Sign has become a scientific hot button. Only in the past 20 years have specialists in language study realized that signed languages are unique—a speech of the hand. They offer a new way to probe how the brain generates and understands language, and throw new light on an old scientific controversy： whether language, complete with grammar, is something that we are born with, or whether it is a learned behavior. The current interest in sign language has roots in the pioneering work of one rebel teacher at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., the world’s only liberal arts university for deaf people. When Bill Stokoe went to Gallaudet to teach English, the school enrolled him in a course in signing. But Stokoe noticed something odd: among themselves, students signed differently from his classroom teacher. Stokoe had been taught a sort of gestural code, each movement of the hands representing a word in English. At the time, American Sign Language (ASL) was thought to be no more than a form of pidgin English (混杂英语). But Stokoe believed the “hand talk“ his students used looked richer. He wondered: Might deaf people actually have a genuine language? And could that language be unlike any other on Earth? It was 1955, when even deaf people dismissed their signing as “substandard“. Stokoe’s idea was academic heresy(异端邪说). It is 37 years later. Stokoe—now devoting his time to writing and editing books and journals and to producing video materials on ASL and the deaf culture—is having lunch at a cafe near the Gallaudet campus and explaining how he started a revolution. For decades educators fought his idea that signed languages are natural languages like English, French and Japanese. They assumed language must be based on speech, the modulation (调节) of sound. But sign language is based on the movement of hands, the modulation of space. “What I said,“ Stokoe explains, “is that language is not mouth stuff—it’s brain stuff. “ (340 words)

When families gather for Christmas dinner, some will stick to formal traditions dating back to Grandma’s generation. Their tables will be set with the good dishes and silver, and the dress code will be Sunday-best. But in many other homes, this china-and-silver elegance has given way to a stoneware (粗陶) -and-stainless informality, with dresses assuming an equally casual-Friday look. For hosts and guests, the change means greater simplicity and comfort. For makers of fine china in Britain, it spells economic hard times. Last week Royal Doulton, the largest employer in Stoke-on-Trent, announced that it is eliminating 1,000 jobs—one-fifth of its total workforce. That brings to more than 4,000 the number of positions lost in 18 months in the pottery (陶瓷) region. Wedgwood and other pottery factories made cuts earlier. Although a strong pound and weak markets in Asia play a role in the downsizing, the layoffs in Stoke have their roots in earthshaking social shifts. A spokesman for Royal Doulton admitted that the company “has been somewhat slow in catching up with the trend“ toward casual dining. Families eat together less often, he explained, and more people eat alone, either because they are single or they eat in front of television. Even dinner parties, if they happen at all, have gone casual. In a time of long work hours and demanding family schedules, busy hosts insist, rightly, that it’s better to share a takeout pizza on paper plates in the family room than to wait for the perfect moment or a “real“ dinner party. Too often, the perfect moment never comes. Iron a fine-patterned tablecloth? Forget it. Polish the silver? Who has time? Yet the loss of formality has its down side. The fine points of etiquette (礼节) that children might once have learned at the table by observation or instruction from parents and grandparents (“Chew with your mouth closed. “ “Keep your elbows off the table. “) must be picked up elsewhere. Some companies now offer etiquette seminars for employees who may be competent professionally but clueless socially. (347 words)

President Coolidge’s statement, “The business of America is business,“ still points to an important truth today—that business institutions have more prestige (威望) in American society than any other kind of organization, including the government. Why do business institutions possess this great prestige? One reason is that Americans view business as being more firmly based on the ideal of competition than other institutions in society. Since competition is seen as the major source of progress and prosperity by most Americans, competitive business institutions are respected. Competition is not only good in itself; it is the means by which other basic American values such as individual freedom, equality of opportunity, and hard work are protected. Competition protects the freedom of the individual by ensuring that there is no monopoly (垄断) of power. In contrast to one all-powerful government, many businesses compete a-gainst each other for profits. Theoretically, if one business tries to take unfair advantage of its customers, it will lose to competing business which treats its customers more fairly. Where many businesses compete for the customers’ dollar, they cannot afford to treat them like inferiors or slaves. A contrast is often made between business, which is competitive, and government, which is a monopoly. Because business is competitive, many Americans believe that it is more supportive of freedom than government, even though government leaders are elected by the people and business leaders are not. Many Americans believe, then, that competition is as important, or even more important, than democracy in preserving freedom. Competition in business is also believed to strengthen the ideal of equality of opportunity. Competition is seen as an open and fair race where success goes to the swiftest person regardless of his or her social class background. Competitive success is commonly seen as the American alternative to social rank based on family background. Business is therefore viewed as an expression of the idea of equality of opportunity rather than the aristocratic (贵族的) idea of inherited privilege. (337 words)

