网站首页 | 工作总结 | 工作报告 | 工作计划 | 演讲稿 | 自我鉴定 | 思想汇报 | 心得体会 | 书信范文 | 职场知识 | 作文大全 | 述职报告 | 读后感
一起看范文网
您的位置:一起看范文网blatant → 正文

blatant

第一篇:blatant

Blatant cheating detected in an online examination Simon University of Newcastle, Australia simon@newcastle.edu.au Abstract

Cheating in various forms is rife among students in tertiary education. Cheating on exams is generally considered more serious than cheating in coursework assignments, and there is some evidence of a belief that cheating is easier and perhaps more prevalent in online courses than in face-to-face courses. We conducted an experiment to detect a particular form of cheating in a remote online exam, and found that a significant number of students cheated blatantly. Keywords

cheating, distance education, online course, online examination, academic integrity How many students cheat? Reports in the literature of academic integrity indicate that extremely high proportions of tertiary students cheat in the course of their studies. In a series of oft-cited anonymous surveys, McCabe and various collaborators have found that up to 70% of college students in the USA admit to having cheated in some way in the preceding year (McCabe, Trevi?o, & Butterfield, 2001). At a small private university in the USA, Kidwell, Wozniak, and Laurel (2003) found that 75% of their survey respondents had engaged more than once in one or more of the cheating behaviours that they surveyed. Lim and See (2001) came up with an astonishing figure of 94% in a comparable survey at a university and two polytechnics in Singapore, and Pulvers and Diekhoff (1999) found that at two colleges in the USA nearly 12% of students admitted to having cheated in a single specified course. Reasons for cheating A number of studies explore the reasons given by cheats for their behaviour. One school of thought suggests that students will be more likely to cheat if they feel detached from the institution at which they are studying, if they feel no sense of community with that institution (Buckley, Wiese, & Harvey, 1998; Pulvers & Diekhoff, 1999). While this view identifies a situation in which cheating might be considered, it would still not take place without rather more pragmatic considerations. “While there are both individual and situational determinants of academic dishonesty, the historical psychological literature has documented that dishonesty is mostly a function of opportunity . . . rather than a consistency of personality” (Landon, 1999, p441). Given the opportunity to cheat, a further pragmatic consideration is that of cost and benefit. “Rational Choice Theory . . . states that individuals are rational decision makers and behave according to the potential risks and potential returns inherent in a decision. The decision to engage in unethical behavior is a cost/benefit function, which is rationally determined by the individual” (Buckley et al, 1998, p72). In a review of 107 published studies of college cheating, Whitley (1998, p254) found that “The greater the expected reward for success, the greater the likelihood of cheating. However, one study found that expected punishment for failure led to more cheating than did expected reward for success.” Perhaps to the surprise of many academics, the potential risk in cheating appears to be rather low. Ashworth, Bannister, and Thorne (1997, p193) concluded from a student survey of academic dishonesty that “Some cheating is felt to occur through . . . the probability of not being discovered.” Hutton (2001, p6) concurs, citing one source who -1- believes that fewer than 2% of cheats are caught, and explaining “One of the problems with enforcement is that it requires that cheating be observed.” Likewise Landon (1999, p446)

“When students believe they can get away with cheating then there will be more cheating than when they think they will likely be caught.” Cheating on exams versus cheating on coursework A number of surveys have sought to determine perceptions of the seriousness of various forms of cheating. There is broad agreement, for example, that having a stand-in take one’s exam is far more serious than not citing one’s references properly in an essay. Franklyn-Stokes and Newstead (1995) listed 22 possible academic misbehaviours and asked both staff and students to rate each misbehaviour in terms of seriousness and of how frequently they believe the misbehaviour takes place. The six misbehaviours perceived as most serious were ? ? ? ? ? ? A student taking an examination for someone else or having someone else take an examination for them Taking unauthorised material into an examination Illicitly gaining advance information abut the contents of an examination paper Copying another student’s coursework without their knowledge Copying from a neighbour during an examination without them realising; and Premeditated collusion between two or more students to communicate answers to each other during an examination (Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, p164). While that list includes one coursework misbehaviour, and there are further examination misbehaviours considered less serious (continuing to write after the end of an exam ranked 21st), it was clear to the authors that “items rated least frequent and most serious tended to be examination-related, whereas those rated as most frequent and least serious were, on the whole, coursework-related” (Franklyn-Stokes & Newstead, p165). Pincus and Schmelkin (2003) conducted a survey of academic staff and subjected it to multi-dimensional scaling, which determines dimensions along which the participants appear to rank items. The principal dimension that emerged was one of seriousness, with a weaker dimension appearing to correspond to the distinction between cheating on coursework and cheating on exams. There were 28 academic misbehaviours listed in the survey. The two that emerged as most serious, sabotaging another student’s work and forging a university document, are seldom considered in the literature of academic dishonesty. The next four in order of seriousness are stealing or copying a test, using crib sheets in an exam, obtaining answers from someone else during an exam, and obtaining a prior copy of an exam. Interestingly, the correlate misbehaviours of giving exam questions to someone who has not yet done the exam and giving answers to someone else during the exam were considered as rather less serious. Perhaps some of the respondents to this survey believe that it takes only one to tango. Cheating in online courses versus cheating in face-to-face courses We have already mentioned that the reasons given by students for cheating include feelings of detachment or lack of personalisation. In addition, Whitley (1998, p254) reported a finding that “students were more likely to cheat when they could not see the victim of the cheating”. While these observations were not made in the context of online courses, they would seem to apply to those courses, in which the students are unlikely ever -2- to meet their teachers or most of their classmates. It might therefore be reasonable to conclude that cheating is more likely in online courses than in face-to-face courses. On the other hand, Smith and Ferguson (2002, p67) argue that “contrary to intuition, current web-based online college courses are not an alienating, massproduced product . . . Initial feelings of anonymity notwithstanding, over the course of the semester, one-toone relationships may be emphasized more in online classes than in traditional face-to-face settings.” Colwell and Jenks (2005) list a number of ways that students might cheat in online tests or exams. These include working in pairs to pass on test content or to help one another take the online tests, and obtaining the help of people not enrolled in the course. One reason that such behaviours are possible is that while an on-campus exam is conducted at a single specified time and place, an online exam must generally be available for an extended period, with students choosing when in that period they will take the exam. With students from all over the world in a single online course, it would not be possible to constrain them to a single timeslot. Problems such as this have led some authors to suggest that “current assessment practices in higher education are long overdue for a re-think; they are particularly ill-suited to the digital age” (Mason cited in Ruhe, 2002, p155) and that “the success of online learning is in essence a progressive shift from summative to formative approaches and reaching a balance of both” (Lim, Hung, Wong, & Chun, 2004, p37). The opposing viewpoint is that “a class provided in a distance-education format [must] be fundamentally equivalent to a traditionally provided one” (Christe, 2003, p54), implying that so long as we use examinations in face-to-face classes we should use them in online courses. Conducting exams in online courses A number of authors have addressed the problems with online examinations and tests, and many provide tips and guidance for running such assessment events in the online distance context. There is almost universal recognition (Ashworth et al, 1997; Colwell & Jenks, 2005; Rowe, 2004) that traditional supervised exams greatly reduce the opportunity to cheat. Where such exams are not feasible, authors suggest that “the final exam must be proctored by someone arranged for by the student and approved by the instructor” (McDonald, McDonald, & Dorn, 2003, p9) or that instructors consider requiring students to use a webcam (Landon, 1999), but “recognize the possibility of off-camera student activity that might [contravene] course rules” (Christe, 2003, p57). Unfortunately, when one’s students are sufficiently widely spread, and when one recognises the ease of cheating with either a student-selected supervisor or a webcam, it is clear that a traditional supervised exam is simply not an option. We wonder, too, whether those who suggest webcam supervision have realised that while traditional supervision of a 3-hour exam with 30 students takes about 3 hours, webcam supervision of that same exam would take as long as 90 hours. Olt (2002) and Christe (2003) recommend tight time limits on tests and exams so that students will not have time to look up all the answers. To combat the passing of tests from one student to another, Rowe (2004 p3) adds that “creating ‘windows of availability’ for assessments . . . helps a little but does not solve the problem unless the windows are on the order of minutes in width, not days”. -3- Rowe (2004) and others suggest the creation of a large pool of questions, with a number of different tests created from that pool. While this suggestion makes sense for multiple-choice and short-answer tests, it is less applicable to examinations in which the students are asked to analyse or synthesise, as it is harder to ensure that multiple questions of this nature are of comparable difficulty. Other suggestions include ensuring that students know the rules pertaining to academic behaviour and how they will be enforced (Christe, 2003; Heberling, 2002); and making the exam an open-book one because online students will treat it as one regardless (Christe, 2003; Colwell & Jenks, 2005). Finally, at least two authors (Christe, 2003; Rowe, 2004) suggest that when everything within reason has been done to discourage cheating, instructors might consider setting a trap to detect any cheating that does take place. In the single-semester postgraduate courses that this paper deals with, we certainly informed students of the rules and of the consequences for breaking them, but we wondered whether the low likelihood of discovery might still encourage cheating. The global spread of our students completely ruled out a supervised exam. It was also not feasible to conduct the exam at a single specified time – we could not justify a smaller window of availability than 48 hours, taking in both a weekend day and a weekday. Wanting to test analysis and synthesis, we were not prepared to write a multiple-choice or short-answer exam, so we felt constrained to ask exactly the same questions of all students. We specified the exam as being open-book, but wrote it in such a way that students who were unduly reliant on their books would not have time to complete it. The time limit for the exam was to be strictly enforced

