试题

试题 试卷

logo

题型:阅读理解 题类:常考题 难易度:普通

江苏省常州“教学研究合作联盟”2018-2019高二下学期英语期中考试试卷

阅读理解

    I'm sitting in my kitchen in London, trying to figure out a text message from my brother. He lives in our home country of Germany. We speak German to each other, a language that's rich in odd words, but I've never heard this one before: fremdschämen. I'm too proud to ask him what it means. I know that eventually, I'll get it. Still, it's slightly painful to realize that after years of living abroad, my mother tongue can sometimes feel foreign.

    Most long-term migrants know what it's like to be a slightly rusty(生疏的) native speaker. The process seems obvious: the longer you are away, the more your language suffers. But it's not quite so straightforward.

    In fact, the science of why, when and how we lose our own language is complex and often different to what we think. It turns out that how long you've been away doesn't always matter. Socializing with other native speakers abroad can worsen your own native skills. And emotional factors like trauma(精神创伤) can be the biggest factor of all.

    It's not just long-term migrants who are affected, but to some extent anyone who picks up a second language. The minute you start learning another language, the two systems start to compete with each other, says Monika Schmid, a linguist at the University of Essex.

    Schmid is a leading researcher of language attrition, a growing field of research that looks at what makes us lose our mother tongue. In children, the phenomenon is somewhat easier to explain since their brains are generally more flexible and adaptable. Until the age of about 12, a person's language skills are relatively easy to change. Studies on international adoptees have found that even nine-year-olds can almost completely forget their first language when they are removed from their country of birth.

    But in adults, the first language is unlikely to disappear entirely except in extreme circumstances. For example, Schmid analyzed the German of elderly German-Jewish wartime refugees(难民) in the UK and the US. The main factor that influenced their language skills wasn't how long they had been abroad or how old they were when they left. It was how much trauma they had experienced as victims. Those who left Germany in the early days of Nazi occupation, before the worst violence, tended to speak better German – despite having been abroad the longest. Those who left later, tended to speak German with difficulty or not at all.

    "It seemed very clearly a result of this trauma", says Schmid. "Even though German was the language of childhood, home and family, it was also the language of painful memories." The most traumatised refugees had held them back. As one of them said: I feel that Germany betrayed me. America is my country, and English is my language.

(1)、What do paragraph 5 and 6 mainly talk about?
A、The reasons behind the loss of people's mother tongue. B、The way to deal with the loss of the native language. C、How the native language coexists with the new one. D、How trauma leads to decrease in the native language.
(2)、Why does trauma cause a person's first language to disappear?
A、Because he has great trouble learning the first language. B、Because his ability to communicate is affected by trauma. C、Because his country betrays his trust in it again and again. D、Because he chooses to hide away from miserable experience.
(3)、What is the best title for the passage?
A、Who will lose native language? B、Will you lose your native language? C、How does trauma affect your first language? D、How far are you from your mother tongue?
举一反三
阅读理解

    The question of what children learn, and how they should learn it, is continually being debated and redebated. Nobody dares any longer to defend the old system, the parrot-fashion(way of learning by repeating what others say)of learning lessons, the grammar-with-a-whip(鞭子)system, which was good enough for our grandparents. The theories of modern psychology have stepped in to argue that we must understand the needs of our children. Children are not just small adults; they are children who must be respected as such.

    Well, you may say, this is as it should be, and a good idea. But think further. What happens? “Education” becomes the responsibility not of teachers, but of psychologists. What happens then? Teachers worry too much about the psychological implications(暗示) of their lessons, and forget about the subjects themselves. If a child dislikes a lesson, the teacher feels that it is his fault, not the child's. So teachers worry whether history is “relevant” to modern young children. And do they dare to recount stories about violent battles? Or will this make the children themselves violent? Can they tell their classes about children of different races, or will this encourage racial hatred? Why teach children to write grammatical sentences? Oral expression is better. Sums? Arithmetic? No; real-life mathematical situations are more understandable.

    You see, you can go too far. Influenced by educational theorists, who have nothing better to do than write books about their ideas, teachers leave their teaching-training colleges filled with grand, psychological ideas about children and their needs. They make complicated preparations and try out their “modern methods” on the long-suffering children. Since one “modern method” rapidly replaces another, the poor kids will have well been fed up by the time they leave school. Frequently the modern methods are so complicated that they fail to be understood by the teachers, let alone the children; even more often, the relaxed discipline so necessary for the “informal” feeling the class must have, prevents all but a handful of children from learning anything.

