211翻译硕士英语题型

211是科目代码，而翻译硕士英语才是考试科目。这里的翻译硕士英语指的是你要报考学校自主命题的，不是国家统一命题的。你可以去报考学校官网查这个科目的参考书目或者加考上的学长学姐具体问一下。211翻译硕士英语(100分)【考核内容】完形填空、改错、句子重述、文本缩写、命题作文该科目考查考生是否符合MTI学习要求的英语水平，难度为专业八级。试题形式分为完形填空、改错、句子重述、文本缩写、命题作文五个部分。1、完形填空为 20分，要求根据原文主题、上下文语境，在文章每一空白处填写一个适切的单词。2、改错部分为15分，要求划出文章或句子中的10处错误，并逐一进行改正。句子重述部分为15分，要求在不改变原意的前提下将10个句子用不同语言形式予以重新表达。3、文本缩写为20分，要求把一篇1000单词的英语文章缩写为 300单词的短文。命题作文30分，要求根据所给题目撰写一篇不少于400单词的作文，要求语言规范、结构合理，表达清晰，流畅通顺，逻辑性强。扩展资料：1、翻译硕士专业学位（Master of Translation and Interpreting，缩写MTI），为适应我国改革开放和社会主义现代化建设事业发展的需要，促进中外交流，培养高层次、应用型高级翻译专门人才，决定在我国设置翻译硕士专业学位。2、翻译硕士学位获得者应具有较强的语言运用能力、熟练的翻译技能和宽广的知识面，能够胜任不同专业领域所需的高级翻译工作。3、适合人群：（1）热爱实践的同学适合报考翻硕。（2）汉语写作好的同学适合报考。（3）二外没有学好的同学可以报考。目前，除了北京外国语大学的MTI翻译硕士考试科目有二外以外，其他MTI院校考试项目均为翻译硕士英语或者基础英语。（4）求稳的同学目前可以报考。相比学术型，翻硕还是容易考取一点。所以如果你求稳，又不是非得报考名牌大学，那么，翻硕是一个不错的选择。复习时可以少学一门二外，而考试时又相对容易一点。求稳，翻硕是不错的选择参考资料来源：翻译硕士简介与适合人群-百度百科

