Americans no longer expect public figures, whether in speech or in writing, to command the English language with skill and gift. Nor do they aspire to such command themselves. In his latest book, Doing Our Own Thing: The Degradation of Language and Why We Should, Like, Care, John McWhorter, a linguist and controversialist of mixed liberal and conservative views, sees the triumph of 1960s counter-culture as responsible for the decline of formal English。

　　Blaming the permissive 1960s is nothing new, but this is not yet another criticism against the decline in education. Mr. McWhorter’s academic specialty is language history and change, and he sees the gradual disappearance of “whom”， for example, to be natural and no more regrettable than the loss of the case-endings of Old English。

　　But the cult of the authentic and the personal, “doing our own thing”， has spelt the death of formal speech, writing, poetry and music. While even the modestly educated sought an elevated tone when they put pen to paper before the 1960s, even the most well regarded writing since then has sought to capture spoken English on the page. Equally, in poetry, the highly personal, performative genre is the only form that could claim real liveliness. In both oral and written English, talking is triumphing over speaking, spontaneity over craft。

　　Illustrated with an entertaining array of examples from both high and low culture, the trend that Mr. McWhorter documents is unmistakable. But it is less clear, to take the question of his subtitle, why we should, like, care. As a linguist, he acknowledges that all varieties of human language, including non-standard ones like Black English, can be powerfully expressive—there exists no language or dialect in the world that cannot convey complex ideas. He is not arguing, as many do, that we can no longer think straight because we do not talk proper。

　　Russians have a deep love for their own language and carry large chunks of memorized poetry in their heads, while Italian politicians tend to elaborate speech that would seem old-fashioned to most English speakers. Mr. McWhorter acknowledges that formal language is not strictly necessary, and proposes no radical education reforms—he is really grieving over the loss of something beautiful more than useful. We now take our English “on paper plates instead of china”. A shame, perhaps, but probably an inevitable one。

