朗文英语听说教程三(3)

So . . . you see, animal communication is really not very straightforward, so today I would like to simplify matters. Although we acknowledge the fact that animals communi-cate in many different ways, today we're only going to con-sider whether animals can use language as we know it—in other words, language that is composed of words and that has a grammar. Today, now I'd like to consider three ques-tions. First, what do animal sounds mean? Second, do ani-mals intend to communicate? And third, do animals speak in sentences?

All right. The first question that I just mentioned was what animal sounds mean. Now to understand this, we need to take a close look at different types of communication. These can be divided into two types: affective communication and symbolic communication. Affective communication involves the communication of emotion. Humans use affective communication when we laugh, uh, when we cry . . . and, um, much of our nonverbal communication is this affective communication. We show a great deal of feeling with our facial expressions, gestures, and so on. Of course, animals can also express emotion, and this is one of the reasons why we love our pets so much—they're expressive in many ways. Dogs, in particular, are popular in many cultures because they're so good at appearing happy, pained, and sad. They even seem to mirror human feelings. For instance, when I'm feeling down or I've had a hard day, my dog becomes quiet and actually looks a little sad or tired himself. Well, that's my experience, but, in any case, almost all scientists agree that most higher order animals like dogs and cats can use affective communication. So one answer to our first question is that many animal sounds communicate what we can call an emotional state.

Now, remember that I said there is a second type of com-munication—symbolic. Symbolic communication is infor-mation about a specific referent that can be encoded by a signaler and decoded by a receiver. Now that's rather com-plicated, so let me give you an example. If I say the word \because I'm referring to the country. I encode this referent with a set of sounds. If you understand that referent and the set of sounds, then you'll be able to decode or translate the sounds and understand the referent. That is, you'll understand that I'm talking about a country in South America. Now can animals do that? Well, the answer appears to be \But because their vocabularies are so limited, it's probably safe to say that they can use very little symbolic communication. For instance, scientists have confirmed that one type of monkey in Africa, the vervet monkey, clearly makes different alarm calls. One type of call is very general and seems to communicate the idea of \out!\or \alert!\Monkeys that hear this call begin to look around more and act more careful. They're less tranquil, less relaxed than usual, and they're less willing to leave the safety of nearby trees. Other calls, now, are quite specific. There's a call that monkeys use when they see a leopard, a different call for eagles, and yet a different call for snakes. Now the interesting thing is that there's every indication that monkeys use these calls in a symbolic way. For instance, when a vervet monkey hears a leopard call, it often

runs for a particular type of tree that leopards can't climb easily. When the monkeys hear an eagle alarm call, they immediately stop what they're doing and begin scanning the sky. When they hear the snake call, they stand up straight and scan the ground in the immediate area.

Now in addition to alarm calls, animals such as monkeys and birds use food calls. Now these calls not only let others know that food has been found, but they can also sometimes give information about how much and what quality of food has been found. Now another interesting point, which is not well understood, is that some animals such as chickens seem to use food calls deceptively. In other words, sometimes chickens will use a call to indicate that they have found food even when they haven't. So what does this mean? Do chickens lie? Are they intentionally deceitful. This is a sophisticated use of communication, but few scientists are willing to admit that chickens are consciously trying to deceive other chickens, because they don't appear to have the intelligence for that kind of thinking.

The second question concerns whether animals actually intend to communicate. In other words, do animals care if there is another animal nearby who will hear their call? Well, the answer is \It appears that animals do care about this. Wild birds call out when they spot something important like food or an enemy, but they only do this when other birds are present. On the other hand, they're frequently silent in the same situations when no other birds of their species are around. So birds are apparently aware of their own species. Gender is also a factor here. For example, male chickens will call out more often when female chickens are nearby, and there's even a difference depending on whether the chicken is known or unknown. The male chickens will use food calls most frequently when unknown female chickens are nearby. Uh, I guess I should also mention that this phenomenon is not just limited to birds or chickens. Chimpanzees also communicate far more when other chimps or, in some cases, when humans are present. So the general answer to the second question is \least some types of animals are sensitive to the presence of an audience and that they do intend to communicate.