以下是上外2010年翻译硕士（MTI）考试的真题，贴出来你看看吧 【翻译硕士二外】一、完形填空（全文录入，题目省略）During the first many decades of this nation’s existence, the United States was a wide-open, dynamic country with a rapidly expanding economy. It was also a country that tolerated a large amount of cruelty and pain — poor people living in misery, workers suffering from exploitation.Over the years, Americans decided they wanted a little more safety and security. This is what happens as nations grow wealthier; they use money to buy civilization.Occasionally, our ancestors found themselves in a sweet spot. They could pass legislation that brought security but without a cost to vitality. But alts know that this situation is rare. In the real world, there’s usually a trade-off. The unregulated market wants to direct capital to the proctive and the young. Welfare policies usually direct resources to the vulnerable and the elderly. Most social welfare legislation, even successful legislation, siphons money from the former to the latter.Early in this health care reform process, many of us thought we were in that magical sweet spot. We could extend coverage to the uninsured but also improve the system overall to lower costs. That is, we thought it would be possible to rece the suffering of the vulnerable while simultaneously squeezing money out of the wasteful system and freeing it up for more proctive uses.That’s what the management gurus call a win-win.It hasn’t worked out that way. The bills before Congress would almost certainly ease the anxiety of the uninsured, those who watch with terror as their child or spouse grows ill, who face bankruptcy and ruin.And the bills would probably do it without damaging the care the rest of us receive. In every place where reforms have been tried — from Massachusetts to Switzerland — people come to cherish their new benefits. The new plans become politically untouchable.But, alas, there would be trade-offs. Instead of recing costs, the bills in Congress would probably raise them. They would mean that more of the nation’s wealth would be siphoned off from proctive uses and shifted into a still wasteful health care system.The authors of these bills have tried to foster efficiencies. The Senate bill would initiate several interesting experiments designed to make the system more effective — giving doctors incentives to collaborate, rewarding hospitals that provide quality care at lower cost. It’s possible that some of these experiments will bloom into potent systemic reforms.But the general view among independent health care economists is that these changes will not fundamentally bend the cost curve. The system after reform will look as it does today, only bigger and more expensive.Rather than pushing all of the new costs onto future generations, as past governments have done, the Democrats have admirably agreed to raise taxes. Over the next generation, the tax increases in the various bills could funnel trillions of dollars from the general economy into the medical system.Moreover, the current estimates almost certainly understate the share of the nation’s wealth that will have to be shifted. In these bills, the present Congress pledges that future Congresses will impose painful measures to cut Medicare payments and impose efficiencies. Future Congresses rarely live up to these pledges. Somebody screams “Rationing!” and there is a bipartisan rush to kill even the most tepid cost-saving measure. After all, if the current Congress, with pride of authorship, couldn’t rece costs, why should we expect that future Congresses will?The bottom line is that we face a brutal choice. Reform would make us a more decent society, but also a less vibrant one. It would ease the anxiety of millions at the cost of future growth. It would heal a wound in the social fabric while piling another expensive and untouchable promise on top of the many such promises we’ve already made. America would be a less youthful, ragged and unforgiving nation, and a more middle-aged, civilized and sedate one.We all have to decide what we want at this moment in history, vitality or security. We can debate this or that provision, but where we come down will depend on that moral preference. Don’t get stupefied by technical details. This debate is about values. 二、阅读理解，回答问题Obama Loses a Round While the jury is still out on what President Obama’s China visit has achieved for the long term, the president has most decidedly lost the war of symbolism in his first close encounter with China. In status-conscious China, symbolism and protocol play a role that is larger than life. U.S. diplomatic blunders could reinforce Beijing’s mindset that blatant information control works, and that a rising China can trump universal values of open, accountable government.During Mr. Obama’s visit, the Chinese outmaneuvered the Americans in all public events, from the disastrous town hall meeting in Shanghai to the stunted press conference in Beijing. In characteristic manner, the Chinese tried to shut out the public, while the U.S. unwittingly cooperated. The final image of President Obama in China that circulated around the world is telling: A lone man walking up the steep slope of the Great Wall. The picture is in stark contrast to those of other U.S. presidents who had their photographs taken at the Great Wall surrounded by flag-waving children or admiring citizens. Maybe Mr. Obama wanted a quiet moment for himself before returning home. But a president’s first visit to the wall is a ritual that needs to be properly framed. Mr. Obama could have waited until the next visit, when he could bring the first lady and the children. Instead, he went ahead by himself to pay tribute to China’s ancient culture. In return, the Chinese offered nothing, no popular receptions, not even the companionship of a senior Chinese leader.The trouble for the U.S. started at the town hall meeting two days earlier — a more scripted event than those organized with students for earlier U.S. presidents. There was no real dialogue, as a programmed audience, most of them Communist League Youth members, asked coached questions. The Chinese also rejected the U.S. request for live national coverage and defaulted on a promise to live-stream the meeting at Xinhua.net, the online version of China’s state-owned news agency. Mr. Obama scored a point when he managed to address the issue of Internet freedom after the U.S. ambassador, Jon Huntsman, fielded him the question from a Chinese netizen submitted online.Meanwhile, Chinese officials garnered from the meeting generous quotes from Mr. Obama affirming China’s achievements and America’s expressions of good will, which were turned into glowing headlines for the Chinese media. In this round of the propaganda skirmish, the U.S. scored one point while China reaped a handful. Mr. Obama was similarly shut out from addressing the public in Beijing. At the Beijing press conference, President Hu Jintao and President Obama read prepared statements and would not take questions from reporters. “This was an historic meeting between the two leaders, and journalists should have had the opportunity to ask questions, to probe beyond the statements,” protested Scott McDonald, the president of China’s Foreign Correspondents Club, but to no avail. In a final dash to break through the information blockade, the Obama team offered an exclusive interview to Southern Weekend, China’s most feisty newspaper, based in Guangzhou. Once again, journalists’ questions were programmed and the paper censored. In protest, the paper prominently displayed vast white spaces on the first and second page of the edition that carried the interview. Propaganda officials are investigating this act of defiance.Only the Obama team knows for sure how they allowed themselves to be outmaneuvered. Unwittingly, the U.S. helped to proce a package of faux public events.Pundits argued that the visitors were not supposed to impose the “American way” on China and that America needs to respect Chinese practices. The argument is both patronizing and condescending. Increasingly, the Chinese public has been clamoring for greater official transparency and accountability, while the Chinese government has been making progress on these fronts. No one in his right mind would ask Mr. Obama to lecture Beijing on human rights. But the Chinese public deserves better accounting, no less than Americans citizens.To their credit, U.S. officials did try to get their message out online. But it was the Chinese bloggers who were most active in challenging official information control. They at least fought the good fight with growing confidence, a fight the Americans seem unable to wage effectively. 三、写作。题目是 《waste not， want not》 【英语翻译基础】一、名词解释MDGS Millennium Development Goals 千禧年发展计划Ban Ki-moon 潘基文国务卿 Secretary of State雷曼兄弟(Lehman Brothers)次贷危机subprime lending crisis西部大开发战略strategy of western development 二、英译中China's bubblesA lot of things in China carry a whiff of excess. The cost of garlic is among them: wholesale prices have almost quadrupled since March. A halving of the planting area last year, and belief in the bulb's powers to ward off swine flu, provide some justification for the surge. But anecdotes of unbridled trading activity in Jinxiang county, home to China's largest garlic plant, suggest that the most likely cause is the most obvious – the abundant liquidity swilling through the system. New loans in China may top Rmb10,000bn this year, double the run-rate of the preceding years; 2010 should bring another Rmb7-8,000bn.In the week that Dominique Strauss-Kahn, head of the International Monetary Fund, said asset bubbles were a cost worth paying for reviving growth through loose monetary policy, China needs to distinguish between good ones and bad ones. A bubble in garlic is small, financed by private speculators, and relatively harmless when it bursts. Bubbles in proctive assets – roads, bridges, telecom lines – are also tolerable; capital has been put in place that can be exploited by somebody.But bubbles in property – financed by banks, on non-proctive assets – are doubly destructive. Zhang Xin, chief executive of Soho China, one of the country's most successful privately owned developers, believes that rampant wasteful investment in commercial property has already undermined China's long-term prospects. As for housing, which China began privatising just 11 years ago, prices rose at an annualised rate of 9 per cent between September and October – significantly higher than the ongoing 2.25 per cent one-year deposit rate and the 5.31 per cent one-year lending rate. What's more, this was the eighth successive month of above-trend growth in the national house price index. So far, attempts to arrest price rises have been minor – restrictions你想报哪个学校呢？每个学校的侧重点不同，我建议你给你选中的学校打电话订购试卷。现在买还不晚……翻译硕士包括：基础英语，翻译，政治，综合

