第1页:1.1990年英译汉试题及参考译文第2页:2.1991年英译汉试题及参考译文第3页:3.1992年英译汉试题及参考译文第4页:4.1993年英译汉试题及参考译文第5页:5.1994年英译汉试题及参考译文第6页:6.1995年英译汉试题及参考译文第7页:7.1996年英译汉试题及参考译文第8页:8.1997年英译汉试题及参考译文第9页:9.1998年英译汉试题及参考译文第10页:10.1999年英译汉试题及参考译文第11页:11.2000年英译汉试题及参考译文第12页:12.2001年英译汉试题及参考译文第13页:14.2003年英译汉试题及参考译文第14页:15.2004年英译汉试题及参考译文

　　（71）While there are almost as many definitions of history as there are historians，modern practice most closely conforms to one that sees history as the attempt to recreate and explain the significant events of the past.Caught in the web of its own time and place，each generation of historians determines anew what is significant for it in the past.In this search the evidence found is always incomplete and scattered;it is also frequently partial or partisan.The irony of the historians craft is that its practitioners always know that their efforts are but contributions to an unending process.

　　（72）Interest in historical methods has arisen less through external challenge to the validity of history as an intellectual discipline and more from internal quarrels among historians themselves.While history once revered its affinity to literature and philosophy，the emerging social sciences seemed to afford greater opportunities for asking new questions and providing rewarding approaches to an understanding of the past.Social science methodologies had to be adapted to a discipline governed by the primacy of historical sources rather than the imperatives of the contemporary world.

　　（73）During this transfer，traditional historical methods were augmented by additional methodologies designed to interpret the new forms of evidence in the historical study.

     Methodology is a term that remains inherently ambiguous in the historical profession.

　　（74）There is no agreement whether methodology refers to the concepts peculiar to historical work in general or to the research techniques appropriate to the various branches of historical inquiry.Historians，especially those so blinded by their research interests that they have been accused of“tunnel method，”frequently fall victim to the“technicist fallacy.”Also common in the natural sciences，the technicist fallacy mistakenly identifies the discipline as a whole with certain parts of its technical implementation.

　　（75）It applies equally to traditional historians who view history as only the external and internal criticism of sources.And to social science historians who equate their activity with specific techniques.

　　1999年英译汉试题参考译文

　　（71）几乎每个历史学家对史学都有自己的界定，但现代史学家的实践最趋于认为历史学是试图重现过去的重大史实并对其做出解释。由于受时间和地点的限制，每一代史学家都要重新判断过去哪些史料对其有重要价值。在这种探索中所发现的证据总是不完整的、零碎的，而且常常是有偏见的或带有派别意识的。实际从事历史研究的人总是知道，他们的努力只不过是为永无止境的探索过程添砖加瓦，这就使其工作颇具讽刺意味。

　　（72）人们之所以关注历史研究的方法论，主要是因为史学界内部意见不一，其次是因为外界并不认为历史是一门学问。尽管历史学曾经崇尚它与文学和哲学的相似性，但新兴的社会科学似乎为人们提出新问题和提供了解过去的有效途径开辟了更为广阔的天地。社会科学研究的方法必须改变以适应这样一条指导，即以史料为基础，而不是为当代社会之需。（73）在这种转变中，历史学家研究历史时，那些解释新史料的新方法充实了传统的历史研究方法。

　　在历史学界，方法论这个词从来都是模棱两可的。（74）所谓方法论究竟是指一般的历史研究研究中的特有概念，还是指历史探究中各个具体领域适用的研究手段，人们对此意见不一。史学家，尤其是那些局限于他们的研究兴趣，以致被指责为“单方同研究法”的史学家，常常成了“单纯技术方法论”的牺牲品。这种谬论在自然科学领域里也是屡见不鲜的，它错误地把整个学科与学科研究的某些操作方法等同起来。（75）这种谬论同样存在于历史传统派和历史社科派;前者认为历史就是史学界内部和外部人士对各种史料来源的评论;后者认为历史的研究是具体方法的研究。