作者简介：张曦(sherry)，上海新东方口译研究中心成员，高级口译翻译明星教师。高级同声翻译。中高级口译考试笔试阅卷人兼口试主考官。上海交通大学英语硕士、博士。知识渊博，旁征博引，充满激情，深受广大学生欢迎。参与编著新东方《高级口译笔试备考精要》及《高级口译全真模拟试卷》。
中高级口译考试在上海已走过了十二年的历程。十二年中，考生人数逐年递增，从最初的数千人发展到今天的数万人；考试地区也逐年扩大，从上海辐射到周边的省市，甚至落根到遥远的南昌。随着口译考试受到越来越多的关注，口译学习日益蓬勃兴起，众多机构纷纷参与，上海新东方口译研究中心更是独领风骚，培养出许多热爱英语、精通翻译和口译的人才，推动了上海这个国际大都市的发展。
高级口译考试中，翻译是权重较大的部分。翻译既是一门科学，又是一门艺术。它的玄妙之处在于，它既受一些原则和技巧的约束，又体现出译者的综合语言能力，译者对于两种语言文字的颖悟力，天马行空的创造力。一篇好的译作，往往使人拍案叫绝、赞叹不已。
无论是翻译家严复提出的“信、达、雅”的翻译标准，鲁迅先生提出要“忠实、通顺、美”，傅雷先生提出要“神似”，钱钟书先生提出要“化境”，还是西方翻译家奈达提出的“动态对等”理论，有两条标准已经成为共识：忠实和通顺。翻译既要准确如实地传达原文的内容，再现原文的风格，又要使译文的语言通顺易懂，符合汉语表达规范。要做好翻译工作，前提是要熟练自如地运用两种语言，尤其是对两种语言的差异有深刻的认识，在翻译时适时地调整译文、弥补差异，达到良好的翻译效果。
一.前后贯通 整体把握
词语和结构的理解失误是英译汉中最大的问题。2005年的考题是美国前任总统克林顿的自传《我的生活》前言中的部分段落，其中提及克林顿年幼丧父，继父abusive，许多考生的译文中，克林顿的继父“有暴力倾向”、“施虐成性”，克林顿自小实在是生活在水深火热之中，受尽非人待遇。事实果真如此吗？非也。英语中一词多义的词语比比皆是，美军虐待伊拉克囚犯可以用the abuse of prisoners，滥用权力可以用the abuse of power，漫骂辱骂也可以用abusive，克林顿的继父也并非虐待狂，否则克林顿也不会和他相处甚好，甚至从他的姓。所以，词语的意义决定于上下文，上下文是理解的关键，脱离了上下文，词语就失却了其存在的意义。考生在翻译考试中，需要密切关注词语的语境，前后贯通，读懂读通，才能忠实地传达文章的涵义。
英语是形合的语言，结构在某种程度上决定了意义。英语中有一些特殊结构，比如倒装结构、分隔结构、比较结构、并列结构等，各有其特殊的语法规定，错误的把握结构极易造成翻译中的失误，翻译时要特别留意。历届考题中出现过多种特殊结构，许多考生由于理解失误而失分。
分隔结构的出现是由于过长的宾语被放置在句尾，远离了动词，只有宾语复归原位，译文才能不出偏差。如：
【高级口译全真题】but i confess our present educational system excites in my mind grave misgivings, which i cannot believe is the best or even reasonable, a system that thrusts upon reluctant and uncomprehending multitudes treasures which can only be appreciated by the privileged and gifted few.
【参考译文】但我得说目前的教育制度让我忧心忡忡，我认为这不是一种最佳的制度，甚至不是合理的制度。一些文学珍品只能为少数特权人物和天才人物所欣赏，我们的制度却把这些作品推向了大众，而这些人既不愿意读，又读不懂。
本句来自英国二战时的杰出首相丘吉尔，本句中他谈及了对于英国教育体制的忧虑，前半句的excites in my mind grave misgivings是excites grave misgivings in my mind变化出的分隔结构，后半句的treasures which can only be appreciated by the privileged and gifted few是thrust的宾语部分，正常语序的结构是thrusts treasures which can only be appreciated by the privileged and gifted few upon reluctant and uncomprehending multitudes，没有对于分隔结构的了解是无法解构丘吉尔错综复杂的长句的。
倒装结构也是英语的独特结构，虚拟语气中的倒装结构尤为常见，请看最新的考题：
【高级口译全真题】the task of writing a history of our nation from rome’s earliest days fills me, i confess, with some misgiving, and even were i confident in the value of my work, i should hesitate to say so.(2007/9)
【参考译文】我承认，撰写我们民族自罗马初期以来的历史，使我略怀惴惴之感，即使我对自己著作的价值颇有信心，我也不敢贸然以此自诩。
本句中were i confident in the value of my work是虚拟语气中的倒装结构，表示if i were confident in the value of my work之意，表达出自己对于编著史书的忐忑不安、诚惶诚恐，对于史书的价值不敢妄下断言。如果译文中没有添加出if的涵义，译文就偏离了忠实的标准。 同时，本句中的i confess属于插入成分，并非必要成分，插入成分不影响上下文的连接意义，所以fill me with misgivings是完整的意群，仅仅表达作者内心的惴惴不安，而无使他充实和繁忙之意，如果考生从fill me的角度单一地理解为“我很充实”，译文失去了准确和忠实，失分在所难免。
二.词类转换 灵活变通
英语和汉语有动静之分，英语静，名词应用灵活，表现力强；汉语动，动词应用灵活，构成汉语优势。林肯用简简单单三个介词of the people, by the people, for the people，说明了一个**政府的职能：“民有、民治、民享”，这三层涵义汉语没有动词是无法表达的。众多考生拥有较大的词汇量，熟悉英语不少的派生名词，那么，翻译中的适当转换将使译文语言自然通顺，才能符合“达”的翻译要求。如：
【高级口译全真题】the idealization of the family as a refuge from the world and the myth that the work of mothers is harmful has added considerable strain.
