2019年專業(yè)英語八級真題答案解析（目前都未出版，此僅供參考)

?

SECTION A ? MINI-LECTURE

錄音原文文字（手工輸入，僅供參考）

Body Language in Mind

?

Good morning everyone. In ? today's lecture I'd like to focus on how our body language reveals who we ? are. We are really fascinated with body language and particularly ? interested in other people's body language.

You know, we are sometimes interested in an awkward interaction, ? or a smile, or a contemptuous glance, or maybe a very awkward wink or ? handshake. So what kind of body language am I talking about? I am interested ? in power dynamics. That is the non-verbal expressions of power and dominance.

?

And what are nonverbal ? expressions of power and dominance? Well, this is what they are: in the ? animal kingdom, non-verbal expressions of power and dominance are about ? expanding. So you make yourself big, you stretch out, you take up space and ? you are basically opening up. And, and humans do the same thing. So they do ? this when they are feeling powerful in the moment. And this one is especially ? interesting because it really shows us how universal and old these ? expressions of power are. For example, when athletes cross the finish line ? and they've won, it doesn't matter if they've never seen anyone do it. They ? do this: so the arms are up in a CV5 sign, the chin is ? slightly lifted.

But what do we do when we feel powerless? We do exactly the ? opposite. We close up. We make ourselves small. We don't want to bump into ? the person next to us. And this is what happens when you put together high ? and low power. So what we tend to do when it comes to power is that we ? complement the others non-verbals. What I mean is, if someone is being really ? powerful with us, we tend to make ourselves smaller. We don't mirror them. We ? do the opposite. I am watching this behavior in the classroom and guess what ? I have noticed. I noticed that MBA students really exhibit the full range of power ? non-verbals. They get right into the middle of the room before class even ? starts like they really want to occupy space. When they sit down, they are ? sort of spread

out. They raise their hands high. You have other people who are ? virtually collapsing when they come in, as soon as they, I mean other people ? come in. You see it, you see it on their faces and their bodies and they sit ? with their chairs and they make themselves

?
?

tiny. And they will not ? fully stretch their arms when they raise their hands.

?

I also notice another interesting thing about this. It seems women ? are much more likely to do this kind of thing than men. I mean women are more ? likely to make themselves small. Women feel chronically less powerful than ? men. So this is not surprising.

The second question ? concerns our minds. We know that our minds change our bodies, but is it also ? true that our bodies change our minds? And when I say 'minds' in the case of ? the powerful, what do I mean? I am talking about thoughts and feelings and ? the sorts of physiological things that make up our thoughts and feelings, and ? in my case that's hormones. I look at hormones. So what the minds of the ? powerful vs. the powerless look like? Powerful people tend to be not ? surprisingly more assertive and more confident, more optimistic. They ? actually feel that they're going to win, even at games of chance. They also ? tend to be able to think more abstractly. They take more risks. So there are ? a lot of differences between powerful and powerless people.

Physiologically, there are also differences on two key hormones. ? One is dominance hormone and the other is stress hormone. What we find is ? that powerful and effective leaders have high dominance hormone and low ? stress hormone. What does that mean?

That means power is also about how you react to stress. Once we ? did an experiment, we decided to bring people into the lab and run that ? little experiment. These people adopted for two minutes either high power ? poses or low power poses. We, for two minutes, say 'you need to do this or ? this'. And we also want them to be feeling power.

So after two minutes we will ask them 'How powerful do you feel?' ? On a series of items and then we give them an opportunity to gamble. Before ? and after the experiment we take their samples of saliva for a hormone test. ? That's the whole experiment. And this is what we have found: risk tolerance ? which is gambling. What we find is that when you're in the higher power pose ? condition, 86% of you will ? gamble. When you're in the low power pose condition, it's down to only 60%, and that's a pretty ? significant difference. Here's what we find on dominance hormone: from their ? baseline when they

come in, high power people experience about a 20% increase and low power ? people experience about a 10% decrease. So again, two minutes and you get these changes.

Concerning stress hormone high power people experience about a 25% decrease and the low ? power people experience about a 15% increase. Once again, two minutes led to these hormonal changes ? that configure your brain to basically be either assertive, confident or ? really stress-reactive. And you know feeling sort of shut down and we've

?
?

all had that feeling, right? So it seems that our non-verbals do ? govern how we think and feel about ourselves. Also, our bodies change our ? minds. So power-posing for a few minutes really changes your life in ? meaningful ways.

