A Polish proverb claims that fish, to taste right, should three times—in water, in butter and in wine. The early efforts of the basic scientists in the food industry were directed at improving the preparation, preservation, and distribution of safe and nutritious food. Our memories of certain foodstuffs eaten during the World War II suggest that, although these might have been safe and nutritious, they certainly did not taste right nor were they particularly appetizing in appearance or smell. This neglect of the sensory appeal of foods is happily becoming a thing of the past. Bow, in the book “Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food,” the authors hope that it will be useful to food technologists in industry and also to others engaged in research into problem of sensory evaluation of foods. An attempt has clearly been make to collect every possible piece of information, which might be useful, more than one thousand five hundred references being quoted. As a result, the book seems at first sight to be an exhaustive and critically useful review of the literature. This it certainly is, but this is by no means is its only achievement, for there are many suggestions for further lines of research, and the discursive passages are crisply provocative of new ideas and new ways of looking at established findings.

　　Of particular interest is the weight given to the psychological aspects of perception, both objectively and subjectively. The relation between stimuli and perception is well covered, and includes a valuable discussion of the uses and disadvantages of the Weber fraction of differences. It is interesting to find that in spite of many attempts to separate and define the modalities of taste, nothing better has been achieved than the familiar classification into sweet, sour salty and bitter. Nor is there as yet any clear-cut evidence of the physiological nature of the taste stimulus. With regard to smell, systems of classification are of little value because of the extraordinary sensitivity of the nose and because the response to the stimulus is so subjective. The authors suggest that a classification based on the size, shape and electronic status of the molecule involved merits further investigation, as does the theoretical proposition that weak physical binding of the stimulant molecule to he receptor site is a necessary part of the mechanism of stimulation.

　　Apart from taste and smell, there are many other components of perception of the sensations from food in the mouth. The basic modalities of pain, cold, warmth and touch, together with vibration sense, discrimination and localization may all play a part, as, of course, does auditory reception of bone-conducted vibratory stimuli from the teeth when eating crisp or crunchy foods. In this connection the authors rightly point out that this type of stimulus requires much more investigation, suggesting that a start might be made by using subjects afflicted with various forms of deafness. It is well-known that extraneous noise may alter discrimination, and the attention of the authors is directed to the work of Prof. H. J. Eysenck on the “stimulus hunger” of extroverts and the “stimulus avoidance” of introverts.

　　1. The reviewer uses a Polish proverb at the beginning of the article in order to

　　[A]. introduce, in an interesting manner, the discussion of food.

　　[B]. show the connection between food and nationality of food.

　　[C]. indicate that there are various ways to prepare food.

　　[D]. impress upon the reader the food value of fish.

　　2. The reviewers appraisal of “Principles of Sensory Evaluation of Food” is one of

　　[A]. mixed feelings. [B]. indifference

　　[C]. high praise. [D]. faint praise.

　　3. The writer of the article does not express the view, either directly or by implication, that

　　[A]. sharply defined classifications of taste are needed.

　　[B]. more research should be done regarding the molecular constituency of food.

　　[C]. food values are objectively determined by an expert “smeller”.

　　[D]. temperature is an important factor in the value of food.

　　4. The authors of the book suggest the use of deaf subject because

　　[A]. deaf people are generally introversive.

　　[B]. the auditory sense is an important factor in food evaluation.

　　[C]. they are more fastidious in their choice of foods.

　　[D]. All types of subjects should be used.

　　Vocabulary

　　1. preservation 保鮮，保存

　　2. sensory appeal 感官的魅力

　　3. be provocative of 脫穎而出

　　4. exhaustive 詳盡的，無(wú)遺漏的

　　5. discursive 推論的

　　6. be provocative of 引起……爭(zhēng)論/興趣等的

　　7. crisp 有力的，有勁的

　　8. perception 感覺(jué)，知覺(jué)，直覺(jué)

　　9. modality 方式

　　modality of taste (味)感覺(jué)到

　　10. discrimination 鑒別力

　　11. localization 地區(qū)性，定位

　　12. merit 值得……，有……價(jià)值

　　13. crunchy 嘎吱作響的

　　14. extraneous 外部的

　　15. extrovert 外向性格的人

　　16. introvert 內(nèi)項(xiàng)性格的人

　　難句譯注

　　1. although these might have been safe and nutritious, they certainly did not taste right nor were they particularly appetizing in appearance or smell.

　　[結(jié)構(gòu)簡(jiǎn)析] in appearance or smell 應(yīng)譯成：色或香。

　　[參考譯文] 雖然這些飯菜可能是安全又有營(yíng)養(yǎng)，但是肯定味不正，特別是在色，香上難以增進(jìn)食欲。

　　2. This it certainly is, but this is by no means is its only achievement, for there are many suggestions for further lines of research, and the discursive passages are crisply provocative of new ideas and new ways of looking at established findings.

　　[結(jié)構(gòu)簡(jiǎn)析] 復(fù)合句。This 指前一句內(nèi)容：書既詳細(xì)又是對(duì)有關(guān)食品學(xué)的文字做了十分有用的評(píng)論……。 Be provocative of 引起……爭(zhēng)論或興趣。

　　[參考譯文] 確實(shí)如此，可是這并不是書的唯一成就，因?yàn)闀鴥?nèi)有許多關(guān)于進(jìn)一步研究范圍的建議。推論性篇章及能令人非常感興趣的看待現(xiàn)存成果的新觀點(diǎn)和新方法。

　　3. The relation between stimuli and perception is well covered, and includes a valuable discussion of the uses and disadvantages of the Weber fraction of differences.

