TOEFL 托福 聽力原創模擬試題 10

NARRATOR: Listen to a conversation between a student and a professor. STUDENT: Hello, Professor Ingrid. Thank you for meeting with me during your office hours. PROFESSOR: Hello, Tomas. Come on in. You wanted to talk about your proposal for the environmental science paper, right? STUDENT: Yes. I submitted my initial topic draft online, but I got your email saying it was a bit too, uh, broad. I wanted to see how I can fix it. PROFESSOR: Right. Your proposal was on 'the global benefits of urban green spaces.' That is a wonderful topic for a whole textbook, but our assignment is a short research paper. Remember, the limit is strictly five pages. STUDENT: Ah, yes, five pages. I guess I got a little too excited about all the different examples. I wrote about parks in Europe, Asia, and South America. PROFESSOR: It is easy to do that! But for a five-page paper, you need a narrow focus. I suggest choosing just one local project. That way, you can analyze it in detail. STUDENT: Oh, that makes sense. Actually, I read that our university library just built a new rooftop garden. Could I write about that? PROFESSOR: Absolutely! That is a perfect case study. You can talk about the types of plants they used and how it helps insulate the building. It is local, and you can even go take photos yourself. STUDENT: That sounds much easier to manage. I can definitely write five pages on that. PROFESSOR: Excellent. Just make sure to submit the revised one-page proposal on our course website. The deadline for the revision is next Friday at five p.m. STUDENT: Next Friday at five. Got it. I will start working on the new proposal today. Thank you so much for your help! PROFESSOR: You are very welcome, Tomas. I look forward to reading it. [Q1] Why does the student go to see the professor?

中文翻譯

旁白：聽一段學生和教授之間的對話。 學生：英格麗德教授您好。謝謝您在諮詢時間抽空和我見面。 教授：湯瑪斯，你好。快請進。你想談的是你那篇環境科學報告的寫作計畫，對吧？ 學生：是的。我已經在網路上提交了初步的主題草案，但我收到您的 Email，說範圍有點太……呃，太廣了。我想請教一下該怎麼修改。 教授：沒錯。你的寫作計畫主題是「城市綠地的全球益處」。這當作整本教科書的主題非常棒，但我們的作業是一篇短篇研究報告。記住，頁數限制嚴格規定在五頁以內。 學生：啊，對，五頁。我想我對那些不同的例子有點太興奮了。我寫了歐洲、亞洲和南美洲的公園。 教授：這很容易發生！但對於一篇五頁的報告，你需要縮小焦點。我建議只選擇一個當地的案例。這樣一來，你才能進行深入的分析。 學生：喔，這很有道理。其實，我讀到我們學校圖書館剛建好一個新的屋頂花園。我可以寫那個嗎？ 教授：當然可以！那是一個完美的案例研究。你可以探討他們使用的植物種類，以及它如何幫助建築物隔熱。這既符合在地性，你甚至還可以自己去拍照。 學生：這聽起來容易寫多了。我絕對能針對這個寫出五頁的內容。 教授：太棒了。只要確保在我們的課程網站上提交修改後的一頁寫作計畫即可。修改版的截止日期是下週五下午五點。 學生：下週五五點。知道了。我今天就會開始寫新的寫作計畫。非常感謝您的幫忙！ 教授：不客氣，湯瑪斯。我很期待閱讀它。 [Q1] 學生為什麼去找教授？

(Shared with Q1.) [Q2] According to the professor, what was the problem with the student's initial proposal?

中文翻譯

（與第 1 題共用音檔。）[第 2 題] 根據教授的說法，學生最初的研究計畫書有什麼問題？

(Shared with Q1.) [Q3] What does the professor suggest the student do to improve his paper?

中文翻譯

（與第 1 題共用音檔。）[第 3 題] 教授建議學生做什麼來改善他的報告？

(Shared with Q1.) [Q4] What can be inferred about the student's new research paper?

