(单词翻译:单击)
实务试题-英译汉
2011年11月英语二级《笔译实务》试题
Section 1: English-Chinese Translation（英译汉）
Part A Compulsory Translation（必译题）
it was done at all.
They say they hope the study will inspire similar collaborations between scientists whose focus is safely exploiting specific natural resources and those interested mainly in conserving them.
“We need to merge those two communities,” said Steve Murawski, chief fisheries scientist for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. “This paper starts to bridge that gap”
The collaboration began in 2006 when Boris Worm, a marine ecologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia, and other scientists made an alarming prediction: if current trends continue, by 2048 overfishing will have destroyed most commercially important populations of saltwater fish. Ecologists applauded the work. But among fisheries management scientists, reactions ranged from skepticism to fury over what many called an alarmist report.
Among the most prominent critics was Ray Hilborn, a professor of aquatic and fishery sciences at the University of Washington in Seattle. Yet the disagreement did not play out in typical scientific fashion with, as Dr. Hilborn put it, “researchers firing critical papers back and forth.” Instead, he and Dr. Worm found themselves debating the issue on National Public Radio.
“We started talking and found more common ground than we had expected,” Dr. Worm said. Dr. Hilborn recalled thinking that Dr. Worm “actually seemed like a reasonable person.”
The two decided to work together on the issue. They sought and received financing and began organizing workshops at the National Center for Ecological Analysis and Synthesis, an organization sponsored by the National Science Foundation and based at the University of California, Santa Barbara.
At first, Dr. Hilborn said in an interview, “the fisheries management people would go to lunch and the marine ecologists would go to lunch” 一 separately. But soon they were collecting and sharing data and recruiting more colleagues to analyze it.
Dr. Hilborn said he and Dr. Worm now understood why the ecologists and the management scientists disagreed so sharply in the first place. For one thing, he said, as long as a fish species was sustaining itself, management scientists were relatively untroubled if its abundance fell to only 40 or 50 percent of what it might otherwise be. Yet to ecologists, he said, such a stock would be characterized as “depleted” 一 “a very pejorative word.”
In the end, the scientists concluded that 63 percent of saltwater fish stocks had been depleted “below what we think of as a target range,” Dr. Worm said.
But they also agreed that fish in well-managed areas, including the United States, were recovering or doing well. They wrote that management techniques like closing some areas to fishing, restricting the use of certain fishing gear or allocating shares of the catch to individual fishermen, communities or others could allow depleted fish stocks to rebound.
The researchers suggest that a calculation of how many fish in a given species can be caught in a given region without threatening the stock, called maximum sustainable yield, is less useful than a standard that takes into account the health of the wider marine environment. They also agreed that solutions did not lie only in management techniques but also in the political will to apply them, even if they initially caused economic disruption.
Because the new paper represents the views of both camps, its conclusions are likely to be influential, Dr. Murawski said. “Getting a strong statement from those communities that there is more to agree on than to disagree on builds confidence,” he said.
At a news conference on Wednesday, Dr. Worm said he hoped to be alive in 2048, when he would turn 79. If he is, he said, “I will be hosting a seafood party — at least I hope so”
Part B Optional Translation（二选一题）
Topic 1 （选题一）
As I mentioned last week, I’ve recently returned from Australia. While I was there, I visited a eucalyptus forest that, in February, was the scene of an appalling wildfire. Perhaps naively, I had expected to find that many trees had been killed. They hadn’t. They had blackened bark, but were otherwise looking rather well, many of them wreathed in new young leaves. This prompted me to consider fire and the role it plays as a force of nature.
Fossil charcoals tell us that wildfires have been part of life on Earth for as long as there have been plants on land. That’s more than 400 million years of fire. Fire was here long before arriviste plants like grasses; it pre-dated the first flowers. And without wanting to get mystical about it, fire is, in many respects, a kind of animal, albeit an ethereal one. Like any animal, it consumes oxygen. Like a sheep or a slug, it eats plants. But unlike a normal animal, it’s a shape-shifter. Sometimes, it merely nibbles a few leaves; sometimes it kills grown trees. Sometimes it is more deadly and destructive than a swarm of locusts.
