上外高翻 2017 级 MTI 推免考试笔试题目回忆版 - 知乎专栏
{"debug":false,"apiRoot":"","paySDK":"/api/js","wechatConfigAPI":"/api/wechat/jssdkconfig","name":"production","instance":"column","tokens":{"X-XSRF-TOKEN":null,"X-UDID":null,"Authorization":"oauth c3cef7c66aa9e6a1e3160e20"}}
{"database":{"Post":{"":{"contributes":[],"title":"上外高翻 2017 级 MTI 推免考试笔试题目回忆版","author":"chairmanhubugui","content":"胡学长的碎碎念：上外高翻的考试不走寻常路。这次有三个意外：英中总结文章选的是15年的“老”文章，还是考过的话题；英中总结文章选的不是来自《经济学人》《纽约时报》这类报刊的文章，这次文章来自《名利场》( Vanity Fair )。中英翻译考的竟然是文学翻译（鸡汤文）。话又说回来，这并不意味着学弟妹都要去看《名利场》。还是那句话，打好基本功，以不变应万变。在公众号后台回复 ，获取整理好的PDF版《名利场》文章。也可在公众号回复 经验帖，不仅可以看前人经验，还可以下载胡学长团队整理好的上外高翻历年真题。--上外高翻 2017 级 MTI 推免考试笔试题目回忆版胡学长的团队整理发布一、用中文总结全文（500字以内）原文链接：THE CHINESE CENTURYBY JOSEPH E. STIGLITZJANUARY 2015When the history of 2014 is written, it will take note of a large fact that has received little attention: 2014 was the last year in which the United States could claim to be the world’s largest economic power. China enters 2015 in the top position, where it will likely remain for a very long time, if not forever. In doing so, it returns to the position it held through most of human history.Comparing the gross domestic product of different economies is very difficult. Technical committees come up with estimates, based on the best judgments possible, of what are called “purchasing-power parities,” which enable the comparison of incomes in various countries. These shouldn’t be taken as precise numbers, but they do provide a good basis for assessing the relative size of different economies. Early in 2014, the body that conducts these international assessments—the World Bank’s International Comparison Program—came out with new numbers. (The complexity of the task is such that there have been only three reports in 20 years.) The latest assessment, released last spring, was more contentious and, in some ways, more momentous than those in previous years. It was more contentious precisely because it was more momentous: the new numbers showed that China would become the world’s largest economy far sooner than anyone had expected—it was on track to do so before the end of 2014.The source of contention would surprise many Americans, and it says a lot about the differences between China and the U.S.—and about the dangers of projecting onto the Chinese some of our own attitudes. Americans want very much to be No. 1—we enjoy having that status. In contrast, China is not so eager. According to some reports, the Chinese participants even threatened to walk out of the technical discussions. For one thing, China did not want to stick its head above the parapet—being No. 1 comes with a cost. It means paying more to support international bodies such as the United Nations. It could bring pressure to take an enlightened leadership role on issues such as climate change. It might very well prompt ordinary Chinese to wonder if more of the country’s wealth should be spent on them. (The news about China’s change in status was in fact blacked out at home.) There was one more concern, and it was a big one: China understands full well America’s psychological preoccupation with being No. 1—and was deeply worried about what our reaction would be when we no longer were.Of course, in many ways—for instance, in terms of exports and household savings—China long ago surpassed the United States. With savings and investment making up close to 50 percent of G.D.P., the Chinese worry about having too much savings, just as Americans worry about having too little. In other areas, such as manufacturing, the Chinese overtook the U.S. only within the past several years. They still trail America when it comes to the number of patents awarded, but they are closing the gap.The areas where the United States remains competitive with China are not always ones we’d most want to call attention to. The two countries have comparable levels of inequality. (Ours is the highest in the developed world.) China outpaces America in the number of people executed every year, but the U.S. is far ahead when it comes to the proportion of the population in prison (more than 700 per 100,000 people). China overtook the U.S. in 2007 as the world’s largest polluter, by total volume, though on a per capita basis we continue to hold the lead. The United States remains the largest military power, spending more on our armed forces than the next top 10 nations combined (not that we have always used