研究生学术综合英语上册Unit1-4课文及翻译全---请叫我雷锋

word专业资料-可复制编辑-欢迎下载

Unit1

Presenting a Speech

Stephen Lucas

Of all human creations, language may be the most remarkable. Through language we share experiences,

formulate values, exchange ideas, transmit knowledge, and sustain culture. Indeed, language is vital to thinking

itself. Contrary to popular belief,language does not simply mirror reality but also helps to create our sense of

reality by giving meaning to events.

Good speakers have respect for language and know how it works. Words are the tools of a speaker’s craft.

They have special uses, just like the tools of any other profession. As a speaker, you should be aware of the

meanings of words and know how to use language accurately, clearly, vividly, and appropriately.

Using language accurately is as vital to a speaker as using numbers accurately is to an accountant. Never

use a word unless you are sure of its meaning. If you are not sure, look up the word in a dictionary. As you

prepare your speeches, ask yourself constantly, “What do I really want to say? What do I really mean?” Choose

words that are precise and accurate.

Using language clearly allows listeners to grasp your meaning immediately. You can ensure this by using

familiar words that are known to the average person and require no specialized background; by choosing

concrete words in preference to more abstract ones, and by eliminating verbal clutter.

Using language vividly helps bring your speech to life. One way to make your language more vivid is

through imagery, or the creation of word pictures. You can develop imagery by using concrete language, simile,

and metaphor. Simile is an explicit comparison between things that are essentially different yet have something

in common; it always contains the words “like” or “as.” Metaphor is an implicit comparison between things

that are different yet have something in common; it does not contain the words “like” or “as.”

Another way to make your speeches vivid is by exploiting the rhythm of language. Four devices for

creating rhythm are parallelism, repetition, alliteration, and antithesis. Parallelism is the similar arrangement of a

pair or series of related words, phrases, or sentences. Repetition is the use of the same word or set of words at

the beginning or end of successive clauses or sentences. Alliteration comes from repeating the initial consonant

sounds of close or adjoining words. Antithesis is the juxtaposition of contrasting ideas, usually in parallel

structure.

Using language appropriately means adapting to the particular occasion, audience, and topic at hand. It also

means developing your own language style instead of trying to copy someone else’s. If your language is

appropriate in all respects, your speech is much more likely to succeed.

Good speeches are not composed of hot air and unfounded assertions. They need strong supporting

materials to bolster the speaker’s point of view. In fact, the skillful use of supporting materials often makes the

difference between a good speech and a poor one. The three basic types of supporting materials are examples,

statistics and testimony.

In the course of a speech you may use brief examples — specific instances referred to in passing — and

sometimes you may want to give several brief examples in a row to create a stronger impression. Extended

examples — often called illustrations, narratives, or anecdotes — are longer and more detailed. Hypothetical

examples describe imaginary situations and can be quite effective for relating ideas to the audience. All three

kinds of examples help to clarify ideas, to reinforce ideas, or to personalize be more effective, though,

they should be vivid and richly textured.

Statistics can be extremely helpful in conveying your message, as long as you use them sparingly and

explain them so they are meaningful to your audience. Above all, you should understand your statistics and use

them fairly. Numbers can easily be manipulated and distorted. Make sure that your figures are representative of

what they claim to measure, that you use statistical measures correctly, and that you take statistics only from

reliable sources.

Testimony is especially helpful for student speakers, because they are seldom recognized as experts on their

word专业资料-可复制编辑-欢迎下载

speech topics. Citing the views of people who are experts is a good way to make your ideas more credible.

When you include testimony in a speech, you can either quote someone verbatim or paraphrase their words. As

with statistics, there are guidelines for using testimony. Be sure to quote or paraphrase accurately and to cite

qualified unbiased sources. If the source is not generally known to your audience, be certain to establish his or

her credentials.

The impact of a speech is strongly affected by how the speech is delivered. You cannot make a good speech

without having something to say. But having something to say is not enough. You must also know how to say it.

Good delivery does not call attention to itself. It conveys the speaker’s ideas clearly, interestingly, and without

distracting the audience.

There are four basic methods of delivering a speech: reading verbatim from a manuscript, reciting a

memorized text, speaking with PowerPoint, and speaking extemporaneously, or impromptu. The last of these －

speaking extemporaneously － is the method you probably will use for classroom speeches and for most

speeches outside the classroom. When speaking extemporaneously, you will have only a brief set of notes or a

speaking outline. Speaking with PowerPoint is widely used now and very effective indeed.

Certainly there are other factors you should consider, such as personal appearance, bodily action, gestures,

eye contact, volume, pauses and so on. By paying enough attention to what is mentioned above, you may

present an effective speech.

第一单元

如何发表演说

斯蒂芬·卢卡斯

在人类创造的万物中，语言可能是最卓越的一项创造。通过语言，我们可以分享经验、阐明价值观念、交流思想、传播知识、传承文化。确实，语言对于思想本身至关重要。和流行的信仰不同的是：语言并不是简单地反映事实，而是通过对事件意义的思考来帮助人们感悟现实。

优秀的演说者尊重语言并懂得如何驾驭语言。语言是演说者展示才能的工具，对于他们来说，如同其他职业的工具一样,语言也有特殊的功用。作为一名演说者，你应该意识到话语的意义，并懂得如何准确无误地使用语言，使其表达清楚，趣味横生，恰如其分。

