揽瓜阁俱乐部第五期 Day5 2021.02.12
【人文科学-语言】 Which is the best language?The answer, in the end, is in the ear of the beholder （The Economist- 743字 长阅读）
Maurice druon of the French Academy once proposed that French should be made the principal legal language of the European Union. He argued that its logic and precision rendered it the judicial language par excellence. Others chortled. How very French of him!
The French are hardly alone in believing that their language is especially poetic, emotional, logical, precise, accessible or rich. But it turns out that the things people prize in their own languages can often be the same things foreign learners hate. Take the formal-informal distinction in words for “you”. German and French have du and tu for friends and family, and Sie and vous for unknown adults and formal speech. Natives of those languages miss that distinction when speaking English. Those whose languages (like English) don’t make it in the first place often resent having this choice forced on them in French or German.
A dictum among linguists is that languages differ not in what they can express, but in what they must. Given the time and willingness to explain or coin basic terms, any language could be used to talk about anything. But they vary wildly in what they insist speakers say, with the tu-vous distinction just the tip of an iceberg. Washo, a native language of Nevada, has four past and three future tenses, depending on how distant an event is in time. Tariana, from Brazil, has “evidentiality”: speakers choose one of five verb-endings to show how they know what they aver to be true. Jarawara, also from Brazil, distinguishes “we (including you)” and “we (without you)”.
The many different things a language can and must do are the subject of “Are Some Languages Better than Others?”, a book from 2016 by R.M.W. Dixon of James Cook University in Australia. Mr Dixon dispels old colonialist prejudices that European languages are sophisticated and indigenous ones primitive. Indeed, many of the most nuanced discriminations are required not by French or German but among isolated traditional communities.
In answering his title’s provocative question, Mr Dixon finds that requiring distinctions (formal or informal “you”, inclusive or exclusive “we”, evidentiality), is useful. The more information, the better. But not every language can require every distinction: a language that had them all would be too hard for members of the community to learn, to say nothing of outsiders. There may be an outer limit to how complex languages can get, constrained by the brain’s processing power.
Into the argument about whether some languages are superior comes a recent paper on information density in speech, by François Pellegrino and his colleagues at the University of Lyon. Some languages, like Japanese, have few distinct sounds and tight rules on how syllables may be structured, so that the number of possible syllables is low (think ka, ru, to, etc). Other languages (like English) have fewer constraints, so that a single syllable may be as complicated as strengths. All things being equal, one syllable chosen among English’s thousands will carry more information than one picked from Japanese’s dozens. But the study finds that this imbalance is counteracted by speech rate: speakers of Japanese get in many of their simple syllables more quickly than English-speakers do their complicated ones. Overall information density turns out to be the same across hugely different tongues.
In short, languages are governed by trade-offs. One that avoids making certain information mandatory may be easy to speak, but leaves the listener to fill in the gaps. It may be simple to learn but less expressive. Some languages have lots of redundant elements: in los tres gatos negros están mojados (“the three black cats are wet” in Spanish), all six words indicate a plural. Marking the plural just once (as Chinese does) would be enough. But redundancy has a virtue: emphatic communication is more likely to survive a noisy environment.
Languages, Mr Dixon says, are like a Western-style house. There are a few rooms you must have (kitchen, bedroom, living room, bathroom), and some discretionary options (office, guest room). On a fixed budget, you can’t have all the extras. He does not crown a “best” language. In the end, he says, readers should make their own list of desirable features, and then closely examine a few languages to decide whether one has more of them than another. But the list of advantages, he concedes, is itself a matter of judgment. For all his scientific criteria, in the end the verdict is in the ear of the beholder.
Source: The Economist
【人文科学-文学】 French Woman Composer （ WSY -587 字 短精读）
Source: WSY
【人文科学-文学】 The wicked wit of Jane Austen (TED-4分43秒-670字-泛听)
先做听力再核对原文，注意今天为泛听练习哦～
Whether she’s describing bickering families, quiet declarations of love, or juicy gossip, Jane Austen’s writing often feels as though it was written just for you. Her dry wit and cheeky playfulness informs her heroines, whose conversational tone welcomes readers with a conspiratorial wink. It’s even been said that some readers feel like the author’s secret confidante, trading letters with their delightfully wicked friend Jane. But this unique brand of tongue-in-cheek humor is just one of the many feats found in her sly satires of society, civility, and sweeping romance.