【参考译文】如果把家庭理想化为远离世界的避难所，或者错误地认为母亲工作对于家庭不利，就会使家庭承受更大的压力。
本句中的idealization是动词idealize的派生名词，我们在中文译文中将它转译为动词，还回本来面目。
再如2002年的考题提及比尔·盖茨观念的转变：
【高级口译全真题】he shares a growing realization, even in the multibillionaire set, that something is amiss with the ideology that has prevailed since the end of the cold war: global-capitalism-as-panacea.
【参考译文】冷战结束后盛行的观念是全球资本主义是解决一切问题的良方，而身为亿万富翁的盖茨也逐渐意识到这种想法有失偏颇。
本句中的realization又是以-tion结尾的派生名词，a growing realization我们应当还回它的动词真面目： “越来越意识到”。以上两句的派生名词表示心理状态，这类名词往往需要转译为动词，其他还有hope、anxiety、concern、wonder等等。 除此之外，表示动态变化的派生名词，比如增减、扩展等意义的名词都有必要使用转译技巧。
三.合理增添 明确语意
英美人求变求新，中国人求同求稳。汉语常常以重复为美，李清照的词句：寻寻觅觅、冷冷清清、凄凄惨惨切切，一咏三叹的清愁打动了无数人。英语则以简洁为美。英译汉的适当增词可以增强语言表达效果，尤其在演说词中，增添词语翻译，气势磅礴，排山倒海。
【高译全真题】our own, our country’s honor, calls upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion. (2000/3)
【参考译文】我们个人的尊严，我们祖国的荣誉，要求我们全力以赴、浴血奋战。
根据网友回忆，小编从网上挖到了一篇07年秋季高级口译的第二部分阅读理解的一篇文章。该文章为原文如下：
on apr. 27, the dean of duke’s business school had the unfortunate task of announcing that nearly 10% of the class of 2008 had been caught cheating on a take-home final exam. the scandal, which has cast yet another pall over the leafy, gothic campus, is already going down as the biggest episode of alleged student deception in the b-school’s history.
almost immediately, the questions started swirling. the accused MBAs were, on average, 29 years old. they were the cut-and-paste generation, the champions of LINUX. before going to b-school, they worked in corporations for an average of six years. they did so at a time when their bosses were trumpeting the brave new world of open source, where one’s ability to agGREgate (or rip off) other people’s intellectual property was touted as a crucial competitive advantage.
it’s easy to imagine the explanations these mbas, who are mulling an appeal, might come up with. teaming up on a take-home exam: that’s not academic fraud, it’s postmodern learning, wiki style. text-messaging exam answers or downloading essays onto ipods: that’s simply a wise use of technology.
one can understand the confusion. this is a generation that came of age nabbing music off napster and watching bootlegged hollywood blockbusters in their dorm rooms. “what do you mean?” you can almost hear them saying. “we’re not supposed to share?”
that’s not to say that university administrators should ignore unethical behavior, if it in fact occurred. but in this wired world, maybe the very notion of what constitutes cheating has to be reevaluated. the scandal at duke points to how much the world has changed, and how academia and corporations are confused about it all, sending split messages.
we’re told it’s all about teamwork and shared information. but then we’re graded and ranked as individuals. we assess everybody as single entities. but then we plop them into an interdependent world and tell them their success hinges on creative collaboration.
the new culture of shared information is vastly different from the old, where hoarding information was power. but professors—and bosses, for that matter—need to be able to test individual ability. for all the talk about workforce teamwork, there are plenty of times when a person is on his or her own, arguing a case, preparing a profit and loss statement, or writing a research report.
still, many believe that a rethinking of the assessment process is in store. the stanford university design school, for example, is so collaborative that “it would be impossible to cheat,” says d-school professor robert i. sutton. “if you found somebody to help you write a group project, in our view that’s a sign of an inventive team member who gets stuff done. if you found someone to do work for free who was committed to open source, we’d say, ‘wow, that was smart.’ one group of students got the police to help them with a school project to build a roundabout where there were a lot of bike accidents. is that cheating?”
that’s food for thought at a time when learning is BEComing more and more of a social process embedded in a larger network. this is in no way a pass on those who consciously break the rules. with countries aping american business practices, a backlash against an ethically rudderless culture can’t happen soon enough. but the saga at duke raises an interesting question: in the age of twitter, a social network that keeps users in constant streaming contact with one another, what is cheating?
