As everyone knows, words constantly take on new meanings. Since these donot necessarily, nor even usually, take the place of the old ones, we shouldpicture this process as the analogy of a tree throwing out new branches whichthemselves throw out subordina

As everyone knows, words constantly take on new meanings. Since these donot necessarily, nor even usually, take the place of the old ones, we shouldpicture this process as the analogy of a tree throwing out new branches whichthemselves throw out subordinate branches. The new branches sometimesovershadow and kill the old one but no means always. We shall again and againfind the earliest senses of a word flourishing for centuries despite a vastovergrowth of later senses which might be expected to kill them. When a word has several meanings, historical circumstances often make oneof them dominant during a particular period. Thus “station” is now more likelyto mean a railway-station than anything else; “speculation”more likely to bear its financial sense than any other. Untilthis century “plane” had as its dominant meaning “a flat surface” or “acarpenter’s tool to make a surface smooth”, but the meaning “an aeroplane” is dominant now. The dominant sense of a word lies uppermost in our minds. Whenever we meet the word, our natural impulse is to give it that sense. We areoften deceived. In an old author the word may mean something different. One of my aims is to make the reading of old books easyas far as certain words are concerned. If we read an old poem with insufficientregard for the change of the dictionary meanings of words we won’t be able tounderstand the poem the old author intended. And to avoid this, knowledge isnecessary. We see good words or good senses of words losing theiredge or more rarely getting a new edge that serves some different purpose. “Verbicide”(滥用词语者）, themurder of a word, happens in many ways. Inflation is the commonest: those whotaught us to say “awfully” for “very”, tremendous” for “great”, and “unthinkable”for “undesirable” were verbicides. I should be glad if I sentany reader away with a sense of responsibility to the language. It isunnecessary to think we can do nothing about it. Our conversation will havelittle effect, but if we get into print --- perhaps especially if we areleader-writers or reporters --- we can help to strengthen or weaken somedisastrous word, can encourage a good and resist a bad Americanism. For manythings the press prints today will be taken up by a great mass of people in afew years. 1. In the first paragraph the author believes (_______). A. only old words take on new meanings B. a tree throws out new branches as the words pick up new meanings C. words obtain new meanings from time to time D. it is possible for the old words to lose their old senses 2. By mentioning the tree throwing out new branches, the author hopes to (_______). A. stress the natural phenomena B. picture the process of growth of new branches C. explain what the analogy is D. illustrate his view in a clearer way 3. We are often cheated by some words because(_______). A. their dominant meanings have not been determined B. sometimes they mean something different from their dominant meanings C. our natural impulse makes a mistake D. the dominant sense of a word is not accurate in our minds 4. In the author’s view, if someone taught us to say “awfully” for “very” (_______). A. we were advised not to accept it B. we were getting a new edge for a different purpose C. we saw an example of a good word being misused D. we saw a word serving for a different purpose 5. In the last paragraph, the author thinks that (_______). A. we can do nothing about it unless we get into print B. we should take responsibility to the language if necessary C. ourconversation has little effect on the situation because we haven’t got intoprint D. agreat mass of people will accept what the press prints so that we can encouragethe good and resist the bad

As everyone knows, words constantly take on new meanings. Since these donot necessarily, nor even usually, take the place of the old ones, we shouldpicture this process as the analogy of a tree throwing out new branches whichthemselves throw out subordinate branches. The new branches sometimesovershadow and kill the old one but no means always. We shall again and againfind the earliest senses of a word flourishing for centuries despite a vastovergrowth of later senses which might be expected to kill them. When a word has several meanings, historical circumstances often make oneof them dominant during a particular period. Thus “station” is now more likelyto mean a railway-station than anything else; “speculation”more likely to bear its financial sense than any other. Untilthis century “plane” had as its dominant meaning “a flat surface” or “acarpenter’s tool to make a surface smooth”, but the meaning “an aeroplane” is dominant now. The dominant sense of a word lies uppermost in our minds. Whenever we meet the word, our natural impulse is to give it that sense. We areoften deceived. In an old author the word may mean something different. One of my aims is to make the reading of old books easyas far as certain words are concerned. If we read an old poem with insufficientregard for the change of the dictionary meanings of words we won’t be able tounderstand the poem the old author intended. And to avoid this, knowledge isnecessary. We see good words or good senses of words losing theiredge or more rarely getting a new edge that serves some different purpose. “Verbicide”(滥用词语者）, themurder of a word, happens in many ways. Inflation is the commonest: those whotaught us to say “awfully” for “very”, tremendous” for “great”, and “unthinkable”for “undesirable” were verbicides. I should be glad if I sentany reader away with a sense of responsibility to the language. It isunnecessary to think we can do nothing about it. Our conversation will havelittle effect, but if we get into print --- perhaps especially if we areleader-writers or reporters --- we can help to strengthen or weaken somedisastrous word, can encourage a good and resist a bad Americanism. For manythings the press prints today will be taken up by a great mass of people in afew years. 1. In the first paragraph the author believes (_______). A. only old words take on new meanings B. a tree throws out new branches as the words pick up new meanings C. words obtain new meanings from time to time D. it is possible for the old words to lose their old senses 2. By mentioning the tree throwing out new branches, the author hopes to (_______). A. stress the natural phenomena B. picture the process of growth of new branches C. explain what the analogy is D. illustrate his view in a clearer way 3. We are often cheated by some words because(_______). A. their dominant meanings have not been determined B. sometimes they mean something different from their dominant meanings C. our natural impulse makes a mistake D. the dominant sense of a word is not accurate in our minds 4. In the author’s view, if someone taught us to say “awfully” for “very” (_______). A. we were advised not to accept it B. we were getting a new edge for a different purpose C. we saw an example of a good word being misused D. we saw a word serving for a different purpose 5. In the last paragraph, the author thinks that (_______). A. we can do nothing about it unless we get into print B. we should take responsibility to the language if necessary C. ourconversation has little effect on the situation because we haven’t got intoprint D. agreat mass of people will accept what the press prints so that we can encouragethe good and resist the bad