?

When I tell people about ? this that our bodies change our minds, and our minds can change our behavior, ? and our behavior can change our outcomes, they say to me 'I don't believe ? that. It feels fake, right?' So I said, 'fake it till you make it'. I'm going ? to leave you with this. Before you going to the next stressful evaluative ? situation, for example, a job interview. For two minutes, try doing this, in ? the elevator or at your desk behind closed doors, and say to yourself 'That's ? what I want to do'. Configure your brain to do the best in that situation, ? get your dominance hormone up, and get your stress hormone down. Don't leave ? that situation feeling like cOh, I didn't show them who I am'. ? Leave that situation feeling like 'Oh, I really managed to say who I am and ? show who I am'.

?

To sum up, today we talked ? about the nonverbal expressions of power and dominance, and the strong ? effects of the change of behavior. I suggest you try power-posing which

is simple but will significantly change the outcomes of your life. ? OK, next time we are going to discuss the social functions of body language. ? (1137 words)

?

【參考答案與解析】

1.答案：power ? and dominance (只寫出一個得 0.5 ? 分）

解析：講座主題是身體語言和心智的關(guān)系，講座重點(diǎn)在于“power dynamics”，也就是權(quán)力 和主導(dǎo)的非語言表達(dá)（non-verbal expressions of power and dominance)。

2?答案：expanding (openingup也可以接受）

解析：動物界和人類表現(xiàn)“權(quán)力”時的非語言表達(dá)從根本上相同的，g卩expanding (肢體擴(kuò)展）。 原文線索：in the animal kingdom, non-verbal

expressions of power and ? dominance are about expanding??? and ? humans do the same thing.

3?答案：closing up (填入名詞性成分較妥）

解析：人在感覺無權(quán)力時，則表現(xiàn)出與“擴(kuò)展”相反的行為，即“合攏、收縮”（close up)。原
? ： But what do we do ? when we feel powerless? We do exactly the opposite. We close up.

4?答案：complementary (需要變換詞形，注意系動詞become)

解析：權(quán)力占優(yōu)和權(quán)力不占優(yōu)的人群同處的情形下，雙方的肢體行為往往是互補(bǔ)式的 ? (what we tend to do when it comes to power is ? that we complement the others non-verbals),

即一方強(qiáng)勢且擴(kuò)展式肢體語言，另一方弱勢且合攏式肢體語言。換言之，人們并不是相互模

?
?

仿，不互為鏡像（We don't mirror them. We do the opposite.)。

5?答案：dominance (desire for dominance 艮P “支酉己欲’，）

解析：主講人提到了課堂的現(xiàn)實(shí)例子。MBA學(xué)生在上課前的種種表現(xiàn)
? (...they ? really want to occupy space. When they sit down, they are sort of
? spread out. They raise their hands high.)表明其具有“支酉己欲或主導(dǎo)欲”。

6.?????? 答案：sex或者gender

解析：主講人還注意到女性比起男性，在非語言表達(dá)上會表現(xiàn)得較弱勢。這說明“權(quán)力非語 ? 言行為”跟性別也有聯(lián)系。

7?答案：body and mind 或 mind and body (AandB，只寫出一個得 0.5 分）

解析：講座的第二個話題是關(guān)于“身體和心智之間的關(guān)系”。原文線索：

:The second question ? concerns our minds. We know that our minds change our bodies, but is it also ? true that our bodies change our minds?

8?答案：assertive，confident，optimistic。（3 個詞寫不全或只得 0.5 分）

解析：在心智層面，權(quán)力占優(yōu)的人會表現(xiàn)的更加堅(jiān)定、自信、樂觀。原文線索：

So what the minds of the ? powerful vs. the powerless look like?

Powerful people tend to be not surprisingly ? more assertive and more confident, more optimistic.