an automatic e-mail would tell the instructor when the student downloaded the paper, and Blackboard? would indicate when it was returned (the exam mechanism was that students download the question paper, type their answers into that same document, and return it). While the number of ways of cheating on such an exam is limited only by the students’ imaginations, we surmised that these would include students working in groups to do the exam, discussing the questions as they worked, and students doing the exam early in the window of availability and then sending a copy to others who had yet to start it. We decided to “set a trap” to see whether we could detect any cheating of this sort (Simon, 2005a). An experiment to detect one form of cheating We produced many versions of the exam paper and made different versions available at intervals during the overall exam time. When a student’s exam was returned, it was checked to see whether it was the same version that the student officially downloaded. If it was an earlier version, the student must have had access to the exam before downloading it. It was crucial to our experiment that all versions of the exam appear identical

few students would be so silly as to return a version of the exam that is obviously different from the one they downloaded. The distinction between versions, which we call an electronic watermark, consists of a number of elements, the most comprehensive of which is the text colour. All the text of each version is in a colour that is visually indistinguishable from black, but distinct from every other version. When students place the cursor into the paper and type an answer, that answer acquires the same colour as the questions. If a student were to copy -4- and paste answers from an earlier version into the legitimate version, the questions would be in the colour of the legitimate version but the answers would be in the colour of the earlier version. We describe the watermark system in more detail in a more technically-oriented paper (Simon, 2005b). Figure 1 shows the timeline for the first exam we conducted in this way. The alternating grey and white boxes indicate successive versions of the exam. Looking at the top of the figure, we see that Version 1 was made available at 23:00 on the Saturday and was available until 5:53 on the Sunday. The shift to the right as we move towards the bottom of the figure indicates the 3_-hour time limit on the exam. Students starting Version 1 while it was available, between 23:00 and 5:53, would generally be expected to finish it between 2:30 and 9:23 – though of course an earlier finish would be possible. The dashed lines on Figure 1 indicate actual student timings for the exam. For example, the first two students downloaded the exam at about the same time, 0:21 and 0:25 on the Sunday, and returned it at 3:26 and 3:40 respectively. We 作文shall call these students Student A and Student B, and shall extend the notation to the rest of the class. Figure 1. Timeline of exam version availability and individual student accesses to the exam Cheating discovered by the experiment The experiment found three students who returned exams that were partly or wholly earlier versions than they downloaded. We believe that at least three other students were involved in these incidents, but the experiment did not confirm this unequivocally (we had intended to ensure that each student downloaded a unique version, but a problem with our university’s e-mail server made that impossible). Figure 2 shows the same timeline as in Figure 1, augmented with arrows showing the three students whose cheating was unequivocal. Figure 2. Exam timeline showing 3 students who accessed the exam well before officially downloading it -5- Student B’s paper, downloaded at 0:25 on the Sunday, shows evidence of having been completed by several people. Apart from a clear difference in writing styles between questions, the watermark for Version 1 is present in some of the answers and absent in others, indicating that the non-watermarked answers were typed in a different document and copied and pasted into this one. The first arrow indicates Student C, presumably one of these collaborators, who downloaded Version 2 of the paper at 10:48 on the Sunday and returned it at 14:17, one minute short of his deadline. However, the paper he returned was Version 1, which suggests that he acquired it at 0:25 as part of the collaboration. This student therefore had 13 hours and 52 minutes to do the paper, giving him a massive advantage over an honest student. The second arrow shows Student O, who downloaded Version 9 of the paper at 9:15 on the Monday and returned it at 12:11. The paper he returned was the expected Version 9, but the answers bore the Version 1 watermark, showing that they had been copied and pasted from Version 1. This student therefore submitted the paper 35 hours and 46 minutes after acquiring it. The third arrow shows Student AG, who downloaded Version 13 of the paper at 19:25 on the Monday and returned a completed Version 11 at 22:56. Four students, U, V, W, and X, had downloaded and returned Version 11. While we have no clear evidence which of these provided the paper in question, we strongly suspect students V and W. Combining what we can prove unequivocally with what we strongly suspect, we have uncovered two rings of cheats. Students B, C, and O appear to have collaborated to complete Student B’s exam, after which students C and O prepared at their leisure before taking the exam for themselves. Students V, W, and AG appear to have collaborated on Students V’s and W’s exams, leaving Student AG with more preparation time before completing his own exam. All three students in the second ring are from Singapore, which is perhaps not surprising in light of the Singapore study mentioned earlier (Lim & See, 2001). More interestingly, while Students C and O are also from Singapore, student B is from Hong Kong, suggesting that some serious planning went into this collaborative venture. When told that he had been caught cheating, Student AG was highly insistent that we divulge the nature of the watermark that had led to the discovery. He was not told, but we suspect that word of the watermark’s existence spread among the students, because in several subsequent exams we failed to find any more cheating of this specific kind. We did find, in subsequent exams, a repeating student who copied one of his answers from his own paper from the previous year. We also found a student who copied one of his answers from the paper of a friend who did the course the previous year. Because the exam is open book, it is not clear that this constitutes cheating. Neither student benefited from the copying