Written in the early nineteenth century, Austen's novels decode the sheltered lives of the upper classes in rural England. From resentment couched in pleasantries to arguing that masks attraction, her work explores the bewildering collision of emotions and etiquette.
But while romance is a common thread in her work, Austen dismissed the sentimental style of writing so popular at the time. Instead of lofty love stories, her characters act naturally, and often awkwardly. They trade pragmatic advice, friendly jokes and not-so-friendly barbs about their arrogant peers. As they grapple with the endless rules of their society, Austen’s characters can usually find humor in all the hypocrisy, propriety, and small talk. As Mr. Bennet jokes to his favorite daughter, “For what do we live, but to make sport for our neighbors and laugh at them in our turn?” And though her heroines might ridicule senseless social mores, Austen fully understood the practical importance of maintaining appearances. At the time she was writing, a wealthy marriage was a financial necessity for most young women, and she often explores the tension between the mythical quest for love, and the economic benefits of making a match. The savvy socialite Mary Crawford sums this up in "Mansfield Park;" “I would have everybody marry if they can do it properly: I do not like to have people throw themselves away.”
Unsurprisingly, these themes were also present in Austen’s personal life. Born in 1775, she lived in the social circles found in her novels. Jane's parents supported her education, and provided space for her to write and publish her work anonymously. But writing was hardly lucrative work. And although she had sparks of chemistry, she never married.
Elements of her circumstances can be found in many of her characters; often intelligent women with witty, pragmatic personalities, and rich inner lives. These headstrong heroines provide an entertaining anchor for their tumultuous romantic narratives. Like the irreverent Elizabeth Bennet of "Pride and Prejudice," whose devotion to her sisters’ love lives blinds her to a clumsy suitor. Or the iron-willed Anne Elliot of "Persuasion," who chooses to remain unmarried after the disappearance of her first love. And Elinor Dashwood, who fiercely protects her family at the cost of her own desires in "Sense and Sensibility." These women all encounter difficult choices about romantic, filial, and financial stability, and they resolve them without sacrificing their values– or their sense of humor.
Of course, these characters are far from perfect. They often think they have all the answers. And by telling the story from their perspective, Austen tricks the viewer into believing their heroine knows best– only to pull the rug out from under the protagonist and the reader. In "Emma," the titular character feels surrounded by dull neighbors, and friends who can’t hope to match her wit. As her guests prattle on and on about nothing, the reader begins to agree– Emma is the only exciting character in this quiet neighborhood. Yet despite her swelling ego, Emma may not be as in control as she thinks – in life or love. And Austen’s intimate use of perspective makes these revelations doubly surprising, blindsiding both Emma and her audience.
But rather than diminishing her host of heroines, these flaws only confirm “the inconsistency of all human characters.” Their complexity has kept Austen prominent on stage and screen, and made her work easily adaptable for modern sensibilities. So hopefully, new readers will continue to find a friend in Ms. Austen for many years to come.
Source: TED
【笔记格式要求】 同学们任选 2 篇文章精读/精听并进行笔记打卡
精读笔记格式要求： 1.总结文章中心大意 2.总结分论点或每段段落大意 3.摘抄印象深刻或者觉得优美的句子 4.总结文章中的生词 5.记录阅读时间、总结时间、总时间
泛听笔记格式要求： 1.听整篇文章，总结文章中心大意 2.对照原文，总结泛听过程中的重点生词 3.记录泛听次数、总时间
这里也给大家三点学习小建议哦~ 精读：如遇到读不懂的复杂句，建议找出句子主干，分析句子成分，也可以尝试翻译句子来帮助理解~ 精听：建议每句不要反复纠结听，如果听 5 遍都没听出来，那就跳过，等完成后再回听总结原因，时间宝贵，不要过于执着哦~
|
[复制链接]
京公网安备11010202008513号 京ICP证101109号 京ICP备12012021号
发表于 2021-2-11 23:25:47
收藏
收藏
