[真题回顾]12年北外批卷老师评论；；；2012年北外高翻研究生入学考试阅卷感想[t:26]
今年阅卷中发现的主要问题，与往年相同。为了对今后报考的人有些指导，这里再次做简单归纳。我主要负责批改第四题，就先讲这一题。原文是：
我认识一位从中国来美国的暑期交换学生，她告诉我一件她觉得奇怪的事情。她寄宿在一个美国人的家里。这家夫妇俩都是律师，有4个从上高中到小学的男孩。那个人家房子很大，有游艇和私人飞机，非常富有的样子，生活却很简单。有一次，父母两人出外度假，临走前在家里的大冰箱里为留在家里的4个孩子放好一模一样大小的4份食品，不分大小，每人一份。而且，还给他们每人分配一份工作，修整草地、洗游泳池、清理厨房、厕所等等。这4个孩子，大的食品不够吃，小的吃不了。大的向小的要，小的就以代做自己那一份家事为条件，把吃不了的分一些给大的。
这确实是一个典型的美国家庭，说它典型，不是说它拥有的财产(这个家庭显然要比许多其他美国家庭富有)，而是说它的价值观。
主要问题包括：
一、相当一部分同学，语法错误满篇，水平差距很大。我请这些同学放弃侥幸心理，等外语达到较高水平时，再报考不迟；不要浪费自己的精力和老师的精力。如果是想测试自己距离北外的要求还有多远，也不需要通过考试。做份卷子或随便翻译一篇东西，找老师看看，如果超过三处语法错误或拼写错误（汉译英），就不会有录取的希望。因为语法错误、拼写错误，往往伴随用词不当、搭配不当、句子结构不当。这就说明差距很大，没有任何录取希望。
二、为了增加句子的复杂程度，随意把句子连接起来。翻译的目的是为了有效的交流，不是为了“炫技”。高考时骗老师的那一套，根本别拿来使用。不要总想着在主句前后用个分词短语、with短语，加上which、that；这样做弄巧成拙。不是不可用，而是不可滥用。这个问题在第3题表现更突出。
原译1：She temporarily lived in an American family of six members, with the couple both lawyers and four boys old enough to attend school, with the eldest in high school and the youngest in primary school.
原译2：She went to an American homestay with the couple both being lawyer and four boys ranging from primary to high school.
改译：She lived in an American family. The parents were both lawyers and the four boys were attending primary to high school.
也有同学做得很好：
1. She was hosted by an American family. The couple were both lawyers and they had four sons attending schools ranging from high school to primary school.
2. She was living with an American family, and the couple were both lawyers. They had four boys who were attending primary to high school.
再举一例：
1. I have recognized an exchange student during summer vocation coming from China to America who told me a thing that she felt strange.
2. I was familiar with an exchange student for summer vacation from China to America who told me one thing that she felt strange.
直截了当翻译即可：
I know a student who came to the United States for a summer exchange program. She told me a story she felt strange.
三、译文逻辑。原文有几处逻辑问题，译文如能改进，会使故事更通顺。如：原文说，这家人有飞机、有游艇，但又说他们过着简单的生活，这不符合逻辑。如果说这简单的生活，是指夫妇外出时，让孩子吃方便面之类的东西，又与文章的重点（谈价值观，但又不清楚是什么价值观）不符合。所以，原文没写好。如果译文以某种方式把“简单的生活”做合理化处理，会使译文更加通顺(实际工作中可能需要和作者联系，让他修改原文)。当然，不处理也不扣分。毕竟不是你们的责任。再如，留在家里的食品，是够每个孩子吃一顿，还是吃几天，原文没说清楚。多数同学翻译的，像是只留了一顿饭。但看起来夫妇是去度长假，所以，翻译为只留了一顿饭，似乎不合情理。译文要处理得模糊一些，让人看不出是几顿饭，但能猜出是几天的饭。又如，如果是留了几天的饭，中国学生是每到吃饭的时候，就看到兄弟几个讨价还价，还是就看到那么一次。原文也没说清楚。从逻辑来看，夫妇俩只留了一顿饭，哥几个只交换一次更为合理。但两口子又好像是长期到外边休假。矛盾。第四，原文说拿食物交换工作，用的是“代做自己那一份家事”，给人的印象是，小的一点不用做了，不符合情理。译文如果解释为“帮做自己的那份家事”，就更合情理。
另外，原文说到飞机、游艇，想必是一个，不少同学翻译为复数，令人难以置信。还有的同学理解游艇存放在家里，也不合逻辑。一般就放在海边。至于飞机放哪里，文章也没说，不好随便猜测院子很大，放得下飞机。也许存放在某个机场。所以，译文也不能太具体，避免把地方说错了。说到“大的”、“小的”，有同学翻译为the younger one, the older one, 各自成了一个人。用复数更符合逻辑。不用精确说明谁跟谁要。
总之，原文充满了矛盾或不符合逻辑之处。要翻译好，讲一个令人信服的故事，并不容易。实际上，我们平时翻译的材料，好多就是这样的水平。把这些乌七杂八的东西翻译为好文章，才能显示一个译者的功力。
最后，我怀疑原文作者根本没听过这个故事，是自己为了说明一个所谓的道理，自己胡编出来的。也许是作者写的很清楚，被试题的改编者破坏了逻辑。再就是我怀疑，这对夫妇留一样多的食物，也没打算让他们交换。是那小的猴精，趁人之危，让哥哥替自己干活。这样的事情在中国也会出现；作者无限上纲，凭空发了好些无谓的感慨。这是题外话，与翻译无关。你们有时间，可以查查这篇东西的来源。
四、时态。原文讲述过去发生的故事。整个故事的叙述用过去时。即使律师夫妇还没有把飞机卖掉、孩子还呆在原来的学校。
五、其他问题包括：不区分可数不可数，如a food；house, yacht, plane等可数名词不知道加冠词；搭配不知所云：view of/on values, outlook of values等等。
这里提供一份经修改的考生译文：