阅读理解
    One might expect that the ever­growing demands of the tourist trade would bring nothing but good for the countries that receive the holiday­makers. Indeed, a rosy picture is painted for the long­term future of the holiday industry. Every month sees the building of a new hotel somewhere. And every month another rock­bound Pacific island is advertised as the 'last paradise(天堂) on earth'.
    However, the scale and speed of this growth seem set to destroy the very things tourists want to enjoy. In those countries where there was a rush to make quick money out of sea­side holidays, over­crowded beaches and the concrete jungles of endless hotels have begun to lose their appeal.
    Those countries with little experience of tourism can suffer most. In recent years, Nepal set out to attract foreign visitors to fund developments in health and education. Its forests, full of wildlife and rare flowers, were offered to tourists as one more untouched paradise. In fact, the nature all too soon felt the effects of thousands of holiday­makers traveling through the forest land. Ancient tracks became major routes for the walkers, with the consequent exploitation of precious trees and plants.
    Not only can the environment of a country suffer from the sudden growth of tourism. The people as well rapidly feel its effects. Farmland makes way for hotels, roads and airports; the old way of life goes. The one­time farmer is now the servant of some multi­national organization; he is no longer his own master. Once it was his back that bore the pain; now it is his smile that is exploited. No doubt he wonders whether he wasn't happier in his village working his own land.
    Thankfully, the tourist industry is waking up to the responsibilities it has towards those countries that receive its customers. The protection of wildlife and the creation of national parks go hand in hand with tourist development and in fact obtain financial support from tourist companies. At the same time, tourists are being encouraged to respect not only the countryside they visit but also its people.
    The way tourism is handled in the next ten years will decide its fate and that of the countries we all want to visit. Their needs and problems are more important than those of the tourist companies. Increased understanding in planning world­wide tourism can preserve the market for these companies. If not, in a few years' time the very things that attract tourists now may well have been destroyed.
阅读理解

    If you will be cycling, you will need to know what these traffic signs and signals mean.

    A sign like this one means that there is a bike lane(道). If there is a bike lane, you are required to use it. If there is not a bike lane, you should ride with traffic as far to the right side of the road as possible.

    When the signal light turns green, cars go. When you cross the street at a signal light, you should wait for the walk signal. Be sure to look carefully to the left, right and left again, before crossing the street.

    When the signal light turns yellow, car drivers should slow down and prepare to stop. You should not cross if the light is yellow. The light is about to turn red, and cars will enter the intersection(十字路口).

    This signal is the WALK sign. It has a picture of a person walking instead of using the word WALK.

    This signal is the DON'T WALK sign. It is part of the signal with the picture of a person walking. This is a picture of a red hand, meaning you should stop. You should wait to cross the street until the green picture of the person walking is showing.

    Car drivers and bikers must come to a complete stop at STOP signs.

    A yield sign means to slow down and be ready to stop. If there are pedestrians(行人)or vehicles in or nearing the intersection, you must stop. If there is no traffic in or nearing the intersection and it is safe, you may go through.

    This sign means you are coming to a crosswalk. Car drivers and bikers must stop to allow people in the crosswalk to cross the street.

阅读理解

Let E-bikes Power New York's Transit Future

    Providence, R. I., just became the 13th city to develop an electric-assisted bike-share system, which runs or is developing bike-share networks in cities across the United States. Ironically, the Brooklyn-based company cannot operate in its hometown of New York City,due to the wrongheaded ban on electric bicycles.

    In many major cities in the U. S. and abroad, e-bikes are flourishing and helping to solve major urban challenges. Stockholm is adding 5, 000 e-bikes to its bike-share system. UPS is delivering packages in Hamburg using electrically-assisted cargo tricycles. And San Francisco's DoorDash food delivery service has found e-bikes to be the best mode to navigate heavy traffic and limited parking.

    In striking contrast, New York City insists e-bikes are banned under law. More than 900 e- bikes were seized and more than 1, 800 summonses(召回)were issued by the New York Police Department in 2017,following Mayor de Blasio's decision to limit e-bike usage, despite the fact that no data or records exist to show e-bike-related safety incidents.

