2011年11月翻译资格考试二级笔译真题

第一部分 英译汉 试题一

Study Finds Hope in Saving Saltwater Fish

Can we have our fish and eat it too? An unusual collaboration of marine ecologists and fisheries management scientists says the answer may be yes.

In a research paper in Friday‟s issue of the journal Science, the two groups, long at odds with each other, offer a global assessment of the world‟s saltwater fish and their environments.

Their conclusions are at once gloomy — overfishing continues to threaten many species — and upbeat: a combination of steps can turn things around. But because antagonism between ecologists and fisheries management experts has been intense, many familiar with the study say the most important factor is that 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 fis heries 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” — 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” — “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 individualfishermen, 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.”

参考译文：

渔业发展能否做到“鱼与熊掌”兼得?海洋生态学家与渔业管理学家之间进行的非同寻常的合作表明，二者或可兼得。

周五发行的新一期《科学》杂志刊登了一份研究报告，向来势不两立的这两大派别 在报告中对咸水鱼及其生存环境作了全球性评估。

他们得出的结论可谓喜忧参半，忧的是过度捕捞继续威胁着许多鱼类，喜的是通过 采取一系列措施可以扭转局面。但是，鉴于海洋生态学家与渔业管理学家向来水火不容， 对这项研究比较了解的许多人士指出，这项研究的重要意义在于表明了两大阵营可以合 作共事。

这些人士称，他们希望这项研究能够激励那些主张适度开发某些自然资源的科学家 与主张保护自然资源的科学家之间开展类似合作。

斯蒂夫・穆拉维斯基(Steve Murawski)是美国国家海洋和大气管理局的首席渔业科 学家，他说，“我们需要整合这两大阵营，这项联合研究是一个良好开端。”

这项联合研究始于 2006 年，当时来自达尔豪斯大学(位于加拿大新斯科舍省哈利法 克斯)的海洋生态学家鲍里斯·沃姆(Boris Worm)以及其他一些科学家警告称，如果任 由过度捕捞而不加制止的话，到 2048 年，一些具有重要商业价值的咸水鱼类将会消失殆 尽。许多生态学家对这一警告击掌叫好，但是渔业管理学家们对这一预测不是表示怀疑，就是感到愤怒，称这份报告是杞人忧天。

西雅图华盛顿大学研究水产与渔业的知名教授雷·希尔本对这一报告就颇有微词。不 过，他并没有以科学家通常采用的方式来表达自己的不同意见。希尔本教授说，“通常情 况下，研究人员会不断拿出关键论文来进行争辩。”这次的辩论一反常态，希尔本博士和 沃姆博士在美国国家公共电台展开激辩。

沃姆博士称，“我们在辩论时发现我们的共识之多超乎预料。”希尔本博士回想当时的 情景时称，他当时也认为沃姆博士“实际上看似一个通情达理的人。”

双方决定就此问题共同展开研究。他们开始筹措资金，在加州圣塔芭芭拉市美国国 家生态分析与合成中心举办研讨会。该国家中心由美国国家科学基金会赞助支持。

希尔本博士在接受采访时称，最初“渔业管理学家与海洋生态学家分开吃午饭”。不过， 没过多久，两个阵营就开始收集、共享数据，并招募更多同事来分析数据。

希尔本博士称，他和沃姆博士现在明白了为什么当初海洋生态学家与渔业管理学家 观点会如此迥异。希尔本博士说，只要某一鱼类能够正常延续下去，种群数量保持在自 然水平的 40%或 50%以上，渔业管理学家认为这是可以接受的，但是对于海洋生态学家 而言，种群数量下降至这一水平将被定性为“枯竭”，这是一个“颇具贬义的字眼”。

科学家们得出的最终结论是，63%的咸水鱼类资源已经耗尽，所剩资源“低于我们的目标范围，”沃姆博士如是说。

但是，两大阵营也一致认为，在美国等渔业管理比较完善的地区，鱼类资源正逐步 恢复或保持稳定。科学家们在研究报告中写到，在一些地区实施休渔政策、限制使用某 些渔具、对个体渔民、社区等有关各方合理分配捕鱼量等一些管理政策将有助于面临枯 竭的鱼类资源逐步得到恢复。

