American no longer expect public figures, whether in speech or in writing, to command the English language with skill and gift. Nor do they aspire to such command themselves. In his latest book, Doing Our Own Thing. The Degradation of language and Musi
c and why we should like, care, John McWhorter, a linguist and controversialist of mixed liberal and conservative views, sees the triumph of 1960s

　　counter-culture as responsible for the decline of formal English.

　　But the cult of the authentic and the personal, “doing our own thing”, has spelt the death of formal speech, writing, poetry and music. While even the modestly educated sought an elevated tone when they put pen to paper before the 1960s, even the most well regarded writing since then has sought to capture spoken English on the page. Equally, in poetry, the highly personal, performative genre is the only form that could claim real liveliness. In both oral and written English, talking is triumphing over speaking, spontaneity over craft.

　　Illustrated with an entertaining array of examples from both high and low culture, the trend that Mr. McWhorter documents is unmistakable. But it is less clear, to take the question of his subtitle, why we should, like care. As a linguist, he acknowledges that all varieties of human language, including non-standard ones like Black English, can be powerfully expressive-there exists no language or dialect in the world that cannot convey complex ideas He is not arguing, as many do, that we can no longer think straight because we do not talk proper.

　　Russians have a deep love for their own language and carry large chunks of memorized poetry in their heads, while Italian politicians tend to elaborate speech that would seem old-fashioned to most English-speakers. Mr. McWhorter acknowledges that formal language is not strictly necessary, and proposes no radical education reforms-he is really grieving over the loss of something beautiful more than useful. We now take our English “on paper plates instead of china”. A shame, perhaps, but probably an inevitable one.

　　36. According to Mc Whorter, the decline of formal English

　　A. is inevitable in radical education reforms.

　　B. is but all too natural in language development.

　　C. has caused the controversy over the counter-culture.

　　D. brought about changes in public attitudes in the 1960s.

　　37. The word “talking” (Linge6, paragraph3) denotes

　　A. modesty.

　　B. personality.

　　C. liveliness.

　　D. informality.

　　38. To which of the following statements would Mc Whorter most likely agree?

　　A. Logical thinking is not necessarily related to the way we talk.

　　B. Black English can be more expressive than standard English.

　　C. Non-standard varieties of human language are just as entertaining.

　　D. Of all the varieties, standard English Can best convey complex ideas.

　　39. The description of Russians' love of memorizing poetry shows the author's

　　A. interest in their language.

　　B. appreciation of their efforts.

　　C. admiration for their memory.

　　D. contempt for their old-fashionedness.

　　40. According to the last paragraph, “paper plates” is to “china” as

　　A. “temporary” is to “permanent”.

　　B. “radical” is to “conservative”.

　　C. “functional” is to “artistic”.

　　D. “humble” is to “noble”.

　　Part B

　　Directions:In the following text, some sentences have removed. For Questions 41-45, choosethe most suitable one from the list A-G to fit into of the numbered blank thereare two extra choices, which do not fit in any of the gaps. Mark you
r answers onANSWER SHEET1. (10 points)

　　Canada's premiers (the leaders of provincial governments), if they have any breath left after complaining about Ottawa at their late July annual meeting, might spare a moment to do something, to reduce health-care costs.

　　They're all groaning about soaring health budgets, the fastest-growing component of which are pharmaceutical costs.

　　41.

　　What to do? Both the Romanow commission and the Kirby committee on health care-to say nothing of reports from other experts recommended the creation of a national drug agency. Instead of each province having its own list of approved drugs , bureaucracy, procedures and limited bargaining power, all would pool resources ,work with Ottawa, and create a national institution.

　　42.

　　But “national” doesn't have to mean that. “National” could mean interprovincial-provinces combining efforts to create one body.

　　Either way, one benefit of a “national” organization would be to negotiate better prices, if possible, with drug manufacturers. Instead of having one province-or a series of hospitals within a province-negotiate a price for a given drug on the provincial list, the national agency would negotiate on behalf of all provinces.

　　Rather than, say, Quebec, negotiating on behalf of seven million people, the national agency would negotiate on behalf 31 million people. Basic economics suggests the greater the potential consumers, the higher the likelihood of a better price.

　　43.

　　A small step has been taken in the direction of a national agency with the creation of the Canadian Co-ordinating Office for Health Technology Assessment, funded by Ottawa and the provinces. Under it, a Common Drug Review recommends to provincial lists which new drugs should be included, predictably and regrettably Quebec refused to join.

　　A few premiers are suspicious of any federal-provincial deal-making. They (particularly Quebec and Alberta) just want Ottawa to fork over additional billions with few, if any, strings attached. That's one reason why the idea of a nationalist hasn't gone anywhere while drug costs keep rising fast.

　　44.

　　Premiers love to quote Mr. Romanow's report selectively, especially the parts about more federal money perhaps they should read what he had to say a bout drugs.

　　“A national drug agency would provide governments more influence on pharmaceutical companies in order to constrain the ever-increasing cost of drugs.”

　　45.

　　So when the premiers gather in Niagara Falls to assemble their usual complaint list, they should also get cracking about something in their jurisdiction that would help their budgets and patients.

　　A. Quebec's resistance to a national agency is provincialist ideology. One of the first advocates for a national list was a researcher at Laval University. Quebec's Drug Insurance Fund has seen its costs skyrocket with annual increases from 14.3 per cent to 26.8 per cent!

　　B. Or they could read Mr. Kirby's report:“the substantial buying power of such an agency would strengthen the public prescription-drug insurance plans to negotiate the lowest possible purchase prices from drug companies”

　　C. What does “national” mean? Roy Romanow and Senator Michael Kirby recommended a federal-provincial body much like the recently created National Health Council.

　　D. The problem is simple and stark: health-care costs have been, are, and will continue to increase faster than government revenues.

　　E. According to the Canadian Institute for Health Information. prescription drug costs have risen since 1997 at twice the rate of overall health-care spending. Part of the increase comes from drugs being used to replace other kinds of treatments part of it arises from new drugs costing more than older kinds. Part of it is higher prices.

　　F. So, if the provinces want to run the health-care show, they should prove they can run it, starting with an interprovincial health list that would end duplication, save administrative costs, prevent one province from being played off against another, and bargain for better drug prices.