高级口译分笔试成绩的有效期为两年，两年中共有四次口试机会，若在此阶段通过了口试，则能拿到高级口译的证书。下面小编就和大家分享 高级口译考试口试攻略，希望能够帮助到大家，来欣赏一下吧。
先从口语开始说吧：
口语的要求是语音语调、篇章结构、内容和流利度。其实一般来说能一直讲较为又调理都能过，毕竟是考口译的证书。如果大家做好了去考口试的准备的话，口语一般不需要怎么担心。
总共四大段(两段英翻中、两端中翻英)中各分两小段，总共八段，中翻英英翻中各四段。
1) 8段里可以有2段成绩为不及格
2)每段的1/3可以漏译、错译
注意：高口每段留给你翻译的时间很少，英译汉大约为45-50秒，汉译英有60-70秒，所以一定要结束立马开口+语速快。
考试的时候我第一段有一句话没有说完，于是第二段立马rap
其实间隔时间短是高口最难的部分，毕竟每段1/3可以出错，但是时间短就要求反应非常迅速。
考点报到之后要把电子产品都放在一信封里订起来，然后老师会叫号，叫到的到口试的准备室里。这个时候会发给你口语的题目，可以在准考证后面写，但是之后会粘起来。等叫到你去考试的时候，前面一般还有一个人在里面考，这个时候可以继续准备一下口语。一般老师会在你口语说了一两分钟后打断你，但是我当时老师并没有打断我，一直让我说了五分钟。这之后就是口译，就是我前面一直说的，口译就是一定要快，不然真的说不完…………
几个点大家注意
带好一只水笔，在候考室想口语的时候没有笔提供，进去考试了才给你笔
考试的时间可能会很早或者很迟
我是最后一批进考场的，当时因为太迟还被调剂去了其他考场。当时有点担心会控制考场的及格率，虽然觉得自己讲的不错但是有点慌，事实告诉我们，只要讲的好还是能过的!
还有就是一定要记得迟早饭，我当初觉得早上吃不进东西然后没吃早饭。最后等的快哭了
在候考室是可以看自己带的资料的，我个人觉得在进去之前做一些视译练练嘴找找感觉还是挺好的
03
我其实没有完全在准备高口，因为有参加比赛而且本来是想去考二口的，所以高口的书没有怎么刷，但是还是把我用过的推荐给大家
官方教材在准备笔试的时候就全套买来了，但是因为这本书很小很厚，没有办法完全压下去，导致我没有耐心看?。但是有些时候高口会考里面的原文。(我当时考试中好像有一篇，当然我没有刷过)所以还是建议大家看一下。
2. 真题
我是大概考试前三天还是很认真的刷了一遍真题，可以很好了解难度大概怎么样，练练口。
大家有时间的话真题可以多刷几遍，自己计个时间看看来不来得及。
这本书我在大一的时候有刷过一遍，但是这次考试前没有怎么刷过。这本书是模仿高口考试，比较有代入感。
大家有空刷一遍高口部分也是极好的
4. 二口实务
因为本来其实是想去考二口的，但是由于一些原因没有报名。但是之前一直都在刷二口的书。在考高口前我差不多已经吧二口实务的教材和配套练习两本刷完了。在这些练习中，很明显的看出笔记和口译都有很大的进步，所以材料其实没有特别的重要!多练才是硬道理!!!
最后来一点我的tips：
1. 建议大家练习的时候录音。这点真的超重要，不听录音你永远不知道自己翻的有多么糟糕。很多人在翻译的时候会有emm a之类的停顿，录音之后会发现自己的不好习惯进行改正。同时可以控制自己的时间，毕竟高口真的有点坑…语速需要很快。
2. 平时多去比赛+public speaking
心态真的特别重要!假如特别紧张的话其实非常不利发挥。比赛参加多了可以锻炼心态。还可以见识到很多大神，更有动力。以及认识很多志同道合的朋友。都很棒!
答疑
这边我搜集了一些在微博私信/评论的问题和大家分享
问：听的懂文章但是记不下来怎么办?听完文章之后不记得刚刚放了什么
答：以我个人的经验来看过于注重笔记就很容易导致记不得文章内容，而且还看不懂自己的笔记。假如文章比较难，听第一遍的时候没有听懂，那么第二遍就干脆不要做笔记直接听懂反而效果比较好。
假如笔记来不及记的话呢还是要多练习笔记法，建立自己的笔记体系。也可以多用复述等等方法来提高自己的记忆力。
答：当然是要多练了!刚开始假如没有形成自己的笔记体系再加听力不好的话，当然会出现笔记记不下来又听不懂的情况了。
问：看了你的微博之后发现你从大一就开始看口译的书了，我大三了来得及吗?