our military power wisely). But the bedrock strength of the U.S. has always rested less on hard military power than on “soft power,” most notably its economic influence. That is an essential point to remember.Tectonic shifts in global economic power have obviously occurred before, and as a result we know something about what happens when they do. Two hundred years ago, in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, Great Britain emerged as the world’s dominant power. Its empire spanned a quarter of the globe. Its currency, the pound sterling, became the global reserve currency—as sound as gold itself. Britain, sometimes working in concert with its allies, imposed its own trade rules. It could discriminate against importation of Indian textiles and force India to buy British cloth. Britain and its allies could also insist that China keep its markets open to opium, and when China, knowing the drug’s devastating effect, tried to close its borders, the allies twice went to war to maintain the free flow of this product.Britain’s dominance was to last a hundred years and continued even after the U.S. surpassed Britain economically, in the 1870s. There’s always a lag (as there will be with the U.S. and China). The transitional event was World War I, when Britain achieved victory over Germany only with the assistance of the United States. After the war, America was as reluctant to accept its potential new responsibilities as Britain was to voluntarily give up its role. Woodrow Wilson did what he could to construct a postwar world that would make another global conflict less likely, but isolationism at home meant that the U.S. never joined the League of Nations. In the economic sphere, America insisted on going its own way—passing the Smoot-Hawley tariffs and bringing to an end an era that had seen a worldwide boom in trade. Britain maintained its empire, but gradually the pound sterling gave way to the dollar: in the end, economic realities dominate. Many American firms became global enterprises, and American culture was clearly ascendant.World War II was the next defining event. Devastated by the conflict, Britain would soon lose virtually all of its colonies. This time the U.S. did assume the mantle of leadership. It was central in creating the United Nations and in fashioning the Bretton Woods agreements, which would underlie the new political and economic order. Even so, the record was uneven. Rather than creating a global reserve currency, which would have contributed so much to worldwide economic stability—as John Maynard Keynes had rightly argued—the U.S. put its own short-term self-interest first, foolishly thinking it would gain by having the dollar become the world’s reserve currency. The dollar’s status is a mixed blessing: it enables the U.S. to borrow at a low interest rate, as others demand dollars to put into their reserves, but at the same time the value of the dollar rises (above what it otherwise would have been), creating or exacerbating a trade deficit and weakening the economy.For 45 years after World War II, global politics was dominated by two superpowers, the U.S. and the U.S.S.R., representing two very different visions both of how to organ-ize and govern an economy and a society and of the relative importance of political and economic rights. Ultimately, the Soviet system was to fail, as much because of internal corruption, unchecked by democratic processes, as anything else. Its military power its soft power was increasingly a joke. The world was now dominated by a single superpower, one that continued to invest heavily in its military. That said, the U.S. was a superpower not just militarily but also economically.The United States then made two critical mistakes. First, it inferred that its triumph meant a triumph for everything it stood for. But in much of the Third World, concerns about poverty—and the economic rights that had long been advocated by the left—remained paramount. The second mistake was to use the short period of its unilateral dominance, between the fall of the Berlin Wall and the fall of Lehman Brothers, to pursue its own narrow economic interests—or, more accurately, the economic interests of its multi-nationals, including its big banks—rather than to create a new, stable world order. The trade regime the U.S. pushed through in 1994, creating the World Trade Organization, was so unbalanced that, five