English World-wide 　　English is now the international language for airline pilots, scientists, medical experts, businessmen and many others. Consequently, more and more people are learning it. The BBC’s English teaching programmers are broadcast daily to four continents and supplied to radio stations in 120 countries. Films and video are on the air or used in institutions in over 100 countries. All this helps to add more speakers to the estimated 100 million who use English as a second language. The rush to learn English has reached even China. The main reason for the upsurge （上升）in interest is recent increase in China's contacts with the outside world. 　　Unlike many other widely used languages, English can be correctly used in a very simple form with less than one thousand words and very few grammatical rules. This was pointed out in the 1920's by two Cambridge scholars, Ogden and Richards, who devised a system called "Basic English". Another reason for the popularity of English is that English-speaking countries are spread throughout the world. An estimated 310 million people in Britain, the U.S.A, Canada, Australia, South Africa etc. use English as their mother tongue. Also in former British colonial areas in Africa and Asia where many local languages are spoken, no common language has been found which would make a suitable substitute for English. 　　In Delhi, although nationalists would prefer to phase out （逐步停止） the use of English, the man from South India finds English more acceptable than Hindi, while the northerner prefers English to any of the southern languages. Turning from India to Africa, a similar problem exists. However reluctant African nations are to use English and, as it were, subject themselves to a kind of "cultural imperialism", there seems to be no alternative language which will do the job of communication effectively. 　　The view that spreading the use of English is entirely beneficial has its opponents. Some teachers who have returned from overseas consider it creates a wider gap between those who are educated and those who have little or no education. Nevertheless, in many parts of the world, the technical and scientific knowledge needed to develop a country's resources and improve people's living conditions, is just not available in the mother tongue. A second language opens the door to the worldwide sharing of skills and discoveries in science, engineering and medicine. As for the future, it seems certain that English in one form or another will be spoken by far more people than it is today. It will doubtless continue to change and develop — as a living language always does. Decide whether the following statements are true （T） or false （F） according to the information given in the passage. 4. Developing nations value English primarily as a source of cultural unity.

American Social Relations American society is much more informal than that of many other countries and, in some ways, is characterized by less social distinction. The American mixture of pride in achievement and sense of “I’m just as good as anybody else.” Along with lack of importance placed on personal dignity, is difficult for a foreigner to understand. Americans in general do not like to be considered inferior, and they grumble loudly about inconveniences or not getting a “fair deal.” Yet they do not make a point of their personal honor. As an illustration of the difference between European and American reflection in this respect, John Whyte in American Words and Ways gives the following account. A… [European] professor [visiting in America] was once sent a bill for hospital services which he had never enjoyed. The bill was accompanied by a strong letter demanding payment. It was obvious that a mistake in names had been made, but the professor, thoroughly aroused by this reflection on his character and financial integrity, wrote a vigorous letter of reply (which an American might also have done). But in this letter of reply he demanded that the creditor write him a formal letter of apology … for this reflection on his honor. Since no publicity could possibly have been given to the mistake, for mistake it was, most Americans in that situation, after getting the matter off their chest (or without doing that) would have let the matter rest. An example of the same thing may be that although Americans like to talk about their accomplishments, it is their custom to show certain modesty in reply to compliments. When someone praises an American upon his achievement or upon his personal appearance, which, incidentally, is a very polite thing to do in America, the American turns it aside. If someone should say, “Congratulations upon being elected president of the club,” an American is expected to reply, “Well, I hope I can do a good job,” or something of the sort. Or if someone says, “That’s a pretty blue necktie you are wearing,” an American is likely to say, “I’m glad you like it,” or “Thank you. My wife gave it to me for my birthday.” The response to a compliment seldom conveys the idea, “I, too, think I’m pretty good.” Likewise, there are fewer social conventions that show social differences in America. Students do not rise when a teacher enters the room. One does not always address a person by his title, such as “Professor” or “Doctor” (“Doctor” is always used, however, for a doctor of medicine). The respectful “sir” is not always used in the northern and western parts of the country. Clothing in America, as in every place in the world, to a certain degree reflects a person’s social position and income, or, at least among the young, his attitudes toward society or toward himself. Yet no person is restricted to a certain uniform or manner of dress because of his occupations or class in society. A bank president may wear overalls to paint his house and is not ashamed of either the job or the clothing, and a common laborer may wear a rented tuxedo at his daughter’s wedding. Yet in spite of all the informality, America is not completely without customs that show consciousness of social distinction. For example, one is likely to use somewhat more formal language when talking to superiors. While the informal “Hello” is an acceptable greeting from employee to employer, the employee is more apt to say, “Hello, Jim.” Southerners make a point of saying “Yes, sir,” or “Yes, ma’am,” or “No, sir,” or “No, ma’am,” when talking to an older person or a person in po-sition of authority. Although this is a good form all over the United States, “Yes, Mr. Weston” or “No, Mrs. Baker” is somewhat more common in a similar situa-tion in the North or West. Certain other forms of politeness are observed on social occasions. Though people wear hats less now than in the past, women still occasionally wear hats in church and at public social functions (except those that are in the evening). In America there are still customs by which a man may show respect for a woman. He opens the door for her and lets her precede him through it. He walks on the side of the walk nearest the street. He takes her arm when crossing a street or descending a stairway. A younger person also shows respect for an older one in much the same fashion, by helping the older person in things requiring physical exertion or involving possible accident. American surface informality often confuses the foreigner because he interprets it to mean no formality at all. He does not understand the point at which informality stops. A teacher, though friendly, pleasant, and informal in class, expects students to study hard, and he grades each student’s work critically and carefully. He also expects to be treated with respect. Although students are free to ask questions about statements made by the teacher, and may say that they disagree with what he says, they are not expected to contradict him. Similarly, in boy-girl relationships a foreign student should not mistake the easy relationship and flattery that are part of the dating pattern in the United States, nor presume that it means more than it does. Also, because an American is perhaps more likely to admit and laugh at his own mistakes than one who stands more on his dignity, a foreigner sometimes does not know how to handle the American’s apparent modest. The American is quite ready to admit certain weaknesses, such as “I never was good at mathematics.” “I’m a rotten tennis player.” Or “I’m the world’s worst bridge player.” However, the stranger must not be too quick to agree with him. Americans think it is all right, even sporting, to admit a defect in themselves, but they feel that it is almost an insult to have someone else agree. A part of American idea of good sportsmanship is the point of being generous to a loser. This attitude is carried over into matters that have nothing to do with competition. If a man talks about his weak points, the listener says something in the way of encouragement, or points to other qualities in which the speaker excels. An American student reports that when he was in a foreign country he was completely stunned when he said to a native, “I don’t speak your language very well.” And the native replied, “I should say you don’t.” in a similar situation an American would have commented, “Well, you have only been here two months.” or “But you’re making progress.” Although Americans are quite informal, it is best for a foreigner, in case of doubt, to be too formal rather than not formal enough. Consideration for others is the basis of all courtesy. （　）4. It’s more of a matter of formalities than of substance to praise an American for what he has achieved.