    Who does the e-bike restriction hurt? The e-bikes seized in 2017 primarily belonged to food delivery workers, who are immigrants from Asia and Latin America. New Yorkers love their delivery: A new study from the New York City Department of Transportation found that more than half of city residents receive food deliveries at least a few times per month."

    In fact, the top three neighborhoods for e-bike summonses-the Upper East and West Sides and East Midtown-also consisted of more than 70% white residents. It's difficult to divorce the penalty of workers of color from the predominantly white, rich neighborhoods to whom the meals are delivered.

    It is true that the rush to maximize delivery numbers leads to higher speeds and potentially dangerous biking. To that end, the city should improve and enforce safe cycling and expand bicycling infrastructure to ensure safe passage for cyclists and pedestrians.

    Outside New York, cities and companies are finding that e-bikes are convenient, have low carbon footprints and require less space than cars on city streets. As New York City seeks to improve traffic, better air quality and encourage active modes of transportation, it is confusing that a mode that checks all of those boxes would be outlawed.

    The city must stop pedaling backwards on both workable transportation modes and the racially-charged policies surrounding them. It is time for New York City to embrace e-bikes as the very useful, worker-enabling, convenient and environmentally-forward mode that they are.

阅读理解

    One February afternoon, Jesus Delgado was on break behind T2 Tacos, where he works as a cook, when he heard a commotion(骚动). He ran to the front of the Los Angeles Taco stand and saw a man and a woman arguing. She was screaming for help and had two young boys at her side. All of a sudden, the man hit her in the mouth, seized the smaller boy, and ran down the street.

    "I followed my judgement and chased him." Jesus, 35, told the Argonaut newspaper. The older boy ran in the other direction to get help. A group of teenagers who had witnessed the attack assisted the woman, Lauren Kornacki, and called 911. She told them that she was the boys' babysitter.

    Within a few blocks, Jesus caught up to the man, Andron Gazarov, 33. They fought, and Jesus wrestled (抢夺) the young boy from Gazarov's arms. Then Gazarov threw himself onto the sidewalk. "He was yelling at me that the kid didn't belong to me. I was telling him the kid didn't belong to him," Jesus told the Argonaut.

    Minutes later, Los Angeles police officers arrived and arrested Gazarov, who was charged with kidnapping, attempted kidnapping, and attack. He faces up to 12 years in prison, if convicted (定罪). The kids, Brendan O'Brien, 6, and Grady O' Brien, 4, were unharmed.

    The next night, the boys' father, Tom O'Brien, went to the Taco stand to thank Jesus for his actions. He also started an online fund to help Jesus pay the medical expenses for his special-needs daughter. By May, more than $27,000 had been raised.

阅读理解

    The American Heart Association (AHA) says that too many people are spending far too much time on chairs and couches. "Based on existing evidence, we found that U.S. adults are sedentary for about six to eight hours a day, "said Deborah Rohm Young, chair of AHA panel that wrote the new advisory.

    According to the AHA, growing evidence shows that, on its own, exercise isn't enough to cancel out the unhealthy effects of sitting for a long time. "Regardless of how much physical activity someone gets, long sedentary time could negatively influence the health of your heart and blood vessels," Young explained.

    The exact mechanisms behind the effect aren't yet clear. “There are many important factors we don't understand about sedentary time yet," Young said. She stressed that, "the types of studies available identify trends but don't prove cause and effect.”

    "We don't have information about how much sedentary behavior is bad for health — the best advice at this time is to 'sit less and move more,” she added.

    How much more? According to the AHA, people should try to get at least 30 minutes of moderate to vigorous (剧烈的)exercise a day to reach the recommended 150 minutes of moderate exercise or 75 minutes of vigorous exercise a week, That's healthier than trying to cram their weekly exercise into one or two days, according to the statement.

    "The real risk simply comes down to the amount we sit, without there being a true medicine or method to control the harmful effects," said Steinbaum, a preventive specialist in heart disease.

    Still, society has evolved to encourage sitting, she added.

    "Our lives have become focused around activities requiring us to be still—whether it be transportation, our computers, or the television or computer in our leisure time,” Steinbaum said. "Sociologically, instead of being active to be productive or to have enjoyment, our productivity and fun often requires minimal physical activities."

返回首页

试题篮