while the questions shared some key words with the -6- previous year’s questions, they were actually asking something quite different, rendering the copied answers worthless. Discussion and conclusion Alert to the possibility of a particular form of cheating in remote online exams, we conducted an experiment to detect that form of cheating. Our experiment discovered six blatant cheats in a class of 36, a proportion of 17%. We are aware of other possible ways of cheating, ways that our experiment did not detect, so we assume that these other ways of cheating are also being employed. We take reasonable measures to try to reduce the motivation to cheat, but we do not believe that these measures can ever completely eliminate cheating. While there is opportunity to cheat and the potential benefit is judged to outweigh the potential risk, some students will choose to cheat. It is probably easier to cheat on coursework assignments than on exams, if only because students have a great deal more time to work on the former. Therefore we find it easy to imagine a student using unauthorised assistance in every assessment item of an online course. Phillips and Lowe (2003) and Olt (2002) both argue that while a third party might be engaged to sit an exam for a student, it would be far harder to engage somebody to complete all of the assessments in a course. We believe that they underestimate the lengths to which a student might go to attain a qualification without earning it and the lengths to which a non-student might go to earn money or favours. We appear, then, to have two options. We could set out to persuade our university that online remote courses are by their nature prone to the most blatant cheating, and should not be offered unless this cheating can be curtailed. This option would almost certainly be unending, emotionally draining, and fruitless. Alternatively we could give up, go with the flow, and assess as if everyone were honest. It would certainly be a great deal easier, except perhaps on the conscience. References Ashworth, P., Bannister, P., Thorne, P. (1997). Guilty in whose eyes? University students’ perceptions of cheating and plagiarism in academic work and assessment. Studies in Higher Education 22(2), 187-203. Buckley, M.R., Wiese, D.S., Harvey, M.G. (1998). Identifying factors which may influence unethical behavior. Teaching Business Ethics 2(1), 71-84. Christe, B. (2003). Designing online courses to discourage dishonesty. Educause Quarterly 26(4), 54-58. Colwell, J.L., Jenks, C.F. (2005). Student ethics in online courses

some case histories. American Society for Engineering Education 2005 Illinois-Indiana Sectional Conference, DeKalb, IL, USA. Retrieved October 2005 from www.ceet.niu.edu/ASEE_ILIN/P114%20.pdf. Franklyn-Stokes, A., Newstead, S.E. (1995). Undergraduate cheating

who does what and why? Studies in Higher Education 20(2), 159-172. Heberling, M. (2002). Maintaining academic integrity in online education. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 5(1). Retrieved October 2005 from www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/spring51/heberling51.html. -7- Hutton, P.A. (2001). Understanding student cheating and what educators can do about it. Center for Teaching Excellence Teaching Tips, Canisius College, Buffalo, NY, USA. Retrieved October 2005 from www.canisius.edu/cte/teachtips.asp. Kidwell, L.A., Wozniak, K., Laurel, J.P. (2003). Student reports and faculty perceptions of academic dishonesty. Teaching Business Ethics 7(3), 205-214. Landon, B. (1999). Technical issues in systems for WWW-based course support. International Journal of Educational Telecommunications 5(4), 437-453. Lim, C.P., Hung, D., Wong, P., Chun, H. (2004). The pedagogical design of ICT integration in online learning

a case study. International Journal of Instructional Media 31(1), 37-47. Lim, V.K.G., See, S.K.B. (2001). Attitudes towards, and intentions to report, academic cheating among students in Singapore. Ethics & Behavior 11(3), 261-274. McCabe, D.L., Trevi?o, L.K., Butterfield, K.D. (2001). Cheating in academic institutions

a decade of research. Ethics & Behavior 11(3), 219-232. McDonald, G., McDonald, M., Dorn, B. (2003). Teaching without a classroom

delivering courses online. Proc 36th Annual Midwest Instruction and Computing Symposium, Duluth, MN, USA. Retrieved October 2005 from www.css.edu/depts/cis/mics_2003/MICS2003_Papers/McDonald2.PDF. Olt, M.R. (2002). Ethics and distance education

strategies for minimizing academic dishonesty in online assessment. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 5(3). Retrieved October 2005 from www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/fall53/olt53.html. Phillips, R., Lowe, K. (2003). Issues associated with the equivalence of traditional and online assessment. In G.Crisp, D.Thiele, I.Scholten, S.Barker, & J.Baron (eds), Interact, Integrate, Impact

Proc 20th Annual Conference of the Australasian Society for Computers in Learning in Tertiary Education. Adelaide, Australia, 7-10 December, 419-431. Pincus, H.S., Schmelkin, L.P. (2003). Faculty perceptions of academic dishonesty

a multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Higher Education 74(2), 196-209. Pulvers, K., Diekhoff, G.M. (1999). The relationship between academic dishonesty and college classroom environment. Research in Higher Education 40(4), 487-498. Rowe, N.C. (2004). Cheating in online student assessment

beyond plagiarism. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration 7(2). Retrieved October 2005 from www.westga.edu/~distance/ojdla/summer72/rowe72.html. Ruhe, V. (2002). Issues in the Validation of Assessment in Technology-Based Distance and Distributed Learning

