비영어권 저자들을 위한 학술 논문출간 영문교정 서비스

Global Reach

번역샘플 - 정치학(Political Science)

품질 및 시기 적절한 투고물을 제공하는 것은 급선무로 특히 조절 의뢰의 경우 더욱 필요하다.

이나고는 주제별 전문가 리뷰어, 번역가, 저자, 교정자로 이루어진 특별한 팀과 함께 더불어 귀하의 언어로 24 시간 전문 프로젝트 관리자를 제공함으로써 정시에 고품질의 투고물을 제공합니다. 저희는 단어 대 단어 번역을 뛰어 넘어 최첨단 기술과 엄격한 프로세스를 통해 귀하의 주제 영역의 뉘앙스까지 살린 고품질 번역을 제공합니다.

아래는 저희의 우수한 번역본의 샘플들입니다.

가장 널리 사용되는 숙의 절차 중 하나는 제임스 피쉬킨이 고안한 숙의형 여론조사이다. 피쉬킨과 신시아 페러는 그들의 기사 "숙의형 여론조사: 실험에서부터 지역사회 자원까지"에서 미국 및 전 세계의 수많은 공동체에서 사고 실험부터 민주적 실천으로 전환하기까지의 절차와 관련된 이론적이고 실용적인 문제들을 제시한다. 그들은 숙의형 여론조사를 "정보와 동년배 시민들의 견해에 대해 알려진 내용을 바탕으로 심사숙고한 판단에 도달하는 기회가 있기 전과 후의 시민들의 투표"로 정의한다. (피쉬킨과 페러, 2005:68) 숙의형 여론조사는 정치적 평등과 숙의라는 두 가지 핵심 가치를 결합한 뚜렷한 형태의 공공의 협의라는 주장이다. 정치적 평등이라고 함으로써, 그들은 모든 사람들의 선호에 대한 동등한 고려 사항을 의미하고, 숙의라 함으로써 참가자들이 그들의 가치에 대한 경쟁적 논쟁을 평가하는 토론의 과정을 말한다. 그들의 의견에 따르면, 양질의 숙의를 위해 충족되어야 할 4가지 기준이 있다: (a) 완성도: 한 쪽이 제안하는 주장이 다른 쪽에 의해 답변이 되고 이어서 차례로 답변이 이루어지는 정도. (b) 정보: 사람들이 이용하는 정보가 합리적이고 정확한 정도. (c) 의식: 가치에 대한 문제를 결정하고자 하는 욕구의 정도, 그리고 (d) 다양성: 숙의하는 사람들이 관련 집단의 전체 범위의 관점을 나타내는 정도.

One of most important deliberative procedures is deliberative polling designed by James Fishkin. In article Deliberative Polling : from Experiment to Community Resource, James Fishkin, and Cynthia Farrar presents the theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of this procedure from a thought experiment to a democratic practice in different communities in the United States and around the world. They define the deliberative as “a poll of citizens before and after they had the chance to arrive at considered judgments based on information and exposure to the views of their fellow citizens” (Fishkin and Farrar, 2005: 68). Fishkin and Farar argue that the deliberative poll is a distinctive form of public consultation that combines two key values, political equality and deliberation, political equality means equal consideration of everyone preferences, and deliberation means a process of discussion in which people weigh competing arguments on their merits. In their opinions, for a quality deliberation there are four standards that should be met - (a) Completeness: the extent which arguments offered on one side of an issue are answered by arguments from another side, which are then answered in turn; (b) Information: the extent which information that people employ is reasonable and accurate; (c) Consciousness: the extent which people participate with the aim of deciding the issue on its merits;and (d) Diversity: the extent which those who deliberate represent the diversity of viewpoints in the relevant population.

One of the 1mostimportant deliberative procedures2 is deliberative polling, which was3designed by James Fishkin. In the article Deliberative Polling : FfromExperiment to Community Resource, James Fishkin, and Cynthia Farrar presents present the theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of this procedure from athought experiment to a democratic practice in different numerous 4communitiesin the United States and around the world. They define the deliberative polling 5as “a poll of citizens before and after they had the chance to arrive atconsidered judgments based on information and exposure tothe views of their fellow citizens” (Fishkin and Farrar, 2005: 68). Fishkin and Farr6arargue that thedeliberative polling7 is a distinctive form of publicconsultation that combines two key values, political equality and deliberation,political equality means  equal consideration of everyone’spreferences, and deliberation means a process of discussion in which peopleweigh competing arguments on their merits. In their opinions, for a qualitydeliberation there are four standards that should be met -: (a) Completeness:the extent towhich arguments offered on one side of an issue are answered byarguments from another side, which are then answered in turn; (b) Information:the extentto8 which information that people employ is reasonable andaccurate; (c) Consciousness: the extent to which people participate with theaim of deciding the issue on its merits; and (d) Diversity: the extent to whichthose who deliberate represent the diversity of viewpoints in the relevantpopulation.

