北外基础英语,同声传译试卷(历年题,转发)自己动手下载!98-04年的

1998年基础英语试卷Read the following passage:

ARCHIBALD MACLEISH: Bicentennial of What?

An address at the Bicentennial commemoration of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia

It is a common human practice to answer questions without truly asking them and the American bicentennial is merely the latest instance.

Everyone knows what the Bicentennial celebrates: the 200th anniversary of the adoption, by the Continental Congress, of the

Declaration of Independence. But no one asks what the Bicentennial is because no one asks what the Declaration was. The instrument

of announcing American independence from Great Britain? Clearly that: but is that all it was? Is it only American independence from

Great Britain we are celebrating on July 4, 1976——only the instrument which declared our independence? There have been other

declarations of unilateral independence from Great Britain which no one is likely to remember for 200 years, much less to celebrate.

“All men” are said in that document to be created equal and to have been endowed with certain unalienable rights. All governments are

alleged to have been instituted among men to secure those rights —— to protect them. Are these, then, American rights?

Doubtless——but only American? Is it the British Government which is declared to have violated them? Unquestionably——but the

British Government alone? And the revolution against tyranny and arrogance which is here implied ——is it a revolution which American

independence from the mediocre majesty of George III will win or is there something more intended? —— something for all mankind?

——for all the world?

In the old days when college undergraduates still read history, any undergraduate could have told you that these are not rhetorical

questions: that they were, from the beginning, two opinions about the Declaration and that they were held by (among others) the two

great men who had most to do with its composition and its adoption by the Congress.

John Adams, who supported the Declaration with all his formidable powers, inclined to the view that it was just what is called itself: a

declaration of American independence. Thomas Jefferson, who wrote it, held the opposite opinion: it was a revolutionary proclamation

applicable to all mankind.

“May it be the world”, he wrote to the citizens of Washington a few days before he died, “what I believe it will be: to some parts sooner, to

others later, but finally to all, the signal of arousing men to burst the chains…”

And he went on in reverberating words: “The mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs for a favored few, booted

and spurred, ready to ride them by the grace of God.”

Moreover, these two great and famous men were not the only Presidents of the Republic to choose between the alternatives: A third, as

great as either, speaking in Philadelphia at the darkest moment in our history —— bearing indeed the whole weight of that history on his

shoulders as he spoke —— turned to the Declaration for guidance for himself and for his country and made his choice between the

meanings.

Mr. Lincoln had been making his way slowly eastward in February 1861 from Springfield to Washington to take the oath of office as

President of a divided people on the verge of Civil War. He had reached Philadelphia on the 21st of February where he had been told of

the conspiracy to murder him in Baltimore as he passed through that city. He had gone to Independence Hall before daylight on the 22nd.

He had found a crowd waiting. He had spoken to them.

He had often asked himself. Mr. Lincoln said, what great principle or idea it was which had held the Union so long together. “It was not,”

he said, as though replying directly to John Adams, “the mere matter of the separation from the mother country.”

It was something more. “Something in the Declaration,” they heard him say. “Something giving liberty not alone to the people of this

country but hope to the world.” “It was that which gave promise that in due time the weights should be lifted from the shoulders of all

men.”

Anyone else, any modern President certainly, would have said, as most of them regularly do, that his hope for the country was fixed in

huge expenditures for arms, in the possession of overwhelming power. Not Mr. Lincoln. Not Mr. Lincoln even at that desperate moment.

His hope was fixed in a great affirmation of belief made almost a century before. It was fixed in the commitment of the American people,

at the beginning of their history as a people, to “ a great principle or idea”: the principle or idea of human liberty —— of human liberty not

for themselves alone but for mankind.

It was a daring gamble of Mr. Lincoln‟s —— but so too was Mr. Jefferson‟s Declaration —— so was the cause which Mr. Jefferson‟s

Declaration had defined. Could a nation be founded on the belief in liberty? Could belief in liberty preserve it? Two American generations

argued that issue but not ours —— not the generation of the celebrants of the 200th anniversary of that great event. We assume, I

suppose, that Mr. Jefferson‟s policy was right for him and right for Mr. Lincoln, because it was successful. But whatever we think about

Mr. Lincoln‟ view of the Declaration, whatever we believe about the Declaration in the past, in other men‟s lives, in other men‟s wars, we

do not ask ourselves, as we celebrate its Bicentennial, what it is today, what it is to us.

Our present President has never intimated by so much as a word that such a question might be relevant —— that it even exists. The

Congress has not debated it. The state and Federal commissions charged with Bicentennial responsibility express no opinions. Only the

generation of the young, so far as I am informed, has even mentioned it, and the present generation of the young has certain

understanble prejudices, inherited from the disillusionments of recent years, which color their comments…

Express your view that the nation brought into being by hat great document was, and had no choice but be, a revolutionary nation, and

you will be reminded that, but for the accidental discovery of a piece of tape on a door latch, the President of the United States in the

Bicentennial year would have been Richard Nixon. And so it will go until you are told at last that the American Revolution is a figure of

obsolescent speech; that the Declaration has become a museum exhibit in the National Archives; and that, as for the Bicentennial, it is a

year-long commercial which ought to be turned off.

Well, the indignation of the young is always admirable regardless of its verbal excesses —— far more admirable, certainly, than the

indifference of the elders. But, unfortunately, it is the indifference of the elders we have to consider. And not only because it is a puzzling,

a paradoxical, indifference but because it is as disturbing as it is paradoxical.

Does our indifference to the explicitly revolutionary purpose of the Declaration － our silence about Mr. Jefferson‟s interpretation of that

purpose —— mean that we no longer believe in that purpose —— no longer believe in human liberty? Hardly?...

But if this is so, if we still believe in the cause of human liberty, why do we celebrate the anniversary of the document which defined it for

us without a thought for the meaning of the definition, then or now? Why have we not heard from our representatives and our officials on

his great theme?

Is it because, although the Republic continues to believe in human liberty for itself, it no longer hopes for it in the world? Because it no

longer thinks such a hope “realistic”?...

So far, indeed, is Mr. Jefferson‟s revolution from being obsolete that it is now the only truly revolutionary force in the age we live in. And

not despite the police states but because of them.

In 1945, when e had driven the Nazis out of Europe and the Japanese out of the Pacific in the name of human freedom and human

decency, we stood at the peak, not only of our power as a nation but of our greatness as a people. We were more nearly ourselves, our

true selves as the inheritors of Thomas Jefferson and Abraham Lincoln, than we had ever been before. And yet within a few years of that

tremendous triumph, of the unexampled generosity of our nuclear offer to the world, of the magnificence of the marshall Plan, we were

lost in the hysterical fears and ignoble deceits of Joe McCarthy and his followers and had adopted, as our foreign policy, the notion that if

we “contained” the Russian initiative, we would some how or other be better off ourselves than if we pursued our historic purpose as

Jefferson conceived it.

The result, as we now know, was disaster. And not only in Southeast Asia and Portugal and Africa but throughout the world, Containment

put us in bed with every anti-Communist we could find including some of the most offensive despots then in business. It produced

flagrantly subversive and shameful plots by American agencies against the duly elected governments of other countries. And it ended by

persuading the new countries of the postwar world, the emerging nations, that he United States was to them and to their hopes what the

Holy Alliance had been to us and ours 200 years before.

I. Explain the following in your own words:

1. All governments are alleged to have been instituted among men to secure those rights － to protect them. 2. In the old days when

college undergraduates still read history… (1) What is the implication of this statement? (2) How do you know? 3. … who

had most to do with its composition and its adoption by the Congress. 4. May it be to the world, what I believe it will be: to some

parts sooner, to others later, but finally to all, the signal of arousing men to burst the chains… 5. The mass of mankind has not

been born with saddles… by the grace of God. 6. It was that which gave promise… from the shoulders of all men. 7. It was

a daring gamble… which Mr. Jefferson‟s Declaration had defined. (1) What does “daring gamble” refer to? (2) What was the cause

the Declaration had defined? 8. Our present president … that it even exists. 9. … you will be reminded… would have

been Richard Nixon. 10. … regardless of its verbal excesses 11. So far is Mr. Jefferson‟s revolution from being

obsolete… but because of them. 12. And it ended by persuading… to us and ours 200 years before.