What Can We Learn From Messick’s Framework? International Journal of Testing 2(2), 143-159. Simon (2005a). Assessment in online courses

some questions and a novel technique. In Brew, A., & Asmar, C. (2005). Higher Education in a changing world

Research and Development in Higher Education, 28, 500-506. Simon (2005b). Electronic watermarks to help authenticate soft-copy exams. Proc. Seventh Australasian Computing Education Conference, Newcastle, Australia, 7-13. -8- Smith, G.G., Ferguson, D. (2002). Teaching over the Web versus in the classroom

differences in the instructor experience. International Journal of Instructional Media 29(1), 61-67. Whitley, B.E. (1998). Factors associated with cheating among college students

a review. Research in Higher Education 39(3), 235-274. -9-

第一篇:blatant

Translationese 翻译症 翻译症的定义 ? 在《翻译学词典》中,其定义为:a term used to refer to TL usage which because of its obvious reliance on features of SL is perceived as unnatural, impenetrable or even comical. Translationese is typically caused by an excessively LITERAL approach to the translation process or an imperfect knowledge of TL. ? 1932年,林语堂就在其长篇论文《论翻译》一文中提出

“若是译者心中非将此原文思想译成有意义之中国话,则据 字直译,似中国话实非中国话,似通而不通,决不能达到通 顺结果。”带有翻译腔的译文往往使译文读者不知译者所云。

可读性差,甚至误导读者。 翻译症的定义 ? “翻译腔”是翻译实践中的常见病,美国翻译理论家奈达 在《翻译理论与实践》一书中称之为“translationese”。

? 翻译腔又称翻译体,是指把原语的语言形式、表达方式、 句法结构机械地移植到移入语中,因而形成一种不符合译 入语表达习惯的语言混合体。其主要特征是只顾在形式上 逐词逐句地紧随原文,忽略译入语语言结构的特点和习惯 表达方式,译文生硬牵强,可读性差。 翻译腔产生的原因 (一)只从原文的表层结构进行理解,造成翻译腔。 ? Whereas a country like Britain exhibits considerable variation in climate and landscape, the differences across the continental U.S. are extreme. ? 原译:象英国这样的国家在气候和风景上展现了很大的变化, 则在美国大陆的差异是巨大的。

? 解析:此译文试图在句子结构上亦步亦趋地紧随原文,但中 文读者可能无法理解前后两个小句之间的关系。原文中用英 国的气候多变来衬托美国气候的极端差异的表现方法,在译 文中荡然无存。只转换表层结构而忽略深层结构的译文不仅 翻译腔浓重,而且给译文读者造成了理解上的障碍。 Example ? Whereas a country like Britain exhibits considerable variation in climate and landscape, the differences across the continental U.S. are extreme. 改译:英国已然气候万千、地貌各异,而横跨美国大陆, 各地的气候、地貌更是迥然不同。

? 解析:对原文中逻辑关系的错误理解,造成翻译腔。原文 中的逻辑关系有时是隐性的,若不根据上下文理解其在上 下文中的作用和其内部的逻辑关系,则会造成翻译中的逻 辑混乱。从形式上看似乎“忠实”于原文,但实则“貌似 神离”。这种译文不仅可读性差,还会误导读者,甚至造 成对整个篇章的错误理解。 Example ? The success rate of up to 90% claimed for lie detectors is misleadingly attractive. 原译:测谎器高达百分之九十的成功率,据说有误导的吸引 力。 解析:从表层结构看,原文中的misleadingly是一个充当状 语的副词前置修饰语, 但若深入原文中隐性的逻辑关系, 从深层结构上分析,该句实际上包含了转折的含义,而不应 直译为原文形容词的修饰语。 改译:测谎器的成功率据称高达百分之九十,这颇有吸引力, 但却容易把人引入歧途。 Example ? We are responsible for actions performed in response to circumstances for which we are not responsible. ? 原译:我们对那些我们不负责任的环境做出的反应负有责任。 ? 解析:原译将原文中的定语从句译成“的”字结构,看似对 原文十分忠实,实则十分拗口,意思也含混不清。译文没有 清晰地展现原文复杂的逻辑结构。

? 改译:对环境做出适当的反应是我们的责任,虽然我们对环 境本身无能为力。 翻译腔产生的原因 (二)由于表达不当造成的翻译腔 ? 翻译腔的产生固然与对原文的理解有关,但更多的是由于 表达不当造成的。对原文的正确理解是翻译的前提,而用 译语准确地表达原文是保证译文质量的关键。

? 在译语表达阶段,如果不了解原语与译语在语言结构上和 表达方式上的差异,也会不自觉地受原文的影响和束缚, 把原语的表达方式、句法结构、修辞手法机械地移植到译 入语中,造成“翻译腔”。 翻译腔产生的原因 ? 1.词和短语搭配不当,造成翻译腔。 ? 源语中的搭配与目的语的搭配习惯不完全对应,这就要求我 们要特别小心双语种搭配不当的地方。不能机械照搬源语搭 配,而应代之以汉语的搭配方式。

? His determination of breaking the bad habits was strengthened by her encouragement. ? 原译:她的鼓励坚定了他打破那些坏习惯的决心。

? 解析:原文中“breaking the bad habits”译为“打破习 惯”。译文的这种搭配显然不符合中文的表达习惯。

? 改译:她的鼓励坚定了他改掉恶习的决心。 翻译腔产生的原因 ? 2.过于直译,忽略了英汉两种语言表达的差异,照搬原文 的句法结构,造成翻译腔。 ? 一些译者,尤其是初学翻译的人,往往一味担心形式上偏离 原文即为不忠实于原文。因而只顾在表达形式上亦步亦趋的 模仿原文,熟不知忠实而不通顺,读者看不懂,或者看不下 去,忠实也就失去了意义,实际上就是不忠实。 ? 英汉两种语言差异较大,这种差异不仅表现在词的层面上, 还表现在句法的层面上。

? 英语是形合的语言,汉语是意合的语言。在翻译中如果紧随 原文的句法结构,译文中势必会有些部分令人不忍卒读。 Example ? The era of blatant discrimination ended in the 1960s through the courageous actions of thousands of blacks participating in peaceful marches and sit-ins to force Southern states to implement the Federal desegregation laws in schools and public accommodation. ? 原译:明显的种族歧视时期结束于20世纪60年代,这是通过 成千上万的黑人勇敢无畏的行动得以实现的。他们进行了和 平的游行示威和静坐以迫使南方政府废除在学校和公共场所 的种族歧视法。

