Modelling trust in the i strategic actors framework

Modelling Trust in the i* Strategic Actors Framework

Eric Yu and Lin Liu

Faculty of Information Studies, University of Toronto

Toronto, Ontario, Canada M5S 3G6

{yu, liu }@fis.utoronto.ca

ABSTRACT

The i*framework models intentional dependency relationships among strategic actors and their rationales. Actors depend on each other for goals to be achieved, tasks to be performed, and resources to be furnished. The concept of softgoal is used to model quality attributes for which there are no a priori, clear-cut criteria for satisfaction, but are judged by actors as being sufficiently met (“satisficed”) on a case-by-case basis. The framework was developed to support requirement analysis and high-level design in an agent-oriented system development paradigm. In this paper, we explore the use of i*for modelling trust relationships. Trustworthiness is treated as a softgoal to be satisficed from the viewpoint of each stakeholder. Contributions to trustworthiness are considered using a qualitative reasoning approach. Examples from the smart card domain are used to illustrate.

1. INTRODUCTION

Trust is becoming a central issue in today’s increasingly networked information systems. For example, in electronic commerce, exchanges often take place among parties unfamiliar to each other, and whose identities may be transitory. Different parts of networks and systems may be operated by parties with conflicting interests or even malicious intent. Furthermore, many of the technologies, as well as business models, are new and their viability is unproven.

Techniques for systems analysis and design have, in the past, focused primarily on addressing functional requirements, assuming that all parties are trusted. Given today’s environments, there is need for new techniques that would bring issues of trust, risk, and vulnerability prominently into the system analysis and design process.

The i*framework [12] was developed for modelling intentional relationships among strategic actors. Actors have freedom of action, but operate within a network of social relationships. Specifically, they depend on each other for goals to be achieved, tasks to be performed, and resources to be furnished. These dependencies are intentional in that they are based on underlying concepts such as goal, ability, commitment, belief, and so on. Actors are strategic in that they evaluate their social relationships in terms of opportunities that they offer, and vulnerabilities that they may bring. Strategic actors seek to protect or further their interests. Compared to conventional modelling techniques such as data flow diagramming and object-oriented analysis (e.g., UML), i* provides a higher level of modelling so that one can reason about opportunities and vulnerabilities. The framework has been elaborated in the context of requirements engineering [13], business processing reengineering [16] [14], and software processes [15]. The framework is being extended to form the basis of an agent-oriented system development paradigm.

In this paper, we explore the use of i*for modelling trust relationships. Trustworthiness is treated as a softgoal to be satisficed from the viewpoint of each stakeholder. The concept of softgoal is used to model quality attributes for which there are no a priori, clear-cut criteria for satisfaction, but are judged by actors as being sufficiently met (“satisficed”) on a case-by-case basis. Contributions to trustworthiness are systematically elaborated and analyzed using a qualitative reasoning approach. The softgoal concept in i*arose from an approach to dealing with non-functional requirements in software engineering. Non-functional qualities of a system have to do not with the functions that the system provides, but how well they are accomplished, e.g., how speedily (performance), how cheaply (costs), how accurately, etc. Many non-functional requirements are hard to quantify or characterize, e.g., flexibility, maintainability, evolvability, scalability, etc. An important feature of these non-functional qualities is that they interact with each other in complex ways. The NFR framework [3] [4] offers a graphical notation and framework for systematically elaborating and analyzing the contribution relationships in a network of softgoals. Contributions can be positive and negative, and may be considered partial or sufficient towards addressing some softgoal. The i*framework interleaves non-functional analysis with the functional analysis of system operation. These are done within a network of social actors. Actors may be further differentiated into agents, roles, and positions.

An example from the smart card domain is used to illustrate. Only a subset of the features of i* are illustrated in this paper. Section 2 presents an overview of the i*framework, introducing its basic concepts using the smart card example. Section 3 considers the modelling of attacks and defense, first from each attacker’s viewpoint, then combined with defender’s countermeasures. An outline of the qualitative evaluation method for propagating satisificing judgements across the network model is also provided. Section 4 discusses related work.

2. AN OVERVIEW OF THE i* FRAMEWORK The framework includes a Strategic Dependency model – for describing the network of relationships among actors, and a Strategic Rationale model – for describing and supporting the reasoning that each actor has about its relationships with other actors.

2.1 The Basic Strategic Dependency Model

A Strategic Dependency (SD) model consists of a set of nodes and links. Each node represents an actor, and each link between two actors indicates that one actor depends on the other for something in order that the former may attain some goal. We call the depending actor the depender , and the actor who is depended upon the dependee . The object around which the dependency relationship centres is called the dependum . By depending on another actor for a dependum, an actor (the depender) is able to achieve goals that it was not able to without the dependency, or not as easily or as well. At the same time, the depender becomes vulnerable. If the dependee fails to deliver the dependum, the depender would be adversely affected in its ability to achieve its goals.