9?答案：dominance and stress (只寫出一個得 0.5 分）

解析：生理上來看，權(quán)力占優(yōu)和不占優(yōu)的人群的區(qū)別在于兩類激素的水平 ? (Physiologically, there are also differences ? on two key hormones. One is dominance hormone and the other is stress hormone)。

10????? ?答案：opportunity to ? gamble

解析：這里涉及到實(shí)驗(yàn)流程的第二步，也就是在完成posing的任務(wù)后，不同組的實(shí)驗(yàn)對象， 被給予“小賭一把”的機(jī)會。原文線索：So after

two minutes we will ask them ? 'How powerful do you feel?' On a series of items and then we give them an ? opportunity to gamble.

11????? ? ?答案：dominance hormone

解析：實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果表明：權(quán)力占優(yōu)的人群的“支配激素”水平會顯著增加（權(quán)力不占優(yōu)人群的 “支配激素”水平會下降）。原文線索：Here’s what we find on ? dominance hormone: from their baseline when they come in, high

power people experience about a ? 20% increase???

12?答案：stress hormone

解析：實(shí)驗(yàn)結(jié)果表明：權(quán)力不占優(yōu)的人群“壓力激素”水平會顯著增加（權(quán)力占優(yōu)人群的 “壓力激素”水平會下降）。原文線索：Concerning

?
?

stress hormone high power people experience about a 25% decrease and the low ? power people experience about a 15% increase.

13.答案：stress-reactive ? (此空需填入形容詞性成分，連字符不能少）

解析：兩分鐘的實(shí)驗(yàn)訓(xùn)練，就會改變大腦的激素水平，可以“令大腦變得更加堅(jiān)定、自信
? (其實(shí)堅(jiān)定和自信更多是指人本身）”，或者說“對壓力有反應(yīng)”。從實(shí)驗(yàn)的角度來看，

“對壓力有反應(yīng)”這里才是大腦的特征概括。所以，答案填寫stress-reactive。原文線索：

...... two minutes led to these hormonal changes that ? configure your brain to basically be either

assertive, confident or really stress-reactive.

14?答案：change our outcomes 或 change outcome

解析：講座結(jié)論部分認(rèn)為身體會改變心智，心智會改變行為，而行為則影響結(jié)果。原文線索: When I tell people about this that our bodies change our

minds, and our minds can change our behavior, and our behavior can ? change our outcomes

15.答案：do the best (感覺這一題是送分來的）

角軍析：原文直接提到：Before you going to the ? next stressful evaluative situation,???? Configure ? your brain to do the best in that situation

?

SECTION B INTERVIEW

1C 提問：What do the speakers mainly talk about?

原文線索：Are you saying global warming ? isn't a fact? Deforestation isn't a fact? The

greenhouse effect isn't actually happening?(全球變暖及其連鎖反應(yīng)）

2.C 提問：What does the woman think of global warming?

原文線索：We've only been ? measuring these things for around two or three hundred years.

We have no idea what was happening fifty thousand years ago. For ? all we know, this is just a natural blip，a kind of sudden but temporary ? change in the whole climate cycle.(女士認(rèn)為人類

所知的觀測結(jié)果還不足夠證實(shí)全球變暖，這只是整個氣候循環(huán)的暫時變化）

3 ? B 提問：What is the man mainly concerned about?

原文線索：And don't you think all the other effects we're having on the planet ? are destructive? ... I mean like deforestation, ? overpopulation, threatening the existence of many endangered animals. ? Pollution of the air and the seas. I mean，I could go on if you want.(男士的 主要關(guān)切就在于人類活動對于環(huán)境造成的負(fù)面影響，并向女士舉了很多例子）

4.?? ? C 提問：What do the speakers both agree about on the ? topic?

雙方談及亞馬遜雨林被破壞的事實(shí)，都承認(rèn)人類對環(huán)境的破環(huán)。但男士認(rèn)為應(yīng)該保護(hù)動物棲 息地，減少人類破壞；而女士認(rèn)為應(yīng)該讓大自然去選擇動物的生存與否。男士的立場在開頭 ? 我們及明白，而女士在此也承認(rèn)"And，yes，it's true that ? there are several problems

?
?

worldwide caused by human ? influence.”

5.? ? C 提問：What ? is the woman’s attitude toward the topic?

