词汇语法
词汇语法
The Development of Ballet
Ballet is a dance form that has a long history. The fact that it survives to this day shows that it has adjusted as times have changed.
Ballet began in the royal courts during the Renaissance. At that time it became common for kings and queens, as well as other nobility, to participate in pageants that included music, poetry, and dance. 1 As these entertainments moved from the Italian courts to the French ones, court ladies began participating in them. Though their long dresses prevented much movement, they were able to perform elaborate walking patterns. It was not until the 1600s that women dancers shortened their skirts, changed to flat shoes, and began doing some of the leaps and turns performed by men. 2
It was also in the 1600s that professional ballet began. King Louis XIV of France, himself a devoted dancer, founded the Royal Academy of Dance. The five basic feet positions from which all ballet steps begin were finalized. 3 In the late 1700s another important change occurred. Ballet began to tell a story on its own. It was no longer simply dance to be performed between acts of plays. Elaborate wigs and costumes were eliminated. By the early 1800s dancers to rise on their toes to make it appear that were floating.
Classical ballet as we know it today was influenced primarily by Russian dancing. The Russians remained interested in ballet when it declined in other European countries in the mid-1800s. One of the most influential figures of the early 20th century was Sergei Diaghilev. His dance company, the Ballets Russes, brought a new energy and excitement to ballet. One of his chief assistants, George Balanchine, went on to found the New York City Ballet in 1948 and to influence new generations of dancers.
词汇：
adjust /ə"dʒʌst/ v．调整
pageant /"pædʒənt/n．盛会
eliminate/i"limineit/ v．淘汰
influential /influ"enʃəl/ adj．有影响力的
注释：
1.At that time it became common for kings and queens, as well as other nobility, to participate in pageants that included music, poetry, and dance．在那时，芭蕾舞在国王、王后以及贵族之间变得普遍，并且与音乐、诗歌以及舞蹈一起参与到盛会的表演。
2.It was not until the 1600s that women dancers shortened their skirts, changed to flat shoes, and began doing some of the leaps and turns performed by men．直到17世纪女舞者缩短了她们的裙子，改穿平底鞋，并且通过男舞者的帮助开始做一些跳跃和转圈动作。
3.The five basic feet positions from which all ballet steps begin were finalized．由此正式确定了脚的5个基本位置，这5个外开的位置成为发展芭蕾舞技术的基础。
An important influence in early ballet was ______.
A:Balanchine B:Marie Antoinette C:Diaghilev D:Louis XIV
In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that "social epidemics" are driven in large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals, often called influentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well connected. The idea is intuitively compelling--we think we see it happening all the time--but it doesn’t explain how ideas actually spread.
The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested theory called the "two-step flow of communication": Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those select people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. In many such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing, promoting or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends.
In their recent work, however, some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they don’t seem to be required at all.
The researchers’ argument stems from a simple observation about social influence, with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey--whose outside presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal influence--even the most influential members of a population simply don’t interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who, according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example, the cascade of change won’t propagate very far or affect many people.
Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to people’s ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced.
A:stay outside the network of social influence B:have little contact with the source of influence C:are influenced and then influence others D:are influenced by the initial influential
In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that "social epidemics" are driven in large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals, often called influentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well connected. The idea is intuitively compelling--we think we see it happening all the time--but it doesn’t explain how ideas actually spread.
The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested theory called the "two-step flow of communication": Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those select people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. In many such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing, promoting or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends.
In their recent work, however, some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they don’t seem to be required at all.
The researchers’ argument stems from a simple observation about social influence, with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey--whose outside presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal influence--even the most influential members of a population simply don’t interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who, according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example, the cascade of change won’t propagate very far or affect many people.
Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to people’s ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced.
