Sign has become a scientific hot button. Only in the past 20 years have specialists in language study realized that signed languages are unique - a speech of the hand. They offer a new way to probe how the brain generates and understands language, and throw new light on an old scientific controversy: whether language, complete with grammar, is something that we are born with, or whether it is a learned behavior. The current interest in sign language has roots in the pioneering work of one rebel teacher at Gallaudet University in Washington, D.C., the world's only liberal arts university for deaf people.

When Bill Stokoe went to Gallaudet to teach English, the school enrolled him in a course in signing. But Stokoe noticed something odd: among themselves, students signed differently from his classroom teacher.

Stokoe had been taught a sort of gestural code, each movement of the hands representing a word in English. At the time, American Sign Language (ASL) was thought to be no more than a form of pidgin English (混杂英语 ). But Stokoe believed the "hand talk" his students used looked richer. He wondered: Might deaf people actually have a genuine language? And could that language be unlike any other on Earth? It was 1955, when even deaf people dismissed their signing as "substandard". Stokoe's idea was academic heresy (异端邪说 ).

It is 37 years later. Stokoe - now devoting his time to writing and editing books and journals and to producing video materials on ASL and the deaf culture - is having lunch at a caf6 near the Gallaudet campus and explaining how he started a revolution. For decades educators fought his idea that signed languages are natural languages like English, French and Japanese. They assumed language must be based on speech, the modulation (调节) of sound. But sign language is based on the movement of hands, the modulation of space. "What I said," Stokoe explains, "is that language is not mouth stuff- it's brain stuff."

A is for always getting to work on time.

B is for being extremely busy.

C is for the conscientious ( 勤勤恳恳的 ) way you do your job.

You may be all these things at the office, and more. But when it comes to getting ahead, experts' Say, the ABCs of business should include a P, for politics, as in office politics.

Dale Carnegie suggested as much more than 50 years ago: Hard work alone doesn't ensure Career advancement. You have to be able to sell yourself and your ideas, both publicly and behind the scenes. Yet,' despite the obvious rewards Of engaging in office politics - a better job, a raise, praise- many people are still unable or unwilling - to "play the game."

"People assume that office politics involves some manipulative (工于心计的) behavior," says Deborah Comer, an assistant professor of management at Hofstra University. "But politics derives from the word 'polite'. It can mean lobbying and forming associations. It can mean being kind and helpful, or even trying, to please your superior, and then expecting something in return."

In fact, today, experts define office politics as proper behavior used to pursue one's own self-interest in the workplace. In many cases, this involves some form of socializing within the office environment - not just in large companies, but in small workplaces as well.

"The first thing people are usually judged on is their ability to perform well on a consistent basis," says Neil P. Lewis, a management psychologist. "But if two or three candidates are up for a promotion, each of whom has reasonably similar ability, a manager is going to promote the person he or she likes best. It's simple human nature."

Yet, psychologists say,many employees and employers have trouble with the concept of politics in the office. Some people, they say, have an idealistic vision of work and what it takes to succeed. Still others associate politics with flattery (奉承), fearful that, if they speak up for themselves, they may appear to be flattering their boss for favors.

Experts suggest altering this negative picture by recognizing the need for some self-promotion.

It came as something of a surprise when Diana, Princess of Wales, made a trip co Angola in 1997, to support the Red Cross's campaign for a total ban on all anti-personnel landmines. Within hours of arriving in Angola, television screens around the world were filled with images of her comforting victims injured in explosions caused by landmines. "I knew the statistics," she said. "But putting a face to those figures brought the reality home to me; like when I met Sandra, a 13- year-old girl who had lost her leg, and people like her."

The Princess concluded with a simple message: "We must stop landmines". And she used every opportunity during her visit to repeat this message.

But, back in London, her views were not' shared by some members of the British government, which refused to support a ban on these weapons. Angry politicians launched an attack On the Princess in the press. They described her as "very ill-informed" and a "loose cannon (乱放跑的人)The Princess responded by brushing aside the Criticisms: "This is a distraction (干扰) we do not need. All I'm trying to do is help."

Opposition parties, the media and the public immediately voiced their Support for the Princess. To make matters worse for the government, it soon emerged that the Princess's trip had been approved by the Foreign Office, and that she was in fact very well-inf0rmed about both the situation in Angola and the British government's policy regarding landmines. The result was a severe embarrassment for the government.

To try and limit the damage, the Foreign Secretary, Malcolm Rifkidnd, claimed that the Princess's views on landmines were not very different from government policy, and that it was "working towards" a worldwide ban. The Defence Secretary, Michael Portillo, claimed the matter was "a misinterpretation or misunderstanding."

For the Princess, the trip to this war-torn country was an excellent opportunity to use her popularity to show the world how much destruction and suffering landmines can cause. She said that the experience had also given her the chance to get closer to people and their problems.

As soon as it was revealed that a reporter for Progressive magazine had discovered how to make a hydrogen bomb, a group of firearm ( 火器 ) fans formed the National Hydrogen Bomb Association, and they are now lobbying against any legislation to stop Americans from owning one.

"The Constitution," said the association's spokesman, "gives everyone the right to own arms. It doesn't spell out what kind of arms. But since anyone can now make a hydrogen bomb, the public should be able to buy it to protect themselves."

"Don't you think it's dangerous to have one in the house, particularly where there are children around?"

"The National Hydrogen Bomb Association hopes to educate people in the safe handling of this type of weapon. We are instructing owners to keep the bomb in a locked cabinet and the fuse (导火索) separately in a drawer."

"Some people consider the hydrogen bomb a very fatal weapon which could kill somebody."

"But those who want to ban the bomb for American citizens claim that if you have one locked in the cabinet, with the fuse in a drawer, you would never be able to assemble it in time to stop an intruder (侵入者)"

"Another argument against allowing people to own a bomb is that at the moment it is very expensive to build one. So what your association is backing is a program which would allow the middle and upper classes to acquire a bomb while poor people will be left defenseless with just handguns."

Historians tend to tell the same joke when they are describing history education in America. It's the one 61 the teacher standing in the schoolroom door 62 goodbye to students for the summer and calling 63 . them, “By the way, we won World War Ⅱ.”

The problem with the joke, of course, is that it's 64 funny. The recent surveys on 65 illiteracy (无知) are beginning to numb(令人震惊): nearly one third of American 17-year-olds cannot even 66 which countries the United States 67 against in that war. One third have no 68 when the Declaration of Independence was 69 . One third thought Columbus reached the New World after 1750. Two thirds cannot correctly 70 the Civil War between 1850 and 1900. 71 when they get the answers right, some are 72 guessing.

Unlike math or science, ignorance of history cannot be 73 connected to loss of international 74 . But it does affect our future 75 . a democratic nation and as individuals.

The 76 news is that there is growing agreement 77 what is wrong with the 78 of history and what needs to be 79 to fix it. The steps are tentative (尝试性的) 80 yet to be felt in most classrooms.