II. What is the message the speaker wants to put across? III. Translate the following passage into English:

“主人翁意识”，在我看来，也就是“所有者的意识”。“主人翁意识”当然也是社会意识，而且，任何一种社会意

识，都是由社会存在所决定。那么，产生此种“社会意识”的社会存在是什么呢？

譬如说吧，在一个拥有1200万元资产和1200名职工的企业里，加入这是一家由职工等额持股的股份合作制企业，那

就意味着每个职工都是拥有万元资产的主人翁。每个职工的“主人翁意识”也就由此而产生。山东诸城市委书记陈光

曾提到过这样一组数据:某次对一国有企业的300名职工以“如果看见有人偷企业的财产你会怎么办”为题，进行了一

次问卷调查。回答“装作看不见”的220人，回答“他偷我也偷”的67人，回答“与他作斗争”的13人。这是诸城

改制前对国有企业“主人翁意识”的一次定量调查结果。

邓小平南巡之后，在市场经济问题上，姓“社”姓“资”的非议，是逐步销声匿迹了，然而，“左家庄”的炊烟不散。

这些人很重要的一个理由——只有坚持国家所有制，职工才能产生“主人翁意识”。一副悲天悯人、为民请命的“革

命动机”。而在传统体制中，企业自身的自主权都无从保证，还论什么职工的“主人翁意识”？

I. 将下列短文译成英语（35％）

有一次，有拥护的车厢门口，我听见一位男乘客客客气气地问他前面的一个女乘客:“您下车吗？”女乘客没理他。“你下

车吗？”他又问了一遍，女乘客还是没理他。“下车吗？”他耐不住了，放大声问，那女乘客依然没有反映。“你是聋子，

还是哑巴？”他急了，捅了一下那女乘客，也引得车厢里的人都往这里看。女乘客这时也急了，瞪起一双眼睛回手给男

乘客一拳。

见此情景，我猛然想起在60路沿线上有家福利工厂，女乘客可能就是个聋哑人听不见声音。我赶忙向男乘客解释，又

用纸条写了一句话，举到女乘客眼前:“对不起！他要下车，他问了您好几声，您是不是没听见？”女乘客点了点头，把

道让开了。

从此以后，我就特别注意聋哑人的特征，还从他那里学会了一些常用的手语。比如，我可以用哑语问他们:“朋友，您好！”

“您到哪里下车？”“您请往里走！”

“谢谢”等等。这样，不仅我能更好地为他们服务，与他们进行感情交流，也减少了一些他们与其他乘客的误会和纠纷。

II.将下列单句译成英语（15％）

1.目前我们国内正在进行改革。我是主张改革的，不改革就没有出路，旧的那一套经过几十年的时间证明是不成功的。

2.中国反对霸权主义，自己也永远不称霸。

3.我们搞社会主义才几十年，还处在初级阶段。巩固和发展社会主义制度，还需要一个很长的历史阶段，需要我们几

代人、十几代人，甚至几十代人坚持不懈地努力奋斗。

III. 将下列短文译成汉语（35％）

India has always had ride: Now it has ambition. In the early years of independence Nehru‟s government r

ejoiced in standing apart, the epitome of the “nonaligned” nation. As a conglomeration of peoples with seve

n major religions and 18 official languages, India had its own rules —— a democracy in a continent ruled b

y despots, a planned economy whose bureaucratic stewards were satisfied to creep along at a 3 or 4 perc

ent “Hindu rate of growth.” Only when the New Delhi elite squarely acknowledged that its hubris had put th

e nation on the sidelines of the global economy —— while India‟s great rival China was getting rich —— di

d real reforms begin. Six years into India‟s opening to the world, the economy is growing by nearly 7 perce

nt a year —— a rate that by the year 2020 will transform India into the world‟s fourth largest economy (aft

er China, the United States and Japan). “There is a lot of political cacophony,” says Finance Minister P. Ch

idambaram, who has served under two coalition governments in the last 14 months. “But we are on cours

e.” ……

The Indian mind-set is without question changing in revolutionary ways. Not so long ago, the nation of 950

million people, growing by 18 million a year, worried mainly about feeding itself. But in today‟s newly compe

titive India, bureaucrats and industrialists ponder the advantages of a lowcost labor pool that is growing you

nger while the work force of the developed world is again. Perhaps India‟s greatest strength of the 21st cen

tury will lie in its ability to employ hundreds of millions of people in labor-intensive industries ranging from f

ood processing to textiles.

IV. 将下列单句译成汉语（15%）

1. Two thirds of Pakistan‟s 130 million people are illiterate, as are half of India‟s 929 million. While this is a

big improvement compared with the less than 15% literacy rate when India became independent, it is well

behind most of Asia.

2. Both India and Pakistan spend less as a percentage of GDP on health than do most other developing c

ountries.

3. Rarely has the United States been at loss for words or actions when an international situation affects its

interests. But Washington‟s muted response to the currency crisis sweeping Southeast Asia is sowing suspi

cion among its allies in the region and fuelling anti-American sentiment.

Part One

Read the following and be prepared to answer questions: Hewlett-Packard Co. is a primary engine of

the Information Age economy. In 1997, it sold $43 billion worth of desktop computers, printers and other p

roducts on the global market, and the company reached a value of almost $70 billion on Wall Street. That

year, Hewlett-Packard paid $25 million in compensation to its chairman, president and chief executive officer,

Lewis H. Platt, and his three deputies. Hewlett-Packard also compensates the men and the women who cl

ean the offices of Platt, his deputies and every-one else. The company does not actually hire janitors; rathe

r, it hires companies that hire janitors. Every year, Hewlett-Packard contracts with a variety of temporary-em

ployment agencies for the services of hundreds of broom-pushers and mop-wielders. These temporary emplo

yees are paid between $6.20 and 9.93 per hour, or roughly $15,000 a year.

The disparity illustrates the slightly dirty little secret of the world‟s most dazzling industry. As the Informatio

n Age economy booms, the gap between the nation‟s poorest and richest workers is widening-and this gap

is occurring not in spite of the Information Age, but in part because of it.

A survey of economists by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York attributed a stunning 45 per cent of th

e widening wage gap nationwide to technology, with the remainder split between the erosion of the minimu

m wage (10 per cent), international trade (12 per cent), the decline in unionization (10 per cent), immigratio

n (8 per cent) and other (15 per cent).

Adjusted for inflation, the incomes of the poorest fifth of working families dropped by 21 per cent between

1979 and 1995, while the incomes of the richest fifth jumped by 30 per cent during the same time period.

This gap has been growing in good times as well as bad , although indications are that it‟s been leveling

off in recent months. According to the 1997 Economic Report of the President, the wage gap “continued to

widen through the 1980s and into the early 1990s, regardless of economic conditions.”

That the new economy may depend upon, and even promote, the worst aspects of the old economy is a

growing worry. Technology‟s impact on wages has become a top concern of the White House‟s National Ec

onomic Council, said a White House official. “There is a potentially polarizing impact of technology, and with

out some special national efforts, people are right to be concerned about this issue.”

Even President Clinton has raised it. “History teaches us that even as new technologies create growth an

d new opportunities, they can heighten economic inequalities and sharpen social divisions.” Clinton declared

in a June 5 speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “We know from hard experience that une

qual education hardens into unequal prospects, [and] the Information Age will accelerate this trend.”

In Silicon Valley-the fountainhead of the Information Age economy-each of the top 100 executives receives

as much pay as 220 production workers combined. That‟s a sharp jump from 1991, when each of the top

100 executives was paid as much as 42 average workers. These figures come from a study titled “Growing

Together or Drifting Apart?” that was put together by two left-leaning groups, Working Partnerships USA, in

San Jose, and the Economic Policy Institute, in Washington. The study also reported that the poorest one-

quarter of the Valley‟s workers earned less than $9.11 per hour in 1996, a drop from $9.96 (adjusted for in

flation) earned in 1991.

