网友您好， 请在下方输入框内输入要搜索的题目：
题目内容
（请给出正确答案）
Russian really is hard for lcarners, and a casual comparison might serve the conclusion that big, prestigious languages like Russian are complex. Just look, after all, at their rich, technical vocabularies, and the complex industrial societies that they serve.
But linguists who have compared languages systematically are struck by the opposite conclusion.
This is largely because linguists, unlike laypeople, focus on grammar, not vocabulary,Consider Berik, spoken in a few villages in eastern Papua. It may not have a word for“supernova”, but it drips with complex rules: a mandatory verb ending tells what time of day the action occurred, and another indicates the size of the direet object. Of
course these things can be said in English, but Berik requires them. Remote socictics may be materially simplc;“primitive”", their languages are not.
Systematically so: a study in 2010 of thousands of tongucs found that smaller languages have more Berik-style grammatical bits and pieces attached to words. By contrast, bigger ones tend to be like English or Mandarin, in which words change their form lttle ifat all. No one knows why, but a likely culprit is the very scale and ubiquity of such widely travelled languages.
As a language spreads, more foreigners come to learn it as adults (thanks to conquest and trade, for example). Since languages are more complex than they need to be, many of those adult learners will- Stalin-style- ignore some of the niceties where they can. If those newcomers have children, the children will often learn a slightly simpler version of the language from their parents.
But a new study, conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has found that it is not entirely foreigners and their sloppy ways that are to blame for languages becoming simpler. Merely being bigger was enough. The researchers, Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer and Shiri Lev-Ari, asked 12 groups of four strangers and 12 groups of eight to invent languages to describe a group of moving shapes on the screen. They were told that the goal was to rack up points for communicating successfully over 16 rounds. (They“talked" by keyboard and were forbidden to use their native language, Dutch.)
Over time both big and small groups got better at making themselves understood,but the bigger ones did so by crcating more systematic languages as they interacted,with fewer idiosyncrasies. The rescarchers suppose that this is because the members of the larger groups had fewer interactions with each other member, this put pressureon them to come up with clear patterns. Smaller groups could afford quirkierlanguages, because their members got to“know”cach other better.
Ncither the more systematic nor the more idiosyncratic languages were“better",given group size: the small and large groups communicated equally well. But the work provides evidence that an idiosyncratic language is best suited to a small group with rich shared history, As the language spreads, it nceds to become more
predictablc.
Taken with previous studies, the new research offers a two-part answer to why grammar rules are built- and lost. As groups grow, the need for systematic rules becomes greater, unlearnable in-group-speak with random variation won't do. But languages develop more rules than they need; as they are learned by foreign speakers joining the group. some of these get stripped away. This can explain why pairs of closely related languages - Tajik and Persian, Icelandic and Swedish, Frisian and English- differ in grammatical complexity. In each couple, the former language is both smaller and more isolated. Systematicity is required for growth. Lost complexity is the cost of foreigners learming your language. It is the price of success.
Which of the following statements about the more systematic. and more idiosyncratic language is correct?
But linguists who have compared languages systematically are struck by the opposite conclusion.
This is largely because linguists, unlike laypeople, focus on grammar, not vocabulary,Consider Berik, spoken in a few villages in eastern Papua. It may not have a word for“supernova”, but it drips with complex rules: a mandatory verb ending tells what time of day the action occurred, and another indicates the size of the direet object. Of
course these things can be said in English, but Berik requires them. Remote socictics may be materially simplc;“primitive”", their languages are not.
Systematically so: a study in 2010 of thousands of tongucs found that smaller languages have more Berik-style grammatical bits and pieces attached to words. By contrast, bigger ones tend to be like English or Mandarin, in which words change their form lttle ifat all. No one knows why, but a likely culprit is the very scale and ubiquity of such widely travelled languages.
As a language spreads, more foreigners come to learn it as adults (thanks to conquest and trade, for example). Since languages are more complex than they need to be, many of those adult learners will- Stalin-style- ignore some of the niceties where they can. If those newcomers have children, the children will often learn a slightly simpler version of the language from their parents.
