本帖最后由 AcJi17 于 2019-4-14 16:06 編輯
一、完形填空（30分，有些需要變形，順序是我自己打亂的，與原題不完全一致）
unique advocate processor reasoned eliminate inevitably emerge consequence right manufacture attribute passive precise creative sight advantage humble corresponding scan dull perfect acquire active appropriate dominant additional conventional simplify encourage insert copy involve
There are two ways inwhich we can think of literary translation: as reproduction and as recreation. If we think of translation as reproduction, it is a safe and harmless enough business: the translator is a literature _____ into which the text to betranslated is _____ and out of which it ought to _____ identical, but in another language.
But unfortunately the human mind is an _____ machine, and the goal of _____ interlinguistic message-transference is never-achieved; so the translator offers _____apologies for being capable of producing only a pale shadow of the original. Since all he is doing is copying another’s meanings from one language to another, he removes himself from _____ so that the writer’s genius can shine as brightly as may be. To do this, he uses a neutral, _____ literary language which ensures that the result will indeed be a pale shadow, in which it is impossible for anybody’s genius to shine.
Readers also regard the translator as a neutral meaning-conveyor, then _____ the mediocrity of the translation to the original author. Martin Amis, for example, declares that Don Quixote is unreadable, without stopping to think about the _____ of the fact that what he has read or not read is what a translator wrote, not what Cervantes wrote. If we regard literary translation like this, as message-transference, we have to conclude that before very long it will be carried out perfectly well by computers.
There are many pressures _____ translators to accept this description of their work, apart from the fact that it is a scientific description and therefore must be _____ .Tradition is one such _____ encouragement, because meaning-transference hasbeen the _____ philosophy and manner of literary translation into English for at least three hundred years. The large publishing houses provide further encouragement, since they also expect the translator to be a literature-processor, who not only _____ texts but _____ them as well, _____troublesome complexities and _____ a readily consumable product for the marketplace.
But there is another way in which we can think of literary translation. We can regard the translator not as a _____ passive reproducer of meanings but as an _____ active reader first, and then a _____ rewriter of what he has read. This description has the_____ of being more interesting and of _____ more closely to reality, because a pile of sheets of paper with little squiggly lines on them, glued together along one side, only becomes a work of literature when somebody reads it, and reading is not just a logical process but one _____ the whole being: the feelings andthe intuitions and the memory and the creative imagination and the whole life experience of the reader.
Computers cannot read, they can only _____. And since the combination of all those human components is_____ in each person, there are as many Don Quixotes as there are readers of Don Quixote, as Jorge Luis Borges once declared.
Any translation of this novel is the translator’s account of his reading of it, rather than some _____ pale shadow of what Cervantes wrote. It will only be a pale shadow if the translator is a _____ reader, perhaps as a result of accepting the preconditioning that goes with the role of literature processor.
You may object that what I am _____ is extreme chaotic subjectivism, leading to the conclusion that anything goes, in reading and therefore in translation; but it is not, because reading is guided by its own conventions, the interpersonal roles of the literary game that we internalize as we _____ literary experience. By reference to these, we can agree, by _____ argument, that some readings are more _____ than others, and therefore that some translations are better than others.
原文： There are two ways in which we can think of literary translation: as reproduction and as recreation. If we think of translation as reproduction, it is a safe and harmless enough business: the translator is a literature processor into which the text to be translated is inserted and out of which it ought to emerge identical, but in another language.
But unfortunately the human mind is an imperfect machine,and the goal of precise interlinguistic message-transference is never-achieved; so the translator offers humble apologies for being capable of producing only a pale shadow of the original. Since all he is doing is copying another’s meanings from one language to another, he removes himself from sight so that the writer’s genius can shine as brightly as may be. To do this, he uses a neutral, conventionally literary language which ensures that the result will indeed be a pale shadow, in which it is impossible for anybody’s genius to shine. Readers also regard the translator as a neutral meaning-conveyor, then attribute the mediocrity of the translation to the original author.Martin Amis, for example, declares that Don Quixote is unreadable, without stopping to think about the consequences of the fact that what he has read or not read is what a translator wrote, not what Cervantes wrote. If we regard literary translation like this, as message-transference, we have to conclude that before very long it will becarried out perfectly well by computers.
There are many pressures encouraging translators toaccept this description of their work, apart from the fact that it is ascientific description and therefore must be right. Tradition is one such additional encouragement, because meaning-transference has been the dominant philosophy and manner of literary translation into Englishfor at least three hundred years. The large publishing houses provide further encouragement, since they also expect the translator to be a literature-processor,who not only copies texts but simplifies them as well, eliminating troublesome complexities and manufacturing a readily consumable product for the marketplace.
