1 . When one looks back upon the fifteen hundred years that are the life span of the English language, he should be able to notice a number of significant truths. The history of our language has always been a history of constant change—at times a slow, almost imperceptible change, at other times a violent collision between two languages. Our language has been a living growing organism, it has never been static. Another significant truth that emerges from such a study is that language at all times has been the possession not of one class or group but of many. At one extreme it has been the property of the common, ignorant folk, who have used it in the daily business of their living, much as they have used their animals or the kitchen pots and pans. At the other extreme it has been the treasure of those who have respected it as an instrument and a sign of civilization, and who have struggled by writing it down to give it some permanence, order, dignity, and if possible, a little beauty.
As we consider our changing language, we should note here two developments that are of special and immediate importance to us. One is that since the time of the Anglo-Saxons there has been an almost complete reversal of the different relationship of words in a sentence. Anglo-Saxon (old English) was a language of many inflections. Modern English has few inflections. We must now depend largely on word order and function words to convey the meanings that the older language did by means of changes in the forms of words. Function words, you should understand, are words such as prepositions, conjunctions, and a few others that are used primarily to show relationships among other words. A few inflections, however, have survived. And when some word inflections come into conflict with word order, there may be trouble for the users of the language, as we shall see later when we turn our attention to such matters as WHO or WHOM and ME or I. The second fact we must consider is that as language itself changes, our attitudes toward language forms change also. The eighteenth century, for example, produced from various sources a tendency to fix the language into patterns not always set in and grew, until at the present time there is a strong tendency to restudy and re-evaluate language practices in terms of the ways in which people speak and write.
1. In contrast to the earlier linguists, modern linguists tend to ________.| A．attempt to continue the standardization of the language |
| B．evaluate language practices in terms of current speech rather than standards or proper patterns |
| C．be more concerned about language than its analysis or history |
| D．be more aware of the rules of the language usage |
| A．Changes in the forms of words. |
| B．Changes in sentence structures. |
| C．Changes in spelling rules. |
| D．Words that have similar meanings. |
| A．It is generally believed that the year 1500 can be set as the beginning of the modern English language. |
| B．Some other languages had great influence on the English language at some stages of its development. |
| C．The English language has been and still in a state of relatively constant change. |
| D．Many classes or groups have contributed to the development of the English language. |
| A．historian | B．philosopher |
| C．anthropologist | D．linguist |
| A．The history of the English language |
| B．Our changing attitude towards the English language |
| C．Our changing language |
| D．Some characteristics of modern English |
2 . Dental health: Brush with confidence
Children should be taught to brush their teeth regularly. But the suspicion remains among some People, dentists included, that even so, certain children are doomed to develop dental cavities. The hypothesis behind this fear is that some combinations of genes may give rise to the sorts of oral bacteria which are responsible for cavities. If true, that would be sad for the youngsters concerned.
But a study just published in Cell Host and Microbe, by Andres Gomez and Karen Nelson of the J. Craig Venter Institute, in San Diego, suggests it isn’t true.
The mouth is home to many species of microbes. Most are good. Some, though, are well known to secrete acidic waste products when fed sugar. This acidity weakens teeth, causing them to decay.
To try to find out whether a child’s genes play any role in encouraging such acid-secreting bugs, Dr Gomez and Dr Nelson set up an experiment with twins.
Their“volunteers”were 280 pairs of fraternal twins and 205 pairs of identical twins, all aged between five and 11, who had not taken antibiotics during the previous six months. The children were asked to stop brushing their teeth the evening and the morning before the crucial moment of data collection. This was when the researchers swabbed the children’s gingival sulci(the clefts between teeth and gums, in which bacteria collect)to find out what was there. The children also had their teeth scored by dentists as belonging to one of three categories: having no signs of current or previous dental cavities: having signs of current or previous cavities affecting the enamel(a tooth’s hard, outer layer); or having signs of cavities that penetrated the enamel and allected the underlying dentine as well.
