64
21. Левицкая Т.Р. Теория и практика перевода с английского на
русский: учеб.пособие. / Т.Р. Левицкая, А.М. Фитерман. – Москва:
Издательство литературы на иностранных языках, 2003. – 125 с.
22. Леонтьева Н.Н. Автоматическое понимание текстов: Системы,
модели, ресурсы: Учебное пособие. – М.: Академия, 2006. – 304 с.
23. Ляпунов А.А., Кулагина О.С. Использование вычислительных
машин для перевода с одного языка на другой.–М.: Природа, 1955.– № 8. – 14 с.
24. Марчук Ю. Н. Проблемы машинного перевода / Ю.Н. Марчук. – М.:
Наука, 2013. – 112 с.
25. Миньяр-Белоручев Р.К. Общая теория перевода и устный перевод. –
М.: Воениздат, 2015. – 238 с.
26. Мультиран [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа:
https://www.multitran.ru/c/m.exe?a=1 .
27. Н
айда Ю. Модель динамической эквивалентности / Ю. Найда. – М.,
2008. – 218 с.
28. Нелюбин Л.Л. Компьютерная лингвистика и машинный перевод. –
М.: ВЦП, 2011. – 198 с.
29. Нестерова Я.А. Машинный перевод // Инновационный потенциал
урока английского языка: от теории к практике (FromReflectiontoAction):
материалы Международной научно-практической конференции для
преподавателей английского языка. 20–22 сентября 2013 г.: сборник / сост. О.А.
Титова; отв. ред. И.В. Родионова. – Тула: Гриф и К, 2013. – С. 174 – 179.
30. Панов Д.Ю., Ляпунов, А.А., Мухин, И.С. Автоматизация перевода с
одного языка на другой. В сб.: Сессия по научным проблемам автоматизации
производства. – М., Изд. АН СССР, 1956. – С. 147 – 159.
31. Прошина, З.Г. Теория перевода / З.Г. Прошина – Владивосток:
ДВГУ, 2002. – 276 с.
32. Рецкер Я.И. Теория перевода и переводческая практика: учеб
пособие. / Я.И. Рецкер. – Москва: Международные отношения, 2014. – 216 с.
65
33. Селегей В. Электронные словари и компьютерная лексикография //
Ассоциация лексикографов Lingvo. – М.: Наука, 2015. – 355 с.
34. Соловьева А.В. Профессиональный перевод с помощью
компьютера. – СПб.: Питер, 2008. – 160 с.
35. Телия В.Н. Русская фразеология: семантико-прагматический и
лингвокультурологический аспекты / В.Н. Телия – Москва: Языки русской
культуры, 2011. – 288 с.
36. Томахин Г.Д. Реалии-американизмы. Пособие по страноведению:
Учеб.пособие для ин-тов и фак. иностр. яз. – М.: Высш. шк., 2008. – 239 с.
37. Томин В.В., Еремина, Н.В., Богомолова, А.Ю. О лингвистических
особенностях электронного перевода научно-технических текстов // Вестник
ОГУ. – 2013. – № 11 (160). – С. 198 – 204.
38. Фролов С.В., Панькова Д.А. Проблемы построения машинного
перевода. – М., 2008. – 130 с.
39. Червенкова И.В. Об эквивалентах в сопоставительном
исследовании лексики // Динамика языковых процессов: история и
современность: сб. науч. тр. к 75-летию со дня рождения проф. Пенки
Филковой. – София: ХеронПрес, 2004. – C. 324 – 329.
40. Шаляпина З.М. Текст как объект автоматического перевода. – М.,
2012. – 345 с.
41. Швейцер А.Д. Перевод и лингвистика / А.Д. Швейцар. – М.:
Воениздат, 2013. – 258 с.
42. Despite Trump’s Tough Talk, No Boost for Missile Defense Agency
[Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/03/06/despite-tough-talk-trump-adds-no-m
oney-for-
missile-defense-agency-pentagon-budget/amp/ .