　　36. According to McWhorter, the decline of formal English

　　[A] is inevitable in radical education reforms。

　　[B] is but all too natural in language development。

　　[C] has caused the controversy over the counter-culture。

　　[D] brought about changes in public attitudes in the 1960s。

　　37. The word “talking” (Line 5, Paragraph 3) denotes

　　[A] modesty. [B]personality.  [C]liveliness.  [D]informality。

　　38. To which of the following statements would McWhorter most likely agree?

　　[A] Logical thinking is not necessarily related to the way we talk。

　　[B] Black English can be more expressive than standard English。

　　[C] Non-standard varieties of human language are just as entertaining。

　　[D] Of all the varieties, standard English can best convey complex ideas。

　　39. The description of Russians’ love of memorizing poetry shows the author’s

　　[A] interest in their language.      [B] appreciation of their efforts。

　　[C] admiration for their memory.   [D]contempt for their old-fashionedness。

　　40. According to the last paragraph, “paper plates” is to “china” as

　　[A] “temporary” is to “permanent”。

　　[B] “radical ”is to “conservative”。

　　[C] “functional ” is to “artistic”。

　　[D] “humble” is to “noble”。

　　名师解析

　　36. According to Mc Whorter, the decline of formal English

　　根据麦克沃特所言， 正式英语的衰退 

　　[A] is inevitable in radical education reforms.  在激进的教育改革中是不可避免的。

　　[B] is but all too natural in language development.  在语言的发展中实属自然。

　　[C] has caused the controversy over the counter-culture.  造成了对反文化潮流的争议。

　　[D] brought about changes in public attitudes in the 1960s.  带来了20世纪60年代公众态度的变化。

　　【答案】 B

　　【考点】 事实细节题。

　　【分析】 第二段的第二句中作者提到麦克沃特，诸如“he sees gradual disappearance of ‘whom’, for example, to be natural and no more regrettable than the loss of the case-endings of Old English，”就是要求考生能够理解出正式英语在语言发展中衰退的自然性。选项[A]中提到的激进的教育在文章的最后一段中可以找到“Mr. McWhorter acknowledges that formal language is not strictly necessary, and proposes no radical education reforms—he is really grieving over the loss of something beautiful more than useful。”这句话具有很强的干扰，主要是因为一些考生喜欢直接阅读，而不是先看题目，看到后面反而重点不够突出，似是而非。出题人常用的一个方法就是将一些文章中出现但是实际上没有必然联系的内容揉杂在一起，起到很大的干扰。其实文章中根本没有提到二者有什么关系，只是顺带说他没有提议用激进的教育来改变正式英语衰退的趋势。选项[C]说对反文化有争议，从文中可以看出，将正式英语的衰退归咎于反文化并不会引起什么争议，没有人会认为反文化使得正式英语得到了发展。选项[D]说正式英语的衰退导致公众态度的变化，这样的说法属于典型的因果倒置。出题人意图利用考生临场考试时不稳定的心理状态来干扰考生，看其能否正确理解文章的大意。如果考生不能够养成良好的考试习惯，往往会花费很多额外的时间，因为很多时候，我们只需要知道正确答案是什么，而无需知道也没有时间来分析其他选项错在哪里。

　　37. The word“talking”(Line 6, Paragraph3) denotes  “talking”(第三段第六行)一词表示

　　[A] modesty. 谦虚。           [B] personality. 个性。  

　　[C] liveliness. 活泼。             [D] informality. 非正式。

　　【答案】 D

　　【考点】 语义题。

　　【分析】 考生必须利用上下文推测单词意思，在原文中首先找到这句话，然后仔细研读，最后才能够体会出这个单词的意思。第三段首先提到“做我们自己的事情”的结果是规范的演讲、作品、诗歌和音乐的死亡。然后提到在20世纪60年代以前那些受过一般教育的人在写作时都用比较高雅的语气，最后又说那些被认为是最重要的作品都试图表现出口语的特色，“talking”战胜了演讲，即兴战胜了技巧。而口语化的特点就是非正式。

　　38. To which of the following statements would Mc Whorter most likely agree?

　　下列哪一种说法麦克沃特最有可能会同意？

　　[A] Logical thinking is not necessarily related to the way we talk。

　　逻辑思维并不必然与我们说话的方式相关。

　　[B] Black English can be more expressive than standard English。

　　黑人所使用的英语可能比正式英语更有表现力。

　　[C] Non-standard varieties of human language are just as entertaining。

　　人类的各种各样非标准的语言一样有趣。

　　[D] Of all the varieties, standard English can best convey complex ideas。

　　在英语的各种变体中，标准英语最能表达复杂的思想。

　　【答案】 A

　　【考点】 推断题。

　　【分析】 在第四段第四句话中，我们可以看到，麦克沃特认为所有人类语言，包括黑人的非标准英语，都具有很强的表现力。[B]选项中提到黑人使用的英语，但是说这种英语比正式英语更具有表现力是显然夸大了范围。[D]选项认为正式英语最能够表达复杂的思想，也犯了同样的错误。紧接着作者提到麦克沃特不认为因为我们不能很好地说话我们就不能正确地进行思考。这句话正好应了[A]选项，即正确的逻辑思维不一定与我们说话的方式有关。因此选项[A]是正确的。[C]的说法与原文完全不符合。

　　39. The description of Russians’ love of memorizing poetry shows the author’s

　　就俄罗斯人喜欢记忆诗歌的描述显示出作者

　　[A] interest in their language.  对他们的语言感兴趣。

　　[B] appreciation of their efforts.  欣赏他们的努力。

　　[C] admiration for their memory.  对他们记忆力的仰慕。

　　[D] contempt for their old-fashionedness.  对他们的守旧表示蔑视。

　　【答案】 B

　　【考点】 推断题。

　　【分析】 文章最后一段第一句话提到“俄罗斯人对本国语言的热爱，能够记得很多诗歌，而意大利的政治家们常常发表在大多数英国人看来有点过时的经过精心准备的演讲。麦克沃特认为正式语言并非不可或缺，也没有提出要进行激进的教育改革——他其实只是为那些美好而不是实用品的消逝而感到遗憾。”结合文章主题可以看出这几句话中作者的言下之意：他欣赏俄罗斯人为保持自身语言的优美性所做的努力。但是这并不能够说明他对俄罗斯语感兴趣，或者赞赏他们的记忆力，更不可能是轻视他们。

