2011年廈門大學(xué)考研真題 閱讀及英美文學(xué)、語言學(xué)基礎(chǔ)

機(jī)密

★

啟用前和使用過程中廈門大學(xué)2011年招收攻讀碩士學(xué)位研究生入學(xué)考試試題科目代碼：814科目名稱：閱讀及英美文學(xué)、語言學(xué)基礎(chǔ)招生專業(yè)：英語語言文學(xué)、外國語言學(xué)及應(yīng)用語言考生須知：答題必須使用黑（藍(lán)）色墨水（圓珠）筆；不得直接在試卷（試題紙）或草稿紙上作答；凡未按上述規(guī)定作答均不予評(píng)閱、判分，后果考生自負(fù)。PartOne

ReadingComprehension

70pointsDirections:Eachpassagebelowisfollowedbyquestionsbasedonitscontent.Afterreadingapassage,choosethebestanswertoeachquestion.Answerallthequestionsfollowingthepassageonthebasisofwhatisstatedorimpliedinthatpassage.Passage1BushtodayinsiststhathehadagreattimeatYaleanddoesn’trecallanyunpleasantness.Butsomewherealongthewayhedevelopedasizablechiponhisshoulder.Hewouldlatercarpaboutthe“self-righteousness”and“intellectualsuperiority”oftheEastCoastliberalestablishmentthattookoverinstitutionslikeYaleinthe1960s.Asearlyas1964,hehadarun-inwithoneoftheavatarsoftheneworder,theRev.WilliamSloaneCoffin,theYalechaplainwhohadturnedonhisownAndover-and-Skull-and-Bonespasttobecameafieryradical,advisingstudentstoresistthedraft.BushbitterlyrecalledCoffin’stellinghim,afterhisfatherhadlostthe1964SenateraceinTexastoRalphYarborough,“Iknewyourfather,andhelosttoabetterman.”ToBush,Coffinembodiedthe“heaviness”and“guilt”oftheliberalEast.AtatimewhenYalestudentsagonizedendlesslyoverwhattodoaboutthedraft,Bushdoesnotappeartohavetalkedmuchabouthisownchoice.TovolunteerforVietnamwouldhaverequiredanactofboldnessandoutrightdefiance.Seekingbattlewasalmostunheardofamongundergraduates:itwassaidthatmoreYalestudentsweredyinginmotorcycleaccidentsthanincombatin1969.Atthesametime,accordingtohisYalefriendRolandBetts.Bushdidnotwanttopoliticallyembarrasshisfather.BushJr.tookarespectablehuteasywayout,joiningtheTexasNationalGuard.Determinedtomakeitonhisown,BushdidnottellhisfatherthathewasapplyingtoHarvardBusinessSchool.The“WestPointofCapitalism”wasnotinundatedwithapplicantsintheanti-businessearly1970s.SoBushgotin,despitemediocregradesthatkepthimoutofhisfirstchoiceofgradschools,theUniversityofTexasLawSchool.BushposedasaredneckrebelatHarvard,wearinghisNationalGuardflightjacketandcowboybootsandchewingtobaccoashesatbackoftheclass,spittingintoapapercup.Butheshowedearlysignsoftheself-disciplinethatwouldbecomemorecharacteristicastimewenton.Hekeptupwiththegruellingcasework,particularlyinacoursecalledHumanOrganizationandBehaviour.HerewereformallessonsinorganizingandmanagingpeoplethatBushhadonlyintuitedasanAndovercheerleader.HedevelopedhisbasicapproachtoleadershipatHarvard’straininggroundforfutureCEOs.TheessencewastothinkBigPicture,don’tgetcaughtinthedetails,delegateanddecide.Bushwhizzesthroughbriefingbookstoday,preferringtolistenratherthanread,buthisfriendssayhewasanabilitytocuttothechase.IfBushseemslesssubstantivethanaBillClinton—oranAlGore—hecanblameaHarvardeducation.1.Whichofthefollowingdoestheauthorprobablyagree?(A)Bushwasanactivistinanti-VietnamwarwhenhestudiedatYale.(B)Bushlikedtheself-righteousnessatmosphereatYale.(C)Bushseemedtobepolitically-differentfrommostcollegestudentsatthattime.