Now I've told you we believe that some animals, such as certain monkeys, can use something like words—in a limited way. You'll remember, I mentioned it appears that they can say something like \\or \But humans can use grammar, so we communicate different meanings by using words in different sequences. So for instance, I can say \dog bit the man\and that has one meaning. But if I use the same words and change the sequence and say \man bit the dog,\now I have com-municated a very different meaning. Well, this last question , is about whether animals can do this too. In other words, can they use some form of grammar? What do you think? Well, the answer is that mere is no recorded natural example of animals making anything like a sentence or using the order of a sequence of sounds to communicate symbolic meaning. The monkeys and birds we've been talking about can make alarm calls or food calls quickly or slowly, loudly or softly, but they never seem to manipulate the sequence.

- 112 -

Even the birds that seem to be saying \are communicating that idea with one identical call that doesn't change. They're not using grammar as far as anyone can tell.

Now, one group of animals that is able to manipulate their language is songbirds. As you are probably aware, many wild birds sing rather complex birdsongs. And these songs are created by combining a variety of notes in many different patterns. Some birds have hundreds of phrases that they use in thousands of different combinations. However, contrary to what you might believe, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever that birds can communicate any sym-bolic meaning by manipulating these musical notes and phrases. Instead, they seem to use their songs just as a way of advertising themselves, attracting a mate, or maybe even expressing some type of emotion.

Well, now today we began with three questions, and I'd like to return to those questions once again. First, what do animal sounds mean? In most cases, we think they commu-nicate what we would call emotion, or affective meaning; but in some cases, they stand for specific things in the envi-ronment such as food and the presence of danger. Second, do animals consciously intend to communicate? Well, generally I suppose the answer is \though having an audience that understands the message is an important factor. And third, do animals use grammar? Here the answer seems to be \scientists have been able to identify and confirm. One reason for this is that using grammar requires far more mental processing and far more sophisticated memory than using a simple vocabulary with no grammar, and this may be the obstacle for animals—they don't have the brainpower. Some animals do have the brainpower to use a very limited number of individual words in a rigid, inflexible way, but they can't acquire thousands and thousands of words like human beings and then manipulate those words using grammar.

The thing that really sets humans apart from animals is our incredible ability to use language symbolically, produce the same words in many different combinations, and assign different meanings to those combinations. In short, grammar is an innovation that only humans have been able to develop. So, although I might prefer to believe that when I get home tonight my dog will say something like \to see you; let's go outside and play Frisbee,\he's probably really communicating something more like \happy\or \hungry.\But I'll settle for that because we com-municate pretty well with each other. All right. Now that's it for today. Are there any questions? No? OK. Will you please read Chapters 6 and 7 before next class, and I'll see you then.

that theme today and focus on male and female communi-cation styles—the differences between the way men and women communicate. Let me start by saying the issue of gender differences in communication seems to be an inter-esting one for most people—certainly for most students. Anyone like to suggest why?

STUDENT 1: I think because most of us are looking for partners, a long-term love relationship . . . you know? So it helps to understand the opposite sex, so we can communi-cate with them better.

TEACHER: Well, that probably is one major reason—so we can get along better. The truth is, gender differences have fascinated mankind for as long as people have been writing down their thoughts, from as far back as the story of Adam and Eve to contemporary books. And although numerous books and articles have been written on the subject, almost all of them draw the same conclusion: Men and women speak different languages. I'll bet most of us here have read or at least heard of some book that talks about why men and women can't talk to each other, or how they can improve communication with the opposite sex. Of course, this isn't really surprising. Most of us want to relate better to the opposite sex, and most of us have a sense that there are differences in communication style, even if they're simply based on stereotypes. As a matter of fact, research based on transcribed speech—that is, speech which has been recorded and written down exactly as it was spoken-—shows that both sexes can generally tell whether a speaker is male or female. So clearly, gender differences in language really do exist. After all, let's face it, men and women have been misunderstanding each other for generations, and that leads to problems in love relationships, challenges in professional life . . . uh . . . the workplace, and so on. Just think about this for a minute, if you will: Researchers claim we spend 70 percent of our working hours communicating and 30 percent of that is talking. So you can see it's essential that we learn how to communicate with each other. There are more complex reasons, though, why studying communication is important. The fact is . . . the fact . . . you need to realize that communication's not simply a matter of saying what you mean and being understood. How we say what we mean is equally crucial because it influences the way people perceive and respond to us. And how we express ourselves, our style, says a lot about how we see our own status—our power, our authority, if you like—in relation to our listeners. We adjust... we change the way we talk depending on who we're talking to and the impression we want to give them. In other words, our communicative style is socially conditioned. Think about that. Our communication style is socially conditioned. How we use language with others is a learned behavior, and how

