MTI考研辅导班：020上海外国语大学高翻MTI英语翻译硕士真题回忆
211翻译硕士英语100分
只有一篇阅读材料，节选自
Andrew G. Ferguson, The Rise of Big Data Policing: Surveillance, Race, and the Future of Law Enforcement (New York, NY: NYU Press, 2017). 272 pp. $28.00 (hardcover), ISBN: 1479892823
Reviewed by:Ian T. Adams
安德鲁·弗格森，《大数据警务的兴起：监控、种族和执法的未来》（纽约：纽约大学出版社，2017年）。272 页 ， $28.00 （精装）， ISBN：1479892823
大概三四页，2000-3000单词左右
题目及要求
1、Summarize the author’s arguments with the given key words (expertise transparency scale society).(40 points)
1/no copy or paraphrase
2/specific✅ general❌
3/a high-level summary of your own words
2.Give your viewpoints on this topic.（Do you agree with the author? Or are there any topics you would like to introduce in this discussion?...) (60 points)
357英语翻译基础150分
一、英译汉，翻译划线部分， 80分
标题：Why historians would make bad policy advisers
‘My work,’ claimed the ancient Athenian writer Thucydides, ‘was written as a possession for all time, not a piece of entertainment for the moment.’ Because of ‘the human thing’ – to anthropinon in Greek, a phrase similar to ‘human nature’ but rather looser – events tend to be repeated in more or less similar ways. Therefore, Thucydides argued, his account of the war between the Athenians and the Spartans would not only be informative about past events, but useful in understanding the present and future as well.
Although few today would endorse Thucydides’ view that the Peloponnesian War was the greatest event in human history, the idea that his account has lasting relevance and importance beyond the war is widely accepted. This explains why he is one of the most cited classical authors, evoked in media discussions of topics as varied as the Brexit vote, the Greek economic crisis, the Russian annexation of Crimea and, most persistently in recent years, the tensions between the United States and China, in the form of the so-called ‘Thucydides Trap’. Thucydides is perceived as someone who has looked beneath the chaos and confusion of events to understand what’s really going on. His reputation inspires trust and belief as W H Auden suggested at the outbreak of the Second World War (‘Exiled Thucydides knew…’).
The claim that Thucydides’ account of the past is useful is often extended to historiography in general, rather than just to his specific – and idiosyncratic – approach. But widespread acceptance of Thucydides’ authority disguises the fact that his approach to the past, and to the lessons that can be drawn from it, can be understood in very different ways, with radically different implications for modern history. For some readers, it establishes the value of accumulating knowledge about the past, and the endless varieties and complexities of human behaviour in different contexts, as an end in itself. For others, focused on Thucydides’ claims about ‘the human thing’ as a historical constant that shapes events, it underpins the project of deriving wider principles and laws of human behaviour from the data of the past.
The latest iteration of the latter view comes from the Harvard academics Graham Allison and Niall Ferguson, who argue in The Atlantic for the establishment of a presidential council of historical advisers, and suggest that its charter should ‘begin with Thucydides’ observation that “the events of future history… will be of the same nature – or nearly so – as the history of the past, so long as men are men”’. US policymakers, they argue, too often live in the ‘United States of Amnesia’, with sometimes catastrophic consequences. It’s time for them to start listening to historians as well as to economists – and for historians to develop a new discipline of applied history so that they are in a position to offer the right kinds of advice as soon as the president sees sense and appoints full-time historical advisers, suitably remunerated, with a professional support staff.
Historians have feared the obsolescence and irrelevance of their discipline for at least half a century – a theme that’s become more prominent in the past few years – and have quietly resented the influence of (in their eyes) the reductionist, simplistic and, above all, short-termist social sciences. ‘Editorials apply economic models to sumo wrestlers and palaeolithic anthropology to customs of dating,’ complained Jo Guldi and David Armitage in their History Manifesto of 2014. ‘These lessons are repeated on the news, and their proponents are elevated to the status of public intellectuals. Their rules seem to point to unchanging levers that govern our world.’ Allison and Ferguson likewise object to the ‘spurious certainty’ offered by social scientists. Presidents, they argue, should base their decisions on evidence drawn from reality – the lessons of the Great Depression, John F Kennedy’s handling of the Cuban missile crisis or the 50-odd ‘brutal, fanatical and purpose-driven’ groups that the historical record offers as possible analogues to ISIS – rather than abstract, supposedly timeless economic or political theories.