But a new study, conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has found that it is not entirely foreigners and their sloppy ways that are to blame for languages becoming simpler. Merely being bigger was enough. The researchers, Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer and Shiri Lev-Ari, asked 12 groups of four strangers and 12 groups of eight to invent languages to describe a group of moving shapes on the screen. They were told that the goal was to rack up points for communicating successfully over 16 rounds. (They“talked" by keyboard and were forbidden to use their native language, Dutch.)
Over time both big and small groups got better at making themselves understood,but the bigger ones did so by crcating more systematic languages as they interacted,with fewer idiosyncrasies. The rescarchers suppose that this is because the members of the larger groups had fewer interactions with each other member, this put pressureon them to come up with clear patterns. Smaller groups could afford quirkierlanguages, because their members got to“know”cach other better.
Ncither the more systematic nor the more idiosyncratic languages were“better",given group size: the small and large groups communicated equally well. But the work provides evidence that an idiosyncratic language is best suited to a small group with rich shared history, As the language spreads, it nceds to become more
predictablc.
Taken with previous studies, the new research offers a two-part answer to why grammar rules are built- and lost. As groups grow, the need for systematic rules becomes greater, unlearnable in-group-speak with random variation won't do. But languages develop more rules than they need; as they are learned by foreign speakers joining the group. some of these get stripped away. This can explain why pairs of closely related languages - Tajik and Persian, Icelandic and Swedish, Frisian and English- differ in grammatical complexity. In each couple, the former language is both smaller and more isolated. Systematicity is required for growth. Lost complexity is the cost of foreigners learming your language. It is the price of success.
Which of the following statements about the more systematic. and more idiosyncratic language is correct?
A. When a language becomes more widely-spoken, it becomes more idiosyncratic,
B. A more systematic language works better than a more idiosyncratic language.
C. A more systematic language facilitates communication a large population.
D. People develop more rules than it is needed when learning a new language.
B. A more systematic language works better than a more idiosyncratic language.
C. A more systematic language facilitates communication a large population.
D. People develop more rules than it is needed when learning a new language.
参考答案
参考解析
解析：推理判断题。由文章最后一句可知“语言的成长需要系统性。丧失掉复杂性是外来者学习语言的代价，也是语言传播成功的代价。”故C项正确“更加系统化的语言在人口众多的环境下更能促进交流”。所以答案选C。
更多 “Russian really is hard for lcarners, and a casual comparison might serve the conclusion that big, prestigious languages like Russian are complex. Just look, after all, at their rich, technical vocabularies, and the complex industrial societies that they serve. But linguists who have compared languages systematically are struck by the opposite conclusion. This is largely because linguists, unlike laypeople, focus on grammar, not vocabulary,Consider Berik, spoken in a few villages in eastern Papua. It may not have a word for“supernova”, but it drips with complex rules: a mandatory verb ending tells what time of day the action occurred, and another indicates the size of the direet object. Of course these things can be said in English, but Berik requires them. Remote socictics may be materially simplc;“primitive”", their languages are not. Systematically so: a study in 2010 of thousands of tongucs found that smaller languages have more Berik-style grammatical bits and pieces attached to words. By contrast, bigger ones tend to be like English or Mandarin, in which words change their form lttle ifat all. No one knows why, but a likely culprit is the very scale and ubiquity of such widely travelled languages. As a language spreads, more foreigners come to learn it as adults (thanks to conquest and trade, for example). Since languages are more complex than they need to be, many of those adult learners will- Stalin-style- ignore some of the niceties where they can. If those newcomers have children, the children will often learn a slightly simpler version of the language from their parents. But a new study, conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has found that it is not entirely foreigners and their sloppy ways that are to blame for languages becoming simpler. Merely being bigger was enough. The researchers, Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer and Shiri Lev-Ari, asked 12 groups of four strangers and 12 groups of eight to invent languages to describe a group of moving shapes on the screen. They were told that the goal was to rack up points for communicating successfully over 16 rounds. (They“talked" by keyboard and were forbidden to use their native language, Dutch.) Over time both big and small groups got better at making themselves understood,but the bigger ones did so by crcating more systematic languages as they interacted,with fewer idiosyncrasies. The rescarchers suppose that this is because the members of the larger groups had fewer interactions with each other member, this put pressureon them to come up with clear patterns. Smaller groups could afford quirkierlanguages, because their members got to“know”cach other better. Ncither the more systematic nor the more idiosyncratic languages were“better",given group size: the small and large groups communicated equally well. But the work provides evidence that an idiosyncratic language is best suited to a small group with rich shared history, As the language spreads, it nceds to become more predictablc. Taken with previous studies, the new research offers a two-part answer to why grammar rules are built- and lost. As groups grow, the need for systematic rules becomes greater, unlearnable in-group-speak with random variation won't do. But languages develop more rules than they need; as they are learned by foreign speakers joining the group. some of these get stripped away. This can explain why pairs of closely related languages - Tajik and Persian, Icelandic and Swedish, Frisian and English- differ in grammatical complexity. In each couple, the former language is both smaller and more isolated. Systematicity is required for growth. Lost complexity is the cost of foreigners learming your language. It is the price of success. Which of the following statements about the more systematic. and more idiosyncratic language is correct? A. When a language becomes more widely-spoken, it becomes more idiosyncratic, B. A more systematic language works better than a more idiosyncratic language. C. A more systematic language facilitates communication a large population. D. People develop more rules than it is needed when learning a new language.” 相关考题
考题
–You are working hard, what are you doing?–()
A、No, not at all.B、I’m making a bookcase.C、Yes, I really work hard.D、Thanks.
