《研究生英语》(2..

”

that formed the raw material of

the series. It took nearly fifty years to finally complete the huge work, and the complete

OED

was

released

in

twelve

volumes

in

1928.

It

remains

the

most

comprehensive

and

trusted

English language dictionary to this day, with revisions and updates added by a dedicated team

every three months.

EXERCISES

I. Comprehension Questions

1.

Who

are

the

ancestors

of

the

speakers

of

the

English

language?

How

did

they

manage

to

establish themselves in England?

2. How many stages can the history of the English language be divided into? Which years does

each period cover?

3.

How

did

the

Viking

invasions

and

the

Norman

Conquest

affect

the

English

language?

Does

today

’

s English still bear those marks of change?

4. What are the major differences between Old English, Middle English, and Modern English in

grammar and in vocabulary?

5. Why did people start to make English dictionaries? What are the important achievements in the

development of English dictionaries?

6. Why did people start to write about English grammar? What model was used? Is this a good

way of describing and teaching English grammar?

II. Discussion and Presentation Forum

1. In Modern English, the majority of words are borrowed from other languages while only about

18

14

percent

of

the

words

are

native

English.

From

which

languages

has

English

borrowed

according

to

the

text?

What

motivated

the

borrowing

in

each

case?

Do

you

know

any

other

languages from which English has borrowed apart from those listed in the text? Can you give

some examples of the borrowed words and identify their sources?

2.

The

Norman

Conquest

led

to

a

class

split

along

language

lines

for

several

hundred

years.

French was the language of polite society while English was the language of the people. Thus

the

language

has

become

the

mirror

of

elegance

and

civilization.

What

do

you

think

of

the

relationship

between

language

and

status?

Offer

your

evidence

in

your

presentation

in

your

class.

3. Modern English is no longer an inflected language as most of the case endings, number endings

and

gender

endings

have

dropped

out

of

use.

Instead,

word

order

and

syntactic

structure

are

used

to

express

meaning.

Therefore,

some

people

think

Modern

English

has

become

simpler

than other inflected languages such as German. However the author believes that “they merely

exchan

ge one kind of complexity for another.” Which view do you take? Give your reasons

and

make a presentation in your class.

III. Vocabulary Study

Choose the word or phrase that best completes each of the following sentences.

1. While her English was correct, it was __________ with French phrases and French ideas.

A. preoccupied

B. peppered

C. obsessed

D. combined

2.

The

development

of

staff

cohesion

and

a

sense

of

team

effort

in

the

workplace

can

be

effectively __________ by the use of humor.

A. acquainted

B. installed

C. regulated

D. facilitated

3. She can

’

t afford a new coat and so will have to __________ the old one for the New Year.

A. come up with

B. get away with

C. make do with

D. go along with

4. Recent successes have __________ the fact that the company is still in trouble.

A. distinguished

B. revised

C. obscured

D. dissected

5. General Marshall felt that what they needed most were highly developed ground forces while

President

Roosevelt

who

was

a

navy

man

believed

that

the

__________

need

was

for

a

powerful navy, plus a large air force.

19

A. principal

B. vigorous

C. autonomous

D. tremendous

6.

An

international

medical

conference

was

established

for

the

__________

of

new

ideas

and

approaches between scientists from different countries.

A. injection

B. interchange

C. cultivation

D. integration

7. In both America and Europe, it is __________ to tip the waiter or waitress anywhere from 10%

to 20%.

A. elementary

B. temporary

C. voluntary

D. customary

8.

The

more

words

you

have

__________,

the

deeper,

clearer

and

more

accurate

will

be

your

thinking.

A. to your knowledge

C. at your command

B. to your credit

D. at your convenience

9. That is one of those things no __________ gentleman will do himself. But in the difficult times

people can be found to do any kind of dirty work, if you are willing to pay them for it.

A. well- bred

B. half- hearted

C. better-off

D. high-spirited

10.

The

popular

book

was

__________

by

a

panel

of

experts,

working

in

conjunction

with

the

publisher.

A. composed

IV. Cloze

There are 10 blanks in the following passage. Fill in each blank with a proper word.

The

English

language

of

today

reflects

many

centuries

of

development.

The

political

and

social

events

that

have

in

the

(1)

__________

of

English

history

so

profoundly

affected

the

English people in their national life have generally had a recognizable effect (2) __________ their

language.

The

Roman

Christianizing

of

Britain

in

597

AD

brought

England

(3)

__________

contact with Latin civilization and made significant additions to our vocabulary. The Scandinavian

invasions (4) __________ in a considerable mixture of the two peoples and their languages. The

Norman

Conquest

made

English

for

two

centuries

the

language

mainly

of

lower

classes

(5)

__________ the nobles and those associated with them used French on almost all (6) __________.

And

when

English

once

more

regained

supremacy

as

the

language

of

all

elements

of

the

population, it was an English greatly changed in both form and vocabulary from (7) __________ it

20

B. comprised

C. conceived

D. compiled

had been in 1066. In a similar way, the Hundred Years’ War, the rise of an important middle class,

the Renaissance, the development of England as a maritime power, the expansion of the British

Empire, and the growth of commerce and industry, of science and literature, have, each in their

way, contributed (8) __________ the development of the language. References in scholarly and

popular

works

to

“Indian

English”,

“Caribbean

English”,

“West

African

English”

and

(9)

__________ regional varieties point to the fact that the political and cultural history of the English

language is (10) __________ simply the history of the British Isles and of North America but a

truly international history of quite divergent societies, which have caused the language to change

and become enriched as it responds to their own special needs.