Historical research shows how things change over time. The past was different from the present, so there is no reason to imagine that our present condition will be indefinitely extended into the future. History reveals the enormous variety and variability of human institutions and behaviour, setting clear limits on the validity and plausibility of any universalising generalisations. The problem for any would-be applied historian lies in converting this necessary corrective of over-confident social-scientific assertions or politicians’ simplistic assumptions – the historian’s reflex ‘actually, it’s rather more complicated than that’ – into anything resembling the sort of practical policy advice that politicians or civil servants will ever take seriously.
The classic British example of a mismatch between historians’ professional caution and policymakers’ demands for clarity and simplicity remains the meeting organised in 1990 to advise Margaret Thatcher on the prospect of German reunification. Experts such as Norman Stone, Fritz Stern and Timothy Garton Ash sought to outline the key events of modern German history in order to contextualise the situation – and faced constant demands for definitive statements about ‘the German character’ and whether ‘Germans’ could be trusted. Nuance and ambiguity are clearly regarded as an impediment to decision-making but they are the stock-in trade of the historian.
Allison and Ferguson implicitly recognise this problem. Their case for putting historians at the heart of government opens with recent examples of historical ignorance and naïve assumptions, about Islam, Iraq and Russia, which led to unnecessary mistakes; better knowledge of history would have revealed the complexity of those situations and, presumably, encouraged greater caution. But their claim for the usefulness of history is much stronger, as it has to be in order to win the ear of power: the past can, they argue, furnish effective and illuminating analogues for current problems, from which applied historians can identify likely outcomes and suggest policy interventions.
As they observe, ‘historical analogies are easy to get wrong’, and too many ‘amateur analogies’ already pervade discussions of contemporary affairs. People have a clear tendency to find themselves and their situation in the past. However, it is not clear what the essential difference could be between ‘amateur’ and professional analogies, beyond the status of the person claiming to have identified them. In either case, the effectiveness of the analogy depends on emphasising the resemblances between past and present, and setting aside or explaining away the differences – all while trying to argue that rival examples (there are always many other possibilities to be found) are much less relevant.
The past is not a neutral body of data, objectively coded so that events can be matched to one another for analytical purposes. Rather, it is always the product of a process of interpretation and representation. Some events are more familiar than others and come pre-loaded with meaning, which is why Nazi analogies are so popular and so invariably unhelpful. Though professional historians can draw on a wider range of potential examples, with a great deal more detail and complexity, much then has to be stripped away in order to make the analogy persuasive, and more persuasive than other analogies. Is Donald Trump Mussolini, Nero, Alcibiades or George Wallace? Do US commitments to Japan and the Philippines more closely resemble the 1839 treaty governing the neutrality of Belgium or the early years of the Delian League?
One possible answer is: yes and no. Any historical example will present both similarity and difference to the present, and reflecting on both these aspects can give us a better understanding of our own situation and its possibilities for good and ill. (Potentially, at least; I remain skeptical that Thucydides could ‘explain’ Trump). We can use the example to think with, without having to claim that it is somehow objectively more relevant than other pieces of the past, or that it embodies any invariant universal principle. There’s a case to be made that this was Thucydides’ intention for his work. He certainly doesn’t offer the sorts of explicit, universal laws of political behaviour and inter-state relations that many of his modern readers claim to identify, but nor does he present an account of events for their own sake, irrelevant to the present.
Rather, Thucydides invites us to compare the events he describes with our own situation, and presents them in a way that confronts us with the complexity and unpredictability of the world. His narrative is driven not by abstract and inhuman laws but by the deliberations and decisions of people, and so by the power of rhetoric, the rhetoric of power, and human susceptibility to emotion and self-delusion. Far from endorsing a search for simplistic historical analogies as a basis for policy recommendations, Thucydides would most likely regard this habit as further evidence of our limited capabilities for self-knowledge, deliberation and anticipation – another facet of the ‘human thing’ that leads us to make similar mistakes again and again.