中文翻譯

（與第 1 題共用音檔。）［第 4 題］關於這名學生的新研究論文，可以推論出什麼？

(Shared with Q1.) [Replay: "Ah, yes, five pages. I guess I got a little too excited about all the different examples."] [Q5] Why does the student say this:

中文翻譯

（與第 1 題共用）[重播：「啊，對，五頁。我想我可能對那些不同的例子有點興奮過頭了。」]

NARRATOR: Listen to part of a lecture in a biology class. PROFESSOR: Today we're going to talk about a fascinating aspect of plant ecology: plant-to-plant communication. Now, for a long time, people thought of plants as passive organisms, just sitting there getting eaten by insects. But we now know they have sophisticated defense systems. Specifically, we'll look at how plants use what we call volatile organic compounds, or VOCs. VOCs are airborne chemical signals that plants release into the atmosphere when they are damaged by herbivores—you know, plant-eating pests. PROFESSOR: When a caterpillar, say, starts chewing on a leaf, the plant doesn't just suffer in silence. It synthesizes and emits these VOCs. This triggers what biologists call an indirect defense. Instead of poisoning the herbivore directly, which would be a direct defense, the plant releases a specific chemical blend that acts like a distress signal. This signal attracts the natural enemies of that herbivore. For instance, when lima bean plants are attacked by spider mites, they release VOCs that specifically attract predatory mites, which then prey upon the spider mites. It's an elegant way of recruiting a bodyguard. STUDENT: So, the plant is basically calling for help? But does this signal also affect other plants nearby, or is it just meant for the predatory insects? PROFESSOR: That is the central question, Tomas. And the answer is yes, neighboring plants can 'eavesdrop' on these chemical signals. This leads to a phenomenon called priming. Priming is a physiological state in which a neighboring, undamaged plant detects the VOCs from a damaged neighbor and prepares its own defense systems, but without fully activating them right away. It's a way to get ready for an imminent attack without wasting precious energy on producing defensive toxins prematurely. PROFESSOR: Think of it like a home security system being set to 'high alert.' The alarm hasn't gone off, but the sensors are active. If a herbivore then attacks this primed plant, the plant can mount a defense much faster and much more strongly than an unprimed plant would. Now, why don't plants just keep these defenses turned on all the time? Well, synthesizing defensive chemicals requires a massive amount of metabolic energy—resources that would otherwise go toward growth, leaf development, or producing seeds. So priming is an elegant compromise: it saves energy while keeping the plant ready. PROFESSOR: To demonstrate this, researchers did a study with wild tobacco plants. They placed a damaged plant and a healthy plant in a controlled environment. The healthy neighbor exposed to the damaged plant's VOCs didn't immediately start producing nicotine—which is wild tobacco's primary defense toxin. Producing nicotine is incredibly energy-intensive. Instead, the neighbor simply primed its defense genes. But when researchers later introduced caterpillars to that primed neighbor, its nicotine production shot up... well, actually, it doubled within hours, much faster than in plants that hadn't been exposed to the VOCs. This confirmed that priming allows plants to conserve resources. PROFESSOR: Of course, this airborne communication isn't perfect. It can be heavily influenced by environmental factors. For example, strong winds can disperse VOCs too quickly, diluting the chemicals before neighboring plants can detect them. But under calm conditions, this chemical network can effectively protect entire plant communities. [Q6] What is the lecture mainly about?

