《托福阅读长难句你真的“读懂”了吗.doc》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《托福阅读长难句你真的“读懂”了吗.doc（32页珍藏版）》请在三一办公上搜索。
1、托福阅读长难句你真的“读懂”了吗 托福阅读长难句你真的“读懂”了吗?。今天给大家带来了如何读懂托福阅读长难句，希望可以帮助到大家，下面就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。托福阅读长难句你真的“读懂”了吗何谓“读懂”在课堂上经常会有同学问到：“老师我*中的句子都读懂了，为什么还是做不对题?”每次被如此问，我都会反问一句：“同学，*中的句子，你是真的“读懂”了吗?”究竟把TOEFL阅读中的长难句读到什么程度，才算是真正理解了这句话?大家不妨先来看看下面的例子：例1：农民希望通过他们的知识去存水来减少水的浪费让他们周围得利于用大量的水的动机，写下这个工序来减少全地区的水供应。例2：由于相邻的农民运用知识通过
2、大量使用水源而收益，那些对想要保存水源的农民的鼓励减少了，在这个过程中拉低了整个地区的水源供给。上述两句话来自TOEFL阅读课堂上同学们的练习，均是对同一句TOEFL长难句的翻译。其实只要读一下就会发现，两个译文中每一个汉字大家都认识，但却完全不能理解句中想要表达的意思，更不要说它们是同一句话了。这句话的原文为：The incentive of the farmers who wish to conserve water is reduced by their knowledge that many of their neighbors are profiting by using great
3、 amounts of water, and in the process are drawing down the entire regions water supplies.该英文句子中所使用的单词，是相对比较基础的“四级”阶段的词汇，并未涉及学术类的专业词汇，上述同学翻译的两个译文中，也都把句中的单词意思翻了出来，但为什么汉语译文却让人摸不着头脑?由此可见，同学们理解的“读懂”，更多的是在“读词”，认为句子里没有生词，或者翻译的时候把所有词的汉语释义都翻出来了，就算是读完了句子。如例1中所示，译文好像流水账一般把单词逐个译出，甚至是汉语的句子都难以理解;例2看上去要稍微好一点，至少汉语的
4、部分相对比较通顺，说明同学在翻译的过程中尝试过想要把句中的单词以某种形式串起来，但是自己挑出句中的单词组成的所谓合理的句子，跟原句中词的组合方式是不同的，因此也不是原文想表达的意思。概括一下就是：单纯翻译英文句子中的单词，或者脱离原文句法结构，按照自己的意愿组合句中的词义，都不是真正“读懂”了原文。而TOEFL这个语言考试中考查得就是能否用英文这种符号理解*所述的内容，没有看懂原文，自然也就会做错题了。如何“读懂”那么，怎样才能做到真正理解英文句子所表达的意思呢?英语“葡萄藤”式的句子结构重在“形合”，是在句子主干的基础上缠枝绕蔓，在核心意思的基础上添加修饰成分，使得一个句子越缠越长，信息越绕
5、越多。但只要抓住最核心的那根藤，即使修饰成分非常多，也能够层次清晰地理出个所以然来。相反，汉语则是“竹子节”式的句子结构，一个短句一个短句往下顺延，整体是一种“意合”的句式。当句子相对较简单时，英语与汉语比较容易对应起来，如“She is a beautiful girl”就可直接对应着翻成“她是一个美丽的姑娘”。但托福阅读的学术类语言中，经常出现三五行的长难句，层层叠叠，所以在理解英文的句子时，如果还是像理解汉语的流水句一样来翻译，当然就会跟原句意思差别很大了。因此，要想真正理解英语中的长难句，除了要积极补充词汇外，还要把英文的单词放在英语的句法结构中来理解，通过先找到英语句子中的主干信息，
6、再在其基础上添加修饰成分，把英语长难句拆成若干有序的小短句，才能够切实弄明白句子想要表达的内容。我们还是以上述的句子为例：The incentive of the farmers who wish to conserve water is reduced by their knowledge that many of their neighbors are profiting by using great amounts of water, and in the process are drawing down the entire regions water supplies.这句话中，句子
7、的主语是the incentive of the farmers, 谓语部分是被动语态is reduced by their knowledge, 可见句子就长在对名词farmers和knowledge的修饰上了。而knowledge后面的同位语从句中又可以划分出一个主干来，即主语为many of their neighbors, 谓语为并列的两部分are profiting和are drawing down the water supplies。所以整个句子的层次划分为：第一层：The incentive of the farmers(1) is reduced by their knowl
8、edge(2).第二层：1. The farmers wish to conserve water.2. Many of their neighbors are profiting and are drawing down water supplies.此时，原文的长难句就已经可以根据主次关系被拆分成若干个短句了。所以用汉语直译出来就是：第一层：农民的动机(1)被他们的知识(2)减少了。第二层：1. 这些农民想要节水。2. 知识指的是：他们的邻居正在通过大量用水来获利，并且在这个过程中， 还拉低了整个地区的水供应。因为TOEFL只是考查对原文的理解，并不是真正在考英汉翻译，所以其实把句子理解成
9、上面的程度足矣，如果还想再对汉语加工一下，只需把上述不同层次的内容串联起来即可，如：那些想要节水的农民的动机被减少了，是因为他们知道邻居们正在通过大量用水来获利，并且在这个过程中还拉低了整个地区的水供应。意思即为：因为看到邻居们在大量用水，并且从中获得了利益，所以那些想要节水的农民的动机就受到了影响。至此，才算是真正理解了原文想要表达的意思。通过根据英文的句法结构对原句进行“解构”和“重组”，英文原句中所体现的中心思想与逻辑关系就可以清晰展现出来了。这种句子分析多加练习，就会渐渐习惯成自然，读句子会越来越快，也越来越准确。“读句”与“做题”TOEFL阅读题目的设置，正是在验证大家是否真的弄明白
10、句子中所体现出来的逻辑关系，所以正确的选项也往往是对原文的同义转述，只有真正消化理解了原文的信息，才能看出选项是在用不同的句式或形式来表达同样的意思。例如*对*分析的长难句是如此来考查的：Paragraph 5 mentions which of the following as a source of difficulty for some farmers who try to conserve water?(A) Crops that do not need much water are difficult to grow in the High Plains.(B) Farmers wh
11、o grow crops that need a lot of water make higher profits.(C) Irrigating less frequently often leads to crop failure.(D) Few farmers are convinced that the aquifer will eventually run dry.(TPO 3 Depletion of the Ogallala Aquifer)题目并没有直接问农民知道了什么，而是问想要节水的农民面临的困难是什么，也就是在考查考生是否读懂原文的逻辑，即因为邻居在用水获益，所以想节水的人
12、也发生了动摇。因而答案应该选B。如果只是从*中挑词组成自己认为合理的意思，就会非常容易选择选项中看似有道理的选项了。综上，同学们在分析TOEFL阅读长难句时，不能仅仅满足于“单词都认识=读懂句子”，而是要从英语句子结构出发，找到句子主干及修饰成分，把单词放在英语的句子逻辑中来理解，才能真正读出英文想要表达的意思，才能体会到“读懂”就可以“做对”的成就感。托福阅读素材之缺失碳的情况托福阅读材料The Case of the Missing CarbonHeres what you need to know about the warming planet, how its affecting u
