21世纪大学英语读写教程第四册textA课文原文
- 格式:doc
- 大小:117.00 KB
- 文档页数:16
第四册unit1sectionA艺术家追求成名,如同狗自逐其尾,一旦追到手,除了继续追逐不知还能做些什么。
成功之残酷正在于它常常让那些追逐成功者自寻毁灭。
对一名正努力追求成功并刚刚崭露头角的艺术家,其亲朋常常会建议“正经的饭碗不能丢!”他们的担心不无道理。
追求出人头地,最乐观地说也困难重重,许多人到最后即使不是穷困潦倒,也是几近精神崩溃。
尽管如此,希望赢得追星族追捧和同行赞扬之类的不太纯洁的动机却在激励着他们向前。
享受成功的无上光荣,这种诱惑不是能轻易抵挡的。
成名者之所以成名,大多是因为发挥了自己在歌唱、舞蹈、绘画或写作等方面的特长,并能形成自己的风格。
为了能迅速走红,代理人会极力吹捧他们这种风格。
他们青云直上的过程让人看不清楚。
他们究竟是怎么成功的,大多数人也都说不上来。
尽管如此,艺术家仍然不能闲下来。
若表演者、画家或作家感到无聊,他们的作品就难以继续保持以前的吸引力,也就难以保持公众的注意力。
公众的热情消磨以后,就会去追捧下一个走红的人。
有些艺术家为了不落伍,会对他们的写作、跳舞或唱歌的风格稍加变动,但这将冒极大的失宠的危险。
公众对于他们藉以成名的艺术风格以外的任何形式都将不屑一顾。
知名作家的文风一眼就能看出来,如田纳西·威廉斯的戏剧、欧内斯特·海明威的情节安排、罗伯特·弗罗斯特或T.S.艾略特的诗歌等。
同样,像莫奈、雷诺阿、达利这样的画家,希区柯克、费里尼、斯皮尔伯格、陈凯歌或张艺谋这样的电影制作人也是如此。
他们鲜明独特的艺术风格标志着与别人不同的艺术式上的重大变革,这让他们名利双收,但也让他们付出了代价,那就是失去了用其他风格或形式表现自我的自由。
名气这盏聚光灯可比热带丛林还要炙热。
骗局很快会被揭穿,过多的关注带来的压力会让大多数人难以承受。
它让你失去自我。
你必须是公众认可的那个你,而不是真实的你或是可能的你。
艺人,就像政客一样,必须常常说些违心或连自己都不完全相信的话来取悦听众。
Unit 1A "never surrender" attitude. If great achievers share anything, said Simonton, it is an unrelenting drive to succeed. "There's a tendency to think that they are endowed with something super-normal," he explained. "But what comes out of the research is that there are great people who have no amazing intellectual processes. It's a difference in degree. Greatness is built upon tremendous amounts of study, practice and devotion."He cited Winston Churchill, Britain's prime minister during World War II, as an example of a risk-taker who would never give up. Thrust into office when his country's morale was at its lowest, Churchill rose brilliantly to lead the British people. In a speech following the Allied evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940, he inspired the nation when he said, "We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end...We shall never surrender."Can you be born great? In looking at Churchill's role in history—as well as the roles of other political and military leaders—Simonton discovered a striking pattern: "Firstborns and only children tend to make good leaders in time of crisis: They're used to taking charge. But middle-borns are better as peacetime leaders: They listen to different interest groups better and make the necessary compromises. Churchill, an only child, was typical. He was great in a crisis, but in peacetime he was not effective—not even popular."Unit 2Some persons refrain from expressing their gratitude because they feel it will not be welcome. A patient of mine, a few weeks after his discharge from the hospital, came back to thank his nurse. "I didn't come back sooner," he explained, "because Iimagined you must be bored to death with people thanking you.""On the contrary," she replied, "I am delighted you came. Few realize how much we need encouragement and how much we are helped by those who give it."Gratitude is something of which none of us can give too much. For on the smiles, the thanks we give, our little gestures of appreciation, our neighbors build up their philosophy of life.Unit 3The normal Western approach to a problem is to fight it. The saying, "When the going gets tough, the tough get going," is typical of this aggressive attitude toward problem-solving. No matter what the problem is, or the techniques available for solving it, the framework produced by our Western way of thinking is fight. Dr. de Bono calls this vertical thinking; the traditional, sequential, Aristotelian thinking of logic, moving firmly from one step to the next, like toy blocks being built one on top of the other. The flaw is, of course, that if at any point one of the steps is not reached, or one of the toy blocks is incorrectly placed, then the whole structure collapses. Impasse is reached, and frustration, tension, feelings of fight take over.Lateral thinking, Dr. de Bono says, is a new technique of thinking about things—a technique that avoids this fight altogether, and solves the problem in an entirely unexpected fashion.In one of Sherlock Holmes's cases, his assistant, Dr. Watson, pointed out that a certain dog was of no importance to the case because it did not appear to have done anything. Sherlock Holmes took the opposite point of view and maintained that the fact the doghad done nothing was of the utmost significance, for it should have been expected to do something, and on this basic he solved the case.Lateral thinking sounds simple. And it is. Once you have solved a problem laterally, you wonder how you could ever have been hung up on it. The key is making that vital shift in emphasis, that sidestepping of the problem, instead of attacking it head-on.Dr. A. A. Bridger, psychiatrist at Columbia University and in private practice in New York, explains how lateral thinking works with his patients. "Many people come to me wanting to stop smoking, for instance," he says. "Most people fail when they are trying to stop smoking because they wind up telling themselves, 