和訳して／
At the other extreme are claims related to entrenched controversies that will probably never lead to consensus. The debate over abortion remains intense because it features people who have taken intractable, opposing positions: some pro-life advocates argue that abortion is murder and should never be tolerated, while some pro-choice proponents insist that women must be able to control their own bodies and therefore must be free to choose to have abortions. It is very unlikely that a new pro-life claim will persuade those who hold hard-core pro-choice beliefs to change their minds, and equally unlikely that pro-choice arguments can be devised that will change the opinion of those firmly committed to a hard-core pro-life position. When addressing such contested issues, or position issues, claimsmakers know that they cannot persuade everyone; they can expect their claims to encounter opposition from at least some people who hear them (Nelson, 1984).
「立場問題」→「論争型の社会問題」
和訳して／
The audience for claims is not an undifferentiated mass. Rather, it can be subdivided--or segmented--by race, age, social class, gender, region, and so on. Different segments of the audience tend to have different interests and ideologies. People may respond to a claim by recognizing that they stand to gain or lose if the claims succeed: claims probably seem more compelling to segments of the audience who perceive themselves as directly threatened by the troubling condition, while other segments may resist claims that might adversely affect them by, for example, restricting their freedom or raising their taxes.
和訳して／
Such perceptions of interest are often linked to ideologies or systems of beliefs, different segments of the population are likely to view the world differently, to place different emphasis on particular values, explanations, justifications, and so on. As a general rule, those who benefit from existing social arrangements are more likely to view those arrangements as just, fair, and reasonable, and they are less likely to be sympathetic to claims arguing that those arrangements need to be overturned. Thus, both their interests and their ideologies make them a tough audience, while those disadvantaged by the troubling condition are more likely to be receptive to such claims. Different segments of society, then, view the world differently, and persuasive claims need to match the various worldviews of the segments of the audience toward which they are directed.
「一般的なルールとして」→「一般論として」
「イデオロギーや信念体系」の具体例を教えて。
和訳して／
Claimsmakers devise various methods to deal with audience segmentation. One tactic is to preach to the choir--that is, to direct claims toward those segments of the audience most likely to respond favorably. For example, abortion activists often direct their claims toward those who they believe already share their beliefs--as when they speak to sympathizers at pro-choice or pro-life rallies. Directing claims to those most likely to be supportive can be a particularly important tactic at the beginning of the social problems process, when claims are first being made: addressing a presumably sympathetic audience first can make more people aware of an issue, rally supporters to the cause, give claimsmakers a chance to hone their claims to make them as persuasive as possible, and create some momentum for carrying the claim to a broader, more diverse audience (such tactics for mobilizing supporters into a social movement are discussed further in Chapter 3).
和訳して／ An alternative approach is to craft claims so as to maximize their appeal to the broadest possible audience. Claims can incorporate multiple grounds, warrants, and conclusions that appeal to different people, thereby seeming to offer something for, if not everyone, at least lots of people. For instance, many advocates of vegetarianism see ethical issues as central to their cause, and they oppose meat eating as morally wrong. However, they also know that these ethical claims encounter widespread resistance; most Americans enjoy eating meat and don't consider it wrong, so moral arguments alone are unlikely to persuade a large audience (Maurer, 2002). However, other grounds and warrants are available: vegetarians can argue that eating meat is unhealthy, in that it fosters heart disease and other ailments, or they can claim that raising animals for food damages the environment. Such arguments add additional grounds and warrants to vegetarians' claims that might appeal to people who are worried about their health or the environment, even if they don't have moral qualms about eating meat. Expanding claims in this way offers vegetarians a chance to persuade people who could be expected to resist narrower ethical arguments that eating meat is wrong.
「代替のアプローチ」→「さらに別のアプローチ」；「訴求力」「訴求する」→もっと平たい言葉に変えて；「提供しているように見える」→「提供しているように見せることができる」；「そのような議論は、たとえ肉を食べることに道徳的な良心の呵責がなくても、健康や環境を心配している人々に訴求する可能性のある、菜食主義者のクレイムに追加の前提と論拠を加える。」→「そのような議論は、菜食主義者のクレイムに前提と論拠を追加するものであり、肉を食べることに道徳的な疑問がなくても、健康や環境を心配する人々にアピールできる可能性がある。」
すごく訳が良くなりましたね！ この調子で以後もお願いします。
和訳して／
Well-crafted claims sometimes create surprising alliances among people who usually don't agree, inspiring consensus and converting potential conflict into a valence issue. For instance, political liberals and conservatives often disagree about educational policies. Yet, during the 1990s, many liberals and conservatives joined forces to promote policies requiring public school students to wear uniforms (Brunsma, 2004). Liberals argued that uniforms would make social class differences among students less visible, reduce pressure on parents to purchase expensive clothes for children, and enhance students' self-esteem; conservatives claimed that uniforms would encourage discipline and orderly behavior among students. Both sides insisted that school uniforms could reduce violence and improve learning. In this case, people who usually disagree found themselves promoting the same solution, even though they disagreed about the precise nature of the problem.
claimed thatは「と主張した」ではなく「とクレイム申し立てした」と訳してください。
「生徒の規律」の「規律」とは、もっと易しい言葉に言い換えるとどうなりますか？
和訳して／
Similarly, advocates representing a wide range of ideologies support efforts to exclude troubling material from elementary and secondary school textbooks: liberals call for excluding material that might reinforce gender or racial stereotypes, fundamentalist Chris-
tians want to block content mentioning witches or other supernatural elements, and so on (Ravitch, 2003). Mandating school uniforms and regulating textbook content are just two examples of claims constructed in ways that build broad-based consensus among people who often disagree on other educational issues (see Box 2.3).
