作者：北京新航道學(xué)校 李傳偉
發(fā)表于《求學(xué)·考研》第五期
閱讀，是考研英語(yǔ)中的重頭戲，幾乎占到試卷總分的一半，而且閱讀題的詞匯量大，題目多，一旦做不好，不但會(huì)失分，還會(huì)影響后面試題的發(fā)揮，閱讀就此成了英語(yǔ)考試失分的重災(zāi)區(qū)，如果能夠攻克這一堡壘，既為考試開個(gè)好頭，又能得分，一舉兩得。
如何高速有效地閱讀原文？許多同學(xué)運(yùn)用“地毯式”閱讀法，一字一句地讀下去，讀到每個(gè)詞時(shí)都若有所思、戰(zhàn)戰(zhàn)兢兢，惟恐意思稍有偏差，影響對(duì)整個(gè)文章的理解；或者沉溺于個(gè)別句子的繁瑣分析，惟恐不清楚句子的構(gòu)成，不理解句子的含義，從而導(dǎo)致答錯(cuò)題。這種緩慢而謹(jǐn)慎的閱讀方法，在心理上給閱讀者似乎一種虛假的踏實(shí)感，但是無(wú)論是從理解原文還是從做題的角度來(lái)看，這種方法花費(fèi)時(shí)間長(zhǎng)、效率低，不是很好有效的方法。針對(duì)這一普遍情況，筆者結(jié)合2006年閱讀題的第一篇文章介紹閱讀原文的一種行之有效的：詳讀重點(diǎn)、略讀細(xì)節(jié)、跳讀修飾——“三讀法”。
一、 詳讀重點(diǎn)
重點(diǎn)：就原文而言，就是文章的基本結(jié)構(gòu)、內(nèi)容和態(tài)度；就答題而言，就是問(wèn)題所對(duì)應(yīng)的原文的出題句。以這個(gè)標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來(lái)衡量，需要重點(diǎn)閱讀的原文詞句就不會(huì)很多，因?yàn)槲恼潞竺嬷挥形宓李}，它們對(duì)應(yīng)的原文在五句左右，為了回答文章后面的問(wèn)題，需要重點(diǎn)閱讀原文的下列內(nèi)容：
1． 宏觀方面――①文章結(jié)構(gòu)；②文章主題句；③各段首末句；④作者態(tài)度。
2． 微觀方面――①有轉(zhuǎn)折處；②重要標(biāo)點(diǎn)；③句子主干。
二、 略讀細(xì)節(jié)
相對(duì)于論點(diǎn)而言，論據(jù)是細(xì)節(jié)性的，如果明白論點(diǎn)，論據(jù)可以讀得較快；相對(duì)于段落主題而言，解釋段落主題的支持句是細(xì)節(jié)性的。可以略讀的細(xì)節(jié)包括例子和解釋。
三、 跳讀修飾
細(xì)節(jié)性的修飾，只對(duì)論點(diǎn)起次要的補(bǔ)充說(shuō)明作用，第一遍閱讀時(shí)可以跳過(guò)。此外，這些細(xì)節(jié)性的東西通常也不出題，即使涉及問(wèn)題，到時(shí)候看也來(lái)得及。可以跳讀的細(xì)節(jié)包括：
1． 兩個(gè)逗號(hào)之間的問(wèn)題
2． 兩個(gè)破折號(hào)之間的問(wèn)題
3． 人物的頭銜
4． 并列敘述
下面以2006年考研閱讀第一篇為例，具體說(shuō)明如何運(yùn)用“三讀法”達(dá)到最佳效果。
In spite of “endless talk of difference, American society is an amazing machine for homogenizing people. There is “the democratizing uniformity of dress and discourse, and the casualness and absence of deference” characteristic of popular culture. People are absorbed into “a culture of consumption”, launched by the 19th-entury department stores that offered “vast arrays of goods in an elegant atmosphere. Instead of intimate shops catering to a knowledgeable elite” these were stores “anyone could enter, regardless of class or background. This turned shopping into a public and democratic act. ” The mass media, advertising and sports are other forces for homogenization.
Immigrants are quickly fitting into this common culture, which may not be altogether elevating but is hardly poisonous. Writing for the National Immigration Forum, Gregory Rodriguez reports that today’s immigration is neither at unprecedented level nor resistant to assimilation. In 1998 immigrants were 9.8 percent of population; in 1900, 13.6 percent. In the 10 years prior to 1990, 3.1 immigrants arrived for every 1,000 residents; in the 10 years prior to 1890, 9.2 for every 1,000. Now, consider three indices of assimilation—language, home ownership and intermarriage.
The 1990 Census revealed that “a majority of immigrants from each of the fifteen most common countries of origin spoke English ‘well’ or ‘very well’ after ten years of residence. ” The children of immigrants tend to be bilingual and proficient in English. “By the third generation, the original language is lost in the majority of immigrant families.”Hence the description of America as a “graveyard” for languages. By 1996 foreign-born immigrants who had arrived before 1970 had a home ownership rate of 75.6 percent, higher than the 69.8 percent rate among native-born Americans.
Foreign-born Asians and Hispanics “have higher rates of intermarriage than do U.S-born whites and blacks. ” By the third generation, one third of Hispanic women are married to non-Hispanics, and 41 percent of Asian-American women are married to non-Asians.
Rodriguez notes that children in remote villages around the world are fans of superstars like Arnold Schwarzenegger and Garth Brooks, yet “some Americans fear that immigrants living within the United States remain somehow immune to the nation’s assimilative power.”
Are there divisive issues and pockets of seething anger in America? Indeed. It is big enough to have a bit of everything. But particularly when viewed against America’s turbulent past, today’s social indices hardly suggest a dark and deteriorating social environment.
