问题 多项选择题

投资宏观调控的政策手段来自多方面,包括( )等。

A.政府扶持政策

B.财政政策

C.金融政策

D.产业政策

E.地区政策

答案

参考答案:B,C,D,E

阅读理解与欣赏

阅读下面文段,完成15~16题。

汉字之美 妙在多维

沈致远

汉字书法分篆隶楷行草,成为独具一格的艺术。书法家人数之众多,书法工具之精益求精,书法艺术之令人惊艳……举世无双!汉字是全世界最美丽的文字,本文从几何学角度发掘汉字之美。

几何学研究空间,空间具有维度,维度越多自由度越大。维度较抽象,举例以明之:洞中潜蛇为洞壁所限,只能前进后退,它的空间只有一维。原上奔马除前进后退外还能左转右转,它的空间是二维的。空中飞鸟除前进后退、左转右转外,还能向上腾飞向下滑翔,语云:“天空任乌飞”,鸟比谁都自由,因为三维空间具有最大的自由度。

先看一下拉丁语系的拼音文字。以字母为单元的拼音文字本质上是一维的。以圆珠笔写英文字,弯弯曲曲犹如蛇行。英文书法精品是用鹅毛笔或沾水钢笔写出的,随用力轻重不同,笔迹宽度略有变化显示出空间韵律,比圆珠笔写出的笔迹更美,源出于宽度方向的附加自由度。但钢笔字宽度变化有限,犹如前例之蛇洞略放宽些而已,充其量也只能说具有一维半空间。

汉字书法琳琅满目美不胜收:甲骨文之神秘美,钟鼎大小篆之古朴美,隶体之端庄美,楷体之隽秀美,行书玉树临风之飘逸美,草书笔走龙蛇之旷世奇美难以言语形容。

字如其人:王羲之、褚遂良、颜真卿、柳公权、张旭、怀素、苏、黄、米、蔡……名家辈出,各领风骚。书法容百家而各显其个性之瑰丽奇美,源出于汉字具有极大的自由度。

自由度来自多维空间。汉字有指事、象形、形声、会意、转注、假借六书。象形字从图形转化而来,理所当然是二维的。其余五书也多半包含象形部分,例如形声字一半象形一半拟声,非二维不足以容纳。再者,汉字是由横、竖、点、撇、捺等笔划构成的,好比在桌面上拼七巧板,必须有二维的自由度才能拼出千变万化的美丽图案来。可见,汉字本质上是二维的,如原上奔马纵横驰骋,为汉字之美奠定了坚实基础。

书法讲究构架,类似于绘画之构图。至少须有二维空间所提供的大量自由度,字形才谈得上构架,才能体现出篆、隶、楷、行、草之特色,才能将各家之不同风格表现得淋漓尽致。

书法讲究悬腕,书法家手腕悬空,方能随心所欲运臂挥毫,在三维空间中发挥最大的自由度。

书法讲究笔法,在很大程度上应归功于其独特的工具,毛笔是所有笔中最神奇的。笔也有自由度:圆珠笔只有一个自由度。鹅毛笔和钢笔的笔尖分叉,可在宽度上略为施展,其自由度介于一二之间。毛笔由千百根毫毛组成,每根毫毛可有不同程度的弯曲,其自由度岂止千百?正因为毛笔有这么多的自由度,书法家才能得心应手挥洒自如,一支笔写出千般字。尊毛笔为众笔之王,谁曰不宜?

毛笔的众多自由度运用得宜,可增加书法之维度。笔颖蓄墨之丰欠,运笔力度之轻重,笔锋走向之偏正,运用之妙存乎一心。颜真卿楷书严正丰厚极富质感,柳公权笔力遒劲挺拔而具骨感,均能产生视觉之立体效应,是为三维。不信吗?笔力千钧之赞语曰:力透纸背。如无垂直于二维纸面的第三维度,朝哪儿透啊?