43. For
International Women’s Day, here are 7 of history’s greatest women-
led protests [Электронный ресурс]. – Режим доступа:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/03/08/internationalwomensday-heres-
66
seven-historys-greatest-women-led-
protests/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6b8ae92ff11f .
44. Kirаly
D.C. Pathways to Translation. Pedagogy and Process // Kent and
– London: The Kent State University Press. – 2005. – 350 p.
45. Matthews С. Intelligent Computer Assisted Language Learning as
cognitive science: the choice of syntactic frameworks for language tutoring // Journal
of Artificial Intelligence in Education. – London, 2012. – P. 533 – 556.
46. Nirenburg S., Carbonell, J., Tomita, M., Goodman, K. Machine
Translation: A Knowledge based Approach. – San Mateo, CA, Morgan Kaufmann,
2012. – 214 p.
47. Nyberg E. Controlled language for authoring and translation / E. Nyberg.
– Utrecht: University of Utrecht, 2003. – 13 p.
48. Sinaiko H.W., Klare, G.R. Further experiments in language translation:
readability of computer translations. ITL (Review of Institute of Applied Linguistics,
Louvain). – N.Y., 2012. – Pp. 1 – 29.
49. Slocum J. Machine Translation Systems. Studies in Natural Language
Processing. – Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2008. – 256 p.
50. Smith P.D. An Introduction to Text Processing. – Cambridge, MA: The
MIT Press, 2010. – 300 p.
67
Приложение 1
Текст на английском языке
For International Women’s Day, here are 7 of history’s greatest women-led
protests
Three centuries of female fury over taxes, bread shortages, voting rights and
more.
International Women’s Day has been around for more than a century, but it has
picked up steam in recent years, thanks to its preeminent hashtagability. What started
as socialist demonstrations has now evolved into an official holiday in more than two
dozen countries, a United Nations day for women’s rights and world peace, and, well,
a marketing opportunity for Barbie dolls, cosmetics and beer (because capitalism).
In honor of the holiday’s more egalitarian roots, here are some regular women
in history who gathered together to protest, rebel and, in some cases, riot.
The Edenton Tea Party (North Carolina)
You have probably heard of the Boston Tea Party, when American colonists
dumped chests of tea into Boston Harbor to protest a royal tax. But did you know
there was a women-led tea party a few months later? On Oct. 25, 1774, Penelope
Barker organized 50 women to join her in protesting the Tea Act in Edenton, N.C.
Their “tea party” probably didn’t involve more than signing a strongly worded letter
and vowing to stop drinking tea, but that was apparently enough to create a stir in
England. In fact, the only contemporaneous records of the event that remain are from
the British dissing it, including the above satirical drawing depicting the women
pretty crudely.
The Women’s March on Versailles (France)
At the start of the French Revolution — post-Bastille storming but long before
all those heads started to roll — French women had a moment. Angry about the high
price and lack of bread in the markets, they began to riot, storming the armory for
weapons and, with revolutionary men joining them, marching on the palace at
68
Versailles. They arrived at dawn on Oct. 6, 1789, invaded King Louis XVI’s
bedroom and “accompanied” him, against his will, back to Paris. And that was it for
an independent French monarchy.
Women’s Petition (New Zealand)
In 1891, when a bill came up in New Zealand’s Parliament that would give
women the right to vote, local suffrage activists dispersed petitions throughout the
country in support. Nine thousand women signed; the bill passed the lower House of
Representatives but was defeated in the upper body, the Legislative Council. The
next year, the bill came up again. This time 20,000 women signed petitions, but the
bill was again defeated in the Legislative Council. Then, in 1893, the bill came up for
a third time; 32,000 women — a full quarter of all the European women in New
Zealand — signed petitions delivered to the Parliament. When it passed the House,
suffragists held huge rallies and sent flurries of telegrams to persuade members of the
Legislative Council. It worked; the bill passed 20-18, and the colonial governor
signed it, making New Zealand the first self-governing country to allow women to
vote. (This meant white and Maori women; because of a nationhood requirement,
Chinese immigrant women were excluded).