'No, I will not smoke; no, I shall not smoke; no, I will not; no, I cannot...' It's a fight and what happens is you end up smoking more.""So instead of looking at the problem from the old ways of no, and fighting it, I show them a whole new point of view—that you are your body's keeper, and your body is something through which you experience life. If you stop to think about it, there's really something helpless about your body. It can do nothing for itself. It has no choice, it is like a baby's body. You begin then a whole new way of looking at it—‘I am now going to take care of myself, and give myself some respect and protection, by not smoking.'Unit 4When a student's work did not measure up to the teacher's expectations, as often happened, the student was not treated with disappointment, anger, or annoyance. Instead, the teacher assumed that this was an exception, an accident, a bad day, amomentary slip —and the student believed her and felt reassured. The next time around, he tried harder, determined to live up to what the teacher knew he could do. The exact part of communication that tells a child, "I expect the best," is difficult to pinpoint. In part it consists of a level tone showing assurance, a lack of verbal impatience, an absence of negative qualities such as irony, put-downs, and irritation. The teacher who expects the best asks her questions with conviction, knowing the answers she gets will be right, and the child picks up that conviction.Unit 5I have often reflected upon the new vistas that reading opened to me. I knew right there in prison that reading had changed forever the course of my life. As I see it today, the ability to read awoke inside me some long dormant craving to be mentally alive. I certainly wasn't seeking any degree, the way a college confers a status symbol upon its students. My homemade education gave me, with every additional book that I read, a little bit more sensitivity to the deafness, dumbness, and blindness that was afflicting the black race in America. Not long ago, an English writer telephoned me from London, asking questions. One was, "What's your alma mater?" I told him, "Books." You will never catch me with a free fifteen minutes in which I'm not studying something I feel might be able to help the black man...Unit 6EQ is not the opposite of IQ. Some people are blessed with a lot of both, some with littleof either. What researchers have been trying to understand is how they complement each other; how one's ability to handle stress, for instance, affects the ability to concentrate and put intelligence to use. Among the ingredients for success, researchers now generally agree that IQ counts for about 20%; the rest depends on everything from class to luck to the neural pathways that have developed in the brain over millions of years of human evolution.Unit 7As a child, I identified so strongly with my mother that I thought my father was just a long-term house guest with spanking privileges. She and I are bookish, introverted worriers. My father is an optimist who has never had a sleepless night in his life.Like most fathers and sons, we fought. But there was no cooling-off period between rounds. It was a cold war lasting from the onset of my adolescence until I went off to college in 1973.I hated him. He was a former navy fighter pilot, with an Irish temper and a belief that all the problems of the world—including an overprotected son who never saw anything through to completion—could be cured by the application of more discipline.。
21世纪大学英语读写教程(第四册)Unit1课文原文《Who Is Great?》Michal Ryan As a young boy, Albert Einstein did so poorly in school that teachers thought he was slow. The young Napoleon Bonaparte was just one of hundreds of artillery lieutenants in the French Army. And the teenage George Washington, with little formal education, was being trained not as a soldier but as a land surveyor.Despite their unspectacular beginnings, each would go on to carve a place for himself in history. What was it that enabled them to become great? Were they born with something special? Or did their greatness have more to do with timing, devotion and, perhaps, an uncompromising personality?For decades, scientists have been asking such questions. And, in the past few years, they have found evidence to help explain why some people rise above, while others—similarly talented, perhaps—are left behind. Their findings could have implications for us all.Who is great? Defining who is great depends on how one measures success. But there are some criteria. "Someone who has made a lasting contribution to human civilization is great," said Dean Keith Simonton, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis and author of the 1994 book Greatness: Who Makes History and Why. But he added a word of caution: "Sometimes great people don't make it into the history books. A