Granted, statistics are slippery things. Overestimates of inflation in recent decades have obscured wage gr

owth for everyone, and workers earn enough now, in fewer working hours than in 1975, to buy better good

s —— cars with air-conditioning, computers with worldwide communications capabilities, disease-fighting drug

s, larger houses and overseas vacations. Depending on what is being measured and when, wag

e estimates can vary by 40 per cent, cautions Robert I. Lerman, an economist at the Urban Institute in Wa

shington. Lerman‟s studies show that the overall wage gap has remained static since the mid-1980s largely

because growth in wages paid to women and racial minorities has balanced out significant technology-driven

declines in wages paid to less-skilled men. But, he adds, the high-tech products “are a force for widening

gaps…Because they are part of the rising demand for skill.”

WHY TECHNOLOGY‟S CULPRIT

Edward R. Wolff, an economics professor at New York University, points to office computers as the largest

driver of inequality. Drawing on census data, he concludes that the wage gap grows by 10 per cent for eve

ry doubling of per-worker investment in office computers. For example, in an economy where the top 5 per

cent of workers won 20 per cent of all income, a doubling of computer investment would boost their share

by a tenth —— to 22 per cent of all income —— while shrinking all other workers‟ income to 78 per cent.

This occurs, he says, because office computers transfer work from some employees —— such as insurance

adjusters, telephone support workers and nurses —— to a smaller corps of high-tech experts who can des

ign software capable of mimicking those skills.

Although the recent rise in the stock market —— due in large part to phenomenal growth of high-tech stoc

ks —— will provide additional wealth for the 43 per cent of families who own stocks, it won‟t do much to r

educe income inequality, Wolff says. The market doesn‟t work that way: 83 per cent of all stock is owned b

the richest 10 per cent of families.

Other economists say the wage gap exists because the new technology creates greater rewards for the s

killed workers who can use it. Thus, technological advances widen inequalities not only between different gr

oups of workers, but within the ranks of those groups, says Philip Cook, professor of public policy at Duke

University (Durham, N.C.) and co-author of The Winner-Take-all Society. For example, Cook says, laptop co

mputers and cellular phones allow the best salespeople in a company to spend more time selling, thus snat

ching sales away from the almost-as-good salespeople.

Gary T. Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues that technology is only one element of

a reinvigorated marketplace, in which Wall Street, shareholders and customers pressure top managers to cut

costs and increase efficiency by whatever means possible, including greater use of technology or cheap ov

erseas labor. This pressure “helped remove underperforming managers, [and] the managers who remain are

not masters of their domain, but are slaves of the marketplace,” Burtless says.

Burtless‟ analysis matches evidence collected by Chris C. Benner, a research associate at Working Partners

hips and an author of the “Growing Apart” report. “What technology has done is break down the boundaries

between firms,” Benner argues, and “there is really nothing on the workers‟ side to help collective bargaini

ng across multiple firms.”

The janitors at Hewlett-Packard are one example of companies‟ ability to use technology —— to cut costs.

Generally, companies can use computer technology to carefully track their spending and operations and to

identify less-important ancillary work, such as janitorial services and parts production, or inefficient elements,

such as slow production workers.

Firms used to hire workers who would clean their factories and offices under direct supervision of in-hous

e managers. But this is not cost-effective. Now, more and more companies hire out much of their custodial

work to leaning contractors. The companies save money because the contractors usually pay their workers

much less than in-house janitors would be paid. And the contractors also assume the burden of supervising

the janitors‟ work —— supervision that the employing company can oversee through computer-aided report

s.

From the company‟s point of view, this all makes obvious sense. “a lot of technology companies really ha

ve been turning more and more to their core competencies, the things we do really well,” said Anne McGra

th, a spokeswoman for Hewlett-Packard.

As Hewlett-Packard sees it, there is nothing to be gained by investing in the long-term prospects of such

obviously unskilled workers as janitors. Instead, says McGrath, the company will “hire whatever we think is t

he best company to clean our buildings, based on their quality and the price and their track record.” The b

enefits of this approach go beyond cost saving. Right now, 150 janitors are striking the company that clean

s Hewlett-Packard‟s plant in Roseville, Calif. It‟s a potentially nasty little labor dispute, but it‟s not Hewlett-Pa

ckard‟s dispute. Says McGrath, “Our attitude is that this really isn‟t our issue.”

A DARWINIAN APPROACH

Silicon Valley companies are particularly reliant on “out-sourcing” because consumer demand for their prod

ucts changes very quickly. Any companies —— especially the new or small ones —— can‟t risk building th

eir own expensive manufacturing plants or retaining skilled workers, for fear that they will stand idle for long

periods. As Benner explains, that has created a class of on-demand manufacturers and workers who migra

te within the Valley from one product to another from one factory to another, as each technology season co

mes and goes, thus pushing down prices and wages.

It is difficult to measure precisely how much work the high-tech industry has contracted out, says Benner.

But the amount is clearly large. Benner notes that the biggest high-tech companies in the Valley have one-

seventh as many employees as the Big Three automakers, even though their stock market values are comp

arable. The result, says Paul Saffo, a director at the California-based Institute for the Future, is “a [technolo

gy] revolution being pushed by and ever-smaller number of people.”

The same trends have spun off low-paid jobs nationwide, argues Michael E. McGrath (no relation), preside

nt of Local 7026 of the Communications Workers of America. McGrath is trying, with limited success, to org

anize the roughly 18,000 telemarketing workers in Tucson, salespeople who call customers nationwide over

cheap long-distance phone lines. Many large companies have cut their overhead by replacing their own tele

marketing staff with workers hired by telemarketing companies, including the 35 companies based in Tucson.

However, union organizer McGrath can‟t get much traction, partly because the market conditions bounce th

e workers from one job to the next, keeping their wages at under $7 an hour.

That raises a somewhat delicate political point. The high-tech industry likes to think of itself as progressive

and, as a whole, leans toward liberal and Democratic politics. So, how does it deal with the fact that it co

ntributes to labor inequalities? It doesn‟t, except to pass the buck to the market.

Explain the underlined parts in your own words, trying to bring out the implied meaning, if there is any: (4

0%) 1. The disparity illustrates ……dazzling industry 2. this gap is occurring …… b

ecause of it 3. This gap has been growing …… in recent months 4. That the new econo

my …… is a growing worry (What are the worst aspects? What is meant by old economy?)

5. there is a potentially …… about this issue 6. We know from hard experience …… 7.

Granted, statistics are slippery things 8. companies can use computers …… less important ancillar

y work 9. the benefits …… beyond cost saving 10. Silicon Valley companies are particularly

reliant on “out-sourcing”. What is meant by “out-sourcing”? Please explain.

II. Please answer the following questions: (20%)

1. According to the author, how does high technology widen the wage gap? 2. A. From the company‟s

point of view, this all makes obvious sense: “A lot f technology companies really have been turning more a

nd more to their core competencies, the thing, we do really well”……(Para.6 from bottom)(6%)

a. Why does the company think it makes sense? In what way it makes sense? b. Wh

at is meant by “turning more and more to their core competencies”? B. It doesn‟t, except to pass the

buck to the market place. (last sentence of the piece.)(4%) Why doesn‟t it deal with this fact?

How can it avoid dealing with it?

