真题总目录 › 英语一 › 2019 英语一

2019 考研英语一 Section II Part C Translation

Part C Directions: Read the following text carefully and then translate the underlined segments into Chinese. Write your answers on the ANSWER SHEET. (10 points) It was only after I started to write a weekly column about the medical journals, and began to read scientific papers from beginning to end, that I realised just how bad much of the medical literature frequently was. I came to recognise various signs of a bad paper: the kind of paper that purports to show that people who eat more than one kilo of broccoli a week were 1.17 times more likely than those who eat less to suffer late in life from pernicious anaemia. (46) There is a great deal of this kind of nonsense in the medical journals which, when taken up by broadcasters and the lay press, generates both health scares and short-lived dietary enthusiasms. Why is so much bad science published? A recent paper, titled “The Natural Selection of Bad Science”, published on the Royal Society’s open science website, attempts to answer this intriguing and important question. It says that the problem is not merely that people do bad science, but that our current system of career advancement positively encourages it. What is important is not truth, but publication, which has become almost an end in itself. There has been a kind of inflationary process at work: (47) nowadays anyone applying for a research post has to have published twice the number of papers that would have been required for the same post only 10 years ago. Never mind the quality, then, count the number. (48) Attempts have been made to curb this tendency, for example, by trying to incorporate some measure of quality as well as quantity into the assessment of an applicant’s papers. This is the famed citation index, that is to say the number of times a paper has been quoted elsewhere in the scientific literature, the assumption being that an important paper will be cited more often than one of small account. (49) This would be reasonable if it were not for the fact that scientists can easily arrange to cite themselves in their future publications, or get associates to do so for them in return for similar favours. Boiling down an individual’s output to simple metrics, such as number of publications or journal impacts, entails considerable savings in time, energy and ambiguity. Unfortunately, the long-term costs of using simple quantitative metrics to assess researcher merit are likely to be quite great. (50) If we are serious about ensuring that our science is both meaningful and reproducible, we must ensure that our institutions encourage that kind of science.

Echo 参考译文、难点评析与错误点总结

说明：以下为 Echo 生成的非官方参考译文和学习解析，用于自测、批改和复盘；不等同于官方答案。

Echo 参考译文

46. 医学期刊上充斥着大量这种毫无意义的言论，而当它们被主播和业余媒体引用时，就会制造出对健康的恐慌和昙花一现般的饮食热情。
47. 相比于十年前申请研究职位的要求，如今，任何申请人申请同样职位所需发表论文的数量翻倍。
48. 人们已经在尽力遏制这种趋势，例如，试着在评估申请人论文的时候纳入某些质量数量并行的措施。
49. 事实是这样，科学家很容易就能做到在今后自己的论文里引用之前的科研成果，或者让同事引用自己论文，换取同样的好处，如果不是因为以上的事实引用指数是足够合理的。
50. 如果我们认真保证自己的科学成果既有意义又可以复制，那么我们必须保证科研机构鼓励这样的科学。

整体难点评析

本文主题可归为“考古发现与历史遗址”。英语一翻译通常为 5 个划线句，每句 2 分。复盘时应逐句拆主干、定修饰范围，再检查抽象名词和逻辑关系是否落到中文里。

• 结构难点：重点关注名词化结构、被动与非谓语、逻辑连接、修饰后置、长句主干识别。先找主句谓语，再处理从句、分词、介词短语和插入成分，避免在中文里把修饰关系接错。
• 词义难点：不要机械使用词典第一义，尤其是抽象名词、学术动词和评价性形容词。应根据上下文确定它们是在表示事实、趋势、原因、态度还是结果。
• 逻辑难点：翻译时要显化英语中的因果、转折、让步、递进和目的关系。中文可以调整语序，但不能丢掉逻辑方向。
• 表达难点：中文译文要准确优先，再追求通顺。可以适度增补主语或承接词，但不能加入原文没有的信息。

常见错误点总结

• 主干误判：把修饰成分当主句，或漏掉真正谓语，会导致整句方向错误。
• 修饰范围错误：定语从句、分词短语和介词短语常常后置，翻译时要判断它修饰哪个名词或动作。
• 抽象名词处理生硬：如 process、approach、engagement、movement、connection 等词，要根据上下文译成“过程、方式、参与、运动、联系”等合适表达。
• 逻辑词漏译或反译：but、despite、while、so、as、with 等小词常决定句子关系，是扣分高发点。
• 中文表达不成句：逐词硬贴会让译文读不通。建议译完后用中文默读一遍，检查主语、谓语、宾语和逻辑连接是否完整。