如同数字对于会计的重要性一样，准确地使用语言对于演说者至关重要。在没有确切知道一个词语的意思之前，千万不要盲目使用。碰到没有把握的词语，一定要查词典追根究底。当你准备演讲之前，一定要不断地问自己：“我究竟想说些什么？我究竟想表达什么样的意思？”因此，对于一篇演讲稿的用词来说，必须准确无误。

如果语言表达清楚无误，听众就能很快抓住你的意思。鉴于此，演说者应该使用那些对于大多数人来说非常熟悉的词语，这些词语不需要任何专业背景就能够理解；演说者应该使用那些表达具体而不是相对抽象的词语；并且千万不要乱堆砌辞藻，哗众取宠。

准确生动地使用语言能够使你的演说贴近生活。有一种方法可以使你的语言更加生动形象，那就是通过展开联想或创造语言图示。通过使用表达具体的词语、明喻或者暗喻等手法可以展开想像。明喻是对事物不同之处的比较，不过有些是相同的：它们总是包含“像……一样”或者“如同……一样”这样的连词。暗喻是一种隐性的比喻，它能够把两个形式不同但是有一些相通之处的事物联系在一起，暗喻不包含“像……一样”或者“如同……一样”这样的连词。

另一种让你的演说生动形象的方法是注重语言的节奏感。有四种修辞格可以让你的语言富有节奏感：排比、重复、头韵和对比。排比是将一组或一系列具有相似结构的词语、短语或者句子排列在一起；重复是在一系列短句或者长句的开头或者结尾使用相同的一句话或者一组词语；头韵是指邻近或者相邻的几个句子中的首个词语的辅音字母相同；对比是将 恰当地使用语言是指语言的运用要符合特定的场合、特定的观众和特定的主题。同时，恰当地使用语言还意味着演说者要有自己的语言风格，而不是模仿他人的口吻。如果演说者的语言在各个方面都能够做到恰如其分，那么这篇演说成功的机率就会大大提高。

优秀的演说并不是空穴来风、缺乏论据的决断。演说者必须找到强有力的论据来支持其观点。实际

word专业资料-可复制编辑-欢迎下载

上，熟练地使用论据经常是区别一篇优秀演说词和一篇空洞演说词的关键所在。一般来说，通常有三种论据材料：事例、统计数据和证词。

在演说过程中，你可以使用一些简明扼要的例子——比如过去发生的一个很具体的事件——有时候，你可以罗列好几个简明的例子，借此增强听众的印象。扩展性的例子——描述、叙述或者奇闻轶事——通常长一些，但更具体。夸张性的例子描述想像中的情形，这种例子能够将相关的想法有效地传达给听众。这三种例子都能够帮助演说者理清思绪、加强印象或者使演说更加娓娓动听。为了使表达更加富有效果，例子应该生动活泼，丰富多彩。 只要演说者对于统计数据用之得当并且加以解释，这些数据将有助于有效地传达信息，听众也能从统计数据中获益匪浅。最重要的是：演说者应该对统计数据了如指掌，并且运用得恰如其分。由于数据很容易操纵和捏造，因此，对于演说者来说，一定要确保图表没有张冠李戴，并且要确保统计方法正确，数据来源可靠。

证词对于那些学生演说者来说特别重要，因为他们都不是演讲主题方面的专家，所以引用那些权威的观点对于增加演说者观点的可信度来说是一种好方法。演说者在演讲中引用证词，可以一字不差地引用别人的话，或者对他们的话进行解释说明。和统计数据一样，证词的使用也需要遵循一定的程式。例如，一定要确保引用或者解释别人的话准确无误，并且确保引文来源可靠公正。如果听众对你的引文不太熟悉，请一定要确立引文作者的可信度。

演说的方式也会极大影响其质量。如果一篇演说言之无物当然无人喝彩，但是只有内容是远远不够的，你还必须懂得如何演说。良好的演说方式虽然不能增添更多的信息量，但是它能够帮助演说者清晰地表达思想，使演说妙趣横生，让观众全神贯注。

演说的表达方式基本上有四种：通读手稿中的段落、复述背诵过的一段文章、幻灯片辅助的演说以及即兴发挥或即席演说。最后一种方法在课堂讲座经常会用到，大部分课外讲座也会采用这种即席演说的方式。当你即席演说时，你只需要准备一小段简短的提要或者一个演讲大纲即可。幻灯片辅助演说的方式现在运用得很广泛，事实证明这种方式也非常有效。

当然，还有其他的因素你需要考虑，如个人的外表、肢体语、手势、目光接触、讲话的声调、停顿等。总之，如果你能够留心上述的方法，相信你的演讲一定会妙语连珠，赢得满堂喝彩。

Unit2

Energy in Transition

The era of cheap and convenient sources of energy is coming to an end. A transition to more expensive but less

polluting sources must now be managed.

John P. Holdren

Understanding this transition requires a look at the two-sided connection between energy and human

well-being. Energy contributes positively to well-being by providing such consumer services as heating and

lighting as well as serving as a necessary input to economic production. But the costs of energy －

including not only the money and other resources devoted to obtaining and exploiting it but also environmental

and sociopolitical impacts － detract from well-being.

For most of human history, the dominant concerns about energy have centered on the benefit side of the

energy － well-being equation. Inadequacy of energy resources or (more often) of the technologies and

organizations for harvesting, converting, and distributing those resources has meant insufficient energy benefits

and hence inconvenience, deprivation and constraints on growth. The 1970’s, then, represented a turning point.

After decades of constancy or decline in monetary costs － and of relegation of environmental and

sociopolitical costs to secondary status － energy was seen to be getting costlier in all began to be

plausible that excessive energy costs could pose threats on a par with those of insufficient supply. It also became

possible to think that expanding some forms of energy supply could create costs exceeding the benefits.

