Trading standards

原文

Chickens slaughtered in the United States, claim officials in Brussels, are not fit to grace European tables. No, say the American: our fowl are fine, we simply clean them in a different way. These days, it is differences in national regulations, far more than tariffs, that put sand in the wheels of trade between rich countries. It is not just farmers who are complaining. An electric razor that meets the European Union's safety standards must be approved by American testers before it can be sold in the United States, and an American-made dialysis machine needs the EU's okay before is hits the market in Europe.

As it happens, a razor that is safe in Europe is unlikely to electrocute Americans. So, ask businesses on both sides of the Atlantic, why have two lots of tests where one would do? Politicians agree, in principle, so America and the EU have been trying to reach a deal which would eliminate the need to double-test many products. They hope to finish in time for a trade summit between America and the EU on May 28TH. Although negotiators are optimistic, the details are complex enough that they may be hard-pressed to get a deal at all.

Why? One difficulty is to construct the agreements. The Americans would happily reach one accord on standards for medical devices and them hammer out different pacts covering, say, electronic goods and drug manufacturing. The EU -- following fine continental traditions -- wants agreement on general principles, which could be applied to many types of products and perhaps extended to other countries.

--From: The Economist, May 24th, 1997 --

译文

布鲁塞尔的官员声称，在美国屠宰的鸡不适合上欧洲的餐桌。不，美国人说：我们的家禽很好，我们只是用不同的方式清洗它们。如今，是国家法规的差异，而不是关税，更大地阻碍了富国之间的贸易。抱怨的不仅仅是农民。一款符合欧盟安全标准的电动剃须刀，必须经过美国测试者的批准才能在美国销售，而美国制造的透析机需要在欧盟的认可后才能进入欧洲市场。

事实上，在欧洲安全的剃须刀不太可能触电致死美国人。因此，大西洋两岸的企业问道，为什么要进行两次测试，而一次就够了？政界人士原则上同意，因此美国和欧盟一直在努力达成一项协议，以消除对许多产品进行双重测试的需要。他们希望在5月28日美欧贸易峰会前完成。尽管谈判者乐观，其细节复杂到他们可能难以达成协议。

为什么呢？一个困难在于构建这些协议。美国人乐于就医疗器械标准达成一项协议，然后再敲定不同的协定，例如涵盖电子产品和药品制造。欧盟——遵循优良的大陆传统——希望就一般原则达成协议，这些原则可以适用于多种产品，或许还能扩展到其他国家。

--From: The Economist, May 24th, 1997 --

词汇表

slaughtered

动词

英:/ˈslɔːtəd/

美:/ˈslɑːtərd/

定义

1. 屠宰 - To kill animals for food, often in a regulated manner.

例子: The chickens are slaughtered according to strict health standards.

例子: Farmers slaughtered the livestock during the harvest season.

2. 彻底击败 - To defeat decisively, though less common in this context.

例子: The team slaughtered their opponents in the final game.

例子: The critics slaughtered the new policy in their reviews.

近义词

butchered: 更强调粗暴或原始的杀戮方式，与 'slaughtered' 的商业化屠宰相比更暴力。

killed: 更通用，不限于动物或食物相关，缺乏 'slaughtered' 的专业性。

dispatched: 常用于正式或军事语境，暗示快速结束生命，而 'slaughtered' 更侧重于大规模屠宰。

反义词:

spared, preserved, protected

用法

常用于农业或食品工业语境，强调合规性；在非正式语境中可比喻性地用于失败或破坏，常搭配如 'slaughtered for meat'，文化上涉及动物福利争议。

形式:

过去式: slaughtered, 现在分词: slaughtering, 名词形式: slaughter

关键句型 "It is [noun phrase] that [clause]."

定义

此句型是一种强调句型（也称分裂句），用于突出句中某个部分，通常强调主语或原因，结构为：It is + [noun phrase]（名词短语）+ that + [clause]（从句）。根据《剑桥英语语法》权威资源，这种句型通过将焦点置于特定元素来加强表达效果，例如强调“differences in national regulations”为主要问题，而非其他因素。它是一种常见英语修辞手法，帮助说话者清晰传达重点，避免歧义。

在文章中，如 "It is differences in national regulations, far more than tariffs, that put sand in the wheels of trade"，它突出了“differences in national regulations”为贸易障碍的核心原因。这种结构让句子更有力度，适合正式写作或演讲。

用法

此句型主要用于强调句子中的某个成分，比如主语、时间、原因或方式，从而使信息更突出。规则：在标准英语中，It is 作为引导词，that 引入从句，强调的部分通常放在 that 后。它的位置在语法体系中属于句型转换技巧，常与简单句对比使用，以增加表达的动态性。

例如，在讨论问题时，你可以说 "It is the lack of communication that causes misunderstandings"，这里强调“lack of communication”。横向比较：与简单句（如 "Differences in regulations put sand in the wheels"）相比，此句型更正式，能突出重点；与 "What put sand in the wheels is differences in regulations" 相比，它更常见于口语和书面语中，更易于初学者掌握。与条件句（如 "If it weren't for differences, trade would be smoother"）的联系在于，都能表达因果关系，但强调句型更直接聚焦于特定元素，帮助学生建立从基本句型到复杂表达的桥梁。

在实际场景中，此句型常用于报告、新闻或辩论，如文章中的贸易讨论。学生可以通过练习，将它与其他强调方式（如副词 'only'）结合，以丰富表达。

注意事项

学生易犯的错误包括：误用 that，如将它省略成 "It is differences that put sand"（实际上可省略但不推荐，以免混淆）；或者错误放置强调部分，导致句子逻辑混乱，例如说 "It is that differences put sand"，这会显得生硬不自然。纠正建议：始终确保 that 后跟完整的从句，并通过朗读检查强调是否到位。

另一个常见偏误是将此句型与条件句混淆，如错误地添加 "if"（例如 "It is if differences that put sand"），这会改变句子含义。提供具体例句：

错误示例：It is tariffs put sand in the wheels.  （缺少 'that'，强调不明确）
正确示例：It is tariffs that put sand in the wheels.  （正确强调 tariffs）

练习时，注意语调：读时稍顿在 "that" 后，以突出强调部分。

练习

一个原创例子：假设在讨论环境问题时，你可以说："It is plastic waste that pollutes the oceans the most." 这贴近实际场景，如环保讨论中。学生可以替换 [noun phrase] 为 "climate change" 或 "poor diet"，并调整 [clause]，如 "It is poor diet that leads to health issues." 在日常对话中，试着用它解释问题，例如在团队会议中说："It is lack of planning that causes delays in our project."

通过这种替换练习，学生能加深对句型的掌握，并应用到真实生活，如写电子邮件或参与辩论，从而提高自信和流利度。

额外内容

背景知识：这种强调句型起源于16世纪的英语演变，受拉丁语影响，常见于正式英语中，如新闻报道或学术文章。文化背景上，它反映了英语中强调清晰和逻辑的传统，对比分析：与汉语的 "是...的" 结构类似（如 "是规定差异导致贸易问题"），但英语版更灵活，可扩展到复杂从句中；与法语的倒装句相比，英语强调句型更简单，不需改变词序。学习此句型能帮助学生在国际交流中更有说服力，例如在贸易谈判中如文章所述，强调关键问题以推动对话。