Unit 8 Gender Differences in Language we talk and listen are deeply influenced by cultural

expectations. Problems arise because women and men are

TEACHER: Morning, everyone. You'll recall we began like people who have grown up in two different subcultures. looking at gender differences last week, and I'd like to They have two broadly different styles of speaking and

establishing social status based on how they've grown up. continue

What I'd like to do now is look at how these different styles develop.

- 113 -

But what are these differences? Well, at a general level, There have been many attempts to explain gender dif-ferences in communication styles, with genetics and the there arc differences in the purpose of communication— why

environment both at the top of the list. In the case of inherent they talk. We could say that generally men talk to give genetic factors, some suggest that differences in men and information or to report—they're \women's brain structure and hormone production contribute on solving problems and are less likely to ask for help or to differences in thought processes, and these in turn directions—maybe because traditional social roles demand contribute to different behavior between the sexes. Precisely that men behave like leaders, as being in control— whether how much influence genetic factors have on communication they feel that way or not. As a general rule, men try to compared to the environment—that's to say, how much establish status, their level of authority in a situation, but communication style is a product of nature as opposed to women try to establish and support intimacy, or close rela-nurture—is not yet clear. Uh . .. nevertheless, evidence tionships with others. This might well be because, until suggests that nature's responsible for only 1 percent of the recently, it was the man who was typically in the more com-difference in communication style between the sexes. Think petitive environment—both at work and at play—and about it—only 1 percent! That means the environment plays therefore who may have been more concerned about estab-a far bigger role. Now let's stop and consider just what that lishing, maintaining, and increasing status. Today, of course, means. Generally speaking, boys and girls tend to participate that's changing, and this can be seen in the type of topics in different kinds of activities as children. These activities men and women discuss. Let's consider that next as we look reflect the everyday activities of adult men and women. Girls at some slightly more detailed observations about gender dress baby dolls and boys build things, for example. Toy differences in communication.

At the risk of stereotyping, I'll say that women have stores know this very well. Now this is a generalization, of

course—there are girls who love building block sets like tended to discuss topics related to relationships, such as the LEGO, for example—but just look at how toy stores arrange home, clothes, and so on. Men, on the other hand, have their toys according to activities for girls and activities for tended to discuss money or business. However, that trend boys. And as a result of their different activities, boys and appears to be changing, with women talking more about girls develop different communication styles. Girls tradition-work and money—no doubt due to changing social roles and ally practice more intimacy-related skills, and learn how to the fact that more women are working. Actually, one study relate to others. That is, they use language to establish found that the percentage of women's conversations devoted intimacy, as a basis of friendship. Their style is what some to work and money rose from 3.7 percent in 1922 to 37.5 writers call \percent in 1990. That's more than a 33 percent jump. That for instance, this type of play naturally produces more speaks volumes, doesn't it?

Given the collaboration/competition distinction I men-collaborative communication—discussions based on

relationships, and so on. Boys, on the other hand, tend to be tioned earlier, you probably won't be surprised to learn that more goal-driven or task-oriented, and practice work-related men tend to be more aggressive and argumentative than skills. They might discuss, for example, how to build a castle women, and use more expletives—strong language, in other or lay out a track, and how to get the job done. They're words. They want to get their point across. Also as you encouraged more to compete with others and generally use might expect, women are more successful with interpersonal language to establish their status in the group. You could say tasks, it seems—in particular, comforting, persuading, and that their communication style is \justifying decisions. They also tend to be better listeners

than men. One aspect of this is how they listen; according to rather than collaboration-oriented.

