（官方版）广东财经大学2022年考研真题：804英语写作与翻译

近日，广东财经大学公布了2022专业课考研真题，给有意向报考的考生们提供了十分重要的备考资料，正值暑假黄金备考期，各位考生要认真答题，一方面检验现阶段备考效果，另一方面了解其出题形式及考查重点，以下是（官方版）广东财经大学2022年考研真题：804英语写作与翻译，供参考。

广东财经大学硕士研究生入学考试试卷

考试年度：2022年 　　 考试科目代码及名称：804-英语写作与翻译(自命题)

适用专业：050201 英语语言文学

[友情提醒：请在考点提供的专用答题纸上答题，答在本卷或草稿纸上无效!]

一、Writing (100分)

1、Summary Writing (1题，共40分)

Directions: Read the following passage, and write a summary of about 300 words for it in your own words. Directly copying sentences from the passage will result in deduction of grades. Write down your summary on the Answer Sheet.

The Idealized View of Communication in Pragmatics

Grice did in pragmatics what Chomsky did in linguistics but, of course from a different perspective and with a different goal in mind. While Chomsky focused on the linguistic system, Grice focused on language use. What is common in their approach is the idealization of a knowledge system (Chomsky) and the systematization of a usage system (Grice). Grice developed an idealized description of communication in order for us to better understand what actually happens when human beings communicate. That was an important step forward in the field of pragmatics. Science requires idealizations. For example, physicists or chemists often work with ideal models of reality that abstract from the existence of friction. Basically this kind of abstraction also happens when we analyse the semantics-pragmatics division. Carnap was quite specific about the relationship of the two by saying: “If in an investigation explicit reference is made to the speaker, or, to put it in more general terms, to the user of a language, then we assign it to the field of pragmatics.... If we abstract from the user of the language and analyze only the expressions and their designata, we are in the field of semantics”. Carnap’s approach clearly handles semantics as an abstraction of pragmatics because it is said to abstract away from the specific aspects of concrete discourse situations in which utterances are used. The theory of meaning, both in philosophy and linguistics, is no different. Basically all work in the theory of meaning presupposes an idealized model, which we can call the standard model. In that model various idealizations have been made to focus attention on the most central aspects of linguistic communication. So there is nothing wrong with idealization. But we should know that what happens in real life is not the idealized version of communication. The question is: can we offer something beyond just criticizing the ideal view? Can we offer an alternative approach or theory that absorbs and can explain “messy” communication too?

Well, there have been attempts to that extent. In a paper from 2010 I argued that recent research in pragmatics and related fields shows two dominant tendencies: an idealistic approach to communication and context-centredness. According to views dominated by these tendencies (RT and Neo-Griceans), communication is supposed to be a smooth process that is constituted by recipient design and intention recognition. The speaker’s knowledge involves constructing a model of the hearer’s knowledge relevant to the given situational context; conversely, the hearer’s knowledge includes constructing a model of the speaker’s knowledge relevant to the given situational context. The focus in this line of research is on the “positive” features of communication: cooperation, rapport, politeness. The emphasis on the decisive role of context, socio-cultural factors and cooperation is overwhelming, while the role of the individual’s prior experience, existing knowledge and egocentrism is almost completely ignored, although these two sides are not mutually exclusive.

The idealistic view on communication and the over-emphasis placed on context-dependency give a lopsided perspective on interactions by focusing mainly on the positive features of the process. But, in fact, communication is more like a trial-and-error, try-and-try-again process that is co-constructed by the participants. It appears to be a non-summative and emergent interactional achievement. Consequently, due attention should be paid to the less positive aspects of communication including breakdowns, misunderstandings, struggles and language-based aggression – features which are not unique, but seem to be as common in communication as are cooperation and politeness. Similar criticism of idealized communication has been formulated by Beaver and Stanley and Stanley but from a different perspective. In their co-authored work Beaver and Stanley isolated five idealizations (cooperativity, rationality, intentionality, alignment, propositionality) that are made by the vast majority of work in the theory of meaning, and argued that these idealizations are scientifically problematic and politically flawed. Stanley uses the critique of the standard model to develop a new programme for the theory of meaning, one that places at the centre of inquiry into linguistic communication precisely the features of communication (such as impoliteness, misunderstandings) that the idealizations of the standard model seem to almost deliberately occlude. Political discourse is the main focus of Beaver’s and Stanley’s programme. What is common in Beaver and Stanley’s and Kecskes’ approach described above is that they both emphasize that the idealized Gricean theory cannot explain the messy reality of communication. However, while Beaver and Stanley make an attempt to change the Gricean approach and develop a new theory of “messy communication”, SCA acknowledges the need for the ideal theory that provides us with a basic understanding of the communicative process. SCA uses the Gricean theory as a starting and reference point to describe and better understand what actually happens in communicative encounters. It has been developing an approach that does not want to be the counterpart of the ideal theory of communication. Rather it offers a theoretical frame that considers ideal and messy not like a dichotomy but a continuum with two hypothetical ends incorporating not only the Gricean theory but also the criticism of the Gricean approach by cognitive psychologists such as Barr and Keysar, Giora, Gibbs and Colston and Keysar. These scholars claimed that speakers and hearers commonly violate their mutual knowledge when they produce and understand language. Their behaviour is called “egocentric” because it is rooted in the speakers’ or hearers’ own knowledge instead of in mutual knowledge. Other studies in cognitive psychology (e.g. Keysar and Bly; Giora; Keysar), have shown that speakers and hearers are egocentric to a surprising degree, and that individual, egocentric endeavours of interlocutors play a much more decisive role, especially in the initial stages of production and comprehension than is envisioned by current pragmatic theories. This egocentric behaviour is rooted in speakers’ and hearers’ reliance more on their own knowledge than on mutual knowledge. People turn out to be poor estimators of what others know. Speakers usually underestimate the ambiguity and overestimate the effectiveness of their utterances (Keysar and Henly). Findings about the egocentric approach of interlocutors to communication have also been confirmed by Giora’s Graded Salience Hypothesis and Kecskes’ dynamic model of meaning. Interlocutors seem to consider their conversational experience more important than prevailing norms of informativeness. Giora’s main argument is that knowledge of salient meanings plays a primary role in the process of using and comprehending language. She claimed that “privileged meanings, meanings foremost on our mind, affect comprehension and production primarily, regardless of context or literality”. Kecskes’ dynamic model of meaning also emphasizes that what the speaker says relies on prior conversational experience, as reflected in lexical choices in production. Conversely, how the hearer understands what is said in the actual situational context depends on her prior conversational experience with the lexical items used in the speaker’s utterances. Cognitive psychologists claim that cooperation, relevance, and reliance on possible mutual knowledge come into play only after the speaker’s egocentrism is satisfied and the hearer’s egocentric, most salient interpretation is processed. Barr and Keysar argued that mutual knowledge is most likely implemented as a mechanism for detecting and correcting errors, rather than as an intrinsic, routine process of the language processor. The studies mentioned above and many others (e.g. Giora; Arundale; Scheppers) warrant some revision of traditional pragmatic theories on cooperation and common ground. However, a call for revision of the ideal abstraction should not mean its absolute denial as we already argued above. If we compare the pragmatic ideal version and the cognitive coordination approach, we may discover that these two approaches are not contradictory but complementary to each other. The ideal abstraction adopts a top-down approach, and produces a theoretical construct of pragmatic tenets that warrant successful communication in all cases. In contrast, the cognitive coordination view adopts a bottom-up approach which provides empirical evidence that supports a systematic interpretation of miscommunication. From a dialectical perspective cooperation and egocentrism are not conflicting, and the a priori mental state versus post facto emergence of common ground may converge to a set of integrated background knowledge for the interlocutors to rely on in pursuit of relatively smooth communication. So far no research has yet made an attempt to combine the two, at least to our knowledge. Therefore, the aim of SCA is to eliminate the ostensible conflicts between common ground notions as held by the two different views, and propose an approach that integrates their considerations into a holistic concept that envisions a dialectical relationship between intention and attention in the construal of communication.