考题
The passage is basically a ______.A. biography of John Paul JonesB. criticism of John Paul JonesC. history of the United States NavyD. comparison of the American and Russian navies
考题
--- What does he look like?--- __________.A. He just got marriedB. He is tall and thinC. He works very hard
考题
--- What does he look like?--- __________.A. He just got marriedB. He is about 40C. He is tall and thin
考题
Let me __________ the case carefully before I draw a conclusion.
A. look upB. look intoC. look after
考题
The questions is ( ) American and European companies understand the Russian business environment.
A.ThatB.WhetherC.AsD.why
考题
Which sentences use the rhetorical device of simile?
A.They look like figures representing gluttony in a medieval morality play, and you expect ladies in wimples to appear and clowns dressed like monkeys.B.There are also big block letters laid out on sand like formations of gymnasts at a Soviet youth rally.C.He breathes hard. He looks around.D.Maybe he hesitates, or looks around, or gives up.
考题
Can I help you? No, thanks._________.A. I just look aroundB. I am just lookingC. I would like to lookD. I will buy nothing
考题
“Does she speak English or Russian?” “She doesn’t speak ________.”
A.neitherB.noneC.eitherD.all
考题
a typical western girl's response to the compliment "you look beautiful in this blue dress." would be "_________".
A、No, no. This is just an ordinary dress. I got it really cheap.B、You are just flattering me to cheer me up.C、Really? Well, perhaps I look more beautiful in red.D、Thank you. I believe I look good in blue.
考题
What does a kangaroo look like?A. It looks like a bear. B. It has big eyes and ears. C.It has small eyes and big noses.
考题
共用题干
The Day a Language DiedWhen Carlos Westez died at the age of 76,a language died,too.Westez,more commonly known as Red Thunder Cloud,was the last speaker of the Native American language,Catawba.Anyone who wants to hear various songs of the Catawba can contact the Smithsonian Institution in Washington,D.C.,where, back in the 1940s,Red Thunder Cloud recorded a series of songs for future generations.______(46) They are all that is left of the Catawba language.The language that people used to speak is gone forever.We are all aware of the damage that modern industry can do to the world's ecology（生态）.However, few people are aware of the impact that widely spoken languages have on other languages and ways of life.English has spread all over the world.Chinese,Spanish,Russian,and Hindi have become powerful languages,as well.______(47)When this happens,hundreds of languages that are spoken by only a few people die out.Scholars believe there are about 6 ,000 languages around the world,but more than half of them could die out within the next 100 years.There are many examples.Araki is a native language of the island of Vanuatu,located in the Pacific Ocean.It is spoken by only a few older adults,so like Catawba,Araki will soon disappear.Many languages of Ethiopia will have the same fate because each one has only a few speakers.______(48)In the Americas,100 languages,each of which has fewer than 300 speakers,also are dying out.Red Thunder Cloud was one of the first to recognize the threat of language death and to try to do something about it.He was not actually born into the Catawba tribe,and the language was not his mother tongue.______(49)The songs he sang for the Smithsonian Institution helped to make Native American music popular.Now he is gone,and the language is dead.What does it mean when a language disappears? When a plant or insect or animal species dies,it is easy to understand what we've lost and to appreciate what this means for the balance of the natural world.However,language is only a product of the mind.To be the last remaining speaker of a language,like RedThunder Cloud,must be a lonely destiny,almost as strange and terrible as being the last surviving member of a dying species.______(50)_______(48)A:Some people might want to try to learn some of these songs by heart.B:Papua New Guinea is an extremely rich source of different languages,but more than 100 of them are in danger of extinction（灭绝）.C:However,he was a frequent visitor to the Catawba reservation in South Carolina,where he learned the language.D:These languages don't have many native speakers.E:For the rest of us,when a language dies,we lose the possibility of a unique way of seeing and describing the world.F:As these languages become more powerful,their use as tools of business and culture increases.