753words，选自AEON杂志
二、汉英翻译，翻译划线部分，70分
前不久，2019年下半年中小学教师资格考试举行，因为报名考试太过火爆，相关话题一度冲到微博热搜榜前列。
据教育部官网消息，此次中小学教师资格考试考生人数再创新高，达590万人，考试科次1237万科次，比上半年考生人数增加一倍多，加上上半年考生人数290万人，全年中小学教师资格考试人数近900万人。
590万人铆足劲为“证”一搏，其实是诸多因素综合作用的结果。既有教师社会地位提升的原因，也受当下就业形势的影响，还与国家提高教师入职门槛、教师资格证成为编内编外教师上岗的必要条件直接相关。
作为最重要的教育资源，教师的素质直接关乎甚至决定着教育的成败。在每个人的成长过程中，或多或少都曾有值得铭记一生的教师。正如习近平总书记说的那样：“一个人遇到好老师是人生的幸运，一个学校拥有好老师是学校的光荣，一个民族源源不断涌现一批又一批好老师则是民族的希望。”
虽然不能把教师资格考试报名人数创新高简单解读为教师已经成为热门职业，但越来越多的人报考教师资格考试确实值得肯定。尊师重教是一个社会文明的标志。越来越多的人愿意从事教师职业当然是一件好事，这意味着准教师候选人基数将大幅增加，可以让各地教育部门和大中小学校优中选优。
590万人参加教师资格考试，竞争不可谓不激烈。考证不容易，但成为合格教师更不容易，想成为优秀教师更是难上加难。考取了教师资格证和能不能当好教师完全是两码事儿，比资格证书更重要的是师德。教师是用心燃烧的人，能不能用心去对待学生，才是最关键的问题。
一方面，我们要加强对师范生的师德教育，在全社会营造师德高尚的舆论氛围，鼓励那些真正有教育情怀的人加入到教师队伍中来，尤其是心怀大爱，愿意为偏远乡村地区和薄弱地区的教育奉献自己力量的教师。要想让教师真正成为热门职业，使优秀人才“招得进、留得住、有积极性”，除了进一步提升待遇力争待遇留人外，更需要创造宽松的人文环境，切实减轻教师的非教学负担，激发他们的主观能动性。
另一方面，社会也要更加尊重教师的劳动。教师工作相当辛苦，待遇也不算高，而家长都盼着“望子成龙”，不断给教师提出更多更高的要求。给教师减减压、松松绑，更有利于他们轻装上阵，找回育人的初心，继而以更好的状态投入到教书育人之中。教师职业无论热与不热，我们都应该善待教师。就像是自己的孩子，不管是优生还是差生，都应该被温柔以待。
选自澎湃新闻，2019年11月初发布的一篇文章。
448汉语写作与百科知识150分
一、名词解释20分，每个五分
1、楚虽三户，亡秦必楚
2、勿谓言之不预
3、柏林墙
4、约翰·弥尔顿
二、用白话文翻译宋词20分
扬州慢·淮左名都
宋 姜夔
淳熙丙申至日，予过维扬。夜雪初霁，荠麦弥望。入其城，则四顾萧条，寒水自碧，暮色渐起，戍角悲吟。予怀怆然，感慨今昔，因自度此曲。千岩老人以为有“黍离”之悲也。
淮左名都，竹西佳处，解鞍少驻初程。过春风十里。尽荠麦青青。自胡马窥江去后，废池乔木，犹厌言兵。渐黄昏，清角吹寒。都在空城。
杜郎俊赏，算而今、重到须惊。纵豆蔻词工，青楼梦好，难赋深情。二十四桥仍在，波心荡、冷月无声。念桥边红药，年年知为谁生。
三、简答题，两段材料二选一 30分
1、如何看待电商平台对实体经济的影响
2、你对英国脱欧的看法
四、文章缩写 30分 500字
考试文章有少些删减，以下为原文
谈翻译
朱光潜