Part Two

Translate the following passage into English: (40%)

老爸的声音 起风的周末，外出采访完独自回校，满身疲惫。在街头电话亭，我拨通那个熟悉的号码，

响了很久，才传来一低哑的声音，是老爸。他很快惊喜起来:“北京冷布冷，这段日子过得怎么样......” 我握着听筒，

不知该说些什么，只是想听听他的声音。

两年前的这个时候，年过半百的老爸主动申请去南方工作，和约三年。虽然那里没有鱼钓，没有充足的午休，找不到

家的感觉，但是为了念大学的我和妹妹，为了我们那些日益昂贵的学费和生活费，他很坚决地去了。于是，电话成了

维系我们和老爸的桥梁。记忆中他从未问过我毕业后的志向，只是认真地看着我带回家的一篇篇发表的文章、一张张

获奖的证书。只有一次，他喝很多酒，家里停电。在烛光下，他突然对埋头写稿的我说:“理想固然好，但如果你没有谋

生的一技之长，怎么在社会上立足？”这句话让我整整思索了一个晚上。

大学快毕业时，我告诉南方的老爸，我想离开家继续读书。他说:“只要你考上，我就供。”当我给他念录取通知书时，

电话那头的声音很坚定，“明天，我就把学费给你寄去。” 于是，我带着理想坐进了北京的另一所课堂。父亲在经济最

发达的南方，却没有告诉我赚钱和理想哪个更重要，更没有说记者的种种艰辛。只在22年来第一次写给我的信种说:“你

要好好写文章，勿急于发表，多问多想，写出有分量的东西来，需要什么书，只管买，这点钱我还能供得起。一个人

在外多注意身体，饭要吃好。”信里还附了他从报刊上剪下的人生哲言。我哭了，久久地。我第一次如此近地听到他心

灵深处的声音，一直以来被我忽略了的声音。

我站在北京，父亲的声音来自遥远的南方，他在我耳边久久回荡。

1.将下列短文译成英语（35％）

今年6月克林顿访华带了一支庞大的新闻队伍，使美国的民众第一次有了一个比较客观地了解中国发展变化情况的机

会，用新华社的话来说，克林顿访华的报道，才“使„新中国‟的形象首次深入到美国的千家万户”。至于美国的政治家和

新闻媒体则对所接触到的中国情况大感“意外”。以上的例子说明，西方世界对中国的认识与中国的实际情况相差有多远。

究其原因，主要是西方有些人习惯于用政治化，意识形态化的眼光看待人权问题，习惯把一种社会制度看成是人权的

化身，而把其他社会制度和发展模式看成是侵犯人权的不表现，因此，总是把共产党领导的中国想象成一个反人权的

国家。这种思维方式，使他们无法正确认识中国人权的真是情况，看不到中国的积极变化和发展，甚至把中国促进人

权的努力都误认为是侵犯人权的表现。和平，发展与人权是世界各国的共同要求，更是一个多世纪以来中国人民矢志

不渝的奋斗目标。中国当前正致力于建设富强民主文明的国家，这是一项使五分之一人类彻底摆脱贫困，充分实现人

权的跨世纪的伟大事业，也是世界和平发展和人权事业的重要组成部分。开放的中国需要吸收人类一切优秀文化成果

和有益经验，也需要得到各国的最大理解和支持。

II. 将下列单句译成英语（15％）

1. 国家对经济的管理，已经由指令性计划为主的直接控制，转变为主要运用经济和法律手段的间接调控。

2. 1995年的经济体制改革，使重点推进国有企业改革，并配套进行社会保障制度改革，进一步转变政府职能，培育

市场体系。

3. 不顾本国的实际照搬其它国家的具体模式，或以自己的模式为尺度衡量和评判其它国家，都不是一种求实和相互尊

重的态度，不利于国家之间的相互借鉴和共同发展。

III. 将系列短文译成汉语（35%）

I like to think that my own relationship with President Reagan and the efforts I made to try to establish co

mmon ground between the United States and the Europeans helped to prevent disagreements over the pipe

line and other trading issues from poisoning western co-operation at this critical juncture. Certainly, the sum

mer of 1982 saw some useful international diplomacy. Between 4 and 6 June the heads of government of t

he G7 countries met amid the splendid opulence of Versailles. …

President Mitterrand, who chaired the summit, had prepared a paper on the impact of new technology on e

mployment. It quite often happened that the country in the chair at summit meetings felt that they must intr

oduce some new initiatives even at the cost of extra government intervention and increased bureaucracy. T

his was no exception. For my part, I had no doubt about the attitude to take to technological innovation: it

must be welcomed not resisted. There might be “new” technology but technological progress itself was nothi

ng new, and over the years it had not destroyed jobs but created them. Our task was not to make grand p

lans for technological innovation but rather to see how public opinion could be influenced in order to embra

ce not recoil from it. Fortunately, therefore, President Mitterrand‟s paper was kicked into touch in the form o

f a working group.

……But my most vivid recollection of the proceedings at Versailles is of the impression made by President

Reagan. At one point he spoke for twenty minutes or so without notes, outlining his economic vision. His q

uite but powerful words provided those who did not yet know him with some insight into the qualities which

made him such a remarkable political leader. After he had finished, President Mitterrand acknowledged that

no one would criticize President Reagan for being true to his beliefs. Given President Mitterrand‟s socialist

policies, that was almost a compliment.

IV. 将下列单句译成英语（15％）

1. No serious student of history can doubt that the emergence of China as a world power presents a serio

us challenge to American foreign policy.

2. Officials in many signatory states had disputed the complicated provisions of the treaty; some national le

gislatures —— notably the US Senate —— refused to ratify the treaty on the ground that it was too kind t

o developing countries by not requiring their compliance. Moreover, critics said that by not sufficiently emph

asizing deadlines for implementation, the Kyoto treaty let even the rich nations off the hook.

3. Success against inflation was the single achievement to which we drew most attention as we approached

the election, not least because Labor looked set to promise huge increases in spending and borrowing whi

ch could never be honestly financed and which would have sent prices soaring again.

I. Reading Comprehension. (32 points)

1. Read the following article and paraphrase the underlined parts:

The twenty-first century will mark the era of tertiary and lifelong learning for everybody－or almost everybod

y. Thus the West Report from Australia, echoing a key theme of the immediately preceding Dearing Report

in the UK1. (National Committee f Inquiry into Higher Education [NCIHE],1997).

The notion of lifelong learning has pervaded higher education around the world as governments have increa

singly come to recognize a link between their education systems and national economic performance. Howe

ver, policy relating to the actual making of the link needs deeper consideration. The development of “key sk

ills” has been seen in the UK as an important way in which higher education can contribute to economic d

evelopment, but it can be argued that to focus on these skills represents a narrow and insufficient response

to what employers —— and the wider interest —— really need (see Stephenson‟s [1998] argument for a

“capability” approach to higher education and, more broadly, the discussion in part 2 of Barnett [1994]. How

ever the contested nature of this aspect of higher education might be resolved, current discussions have left

relatively unexplored the broader implications for curricula2 and, in particular, for fist-cycle provision.

In earlier times many took the view that a first degree3 was a sufficient basis for lifetime career. The accel

erating pace of knowledge development has undermined this conception, and increasing attention is now bei

ng given to the provision of degree programs and other opportunities for professional development. This rais

es a serious question: what function does the first degree serve in the context of lifelong learning?

Logically, it makes no sense in today‟s world to try to pack first degree curricula with all the knowledge, un

derstanding and skills need for the rest of a lifetime. There simply is not the time available, and anyway cu

rriculum-packing runs the risk of superficiality of learning4. A first degree should, if they have not already ac

quired it, development in students the ability to learn how to learn, as well as enhance their subject-specific

expertise and other relevant skills. Te old saying is valid here: giving individual each a fish might feed the

m for a day, but teaching them the skills of fishing could feed them for a life.

There is a need to think of the first degree in terms of the quality, rather than the quantity, of students‟ lea

rning. In today‟s world the first degree becomes more of a foundation qualification, upon which graduates wi

ll expect to build during their lives. Some might react by saying that to make such a shift implies a dilution

of academic standards —— but the counter is that standards relate primarily to the quality and not the qu

antity, of students‟ learning5. The reconstructed first degree need be no intellectual poor relation: academic r

igor can be built into curricula of widely differing focus. The standards may well be different, but they do no

t have to be inferior.

Some reduction in the volume of discipline-specific content will require an adjustment of thought6 —— in pa

rticular, on the part of employers and professional bodies. The professional accreditation of some first degre

e programs is seen by some as an essential condition. However, there seems no necessary reason for this

to be the case —— and it might well be to professions‟ longer-term advantage if first degree curricula wer

e to pay particular attention to developing in graduates the ability to learn to learn7, leaving subsequent pro

fessional and developmental activities to provide the “topping-up” that would cohere with the professional bo

dies‟ expectations.

