We can try to establish_________relations with our clients after introducing the product.

Dear Ms. Reyes,

Thank you for your email of introduction to your volunteer organization, American Hope. It sounds as if you and your associates are doing outstanding work in the field of poverty reduction, and 1 am honored that you have turned to my firm (90) your public relations needs.

Let me say immediately that, yes, we are interested in working with American Hope. I'm sure you are aware that we offer reduced rates on the services we provide to nonprofit groups like yours. Therefore, I know we can reach an agreement that will be (91) to both our organizations.

The first step is to meet and discuss your outreach goals in greater detail. (92) , this is done face to face, but considering that you reside outside of the country, I believe we can arrange a video conference that will suffice. I'd ask you to choose the date and time that works best for you, and we can try to accommodate your preference. In addition, I encourage you to ask me any other questions you may have about my firm or the services we offer.

I look forward to speaking with you soon,

- Dan Cicero

(50)

A．to handle

B．handling

C．handles

D．the handle

There are two ways in which we can think of literary translation: as reproduction and as recreation. If we think of translation as reproduction, it is a safe and harmless enough business: the translator is a literature processor into which the text to be translated is inserted and out of which it ought to emerge identical, but in another language.

But unfortunately the human mind is an imperfect machine, and the goal of precise interlinguistic message-transference is never achieved; so the translator offers humble apologies for being capable of producing only a pale shadow of the original. Since all he is doing is copying another's meanings from one language to another, he removes himself from sight so that the writer's genius can shine as brightly as may be. To do this, he uses a neutral, conventionally literary language which ensures that the result will indeed be a pate shadow, in which it is impossible for anybody's genius to shine.

Readers also regard the translator as a neutral meaning--conveyor, then attribute the mediocrity of the translation to the original author. Martin Amis, for example, declares that Don Quixote is unreadable, without stopping to think about the consequences of the fact that what he has read or not read is what a translator wrote, not what Cervantes wrote. If we regard literary translation like this, as message-transference, we have to conclude that before very long it will be carried out perfectly well by computers.

There are many pressures encouraging translators to accept this description of their work, apart from the fact that it is a scientific description and therefore must be right. Tradition is one such additional en couragement, because meaning-transference has been the dominant philosophy and manner of literary translation into English for at least three hundred years. The large publishing houses provide further encouragement, since they also expect the translator to be a literature-processor, who not only copies texts but simpll ties them as well, eliminating troublesome complexities and manufacturing a readily consumable product for the marketplace.

But there is another way in which we can think of literary translation. We can regard the translator not as a passive reproducer of meanings but as an active reader first, and then a creative rewriter of what he has read. This description has the advantages of being more interesting and of corresponding more closely to re ality, because a pile of sheets of paper with little squiggly lines on them, glued together along one side, only becomes a work of literature when somebody reads it, and reading is not just a logical process but one involving the whole being: the feelings and the intuitions and the memory and the creative imagination and the whole life experience of the reader.

Computers cannot read, they can only scan. And since the combination of all those human components is unique in each person, there are as many Don Quixotes as there are readers of Don Quixote, as Jorge Luis Borges once declared.

Any translation of this novel is the translator's account of his reading of it, rather than some inevitably pale shadow of what Cervantes wrote. It will only be a pale shadow if the translator is a dull reader, perhaps as a result of accepting the preconditioning that goes with the role of literature-processor.

You may object that what I am advocating is extreme chaotic subjectivism, leading to the conclusion that anything goes, in reading and therefore in translation; but it is not, because reading is guided by its own conventions, the interpersonal roles of the literary game that we internalize as we acquire literary experience. By reference to these, we can agree, by reasoned argument, that some readings are more appropriate than others, and therefore that some translations are better than others.

Which of the following is TRUE of translation as reproductio

A．The translator can precisely transfer meaning between two languages.

B．The translator tries not to have his presence felt' by his readers.

C．The translator can show the original writer at his or her best.

D．The translator actively produces the writer's meanings.

There are two ways in which we can think of literary translation: as reproduction, and as recreation. If we think of translation as reproduction, it is a safe and harmless enough business: the translator is a literature processor into which the text to be translated is inserted and out of which it ought to emerge identical, but in another language.

