查看听力原文
Listen to a conversation between a student and his European history professor.
So, I wanted to talk about your outline.I do like your topic- William the Conqueror leading the Norman invasion of England.But I-I'm a little concerned about your source... and the fact that you want to use it as the entire basis of your paper.
Really? The Bayeux Tapestry?I thought it was pretty creative to use something that was made to hang on a wall as a source.And as far as I know, it's the most important documentation of the invasion... a firsthand account, right?
Well... you're right, it's considered a primary source.And at 70 meters long, the tapestry certainly is impressive.Imagine the time it took for those embroiderers to sew all those words and images... to tell the story of the Norman forces sailing from France to England...So, yeah, it is an amazing artifact.
But, what's problematic is that the tapestry is a very- mmm, controversial source.Were you aware of this?
Well, I know some pieces of it were probably lost.
It-it is incomplete, but...
Uh, but, I also read that historians have relied on it to help them interpret the events leading up to the invasion, and the battle itself.
Well, it has great historical value, no doubt.But, in my opinion, there's a problem because... well, d-do you know who commissioned the tapestry?
Ahh... It was a church official, um, the bishop of Bayeux, a-a city in France...
Yes, and the bishop was also William the Conqueror's half brother!
Oh-That I didn't know!Whew... but regardless of who commissioned it, isn't the fact that it was based on eyewitness accounts the most important thing?I mean, it was made only seventeen years after the battle, so plenty of eyewitnesses were still alive.
Yes, that's true, but the real point of the controversy isn't the battle itself.It has to do with the reason for the battle: who was the rightful heir to the throne... who would be the next king.And if William the Conqueror's brother is the one who's commissioned this tapestry...
...then he would be the one to decide which words and images would go on the tapestry, and what would be left out.
Exactly. So of course the tapestry shows why William should be the new king.
Oh, I guess I see your point.Embroiderers are just going to do what they're told to do.
You have to understand that the tapestry depicts an entire series of events as they were interpreted by the Normans... the victors of the battle.And that's a problem if you're trying to write objectively about the invasion... especially if you use it as your only source of information.After all, it's important for historians to examine an event from all sides.
旁白：请听一段学生和欧洲史教授之间的对话。
教授：我想跟你谈谈你的论文大纲。我很喜欢你的题目：征服者威廉领导诺曼人入侵英格兰。但是我对于你的原始资料和你想把它用作论文的全部基础有点担心。
学生：真的吗？关于巴约挂毯？我以为我的想法很有创造性，把挂在墙上的东西用作原始资料。并且据我所知，这是最重要的诺曼底人入侵记录的第一手资料，不是吗？
教授：嗯，你是对的。这的确是主要的原始资料。这幅挂毯长70米，令人印象深刻。想象一下，这些刺绣工人花了多少时间缝制出这些文字和图案。。。讲述诺曼人从法国航行到英国的故事。。。所以呢，这是一件惊人的艺术品，
但问题是，这个挂毯是一个非常有争议的原始材料。你对这方面有所了解吗？
学生：嗯，我是知道挂毯的一部分已经遗失了。
教授：挂毯的确残缺不全，但是……
学生：但是我也查到，历史学家也靠它来帮助解读入侵的那段历史和战争本身。
教授：它的确有很大的历史价值。这是毫无疑问的。但是在我看来，还是有个问题……因为，你知道是谁下令做这个挂毯吗？
学生：是一个给教堂做事的人……法国一座叫巴约的城市的主教？
教授：是的，这个主教是征服者威廉的异父/母兄弟。
噢我确实不知道！但是不管是谁下令制造它，它的素材来自于目击者，这总是最重要的事实吧？我的意思是，这个挂毯是在战争结束17年的时候就制造出来了，所以很多目击者还是在世的。
是的，是真的但是争论焦点不在于战争本身。而是在于战争的原因：谁是王座的合法继承者？谁应该是下一任国王？如果征服者威廉的兄弟是这个挂毯的下令制作者的话……
学生：那么他就是那个决定什么故事和图片应该写在挂毯上，什么要被隐瞒下的人。
教授：是的。所以这个挂毯理所当然地展示出威廉才是人心所向。
学生：我想我明白您的意思了。那些织布工人只是按照命令行事。
教授：你要明白，挂毯按照诺曼底人的视角描述了整个故事，而诺曼底人是战争的胜利者。那么如果你要客观地描述这场入侵战争的话，尤其是你把它作为你的论文的唯一原始资料的话，那就有问题了。毕竟，历史学家需要从各个角度来分析一个历史事件。
题型分析：主旨题
原文定位：
So, I wanted to talk about your outline. I do like your topic—William the Conqueror leading the Norman invasion of England. But I–I’m a little concerned about your source … and the fact that you want to use it as the entire basis of your paper.
选项分析：
D选项， 对应了对话开头处教授来找学生的目的。教授找学生讨论他的大纲，以及他的论文需参考的资料，故选项D正确。
ABC 选项均未提及。
如果对题目有疑问，欢迎来提出你的问题，热心的小伙伴会帮你解答。