中文翻譯

旁白：聽一段生物課的講座片段。 教授：今天我們要來討論植物生態學中一個非常迷人的層面：植物與植物之間的溝通。過去很長一段時間，人們認為植物是被動的生物，只是靜靜地待在那裡等著被昆蟲吃掉。但我們現在知道，它們擁有非常複雜且精密的防禦系統。具體來說，我們將探討植物如何利用我們所說的「揮發性有機化合物」（volatile organic compounds，簡稱 VOCs）。VOCs 是一種空氣傳播的化學訊號，當植物受到草食性動物（也就是草食性害蟲）侵害時，會將其釋放到大氣中。 教授：比方說，當毛毛蟲開始啃咬葉子時，植物並不會只是默默承受。它會合成並釋放出這些 VOCs。這會觸發生物學家所說的「間接防禦」。與直接毒害草食性動物的「直接防禦」不同，植物釋放出的這種特定化學混合物就像是求救訊號。這個訊號會吸引該草食性動物的天敵。例如，當皇帝豆（萊馬豆）受到葉蟎攻擊時，它們會釋放 VOCs，專門吸引捕食蟎，進而捕食葉蟎。這是一種招募保鏢的巧妙方式。 學生：所以，植物基本上是在求救囉？但這個訊號也會影響附近的其他植物嗎？還是它只是用來吸引捕食性昆蟲的？ 教授：這就是核心問題了，湯瑪斯。答案是肯定的，鄰近的植物可以「竊聽」這些化學訊號。這會引發一種被稱為「引導效應（priming）」的現象。引導效應是一種生理狀態，鄰近未受損的植物在偵測到受損鄰居釋放的 VOCs 後，會準備好自己的防禦系統，但不會立刻完全啟動。這是一種為即將到來的攻擊做準備的方法，又不會因為過早產生防禦性毒素而浪費珍貴的能量。 教授：你可以把它想像成家用保全系統被設定為「高度戒備」狀態。警報還沒響，但感應器已經啟動了。如果草食性動物隨後攻擊這株已做好準備的植物，它能比未做好準備的植物更快、更強烈地展開防禦。那麼，為什麼植物不一直開啟這些防禦機制呢？因為合成防禦性化學物質需要消耗大量的代謝能量，而這些資源原本可以用於生長、葉片發育或產生種子。因此，引導效應是一個巧妙的折衷方案：既能節省能量，又能讓植物隨時做好準備。 教授：為了證實這一點，研究人員對野生菸草進行了一項研究。他們將一株受損的植物和一株健康的植物放在受控環境中。暴露在受損植物 VOCs 中的健康鄰居，並沒有立即開始產生尼古丁——這是野生菸草主要的防禦毒素。因為製造尼古丁非常消耗能量。相反地，鄰近的植物只是先引導了其防禦基因。但當研究人員隨後將毛毛蟲放到那株已做好準備的植物上時，它的尼古丁產量急遽上升……事實上，在幾個小時內就翻了一倍，比未暴露於 VOCs 的植物快得多。這證實了引導效應能讓植物保存資源。 教授：當然，這種空氣傳播的溝通方式並不完美。它會受到環境因素的強烈影響。例如，強風會過快地分散 VOCs，在鄰近植物偵測到之前就將這些化學物質稀釋了。但在無風的情況下，這種化學網絡可以有效保護整個植物群落。

(Shared with Q6.) [Q7] According to the professor, what is an indirect defense?

中文翻譯

（與第 6 題共用。）[第 7 題] 根據教授的說法，什麼是間接防禦？

(Shared with Q6.) [Q8] According to the professor, what happens during the process of priming? Choose 2 answers.

中文翻譯

（與第 6 題共用。）[第 8 題] 根據教授的說法，在引發作用（priming）的過程中會發生什麼事？請選出 2 個答案。

(Shared with Q6.) [Q9] Why does the professor mention a home security system?

中文翻譯

（與第 6 題共用）[第 9 題] 教授為什麼提到居家保全系統？

(Shared with Q6.) [Q10] According to the professor, what did the study on wild tobacco plants demonstrate?

中文翻譯

（與第 6 題共用）[第 10 題] 根據教授的說法，這項針對野生菸草植物的研究證實了什麼？

(Shared with Q6.) [Replay: "shot up... well, actually, it doubled within hours"] [Q11] Why does the professor say this:

中文翻譯

（與第 6 題共用。）［重播：「迅速竄升……呃，事實上，它在幾個小時之內就翻倍了」］

NARRATOR: Listen to a conversation between a student and a registrar's office administrator. STAFF: Hi there. How can I help you today? STUDENT: Hi. Um, I'm hoping to graduate at the end of next semester, in the spring. But when I checked my online degree audit this morning, it says I'm still three credits short in my major electives. The thing is, I took a course last summer at another university—Global Environmental Policy— and I was under the impression that those credits had already transferred over. STAFF: Okay, let's take a look at your record... Sofia, right? Yes, I see your file here. I do see a note about the summer course, but the credits haven't been officially applied to your degree audit. Did you submit the Transfer Credit Pre-Approval Form before you took the class? STUDENT: Oh, uh, actually, no. I didn't know I needed to do that beforehand. I thought I could just send over the official transcript once the course was completed. Which I did, about a month... wait, actually, it was early August, so almost two months ago. STAFF: Ah, I see. That explains it. Ordinarily, students must file that pre-approval form so the academic department can verify that the external course matches our curriculum. Since you didn't do that, the system flagged it. But don't worry, it's not an uncommon mistake, and we can still resolve it. STUDENT: Oh, thank goodness. I was really worried I'd have to pay for another class next term or, worse, delay my graduation. What do I need to do to get it approved now? STAFF: You'll need to file a Retroactive Credit Petition. Basically, you'll fill out a form and attach the syllabus from the summer course you took. Then, you'll need to get a signature from the chair of your department—in your case, the Environmental Studies department—to confirm they accept the course content. Once they sign off, you bring the form back to us. STUDENT: Okay, that sounds manageable. I still have the syllabus saved on my computer. Is there a deadline for submitting this petition? STAFF: Yes, for spring graduation candidates, all transfer credit adjustments must be finalized by the end of October. Since we're already in mid-September, I'd suggest getting on this right away. Also, because this is a retroactive petition—meaning it's being filed after the course was completed without prior approval—there is a thirty-dollar administrative fee. STUDENT: A thirty-dollar fee? I guess that's fair, considering it was my oversight. Where do I pay that? Can I do it online? STAFF: You can pay it online through your student portal, or right downstairs at the bursar's window. If you do it online, just print out the receipt and attach it to your petition form when you submit it. Remember, we can't process the petition without that receipt. STUDENT: Got it. I'll download the petition form right now, email my department chair with the syllabus, and get this sorted out. Thanks so much for your help! STAFF: You're very welcome. Good luck with your final semesters! [Q12] Why does the student go to see the registrar's office administrator?

中文翻譯

旁白：聽一段學生和註冊組職員之間的對話。 職員：嗨，你好。今天有什麼我可以幫忙的嗎？ 學生：嗨。嗯，我希望能在下學期末，也就是春季畢業。但我今天早上查看線上的學位審核系統時，上面顯示我的主修選修還差三個學分。問題是，我去年夏天在另一所大學修了一門「全球環境政策」課，我以為那些學分已經轉過來了。 職員：好的，讓我們看一下妳的紀錄……蘇菲亞，對吧？是的，我看到妳的檔案了。我確實有看到關於暑期課程的備註，但這些學分還沒有正式登錄到妳的學位審核中。妳在修這門課之前，有提交「學分抵免事前審查表」嗎？ 學生：喔，呃，其實沒有。我之前不知道需要事先申請。我以為只要課程結束後寄送正式成績單過來就可以了。我確實寄了，大概一個月……等等，其實是八月初，所以差不多是兩個月前。 職員：啊，我明白了。難怪。通常情況下，學生必須先提交事前審查表，以便學術學系核實外校課程是否符合我們的課程大綱。因為妳沒有這麼做，系統就把這筆紀錄標記起來了。不過別擔心，這不是少見的錯誤，我們還是可以解決。 學生：噢，謝天謝地。我真的很擔心下學期還要再付錢多修一門課，或者更糟的是要延後畢業。那我現在需要做什麼才能讓它獲得批准呢？ 職員：妳需要填寫一份「事後學分抵免申請書」。基本上，妳要填好表格，並附上妳修過的那門暑期課程的課程大綱。然後，妳需要得到妳所屬學系——在妳的情況下是環境研究系——系主任的簽名，以確認他們接受該課程內容。一旦他們簽字，妳再把表格拿回給我們。 學生：好的，這聽起來還可以應付。我的電腦裡還存著那份課程大綱。提交這份申請有截止日期嗎？ 職員：有的，對於春季畢業的候選人，所有抵免學分調整必須在十月底前完成。既然現在已經九月中旬了，我建議妳立刻著手辦理。另外，因為這是事後申請——意思是這是在沒有事先批准的情況下，於課程結束後才提交的——所以需要支付三十美元的行政費用。 學生：三十美元的費用？我想這很合理，畢竟是我自己的疏忽。我要在哪裡付款？可以在線上付嗎？ 職員：妳可以透過學生入口網站線上付款，或者直接到樓下的出納組窗口繳費。如果妳在線上付款，只要印出收據，並在繳交申請表時附在上面即可。請記住，沒有收據我們就無法處理這項申請。 學生：明白了。我現在就去下載申請表，把課程大綱寄給我們的系主任，把這件事搞定。非常感謝您的幫忙！ 職員：不客氣。祝妳最後一個學期順利！

(Shared with Q12.) [Q13] According to the administrator, why were the student's summer credits not automatically applied to her degree audit?