整個對話來看，女士對于"全球變暖"是持有懷疑態(tài)度的。她認(rèn)為男士所列舉出的事實(shí)，證 ? 據(jù)還不夠充分。至于她是不是非?？陀^，無法判定。因?yàn)楸旧砣蜃兣瘑栴}的相關(guān)研究也存 在諸多爭議。但男女雙方都認(rèn)同人類對環(huán)境破壞的事實(shí)。

6.? C 提問：According ? to the woman, what is the biggest problem in teaching disciplinary literacy?

原文線索：…but they still are ? hesitant about their students’ reactions….it is also our biggest problem because many ? teachers still don't understand the distinctions between content area, ? reading and disciplinary literacy.(教師本身對于學(xué)科素養(yǎng)認(rèn)識不足或存在誤解，所以導(dǎo)致他們 ? 對于學(xué)生的課堂反映不能確定，甚至主觀地認(rèn)為學(xué)生動機(jī)不足）

7.? ? D 提問：What ? does disciplinary literacy really mean?

原文線索：

?

M: Does it mean it invites students to join the history club by ? really like a historian or the science club by reading like a scientist?

W: Right.(也就是能夠開展該學(xué)科的相關(guān)專業(yè)工作的能力）

8.? B 提問：What would a more disciplinary assessment ask ? students to do?

原文線索：I think a more disciplinary ? assessment would seek to find out whether students are interpreting such ? information in a sophisticated way.

9.? D 提問：Which is the best practice in teacher training ? institutions to promote disciplinary literacy teaching?

原文線索：The best of these programs, in my opinion, are the result of ? literacy and disciplinary experts collaborating to determine what these ? practices are and then engaging students in them

10. C 提問：What ? is the purpose of the interview?

聽力原文

(Now ? listen to the first interview. Questions 1 to 5 are based on the first ? interview)

?

M: Hey，Kathy. Did you read ? this article in the magazine? I can't believe how much man’s changing the ? planet.

W: Yeah, I had to look at it. Quite interesting I suppose if you ? believe that sort of thing.

M: What? What do you mean 'if you believe that sort of thing?' Are ? you saying you don't believe that we are damaging the planet?

?

W: To be honest, Mark, not really.

?
?

M: What are you saying? Are ? you saying global warming isn't a fact? Deforestation isn't a fact? The ? greenhouse effect isn't actually happening?

W: Hey, calm down Mark. I ? just think too many people take these things as being definitely true without ? knowing all the facts.

M: You really don't think global warming is happening. You know ? they've said sea levels are going to rise by quite a few meters over the next ? 50 to 100 years. Weather conditions are getting worse all over the world. Can ? you remember how many big hurricanes there have been in this

country over the last few years? I think evidence is all around ? us.

?

W: I don't think we have ? enough information, to be honest. I don't think we should change how we're ? living just because of 20 years of abnormal measurements.

M: And don't you think all the other effects we're having on the ? planet are destructive?

W: What do you mean?

?

M: I mean like deforestation, overpopulation, threatening the ? existence of many endangered animals. Pollution of the air and the seas. I ? mean, I could go on if you want.

?

W: No, no, I understand what you're saying. And, yes, it's true ? that there are several problems worldwide caused by human influence. I think ? the destruction of the Amazon rainforest is really dangerous and it's ? something we could live to regret. I read somewhere that they were considered ? to be the lungs of the planet. And there we are happily chopping it all down ? and it would be a shame to lose some of those animals that may become ? extinct. You know, like the rhino or the panda. But I think we shouldn't ? interfere with nature if they are going to become extinct. Then we have to ? allow nature to take its course.

?

M: You've just contradicted yourself in two sentences Kathy. First ? you said it's bad that we're interfering with nature by destroying the ? rainforest, and then????

W: That's not the same ? thing.

M: Well of course it is. The only reason 99% of these animals are endangered is ? precisely because WE are threatening their habitats either by chopping it ? down as you say, or by expanding towns and farming into areas where these ? animals normally live and hunt. You can't destroy an animal's habitat and ? then turn around and say we can't interfere with nature to save it.

?

W: I don't think having 20 ? panda cubs in zoos around the world is a very smart way to save an

?
?

animal. It's totally artificial and is cruel to the animals ? involved.

?

M: I would go along with that. Yes. The real solution is to save ? the animals5 original???

