填空题

Nonverbal communication is a process which communicators (1)
use the natural features of their bodies to deliver information
and express specific meaning instinctive to the other communicator. (2)
The study of nonverbal communication covers three major parts:
Proxemics, Kinesics and Body Language, and Paralanguage. (3)
Proxemics refers that people keep a certain space with each other (4)
when they communicate and the meaning it suggests. For example,
Arabians like to keep close while Englishmen like to keep a
certain distance. It is fun to see they are in conversation. (5)
Arabians will come closer and closer but Englishmen will
withdraw further and further. When they finish the conversation,
they are far from the place they stood. Kinesics is also called (6)
body language, that studies the meanings of the movement of (7)
all parts of body and it includes many nonverbal behavior such like (8)
eye language, gestures, postures, facial expressions, touch and
so on. Paralanguage refers to all kinds of sound signs made by (9)
mouth, which can express certain emotions and ideas. Paralanguage
is not the phrases and sentences with clear meanings. It is to transform
information by sound, such as "Ouch". Except this, the pitch of tone (10)
and loudness or quietness of voice also belongs to paralanguage.
And some researchers believe that clothing belongs to paralanguage, too.

答案: signs→signals
题目列表

你可能感兴趣的试题

填空题

Language change inevitably leads to variation, and variation
within a speech community often leads to social valuation of
particular features as "good" or "bad". "Good" variants are typically
believed to be characterized logical superiority or venerability, (1)
or either; "bad" variants must then be illogical and/or recent inventions (2)
by the vulgar.
But neither logic nor great age play a significant role in the (3)
labeling of variants. Consider "ain’t", which may be the English word
most is despised by schoolteachers and pundits. Far from being (4)
logical or recent, "ain’t" is a legitimate phonological descendant (5)
of "amn’t", which was the original contraction of "am not". It
isn’t clear how "ain’t" fell in disrepute, but once there, it left an (6)
awkward gap in the system of negative contractions: We have
"You’re going, aren’t you ", "She’s going, isn’t she", and so on,
but sure no real person actually says "I’m going, am I not". (7)
Instead, people say "I’m going, aren’t I ", in the part because they (8)
have been taught to avoid "ain’t" like the plague; and here logic
shudders, because while "You are going, She is going," etc., are fine,
"I are going" is possible for native speakers of English. The point (9)
of this example is not to urge rehabilitation of ain’t-legislating
language change is generally a losing proposition-but to illustrating (10)
the linguistically arbitrary nature of social valuation of the results
of language change.

答案: 在characterized后加by
填空题

Language change inevitably leads to variation, and variation
within a speech community often leads to social valuation of
particular features as "good" or "bad". "Good" variants are typically
believed to be characterized logical superiority or venerability, (1)
or either; "bad" variants must then be illogical and/or recent inventions (2)
by the vulgar.
But neither logic nor great age play a significant role in the (3)
labeling of variants. Consider "ain’t", which may be the English word
most is despised by schoolteachers and pundits. Far from being (4)
logical or recent, "ain’t" is a legitimate phonological descendant (5)
of "amn’t", which was the original contraction of "am not". It
isn’t clear how "ain’t" fell in disrepute, but once there, it left an (6)
awkward gap in the system of negative contractions: We have
"You’re going, aren’t you ", "She’s going, isn’t she", and so on,
but sure no real person actually says "I’m going, am I not". (7)
Instead, people say "I’m going, aren’t I ", in the part because they (8)
have been taught to avoid "ain’t" like the plague; and here logic
shudders, because while "You are going, She is going," etc., are fine,
"I are going" is possible for native speakers of English. The point (9)
of this example is not to urge rehabilitation of ain’t-legislating
language change is generally a losing proposition-but to illustrating (10)
the linguistically arbitrary nature of social valuation of the results
of language change.

答案: either→both
填空题

Language change inevitably leads to variation, and variation
within a speech community often leads to social valuation of
particular features as "good" or "bad". "Good" variants are typically
believed to be characterized logical superiority or venerability, (1)
or either; "bad" variants must then be illogical and/or recent inventions (2)
by the vulgar.
But neither logic nor great age play a significant role in the (3)
labeling of variants. Consider "ain’t", which may be the English word
most is despised by schoolteachers and pundits. Far from being (4)
logical or recent, "ain’t" is a legitimate phonological descendant (5)
of "amn’t", which was the original contraction of "am not". It
isn’t clear how "ain’t" fell in disrepute, but once there, it left an (6)
awkward gap in the system of negative contractions: We have
"You’re going, aren’t you ", "She’s going, isn’t she", and so on,
but sure no real person actually says "I’m going, am I not". (7)
Instead, people say "I’m going, aren’t I ", in the part because they (8)
have been taught to avoid "ain’t" like the plague; and here logic
shudders, because while "You are going, She is going," etc., are fine,
"I are going" is possible for native speakers of English. The point (9)
of this example is not to urge rehabilitation of ain’t-legislating
language change is generally a losing proposition-but to illustrating (10)
the linguistically arbitrary nature of social valuation of the results
of language change.