The crucial question at the beginning of the 1990’s is whether the trend that began in the 1970’s will prove

to be temporary or permanent. Is the era of cheap energy really over, or will a combination of new resources,

new technology and changing geopolitics bring it back? One key determinant of the answer is the staggering

scale ofenergy demand brought forth by 100 years of unprecedented population growth, coupled with an equally

word专业资料-可复制编辑-欢迎下载

remarkable growth in per capita demand of industrial energy entailed the use of dirty coal as well as

clean; undersea oil as well as terrestrial; deep gas as well as shallow; mediocre hydroelectric sites as well as

good ones; and deforestation as well as sustainable fuelwood harvesting.

Except for the huge pool of oil underlying the Middle East, the cheapest oil and gas are already gone. Even

if a few more giant oil fields are discovered, they will make little difference against consumption on today’s

and gas will have to come increasingly, for most countries, from deeper in the earth and from imports

whose reliability and affordability cannot be

guaranteed.

There are a variety of other energy resources that are more abundant than oil and gas. Coal, solar energy,

and fission and fusion fuels are the most important ones. But they all require elaborate and expensive

transformation into electricity or liquid fuels in order to meet society’s needs. None has very good prospects for

delivering large quantities of electricity at costs comparable to those of the cheap coal-fired and hydropower

plants of the 1960’s. It appears, then, that expensive energy is a permanent condition, even without allowing for

its environmental costs.

The capacity of the environment to absorb the effluents and other impacts of energy technologies is itself a

finite resource. The finitude is manifested in two basic types of environmental costs. External costs are those

imposed by environmental disruptions on society but not reflected in the monetary accounts of the buyers and

sellers of the energy. “Internalized costs” are increases in monetary costs imposed by measures, such as

pollution-control devices, aimed at reducing the external costs.

Both types of environmental costs have been rising for several reasons. First, the declining quality of fuel

deposits and energy-conversion sites to which society must now turn means more material must be moved or

processed, bigger facilities must be constructed and longer distances must be traversed. Second, the growing

magnitude of effluents from energy systems has led to saturation of the environment’s capacity to absorb such

effluents without disruption. Third, the monetary costs of controlling pollution tend to increase with the

percentage of pollutants removed.

Despite these expenditures, the remaining uninternalized environmental costs have been substantial and in

many cases are growing. Those of greatest concern are the risk of death or disease as a result of emissions or

accidents at energy facilities and the impact of energy supplied on the global ecosystem and on international

relations.

The impacts of energy technologies on public health and safety are difficult to pin down with much

confidence. In the case of air pollution from fossil fuels, in which the dominant threat to public health is thought

to be particulates formed from sulfur dioxide emissions, a consensus on the number of deaths caused by

exposure has proved impossible. Widely differing estimates result from different assumptions about fuel

compositions, air pollution control technology, power-plant sitting in relation to population distribution,

meteorological conditions affecting sulfate formation, and, above all, the relation between sulfate concentrations

and disease.

Large uncertainties also apply to the health and safety impacts of nuclear fission. In this case, differing

estimates result in part from differences among sites and reactor types, in part from uncertainties about

emissions from fuel-cycle steps that are not yet fully operational (especially fuel reprocessing and management

of uranium-mill tailings) and in part from different assumptions about the effects of exposure to low-dose

radiation. The biggest uncertainties, however, relate to the probabilities and consequences of large accidents at

reactors, at reprocessing plants and in the transport of wastes.

Altogether, the ranges of estimated hazards to public health from both coal-fired and nuclear-power plants

are so wide as to extend from negligible to substantial in comparison with other risks to the population. There is

little basis, in these ranges, for preferring one of these energy sources over the other. For both, the very size of

the uncertainty is itself a significant liability.

Often neglected, but no less important, is the public health menace from traditional fuels widely used for

word专业资料-可复制编辑-欢迎下载

cooking and water heating in the developing world. Perhaps 80 percent of global exposure to particulate air

pollution occurs indoors in developing countries, where the smoke from primitive stoves is heavily laden with

dangerous hydrocarbons. A disproportionate share of this burden is borne, moreover, by women (who do the

cooking) and small children (who indoors with their mothers).

First, civilization depends heavily on services provided by ecological and geophysical processes such as

building and fertilizing soil, regulating water supply, controlling pests and pathogens, and maintaining a

tolerable climate; yet it lacks the knowledge and the resources to replace nature’s services with technology.

Second, human activities are now clearly capable of disrupting globally the processes that provide these services.

Energy supply, both industrial and traditional, is responsible for a striking share of the environmental impacts of

human activity. The environmental transition of the past 100 years － driven above all by a 20-fold increase in

fossil-fuel use and augmented by a tripling in the use of traditional energy forms － has amounted to no less

than the emergence of civilization as a global ecological and geochemical force.

Of all environmental problems, the most threatening, and in many respects the most intractable, is global

climate change. And the greenhouse gases most responsible for the danger of rapid climate change come largely

from human endeavors too massive, widespread and central to the functioning of our societies to be easily

altered: carbon dioxide (CO2) from deforestation and the combustion of fossil fuels; methane from rice paddies,

cattle gusts and the exploitation of oil and natural gas; and nitrous oxides from fuel combustions and fertilizer

use.

The only other external cost that might match the devastating impact of global climate change is the risk of

causing or aggravating large-scale military conflict. One such threat is the potential for conflict over access to

petroleum resources. Another threat is the link between nuclear energy and the spread of nuclear weapons. The

issue is hardly less complex and controversial than the link between CO2 and climate; many analysts, including

me, think it is threatening indeed.