(D)BushwasproudofhiseducationatYale.2.BushchosetojointheTexasNationalGuardmainly(A)becauseofhisfather(B)forthesakeofCoffin’sadvice(C)becauseofhisanti-VietnamWarattitude(D)becauseofthepressurefromhisYaleclassmates3.HeenteredHarvardBusinessSchoolinsteadoftheUniversityofTexasLawSchoolbecause(A)Harvardwashisfirstchoice(B)hisgradeswerenothighenough(C)heintendedtoventureintobusiness(D)helikedtheintellectualsuperiorityoftheliberalestablishmentatHarvard4.HekepthisapplicationtoHarvardBusinessSchoolfromhisfathermainly(A)becausehedidnottrusthisfather(B)becausehisfatherwouldhavethwartedit(C)becauseananti-businessatmospherewasprevalentinAmericathen(D)becausehewantedtobeindependentandself-reliant5.Accordingtotheauthor,Bush’sleadingstylewasdeveloped(A)asaheritagefromthefamily(B)duringhiseducationatYale(C)asaresultofthepoliticalatmospherewhenhewasyoung(D)duringhislearningatHarvardPassage2TheEnlightenmentfavouredaviewofuniversestructuredinbinaryoppositions,theprincipleofwhichisthedichotomybetweensubjectandobject.Thiswasanessentialdivisionthatworldenableasystematicanddisengagedviewofrealityandwouldfosterthedevelopmentofscienceeventhoughitwasalsohighlystimulatedbythelatter.Otherdualisms,suchasthatoftheindividual/society,andthe“We/They”dichotomy,basedonraceorethnicity,forexample,stemmedfromthegeneralideaofanecessarydivisionandacontrolling/controlledtypeofrelationshipbetweensubjectandobjectwhere“thedistancebetweensubjectandobject,apresuppositionofabstraction,isgroundedinthedistancefromthethingitselfwhichthemasterachievedthroughthemastered”(Horkmeimer&Adorno,1972:13).Distance,abstractionandcontrolarekeyelementsinthecontactbetweensubjectandobject.Thisobjectifyingattitudeofthesubjecttowardstheobject,whichwaspreviouslydescribedasinstrumentalreason,justifiedhumancontrolovernature,whichisnowverymuchcontestedbyradicalecologistswhoviewanimals,plantsandevenmineralsassubjects(Ferry,1992).Likewise,ithasdeterminedadescriptivetypeofknowledgeabouttheobjectofresearch,eitherhumanornon-human.Consequently,ascientificanalysisshouldimplyadistant,disengaged,monological,objectiveandobjectifyingviewoftheobjectbysubject.CriticalTheory,onthecontrary,emphasizesthe“rootednessofourcognitiveaccomplishments”(Habermas,1994:87).Criticaltheoristsrejectboththeatomisticconceptoftheindividualandunilateralconcentrationofpowerimpliedinasubject-objectinteractionandconcentrateonthecreativeanddemocraticpotentialofasubject-subjectrelationship.Althoughtheconceptofobjectdisappearsfromtheequation,thisisnottheonlyalterationbecausethereisalsoanessentialchangeinthenotionofsubject.Theconceptofasolitarysubjectwhichruledtheenlightenedwayofthinkingisdefinitelyovercomebythenotionofasocialsubject,andthisisnotanideaexclusivetotheFrankfurtSchoolbutanassumptionthatunderpinscontemporaryphilosophicalthought.Habermasidentifiesfour“themes”commontothephilosophicalmovementsofthiscentury“inspiteoftheboundariesbetweenschools”whichhedesignatesas“postmetaphysicalthinking,thelinguisticturn,situatingreason,andovercominglogocentrism”(Habermas,1992:8).Thechangeinthesubjectisinherentinallthesethemeswhichrefertoareconsiderationofscientificrationality,tothemovefromthephilosophyofconsciousnesstothephilosophyoflanguage,totheembeddednessofreasonincultureandhistoryandfinallytotherelocationoftheorywithinpractice.AsHabermaspointsout,thisisanevolutionthathasbeendevelopingthroughoutthetwentiethcentury.However,Habermasexpandedthisideainaparticularwaywhichiseventually,morerestrictivepreciselybecauseitisnormativeandconsensusdriven.Bearinginmindthefourthemesmentionedabove,thenotionofthe“intersubjectivelyrecognizedsubject”,inHabermas’termschallenge,withregardtoscientificandsocialresearch,thepremisesofpure,instrumentalreasonand,consequently,thedistancemaintainedbetweentheoryandpracticeandadvocateddialogicaland,occasionally,evenoverlappingpositionsinsubject-subjectresearch.Likewise,asfaraslanguageisconcerned,thechangefromtheparadigmofsubjectivityintotheparadigmofintersubjectivity,orfromthe“paradigmofconsciousness”intothe“paradigmoflanguage”asHabermasputsit,impliesusinglanguagewithintheframeworkof“communicativeaction”.Thisrequiresthecapacitytoestablish“interpersonalrelations”insteadofsimplypracticinganexerciseofsubject-centred”reasoningforrepresentationalorstrategicpurposes,thatis,aimingatdescriptiveknowledgeoratsuccess-orientedexpressionorintervention(Habermas.1984:86;1987b:314).Theintersubjectivisticorientationofthesubjectstilldiffersfromthesubjectivisticoneinthatthesubjectdrawsher/hisself-identificationandself-representationfromthewaysthatothersidentifyandrepresenther/himwhileininteraction,thatisthrough“intersubjectivelyrecognizedself-identification”and“onthebasisoftheIntersubjectiverecognitionofreciprocalself-representations”(Habermas,1979:107).ThefactthattheprocessofIntersubjectiveself-identificationandself-representationtakesplacewhileininteractionisemphasizedbyHabermasandjustifiesthedynamicandimpermanentnatureoftheintersubjectivesubject.Moreover,henotes,thereisa“complementaryrelationbetweenegoandgroupidentity”duepreciselytotheabove-mentionedprocessthatalsogeneratestheinterconnectednessbetweentheformationofselfandgroupidentitiessincetheydevelopthroughreciprocalexchange(Habermas,1979:111)CommunicationisthusanessentialelementintheformationofselfandgroupidentitiesbecauseitmediatesprocessesthatconstitutewhatHabermascallsthe‘personallife’whichcomprehends‘a(chǎn)llpossibleexperiencesandactionsthatcanbeattributedtotheindividualinhisexchangewithhissocialenvironment’andthatenabletheacquisitionofknowledgeandthetransmissionofculturewithinthesocialsystem(Habermas,1979:111).Atthesametime,languagemaysetlimitsforasocialsystemwhichitselfrepresentsthe“symbolicboundary”and“thehorizonoftheactionsthatmemberreciprocallyattributetothemselvesinternally”(Habermas,1979:111).Therefore,thelinguisticallymediatedexperienceswhichareboththelifeworldofanindividualandthesocialsystemwithwhichs/heintegrates.Morespecifically,thescopeofpossiblecommunicativeinteractionsthatare‘intersubjectivelyrecognized’lieswithinthenormativeframeworkofthatsocialsystem.6.Theword“epistemic”mostlyapproximatelymeans:(A)plagued(B)subject-objective(C)popularized(D)cognitive7.Thephrase“theembeddednessofreasonincultureandhistory”canbeinterpretedas:(A)Cultureandhistorygiverisetoreason.(B)Cultureandhistorydeterminewhatkindofreasoningpoweryouhave.(C)Thefacultyofreasoningcanbeexplainedwithreferencetospecificcultureandhistory.8.WhichofthefollowingtitlesislikelytobethetitleofthebookwrittenbyHabermasin1979?(A)Communicationandtheevolutionofsociety(B)Postmetaphysicalthinking(C)Thetheoryofcommunicativeaction(D)Towardarationalsociety9.Whichofthefollowingtitlesdoyouthinkbestsuitsthisexcerpt?(A)Changesinsubject-objectrelations(B)Intersubjectivereason(C)Theinformationofselfandgroupidentities(D)HabermasandtheFrankfurtSchool10.Howmanyarticlesandbooksdidtheauthorrefertowhenhewrotethispassage?