当前位置: 主页 > 外语考试网 > CATTI > 口译科目辅导


  • 时间:2018-03-20 14:26
  • 作者:建筑小编
  • 点击:
  • 题库模考

Test for Interpreters of Level 1

Speeches for Consecutive InterpretingTranscripts for the Recorded Speeches

Part I

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

Passage 1


Whatever disadvantages Ban Ki-moon, thenew 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 orga nization (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, inevita bly, is a mixed one. Enjoying few powers of his own,the Secretary-General has influence only when strong states coopera te. 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 effortsin 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 de ployment of a powerful UN peacekeeping force. Darfur is a case study for his prin ciple 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 invest igation 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 he adquarters 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 concilia tory 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’srepresentative at the UN, may mean a friendlier start for Mr. Ban in2007. And that may, possibly, mean a greater chance of getting America’s help for protecting the weak in Darfur and elsewhere.

Passage 2


Ten years ago, food safety was not on many people’s mind in Europe. We allexpected 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 offood-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 ep idemiology 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 consumefood: 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





Passage 2








2018年catti笔译二级报名条件 | catti中级口译报名入口| catti报名费用





分享到: 更多