第二单元

能源转型

能源资源价格低廉、使用便捷的时代已经过去，目前应向尽管价格较高、但污染较小的资源转变。

约翰·P·霍德雷恩

了解这一转变，需首先考察一下能源和人类幸福的双重关系。从积极的意义上说，能源为人类幸福作出了贡献，它为经济生产活动提供必要投入的同时，也提供了诸如取暖、照明等消费服务。然而，人类为利用能源所付出的代价却削弱了能源为其带来的利益，这种代价不但包括为获取和利用能源所投入的资金和其他资源，而且包含了能源开发和利用所产生的环境影响和社会政治影响。

人类历史发展长河中，人们主要关心的是能源和人类安康等式关系中有利的一面。能源资源不足或者（更经常）开采、加工和分配这些资源所需技术与机构的不足，会影响能源为人类带来利益，同时意味着能源的增长遭到干扰、损害或限制。到了20世纪70年代，出现了一个转折点。此前的几十年中，能源的资金成本一直保持稳定，甚或有所下降，而且，其所牵扯的环境成本和社会政治成本一直处于次要地位。但20世纪70年代开始，开发和利用能源的多方成本均显著增长。人们自然有理由认为：高昂的能源成本所带来的威胁已同能源供应不足所产生的危险不相上下。同时，也有人担心，依靠扩大能源资源增加供应所需付出的代价，也许大于其所带来的利益。

20世纪90年代初期人们关注的焦点在于这种始于70年代的能源发展趋势是暂时的还是长远的。廉价能源时代是真正一去不复返，还是通过开发新能源、应用新技术、改革地缘政治秩序等措施，有可能重登历史舞台？回答这个问题的一个关键因素是过去100年以来因人口空前增长带来令人瞠目的能源需求以及同样使人无从应对的人均工业能源需求。急剧增长的能源需求使得人类对能源的使用无所不用其极：不管是清洁煤炭还是劣质煤炭，见煤就挖；无论是陆上石油还是海底石油，深层气还是浅层气，见油气就采；水电站建设不论适宜与否，见水就上；一边绿化造林以求燃料树木可持续发展，一边却砍树毁林。

除了中东地区蕴藏着巨大的石油资源，地球上廉价的油气资源已经不复存在。即使偶尔找到几个大

word专业资料-可复制编辑-欢迎下载

油田，同当今巨大的能源消耗相比，也是杯水车薪。对于大多数国家来说，油气资源越来越多地依赖于深层埋藏，越来越多地依赖进口，且不说进口油气资源的可靠性无法得到保障，其对进口国的支付能力也是一个考验。

诚然，其他许多资源的储藏量大于石油和天然气，最重要的有煤、太阳能、聚变裂变燃料等。但这些资源转化成电力或液体燃料，以满足社会需求，均需经过技术复杂、成本昂贵的转化过程。同20世纪60年代成本低廉的燃煤火电站和水力发电站相比，仅从成本角度考虑，以上各种资源用于大规模发电的可能性极小。因此，即使不考虑能源开采的环保成本，能源价格居高不下已成无可改变的定局。

环境吸纳由于能源利用而产生的废弃物和其他影响的能力本身也是有限度的，表现在两方面的环境成本上。所谓“外延成本”即由于环境遭到破坏对社会产生的影响，但尚未反映到能源买卖双方的交易价格上；所谓“内涵成本”即为降低外延成本而采取各种措施（如污染防治措施）所引起的资金成本的增长。

两种环境成本均一直呈增长趋势，原因是多方面的。首先，社会发展所依赖的燃料矿藏和加工地质量下降，必然要求矿物运输和加工的数量增加、设施扩大、运输距离延长。第二，利用能源所产生的废弃物不断增加，使得环境不遭破坏地吸纳废弃物的能力达到了极限。第三，污染防治所需的资金成本亦将随着消除污染源比例的提高而提高。

尽管代价高昂，尚未内化的环境成本一直居高不下，并在许多情形下呈增长趋势，其中最引人关注的是由能源设施排放废物或发生事故所带来的死亡和疾病，以及由于能源供应对于全球生态系统和国际关系所造成的影响。

能源技术对于大众健康和安全所造成的影响难以确定。以矿物燃料造成的空气污染为例，一般认为其对大众健康的主要危害是由排放的二氧化硫形成的微粒，但接触这种污染空气究竟会导致多少人死亡，却无法取得一致意见。各种估算数据千差万别，原因在于对以下各种因素的分析各不相同，比如燃料构成、空气污染防治技术、发电厂选址同人口分布间的关系、气象条件对硫化物形成的影响，最重要的是硫化物的聚集同疾病之间的关系。

同样，核反应堆对于大众健康和安全的影响亦无法确定。对此种影响的各种分析，既有来自关于反应堆选址和类型的不同观点，又有因为核燃料反应过程中各个环节所产生的废弃物究竟会产生何种影响尚无法确定，尤其是燃料重新加工过程以及铀浓缩工厂废料处理的影响无法确定；同时还有因为对于人类接触少量核辐射所造成的后果各执己见。然而，最大的不确定性来自核反应堆、重新加工工厂以及核废料运输过程中可能发生重大事故的概率及其所造成的后果。

同人类所面临的其他威胁相比，火电厂和核电厂危害大众健康的程度究竟多大，众说纷纭，莫衷一是。有的人认为这种影响微不足道，可以忽略不计；也有人认为这种影响程度严重、危害巨大。无论影响大小，都没有理由对其中种种能源亲此疏彼。无论是核电还是火电，其对人类的危害都无法确定，这本身就是一大憾事。