  1. [관사] [문법] 더 나은 문법을 위해 추가했습니다.
  2. [복수] [문법] 더 나은 문법을 위해 추가했습니다.
  3. [언어] 가독성을 높이기 위해 뒤따르는 정보를 계속적 용법으로 추가했습니다.
  4. [정확성] [오역] [강도 변경] 이 표현이 원문이 의미하는 바와 더 가깝습니다. 즉 diverse/different communities가 아니라 many communities입니다.
  5. [누락] 누락된 단어를 추가했습니다.
  6. [오자] [스타일/SDI] 여기서 철자 오류를 수정했습니다.
  7. [일관성] 일관성을 유지하기 위해 용어를 수정했습니다.
  8. [가독성] 더 나은 표현과 가독성을 위해 “to”를 추가했습니다.

One of the 1mostimportant widely used deliberative procedures2 is deliberative polling, which was3designed by James Fishkin. In theirarticle Deliberative Polling : Ffrom Experiment toCommunity Resource, James4 Fishkin,and Cynthia Farrar presents present thetheoretical and practical issues involved5in the transformationdeveloping ofthis procedure from a thought experiment to a democratic practice that has been used in different numerous 6communities in the United States and around the world. They define the deliberative polling 7as“a poll of citizens before and after they had the chance to arrive atconsidered judgments based on information and exposure to the views of theirfellow citizens” (Fishkin and Farrar, 2005: 68). Fishkinand Farr8ar They argue that thetheir 9deliberative polling10method is a distinctive form of public consultation that combines two key values,: political equality and deliberation,. By political equality, they means  equal consideration of everyone’spreferences, and by deliberation, they refer to  meansa process of discussion in which people participants11 weigh competing arguments on theirmerits. In their opinionsview, for a high-qualitydeliberation there are four standardscriteria12 that should be met -: (a) Ccompletenessor:the extent to13which arguments offered on one side of an issue are answered byarguments from another side, which are then answered in turn; (b) iInformation i.e.: the extent to which theinformation that people employ is reasonable and accurate; (c) cConsciousnessor:the extent towhich those involved desire to decide 14people participate with the aim of deciding theissue on its merits; and (d) dDiversity: the extent to which those whodeliberate represent the diversity full range of viewpoints in the relevantpopulation.

  1. [관사] [문법] 더 나은 문법을 위해 추가했습니다.
  2. [복수] [문법] 더 나은 문법을 위해 추가했습니다.
  3. [언어] 가독성을 높이기 위해 뒤따르는 정보를 계속적 용법으로 추가했습니다.
  4. [반복] [언어] 이름이 이미 소개되었으므로, 저자를 지칭할 때 성(last name)을 사용할 수 있습니다.
  5. 새로 선택된 단어로 인해 명확성이 더욱더 향상되었습니다.
  6. [정확성] [오역] [강도 변경] 이 표현이 원문이 의미하는 바와 더 가깝습니다. 즉 diverse/different communities가 아니라 many communities입니다.
  7. [누락] 누락된 단어를 추가했습니다.
  8. [오자] [스타일/SDI] 여기서 철자 오류를 수정했습니다.
  9. [일관성] 일관성을 유지하기 위해 용어를 수정했습니다.
  10. [반복 & 중복] [언어] 반복을 피하고 가독성을 높이기 위해 이 방법의 이름을 삭제했습니다.
  11. [가독성 & 명확성] [언어] 더 나은 이해와 매끄러운 흐름을 위해 흐름을 바꾸고 개선했습니다. 학술 텍스트에서는 길고 복잡한 문장을 피해야 합니다. 따라서 이 문장은 두 문장으로 나누었습니다.
  12. [전문용어 선택] [전문분야] “Criteria”가 여기서 더 적합합니다.
  13. [가독성] 더 나은 표현과 가독성을 위해 “to”를 추가했습니다.
  14. [가독성 & 명확성] 가독성을 높이기 위해 수정했습니다.

One of the most widely used deliberative procedures is deliberative polling, which was designed by James Fishkin. In their article Deliberative Polling: From Experiment to Community Resource, Fishkin and Cynthia Farrar present the theoretical and practical issues involved in developing this procedure from a thought experiment to a democratic practice that has been used in numerous communities in the United States and around the world. They define deliberative polling as “a poll of citizens before and after they had the chance to arrive at considered judgments based on information and exposure to the views of their fellow citizens” (Fishkin and Farrar, 2005: 68). They argue that their method is a distinctive form of public consultation that combines two key values: political equality and deliberation. By political equality, they mean equal consideration of everyone’s preferences, and by deliberation, they refer to a process of discussion in which participants weigh competing arguments on their merits. In their view, for a high-quality deliberation there are four criteria that should be met: (a) completeness or the extent to which arguments offered on one side of an issue are answered by arguments from another side, which are then answered in turn; (b) information i.e. the extent to which the information that people employ is reasonable and accurate; (c) consciousness or the extent to which those involved desire to decide the issue on its merits; and (d) diversity: the extent to which those who deliberate represent the full range of viewpoints in the relevant population.

번역 견적 문의
고객상담월- 금 09 : 00 ~ 18 : 00
24시간  견적의뢰 가능 (일요일 제외)