中文翻譯

（與第12題共用）[第13題] 根據行政人員的說法，為什麼該名學生的暑期學分沒有自動採計到她的學位審查中？

(Shared with Q12.) [Q14] What can be inferred about the student's attitude regarding the thirty-dollar administrative fee?

中文翻譯

（與第12題共用。）[第14題] 關於這筆30美元的行政費用，可以推斷出學生的態度為何？

(Shared with Q12.) [Q15] Why does the administrator mention the end of October?

中文翻譯

（與第 12 題共用音檔）[第 15 題] 行政人員為何提到十月底？

(Shared with Q12.) [Replay: "Ah, I see. That explains it. Ordinarily, students must file that pre-approval form so the academic department can verify that the external course matches our curriculum."] [Q16] Why does the speaker say this:

中文翻譯

「啊，我明白了。難怪。一般情況下，學生必須提交那份預審表，好讓學系能夠確認外校的課程符合我們的課綱。」

NARRATOR: Listen to part of a lecture in an environmental science class. PROFESSOR: Welcome back, everyone. Today, we're going to dive into a phenomenon that occurs right above our heads but is often completely invisible to the naked eye: atmospheric gravity waves. Now, before we proceed, let's make a critical distinction. Do not confuse atmospheric gravity waves with gravitational waves. The latter are ripples in spacetime from massive cosmic events like colliding black holes—that's astrophysics. Atmospheric gravity waves, on the other hand, are physical oscillations in our atmosphere. They are generated when a parcel of air is forced upward—say, by a mountain range—and gravity, or rather buoyancy, acts as a restoring force, pulling it back down, causing it to oscillate. PROFESSOR: For these waves to exist, we need stable stratification. This is an atmospheric condition where warmer, less dense air sits on top of colder, denser air. If a wind pushes cold air up into the warm layer, it's denser than its surroundings, so gravity pulls it back down. As it sinks, it overshoots, gets too warm, and buoyancy pushes it back up. This back-and-forth motion propagates horizontally as a wave. STUDENT: So, is it like throwing a pebble into a pond, but in the air? PROFESSOR: Exactly, Yuki. The mountain acts as the pebble, and the air acts as the water surface. In meteorology, we call these mountain-induced disturbances 'orographic gravity waves.' Now, these waves are not just local curiosities. They play a massive role in global climate systems. When these waves propagate upward into the mesosphere—that's about fifty to eighty-five kilometers up—they eventually 'break,' much like ocean waves crashing on a beach. When they break, they transfer momentum to the background flow. This momentum deposition acts as a drag, slowing down the powerful jet streams or even driving the global atmospheric circulation from the equator to the poles. PROFESSOR: Here's the catch: because these waves are relatively small, often just a few kilometers in horizontal scale, they are what we call 'sub-grid scale.' This means they are too small to be directly resolved by our global climate models, which divide the Earth into a grid of squares that are typically tens of kilometers wide. So, if a climate model can't 'see' these waves, it will miscalculate wind speeds and temperature distributions globally. To fix this, meteorologists must use 'parameterization'—which is a method of representing the simplified, average effects of these small-scale processes based on larger, resolvable variables. PROFESSOR: Let's look at a specific consequence when we fail to parameterize them correctly. In the winter, the polar vortex—the cold ring of winds around the poles—is highly sensitive to wave drag. Without proper parameterization of gravity waves generated by the Rocky Mountains or the Himalayas, models would predict an unrealistically strong polar vortex, leading to completely inaccurate winter weather forecasts for mid-latitudes. PROFESSOR: Another fascinating aspect is 'wave ducting.' This happens when a gravity wave gets trapped in a stable layer of the atmosphere, sandwiched between the ground and a higher layer of unstable air. Instead of propagating upward and dispersing its energy into the upper atmosphere, the wave is channeled horizontally, travel—uh, travelling thousands of kilometers without losing much intensity. This can lead to unexpected, severe windstorms far away from the mountains that originally generated the wave. We've seen this happen in the lee of the Rocky Mountains, where ducted waves suddenly surface as destructive wind gusts in the plains. [Q17] What is the lecture mainly about?