发展中国家普遍用于做饭烧水的传统燃料对大众健康造成的危害常常不为人们所关注，但同样十分严重。全球大约80%的颗粒空气污染来自发展中国家的室内烧煮，原始简陋的炉灶排出的烟气含有大量有害的烃，而且忍受这种有害物质的大多数为妇女（室内烧煮的主要承担者）和儿童（长时间同母亲一直呆在室内）。

同排放的废弃物和事故对大众健康造成的危害相比，能源利用对生态系统的威胁更难以量化。然而，根据已有认识足以判断这种威胁对人类利益造成的损失将会更大。造成这种潜在的损失的原因是以下两种情形同时存在。

首先，人类文明严重依赖于由各种生态和地球物理过程所提供的各种服务，诸如土地耕作、施肥、供水设施、病虫害防治、维持能够忍受的气候等等。但是，人类却缺乏知识和资源来利用技术代替自然界所提供的各种服务。其次，人类活动已显而易见地能够在全球范围破坏提供这些服务的进程。无论是工业形式还是传统家庭的能源利用，在人类活动破坏环境的进程中均占有很大比重。过去100年以来的环境改变巨大（首要因素是化石燃料的使用增长至20倍，同时传统家庭能源使用增长至3倍），足以体现当今人类文明的是一支正在全球范围内崛起的生态和地球化学力量。

在诸多环境问题中，对人类威胁最大、在许多情况下却又最让人类无计可施的是全球气候变化。而对气候快速变化最起作用的温室气体主要来自人类活动，这些活动规模之大、范围之广、对人类社会运

word专业资料-可复制编辑-欢迎下载

转作用之大，都无法轻易改变。这些气体包括：由于毁林和燃烧矿物燃料所造成的二氧化碳。由秸秆、牲畜粪便和使用石油天然气所排放的甲烷，以及由于燃料燃烧和施肥所排放的氧化氮。

其他唯一能够同全球气候变化所造成的灾难性影响相提并论的外化成本是日益恶化的大规模军事冲突。其中潜在的威胁是为争夺石油资源而引起的冲突。另一个威胁则来自核能和核武器扩散之间的联系，这种联系的复杂性几乎不亚于二氧化碳和气候之间的关系。许多分析家（包括本人）均认为这种关系十分危险。

Unit3

Do Traffic Tickets Save Lives?

Study Shows Traffic Tickets Could Save Drivers’ Lives

Lee Dye

Pity the poor traffic cop. He’s the last guy you want to see in your rearview mirror when you’re speeding

down the highway. Why isn’t he out looking for murderers instead of nailing drivers for minor infractions of the

law?

Well, according to a major research project by scientists in Canada and California, that cop just might be

saving your the life of someone else.

The researchers have found that a traffic ticket reduces a driver’s chance of being involved in a fatal

accident by a whopping 35 percent, at least for a few weeks. The effect doesn’t last long, however. Within three

to four months,the lead foot is back on the pedal and the risk of killing yourself or someone else is back up to

where it was before that cop stared you in the eye and wrote out that expensive citation.

The bottom line, according to the research published in the June 28 issue of The Lancet, is that traffic

tickets save lives. Maybe thousands of lives, every year. Yet traffic laws are enforced sporadically, almost as if

by whim, partly because people just don’t like traffic cops,and there are lots of other things for the government

to spend money on than enforcing highway safety laws.

The Grim Statistics

That attitude needs to be changed, according to Donald A. Redelmeier of the University of Toronto and

Robert J. Tibshirani of Stanford University. Both men are medical researchers, and this isn’t the first time they’ve taken a hard look at highway safety. Their 1998 study caused a stir when they linked cell phone usage to

traffic accidents. Now they’re back, saying traffic tickets are good for your health.

They were prodded into this project by some very grim statistics. Each year, more than a million persons

die in traffic accidents worldwide. If that many people died of SARS in a year, the public response would

probably border on hysteria, but we have come to accept traffic fatalities as a way of life.

In addition, another 25 million people around the world are permanently disabled by traffic accidents, and

many of them － as well as the fatalities － are children.

Taking It Easy After a Ticket?

When Redelmeier and Tibshirani and fellow researcher Leonard Evans set out to see if traffic tickets really

do any good, they found an enormous resource in the Canadian province of Ontario. The full driving record of

every licensed driver there was made available to them, warts and all, giving the researchers a huge database of

more than 10 million licensed drivers, 8,975 of whom were involved in a fatal accident during the 11-year

period covered by the research, from 1988 through 1998.

“We looked at the month prior to a fatal accident, and the number of traffic convictions, and then the same

month in the year before,” says Tibshirani, a statistician. “What we found was that there were fewer tickets in

the month before a fatal accident than there were a year before, and that suggests there’s a protective effect

of having a ticket.”

In other words, when the number of citations went down, the number of fatal accidents went up the following

month, and when the number of tickets went up, the number of fatal accidents dropped the following month. The

analysis shows that fatal accidents declined by 35 percent Apparently, people just drove more cautiously

word专业资料-可复制编辑-欢迎下载

following a traffic citation, but that only lasted a maximum of four months, the researchers say. After that brief

respite, it was back to business as usual for most motorists.

Citation’s Effects Consistent

The scientists also turned up some surprising results.

“Most of the crashes did not involve alcohol and were not at an intersection,” they report in their research

paper. Most occurred during the summer months when the streets were dry (65 percent) rather than wet (18

percent) or covered with snow (17 percent).