March for ‘Bread and Peace’ (Russia)
Though socialist women in the United States and Europe had been holding
“International Women’s Day” demonstrations for several years, Russian women took
it to a new level in 1917. On March 8 (still February by the Russian calendar), female
textile workers in the capital went on strike, demanding an end to World War I, an
end to food shortages and an end to czarist rule. They asked male factory workers to
join them, and according to revolutionary Leon Trotsky, 90,000 people struck that
day. The next day, it doubled. The czar abdicated less than a week later. Since 1975,
the United Nations has celebrated March 8 as International Women’s Day.
Abeokuta Women’s Revolt (colonial Nigeria)
Abeokuta is now a city in Nigeria, but in the 1940s, it was a city-state under the
control of British colonial authorities via a local puppet alake (king). There, a woman
69
named FunmilayoRansome-Kuti started a “ladies’ club” for educated women like her.
But soon Kuti and her club united with market women who were being unfairly
taxed. Over the protracted struggle, tens of thousands of women marched, sang
abusive (read: hilarious) songs outside the alake’s compound and, according to The
Washington Post’s Hannah Jewell in her book “She Caused a Riot,” stripped and beat
male authorities who opposed them. Some of the older women may have also
engaged in revolutionary flashing. It took a while, but it worked; the taxes were
overturned, and the alake abdicated and went into exile. (And if that last name Kuti
looks familiar to you, yes, she was the mother of legendary musician Fela).
Women’s March (South Africa)
There were a lot of terrible things about the apartheid regime. One of the worst
was the “pass laws,” which prohibited black men from moving freely through the
country without a permit. In 1952, the government moved to implement pass laws on
women, too, sparking protests. On Aug. 9, 1956, nearly 20,000 women joined in
protest in the capital, Pretoria. It was a remarkably multiracial gathering for a country
where mixing between races was banned. The leaders delivered petitions against the
pass laws to the government, then stood with the crowd in silent protest for nearly
half an hour before breaking out in song. The expression “You strike a woman, you
strike a rock” originates from this moment. Aug. 9 is now recognized as Women’s
Day in South Africa.
Women’s Day Off (Iceland)
On Oct. 24, 1975, 90 percent (!!!) of Icelandic women didn’t show up to work,
to protest sexism and inequality. Schools, stores and factories closed, according to the
Icelandic Women’s History Archives. Housewives walked out, too, meaning that
many men had to either call in sick or take their children to work. (“Some men still
talk about the ‘long Friday,’ ” the archive says.) Things have improved since then;
the World Economic Forum has declared Iceland the least gender-unequal country for
nine years in a row. Recently, women have used the anniversary of the “day off” to
protest continued income inequality, walking out of work at a time proportionate to
70
income disparities with men. In 2018, Icelandic women made 76 percent what men
do, meaning they walked out at 2:55 p.m.
Despite Trump’s Tough Talk, No Boost for Missile Defense Agency
The administration will instead increase investments in offensive missile
defense capabilities, such as hypersonic technology.
espite U.S. President Donald Trump’s withdrawal from a key nuclear treaty
with Russia and his promise to bolster America’s missile defenses, the administration
is not asking for a significant boost to the U.S. Defense Department’s Missile
Defense Agency (MDA) budget this year, Foreign Policy has learned.
Instead, the promised buildup will come in the form of additional cash to
develop offensive capabilities, which are not part of the MDA’s charter, particularly
hypersonic weapons.
The Pentagon is expected to ask Congress for $9.4 billion for the MDA in its
annual budget request, due out later this month, which actually reflects a slight
decrease from $9.9 billion last year, according to two U.S. defense officials. In
addition, one of the officials said, the department is asking for $2.6 billion for
research and development of hypersonic weapons, which can travel at more than five
times the speed of sound.
At first glance, this is far from the robust increase to America’s missile defense
capability advocates were hoping for after Trump rolled out an ambitious new missile
defense plan in January. During a rare appearance at the Pentagon, Trump promised a
more aggressive stance against new threats from both rogue actors, such as Iran and
North Korea, and near-peer adversaries Russia and China.