lot of women achieved great things or were influential but went unrecognized."In writing his book, Simonton combined historical knowledge about great figures with recent findings in genetics, psychiatry and the social sciences. The great figures he focused on include men and women who have won Nobel Prizes, led great nations or won wars, composed symphonies that have endured for centuries, or revolutionized science, philosophy, politics or the arts. Though he doesn't have a formula to define how or why certain people rise above (too many factors are involved), he has come up with a few common characteristics.A "never surrender" attitude. If great achievers share anything, said Simonton, it is an unrelenting drive to succeed. "There's a tendency to think that they are endowed with something super-normal," he explained. "But what comes out of the research is that there are great people who have no amazing intellectual processes. It's a difference in degree. Greatness is built upon tremendous amounts of study, practice and devotion."He cited Winston Churchill, Britain's prime minister during World War II, as an example of a risk-taker who would never give up. Thrust into office when his country's morale was at its lowest, Churchill rose brilliantly to lead the British people. In a speech following the Allied evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940, he inspired the nation when he said, "We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end...We shall never surrender."Can you be born great? In looking at Churchill's role in history—as well as the roles of other political and military leaders—Simonton discovered a striking pattern: "Firstborns and only children tend to make good leaders in time of crisis: They're used to taking charge. But middle-borns are better as peacetime leaders: They listen to different interest groups better and make the necessary compromises. Churchill, an only child, was typical. He was great in a crisis, but in peacetime he was not effective—not even popular."Timing is another factor. "If you took George Washington and put him in the 20th century he would go nowhere as a politician," Simonton declared. "He was not an effective public speaker, and he didn't like shaking hands with the public. On the other hand, I'm not sure Franklin Roosevelt would have done well in Washington's time. He wouldn't have had the radio to do his fireside chats."Can you be too smart? One surprise among Simonton's findings is that many political and military leaders have been bright but not overly so. Beyond a certain point, he explained, other factors, like the ability to communicate effectively, become more important than innate intelligence as measured by an IQ test. The most intelligent U.S. Presidents, for example—Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy—had a hard time getting elected, Simonton said, while others with IQs closer to the average (such as Warren G. Harding) won by landslides. While political and economic factors also are involved, having a genius IQ is not necessary to be a great leader.In the sciences, those with "genius level" IQs do have a better chance at achieving recognition, added Simonton. Yet evidence also indicates that overcoming traditional ways of thinking may be just as important.He pointed to one recent study where college students were given a set of data and were asked to see if they could come up with a mathematical relation. Almost a third did. What they did not know was that they had just solved one of the most famous scientific equations in history: the Third Law of Planetary Motion, an equation that Johannes Kepler came up with in 1618.Kepler's genius, Simonton said, was not so much in solving a mathematical challenge. It was in thinking about the numbers in a unique way—applying his mathematical knowledge to his observations of planetary motion. It was his boldness that set him apart.Love your work. As a child, Einstein became fascinated with the way magnets are drawn to metal. "He couldn't stop thinking about this stuff," Simonton pointed out. "He became obsessed with problems in physics by the time he was 16, and he never stopped working on them. It's not surprising that he made major contributions by the time he was 26.""For most of us, it's not that we don't have the ability," Simonton added, "it's that we don't devote the time. You have to put in the effort and put up with all the frustrations and obstacles."Like other creative geniuses, Einstein was not motivated by a desire for fame, said Simonton. Instead, his obsession with his work was what set him apart.Where such drive comes from remains a mystery. But it is found in nearly allcreative geniuses—whether or not their genius is acknowledged by contemporaries."Emily Dickinson was not recognized for her poetry until after her death," said Simonton. "But she