当前位置:中华考试网 >> 翻译资格考试 >> 考试大纲 >> 2018年翻译资格考试英语一级口译录音材料


中华考试网   2017-12-13   【

  Test for Interpreters of Level 1

  Speeches for Consecutive Interpreting

  Transcripts for the Recorded Speeches

  Part I

  Interpret the following passages from English into Chinese. Start interpreting at the signal and stop at the signal. You may take notes while you are listening. You will hear each passage only once. Now let’s begin.

  Passage 1 下面你将听到的是一段对联合国前秘书长安南的评论。

  Whatever disadvantages Ban Ki-moon, the new Secretary-General, brings with

  him, he at least lacks the baggage that burdened Kofi Annan heading out of the door.

  Mr Annan took the top job at the UN a decade ago, already battered from his years in

  charge of UN peacekeeping, after the organization (and everybody else) failed to stop

  the 1994 genocide in Rwanda. He leaves weighed down by a miserable relationship

  with the world’s most powerful country.

  Mr. Annan’s record, inevitably, is a mixed one. Enjoying few powers of his own,

  the Secretary-General has influence only when strong states cooperate. Last week he

  used a talk in Missouri to scold America for not working better with other countries.

  He referred repeatedly to Harry Truman, quoting the former president as saying that

  “no matter how great our strength, we must deny ourselves the license to do always as we please.”

  In some areas Mr. Annan and the superpower have been of one mind. The UN can

  claim significant successes in encouraging Nigeria to give up military rule and in

  deploying a peacekeeping force to East Timor. On Mr. Annan’s watch, the UN also

  contributed to peace efforts in Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia and elsewhere. In 2001,

  Mr. Annan and the organization picked up a Nobel peace prize. At other times Mr.

  Annan’s office and the White House agreed on what should be done, but achieved

  little. In Sudan, Mr. Annan wants the deployment of a powerful UN peacekeeping

  force. Darfur is a case study for his principle of the “responsibility to protect”.

  Although the member states endorsed his idea at a summit in late 2005, in the absence

  of a standing army deployed by the Secretary-General, or of substantial military

  support from member states, his idea has yet translated into anything meaningful.

  But Mr. Annan experienced his greatest difficulties when in opposition to the

  United States. After America and its allies failed to get Security Council endorsement

  for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, hostility towards Mr. Annan grew in Washington, DC.

  By September 2004 Mr. Annan was openly calling the invasion of Iraq illegal, which

  in turn provoked complaints from Republicans that he was trying to influence that

  year’s American presidential election. Some of Mr. Annan’s American critics called

  for his removal as Secretary-General and cast around for sticks to beat him with. Late

  in 2005, an American investigation into the UN’s oil-for-food program in Iraq

  concluded that waste, inefficiency and corruption had cost billions of dollars and

  could be blamed in part on UN staff at headquarters and in the field, though it failed

  to show any evidence that Mr. Annan himself was involved.

  Given such frosty relations and the ongoing debacle in Iraq, it is perhaps

  remarkable that there have since been any substantial attempts at cooperation at all.

  Yet the UN and America have striven to find the killers of a former Lebanese prime

  minister; there is joint opposition to nuclear proliferation, for example, in Iran; and, as

  mentioned, there is a shared approach to Sudan. And in a conciliatory gesture, also

  last week, Mr. Annan used a speech to the UN to express sympathy with the notion

  widely held in America that the organization, especially its General Assembly, is too

  often mindlessly opposed to Israel. Such efforts to reach out to America, along with

  the removal of John Bolton as America’s representative at the UN, may mean a

  friendlier start for Mr. Ban in 2007. And that may, possibly, mean a greater chance of

  getting America’s help for protecting the weak in Darfur and elsewhere.

  Passage 2 下面你将听到的是一段有关食品安全的讲话。

  Ten years ago, food safety was not on many people’s mind in Europe. We all expected our food to be safe, not only because it generally was safe, but also because incidences of chemical or microbiological contamination were local in nature. What a  contrast with the present. Today, food safety is one of the highest priority issues for consumers, producers and governments alike, all over Europe.

