北京科技大学2014年考研翻译硕士英语试题

考研网

真题是考研复习中含金量最高的辅导材料，真题的利用对于提高复习效率具有至关重要的作用。一般来说，时间和精力有限，建议考生重点做近十年的真题。新东方在线考研整理各高校历年考研真题，希望能帮大家更好的复习!
   
    　　北 京 科 技 大 学
        2014年硕士学位研究生入学考试试题
    试题编号： 211 试题名称： 翻译硕士英语 (共 12 页)
    适用专业： 翻译
    说明： 所有答案必须写在答题纸上，做在试题或草稿纸上无效。
    　　I. Vocabulary and Structure ( 30 points, 1 point each, 60 minutes)
    Directions: Beneath each sentence there are four words or phrases marked A,
B, C, or D. Choose the answer that best completes the sentence. Write your
answers on the answer sheet.
    1. It was nearly always organized by the government, although some club
members acted _______ their own initiative.
    by B. on C. with D. in
    2. He redesigned the process, thereby ________ the company thousands of
dollars.
    saving B. to save C. saved D. save
    3. Modern bodies are especially ______ to cancer, because technology
produces waste that inhibits their proper functioning.
    relevant B. invulnerable C. prone D. attractive
    4. Some of his plans were impractical and ________ good for his work, but
he never wavered in what he considered just.
    too much B. much too C. so much D. much so
    5. Supporters praised the action as a speedy and judicious solution, but
critics condemned it as ______ and unfairly influenced by recent events.
    delayed B. indisposed C. hasty D. imperious
    6. It is odd that a person’s worth is measured by his wealth, ______
instead people’s character should be measured by their value to society.
    while B. so C. because D. when
    7. During the 17th century many artists became involved in color theory and
______ painting for enlightenment.
    looked up to B. looked out C. looked on D. looked to
    8. No government can meet the _______ demand for ever more sophisticated
medical technology by an aging population.
    intransigent B. insatiable C. ingenious D. inglorious
    9. It is difficult to distinguish between the things that celebrities do
______ and those that are carefully contrived for effect.
    reluctantly B. publicly C. spontaneously D. prolifically
    10. The monkeys in the zoo are a group, because primates are inevitably
______ and build their lives around each other.
    social B. independent C. stable D. curious
    11. When economy, language, culture and history interact, people begin to
view them as _______ subjects rather than isolated ones.
    idiosyncratic B. integral C. synchronized D. synthesized
    12. Retired people are often willing to _______ their time to help with
community project.
    give out B. give away C. give of D. give off
    13. Even though formidable winters are the norm in this region, people were
unprepared for the _______ of the blizzard that year.
    mildness B. ferocity C. inevitability D. probability
    14. The committee provides funding to _______ artists like those of women
and of color, in the hopes of rectifying a historical inequality.
    prolific B. prominent C. promising D. marginalized
    15. All are in the _____ stages, until architectural historians survey each
house to determine which have historic value.
    preliminary B. primary C. prevalent D. predicative
    16. He has unusual insight and imagination, which has made him succeed in
______ new and fundamental principles well in advance of their general
recognition.
    coordinating B. discerning C. acknowledging D. dispelling
    17. The storyline of the novel was extremely involved and included many
lesser characters _______ to the central events.
    A. consequential B. peripheral C. indispensable D. permeating
    18. Once I finally _______ finding a definition, I see that it was never
any such thing.
    get across to B. get away with C. get round to D. get in with
    19. Despite the fact that the life span of animals is conveniently divided
into separate stages, those periods are not truly _______.
    distinct B. continuous C. reflexive D. codependent
    20. In spite of _______ among scientists, and years of contentious
discussion, the claim that earthquake can be predicted with great precision
prevails.
    reception B. popularity C. skepticism D. antipathy
    21. No dictionary can really capture something as fleeting and ______ as
slang.
    equivocal B. equitable C. equable D. ephemeral
    22. They bought up pieces of old furniture and passed them ______ as
valuable antiques.
    out B. by C. away D. off
    23. That reason was unique human has come _____ increasingly skeptical
scrutiny: more researchers at least entertain the notion that some animals can
think.
    in B. under C. to D. with
    24. Sam was a complete country man, with a pronounced ______ with nature in
all its forms.
    infinity B. conformity C. affinity D. fluidity
    25. It is no accident that most people find his book disturbing, for it is
calculated to undermine a number of beliefs they have long _______.
    cherished B. denied C. anticipated D. misunderstood
    26. Although the passage of years has softened the initially hostile
reaction to his poetry, even now only a few independent observers _______ his
works.
    neglect B. criticize C. comment D. praise
    27. The exhibition, though small in scale, succeeded in _______ its members
with a firm sense of self-worth and purpose.
    endowing B. imbuing C. ladening D. providing
    28. We were all impressed by the style of his books which is strongly
________ of Virginia Woolf’s novels.
    reminiscent B. symptomatic C. indicative D. imitative
    29. Historian can _______ “Augustan peace” only by failing to recognize
that this peace in many respects resemble that of death.
    demand B. ridicule C. applaud D. disapprove
    30. Everything becomes collectable in time, particularly when its history
and date of manufacture can be ________.
    described B. acknowledged C. overlooked D. authenticated
   