They also found that the “relative risk reduction associated with traffic convictions was remarkably

consistent among subgroups of licensed drivers,” so the same results apply to women as well as men, regardless

of age, prior driving record, and other personal data.

Men, however, were involved in far more fatal accidents than women (73 percent to 27 percent) and the

most accident-prone age was between 30 and 50. Alcohol was detected in only 7 percent of the accidents.

The researchers also addressed the commonly held belief that traffic citations cause more accidents than

they prevent because so many people are killed during police chases. They found that only 24 deaths could be

linked to writing citations during the 11-year period. That included 17 suspects, five bystanders and two police

officers.

“The typical suspect who died was a 26-year-old man pursued by police after fleeing a spot check for

alcohol or a speeding violation,” they report. The two police officers were killed in separate events when they

were hit by a car while writing a ticket for another motorist.

Who Really Pays?

The researchers admit there are a few gaps in their findings. The statistics do not include Ontario drivers

who may have been involved in a fatal accident somewhere outside that province. Nor can they say that every

traffic ticket leads to a reduction in accidents. But the statistics suggest a correlation between the number of

citations and the number of fatalities.

They also point out that the innocent are often made to pay the price for careless drivers.

“Unlike other common diseases, the victims are often young and need significant subsequent care for

decades. Most crashes are unintended, unexpected, and could have been prevented by a small difference in

driver behavior.”

So the next time you see that cop in your rearview mirror, give him, or her, a broad smile.

Yeah, right.

第三单元

交通罚单能救命吗？

研究显示交通罚单能救司机的命

李·戴

哎，这可怜的交警。他是你在高速公路上疾驰时最不愿意在后视镜里看见的人。他为什么不去抓那些杀人犯，却在这儿为了一点儿芝麻大的交通违规对司机们穷追不舍？

然而，根据加拿大和加利福尼亚科学家们的一项重要研究，那位警察也许恰恰是在救你的命，或者救别的什么人的命。

研究者们发现一张交通罚单能让司机至少在几周内遭遇重大车祸的概率降低35%。但是这个作用不会持续很长。三四个月后，那只脚又会回到油门儿上去，置自己或别人于死地的危险率又和警察瞪着你开出巨额罚单前一样高了。

根据6月28日发表在《柳叶刀》上的研究，最根本的一点就是交通罚单能救命。它很可能每年能救成千上万条命。然而交通法规只是零星地被实施，就像心血来潮似的，部分原因是人们不喜欢罚单，而且除了实施高速公路安全法，政府部门还有很多其他地方要花钱。

无情的统计数据

多伦多大学的热德尔美尔和斯坦福大学的提波施拉尼认为这种态度需要改变。他们俩都是医学研究

word专业资料-可复制编辑-欢迎下载

者，这已不是他们第一次盯着高速公路安全问题了。他们俩1998年的研究引起了轰动，当时他们认为打手机与交通事故有关联。现在他们又来了，说交通罚单对我们的健康有好处。

他们之所以参与这个项目是受到一些残酷无情的统计数据的驱使。每年，全世界有100多万人死于交通事故。如果一年内那么多人死于非典的话，大家很可能会恐惧得发疯了，然而我们对交通事故死亡率却习以为常了。

另外，还有2 500万人因交通事故永远残废了，而且他们当中——包括死去的——很多是孩子。

接到罚单处之泰然？

当热德尔美尔、提波施拉尼和他们的共同研究人员伦纳德·伊凡斯研究交通罚单是否真能起到好作用时，他们在加拿大的安大略省发现了数量巨大的司机资料。他们在那儿能看到每个有驾照的人的全部记录，这样他们就有了一个良莠俱存的超过一千万个持照司机的巨大数据库。其中8 975个司机在此项研究覆盖的1988－1998共11年中曾出过重大交通事故。

统计学家提波施拉尼说：“我们看了一下出重大事故前一个月的交通罚单数和前一年同一个月的罚单数，发现出重大事故前一个月的罚单要比前一年同一个月的罚单少，这说明罚单有保护作用。”

换言之，当罚单数下降时，重大事故率在接下来这个月就会上升；而当罚单数上升时，重大事故率在接下来这个月就会下降。分析表明罚单能使重大事故率下降35%。

显然，人们在拿到交通罚单后开车会更谨慎，但这种谨慎最长只会持续4个月。对多数司机来说，经过这短暂的歇息，一切又都恢复到从前了。

罚单的持续作用

科学家们还出示了一些令人吃惊的研究结果。

“多数撞车不是因为酒后驾车，也不是发生在十字路口，”他们在研究报告中这样报道。多数事故发生在夏季，当时的道路干燥（65%）而不湿滑（18%），也没有雪覆盖（17%）。

他们还发现“在有驾照的那组司机中拿到罚单后的事故减少率的持续性是显著的”，因此同样的结论适用于妇女和男人，而与年龄因素、以前的驾驶记录和其他个人资料无关。

但是，男人要比女人更容易出严重交通事故（73%比27%），而且最容易出事故的年龄是在30－50岁之间。酒后驾车只占事故的7%。

研究者们还澄清了一种普遍的想法：交通罚单引起的交通事故比防止的多，因为很多人是在警察追他们时丧生的。他们发现在过去的11年中只有24起死亡事故和罚单有关，这包括17个被追的司机、5个路人和2位警察。

“最典型的一例是一个26岁的男子，因想逃避酒精和超速违规的现场检查而被警察穷追不舍，”他们报告说。有2位警察死于与这互不相关的事件中，当时他们正在给另一个摩托车驾驶员开罚单。

