题目内容
Question 10 is based on the following news. At the end of the news item, you will be given 10 seconds to answer the question. Now listen to the news.
查看答案
搜索结果不匹配？点我反馈
更多问题
消极型管理是弱效市场的最佳选择。( )
Researchers in many countries have observed that middle class children as a group are more successful in the educational system than working class children. More of the former, for example, reach college. Professor Basil Bernstein of the University of London has argued that there is a link between social class and educational failure and that this link is language. In a series of papers published from 1958 to 1973 Bernstein has developed a theory of the "structure and process of cultural transmission," or socialization, part of which may be summarized as follows. One characteristic of many (but not all) working class families is that the status of different members of the family is clearly defined; the authority of the father, for instance, derives from the fact that he is the father. This type of family Bernstein calls positional, and he contrasts it with the person-centered family type, more common (although not omnipresent) in the middle classes. In the latter, status, authority and interpersonal relationships are "negotiated" according to the unique characteristics of each family member. This negotiation, or lack of it, is reflected linguistically. The following conversation might take place in a positional family: Child: Can I have an ice cream Mother: No. Child: Why not Mother: Because I said so. In order to justify her refusal of the child’s request, the mother resorts to her authority as mother. The equivalent exchange in a "person-centered" family might go like this. Child: Can I have an ice cream Mother: No. Child: Why not Mother: Because if you have an ice cream now, you won’t want your lunch later on. This time an attempt is made to justify the decision in logical terms. In both cases a "reason" is given for denying the ice cream, but the "rational" nature of the explanation given by the second mother leads her to the explicit expression of a statement of condition—"if you have an ice cream now"—and result—"you won’t want your lunch later on." Now Bernstein is not saying that middle class parents are more rational or articulate or intelligent than working class parents. He notes, however, that if this sort of difference distinguishes a large proportion of the conversations these two children hear in their childhood, then it is reasonable to expect the middle class child to enter school, at age five or six, with the ability to understand and produce a more varied linguistic repertoire, a more "elaborated code" than his working class school friend. The latter may be just as intelligent, but he will probably possess a more "restricted" linguistic code. Bernstein also recognizes that not all middle class parents’ interactions with their children will be like the (imaginary) example quoted, nor all working class parents’ conversations with their children like the second (imaginary) example. He argues that the middle class child, however, is more likely to reach school age with mastery of both codes, restricted and elaborated. Many (but not all) working class children, on the other hand, will possess the "restricted code" only. This may be just as rich and powerful linguistically, just as complex, just as adequate as a means of expression, but it is not the language of the (often middle class) teacher, of books, of schools, or, more generally, of educational success. There are several problems with Bernstein’s theory, even in its complete form. In common with other critics, Labov has noted the vagueness of the notion of "code" and, with another population, shown how differences in the speech elicited from working class and middle class subjects are sometimes the product of the elicitation procedures themselves. Rosen has attacked what he sees as the confused political definitions of several of Bernstein’s central concepts, including social class, and the lack of linguistic data with which to support his theoretical claims. Trudgill suggests that the linguistic differences found by Bernstein and his associates (such as more of less frequent use of prepositions, impersonal pronouns, varied adjectives and adverbs, and passives) do not reflect two linguistic codes but simply differences in style. What is the author’s attitude towards Bernstein’s theory
Between the eighth and eleventh centuries A.D., the Byzantine Empire staged an almost unparalleled economic and cultural revival, a recovery that is all the more striking because it followed a long period of severe internal decline. By the early eighth century, the empire had lost roughly two-thirds of the territory it had possessed in the year 600, and its remaining area was being raided by Arabs and Bulgarians, who at times threatened to take Constantinople and extinguished the empire altogether. The wealth of the state and its subjects was greatly diminished, and artistic end literary production had virtually ceased. By the early eleventh century, however, the empire had regained almost half of its lost possessions, its new frontiers were secure, and its influence extended far beyond its borders. The economy had recovered, the treasury was full, and art and scholarship had advanced. To consider the Byzantine military, cultural, and economic advances as differentiated aspects of a single phenomenon is reasonable. After all, these three forms of progress have gone together in a number of states and civilizations. Rome under Augustus and fifth century Athens provide the most obviously examples in antiquity. Moreover, an examination of the apparent sequential connections among military, economic, and cultural forms of programs might help explain the dynamics of historical change. The common explanation of these apparent connections in the case of Byzantium would run like this: when the empire had turned back enemy raids on its own territory and had begun to raid and conquer enemy territory, Byzantine resources naturally expanded and more money became available to patronize art and literature. Therefore. Byzantine military achievements lad to economic advances, which in turn led to cultural revival. No doubt this hypothetical pattern did apply at times during the course of recovery. Yet it is not clear that military advances invariably came first, economic second, and intellectual advances third. In the 860’s the Byzantine Empire began to recover from Arab incursions so that by 872 the military, balance with the Abbasid Caliphate had been permanently altered in the empire’s favor. The beginning of the empire’s economic revival, however, can be placed between 810 and 830. Finally, the Byzantine revival of learning appears to have begun even earlier. A number of notable scholars and writers appeared by 788 and, by the last decade of the eighth century, a cultural revival was in full bloom, a revival that lasted until the fall of Constantinople in 1453. Thus the commonly expected order of military revival followed by economic and then by cultural recovery was reversed in Byzantium. In fact, the revival of Byzantine learning may itself have influenced the subsequent economic and military expansion. Which of the following does the author mention as crucial evidence concerning the manner in which the Byzantine revival began
基金信息披露的内容要求用精确的语言进行披露，不能使用模棱两可的语言，不得使人误解。( )
微信支付 
支付宝支付