The shape-shifting nature of fire makes it hard to study, for it is not a single entity. Some fires are infernally hot; others, relatively cool. Some stay at ground level; others climb trees. Moreover, fire is much more likely to appear in some parts of the world than in others. Satellite images of the Earth show that wildfires are rare in, say, northern Europe, and common in parts of central Africa and Australia. (These days many wildfires are started by humans, either on purpose or by accident. But long before our ancestors began to throw torches or cigarette butts, fires were started by lightning strikes, or by sparks given off when rocks rub together in an avalanche.)
Once a fire gets started, many factors contribute to how it will behave. The weather obviously has a huge effect: winds can fan flames, rains can quench them. The lie of the land matters, too: fire runs uphill more readily than it goes down. But another crucial factor is what type of plants the fire has to eat.
It’s common knowledge that plants regularly exposed to fire tend to have features that help them cope with it — such as thick bark, or seeds that only grow after being exposed to intense heat or smoke. But what is less often remarked on is that the plants themselves affect the nature and severity of fire.
The shape-shifting nature of fire makes it hard to study, for it is not a single entity. Some fires are infernally hot; others, relatively cool. Some stay at ground level; others climb trees. Moreover, fire is much more likely to appear in some parts of the world than in others. Satellite images of the Earth show that wildfires are rare in, say, northern Europe, and common in parts of central Africa and Australia. (These days many wildfires are started by humans, either on purpose or by accident. But long before our ancestors began to throw torches or cigarette butts, fires were started by lightning strikes, or by sparks given off when rocks rub together in an avalanche.)
Once a fire gets started, many factors contribute to how it will behave. The weather obviously has a huge effect: winds can fan flames, rains can quench them. The lie of the land matters, too: fire runs uphill more readily than it goes down. But another crucial factor is what type of plants the fire has to eat.
