考研211翻译硕士英语

一般而言考英语专业硕士要求的词汇量是相当高的，基本要达到一万八千至两万。专业八级词汇基本要求是一万三千，实际上在应用起来远远不够，楼主本科你应该不是英语专业的吧，四千的词汇量，说保守点只能过个公共英语四级，如果真要准备考英语专业的翻译硕士的话，建议你从基础做起，一点一滴，用一年半的时间认真准备！首先是快速突破词汇量，如果没有庞大的词汇量，就很难应对有难度的考研考试，去买一本英语专业考研词汇书，点滴积累，所购买词汇书里面的词汇含量一定要达到至少一万八，才能够基本满足考研考试的要求。其次是联系你要考的学校，做好去认识一些学长学姐之类的，请教他们复习时候的注意事项，方法，能够买到历年真题是最好，这样可以省很多功夫，少走弯路。再次是坚持，持之以恒，这也是最重要的，当你觉得坚持的很辛苦的时候，再咬咬牙，这道坎也就过去了。只要有梦想，有动力，有恒心就不怕失败，成功也离你不远了，加油！

南京师范大学翻译硕士英语的考研全套资料，你可以到文汇，南师大找下，真题、教材和资料都是很全的，④⑦③②⑧③④③

一：翻译硕士初试考将会考政治理论、翻译硕士英语、翻译基础、汉语写作与百科知识。357英语翻译基础总分150分，考试的内容包括英汉应用文本互译和英汉术语互译。448汉语写作与百科知识总分150分，考试的内容包括英汉新闻编译、术语解释、汉语写作。211翻译硕士英语总分100分，考试的内容包括完形改错、填空、文本缩写、句子重述、命题作文。（北京外国语大学和南京航空航天大学考第二外语，即非英语的其他语种，其他学校一般只考翻译硕士英语。）二：口译和笔译，口译要口头翻译出来，笔译主要是写出来，以及口译对反应能力、记忆力、口语要求更高初，但试内容基本一样。扩展资料：翻译工作是我国对外交流和国际交往的桥梁和纽带，发展翻译事业也是我国对外改革开放的必然要求。为提高翻译人员素质、加强翻译人才队伍建设，进一步推广翻译专业资格考试是顺应国家经济发展的需要的。翻译专业人才在我国经济发展和社会进步中起着非常重要的作用，特别是在吸收引进外国的先进科技知识和加强国际交流与合作方面，翻译是桥梁和纽带。翻译人员的政治素质和业务素质的提高，对于我国在政治、经济、科技等领域全方位加强国际合作起着关键的作用。党中央、国务院高度关注和重视人才战略的实施。翻译人才是我国专业人才的重要组成部分。将翻译专业资格（水平）考试纳入我国职业资格制度通盘考虑、是进一步规范和提高翻译人员的业务素质，适应我国加入世贸组织和提高翻译队伍的要求，也是为了改革、完善翻译专业技术职务评审和聘任制度。此外，现行的各级翻译人员的评审按地域或行业组织，因此，其评价水平也体现了地域性标准。实施翻译专业资格考试制度，将有助于翻译标准的社会化。全国翻译专业资格（水平）考试，作为国家的一种资格制度建立并组织实施，应当是翻译界的一件大事，它是为培养高层次翻译人才做的一项制度建设，是为推动翻译队伍建设所作的一件大事。国家实施学历证书和职业资格证书并重的制度是在党的十四届三中全会决定中提出的，已建立和实施31项。职业资格是人才评价的重要手段和机制，当前正处于起步阶段，将来的发展领域会很广，任务会很艰巨。我们要从实施人才战略的要求出发，规划好、设计好、实施好我国的职业资格制度，通过建立具有中国特色的专业技术人员职业资格制度体系，将中国人才评价工作推向新的阶段，以适应我国人才战略的要求。参考资料：百度百科-口译