中文翻譯

旁白：請聽一段環境科學課的演講片段。 教授：大家歡迎回來。今天，我們要深入探討一個就發生在我們頭頂上方、但肉眼通常完全看不見的現象：大氣重力波（atmospheric gravity waves）。在開始之前，我們先做個關鍵的區分。請不要將「大氣重力波」與「重力波」（gravitational waves）混淆。後者是來自黑洞碰撞等巨大宇宙事件的時空漣漪——那是天體物理學的範疇。而大氣重力波則是我們大氣層中的物理振盪。當一團空氣被迫向上推——例如被山脈阻擋——此時重力（更確切地說是浮力）會作為回復力將其拉回，進而導致其產生振盪，大氣重力波就這樣產生了。 教授：這些波動要存在，我們需要「穩定分層（stable stratification）」。這是一種大氣狀態，此時較溫暖、密度較低的空氣位於較寒冷、密度較高的空氣之上。如果風將冷空氣向上推入溫暖層，因為它比周圍環境更密，所以重力會將它拉回。當它下沉時，會因為慣性超越原位，變得太溫暖，接著浮力又將它往上推。這種來回的運動就會以波的形式水平傳播。 學生：所以，這就像往池塘裡丟一顆石頭，只是發生在空氣中嗎？ 教授：沒錯，由紀。山脈就像是那顆石頭，而空氣就像是水面。在氣象學中，我們將這些由地形引起的擾動稱為「地形重力波（orographic gravity waves）」。現在，這些波動不只是地方性的奇特現象，它們在全球氣候系統中扮演著極其重要的角色。當這些波動向上傳播到中間層（mesosphere）——大約是五十到八十五公里高空時——它們最終會「破碎」，就像海浪拍打在沙灘上碎裂一樣。當它們破碎時，會將動量轉移到背景流中。這種動量沈積起到了阻力的作用，會減緩強大的噴流，甚至推動從赤道到兩極的全球大氣環流。 教授：但問題來了：因為這些波動的規模相對較小，水平尺度通常只有幾公里，所以它們屬於我們所說的「次網格尺度（sub-grid scale）」。這意味著它們太小了，無法被我們的全球氣候模型直接解析，因為氣候模型是將地球劃分為通常寬達數十公里的正方形網格。因此，如果氣候模型無法「看到」這些波動，就會錯誤計算全球的風速和溫度分布。為了解決這個問題，氣象學家必須使用「參數化（parameterization）」——這是一種根據較大且可解析的變數，來表示這些小尺度過程的簡化平均效應的方法。 教授：讓我們來看看如果我們未能正確進行參數化會產生的具體後果。在冬季，極地渦旋（polar vortex）——環繞極地的寒冷風環——對波阻力高度敏感。如果沒有對洛磯山脈或喜馬拉雅山脈產生的重力波進行適當的參數化，模型將會預測出不切實際的強烈極地渦旋，從而導致對中緯度地區冬季天氣的預報完全不準確。 教授：另一個引人入勝的方面是「波導（wave ducting）」。這發生在重力波被困在大氣的穩定層中，夾在地面和上方較高的不穩定空氣層之間。此時，波動不會向上傳播並將能量消散到高層大氣中，而是被引導向水平方向傳播——呃，傳播數千公里而不會流失太多強度。這可能會導致在遠離最初產生該波動的山脈地區，出現意想不到的嚴重暴風雨。我們在洛磯山脈的背風側就見過這種情況，被波導引導的波突然在平原上顯現為具破壞性的陣風。

(Shared with Q17.) [Q18] According to the professor, what is required for atmospheric gravity waves to form?

中文翻譯

（與第 17 題共用。）[第 18 題] 根據教授的說法，大氣重力波形成需要什麼條件？

(Shared with Q17.) [Q19] Why does the professor mention the polar vortex?

中文翻譯

（與第 17 題共用。）[第 19 題] 教授為什麼提到極地渦旋？

(Shared with Q17.) [Q20] Based on the discussion of wave ducting, what is a primary danger associated with this phenomenon?

中文翻譯

（與第 17 題共用）[第 20 題] 根據對波導現象的討論，與此現象相關的主要危險是什麼？

(Shared with Q17.) [Q21] What can be inferred about global climate models that do not use parameterization for gravity waves?