到底谁付出了代价？

研究者们承认在他们的研究中有一些漏洞。统计数字不包括有可能在省外某地出严重交通事故的安大略省司机。他们也不能说每张交通罚单都能降低事故率。但是数据显示交通罚单的数量和死亡率之间呈相关性。

他们还指出为粗心大意的司机付出代价的经常是那些无辜的受害者。

“和其他常见病不一样，受害人通常很年轻，需要以后几十年连续不断的照顾。大多数事故是无意的，意料之外的，只要司机在驾驶上稍有不同就能避免。”

因此下次你要是在后视镜里看见那位警察，一定要对他/她热情微笑。

对，就这样。

Unit4

His Politeness Is Her Powerlessness

Deborah Tannen

There are many different kinds of evidence that women and men are judged differently even if they talk the

same way. This tendency makes mischief in discussions of women, men and power. If a linguistic strategy is

used by a woman, it is seen as powerless; if it is used by a man, it is seen as powerful. Often, the labeling of

“women’s language” as “powerless language” reflects the view of women’s behavior through the lens of

word专业资料-可复制编辑-欢迎下载

men’s.

Because they are not struggling to be one-up, women often find themselves framed as one-down. Any

situation is ripe for ambiguity accounts for much misinterpretation by experts as well as

nonexperts, by which women’s ways of thinking, uttered in a spirit of rapport, are branded e

is this inherent ambiguity clearer than in a brief comment in a newspaper article in which a couple, both

psychologists, were jointly interviewed. The journalist asked them the meaning of “being very polite.” The two

experts responded simultaneously, giving different answers. The man said, “Subservience.” The woman said,

“Sensitivity.”Both experts were right, but each was describing the view of a different gender.

Experts and nonexperts alike tend to see anything women do as evidence of powerlessness. The same

newspaper article quotes another psychologist as saying, “A man might ask a woman, ‘Will you please go to

the store?’ where a woman might say, ‘Gee, I really need a few things from the store, but I’m so tired.’” The

woman’s style is called “covert,” a term suggesting negative qualities like being “sneaky” and

“underhanded.” The reason offered for this is power. The woman doesn’t feel she has the right to ask directly.

Granted, women have lower status than men in our American society. But this is not necessarily why they

prefer not to make outright demands. The explanation for a woman’s indirectness could just as well be her

seeking connection. If you get your way as a result of having demanded it, the payoff is satisfying in terms of

status: You’re one-up because others are doing as you told them. But if you get your way because others

happened to want the same thing, or because they offered freely, the payoff is rapport. You’re neither one-up nor

one-down by being happily connected to others whose wants are the same as yours. Furthermore, if indirectness

is understood by both parties, then there is nothing covert about it: That a request is being made is clear. Calling

an indirect communication covert reflects the view of someone for whom the direct style seems “natural” and

“logical” － a view more common among men.

Indirectness itself does not reflect powerlessness. It’s easy to think of situations where indirectness is the

prerogative of others in power. For example, a wealthy couple who knows that their servants will do their

bidding need not give direct orders, but simply state wishes: The woman of the house says, “It’s chilly in here,”

and the servant sets about raising the temperature. The man of the house says, “It’s dinner time,” and the

servant sees about having dinner served. Perhaps the ultimate indirectness is getting someone to do something

without saying anything at all: The hostess rings a bell and a maid brings the next course; or a parent enters the

room where children are misbehaving and stands with hands on hips, and the children immediately stop what

they’re doing.

Entire cultures operate on elaborate systems of indirectness. For example, I discovered in a small research

project that most Greeks assumed a wife who asked, “Would you like to go to the party?” was hinting that she

wanted to go. They felt that she wouldn’t bring it up if she didn’t want to go. Furthermore, they felt, she would

not state here preference outright because that would sound like a demand. Indirectness was the appropriate

means for communicating her preference.

Japanese culture has developed indirectness to a fine art. For example, a Japanese anthropologist, Harumi

Befu, explains the delicate exchange of tended the invitation, Befu first had to determine whether it was meant

literally or just pro forma, much as an American might say, “We’ll have to have you over for dinner some time”

but would not expect you to turn up at the decided the invitation was meant literally and having

accepted, Befu was then asked what he would like to eat. Following custom, he said anything would do, but his

friend, also following custom, pressed him to specify. Host and guest repeated this exchange an appropriate

number of times, until Befu deemed it polite to answer the question － politely － by saying tea over rice －

as the last course of a sumptuous meal. Befu was not surprised by the feast because he knew that protocol

required it. Had he been given what he asked for, he would have been insulted. But protocol also required that

he make a great show of being surprised.

This account of mutual indirectness in a lunch invitation may strike Americans as excessive. But far more

cultures in the world use elaborate systems of indirectness than value directness. Only modern Western societies

word专业资料-可复制编辑-欢迎下载

place a priority on direct communication, and even for us it is more a value than a practice.

Evidence from other cultures also makes it clear that indirectness does not itself reflect low status. Rather,

our assumptions about the status of women compel us to interpret anything they do as reflecting low status.

Anthropologist Elinor Keenan, for example, found that in a Malagasy-speaking village on the island of

Madagascar, it is women who are direct and men who are indirect. And the villagers see the men’s indirect way

of speaking, using metaphors and proverbs, as the better way. For them, indirectness, like the men who use it,

has high status. They regard women’s direct style as clumsy and crude, debasing the beautiful subtlety of men’s language. Whether women or men are direct or indirect differs; what remains constant is that women’s style is

negatively valuated － seen as lower in status than the men’s.

