“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 language in the wider world sometimes comes 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” pates and fromae fondant. At the extreme, the passage of a law downgrading Russian in Ukraine helps 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 visible 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.
1.Which of the following is INCORRECT about Samuel Johnson according to the passage?
2.Why is language serious stuff according to the passage?
3.From Para 4, the author has listed the conflicts caused by language in the following countries EXCEPT（ ） .
4.Which of the following is NOT MENTIONED in the passage?
问题1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.
问题2选项
A.It has power to inform and to lead astray.
B.It has power to entertain and to annoy.
C.It has power to build cooperation or destroy a reputation.
D.All of the above.
问题3选项
A.Ukraine
B.Canada
C.Quebec
D.Spain
问题4选项
A.The Economist's “Johnson” column begun in 1992 treats different topics in different languages.
B.Both prescriptivists and descriptivists are mocked in the academic articles.
C.Trying to stop change in language was like trying to “lash the wind”.
D.Lexicographers from Johnson's day on must ground their definitions in real living English.
第1题:
【选项释义】
Which of the following is INCORRECT about Samuel Johnson according to the passage? 根据文章，关于塞缪尔•约翰逊，下列哪个选项是错误的？
A. Samuel Johnson once compiled a great English dictionary. A. 塞缪尔•约翰逊曾编过一本伟大的英语词典。
B. Samuel Johnson defined oats as a grain which is generally given to horses in England but supports the people in Scotland. B. 塞缪尔•约翰逊将燕麦定义为一种谷物，这种谷物在英格兰通常用来喂马，但在苏格兰却可以养活人民。
C. Samuel Johnson defined lexicographer as a harmless drudge. C. 塞缪尔•约翰逊把词典编纂者定义为无害的苦工。
D. Samuel Johnson knew that language was harmless. D. 塞缪尔•约翰逊知道语言是无害的。
【答案】D
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据第二段第二句“因为尽管约翰逊的工作很辛苦，但他知道语言并非无害（language was not harmless）”，理解可知，“语言并非无害”即“语言是有害的”，所以D项与原文相反。该题选择D项符合题意。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“塞缪尔•约翰逊曾编过一本伟大的英语词典”、B选项“塞缪尔•约翰逊将燕麦定义为一种谷物，这种谷物在英格兰通常用来喂马，但在苏格兰却可以养活人民”和C选项“塞缪尔•约翰逊把词典编纂者定义为无害的苦工”符合原文第一段“1755年塞缪尔•约翰逊的《英语大词典》中对‘无害的苦力’的定义中，‘词典编纂者’的定义是最著名的，也是一个机智的例子，使他将‘燕麦’定义为‘一种谷物，在英格兰通常是给马吃的，但在苏格兰是给人吃的’”的内容，属于反向干扰。
第2题:
【选项释义】
Why is language serious stuff according to the passage? 根据文章，为什么语言是严肃的东西？
A. It has power to inform and to lead astray. A. 它有提供信息和误导的力量。
B. It has power to entertain and to annoy. B. 它既有娱乐的力量，也有骚扰的力量。
C. It has power to build cooperation or destroy a reputation. C. 它有能力建立合作，也有能力摧毁声誉。
D. All of the above. D. 以上都是。
【答案】D
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据关键词serious stuff定位至原文第二段第三句“它既能提供信息，也能误导人，既能娱乐，也能惹怒人，既能建立合作关系，也能毁掉声誉，这使得语言变得严肃起来”，理解可知，因为语言的双面性使得它成为一个严肃的事情。D选项“以上都是”完整地概括了原文的信息，该题选择D项正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“它有提供信息和误导的力量”、B选项“它既有娱乐的力量，也有骚扰的力量”和C选项“它有能力建立合作，也有能力摧毁声誉”根据解题思路可知，总结不全面，以偏概全。