It’s common knowledge that plants regularly exposed to fire tend to have features that help them cope with it — such as thick bark, or seeds that only grow after being exposed to intense
heat or smoke.
Topic 2（选题二）
抱歉，暂未在互联网上找到试题来源。
更多翻译素材，敬请关注可可英语。
实务试题-汉译英
Section 2: Chinese-English Translation（汉译英）
Part A
抱歉，暂未在互联网上找到试题来源。
Part B
Topic 1
非物质文化遗产是民族文化的精华、民族智慧的结晶。我国有56个民族，各民族在 长期的历史发展进程中创造了丰富多彩的非物质文化遗产。
改革开放以来，由于工业化和城市化的加速，人们的生产生活方式发生了重大变化， 也使非物质文化遗产赖以生存的环境不同程度地遭到破坏。
作为一种鲜活的文化，非物质文化遗产是民众生活的重要组成部分，在当代仍然散 发着独特的光彩和魅力，仍然是传承文化、推动社会发展的不竭动力，是文化创新的基 础和源泉。
因此，抢救和保护那些处于濒危和生存困境中的非物质文化遗产，已成为时代赋予 我们的非常紧迫的历史任务。
文化生态保护区是以保护非物质文化遗产为核心、对历史积淀丰厚、存续状态良好、 具有鲜明地域文化特色和价值的文化形态进行整体性保护，以促进经济社会全面协调可 持续发展而划定的特定区域。
Topic 2
抱歉，暂未在互联网上找到试题来源。
更多翻译素材，敬请关注可可英语。
参考译文-英译汉
Section 1: 英译汉
Part A 必译题
暂无，我们会尽快补充译文。
Part B 二选一题
Topic 1 （选题一）
我国控烟和禁烟形势依然严峻
尽管我们在控烟和禁烟方面做了大量工作，取得了一定成效，但控烟和禁烟形势依 然严峻。
一、普遍对烟草烟雾危害性认识存在四大误区。禁烟难、难禁烟，主要是对烟草烟
雾的危害不认识或认识不足，甚至把吸烟说成好处多、贡献大、危害小、不伤害他人。 这些错误的认识包括：
吸烟“好处多”。很多烟民认为，吸烟可以消除疲劳、解除烦闷、振奋精神、刺激情绪; 吸烟可以防止虫叮蚊咬，以毒攻毒消除某些病害；吸烟可以社交联谊、广交朋友、潇洒 浪漫；吸烟可以帮助大脑启发思考、写作带来灵气等。
吸烟“贡献大”。吸烟是为国家做贡献、创造财富、增加税收、脱贫致富、解决就业。 没有烟民，国家哪能每年收入几千个亿元税收，解决上千万人的就业，国家应感谢烟民， 从而为吸烟找到所谓正当理由。
吸烟“无大害”。许多烟民和社会公众认为吸烟有点害但无大害。主要是尼古丁的毒害， 这种毒害也是轻微的、漫长的、潜移默化的，只要自己身体好无大害，你看某位亲人一 辈子吸烟活到九十九，不影响健康长寿。
其实，一些烟民只知道吸烟对人体的呼吸系统有影响，不知道烟雾中含有4000多种 化学物质；只知道吸烟可能致癌，不知道烟雾中至少有40多种致癌物质；只知道吸烟有 害，不知道烟雾还有毒，烟雾中含有许多有毒有害致病物质，如烟碱、二氧化氮、氢氰 酸、丙烯醛、砷、铅、汞等。烟雾对人群的危害超过工业污染的化学气体，对人体的大 脑、心肺、肝、脾、胃、肾，对人体的性功能、生殖功能都有不同程度的伤害，甚至将 严重影响生育繁衍质量。
吸烟“不伤害他人”。这是在公共场所和工作场所禁烟难的一个重要原因。
烟民错误地认为，吸烟是自己的权利，自己的自由，不受他人干涉。对于烟雾污染 环境、污染空气质量，对二手烟、三手烟、主动吸烟、被动吸烟造成对他人健康侵害和 享有清新空气的环境权的侵害不认知、不支持，我行我素。有的认为有点影响问题也不 大，缺乏共同营造文明环境的思想和道德素质。
对吸烟的范围从维护公众健康的角度做出了一些行政规定，但对控烟与健康做出发展规 划，以及对设置吸烟区(室)、禁止吸烟标志、限制做烟制品广告宣传等做出相应规定，执 行和落实的都不够理想。
在奥运会期间，应该说执行得很好，基本上实行无烟奥运，受到各国运动员的好评。 但是在奥运会、残奥会结束后，这些规定的执行没有很好延续下来，巩固发扬成效，反 而出现反弹。
在控烟、禁烟的执法过程中经常遇到4个突出问题:一是行政执法主体不明确，执行 范围界定不严格，执法部门的力量、经费等不能适应执法要求；二是执法的惩罚规定不 明确，对违法违规者不能执行惩罚影响执法力度和法规的权威性；三是社会监督没有形 成氛围；四是执法效果不明显。
公众参与控烟活动不广泛不深入，尚未引起社会的高度关注。控烟和在公共场所禁烟， 不只是对烟民而言，要烟民戒烟需要社会、烟制品行业、每个社会公民的共同努力才能 实现，更多的是关爱、理解、支持和帮助，和谐共建无烟公共场所。
中国的控烟禁烟工作开展的比较晚，但通过立法来实施公共场所无烟化已是大势所 趋，并得到社会和公众的共识。目前，一些少数省市从行政法规的角度提出控烟和禁烟 的规定。但国家尚无一部在一定范围内实行控烟、禁烟的法律。据了解，国家已在做这 方面的准备工作，我们相信到2011年国家承诺到期时间会有相应的法律出台，推动中国 禁烟工作深入开展。
Topic 2（选题二）
暂无，我们会尽快补充译文。
更多翻译素材，敬请关注可可英语。
参考译文-汉译英
Section 2: 汉译英
Part A
暂无，我们会尽快补充译文
Part B
Topic 1
暂无，我们会尽快补充译文
Topic 2
暂无，我们会尽快补充译文
更多翻译素材，敬请关注可可英语。