考题
Russian really is hard for lcarners, and a casual comparison might serve the conclusion that big, prestigious languages like Russian are complex. Just look, after all, at their rich, technical vocabularies, and the complex industrial societies that they serve.
But linguists who have compared languages systematically are struck by the opposite conclusion.
This is largely because linguists, unlike laypeople, focus on grammar, not vocabulary,Consider Berik, spoken in a few villages in eastern Papua. It may not have a word for“supernova”, but it drips with complex rules: a mandatory verb ending tells what time of day the action occurred, and another indicates the size of the direet object. Of
course these things can be said in English, but Berik requires them. Remote socictics may be materially simplc;“primitive”", their languages are not.
Systematically so: a study in 2010 of thousands of tongucs found that smaller languages have more Berik-style grammatical bits and pieces attached to words. By contrast, bigger ones tend to be like English or Mandarin, in which words change their form lttle ifat all. No one knows why, but a likely culprit is the very scale and ubiquity of such widely travelled languages.
As a language spreads, more foreigners come to learn it as adults (thanks to conquest and trade, for example). Since languages are more complex than they need to be, many of those adult learners will- Stalin-style- ignore some of the niceties where they can. If those newcomers have children, the children will often learn a slightly simpler version of the language from their parents.
But a new study, conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has found that it is not entirely foreigners and their sloppy ways that are to blame for languages becoming simpler. Merely being bigger was enough. The researchers, Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer and Shiri Lev-Ari, asked 12 groups of four strangers and 12 groups of eight to invent languages to describe a group of moving shapes on the screen. They were told that the goal was to rack up points for communicating successfully over 16 rounds. (They“talked" by keyboard and were forbidden to use their native language, Dutch.)
Over time both big and small groups got better at making themselves understood,but the bigger ones did so by crcating more systematic languages as they interacted,with fewer idiosyncrasies. The rescarchers suppose that this is because the members of the larger groups had fewer interactions with each other member, this put pressureon them to come up with clear patterns. Smaller groups could afford quirkierlanguages, because their members got to“know”cach other better.
Ncither the more systematic nor the more idiosyncratic languages were“better",given group size: the small and large groups communicated equally well. But the work provides evidence that an idiosyncratic language is best suited to a small group with rich shared history, As the language spreads, it nceds to become more
predictablc.
Taken with previous studies, the new research offers a two-part answer to why grammar rules are built- and lost. As groups grow, the need for systematic rules becomes greater, unlearnable in-group-speak with random variation won't do. But languages develop more rules than they need; as they are learned by foreign speakers joining the group. some of these get stripped away. This can explain why pairs of closely related languages - Tajik and Persian, Icelandic and Swedish, Frisian and English- differ in grammatical complexity. In each couple, the former language is both smaller and more isolated. Systematicity is required for growth. Lost complexity is the cost of foreigners learming your language. It is the price of success.
What is the main finding of the study conducted by Max Plank Institute?
A. Bigger groups of speakers tend to make the language system simpler.
B. It is the foreign people learning that language makes it become simpler.
C. The small groups got better at communicating with each other at the end.
D. Members in bigger groups have more chances to interact with each other.
考题
Russian really is hard for lcarners, and a casual comparison might serve the conclusion that big, prestigious languages like Russian are complex. Just look, after all, at their rich, technical vocabularies, and the complex industrial societies that they serve.
