|
c718c6c3-7638-4898-b2fb-ed7e01064e6e21.jpg
处处都有战争。词汇也有战争，今天来看看修辞之间的战斗吧！
TIPS
本篇听写只听写嘉宾的话，主持人的话不需要听写。听仔细些。
主持人的话①AA: "Now let me ask you a question, as the images have been coming from Iraq of dead American soldiers and prisoners and so forth, have you detected any change in the political rhetoric coming from politicians or from military leaders? Has there been a different tone in reaction to public reaction to these images?"
HINTS
generate
It is indeed part of the motivation, because language is the perspective, is the window through which we see reality. So if you use the language that distances, then language is metaphorical and it allows you to be somewhat detached from the harshness, the reality, the brutality of war. But in another culture, that would be the opposite. They may use embellished language precisely to do the opposite, to generate hatred or to generate support that could not be possible with logical language.
Not yet. I was thinking about this, and I was waiting to see. But I think that, at least Democrats who oppose the war, are careful not to be quick to now criticize the President three, four, five days into the war, only because for the last three days we have seen prisoners of war. I think that they are cautious. Not that they are not seeing it or feeling it, but they are being cautious.这的确是部分的动机，因为语言的角度来看，是窗口，通过它，我们看到的现实。所以，如果你使用的语言，距离，语言是隐喻，它可以让你在一定程度上分离，现实的残酷，战争的残酷性。但在另一种文化，那将是相反的。正是他们可能使用点缀语言做相反的，，仇恨或产生支持，不可能用逻辑的语言。
尚未。我在思考这个问题，我就等着看。但我认为，至少在民主党人谁反对战争，小心不要被迅速战争到现在批评总统三，四，五天流入，只因为最后三天，我们已经看到了战俘。我认为他们是谨慎的。这并不是说他们没有看到它或感觉，但他们正在谨慎。 | 
发表于 2016-8-2 13:39:06