注册 登录  
 加关注
   显示下一条  |  关闭
温馨提示!由于新浪微博认证机制调整,您的新浪微博帐号绑定已过期,请重新绑定!立即重新绑定新浪微博》  |  关闭

梅晗,Nichol

Notting Hill,the blue gate...

 
 
 

日志

 
 
关于我

中国在线教育雅思阅读No1,一年间词霸营和阅读高分营学员愈2万.历任天道国际教育集团教学教务部总监,新东方VIP学习部教学总监, 英联邦项目经理,新东方集团培训师. 非典型双鱼男,双子,射手,狮子自动回避

网易考拉推荐

2010.01.23雅思A类阅读回忆  

2010-01-25 21:06:49|  分类: 雅思阅读机经 |  标签: |举报 |字号 订阅

  下载LOFTER 我的照片书  |

第一篇        猿类保护(Ape)

题型: Matching(人名观点) & T/F/NG & Summary

文章内容:

关于APE的。说他们现在面临一些危险,然后就介绍了。

然后有说他们一起生活会比较容易生存,抵抗疾病能力比较强啊,扩大物种多样性啊,虽然政府在它们数量很多的地方都有出台保护措施或者法律但是因为没有很好的执行,所以他们还是在受着危害。还有是人类疾病对他们的传染,因为他们没有提到了肺炎了另一种我不认识的病,然后呼吁投入更多的资源去解决,比如专家啊什么。最后是说森林的clearance对他们栖息地也造成了影响,great ape的。

Summary:ONE WORD ONLY(在人类疾病对它们传染那块)

 

 

第二篇        气候变暖(Global Warming)

题型: Summary & Matching & Multiple Choice(多选) & Multiple Choice(主旨)

文章内容:

讲天气变化对人类及地球上动物的影响。说的是比起global warming,人类才是真正威胁WILDLIFE的原因,然后就举例子啦干嘛的。当然了,它也说道了global warming对他们的影响,其中有一题多选就是问这个。

开始的时候,人们都没有意识到是自己对它们造成危害,以为是global warming造孽。现在才开始意识到。

接着有说可以根据一些动物的行为异常来判断global warming。

Multiple Choice:选主旨 B

 

 

第三篇        人类语言的发展

题型: Matching(人名观点) & Y/N/NG & Summary & Matching

文章内容:

是一场语言是如何诞生的一系列说法,研究调查什么的。和一般类似的一样,先是提出一种说法,语言是近些年出现的什么的,不过介绍的比较简单,就第一段提的。后面就开始说其他新近的理论,质疑那种说法,比如环境的影响后,人脑大小,大脑发展快慢,原因,还讨论到了其他非人类物种的脑袋,最后还提到了文化,我忘了说文化干什么。然后举出种种发现来证明原来的说法有问题。

Matching:有两个他们两个都没提到(好像是他们都提到了)

Y/N/NG:科学技术能不能影响人的大脑体积,我选的是YES;

         最后两题选NOT GIVEN

Matching:1.2million;2.5million;1.2million

 

卫报原文,如下:http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/aug/07/lastword.science

 

When did we start talking to each other and how long did it take us to become so good at it? In the absence of palaeo-cassette recorders or a time machine the problem might seem insoluble, but analysis of recent evidence suggests we may have started talking as early as 2.5m years ago.

 

There is a polar divide on the issues of dating and linking thought, language and material culture. One view of language development, held by linguists such as Noam Chomsky and anthropologists such as Richard Klein, is that language, specifically the spoken word, appeared suddenly among modern humans between 35,000 and 50,000 years ago and that the ability to speak words and use syntax was recently genetically hard-wired into our brains in a kind of language organ.

 

This view of language is associated with the old idea that logical thought is dependent on words, a concept originating with Plato and much in vogue in the 19th century: animals do not speak because they do not think. The advances in communication and abstract thought demonstrated by chimps and bonobos such as the famous Kanzi put this theory in doubt.

 

The notion of a great leap forward in the quality of human thinking is further reflected in a common interpretation of the flowering of Upper Palaeolithic art in Europe. European cave paintings in Lascaux and Chauvet in France and carved figurines that have been dated to over 30,000 years ago are seen, according to this perspective, as the first stirrings of symbolic and abstract thought and also of language.

 

The problem with using art as prehistoric evidence for the first human that could speak is that, quite apart from its validity, the further back one looks the more chance the evidence for art itself would have perished.