在现代研究文学，不精通一两种外国文是一个大缺陷。尽管过去的中国文学如何优美，如果我们坐井观天，以为天下之美尽在此，我们就难免对本国文学也不能尽量了解欣赏。我们承认中国文学有很多优点，但是不敢承认文学所可有的优点都为中国文学所具备。单拿戏剧小说来说，我们的成就比起西方的实在是很幼稚。至于诗，我们也只在短诗方面擅长，长诗根本就没有。再谈到文学研究，没有一个重要的作家的生平有一部详细而且精确的传记可参考，没有一部重要作品曾经被人作过有系统的研究和分析，没有一部完整而有见解的文学史，除《文心雕龙》以外，没有一部有哲学观点或科学方法的文学理论书籍。我们已往偏在注疏评点上做工夫，不失之支离破碎，便失之陈腐浅陋。我们需要放宽眼界，多吸收一点新的力量。最好我们学文学的人都能精通一两种外国文，直接阅读外国文学名著。为多数人设想，这一层或不易办到，不得已而思其次，我们必须作大规模的有系统的翻译。
据我个人经验，译一本书比自己写一本书要难得多。译一本书起码要把那本书懂得透彻，透懂文字后面的情理韵味。阅读本身就是一个难关，许多大学外文系教授翻译的书仍不免错误百出，足见他们对于外国文阅读的能力还不够。我们常易过于自信，取一部外国文学作品从头读到尾，便满以为自己完全了解。可是到动手译它时，便发现许多自以为了解的地方还没有了解或误解。因此，翻译是学习外国文的一个最有效的方法。它可以训练我们细心，增加我们对于语言的敏感，使我们透彻地了解原文。文学作品的精妙大半在语文的运用，若不肯仔细推敲，只抱着“好读书不求甚解”的态度，就只能得到一个粗枝大叶，决不能了解文学作品的精妙。
阅读只要精通西文，翻译于精通西文之外，又要精通中文。许多精通西文而不精通中文的人所译的书籍往往比原文还更难懂，这就未免失去翻译的意义。
严又陵以为译事三难：信，达，雅。其实归根到底，“信”字最不容易办到。原文“达”而“雅，译文不“达”不“雅“，那还是不“信”；如果原文不“达”不 “雅”，译文“达”而“雅”，过犹不及，那也还是不“信”。所谓“信”是对原文忠实，恰如其分地把它的意思用中文表达出来。有文学价值的作品必是完整的有机体，情感思想和语文风格必融为一体，声音与意义也必欣合无间。所以对原文忠实，不仅是对浮面的字义忠实，对情感，思想，风格，声音节奏等必同时忠实。稍有翻译经验的人都知道这是极难的事。有些文学作品书本不可翻译，尤其是诗（说诗可翻译的人大概不懂得诗）。绝对的“信”只是一个理想，事实上很不易做到。但是我们必求尽量符合这个理想，在可能范围之内不应该疏忽苟且。
“信”最难，原因甚多。头一层是字义难彻底了解。字有种种不同方式的意义，一般人翻字典看书译书，大半只看到字的一种意义，可以叫做直指的或字典的意义(indicative or dictionary)。比如指“火”的实物那一个名谓字，在中西各国文字虽各不相同而所指的却是同一实物，这就是在字典上所规定的。这是文字最基本的意义，最普遍也最粗浅。它最普遍，因为任何人对于它大致相同的了解。它也最粗浅，因为它用得太久，好比旧铜钱，磨得光滑破烂，虽然还可用来在市场上打交易，事实上已没有一点个性。在文学作品里，每个字须有它的个性，它的特殊生命。所以文学家或是避免熟烂的字，或是虽用它而却设法灌输一种新生命给它。一个字所结邻家不同，意义也就不同。比如“步出城东门，遥望江南路，前日风雪中，故人从此去”和“骏马秋风冀北，杏花春雨江南”两诗中同有“江南”，而前诗的“江南”含有惜别的凄凉意味，后诗的“江南”却含有风光清丽的意味。其次，一个字所占的位置不同，意义也就不同。比如杜甫的名句“红豆啄残鹦鹉粒，凤凰栖老碧梧枝。”有人疑这话不通，应改为“鹦鹉啄残红豆粒，凤凰栖老碧梧枝。”其实这两种说法本不相同。杜句的着重点在“红豆”和“碧梧”。杜甫并非倒装出奇，他当时所咏的主体原是红豆碧梧，而不是鹦鹉风凰。这种依邻伴不同和位置不同而得的意义在文学上最为重要，可以叫做“上下文决定的意义”（contextual meaning）。这种意义在字典中不一定寻得出，我们必须玩索上下文才能明了。
