(1)Once across the river and into the wholesale district, she glanced about her for some likely door at which to apply. As she contemplated the wide windows and imposing signs, she became conscious of being gazed upon and understood for what she was—a wage-seeker. She had never done this thing before and lacked courage. To avoid conspicuity and a certain indefinable shame she felt at being caught spying about for some place where she might apply for a position, she quickened her steps and assumed an air of indifference supposedly common to one upon an errand. In this way she passed many manufacturing and wholesale houses without once glancing in. At last, after several blocks of walking, she felt that this would not do, and began to look about again, though without relaxing her pace. A little way on she saw a great door which for some reason attracted her attention. It was ornamented by a small brass sign, and seemed to be the entrance to a vast hive of six or seven floors. “Perhaps,“ she thought, “they may want someone“ and crossed over to enter, screwing up her courage as she went. When she came within a score of feet of the desired goal, she observed a young gentleman in a grey clerk suit, fumbling his watch-chain and looking out. That he had anything to do with the concern she could not tell, but because he happened to be looking in her direction, her weakening heart misgave her and she hurried by, too overcome with shame to enter in. After several blocks of walking, in which the uproar of the streets and the novelty of the situation had time to wear away the effect of her first defeat, she again looked about. Over the way stood a great six-story structure labeled “ Storm and King,“ which she viewed with rising hope. It was a wholesale dry goods concern and employed women. She could see them moving about now and then upon the upper floors. This place she decided to enter, no matter what. She crossed over and walked directly toward the entrance. As she did so two men came out and paused in the door. A telegraph messenger in blue dashed past her and up the few steps which graced the entrance and disappeared. Several pedestrians out of the hurrying throng which filled the sidewalks passed about her as she paused, hesitating. She looked helplessly around and then, seeing herself observed, retreated. It was too difficult a task. She could not go past them. (2)So severe a defeat told sadly upon her nerves. She could scarcely understand her weakness and yet she could not think of gazing inquiringly about upon the surrounding scene. Her feet carried her mechanically forward, every foot of her progress being a satisfactory portion of a flight which she gladly made. Block after block passed by. Upon street lamps at the various corners she read names such as Madison, Monroe, La Salle, Clark, Dearborn: and still she went, her feet beginning to tire upon the broad stone flagging. She was pleased in part that the streets were bright and clean. The morning sun shining down with steadily increasing warmth made the shady side of the streets pleasantly cool. She looked at the blue sky overhead with more realization of its charm than had ever come to her before. (3)Her cowardice began to trouble her in a way. She turned back along the street she had come, resolving to hunt up Storm and King and enter in. On the way she encountered a great wholesale shoe company, through the broad plate windows of which she saw an enclosed executive department, hidden by frosted glass. Without this enclosure, but just within the street entrance, sat a grey-haired gentleman at a small table, with a large open ledger of some kind before him. She walked by this institution several times hesitating, but finding herself unobserved she eventually gathered sufficient courage to falter past the screen door and stood humbly waiting. (4)“Well, young lady,“ observed the old gentleman, looking at her somewhat kindly—“what is it you wish?“ (5)“I am, that is, do you—I mean, do you need any help?“ she stammered. (6)“Not just at present,“ he answered smiling. “Not just at present. Come in sometime next week. Occasionally we need someone. “ (7)She received the answer in silence and backed awkwardly out. The pleasant nature of her reception rather astonished her. She had expected that it would be more difficult, that something cold and harsh would be said—she knew not what. That she had not been put to shame and made to feel her unfortunate position seemed remarkable. She did not realize that it was just this which made her experience easy, but the result was the same. She felt greatly relieved. (8)Somewhat encouraged, she ventured into another large structure. It was a clothing company, and more people were in evidence. (9)An office boy approached her. (10)“Who is it you wish to see?“ he asked. (11)“I want to see the manager,“ she returned. (12)He ran away and spoke to one of a group of three men who were conferring together. One broke off and came towards her. (13)“Well?“ he said, coldly. The greeting drove all courage from her at once. (14)“Do you need any help?“ she stammered. (15)“No,“ he replied abruptly and turned upon his heel. (16)She went foolishly out, the office boy deferentially swinging the door for her, and gladly sank into the obscuring crowd. It was a severe set-back to her recently pleased mental state.