was not writing for fame. The same can be said of James Joyce, who didn't spend a lot of time worrying about how many people would read Finnegans Wake."Today, researchers have evidence that an intrinsic passion for one's work is a key to rising above. In a 1985 study at Brandeis University conducted by Teresa Amabile, now a professor of business administration at Harvard University, a group of professional writers—none famous—were asked to write a short poem. Each writer was then randomly placed in one of three groups: One group was asked to keep in mind the idea of writing for money; another was told to think about writing just for pleasure; and a third group was given no instruction at all.The poems then were submitted anonymously to a panel of professional writers for evaluation. The poetry written by people who thought about writing for money ranked lowest. Those who thought about writing just for pleasure did the best. "Motivation that comes from enjoying the work makes a significant difference, "Amabile said.。
21世纪大学英语读写教程第四册课后练习答案及翻译(Unit1-Unit6)Unit 1Text AComprehension of text1. He defines greatness as the lasting contribution which a person makes or has made to human civilization.2. The example of Churchill shows the importance of persistence and dedication in achieving greatness.3. Firstborns and only children tend to make good leaders in times of crisis, but middle- born children are better peacetime leaders.4. A 20th century politician should be an effective public speaker and a social person.5. Intelligence seems to be less important than other factors, such as the ability to communicate effectively.6. The ability to overcome traditional ways of thinking is also crucial.7. They simply don‟t devote the amount of time required.8. The study showe d that enjoying one‟s work is the best form of motivation.V ocabulary1 chat 2.acknowledge 3.motivated 4.charcteristic5 despite 6.influential 7.cited 8.obstacle9 intrinsic 10.criteria 11.obsession 12.innate13 contribution(s) 14.contemporary 15.submitted 16.morale1 left behind 2.rise 3.made history 4.were endowed with5 put up with 6.going nowhere 7.ifocuses on 8.be built on9 put in e up with 11.take charge 12.set...apartWord buildingefficiency emergency fluency frequencyproficiency tendency urgency sufficiency1 fluency 2.proficiency 3.emergency4.Efficiency 5 tendency 6.frequencyStructure1. For some students, it's not that they don't put in enough time —it's that they don‟t have good study habits.2. Children perform differently at school. It's not that they have different IQs — it's that they arebrought up in different environments.3. The company is not very productive. It's not that its staff aren't talented — it's that their energy hasn't been channeled effectively.4. I‟m really sorry. It's not that I don't want to go to the cinema with you— it's that I have to finish my paper tonight.5. You have a stomachache. It's not that the food was bad — it's probably that you have too much stress from your work.1. President Wilson didn't try to bring the US back to economic and political isolation. Instead, he believed in international cooperation through an association of nations.puters don't teach students in groups. Instead, they can help them learn effectively according to their different needs.3. We shouldn't focus on minor points. Instead, we should try to solve the problem of the greatest urgency at present.4. He doesn‟t get anybody else to help him. Instead, he likes to attend to everything himself.5. Teaching success shouldn't be measured by the scores the students receive on tests. Instead, it should be measured by whether the students have internalized the ability and desire to learn. Close1-5 BCBAD6-10 DCABA11-15 DABCATransition西蒙顿说,如果事业上取得巨大成就者具有什么共性的话,那就是一种持续不断地追求成功的动力。
21世纪大学英语读写教程第四册课后练习答案及翻译(Unit1-Unit6)Unit 1Text AComprehension of text1. He defines greatness as the lasting contribution which a person makes or has made to human civilization.2. The example of Churchill shows the importance of persistence and dedication in achieving greatness.3. Firstborns and only children tend to make good leaders in times of crisis, but middle- born children are better peacetime leaders.4. A 20th century politician should be an effective public speaker and a social person.5. Intelligence seems to be less important than other factors, such as the ability to communicate effectively.6. The ability to overcome traditional ways of thinking is also crucial.7. They simply don‟t devote the amount of time required.8. The study showe d that enjoying one‟s work is the best form of motivation.V ocabulary1 chat 2.acknowledge 3.motivated 4.charcteristic5 despite 6.influential 7.cited 8.obstacle9 intrinsic 10.criteria 11.obsession 12.innate13 contribution(s) 14.contemporary 15.submitted 16.morale1 left behind 2.rise 3.made history 4.were endowed with5 put up