But unfortunately the human mind is an imperfect machine, and the goal of precise interlinguistic message transference is never achieved: so the translator offers humble apologies for being capable of producing only a pale shadow of the original. Since all he is doing is copying another's meanings from one language to another, he removes himself from sight so that the writer's genius can shine as brightly as may be. To do this, he uses a neutral, conventionally literary language which ensures that the result will indeed be a pale shadow, in which it is impossible for anybody's genius to shine.

Readers also regard the translator as a neutral meaning-conveyor, then attribute the mediocrity of the translation to the original author. Martin Amis, for example, declares that Don Quixote is unreadable. without stopping to think about the consequences of the fact that what he has read or not read is what a translator wrote, not what Cervantes wrote. If we regard literary translation like this, as message transference, we have to conclude that before very long it will be carried out perfectly well by computers.

There are many pressures encouraging translators to accept this description of their work, apart from the fact that it is a scientific description and therefore must be right. Tradition is one such additional encouragement, because meaning-transference has been the dominant philosophy and manner of literar3 translation into English for at least three hundred years. The large publishing houses provide further encouragement, since they also expect the translator to be a literature-processor, who not only copies texts but simplifies them as well, eliminating troublesome complexities and manufacturing a readily consumable product for the marketplace.

But there is another way in which we can think of literary translation. We can regard the translator not as a passive reproducer of meanings but as an active reader first, and then a creative rewriter of what he has read. This description has the advantages of being more interesting and of corresponding more closely to reality, because a pile of sheets of paper with little squiggly lines on them, glued together along one side. only becomes a work of literature when somebody reads it, and reading is not just a logical process but one involving the whole being: the feelings and the intuitions and the memory and the creative imagination and the whole life experience of the reader.

Computers cannot read, they can only scan. And since the combination of all those human components is unique in each person, there are as many Don Quixotes as there are readers of Don Quixote, as Jorge Luis Borges once declared.

Any translation of this novel is the translator's account of his reading of it, rather than some inevitably pale shadow of what Cervantes wrote. It will only be a pale shadow if the translator is a dull reader, perhaps as a result of accepting the preconditioning that goes with the role of literature-processor.

You may object that what l am advocating is extreme chaotic subjectivism, leading to the conclusion that anything goes, in reading and therefore in translation; but it is not, because reading is guided by its own conventions, the interpersonal roles of the literary game that we internalise as we acquire literary experience. By reference to these, we can agree, by reasoned argument, that some readings are more appropriate than others, and therefore that some translations are better than others.

Which of the fo

A．The translator can precisely transfer meaning from one language to another.

B．He tries not to have his presence felt.

C．He can show the original writer at his or her best.

D．The translator actively produces the writer's meanings.

While we cannot close the gulf between us, we can try to bridge it so that we may be able to talk acrossit.

A)当我们无法弥合双方之间的鸿沟时，我们可以搭一座桥，以便越过它进行会谈。

B)虽然我们不能弥合双方之间的鸿沟，我们却能设法搭座桥，以便越过它进行会谈。

C)虽然在我们不能互相接近，但我们可以通过谈判搭一座桥。

D)虽然在我们不能互相接近，但我们可以设法谈判建桥事宜。

E)虽然在我们不能互相接近，我们可以搭一座桥，越过这座桥再谈。

According to the writer, although the challenge of producing students with the communication skills may be daunting, we can never succeed if ______.

We can infer from the talk that harmonious work relations may have a direct impact on your

A．promotion.

B．colleagues.

C．management.

D．union.

听力原文： It is difficult to give an accurate definition of "temperature", but we can try. Temperature is not the total amount of heat in a thing but the intensity of its heat at a certain time. When we measure temperature we do not measure the quantity of heat but its intensity. A large pan of boiling water obviously contains more heat than a smaller pan of boiling water, but their temperatures arc the same. The water in both pans has a temperature of 100 degrees Celsius.

To measure temperature accurately we need good instruments. The accuracy of a measurement depends partly on the instrument, which is used. Most instruments used to measure temperature are called thermometers. In measure thermometers two scales are used, the Fahrenheit scale and the Celsius scale. American doctors find the Fahrenheit scale convenient for measuring the temperature of the body, but other doctors and scientists often use the Celsius scale. The boiling points of water are different on the two scales. On the Celsius scale, water boils at 100 degrees. On the Fahrenheit scale it boils at 212 degrees.

(30)

A．Temperature is the total amount of heat in a thing at a certain time.

B．Temperature is the intensity of heat in a thing at a certain time.

C．Temperature is the quantity of heat in a thing at a certain time.

D．We can hardly give a definition of "temperature."