Dr Gomez and Dr Nelson found that, though identical twins shared many groups of bacteria which were not shared by fraternal twins, none of these was a type responsible for cavities. Moreover, similarities in bacterial flora were greatest among five-to seven-year-olds, weaker among seven- to nine-year-olds and weakest among nine-to 11-year-olds. This suggests that any role genes do play in regulating the mouth’s ecology fades with time.
Far from supporting the idea that some children are fated to suffer from cavities no matter how well they brush their teeth, these results make it clear that the power to control the growth of the relevant bacteria is very much within reach of children and their parents. Brushing, however, may not be the only approach. Avoiding sugary foods is obviously de rigueur. It seems likely, though, that which other foods a child eats may help shape his oral ecosystem, too. This is an area of ongoing research. But, as in the intestines(肠道), so in the mouth, scientific medicine is at last coming to grips with the fact that the mixture of microbes present is both important and capable of manipulation, to the benefit of the host.
1. What does“hypothesis”refer to in paragraph 1?| A．Children’s failure to brush their teeth properly leads to tooth decay. |
| B．Some children are programmed to develop tooth decay. |
| C．Youngsters are suspicious of the effectiveness of tooth-brushing. |
| D．Some genes are more likely to lead to dental cavites. |
| A．whether genes have anything to do with dental decay |
| B．which group of twins are more likely to have decayed teeth |
| C．what kinds of foods tend to give rise to tooth decay |
| D．why the ecosystem of the intestines is similar to that of the mouth |
| A．Scientists are not yet sure how ecosystem of the mouth is formed. |
| B．The role genes play in controlling ecosystem of the mouth weakens with the time. |
| C．The children are classified into three groups according to the degrees of dental cavities. |
| D．Identical twins are not as genetically close to each other as fraternal twins. |
| A．The existence of multiple microbes benefits children’s oral ecosystem. |
| B．What a child eats enhances the healthfulness of a child’s oral ecosystem. |
| C．Cutting down on sugar intake is the most likely way to prevent tooth decay. |
| D．Parents are in no position to help their children maintain healthy oral ecosystem. |
3 . If you wear glasses, chances are you are smarter. Research published in the famous British journal Nature Communications has found that people who displayed higher levels of intelligence were almost 30 percent more likely to wear glasses.
The scientists studied the genes of thousands of people between the ages of 16 and 102.The study showed intelligence can be connected to physical characteristics. One characteristic was eyesight. In out of 10 people who were more intelligent, there was a higher chance they needed glasses. Scientists also said being smarter has other benefits. It is connected to better health.
It is important to remember these are connections which are not proven causes. Scientists call this correlation. Just because something is connected to something else does not mean one of those things caused the other. And it’s worth noting that what constitutes intelligence is subjective and can be difficult, if not impossible, to measure.
Forget genes though. Plenty of proof shows wearing glasses makes people think you are more intelligent, even if you do not need glasses. A number of studies have found people who wear glasses are seen as smarter, hard-working and honest. Many lawyers use this idea to help win their cases. Lawyer Harvey Solves explained this. Glasses soften their appearance. He said Sometimes there has been a huge amount of proof showing that people he was defending broke the law. He had them wear glasses and they weren’t found guilty.
Glasses are also used to show someone is intelligent in movies and on TV. Ideas about people who wear glasses have begun to shift. People who do not need glasses sometimes wear them for fashion only. They want to look worldly or cool. But not everyone is impressed by this idea, though. GQ magazine said people who wear glasses for fashion are trying too hard to look smart and hip (时髦的). However, that hasn’t stopped many celebrities from happily wearing glasses even if they do not need them. Justin Bieber is just one high-profile fan of fashion glasses.
1. What does the new study show?| A．People wearing glasses are smarter. |
| B．People wearing glasses are healthier. |
| C．Wearing glasses can make people cleverer. |
| D．Wearing glasses is associated with higher IQ. |
| A．Shift. | B．Link. | C．Proof. | D．Consequence. |
| A．Because it can create a moral image. |
| B．Because it can mislead the witnesses. |
| C．Because it can highlight clients’ qualities. |
| D．Because it can prove the clients’ innocence. |
| A．Positive. | B．Negative. | C．Mixed | D．Indifferent. |