(A)nine(B)ten(C)eleven(D)sevenPassage3AsIindicatedearlier,theanalysisofJUDGEMENTiscomplicatedbytheneedtodistinguishbetweenwhatcanbetermed‘inscribed’(orexplicit)JUDGEMENTandwhatweterm‘token’ofJudgement(implicit).Undertheinscribed/explicitcategory,theevaluationisexplicitlypresentedbymeansofalexicalitemcarryingtheJUDGEMENTvalue,suchas,skilfully,corruptly,lazilyetc.Itispossible,asIhaveindicated,forJUDGEMENTvaluestobeevokedratherthaninscribedbywhatwecall‘token’ofJUDGEMENT.Underthesetokens,JUDGEMENTvaluesaretriggeredbywhatcanbeviewedassimply‘facts’,apparentlyunevaluateddescriptionsofsomeeventorstateofaffairs.Thepointisthattheseapparently‘factual’orinformationalmeaningsneverthelesshavethecapacityintheculturetoevokeJUDGEMENTALresponses(dependinguponthereader’ssocial/culture/ideologicalreadingposition).ThusacommentarymayinscribeaJUDGEMENTvalueofnegativecapacitybyaccusingthegovernmentof‘incompetence’or,alternatively,evokethesamevaluebymeansofatokensuchas‘thegovernmentdidnotlaythefoundationsforlongtermgrowth’.Thereis,ofcourse,nothingexplicitlyevaluativeaboutsuchanobservationbutitnonethelesshasthepotentialtoevokeevaluationsofincompetenceinreaderswhoshareaparticularviewofeconomicsandtheroleofgovernment.Similarly,areportermightexplicitlyevaluatethebehaviourof,forexample,aCaliforniansuicidecultas‘bizarre’or‘a(chǎn)berrant’ortheymightevokesuchappraisalsbymeansoftokenssuchas‘Theyreferredtothemselvesas“angles”or‘Theyfilledthemansionwithcomputersandcheapplasticfurniture’.Suchtokens,ofcourse,assumesharedsocialnorms.Theyrelyuponconventionalizedconnectionsbetweenactionsandevaluations.Assuch,theyarehighlysubjecttoreaderposition—eachreaderwillinterpretatext’stokensofjudgementaccordingtotheirownculturalandideologicalpositioning.Theyarealsosubjecttoinfluencebytheco-text,andanimportantstrategyintheestablishmentofinterpersonalpositioninginatextistostageinscribedandevokedevaluationinsuchawaythatthereadersharesthewriter’sinterpretationsofthetext’stokens.Insomeinstances,theethicalevaluationinvokedbysome‘factual’description(atoken)willhavebecomesonaturalizedortaken-for-grantedinagivenculturalsituationthatitislikelytoberegardedasexplicit(inscribed)ratherthanasimplicit(evoked).JUDGEMENT.Consider,forexample,Theyorderedapizzaandthenshotthedeliverymanintheheadatapoint-blankrange.Nowthemoralevaluationassociatedwithsuchasactionissofirmlyestablishedinourcultureastobevirtuallyautomatic.Nevertheless,itisstillusefultodistinguishbetweentoken(implicitJUDGEMENT)andinscription(explicitJUDGEMENT)inthesecontexts.Thewriteralwayshasthechoicebetweenthetoken,thedescriptioncouchedessentiallyinexperientialor‘factual’terms(‘Theyshotthemanintheheadatpoint-blankrange’)andadescriptioncouchedintheexplicitlyevaluativetermsofexplicit/inscribedJudgement(‘Theymurderedhim,heinously,callouslyandincold-blood.’)Sincethechoiceisalwaysavailableitremainsmeaningfulandsignificantandshouldnotbeoverlookedintheanalysis,however‘a(chǎn)utomatic’theconnectionbetweenthefactualdescriptionandtheJUDGEMENTvalueitimplies.11.Inwhichofthefollowingfieldsofstudydoyouthinkthisauthorisaresearched?(A)Textanalysisoflegalcases(B)Interpersonalsemantics(C)Evaluationoftexts(D)Mediadiscourseanalysis12.Whattypeoftextdoesthispassagebelongto?(A)Alegalinterpretation(B)Atextbook(C)Aresearcharticle(D)Aworkshoppresentation13.Whichofthefollowingtitlesdoyouthinkbestsuitsthispassage?