1、查找招生学校的方法是：中国研究生招生信息网网页上方的【硕士目录】或者左边的【硕士目录查询】选择省份和学科/类别（0551）翻译搜索即可了解该省（市、区）有哪些学校招生。2、非重点大学和二区的学校好考一些，名校肯定难考。3、翻译硕士（专硕）的初试科目是：①101思想政治理论②211翻译硕士英语③357英语翻译基础④448汉语写作与百科知识4、一般大三开始准备比较好，具体看报考学校、各人的基础和学习能力。可以填报几个学校？什么时候开始填报？大三下半学期开始准备会晚吗？怎么准备？一所学校。大四第一学期报名（9月）。不晚。平衡初试科目即可。只要是开设了英语专业的任何一个二本及以上的学校都有翻译硕士这个专业。根据自身实力选择。思想政治理论、翻译硕士英语、英语翻译基础、汉语写作与百科知识还有二外。准备得越早越好。推荐考试之前测试自己的翻译水平。可以报国家二级笔译来测试水平。如果能过国家二级笔译，证明你具备很强的专业竞争力。你几乎可以任意选报一所名校，诸如北外，上外，以及广外之内的。如果过不了，建议选择一所二本院校。更多追答我听说翻硕不考二外？追答以前我同学考就考了，好几年前的事了。你自己再了解一下吧好的，非常感谢☺

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~

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

你好，211翻译硕士英语考研视频网课真题资料我之前在攻关学习网学的，是个N年的老网站，考研资料很丰富，真题解析，视频网课都有。地址你直接百度，第一位就是。问题扩展方面（凑个字数，可省略）：211翻译硕士英语考试大纲考试大纲是院校命题的一个参考方向，明确考试大纲也就大概掌握各院校的考察大概范围，整理了211翻译硕士英语的考试大纲，同学们可以参照考试大纲来复习。一、考试目的。 翻译硕士英语作为全日制翻译硕士专业学位(MTI)入学考试的外国语考试，其目的是考查考生是否具备进行MTI学习所要求的外语水平。二、性质及范围。 本考试是一种测试应试者单项和综合语言能力的尺度参照性水平考试。考试范围包括MTI考生应具备的外语词汇量、语法知识以及外语阅读与写作等方面的技能。三、基本要求。1、具有良好的外语基本功，认知词汇量在10 000以上，掌握6 000个以上(以英语为例)的积极词汇，即能正确而熟练地运用常用词汇及其常用搭配。2、能熟练掌握正确的外语语法、结构、修辞等语言规范知识。3、具有较强的阅读理解能力和外语写作能力。四、考试解析。 基础英语分为三个部分，词汇语法30分，阅读理解40分，英语写作30分。词汇语法部分出题灵活，题型多样，最常见的是选择题形式以及比较有难度的改错题形式，其难度相当于英语专业八级的水平。因此，考生在备考阶段就要多背单词，在此基础上大量地做单词语法题和专八系列的改错题，反复记忆，总结技巧。 阅读理解部分，传统选择题的难度大致为专八水平，但也可能出现GRE水平的理解题，而对于一些非传统的阅读题型，比如paraphrase， answer questions等，考查的不仅是阅读能力和理解能力，也在一定程度上考查考生的表达能力。所以，在平时做阅读理解题的过程中，考生要有意识地强化自己的语言“输出”能力，不可词不达意。 英语写作部分类似于专八水平，但有的学校可能为更突出时效性，会考一些时事问题。考生在平时要多写、多练、多积累、多揣摩、多思考，不可一味地求数量而忽视每一篇的质量。我有211硕士英语考研视频，要不？追答你好么？

性价比比较好是安大。外校招生比较多，推免生较少。缺点是没有口译。安徽大学英语笔译（专业学位）专业2015年考研招生简章招生目录 招生年份:2015 本院系招生人数:未公布 英语笔译（专业学位）专业招生人数:45 专业代码:055101 研究方向 00不区分研究方向考试科目 ①101思想政治理论②211翻译硕士英语③357英语翻译基础④448汉语写作与百科知识复试科目、复试参考书 复试科目：F21翻译实践与评述F21翻译实践与评述：本科目主要测试学生翻译实践能力以及对现有译文的分析鉴赏水平。加试科目：①高级英语②英语国家概况备注：翻译硕士基本修业年限为两年。参考书目、参考教材 357英语翻译基础： 本科目主要测试学生英汉互译的基础知识与实践能力。448汉语写作与百科知识：本科目主要测试学生汉语写作能力以及百科知识水平。

题是不一样的，两证均有更多追答请问你是北外的研究生吗追答是的，但是不是MTI专业但是我听有老师说题是一样的，你又说不一样，现在很纠结，那请问你知道在哪能买到英语翻译硕士历年真题吗~追答去考研论坛上看看吧！那里有好多好心的学姐会免费赠你的，大家都是过来人，会互相帮助的！