years later, when another trade agreement was in the offing, the prospect led to riots in Seattle. Talking about free and fair trade, while insisting (for instance) on subsidies for its rich farmers, has cast the U.S. as hypocritical and self-serving.And Washington never fully grasped the consequences of so many of its shortsighted actions—intended to extend and strengthen its dominance but in fact diminishing its long-term position. During the East Asia crisis, in the 1990s, the U.S. Treasury worked hard to undermine the so-called Miyazawa Initiative, Japan’s generous offer of $100 billion to help jump-start economies that were sinking into recession and depression. The policies the U.S. pushed on these countries—austerity and high interest rates, with no bailouts for banks in trouble—were just the opposite of those that these same Treasury officials advocated for the U.S. after the meltdown of 2008. Even today, a decade and a half after the East Asia crisis, the mere mention of the U.S. role can prompt angry accusations and charges of hypocrisy in Asian capitals.Now China is the world’s No. 1 economic power. Why should we care? On one level, we actually shouldn’t. The world economy is not a zero-sum game, where China’s growth must necessarily come at the expense of ours. In fact, its growth is complementary to ours. If it grows faster, it will buy more of our goods, and we will prosper. There has always, to be sure, been a little hype in such claims—just ask workers who have lost their manufacturing jobs to China. But that reality has as much to do with our own economic policies at home as it does with the rise of some other country.On another level, the emergence of China into the top spot matters a great deal, and we need to be aware of the implications.First, as noted, America’s real strength lies in its soft power—the example it provides to others and the influence of its ideas, including ideas about economic and political life. The rise of China to No. 1 brings new prominence to that country’s political and economic model—and to its own forms of soft power. The rise of China also shines a harsh spotlight on the American model. That model has not been delivering for large portions of its own population. The typical American family is worse off than it was a quarter-century ago, ad the proportion of people in poverty has increased. China, too, is marked by high levels of inequality, but its economy has been doing some good for most of its citizens. China moved some 500 million people out of poverty during the same period that saw America’s middle class enter a period of stagnation. An economic model that doesn’t serve a majority of its citizens is not going to provide a role model for others to emulate. America should see the rise of China as a wake-up call to put our own house in order.Second, if we ponder the rise of China and then take actions based on the idea that the world economy is indeed a zero-sum game—and that we therefore need to boost our share and reduce China’s—we will erode our soft power even further. This would be exactly the wrong kind of wake-up call. If we see China’s gains as coming at our expense, we will strive for “containment,” taking steps designed to limit China’s influence. These actions will ultimately prove futile, but will nonetheless undermine confidence in the U.S. and its position of leadership. U.S. foreign policy has repeatedly fallen into this trap. Consider the so-called Trans-Pacific Partnership, a proposed free-trade agreement among the U.S., Japan, and several other Asian countries—which excludes China altogether. It is seen by many as a way to tighten the links between the U.S. and certain Asian countries, at the expense of links with China. There is a vast and dynamic Asia supply chain, with goods moving around the region during different