2、Essay Writing (1题，60分)

Directions:

Some people believe that success in creative fields, such as painting, fiction writing, and film-making, primarily requires hard work and perseverance. Others believe that such success mainly requires innate talents that cannot be learned.

Write your response in which you discuss which view more closely aligns with your own position and explains your reasoning for the position you take.

Write no less than 800 words on the Answer Sheet.

二、Translation(50分)

1、English-Chinese Translation (25分)

Directions: Translate the following passage from English to Chinese. Write down your translation on the Answer Sheet.

To the Westerner, who sees that the life of the Chinese people is permeated with Confucianism, it appears that Confucianism is a religion. As a matter of fact, however, Confucianism is no more a religion than, say, Platonism or Aristotelianism. It is true that the Four Books have been the Bible of the Chinese people, but in the Four Books there is no story of creation, and no mention of a heaven or hell.

Of course, the terms philosophy and religion are both ambiguous. Philosophy and religion may have entirely different meanings for different people. When men talk about philosophy or religion, they may have quite different ideas in their minds concerning them. For my part, what I call philosophy is systematic, reflective thinking on life. Every man, who has not yet died, is in life. But there are not many who think reflectively on life, and still fewer whose reflective thinking is systematic. A philosopher must philosophize; that is to say, he must think reflectively on life, and then express his thoughts systematically.

This kind of thinking is called reflective because it takes life as its object. The theory of life, the theory of the universe, and the theory of knowledge all emerge from this type of thinking. The theory of the universe arises because the universe is the background of life—the stage on which the drama of life takes place. The theory of knowledge emerges because thinking is itself knowledge. According to some philosophers of the West, in order to think, we must first find out what we can think; that is to say, before we start to think about life, we must first think our thinking.

2、Chinese-English Translation (25分)

Directions: Translate the following passage from Chinese to English. Write down your translation on the Answer Sheet.

盼 头

--杨航

细娃盼过年，大人盼开春。儿时，对于大人的盼是不能理解的，但过年，对我来说，可是一年的大盼头了。过年，不但好玩，且有肉吃，那气氛是迷人的：年一过，又盼日子快些流，好流来又一个春节。

在盼中，日子真的流得飞快，转眼上了小学，继而初中，然后高中，最后大学;盼的欲望更加强烈，盼的内容也越渐丰富了：盼有好成绩毕业，盼有一份好工作，盼事业有成，盼挣钱替父母分忧，盼有一个爱人......不知不觉，天天踩着盼的石阶而上，自己竟成了一个大男人，一个挣钱养家糊口的忙碌人了。

生活开始变得复杂。然而，无论自己是否变得庸俗，变得伟大，盼头依然天天有。没有盼头的日子是苍白不可想象的。人，得天天有点什么盼头，生活才不至于暗淡。有了盼头，会觉得太阳每天都是新的。不管是望梅止渴，还是画饼充饥，它都激励你不停手中的桨，去追逐哪怕一星微小的火光。

考研真题可以帮助大家检验学习成果，查漏补缺，还可以了解考试内容和形式等，因此，大家要重视考研真题，继续关注启航教育考研真题栏目，也可以联系启航教育老师获取帮助，祝大家一战成硕。

点击查看：2023考研，考生都面临哪些问题？

点击查看：2023考研数学公式手册（完整版备考资料）