PASSAGE ONE

(1)“Britain’s best export,“ I was told by the head of the Department of Immigration in Canberra ,“is people. “ Close on 100,000 people have applied for assisted passages in the first five months of that year, and half of these are eventually expected to migrate to Australia. (2)The Australians are delighted. They are keenly aware that without a strong flow of immigrants into the workforce the development of the Australian economy is unlikely to proceed at the ambitious pace currently envisaged. The new mineral discoveries promise a splendid future, and the injection of huge amounts of American and British capital should help to ensure that they are properly exploited, but with unemployment in Australia down to less than 1.3 per cent, the government is understandably anxious to attract more skilled labor. (3)Australia is roughly the same size as the continental United States, but has only twelve million inhabitants. Migration has accounted for half the population increase in the last four years, and has contributed greatly to the country’s impressive economic development. Britain has always been the principal source—ninety per cent of Australians are of British descent, and Britain has provided one million migrants since the Second World War. (4)Australia has also given great attention to recruiting people elsewhere. Australians decided they had an excellent potential source of applicants among the so-called “guest workers“ who have crossed their own frontiers to work in other parts of Europe. There were estimated to be more than four million of them, and a large number were offered subsidized passages and guaranteed jobs in Australia. Italy has for some years been the second biggest source of migrants, and the Australians have also managed to attract a large number of Greeks and Germans. (5)One drawback with them, so far as the Australians are concerned, is that integration tends to be more difficult. Unlike the British, continental migrants have to struggle with an unfamiliar language and new customs. Many naturally gravitate towards the Italian or Greek communities which have grown up in cities such as Sydney and Melbourne. These colonies have their own newspapers, their own shops, and their own clubs. Their inhabitants are not Australians, but Europeans. (6)The government’s avowed aim, however, is to maintain “a substantially homogeneous society into which newcomers, from whatever sources, will merge themselves“. By and large, therefore, Australia still prefers British migrants, and tends to be rather less selective in their case than it is with others. (7)A far bigger cause of concern than the growth of national groups, however, is the increasing number of migrants who return to their countries of origin. One reason is that people nowadays tend to be more mobile, and that it is easier than in the past to save the return fare, but economic conditions also have something to do with it. A slower rate of growth invariably produces discontent—and if this coincides with greater prosperity in Europe, a lot of people tend to feel that perhaps they were wrong to come here after all. (8)Several surveys have been conducted recently into the reasons why people go home. One noted that “flies, dirt, and outside lavatories“ were on the list of complaints from British immigrants, and added that many people also complained about “ the crudity, bad manners, and unfriendliness of the Australians“. Another survey gave climate conditions, homesickness, and “ the stark appearance of the Australian countryside“ as the main reasons for leaving. (9)Most British migrants miss council housing, the National Health scheme, and their relatives and former neighbors. Loneliness is a big factor, especially among housewives. The men soon make new friends at work, but wives tend to find it much harder to get used to a different way of life. Many are housebound because of inadequate public transport in most outlying suburbs, and regular correspondence with their old friends at home only serves to increase their discontent. One housewife was quoted recently as saying: “ I even find I miss the people I used to hate at home. “ (10)Rents are high, and there are long waiting lists for Housing Commission homes. Sickness can be an expensive business and the climate can be unexpectedly rough. The gap between Australian and British wage packets is no longer big, and people are generally expected to work harder here than they do at home. Professional men over forty often have difficulty in finding a decent job. Above all, perhaps, skilled immigrants often find a considerable reluctance to accept their qualifications. (11)According to the journal Australian Manufacturer, the attitude of many employers and fellow workers is anything but friendly. “ We Australians,“ it stated in a recent issue, “ are just too fond of painting the rosy picture of the big, warm-hearted Aussie. As a matter of fact, we are so busy blowing our own trumpets that we have not got time to be warm-hearted and considerate. Go down ’ heart-break alley’ among some of the migrants and find out just how expansive the Aussie is to his immigrants. “