答案: play→plays
填空题

Language change inevitably leads to variation, and variation
within a speech community often leads to social valuation of
particular features as "good" or "bad". "Good" variants are typically
believed to be characterized logical superiority or venerability, (1)
or either; "bad" variants must then be illogical and/or recent inventions (2)
by the vulgar.
But neither logic nor great age play a significant role in the (3)
labeling of variants. Consider "ain’t", which may be the English word
most is despised by schoolteachers and pundits. Far from being (4)
logical or recent, "ain’t" is a legitimate phonological descendant (5)
of "amn’t", which was the original contraction of "am not". It
isn’t clear how "ain’t" fell in disrepute, but once there, it left an (6)
awkward gap in the system of negative contractions: We have
"You’re going, aren’t you ", "She’s going, isn’t she", and so on,
but sure no real person actually says "I’m going, am I not". (7)
Instead, people say "I’m going, aren’t I ", in the part because they (8)
have been taught to avoid "ain’t" like the plague; and here logic
shudders, because while "You are going, She is going," etc., are fine,
"I are going" is possible for native speakers of English. The point (9)
of this example is not to urge rehabilitation of ain’t-legislating
language change is generally a losing proposition-but to illustrating (10)
the linguistically arbitrary nature of social valuation of the results
of language change.

答案: 去掉despised前的is
填空题

Language change inevitably leads to variation, and variation
within a speech community often leads to social valuation of
particular features as "good" or "bad". "Good" variants are typically
believed to be characterized logical superiority or venerability, (1)
or either; "bad" variants must then be illogical and/or recent inventions (2)
by the vulgar.
But neither logic nor great age play a significant role in the (3)
labeling of variants. Consider "ain’t", which may be the English word
most is despised by schoolteachers and pundits. Far from being (4)
logical or recent, "ain’t" is a legitimate phonological descendant (5)
of "amn’t", which was the original contraction of "am not". It
isn’t clear how "ain’t" fell in disrepute, but once there, it left an (6)
awkward gap in the system of negative contractions: We have
"You’re going, aren’t you ", "She’s going, isn’t she", and so on,
but sure no real person actually says "I’m going, am I not". (7)
Instead, people say "I’m going, aren’t I ", in the part because they (8)
have been taught to avoid "ain’t" like the plague; and here logic
shudders, because while "You are going, She is going," etc., are fine,
"I are going" is possible for native speakers of English. The point (9)
of this example is not to urge rehabilitation of ain’t-legislating
language change is generally a losing proposition-but to illustrating (10)
the linguistically arbitrary nature of social valuation of the results
of language change.

答案: logical→illogical
填空题

Language change inevitably leads to variation, and variation
within a speech community often leads to social valuation of
particular features as "good" or "bad". "Good" variants are typically
believed to be characterized logical superiority or venerability, (1)
or either; "bad" variants must then be illogical and/or recent inventions (2)
by the vulgar.
But neither logic nor great age play a significant role in the (3)
labeling of variants. Consider "ain’t", which may be the English word
most is despised by schoolteachers and pundits. Far from being (4)
logical or recent, "ain’t" is a legitimate phonological descendant (5)
of "amn’t", which was the original contraction of "am not". It
isn’t clear how "ain’t" fell in disrepute, but once there, it left an (6)
awkward gap in the system of negative contractions: We have
"You’re going, aren’t you ", "She’s going, isn’t she", and so on,
but sure no real person actually says "I’m going, am I not". (7)
Instead, people say "I’m going, aren’t I ", in the part because they (8)
have been taught to avoid "ain’t" like the plague; and here logic
shudders, because while "You are going, She is going," etc., are fine,
"I are going" is possible for native speakers of English. The point (9)
of this example is not to urge rehabilitation of ain’t-legislating
language change is generally a losing proposition-but to illustrating (10)
the linguistically arbitrary nature of social valuation of the results
of language change.