此外，文字还有另一种意义，每一个字在一国语文中都有很长久的历史，在历史过程中，它和许多事物情境发生联想，和那一国的人民生活状态打成一片，它有一种特殊的情感氛围。各国各地的事物情境和人民生活状态不同，同指一事物的字所引起的联想和所霜动的情趣也就不同。比如英文中 fire，sea，castle, sport, shepherd, nightingale, race之类字对于英国人所引起心理反应和对于我们中国人所引起的心理反应大有分别。它们对于英国人意义较为丰富。同理，中文中“风，月，江，湖，梅，菊，燕，碑，笛，僧，隐逸，礼，阴阳”等字对于我们所引起的联想和情趣也决不是西方人所能完全了解的。这可以叫做“联想的意义”（ association meaning）。如果我们不熟悉一国的人情风俗和文化历史背景，对于文字的这种意义也就茫然，尤其在翻译时，这一种字义最不易应付。有时根本没有相当的字，有时表面上虽有相当的字，而这字在两国文字中的情感氛围，联想不同。如sea和海,willow和柳。
外国文字最难了解和翻译的第一是联想的意义，其次就是声音美。语言都必有意义，而语言的声音不同，效果不同，则意义就不免有分别。换句话说，声音多少可以影响意义。举一个简单的例子来说，“他又来了”和“他来了又去了”两句话中都用“又”字，因为腔调着重点不同，上句的“又”字和下句的“又”字在意义上就微有分别。做诗填词的人都知道一个字的平仄不同，开齐合撮不同，发音的器官不同，在效果上往往悬殊很大。散文对于声音虽没有诗讲究得那么精微，却也不能抹杀。中西文字在声音上悬殊很大，最显著的是中文有，而西文没有四声的分别，中文字尽单音，西文字多复音；中文多谐声字，西文少谐声字。因此，无论是以中文译西文，或是以西文译中文，遇着声音上的微妙处，我们都不免束手无策。原文句子的声音很幽美，译文常不免佶屈聱牙；原文意味深长，译文常不免索然无味。文字传神，大半要靠声音节奏。声音节奏是情感风趣最直接的表现。对于文学作品无论是阅读或是翻译，如果没有抓住它的声音节奏，就不免把它的精华完全失去。但是抓住声音节奏是一件极难的事。
此外还有两种次要的，第一种是“历史沿革的意义”（historic meaning）。字有历史，即有生长变迁。中国文言和白话在用字上分别很大，阅读古书需要特殊的训练。西文因为语文接近，文字变迁得更快，就是十八世纪的文字距今虽只一百余年，如果完全用现行字义去解，也往往陷于误谬。西方字典学比较发达，某字从某时代变更意义或新起一意义，常有例证可考。如果对文字沿革略有基础而又肯勤翻详载字源的字典，这一层困难就可以免除。许多译者在这方面不注意，所以翻译较古的书常发生错误。
其次，文字是有生命的东西，有时欢喜开一点玩笑，耍一点花枪。离奇的比譬可以使一个字的引申义与原义貌不相关，某一行业的隐语可以变成各阶级的普通话。文字游戏可以使两个本不相关的只有一点可笑的类似的字凑合在一起，一种偶然的使用可以变成一个典故，如此等类的情境所造成的文字的特殊意义可以叫做“习惯语的意义”（idiomatic meaning）。普通所谓“土语”(slang)也可以纳于这一类。这一类字义对于初学是一个大难关。了解既不易，翻译更难。英文的习惯语和土语勉强用英文来解释，还不免失去原有的意味；如果用中文来译，除非是有恰巧相当的成语，意味更索然了。