FURTHER READING

Politics and the English Language

George Orwell

Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a

bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our

civilization is decadent and our language

—

so the argument runs

—

must inevitably share in the

general

collapse.

It

follows

that

any

struggle

against

the

abuse

of

language

is

a

sentimental

archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this

lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we

shape for our own purposes.

Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic

causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can

become

a

cause,

reinforcing

the

original

cause

and

producing

the

same

effect

in

an

intensified

form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and

then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to

the

English

language.

It

becomes

ugly

and

inaccurate

because

our

thoughts

are

foolish,

but

the

slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the

process

is

reversible.

Modern

English,

especially

written

English,

is

full

of

bad

habits

which

spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one

21

gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step

towards political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the

exclusive concern of professional writers. I will come back to this presently, and I hope that by

that time the meaning of what I have said here will have become clearer.

In certain kinds of writing, particularly in art criticism and literary criticism, it is normal to

come across long passages which are almost completely lacking in meaning. Words like

romantic,

plastic,

values,

human,

dead,

sentimental,

natural,

vitality,

as

used

in

art

criticism,

are

strictly

meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly

ever expected to do so by the reader. When one critic writes, “The outstanding feature of Mr. X’s

work is its livin

g quality,” while another writes, “The immediately striking thing about Mr. X’s

work is its peculiar deadness,” the reader accepts this as a simple difference of opinion. If words

like

black

and

white

were involved, instead of the jargon words

dead

and

living

, he would see at

once that language was being used in an improper way. Many political words are similarly abused.

The word

Fascism

has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies “something not desirable.”

The words

democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice,

have each of them several

different

meanings

which

cannot

be

reconciled

with

one

another.

In

the

case

of

a

word

like

democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all

sides.

It

is

almost

universally

felt

that

when

we

call

a

country

democratic

we

are

praising

it:

consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they

might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are

often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private

definition,

but

allows

his

hearer

to

think

he

means

something

quite

different.

Statements

like

Marshal Petain was a true patriot, The Soviet Press is the freest in the world, The Catholic Church

is

opposed

to

persecution,

are

almost

always

made

with

intent

to deceive. Other

words

used

in

variable

meanings,

in

most

cases

more

or

less

dishonestly,

are:

class,

totalitarian,

science,

progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.

Now

that

I

have

made

this

catalogue

of

swindles

and

perversions,

let

me

give

another

example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary

one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here

is a well-known verse from

Ecclesiastes

:

22

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the

strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet

favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

Here it is in modern English:

Objective

consideration

of

contemporary

phenomena

compels

the

conclusion

that

success

or

failure

in

competitive

activities

exhibits

no

tendency

to

be

commensurate

with

innate

capacity,

but

that

a

considerable

element

of

the

unpredictable

must

invariably be taken into account.

This

is

a

parody,

but

not

a

very

gross

one.

It

will

be

seen

that

I

have

not

made

a

full

translation. The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely,

but in the middle the concrete illustration

—

race, battle, bread

—

dissolve into the vague phrase

“success or failure in competitive activities.” This had to be so, becaus

e no modern writer of the

kind

I

am

discussing

—

no

one

capable

of

using

phrases

like

“objective

consideration

of

contemporary phenomena”

—

would ever tabulate his thoughts in that precise and detailed way.

The

whole

tendency

of

modern

prose

is

away

from

concreteness.

Now

analyze

these

two

sentences a little more closely. The first contains forty-nine words but only sixty syllables, and all

its words are those of everyday life. The second contains thirty-eight words of ninety syllables:

eighteen of its words are from

Latin roots, and one from Greek. The first sentence contains six

vivid images, and only one phrase

（

“

time and chance”

）

that could be called vague. The second

contains

not

a

single

fresh,

arresting

phrase,

and

in

spite

of

its

ninety

syllables

it

gives

only

a

shortened version of the meaning contained in the first. Yet without a doubt it is the second kind of

sentence

that

is

gaining

ground

in

modern

English.

I

do

not

want

to

exaggerate.

This

kind

of

writing

is

not

yet

universal,

and

outcrops

of

simplicity

will

occur

here

and

there

in

the

worst-written page. Still, if you or I were told to write a few lines on the uncertainty of human

fortunes, we should probably come much nearer to my imaginary sentence than to the one from

Ecclesiastes

.