第四单元

他这样说是彬彬有礼，她这样说是低微无能

黛博拉·塔嫩

各种各样的证据表明：即使女性和男性说话方式相同，人们对他们的看法还是不同。这种倾向导致有关女性、男性和有无能耐的讨论纷争不断。女性说话讲究方式方法被认为是低微无能，而换成男性则被认为是有能力的表现。视女性的语言为低微无能者的语言常常反映出男性看女性行为的视觉角度。

女性不为高人一等而拼搏，往往就被认为是低人一等。在任何情况下都极易发生误会。这也说明了为什么专家和非专家常常把女性以友善语言表述出来的思维方式曲解成低微无能的表现。没有什么能比一家报社刊登的采访片段更能清楚地说明这种根深蒂固的歧义。采访对象是一对心理学家夫妇，当记者问他们“表现得非常有礼貌”的含义时，这两位专家同时给出不同的答案。男性回答说：“服从。”女性回答说：“敏感。”两位专家都是正确的，只不过每个人描述的是不同性别的观点。

专家和非专家都习惯把女性的任何行为看为低微无能的表现。以上同一篇报刊文章援引另一位心理学家的话说：“一个男人会这样问一个女人：‘请你去一趟商店好吗?’同样的情况下女人会说：‘哎，我真的需要从商店买点东西，但是我实在太累了。’” 女性的这种表达方式被称为“隐蔽的”，该词含有“鬼祟”和“秘密”等贬义，而这样表述的原因归咎于一个“权”字，女人觉得她没有权利直接提出要求。

的确，在我们（美国）社会里，女性的地位比男性低，但这不等于说他们不愿意提出直截了当的要求。女性的这种间接方式很可能是因为她们在努力寻找某种关系。如果愿望在自己的要求下得到满足，结果就是社会地位的胜利：你高人一等，因为别人按你的意志行事。而如果你的愿望得到满足是因为他人的愿望恰好和你的一致，或者是因为对方心甘情愿，结果就是融洽和谐。当你和对方需求一致而一拍即合时，你既不高人一等，也不低人一等。

而且如果双方都了解这种间接方式，那就根本不存在什么隐蔽：提出的要求很明确。称间接的沟通方式为隐蔽反映出那些青睐直接沟通方式的人的观点，即直接的方式才是“自然的”、“合乎逻辑的”，这种观点在男性中更普遍。

间接方式本身并不反映低微无能。我们不难想象出权势者中有特权的人是怎样使用间接方式的。例如，一对有钱的夫妇用不着直接向听命于他们的佣人发号施令，而只须简单地说明其愿望，房子的女主人说：“这儿冷，”佣人会去调高室温；房子的男主人说：“是晚饭时间了，”佣人就会摆桌上菜。或许终极的间接是什么都不用说就能使某人做某事；女主人按一下铃，女仆端上下一道菜；家长走近有孩子正在嬉闹的房间，双手叉腰一站，他们就会戛然而止。

所有文化都靠以“间接”二字所形成的复杂而精巧的体制去运作。例如，我在做一个小规模的研究项目时发现：当妻子问“你想去参加那个聚会吗？”，大多数希腊人认为他们的妻子是在暗示她想去。他们认为如果妻子不想去，她就不会提出这个问题。而且他们觉得妻子之所以不直截了当提出，是因为她不想使她的愿望听上去像是要求。间接是传达她的意愿的最好方式。

日本文化把间接沟通方式发展成精美的艺术。例如，一位名叫别府春海的日本人类学家这样描述一次简单的午餐邀请所涉及的微妙的间接交流。当他的朋友发出邀请后，别府首先要弄清楚这个邀请是真正的邀请，还是仅仅出于客套，就像美国人说“哪天有空请你到我们家吃晚饭”而他并不期望你会出现在他的家门口一样。别府在确定邀请是真实的并且接受以后，对方就得问他想吃什么；按照习俗，他于是说吃什么都可以，而他的朋友也照例

word专业资料-可复制编辑-欢迎下载

一定要他说得具体一些，这样的交流在主人和客人之间适当重复了几次，直到别府觉得有礼貌地作出回答才是谦谦之举，于是说米饭和茶。当他就餐时，招待他的确实有米饭和茶——只不过这是一顿丰盛午餐的最后一个程序。别府对饭菜之丰盛并不感到惊讶，因为他知道按礼节就是这样。如果对方按照他的提议款待他，他就等于受到了侮辱，当然礼节也要求他做出受宠若惊的样子。

以上描述的有关午餐邀请时双方所进行的间接交流在美国人看来是过分了，然而相比直接的沟通方式，世界上更多的文化崇尚细腻的间接沟通方式。唯有现代西方社会推崇直接沟通方式，而且即使对我们（美国人）来讲，这种方式更是一种价值观，而不是实践。

其他文化现象也清楚地表明间接本身并不能反映地位低下。在一定程度上，是我们对女性地位的设定使我们把女性的所有行为解释成为地位低下的表现。例如，人类学家埃莉诺·基南发现在马达加斯加岛的一个说马达加斯加语的村落里，说话直截了当的是女性，拐弯抹角的是男性。而村民视男性使用隐喻和谚语的间接说话方式为更佳方式。在他们眼里，非直接方式和使用这种方式的男人一样享有崇高地位，而女性的直接风格被视为笨拙、粗鲁、有损男性语言的精深微妙之魅力。关于男性或女性谁直接谁间接在不同地域有不同情况，不变的是女性风格总遭人贬低，其地位被视为低于男性。