答：假如下定决心做一件事，无论早还是迟，只要努力就一定会有结果。假如你从大一开始三天打鱼两天晒网的话不太可能会能真的拿到证，如果下定决心了的话，从今天开始学起吧!
答：其实来得及来不及自己心里肯定是有数的。还是和前一个问题一样，假如你能做到一天7个小时完全浸泡式学习+原来就很好的基础，那么考试肯定没有问题。但是我不知道每个人的基础到底怎么样，是不是每天坚持学习，所以不能下定论。
答：新东方应该有开设培训班，但是我是自学的口译，没有上过新东方的班。不过我在之前暑假有去北京的一个培训机构培训过一个月时间，个人认为还是不错的。杭州的培训班比较少而且和我学校很远，所以平时没有报，大家如果有条件的话报一个也是不错的，最好报名之前看一下师资。
Great to see the article I’d written on the role of charities in health published this morning. It reads well (he says modestly!). Here it is in case you missed it;
Charities can offer better service than the NHS
Stop arguing over private or public delivery on health and choose what is best for patients
St John’s Hospital in Bath was established in 1180 to provide healing and homes by the bubbling spa springs for the poor and infirm. The charity is still there 830 years later: a much valued health and care service for the elderly.
This demonstrates our country’s great charitable tradition in health. The Government’s desire to put citizens and patients first is both core to the current health reforms and a guiding mission for the country’s great charities and social enterprises. The words of the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, “no decision about me, without me”, are our driving passion.
We have a dual role: to deliver health services, undertake research and provide care and compassion to those most in need; and to act as an advocate and adviser. We are sometimes a challenger of the health establishment and always a doughty champion for patients.
For these reforms to be a success we must ensure a much stronger role for the third sector. That is why we strongly support the policy of “any willing provider”. The previous Government was profoundly mistaken in pursuing a policy of the NHS as “preferred provider”, which implied that services from our sector were less valued than the State’s. In fact, through a big expansion of the role of charities and social enterprises in providing care, we can provide more cost-effective and citizen-focused services.
This is not about privatisation. What matters is what is delivered, not who delivers it. This must be at the heart of health service reform.
Charities can offer a better deal in so many ways. In 2008 the NHS spent just over 0.05 per cent of its healthcare budget through charities. In other words this is a virtually untapped resource waiting to be used.
To me, competition in the NHS means British Red Cross volunteers being able to help more people to adapt to life at home after a lengthy spell in hospital, so preventing the need for readmission. Those who get this support are often aged over 65 and have experienced a fall. Volunteers bring them home, settle them in, advise neighbours or relatives of their return, check on pets, help to prepare a meal and make a further visit to ensure that they are safe and well. Such schemes can save the typical NHS commissioner up to ￡1 million a year.
Competition in the NHS would also mean an environmental charity such as BTCV running more “green gyms”, which give people a physical workout while taking part in environmental projects. So far, more than 10,000 people ― often referred by GPs ― have taken part. An evaluation found that the positive impact on mental and physical health, not to mention the acquisition of new skills, means that the State saves ￡153 for every ￡100 it invests. On top of that, it has a positive impact on local communities and the environment. Do we want less of this or more? I suspect that for most of us the answer is obvious.
Those who rely most on the NHS are the vulnerable, the very people charities were set up to help, precisely because they were being let down by the status quo. If groups such as the Red Cross and BTCV can do a better job than the NHS, we should let them.
Promoting wellbeing and preventing ill health have for too long been neglected aspects of the NHS’s role. These reforms rightly put emphasis on public health. Giving a role in health back to local councils is long overdue. The new health and wellbeing boards may provide the opportunity to get more resources behind public health as well as, for the first time, giving elected councillors the chance to scrutinise NHS resources. Preventing diabetes through better education, diet and exercise is always a better approach than picking up the costs of a growing number of people with diabetes. Charities such as Diabetes UK, working with councils and GPs, are critical to achieving that.
Of course there are challenges in introducing reforms. Of course proper funding is crucial. We want to ensure that there is a strategic approach to commissioning, including national guidelines. We want the new GP consortia to take full advantage of the opportunity to expand their work with our sector.