The Carnegie Foundation report says that many colleges have tried to be “all things to all people“. In doing so, they have increasingly catered to a narrow minded careerism while failing to cultivate a global vision among their students. The current crisis, it contends, does not derive from a legitimate desire to put learning to productive ends. The problem is that in too many academic fields, the work has no context; skills, rather than being means, have become ends. Students are offered a variety of options and allowed to pick their way to a degree. In short, driven by careerism, “the nation’s colleges and universities are more successful in providing credentials (文凭) than in providing a quality education for their students. “ The report concludes that the special challenge confronting the undergraduate college is one of shaping an “integrated core“ of common learning. Such a core would introduce students “to essential knowledge, to connections across the disciplines, and in the end, to application of knowledge to life beyond the campus. “ Although the key to a good college is a high-quality faculty, the Carnegie study found that most colleges do very little to encourage good teaching. In fact, they do much to undermine it. As one professor observed: “Teaching is important, we are told, and yet faculty know that research and publication matter most. “ Not surprisingly, over the last twenty years colleges and universities have failed to graduate half of their four-year degree candidates. Faculty members who dedicated themselves to teaching soon discover that they will not be granted tenure (终身任期), promotion, or substantial salary increases. Yet 70 percent of all faculty say their interests lie more in teaching than in research. Additionally, a frequent complaint among young scholars is that “There is pressure to publish, although there is virtually no interest among administrators or colleagues in the content of the publications. “ (320 words)

In department stores and closets all over the world, they are waiting. Their outward appearance seems rather appealing because they come in a variety of styles, textures, and colors. But they are ultimately the biggest deception that exists in the fashion industry today. What are they? They are high heels—a woman’s worst enemy (whether she knows it or not). High heel shoes are the downfall of modern society. Fashion myths have led women to believe that they are more beautiful or sophisticated for wearing heels, but in reality, heels succeed in posing short as well as long term hardships. Women should fight the high heel industry by refusing to use or purchase them in order to save the world from unnecessary physical and psychological suffering. For the sake of fairness, it must be noted that there is a positive side to high heels. First, heels are excellent for aerating (使通气,) lawns. Anyone who has ever worn heels on grass knows what I am talking about. A simple trip around the yard in a pair of those babies eliminates all need to call for a lawn care specialist, and provides the perfect-sized holes to give any lawn oxygen without all those messy chunks of dirt lying around. Second, heels are quite functional for defense against oncoming enemies, who can easily be scared away by threatening them with a pair of these sharp, deadly fashion accessories. Regardless of such practical uses for heels, the fact remains that wearing high heels is harmful to one’s physical health. Talk to any podiatrist (足病医生)， and you will hear that the majority of their business comes from high-heel-wearing women. High heels are known to cause problems such as deformed feet and torn toenails. The risk of severe back problems and twisted or broken ankles is three times higher for a flat shoe wearer. Wearing heels also creates the threat of getting a heel caught in a sidewalk crack or a sewer grate (阴沟栅) and being thrown to the ground—possibly breaking a nose, back, or neck. And of course, after wearing heels for a day, any woman knows she can look forward to a night of pain as she tries to comfort her swollen, aching feet. (384 words)

According to the airline industry statistics, almost 90% of airline accidents are survivable or partially survivable. But passengers can increase their chances of survival by learning and following certain tips. Experts say that you should read and listen to safety instructions before takeoff and ask questions if you have uncertainties. You should fasten your seat belt low on your hips as tightly as possible. Of course, you should also know how the release mechanism of your belt operates. During takeoffs and landings you are advised to keep your feet flat on the floor. Before takeoff you should locate the nearest exit and an alternative exit and count the rows of seats between you and the exits so that you can find them in the dark if necessary. In the event that you are forewarned of a possible accident, you should put your hands on your ankles and keep your head down until the plane comes to a complete stop. If smoke is present in the cabin, you should keep your head low and cover your face with napkins, towels, or clothing. If possible, wet these for added protection against smoke inhalation. To evacuate as quickly as possible, follow crew commands and do not take personal belongings with you. Do not jump on escape slides before they are fully inflated, and when you jump, do so with your arms and legs extended in front of you. When you get to the ground, you should move away from the plane as quickly as possible, and never smoke near the wreckage.

The study of sign language is thought to be______.

The present growing interest in sign language was stimulated by______.

According to Stokoe, sign language is______.

Most educators objected to Stokoe’s idea because they thought______.

Stokoe’s argument is based on his belief that______.