中文翻譯

（與第 17 題共用）[Q21] 關於未使用重力波參數化的全球氣候模型，可以推論出什麼？

(Shared with Q17.) [Replay: "Now, before we proceed, let's make a critical distinction. Do not confuse atmospheric gravity waves with gravitational waves."] [Q22] Why does the professor say this:

中文翻譯

（與第 17 題共用。）［重播：『現在，在我們繼續之前，先做一個關鍵的區分。請不要將大氣重力波（atmospheric gravity waves）與重力波（gravitational waves）混淆。』］［第 22 題］教授為什麼說這句話？

NARRATOR: Listen to part of a lecture in a linguistics class. PROFESSOR: Today, we’re going to challenge a long-held assumption in cognitive psychology and linguistics: the idea that human beings are, well, universally terrible at naming smells. For decades, researchers argued that our olfactory system has a weak connection to our language centers. If I ask you to describe the scent of, say, gasoline, you’ll probably say 'it smells like gasoline' or 'it's chemical-like'. This is what we call source-based naming—identifying an odor by referring directly to the object that produces it. Actually, wait, you might also say 'it's sharp,' which is a metaphor, but it's still not a dedicated smell word. In English, and indeed in most Western languages, we almost completely lack abstract odor terms. An abstract odor term, by definition, is a word that describes a smell itself, independent of any source object, in the same way 'blue' describes a color without referring to the sky or a blueberry. PROFESSOR: Now, is this limitation a biological truth of the human brain? Well, recent fieldwork suggests otherwise. Let's look at the Jahai people, a hunter-gatherer group living in the Malay Peninsula. Researchers tested Jahai speakers and English speakers on their ability to name both colors and smells. They measured what linguists call codability—that is, the ease and consistency with which speakers of a language can identify a stimulus. If ten people look at a red square, and they all immediately say 'red', that stimulus has high codability. PROFESSOR: For English speakers, color codability was extremely high, but odor codability was, well, quite poor—actually, abysmal is a more accurate term. They used long, hesitant descriptions, and rarely agreed on a label. But for the Jahai? Their agreement on odors was just as high and instantaneous as their agreement on colors. Why? Because the Jahai language has a rich set of about a dozen abstract, basic words for smells. For example, they have a word, ltpɨt, which refers to a pleasant, sweet smell associated with certain ripe fruits, flowers, and even some species of insects. It doesn't mean 'banana' or 'wasp'; it describes the quality of the scent itself. STUDENT: Excuse me, Professor. Could this linguistic difference just be because the Jahai live in a tropical rainforest with more, you know, rich botanical smells than a typical city? PROFESSOR: That's a very logical hypothesis, and indeed, environmental exposure does play a role. But it isn't the whole story. Even when English speakers are highly trained—like professional wine tasters or perfumers—they still rely heavily on source-based language, like 'notes of leather' or 'citrus'. They don't magically invent abstract, non-source-based terms. So, it's not just about expertise or the density of odors in the environment; it is a structural property of the language itself. This suggests that our cognitive architecture—the way our minds organize sensory data—is far more flexible than we once thought. It means our inability to name smells is a cultural and linguistic trait, not an evolutionary hardware limitation. PROFESSOR: This brings us to the broader implications for the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, or linguistic relativity. This hypothesis, as you might recall, suggests that the structure of a language influences its speakers' non-linguistic cognitive processes. In the case of the Jahai, having these dedicated smell words seems to make them much more adept at discriminating between subtle scent variations. They aren't just better at talking about smells; they actually process olfactory information differently, categorizing and remembering scents with a precision that English speakers struggle to match. [Q23] What is the lecture mainly about?