Miller's Theatre and Miller's Ideas Miller uses the techniques of the modern theatre to the full. He is not satisfied with simply employing the devices of lights and sound as an addition to the acting,but indicates in the stage directions of his plays precisely when a particular form of lighting or piece of sound is to be used. This is a deliberate attempt to make the theatre as a whole , not merely the actors , express the messages of the play . Mechanical devices assume , then , a symbolic significance-they represent an essential meaning or idea in the play in physical terms . They express a meaning - hence the term "expressionist" is often used to describe Miller as a dramatist. Miller was writing for a middle-class audience. His plays were performed on Broadway, the center of New York's theatrical and cultural life, and in Landon's West End. Therefore they reached only a small proportion of the population . Miller uses this fact ( that the plays reached a relatively small proportion of the population) to advantage in Death of a Salesman, where he examines American middle-class ideas and beliefs. He was able to place before his audience Willy Loman, a man who shared many of their ideals, ones which have been summed up by the phrase "the American Dream". The American Dream is a combination of beliefs in the unity of the family, the healthiness of competition in society, the need for success and money, and the view that America is the great land in which free opportunity for all exists.Some of these are connected: America seemed at one stage in history to offer alternatives to the European way of life; she seemed to be the New World,vast , having plenty of land and riches for all of its people , all of whom could share in the wealth of the nation. America was a land of opportunity. This belief is still apparent, even in twentieth-century America, with its large urban population, and Miller uses it in his plays, in order to state something significant about American society. In such a land, where all people have a great deal of opportunity, success should come fairly easily, so an unsuccessful man could feel bitter about his failure, excluded as he was from the success around him. To become successful in the American Dream means to believe in competition,to reach the top as quickly as possible by proving oneself better than others. Success is judged by the amount of wealth which can be acquired by an individual. Success is external and visible, shown in material wealth and encouraged . Money and success mean stability ; and stability can be seen in the family unit. The family is a guideline to success. It also provides emotional stability , and a good family shares its hopes and beliefs . These ideas should always be kept in mind when Death of a Salesman is considered. Another point to consider is Miller's conception of what the theatre should do . He is both a social dramatist . As a psychological dramatist he studies character, the motives and reasons behind the behavior of individuals , and presents them to his audiences so that his individual characters become convincingly alive,Often, these people are ordinary, everyday types,but ones whose actions are made significant by the dramatist.For example, the lives of ordinary citizens going about their daily business in their homes may not obviously appear interesting, but the dramatist can indicate that their daily lives are important, that they are interesting or unusual as people and that the audience may see their own situations and psychological states reflected in the characters the dramatist has created. Death of a Salesman is a good example of this. Of course, all dramatists and novelists try to make the actions of their characters relevant to other people, and most analyze closely the minds of the characters they have created in order to establish what makes them function as individuals. Where Miller differs from many of the others is in the type of person that he has created. Most of his heroes are ordinary people: they do not seem to be different from anyone who can be met in any street; and this, it might be argued, adds force to his plays,since none of the characters are remote-we share their feelings, and understand their difficulties. Also, Miller is able to show that everyday people can rise above the ordinary when challenged. Miller is a social dramatist in the sense that Death of a Salesman comments on the nature of society. Miller is concerned about society and the values which it holds. This means that Miller has often been regarded as an ally of the American Left, wishing to challenge the values of society, showing those values as worthless, and suggesting that a change may be necessary. Drama can expose the ills of society, make people aware there is something wrong with the system. Linked with Miller's attitude to society is his treatment of the middle class in the play. He was writing for the middle class as well as about them. And, at the time he was writing Death of a Salesman the ideals and way of life of the middle class in America were declining. People were not as stable financially because of the depression and then the 1939-45War, and so their way of life seemed to be challenged. Decide whether the following statements are true(T) or false(F)according to the information given in the text. ( )3.A good family is one where one can find the ease of mind.

