贯日翻译样本论文翻译中译英

Lily

概念基础与理论模型构建
Conceptual Basis and Theoretical Model Building
概念基础
Conceptual Basis
在旅游文献中，对旅游地声誉的研究还不多见，但对与旅游地声誉十分接近但又存在区别的概念——旅游地形象的研究较多（如Qu et al.,2011）。而在组织行为学和营销学文献中，对于企业声誉已有较多研究，一般认为企业声誉是指企业过去行为和结果的集合表征，它描述了企业对多重利益相关者传递有价值的结果的能力，衡量对内员工和对外部利益相关者的相对地位，包括它的竞争力和制度环境（Fombrun,1996）。Smaiziene和Jucevicius(2009)从多学科视角对企业声誉进行了系统分析，最终将企业声誉定义为“建立在过去一段时间上，利益相关者对社会传播企业（它的特征、实践的、行为的和结果的等）的评价，表明与竞争对手相比，对企业的可信性和好感水平”。
In tourism literatures, studies on the reputations of tourist destinations are rarely seen, while there are lots of studies on the images of tourist destinations - a definition very similar to but still somewhat different from the reputations of tourist destinations (e.g. Qu el al., 2011). However, in the literatures regarding organizational behaviors and marketing, there have been lots of studies on corporate reputations. In general, corporate reputation refers to the integrated features of the previous behaviors and results of an enterprise, which describe the ability of an enterprise to deliver valuable results to multiple stakeholders and measure the relative status of internal employees and external stakeholders, including its competitiveness and system environment (Fombrun, 1996). Smaiziene and Jucevicius (2009) carried out a systematic analysis of corporate reputations from a multi-disciplinary perspective, and finally defined corporate reputation as “the result of an evaluation made by stakeholders previously on a social communication enterprise (its features, either practical, behavioral or resultant) to show the credibility and goodwill of this enterprise in comparison with its competitors”.
企业声誉被认为对每个企业都特别异质的（Gregorio et al.,2006）。除此之外，Hall(1992)指出声誉是一种战略资产，对企业的总体商业成功具有显著的潜在影响。而且，其他的研究也表明管理和建立企业声誉可以产生三个大的战略利益，吸引比竞争对手更多的企业、在危机时刻维系公司和增加财务收益（Greyser,1999）。许多文献研究表明，在顾客对他们所购买的产品一无所知或由潮流而产生的选择风险情境下，建立声誉对商业十分关键，拥有良好声誉是关键（Charles & Siah,2002）。尽管企业形象和企业声誉十分相似，但许多学者对其进行了严格区分。相对于企业声誉塑造，企业形象可以在相当短的时间内创建，声誉不像形象变化那么快，持久性是企业形象（短期内持续）和企业声誉（长期内持续）相互区别的重要特征（Jackon,2004）。Cornelissen(2004)进一步指出，企业形象是得到来自企业的信号或信息后个体突然的印象，而声誉表示在过去一段时间上的集合评价。也就是说，一个企业的形象是一个突然含义，是个体对来自企业信号的反应。企业声誉则更深刻。它具有相对一致性和稳定性，且不能快速和容易塑造，是在长期的组织行为、行动和交流上建立的。根据企业声誉的定义，我们将旅游地声誉定义为旅游地利益相关者根据过去一段时间内社会传播有关旅游地的行动、行为等评价的基础上，对旅游地的信赖水平和好感程度。与旅游地的竞争对手相比，旅游地声誉表明其在外部利益相关者中的地位。旅游地声誉具有社会认知性质，是对旅游地过去一段时间的评价、声誉传播（利益相关者分享他们对旅游地的态度和评价）。一个人对旅游地的评价不能称之为旅游地声誉，旅游地声誉代表对旅游地的评价和对它过去一段时间中在个体或社会中的态度。它是有关旅游地是什么和它做什么在社会上传递的信念。相对于旅游地形象，旅游地声誉更具有持久性和主观性。旅游地声誉更测量于外部利益相关者从情感上对旅游地的感知。
Corporate reputation is regarded to be particularly heterogeneous to each enterprise (Gregorio et al., 2006). In addition, Hall (1992) pointed out that reputation is a kind of strategic asset, which has significant potential impacts on the overall business success of an enterprise. Furthermore, other studies also suggest that management and establishment of corporate reputations can generate three big strategic interests and attract more partners than competitors to maintain the survival of the enterprise in times of emergency and increase its financial income (Greyser, 1999). Lots of literature studies show that it is very important to build and enjoy a good reputation when customers know nothing about purchased products or are in the risk situation caused by the trend (Charles & Siah, 2002). The corporate image is similar to the corporate reputation, but some scholars have strict classifications about it. In comparison with the creation of corporate reputation, corporate image can be built in a short period of time. And reputation is not as changeable as image. So eternality is the key difference between corporate image (sustainable in a short period of time) and corporate reputation (sustainable in a long period of time) (Jackon, 2004). Cornelissen (2004) has further pointed out that corporate image is the abrupt impression of an individual after he gets signals or information from an enterprise, while reputation means the integrated evaluations over the past period of time. That is, the image of an enterprise is an abrupt connotation and an individual’s response to enterprise signals. But corporate reputation has more profound connotations. It is relatively consistent and stable. It can’t be built rapidly and easily. It is built on long-term organizational behaviors, actions and communications. According to the definition of corporate reputation, the reputation of a tourist destination can be defined as the credibility level and goodwill degree of stakeholders of a tourist destination on the basis of the evaluations about the activities