論文翻訳・学術翻訳ユレイタスは、翻訳サービスの国際規格ISO17100認証の取得企業です。さらに、情報セキュリティマネジメントシステム（ISO/IEC27001:2013）ならびに品質マネジメントシステム（ISO9001:2015）において、優れた社内体制を整備されている企業に与えられる国際規格ISOを取得しております。お客様の原稿を厳重な管理の下で取り扱い、論文翻訳などあらゆる翻訳の品質を高め、維持する仕組みを備えています。
政治学の翻訳サンプル
政治学の論文における日英翻訳サンプルです。翻訳ユレイタスでは、政治学論文の用途に応じ3つの翻訳レベルをご用意しています。その違いは、各レベル別の訳文と、右側のチェックリストにてご確認ください。学術論文の翻訳において平均10年以上の経験を持ち、政治学に造詣の深いユレイタスの博士号翻訳者が、インパクトファクターの高い論文誌への掲載をお手伝いします。
オリジナル原稿
最も広く使用されている審議手続きの1つは、James Fishkin（ジェームズ・フィッシュキン）によって設計されたデリバレイティブポーリング（討論型世論調査）である。「Deliberative Polling: From Experiment to Community Resource（デリバレイティブポーリング：実験からコミュニティリソースへ）」という論文の中で、Fishkin と Cynthia Farrar は、米国および世界中の無数のコミュニティにおいて、思考実験から民主的な実践へのこの手続きの転換に関係する理論的かつ実践的な問題を提示している。彼らはデリバレイティブポーリングを、「情報、ならびに同胞である市民の見識に触れることに基づいて考え抜かれた判断に到達する機会があった前後における世論調査」と定義している (Fishkin and Farrar, 2005:68)。彼らは、デリバレイティブポーリングが、政治的平等と審議という2つの重要な価値を組み合わせた、公の協議（パブリックコンサルテーション）の特徴的な形態であると主張している。彼らにとって政治的平等とは、すべての人の嗜好を平等に勘案することを意味し、審議とは、参加者が真価によって競合する議論を検証するうえでの協議の過程を指す。彼らの見解では、品質審議のためには満たされるべき次の4つの基準がある：(a) 完全性：問題の片側について提示される、準じ回答される引数が、別の側による引数によって回答される範囲、(b） 情報：情報の範囲：人が用いる情報が合理的かつ正確である範囲、(c) 意識：関与する人が真価によって問題を決定したいと考える範囲、(d) 多様性：慎重に検証する人が関連する集団における視点の全範囲を表す範囲。
下のタブをクリックすると、レベル別サンプルが表示されます。
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.
- ［冠詞］［文法］より適確な文法のために追加しました
- ［複数形］［文法］より適確な文法のために追加しました
- ［言語］この後に続く情報は制限のないものであるため、読みやすくするために追加しました。
- ［正確性］［誤訳］［インパクト・チェンジ］これは、原文が示しているものに近い。すなわち、多様な、あるいは異なるコミュニティではなく、多くのコミュニティです。
- ［訳抜け］欠落していた単語を追加。
- ［誤字脱字］［スタイル/SDI］誤字脱字を修正しました。
- ［一貫性］一貫性を保つために用語を修正しまし
- ［読みやすさ］より適確な表現と読みやすさのために "to "を追加。
One of the most important deliberative procedures is deliberative polling, which was designed by James Fishkin. In the article Deliberative Polling: From Experiment to Community Resource, James Fishkin and Cynthia Farrar present the theoretical and practical issues in the transformation of this procedure from a thought experiment to a democratic practice 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). Fishkin and Farrar argue that deliberative polling is a distinctive form of public consultation that combines two key values, political equality and deliberation, political equality means equal consideration of everyone’s 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 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: the extent to which information that people employ is reasonable and accurate; (c) Consciousness: the extent to which people participate with the aim of deciding the issue on its merits; and (d) Diversity: the extent to which those who deliberate represent the diversity of viewpoints in the relevant population.
| 修正ポイント |
このページでは、クロスチェッカーやネイティブチェッカー（校正者）が加えた修正変更を分かりやすいように色付きで紹介していますが、通常お客様には、修正変更履歴を残さず、最終版のみを納品しております。
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.
- ［冠詞］［文法］より適確な文法のために追加しました
- ［複数形］［文法］より適確な文法のために追加しました
- ［言語］この後に続く情報は制限のないものであるため、読みやすくするために追加しました。
- ［繰り返し］［言語］名前はすでに紹介されているので、ラストネームは著者を指すのに使うことができます。
- ［明確さ］［言語］ワードチョイスを改善し、明確さを向上させました。
- ［正確性］［誤訳］［インパクト・チェンジ］これは、原文が示しているものに近い。すなわち、多様な、あるいは異なるコミュニティではなく、多くのコミュニティです。
- ［訳抜け］欠落していた単語を追加。
- ［誤字脱字］［スタイル/SDI］誤字脱字を修正しました
- ［一貫性］一貫性を保つために用語を修正しまし
- ［繰り返し＆冗長性］［言語］繰り返しを避け、読みやすさを向上させるために、メソッドの名前を削除しました。
- ［読みやすさ＆明確さ］［言語］理解しやすいようにリフレーズし、フローを改善しました。アカデミックライティングでは、長くて複雑な文章を避けることが不可欠です。したがって、ここは2つのセンテンスに分けました。
- ［専門用語の選択］［SME］ここでは "Criteria"が適しています。
- ［読みやすさ］より適確な表現と読みやすさのために "to "を追加。
- ［読みやすさ＆明確さ］読みやすくするために言い換えました。
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.
| 修正ポイント |
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.