with 6.going nowhere 7.ifocuses on 8.be built on9 put in e up with 11.take charge 12.set...apartWord buildingefficiency emergency fluency frequencyproficiency tendency urgency sufficiency1 fluency 2.proficiency 3.emergency4.Efficiency 5 tendency 6.frequencyStructure1. For some students, it's not that they don't put in enough time —it's that they don‟t have good study habits.2. Children perform differently at school. It's not that they have different IQs — it's that they arebrought up in different environments.3. The company is not very productive. It's not that its staff aren't talented — it's that their energy hasn't been channeled effectively.4. I‟m really sorry. It's not that I don't want to go to the cinema with you— it's that I have to finish my paper tonight.5. You have a stomachache. It's not that the food was bad — it's probably that you have too much stress from your work.1. President Wilson didn't try to bring the US back to economic and political isolation. Instead, he believed in international cooperation through an association of nations.puters don't teach students in groups. Instead, they can help them learn effectively according to their different needs.3. We shouldn't focus on minor points. Instead, we should try to solve the problem of the greatest urgency at present.4. He doesn‟t get anybody else to help him. Instead, he likes to attend to everything himself.5. Teaching success shouldn't be measured by the scores the students receive on tests. Instead, it should be measured by whether the students have internalized the ability and desire to learn. Close1-5 BCBAD6-10 DCABA11-15 DABCATransition西蒙顿说,如果事业上取得巨大成就者具有什么共性的话,那就是一种持续不断地追求成功的动力。
【关键字】大学Unit 1If great achievers share anything, said Simonton, it is an unrelenting drive to succeed. There’s a tendency to think that they are endowed with something super-normal, he explained. But what comes out of the research is that there are great people who have no amazing intellectual processes. It’s a difference in degree. Greatness is built upon tremendous amounts of study, practice and devotion.He cited Winston Churchil l, ’s prime minister during World War 2, as an example of arisk-taker who would never give up. Thrust into office when his country's morale was at its lowest, Churchill rose brilliantly to lead the British people. In a speech following the Allied evacuation at in 1940,he inspired the nation when he said, We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end... We shall never surrender.西蒙顿说,如果成就巨大者具有什么共性的话,那就是一种坚持不懈地追求成功的动力。
1 / 1 Who Is Great? Michael Ryan As a young boy, Albert Einstein did so poorly in school that teachers thought he was slow. The young Napoleon Bonaparte was just one of hundreds of artillery lieutenants in the French Army. And the teenage George Washington, with little formal education, was being trained not as a soldier but as a land surveyor. Despite their unspectacular beginnings, each would go on to carve a place for himself in history. What was it that enabled them to become great? Were they born with something special? Or did their greatness have more to do with timing, devotion and, perhaps, an uncompromising personality? For decades, scientists have been asking such questions. And, in the past few years, they have found evidence to help explain why some people rise above, while others—similarly talented, perhaps—are left behind. Their findings could have implications for us all. Who is great? Defining who is great depends on how one measures success. But there are some criteria. "Someone who has made a lasting contribution to human civilization is great," said Dean Keith Simonton, a professor of psychology at the University of California at Davis and author of the 1994 book Greatness: Who Makes History and Why. But he added a word of caution: "Sometimes great people don't make it into the history books. A lot of women achieved great things or were influential but went unrecognized." In writing his book, Simonton combined historical knowledge about great figures with recent findings in genetics, psychiatry and the social sciences. The great figures he focused on include men and women who have won Nobel Prizes, led great nations or won wars, composed symphonies that have endured for centuries, or revolutionized science, philosophy, politics or the arts. Though he doesn't have a formula to define how or why certain people rise above (too many factors are involved), he has come up with a few common characteristics. A "never surrender" attitude. If great achievers share anything, said Simonton, it is an unrelenting drive to succeed. "There's a tendency to think that they are endowed with something super-normal," he explained. "But what comes out of the research is that there are great people who have no amazing intellectual processes. It's a difference in degree. Greatness is built upon