? 改译:20世纪60年代,成千上万的黑人参加和平示威游行和 静坐,经过英勇卓绝的斗争迫使南方各州实施联邦政府关于 在学校和公共场所废除种族隔离的法律,从而结束了公然歧 视黑人的年代。 ? 解析:从句子结构看,英语句子中,主谓这一主干结构 突出。在表达较复杂的思想时,往往开门见山,以谓语 动词为核心,借助大量反映形式关系的连词、介词、关 系代词、关系副词、非谓语动词等进行空间搭架,把各 个分句有机地结合起来。

? 汉语句子中,语法结构往往是隐性的,寓于语义结构中。

在表达复杂思想时,常常借助动词,按时间顺序、逻辑 顺序、因果顺序,逐步交待,层层铺开,而不允许颠三 倒四,牵挂后连。

? 基于这种句法差异,英语句子往往呈现首中心的特点, 汉语句子则呈现尾中心的特点。故在此句的翻译中,应 按照汉语句子的布局习惯重新排列句子顺序。 Example ? Twenty thousand plants are listed by the World Health Organization as being used for therapeutic purposes. ? 原译:20000种植物被世界卫生组织列为可以被用作治疗 目的。 ? 解析:英汉两种语言中虽然都有被动语态。但一般来说, 英语中被动语态的使用频率高于汉语,因此,在英译汉的 过程中,原文中的不少被动语态需要作出转换。而在许多 译文中,“被”字经常不绝于耳,致使翻译腔浓重。 ? 改译:世界卫生组织列出了20000种药用植物。 Conclusion ? 在句法表达层面上出现的翻译腔现象最为普遍。

? 有的译者完全不顾英汉两种语言表达的差异,比如形 合与意合的差异,主语句与主题句的差异,物称与人 称的差异,复杂句与简单句的差异等。而是照搬原文 表达方式,结果译出了一些让中国读者看不顺眼的 “格式化”译文,违背了中文的表达方式。造成“当 当不绝(对when的翻译)”、“的的不休(对of的翻 译)”、“被被不断(对be done的翻译)”等现象。 翻译腔的克服方法 ? 正确使用工具书。在使用工具书的时候,初学翻译的人常有 两种倾向:一是不勤于查工具书,二是不善于查工具书。往 往只满足于英汉词典的汉语释义,甚至只满足于第一个释义。

这就造成有些译文上下文不清晰,搭配不当等问题。

? If you concentrate on books somebody tells you that you ought to read, you probably won?t have fun. ? 译为:你若拘泥于别人指定你读的书,那么读书就毫无乐趣 可言了。

? 由此可见,词典固然是翻译中必不可少的工具,但若只是一 味照搬词典释义,而忽略上下文,译文定是机械僵硬的。 翻译腔的克服方法 ? 理解原文的表层结构和深层结构。 ? 正确的理解是翻译的前提条件,也是避免翻译腔的重要 条件。

? 这里的理解不仅仅指对原文字词、短语、句法的理解, 更是指对原文篇章结构、深层逻辑关系的理解。

? 对原文的理解不能只见树木不见森林,必须结合其篇章 语境、情景语境和社会语境。 翻译腔的克服方法 ? 注意汉语表达习惯,以汉语行文的习惯组织语言, 结构篇章。 ? 在表达上并不反对适当照顾到原文表达形式上的特殊性,在 必要而又可能的情况下,适度地保留一些洋化句法的特征。

? 但在翻译的时候要把握一个原则,即:在中文语法文法允许 的情况下可保留一些原文表达的特征,若难以保留则用中文 行文习惯重组原文。

? 所谓翻译技巧,就是对语言差异的灵巧处理。在翻译中,时 刻清楚地认识到英汉两种语言在词语搭配和句法结构上的差 异,用汉语遣词造句的特征,对译文作出必要的变通,做到 变中求信、变中求顺。 翻译腔的克服方法 ? 认真审校。审校是翻译过程中不可或缺的一部分。 ? 一是看译文中有没有冗余的词语,有些在英语中必不可少的功 能词在汉语中常常是多余的。比如and是连接两个英文小句的 常用词,在翻译时不必要翻译成“并且,而且,同时”,译文 中的表达顺序已经表达了and的含义。

? 二是要译文中有没有不符合汉语句法的表达。这一点在长句的 翻译中尤为明显,译文中硬要保留原文牵挂后连的从句和修饰 语,打破了中文“流水句”的表达习惯,使译文晦涩生硬。

? 三是看译文中的逻辑关系是否清晰。有些译文看似忠实,但实 际上没有传译出原文的深层逻辑结构,译文没有全局感、整体 感。译文读者仍会感到与原作有隔膜,从而无法真正理解译文。

第一篇:blatant

CIC on STCW Hours of Rest STCW 公约休息时间的集中检查 General 总述 During Port State Control Committee 23 in Singapore, January 2013 it was agreed to undertake a CIC on hours of rest in 2014. The CIC would only look at deck and E/R watch keepers? hours of rest under STCW 78 as amended by the Manila Conference. This CIC will be undertaken on every ship eligible for inspection during the period of the campaign. 2013 年 1 月在新加坡召开的 PSC 第 23 次委员会,提出 2014 年的 CIC 为 休息时间。将检查甲板、轮机值班人员是否遵循 STCW 公约马尼拉修正案规定的休 息时间。本次 CIC 将在集中检查运动期间对选中的船舶进行检查。

Purpose 目的 The purpose of the CIC is to establish that watch keeping personnel are meeting the requirements regarding hours of rest as per STCW 78 as amended. 集中检查运动的目 的,是检查值班人员是否满足 STCW 公约修正案规定的休息时间。

Definitions 定义 3.1 “Hours of rest” means time outside hours of work; this term does not include short breaks. ILO180 Art 2/MLC 2006 Standard A2.3“休息时间” 是指工作外的时间; 该定义不包括短暂的休息。

3.2 “Hours of work” means time during which seafarers are required to do work on account of the ship. ILO180 Art 2/MLC 2006 Standard A2.3 “工作时间”是指船员需要 进行与船舶有关的工作的时间。

3.3 “Watch keeper” means all persons who are assigned duty as officer in charge of a watch or as a rating forming part of a watch. “值班人员” 是指所有被指定负责值班的 高级船员,或者组成值班人员的普通船员。

3.4 “Minimum Safe Manning Document or Equivalent” means a document issued by the Administration as evidence of the minimum safe manning considered necessary to comply with the provisions of SOLAS regulation V/14.” “最低安全配员文件或等效文 件” 是指由当局签发的文件,该文件证明最低安全配员已经考虑到遵守 SOLAS regulation V/14 条款要求。

