上外翻译学考研真题

考英语专业的研究生是不考数学的！！！考政治、自命题二外、以及两门专业课。具体的参考书目你可以看这里http://graate.shisu.e.cn/content.php?id=12032虽然这只是上外今年的招生简章，不过通常几年都不会改的，不然你还可以去找找上外往年的招生简章及参考书目。里面都讲得很详细的~另外建议你考哪个学校就多去那个学校的学生论坛看看。里面大家都会交流经验，也会分享资源，比如你要的近几年真题~法语和日语的差别就在于，法语是入门难，但只要入了门就简单了，因为语法很规律，学习法语可以让自己的思维很缜密~至于日语就是入门简单，越学越难咯~不过这只是我个人的看法，我还是偏好法语，法语读起来超好听的~~~跨专业考英语真的很不容易，很多本专业的考研都愁死了，作为一个过来人我还是想说学英语贵在坚持，既然你选择了就好好准备吧！能为自己喜欢的东西奋斗也是一件很快乐的事，正如考研，我和我的研友们正痛并快乐着！祝你好运~~~~~

今年刚考完的，感觉考的还可以，在等待成绩呢，为了攒人品，我也分享一下我的一些经验。以下是我看过的参考书和资料：1-《东方翻译》 东方翻译杂志社2-《笔译训练指南》吉尔著 刘和平等译， 中国出版集团中国对外翻译出版公司3-《法律翻译解析》Legal Translation Explained by Enrique Alcaraz & Brian Hughes上海外语教育出版社4-《公文翻译》Translating Official Documents by Roberto Mayoral Asensio上海外语教育出版社5-《翻译硕士英语真题解析》天津科技翻译出版社：包含全国40多所名校的翻译硕士英语真题，考研必备资料6-《汉语写作与百科知识真题解析》天津科技翻译出版社：59页的翻译硕士考试指南 30多所院校的448真题7-《汉语写作与百科知识》 （白皮书）李国正主编，天津科技翻译出版社

英语学院的翻译学，高翻学院的翻译学和翻译硕士，您问的哪个专业，参考书见简章和考经，难度一般，建议参加高译的上外考研专业课辅导。

我重点给你介绍一下翻译类研究生的区分和怎样准备吧,希望对你有用.读翻译研究生可以考虑上外英语学院（翻译本科学生也在英院读）英语专业的翻译方向研究生,或者上外高翻学院的MTI翻译硕士研究生,还有一种是翻译学的研究生,我想,只有搞清楚了这些分类你才能照准目标,确立努力的方向.本科阶段目前没有同传方向的教学，而且根据上外高翻学院院长柴明熲的介绍：口译学习应遵从先交替传译后同声传译的教学顺序来进行（Seleskovitch & Lederer，1989）。如果学习者没有充分掌握对源语的信息处理技能就开始同声传译的训练，他就很难进入既要接收源语又要输出目标语、既要分析信息又要对信息进行逻辑整理、既要存储信息又要提取信息的多任务工作状态。上海外国语大学高级翻译学院会议口译(同声传译)专业,两年全日制研究生层次专业教育。请注意，这个是单独考试录取，与研究生录取入学有所不同。培训的重点为会议口译专业实践技能（交替传译和同声传译）。完成学业并通过专业考试者，获得“会议口译专业证书”，证明其能胜任联合国、欧盟等国际组织、国际外交及各种国际会议的同声传译和交替传译工作。学费一年级：40,000元;二年级：60,000元. 二年级结束时，按照全球一流会议口译教学单位标准考核学生的口译实践能力。专业考试科目为交替传译（英汉及汉英）、同声传译（英汉及汉英）和带稿同声传译（英汉及汉英）共六科。考试材料均取自于真实国际会议，其难度与专业会议口译工作相吻合。通过专业考试的学生获得“会议口译专业证书”（Professional Diploma in Conference Interpreting），该证书证明获得者为达到国际标准的，胜任国际组织、外交外事及各种国际会议同声传译和交替传译工作的专业会议口译员。根据2003年9月上海外国语大学与联合国驻日内瓦办事处签署的合作备忘录以及2004年5月上海外国语大学与欧洲委员会签署的合作备忘录，会议口译专业证书为联合国与欧盟所正式承认。报名时间:每年11月中旬到次年3月份上外英语学院英语专业的翻译方向研究生已经不再设置同传方向的教学,目前只有上外高翻学院的MTI翻译硕士研究生在教学过程中设置了同传方向，如果能考试录取，可以根据自身条件选择修读，名称依然是：会议口译方向：MI in Conference Interpreting。本方向旨在培养具备国际视野、熟悉全球事务、掌握会议口译技能（包括交替传译和同声传译）的会议口译员，要求学生在毕业时能现场完成话语长度7分钟/次的源语交替传译任务，保证源语信息完整、准确，并能为国际和地区组织、政府机构、企事业部门举行的公开和闭门会议提供完整、准确的同声传译服务。此外，学生还必须达到本学位所规定的其他要求。具体的导师和录取要求我给你用表格贴了出来，可以参考。考进这个专业，需要参加全国统一的研究生入学考试。可是科目有：① 101政治②外语基础（含考生语言组合中的非母语语言与二外，二外所占比重较小）211-翻译硕士英语212-翻译硕士俄语213-翻译硕士日语214-翻译硕士法语215-翻译硕士德语216-翻译硕士朝鲜语任选一门（二外语种不能与第三门考试科目语种相同）③351 英语翻译基础或354 法语翻译基础 ④451 汉语写作与百科知识请注意了,外语基础这一部分,指明了二外所占比重较小，2011年的入学考试大纲已经明确规定，试题中加入外语听辩能力测试，分值20分.另外,351和451这两门专业课的考试形式请参考外研社出版的<<全日制翻译硕士专业学位(MTI)研究生入学考试指南  >>,这是翻译教学指导委员会对2010年入学考试的指定用书.高翻学院的翻译专业，目前是中国最前沿的翻译专业，导师力量是最强的，所以竞争也相对激烈。但是只要下定决心了，仔细准备一年的时间，应该会很有成效。要想学习使用上外翻译专业的资料，我推荐你精读精练上外历年的翻译研究生考试的真题，目前，在全国英语专业四八级考试委员会的官方网站"外教社四八级在线"的论坛中有网友贴出的历年真题和答案，这个网站百度可以搜到的,非常有价值，在论坛的“新四军培训班集结号”中可以找到真题和答案。幸好,刚才这个网站也是主要针对英语专业学子的,我想你重点了解一下专业八级考试的难度就好了,有时间可以做几套专八的真题,网站的首页有专四专八阅卷老师的视频实例讲解,看一看应该很有帮助.    前一段时间,外教社和外研社都推出了各自的翻译系列用书,市面上权威的口译类专业教材也主要出自这两家,总体数量并不是很多,外教社的引进的多是原版教材,因此,你到当地最大的综合书店里坐下来按照分类,有重点的看看就好了.另外,《中国翻译》是一本很好的翻译理论和学习的杂志，由中国译协主办，强烈推荐，另外还有一些好的报刊杂志，比如由上海外国语大学高级翻译学院主办的《东方翻译》去年刚刚创刊，也是一本理论与实战并用的好杂志，其他的如《上海翻译》也不错，《经济学人》《China Daily》(中国日报)《Global Times》（环球时报）等都可以拿来练习视译笔译和口头翻译。