A:The eagerness to be accepted B:The impulse to influence others C:The readiness to be influenced D:The inclination to rely on others
maternal influence
Text 3 In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Aladuell argues that social epidemics are driven in large part by the acting of a tiny minority of special individuals, often called influentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well-connected. The idea is intuitively compelling, but it doesn’t explain how ideas actually spread. The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible sounding but largely untested theory called the “two step flow of communication”: Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those selected people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. In many such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing, promoting, or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends In their recent work, however, some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they don’t seem to be required of all. The researchers’ argument stems from a simple observing about social influence, with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal, influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don’t interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who, according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected, must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example from the initial influential prove resistant, for example the cascade of change won’t propagate very far or affect many people. Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to people’s ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced. Our work shows that the principal requirement for what we call “global cascades”– the widespread propagation of influence through networks – is the presence not of a few influentials but, rather, of a critical mass of easily influenced people, each of whom adopts, say, a look or a brand after being exposed to a single adopting neighbor. Regardless of how influential an individual is locally, he or she can exert global influence only if this critical mass is available to propagate a chain reaction.
The underlined phrase “these people” in paragraph 4 refers to the ones who（）A:stay outside the network of social influence B:have little contact with the source of influence C:are influenced and then influence others D:are influenced by the initial influential
Text 3 In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Aladuell argues that social epidemics are driven in large part by the acting of a tiny minority of special individuals, often called influentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well-connected. The idea is intuitively compelling, but it doesn’t explain how ideas actually spread. The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible sounding but largely untested theory called the “two step flow of communication”: Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those selected people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. In many such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing, promoting, or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends In their recent work, however, some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they don’t seem to be required of all. The researchers’ argument stems from a simple observing about social influence, with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey—whose outsize presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal, influence—even the most influential members of a population simply don’t interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who, according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected, must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example from the initial influential prove resistant, for example the cascade of change won’t propagate very far or affect many people. Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of populations manipulating a number of variables relating of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to people’s ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced. Our work shows that the principal requirement for what we call “global cascades”– the widespread propagation of influence through networks – is the presence not of a few influentials but, rather, of a critical mass of easily influenced people, each of whom adopts, say, a look or a brand after being exposed to a single adopting neighbor. Regardless of how influential an individual is locally, he or she can exert global influence only if this critical mass is available to propagate a chain reaction.
what is the essential element in the dynamics of social influence（）A:The eagerness to be accepted B:The impulse to influence others C:The readiness to be influenced D:The inclination to rely on others
In his book The Tipping Point, Malcolm Gladwell argues that "social epidemics" are driven in large part by the actions of a tiny minority of special individuals, often called influentials, who are unusually informed, persuasive, or well connected. The idea is intuitively compelling--we think we see it happening all the time--but it doesn’t explain how ideas actually spread.
The supposed importance of influentials derives from a plausible-sounding but largely untested theory called the "two-step flow of communication": Information flows from the media to the influentials and from them to everyone else. Marketers have embraced the two-step flow because it suggests that if they can just find and influence the influentials, those select people will do most of the work for them. The theory also seems to explain the sudden and unexpected popularity of certain looks, brands, or neighborhoods. In many such cases, a cursory search for causes finds that some small group of people was wearing, promoting or developing whatever it is before anyone else paid attention. Anecdotal evidence of this kind fits nicely with the idea that only certain special people can drive trends.
In their recent work, however, some researchers have come up with the finding that influentials have far less impact on social epidemics than is generally supposed. In fact, they don’t seem to be required at all.
The researchers’ argument stems from a simple observation about social influence, with the exception of a few celebrities like Oprah Winfrey--whose outside presence is primarily a function of media, not interpersonal influence--even the most influential members of a population simply don’t interact with that many others. Yet it is precisely these non-celebrity influentials who, according to the two-step-flow theory, are supposed to drive social epidemics, by influencing their friends and colleagues directly. For a social epidemic to occur, however, each person so affected must then influence his or her own acquaintances, who must in turn influence theirs, and so on; and just how many others pay attention to each of these people has little to do with the initial influential. If people in the network just two degrees removed from the initial influential prove resistant, for example, the cascade of change won’t propagate very far or affect many people.
Building on the basic truth about interpersonal influence, the researchers studied the dynamics of populations, manipulating a number of variables relating to people’s ability to influence others and their tendency to be influenced.
A:stay outside the network of social influence B:have little contact with the source of influence C:are influenced and then influence others D:are influenced by the initial influential
A:a desire to express himself B:the influence of the media C:the influence of friends D:a desire to be fashionable
您可能感兴趣的题目