Bringing Up Children It is generally accepted that the experiences of the child in his first years largely determine his character and later personality. Every experience teaches the child something and the effects are cumulative. “Upbringing” is normally used to refer to the treatment and training of the child within the home. This is closely related to the treatment and training of the child in school, which is usually distinguished by the term “education”. In a society such as ours, both parents and teachers are responsible for the opportunities provided for the development of the child, so that upbringing and education are interdependent. The ideals and practices of child rearing vary from culture to culture. In general, the more rural the community, the more uniform are the customs of child upbringing. In more technologically developed societies, the period childhood and adolescence tends to be extended over a long time, resulting in more opportunity for education and greater variety in character development. Early upbringing in the home is naturally affected both by the cultural pattern of the community and by the parents’ capabilities and their aims and depends not only on upbringing and education but also on the innate abilities of the child. Wild differences of innate intelligence and temperament exist even in children of the same family. Parents can ascertain what is normal in physical, mental and social development, by referring to some of the many books based on scientific knowledge in these areas, or less reliably, since the sample is smaller, by comparing notes with friends and relatives who have children. Intelligent parents, however, realize that the particular setting of each family is unique, and there can be no rigid general rules. They use general information only as a guide in making decisions and solving problems. For example, they will need specific suggestions for problems such as speech defects or backwardness in learning to walk or control of bodily functions. In the more general sense, though, problems of upbringing are recognized to be problems of relationships within the individual family, the first necessity being a secure emotional background with parents who are united in their attitude to their children. All parents have to solve the problems of freedom and discipline. The younger the child, the more readily the mother give in to his demands to avoid disappointing him. She knows that if his energies are not given an outlet, her child’s continuing development may be warped. An example of this is the young child’s need to play with the mud and sand and water. A child must be allowed to enjoy this “messy” but tactile stage of discovery before he is ready to go on to the less physical pleasures of toys and books. Similarly, throughout life, each stage depends on the satisfactory completion of the one before. Where one stage of child development has been left out, or not sufficiently experienced, the child may have to go back and capture the experience of it. A good home makes this possible-for example by providing the opportunity for the child to play with a clockwork car or toy railway train up to any age if he still needs to do so. This principle, in fact, underlies all psychological treatment of children in difficulties with their development, and is the basis of work in child clinics. The beginnings of discipline are in the nursery. Even the youngest baby is taught by gradual stages to wait for food, to sleep and to wake at regular intervals and so on. If the child feels the world around him is a warm and friendly one, he slowly accepts its rhythm and accustoms himself to conforming to its demands. Learning to wait for things, particularly for food, is a very important element in upbringing, and is achieved successfully only if too great demands are not made before the child can understand them. Every parent watches eagerly the child’s acquisition of each new skill-the first spoken words, the first independent steps, or the beginning of reading and writing. It is often tempting to hurry the child beyond his natural learning rate, but this can set up dangerous feelings of failure and states of anxiety in the child. This might happen at any stage. A baby might be forced to us a toilet too early, a young child might be encouraged to learn to read before he knows the meaning of the words he reads. On the other hand, though, if a child is left alone too much, or without any learning opportunities, he loses his natural zest for life and his desire to find out new things for himself. Learning together is a fruitful source of relationship between children and parents. By playing together, parents learn more about their children and children learn more from their parents. Toys and games which both parents and children can share are an important means of achieving this cooperation. Building block toys and jigsaw puzzles and crosswords are good examples. Parents vary greatly in their degree of strictness and indulgence towards their children. Some may be especially strict in money matters; others are severe over times of coming home at night, punctuality for meals or personal cleanliness. In general, the controls imposed represent the needs of the parents and the values of the community as much as the child’s own happiness and well-being. As regards the development of moral standards in the growing child, consistency is very important in parental teaching. To forbid a thing one day and excuse it the next is no foundation for morality. Also, parents should realize that “example is better than precept”. If they are hypocritical and do not practice what they preach, their children may grow confused and emotionally insecure when they grow old enough to think for themselves, and realize they have been to some extent deceived. A sudden awareness of a marked difference between their parents ethics and their morals can be a dangerous disillusion. （　）10. “Example is better than precept”doesn’t work when children grow old enough to think for themselves.

Miller's Theatre and Miller's Ideas Miller uses the techniques of the modern theatre to the full. He is not satisfied with simply employing the devices of lights and sound as an addition to the acting,but indicates in the stage directions of his plays precisely when a particular form of lighting or piece of sound is to be used. This is a deliberate attempt to make the theatre as a whole , not merely the actors , express the messages of the play . Mechanical devices assume , then , a symbolic significance-they represent an essential meaning or idea in the play in physical terms . They express a meaning - hence the term "expressionist" is often used to describe Miller as a dramatist. Miller was writing for a middle-class audience. His plays were performed on Broadway, the center of New York's theatrical and cultural life, and in Landon's West End. Therefore they reached only a small proportion of the population . Miller uses this fact ( that the plays reached a relatively small proportion of the population) to advantage in Death of a Salesman, where he examines American middle-class ideas and beliefs. He was able to place before his audience Willy Loman, a man who shared many of their ideals, ones which have been summed up by the phrase "the American Dream". The American Dream is a combination of beliefs in the unity of the family, the healthiness of competition in society, the need for success and money, and the view that America is the great land in which free opportunity for all exists.Some of these are connected: America seemed at one stage in history to offer alternatives to the European way of life; she seemed to be the New World,vast , having plenty of land and riches for all of its people , all of whom could share in the wealth of the nation. America was a land of opportunity. This belief is still apparent, even in twentieth-century America, with its large urban population, and Miller uses it in his plays, in order to state something significant about American society. In such a land, where all people have a great deal of opportunity, success should come fairly easily, so an unsuccessful man could feel bitter about his failure, excluded as he was from the success around him. To become successful in the American Dream means to believe in competition,to reach the top as quickly as possible by proving oneself better than others. Success is judged by the amount of wealth which can be acquired by an individual. Success is external and visible, shown in material wealth and encouraged . Money and success mean stability ; and stability can be seen in the family unit. The family is a guideline to success. It also provides emotional stability , and a good family shares its hopes and beliefs . These ideas should always be kept in mind when Death of a Salesman is considered. Another point to consider is Miller's conception of what the theatre should do . He is both a social dramatist . As a psychological dramatist he studies character, the motives and reasons behind the behavior of individuals , and presents them to his audiences so that his individual characters become convincingly alive,Often, these people are ordinary, everyday types,but ones whose actions are made significant by the dramatist.For example, the lives of ordinary citizens going about their daily business in their homes may not obviously appear interesting, but the dramatist can indicate that their daily lives are important, that they are interesting or unusual as people and that the audience may see their own situations and psychological states reflected in the characters the dramatist has created. Death of a Salesman is a good example of this. Of course, all dramatists and novelists try to make the actions of their characters relevant to other people, and most analyze closely the minds of the characters they have created in order to establish what makes them function as individuals. Where Miller differs from many of the others is in the type of person that he has created. Most of his heroes are ordinary people: they do not seem to be different from anyone who can be met in any street; and this, it might be argued, adds force to his plays,since none of the characters are remote-we share their feelings, and understand their difficulties. Also, Miller is able to show that everyday people can rise above the ordinary when challenged. Miller is a social dramatist in the sense that Death of a Salesman comments on the nature of society. Miller is concerned about society and the values which it holds. This means that Miller has often been regarded as an ally of the American Left, wishing to challenge the values of society, showing those values as worthless, and suggesting that a change may be necessary. Drama can expose the ills of society, make people aware there is something wrong with the system. Linked with Miller's attitude to society is his treatment of the middle class in the play. He was writing for the middle class as well as about them. And, at the time he was writing Death of a Salesman the ideals and way of life of the middle class in America were declining. People were not as stable financially because of the depression and then the 1939-45War, and so their way of life seemed to be challenged. Decide the answer that best completes the following statements according to the information provided in the text. 2 One feature about American society that Miller highlights in his plays is that ( ).

