Current feminist theory, in validating women's own stories of their experience, has encouraged scholars of women's history to view the use of women's oral narratives as the methodology, next to the use of women's written autobiography, that brings historians closest to the "reality" of women's lives. Such narratives, unlike most standard histories, represent experience from the perspective of women, affirm the importance of women's contributions, and furnish present-day women with historical continuity that is essential to their identity, individually and collectively.
Scholars of women's history should, however, be as cautious about accepting oral narratives at face value as they already are about written memories. Oral narratives are no more likely than are written narratives to provide a disinterested commentary on events or people. Moreover, the stories people tell to explain themselves are shaped by narrative devices and storytelling conventions, as well as by other cultural and historical factors, in ways that the storytellers may be unaware of. The political rhetoric of a particular era, for example, may influence women's interpretations of the significance of their experience. Thus a woman who views the Second World War as pivotal in increasing the social acceptance of women's paid work outside the home may reach that conclusion partly and unwittingly because of wartime rhetoric encouraging a positive view of women's participation in such work.
According to the passage, scholars of women's history should refrain from doing which of the following?
Relying on traditional historical sources when women's oral narratives are unavailable
Focusing on the influence of political rhetoric on women's perceptions to the exclusion of other equally important factors
Attempting to discover the cultural and historical factors that influence the stories women tell
Assuming that the conventions of women's written autobiographies are similar to the conventions of women's oral narratives
Accepting women's oral narratives less critically than they accept women's written histories
题目分析:
题目释义:
细节题目
考点:
支持主题(Supporting ideas)
旨在考察我们对文章细节的认知
这道题目需定位在最后一段整段,小心之处即是学者们需要注意的,也是从这个地方才可以找出学者不应去做什么。
选项分析:
A选项:当没有女性口述者的描述的时候就依靠传统的历史资源。文中没有提到类似没有“口述”怎么办。所以我们也无从得知学者们应不应这么做。
B选项:仅仅注重政治言论修辞对女性观点的影响而不注重其他等重要的因素。这个选项定位在“the stories people tell to explain themselves are shaped by narrative devices and storytelling conventions, as well as by other cultural and historical factors, in ways that the storytellers may be unaware of.”但是作者并没有说不注意到其他的因素可不可以。所以这个选项也不正确。
C选项:试图去发现影响女性的口述故事的文化和历史的因素。文章中没有提及是否要去考察这些因素。所以这个也不能从文章中推出学者们应不应做这件事。不过就文章的意思来看,这样做也许会有帮助的,至少不用抑制学者们去做。
D选项:假设女性自传的惯用手法和女性口述者的惯用手法是一致的。文中没有提到笔述者的惯用手法。所以我们无从判断是否应该避免假设这两者的惯用手法一致。
E选项:Correct. 接受口述的不像接受笔述的历史那样苛刻要求。定位在第一句话“Scholars of women's history should, however, be as cautious about accepting oral narratives at face value as they already are about written memories. ”。作者希望的是更加小心,即可以认为是要更加苛刻。所以该选项为正确选项。
Scholars of women's history should, however, be as cautious about accepting oral narratives at face value as they already are about written memories.
refrain from 控制自己不做什么,忍住,问题对应第二段第一句话
convention: is a traditional method or style in art, literature, or the theatre
Scholars of women's history should, however, be as cautious about accepting oral narratives at face value as they already are about written memories.
定位对了,理解错了
第一段的next to the use of women’s written autobiography 不是说先考虑written autobiography 再考虑oral narratives吗
refrain from意味克制不要,忍住。问题意为他们不应该做什么
refrain忍住,问题是不应该做什么,而不是应该做什么
please refrain from smoking,请勿吸烟,那么refrain的意思应该是不应该做什么。
登录 或 注册 后可以参加讨论
细节1,第二段第一句话原意改写