北京大学外国语学院661专业能力历年考研真题汇编（含答案）

下载地址:http://free.100xuexi.com/Ebook/90176.html
目录                                                                                        封面
内容简介
目录
2012年北京大学外国语学院661专业能力考研真题（含答案）
2007年北京大学外国语学院661专业能力考研真题（含答案）
2004年北京大学外国语学院661专业能力考研真题（含答案）
                                                                                                                                                                                                    内容简介                                                                                            
　　考研真题是每个考生复习备考必不可少的资料，而拥有一份权威、正确的参考答案尤为重要，通过研究历年真题能洞悉考试出题难度和题型，了解常考章节与重要考点，能有效指明复习方向。
　　《北京大学外国语学院661专业能力历年考研真题汇编（含答案）》完整收录了2004、2007及2012年的3套考研真题（含答案）。历年真题是很有价值的复习备考资料，通过研习考研真题，可以了解本考试科目的出题风格、难度及命题点。
　　为保证产品质量，圣才考研网每年均根据当年最新考试要求等对本书进行改版升级，我们一旦对该产品的内容有所修订、完善（如一旦获得最新版考研真题，将予以更新上传），系统将提醒学员下载升级，获得最新版本的产品内容。真正做到一次购买，终身使用。
　　圣才考研网（www.100exam.com）提供全国各高校英语类专业考研考博辅导班【一对一辅导（面授/网授）、网授精讲班等】、3D电子书、3D题库（免费下载，免费升级）、全套资料（历年真题及答案、笔记讲义等）、英语类国内外经典教材名师讲堂、考研教辅图书等。本书特别适用于参加上海对外经贸大学商务外语学院“661专业能力”考试科目的考生。
　　与传统图书相比，本书具有以下七大特色：
1．互动学习：摇一摇，找学友，交友学习两不误　　摇一摇，找到学习本书的所有学友，可精确查找学友的具体位置；与学友互动，交流学习（视频、语音等形式），交友学习两不误；学习圈内有学霸解答本书学习中的问题，并配有专职教师指导答疑解惑。

2．720度立体旋转：好用好玩的全新学习体验　　圣才电子书带给你超逼真的3D学习体验，720度立体场景，任意角度旋转，模拟纸质书真实翻页效果，让你学起来爱不释手！

3．手机扫码即可阅读，精彩内容，轻松分享　　圣才电子书扫码即可在手机阅读，随处随学。可以不用客户端不用账号，简单方便！
4．质量保证：每本电子书都经过图书编辑队伍多次反复修改，年年升级　　我们拥有一支强大图书编辑团队，他们专门从事图书的编辑工作，对各类职称考试、考研考博等教材教辅深入研究，以及各类职称考试、考研考博的历年真题进行详尽仔细研究与分析，掌握考试命题的规律和方向，并结合行业最新前沿动态，不断分析整理各个科目的考试要点，把重要考点全部固化为试题形式，形成精准领先及时的备考电子书。同时，依托北京高校资源，我们聘请知名高校众多专家组成顾问团队严格审核圣才电子书，确保质量。
5．免费升级：更新并完善内容，终身免费升级　　如购买本书，可终生使用。免费自动升级指我们一旦对该产品的内容有所修订、完善，系统立即自动提示您免费在线升级您的产品，您将自动获得最新版本的产品内容。真正做到了一次购买，终身使用。当您的电子书出现升级提示时，请选择立即升级。
6．功能强大：记录笔记、答案遮挡等十大功能　　本书具有“知识点串联列举”“划线添加笔记”、“答案自动遮挡”、“全文检索”等功能。
　　（1）知识点串联列举——相同知识点内容列表呈现，便于读者记忆和复习，举一反三，触类旁通。【为考试教辅量身定做】

　　（2）划线添加笔记——使用颜色笔工具，划一条线，写笔记，提交纠错。【圣才电子书独家推出】

　　（3）全文检索——输入关键词，本书相关内容一览无余。【圣才电子书独家推出】

7．多端并用：电脑手机平板等多平台同步使用　　本书一次购买，多端并用，可以在PC端（在线和下载）、手机（安卓和苹果）、平板（安卓和苹果）等多平台同步使用。同一本书，使用不同终端登录，可实现云同步，即更换不同设备所看的电子书页码是一样的。