The Joys of Writing The fortunate in the world-the only really fortunate people in the world, in my mind,-are those whose work is also their pleasure. The class is not a large one, not nearly so large as it is often represented to be; and authors are perhaps one of the most important elements in its composition. They enjoy in this respect at least a real harmony of life. To my mind, to be able to make your work your pleasure is the one class distinction in the world worth striving for; and I do not wonder that others are inclined to envy those happy human beings who find their livelihood in the gay effusions of their fancy, to whom every hour of labour is an hour of enjoyment to whom repose – however necessary – is a tiresome interlude. And even a holiday is almost deprivation. Whether a man writing well or ill, has mach to say or little, if he cares about writing at all, he will appreciate the pleasures of composition. To sit at one’s table on a sunny morning, with four clear hours of uninterruptible security, plenty of nice white paper, and a squeezer pen – that is true happiness. The complete absorption of the mind upon an agreeable occupation – what more is there than to desire? What dose it matter what happens outside? The house of commons may do what it like, and so may the house of lords. The heathen may rage furiously in every part of the globe. The bottom may be knocked clean out of the American market. Consols may fall and suffragettes may rise. Never mind, for four hours, at any rate, we will withdraw ourselves from a common, ill – governed, and disorderly world, and with the key of fancy unlock that cupboard where all the good things of the infinite are put away. And speaking of freedom is not the author free, as few men are free? Is he not secure, as few men are secure? The tools of his industry are so common and so cheap that they have almost ceased to have commercial value. He needs no bulky pile of raw material, no elaborate apparatus, no service of men or animals. He is dependent for his occupation upon no one but himself, and nothing outside him that matters. He is the sovereign of an empire, self-supporting, self-contained. No one can sequestrate his estates. No one can deprive him of his stock in trade; no one can force him to exercise his faculty against his will; no one can prevent him exercising it as he chooses. The pen is the great liberator of men and nations. No chains can bind, no poverty can choke, no tariff can restrict the free play of his mind, and even the Times Book Club can only exert a moderately depressing influence upon his rewards. Whether his work is good or bad, so long as he does his best he is happy. I often fortify myself amid the uncertainties and vexations of political life by believing that I possess a line of retreat into a peaceful and fertile country where no rascal can pursue and where one need never be dull or idle or ever wholly without power. It is then, indeed, that I feel devoutly thankful to have been born fond of writing. It is then, indeed, that I feel grateful to all the brave and generous spirits who, in every age and in every land, have fought to establish the now unquestioned freedom of the pen. And what a noble medium the English language is. It is not possible to write a page without experiencing positive pleasure at the richness and variety, the flexibility and the profoundness of our mother-tongue. If an English writer cannot say what he has to say in English, and in simple English, depend upon it, it is probably not worth saying. What a pity it is that English is not more generally studied. I am not going to attack classical education. No one who has the slightest pretension to literary tastes can be insensible to the attraction of Greece and Rome. But I confess our present educational system excites in my mind grave misgivings. I cannot believe that a system is good, or even reasonable, which thrusts upon reluctant and uncomprehending multitudes of treasures which can only be appreciated by the privileged and gifted few. To the vast majority of boys who attend our public schools a classical education is from beginning to end one long useless, meaningless rigmarole. If I am told that classics are the best preparation for the study of English, I reply that by far the greater number of students finish their education while this preparatory stage is still incomplete and without deriving any of the benefits which are promised as its result. And even of those who, without being great scholars, attain a certain general acquaintance with the ancient writers, can it really be said that they have also obtained the mastery of English? How many young gentlemen there are from the universities and public schools who can turn a Latin verse with a facility which would make the old Romans squirm in their tombs. How few there are who can construct a few good sentences, or still less a few good paragraphs of plain, correct, and straightforward English. Now, I am a great admirer of the Greeks, although, of course, I have to depend upon what others tell me about them –and I would like to see our educationists imitate in one respect, at least, the Greek example. How is it that the Greeks made their language the most graceful and compendious mode of expression ever known among men? Did they spend all their time studying the languages which had preceded theirs? Did they explore with tireless persistency the ancient root dialects of the vanished world? Not at all. They studied Greek. They studied their own language. They loved it, they cherished it, they adorned it, they expanded it, and that is why it survives a model and delight to all posterity, Surely we, whose mother-tongue has already won for itself such an unequalled empire over the modern world, can learn this lesson at least from the ancient Greeks and bestow a little care and some proportion of the years of education to the study of a language which is perhaps to play a predominant part in the future progress of mankind. Let us remember the author can always do his best. There is no excuse for him. The great cricketer may be out of form. The general may on the day of decisive battle have a bad toothache or a bad army. The admiral may be seasick –as a sufferer I reflect with satisfaction upon that contingency. Caruso may be afflicted with catarrh, or Hackenschmidt with influenza. As for an orator, it is not enough for him to be able to think well and truly. He must think quickly. Speed is vital to him. Spontaneity is more than ever the hallmark of good speaking. All these varied forces of activity require from the performer the command of the best that is in him at a particular moment which may be fixed by circumstances utterly beyond his control. It is not so with the author. He need never appear in public until he is ready. He can always realize the best that is in him. He is not dependent upon his best moment in any one day. He may group together the best moments of twenty days. There is no excuse for him if he does not do his best. Great is his opportunity; great also is his responsibility. Someone –I forget who –has said, “Words are the only things last for ever.” That is, to my mind, always a wonderful thought. The most durable structures raised in stone by the strength of man, the mightiest monuments of his power, crumble into dust, while the words spoken with fleeting breath, the passing expression of the unstable fancies of his mind, endure not as echoes of the past, not as mere archaeological curiosities or venerable relics, but with a force and life as new and strong, and sometimes far stronger than when they were first spoken, and leaping across the gulf of three thousand years, they light the world for us today. Read carefully the text and decide the answer that best completes the following statements according to the information provided in the text. 7.Classics are preparatory in the sense that ( ).