A strategic vision for higher education in the next millennium requires more than a muttering of the mantra

of lifelong learning. Making lifelong learning “work” demands a sustained commitment t fitting together the pi

eces of the multi-dimensional jigsaw whose components include educational purposes, values and practicaliti

es. Academics are among the people who ought to relish this jigsaw‟s challenge.

1 echoing a key them of the immediately preceding Dearing Report in the UK.

2 However the contested nature of this aspect of higher education might be resolved, current discussions h

ave left relatively unexplored the broader implications for curricula

3 first degree

4 curriculum-packing runs the risk of superficiality of learning

5 but the counter is that standards relate primarily to the quality and not the quantity, of students‟ learning

6 Some reduction in the volume of discipline-specific content will require an adjustment of thought

7 it might well be to professions‟ longer-term advantage if first degree curricula were to pay particular attenti

on to developing in graduates the ability to learn to learn.

II. Read the following passage and answer the following questions: (28 points)

When the Grand Old man of Victorian England, William Ewart Gladstone, was in his 85th year, he was ste

ering the second home-rule bill for Ireland through a recalcitrant parliament and going home to translate the

odes of Horace at night. When Ronald Reagan reached the tender age of 73, he was fighting his second

presidential election campaign. Alan Greenspan, the world‟s most successful central banker, is also 73. Politi

cs and economics are plainly jobs that the old can do well. They are not alone. The boardrooms of the wo

rld‟s big companies are full of non-executive sages, telling whippersnapper 40-somethings how to run their fi

rms.1

Why, then, are so few of the rich world‟s old folk in employment? They live longer and enjoy better health

than their parents did. Most jobs have become less physically demanding; most people in late middle age a

re well educated; most evidence suggests that training older workers, if done sensibly, is no harder than tra

ining the young. Bu the figures show an astonishing and long-drawn-out retreat from the job market. As rec

ently as 1960, men could expect to spend 50 of their 68 years of life in paid work. Today, they are likely t

o work for only 38 of their 76 years. Fewer than two-thirds of men in their late 50s and early 60s ate in th

e rich world‟s labor force. Indeed, by the time they celebrate their 55th birthday, more than half of Europe‟s

men have gone home to translate Horace. 2

For most, that is something to celebrate. Never before have so many people been able to look forward to

so many years of healthy leisure. Two-thirds of people say that they like being retired and have no desire t

o go back to weww grandchildren to enjoy, foreign countries to visit, books to read and golf games to play.

The pleasures of old age are less expensive, and more widely available, than ever before. 3

The big question is whether all of this retirement is voluntary. It is worthy asking for its own sake; in a libe

ral society, the old, too, should be free to choose. But, in addition, the stampede to retire has consequence

s not merely for the old themselves. And it is often being encouraged by perverse public policy.

Widespread and early retirement will increasingly affect the lives of everyone else, for two reasons. The first

is a familiar one: as the share of old folk in the population rises, so will the burden on the young of payin

g or their pensions and health care. The second is less discussed: the rise of the grey-headed leisured cla

ss has consequences for economic growth because of its impact on the supply of labor and of capital.

Many governments, their eyes focused on the impact that future pensions claims will have on public finance

s, have embarked on reforms —— but not always reforms that give pensioners a freer choice. For their ey

es are also trained, in the shorter term, on high unemployment.4 Governments, especially in Western Europ

e, are pressing more people to retire early, on the mistaken view that this will provide jobs for the young, e

ven as they try to trim pensioners‟ entitlements in order to reduce the burden on public finances. This is un

forgivable from a liberal point of view. It is also foolish from the perspective of public policy.

The sheer size of the baby-boom generation that starts to teach retirement age over the coming decade me

4ans that there will be a simple, but huge imbalance: too few people in work, paying taxes and pension co

ntributions; too many in retirement, drawing on pensions and running up health costs. In that he main altern

atives will be to renege on the pensions that workers thought they had been promised, or to raise taxes. It

would be far better for the health of economies if more older people went on working instead. Quite small

rises in the ages at which people retire have large effects. 5 As long as older folk stay in the job market,

they pay taxes (helping one side of the fiscal balance) and draw either no pension, or a smaller one (help

ing the other).

Governments should recognize that people (like politicians) would prefer to decide for themselves when to r

etire. As present, the choice is, perversely, biased in favor of retirement. For example, in many countries, th

e opportunity cost of working beyond the minimum retirement age is high: workers must often leave the job

market in order to receive a state pension, and even where this is not the case, they rarely earn any extr

a pension for their additional taxes and contributions. If they claim disability benefit, as many in their late 5

0s and early 60s do, their pension rights are rarely affected. Such perverse incentives should be replaced

with neutrality.

Employers, often urged on by trade unions, also put obstacles of their own in the way of older workers. Pe

nsion schemes based on defined benefits make it disproportionately expensive to offer jobs to older people.

Pay schemes that reward long service more than merit and productivity make it disproportionately costly to

keep older workers on the payroll.6 And sheer discrimination, formally banned in the United States but flou

rishing in most countries, persuades many older folk to go home rather than risk probable rebuff.

Would such changes coax 60-year-olds off the golf course? In America, where jobs for older workers are pl

entiful and the government is scrapping the tax disincentives for older folk to work, early retirement has beg

un to fall. Gie people a choice, and they might surprise you.

l Whipper-snapper: an insignificant, esp. young, person who appears impertinent.

Answer the following questions.

1. The boardrooms of the world‟s big companies are full of non-executive sages, telling whippersnapper 40-

somethings how to run their firms. (1) What is the meaning of “boardroom” in this sentence? (2) Wh

at is meant by “non-executive sages”? (3) What is meant by “whipper-snapper 40 somethings”

2. By the time they celebrate their 55th birthday, more than half of Europe‟s men have gone home to transl

ate Horace. Do they really go home to translate poetry? What do they do?

3. The pleasures of old age are less expensive, and more widely available, than ever before.

Explain the idea of this sentence in your own words.

4. For their eyes are also trained, in the shorter term, on high unemployment.

What is the meaning of this sentence? Explain in your own words.

5. Quite small rises in the ages at which people retire have large effects.

Explain in your own words.

6. Pay schemes that reward long service more than merit and productivity make it disproportionately costly t

o keep older workers on the payroll. (1) Why is it very costly to keep older workers on the payroll?

(2) What is meant by “to keep…on the payroll”? 7. Does the author of this article advocate that workers

reaching retirement age should stay on their jobs? If so, why? If not, what does he advocate?

I. Translate the following Chinese passage into English (40 points)

从诞生的那天起，人类就开始一刻也不停地创造着他的文明。从埃及的金字塔到中国的万里长城，从达·芬奇名画中蒙

娜丽莎那微笑到梵高那色彩斑斓的向日葵，从撼人心魄的英雄交响曲到动人的天鹅湖，从《荷马史诗》到《红楼梦》，

无一不是前人留个后世的宝贵财产。 就中国人而言，对秦始皇兵马俑，我们有无限的赞叹，对于万里长城，我们

有无限的自豪。但对于我们的无形遗产、曾经塑造了我们民族精神的——儒家、道家文化，我们却知之甚少。传统中

的视个人道德为人生的最高价值所在，已在“现代生活”中成为笑谈。我们不仅在生活方式上盲目追求西方，不仅说着写

着已经欧化的句子，而且在文学、历史、哲学这些人文学科领域里，到处用着西方的理论、术语。我们这里并不是反

对西方的东西，西方的这些理论都是世界文化遗产的一份子，我们也应该加以保护和继承。但是，一个民族之所以成

其为一个民族，必须有其自身的东西。我们应该认真地研究和思考本民族的文化典籍，在继承与更新中把其中所铭刻

的文化脉络延续下去。

. 将下列短文译成英语（35％）

有一次，有拥护的车厢门口，我听见一位男乘客客客气气地问他前面的一个女乘客:“您下车吗？”女乘客没理他。“你下

车吗？”他又问了一遍，女乘客还是没理他。“下车吗？”他耐不住了，放大声问，那女乘客依然没有反映。“你是聋子，

还是哑巴？”他急了，捅了一下那女乘客，也引得车厢里的人都往这里看。女乘客这时也急了，瞪起一双眼睛回手给男

乘客一拳。

见此情景，我猛然想起在60路沿线上有家福利工厂，女乘客可能就是个聋哑人听不见声音。我赶忙向男乘客解释，又

用纸条写了一句话，举到女乘客眼前:“对不起！他要下车，他问了您好几声，您是不是没听见？”女乘客点了点头，把

道让开了。

从此以后，我就特别注意聋哑人的特征，还从他那里学会了一些常用的手语。比如，我可以用哑语问他们:“朋友，您好！”“您

到哪里下车？”“您请往里走！”