As I have tried to show, modern writing at its worst does not consist in picking out words for

the sake of their meaning and inventing images in order to make the meaning clearer. It consists in

gumming together long strips of words which have already been set in order by someone else, and

making the results presentable by sheer humbug. The attraction of this way of writing is that it is

easy. It is easier

—

even quicker, once you have the habit

—

to say

In my opinion it is not an

unjustifiable assumption that

than to say

I think

. If you use ready-made phrases, you not only do

23

not

have

to

hunt

about

for

words;

you

also

do

not

have

to

bother

with

the

rhythms

of

your

sentences, since these phrases are generally so arranged as to be more or less euphonious. When

you are composing in a hurry

—

when you are dictating to a stenographer, for instance, or making

a public speech

—

it is natural to fall into a pretentious, Latinized style. Tags like

a consideration

which we should do well to bear in mind

or

a conclusion to which all of us would readily assent

will save many a sentence from coming down with a bump. By using stale metaphors, similes and

idioms, you save much mental effort, at the cost of leaving your meaning vague, not only for your

reader but for yourself. This is the significance of mixed metaphors. The sole aim of a metaphor is

to call up a visual image. When these images clash

—

as in

The Fascist octopus has sung its swan

song, the jackboot is thrown into the melting pot

—

it can be taken as certain that the writer is not

seeing

a

mental

image

of

the

objects

he

is

naming;

in

other

words

he

is

not

really

thinking.

A

scrupulous writer, in every sentence that he writes, will ask himself at least four questions, thus: 1.

What

am

I

trying

to

say?

2.

What

words

will

express

it?

3. What

image

or

idiom

will

make

it

clearer? 4. Is this image fresh enough to have an effect? And he will probably ask himself two

more: 1. Could I put it more shortly? 2. Have I said anything that is avoidably ugly? But you are

not

obliged

to

go

to

all

this

trouble.

You

can

shirk

it

by

simply

throwing

your

mind

open

and

letting the ready-made phrases come crowding in. They will construct your sentences for you

—

even

think

your

thoughts

for

you,

to

a

certain

extent

—

and

at

need

they

will

perform

the

important service of partially concealing your meaning even from yourself. It is at this point that

the special connection between politics and the debasement of language becomes clear.

In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will

generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a

“party

line.”

Orthodoxy,

of

whatever

color,

seems

to

demand

a

lifeless,

imitative

style.

The

political

dialects

to

be

found

in

pamphlets,

leading

articles,

manifestos,

White

Papers

and

the

speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that

one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, home-made turn of speech. When one watches some

tired hack on the platform

mechanically repeating the familiar phases

—

bestial atrocities, iron

heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder

—

one often has

a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling

which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker’s spectacles and

24

turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether

fanciful.

A

speaker

who

uses

that

kind

of

phraseology

has

gone

some

distance

towards

turning

himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not

involved as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is

one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he

is

saying,

as

one

is

when

one

utters

the

responses

in

church.

And

this

reduced

state

of

consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favorable to political conformity.

In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. Things

like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of

the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for

most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of political parties. Thus

political

language

has

to

consist

largely

of

euphemism,

question-begging

and

sheer

cloudy

vagueness.

Defenseless

villages

are

bombarded

from

the

air,

the

inhabitants

driven

out

into

the

countryside, the cattle machinegunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called

pacification

. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with

no

more

than

they

can

carry:

this

is

called

transfer

of

population

or

rectification

of

frontiers

.

People

are

imprisoned

for

years

without

trial,

or

shot

in

the

back

of

the

neck

or

sent

to

die

of

scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called

elimination of unreliable elements

. Such phraseology

is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for

instance

some

comfortable

English

professor

defending

Russian

totalitarianism.

He

cannot

say

outright,

“I

believe

in

killing

off

your

opponents

when

you

can

get

good

results

by

doing

so.”

Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:

While

freely

conceding

that

the

Soviet

regime

exhibits

certain

features

which

the

humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the

right

to

political

opposition

is

an

unavoidable

concomitant

of

transitional

periods,

and

that

the

rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in

the sphere of concrete achievement.

The inflated style is itself a kind of euphemism. A mass of Latin words falls upon the facts

like

soft

snow,

blurring

the

outlines

and

covering

up

all

the

details.

The

great

enemy

of

clear

language is insince

rity. When there is a gap between one’s real and one’s declared aims, one turns

25

as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. In

our

age

there

is

no

such

thing

as

“keeping

out

of

politics.”

All

issues

are

political

issues,

and

politics

itself

is

a

mass

of

lies,

evasions,

folly,

hatred

and

schizophrenia.

When

the

general

atmosphere is bad, language must suffer. I should expect to find

—

this is a guess which I have not

sufficient

knowledge

to

verify

—

that

the

German,

Russian

and

Italian

languages

have

all

deteriorated in the last ten to fifteen years, as a result of dictatorship.

But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread

by

tradition

and

imitation,

even

among

people

who

should

and

do

know

better.

The

debased

language

that

I

have

been