The Value of Education Education is not an end, but a means to an end. In other words, we do not educate children only for the aim of educating them. Our purpose is to fit them for life. Life is varied; so is education. As soon as we realize the fact, we will understand that it is very important to choose a proper system of education. 　　In some countries with advanced industries, they have free education for all. Under this system, people, no matter whether they are rich or poor, clever or foolish, have a chance to be educated at universities or colleges. They have for some time thought, by free education for all, they can solve all the problems of a society, and build a perfect nation. But we can already see that free education for all is not enough. We find in such countries a far larger number of people with university degrees than there are jobs for them to fill. As a result of their degrees, they refuse to do what they think is "low" work. In fact, to work with one’ s hands is thought to be dirty and shameful in such countries. 　　But we have only to think a moment to understand that the work of a completely uneducated farmer is as important as that of a professor. We can live without education, but we should die if none of us grew crops. If no one cleaned our streets and took the rubbish away from our houses, we should get terrible diseases in our towns. If there were no service people, because everyone was ashamed to do such work, the professors would have to waste much of their time doing housework. 　　On the other hand, if all the farmers were completely uneducated, their production would remain low. As the population grows larger and larger in the modern world, we would die if we did not have enough food. 　　In fact, when we say all of us must be educated to fit ourselves for life, it means that all must be educated: firstly, to realize that everyone can do whatever job is suited to his brain and ability; secondly, to understand that all jobs are necessary to society and that it is bad to be ashamed of one’s own work or to look down upon someone else’s; thirdly, to master all the necessary know-how（技能）to do one’s job well. Only such education can be called valuable to society. （　）5. Once you do a certain job you should try to master all skills to do the job well.

Reading skills are very important. Experts estimate that it is possible for any normal adult English speaker to read 1,000 words a minute and more, with special training. Yet most students read only about 300 words per minute. The following principles might be helpful for foreign students who wish io increase their reading skills:◊Always read faster than is comfortable. The faster your normal rate of reading becomes, the better your understanding will be.◊Keep reading ahead. Do not allow yourself to regress while reading, even when you come across a new word. If some word, term or phrase has clouded your understanding, you should reread it only after you have read the entire paragraph through once.◊Read selectively. As you read make a conscious effort to screen the nouns, pronouns, and verbs from the other words, since these are the words that give meaning to what you have read. In effect, you should really read the nouns, pronouns and verbs and merely see the rest of the words in the sentence.◊Read beyond the lines. As a good reader, you should see ideas implied through the words, and bridge the gap between the obvious and the suggested, thus obtaining much more information.Because the reading assignments in most college courses are very long, students should plan to read every day. If, however, they find that they cannot complete all the assigned readings in the beginning, they should not panic. Instead, they should ask their classmates how much they are reading and attempt to learn from them what to read first and what to postpone until a later date.Because much of the past learning experience of foreign students may have been for the purpose of passing examinations, they might be inclined to put off studying until late in the term. Such behavior can result in failure in the US system, where assignments must be completed on time and done regularly each day.What principle should foreign students follow when they come across a new word while reading?

Bricks from the Tower of the Babel According to the Bible story, there was a time when the whole earth was of one language and of one speech. But when it occurred to the people to build a tower that would reach unto Heaven itself, the Lord was angry and said, “Let us go down, and there confound their language that they may not understand one another's speech.” And the building was stopped and the people scattered because they could no longer understand one another. 　　Is it possible that the people of the world today could agree upon a single international language that everyone would be able to speak and understand? This has been the dream of many linguists over the centuries, and almost a thousand languages have been invented for this, not to replace the native languages but to provide a second language for worldwide communication. 　　For about a thousand years -- from about the fifth century through the fifteenth -- Latin was the second language of educated people all over Europe and all scholarly works were written in Latin. For, before the invention of the printing press, reading and writing were skills known only to scholars. Most of the scholars were priests and clergymen, and Latin was the language of the church. Latin was a subject required in schools and in colleges, and all educated people had some familiarity with it. 　　The number of people who study Latin has not grown smaller, but proportionately it has become very much smaller. As ordinary people all over the world began to be able to read and write their own languages, and as scientific work of the sixteenth and later centuries came more and more to be written in living languages, a knowledge of Latin was not so essential. Thus, although Latin might once have been claimed as the most suitable of possible international languages （at least for Europeans）, this time has definitely passed. 　　The earliest attempts to invent a simplified language for international use came in the seventeenth century, but it was not until the late nineteenth century that any sizable group of people did actually attempt to speak and write an artificial language. Esperanto, which was published in 1887, was the first language really to take hold. At one time or another as many as eight million people have learned Esperanto. It has been taught in a great many schools and colleges in Europe, and the study of Esperanto was even made compulsory in some high schools in Germany. 　　Five-sixths of Esperanto words have Latin roots; the remainder are Germanic. Verbs are still inflected for tense, and nouns have separate forms for use as subject and object in a sentence. 　　Ido and Interlingua followed Esperanto and improved it, by cutting out some of the cumbersome Latin grammar that still remained. 　　In 1928, Otto Jespersen, the famous Danish linguist who is known as the greatest authority on the English language, put forth a concoction of his own called Novial. It was an improvement on Esperanto but still had the same basic approach. Jespersen thought that the best type of international language was one that offered the greatest ease of learning to the greatest number of people. But when Jespersen thinks of the “greatest number of people” he is referring to Europeans or people of other continents whose language and culture derives from Europe. This completely excludes native populations of the continents of Asia and Africa and of the Pacific Islands, for whom Novial would be totally unfamiliar. 　　Still, if the language is a well-constructed one and not too complicated, perhaps it could nevertheless be adopted by those unfamiliar with its roots and structure. 　　