But linguists who have compared languages systematically are struck by the opposite conclusion.
This is largely because linguists, unlike laypeople, focus on grammar, not vocabulary,Consider Berik, spoken in a few villages in eastern Papua. It may not have a word for“supernova”, but it drips with complex rules: a mandatory verb ending tells what time of day the action occurred, and another indicates the size of the direet object. Of
course these things can be said in English, but Berik requires them. Remote socictics may be materially simplc;“primitive”", their languages are not.
Systematically so: a study in 2010 of thousands of tongucs found that smaller languages have more Berik-style grammatical bits and pieces attached to words. By contrast, bigger ones tend to be like English or Mandarin, in which words change their form lttle ifat all. No one knows why, but a likely culprit is the very scale and ubiquity of such widely travelled languages.
As a language spreads, more foreigners come to learn it as adults (thanks to conquest and trade, for example). Since languages are more complex than they need to be, many of those adult learners will- Stalin-style- ignore some of the niceties where they can. If those newcomers have children, the children will often learn a slightly simpler version of the language from their parents.
But a new study, conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has found that it is not entirely foreigners and their sloppy ways that are to blame for languages becoming simpler. Merely being bigger was enough. The researchers, Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer and Shiri Lev-Ari, asked 12 groups of four strangers and 12 groups of eight to invent languages to describe a group of moving shapes on the screen. They were told that the goal was to rack up points for communicating successfully over 16 rounds. (They“talked" by keyboard and were forbidden to use their native language, Dutch.)
Over time both big and small groups got better at making themselves understood,but the bigger ones did so by crcating more systematic languages as they interacted,with fewer idiosyncrasies. The rescarchers suppose that this is because the members of the larger groups had fewer interactions with each other member, this put pressureon them to come up with clear patterns. Smaller groups could afford quirkierlanguages, because their members got to“know”cach other better.
Ncither the more systematic nor the more idiosyncratic languages were“better",given group size: the small and large groups communicated equally well. But the work provides evidence that an idiosyncratic language is best suited to a small group with rich shared history, As the language spreads, it nceds to become more
predictablc.
Taken with previous studies, the new research offers a two-part answer to why grammar rules are built- and lost. As groups grow, the need for systematic rules becomes greater, unlearnable in-group-speak with random variation won't do. But languages develop more rules than they need; as they are learned by foreign speakers joining the group. some of these get stripped away. This can explain why pairs of closely related languages - Tajik and Persian, Icelandic and Swedish, Frisian and English- differ in grammatical complexity. In each couple, the former language is both smaller and more isolated. Systematicity is required for growth. Lost complexity is the cost of foreigners learming your language. It is the price of success.
According to the passage, in which way is Berik different from the system of bigger languages, like English?
A. There is no way to express the tiny pieces of meanings in English.
B. There are more direct and easier ways to convey the same content.
C. The word forms remain unchanged when used in different situations.
D. It requires small pieces attached to words to indicate diferent meanings.
考题
According to this passage, which of the following is FALSE?___________A.Many workers don't like a conservative dress code
B.Comfortable clothes make workers more productive
C.A casual clothes code is welcomed by young workers
D.All the employers in the U.S. are for casual office wear
考题
Russian really is hard for lcarners, and a casual comparison might serve the conclusion that big, prestigious languages like Russian are complex. Just look, after all, at their rich, technical vocabularies, and the complex industrial societies that they serve.
But linguists who have compared languages systematically are struck by the opposite conclusion.
This is largely because linguists, unlike laypeople, focus on grammar, not vocabulary,Consider Berik, spoken in a few villages in eastern Papua. It may not have a word for“supernova”, but it drips with complex rules: a mandatory verb ending tells what time of day the action occurred, and another indicates the size of the direet object. Of
course these things can be said in English, but Berik requires them. Remote socictics may be materially simplc;“primitive”", their languages are not.
Systematically so: a study in 2010 of thousands of tongucs found that smaller languages have more Berik-style grammatical bits and pieces attached to words. By contrast, bigger ones tend to be like English or Mandarin, in which words change their form lttle ifat all. No one knows why, but a likely culprit is the very scale and ubiquity of such widely travelled languages.