统考的话，的确是这四门；的确没关系，除非你是靠直升考（外校的也可以参加的）政治的参考书，这个是统考的，你去报个考研班就知道了，随便哪个都行。二外，招生简章上不是说了吗？找着看就行。综合英语题型参见新编英语教程，对应的。翻译看张培基，上外喜欢考散文，但也不排除别的类型。别的你只好靠平时积累，做做真题模拟卷，专八考卷也有帮助的。p.s.你没悬赏分没人肯回答啊。。。

去我的百度空间看看吧，那里有真题的链接，资料非常强大。如果确定要考，这个是必不可少的。考进这个专业，需要参加全国统一的研究生入学考试。考试科目有：① 101政治②外语基础（含考生语言组合中的非母语语言与二外，二外所占比重较小）211-翻译硕士英语212-翻译硕士俄语213-翻译硕士日语214-翻译硕士法语215-翻译硕士德语216-翻译硕士朝鲜语任选一门（二外语种不能与第三门考试科目语种相同）③351 英语翻译基础或354 法语翻译基础 ④451 汉语写作与百科知识请注意了,外语基础这一部分,指明了二外所占比重较小，2011年的入学考试大纲已经明确规定，试题中加入外语听辩能力测试，分值20分.另外,351和451这两门专业课的考试形式请参考外研社出版的<<全日制翻译硕士专业学位(MTI)研究生入学考试指南 >>,这是翻译教学指导委员会对2010年入学考试的指定用书.上外高翻学院的MTI专业，目前是中国最前沿的翻译专业，导师力量是最强的，所以竞争也相对激烈。但是只要下定决心了，仔细准备一年的时间，应该会很有成效。要想学习使用上外翻译专业的资料，我推荐你精读精练上外历年的翻译研究生考试的真题，目前，在全国英语专业四八级考试委员会的官方网站"外教社四八级在线"的论坛中有网友贴出的历年真题和答案，这个网站百度可以搜到的,非常有价值，在论坛的“新四军培训班集结号”中可以找到真题和答案。幸好,刚才这个网站也是主要针对英语专业学子的,我想你重点了解一下专业八级考试的难度就好了,有时间可以做几套专八的真题,网站的首页有专四专八阅卷老师的视频实例讲解,看一看应该很有帮助. 前一段时间,外教社和外研社都推出了各自的翻译系列用书,市面上权威的口译类专业教材也主要出自这两家,总体数量并不是很多,外教社的引进的多是原版教材,因此,你到当地最大的综合书店里坐下来按照分类,有重点的看看就好了.另外,《中国翻译》是一本很好的翻译理论和学习的杂志，由中国译协主办，强烈推荐，另外还有一些好的报刊杂志，比如由上海外国语大学高级翻译学院主办的《东方翻译》去年刚刚创刊，也是一本理论与实战并用的好杂志，其他的如《上海翻译》也不错，《经济学人》《China Daily》(中国日报)《Global Times》（环球时报）等都可以拿来练习视译笔译和口头翻译。大神，再问一下，从哪里可以找到百科知识的复习资料？有没有书？

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

建议你还是去上外研究生贴吧或者有熟知的同学有针对性的问，这里很难真正找到上外的研究生

额。。。我是上外英语语言文学的硕士。。。不过我是文学方向，英专的几个方向初试不分方向，考一样的试卷，复试再按方向进行，笔译比较热门，但是一般只要你进了复试，哪怕读不到笔译，也会被调剂到英专其他方向，这个无所谓，调剂的人很多的，特别是笔译口译方向。刷的人不太多，只要你考进复试来自：求助得到的回答