　　特别说明：本书的部分内容参考了部分网络资料及相关资料。但由于特殊的原因，比如作者姓名或出处在转载之前已经丢失，或者未能及时与作者取得联系等，因而可能没有注明作者的姓名或出处。如果原作者或出版人对本书有任何异议，请与我们联系，我们会在第一时间为您处理！
　　圣才学习网（www.100xuexi.com）是一家为全国各类考试和专业课学习提供辅导方案【保过班、网授班、3D电子书、3D题库】的综合性学习型视频学习网站，拥有近100种考试（含418个考试科目）、194种经典教材（含英语、经济、管理、证券、金融等共16大类），合计近万小时的面授班、网授班课程。
　　如您在购买、使用中有任何疑问，请及时联系我们，我们将竭诚为您服务！
　　全国热线：400-900-8858（8:30-00:30）
　　咨询QQ：4009008858(8:30-00:30)

　　详情访问：http://www.100exam.com/（圣才考研网）
圣才学习网编辑部
                                                                                                                                    本书更多内容>>
                                                                                                                                                                                                                    使用说明                                                                                                   
                                                                                    

内容预览
2012年北京大学外国语学院661专业能力考研真题（含答案）
考试科目：专业能力
招生专业：英语语言文学
研究方向：英语语言文学
说明：答题一律写在答题纸上(含填空题、选择题等客观题)，写在此页上无效
I. Translate thefollowing passage into Chinese. (50)
The restatement of Hegel’s main principle as to the tragic conflictwould involve a similar restatement as to the catastrophe (for we need notconsider here those “tragedies” which end with a solution).As before, we mustavoid any reference to ethical or universal ends, or to the work of “justice”in the catastrophe. We might then simply say that, as the tragic actionportrays a self-division or a conflict of spirit, so the catastrophe displaysthe violent annulling of this division or conflict. But this statement, whichmight be pretty generally accepted, would represent only half of Hegel’s idea,and perhaps nothing of what is most characteristic and valuable in it. For thecatastrophe has two aspects, a negative and an affirmative, and we have ignoredthe latter. On the one hand it is the act of a power immeasurably superior tothat of the conflicting agents, a power which is irresistible and inescapable,and which overbears and negates whatever is incompatible with it. So far, itmay be called, in relation to the conflicting agents, necessity or fate; and unlessa catastrophe affects us in ways corresponding with this aspect it is not trulytragic. But then if this were all and this necessity were merely infinite,characterless, external, force, the catastrophe would not only terrify (as itshould), it would also horrify, depress, or at best provoke indignation orrebellion; and these are not tragic feelings. The catastrophe, then, must havea second and affirmative aspect, which is the source of our feelings ofreconciliation, whatever form they may assume. Hence in a tragedy, the hero,for all his affinity with that power, is still the living man we see before us.Since the hero must die, his union with “eternal justice” (which is more than“justice”) must itself be “eternal” or ideal. This is no occasion to ask how inparticular, and in what various ways in various works, we feel the effect ofthis affirmative aspect in the catastrophe. But it corresponds at least withthat strange double impression which is produced by the hero’s death. He dies,and our hearts die with him; and yet his death matters nothing to us, or weeven exult. He is dead; and he has no more to do with death than the powerwhich killed him and with which he is now one.
Ⅱ. Translate thefollowing passage into English (40)
法国革命也是一种惊天动地的运动。论理，其时应有伟大创作出世，与希腊伯里克理斯时代和文艺复兴时代先后媲美，然而法国革命时代的文学珠使人失望，这是什么原故呢？为答复这个问题，马修·阿诺德提出一条很重要的学说。凡是一种主义须久经传播，成为思潮，深入人心以后，才能风诸实行。假如这种主义才初露头角，只有少数学者主张，而多数人民则未彻底了解，在这个时机未熟的时候，就想把它拿来实地试验，其结果往往使闻者惊骇而生反动，不惟实行受阻碍，而主义本身也失其易于传播的可能。阿诺德以为法国革命失败，就由于操之过急。他并非反对法国革命，他只是嫌它发生太早。人权民约各种学说在当时还没有成为思潮，很少人有能彻底了解。人是一种贱动物，遇着不懂得的东西，总是怀着恶意仇视。所以当时欧洲各国都把法国革命看成大逆不道，群起而攻之，是以至于失败。阿诺德以为在历史历程中，生发（expansion）期与凝集（concentration）期常相代谢。生发期是新思潮膨胀期，凝集期是思潮停蓄期。伟大创作生，都在生发期。
Ⅲ. Reading Comprehensionand Composition (60)
Criticism as Evaluation