从事翻译者必须明了文字意义有以上几种分别，遇到一部作品，须揣摩那里所用的文字是否有特殊的时代，区域，或阶级上的习惯，特殊的联想和情感氛围，上下文所烘托的特殊“阴影”，要把它们所有可能的意义都咀嚼出来，然后才算透懂那部作品，这不是易事，它需要很长久的文字训练和文学修养。看书和译书都必有勤翻字典的习惯，可是根底不够的人完全信任字典，也难免误事，他只能得一知半解，文字的精妙处实无从领会。一般英汉字典尤其不可靠，因为编译者大半并不精通外国文。 如果我们进一步研究语句的组织，又可发现其他更大的困难。拿中文和西文来比较，语句组织上的悬殊很大。先说文法。中文也并非没有文法，只是中文法的弹性比较大，许多虚字可用可不用，字与词的位置有时可随意颠倒，没有西文法那么谨严，因此，意思有时不免含糊，虽然它可以做得很简练。
其次，中文少用复句和插句，往往一义自成一句，特点在简单明了，但是没有西文那样能随情思曲折变化而见出轻重疾徐，有时不免失之松散平滑。总之，中文以简练直截见长，西以繁复绵密见长，西文一长句所包含的意思用中文来表达，往往需要几个单句才行。这对于阅读比较费力。初学西文者看见一长句中包含许多短句或子句，一意未完又插入另一意，一个曲折之后又是一个曲折，不免觉得置身五里雾中，一切都朦胧幻变，捉摸不住。其实西文语句组织尽管如何繁复曲折，文法必定有线索可寻，把文法一分析，一切就了如指掌。所以中国人学西文必须熟悉文法，常作分析语句的练习，使一字一句在文法上都有着落，意义就自然醒豁了。这并非难事，只要下过一两年切实仔细的功夫就可以办到。翻译上的错误不外两种，不是上下文所说的字义的误解，就是语句的文法组织没有弄清楚。
此外，象词句的位置，骈散长短的分配，中西文也往往不同，翻译时也须斟酌。在这里我们可以略谈直译与意译的争执。“直译”侧重对原文的忠实，“意译”侧重译文语气的顺畅。依我看，直译与意译的区别根本就不存在。忠实的翻译必定要能尽量表达原文的意思。思想情感与语言是一致的、相随而变的，一个意思只有一个精确的说法，换一个说法，意味就不完全相同。所以想尽量表达原文的意思必须尽量保存原文的语句组织。因此，直译不能不是意译，而意译不能不是直译。不过同时我们也要顾到中西文字的习惯不同，在尽量保存原文的意蕴与风格之中，译文仍应是读得顺口的中文。以相当的中国语文习惯代替西文语句习惯，而能尽量表达原文的意蕴，这也并无害于“直”。总之，理想的翻译是文从字顺的直译。
文学作品以语文表达情感思想，佳妙处必从语文见出。作者须费一番苦心才能使思想情感凝定于语文，语文妥贴了，作品才算成就。译者也必须经过同样的过程。第一步须设身处在作者的地位，透入作者的心窍，和他同样感，同样想，同样地努力使所感所想凝定于语文。所不同者作者是用他的本国语文去凝定他的情感思想，而译者除了解欣赏这情感思想语文的融贯体以外，还要把它移植于另一国语文，使所用的另一国语文和那情感思想融成一个新的作品。因为这个缘故，翻译比自著难；也因为这个缘故，只有文学家才能胜任翻译文学作品。
五、大作文，50分，800字
给一段材料，谈谈你对教育惩戒权的看法
新祥旭一对一考研辅导最基本的特征是一个老师专门辅导一个考研的学生，区别于学校中的很多学生听一个老师讲课的大班上课形式。从教育的本质看，只有互动才能够达到有效的教育效果，而一对一是教育能够互动的基本要求，传统的大班上课形式，互动很难有效展开。正因为如此，在传统学校教育课堂之外，新祥旭大力推广一对一辅导的教育培训模式。人们常说的一对一辅导全称一对一个性化辅导，是由专门的个性化教育辅导机构针对每个学生不同的学习情况和心理情况，有针对性地制定出一套独特的、行之有效的教学辅导方案和心理辅导策略，并由每个学生所配备的教学团队加以实施执行(包括一位专业教师+专业的心理咨询师+潜能开发专家+励志拓展专家+专职班主任)，通过全方位、策略性地辅导，不仅使学生掌握一种切合自身的学习方法，改善不良学习习惯，稳固提升学科知识，而且在树立自信，完善人格、为人处事等方面均得以提升。
