Question

谁能帮我翻译一下?

爱德蒙.利奇
埃德蒙.利奇 （1910—1989）出生于英国西迪芝斯，1933年经雷蒙德.弗斯介绍进入马陵诺夫斯基门下学习人类学。1939年开始研究克钦人，因而写成《缅甸高地的政治体制》，成为人类学经典之作。此外，他的代表作还有《文化与交流》等等。埃德蒙.利奇是象征人类学的代表人物之一。
利奇在分析结构时，具有浓厚的结构主义色彩。虽然他受拉得克里夫.布朗的影响较深，但他始终对其结构功能论持批判的态度。在学术方面，他最大的特点就是继承和发扬了列维.施特劳斯的结构理论，并且始终如一的对其持强烈的兴趣，因此也被叫做英国的列维.施特劳斯。
不过，虽然很多方面利奇和列维施特劳斯的观点或方法论上都相近，但是，通过比较他们之间也存在着差别。利奇诸种田野调查，更重要的是他的结构分析并不绝对排斥经验实体的介入，结构范畴中也有不少的功能主义的因素。可以说，在他的著作中，他更多的是试图将这两种方法结合起来使用，即同时运用了经验主义和理性主义的研究方式。在他看来，这两者的区别只是研究客体的不同，前者更多的是“注重事实”，即经济和社会活动；而后者则主要研究的是思想和“思维”体系。他的这种同时运用的方法也被称为“新结构主义”。
利奇的主要观点是零散的，主要都体现在他的著作当中。在《缅甸高地的政治体制》中，他提出了对社会平衡论的质疑，并由案例提出了冲突论的观点，这一观点的提出，给当时的人类学届很大的震动。另外，利奇也在他的《文化与交流》中分析和解释了所为的象征体系。他认为，这种象征体系主要包括了神话、巫术、宗教。这部著作中最主要的两个论点就是转喻与隐喻，换句话说就是符号和象征的问题。他主要是把符号和象征进行了区分：所为符号，表达了一种内在的联系，它与它所表达的事物同属于一个文化背景，是一种“局部代表整体”的关系，如皇冠是代表王权的符号，这种就是转喻的关系（这点希望把原句的观点弄上来）；而象征则代表了属于不同文化背景下的事物，比如……另外，在这本书中，他还特别强调了情境因素的重要性。
他对象征主义的研究方式重要有两种：社会—结构的分析方式和结构主义的分析方式。在这两种方式中，思想结构（仪式）与社会结构（社会类别）之间的明确区分不复存在。因为这两个方面都被看做是一个单位的相互作用的整体，都能被单独的进行逻辑分析。他还反复强调，象征不可能在孤立的条件下得到理解，象征总是潜在的具有多种解释，只有当象征作为整套文化的组成部分时并与其它象征进行对比时他们才产生意义。因此要正确理解象征的主题就必须详细研究象征的文化背景。
利奇由于是理工科出身的人类学家，因此在他的研究论著中，大多数情况下都参合了数学方面的知识，这就为理解带来了一定难度。另外，书中的论点都都深奥难懂，有时候读起来云里雾里的。不过，这种情况多数只出现在前几个章节，后几章节中又会通过例子进行补充，这种补充可以帮助读者理解文章，并且通过例子，我们能够更好的理解作者的意图，和要表达的思想内容。