In many contexts, for many years, I have called for a return tocriticism in the original sense of judging, to criticism as evaluation. Bothmain trends in the History of criticism, revived and redefined in this century,poetics and interpretation, have given up the problem of judgment of ranking,of the decision about art and non-art. The would-be scientists, thestatisticians and the devotees of text grammar and even, in theory, most of theFrench structuralist critics assembled around the magazine Poetique cannot makeany value distinctions; they think that making them would violate their idealof scientific objectivity. Since they are interested in devices andregularities, they plead that these can be observed even in trash orsub-literature, Kitsch and colportage. Northrop Frye, a critic quite apart fromthis scientific trend of linguistic poetics, argues in the “PolemicalIntroduction” to his Anatomy of Criticism that “the study of literature cannever be founded on value judgments.” He conceives of literature as a system offictions in which there is no qualitative difference between a fairy tale and acomedy of Shakespeare. (1)Evaluation is relegated to the history of tastewhich, like the stock exchange, registers only whimsical fluctuations.What Frye calls “criticism” is a system, an all-embracing timeless scheme inwhich any and all productions, good and bad, significant and trivial, have tofind their place. The new interpreters, particularly the so-called Geneva school, have tocome to a similar conclusion as they ask for complete identification with aconsciousness behind the work, for an exchange of egos, for an “adhesion sototal that it precludes all judgment.”
Many literary historians recognize that evaluation is inevitable butargue that evaluation is a historical process resulting in the (2) “verdictof the ages,” the formulation of a “canon” which can be studied like anyother historical phenomenon …No doubt, we can describe, say, the fluctuationsof the fame of Dante, who, for a time in the eighteenth century, was dismissedby Horace Walpole, for example, as “extravagant, absurd, disgusting, in short aMethodist Parson in Bedlam.” Even Shakespeare’s fame was not always secure： in spite of the high praise of BenJonson and later of Dryden, Thomas Rymer could ridicule Othello as a “(3)farce without salt flavor” and Voltaire could call Shakespeare a “villageclown”, a “drunken savage,” though he admitted that he had found “some pearlsin his enormous dunghill.”
The view is widespread that we simply have to study the criticalsituation of bygone ages and have to recognize that there are so many diversetypes and styles of literature that no rational choice among them is evenpossible. Every Time had its own poetry and criticism justified in its place,Poetry cannot go wrong nor apparently even criticism, which is only areflection or justification of contemporary taste. It has, for example, beenargued that there are profound “shifts in sensibility” in history and thatthere is thus a “total discontinuity” in the history of poetry. We have a tasteeither for Alexander Pope or for William Wordsworth. This view would split thehistory of literature into a multitude of different periods and areas ofsensibility if we push the idea to its logical conclusion and apply it on aninternational scale and in the whole extent of historical time. We end withcomplete relativism, with the “whirligig of taste,” (4) the tyranny of flux.
Some erudite scholars have been content with this (5) resignedsolution They want the critic to see himself historically, in his ownlimited space and time……[1]t leads to universal skepticism, to theoreticalparalysis. The case of knowledge and even history knowledge is not thatdesperate. (6)The Genesis of a theory does not necessarily invalidate itstruth, Men can correct their biases, criticize their presuppositions, riseabove their temporal and local limitations. I agree that value, aestheticor otherwise, is “present onlyin a certain psychological perspective but it is still present in the thingsfor those endowed with the capacity and training through which alone it can beperceived.” Judgment refers to an objective character which is open toinspection. There are, in a work of literatures, meanings which I would callobligatory, while other meanings may be only potential or even purelyfacultative, the additions and associations of the recipient. Most of thedisagreements among evaluations are due to the fact that a literary work of artis an assembly of values which are not purely aesthetic. A work belongs toliterature, at least in the tense of imaginative literature, of belles letters,Because the aesthetic value is dominant. But this does not preclude thepresence of other values for which it has been appreciated and praised. Theymay be moral, political, religions, national, and of course intellectualvalues. Thus often differences of opinion are not due much to differentresponses as simply to the selection of different values in the work.