3.5 “UMS” means Unattended Machinery Space(s) and is a class notation whereby there are specific criteria to be met regarding controls, alarms and safeguards to operate the ship with the machinery space(s) unattended. The notation will be found on the Certificate of Class. Ref SOLAS Ch II-1 Part E Reg 46 “UMS” 是指无人值守的处所, 作为船级社标记,该处所的特定标准,能满足控制、报警与保护措施以能在无人情 况下对船舶进行操作。该标记可以在船级社证书中找到。

检查项目细节 1.Is a watch schedule posted in an easily accessible area? STCW Section A- VIII/1 (5). Def code

01306 是否在容易接近的处所,张贴值班时间表? 2. Is the ship manned in accordance with MSMD or an equivalent document? SOLAS 1999/2000 Amend / Chapter V Reg. 14. Def code

01209 船舶是否按照最低安 全配员文件或等效文件配员? 3. Are there records of daily hours of rest for each watch keeper? STCW Section A-VIII/1 (7). Def code

01308 每一名值班人员是否有每天的休息时间记录? 4. Have the records in Qu 3 been endorsed by an appropriate person STCW Section A-VIII/1 (7). Def code

01308 上述第三项中的记录,是否由合适的人员备注确认? 5. Are records related to hours of rest being recorded correctly? STCW Section A-VIII/1 (7). Def code

09236 关于休息时间的记录是否正确? 6. Do rest periods for all watch keeping personnel comply with STCW requirements, including the weekly requirements of rest? STCW Section A- VIII/1 (2). Def code

09235 所有值班人员的休息时间是否满足 STCW 要求,包括每周的休息时间要求? 7.Will the watch keepers on the first and subsequent watch after departure have sufficient time to rest? STCW RegI/4 or STCW Reg VIII/1.1.2. Def code

09235 离港后 的第一位与接下来一班的值班人员,是否有充分的休息时间? 8. Is there evidence that on-call seafarers receive adequate compensatory rest periods if disturbed by call-outs to work? STCW A-VIII/1.6. Def code

09235 是否有证据表明随 时待命的人员中断休息进行工作后,有充足的补充休息? 9.Do the records indicate that a bridge lookout is being maintained? STCW Section A-VIII/ 4-1 (14). Def code

01306 记录是否表明,驾驶台有保持瞭望? Qu 1 - Is a watch schedule with shipboard working arrangements posted in an easily accessible area? 是否在容易接近的处所,张贴值班时间表 The watch keeping schedule for all watch keepers is to be posted where it is easily accessible for all those who are affected by the schedule. The schedule should be in the working language or languages of the ship and in English. It should include, daily rest hours at sea and daily rest hours in port. If the schedule is not posted, or not readily available as required, then a deficiency code 17 should be issued. 所有值班人员的值班 时间表,应张贴在所有可能相关的人员的易见处。该时间表应使用工作语言或船舶 语言和英语。应包含在海上和港口的每天休息时间。如果该时间表未张贴或未按要 求备好,将被记录缺陷,代码 17。

Convention Ref

STCW Section A-VIII/1 (5) Deficiency Ref

01306 Nature of defect

Not posted Suggested Action Taken Code

17 Qu 2* – Is the ship manned in accordance with MSMD or an equivalent document? 船舶是否按照最低安全配员文件或等效文件配员 Confirm by looking at a crew list that the ship is manned at least according to the requirements of the Minimum Safe Manning Document (MSMD) or equivalent. Confirm whether the ship is required to carry an engineer officer(s). Some smaller ships do not require an engineer officer(s), however the MSMD should set out any special conditions eg; the ship is designated UMS, one of the deck officers may be designated to attend to the machinery and be suitably qualified. If the ship is not manned in accordance with the MSMD or an equivalent document, the flag State should be consulted. If after consultation, the actual crew number or composition is not brought in accordance with the MSMD or the flag State does not advise that the ship may sail, the ship may be considered for detention. (See PSC Committee Instruction on STCW) 通过检查船员名单,确认船 舶是按照最低安全配员文件或等效文件进行配员。确认船舶是否需要配备轮机员。

有些小船不需要轮机员,但是最低安全配员文件应列出任何的特殊情况如:船舶是 无人机舱设计,一名甲板高级船员可以被指定关注机械设备并且能胜任。如果船舶 没有按照最低安全配员文件或等效文件进行配员,应告知船旗国。告知后,如果确 认实际的船员数量或构成不满足最低安全配员文件或船旗国不建议船舶开航,船舶 将被考虑滞留。

Convention Ref

SOLAS 1999/2000 Amend / Chapter V Reg. 14 for ships constructed on or after 25-5-1980 Deficiency Ref

01209 Nature of defect

Not as required Suggested Action Taken Code

17/30 Qu 3 - Are there records of daily hours of rest for each watch keeper? 每一名值班人 员是否有每天的休息时间记录 Check that there are records of rest for each individual watch keeper serving on the ship. The records shall be maintained in a standardized format, in the working language or languages of the ship and in English in accordance with flag State provisions. 检查船上 服务的每一名值班人员都有个人休息时间记录。该记录要有标准格式,按照船旗国 要使用工作语言或船上语言和英语。

Convention Ref

STCW Section A-VIII/1 (7) Deficiency Ref

01308 Nature of defect

Missing Suggested Action Taken Code

17 *The format of records may be as per IMO/ILO guidelines for the development of tables of seafarers’ shipboard working arrangements and format of records of seafarers’ hours of work or hours of rest. Qu 4 - Has the record in Qu 3 been endorsed by an appropriate person? 上述第三项 中的记录,是否由合适的人员备注确认 There is a requirement that seafarers shall receive a copy of the records pertaining to them, which shall be endorsed by the master, or by a person authorized by the master, and by the seafarers. 要求船员应收到与其有关的记录复件。该复件应有船长或船长指定 的人员和船员备注确认。

Convention Ref

STCW Section A-VIII/1 (7) Deficiency Ref

01308 Nature of defect

Not endorsed Suggested Action Taken Code

17 Qu 5 - Are records related to hours of rest being recorded correctly? 关于休息时间 的记录是否正确 It is important to try and establish that the hours of rest recorded on the daily hours of rest sheet for each watch keeper are genuine and have not been falsified to show compliance with the requirements. 很重要的是应尝试并建立每名值班人员的每日休 息时间的记录,是真实且没有伪造以证明其符合要求。

This may be obvious if the recorded hours are regular, day in day out, week in, week out and no account taken of additional hours such as drills, maneuvering during arrival/departure, particularly for the master where there may be periods of pilotage, bad weather etc. In blatant cases the record will have been prematurely completed for the future. 如果记录的时间很有规律,每天、每周都一样,没有考虑额外的时间如演习、 进出港操纵、特别是船长在引航时间、恶劣天气等情况等,这一点(伪造)会很明 显。对未来的情况已经做了记录也是明显的错误。