“谢谢”等等。这样，不仅我能更好地为他们服务，与他们进行感情交流，也减少了一些他们与其他乘客的误会和纠纷。

II.将下列单句译成英语（15％）

1.目前我们国内正在进行改革。我是主张改革的，不改革就没有出路，旧的那一套经过几十年的时间证明是不成功的。

2.中国反对霸权主义，自己也永远不称霸。

3.我们搞社会主义才几十年，还处在初级阶段。巩固和发展社会主义制度，还需要一个很长的历史阶段，需要我们几

代人、十几代人，甚至几十代人坚持不懈地努力奋斗。

III. 将下列短文译成汉语（35％）

India has always had ride: Now it has ambition. In the early years of independence Nehru‟s government rejoiced in

standing apart, the epitome of the “nonaligned” nation. As a conglomeration of peoples with seven major religions

and 18 official languages, India had its own rules —— a democracy in a continent ruled by despots, a planned

economy whose bureaucratic stewards were satisfied to creep along at a 3 or 4 percent “Hindu rate of growth.” Only

when the New Delhi elite squarely acknowledged that its hubris had put the nation on the sidelines of the global

economy —— while India‟s great rival China was getting rich —— did real reforms begin. Six years into India‟s

opening to the world, the economy is growing by nearly 7 percent a year —— a rate that by the year 2020 will

transform India into the world‟s fourth largest economy (after China, the United States and Japan). “There is a lot of

political cacophony,” says Finance Minister P. Chidambaram, who has served under two coalition governments in the

last 14 months. “But we are on course.” ……

The Indian mind-set is without question changing in revolutionary ways. Not so long ago, the nation of 950 million

people, growing by 18 million a year, worried mainly about feeding itself. But in today‟s newly competitive India,

bureaucrats and industrialists ponder the advantages of a lowcost labor pool that is growing younger while the work

force of the developed world is again. Perhaps India‟s greatest strength of the 21st century will lie in its ability to

employ hundreds of millions of people in labor-intensive industries ranging from food processing to textiles.

IV. 将下列单句译成汉语（15%）

1. Two thirds of Pakistan‟s 130 million people are illiterate, as are half of India‟s 929 million. While this is a big

improvement compared with the less than 15% literacy rate when India became independent, it is well behind most

of Asia.

2. Both India and Pakistan spend less as a percentage of GDP on health than do most other developing countries.

3. Rarely has the United States been at loss for words or actions when an international situation affects its interests.

But Washington‟s muted response to the currency crisis sweeping Southeast Asia is sowing suspicion among its

allies in the region and fuelling anti-American sentiment.

Part One

Read the following and be prepared to answer questions: Hewlett-Packard Co. is a primary engine of

the Information Age economy. In 1997, it sold $43 billion worth of desktop computers, printers and other p

roducts on the global market, and the company reached a value of almost $70 billion on Wall Street. That

year, Hewlett-Packard paid $25 million in compensation to its chairman, president and chief executive officer,

Lewis H. Platt, and his three deputies. Hewlett-Packard also compensates the men and the women who cl

ean the offices of Platt, his deputies and every-one else. The company does not actually hire janitors; rathe

r, it hires companies that hire janitors. Every year, Hewlett-Packard contracts with a variety of temporary-em

ployment agencies for the services of hundreds of broom-pushers and mop-wielders. These temporary emplo

yees are paid between $6.20 and 9.93 per hour, or roughly $15,000 a year.

The disparity illustrates the slightly dirty little secret of the world‟s most dazzling industry. As the Informatio

n Age economy booms, the gap between the nation‟s poorest and richest workers is widening-and this gap

is occurring not in spite of the Information Age, but in part because of it.

A survey of economists by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York attributed a stunning 45 per cent of th

e widening wage gap nationwide to technology, with the remainder split between the erosion of the minimu

m wage (10 per cent), international trade (12 per cent), the decline in unionization (10 per cent), immigratio

n (8 per cent) and other (15 per cent).

Adjusted for inflation, the incomes of the poorest fifth of working families dropped by 21 per cent between

1979 and 1995, while the incomes of the richest fifth jumped by 30 per cent during the same time period.

This gap has been growing in good times as well as bad , although indications are that it‟s been leveling

off in recent months. According to the 1997 Economic Report of the President, the wage gap “continued to

widen through the 1980s and into the early 1990s, regardless of economic conditions.”

That the new economy may depend upon, and even promote, the worst aspects of the old economy is a

growing worry. Technology‟s impact on wages has become a top concern of the White House‟s National Ec

onomic Council, said a White House official. “There is a potentially polarizing impact of technology, and with

out some special national efforts, people are right to be concerned about this issue.”

Even President Clinton has raised it. “History teaches us that even as new technologies create growth an

d new opportunities, they can heighten economic inequalities and sharpen social divisions.” Clinton declared

in a June 5 speech at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “We know from hard experience that une

qual education hardens into unequal prospects, [and] the Information Age will accelerate this trend.”

In Silicon Valley-the fountainhead of the Information Age economy-each of the top 100 executives receives

as much pay as 220 production workers combined. That‟s a sharp jump from 1991, when each of the top

100 executives was paid as much as 42 average workers. These figures come from a study titled “Growing

Together or Drifting Apart?” that was put together by two left-leaning groups, Working Partnerships USA, in

San Jose, and the Economic Policy Institute, in Washington. The study also reported that the poorest one-

quarter of the Valley‟s workers earned less than $9.11 per hour in 1996, a drop from $9.96 (adjusted for in

flation) earned in 1991.

Granted, statistics are slippery things. Overestimates of inflation in recent decades have obscured wage gr

owth for everyone, and workers earn enough now, in fewer working hours than in 1975, to buy better good

s —— cars with air-conditioning, computers with worldwide communications capabilities, disease-fighting drug

s, larger houses and overseas vacations. Depending on what is being measured and when, wag

e estimates can vary by 40 per cent, cautions Robert I. Lerman, an economist at the Urban Institute in Wa

shington. Lerman‟s studies show that the overall wage gap has remained static since the mid-1980s largely

because growth in wages paid to women and racial minorities has balanced out significant technology-driven

declines in wages paid to less-skilled men. But, he adds, the high-tech products “are a force for widening

gaps…Because they are part of the rising demand for skill.”

WHY TECHNOLOGY‟S CULPRIT

Edward R. Wolff, an economics professor at New York University, points to office computers as the largest

driver of inequality. Drawing on census data, he concludes that the wage gap grows by 10 per cent for eve

ry doubling of per-worker investment in office computers. For example, in an economy where the top 5 per

cent of workers won 20 per cent of all income, a doubling of computer investment would boost their share

by a tenth —— to 22 per cent of all income —— while shrinking all other workers‟ income to 78 per cent.

This occurs, he says, because office computers transfer work from some employees —— such as insurance

adjusters, telephone support workers and nurses —— to a smaller corps of high-tech experts who can des

ign software capable of mimicking those skills.

Although the recent rise in the stock market —— due in large part to phenomenal growth of high-tech stoc

ks —— will provide additional wealth for the 43 per cent of families who own stocks, it won‟t do much to r

educe income inequality, Wolff says. The market doesn‟t work that way: 83 per cent of all stock is owned b

the richest 10 per cent of families.

