2010年南京财经大学考研试题 817英语翻译与写作

南京财经大学

2010年攻读硕士学位研究生入学考试（初试）试卷

考试科目：817英语翻译与写作

适用专业：英语语言文学

考试时间：2010年1月10日下午2：00-5：00

注意事项：所有答案必须写在答题纸上，做在试卷或草稿纸上无效。

一、What kind of translation skills are used in the following italicized sentences?（共5题，每

题4分，共计20分）

1.There was no haste or restlessness in his manner but a poised friendliness.

他从容不迫，和蔼可亲。

2.All of his purchases of recent years had to be liquidated at a great sacrifice both to his health and his pocketbook.

近年来所购买的全部东西都不得不用来清偿债务。这对他的健康和经济都是个很大的损失。

3.The lifetime dream of every mature artist in the United States was a Lathrop Prize.

在美国，每个有成就的艺术家一生的梦想，便是得一次拉索普奖金。

4.She wondered at the magnitude of ①this life and at the inportance of ③knowing much in order ②to do anything in it ②at all.

她对①这种生活景象的伟大很是吃惊，也想到在这样的地方②做事，必需③有丰富的知识。

5.She was concentrating herself too thoroughly——what she did really required less mental and physical strain.

她的注意力集中得过分了——她做这工作，精神上肉体上都用不着那样紧张。

二、Answer the following question.(Y ou may use both English and Chinese) （共1题，每题

20分，共计20分）

Giving examples to illustrate the three functions of repetition .

三、Translate the following from Chinese into English and vice versa. （共10题，每题1分，

共计10分）

1、《庄周故里辩》

2、《魂断蓝桥》

3、《苦海余生》

4、养心殿

5、莫愁湖

6、Pour water off a steep roof

7、He who keeps company with the wolf will learn to howl.

8、No respecter of persons

9、The tailor makes the man

10、Handle with care

四、Translate the following Chinese passage into English.（共1题，每题25分，共计25分）

此乾隆乙未七月十六日也。是年冬，值其堂姊出阁，余又随母往。芸与余同齿而长余十月，自幼姊弟相呼，故仍呼之曰淑姊。时但见满室鲜衣，芸独通体素淡，仅新其鞋而已。见其绣制精巧，询为己作，始知其慧心不仅笔墨也。其形削肩长项，瘦不露骨，眉弯目秀，顾盼神飞，唯两齿微露，似非佳相。一种缠绵之态；令人之意也消……

是夜送亲城外，返已漏三下，腹饥索饵，婢妪以枣脯进，余嫌其甜。芸暗牵余袖，随至其室，见藏有暖粥并小菜焉。余欣然举箸，忽闻芸堂兄玉蘅呼曰：“淑妹速来!”芸急闭门曰：“已疲乏，将卧矣”玉蘅挤身而入，见余将吃粥，乃笑睨芸曰：“顷我索粥，汝曰‘尽矣’，乃藏此专待汝婿耶”芸大窘避去，上下哗笑之。余亦负气，挈老仆先归。

五、Translate the following English passage into Chinese.（共1题，每题25分，共计25分）

A Legal characteristic is the coordination of a number of near-synonyms, such as ‘altered, modified or transformed’, and of singular and plural forms of the same noun, such as ‘the Trustees or Trustee’. There are long sentences and intricate systems of cross-reference. The prefixing and suffixing of prepositions is a common feature of legal English, and words like aforesaid, hereby, hereof, hereunder and hereinafter are freely used. The use of such words is necessary if precision is to be achieved. The fondness of legal draftsmen for these words makes them unsuitable for use in other contexts, because the use of legal-sounding language to a correspondent who is expecting an informal letter suggests that we don’t trust him. It is usually an easy matter to replace legal terminology by more colloquial language; thereof becomes of it, therein becomes in it, and some of the longer words can be omitted altogether.