　　40. According to the last paragraph, “paper plates” is to “china” as

　　根据最后一段，将“纸盘子”和“瓷器”相比就相当于

　　[A] “temporary”is to“permanent””.  “暂时的”与“永久的”相比。

　　[B] “radical”is to“conservative”.  “激进的”与“保守的”相比。

　　[C] “functional”is to“artistic”.   “功能的”与“艺术的”相比。

　　[D] “humble”is to“noble”.  “谦卑的”与“高贵的”相比。

　　【答案】 C

　　【考点】 推断题。

　　【分析】 纸盘子和瓷盘子的区别不止一个，但是最后一段中作者提到优美和实用这层意思，也就是说作者想要说明的不是暂时与永久，不是激进与保守，不是谦卑与高贵，而是能够反映纸盘子和瓷盘子背后的优美和实用这一对概念，也就是功能与艺术的比较。

　　难句解析：

　　1. In his latest book, Doing Our Own Thing. The Degradation of language and Music and why we should like, care, John McWhorter, a linguist and controversialist of mixed liberal and conservative views, sees the triumph of 1960s counter-culture as responsible for the decline of formal English。

　　【结构分析】 该句子的主干是“John McWhorter sees the triumph of 1960s counter-culture as responsible for the decline。”主语前的介宾短语“in his latest book”做状语，“book”后有一个较长的书名充当其同位语。主语和谓语之间“a linguist and controversialist of mixed liberal and conservative views”为主语的同位语，对主语补充说明。

　　2. As a linguist, he acknowledges that all varieties of human language, including non-standard ones like Black English, can be powerfully expressive—there exists no language or dialect in the world that cannot convey complex ideas。

　　【结构分析】 该复合句的主干是“he acknowledges that all varieties can be expressive”，谓语“acknowledges”后面是“that”引导的宾语从句。从句中主谓之间插入了介宾短语“including non-standard ones like Black English”。破折号后面分句对前面话语进行补充说明，其中还有一个“that”引导的定语从句。

　　全文翻译：

　　美国人已不再期待公众人物在演讲或写作中能运用技巧和文采来驾驭英语，而公众人物自己也不渴望这样。语言学家和辩论家麦克沃特的观点混杂着自由派与保守派的看法。在他最近的书《做我们自己的事：语言和音乐的退化，以及我们为什么要在乎这样的事情》中，这位学者认为60年代反文化运动的胜利要对正式英语的退化负责。

　　责备放纵的六十年代毫不新鲜，但这次并不是对教育退步的又一场批判。麦克沃特先生专长于语言史和语言变迁。比如说，他认为“whom”一词的逐渐消失是自然的，并不比古英语中词格尾缀的消失更让人惋惜。

　　然而，“做自己的事”这一崇尚真实和个性化的时尚，造成了正式演讲、写作、诗歌及音乐的消亡。在20世纪60年代以前，仅受过一般教育的人在下笔时都会寻求一种更高雅的强调；而那之后，即使是最受关注的文章也开始逮住口语就写在纸面上。同样的，对于诗歌来说，非常个性化和富有表现力的创作风格成为了能够表达真实生动含义的唯一形式。无论作为口语还是书面语的英语，随意言谈胜过雅致的言辞，自我发挥也压过了精心准备。

　　麦克沃特先生从上层和下层文化中列举了一系列有趣的例子，从而说明他记录的这种趋势是确凿无误的。但就书中副标题中的疑问“我们为什么要在乎(这样变化趋势)”，答案却不够明确。作为语言学家，麦克沃特认为各种各样的人类语言，包括像黑人语言这样的非标准语言，都具有强大的表达力――世上没有传达不了复杂思想的语言或方言。不像其他大多数人，他并不像许多人那样，认为我们说话方式不再规范就会使我们不能够准确地思考。

　　俄罗斯人深爱自己的语言，并在脑海中存储了大量诗歌；而意大利的政客们往往精心准备演讲，即使这在大多数讲英语的人们眼里已经过时。麦克沃特先生认为正式语言并非不可或缺，也没有提出要进行彻底的教育改革——他其实只是为那些美好事物而不是实用品的消逝而哀叹。我们现在用“纸盘子”而非“瓷器”装着我们的英语大餐。真是惭愧啊，但是却是一种不可避免的羞愧。