Interglossa, the most recent of the proposed artificial languages, uses basically the Chinese structure, which is that of the isolating language where each word stands alone and there are no inflections at all. The rules of grammar in Interglossa are largely rules of word order, as in English and more strictly in Chinese. The roots are basically Latin and Greek because these have been the roots of most scientific words and are therefore--to some extent—familiar to scientists all over the world. 　　The use to Latin and Greek roots is a big help to readers of Indo-European languages. While this is of no help to the people who speak non-Indo-European languages, the use of Latin roots has at least the advantage of straightforward rules for spelling and pronunciation. The Latin, and all of the sounds of Latin are represented by its letters. 　　Why must an international language necessarily be a made-up language? Why can’t one of the existing languages be chosen as the best one to try to internationalize? 　　In the United Nations, for example, there are five official languages — English, Chinese, Russian, French, and Spanish — and at all official meetings simultaneous translation is carried on, so that it is possible to listen to the speeches in any one of the five languages. If a delegate does not know at least one of these languages, he or she must learn one. How about making one of these into an international language? Of these, Chinese and Russian are not likely to gain many supporters because of the difficulties of these alphabets. The Russian alphabet stems from the Greek but is like that of very few other languages in the world today. The Chinese alphabet is not an alphabet at all. Its characters represent ideas, not sounds, and would therefore require someone to learn two separate languages -- the written and the spoken. The fact that Chinese characters are associated with idea, not sound, would make it a fine written international language, since each reader could apply the symbol to the appropriate word in his or her own language. 　　French was once the language of international diplomats, and a great many people involved in international relations had to learn French. But it has never been a language of science. Its spelling is difficult for foreigners and some of the sounds in French, being unlike those of other Latin-based Languages, are hard for non-French speakers to master. Spanish comes off well in both spelling and pronunciation, for its rules are simple and there are almost no exceptions to those rules, but it is highly inflected and even adds such complications as having two different forms for the verb “to be”, depending upon whether the state of being is permanent or temporary. In simplified form, it might do very well, but no one has tried to promote Spanish as the international language. 　　English, on the other hand, has been worked on for this purpose. C.K. Ogden and I. A. Richards set themselves the task of discovering what is the smallest number of words we need to have in order to be able to define all of the other words in English. They came up with the answer of eight hundred and fifty and made a basic word list of eight hundred and fifty English words, which they named Basic English. These are the only verbs in the entire list: “come, go, get, give, keep, let, do, put, make, say, be, seem, take, see, may, will, have, send.” 　　Writing in Basic English may require you to use a greater number of words -- as in having to say “it came to my ears” instead of “I heard” -- but you can still say anything you want to with just 850 different words and a few suffixes: “-ed, -ing, -ly” and the prefixes “in-, and un-” for “not”. This is a much smaller number of words to have to memorize than is ordinarily offered to the student of a foreign language. 　　Basic English and most of the other languages that have been proposed as international languages have one great disability for their acceptance as a world language: they all assume that the structure of Indo-European languages is　generally understood worldwide. （Interglossa is the only important exception, as it makes the attempt to use Chinese isolating structure instead.） As Benjamin Whorf, an expert on American Indian languages pointed out, "We say ‘a large black and white hunting dog' and assume that in Basic English one would do the same. How is the speaker of a radically different tongue supposed to know that one cannot say ‘hunting a white and black large dog'?” 　　Finally, in considering the merits of any proposed international language it's important to remember what it can and cannot be expected to do. If it is to be used for anything other than basic understanding between people of different nationalities in their daily lives, in international affairs, and in the exchange of scientific information, all proposals are likely to be rejected. If you think of it as a way of internationalizing literature -- especially poetry -- forget it. 　　Admittedly, translations of the “Gettysburg Address”, of “Treasure Island”, “Black Beauty”, and other books of fiction into Basic English came out remarkably well, but no one who could read the original would accept the Basic English version instead. 　　If language were for nothing but the communication of warnings and weather reports, an artificial international language would do nicely. But people have always had a need to do more than simply “tell it like it is”. Language is for reporting not merely one’s work. In our language we define ourselves. For this, a language needs idioms, needs all the oddities of grammar and style that reflect its history and development, all the poetic turns of phrases that have enriched it over the centuries. The language needs these? Well, perhaps not. Does a person need eyebrows? If you were to construct a human being, would you provide eyebrows? Is there some special reason why our lips should be a different color from the rest of our face? Perhaps not, but this is how people — real people — are. Artificial language is recommended highly for artificial people. The computers need it to simplify communication among themselves. For communication bet　　Is it possible that the people of the world today could agree upon a single international language that everyone would be able to speak and understand? This has been the dream of many linguists over the centuries, and almost a thousand languages have been invented for this, not to replace the native languages but to provide a second language for worldwide communication. 　　For about a thousand years -- from about the fifth century through the fifteenth -- Latin was the second language of educated people all over Europe and all scholarly works were written in Latin. For, before the invention of the printing press, reading and writing were skills known only to scholars. Most of the scholars were priests and clergymen, and Latin was the language of the church. Latin was a subject required in schools and in colleges, and all educated people had some familiarity with it. 　　The number of people who study Latin has not grown smaller, but proportionately it has become very much smaller. As ordinary people all over the world began to be able to read and write their own languages, and as scientific work of the sixteenth and later centuries came more and more to be written in living languages, a knowledge of Latin was not so essential. Thus, although Latin might once have been claimed as the most suitable of possible international languages （at least for Europeans）, this time has definitely passed. 　　The earliest attempts to invent a simplified language for international use came in the seventeenth century, but it was not until the late nineteenth century that any sizable group of people did actually attempt to speak and write an artificial language. Esperanto, which was published in 1887, was the first language really to take hold. At one time or another as many as eight million people have learned Esperanto. It has been taught in a great many schools and colleges in Europe, and the study of Esperanto was even made compulsory in some high schools in Germany. 　　