[雙語(yǔ)翻譯]--外文翻譯--新媒體如何提供網(wǎng)絡(luò)多樣性（節(jié)選）

1、中文 中文 5050 字， 字，2800 單詞， 單詞，1.6 萬(wàn)英文字符 萬(wàn)英文字符出處： 出處：Hampton K N, Lee C J, Her E J. How new media affords network diversity: Direct and mediated access to social capital through participation in local social settings[J]. Ne

2、w Media McPherson et al., 2006). Others point to the potential for various internet activities to create new social settings and affordances that will supplement or replace the network benefits accrued through participa

3、tion in traditional physical settings (Wellman et al., 2003). One perspective values the proven role of local engagement and fears that a rise in privatism – networks that are increasingly home-centered and homophilous –

4、 could result from a shift in the locus of communication from the physical to the virtual. Another perspective embraces recent technological innovations, and questions what are believed to be antiquated notions about the

5、 importance of place. Both perspectives value social capital and recognize that diverse networks contribute to positive social outcomes. However, these perspectives clash and fail in their polarity.ICTs have enabled a sh

6、ift from group-based to network-based societies (Castells, 1996). Just as urban technologies, such as the car and telephone, freed the individual from the social constraints of village life, digital technologies may affo

7、rd supportive community structures that are even less bounded, more spatially dispersed, and less dependent on place. Arguments pertaining to how this transformation, toward what Barry Wellman 2001) termed ‘networked ind

8、ividualism,’ influences the diversity of people’s networks assumes an ‘online and global’ or ‘offline and local’ dichotomy. As a result, existing conceptualizations of community fail to 2004). Putnam (2000) documents the

9、 decline in participation in voluntary groups over the last quarter century. This decline is of particular concern, given that participation in these associations is such a strong predictor of the diversity of ties in pe

10、ople’s networks (Erickson, 2004).Religious institutions, such as churches, synagogues, and temples, provide a focus of activity that brings people into routine, face-to-face contact with others who share at least one com

11、mon interest, but who may otherwise vary in many meaningful ways. Not only is church affiliation the most common type of organization joined by Americans (Putnam, 2000), but religious participation plays a particularly s

12、trong role in the forma- tion of diverse networks (Ellison and George, 1994). Putnam and Campbell (2010) report that there has been a gradual generational decline in church attendance. Yet, these authors maintain that it

13、 is still the most important setting for social capital in America.Neighborhoods are another focus for diverse contact. But, in terms of network diversity, knowing neighbors may be very different from exposure to people

14、in other settings. Because of the homogeneity afforded by self-selection, socioeconomic factors, and segregation, neighborhood networks may not provide as much diversity as other voluntary associations (Glanville, 2004).

15、 There may also be important variation by neighborhood context. An example is apartment buildings, which tend to have less local interaction than other neighborhood types (Michelson, 1977). There is evidence of a recent

16、decline in neighboring and neighborhood tie formation (Guest and Wierzbicki, 1999). Nevertheless, familiarity with neighbors tends to be strongly and positively associated with network diversity (Granovetter, 1973; Magee

17、, 2008; Putnam, 2000).There are no social settings where people, regardless of race, background, and socio- economic status, come in as close proximity as they do in public spaces, such as parks, plazas, and markets. It

18、is the uncontrolled nature of access to these spaces that affords diversity. All other foci bring people together based on at least one level of social similar- ity. The only thing guaranteed to be shared by people in pu

19、blic is place. Often, public spaces are where existing social ties are maintained, but occasionally they are also a source of serendipity – chance encounters with acquaintances or potential new friends. The role of publi

20、c space in the formation and maintenance of diverse networks has been extensively documented (Lofland, 1998), as has the role of similar spaces that can be more restrictive to access: semipublic spaces, such as café

21、s and restaurants (Oldenburg, 1989).ICTs and network diversitySocial interactions that take place online are often framed in the language and literature used to describe traditional foci associated with network diversity

22、. This includes analogies that equate the internet with public spaces (Papacharissi, 2002), ‘third places’ (Kendall, 2002), spiritual spaces (Campbell, 2005), and voluntary associations (Klein, 1999). Despite overt claim

23、s of parallels between ICTs and traditional settings associated with diversity, there is little evidence that internet use is equivalent to or functions like a setting that expands diversity.In support of the argument th

24、at the internet provides a new setting for tie formation and maintenance, various studies have found that many people form new ties online (Tufekci, 2010). In addition, internet users have contact with a greater number o

25、f friends and relatives than nonusers, in particular those who use social as opposed to passive internet technologies (Wang and Wellman, 2010; Zhao, 2006). However, size does not necessarily equate with diversity. The in