13、s, and whats at stake.By Tim AppenzellerRepublished from the pages of National Geographic magazineIts there on a monitor: the forest is breathing. Late summer sunlight filters through a canopy of green as Steven Wofsy unlocks a shed in a Massachusetts woodland and enters a room stuffed with equipmen
14、t and tangled with wires and hoses.The machinery monitors the vital functions of a small section of Harvard Forest in the center of the state. Bright red numbers dance on a gauge, flickering up and down several times a second. The reading reveals the carbon dioxide concentration just above the treet
15、ops near the shed, where instruments on a hundred-foot (30-meter) tower of steel lattice sniff the air. The numbers are running surprisingly low for the beginning of the 21st century: around 360 parts per million, ten less than the global average. Thats the trees doing. Basking in the sunshine, they
16、 inhale carbon dioxide and turn it into leaves and wood.In nourishing itself, this patch of pine, oak, and maple is also undoing a tiny bit of a great global change driven by humanity. Start the car, turn on a light, adjust the thermostat, or do just about anything, and you add carbon dioxide to the
17、 atmosphere. If youre an average resident of the United States, your contribution adds up to more than 5.5 tons (5 metric tons) of carbon a year.The coal, oil, and natural gas that drive the industrial worlds economy all contain carbon inhaled by plants hundreds of millions of years agocarbon that n
18、ow is returning to the atmosphere through smokestacks and exhaust pipes, joining emissions from forest burned to clear land in poorer countries. Carbon dioxide is foremost in an array of gases from human activity that increase the atmospheres ability to trap heat. (Methane from cattle, rice fields,
19、and landfills, and the chlorofluorocarbons in some refrigerators and air conditioners are others.) Few scientists doubt that this greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is already taking hold. Melting glaciers, earlier springs, and a steady rise in global average temperature are just some of its harbi
20、ngers.By rights it should be worse. Each year humanity dumps roughly 8.8 billion tons (8 metric tons) of carbon into the atmosphere, 6.5 billion tons (5.9 metric tons) from fossil fuels and 1.5 billion (1.4 metric) from deforestation. But less than half that total, 3.2 billion tons (2.9 metric tons)
21、, remains in the atmosphere to warm the planet. Where is the missing carbon? Its a really major mystery, if you think about it, says Wofsy, an atmospheric scientist at Harvard University. His research site in the Harvard Forest is apparently not the only place where nature is breathing deep and help
22、ing save us from ourselves. Forests, grasslands, and the waters of the oceans must be acting as carbon sinks. They steal back roughly half of the carbon dioxide we emit, slowing its buildup in the atmosphere and delaying the effects on climate.Who can complain? No one, for now. But the problem is th
23、at scientists cant be sure that this blessing will last, or whether, as the globe continues to warm, it might even change to a curse if forests and other ecosystems change from carbon sinks to sources, releasing more carbon into the atmosphere than they absorb. The doubts have sent researchers into
24、forests and rangelands, out to the tundra and to sea, to track down and understand the missing carbon.This is not just a matter of intellectual curiosity. Scorching summers, fiercer storms, altered rainfall patterns, and shifting speciesthe disappearance of sugar maples from New England, for example