Other economists say the wage gap exists because the new technology creates greater rewards for the s

killed workers who can use it. Thus, technological advances widen inequalities not only between different gr

oups of workers, but within the ranks of those groups, says Philip Cook, professor of public policy at Duke

University (Durham, N.C.) and co-author of The Winner-Take-all Society. For example, Cook says, laptop co

mputers and cellular phones allow the best salespeople in a company to spend more time selling, thus snat

ching sales away from the almost-as-good salespeople.

Gary T. Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, argues that technology is only one element of

a reinvigorated marketplace, in which Wall Street, shareholders and customers pressure top managers to cut

costs and increase efficiency by whatever means possible, including greater use of technology or cheap ov

erseas labor. This pressure “helped remove underperforming managers, [and] the managers who remain are

not masters of their domain, but are slaves of the marketplace,” Burtless says.

Burtless‟ analysis matches evidence collected by Chris C. Benner, a research associate at Working Partners

hips and an author of the “Growing Apart” report. “What technology has done is break down the boundaries

between firms,” Benner argues, and “there is really nothing on the workers‟ side to help collective bargaini

ng across multiple firms.”

The janitors at Hewlett-Packard are one example of companies‟ ability to use technology —— to cut costs.

Generally, companies can use computer technology to carefully track their spending and operations and to

identify less-important ancillary work, such as janitorial services and parts production, or inefficient elements,

such as slow production workers.

Firms used to hire workers who would clean their factories and offices under direct supervision of in-hous

e managers. But this is not cost-effective. Now, more and more companies hire out much of their custodial

work to leaning contractors. The companies save money because the contractors usually pay their workers

much less than in-house janitors would be paid. And the contractors also assume the burden of supervising

the janitors‟ work —— supervision that the employing company can oversee through computer-aided report

s.

From the company‟s point of view, this all makes obvious sense. “a lot of technology companies really ha

ve been turning more and more to their core competencies, the things we do really well,” said Anne McGra

th, a spokeswoman for Hewlett-Packard.

As Hewlett-Packard sees it, there is nothing to be gained by investing in the long-term prospects of such

obviously unskilled workers as janitors. Instead, says McGrath, the company will “hire whatever we think is t

he best company to clean our buildings, based on their quality and the price and their track record.” The b

enefits of this approach go beyond cost saving. Right now, 150 janitors are striking the company that clean

s Hewlett-Packard‟s plant in Roseville, Calif. It‟s a potentially nasty little labor dispute, but it‟s not Hewlett-Pa

ckard‟s dispute. Says McGrath, “Our attitude is that this really isn‟t our issue.”

A DARWINIAN APPROACH

Silicon Valley companies are particularly reliant on “out-sourcing” because consumer demand for their prod

ucts changes very quickly. Any companies —— especially the new or small ones —— can‟t risk building th

eir own expensive manufacturing plants or retaining skilled workers, for fear that they will stand idle for long

periods. As Benner explains, that has created a class of on-demand manufacturers and workers who migra

te within the Valley from one product to another from one factory to another, as each technology season co

mes and goes, thus pushing down prices and wages.

It is difficult to measure precisely how much work the high-tech industry has contracted out, says Benner.

But the amount is clearly large. Benner notes that the biggest high-tech companies in the Valley have one-

seventh as many employees as the Big Three automakers, even though their stock market values are comp

arable. The result, says Paul Saffo, a director at the California-based Institute for the Future, is “a [technolo

gy] revolution being pushed by and ever-smaller number of people.”

The same trends have spun off low-paid jobs nationwide, argues Michael E. McGrath (no relation), preside

nt of Local 7026 of the Communications Workers of America. McGrath is trying, with limited success, to org

anize the roughly 18,000 telemarketing workers in Tucson, salespeople who call customers nationwide over

cheap long-distance phone lines. Many large companies have cut their overhead by replacing their own tele

marketing staff with workers hired by telemarketing companies, including the 35 companies based in Tucson.

However, union organizer McGrath can‟t get much traction, partly because the market conditions bounce th

e workers from one job to the next, keeping their wages at under $7 an hour.

That raises a somewhat delicate political point. The high-tech industry likes to think of itself as progressive

and, as a whole, leans toward liberal and Democratic politics. So, how does it deal with the fact that it co

ntributes to labor inequalities? It doesn‟t, except to pass the buck to the market.

Explain the underlined parts in your own words, trying to bring out the implied meaning, if there is any: (4

0%) 1. The disparity illustrates ……dazzling industry 2. this gap is occurring …… b

ecause of it 3. This gap has been growing …… in recent months 4. That the new econo

my …… is a growing worry (What are the worst aspects? What is meant by old economy?)

5. there is a potentially …… about this issue 6. We know from hard experience …… 7.

Granted, statistics are slippery things 8. companies can use computers …… less important ancillar

y work 9. the benefits …… beyond cost saving 10. Silicon Valley companies are particularly

reliant on “out-sourcing”. What is meant by “out-sourcing”? Please explain.

II. Please answer the following questions: (20%)

1. According to the author, how does high technology widen the wage gap? 2. A. From the company‟s

point of view, this all makes obvious sense: “A lot f technology companies really have been turning more a

nd more to their core competencies, the thing, we do really well”……(Para.6 from bottom)(6%)

a. Why does the company think it makes sense? In what way it makes sense? b. Wh

at is meant by “turning more and more to their core competencies”? B. It doesn‟t, except to pass the

buck to the market place. (last sentence of the piece.)(4%) Why doesn‟t it deal with this fact?

How can it avoid dealing with it?

Part Two

Translate the following passage into English: (40%)

老爸的声音 起风的周末，外出采访完独自回校，满身疲惫。在街头电话亭，我拨通那个熟悉的号码，

响了很久，才传来一低哑的声音，是老爸。他很快惊喜起来:“北京冷布冷，这段日子过得怎么样......” 我握着听筒，

不知该说些什么，只是想听听他的声音。

两年前的这个时候，年过半百的老爸主动申请去南方工作，和约三年。虽然那里没有鱼钓，没有充足的午休，找不到

家的感觉，但是为了念大学的我和妹妹，为了我们那些日益昂贵的学费和生活费，他很坚决地去了。于是，电话成了

维系我们和老爸的桥梁。记忆中他从未问过我毕业后的志向，只是认真地看着我带回家的一篇篇发表的文章、一张张

获奖的证书。只有一次，他喝很多酒，家里停电。在烛光下，他突然对埋头写稿的我说:“理想固然好，但如果你没有谋

生的一技之长，怎么在社会上立足？”这句话让我整整思索了一个晚上。

大学快毕业时，我告诉南方的老爸，我想离开家继续读书。他说:“只要你考上，我就供。”当我给他念录取通知书时，

电话那头的声音很坚定，“明天，我就把学费给你寄去。” 于是，我带着理想坐进了北京的另一所课堂。父亲在经济最

发达的南方，却没有告诉我赚钱和理想哪个更重要，更没有说记者的种种艰辛。只在22年来第一次写给我的信种说:“你

要好好写文章，勿急于发表，多问多想，写出有分量的东西来，需要什么书，只管买，这点钱我还能供得起。一个人

在外多注意身体，饭要吃好。”信里还附了他从报刊上剪下的人生哲言。我哭了，久久地。我第一次如此近地听到他心

灵深处的声音，一直以来被我忽略了的声音。

我站在北京，父亲的声音来自遥远的南方，他在我耳边久久回荡。

1.将下列短文译成英语（35％）

今年6月克林顿访华带了一支庞大的新闻队伍，使美国的民众第一次有了一个比较客观地了解中国发展变化情况的机

会，用新华社的话来说，克林顿访华的报道，才“使„新中国‟的形象首次深入到美国的千家万户”。至于美国的政治家和

新闻媒体则对所接触到的中国情况大感“意外”。以上的例子说明，西方世界对中国的认识与中国的实际情况相差有多远。

究其原因，主要是西方有些人习惯于用政治化，意识形态化的眼光看待人权问题，习惯把一种社会制度看成是人权的

化身，而把其他社会制度和发展模式看成是侵犯人权的不表现，因此，总是把共产党领导的中国想象成一个反人权的

国家。这种思维方式，使他们无法正确认识中国人权的真是情况，看不到中国的积极变化和发展，甚至把中国促进人

权的努力都误认为是侵犯人权的表现。和平，发展与人权是世界各国的共同要求，更是一个多世纪以来中国人民矢志

不渝的奋斗目标。中国当前正致力于建设富强民主文明的国家，这是一项使五分之一人类彻底摆脱贫困，充分实现人

权的跨世纪的伟大事业，也是世界和平发展和人权事业的重要组成部分。开放的中国需要吸收人类一切优秀文化成果

和有益经验，也需要得到各国的最大理解和支持。

II. 将下列单句译成英语（15％）

1. 国家对经济的管理，已经由指令性计划为主的直接控制，转变为主要运用经济和法律手段的间接调控。

2. 1995年的经济体制改革，使重点推进国有企业改革，并配套进行社会保障制度改革，进一步转变政府职能，培育

市场体系。

3. 不顾本国的实际照搬其它国家的具体模式，或以自己的模式为尺度衡量和评判其它国家，都不是一种求实和相互尊

重的态度，不利于国家之间的相互借鉴和共同发展。

III. 将系列短文译成汉语（35%）

I like to think that my own relationship with President Reagan and the efforts I made to try to establish co