I have called this view“perspectivism” …which must not be confused with relativism. I recognize theimpossibility of upholding a right absolutism in view of the historical changesof taste and styles, but I also reject relativism which has been considered thenecessary consequence of these changes, “Perspectivism is suggested by theanalogy of our seeing, say, a house, very differently from different angleswhile we still admit that there is a house out there of definite dimensions,layout, material, colors, and so on, which can be ascertained accurately andobjectively.
……
…[1 wish to argue for] theobjective character of this construct and the conviction that ideally andpotentially interpretations can be correct. If all interpretations or readingswere equal we could not differentiate among them. But it is surely theexperience of every teacher that he can and must reject wrong interpretationsand that be even can, in concrete cases, refute a wrong interpretation by anappeal to the text or an appeal to the totality of a work while the perverseinterpreter may have fastened on some detail or distorted the meaning or aphrase. The concept of adequacy of interpretation leads clearly to the conceptof correctness of judgment. Evaluation grows out of understanding; correct evaluation out of correct understanding. I have argued thisso many times that I am ashamed of repeating myself. Logic, ethics, and, Ibelieve, even aesthetics cry out against complete relativism. It would lead toa dehumanization of the arts and a paralysis of criticism.
1. Paraphrasedthe underlined sentence. (5)
2. Explainthe underlined phrase. (3)
3. Paraphrasethe underlined part. (3)
4. Whatdoes “the tyranny of flux” refer to? (4)
5. Explainthe meaning of “resigned solution”. (4)
6. Paraphrasethe underlined sentence. (5)
7. Please write a critical response (around 300-400words) to this essay, you can either argue for or against the author’sargument, but please make sure to explain his idea of “perspectivism” beforepresenting your own assessment. (36)
参考答案：
I. Translate thefollowing passage into Chinese. (50)
重述黑格尔悲剧冲突的主要原则，可能类似于关于灾难的重述（因为在这里，我们不需要考虑那些最后给出解决方法的“悲剧”。）像之前一样，我们必须避免提及任何伦理上的或者普遍意义上的结局，或者“正义”在灾难中的作用。因此，我们可能仅仅说：就像悲剧描述了自我分裂和精神冲突，灾难展现了这种分裂或冲突暴力性的消除。这一阐述被普遍接受，但其实它仅仅代表了黑格尔思想的一半，并且最有价值最有特色的地方并不包含在这一半中。因为灾难有消极的和积极的两个方面，而我们忽视了后者。一方面，它的力量无法抗拒，让人无法遁形，压倒并否定了一切与之不符的事物。这种力量的作用高于冲突机制的作用，并且无法估量。到目前为止，这一力量可以叫做关于冲突机制的自然规律或者命运，而不能与之相应地影响我们的灾难就不能叫做真正的悲剧。但是，假设这就是所有，这种自然规律仅仅是无限的、并无特色的外部压力，那么灾难就会带来威胁（这也是必须的），恐吓和压抑，或者最多引起愤怒或者反抗，但是这些都不是悲剧情感。因此，灾难必须有第二方面，也是积极的方面，无论以何种方式表现，它是我们能够感觉到和解的来源。所以，在悲剧中，尽管主人公与这种力量紧密相连，仍然是我们看到的有生命的人。既然主人公必须死去，那么他与“永恒正义”（高于“正义”）的结合，本身也是“永恒的”，理想化的。没有必要问，我们是具体怎样，用哪些方式在哪些作品中感觉到灾难中这种积极方面的影响。但是，最起码地，它与主人公死后产生的奇特的双重印象相一致。主人公死了，我们的心和他一起死亡；然而他的死亡对我们又无关紧要，我们甚至为此而狂喜。他死了，他的死亡不过是为了这种力量，这种力量杀死了他，他因为这种力量重新成为一个整体。
Ⅱ. Translate thefollowing passage into English (40)
French Revolution belongs to one of the earth-shaking movements.Theoretically, thus, it were to produce great works comparable to those in thePerikles Times and the Renaissance Era. However, the literature in the times ofFrench Revolution really disappoints us. So what is the reason? In order tosolve the problem, Matthew Arnold propounded a very important theory： One kind of thought can beperformed popularly only after it has been long transmitted to become a kind ofideological trend and has been planted into the hearts of the public. If thethought just makes its first appearance, being supported by a minority ofscholars but not understood entirely by the majority of the public, it is notthe right time to put it into practice. Otherwise, the experiment would beterrifying and the public might become rebelling. At last, the implementationof the thought would not only be obstructed, but