Answer 1

Edmond. Leitch
Edmundo. Leach (1910-1989) was born in the United Kingdom Chi Sidi Adams, in 1933 by Raymond. Firth introduced into the Ma-ling Sinofsky subglottic study of anthropology. 1939 Kachin people started to look, thus written, "Myanmar's political system Heights" and a classic of anthropology. In addition, there is his masterpiece "cultural and exchange" and so on. Edmundo. Nikolic is the representative of one of symbolic anthropology.
Leach in the analysis of structure, the structure with a strong color. Although he pulled Cliff. Brown's impact on the deeper, but he has always been its structure and function of critical attitude. Academically speaking, his greatest characteristic is to inherit and carry forward the Levy. Strauss structure theory, and its consistent strong interest, it has also been called Britain's Levy. Strauss.
However, although many aspects of Leach and Levi Strauss views or have similar methodology, but also between them by comparing the differences. Leach诸种field research and, more importantly, structural analysis, he does not absolutely exclude the involvement of the experience of physical, structural areas there are many factors of functionalism. It can be said that in his book, he is more attempt to combine the use of two methods, namely, at the same time use of empiricism and rationalism research. In his view, this is only the difference between the two objects of different studies, the former is more "pay attention to the facts", that is, economic and social activities; while the latter is the main ideas and "thinking" system. His use of the method at the same time, also known as the "new structuralism."
Leach's main view is fragmented, mainly reflected in his book of them. In the "Heights Myanmar's political system," he put forward the theory of social balance questioned by the case put forward a clash of views, the views put forward, to the then Anthropology session great shock. In addition, Leach is also his "Culture and Communication" in the analysis and interpretation of the symbol for the system. In his view, such a symbol of the system mainly include the myths, magic and religion. This book is the most important two points Metonymy and metaphor, in other words, symbols and symbolic issues. He is the symbol of symbols and makes a distinction between: for symbols, the expression of an intrinsically linked with its expression of things belong to the same cultural background, is a "local representative of the overall" relationship, such as the Crown is on behalf of the Crown of the symbols, this is the relationship between metonymy (that it hopes to get the views of the original sentence of up); and represents the symbol of belonging to different cultural backgrounds of things, such as ... ... In addition, in this book, he also placed special emphasis on the importance of situational factors.
He symbolism research, there are two important ways: the community - the structure analysis and structural analysis of the way. In both methods, the ideological structure (the ceremony) and the social structure (social category) no longer exists a clear distinction between. Because these two areas have been seen as a unit in the overall interaction, can be a separate logical analysis. He also repeatedly emphasized that a symbol can not be isolated under the conditions of understanding, a symbol of the potential always has a wide range of interpretation, only when a symbol of culture as an integral part of the package when compared with other symbol, they only have meaning. Therefore necessary to correctly understand the symbol of the theme of a detailed study to be a symbol of the cultural background.
Leach is a science and engineering as a result of anthropologists who, in his research works on, the majority of cases Participation All mathematical knowledge, which brought to understand a certain degree of difficulty. In addition, the book's arguments are both profound and difficult to understand, and sometimes read the yunliwuli. However, the majority of such cases only the first few chapters, after a few chapters will be supplemented through the examples, which can help readers understand the supplementary articles, and through examples, we can better understand the author's intentions, and to the expression of ideological content.

Answer 2

Edmond....
Edmund. (1989), was born in Britain in 1910 - di zhi west, 1933, introduced by Raymond. All door MaLing into learning anthropology. In 1939, began to research and gram qin highland Burma in the political system, become anthropology classic. In addition, his masterpiece and culture and communication, etc. Edmund. The symbol anthropology is the representative figure of one.
In the analysis of structure, strong structuralism colour. Although he's cliff. Brown's influence, but he has a deep structure and function of the theory of criticism. In the academic, his biggest characteristic is to inherit and carry forward the levy of structure theory,. Leo strauss and consistently for the strong interest, so also called British levy. Strauss.
However, although many aspects, and the views or strauss levy is similar, but in methodology, through the comparison of the differences between them also exist. The field survey, more important is, he is not absolute rejection of the structure analysis, structure of solid experience in the category, there are many factors of function. Can say, in his books, he is trying to be more of these two kinds of methods, namely, combined with the empiricism and rationalism research methods. In his view, the difference is different, the former research object is more "truth", namely, economic and social activities, The latter is the main research ideas and "thinking" system. He used this method is also called "the new structure.
The main point is scattered, mainly embodied in his works. In the highlands of Burma's political system, he proposed to the society, and the theory of balancing questioned by the case raised conflict theory viewpoint, this view was put forward and give of anthropology. In addition, the odd also on the cultural exchanges and the analysis and interpretations of the symbol of actions. He thinks, this kind of symbol system mainly includes the mythology, religion, witchcraft. This work is the main arguments and, in other words, the symbolic and symbol. He is mainly the symbols and symbol for the distinction between symbols to express an internal contact with it, it expressed things belong to one and the same cultural background, it is a kind of "local representatives of the whole", such as a crown is the symbol of kingship, the relationship is metonymy (the original sentence to get up the viewpoint), But the symbol represents the things under different cultural background, for instance, in the book..., he also highlights the importance of context.
His research methods of symbolism is important to have two kinds: social -- structural analysis and structural analysis. In this way, the two ideas structure (ritual) and social structure (social categories of a clear distinction between exist. Because of these two aspects are seen as a unit, the whole interaction can be single logical analysis. He also reiterated that the symbol may not be isolated conditions, the symbol of the potential is always explain, only when the symbol as part of the whole culture when compared with other symbols when they occur. So should have a correct understanding of the symbolic theme must a detailed study of the symbolic culture background.
Due to an engineering background, the anthropologist, so in his research works in most cases all ginseng adds up to a mathematical knowledge, it will bring certain difficulty to understand. In addition, the argument is abstruse, sometimes difficult to read in the clouds. However, this most occur only in the first few chapters, after several chapters will through the example, it can be added to help readers understand articles, and through examples, we can better understand the author's intention, and to express the ideological content.