                    

kythree

    II. Reading Comprehension (40 points, 2 points each, 60 minutes)
        Section I
    Directions: In this section there are two reading passages followed by
multiple choice questions. Read the passages and then write your answers on your
answer sheet.
    　　Passage One
    Constant vigilance: that is the task of the people who protect society from
enemies intent on using subterfuge and violence to get their way. It is also the
watch word of those who fear that the protectors will pursue the collective
interest at untold cost to individual rights. Edward Snowden, a young security
contractor, has come down on one side of that tussle by leaking documents
showing that the National Security Agency (NSA) spied on millions of Americans’
phone records on the internet activity of hundreds of millions of
foreigners.
    The documents, published by the Guardian and the Washington Post, include
two big secrets. One is a court order telling Verizon, a telecoms company, to
hand over “metadata”, such as the duration, direction and location of
subscribers’ calls. The other gives some clues about a programme called PRISM,
which collects e-mails, files and social-networking data from firms such as
Google, Apple and Facebook. Much of this eavesdropping has long been surmised,
and none of it is necessarily illegal. America gives wide powers to its
law-enforcement and spy agencies. They are overseen by Congress and courts,
which issue orders to internet firms.
    Barack Obama has responded to the leaks by saying that he “welcomes” a
debate on the trade-off between privacy, security and convenience. Despite the
president’s words, however, the administration and much of Congress seem
unwilling to talk about the programmes they oversee; and the politicians and
executives who do want to speak out are gagged by secrecy laws. Opinion polls
show that Americans are divided about the merits of surveillance—which is partly
because they know so little about what is going on. But spying in a democracy
depends for its legitimacy on informed consent, not blind trust.
    You might argue that the spies are doing only what is necessary. Al-Qaeda’s
assaults on September 11th 2001 demonstrated to politicians everywhere that
their first duty is to ensure their own citizens’ safety. With Islamist bombers,
there is a good case for using electronic surveillance: they come from a
population that is still hard for Western security services to penetrate, and
they make wide use of mobile phones and the internet. The NSA’s boss, Keith
Alexander, says the ploys revealed by Mr Snowden have stopped dozens of plots.
The burden on society of sweeping up information about them has been modest
compared with the wars launched against Afghanistan and Iraq. And the public
seems happy: if there were another attack on America, Mr Snowden would soon be
forgotten.
    Yet because the spies choose what to reveal about their work, nobody can
judge if the cost and intrusion are proportionate to the threat. One concern is
the size, scope and cost of the security bureaucracy: some 1.4 million people
have “top secret” clearances of the kind held by Mr Snowden. Is that
sensible?
    A second worry is the effect on America’s ties with other countries. The
administration’s immediate response to the PRISM revelation was that Americans
have nothing to fear: it touched only foreigners. That adds insult to injury in
countries that count themselves as close American allies: the European Union, in