六、Writing. （共1题，每题30分，共计30分）

Suppose you are writing an essay of about 400 words on this topic: The V alue of Englsih Speaking Contest.Y ou should argue from the following three aspects: history; city and culture

(30 points)

a) Write the introductory paragraph of this essay. This paragraph should contain a thesis statement and should not be too long.

b) Write down the topic sentences for the three body paragraphs.

c) Write out the entire paragraph that presents you most important argument. The paragraph should have a topic sentence and should have supporting evidence. It should not be

too long. (Note the entire essay is only about 400 words.)

(Warning: you will not get any score if you write out the entire essay.)

七．Read the following passage. Write a shortened form of a piece of writing of about 80 words.

（共1题，每题20分，共计20分）

The Cost of Survival

In the go-go years of the late 1990s, no economic theorist looked better than Joseph Schumpeter, the Austrian champion of capitalism who died in 1950. His distinction? A theory he called “creative destruction.”The idea was straight-forward: in with the new, out with the old. Companies had life cycles, just as people do. They were born, they grew up. And when a better competitor came along, they died due to capital starvation. It was the way things were, and the way they should be. The markets had no sentiment. Capitalism was relentless, unforgiving.

In their book “Creative Destruction” (367 pages. Doubleday. $27.50), Richard N. Foster and Sarah Kaplan of the consulting firm McKinsey & Co. apply Schumpeter’s logic in the context of a technology-driven economy. They want their corporate readers to understand the implications of one basic idea: there is an inescapable conflict between the internal needs of a corporation and the total indifference capital markets have for those needs. Managers care desperately about the survival of their companies. Investors don’t give a hoot. This was always true, the authors say, but until recently nobody really noticed because of the relatively languid pace of economic change. No more. In the 1920s, when the first Standard & Poor’s index was compiled, a listed company had a life expectancy of more than 65 years. In 1998 the annual turnover rate of was nearly 10 percent, implying a corporate lifetime of only 10 years.

How does anyone manage in this environment? Foster and Kaplan argue that companies today must embrace “discontinuity,”the idea that everything they have always done is now irrelevant. Consider Intel:’ by its top executives’own accounts, the company had to kill its ground-breaking memory-chip business once it became clear that Japanese companies could deliver essentially the same product at a lower price. Intel then moved into the much more lucrative microprocessor business. It was an obvious decision, but one that was hard to make. Memory chips were Intel’s core competence. They w ere at the heart of the company’s self-image. The transition was wrenching, said Intel chief Andrew Grove. But as a result, the company survived and prospered.

From now forgotten automobile companies like Studebaker to early technology leaders like Wang, the corporate landscape is littered with the bones of companies that couldn’t adapt to change. At bottom, say Foster and Kaplan, “corporations are m anaged for survival.” They presume continuity in the business environment. They fail to introduce new products for fear of cannibalizing current product lines. They turn down acquisition opportunities to keep from diluting earnings. They prize rational decision making and internal control systems. They

markets are dedicated to finding and funding new competitors. Incumbents ignore this fact to their peril: if the y don’t cannibalize their product lines, someone else will do it for them. Even the greatest of brand names are not immune. As the authors ask rhetorically, would IBM even exist today had it stuck to its core bu siness in mainframe computers? “Unless the corporation can learn to overcome the natural bias for denial,” they write, “it will, in the long term, fail, or at best underperform.”

The successful company, Foster and Kaplan conclude, is one that manages for discontinuity. It presumes change. It is comfortable with fluid and even vague decision making. It has relatively flat hierarchies. In short, it adopts the fearlessness of capital markets themselves. And it doesn't have to be a start-up, or even a young company. Typical success stories include Coming, which shifted its business from glass to optical fiber just in time to capture a growing market, and General Electric, which dumped one fifth of its asset base in the first four years of Jack Welch's tenure as CEO.

Not long ago, it was fashionable to liken business to warfare. Executives were reading Sun-tm, Machiavelli and Clausewitz for guidance on how to overcome the competition. But business differs from war in one vital respect. In war the advantage lies with the defense. In the New Economy, as Foster and Kaplan make clear, it belongs to the attacker.