But there is another way in which we can think of literary translation. We can regard the translator not as a passive reproducer of meanings but as an active reader first, and then a creative rewriter of what he has read. This description has the advantages of being more interesting and of corresponding more closely to reality, because a pile of sheets of paper with little squiggly lines on them, glued together along one side, only becomes a work of literature when somebody reads it, and reading is not just a logical process but one involving the whole being: the feelings and the intuitions and the memory and the creative imagination and the whole life experience of the reader.
Computers cannot read,they can only scan. And since the combination of all those human components is unique in each person, there are as many Don Quixotes as there arereaders of Don Quixote, as Jorge Luis Borges once declared.
Any translation ofthis novel is the translator’s account of his reading of it, rather than some inevitably pale shadow of what Cervantes wrote. It will only be a pale shadow if the translator is a dull reader, perhaps as a result of accepting the preconditioning that goes with the role of literature processor. You may object that what I am advocating is extreme chaotic subjectivism, leading to the conclusion that anything goes, in reading and therefore in translation; but it is not, because reading is guided by itsown conventions, the interpersonal roles of the literary game that we internalize as we acquire literary experience. By reference to these, we can agree, by reasoned argument, that some readings are more appropriate than others, and therefore that some translations are better than others.
（我的天我在整理的時候才發現有兩個陷阱，不知道廣外是故意的還是印刷錯誤，有沒有小伙伴發現active和passive是多余的，題目本身就有，還在前面劃了空出來，我現在一臉懵逼，考試的時候太緊張完全沒發現？！）
二、英譯漢（40分） The most important day I remember in all my life is the one on which my teacher, Anne Mansfield Sullivan, came to me. I am filled with wonder when I consider the immeasurable contrastbetween the two lives which it connects. It was the third of March, 1887, three months before I was seven years old.
On the afternoon ofthat eventful day, I stood on the porch, dumb, expectant. I guessed vaguely from my mother's signs and from the hurrying to and fro in the house thatsomething unusual was about to happen, so I went to the door and waited on thesteps. The afternoon sun penetrated the mass of honeysuckle that covered the porch, and fell on my upturned face. My fingers lingered almost unconsciously on the familiar leaves and blossoms which had just come forth to greet thesweet southern spring. I did not know what the future held of marvel orsurprise for me. Anger and bitterness had preyed upon me continually for weeksand a deep languor had succeeded this passionate struggle.
Have you ever been at sea in a dense fog, when it seemed as if a tangible white darkness shut you in, and the great ship, tense and anxious, groped her way toward the shore with plummet and sounding-line, and you waited with beating heart for something to happen? I was like that ship before my education began, only I was without compass or sounding-line, and had no way of knowing how near the harbor was. “Light! Give me light!” was the wordless cry of my soul, and the light of love shone on me in that very hour.
I felt approaching footsteps. I stretched out my hand as I supposed to my mother. Someone took it, and I was caught up and held close in the arms of her who had come to reveal all things to me, and, more than all things else, to love me.
The morning after my teacher came she led me into her room and gave me a doll. The little blind children at the Perkins Institution had sent it and Laura Bridgman had dressed it; but I did not know this until afterward. When I had played with it a littlewhile, Miss Sullivan slowly spelled into my hand the word “d-o-l-l”. I was at once interested in this finger play and tried to imitate it. When I finally succeeded in making the letters correctly I was flushed with childish pleasureand pride.
三、漢譯英（30分） 1975年，我進入北京工業學院（現在是北京理工大學）時，實際文化程度才是初中一年級，困難是很大的。我必須用三年的時間，走完如今一個大學生將近九年的路。頭一年，在班上我的成績是中等偏下，我唯一的資本是自己的毅力。我想了這樣一個道理：什么叫大學？大學是一種優勢，國家是用成千上萬的投資維持和創造這種優勢的。這種優勢也許會給別人，但現在給了我。要把這種優勢化作自己的優勢，關鍵在于刻苦學習。
1978年，我以當時比較好的成績考上了研究生，同年又考上了出國研究生。1979年10月去英國，第一次看到國外的情況，對比自己的國家，我心里比較難受。我覺得有責任為建設自己的國家出一份力。我是一個“工農兵大學生”，對能否作出一篇博士論文心里沒有底。有了研究方向，我便一頭扎進圖書館，一呆就是兩個月，收集有關的學習文獻資料。我吃飯和休息盡可能簡化，每天實際工作十四五個小時。
（還有第一段搜不到，只有一行多一點，大概是說我是知青下鄉插隊）
| 
發表于 2019-4-14 13:50
收藏
分享
支持
反對