　　Weber fraction 為Ernest Heinrich Weber所著，他生于1795年，死與1878，是德國(guó)生理學(xué)家。

　　[參考譯文] 書中詳細(xì)論及刺激和感覺(jué)的關(guān)系。還包括了一篇很有價(jià)值的討論文章：談?wù)撏�伯分�(jǐn)?shù)在評(píng)價(jià)差異上的缺點(diǎn)和實(shí)用性。

　　寫作方法和文章大意

　　這是一篇介紹“感官評(píng)價(jià)食品的原理“一書的序言。評(píng)者從書的讀者對(duì)象，書的篇幅到內(nèi)涵具體涉及片談起，從主觀到客觀論證，采用例子和對(duì)比說(shuō)明。第一段全面介紹，點(diǎn)出此書不同于過(guò)去的書。它們都把重點(diǎn)放在改善準(zhǔn)備，保養(yǎng)和銷售上。此書信息多，引證參考資料多，對(duì)今后研究有新建議; 對(duì)已有成果有新關(guān)點(diǎn)。第二段，從客觀到主觀的論述味覺(jué)，嗅覺(jué)并加以對(duì)比。第三段從眾多其它感覺(jué)中，以聽(tīng)覺(jué)為重點(diǎn)論證。

　　答案祥解

　　1. A. 以有趣的方式開(kāi)始介紹食品討論。文章一開(kāi)始，評(píng)者就用“波蘭有一諺語(yǔ)說(shuō)，魚，要想品味正，應(yīng)游泳三次——在水里游，在油里游和在酒中游�！边@是國(guó)外廣告式論說(shuō)文經(jīng)常才用的一種寫作方式。目的是吸引讀者，激起他們想讀下去的欲望，以達(dá)到推廣作用。

　　B. 表明食品和國(guó)籍的關(guān)系。 C. 表明有各種準(zhǔn)備食品的方法。 D. 加深讀者對(duì)魚的價(jià)值的影響，三項(xiàng)都不對(duì)。

　　2. C. 評(píng)價(jià)高。評(píng)論者當(dāng)然對(duì)此書評(píng)價(jià)極高，這是序言的必然途徑。貶的就是批評(píng)文章了。全篇文章也說(shuō)明這點(diǎn)。

　　3. C. 食品價(jià)值由專家的嗅覺(jué)客觀決定。這和第二段后半段的內(nèi)涵有聯(lián)系。他說(shuō)，味道可分甜，酸，咸辣，而味覺(jué)生理性卻無(wú)明確無(wú)誤的證據(jù)�！爸劣�(嗅覺(jué))聞，由于鼻子特別靈敏，對(duì)外界刺激的反映主觀性強(qiáng)，所以任何分類體系均無(wú)價(jià)值。”作者建議以“大小，形狀和涉及分子電子態(tài)為基礎(chǔ)的分類值得進(jìn)一步探討研究，就像理論性前提一樣。刺激物分子和受體之間弱的物理結(jié)合是刺激生理機(jī)能的必要組成部分。”這段文章談到味覺(jué)，嗅覺(jué)但并沒(méi)有直接或間接表達(dá)這種觀點(diǎn)：食品的價(jià)值是通過(guò)專家的嗅覺(jué)客觀判定。

　　A. 需要明確無(wú)誤的味覺(jué)分類。酸，咸，辣就是味覺(jué)的分類。 B. 有關(guān)食品分子構(gòu)成進(jìn)行更多研究。文內(nèi)也講到有關(guān)分子電子態(tài)應(yīng)進(jìn)一步研究。 D. 溫度是食品評(píng)價(jià)中的一個(gè)因素。文內(nèi)只在第三段提到了“除了味覺(jué)，嗅覺(jué)外，口中食品還有其他許多種感覺(jué)成分，基本為疼，冷，熱，觸碰以及震動(dòng)感，鑒別力和地區(qū)性都可能起作用�！白髡咧苯诱f(shuō)明熱是可能有作用的。

　　4. B. 聽(tīng)覺(jué)在食品評(píng)價(jià)中是一個(gè)重要因素。這在第三段內(nèi)提到。除了味覺(jué)和嗅覺(jué)外，口中食品還會(huì)產(chǎn)生許多其它感覺(jué)。基本可分為痛，冷，熱，觸碰以及震動(dòng)感，鑒別力和地區(qū)性都可能起作用。就像在吃脆硬或嘎嘎作響的食品時(shí)，聽(tīng)覺(jué)接受了來(lái)自牙齒骨操縱的震動(dòng)刺激。在這方面，作者真確指出這種刺激需進(jìn)行更多探討研究，建議運(yùn)用受各種聽(tīng)不見(jiàn)痛苦折磨的 病人作起點(diǎn)研究。眾所周知，外部的噪聲會(huì)改變分辨力和注意力。“這說(shuō)明B. 聽(tīng)覺(jué)在食品評(píng)價(jià)中起著重要作用。是對(duì)的。

　　A. 聾子一般是內(nèi)項(xiàng)的。 C. 他們?cè)谶x擇食品時(shí)很挑剔。 D. 各種物體都應(yīng)當(dāng)應(yīng)用。都和本文無(wú)關(guān)。