综合英语，没有指定范围的，最便捷的方式是找到这个学校的研究生导师，去上他的课，很有可能题就是他出的哦~

听力是必须有的！ 比六级肯定是难多了的，比专八都难很多。 您可以拿CNN 或者BBC的新闻，听一遍，然后可以完全复述出来。差不多就是这个水平了有那么难啊，可是进去之后不是学习法语吗，为什么对英语要求那么高啊？除了听力，其他的题目也都那么难吗？还有，高人，你在北外读书吗？我不在北外读 呵 虽然我希望是

你是打算明年考吗？我现在是法语系大四的 法语的MTI对总分十分看重 复试比例相对较小 由于近年来考研人数骤增但是北外却出现了部分院系缩招的情况 外校女生需要390左右才能保证自己一定能进 百科知识就是通史，以历史古典文学为主，建议你按照朝代，了解历史大事和当时的著名文献和文学发展。翻译基础就是我的导师出的哈~非常中国化的中文，必须翻译成非常法国式或者简单的法文，你平时可以看看政府工作报告，批判性的看看怎样还能更加简化所给出的参考译文，以简单取胜。最后，亲，正常人不会先报MTI的，因为它的分一定会比学术型要低，因为MTI作为专硕不允许继续读博，所以你应该一志愿报学术型硕士，然后根据分数调剂。非常谢谢~~ 我对这个真的不是很懂。。是不是说外校学生比本校学生需要更高的分数呢？因为对翻译感兴趣，所以考虑MTI，你了解具体的MTI课程怎么样吗？另外，如果说考MTI的人数也很多的话，一志愿报学术型，万一不中，能调剂到MTI吗？会不会两边都落空？不允许继续读博是说不能读博士是吗？1 虽然没有规定说要优先录取本校学生，但是确实是有这种倾向的，我觉得这也不是不能理解，毕竟是本校的孩子。另外，北外长年研究生没有男生，法语系更是三年就一个男生，所以复试自然会在同等条件下优先录取男生 所以最惨的就是外校女生 所以我给你了一个保守的分数线 390以上（保证你的两门专业课成绩高）的话 应该有八成把握了2 MTI就是单加了两门翻译课，学术型的孩子想听可以旁听3 一般都是报学术型的人多，报了学术型，初试过了，但是没过复试，可以进行调剂。学术型和MTI的分数线（初试线）相差很低，5分之内（MTI低一些，毕竟学费贵啊）4 专硕MTI毕业后 没有读博的资格 因为学习年限不够，这是学术规定复试才有听力非常谢谢你。我在备考北外法语MTI，现在社会上对MTI的认可度众说纷纭，你怎么看？在法语翻译基础和百科知识方面，您有什么具体的建议吗？非常感谢~~追答北外翻译考试通常重视两点，传统文学类作品，和时政要闻类，可以从这些方面准备。另外，好好准备二外，二外试题相对简单，考好可以帮助提高总分

比专八还难，如果专八考不了75分，厦大翻译硕士英语很难考及格。

可以去新疆大学研究生院查一下

http://gs.njust.e.cn/news_more.asp?id=2333这个是南京理工大学2011年研究生院发布的考研试题最下面那行 编号211和357的 即是你要的这两门的真题。请下载自行学习 招多少人，这个问题也可以在南京理工大学研究生招生网的主页上找到。多利用你想报考学校的研究生招生网吧，上面的信息很及时也很全的。说实话，比百度知道靠谱多了。参考资料：http://gs.njust.e.cn/news_more.asp?id=2333来自：求助得到的回答

一样谢谢您的回答。您知道近年二外英语的真题可以在哪买到吗？budoa不一样。真题在北外行政楼研究生处有卖。谢谢您的回答！明天去问问。