 

An alternative to the Chomskian theory, is that language developed as a series of inventions. This was first suggested by the 18th-century philosopher Etienne Bonnot de Condillac. He argued that spoken language had developed out of gesture language (langage d'action) and that both were inventions arising initially from the simple association between action and object. The Condillac view, with some development, can be traced to the present day with the recent work of New Zealand psychologist Michael Corballis and others. The theory sees gesture language as arising originally among apes as sounds accompanying gestures, with these sounds gradually becoming coded into "words" as the new skill drove its own evolution. Subsequently, coded words developed into deliberate, complex communication. Evolutionary pressures promoted the development of an anatomy geared to speech - the larynx, vocal muscles and a specific part of the brain immediately next to that responsible for gestures.

 

This view, that spoken language was ultimately a cultural invention like tool-making, which then drove the biological evolution of the brain and vocal apparatus, seems obvious when you think of the development of different languages.

 

The unique features of a language such as French clearly do not result from any biological aspect of being French but are the cultural possessions of the French-speaking community. Each language evolves from one generation to the next, constantly adapting itself to cope with the learning biases of each new set of young, immature minds.

 

Several skull and spinal modifications relating to speech production (arched base of skull and enlargement of the channel for nerves to the tongue in early human fossils, a lopsided brain and changes in relative proportions of the brain) have all been used to shift speech way back to early humans 2.5m years ago or even earlier.

 

Anthropologists and fossil experts who accept that speech started early, still tend to think of language evolution as a gradual 2m year process with our own modern human species (Homo sapiens) way out at the top and our older human ancestors cast as mumbling, hooting parodies of ourselves. A major reason for this is the perception that brain growth among humans was gradual over the same 2.5m year period. Several recent changes in the fossil evidence bring this into doubt.

 

The first of these is a redating of soil layers from the famous Olduvai Gorge in east Africa where many key fossil remains have been found. A number of big-brained human species appear to be much older than previously thought, with several specimens dating over a million years old. When brain sizes for all available skulls are plotted against time, using the revised dates, the result is startling: the bulk of increase in brain size was over by around 1.2m years ago with some African human species having brain volumes easily within the modern human range by that time. Those in our own African ancestry stopped growing their brains perhaps 200,000 years ago and even started shrinking them over the past 150,000 years - the period of our own species' time on Earth.

 

So we have the paradox that over the period when our brain was growing most rapidly, our material cultural development, as measured by stone tools, advanced only marginally; then, over a million years later, when the culture of anatomically modern humans finally started to accelerate, artistically and technologically, our brains were actually getting smaller.

 

The additional piece of evidence that makes this paradox all the more significant is that brain size did not just leap between human species in a direct line of ascent towards ourselves. Over the period from 2.5 to 1.5m years ago, it turns out brains were growing more rapidly than at any time since, within all the different human species and also in Paranthropus species. The logical conclusion is that there must have been a unique new behaviour driving brain growth, shared between all species of humans and Paranthropus, with its origin, presumably, in their immediate shared walking ape ancestor.

 

So, what was driving rapid brain growth right at the beginning 2.5m years ago? The answer may have been staring us in the face. Namely, that not only were early humans and Paranthropus communicating but their ancestor, a walking ape, had started the trend in this very useful skill. Around 2.5m years ago the weather took a decided turn for the worse, becoming more variable and colder and dryer. The search for food became more taxing, and there would have been a real need to communicate more effectively and cope with the worsening environment in a cooperative way.

 

Speech, a complex system of oral communication, is the only inherited primate skill that would self-evidently benefit from a larger computer than that of a chimp. The near maximum in brain size achieved by 1.2m years ago indicates that those early ancestors could already have been talking perfectly well. It was all over bar the shouting. Our new Rolls Royce brain, developed to manipulate and organise complex symbolic aspects of speech internally, could now be turned to a variety of other tasks.

 

So what happened in the million gap years after that? Why did we take so long to get to the moon? Cultural evolution aided by communication and teaching is a cumulative interactive process. If each new generation invented just one new skill or idea and passed it on with the rest to their children and cousins, you could predict exactly the same curve of cultural advance as we see from the archaeological and historical record - first very slow, then faster and faster.

  评论这张
 
阅读(21630)| 评论(2)
推荐 转载

历史上的今天

评论

<#--最新日志,群博日志--> <#--推荐日志--> <#--引用记录--> <#--博主推荐--> <#--随机阅读--> <#--首页推荐--> <#--历史上的今天--> <#--被推荐日志--> <#--上一篇,下一篇--> <#-- 热度 --> <#-- 网易新闻广告 --> <#--右边模块结构--> <#--评论模块结构--> <#--引用模块结构--> <#--博主发起的投票-->
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

页脚

网易公司版权所有 ©1997-2017