Evidence suggests that these patterns are reinforced when various studies, in conversations women use more children socialize with their peers. Of course, parents, \show they're listening.

And what about nonverbal communication? Well, women teachers, and others help establish these patterns of com-munication in boys and girls by directing children's activities. show greater skills in sending and understanding nonverbal

They buy boys construction-type gifts and girls domestic messages. Also, they're less likely to signal dominance. gifts, for instance. But they also do it subconsciously by Typical male body language, on the other hand— wide talking to boys and girls in different ways. For example, if gestures, sitting with knees apart, and so on—often displays their children have problems, mothers tend to regulate or status and dominance by increasing personal space. Finally, guide their children more than fathers . . . and they tend to be men tend to stammer more than women and use more \more controlling with their daughters than with their sons. and \Fathers, in contrast, tend to be more concerned with hand gestures in conversation, and tend to speak too loudly.

Now, before I finish, a few final thoughts for you to go identifying the problem quickly and demanding a solu-tion—and they tend to do this more with their sons than with away with. As I've said, male/female communication styles

their daughters. So the mothers tend to be more controlling are mainly a social phenomenon. Given that society's and have more rules, and the fathers tend to be more constantly changing, we can also expect communication demanding of solutions. So as a result, when they are adults, styles to change to reflect the changing roles of men and men and women tend to exhibit differences in their styles of women. More women, for example, are working and rising

to positions of power and authority in business, and this is communication.

changing how they communicate. Likewise, as men take on more

- 114 -

domestic duties—take more responsibility for things like raising children, for example—their styles also changing. I've heard it said that language has prevented women from taking on new roles in society and achieving true equality with men. One way to deal with this may be for parents to change—or at least vary the kinds of activities they encourage their children to engage in. This will change the way parents talk to their children and therefore children's own ideas about how they should speak. Perhaps we also need to reduce gender segregation—get boys and girls playing together more—so they develop more similar styles. In other words, the way we bring up and educate our children is important. In fact, the changes could be quite dramatic! I'd like to close by adding two final words of caution. Firstly, when we talk about male and female differences of any kind, it's easy to fall into the trap of stereotyping men and women. Stereotypes are based on generalizations— which, of course, do not apply to everyone. What's more, even if generalizations are accurate enough at one point in time, society changes, as we've seen, and it may take some time for the ideas behind the generalizations to reflect those changes. And secondly, please bear in mind that when we talk about male and female communication styles, we have to understand that these vary from culture to culture—not surprising given the role of socialization. Therefore, most of the things I've been saying apply to North American culture but might not apply to all cultures. OK, that's it for today. Unit 9 Fashion and Status

TEACHER: Today, everyone, as part of our look at fashion and design, we're going to take a look at fashion and social status, that is, how we use fashion to make statements about our social status—who we are, how wealthy we are, and so on. We do this with the kinds of cars we buy, the style of our houses, and of course the clothes we wear, which is the subject of today's discussion.

Now, the idea of using special clothes to signal social status has a long history, dating back to ancient Egypt. In very hierarchical societies like ancient Egypt, for example, only those in high positions could wear sandals. Also, the Greeks and Romans had laws which controlled the type, the color and number of garments that could be worn, as well as the kind of embroidery used. These were known as sumptuary laws ... that's S-U-M-P-T-U-A-R-Y... sumptuary laws. . . . However, as barriers between social classes became weaker, these so-called sumptuary laws became increasingly difficult to enforce and were eventually aban-doned. Instead, high status was indicated by the cost of a person's clothing—you know, rich and exotic materials, expensive and often unnecessary accessories . . . and, um, difficult-to-care-for styles. This kind of expensive and often unnecessary clothing was designed to attract attention; it was an example of what's called conspicuous con-sumption—that's conspicuous consumption. And of course, people thought the type of clothes you wore reflected what you could afford; in other words, your clothes reflected your wealth. I'm going to be using this

word \a lot today—conspicuous basically means deliberately attracting attention.