also lost the best time whenit had been easier to be transmitted. Matthew Arnold believes that the failureof the French Revolution lies in the fact that it was implemented too early. Heis to express his feeling about the early happening of the French Revolutionrather than to oppose it. At that time, few people can really understand thevarious theories like human rights and people’s convention and they had notbecome an ideological trend. Human beings are very strange and they wouldalways bear malignant feeling and hatred toward the things which they cannotunderstand. Therefore, the European countries at that time viewed the FrenchRevolution as a kind of heinous offence and rally together to attack it, whichleads to the failure of the Revolution. Arnoldthinks that the expansion period and concentration period take placealternatively in the history process. The expansion period is the spreadingtime of the new trend while the concentration period the time of suspense or stopping.Great works are usually created in the expansion period.
Ⅲ. Reading Comprehensionand Composition (60)
1. Evaluationis classified into the history of taste and the history is usually representedby typical events or thoughts at different period. Just like the stockexchange, it just displays the strange changes and fluctuations of the stock.
2. Becausedifferent age has its own standard or taste when evaluating literature, theevaluation just make the literature under the judgment of different times.
3. aridiculous and boring play
4. Literatureis governed by changes and instability since the evaluation of the literatureis determined by the age and the age is always changing.
5. Resignedsolution refers to the relativism, and they passively obey the judgment of theage and are willing to accept it as the solution.
6. A theoryneed not be started by denying the truth of the theory. Though human beings mayhave biases, they can correct them; they can criticize the assumption they madebefore; and also though they are limited by the temporal and local situations,they can try to surpass these limitations.
7. A literary work of art contains not only theaesthetic values, though the aesthetic values is dominant, but other valueslike the moral, political, religions, national and so on. Many differentopinions about the work are due to the selection of these different values, andwe can see and evaluate a literary work from different perspectives of values,which is perspectivism. Perspectivism is just like evaluating a house fromdifferent angles and aspects. Though it may produce different opinions aboutthe house, but the house is there and has its definite features like its size,color and so on. The literary work is also true and the evaluation of it shouldhave a relatively right standard, though not absolutely right because of thelimitation of history style and taste.
In the author’s opinion, perspecivism is what thescholars should be adopted, while complete relativism is what should bediscarded. Relativism also admits the limitation of history style and taste,but it denys a relatively right standard for the evaluation of the literaturebecause it considers the evaluation totally determined by the history style andtaste, which changes according to different historical period. I strongly agreewith what the author says.
Though human being is limited by the history, by hisexperiences and living conditions, but we cannot deny his potentials and goodinitiatives. The society is making progress and the history is running forward.We are trying our best to push things developing in a positive way. Though wecannot say that the current situation and society taste is definitely right andunquestionable, but we do try our best to better our evaluation system and wedo have some evidences to prove what we say about the literature. Theseevidences should not be denied even if the history style changes and theopinions based on these evidences should thus be embraced and hold right. Wecannot let the perfect be the enemy of the good and we need to take the risk ofadmitting these opinions, for the good is one step to the perfect, for theevaluations nowadays are the way to the future progress.

下载地址:http://free.100xuexi.com/Ebook/90176.html