European allies are particularly concerned about new Russian missiles after the
U.S. decision to withdraw from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The
agreement, signed in 1987 by U.S. President Ronald Reagan and Soviet leader
Mikhail Gorbachev, prohibits the use of nuclear and conventional missiles with
ranges between 300 and 3,400 miles.
71
Trump has vowed to establish a missile defense program that can shield “every
city in the United States” and “protect the American people from all types of missile
attacks.”
“Today marks the beginning of a new era in our missile defense program,”
Trump said. “I will accept nothing less for our nation than the most effective, cutting-
edge missile defense systems.”
But even as Trump touted a historic buildup, the Pentagon’s Missile Defense
Review itself fell short of expectations. In many ways, the plan is a continuation of
previous policies, and, unlike President Barack Obama’s 2010 version, it neither
cancels nor announces the beginnings of any new major programs.
“Contrary to the impression the president may have conveyed when he
presented findings of the administration’s Missile Defense Review, there is no plan to
actively defend the United States against a large-scale nuclear attack launched by
Russia or China,” said Loren Thompson, an analyst with the Lexington Institute.
“The U.S. will continue to rely on offensively based deterrence to minimize the
likelihood of such an attack.”
The Pentagon plan, also known as the MDR, also did not include decisions on
several hoped-for initiatives, such as deploying space-based missile interceptors;
activating a Kauai, Hawaii, site of the land-based version of the Aegis Weapon
System; or deploying a new interceptor site on the East Coast of the United States.
Unlike previous reviews, it did for the first time include the threat of
hypersonic missiles, which maneuver in ways traditional U.S. missile defenses cannot
counter.
Rebeccah Heinrichs, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, expressed
frustration over the discrepancy between the president’s rhetoric and what the
Pentagon’s plan articulated.
“The president’s characterization of the MDR was more ambitious than what
was explicitly included in the MDR, and the MDR was essentially a beefed-up
version of the current architecture,” Heinrichs said. “So the question was always,
what is the budget going to reflect?”
72
But the defense official said this year’s budget request falls in line with the
president’s plan. While the MDA request is a decrease from last year’s, that does not
necessarily translate into a decrease in capability, the official stressed.
“FY20 is about what they needed,” the official said, referring to the Pentagon’s
fiscal year 2020 budget request. “They got what they asked for.”
The official noted that the Pentagon received additional funding in previous
years for interceptors—for instance, in Fort Greely, Alaska—and other homeland
defense items that did not require money beyond fiscal year 2019.
“I would say that the department is sustaining its efforts in missile defense on
the defense side,” the official said, calling homeland defense “the No. 1 priority.”
Heinrichs stressed that although it does not look like the boost will be reflected
in this year’s Pentagon budget, that does not mean the president’s “more ambitious”
plan is not going to happen eventually.
Experts noted that this year’s MDA budget, while a decrease from last year, is
an increase from Obama-level funding. Obama requested $7.5 billion for the agency
in fiscal year 2017.
But Thompson said that while this year’s budget will increase spending “well
above Obama-era levels,” it will continue the pattern of “allocating more money to
regional defense than defense of the U.S. homeland.”
In addition to the MDA request, the Pentagon is asking for money for the U.S.
Army to buy Israel’s Iron Dome system to swat down rockets and incoming cruise
missiles, which fly low to the ground, in contrast to traditional ballistic missiles, the
official confirmed to FP. Inside Defense first reported that the Army is asking for
roughly $370 million to buy two batteries’ worth of the system. The plan is a
response to a congressional mandate that the Army buy a new capability to fill an
emerging “cruise missile gap,” particularly in Europe and the Pacific.
However, one former defense official expressed skepticism that the Iron Dome
actually has the capability to counter cruise missiles, noting that its primary focus is
shooting down rockets and artillery fire. A better system for countering cruise
missiles is the National Advanced Surface-to-Air Missile System, jointly built by
73
Raytheon and Norway’s Kongsberg, which is deployed in Washington, D.C., to
defend the national capital region.
In addition to the MDA budget, the Pentagon’s overall missile defense request
also includes funding for the needs of the four U.S. services. Last year, the overall
request was $12.9 billion.