答案: in→into
填空题

Language change inevitably leads to variation, and variation
within a speech community often leads to social valuation of
particular features as "good" or "bad". "Good" variants are typically
believed to be characterized logical superiority or venerability, (1)
or either; "bad" variants must then be illogical and/or recent inventions (2)
by the vulgar.
But neither logic nor great age play a significant role in the (3)
labeling of variants. Consider "ain’t", which may be the English word
most is despised by schoolteachers and pundits. Far from being (4)
logical or recent, "ain’t" is a legitimate phonological descendant (5)
of "amn’t", which was the original contraction of "am not". It
isn’t clear how "ain’t" fell in disrepute, but once there, it left an (6)
awkward gap in the system of negative contractions: We have
"You’re going, aren’t you ", "She’s going, isn’t she", and so on,
but sure no real person actually says "I’m going, am I not". (7)
Instead, people say "I’m going, aren’t I ", in the part because they (8)
have been taught to avoid "ain’t" like the plague; and here logic
shudders, because while "You are going, She is going," etc., are fine,
"I are going" is possible for native speakers of English. The point (9)
of this example is not to urge rehabilitation of ain’t-legislating
language change is generally a losing proposition-but to illustrating (10)
the linguistically arbitrary nature of social valuation of the results
of language change.

答案: sure→surely
填空题

Language change inevitably leads to variation, and variation
within a speech community often leads to social valuation of
particular features as "good" or "bad". "Good" variants are typically
believed to be characterized logical superiority or venerability, (1)
or either; "bad" variants must then be illogical and/or recent inventions (2)
by the vulgar.
But neither logic nor great age play a significant role in the (3)
labeling of variants. Consider "ain’t", which may be the English word
most is despised by schoolteachers and pundits. Far from being (4)
logical or recent, "ain’t" is a legitimate phonological descendant (5)
of "amn’t", which was the original contraction of "am not". It
isn’t clear how "ain’t" fell in disrepute, but once there, it left an (6)
awkward gap in the system of negative contractions: We have
"You’re going, aren’t you ", "She’s going, isn’t she", and so on,
but sure no real person actually says "I’m going, am I not". (7)
Instead, people say "I’m going, aren’t I ", in the part because they (8)
have been taught to avoid "ain’t" like the plague; and here logic
shudders, because while "You are going, She is going," etc., are fine,
"I are going" is possible for native speakers of English. The point (9)
of this example is not to urge rehabilitation of ain’t-legislating
language change is generally a losing proposition-but to illustrating (10)
the linguistically arbitrary nature of social valuation of the results
of language change.

答案: 去掉part前的the
填空题

Language change inevitably leads to variation, and variation
within a speech community often leads to social valuation of
particular features as "good" or "bad". "Good" variants are typically
believed to be characterized logical superiority or venerability, (1)
or either; "bad" variants must then be illogical and/or recent inventions (2)
by the vulgar.
But neither logic nor great age play a significant role in the (3)
labeling of variants. Consider "ain’t", which may be the English word
most is despised by schoolteachers and pundits. Far from being (4)
logical or recent, "ain’t" is a legitimate phonological descendant (5)
of "amn’t", which was the original contraction of "am not". It
isn’t clear how "ain’t" fell in disrepute, but once there, it left an (6)
awkward gap in the system of negative contractions: We have
"You’re going, aren’t you ", "She’s going, isn’t she", and so on,
but sure no real person actually says "I’m going, am I not". (7)
Instead, people say "I’m going, aren’t I ", in the part because they (8)
have been taught to avoid "ain’t" like the plague; and here logic
shudders, because while "You are going, She is going," etc., are fine,
"I are going" is possible for native speakers of English. The point (9)
of this example is not to urge rehabilitation of ain’t-legislating
language change is generally a losing proposition-but to illustrating (10)
the linguistically arbitrary nature of social valuation of the results
of language change.

答案: possible→impossible
填空题

Language change inevitably leads to variation, and variation
within a speech community often leads to social valuation of
particular features as "good" or "bad". "Good" variants are typically
believed to be characterized logical superiority or venerability, (1)
or either; "bad" variants must then be illogical and/or recent inventions (2)
by the vulgar.
But neither logic nor great age play a significant role in the (3)
labeling of variants. Consider "ain’t", which may be the English word
most is despised by schoolteachers and pundits. Far from being (4)
logical or recent, "ain’t" is a legitimate phonological descendant (5)
of "amn’t", which was the original contraction of "am not". It
isn’t clear how "ain’t" fell in disrepute, but once there, it left an (6)
awkward gap in the system of negative contractions: We have
"You’re going, aren’t you ", "She’s going, isn’t she", and so on,
but sure no real person actually says "I’m going, am I not". (7)
Instead, people say "I’m going, aren’t I ", in the part because they (8)
have been taught to avoid "ain’t" like the plague; and here logic
shudders, because while "You are going, She is going," etc., are fine,
"I are going" is possible for native speakers of English. The point (9)
of this example is not to urge rehabilitation of ain’t-legislating
language change is generally a losing proposition-but to illustrating (10)
the linguistically arbitrary nature of social valuation of the results
of language change.

答案: illustrating→illustrate
微信扫码免费搜题