tremendous amounts of study, practice and devotion." He cited Winston Churchill, Britain's prime minister during World War II, as an example of a risk-taker who would never give up. Thrust into office when his country's morale was at its lowest, Churchill rose brilliantly to lead the British people. In a speech following the Allied evacuation at Dunkirk in 1940, he inspired the nation when he said, "We shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end...We shall never surrender." Can you be born great? In looking at Churchill's role in history—as well as the roles of other political and military leaders—Simonton discovered a striking pattern: "Firstborns and only children tend to make good leaders in time of crisis: They're used to taking charge. But middle-borns are better as peacetime leaders: They listen to different interest groups better and make the necessary compromises. Churchill, an only child, was typical. He was great in a crisis, but in peacetime he was not effective—not even popular." Timing is another factor. "If you took George Washington and put him in the 20th century he 1 / 1
would go nowhere as a politician," Simonton declared. "He was not an effective public speaker, and he didn't like shaking hands with the public. On the other hand, I'm not sure Franklin Roosevelt would have done well in Washington's time. He wouldn't have had the radio to do his fireside chats." Can you be too smart? One surprise among Simonton's findings is that many political and military leaders have been bright but not overly so. Beyond a certain point, he explained, other factors, like the ability to communicate effectively, become more important than innate intelligence as measured by an IQ test. The most intelligent U.S. Presidents, for example—Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson and John F. Kennedy—had a hard time getting elected, Simonton said, while others with IQs closer to the average (such as Warren G. Harding) won by landslides. While political and economic factors also are involved, having a genius IQ is not necessary to be a great leader. In the sciences, those with "genius level" IQs do have a better chance at achieving recognition, added Simonton. Yet evidence also indicates that overcoming traditional ways of thinking may be just as important. He pointed to one recent study where college students were given a set of data and were asked to see if they could come up with a mathematical relation. Almost a third did. What they did not know was that they had just solved one of the most famous scientific equations in history: the Third Law of Planetary Motion, an equation that Johannes Kepler came up with in 1618. Kepler's genius, Simonton said, was not so much in solving a mathematical challenge. It was in thinking about the numbers in a unique way—applying his mathematical knowledge to his observations of planetary motion. It was his boldness that set him apart. Love your work. As a child, Einstein became fascinated with the way magnets are drawn to metal. "He couldn't stop thinking about this stuff," Simonton pointed out. "He became obsessed with problems in physics by the time he was 16, and he never stopped working on them. It's not surprising that he made major contributions by the time he was 26." "For most of us, it's not that we don't have the ability," Simonton added, "it's that we don't devote the time. You have to put in the effort and put up with all the frustrations and obstacles." Like other creative geniuses, Einstein was not motivated by a desire for fame, said Simonton. Instead, his obsession with his work was what set him apart. Where such drive comes from remains a mystery. But it is found in nearly all creative geniuses—whether or not their genius is acknowledged by contemporaries. "Emily Dickinson was not recognized for her poetry until after her death," said Simonton. "But she was not writing for fame. The same can be said of James Joyce, who didn't spend a lot of time worrying about how many people would read Finnegans Wake." Today, researchers have evidence that an intrinsic passion for one's work is a key to rising above. In a 1985 study at Brandeis University conducted by Teresa Amabile, now a professor of business administration at Harvard University, a group of professional writers—none famous—were asked to write a short poem. Each writer was then randomly placed in one of three groups: One group was asked to keep in mind the idea of writing for money; another was told to think about writing just for pleasure; and a third group was given no instruction at all. The poems then were submitted anonymously to a panel of professional writers for evaluation. The poetry written by people who thought about writing for money ranked lowest. Those who thought about writing just for pleasure did the best. "Motivation that comes from enjoying the