Question

    The close relationship between speakers and their speech has led some scholars to suggest that language determines the view we have of the world around us. Different languages segment natural phenomena differently. We name seven colors in the rainbow: violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange and red. Speakers of other languages may see only four, as did Turkish before our system was introduced, or even as few as two, roughly the lighter shades versus the darker. There is nothing in nature to demonstrate how we should chop up the spectrum of the rainbow, but when we have learned a given language, we distinguish the shades it designates, both in the rainbow and elsewhere students of language assume from such a situation that language determines much of the and patterns we see in the world around us, and that it directs our concepts and actions

Changes in the choice of language, then, might modify behavior. Today gasoline trucks are generally labeled" flammable(易燃的)". The in-prefix was taken as equivalent to that of words like "inactive", where in- means not". It is actually the in- of words like "intense", where it strengthens the meaning. The word "inflammable", then, means "highly flammable" The faulty interpretation of language, however, determined the attitudes of many speakers, who then adjusted their behavior in relation to the language. Prudent truck owners have taken notice and changed the warning to“ flammable"

Such observations led Whorf to a concept with deeper patterns of language, such as the use of tenses in the language of Europe. Tense is the linguistic expression or time. English and other European languages generally require their speakers to identify the time of an event, whether present: It is raining; past: It rained; or future: It will rain. By contrast, many languages, such as the Hopi language of New Mexico, lack expression for tense. Nor do such languages objectify time. In Hopi one cannot count days, minutes, years as though they were objects like stones. Everyday expressions like "Three years went by" are impossible in Hopi.

Comparing such languages, Whorf proposed that "our use of tense or our objectified view of time is favorable to historicity se t)and to everything connected with the keeping of records." That is to say, because of the patterns for referring to time in English and other languages, their speakers maintain records and emphasize bookkeeping, accounting, and the like. In accordance with it, ones conception of the world is relative to the language one learns

While the relativity hypothesis(假设) has attracted considerable attention, it has never been experimentally demonstrated to the valid. a large scale attempt to test the outlook of Hopi-speaking children versus English speaking children turned out to be inconclusive. It remains a task of future scholars to determine whether the hypothesis is valid and also whether one should assume a weak or strong position with regard to it. Clearly we are deeply tied to our native language. But whether it regulates our perceptions or our view of the world Is still an open question

1.The case of the label "flammable" is mentioned to prove that_________.

A.languages can affect our choices of action

B.prefixes can lead to disasters if used improperly

C.some truck drivers can adjust their behavior

D.misunderstanding can happen among speakers

2.It can be inferred from the passage that the use of tense________.

A.reflects deeper patterns of European languages

B.transforms abstract ideas into objects

C.helps avoid certain ambiguity in concepts or ideas

D.makes it possible to modern e the Hopi language

3.What can we learn from the passage?

A.Different languages often have different methods of keeping historical records

B.We need more studies to find out if we are closely related to our native tongues

C.Our mother tongues have a great influence on our world views and behavior

D.It's no easy task to confirm the link between mother tongues and our concepts

Answer

1.A

2.C

3.D

【解析】

本文为议论文。本文假设语言决定了我们对周围世界的看法，接着用事实来说明选择不同的语言可能会改变行为。通过对比欧洲语言如英语和霍皮语的对比以及对说英语的孩子和霍皮语为母语的孩子对比发现， 我们与自己的母语紧密相连，但我们的母语对我们的世界观是否有影响还不容易确定。

1.词义猜测题。第二段全段都是在说明有关flammable标识的问题。本段以flammable这一单词为例，详细分析了语言对人的行为的影响，最后在该段倒数第二句“however, determined the attitudes of many speakers, who then adjusted their behavior in relation to the language.”得出结论，即“然而，对于语言的错误解读决定了很多说话者的态度，他们随即针对语言调整自己的行为”。由此可推断，该案例分析证明语言确实可影响我们对行为的选择。故选A。

2.推理判断题。第三段后半部分叙述时态是运用于表达语言或时间。欧洲语言中用时态表达时间。英语和其他欧洲语言通常要求讲话者弄清楚事件发生的时间，是现在、过去 或者未来，要用到时态。相比之下，许多语言，如新墨西哥州的霍皮语，缺乏对时态的表达。这些语言也不会有具体的时间。在霍皮语中，人们不能像数石头一样数日子、分钟、年。像“三年过去了”这样的日常用语在霍皮语中是不可能写清楚。以及倒数第二段“our use of tense or our objectified view of time is favorable to historicity set and to everything connected with the keeping of records”通过比较这两种语言，沃尔夫提出，“我们使用时态或我们让时间具体化，这对历史的真实性和与记录有关的一切都是有利的。由此可知，时态是帮助我们来弄清事件的具体时间。如果没有时态就像霍皮语一样无法说明事件发生的具体时间，也无法计算时间，这样就会产生混乱或歧义。分析选项可知C项（helps avoid certain ambiguity in concepts or ideas有助于避免概念或思想上的某些歧义）符合题意。故选C。

3.推理判断题。根据倒数第二段最后一句“In accordance with it, ones conception of the world is relative to the language one learns”可知，沃尔夫的假设说一个人的世界观与他所学的语言有关。以及最后一段 “it has never been experimentally demonstrated to the valid. a large scale attempt to test the outlook of Hopi-speaking children versus English speaking children turned out to be inconclusive. It remains a task of future scholars to determine whether the hypothesis is valid and also whether one should assume a weak or strong position with regard to it. Clearly we are deeply tied to our native language. But whether it regulates our perceptions or our view of the world Is still an open question”表明，“一项大规模的对母语是霍皮语的儿童和母语是英语的儿童进行的未来前景测试的结果是不确定的。未来学者的任务仍然是确定这一假设是否有效以及一个人是否应该采取怎样的立场，显然，我们与自己的母语紧密相连。但它是否影响我们的感知或影响我们对世界的看法仍是一个悬而未决的问题”。由此可推断出，要确认母语与我们的观念之间的关系实属不易。分析选项，可知D项 （It's no easy task to confirm the link between mother tongues and our concepts要确认母语和我们的观念之间的联系并非容易）符合题意。故选D。