particular, fastidiously protects its citizens’ data. Fears abound that the spy
agencies practice a cynical swap, in which each respects the letter of the law
protecting the rights of its own people—but lets its allies do the snooping
instead.
    Lawyerly officials denials of such machinations fail to reassure because of
the third worry: the governments acting outside public scrutiny are not to be
trusted. James Clapper, America’s director of national intelligence, told
Congress in March that the NSA does not gather data on “millions of Americans”.
He now says he answered in “the least untruthful manner” possible. Trawls
through big databases may produce interesting clues—but also life-ruining false
alarms, especially when the resulting decisions are cloaked in secrecy. Those on
“no-fly lists”, which ban an unknown number of people from most air travel, are
not told what they have done wrong and cannot clear their names. In desperation,
13 American citizens, including some who were exiled from their own country by
the travel ban, are suing the government.
    Our point is not that America’s spies are doing the wrong things, but that
the level of public scrutiny is inadequate and so is the right of redress.
Without these, officials will be tempted to abuse their powers, because the
price of doing so is small. This is particularly true for those who bug and
ban.
    Spooks do need secrecy, but not on everything, always and everywhere.
Officials will complain that disclosure would hinder their efforts in what is
already an unfair fight. Yet some operational efficiency is worth sacrificing,
because public scrutiny is a condition for popular backing. Even allowing for
the need to keep some things clandestine, Americans need a clearer idea of what
their spies are doing in their name.
    1. According to the passage, which of the following statements about
vigilance is true?
    President Obama describes the spying as a defense of security.
    Americans differ in their attitude towards the government’s vigilance.
    The administration and Congress feel ashamed of the spying.
    America’s law-enforcement and spy agencies are not entitled to spy.
    2. The sentence in paragraph two “if there were another attack on America,
Mr Snowden would soon be forgotten” probably means ________.
    Americans need divert their attention from the spying event.
    Mr Snowden matters little compared to America’s potential enemies.
    Vigilance would be accepted by the public if America was faced with
danger.
    Mr Snowden’s revelation of PRISM would be forgotten sooner or later.
    3. Americans have the following concerns regarding vigilance
EXCEPT_____.
    Spy agents leave Americans little privacy and less security.
    Spying will damage America’s relation with other countries.
    It is not sensible to devote much money and energy to vigilance.
    There lacks effective scrutiny of the government’s surveillance.
    4. The case that some citizens are banned from air travel in paragraph 7 is
presented to illustrate ________.
    the efficiency of spying
    the absurdity of the ban
    the inadequacy of the spying system
    the interesting findings of spying
    5. What is the author’s stance on vigilance by the government?
    Vigilance does more harm than good to American citizens.
    Protection of society is merely an excuse for illegal vigilance.
    The legitimacy of vigilance is still open to discussion.
    Vigilance is necessary but should be better scrutinized by the public.
   
                    