and behaviors of the tourist destination that is transmitted in the past period of time. In comparison with the competitors of a tourist destination, the reputation of a tourist destination has the nature of social recognition, and it is about the evaluations and reputation spread of the tourist destination in the past period. (Stakeholders share their attitudes and evaluations of the tourist destination.) An individual’ evaluations cannot be regarded as the reputation of a tourist destination. Instead, the reputation of a tourist destination stands for evaluations on the tourist destination and the attitudes among individuals or society in the past period of time. It is about a belief rendered in the society regarding what is a tourist destination and what it does. In comparison with the image of a tourist destination, the reputation of a tourist destination is more eternal and subjective. And the reputation of a tourist destination attaches more importance to the emotional recognition of external stakeholders about the tourist destination.
理论模型构建
Theoretical Model Building
正如Prayag和Ryan(2012)指出的“场所认同具有认知成分（如场所/旅游地可以成为旅游者自我形象的一部分），场所依靠具有意动成分（如依靠表现为在场所/旅游地的相关行为，且场所依靠是态度的情感成分（如情绪感觉或对场所/旅游地的联想”（P.345）。因为旅游地声誉描述旅游者对旅游地的认知，而场所依恋是对物理或社会场所的一种情感反应，因此可以认为旅游地声誉正向影响场所依恋。在岛屿旅游地情境下，Prayag和Ryan(2012)发现旅游地形象，它是旅游地声誉的基本成分是场所依恋的前因变量（Fombrun & van Riel,1997）。在文化场所下，Hou等（2005）有类似的发现。最近，在遗产旅游情境下，Sou等（2013）实证研究也发现旅游地形象正向影响场所依恋。根据Barnett等（2006）观点，企业声誉是对企业的印象，企业声誉是观察者对企业的判断，企业形象先于企业声誉。然而，旅游地声誉和场所依恋的关系还没有引起旅游研究者的关注。根据认知—情感—行为框架，旅游地声誉是旅游者对旅游地的感知，属于认知范畴，而场所依恋是旅游者与旅游地之间的情感纽带，属于情感范畴。因此，旅游地声誉是场所依恋的前因变量。因此，我们认为具有良好声誉的旅游地将引发旅游者更强的场所依恋。因此，提出如下研究假设：
Just as indicated by Prayag and Ryan (2012), “Place identity has cognitive components (e.g. A place/tourist destination can become a part of a tourist’s self image.), and place dependence has conative components (e.g. Place dependence is reflected in relevant behaviors in places/tourist destinations) as an emotional component of attitude (e.g. emotional feelings or associations about places/tourist destinations” (P. 345). As reputations of tourist destinations describe tourists’ recognition of tourist destinations and place attachment is a kind of emotional reaction to physical or social places, the reputation of a tourist destination has positive impacts on place attachment. In the scenarios of island tourist destinations, Prayag and Ryan (2012) has found out that the image of a tourist destination is the basic component of the reputation of the tourist destination and the antecedent of place attachment (Fombrun & van Riel, 1997). In cultural places, Hou et al.(2005) have similar findings. Recently, in the heritage tourism scenarios, Sou et al. (2013) have found out in empirical study that the image of a tourist destination has positive impacts on place attachment. According to Barnett et al. (2006), corporate reputation, as the impression on an enterprise and observers’ judgments on an enterprise, is second to corporate image. However, the relationship between the reputations of tourist destinations and place attachment hasn’t aroused concerns of tourism researchers. According to the cognitive-emotional-behavioral framework, the reputations of tourist destinations means tourists’ perception of tourist destinations and belongs to the cognitive field, while place attachment is the emotional bonding between tourists and tourist destinations and belongs to the emotional field. So the reputations of tourist destinations is the antecedent of place attachment. That is why the tourist destinations with good reputation will arouse stronger place attachment among tourists. Therefore, we propose the following hypotheses:
实证分析
Empirical Analysis
结构模型分析
Structural Model Analysis
从表2可知， 为1.541，小于3，RMSEA为.041，小于.08，GFI，AGFI，NFI，RFI，IFI，TLI和CFI均大于.900，由此说明结构模型拟合良好，是一个十分优秀的模型。
Judging from Table 2,   equals to 1.541, smaller than 3; RMSEA equals to .041, smaller than .08; and GFI, AGFI, NFI, RFI, IFI, TLI and CFI are all bigger than .900, which shows that the structural model fit is good and is thus an excellent model.
模型预测力
Model Predictive Power
结构模型的结果表达于图2所示。从图2可知，场所依靠、场所认同与环境责任行为的被解释方程分别为11.7%、25.4%和39.6%，从而说明本研究模型具有良好的预测能力。
The results of the structural model are shown in Figure 2. Judging from Figure 2, the results of the interpretation equations of the place dependence, place identity and responsible environmental behaviors are respectively 11.7%, 25.4% and 39.6%, which thus indicate that this research model has a good prediction ability.   

贯日翻译公司整理发布