25、are some of the milder changes that global warming might bring. And humanity is on course to add another 200 to 600 parts per million to atmospheric carbon dioxide by late in the century. At that level, says Princeton University ecologist Steve Pacala, all kinds of terrible things could happen, and
26、the universe of terrible possibilities is so large that probably some of them will. Coral reefs could vanish; deserts could spread; currents that ferry heat from the tropics to northern regions could change course, perhaps chilling the British Isles and Scandinavia while the rest of the globe keeps
27、warming.If nature withdraws its helping handif the carbon sinks stop absorbing some of our excess carbon dioxidewe could be facing drastic changes even before 2050, a disaster too swift to avoid. But if the carbon sinks hold out or even grow, we might have extra decades in which to wean the global e
28、conomy from carbon-emitting energy sources. Some scientists and engineers believe that by understanding natural carbon sinks, we may be able to enhance them or even create our own places to safely jail this threat to global climate.The backdrop for these hopes and fears is a natural cycle as real as
29、 your own breathing and as abstract as the numbers on Wofsys instruments. In 1771, about the time of the first stirrings of the industrial revolution and its appetite for fossil fuel, an English minister grasped key processes of the natural carbon cycle. In a series of ingenious experiments, Joseph
30、Priestley found that flames and animals breath injure the air in a sealed jar, making it unwholesome to breathe. But a green sprig of mint, he found, could restore its goodness. Priestley could not name the gases responsible, but we know now that the fire and respiration used up oxygen and gave off
31、carbon dioxide. The mint reversed both processes. Photosynthesis took up the carbon dioxide, converted it into plant tissue, and gave off oxygen as a by-product.The world is just a bigger jar. Tens of billions of tons of carbon a year pass between land and the atmosphere: given off by living things
32、as they breathe and decay and taken up by green plants, which produce oxygen. A similar traffic in carbon, between marine plants and animals, takes place within the waters of the ocean. And nearly a hundred billion tons of carbon diffuse back and forth between ocean and atmosphere.Compared with thes
33、e vast natural exchanges, the few billion tons of carbon that humans contribute to the atmosphere each year seem paltry. Yet like a finger on a balance, our steady contributions are throwing the natural cycle out of whack. The atmospheres carbon backup is growing: Its carbon dioxide level has risen
34、by some 30 percent since Priestleys time. It may now be higher than it has been in at least 20 million years.Pieter Tans is one of the scientists trying to figure out why those numbers arent even worse. At a long, low National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) laboratory set against pine
35、-clad foothills in Boulder, Colorado, Tans and his colleagues draw conclusions from the subtlest of clues. They measure minute differences in the concentration of carbon dioxide in air samples collected at dozens of points around the globe by weather stations, airplanes, and ships.These whiffs of ai
36、r are stacked against a wall in Tanss lab in 2.6-quart (2.5-liter) glass flasks. Because the churning of the atmosphere spreads carbon dioxide just about evenly around the planet, concentrations in the bottles dont differ by more than a fraction of a percent. But the differences hold clues to the gl
37、obal pattern of carbon dioxide sources and sinks. Scientists calculate, for example, that carbon dioxide should pile up in the Northern Hemisphere, which has most of the worlds cars and industry. But the air samples show a smaller than expected difference from south to north. That means, Tans says,
