久久综合狠狠老 | 日本久久中文字幕 | 国产中文字幕一区 | 亚洲黄色免费 | 日本在线你懂的 | 精品国产一区二区三区久久久蜜月 | 国产精品久久久久9999高清 | 草樱av| 青青草原综合网 | 国产精品手机在线观看 | 亚洲视频在线看 | 香蕉久久一区二区不卡无毒影院 | 四虎4hu| 色男人的天堂 | 亚洲精品日本高清中文字幕 | 99久久精约久久久久久清纯 | 国产精品免费观看 | 国产大片91精品免费看3 | 亚洲一区二区三区91 | 欧美a视频在线观看 | 国产亚洲一区二区三区 | 欧美在线亚洲 |