2019年专业英语八级真题答案解析（目前都未出版，此仅供参考)
2019年专业英语八级真题答案解析（目前都未出版，此仅供参考)
SECTION A MINI-LECTURE
录音原文文字（手工输入，仅供参考）
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 nonverbal 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)
【参考答案与解析】
1.答案：power and dominance (只写出一个得 0.5 分）
解析：讲座主题是身体语言和心智的关系，讲座重点在于“power dynamics”，也就是权力 和主导的非语言表达（non-verbal expressions of power and dominance)。
2•答案：expanding (openingup也可以接受）
解析：动物界和人类表现“权力”时的非语言表达从根本上相同的，g卩expanding (肢体扩展）。 原文线索：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 (填入名词性成分较妥）
解析：人在感觉无权力时，则表现出与“扩展”相反的行为，即“合拢、收缩”（close up)。原
： But what do we do when we feel powerless? We do exactly the opposite. We close up.
4•答案：complementary (需要变换词形，注意系动词become)
解析：权力占优和权力不占优的人群同处的情形下，双方的肢体行为往往是互补式的 (what we tend to do when it comes to power is that we complement the others non-verbals),
即一方强势且扩展式肢体语言，另一方弱势且合拢式肢体语言。换言之，人们并不是相互模
仿，不互为镜像（We don't mirror them. We do the opposite.)。
5•答案：dominance (desire for dominance 艮P “支酉己欲’，）
解析：主讲人提到了课堂的现实例子。MBA学生在上课前的种种表现
(...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“支酉己欲或主导欲”。
6. 答案：sex或者gender
解析：主讲人还注意到女性比起男性，在非语言表达上会表现得较弱势。这说明“权力非语 言行为”跟性别也有联系。
7•答案：body and mind 或 mind and body (AandB，只写出一个得 0.5 分）
解析：讲座的第二个话题是关于“身体和心智之间的关系”。原文线索：
: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 个词写不全或只得 0.5 分）
解析：在心智层面，权力占优的人会表现的更加坚定、自信、乐观。原文线索：
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 (只写出一个得 0.5 分）
解析：生理上来看，权力占优和不占优的人群的区别在于两类激素的水平 (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：这里涉及到实验流程的第二步，也就是在完成posing的任务后，不同组的实验对象， 被给予“小赌一把”的机会。原文线索：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：实验结果表明：权力占优的人群的“支配激素”水平会显著增加（权力不占优人群的 “支配激素”水平会下降）。原文线索：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：实验结果表明：权力不占优的人群“压力激素”水平会显著增加（权力占优人群的 “压力激素”水平会下降）。原文线索：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 (此空需填入形容词性成分，连字符不能少）
解析：两分钟的实验训练，就会改变大脑的激素水平，可以“令大脑变得更加坚定、自信
(其实坚定和自信更多是指人本身）”，或者说“对压力有反应”。从实验的角度来看，
“对压力有反应”这里才是大脑的特征概括。所以，答案填写stress-reactive。原文线索：
...... 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：讲座结论部分认为身体会改变心智，心智会改变行为，而行为则影响结果。原文线索: 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 (感觉这一题是送分来的）
角军析：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 提问：What do the speakers mainly talk about?
原文线索：Are you saying global warming isn't a fact? Deforestation isn't a fact? The
greenhouse effect isn't actually happening?(全球变暖及其连锁反应）
2.C 提问：What does the woman think of global warming?
原文线索：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.(女士认为人类
所知的观测结果还不足够证实全球变暖，这只是整个气候循环的暂时变化）
3 B 提问：What is the man mainly concerned about?
原文线索：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 主要关切就在于人类活动对于环境造成的负面影响，并向女士举了很多例子）
4. C 提问：What do the speakers both agree about on the topic?
双方谈及亚马逊雨林被破坏的事实，都承认人类对环境的破环。但男士认为应该保护动物栖 息地，减少人类破坏；而女士认为应该让大自然去选择动物的生存与否。男士的立场在开头 我们及明白，而女士在此也承认"And，yes，it's true that there are several problems
worldwide caused by human influence.”
5. C 提问：What is the woman’s attitude toward the topic?
整个对话来看，女士对于"全球变暖"是持有怀疑态度的。她认为男士所列举出的事实，证 据还不够充分。至于她是不是非常客观，无法判定。因为本身全球变暖问题的相关研究也存 在诸多争议。但男女双方都认同人类对环境破坏的事实。
6. C 提问：According to the woman, what is the biggest problem in teaching disciplinary literacy?
原文线索：…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.(教师本身对于学科素养认识不足或存在误解，所以导致他们 对于学生的课堂反映不能确定，甚至主观地认为学生动机不足）
7. D 提问：What does disciplinary literacy really mean?
原文线索：
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.(也就是能够开展该学科的相关专业工作的能力）
8. B 提问：What would a more disciplinary assessment ask students to do?
原文线索：I think a more disciplinary assessment would seek to find out whether students are interpreting such information in a sophisticated way.
9. D 提问：Which is the best practice in teacher training institutions to promote disciplinary literacy teaching?
原文线索：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 提问：What is the purpose of the interview?
听力原文
(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?
访谈2录音文字
(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.