I know a Chinese student who was in the United States on a summer exchange program. She told me something that she felt strange. She was hosted by an American family. The couple were both lawyers and they had four sons attending primary to high school. The family lived in a large house and had a yacht and a private jet. They looked really rich, but their life was simple. Once, the parents were leaving home for a holiday. Before departure, they stored in the big refrigerator four portions of food. The portions were identical: the same food, the same amount. Each boy would have one portion, old or young. In addition, each boy was assigned a job: mowing the lawn, cleaning the swimming pool, cleaning the kitchen, and cleaning the toilet. Among the four children, the older ones did not have enough to eat and the younger ones had too much. When the older ones demanded food from the younger ones, the young ones would only agree to share if the older ones helped them with their housework.
This is a typical American family. It is typical not because of its assets—this family was obviously much richer than others—but because of the values it encourages.
第三题我也批改了一些。原文如下：
我们要大力发展社会事业。坚持优先发展教育，稳步提升全民受教育程度。坚持自主创新、重点跨越、支撑发展、引领未来的方针，完善科技创新体系和支持政策，着力推进重大科学技术突破。研究与试验发展经费支出占国内生产总值比重达到2.2%，促进科技成果更好地转化为生产力。适应现代化建设需要，加强人才培养，努力造就规模宏大的高素质人才队伍。大力加强文化建设，推动文化改革发展实现新跨越，满足人民群众不断增长的精神文化需求。
第一个问题是时态错误。第一句有主语，其余是无主句。但可以推定，其余句子的主语都是“我们”。问题出在“研究与试验发展经费支出占国内生产总值比重达到2.2%，促进科技成果更好地转化为生产力。”这句话的意思是“我们要使研究与试验发展经费支出占国内生产总值比重达到2.2%，我们要促进科技成果更好地转化为生产力。”总理（或任何人）之所以说这样的话，是因为中国的R&D在GDP中占比较低；同时，科研成果被尘封，没有商业化（commercialize）。
这段话翻译时的另一个问题，是在并列的意思之间乱加连词，表达本不存在的逻辑关系。例如：
With cost expenditure for research and experiments accounting for 2.2% of our GDP, we can better transfer the outcomings into productive forces.
提高科研经费占比与科技转化是并列关系。用with表示因果关系。情态也不对。这似乎是总理某个领导人的讲话，是政府的工作规划，是我们打算怎么做，不是我们可以怎么做。
再如：
We must greatly engage in social development. We must give top priority to education by steadily raising people’s educational level.
用by表示方式。试想：通过提高人民的教育水平，来重视教育，这个逻辑说得通吗？
类似的例子还有很多。在增加连接词之前，要想想：有这个逻辑关系吗？你们可能被一种观念所误导：英语是形合，汉语是意合，所以，汉译英的时候要增加连接词。不错，个别情况下是这样。但英语和汉语一样，意合占多数。形合的地方，也是因为确实存在某种逻辑关系。不是任意增加连接词。
本段的逻辑见以下参考译文：
We will develop social programs. We will give priority to education in order to improve literacy of the entire population. Guided by the principle of “indigenous (OR proprietary) innovation in key areas to support development and lead in the future”, we will improve our innovation system and provide policy support for breakthroughs in major technologies. We will raise R&D expenditure to 2.2% of GDP; we will facilitate the commercialization of research (OR the translation of research results into practice/productivity). We will strengthen training and build a large pool of high-caliber work force to accelerate modernization. We will develop cultural initiatives. We will take larger steps in cultural reform and development to meet the increasing needs of the population.
不需要把那些形容词都翻译出来——翻译出来显得歇斯底里；不要用太多的被动句。不要用慢启动句子（slow start sentences；说了半天还没听到重点），如It is required to insist on the priority given to the development of education and to promote steadily the education level of the general public.
用should也说得过去，如果你认为总理是在抱怨的话。
英译汉我没有批改，这里不做评论。
|
[复制链接]
