|
发表于 2017-8-6 23:26:44
|
显示全部楼层
Section II
Directions: Read the following two passages and answer in COMPLETE
SENETNECES the questions which follow the passages. Write your answers in the
corresponding space in your answer sheet.
Passage Three
The BBC has long dominated Britain’s media, but in recent years it has got
even bigger, both absolutely and relatively. Many serious broadsheet and local
newspapers are dying. Tabloid newspapers have been shamed by a phone-hacking
scandal, and are likely to endure stricter oversight in future. The corporation
gets £3.6 billion ($5.7 billion) a year from a licence fee levied on every
household that watches television, and is therefore invulnerable to the vagaries
of the media market, while the technological change that has caused other media
outlets to shrivel has given the BBC new scope for expansion. It has huge online
presence and a proliferation of digital television channels and radio stations.
With a staff of around 23,000, it is the largest broadcaster in the world.
The BBC makes good use of some of this money. Its documentaries, serious
radio output (such as “Today”) and website are excellent. Although polls show
trust in it is declining, the reputations of other great British institutions,
such as Parliament and the City, have fallen further still. The BBC remains
respected around the world and is a handy tool for projecting British
interests—cheaper and cleaner than bombs.
Yet Britons’ attention has drifted to other entertainments. The BBC’s share
of British viewing time has dropped from over a half three decades ago to under
a third today as pay-television and free multichannel services have grown.
Britons have noticed. According to a YouGov survey in 2010, 60% regard the
licence fee as poor value for money. And the decline of private-sector media
outlets raises questions about the impact of the BBC’s public subsidy. The
Guardian, for instance, might make a go of being a British-based global online,
leftish news provider, were it not for the state-funded competition.
The BBC’s size is a problem not just for the competition but for the
organization itself. Its bloated management means that those at the top do not
know what’s going on at the bottom, and stunts creativity. Few of its dramas or
comedies are world-beaters (“Downton Abbey”, a current hit, is made by an
American-owned independent studio and broadcast on ITV). Even in news, recent
big stories, such as phone-hacking and MP’s expenses, have been broken by
impoverished newspapers, not the sluggish state-backed monolith. Editors should
edit— and be responsible for it— not report to compliance officers.
The radical solution would be to get rid of a lot of the BBC. Public
broadcasting should focus on areas where the market does not provide— expensive
things such as investigative journalism and foreign reporting, serious radio,
some areas of arts and science broadcasting— and forget about the prime-time
entertainment shows and sports where the BBC spends taxpayers’ money bidding up
stars’ wages. A smaller, more focused organization would find it easier to take
risks and innovate.
The BBC’s defenders say that, without popular fodder like “Strictly Come
Dancing”, audiences would shrink, and the licence fee become impossible to
defend. It probably would; and a good thing too, since it is a regressive tax.
Public-service broadcasting should be paid for by the Treasury, through a
long-term grant made by a self-perpetuating independence body that kept it at
arm’s length from politicians.
A better objection to a complete overhaul now is that politicians have no
appetite for such a radical solution, and the BBC needs a set of fixes quickly.
One useful change would be to split the job of director-general into those of
chief executive and editor-in-chief. The first would be a manager, charged with
making the monolith more efficient; the second would be a journalist, charged
with producing accurate, hard-hitting stories— and refocusing the output on
quality.
Britons are naturally resistant to radical ideas. As the 20th century
showed, that is, by and large, a good thing. The danger, though, is that
unreformed organizations wither and die, or implode. The media business is one
of Britain’s strengths. If it is to stay that way, the BBC needs to change.
11. How has the BBC “grown even bigger, both absolutely and
relatively”?
12. What difficulties is the BBC confronted with, according to the
passage?
13. What is the purpose of the author mentioning “Downton Abbey” and other
big stories in paragraph four?
14. What suggestions have been put forward in the passage to address the
current situation of the BBC?
15. What is the main idea of the passage?
Passage Four
For half a century an influential group of Western linguists, led by Noam
Chomsky, have argued that language is an innate human faculty, the product of a
“language organ” in the mind. Other prominent “innatists” include Steven Pinker,
an evolutionary psychologist and author of “The Language Instinct”, and Derek
Bickerton, a linguist at the University of Hawaii and developer of a
“bioprogramme” theory of language. Innatists believe that all languages share
fundamental features. And linguistic innatism is part of a wider debate about
just how much of human nature is wired into the brain.
