2. 职称英语
  3. "A HARMLESS drudge." Of the definitions in Samuel Johnson’s great English dic

"A HARMLESS drudge." Of the definitions in Samuel Johnson’s great English dic

游客2025-03-30  0
问题    "A HARMLESS drudge." Of the definitions in Samuel Johnson’s great English dictionary of 1755, that of "lexicographer", his own calling, is the most famous, an example of the same wit that led him to define "oats" as "a grain, which in England is generally given to horses, but in Scotland supports the people."
   Why name a language column after a harmless drudge? Because Johnson, despite the drudgery, knew that language was not harmless. Its power to inform and to lead astray, to entertain and to annoy, to build co-operation or destroy a reputation, makes language serious stuff. The Economist’s "Johnson" column began in 1992 and was later revived online. This week it returns to the print edition, and henceforth will appear fortnightly.
   Many of the topics tackled are fun: swearing and slang, preferences and peeves. Some are more fundamental. Language reveals a lot about human nature: how people reason differently in a foreign language, or to what extent different languages encode a world view, are some of the most exciting and controversial topics in linguistic research.
   People care intensely about their language, and so languages in the wider world sometimes come into conflict. The perceived arrogance of Castilians to Catalan threatens to sunder Spain; "language police" in Quebec tell restaurant owners to change "pasta" and "grilled cheese" to pates and frontage fondant. At the extreme, the passage of a law downgrading Russian in Ukraine helped spark war in that country; Vladimir Putin has used it as evidence that Ukrainian nationalists are bent on wiping out Russian culture there. The war has rumbled on since, with language the most obvious symbol of wider identity and sympathy.
   So the Johnson column treats topics light and heavy as well as language both English and international. A language column is expected to tackle questions of right and wrong. There are roughly two views of how to do this: one top-down, based on authority, prestige, writing and stability; one bottom-up, resting on how most people actually use the language, and open to change.
   The two schools of thought, known as "prescriptivism" (which sets down how the language should be) and "descriptivism" (which tells how it is), have often been at daggers drawn: English teachers and some usage-book writers on one side, and academic linguists, lexicographers and other usage-book writers on the other. In the caricature, prescriptivists are authoritarians with their heads in the sand, insisting on Victorian-era non-rules. The descriptivists are mocked as "anything-is-correct", embracing every fad, even that Shakespeare should be taught in text-message-speak.
   An intellectual writing for an elite audience, Samuel Johnson did not shy away from "right" and "wrong", even "barbarity" "depravity" and "corruption", in matters of language. But he declared his task was not to "form" but to "register" (that is, describe) the language; trying to stop change was like trying to "lash the wind". Above all, his years of drudging at the dictionary had taught him humility: he knew he was sure to commit "a few wild blunders, and risible absurdities, from which no work of such multiplicity was ever free".
   Prescribing is not really the opposite of describing. Lexicographers from Johnson’s day on must describe the language, grounding their definitions in real living English. But that is in order to give stronger roots to a book they know people will use for firm guidance. Academic linguists, the arch-descriptivists, are perfectly willing to call some usages wrong and others plain ugly. [br] Which of the following is INCORRECT about Samuel Johnson according to the passage?
选项 A、Samuel Johnson once compiled a great English dictionary.
B、Samuel Johnson defined oats as a grain which is generally given to horses in England but supports the people in Scotland.
C、Samuel Johnson defined lexicographer as a harmless drudge.
D、Samuel Johnson knew that language was harmless.
答案 D
解析 本题为事实细节题。根据文中第二段第二句“Because Johnson, despite the drudgery, knew that language was not harmless．”可知，约翰逊认识到语言并非是无害的，D项“塞缪尔-约翰逊认识到语言是无害的”与原文意思正好相反。因此，选择D项。
转载请注明原文地址:https://tihaiku.com/zcyy/4019174.html
相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)