As a language spreads, more foreigners come to learn it as adults (thanks to conquest and trade, for example). Since languages are more complex than they need to be, many of those adult learners will- Stalin-style- ignore some of the niceties where they can. If those newcomers have children, the children will often learn a slightly simpler version of the language from their parents.
But a new study, conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has found that it is not entirely foreigners and their sloppy ways that are to blame for languages becoming simpler. Merely being bigger was enough. The researchers, Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer and Shiri Lev-Ari, asked 12 groups of four strangers and 12 groups of eight to invent languages to describe a group of moving shapes on the screen. They were told that the goal was to rack up points for communicating successfully over 16 rounds. (They“talked" by keyboard and were forbidden to use their native language, Dutch.)
Over time both big and small groups got better at making themselves understood,but the bigger ones did so by crcating more systematic languages as they interacted,with fewer idiosyncrasies. The rescarchers suppose that this is because the members of the larger groups had fewer interactions with each other member, this put pressureon them to come up with clear patterns. Smaller groups could afford quirkierlanguages, because their members got to“know”cach other better.
Ncither the more systematic nor the more idiosyncratic languages were“better",given group size: the small and large groups communicated equally well. But the work provides evidence that an idiosyncratic language is best suited to a small group with rich shared history, As the language spreads, it nceds to become more
predictablc.
Taken with previous studies, the new research offers a two-part answer to why grammar rules are built- and lost. As groups grow, the need for systematic rules becomes greater, unlearnable in-group-speak with random variation won't do. But languages develop more rules than they need; as they are learned by foreign speakers joining the group. some of these get stripped away. This can explain why pairs of closely related languages - Tajik and Persian, Icelandic and Swedish, Frisian and English- differ in grammatical complexity. In each couple, the former language is both smaller and more isolated. Systematicity is required for growth. Lost complexity is the cost of foreigners learming your language. It is the price of success.
What is the author's main purpose of writing this article?
A. To explain why bigger languages have simpler grammar.
B. To inform readers the evolvement process of languages.
C. To introduce the systematic and idiosyncratic languages.
D. To compare the differences between Berik and English.
考题
Russian really is hard for lcarners, and a casual comparison might serve the conclusion that big, prestigious languages like Russian are complex. Just look, after all, at their rich, technical vocabularies, and the complex industrial societies that they serve.
But linguists who have compared languages systematically are struck by the opposite conclusion.
This is largely because linguists, unlike laypeople, focus on grammar, not vocabulary,Consider Berik, spoken in a few villages in eastern Papua. It may not have a word for“supernova”, but it drips with complex rules: a mandatory verb ending tells what time of day the action occurred, and another indicates the size of the direet object. Of
course these things can be said in English, but Berik requires them. Remote socictics may be materially simplc;“primitive”", their languages are not.
Systematically so: a study in 2010 of thousands of tongucs found that smaller languages have more Berik-style grammatical bits and pieces attached to words. By contrast, bigger ones tend to be like English or Mandarin, in which words change their form lttle ifat all. No one knows why, but a likely culprit is the very scale and ubiquity of such widely travelled languages.
As a language spreads, more foreigners come to learn it as adults (thanks to conquest and trade, for example). Since languages are more complex than they need to be, many of those adult learners will- Stalin-style- ignore some of the niceties where they can. If those newcomers have children, the children will often learn a slightly simpler version of the language from their parents.
But a new study, conducted at the Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics at Nijmegen in the Netherlands, has found that it is not entirely foreigners and their sloppy ways that are to blame for languages becoming simpler. Merely being bigger was enough. The researchers, Limor Raviv, Antje Meyer and Shiri Lev-Ari, asked 12 groups of four strangers and 12 groups of eight to invent languages to describe a group of moving shapes on the screen. They were told that the goal was to rack up points for communicating successfully over 16 rounds. (They“talked" by keyboard and were forbidden to use their native language, Dutch.)
Over time both big and small groups got better at making themselves understood,but the bigger ones did so by crcating more systematic languages as they interacted,with fewer idiosyncrasies. The rescarchers suppose that this is because the members of the larger groups had fewer interactions with each other member, this put pressureon them to come up with clear patterns. Smaller groups could afford quirkierlanguages, because their members got to“know”cach other better.