ここで「幅広いイデオロギー」とは、リベラル、キリスト教原理、などを指していると考えてよろしいですか？
キリスト教原理主義とはどのような党派ですか？
＝ほぼ共和党、ですか？
政治とは関係ありません。事実を知りたいだけです。リベラレル≓民主党、キリスト教原理主義≓共和党ととらえて問題ないでしょうか？ 単に社会科の内容です。
「意見が合わない人々の間で、広範なコンセンサスを構築する方法」を「意見が合わない人々の間に広範なコンセンサスを構築する、という方法」に修正してください。
和訳して／ It is important to recognize that the audiences for claims are not passive. People who hear claims react, and claimsmakers must take those reactions into account, by adjusting, revising, and fine-tuning their claims to make them more effective, more persuasive. Claims should not be viewed as one-way messages, transmitted from claimsmakers/senders to their audiences/receivers. Rather, claimsmakers need to be sensitive to their audiences' reactions, to figure out which parts of their claims are working and which are not persuasive and need to be revised. In other words, claimsmakers and their audiences engage in a dialog in which the audience's feedback leads claimsmakers to modify their claims (Nichols, 2003).
「調整、修正、微調整を行うことによって、」→「調整、修正、微調整を行うというやり方で、」
和訳して／
If a particular ground or warrant fails to elicit a good reaction, claimsmakers may strike it from their claims and substitute something that they hope will evoke a more favorable response from their audience. For instance, activists campaigning to halt impending cuts
in programs that had provided support to immigrants began with general claims ("immigrant rights are human rights") that proved ineffective. However, they soon found that the media and politicians responded more favorably to claims about the vulnerability of elderly, disabled immigrants, so they refocused their campaign on these more sympathetic cases (Fujiwara, 2005).
ブラッシュアップして。
和訳して／ Claimsmaking is usually not a one-shot effort; it takes time to develop effective claims. Most claimsmakers have to try again and again to achieve widespread attention for their claims; they must try out claims, assess the audience's response, revise the claims, and so on, until they develop a persuasive argument. After all, claims compete within a social problems marketplace (J. Best, 1990; Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988). At any given moment, countless claimsmakers are struggling to get their particular claims heard far more than can hope to capture the audience's limited attention. Moreover, it is usually impossible to control either the other claims competing to attract the audience's notice or what the audience will choose to notice. Imagine a claimsmaker who had scheduled a major event—say, a combination press conference and demonstration for September 12, 2001. Because the 9/11 terrorist
attacks monopolized the nation's attention for days, no one would have paid any attention to anything the claimsmaker had to say on the twelfth. Although extreme, this example illustrates that claims do not operate in vacuum.
far more than 以下は倒置法ですか？
can hopeの前に主語が省略されていますよね？
ということは、少なくとも、far more than以下は倒置法ではないですね。
いきなり文体が変わりましたね。もとの文体（口調）に戻してください。
和訳して／ The competition to capture the audience's attention helps explain some of the features of social problems rhetoric that we noted earlier. Why do claimsmakers so often begin claims with disturbing typifying examples? Why do claims usually settle for naming the problem--often with a catchy label like road rage--and avoid giving detailed (and therefore boring) definitions of the problem? Why do claimsmakers favor statistics that suggest the problem is surprisingly large? Why do they favor prominent targets? Each of these rhetorical devices is arresting, eye-catching; each can draw people's attention to this claim (and away from those other claims competing for the audience's attention). The goal is to grab and hold the audience. This competition in the social problems marketplace means that claimsmakers are encouraged to devise dramatic, disturbing, easily grasped claims that will command attention over competing claims. Simpler, stronger arguments work better.
「キャッチー」→「人の心を引く」；「つかみ、維持することである。」→「つかんで離さないことである。」；「考案することを促す」→「考案するよう促す」
和訳して／
In sum, claimsmakers present what they hope will be persuasive arguments, but they must then attend to the audience's responses, and those responses and their own sense of how they need to revise their rhetoric in turn may be affected by all the other claims and events that are competing for the audience's attention in the social problems marketplace.
「感覚」を別の訳語に出来ませんか？
「それらの反応と、彼ら自身のレトリックをどのように修正する必要があるかについての認識は、社会問題市場においてオーディエンスの注意を奪い合う他のすべてのクレイムやイベントの影響を受ける可能性がある。」
そもそもこの箇所の意味がよく分かりません。