kysix

　　Passage Two
    A simple idea underpins science: “trust, but verify”. Results should always
be subject to challenge from experiment. That simple but powerful idea has
generated a vast body of knowledge. Since its birth in the 17th century, modern
science has changed the world beyond recognition, and overwhelmingly for the
better. But success can breed complacency. Modern scientists are doing too much
trusting and not enough verifying—to the detriment of the whole of science and
of humanity.
    Too many of the findings that fill the academic ether are the result of
shoddy experiments or poor analysis. A rule of thumb among biotechnology
venture-capitalists is that half of published research cannot be replicated.
Even that may be optimistic. Last year researchers at one biotech firm found
they could reproduce just six of 53 “landmark” studies in cancer research. In
2000-2010 roughly 80,000 patients took part in clinical trials based on research
that was later retracted because of mistakes or improprieties.
    Even when flawed research does not put people’s lives at risks—and much of
it is too far from the market to do so—it squanders money and the efforts of
some of the world’s best minds. The opportunity costs of stymied progress are
hard to quantify, but they are likely to be vast. And they could be rising.
    One reason is the competitiveness of science. In the 1950s, when modern
academic research took shape after its successes in the Second World War, it was
still a rarefied pastime. The entire club of scientists numbered a few hundred
thousand. As their ranks have swelled, scientists have lost their taste for
self-policing and quality control. The obligation to “publish or perish” has
come to rule over academic life. Competition for jobs is cut-throat. Full
professors in America earned on average $135,000 in 2012—more than judges did.
Every year six freshly minted PhDs vie for every academic post. Nowadays
verification does little to advance a researcher’s career. And without
verification, dubious findings live on to mislead.
    Careerism also encourages exaggeration and the cherry-picking of results.
In order to safeguard their exclusivity, the leading journals impose high
rejection rates: in excess of 90% of submitted manuscripts. The most striking
findings have the greatest chance of making it onto the page. Little wonder that
one in three researchers knows of a colleague who has pepped up a paper by, say,
excluding inconvenient data from results “based on a gut feeling”. And as more
research teams around the world work on a problem, the odds shorten that at
least one will fall prey to an honest confusion between the sweet signal of a
genuine discovery and a freak of the statistical noise.
    Conversely, failures to prove a hypothesis are rarely even offered for
publication, let alone accepted. “Negative results” now account for only 14% of
published papers, down from 30% in 1990. Yet knowing what is false is as
important to science as knowing what is true. The failure to report failures
means that researchers waste money and effort exploring blind alleys already
investigated by other scientists.
    The hallowed process of peer review is not all it is cracked up to be,
either. When a prominent medical journal ran research past other experts in the
field, it found that most of the reviewers failed to spot mistakes it had
deliberately inserted into papers, even after being told they were being
tested.
    All this makes a shaky foundation for an enterprise dedicated to
discovering the truth about the world. What might be done to shore it up? One
priority should be for all disciplines to follow the example of those that have
done most to tighten standards. Ideally, research protocols should be registered
in advance and monitored in virtual notebooks. This would curb the temptation to
fiddle with the experiment’s design midstream so as to make the results look
more substantial than they are. Where possible, trial data also should be open
for other researchers to inspect and test.
    The most enlightened journals are already becoming less averse to humdrum
papers. Some government funding agencies, including America’s National
Institutes of Health, which dish out $30 billion on research each year, are
working out how best to encourage replication. And growing numbers of
scientists, especially young ones, understand statistics. But these trends need
to go much further. Journals should allocate space for “uninteresting” work, and
grant-givers should set aside money to pay for it. Peer review should be
tightened—or perhaps dispensed with altogether, in favor of post-publication
evaluation in the form of appended comments. Lastly, policymakers should ensure
that institutions using public money also respect the rules.
    Science still commands enormous—if sometimes bemused—respect. But its
privileged status is founded on the capacity to be right most of the time and to
correct its mistakes when it gets things wrong. And it is not as if the universe
is short of genuine mysteries to keep generations of scientists hard at work.
The false trails laid down by shoddy research are an unforgivable barrier to
understanding.
    6. Which issue about science is mainly addressed in the passage?
    Science calls for more verification.
    Flawed science research does harm to humanity.
    Fierce competition exists in science.
    An objective evaluation of science is necessary.
    7. Which of the following statements can best explain the major issue in
science?
    Scientific research is too flawed to be turned into productivity.
    Scientists are unwilling to get papers published for promotion.
    Competition in science leads to irrational pursuit of startling
results.
    Peer review mechanism is not fully implemented.
    8. “cherry-picking of results” in paragraph five refers to ______.
    overstating the results to get papers published
    keeping only positive results to get paper published
    selecting only papers with the most favorable results
    safeguarding the high quality of experiment results
    9. According to the passage, negative results in scientific experiments
should be _____.
    dismissed as complete failures and never to be considered
    published to avoid unnecessary waste of money and effort
    investigated a second time to confirm their inadequacy
    adapted to incorporate with a new hypothesis
    10. The passage suggests the following solutions to the issue in science
EXCEPT ________.
    implementing higher standards in scientific experiment
    carrying out larger scale of inspection and test of trial data
    allocating more funding for the verification of science results
    speeding up the application of science results to the market
   
