现象：判例中的转变In 1896*1*2 a Georgia couple suing for控告 (sue for: v.控告) damages in the accidental death of their two year old was told that since the child had made no real economic contribution*1A*2C to the family, there was no liability for damages. In contrast（强对比）, less than a century later, in 1979, the parents of a three-year-old sued in New York for accidental-death damages and won an award of $750,000.
解释：原因是孩子价值的转变The transformation in social values implicit in juxtaposing把两个东西并排 these two incidents is the subject of Viviana Zelizer’s excellent（大+）（“从大不从小”：文章开头或者主题句中给出的评价是主评价，不管后面评价如何，都应以此为准） book, Pricing the Priceless Child. During the nineteenth century*5, she argues, the concept of the “useful” child who contributed to the family economy gave way gradually to让步于 the present-day notion of the “useless” child who, though producing no income for, and indeed extremely costly to, its parents, is yet considered emotionally*5C “priceless.” Well established among segments of the middle and upper classes by the mid-1800’s, this new view of childhood spread throughout society in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries as（小原因，可以暂时不看） reformers introduced child-labor regulations and compulsory education (compulsory education: n.义务教育) laws predicated in part on以…为基础（=based on） the assumption that a child’s emotional value made child labor taboo竞技.
解释第二段：孩子价值转变的原因For Zelizer the origins（说明下文要分几个方面开始解释） of this transformation were many and complex. The gradual erosion of children’s productive value in a maturing industrial economy*6B, the decline in birth and death rates, especially in child mortality*6A, and the development of the companionate伙伴的，友爱的 family (a family in which members were united by explicit bonds of love rather than duty) were all factors（以上讲了三个理由） critical in changing the assessment of children’s worth. Yet（多个论据之间的递进关系，引出最重要的第四个理由） “expulsion排除，驱除 of children from the ‘cash nexus联系（单复数同形） (cash nexus: 金钱关系, 现金(交易)关系),’ although clearly shaped by profound changes in the economic, occupational, and family structures*6C,” Zelizer maintains, “was also part of a cultural process ‘of sacrelization神圣化’ of children’s lives.” Protecting children from the crass business world became enormously important for late-nineteenth-century middle-class Americans, she suggests; this sacralization was a way of resisting what they perceived as the relentless corruption无情的败坏 of human values by the marketplace*6E.
延伸性内容：所有的社会问题中Z与某些人的观点不同In stressing the cultural determinants of a child’s worth, Zelizer takes issue with争论 practitioners of the new “sociological economics*3*7,” who have analyzed such traditionally sociological topics as crime, marriage, education, and health solely（Z有争论，可以出取非题） in terms of their economic determinants. Allowing only a small role for cultural forces in the form of individual “preferences,” these sociologists tend to view all human behaviors as directed primarily by the principle of maximizing economic gain. （废话）Zelizer is highly critical of this approach, and emphasizes instead the opposite phenomenon: the power of social values to transform price. （上升到比较高的结论）As children became more valuable in emotional terms, she argues, their “exchange” or “surrender转让”（引号表示作者不喜欢这种说法） value on the market, that is（同位语）, the conversion of their intangible worth into cash terms, became much greater.
1. It can be inferred from the passage that accidental-death damage awards in America during the nineteenth century*1 tended to be based principally on the
(A) earnings*1A of the person at time of death
(B) wealth of the party causing the death
(C) degree of culpability of the party causing the death
(D) amount of money that had been spent on the person killed（A）
(E) amount of suffering endured by the family of the person killed
2. It can be inferred from the passage that in the early 1800’s*2（孩子价值还没转变） children were generally regarded by their families as individuals who
(A) needed enormous amounts of security and affection
(B) required constant supervision while working
(C) were important to the economic well-being*2C of a family
(D) were unsuited to spending long hours in school（C）
(E) were financial burdens assumed for the good of society
责任编辑：虫虫