If the PSCO suspects that the records are falsified then a comparison needs to be undertaken between the watch keeping schedule, the hours recorded for a particular watch keeper and with other documentation such as the official log book, bridge and engine room log books, bell books and crew overtime records to confirm accuracy of recording and compliance with the basic requirements concerning the minimum hours of rest. 如果 检查官怀疑记录伪造,将与值班时间表、特定人员的值班时间记录和其他文件如官 方日志、驾驶台/机舱航海日志、车钟记录簿和船员加班记录比对,以确认记录的准 确性并符合休息时间的最低要求。

When looking at the hours of rest of the watch keepers, compare the ?hours of rest? records with what has actually been happening onboard ship. For example are the junior deck officers just recording the same rest hours every day, but actually doing 6 on 6 off in port from the records in the deck log book? What about mooring station time, does that information from the bell book match the hours of rest records? 当检查值班人员的休息 时间记录时,应与船上实际情况对比。例如二、三副每天只是记录相同时间,但是 实际上在 LOG BOOK 上记录是港口期间六、 六班当值?带缆期间, 休息时间是否与 车钟记录簿上记录的时间相符? The same is true for the engine room watchkeepers, do they just record 0800 -1200, 1300-1700every day for an unattended engine room? What about night rounds and standby times? Some ships that are not designated as UMS on the MSMD are provided with only one qualified engineer officer and in some cases an engine rating in addition. Unless the ship is on restricted length of voyages it is not possible to operate like this.同 样对于机舱的值班人员,无人机舱时是否都记录每天 0800 -1200, 1300-1700 工作? 夜间训班与待命时间是否记录?有些船舶非最低安全配员文件要求的无人机舱,只 配置一名轮机员,某些情况下另外配置一名机舱普通船员。除非船舶是在限制航行 时间的航次上运行,否则不允许这种情况。

There is also a requirement in STCW A-VIII/2 Part 5-1, paragraph 95.1 for an engineer to be in charge of the watch in port on ships of 3000kW and above. There are some ships that have engine power of greater than 3000kW, are UMS and have only one engineer on board. In effect this engineer cannot be granted any shore leave. 在 STCW A-VIII/2 Part 5-1, paragraph 95.1 关于 3000 千瓦以上船舶港口期间另有规定。对于功 率超过 3000 千瓦的船舶,有些是无人机舱且只需要一名轮机员在船。实际上,该轮 机员不允许离船上岸。

Whilst it may be unreasonable to record rest hours to the nearest minute, a fair record of the hours actually allocated for rest should be recorded. This will allow the Master to ensure that watch keepers are adequately rested before taking up duty. 考虑到记录到分 钟的休息时间是不合理的,可以记录实际的休息小时。这可以让船长确保值班人员 在值班前进行了充足的休息。

Evidence to be examined (and collected where necessary) 将被检查的证据 (或者在 需要的时候应收集) Information that may be examined as part of this process may include

作为这一步 骤,需要检查的信息可以包括

· Copies of records of rest 休息时间记录的复件; · Copies of relevant and contradicting records in the deck log or engine log, the more errors copied the better, perhaps 5 or so if possible with different sources / personnel 甲板 或机舱航海日志中相关的和矛盾的记录,越多的错误复件越好。或许五份及以上的 不同来源/人员的资料; · Copies of bell books 车钟记录簿复件; · Copies of watch keeping schedules 值班时间表复件; · Consider getting statements from the relevant watch keepers 考虑从值班人员得到 事实陈述。

Convention Ref

STCW Section A-VIII/1 (7) Deficiency Ref

09236 (3240) Nature of defect

Not as required. Additional Comment “Records of rest appear to be falsified” Suggested Action Taken Code

17 Qu 6 - Do rest periods for all watch keeping personnel comply with STCW requirements, including the weekly requirements of rest? 所有值班人员的休息时间 是否满足 STCW 要求,包括每周的休息时间要求 The basic requirement for watch keepers is that they should be provided with a rest period (Rest period means time outside hours of work, this does not include short breaks) of not less than

对于值班人员的基本要求,是他们可以有休息时间(休息时间是指 工作之外的时间,这不包括简短的休息) ,不少于: · A minimum of 10 hours rest in any 24 hour period · 77 hours in any 7-day period 任 何 24 小时内至少有 10 小时,任何 7 天内至少有 77 小时; The hours of rest may be divided into no more than two periods, one of which shall be at least 6 hours in length, and the intervals between consecutive periods of rest shall not exceed 14 hours. 休息时间可以分为最多两个阶段,其中的一个阶段不少于 6 小 时。连续的两个休息期间不能超过 14 小时。

Note that the starting point of the 24 hour period is important. In the absence of any guidelines/ instructions from the flag State the 24 hour period should be from the beginning or end of a rest period. Since the hours of rest only may be divided into no more than two periods, consequently only the two longest rest periods should be counted, and additional short breaks and meal breaks could not be included in the total periods of rest. 注意,24 小时的起始时间非常重要。如果船旗国没有任何的指导/说明,24 小 时的起始,应该是在一个休息期间的开始或结束。既然休息时间只可能分成不多于 两个阶段,因此只有两个最长的休息时间应该计算,并且额外的短暂休息和用餐时 间,不应该包括在总休息时间内。

If a watch keeper is receiving less than 10 hours rest in 24 hours (ie working in excess of 14 hours) this should be recorded as a deficiency. It is also important to verify that the watch keeper is obtaining 77 hours rest in any 7-day period, if not then a deficiency should be recorded. Note

a seven day period can be ANY consecutive 7 days. It is incorrect to assume that this refers to a working week such as Sunday to Sunday.. It is up to the professional judgement of the PSCO as to how far back to look at the records but 3-4 weeks would seem reasonable. However, the PSCO should take into account of any guidelines/instructions from the flag State. 如果值班人员在 24 小时内的休息时间 小于 10 小时(即工作时间超过 14 小时) ,将被记录为缺陷。另外也要核实值班人员 在任何 7 天时间内获得 77 小时的休息,如果不是,将被记录为缺陷。注意:七天时 间,可以是任意连续 7 天,不是我们一般情况下认为的工作周的周日到周日。检查 官将根据其职业决定来确定检查以往多长时间的记录,但是 3 到 4 周的记录是合理 的。但是,检查官应该考虑船旗国的任何的指导/说明。

*Note

Flag State administrations may allow exceptions in accordance with STCW Chapter VIII, Section A-VIII/1-9, see below under “Guidance on detention” 船旗国当局 可能根据 STCW 第八章第 A-VIII/1-9 条款的内容允许免除。参考以下“滞留指导”。