If you look at fashion today, things haven't really changed much, have they? Even though people these days don't dress in silver or gold lace, clothes are still very much a sign of status. In fact, you could say that nowadays many people believe clothes tell us about the personality—the honesty, talent, and intelligence of the person wearing them. In some social circles, there's often a feeling that someone who's not well dressed is probably dishonest or stupid, and without talent. Now that's sad but true, I'm afraid. Many of us make these judgments very quickly and unconsciously,... which, of course, is why people read and write books with titles like Dress for Success. The idea is if you dress well, people will judge you positively even before you open your mouth, right? I'd say that people have very definite ideas about dress and character.

But today I'm going to look in detail at this idea of con-spicuous consumption. So just to recap, let me repeat that conspicuous consumption is about the different ways we spend money in order to show people our wealth. Mmm? And one of the most obvious ways we do this is by wearing more clothes than other people. This is sometimes called conspicuous addition. Whatever the occasion, the well-to-do normally wear more clothes. In North America, for instance, men are more likely to wear jackets and vests, and women, pantyhose, scarves, and unnecessary but expensive wraps—even in mid-summer. And on the beach, even though their swimsuits may be like everyone else's, just watch the wealthy put on their silk beach kimonos when they come out of the water ... or maybe a shirt, hat, and bag that matches their swimsuit. And people notice, right? Of course, they're supposed to notice; that's the point.

Of course, people also show off their status by wearing a lot of clothes consecutively rather than simultaneously. In other words, as we've seen, people wear more clothes, but they also like to show off, to display as many different outfits as possible. Basically, the more outfits you wear, the higher your status; it's as simple as that. Now how do people do this? Well, they divide daily life into different sorts of activities—what's been called conspicuous division—and each of these activities, such as going to work or going out to dinner, requires a different kind of clothing. Now, this isn't anything new. In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, it was common for the wealthier classes to have different clothing for different parts of the day. Men would wear a morning suit, a dress coat, um, a dinner jacket, and women, morning clothes, walking clothes, tea gowns, um, motoring outfits, evening dresses. ... You name it, there was a costume for it.

Now today, we have the same tradition, but the emphasis is on sports rather than social life. Fashionable people will have different outfits for different sports, whether it's jog-ging, hiking, cycling, golf, or aerobics—and to wear the wrong outfit can cause a loss of prestige. . . . This, by the way, is what enables manufacturers of sports equipment to make so much money. And it's not just having separate clothing that's important, it's also having the right equipment; that also has to be high prestige.... It's important to have the correct brand names.

- 115 -

Now another way of indicating high status is to own many similar garments so that you rarely wear the same thing. This is what's known as conspicuous multiplication. For instance, some very wealthy men wear a brand new shirt every day; they'll never use the same shirt twice. Having a large, up-to-date wardrobe is especially important for men and women who want to establish themselves socially and professionally . . . uh, you know, who, um, . . . who want to make an impression. Once people know them . . . have made a decision about their status, it usually becomes less important. Teenagers in particular feel very strongly about showing variety in their dress. For example, teenage girls often feel so embarrassed about wearing the same outfit twice in the same week, that even if they only own a few clothes, they'll try hard to make them seem new by combin-ing them in different ways and with different accessories. They feel so strongly about this, in fact, that they'll often prefer quantity to quality.

