英語四級聽力美文原文

　　閱讀經典美文可以豐富學生的知識,鞏固學習成果;可以提高學生的閱讀能力和寫作能力;可以學生的審美能力和陶冶情操。下面是小編帶來的，歡迎閱讀!

　　篇一

　　The English Humour 英國人的幽默

　　Fun seems to be the possession of the English race.Fun is JohnBulll's idea of humour，and there is no intellectualjudgment in fun.Everybody understands it be-cause it is practical.More than that，it unites allclasses and sweetens even political life.To studythe elemental form of English humour，you must look to the school-boy.It begins with the practical joke，and unless there is something of his natureabout it，it is never humour to an Englishman.Inan English household，fun is going all the time.The entire house resounds witn it.The father comes home and the whole family contribute to theamusement;puns，humorous uses of words，little things that are meaningless nonsense，if you like，fly round，and every one enjoys them thoroughly for just what they are.The Scotch are devoid ofthis trait，and the Americans seem to be，too.

　　If I had the power to give humour to the na-tions I would not give them drollery，for that isimpractical;I would not give them wit，for that isaristocratic，and many minds cannot grasp it;but Iwould be contented to deal out fun，which has nointellectual element，no subtlety，belongs to oldand young，educated and uneducated alike，and isthe natural form of the humour of the Englishman.

　　Let me tell you why the Englishman speaksonly one language.He believes with the strongest conviction that his own tongue is the one that allpeople ought to speak and will come in time tospeak，so what is the use of learning any other?Hebelieves，too，that he is appointed by Providenceto be a governor of all the rest of the human race.From our Scottish standpoint we can never see anEnglishman without thinking that there is oozing from every pore of his body the conviction that he belongs to a governing race.It has not been his de-sire that large portions of the world should be un-der his care，but as they have been thrust uponhim in the proceedings of a wise Providence，hemust discharge his duty.This theory hasn't en-deared him to others of his kind，but that isn't amatter that concerns him.He doesn't learn anyother language because he knows that he couldspeak it only so imperfectly that other people would laugh at him，and it would never do that aperson of his importance in the scheme of the uni-verse should be made the object of ridicule.

　　篇二

　　The English and the Americans 英國人和美國人

　　The contrasting English and American patterns have some remarkable implications, particularly if we assume that man, like other animals, has a built-in need to shut himself off from others from time to time. An English student in one of my seminars typified what happens when hidden patterns clash. He was quite obviously experiencing strain in his relationships with Americans. Nothing seemed to go right and it was quite clear from his remarks that we did not know how to behave. An analysis of his complaints showed that a major source of irritation was that no American seemed to be able to pick up the subtle clues that there were times when he didn’t want his thoughts intruded on. As he started it, “I’m walking around the apartment and it seems that whenever I want to be alone my roommate starts talking to me. Pretty soon he’s asking ‘What’s the matter?’ and wants to know if I’m angry. By then I am angry and say something.”

　　It took some time but finally we were able to identify most of the contrasting features of the American and Britain problems that were in conflict in this case. When the American wants to be alone he goes into a room and shuts the door---he depends on architectural features for screening. For an American to refuse to talk to someone else present in the same room, to give them the “silent treatment,” is the ultimate form of rejection and a sure sign of great displeasure. The English, on the other hand, lacking rooms of their own since childhood, never developed the practice of using space as a refuge from others. They have in effect internalized a set of barriers, which they erect and which others are supposed to recognize. Therefore, the more the Englishman shuts himself off when he is with an American the more likely the American is to break in to assure himself that all is well. Tension lasts until the two get to know each other. The important point is that the spatial and architectural needs of each are not the same at all.

　　篇三

　　The lowest animal

　　By Mark Twain

　　Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country-takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him. Man has done this in all the ages. There is not an acre of ground on the globe that is in possession of its rightful owner, or that has not been taken away from owner after owner, cycle after cycle, by force and bloodshed.

　　Man is the only Slave. And he is the only animal who enslaves. He has always been a slave in one form or another, and has always held other slaves in bondage under him in one way or another. In our day he is always some man's slave for wages, and does the man's work; and this slave has other slaves under him for minor wages, and they do his work. The higher animals are the only ones who exclusively do their own work and provide their own living.

　　Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man"-with his mouth.

　　Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion-several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven. He was at it in the time of Caesars, he was at it in Mahomet's time, he was at it in the time of the Inquisition, he was at it in France a couple of centuries, he was at it in England in Mary's day, he has been at it ever since he first saw the light, he is at it today in Crete-as per the telegrams quoted above*-he will be at it somewhere else tomorrow. The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out, in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.

　　Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I consider that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with that record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one.

　　In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.

　　最低等的動物

　　馬克吐溫

　　人是掠奪孤弱同類的家園的唯一動物。他把它據為己有，把他的同類趕走或消滅掉。人在各個時代都是這樣乾的。地球上沒有一畝土地未曾通過武力和流血周而復始地從一個又一個主人手裡奪走。

　　人是唯一的奴隸。他又是唯一的奴役他同類的動物。他永遠是這種或那種形式的奴隸，總是用這種或那種形式把其他奴隸置於自己的控制之下。在我們這個時代裡他 為了拿工資而充當別人的奴隸，替那個人幹活;這個奴隸的手下又有其他奴隸，他們為了更少的工資替他幹活。高等動物毫無例外地為自己幹活，靠自己謀生。

　　人是唯一的愛國者。他使自己在本國超群出眾，打出自己的旗號，訕笑其他的民族，他出重金豢養眾多穿制服的殺手去攫取其他國家一片又一片領土，並阻止別人攫取他的領土。在戰役的間歇他洗掉雙手的血跡，為“四海之內皆兄弟也”的理想奉獻力量——用他的嘴巴。

　　人是信宗教的動物。他是唯一信教的動物。他是唯一有“真正宗教”有好幾種的動物。他是愛鄰如己的唯一動物。如果鄰人的宗教不對頭，那就割斷那鄰人的喉 嚨。他把地球變成一片墓地，最忠誠的為他的弟兄鋪平通向幸福和天國的道路。他在愷撒時代這樣幹，他在穆罕默德時代這樣幹，他在宗教審判時代這樣幹，他在法 國這樣幹了兩個世紀，他在英國瑪麗女王6時代這樣幹，自從他第一次見到光以來他一直這樣幹，他現在在克里特島上這樣幹——根據上面所引的電文7， 他明天將在其他地方這樣幹。高等動物沒有宗教。我們聽說在“來世”要把它們去除掉。我不懂這是為什麼?這種鑑別能力是很成問題的。

　　人是“理性的動物”。這是他自許的。我認為值得爭議。我的實驗確實向我證明他是“非理性的動物”。請注意上面簡述的他的歷史。不管他是什麼，他不是理性的 動物。我感到這一點是很清楚的。他的歷史是一個瘋子的狂亂歷史。我認為對他的理智最強有力的反證就是：儘管他的背後有那樣一部歷史，他還厚顏無恥地自封為 萬物之首，但按照他自己規定的標準來衡量，他是最底層的動物。

　　事實上人的愚蠢已經到了不可救藥的地步。其他動物很容易學會的東西，他就是學不會。我的實驗中就有這一項。我在一個小時之內教會一隻貓和一隻狗做朋友。我 把它們放進一個籠子。另一個小時之內我教會它們和一個兔子做朋友。在兩天內我還能加上一隻狐狸、一隻鵝、一隻松鼠，和幾隻鴿子。最後還有一個猴子。它們住 在一起相安無事，甚至相親相愛。