Daniel Everett, a linguist at Bentley University in Massachusetts,
disagrees on both innatism and the fundamental similarity of languages. He spent
years learning tiny languages in forbidding jungle villages, experiences he
recounted in his 2008 memoir, “Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes”. In his new book,
“Language: The Cultural Tool”, Mr. Everett moves away from narrow linguistic
anthropology to broad theory. He argues that language is not the product of a
“language organ” but an extension of general intelligence.
Instead of unfolding in the same way in Paris and Papua New Guinea,
languages are crafted by their speakers to meet their needs. He cites the
Pirahii, the Brazilian Amazonian group he has spent the longest time living
with. There are no numbers beyond two in Pirahii because, Mr. Everett argues,
they have no money, engage in little barter trade, do not store food for the
future and do not think about the distant past. This “living for the moment”,
which the Pirahii enjoy (they think Western life sounds dreadful), shapes their
language.
That different cultures have different words is unsurprising. It is when
these differences affect cognition (the Pirahii cannot do maths, for example)
that things get interesting. But Mr. Everett’s most controversial argument, and
his biggest challenge to linguistic innatism, is about grammar.
Mr. Chomsky has argued that “recursion” is the key feature of all human
language. This is the embedding of smaller units inside bigger ones: a
subordinate clause is a kind of recursion, embedding a sentence in a bigger one.
Mr. Everett says that the Pirahii lack grammatical recursion, and that even if
recursion is universal (Piraha use it in stories if not within sentences), this
does not prove the existence of the language organ. Information is naturally
organized with smaller bits nesting inside larger ones. That nearly all humans
would find this linguistically useful is little different than widely varying
societies independently inventing the bow and arrow— it is simply useful, and no
proof of an instinct. True instincts, like turtles making their way to the sea
or ducklings bonding with their mothers, require no learning. Language does.
Animals do not truly excel in their deployment of basic instincts, whereas some
humans clearly use language much better than others.
But Mr. Everett, in trying to reach a popular audience while making an
argument aimed at professional linguists, makes some awkward compromises. He
cites a paper by other researchers claiming to have found that there are no
features that are common to all languages, an argument that is crucial to his
thesis. But he does not give enough detail for the reader. Later he even
contradicts himself, saying that all languages have nouns and verbs.
He argues that differences between societies lead to profound differences
between languages, but fails to drive the point home fully. The Wari people use
the word “hole” or “vagina” as the ordinary word for “wife”. Could this be
denigrating of women? Or, since the birth canal is the point of departure for
human life, could it be a way of praising them? Mr. Everett is not sure. Or take
Banawa, another Amazonian language, in which the default gender of an unknown
person or mixed group of people is feminine, not masculine as in most languages.
The Banawa also practice rigid gender segregation, even whipping young girls
bloody after their first menstruation. Could the unusual gender-assignment of
Babawa be a product of this gender-segregated Banawa society? “The only answer
at present is, ‘Perhaps’,” he writes. Even the lack of grammatical recursion in
Piraha, Mr. Everett’s key piece of evidence that it is culture that creates
language, cannot tell the whole tale. Similar tribal cultures have languages
bristling with recursion.
Mr. Everett thinks it possible that culture influences grammar, but he is
not sure. He acknowledges that conjecture about what causes linguistic
differences has been a staple of much irresponsible amateur linguistics. It is
hard to work out where culture has affected language, where language affects
culture and cognition (a hot topic of psycholinguistic research), and where the
differences are unrelated. Mr. Everett has taken a shot across the innatists’
bow, and an impressively modest and reasoned one given that Mr. Chomsky once
called him a charlatan. His case is not wholly proven, but it deserves a serious
reading, and a response beyond name-calling.
16. According to the passage, what are the major differences between Noam
Chomsky and Daniel Everett regarding language?
17. What conclusion does Daniel Everett draw from the fact that the Pirahii
do not have numbers beyond two?
18. How do Noam Chomsky and Daniel Everett explain respectively the
phenomenon that information is organized with small units inside larger
ones?
19. What is the weakness of Daniel Everett’s argument in his new book,
according to the author of the passage?
20. What is the author’s attitude towards the debates between Daniel
Everett and Noam Chomsky?
III. Writing (30 points, 60 minutes)
The following is an excerpt quoted from a newspaper. Write a composition of
about 400 words about the phenomenon indicated and your opinion about it.
Fewer and fewer native Chinese learn to produce characters in traditional
calligraphy. Instead, they write their language with a computer, the same way
most westerners do. And not only that, but they use the Roman alphabet to
produce Chinese characters: type in wo and Chinese language-support software
will offer a menu of characters pronounced wo; the user selects the one desired.
With less and less need to recall the character cold, they are forgetting
them.
|
|