参与该项研究的科学家们称，与最高可持续捕鱼量相比，设定一个统筹整个海洋环 境健康发展的标准更有意义。所谓最高可持续捕鱼量是指在不威胁某一鱼类资源存续的 前提下在某一地区的最高捕鱼限量。科学家们也一致认为，解决之道不仅仅在于制定完 善的渔业管理方法，还在于有无将管理方法落到实处的政治意愿，尽管实施之初会给经 济发展带来一定影响。

穆拉维斯基博士说，鉴于该报告代表了两大阵营的共同观点，报告中得出的相关结论 将会产生巨大影响。他说，“两大阵营明确表示双方共识大于分歧，这有助于提振信心。”

沃姆博士在周三举行的新闻发布会上称，他希望自己能活到 2048 年，到那时自己将 届 79 岁高龄。他说，倘能如愿，“我将举办一个海鲜派对，至少这是一个愿望”。

英译汉试题二

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.

参考译文：

上周我曾谈到，我前不久去过澳大利亚，访澳期间我参观了一个桉树林。就在二月 份，这片桉树林曾发生过森林大火，场面可怖。此次访问期间，我还天真地以为会看到 许多被大火烧毁的桉树，事实超乎我的预料，这些桉树除了树皮被烤黑之外，其他一切 安好，有些桉树还长出了嫩叶。我不由开始对野火以及野火作为自然力的作用进行研究 探索。

木炭形成的历史表明，自从地球上有植物以来，野火就一直是地球生命的组成部分，也就是说野火存在的历史超过 4 亿年。早在杂草等恣意生长的植物出现之前野火就已经 存在了;野火的历史早于开花植物的历史。野火虽然虚无缥缈，但从很多方面来讲，野 火就是一种动物，这并非故弄玄虚。野火像任何动物一样需要氧气，会像羊或鼻涕虫一 样以植物为食，不过，野火与一般的动物不同之处在于，野火形体变化莫测，有时野火 只蚕食几片叶子，有时则会吞噬成年树木，甚至变得比蝗灾更具致命性和破坏性。

野火形体不定，也并非单一实体存在，研究起来颇有难度。野火可以炙热无比也可 以相对清凉，可以贴地匍匐也可以沿树攀爬，而且，野火在不同地区的发生频率也各不 相同。地球观测卫星获取的图像显示，北欧地区野火较为罕见，中非和澳大利亚野火则 司空见惯。如今，许多野火皆因人为因素而起，有些是有意为之，有些则是意外之举。

人类曾扔掷火把“刀耕火种”或乱丢烟头引发野火，不过早在人为制造野火之前，野火要么 由闪电引发，要么由雪崩时岩石摩擦产生的火花引发。

一旦引发野火，火势如何会受到许多因素的影响。天气状况显然是一大因素：风助 火势，雨则相反。地势也是一大因素：火势沿山坡的蔓延速度由低到高比由高到低要快。 当然，火势还取决于另一个关键因素，即，过火植物的种类。

有关野火的一个常识就是，野火频发地区的植物往往都自有应对之策，如：树皮较厚，或者种子只有在遇到高热或烟熏时才会发芽。不过人们较少提及的一点是，这些植物本身也会对野火的性质和火势大小产生影响。

汉译英试题一(缺)

汉译英试题二(此处为真题出处全文)

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。

二、控烟、禁烟法律法规不健全不完善。近年来，一些地方政府和行政管理部门曾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，以及对设臵吸烟区(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。

参考译文：

Tobacco Control Remains a Daunting/Grim/Grave/Formidable/Huge Challenge

For all the commendable efforts and visible differences made so far, China still has an uphill battle to fight before the tobacco epidemic is controlled and eventually banned within its territory.

1. Misconceptions of how tobacco smoke endangers/harms public health. Tobacco control seems a mission impossible in least because the general public has little, if any, knowledge about how hazardous tobacco smoke can be. In some cases, tobacco use is even misinterpreted as being physically empowering and economically beneficial with negligent threat to those exposed to second-hand smoke.

Among other misunderstandings, tobacco use is believed to be “rewarding in many ways”. For many tobacco users, cigarettes are a real remedy for /the best bet to fight fatigue and frustration and a truly stimulating booster/refreshing stimulator. As they understand it, tobacco can be used to dispel annoying mosquitoes and other bugs, and it can even serve as a painkiller for some ailments. Tobacco use is widely seen as sexy, stylish and sociable.