Five-sixths of Esperanto words have Latin roots; the remainder are Germanic. Verbs are still inflected for tense, and nouns have separate forms for use as subject and object in a sentence. 　　Ido and Interlingua followed Esperanto and improved it, by cutting out some of the cumbersome Latin grammar that still remained. 　　In 1928, Otto Jespersen, the famous Danish linguist who is known as the greatest authority on the English language, put forth a concoction of his own called Novial. It was an improvement on Esperanto but still had the same basic approach. Jespersen thought that the best type of international language was one that offered the greatest ease of learning to the greatest number of people. But when Jespersen thinks of the “greatest number of people” he is referring to Europeans or people of other continents whose language and culture derives from Europe. This completely excludes native populations of the continents of Asia and Africa and of the Pacific Islands, for whom Novial would be totally unfamiliar. 　　Still, if the language is a well-constructed one and not too complicated, perhaps it could nevertheless be adopted by those unfamiliar with its roots and structure. 　　Interglossa, the most recent of the proposed artificial languages, uses basically the Chinese structure, which is that of the isolating language where each word stands alone and there are no inflections at all. The rules of grammar in Interglossa are largely rules of word order, as in English and more strictly in Chinese. The roots are basically Latin and Greek because these have been the roots of most scientific words and are therefore--to some extent—familiar to scientists all over the world. 　　The use to Latin and Greek roots is a big help to readers of Indo-European languages. While this is of no help to the people who speak non-Indo-European languages, the use of Latin roots has at least the advantage of straightforward rules for spelling and pronunciation. The Latin, and all of the sounds of Latin are represented by its letters. 　　Why must an international language necessarily be a made-up language? Why can’t one of the existing languages be chosen as the best one to try to internationalize? 　　In the United Nations, for example, there are five official languages — English, Chinese, Russian, French, and Spanish — and at all official meetings simultaneous translation is carried on, so that it is possible to listen to the speeches in any one of the five languages. If a delegate does not know at least one of these languages, he or she must learn one. How about making one of these into an international language? Of these, Chinese and Russian are not likely to gain many supporters because of the difficulties of these alphabets. The Russian alphabet stems from the Greek but is like that of very few other languages in the world today. The Chinese alphabet is not an alphabet at all. Its characters represent ideas, not sounds, and would therefore require someone to learn two separate languages -- the written and the spoken. The fact that Chinese characters are associated with idea, not sound, would make it a fine written international language, since each reader could apply the symbol to the appropriate word in his or her own language. 　　French was once the language of international diplomats, and a great many people involved in international relations had to learn French. But it has never been a language of science. Its spelling is difficult for foreigners and some of the sounds in French, being unlike those of other Latin-based Languages, are hard for non-French speakers to master. Spanish comes off well in both spelling and pronunciation, for its rules are simple and there are almost no exceptions to those rules, but it is highly inflected and even adds such complications as having two different forms for the verb “to be”, depending upon whether the state of being is permanent or temporary. In simplified form, it might do very well, but no one has tried to promote Spanish as the international language. 　　English, on the other hand, has been worked on for this purpose. C.K. Ogden and I. A. Richards set themselves the task of discovering what is the smallest number of words we need to have in order to be able to define all of the other words in English. They came up with the answer of eight hundred and fifty and made a basic word list of eight hundred and fifty English words, which they named Basic English. These are the only verbs in the entire list: “come, go, get, give, keep, let, do, put, make, say, be, seem, take, see, may, will, have, send.” 　　Writing in Basic English may require you to use a greater number of words -- as in having to say “it came to my ears” instead of “I heard” -- but you can still say anything you want to with just 850 different words and a few suffixes: “-ed, -ing, -ly” and the prefixes “in-, and un-” for “not”. This is a much smaller number of words to have to memorize than is ordinarily offered to the student of a foreign language. 　　Basic English and most of the other languages that have been proposed as international languages have one great disability for their acceptance as a world language: they all assume that the structure of Indo-European languages is　generally understood worldwide. （Interglossa is the only important exception, as it makes the attempt to use Chinese isolating structure instead.） As Benjamin Whorf, an expert on American Indian languages pointed out, "We say ‘a large black and white hunting dog' and assume that in Basic English one would do the same. How is the speaker of a radically different tongue supposed to know that one cannot say ‘hunting a white and black large dog'?” 　　Finally, in considering the merits of any proposed international language it's important to remember what it can and cannot be expected to do. If it is to be used for anything other than basic understanding between people of different nationalities in their daily lives, in international affairs, and in the exchange of scientific information, all proposals are likely to be rejected. If you think of it as a way of internationalizing literature -- especially poetry -- forget it. 　　Admittedly, translations of the “Gettysburg Address”, of “Treasure Island”, “Black Beauty”, and other books of fiction into Basic English came out remarkably well, but no one who could read the original would accept the Basic English version instead. 　　If language were for nothing but the communication of warnings and weather reports, an artificial international language would do nicely. But people have always had a need to do more than simply “tell it like it is”. Language is for reporting not merely one’s work. In our language we define ourselves. For this, a language needs idioms, needs all the oddities of grammar and style that reflect its history and development, all the poetic turns of phrases that have enriched it over the centuries. The language needs these? Well, perhaps not. Does a person need eyebrows? If you were to construct a human being, would you provide eyebrows? Is there some special reason why our lips should be a different color from the rest of our face? Perhaps not, but this is how people — real people — are. Artificial language is recommended highly for artificial people. The computers need it to simplify communication among themselves. For communication between people, languages in all their diversity will remain and grow as mirrors of the growth and soul of the societies that speak them. Decide whether the following statements are true （T） or false （F） according to the information given in the text. 8. In the United Nations, there are five working languages and at all official meetings, the five languages are all translated.