第3题:
【选项释义】
From Para 4, the author has listed the conflicts caused by language in the following countries EXCEPT ________. 在第4段中，作者列举了除________以外的以下国家因语言而引起的冲突。
A. Ukraine A. 乌克兰
B. Canada B. 加拿大
C. Quebec C. 魁北克
D. Spain D. 西班牙
【答案】C
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据题干定位至第四段，该段提到“卡斯蒂利亚人对加泰罗尼亚人的傲慢威胁着西班牙的分裂；魁北克的‘语言警察’要求餐馆老板把‘意大利面’和‘烤奶酪’换成馅饼和方旦糖。在极端情况下，通过一项降低俄罗斯在乌克兰地位的法律，有助于在该国引发战争……”，从中可知，乌克兰、加拿大和西班牙这三个国家都有提到，而魁北克是加拿大的一个城市，不是国家，所以该题选择C项正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“乌克兰”、B选项“加拿大”和D选项“西班牙”都有提到，属于反向干扰。
第4题:
【选项释义】
Which of the following is NOT MENTIONED in the passage? 文章中没有提到下列哪项？
A. The Economist’s “Johnson” column begun in 1992 treats different topics in different languages. A. 《经济学人》的“约翰逊”专栏始于1992年，用不同的语言探讨了不同的话题。
B. Both prescriptivists and descriptivists are mocked in the academic articles. B. 规范主义者和描述主义者都在学术文章中遭到嘲笑。
C. Trying to stop change in language was like trying to “lash the wind”. C. 试图阻止语言的变化就像试图“鞭策风”。
D. Lexicographers from Johnson’s day on must ground their definitions in real living English. D. 从约翰逊时代起，词典编纂者们的定义必须以现实生活中的英语为基础。
【答案】B
【考查点】事实细节题。
【解题思路】根据第六段最后两句“在漫画中，规定主义者是躲在沙子里的威权主义者，坚持维多利亚时代的无规则。这些描述主义者被嘲笑为‘一切都是正确的’，他们拥抱每一种时尚，甚至认为莎士比亚的作品应该用短信用语来教授。”，从中可知，规范主义者和描写主义者是在漫画中被嘲讽，而不是在学术文章中，所以B选项“规范主义者和描述主义者都在学术文章中遭到嘲笑”不符合原文，该题选择B项正确。
【干扰项排除】
A选项“《经济学人》的‘约翰逊’专栏始于1992年，用不同的语言探讨了不同的话题”定位第二段第二句“……《经济学人》的‘约翰逊’专栏始于1992年……”，以及第三段前两句“很多话题都很有趣：脏话和俚语，喜好和烦恼。有些是更基本的。”，理解可知，A项正确，属于反向干扰；
C选项“试图阻止语言的变化就像试图‘鞭策风’”定位至倒数第二段第二句“……试图阻止改变就像试图‘鞭策风’”，可知该项属于反向干扰；
D选项“从约翰逊时代起，词典编纂者们的定义必须以现实生活中的英语为基础”定位至最后一段第二句“从约翰逊时代起，词典编纂者就必须以真实的英语为基础来描述这种语言”，可知该项也属于反向干扰。
【文章来源】《经济学人》（The Economist）2016
【参考译文】
1755年塞缪尔•约翰逊的《英语大词典》中对“无害的苦力”的定义中，“词典编纂者”的定义是最著名的，也是一个机智的例子，使他将“燕麦”定义为“一种谷物，在英格兰一般用来喂马，但在苏格兰用来养活人民”。
为什么要用无害的苦力来命名一个语言专栏？因为约翰逊虽然做着苦差事，但他知道语言不是无害的。它有能力提供信息，也有能力将人引入歧途，有能力娱乐，也有能力烦扰，有能力建立合作关系，也有能力破坏声誉，这些都使语言成为严肃的东西。《经济学人》的“约翰逊”专栏开始于1992年，后来在网上恢复。本周它将回归印刷版，今后将每两周出版一次。
所涉及的许多话题都很有趣：脏话和俚语，喜好和烦恼。有些问题更为根本。语言揭示了很多关于人性的问题：人们如何用外语进行不同的推理，或者不同的语言在多大程度上编码了一种世界观，这些都是语言学研究中最令人兴奋和最具争议的话题。
人们非常在意自己的语言，所以在更广阔的世界里，语言有时会发生冲突。卡斯蒂利亚人对加泰罗尼亚人的傲慢可能会分裂西班牙；魁北克的“语言警察”要求餐馆老板把“意大利面”和“烤奶酪”换成馅饼和方旦糖。在极端情况下，乌克兰通过一项降低俄语等级的法律，会在该国引发战争；弗拉基米尔•普京将其作为乌克兰民族主义者决心消灭俄罗斯文化的证据。自那以后，战争还在继续，语言是更广泛的认同和同情的最明显的象征。
因此，约翰逊的专栏讨论了轻松和沉重的话题，以及英语和国际语言。一个语言专栏有望解决对与错的问题。关于如何做到这一点，大致有两种观点：一种是自上而下的，基于权威、声望、写作和稳定性；一种是自下而上的，基于大多数人实际使用语言的方式，并对变化持开放态度。
被称为“规定主义”（规定语言应该是怎样的）和“描述主义”（描述语言应该是怎样的）的两大思想流派一直剑拔弩张：一边是英语教师和一些使用手册的作者，另一边是学术语言学家、词典编纂者和其他使用手册的作者。在讽刺漫画中，规定主义者是一群把头埋在沙子里的威权主义者，他们坚持维多利亚时代的非规则。描述主义者被嘲笑为“任何事情都是正确的”，接受每一种时尚，甚至认为莎士比亚的作品应该用短信语言来教授。
作为一名面向精英读者的知识分子作家，塞缪尔•约翰逊在语言上对“对”和“错”，甚至对“野蛮”“堕落”和“腐败”都毫不避讳。但是他宣称他的任务不是“形成”而是“登记”（也就是描述）语言；试图阻止变化就像试图“鞭策风”。最重要的是，多年钻研字典的工作教会了他谦逊：他知道自己肯定会犯“一些疯狂的错误和明显的荒谬，如此多的工作都不能摆脱这些错误”。
“规定”和“描述”并不完全相反。从约翰逊时代开始，词典编纂者必须用真实生活中的英语来描述这门语言。但这是为了给一本他们知道人们会使用的坚定指导的书提供更强大的根基。学术界的语言学家，也就是描述主义者，完全愿意把一些用法说成是错误的，把另一些用法说成是丑陋的。