the Trans-Pacific Partnership looks like an attempt to cut China out of this supply chain.Another example: the U.S. looks askance at China’s incipient efforts to assume global responsibility in some areas. China wants to take on a larger role in existing international institutions, but Congress says, in effect, that the old club doesn’t like active new members: they can continue taking a backseat, but they can’t have voting rights commensurate with their role in the global economy. When the other G-20 nations agree that it is time that the leadership of international economic organizations be determined on the basis of merit, not nationality, the U.S. insists that the old order is good enough—that the World Bank, for instance, should continue to be headed by an American.Yet another example: when China, together with France and other countries—supported by an International Commission of Experts appointed by the president of the U.N., which I chaired—suggested that we finish the work that Keynes had started at Bretton Woods, by creating an international reserve currency, the U.S. blocked the effort.And a final example: the U.S. has sought to deter China’s efforts to channel more assistance to developing countries through newly created multilateral institutions in which China would have a large, perhaps dominant role. The need for trillions of dollars of investment in infrastructure has been widely recognized—and providing that investment is well beyond the capacity of the World Bank and existing multilateral institutions. What is needed is not only a more inclusive governance regime at the World Bank but also more capital. On both scores, the U.S. Congress has said no. Meanwhile, China is trying to create an Asian Infrastructure Fund, working with a large number of other countries in the region. The U.S. is twisting arms so that those countries won’t join.The United States is confronted with real foreign-policy challenges that will prove hard to resolve: militant I the Palestine conflict, which is now i an aggressive Russia, insisting on asserting its power, at least in
continuing threats of nuclear proliferation. We will need the cooperation of China to address many, if not all, of these problems.We should take this moment, as China becomes the world’s largest economy, to “pivot” our foreign policy away from containment. The economic interests of China and the U.S. are intricately intertwined. We both have an interest in seeing a stable and well-functioning global political and economic order. Given historical memories and its own sense of dignity, China won’t be able to accept the global system simply as it is, with rules that have been set by the West, to benefit the West and its corporate interests, and that reflect the West’s perspectives. We will have to cooperate, like it or not—and we should want to. In the meantime, the most important thing America can do to maintain the value of its soft power is to address its own systemic deficiencies—economic and political practices that are corrupt, to put the matter baldly, and skewed toward the rich and powerful.A new global political and economic order is emerging, the result of new economic realities. We cannot change these economic realities. But if we respond to them in the wrong way, we risk a backlash that will result in either a dysfunctional global system or a global order that is distinctly not what we would have wanted.二、将划横线部分翻译成英文一个人所处的高度，决定了他的见识有一女教师，在很多年之前，她的丈夫就在一场车祸中丧生了，而她一个人却培育了三个博士生女儿。同时，她所教的很多学生也都成绩优异，让同事和朋友们都感到不可思议。在一次采访中，她向记者透露了她教学与教子的秘诀：不要指望别人都和你的见识一样！ 接着，她向记者讲述了这样一个故事： 十多年以前，她的小女儿正在上幼儿园。有一天，她看到了女儿的一张绘画作品。当时，她一下子就怔住了。孩子总是充满了想象，孩子的世界也应该是一个充满了想象的世界。可是，在她女儿的一幅名为《陪妈妈逛街》的画中，既没有高楼大厦，也没有车水马龙，更没有琳琅满目的商品，有的只是数不清的大人们的腿……奇怪！她拿着女儿的画沉思了很久，终于解开了疑惑。原来，幼小的孩子只有几岁，身高只能达到大人的腰部，走在大街上，川流不息的人群将孩子遮掩着，孩子除了能看到大人们的腿，还能看到什么呢？女教师如梦初醒。是啊，孩子们上街看到的不是高楼大厦和车水马龙，而是大人们的腿，这是他们的身高决定的；学生对很多问题疑惑不解，这是由他们的年龄、智力和见识决定的；企业的员工看到的只是自己的工资待遇和发展前途，而不是公司的整体运行和未来发展，这是由他们所处的位置和环境决定的……并不是每个孩子都能和大人有相同的视角来看待社会；并不是每个学生都能和老师一样有相同的接受能力和认知能力；并不是每个员工都能和总裁一样站在公司的全局看待问题、分析问题和处理问题……女教师说，不要埋怨别人无知，不要指望别人和你站在同样的高度。其实，一个人所处的高度，决定了他的见识。与其埋怨别人，不如用一种亲近的态度和平和的心态，去和别人交流、沟通、兼融……这样，你就可以做一个好家长、好教师、好经理。善待别人的高度，不要指望别人和你的见识一样。教子、教学、为人处世、管理一方，其实就是这么简单。感悟：我想，善待别人的高度，还应该有一层意思：不要总以为自己是对的。世上本没有对错，看问题的角度不同，答案不同而已，我们应该学会常常用别人的角度看世界，多一分宽容，多一分理解，多一分求同存异。三、用中文解释下列词语。若是缩写，请给出全称。（是的，你没看错题目要求）四书五经两个一百年东突ISIS网约车墨子号安理会金砖国家宝万之争熔断机制--关于作者 | 胡学长，误入培训业的文学爱好者，上外英语学院文学硕士，上外高翻学院翻译硕士。公众号 | 高翻考研 (ID: MTI_China)阅读更多 | 微博 | QQ资源群 | ","updated":"T09:18:53.000Z","canComment":false,"commentPermission":"anyone","commentCount":0,"collapsedCount":0,"likeCount":12,"state":"published","isLiked":false,"slug":"","isTitleImageFullScreen":false,"rating":"none","titleImage":"/v2-fafe2f37a5bbdae8d7ce51e_r.jpg","links":{"comments":"/api/posts//comments"},"reviewers":[],"topics":[{"url":"/topic/","id":"","name":"英语"},{"url":"/topic/","id":"","name":"教育"},{"url":"/topic/","id":"","name":"考研"}],"adminClosedComment":false,"titleImageSize":{"width":900,"height":500},"href":"/api/posts/","excerptTitle":"","tipjarState":"closed","annotationAction":[],"sourceUrl":"","pageCommentsCount":0,"hasPublishingDraft":false,"snapshotUrl":"","publishedTime":"T17:18:53+08:00","url":"/p/","lastestLikers":[{"bio":"英专|哈尔滨人|山东大学威海|十三线辩手","isFollowing":false,"hash":"e2c338a43f35a696bd9d77","uid":20,"isOrg":false,"slug":"loveringyou","isFollowed":false,"description":"丫吧，知乎。