Ncither the more systematic nor the more idiosyncratic languages were“better",given group size: the small and large groups communicated equally well. But the work provides evidence that an idiosyncratic language is best suited to a small group with rich shared history, As the language spreads, it nceds to become more
predictablc.
Taken with previous studies, the new research offers a two-part answer to why grammar rules are built- and lost. As groups grow, the need for systematic rules becomes greater, unlearnable in-group-speak with random variation won't do. But languages develop more rules than they need; as they are learned by foreign speakers joining the group. some of these get stripped away. This can explain why pairs of closely related languages - Tajik and Persian, Icelandic and Swedish, Frisian and English- differ in grammatical complexity. In each couple, the former language is both smaller and more isolated. Systematicity is required for growth. Lost complexity is the cost of foreigners learming your language. It is the price of success.
Which of the following sentences best fit in the blank in the second paragraph?
A. They found that Russian does not actually has the most complex grammar rules compared to other languages.
B. They tend to find that big languages spoken by large numbers of people are actually simpler than small ones.
C. They found that there is not any pattern about the relation between the complexity ofa language and its' popularity.
D. They found that laypeople usually pay attention to whether the vocabulary in one language is complex or simple.
考题
If you____the trigger of a gun really hard and really fast, it doesn't fire any faster or harder than if you just squeezed it gently.A.condense
B.squeeze
C.obtain
D.lost
考题
Team selection is not just a function of finding someone whos a technical or administrative expert. What will a project sponsor leading a high visibility project look for in a project manager？（）A、Developing key personnelB、Leading technical specialistsC、Interfacing with customers / sponsorsD、Analyzing skills
考题
单选题Which of the following is the best revision of the underlined portion of sentence 2 (reproduced below)?This is the experience that a thinker has when, after they thought about a problem long and hard, they suddenly come upon a solution in a flash when they are no longer thinking about it.A
that a thinker has when, after they thought long and hard about a problem, their solution suddenly arises like a flashB
that thinkers have when a solution suddenly had arisen like a flash after they were thinking long and hard about a problemC
that a thinker has when, after having thought long and hard about a problem, they suddenly come upon a solutionD
that thinkers have when, after having thought long hard hard about a problem, they suddenly come upon a solutionE
that thinkers have when, thinking long and hard about a problem, they suddenly come upon a solution in a flash
考题
单选题Why will many people start to hate Big Data according to the last paragraph?A
Because people will have no privacy and can' t tell any lies at all．B
Because they facilitate performance and productivity assessment．C
Because they give people no choice but to comply with computers．D
Because people have found it really hard to finish doing everything．
考题
单选题Which of the following is the best version of the underlined portion of sentence 15 (reproduced below)?Also, very few young adults really think about what kinds of qualifications and skills the candidates might or might not have they just pick the one whom their parents or their friends like.A
(as it is now)B
the qualifications and skills of the candi- dates, but insteadC
what kinds of qualifications and skills the candidates might have, they insteadD
the qualifications and skills of the candi- dates, theyE
what are the qualifications and skills of the candidates, they instead
考题
单选题The newly built cafe, the walls of ______ are painted light green, is really a peaceful place for us, especially after hard work.A
thatB
itC
whatD
which
考题
单选题Which of the following is the best way to revise sentences 13 and 14 (reproduced below) in the context of the passage?There are many recreations and nature attractions in this area, like golf courses, lakes, rivers, caverns, and mountains. People really don't know what the place has w offer.A
You might not realize that this area offer a range of natural attractions and recreations activities, including golf courses, lake, river, caverns, and mountains.B
People unfamiliar with Branson might not realize that this area offers a tango of natural attractions and recreational activities, including golf courses, lakes, rivers, caverns, and mountains.C
People might not realize that golf courses, lakes, river, caverns,, and mountains might all be found in Branson if they were to visitD
People unfamiliar with Brason do not that golf courses, lakes, river, caverns. mountains－can all be found in the Branson area if they were to visit.E
You might not realize, if unfamiliar with Branson, 'the range of natural and recreational resources available in the city, golf courses, lakes, rivers, caverns, and mountains being just a few.
考题
单选题What did Rice discuss with the Russian leaders? A
Human fights issues.B
North Korean issues.C
American and Russian military issues.
热门标签
最新试卷