38、that there has to be a very large sink of carbon in the Northern Hemisphere.Other clues in the air samples hint at what that sink is. Both the waters of the ocean and the plants on land steal carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. But they leave different fingerprints behind. Because plants give off ox
39、ygen when they absorb carbon dioxide, a plant sink would lead to a corresponding oxygen increase. But when carbon dioxide dissolves in the ocean, no oxygen is added to the atmosphere.Plants taking in carbon dioxide also change what they leave behind. Thats because plants prefer gas that contains car
40、bon 12, a lighter form of the carbon atom. The rejected gas, containing carbon 13, builds up in the atmosphere. The ocean, though, does not discriminate, leaving the carbon ratio unchanged. From these clues, Tans and others have found that while the ocean is soaking up almost half the globes missing
41、 carbon2 billion tons (1.8 billion metric tons) of itthe sink in the Northern Hemisphere appears to be the work of land plants. Their appetite for carbon dioxide surges and ebbs, but they remove, on average, more than 2 billion tons (1.8 billion metric tons) of carbon a year.Forests like Wofsys are
42、one place where its happening. For more than a decade his group has monitored the carbon dioxide traffic between the trees and the air. Instruments on his tower track air above the treetops as wind and solar heating stir it. As each waft of air passes the tower, sensors measure its carbon dioxide co
43、ntent. The theory is simple, says Wofsy: If an air parcel going up has less carbon dioxide than an air parcel going down, you have carbon dioxide being deposited onto the forest.The amount changes fast. Sunshine, perhaps the temperature, rainfall over the past weekall those factors affect what the f
44、orest does on an hour-to-hour basis, he says. Even a passing cloud can dampen photosynthesis, spoiling the trees appetite for carbon. In winter, when leaves fall and decay, more carbon dioxidea by-product of plant respiration and decompositionseeps back out of the forest and into the atmosphere. Sti
45、ll, over more than ten years, the bottom line of billions of measurements has been positive. On balance, Harvard Forest is sieving carbon from the atmosphere.It shows in the trees and on the forest floor. To check that their high-tech air measurements werent somehow being fooled, Wofsys group strapp
46、ed calibrated steel bands around trees to measure their growth, gathered and weighed deadfall, and set up bins to collect fallen leaves. The idea was to measure just how much carbon-containing wood and other organic matter was building up in the forest, and to see if it matched the gas measurements.
47、 It did. Each acre of the forest has been taking roughly 0.8 ton (0.75 metric ton) of carbon out of the atmosphere annually, doing its humble part to counteract greenhouse warming.Other forests at research sites in the eastern U.S. are putting on weight as well. Thats no surprise, Wofsy says. In the
48、 eastern U.S., the most common age for a forest is 40 to 60 years. Thats the kind of forest thats going to be growing.The current Harvard Forest, in fact, has a precise birth date: 1938, when a hurricane barreled in from the Atlantic and leveled earlier stands of trees. Elsewhere in the U.S. humans
49、were the hurricane, clearing vast stands of forest for farming. Abandoned in the early 20th century as agriculture shifted westward to the plains, the land is yielding to forest again. The trees, still young, are getting taller and stouter and putting on denser wood. Year by year this slow alchemy locks up carbon in thousa