(A)Implicitversusexplicitattitudinalpositioning(B)Functionsofadjectives(C)Evaluationofjudgementalexpressions(D)Inscriptionsanddescriptions14.Thephrase“JUDGEMENTvalue”wouldbestbereplacedby:(A)Praise(B)Feeling(C)Attitude(D)Ideologicalreadingposition15.Whichofthefollowingwordsorphrasesbestreplacetheword“token”inthispassage?(A)symbolicexpression(B)interpersonalposition(C)implication(D)simplestatementPassage4Inthetwodecadesbetween1910and1930,overtenpercentoftheBlackpopulationoftheUnitedStateslefttheSouth,wherethepreponderanceoftheBlackpopulationhadbeenlocated,andmigratedtonorthernstates,withthelargestnumbermoving,itisclaimed,between1916and1918.Ithasbeenfrequentlyassumed,butnotproved,thatthemajorityofthemigrantsinwhathascometobecalledtheGreatMigrationcamefromruralareasandweremotivatedbytwoconcurrentfactors:thecollapseofthecottonindustryfollowingthebollweevilinfestation,whichbeganin1898,andincreaseddemandintheNorthforlaborfollowingthecessationofEuropeanimmigrationcausedbytheoutbreakoftheFirstWorldWarin1914.Thisassumptionhasledtotheconclusionthatthemigrants’subsequentlackofeconomicmobilityintheNorthistiedtoruralbackground,abackgroundthatimpliesunfamiliaritywithurbanlivingandalackofindustrialskills.ButthequestionofwhoactuallylefttheSouthhasneverbeenrigorouslyinvestigated.AlthoughnumerousinvestigationsdocumentanexodusfromruralsouthernareastosoutherncitiespriortotheGreatMigration,noonehasconsideredwhetherthesamemigrantsthenmovedontonortherncities.In1910over600,000Blackworkers,ortenpercentoftheBlackworkforce,reportedthemselvestobeengagedin“manufacturingandmechanicalpursuits,”thefederalcensuscategoryroughlyencompassingtheentireindustrialsector.TheGreatMigrationcouldeasilyhavebeenmadeupentirelyofthisgroupandtheirfamilies.Itisperhapssurprisingtoarguethatanemployedpopulationcouldbeenticedtomove,butanexplanationliesinthelaborconditionsthenprevalentintheSouth.Aboutthirty-fivepercentoftheurbanBlackpopulationintheSouthwasengagedinskilledtrades.Somewerefromtheoldartisanclassofslavery—blacksmiths,masons,carpenters—whichhadhadamonopolyofcertaintrades,buttheyweregraduallybeingpushedoutbycompetition,mechanization,andobsolescence.Theremainingsixty-fivepercent,morerecentlyurbanized,workedinnewlydevelopedindustries—tobacco,lumber,coalandironmanufacture,andrailroads.WagesintheSouth,however,werelow,andBlackworkerswereaware,throughlaborrecruitersandtheBlackpress,thattheycouldearnmoreevenasunskilledworkersintheNorththantheycouldasartisansintheSouth.Afterthebollweevilinfestation,urbanBlackworkersfacedcompetitionfromthecontinuinginfluxofbothBlackandWhiteruralworkers,whoweredriventoundercutthewagesformerlypaidforindustrialjobs.Thus,amovenorthwouldbeseenasadvantageoustoagroupthatwasalreadyurbanizedandsteadilyemployed,andtheeasyconclusiontyingtheirsubsequenteconomicproblemsintheNorthtotheirruralbackgroundcomesintoquestion.16.Theauthorindicatesexplicitlythatwhichofthefollowingrecordshasbeenasourceofinformationinherinvestigation?(A)UnitedStatesImmigrationServicereportsfrom1914to1930(B)Payrollsofsouthernmanufacturingfirmsbetween1910and1930(C)Thefederalcensusof1910(D)Advertisementsoflaborrecruitersappearinginsouthernnewspapersafter191017.TheauthorciteseachofthefollowingaspossibleinfluencesinaBlackworker’sdecisiontomigratenorthintheGreatMigrationEXCEPT(A)wagelevelsinnortherncities(B)laborrecruiters(C)competitionfromruralworkers(D)votingrightsinnorthernstates18.Itcanbeinferredfromthepassagethatthe“easyconclusion”mentionedinline53isbasedonwhichofthefollowingassumptions?