On top of that, some even argue that tobacco use can boost brain power and inspire writing.

Tobacco use “makes strong economic sense”. Those tobacco defenders make a strong case for tobacco use, arguing that tobacco production, manufacturing and consumption create wealth and add tax revenue to the state coffer, create jobs and help lift many out of poverty. Tobacco ban means, according to them, a multi-billion-yuan loss in tax revenue each year and tens of millions of job losses at the same time. In this sense, it is the hardcore tobacco users that the country owes a lot to, they say.

Tobacco use “causes little harm, if at all”, a view echoed by many users and the wider general public. They believe that tobacco use is harmful mainly due to the presence of nicotine, which is at most negligently toxic and takes an incremental health toll only. To substantiate their argument that tobacco use is compatible with longevity if one is born to be healthy, some even cite their family members or relatives who happened to be lifelong tobacco addicts but still made it to very senior age.

As a matter of fact, some tobacco users are informed only about how tobacco use can affect people‟s respiratory system, but not about the fact that over 4000 kinds of chemicals can be found in tobacco smoke. They are warned of the epidemic being carcinogenic/cancer-causing, but not of the fact that at least 40 kinds of cancer-causing substances are lurking in the smoke. They know tobacco use is harmful, but they don‟t know that tobacco smoke is highly toxic with many pathogenic substances in it, including nicotine, nitrogen dioxide, hydrocyanic acid, acraldehyde, arsenic, lead and mercury. Tobacco smoke proves more dangerous than industrial air pollution, taking a varied toll on people‟s brain, heart, hung, liver, spleen, stomach and kidney, triggering sexual and procreative dysfunctions, and even leading to birth defects.

Tobacco use “does no harm to others”, a misconception that helps explain why smoke ban can hardly be imposed in public space and at work places. Tobacco users wrongly believe that they have the right to use tobacco, a freedom that defies intervention. They simply go their own way without knowledge or awareness of how their selfish enjoyment pollutes the air, how cigarette use endangers the health of those who are passively exposed to tobacco smoke, and how they have infringed upon others‟ right to enjoy fresh air. Some of them argue that tobacco use is harmful, but in a rather limited way. Their one-sided perception highlights how they lack the drive to hold themselves to high ethical and moral standards needed to build a healthy environment for all.

2. Laws and regulations on tobacco control remain to be improved/China has yet to provide a strong and well-developed legal framework for tobacco control. Local authorities and regulators have, in recent years, outlined/rolled out administrative regulations on tobacco use limitations for the sake of public health. Pro-health programs have been developed to limit tobacco use, and directives (have been) engineered/framed/established to mark out/delimit smoking sections, post no-smoking signs, and restrict advertising and promotion. That said, much remains to be done when it comes to implementation on the ground.

Beijing won wide acclaim from the international athletic community during the proceedings of the Olympic Games in 2008 thanks to rigorous implementation of tobacco control measures that resulted in a “no-tobacco” Olympics. Yet, the best practice failed to persist following the Olympics and Paralympics, and tobacco use staged a come-back/rebounded.

Four challenges/deficiencies stand out when it comes to law-enforcement on tobacco control. First, there is no clear division as to who is accountable for law-enforcement, no rigorous definition of jurisdiction, and inadequacy of task forces and funds for law-enforcement.Second, there is no clearly defined regulation on punishment. Resulting impunity undermines the authoritativeness of law-enforcement forces and regulations. Third, there is not yet an enabling/empowering culture of public supervision. Fourth, there are no visible differences/results from law-enforcement operations to date.

The lack of public involvement in tobacco control fails to feature prominently on the priority list. Tobacco control and a total ban in public space call for greater care, understanding, support and commitment of not only tobacco users, but the wider civil society and manufacturers. Each and every citizen needs to contribute to a tobacco-free, harmonious environment for all.

As a late-starter in tobacco control endeavors, China is already seeing a defining trend of and growing consensus on building smoking-free public space by virtue of legislation.

At this point, a few provincial and municipal governments have developed administrative regulations on tobacco control, but there is no law of this nature at the state level. Thankfully, the central government is already working on this, and we may as well expect one by 2011, the promised deadline. By then, we will have a law to go by in the fight against the epidemic/public health threat down the road.