(1)Some of the advantages of bilingualism include better performance at tasks involving “ executive function“(which involves the brain’s ability to plan and prioritize), better defense against dementia in old age and—the obvious—the ability to speak a second language. One purported advantage was not mentioned, though. Many multilinguals report different personalities, or even different worldviews, when they speak their different languages. (2)It’s an exciting notion, the idea that one’s very self could be broadened by the mastery of two or more languages. In obvious ways(exposure to new friends, literature and so forth)the self really is broadened. Yet it is different to claim—as many people do—to have a different personality when using a different language. A former Economist colleague, for example, reported being ruder in Hebrew than in English. So what is going on here? (3)Benjamin Lee Whorf, an American linguist who died in 1941, held that each language encodes a worldview that significantly influences its speakers. Often called “ Whorfianism“ , this idea has its sceptics, but there are still good reasons to believe language shapes thought. (4)This influence is not necessarily linked to the vocabulary or grammar of a second language. Significantly, most people are not symmetrically bilingual. Many have learned one language at home from parents, and another later in life, usually at school. So bilinguals usually have different strengths and weaknesses in their different languages—and they are not always best in their first language. For example, when tested in a foreign language, people are less likely to fall into a cognitive trap(answering a test question with an obvious-seeming but wrong answer)than when tested in their native language. In part this is because working in a second language slows down the thinking. No wonder people feel different when speaking them. And no wonder they feel looser, more spontaneous, perhaps more assertive or funnier or blunter, in the language they were reared in from childhood. (5)What of “crib“ bilinguals, raised in two languages? Even they do not usually have perfectly symmetrical competence in their two languages. But even for a speaker whose two languages are very nearly the same in ability, there is another big reason that person will feel different in the two languages. This is because there is an important distinction between bilingualism and biculturalism. (6)Many bilinguals are not bicultural. But some are. And of those bicultural bilinguals, we should be little surprised that they feel different in their two languages. Experiments in psychology have shown the power of “priming“—small unnoticed factors that can affect behavior in big ways. Asking people to tell a happy story, for example, will put them in a better mood. The choice between two languages is a huge prime. Speaking Spanish rather than English, for a bilingual and bicultural Puerto Rican in New York, might conjure feelings of family and home. Switching to English might prime the same person to think of school and work. (7)So there are two very good reasons(asymmetrical ability, and priming)that make people feel different speaking their different languages. We are still left with a third kind of argument, though. An economist recently interviewed here at Prospero, Athanasia Chalari, said for example that: Greeks are very loud and they interrupt each other very often. The reason for that is the Greek grammar and syntax. When Greeks talk they begin their sentences with verbs and the form of the verb includes a lot of information so you already know what they are talking about after the first word and can interrupt more easily. (8)Is there something intrinsic to the Greek language that encourages Greeks to interrupt? People seem to enjoy telling tales about their languages’ inherent properties, and how they influence their speakers. A group of French intellectual worthies once proposed, rather self-flatteringly, that French be the sole legal language of the EU, because of its supposedly unmatchable rigor and precision. Some Germans believe that frequently putting the verb at the end of a sentence makes the language especially logical. But language myths are not always self-flattering: many speakers think their languages are unusually illogical or difficult—witness the plethora of books along the lines of “ Only in English do you park on a driveway and drive on a parkway: English must be the craziest language in the world!“ We also see some unsurprising overlap with national stereotypes and self-stereotypes: French, rigorous: German, logical: English, playful. Of course. (9)In this case, Ms Chalari, a scholar, at least proposed a specific and plausible line of causation from grammar to personality: in Greek, the verb comes first, and it carries a lot of information, hence easy interrupting. The problem is that many unrelated languages all around the world put the verb at the beginning of sentences. Many languages all around the world are heavily inflected, encoding lots of information in verbs. It would be a striking finding if all of these unrelated languages had speakers more prone to interrupting each other. Welsh, for example, is also both verb-first and about as heavily inflected as Greek, but the Welsh are not known as pushy conversationalists.

PASSAGE TWO

She quickened her steps because she______.

Why didn’t she enter Storm and King the first time?

What does “every foot of her progress being a satisfactory portion of a flight which she gladly made“ mean according to the context(Para. 2)?

Why did she feel greatly relieved(Para. 7)?