                    

kythree

　　Section II
    Directions: Read the following two passages and answer in COMPLETE
SENTENCES the questions which follow the passages. Write your answers in the
corresponding space on your answer sheet.
    Passage Three
    The American dream has taken hit after hit the past half-decade. It just
suffered another blow, based on a new poll. Yet young people seem determined to
turn things around, giving us all cautious cause for optimism.
    When writer James Truslow Adams coined the phrase in 1931 he called the
American dream “that dream of a land in which life should be better and richer
and fuller for everyone, with opportunity for each according to ability or
achievement.” So it was all about opportunity, which largely has disappeared
amid a poor job market, heavy debts, and wages that have stalled for 25
years.
    In more recent times, the American dream became closely identified with
home ownership. But that idea suffered a blow in the housing bust. Just 65% of
Americans own their home, down from 69% pre-bust, and four out of five Americans
are rethinking the reasons they’d want to buy a house.
    Perhaps the newest definition of the American dream comes from the National
Endowment for Financial Education, which found that nearly half of adults define
the dream as a comfortable retirement. Most just want to quit work at 65 or 67
and not worry. That’s their dream, which far outpaces the 17% who cling to
homeownership as the embodiment of Adam’s vision.
    Now we see yet another blow to yet another version of the American dream,
which at times has been described as each generation doing better than the last.
Seven in 10 Americans say that when today’s children are adults, they’ll have
less financial security than adults today, according to an Allstate/National
Journal Heartland Monitor poll.
    Adults overwhelmingly believe childhood and parenthood were better for
earlier generations; 79% say it was better to have been a child when they were
young. Most believe today’s kids will have a poorer chance of holding a steady
job and owning a home without too much debt, and that their children will have
less opportunity to achieve a comfortable retirement.
    The downbeat view doesn’t stop here. Adults also believe that today’s
children will display less patriotism, a poorer work ethic, and less civic
responsibility when they come of age.
    All this pessimism would be deadly troublesome if not for one thing: young
people aren’t buying it. More than half of teens in the poll say it’s better to
be a kid today, and nearly half say that when they are their parents’ age they
will have more opportunity—not less.
    Maybe that’s because young people learned a lot during the Great
Depression. They saw their parents get socked. But with no real assets at risk
themselves they came through it unscathed, financially speaking, and yet took
the lessons to heart and are more conscious about spending and debt than Mom and
Dad have been.
    Maybe that’s because they’ve seen stocks come roaring back and the housing
market begin to recover. Mom and Dad may not be whole yet, and still stinging.
But those who began their careers in the past five years and were smart enough
to sign up for a 401 (k) have been building wealth steadily.
    Maybe that’s because, stereotypes be damned, they know something about
their work ethic that boomers and other elders do not: Millennials are pretty
darned committed to their careers—they just see it in different terms.
    Or maybe it’s just because young people can’t imagine life without the
internet or smartphones or, well, reality TV. Toddlers today play on iPads. With
mobile technology, young professionals can get their jobs done at the beach. By
comparison, older generations grew up in the dinosaur age. We had outrageous
long-distance bills, three channels and a TV with rabbit ears. Dude, what’s so
great about that?
    11. What is the passage mainly about?
    12. What specific aspects about American dream are discussed in the
passage?
    13. How do you interpret the first sentence in paragraph eight: “All the
pessimism would be deadly troublesome if not for one thing: young people aren’t
buying it.”?
    14. What is the author’s attitude towards the issue being discussed?
    15. Could you give a title to the passage?
        Passage Four
    It’s an exciting notion that one’s very self could be broadened by the
mastery of two or more languages. In obvious ways (exposure to new friends,
literature and so forth) the self-reality is broadened. Yet it is different to
claim—as many people do—to have a different personality when using a different
language. A former colleague, for example, reported being ruder in Hebrew than
in English. So what is going on here?
    Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist who died in 1941, held that each
language encodes a worldview that significantly influences its speakers. Often
called “Whorfinanism”, this idea has its skeptics. But there are still good
reasons to believe language shapes thought.
    This influence is not necessarily linked to the vocabulary or grammar of a
second language. Significantly, most people are not symmetrically bilingual.
Many have learned one language at home from parents, and another later in life,
usually at school. So bilinguals usually have different strengths and weaknesses
in their different languages—and they are not always best in their first
language. For example, when tested in a foreign language, people are less likely
to fall into a cognitive trap (answering a test question with an obvious-seeming
but wrong answer) than when tested in their native language. In part this is
because working in a second language slows down the thinking. No wonder people
feel different when speaking them. And no wonder they feel looser, more
spontaneous, perhaps more assertive or funnier or blunter, in the language they
were reared in from childhood.
    What of “crib” bilinguals, raised in two languages? Even they do not
usually have perfectly symmetrical competence in their two languages. But even
for a speaker whose two languages are very nearly the same in ability, there is
another big reason that person will feel different in the two languages. This is
because there is an important distinction between bilingualism and
biculturalism.
    Many bilinguals are not bicultural. But some are. And of those bicultural
bilinguals, we should be little surprised that they feel different in their two
languages. Experiments in psychology have shown the power of “priming”—small
unnoticed factors that can affect behavior in big ways. Asking people to tell a
happy story, for example, will put them in a better mood. The choice between two
languages is a huge prime. Speaking Spanish rather than English, for a bilingual
and bicultural Puerto Rican in New York, might conjure feelings of family and
home. Switching to English might prime the same person to think of school and
work.
    So there are two very good reasons that make people feel different speaking
their different languages. We are still left with a third kind of argument,
though.
    People seem to enjoy telling tales about their languages’ inherent
properties, and how they influence their speakers. A group of French
intellectual worthies once proposed, rather self-flatteringly, that French be
the sole legal language of the EU, because of its supposedly unmatchable rigor
and precision. Some Germans believe that frequently putting the verb at the end
of a sentence makes the language especially logical. We also see some
unsurprising overlap with national stereotypes and self-stereotypes: French,
rigorous; German, logical; English, playful. Of course.
    In this case, Ms Chalaris, a scholar, at least proposed a specific and
plausible line of causation from grammar to personality: in Greek, the verb
comes first, and it carries a lot of information, hence easy interrupting. The
problem is that many unrelated languages all around the world put the verb at
the beginning of sentences. Many languages all around the world are heavily
inflected, encoding lots of information in verbs. It would be a striking finding
if all of these unrelated languages had speakers more likely to interrupt each
other. Welsh, for example, is also both verb-first and about as heavily
inflected as Greek, but the Welsh are not known as pushy conversationalists.
    Neo-Whorfians continue to offer evidence and analysis that aims to prove
that different languages push speakers to think differently. One such effort is
forthcoming: “The Bilingual Mind” to be published in April. Meanwhile John
McWhorter takes the opposite stance in “The Language Hoax”, forthcoming in
February. But strong Whorfian arguments do not need to be valid for people to
feel differently in their different languages.
    16. Which statement or notion is under discussion in this passage?
    17. Do bilinguals feel more comfortable with their first language? Why or
why not?
    18. According to the passage, why do people feel different when they speak
different languages?
    19. Why are Greeks likely to interrupt in conversation according to some
scholar?
    20. Does the author agree on the causation from language to personality?
How does he argue for or against it?
    　　III. Writing ( 30 points, 60 minutes)
    Some universities in China have changed Chinese from a compulsory course to
an optional one. Only Students who major in Chinese literature or relevant
majors are taking Chinese courses.
    Write a composition of about 400 words about the phenomenon described above
and your opinion about it.