The challenge we face as a country is to build on the sure foundations of our NHS to provide service that recognises and expands the work of charities, promotes partnerships between State, third and private sectors and moves on from arcane arguments over privatisation.
And The Times also had a brilliant summary of the problems of Big Society and how to solve them by Phil Collins and a great letter from my Chair in response to the Francis Maude MP article.
I’m blogging from H M Treasury where the Prime Minister has been announcing new procurement and commissioning arrangements to free up the process for SMEs and charities and social enterprises. He was clear that we are part of the SME community and contracting has to be changed so that we can bid easier and better. He must have mentioned charities some 10 times in his speech and even referred to me directly. Then shook my hand on the way out! I made the point to him that we welcome the initiatives and I referred to Chris White MP’s Social Clause Bill and how important that is.
And now the weekend beckons. Though I’m spending Sunday morning on Sky News. There you go; no rest for the wicked!
John Lewis: never knowingly undersold?
It is possibly the most famous promise in British retailing: "Never knowingly undersold" has been at the heart of John Lewis’s business since 1925. But a quietly introduced change has infuriated loyal customers, who claim the price-match promise is now slipping away.
For many years John Lewis customers have been safe in the knowledge that if they found their purchase for a lower price elsewhere the company would refund the difference. Carrier bags and marketing campaigns have proudly proclaimed to the world that John Lewis won’t be beaten on price.
Yet since September some customers who have asked John Lewis to match the price of goods found cheaper elsewhere on the high street have been turned away.
A Guardian Money reader from Roydon, Essex, contacted us after he bought a Hotpoint washing machine in John Lewis’s Welwyn store for ￡279. A few days later he saw the same model in Argos for ￡219 ? ￡60 cheaper. John Lewis turned down his claim made under the never knowingly undersold policy, because it said it guaranteed the washing machines for two years, while Argos offered only one year.
The customer complained ? unsuccessfully ? that the store wasn’t being fair as this was not made clear in the literature.
When Money investigated, we found that John Lewis had made a fundamental change to its policy.
In a statement in September, which at the time drew positive headlines, it said it would for the first time match online prices from other retailers as long as they also had a physical high street presence. What was made less clear was that the store would no longer match a price unless its rival offers the exact same warranty.
The policy change might not sound much, but it in effect allows the store to avoid almost all price matching of electrical items ? because John Lewis has adopted a policy of offering two-year warranties on almost every such item. Most stores in the UK offer just one year.
When we first raised the reader’s complaint with John Lewis it told us: "As part of our commitment to be never knowingly undersold, we match prices based on the combined cost of the product plus charges the competitor may make for a comparable warranty or guarantee. We evaluate price-match claims on a like-for-like basis, and breakdown cover is a crucial part of our proposition to our customers."
What it failed to mention was that prior to the September policy rewrite, it would have paid the complainant the ￡60 difference between the John Lewis and Argos washing machines.
Interestingly, the store confirmed it would not price match the cost of buying a product plus a warranty from a third party company, but would consider a claim if the cheaper retailer offered the chance to buy both together.
David Suddock, head of buying support at John Lewis, who revised the policy, says: "As a result of our commitment to expand our never knowingly undersold policy to include other retailers with online presences we now put a great deal of resources into checking the prices charged by our rivals and lowering ours where appropriate. Our customers are benefiting through significantly reduced prices. They tell us they value the extra warranty periods we offer, and we think it is only fair we should include that in our price match scheme. The terms of the never knowingly undersold policy are clearly presented in both our stores and on the website."
But if the Money postbag is to be believed, most John Lewis customers were unaware of the change. And Martyn Hocking, editor of Which? says: "John Lewis is known for its great customer service, so the change to its never knowingly undersold policy is very disappointing. Customers would naturally expect any price matching policy to relate to the up-front cost of a product, excluding the value of added extras such as warranties and guarantees. As such, we feel that the amended policy is misleading and will lead to frustration for many shoppers."
But Natalie Berg, research director at retail analysts Planet Retail, says John Lewis’s move was perhaps inevitable: "The internet has put the power to compare prices in the hands of all of us; some shoppers now use smart phones to check prices as they walk around a store. John Lewis has realised that while price is important, it’s not the factor in where to buy. The fact that John Lewis has been one of the winners on the high street in recent months suggests consumers are not just looking for the lowest prices, but they want value ? and the perception is that John Lewis delivers this."
★ 英语翻译
上一篇：高级口译笔译实战练习：长难句翻译
下一篇：2020高级口译攻略