\n三笔 BEC Higher备考中。\n相信认识人的方式不重要，怎么相处才重要。\n喜欢有书生气的男孩子。\n隐忍又克制，上进又努力。","name":"Yao今天没吃药","profileUrl":"/people/loveringyou","avatar":{"id":"v2-1a440c739d","template":"/{id}_{size}.jpg"},"isOrgWhiteList":false},{"bio":"","isFollowing":false,"hash":"b96a4b219be3bda77b7c5","uid":981800,"isOrg":false,"slug":"singingmyblues","isFollowed":false,"description":"","name":"SingingMyBlues","profileUrl":"/people/singingmyblues","avatar":{"id":"8c7e58f0ce6f0afbf046e","template":"/{id}_{size}.jpg"},"isOrgWhiteList":false},{"bio":"想要最狂的风 和最静的海。","isFollowing":false,"hash":"3caa8a1fd82a61cbc1cc198","uid":142800,"isOrg":false,"slug":"zhou-zi-lan-79","isFollowed":false,"description":"","name":"一颗蓝","profileUrl":"/people/zhou-zi-lan-79","avatar":{"id":"b5d1eb18aea5","template":"/{id}_{size}.jpg"},"isOrgWhiteList":false},{"bio":null,"isFollowing":false,"hash":"29dd1158ce6","uid":814800,"isOrg":false,"slug":"xia-jing-44-49","isFollowed":false,"description":"","name":"Jane","profileUrl":"/people/xia-jing-44-49","avatar":{"id":"da8e974dc","template":"/{id}_{size}.jpg"},"isOrgWhiteList":false},{"bio":"放纵天性才是真理！","isFollowing":false,"hash":"20fb500f1bb8d0e7d4c80de","uid":569000,"isOrg":false,"slug":"qian-xie-jing-3","isFollowed":false,"description":"我就是我，是不一样的烟火","name":"YEJING QIAN","profileUrl":"/people/qian-xie-jing-3","avatar":{"id":"caca8c5a4efce","template":"/{id}_{size}.jpg"},"isOrgWhiteList":false}],"summary":"胡学长的碎碎念： 上外高翻的考试不走寻常路。这次有三个意外：英中总结文章选的是15年的“老”文章，还是考过的话题；英中总结文章选的不是来自《经济学人》《纽约时报》这类报刊的文章，这次文章来自《名利场》( Vanity Fair )。中英翻译考的竟然是文学翻…","reviewingCommentsCount":0,"meta":{"previous":null,"next":null},"annotationDetail":null,"commentsCount":0,"likesCount":12,"FULLINFO":true}},"User":{"chairmanhubugui":{"isFollowed":false,"name":"胡海涛","headline":"最近文章都只在公众号更新了","avatarUrl":"/c9c2933bf_s.jpg","isFollowing":false,"type":"people","slug":"chairmanhubugui","bio":"微信公众号：高翻考研（ID: MTI_China）","hash":"de30c418aa3fca06ae0ef8","uid":32,"isOrg":false,"description":"最近文章都只在公众号更新了","profileUrl":"/people/chairmanhubugui","avatar":{"id":"c9c2933bf","template":"/{id}_{size}.jpg"},"isOrgWhiteList":false,"badge":{"identity":null,"bestAnswerer":null}}},"Comment":{},"favlists":{}},"me":{},"global":{"experimentFeatures":{"ge3":"ge3_9","ge2":"ge2_1","nwebStickySidebar":"sticky","newMore":"new","liveReviewBuyBar":"live_review_buy_bar_2","liveStore":"ls_a2_b2_c1_f2","isOffice":"false","homeUi2":"default","answerRelatedReadings":"qa_recommend_with_ads_and_article","remixOneKeyPlayButton":"headerButton","qrcodeLogin":"qrcode","isShowUnicomeFreeEntry":"unicome_free_entry_on","newBuyBar":"livenewbuy3","newMobileColumnAppheader":"new_header","zcmLighting":"zcm","favAct":"default","appStoreRateDialog":"close","mobileQaPageProxyHeifetz":"m_qa_page_nweb","iOSNewestVersion":"4.2.0","default":"None","wechatShareModal":"wechat_share_modal_show","qaStickySidebar":"sticky_sidebar","androidProfilePanel":"panel_b"}},"columns":{"next":{}},"columnPosts":{},"columnSettings":{"colomnAuthor":[],"uploadAvatarDetails":"","contributeRequests":[],"contributeRequestsTotalCount":0,"inviteAuthor":""},"postComments":{},"postReviewComments":{"comments":[],"newComments":[],"hasMore":true},"favlistsByUser":{},"favlistRelations":{},"promotions":{},"switches":{"couldAddVideo":false},"draft":{"titleImage":"","titleImageSize":{},"isTitleImageFullScreen":false,"canTitleImageFullScreen":false,"title":"","titleImageUploading":false,"error":"","content":"","draftLoading":false,"globalLoading":false,"pendingVideo":{"resource":null,"error":null}},"drafts":{"draftsList":[],"next":{}},"config":{"userNotBindPhoneTipString":{}},"recommendPosts":{"articleRecommendations":[],"columnRecommendations":[]},"env":{"edition":{},"isAppView":false,"appViewConfig":{"content_padding_top":128,"content_padding_bottom":56,"content_padding_left":16,"content_padding_right":16,"title_font_size":22,"body_font_size":16,"is_dark_theme":false,"can_auto_load_image":true,"app_info":"OS=iOS"},"isApp":false},"sys":{},"message":{"newCount":0},"pushNotification":{"newCount":0}}