中文翻譯

旁白：請聽一段語言學課程的講座片段。 教授：今天，我們要來挑戰一個在認知心理學和語言學中長期存在的假設：也就是人類「普遍不擅長為氣味命名」的這個觀點。數十年來，研究人員一直認為我們的嗅覺系統與語言中心的連結很微弱。如果我要求你們描述某種氣味，比如汽油，你們可能會說「聞起來像汽油」或「有化學物質的味道」。這就是我們所說的「基於來源的命名」（source-based naming）——藉由直接提及產生該氣味的物體來識別氣味。事實上，等等，你們也可能會說「這味道很刺鼻」，這是一種隱喻，但它仍然不是專門用來形容氣味的詞彙。在英文，甚至在大多數西方語言中，我們幾乎完全缺乏「抽象的氣味詞彙」。根據定義，抽象氣味詞彙是指用來描述氣味本身的詞彙，它獨立於任何來源物體，就像「藍色」描述一種顏色，而不需要提及天空或藍莓一樣。 教授：那麼，這種限制是人類大腦在生理上的真實限制嗎？嗯，最近的田野調查顯示並非如此。讓我們來看看生活在馬來半島的狩獵採集群體——雅海人（Jahai）。研究人員測試了雅海語母語者和英語母語者對顏色及氣味的命名能力。他們測量了語言學家所說的「可編碼性」（codability）——也就是某種語言的母語者在識別某種刺激時的簡易度與一致性。如果十個人看著一個紅色方塊，並且都立刻說出「紅色」，那麼該刺激就具有很高的可編碼性。 教授：對於英語母語者來說，顏色的可編碼性極高，但氣味的可編碼性卻非常差——事實上，用「糟透了」來形容會更準確。他們使用了冗長且猶豫不決的描述，而且很少在名稱上達成共識。但雅海人呢？他們對氣味命名的一致性及即時性，就和他們對顏色的共識一樣高。為什麼？因為雅海語擁有一套豐富的系統，包含大約十幾個抽象且基本的氣味詞彙。例如，他們有一個詞「ltpɨt」，指的是與某些成熟水果、花朵、甚至是某些昆蟲相關的一種令人愉悅、甜甜的氣味。它並不是「香蕉」或「胡蜂」的意思，而是描述氣味本身的品質。 學生：教授，不好意思。這種語言上的差異，有沒有可能只是因為雅海人生活在熱帶雨林中，那裡有比一般城市更多、更豐富的植物氣味？ 教授：這是一個非常合理的假說，環境接觸確實扮演了一定的角色。但這並不是全部的原因。即使是受過高度訓練的英語母語者——例如專業的品酒師或調香師——他們仍然高度依賴基於來源的語言，例如「皮革味」或「柑橘味」。他們並不會奇蹟般地發明出抽象、非基於來源的詞彙。因此，這不僅僅是專業知識或環境中氣味密度的問題，而是語言本身的結構屬性。這表明我們的認知架構（即我們的大腦組織感官數據的方式）比我們曾經認為的要靈活得多。這意味著我們無法為氣味命名是一種文化和語言特徵，而不是演化上的硬體限制。 教授：這帶領我們走向「薩皮爾-沃夫假說」（Sapir-Whorf hypothesis）或「語言相對論」（linguistic relativity）更廣泛的啟示。你們可能還記得，這個假說認為語言的結構會影響其母語者的非語言認知過程。在雅海人的案例中，擁有這些專門的氣味詞彙似乎使他們更善於區分細微的氣味差異。他們不僅更擅長討論氣味，實際上處理嗅覺訊息的方式也不同，能夠以英語母語者難以企及的精準度來對氣味進行分類和記憶。

(Shared with Q23.) [Q24] According to the professor, what distinguishes an abstract odor term from source-based naming?

中文翻譯

（與第 23 題共用聲音檔。）[第 24 題] 根據教授的說法，區分抽象氣味詞彙與來源導向命名的關鍵是什麼？

(Shared with Q23.) [Q25] According to the lecture, what did researchers discover when comparing English speakers and Jahai speakers? Choose 2 answers.

中文翻譯

（與第 23 題共用。）[第 25 題] 根據這場講座，研究人員在比較英語使用者和雅海語（Jahai）使用者時發現了什麼？請選出2個答案。

(Shared with Q23.) [Q26] Why does the professor mention professional wine tasters and perfumers?

中文翻譯

（與第 23 題共用。）［第 26 題］教授為什麼提到專業的品酒師和調香師？

(Shared with Q23.) [Q27] What does the professor imply about the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis?

中文翻譯

（與第 23 題共用聽力文本。）[第 27 題] 關於薩丕爾-沃夫假說（Sapir-Whorf hypothesis），教授暗示了什麼？

(Shared with Q23.) [Replay: "For English speakers, color codability was extremely high, but odor codability was, well, quite poor—actually, abysmal is a more accurate term."] [Q28] Why does the professor say this:

中文翻譯

（與第 23 題共用。）［重播：「對英語使用者來說，顏色編碼能力極高，但氣味編碼能力，嗯，相當差——事實上，用『極其差勁』來形容更為貼切。」］