(A)Peoplewhomigratefromruralareastolargecitiesusuallydosoforeconomicreasons.(B)Mostpeoplewholeaveruralareastotakejobsincitiesreturntoruralareasassoonasitisfinanciallypossibleforthemtodoso.(C)Peoplewithruralbackgroundsarelesslikelytosucceedeconomicallyincitiesthanarethosewithurbanbackgrounds.(D)Mostpeoplewhowereonceskilledworkersarenotwillingtoworkasunskilledworkers.19.Theprimarypurposeofthepassageisto(A)supportanalternativetoanacceptedmethodology(B)presentevidencethatresolvesacontradiction(C)introducearecentlydiscoveredsourceofinformation(D)challengeawidelyacceptedexplanation20.Accordingtoinformationinthepassage,whichofthefollowingisacorrectsequenceofgroupsofworkers,fromhighestpaidtolowestpaid,intheperiodbetween1910and1930?(A)ArtisansintheNorth;artisansintheSouth;unskilledworkersintheNorth;unskilledworkersintheSouth(B)ArtisansintheNorthandSouth;unskilledworkersintheNorth;unskilledworkersintheSouth(C)ArtisansintheNorth;unskilledworkersintheNorth;artisansintheSouth(D)ArtisansintheNorthandSouth;unskilledurbanworkersintheNorth;unskilledruralworkersintheSouthPassage5（本文節(jié)選于CriticalCitizensforanInterculturalWorld:ForeignLanguageEducationasCulturalPolitics一書ChapterTwoPhilosophicalFoundationsforCriticalCulturalAwareness。作者：ManuelaCucilherme。該書可在google上搜索到PDF版）InordertoestablishthephilosophicalfoundationsforcriticalculturalawarenesswithinthescopeofthisstudyIwilldrawantwodifferentphilosophicalframeworks,CriticalTheoryandPostmodernism,neitherofwhichismonolithicinitself.Myobjectiveistoidentifyaspectsfromeachphilosophicalframeworkthatmayberelevantforandcomplementarytounderstandingjustwhatcriticalculturalawarenessentails.FromtheearlyformulationofCriticalTheoryemanatesanotionofrationalitythatisrootedinsocialprocessesandilluminatestheunderstandingofculturalknowledgeandcommunicationasviewedbyHorheimer,Adorno,andMarcuse.Theiroriginalviewhasbeenexpandedandradicalizedbythepostmoderncritiquewithrespecttothemanipulativecharacterofmedia-producedcultureaswellasradicalizedbythepost-moderndescriptionofcultureascontingent,intricate,particular,andoftenimpenetrable.However,Iwillalsohighlighttheaspectsthatseparatetheuniversalist,consensualandnormativevisionoflinguistic/culturalcommunicationprovidedbyHabermas,whoseviewsarerelatedtobutdifferentfromthoseofHorkheimer,Adorno,andMarcuse,fromthepostmodernismvisionbasedondifferenceanddiscordance.Furthermore,thealternativeproposalsforculturaldescriptionandanalysismadebybothCriticalTheoryandPostmodernismandtherespectivevariantswithineachoftheseframeworksarealsofocusedupon.CriticalTheoryisaphilosophicalsystemofprinciplesthathasbeenconnectedwiththeFrankfurtSchooleversinceHorkheimercoinedthistermandcontrasteditwithwhathenamedTraditionalTheoryinhis1937essayonCriticalTheory(Horkheimer,1972).HorkheimerbasedTraditionalTheoryonapositivistconceptofreasonthat,accordingtohim,developedwiththeevolutionofscientism,whileheviewedCriticalTheoryasanattempttorootrationalityinsocialinteraction.Byrelatingknowledgetosociety,CriticalTheoryaccentuatesnotonlythesocialbutalsothepoliticalcharacterofrationality,thushonouringtheoriginalMarxistfoundationsoftheFrankfurtSchool.ThecritiqueoftheEnlightenmentandofinstrumentalreasonwasthenexpandedbyHorkheimerandAdornoandbyothercontemporarymembersoftheFrankfurtSchoollikeBenjamin,Marcuse,Fromm,etc.Althoughalsoengaginginthecritiqueofinstrumentalreason,Habermas,whobecametheleadingfigureoftheFrankfurtSchool’ssecondgenerationandcurrentlythenamemostoftenassociatedwithCriticalTheory,takesadifferentstancefromhispredecessorstowardsmodernity.HeconsiderstheircritiqueofmodernityexcessiveandstatesthatHorkheimerandAdorno’sDialecticalofEnlightenment‘doesnotdojusticetotherationalcontentofculturalmodernityinbourgeoisideals(andalsoinstrumentalizedalongwiththem)’(Habermas,1987b:13).Moreover,heexplicitlycomparestheirthesiswithNietzsche’snihilism,althoughheconsidersthatthenatureoftheirpessimismdoesnotcoincidewiththatofpoststructuralismandtherefore‘Adorno’s“negativedialectics”andDerrida’s“deconstruction”canbeseenasdifferentanswerstothesameproblem’(Habermas,1987b:184).Inspiteofhisowncritiqueoftheinstrumentalisationofreasonduringtheevolutionofmodernity,heultimatelytriedtorescuemodernrationalitybyintroducinghisownconceptofcommunicativerationality.Withinthisposition,histheoriesprovidesomevaluablecontributionsforthedevelopmentofthisstudy,althoughtheyarerestrictiveinsomeaspectsasweshallsee.BeforedescribingHabermas’theoriesoncommunicationandsomeoftheearlierFrankfurttheorists’critiqueofmassculture,itisusefultoidentifytheirperceptionsofinstrumental,critical,andintersubjectivewaysofreasoning.21.Theword“monolithic:mostprobablymeans:(A)complete

(B)independent

(C)hugeandstrong

(D)consistent22.Thephrase“theearlyformulationofCriticalTheory”canbeinterpretedas:(A)theearlyformationofCriticalTheory(B)thefirstexplanationofCriticalTheory(C)theearlyexplicationofCriticalTheory(D)theearlyformulaicframeworkofCriticalTheory23.HowmanybooksorarticlesdidHabermaspublishin1987accordingtothispassage?(A)onebookandonearticle(B)atleastonebookandonearticle(C)atleasttwobooks(D)atleastthreebooks24.OnwhichissuedidHabermasdisagreewiththefirstgenerationoftheFrankfurtSchool?(A)culturalmodernity(B)instrumentalizationofreason(C)communicativeofrationality(D)modernrationality25.Whichofthefollowingisthisexcerptlikelytobetakenfrom?(A)ajournalarticle(B)amonograph(C)atextbook(D)apresentationataconferencePassage6In1896aGeorgiacouplesuingfordamagesintheaccidentaldeathoftheirtwoyearoldwastoldthatsincethechildhadmadenorealeconomiccontributiontothefamily,therewasnoliabilityfordamages.Incontrast,lessthanacenturylater,in1979,theparentsofathree-year-oldsuedinNewYorkforaccidental-deathdamagesandwonanawardof$750,000.ThetransformationinsocialvaluesimplicitinjuxtaposingthesetwoincidentsisthesubjectofVivianaZelizer’sexcellentbook,PricingthePricelessChild.Duringthenineteenthcentury,sheargues,theconceptofthe“useful”childwhocontributedtothefamilyeconomygavewaygraduallytothepresent-daynotionofthe“useless”childwho,thoughproducingnoincomefor,andindeedextremelycostlyto,itsparents,isyetconsideredemotionally“priceless.”Wellestablishedamongsegmentsofthemiddleandupperclassesbythemid-1800’s,thisnewviewofchildhoodspreadthroughoutsocietyinthelate-nineteenthandearly-twentiethcenturiesasreformersintroducedchild-laborregulationsandcompulsoryeducationlawspredicatedinpartontheassumptionthatachild’semotionalvaluemadechildlabortaboo.ForZelizertheoriginsofthistransformationweremanyandcomplex.Thegradualerosionofc