(This is ? the end of the first interview. Questions 1 to 5 are based on what you have ? just heard)

?

Question 1: What do the ? speakers mainly talk about?

Question 2: What does the woman think of global warming? Question ? 3: What is the man mainly concerned about?

Question 4: What do the speakers both agree about on the topic? ? Question 5: What is the woman's attitude toward the topic?

訪談2錄音文字

?

(Now listen to this second interview. Questions 6 to 10 are ? based on the second interview)

?

M: Cindy, you've been doing research on disciplinary literacy for ? about 20 years now. In that time you've probably been asked just about ? everything possible. What question comes up most often these days?

W: That's easy. We are doing better convincing teachers that ? disciplinary literacy is worth teaching, but they still are hesitant about ? their students5 reactions. A teacher said to me recently I have ? enough trouble getting my kids to read a textbook chapter. How would I ever ? motivate them to read in a disciplinary way?

M: Is that a real question or is it just a mask for teacher ? resistance.

W: I think it's a real question. And in fact, it is also our ? biggest problem because many teachers still don't understand the distinctions ? between content area, reading and disciplinary literacy.

M: What is disciplinary literacy anyway? You said that different.

W: Disciplinary literacy doesn't promise to make someone a better ? student. It invites students to join the disciplinary field itself. It's a ? kind of invitation to join a club.

M: Does it mean it invites students to join the history club by ? really like a historian or the science club by reading like a scientist?

W: Right. But it goes beyond that. It says we want you to join us. ? We want to share with you our cognitive secrets, our way of thinking about ? the world and how we solve problems. We want to count you as one of us. In ? doing that, it both holds out the promise of affiliation, connecting with

?
?

others is a big motivator and the promise of greater competency ? with challenging tasks, not competency and being a kid or a student. But ? competency in being successful with the kinds of things that adults do.

?

M: What about assessment? ? How do we test disciplinary literacy?

?

W: There aren't any ? standardized disciplinary reading or writing tests yet, but one can easily ? imagine how classroom assessments could change in the future as instruction ? becomes more disciplinary in focus.

M: Past assessments in history, literature or science have aimed ? to find out if students had mastered particular information. Questions about ? content would certainly still have a place in disciplinary literacy. Since ? knowledge matters and disciplinary literacy too. But what would a more ? disciplinary assessment look like?

?

W: I think a more ? disciplinary assessment would seek to find out whether students are ? interpreting such information in a sophisticated way. According to the ? traditions of that discipline. For example, a disciplinary test in history ? might ask not only what we know about a historical event, but how we know ? about it. Students would be questioned about the source of the information, ? the reliability of the source and how the information matches with ? information from other sources. In cases where the information is ? contradictory, the assessment might ask students to determine whose account ? was more credible. Requiring students to weigh evidence using the same kinds ? of criteria that historians use.

M: Mm, that sounds ? interesting.

W: Or a literature ? assessment might ask students to engage in deeper interpretation than in the ? past. Instead of asking about the theme of a story, for example, an ? assessment might ask students to determine alternative themes, and to decide ? based on text evidence, which one the authors seem to most sympathetic to. In ? other words it would ask the student to participate in the reading

more as a literary critic than a student.

M: How should we prepare teachers to teach disciplinary literacy ? in teacher training institutions?

W: So far teacher training institutions haven't done a very good ? job of helping subject matter teachers understand the discourse practices of ? their disciplines, so those practices often remain implicit and taught.

?

M: I agree with that, but ? have you seen any good examples?

?

W: Sure, there are some ? examples of programs that do make disciplinary literacy practices

?
?

explicit. The best of these ? programs, in my opinion, are the result of literacy and disciplinary experts ? collaborating to determine what these practices are and then engaging ? students in them

?

(This is the end of the ? second interview. Question 6 to 10 are based on what you have just heard)

Question 6: According to the woman, what is the biggest problem in ? teaching disciplinary literacy? Question 7: What does disciplinary literacy ? really mean?

Question 8: What would a more disciplinary assessment ask students ? to do?

Question 9: Which is the best practice in teacher training ? institutions to promote disciplinary literacy teaching?

Question 10. What is the purpose of the interview?

?

This is the end of Part One listening comprehension.

?

?

?
?