  What has caused this change? The occurrence of mad cow disease, of course,

  which brought with it the link to the terrible and fatal disease, created a widespread

  and deep-set unease about meat products. To date, the consequences of mad cow

  disease are felt across Europe and beyond.

  The recent occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease and other incidents let European

  consumers wake up to the reality that the trade in food and farm products is truly

  international. They are starting to discover the intricate network of international trade

  that underlies the food industry and brings products to supermarket shelves.

  Between the 1950s and 1980s, we saw tremendous improvements in the safety of

  the food we eat in Europe. What we can call the “first wave” of food safety measures

  came with the sterilization of milk and milk products and the introduction of rigid and

  effective hygiene systems in the production chain, mainly from the dairy and the

  abattoir to the supermarket. The “second wave” of food safety measures came with

  the widespread introduction of the hazard control system for the production chain.

  Yet, since the early 1980s, we have seen a marked increase in the reports of

  food-borne diseases, resulting from chemical contamination. This situation, and

  associated loss of public confidence, suggest that something has gone wrong. We need

  a “third wave” of food safety measures. This third wave must focus on the direct risk

  to humans. We need to begin with the epidemiology of food-borne diseases and track

  them back through the food chain, all the way to the farm.

  It means building up the capacity — and making effective use of expertise in

  assessing risks to human health. It means building up capacity for epidemiological

  tracking and mapping of food-related diseases. It means improving our data collection

  efforts for both the pathogens in the food and human disease.

  And it will mean that officials concerned with agricultural productivity, and

  officials responsible for the health of populations, work together. Not only must they

  communicate. They must collaborate closely so that they can quickly trace back each

  incident of suspected food-borne disease to its source, analyze the size and geography

  of the problem and suggest both short- and long-term remedial measures.

  This all calls for political action. People — both as consumers and producers —

  expect their government officials to work together for the common good. Not only do

  they expect their politicians to make sure that government works in the primary

  interests of those who consume food: they also expect politicians to take action based

  on expert evidence.

  This will mean a restructuring of agricultural ministries so that they move beyond

  a primary focus on economic issues. They need to represent the interests of the whole

  community — producers, processors and consumers. This kind of transformation

  will make for a healthier base for the future of the industry.

  It will also mean that ministries of health have to take interest in, and give priority

  to, action to monitor and prevent food-borne illness. They would need to strengthen

  their food safety resources and improve collaboration with other ministries. An

  incident of suspected food poisoning should no longer just be seen by doctors as a

  temporary health problem. It should be considered as a possible symptom of the

  break-down in the food-safety system.

  Part II

  Interpret the following passages from Chinese into English. Start

  interpreting at the signal and stop at the signal. You may take notes while you are

  listening. You will hear each passage only once. Now let’s begin.

  Passage 1 下面你将听到的是一段有关中国经济发展的讲话。


  内生产总值达到 2.6 万亿美元,比去年增长 10.7%;城镇新增就业人数达 1184

  万人,比去年增长了 22%;全年进出口总额 1.76 万亿美元,比上一年增长 23.8%。

  回头看看,从 2003 年开始以来这四年,世界经济的年均增长率为 4.8%,通货膨

  胀率年均 3.7%,发展态势良好。在这样的国际经济环境下,中国经济的增长率

  连续四年保持在 10%左右,通货膨胀率为年均 2.1%。这些数据表明,中国经济




  题。我国的人均GDP现在是 2000 美元,排名在世界 100 位之后。中国的城镇乡






  2007 年,中国完全有可能继续保持良好的发展势头。我们的宏观调控和管

  理将进一步完善。中国实行改革开放已经 30 年了。深化改革是发展生产力的强



  Passage 2 下面你将听到的是一段建设社会主义新农村的讲话。


  常重视农村问题。从今年起,我国全部取消农业税,中央财政支农资金达到 3400

















  过改革,特别是农村改革,成功地解决了 13 亿人口的吃饭问题,消除了两亿多




  • 英语口译综合能力教材配套训练(三级)(新版)
  • 英语口译综合能力(三级)(新版)
  • 英语口译实务教材配套训练(三级)(新版)
  • 英语口译实务(三级)(新版)
  • 笔译备考实训:英译汉(二、三级通用)