The human sense of smell is weak.That is well known, and is suspected by many anthropologists of being the result of a trade-off(协调) in favor of visual processing power. In the specific case of people, however, the relative weakness of smell compared with sight extends to language, too. Humans have no difficulty putting names to colors but are notoriously bad at putting names to smells.
That might also be caused by how the brain is wired. But some doubt this. They suggest it is more likely a consequence of the tendency of languages to contain words useful to their speakers. Since smells matter little to most people, most languages have few abstract words for them. A study just published in Current Biology, by Asian Majid at Radboud University in the Netherlands and Nicole Kruspe at Lund University in Sweden supports this.
Dr. Majid knew from previous work she had done that the Jahai, a group of hunter-gatherers who live in western Malaysia, are remarkably good at naming smells. Dr. Majid suggested that it might, in part, be because the Jahai have a dozen wards dedicated to describing different sorts of smells in the abstract. For example, the Jahai use the word “cŋεs” for stinging(刺激的) sorts of smells associated with petrol, smoke and various insects, and “pleŋ” for bloody, fishy and meaty sorts of smells. According to Dr Majid, only “musty” is able to act in this way in English without drawing on analogy (banana-like, gooseberry-noted, and even earthy and sweet-smelling, are all analogies of some sort).
They also looked at how two other groups of people from the Malay Peninsula(马来半岛)used terms for colors and smells. These were the Semaq Beri who also hunt and gather for a living, and the Semelai, who cultivate rice. They found tat the Semaq Beri used abstract terms for smells 86% of the time-about as often as they did for colours, which was 80％. The Semelai also used abstract colour descriptions at a similar rate, namely 78％ of the time. But when it came to describing odours they relied on abstraction on only 44％ of occasions, while resorting to analogies, such as “banana” and “chocolate”, 56％ of the time. Given these findings, Dr.Majid and Dr.Kruspe argue that it is the hunting-and-gathering way of life, rather than the use of a particular language, that is crucial to the use of abstract names for smells.
38. What leads to the difficulty of describing smells according to Majid's study?
A. The imbalance between smell and sight.
B. The poor function of the human nose.
C. The structure of the brain.
D. Lack of relevant vocabulary.
39. What can be inferred from the examples in Paragraph 3?
A. English mainly relies on analogy to name smells.
B. Analogy is often used in the Jan a i language to names smells.
C. “Musty”is an English word using analogy to name a smell.
D. English borrows some words for smells from the Jahai language.
40. What can we learn from the study about two other groups?
A. Language plays a decisive role in_naming smells.
B. The two groups were equally good at describing colors.
C. The Semaq Beri's lifestyle helped them have an edge in naming smells.
D. Surviving in the forest has greater effect on human language than farming.
【答案】
That might also be caused by how the brain is wired. But some doubt this. They suggest it is more likely a consequence of the tendency of languages to contain words useful to their speakers. Since smells matter little to most people, most languages have few abstract words for them. A study just published in Current Biology, by Asian Majid at Radboud University in the Netherlands and Nicole Kruspe at Lund University in Sweden supports this.
Dr. Majid knew from previous work she had done that the Jahai, a group of hunter-gatherers who live in western Malaysia, are remarkably good at naming smells. Dr. Majid suggested that it might, in part, be because the Jahai have a dozen wards dedicated to describing different sorts of smells in the abstract. For example, the Jahai use the word “cŋεs” for stinging(刺激的) sorts of smells associated with petrol, smoke and various insects, and “pleŋ” for bloody, fishy and meaty sorts of smells. According to Dr Majid, only “musty” is able to act in this way in English without drawing on analogy (banana-like, gooseberry-noted, and even earthy and sweet-smelling, are all analogies of some sort).
They also looked at how two other groups of people from the Malay Peninsula(马来半岛)used terms for colors and smells. These were the Semaq Beri who also hunt and gather for a living, and the Semelai, who cultivate rice. They found tat the Semaq Beri used abstract terms for smells 86% of the time-about as often as they did for colours, which was 80％. The Semelai also used abstract colour descriptions at a similar rate, namely 78％ of the time. But when it came to describing odours they relied on abstraction on only 44％ of occasions, while resorting to analogies, such as “banana” and “chocolate”, 56％ of the time. Given these findings, Dr.Majid and Dr.Kruspe argue that it is the hunting-and-gathering way of life, rather than the use of a particular language, that is crucial to the use of abstract names for smells.
38. What leads to the difficulty of describing smells according to Majid's study?
A. The imbalance between smell and sight.
B. The poor function of the human nose.
C. The structure of the brain.
D. Lack of relevant vocabulary.
39. What can be inferred from the examples in Paragraph 3?
A. English mainly relies on analogy to name smells.
B. Analogy is often used in the Jan a i language to names smells.
C. “Musty”is an English word using analogy to name a smell.
D. English borrows some words for smells from the Jahai language.
40. What can we learn from the study about two other groups?
A. Language plays a decisive role in_naming smells.
B. The two groups were equally good at describing colors.
C. The Semaq Beri's lifestyle helped them have an edge in naming smells.
D. Surviving in the forest has greater effect on human language than farming.
【答案】
苏19057182-3号