(节选自《科学是大众的》)

小题1:.下列分析,不符合文意的一项是    (3分)

A.空中飞鸟比原野骏马享有更高的自由度,证明维度越多则自由度越大的道理。

B.汉字的自由度来自它的多维空间,来自众多书法家的瑰丽奇美的个性和风格。

C.毛笔能够创造出更多的维度,是因为毛笔比其他书写工具具有更大的自由度。

D.颜柳书法力透纸背,能产生视觉上的立体效应,体现了汉字书法的三维效果。小题2:.结合全文,回答以下问题。(7分)

(1)作者在第二段中所说的“三维”指的是什么?(2分)

(2)汉字书法为什么能创造出“三维”的效果?(5分)

单项选择题

Erik Erikson


Born at the tun of the century, Erik Erikson spent his early years in Europe. As a son of well-to-do parents, he received an education that was both formal and informal. Like other upper class children, when he finished his regular schoolwork, he traveled the Continent. He described this period as his moratorium—a term he used in his later theory of human development to describe a temporary life space that adolescents go through between the completion of general academic education and the choice of a life career. He noted that at the time of his own young adulthood, it was fashionable to travel through Europe, gaining a perspective on civilization and one’s own possible place in it. He chose the avocation of portrait painting as an activity during this time. It permitted maximum flexibility for travel and yielded some productive output as well. Obviously talented, he soon gained a reputation as a promising young artist, especially for his portraits of young children.
The turning point in his life came when he was invited to a villa in Austria to do a child’s portrait. He entered the villa and was introduced to the child’s father, Sigmund Freud. These began a series of informal discussions as he completed his work. A few weeks later, he received a written invitation from Freud to join the psychoanalytic institute of Vienna and study for child analysis. Erikson has commented that that at this point he confronted a momentous decision: the choice between a continued moratorium with more traveling and painting, and commitment to a life career pattern. Fortunately for psychology and particularly for our eventual understanding of children and adolescents, Erikson ended the moratorium.
After completing his training, he migrated to this country and served from 1936 to 1939 as a research associate in psychiatry at Yale, and he worked with Henry Murray of TAT fame (Thematic Apperception Test) at Harvard. From 1939 to 1951 he served as professor at the University of California and then moved to the Austen Riggs Clinic in Pittsburgh. With each move, his reputation grew in significance. His theoretical framework was adopted by the White House Conference on Children in 1950. The conference report, a national charter for child and adolescent development in this country, was almost a literal repetition of his thoughts. In 1960 he was offered a university professorship a Harvard in recognition of his national and international stature in the field of human development. The career that started so informally that day at Freud’s villa culminated with almost unprecedented eminence as a professor in one of the country’s oldest and most prestigious institutions of higher education-all without the benefit of a single earned academic degree. Ironically, he was offered only associate status in the American Psychological Association as late as 1950. This oversight was partially removed in 1955 when he was elected as a Fellow of the Division of Developmental Psychology, without ever having been a member.
His work, as we have noted in the text, has made a major contribution to our understanding of healthy psychological growth during all aspects of the life cycle. In addition to the high quality of his insight, Erikson possessed a genuine flair in linguistic expression, both spoken and written. In fact, one could almost compare his command of the English language with the benchmark established in this century by Winston Churchill. In many ways Erikson’s scope was as broad and comprehensive as that of Churchill. Erikson’s genius has been his ability to see the threefold relationship among the person, the immediate environment, and historical forces. Thus, each human is partially shaped by environmental and historical events, but each human, in turn, shapes the environment and can change the course of history. Erikson is equally at home describing the balance of individual strengths and problems for a single "verage" child or teenager as with an analysis of major historical figures such as Martin Luther and Mahatma Gandihi. He shows through personal history how events and reactions during childhood and adolescence prepare humans to be adults. Ralph Waldo Emerson said there is no history, only biography. Erikson’s work attests to this wisdom.
If there were a criticism of his overall framework, it would concern his differentiation between the sexes. As might be expected, he was conditioned and shaped by the major historical and psychological forces of his own time, following in the tradition of a predominantly male oriented theory for psychology. This reminds us of the limits set by historical circumstances, which impinge on all humans. He was able to break with many of the limiting traditions of his time, particularly to move the concept of development from an exclusive pathological focus to a view that emphasized the positive and productive aspects of growth. He was, however, not successful in breaking with the cultural stereotypes regarding female growth.

Erikson’s nationality is ______.

A. Australian
B. Austrian
C. English
D. American