The Joys of Writing The fortunate in the world-the only really fortunate people in the world, in my mind,-are those whose work is also their pleasure. The class is not a large one, not nearly so large as it is often represented to be; and authors are perhaps one of the most important elements in its composition. They enjoy in this respect at least a real harmony of life. To my mind, to be able to make your work your pleasure is the one class distinction in the world worth striving for; and I do not wonder that others are inclined to envy those happy human beings who find their livelihood in the gay effusions of their fancy, to whom every hour of labour is an hour of enjoyment to whom repose – however necessary – is a tiresome interlude. And even a holiday is almost deprivation. Whether a man writing well or ill, has mach to say or little, if he cares about writing at all, he will appreciate the pleasures of composition. To sit at one’s table on a sunny morning, with four clear hours of uninterruptible security, plenty of nice white paper, and a squeezer pen – that is true happiness. The complete absorption of the mind upon an agreeable occupation – what more is there than to desire? What dose it matter what happens outside? The house of commons may do what it like, and so may the house of lords. The heathen may rage furiously in every part of the globe. The bottom may be knocked clean out of the American market. Consols may fall and suffragettes may rise. Never mind, for four hours, at any rate, we will withdraw ourselves from a common, ill – governed, and disorderly world, and with the key of fancy unlock that cupboard where all the good things of the infinite are put away. And speaking of freedom is not the author free, as few men are free? Is he not secure, as few men are secure? The tools of his industry are so common and so cheap that they have almost ceased to have commercial value. He needs no bulky pile of raw material, no elaborate apparatus, no service of men or animals. He is dependent for his occupation upon no one but himself, and nothing outside him that matters. He is the sovereign of an empire, self-supporting, self-contained. No one can sequestrate his estates. No one can deprive him of his stock in trade; no one can force him to exercise his faculty against his will; no one can prevent him exercising it as he chooses. The pen is the great liberator of men and nations. No chains can bind, no poverty can choke, no tariff can restrict the free play of his mind, and even the Times Book Club can only exert a moderately depressing influence upon his rewards. Whether his work is good or bad, so long as he does his best he is happy. I often fortify myself amid the uncertainties and vexations of political life by believing that I possess a line of retreat into a peaceful and fertile country where no rascal can pursue and where one need never be dull or idle or ever wholly without power. It is then, indeed, that I feel devoutly thankful to have been born fond of writing. It is then, indeed, that I feel grateful to all the brave and generous spirits who, in every age and in every land, have fought to establish the now unquestioned freedom of the pen. And what a noble medium the English language is. It is not possible to write a page without experiencing positive pleasure at the richness and variety, the flexibility and the profoundness of our mother-tongue. If an English writer cannot say what he has to say in English, and in simple English, depend upon it, it is probably not worth saying. What a pity it is that English is not more generally studied. I am not going to attack classical education. No one who has the slightest pretension to literary tastes can be insensible to the attraction of Greece and Rome. But I confess our present educational system excites in my mind grave misgivings. I cannot believe that a system is good, or even reasonable, which thrusts upon reluctant and uncomprehending multitudes of treasures which can only be appreciated by the privileged and gifted few. To the vast majority of boys who attend our public schools a classical education is from beginning to end one long useless, meaningless rigmarole. If I am told that classics are the best preparation for the study of English, I reply that by far the greater number of students finish their education while this preparatory stage is still incomplete and without deriving any of the benefits which are promised as its result. And even of those who, without being great scholars, attain a certain general acquaintance with the ancient writers, can it really be said that they have also obtained the mastery of English? How many young gentlemen there are from the universities and public schools who can turn a Latin verse with a facility which would make the old Romans squirm in their tombs. How few there are who can construct a few good sentences, or still less a few good paragraphs of plain, correct, and straightforward English. Now, I am a great admirer of the Greeks, although, of course, I have to depend upon what others tell me about them –and I would like to see our educationists imitate in one respect, at least, the Greek example. How is it that the Greeks made their language the most graceful and compendious mode of expression ever known among men? Did they spend all their time studying the languages which had preceded theirs? Did they explore with tireless persistency the ancient root dialects of the vanished world? Not at all. They studied Greek. They studied their own language. They loved it, they cherished it, they adorned it, they expanded it, and that is why it survives a model and delight to all posterity, Surely we, whose mother-tongue has already won for itself such an unequalled empire over the modern world, can learn this lesson at least from the ancient Greeks and bestow a little care and some proportion of the years of education to the study of a language which is perhaps to play a predominant part in the future progress of mankind. Let us remember the author can always do his best. There is no excuse for him. The great cricketer may be out of form. The general may on the day of decisive battle have a bad toothache or a bad army. The admiral may be seasick –as a sufferer I reflect with satisfaction upon that contingency. Caruso may be afflicted with catarrh, or Hackenschmidt with influenza. As for an orator, it is not enough for him to be able to think well and truly. He must think quickly. Speed is vital to him. Spontaneity is more than ever the hallmark of good speaking. All these varied forces of activity require from the performer the command of the best that is in him at a particular moment which may be fixed by circumstances utterly beyond his control. It is not so with the author. He need never appear in public until he is ready. He can always realize the best that is in him. He is not dependent upon his best moment in any one day. He may group together the best moments of twenty days. There is no excuse for him if he does not do his best. Great is his opportunity; great also is his responsibility. Someone –I forget who –has said, “Words are the only things last for ever.” That is, to my mind, always a wonderful thought. The most durable structures raised in stone by the strength of man, the mightiest monuments of his power, crumble into dust, while the words spoken with fleeting breath, the passing expression of the unstable fancies of his mind, endure not as echoes of the past, not as mere archaeological curiosities or venerable relics, but with a force and life as new and strong, and sometimes far stronger than when they were first spoken, and leaping across the gulf of three thousand years, they light the world for us today. Read carefully the text and decide the answer that best completes the following statements according to the information provided in the text. 9. By referring to an orator,the writer means that ( ).