Now, uh, let's move on to another form of conspicuous consumption, and I'm talking about the use of expensive materials, conspicuous materials. Now, in the past, materials such as satin and velvet were prestigious because they were handwoven and required a lot of time and labor. But today, modern machinery's changed all that. The result is that natural materials which are often more scarce are now more prestigious. I'm talking about materials like silk, leather, wool. In today's world, natural is best. Artificial materials, such as nylon and polyester, were expensive and very fashionable when they first appeared, but as they became cheaper to produce, \a dirty word, and now it's seen as the poor man's silk. You can also see a similar pattern with animal skins and pelts. Today because wildlife's becoming scarcer, these things have gotten more expensive and therefore more prestigious, particularly the hides of animals like the alligator. In centuries past, however, when things were different, skins and pelts of more common animals were associated with peasants and shepherds and hunters-—even outlaws. To show their status, merchants wore robes trimmed with less common fur such as beaver, noblemen preferred sable, and kings and queens wore ermine—all, again, relatively rare materials, and therefore indicators of status. As you know though, even though skins of wild animals are often prestigious in the sense of being rare and therefore expensive, today they're also seen as showing a disregard for the environment and wildlife.

OK. Now another way people display their wealth is by wearing jewelry . . . high-priced stones and metals—particu-larly those like gold and diamonds whose market price is generally known to be high. Gemstones such as rubies or emeralds, whose market price is less well known or which are more easily imitated, are less popular. Instant identification's desirable, you see. In other words, people need to be able to understand, just by looking, that something's expensive. And that's why platinum never really became very popular. Even though it's more expensive than gold, the problem was people couldn't easily tell it from silver or aluminum. Anyway, we call this display of expensive items conspicuous wealth.

Next, we come to conspicuous labeling. Not long ago, you could recognize a high-quality hand-tailored suit made

in, say, London's Saville Row or Paris. Today, though, thanks to sophisticated manufacturing methods and artificial materials that look like the real thing, it's become very difficult to tell simply by looking whether a suit, jacket, or whatever has been handmade using the finest natural mate-rials, and therefore whether it has cost far more than your average, off-the-rack equivalent. In addition, more people than ever are wealthy. Together, these two things create a problem. It's almost impossible to distinguish the rich from the very rich simply by looking at what they're wearing. So how do the very rich show their status? Well, one way is by using labels to show expensive brands. Designers realized that high-status garments didn't need to be recognizably of better quality or more difficult to produce than other gar-ments; they only needed to be recognizably more expensive. So, they had to somehow include the price of each garment in the basic design. How did they do that? The answer is they moved the designer's name from the inside to the outside of the garment. Simple! Then they aggressively promoted these names and trademarks until they became household names. Now the prices of these designer garments were not high because they were better quality, but because of the huge cost of advertising them. And people wearing these clothes would be sending out the message, \can afford to buy clothes made by this designer.\In fact, people will happily buy inferior quality clothes if they're clearly labeled and everyone knows they arc highly priced . . . and cotton T-shirts are a great example of this. They may fade quickly and shrink out of shape after just a few washings, but it doesn't matter. If they have the right designer name printed on them, people prefer them to better-made T-shirts. Apparently, they make the people who wear them feel \labeling, then, was a radical but very effective solution to a rather difficult problem. Do you see how this works?

Now to wrap up, I'd like to mention two other kinds of conspicuous consumption in clothing, to bring our total to eight different types. One of these is conspicuous out-rage—in other words, dressing which leads people to feel outrage . . . shock, if you like. Here, people purposely wear clothes that aren't in good taste, that others won't approve of .. . that don't conform. These clothes attract negative atten-tion, but they get attention nonetheless. Now the teenage punks of the 1980s were a good example of this, as are pop stars who turn up at formal events in, you know, torn or faded T-shirts with, uh, offensive language printed on them. Now this brings me to the last type: what I call associative consumption, in which people wear items of clothing because they've acquired prestige through association with high-status individuals—such as royalty like Princess Diana or film stars. A good example of this is, um, John Lennon's round glasses. These became a fashion icon, and even today people refer to round glasses as John Lennon glasses. Asso-ciative consumption also includes high-status activities. Just think of the clothing associated with horseback riding— checked suits, glossy high-heeled boots, polo shirts, and waisted jackets. These items have the power of association. We may assume that the people wearing them ride and own

- 116 -

百度搜索“77cn”或“免费范文网”即可找到本站免费阅读全部范文。收藏本站方便下次阅读，免费范文网，提供经典小说综合文库朗文英语听说教程三(3)在线全文阅读。