mmon ground between the United States and the Europeans helped to prevent disagreements over the pipe

line and other trading issues from poisoning western co-operation at this critical juncture. Certainly, the sum

mer of 1982 saw some useful international diplomacy. Between 4 and 6 June the heads of government of t

he G7 countries met amid the splendid opulence of Versailles. …

President Mitterrand, who chaired the summit, had prepared a paper on the impact of new technology on e

mployment. It quite often happened that the country in the chair at summit meetings felt that they must intr

oduce some new initiatives even at the cost of extra government intervention and increased bureaucracy. T

his was no exception. For my part, I had no doubt about the attitude to take to technological innovation: it

must be welcomed not resisted. There might be “new” technology but technological progress itself was nothi

ng new, and over the years it had not destroyed jobs but created them. Our task was not to make grand p

lans for technological innovation but rather to see how public opinion could be influenced in order to embra

ce not recoil from it. Fortunately, therefore, President Mitterrand‟s paper was kicked into touch in the form o

f a working group.

……But my most vivid recollection of the proceedings at Versailles is of the impression made by President

Reagan. At one point he spoke for twenty minutes or so without notes, outlining his economic vision. His q

uite but powerful words provided those who did not yet know him with some insight into the qualities which

made him such a remarkable political leader. After he had finished, President Mitterrand acknowledged that

no one would criticize President Reagan for being true to his beliefs. Given President Mitterrand‟s socialist

policies, that was almost a compliment.

IV. 将下列单句译成英语（15％）

1. No serious student of history can doubt that the emergence of China as a world power presents a serio

us challenge to American foreign policy.

2. Officials in many signatory states had disputed the complicated provisions of the treaty; some national le

gislatures —— notably the US Senate —— refused to ratify the treaty on the ground that it was too kind t

o developing countries by not requiring their compliance. Moreover, critics said that by not sufficiently emph

asizing deadlines for implementation, the Kyoto treaty let even the rich nations off the hook.

3. Success against inflation was the single achievement to which we drew most attention as we approached

the election, not least because Labor looked set to promise huge increases in spending and borrowing whi

ch could never be honestly financed and which would have sent prices soaring again.

I. Reading Comprehension. (32 points)

1. Read the following article and paraphrase the underlined parts:

The twenty-first century will mark the era of tertiary and lifelong learning for everybody－or almost everybod

y. Thus the West Report from Australia, echoing a key theme of the immediately preceding Dearing Report

in the UK1. (National Committee f Inquiry into Higher Education [NCIHE],1997).

The notion of lifelong learning has pervaded higher education around the world as governments have increa

singly come to recognize a link between their education systems and national economic performance. Howe

ver, policy relating to the actual making of the link needs deeper consideration. The development of “key sk

ills” has been seen in the UK as an important way in which higher education can contribute to economic d

evelopment, but it can be argued that to focus on these skills represents a narrow and insufficient response

to what employers —— and the wider interest —— really need (see Stephenson‟s [1998] argument for a

“capability” approach to higher education and, more broadly, the discussion in part 2 of Barnett [1994]. How

ever the contested nature of this aspect of higher education might be resolved, current discussions have left

relatively unexplored the broader implications for curricula2 and, in particular, for fist-cycle provision.

In earlier times many took the view that a first degree3 was a sufficient basis for lifetime career. The accel

erating pace of knowledge development has undermined this conception, and increasing attention is now bei

ng given to the provision of degree programs and other opportunities for professional development. This rais

es a serious question: what function does the first degree serve in the context of lifelong learning?

Logically, it makes no sense in today‟s world to try to pack first degree curricula with all the knowledge, un

derstanding and skills need for the rest of a lifetime. There simply is not the time available, and anyway cu

rriculum-packing runs the risk of superficiality of learning4. A first degree should, if they have not already ac

quired it, development in students the ability to learn how to learn, as well as enhance their subject-specific

expertise and other relevant skills. Te old saying is valid here: giving individual each a fish might feed the

m for a day, but teaching them the skills of fishing could feed them for a life.

There is a need to think of the first degree in terms of the quality, rather than the quantity, of students‟ lea

rning. In today‟s world the first degree becomes more of a foundation qualification, upon which graduates wi

ll expect to build during their lives. Some might react by saying that to make such a shift implies a dilution

of academic standards —— but the counter is that standards relate primarily to the quality and not the qu

antity, of students‟ learning5. The reconstructed first degree need be no intellectual poor relation: academic r

igor can be built into curricula of widely differing focus. The standards may well be different, but they do no

t have to be inferior.

Some reduction in the volume of discipline-specific content will require an adjustment of thought6 —— in pa

rticular, on the part of employers and professional bodies. The professional accreditation of some first degre

e programs is seen by some as an essential condition. However, there seems no necessary reason for this

to be the case —— and it might well be to professions‟ longer-term advantage if first degree curricula wer

e to pay particular attention to developing in graduates the ability to learn to learn7, leaving subsequent pro

fessional and developmental activities to provide the “topping-up” that would cohere with the professional bo

dies‟ expectations.

A strategic vision for higher education in the next millennium requires more than a muttering of the mantra

of lifelong learning. Making lifelong learning “work” demands a sustained commitment t fitting together the pi

eces of the multi-dimensional jigsaw whose components include educational purposes, values and practicaliti

es. Academics are among the people who ought to relish this jigsaw‟s challenge.

1 echoing a key them of the immediately preceding Dearing Report in the UK.

2 However the contested nature of this aspect of higher education might be resolved, current discussions h

ave left relatively unexplored the broader implications for curricula

3 first degree

4 curriculum-packing runs the risk of superficiality of learning

5 but the counter is that standards relate primarily to the quality and not the quantity, of students‟ learning

6 Some reduction in the volume of discipline-specific content will require an adjustment of thought

7 it might well be to professions‟ longer-term advantage if first degree curricula were to pay particular attenti

on to developing in graduates the ability to learn to learn.

II. Read the following passage and answer the following questions: (28 points)

When the Grand Old man of Victorian England, William Ewart Gladstone, was in his 85th year, he was ste

ering the second home-rule bill for Ireland through a recalcitrant parliament and going home to translate the

odes of Horace at night. When Ronald Reagan reached the tender age of 73, he was fighting his second

presidential election campaign. Alan Greenspan, the world‟s most successful central banker, is also 73. Politi

cs and economics are plainly jobs that the old can do well. They are not alone. The boardrooms of the wo

rld‟s big companies are full of non-executive sages, telling whippersnapper 40-somethings how to run their fi

rms.1

Why, then, are so few of the rich world‟s old folk in employment? They live longer and enjoy better health

than their parents did. Most jobs have become less physically demanding; most people in late middle age a

re well educated; most evidence suggests that training older workers, if done sensibly, is no harder than tra

ining the young. Bu the figures show an astonishing and long-drawn-out retreat from the job market. As rec

ently as 1960, men could expect to spend 50 of their 68 years of life in paid work. Today, they are likely t