Convention Ref

STCW Section A-VIII/1 (2) Deficiency Ref

09235 (3230) Nature of defect

Rest hours insufficient Suggested Action Taken Code

17 Qu 7* - Will the watch keepers on the first and subsequent watch after departure be sufficiently rested and fit for duty? 离港后的第一位与接下来一班的值班人员,是否 有充分的休息时间 Ask the Master to indicate how he/she will ensure the watch keepers will be fit for the first and subsequent watches. What plan does he/she have for the expected departure? 请船长表明,他/她如何确保值班人员能够适合离港后的第一班及以后的班。他/她对 即将开航(的值班安排)有何计划? The PSCO should try and obtain objective evidence* as to whether watch keepers are suitably rested, having possibly been engaged in various activities while the ship is in port (for example, loading/unloading, attending to survey and inspection, etc). If the PSCO determines by objective evidence* that the watch keeper(s) has not rested enough and is not fit for duty then the PSCO should consider detention of the vessel until such time as the watch keeper(s) becomes fit for duty. If the PSCO determines by objective evidence that a watch keeper(s) due to take the first or relieving watch at the commencement of a voyage has not had, or will not have, the minimum rest periods required in STCW then the PSCO should consider detention of the vessel until such time as those rest periods have been taken. 港口检查官应尽力获得客观证据表面值班人员 进行了合理的休息,并且参与了船舶在港口期间的各种活动(例如,装/卸货,参与 验货与检查等) 如果检查官根据客观证据决定值班人员无足够的休息且不适合值班, 检查官可以决定对船舶进行滞留,直到值班人员适合值班。如果检查官根据客观证 据决定值班人员由于值开航后的第一班或者下一个班,未能进行或者将无法进行 STCW 要求的足够的休息, 检查官可以考虑滞留船舶直到满足公约要求的休息时间。

PSCO's may inspect the voyage plan required by STCW Code A-VIII/2 and SOLAS Ch V Reg 34, taking into account the planned departure time and the watch schedule, together with any work in port, as objective evidence that watch keepers will be sufficiently rested prior to taking the first and subsequent watches. 检查官可以检查船舶 根据 STCW A-VIII/2 部分和 SOLAS 第 V 章第 34 条要求编制的航次计划, 参考计划 开航时间和值班日程表,以及结合港口的任何工作作为值班人员将在接开航后第一 班和接下来的一班前进行了足够的休息的客观证据。

*Objective evidence could include, but is not limited to; log book entries. 客观证据 可以包括但是不限于:航海日志记录 Convention Ref

STCW Reg I/4.2.5 or STCW Reg VIII/1.1.2 Deficiency Ref

09235 (3230) Nature of defect

Other. Additional comment “Watch keepers not sufficiently rested” Suggested Action Taken Code

17/30 Qu 8 - Is there evidence that an on-call seafarer receives adequate compensatory rest periods if disturbed by call-outs to work? 是否有证据,表明随时待命的人员,在被 叫出工作后有充足的补充休息 STCW allows for seafarers working on-call, for example engineer officers operating a periodically unattended machinery space to be compensated by an additional rest period if they have had to work additional hours. This would need to be confirmed by the C/Engineer?s records of machinery operations eg; E/R Log. STCW 允许船员随叫随到, 例如,在定期无人当值船上的轮机员在不得不进行额外工作后,应该补偿给额外的 休息时间。这个应该由轮机长的机舱工作记录例如机舱航海日志中确认。

Convention Ref

STCW A-VIII/1.6 Deficiency Ref

09235 (3230) Nature of Defect

Rest hours insufficient Suggested Action Taken Code

17 Qu9 – Do records indicate that a bridge lookout is being maintained? 记录是否表 明,驾驶台有保持瞭望 STCW is clear that a proper lookout shall be maintained at all times in compliance with rule 5 of the International Regulations for Preventing Collisions at Sea, 1972, as amended. STCW 明确表明,驾驶台任何时候都应按照国际海上避碰规则第五条要求 保持正规瞭望。

Under certain conditions the lookout can be stood down during the day, providing full account has been taken of all relevant factors, including, but not limited to

在某些情 况下,瞭望可以在白天时间在非驾驶台处所进行,但是前提是充分考虑了所有的相 关因素,包括但不限于

- state of weather; 天气情况 - visibility; 能见度 - traffic density; 交通密度 - proximity of dangers to navigation; and 可能的航行危险,和 - the attention necessary when navigating in or near traffic separation schemes; and assistance is immediately available to be summoned to the bridge when any change in the situation so requires. 在航行在或驶近分道通航区;且在条件变化时,能够立即召集 协助人员到驾驶台。

Check with the available records that a lookout is being kept particularly during the hours of darkness. 检查相关记录,特别是在天黑后一直有安排瞭望。

Convention Ref

STCW (Manila amendments)/ STCW Code Part A / CHAPTER VIII/Part 4-1 (14) Deficiency Ref

01306 (0253) Nature of defect

Other. Additional comment

“Bridge lookout not being maintained” Suggested Action Taken Code

17 Qu10 - Was the ship detained as a result of this CIC? 船舶是否因 CIC 滞留 To be completed “Yes” or “No” accordingly. If the ship has been detained for other issues but includes one or more detainable deficiencies related to the questions for the CIC (Questions 1–8) then the question should be answered “Yes”. 应相应地填写“是”或 “否”。如果船舶由于其他原因被滞留,但是包含一项或更多项与 CIC(1-8 项内容) 有关的滞留项,应该填写“是” 。

Guidance on Detention 有关滞留的指导 Non compliance with STCW in respect of rest hours may result in detention, however detention may not always be appropriate as the breach may have taken place in the past. 未遵守 STCW 公约关于休息时间的规定可能导致滞留。但是,如果违规是 发生在过去时间内,不一定总是要导致滞留。

However on checking the records the PSCO may find a breach may have taken place several days before. In this case it is important to verify whether there is a systematic breach of the requirements which could call into question the effectiveness of the Safety Management System in ensuring critical operation of the ship. In such a circumstance, an ISM deficiency should be recorded in accordance with the PSCO guidelines on the ISM Code. 但是如果通过检查记录,检查官可能发现违规是发生在几天前。这种情况下, 重要的一点是要确认是否有体系原因违反规定, 可能对 SMS 在确保重要操作时的规 定产生疑问, 这种情况下应根据 ISM 规则要求,记录船上 ISM 缺陷。
blatant》由(一起看范文网)整理提供,版权归原作者、原出处所有。
Copyright © 一起看范文网 All Rights Reserved.