Figure 1 shows a Strategic Dependency model for a generic smart card-based payment system. A cardholder depends on a card issuer to be allocated a smart card, for the terminal depends on him to present his card for each transaction. The card issuer in turn

depends on the card manufacturer and software manufacturer to provide cards, devices, and software. The data owner is the one who has control of the data within the card. He depends on the terminal to submit transaction information to the central database.The Strategic Dependency model distinguishes among several types of dependencies, based on the ontological category of the dependum. In a goal dependency , an actor depends on another to make a condition in the world come true. Because only an end state or outcome is specified, the dependee is given the freedom to choose how to achieve it. In the example of Figure 1, the goal dependency “new account be created” from the card issuer to the data owner means that it is up to the data owner to decide how to create a new account. The card issuer does not care how a new account is created, what matters is that, for each card, an account should be created.

In a task dependency , an actor depends on another to perform an activity. The depender’s goal for having the activity performed is not given. The activity description specifies a particular course of action. The card issuer depends on the cardholder to apply for a

Figure1: Strategic Dependency model of smart card based payment system

De Actor

Resource Dependency Task Dependency Goal Dependency Softgoal Dependency

De

De LEGEND

card via a task dependency by specifying standard application procedures. If the card issuer were to indicate the steps for the data owner to create a new account, then the data owner would be related to the card issuer by a task dependency.

In a resource dependency, an actor depends on another for the availability of an entity. The depender takes the availability of the resource to be unproblematic. In Figure 1, the card issuer’s dependencies on the card manufacturer for cards and devices, the manufacturers’ dependencies on card issuer for payment are modelled as resource dependencies.

The fourth type of dependency, softgoal dependency, is a variant of the first. It is different from a (hard) goal dependency in that there is no a priori, cut-and-dry criteria for what constitutes meeting the goal. The meaning of a softgoal is specified in terms of the methods that are chosen in the course of pursuing the goal. The dependee contributes to the identification of alternatives, but the decision is taken by the depender. The notion of the softgoal allows the model to deal with many of the usually informal concepts. For example, the manufacturers’ dependencies on the card issuer for continued business can be achieved in different ways. The desired style of continued business is ultimately decided by the depender. The cardholder’s softgoal dependency on the card issuer for “keep private information confidential” indicates that there is not a clear-cut criterion for the achievement of confidentiality. The four types of dependencies reflect different types of freedom that is allowed in the relationship between depender and dependee.

The Strategic Dependency model of Figure 1 is not meant to be a complete and accurate description of any particular smart card system. It is intended only for illustrating the features of i*.

2.2 Roles, Positions, and Agents

In i*, the term actor is used to refer generically to any unit to

which intentional dependencies can be ascribed. To model complex relationships among social actors, we further define the concepts of agents, roles, and positions, each of which is an actor in a more specialized sense. A basic Strategic Dependency model can be extended by refining the notion of actor into notions of role, position, and agent.

An agent is an actor with concrete, physical manifestations, such as a human individual. An agent has dependencies that apply regardless of what role he/she/it happens to be playing. For example, if Jim, a cardholder desires a good credit record, he actually wants the credit record to go towards his personal self, not to the positions and abstract roles that Jim might occupy or play. We use the term of agent instead of person for generality, so that it can be used to refer to human as well as artificial (hardware, software, or organizational) agents. In Figure 2, customer and merchant are represented as agents.

A role is an abstract characterization of the behavior of a social actor within some specialized context or domain of endeavor. Dependencies are associated with a role when these dependencies apply regardless of who plays the role. For example, we consider attacker and defender as two roles any actor can play. No matter who plays the role of attacker, he will have a high level goal of “attack”. Regardless of who plays the role of defender, he will have the goal of “defense”.

A position is intermediate in abstraction between a role and an agent. It is a set of roles typically played by one agent. Positions can cover roles, agents can occupy positions, and agents can also play roles directly.

Figure 2 shows a fragment of the Strategic Dependency model from the smart card example with agents, roles, and positions. In this partial model, a cardholder position covers two roles of cardholder as attacker and cardholder as defender. The position of cardholder is occupied by the agent “customer”.

The “INS” construct represents the instance-and-class relation. For example, Wal-Mart is an instance of merchant, and Jim is an instance of customer. The “ISA” construct expresses conceptual generalization/ specialization. For example, a bank is a kind of financial institution. These constructs are used to simplify the presentation of strategic model with roles, positions, and agents. There can be dependencies from an agent to the position it occupies. For example, a merchant who occupies the position of terminal owner depends on that position to attract more customers. Otherwise, he may choose not to occupy that position.

Figure 2: Strategic Dependency model with

roles, positions, and agents

Role

Position

Agent

LEGEND

Roles, positions, and agents can each have subparts. Aggregate actors are not compositional with respect to intention. Each actor,regardless of whether it has parts, or is part of a larger whole, is taken to be intentional. Each actor has inherent freedom and is therefore ultimately unpredictable. There can be intentional dependencies between the whole and its parts, e.g., a dependency by the whole on its parts to maintain unity.

2.3 The Strategic Rationale Model

The Strategic Rationale (SR) model provides a more detailed level of modelling by looking “inside” actors to model internal intentional relationships. Intentional elements (goals, tasks,

resources, and softgoals) appear in SR models not only as external dependencies, but also as internal elements arranged into a hierarchy of means-ends and task-decompositions relationships.The SR model in Figure 3 elaborates on the relationships among cardholder, card issuer, data owner, terminal owner, card manufacturer, and software manufacturer as depicted in the SD model of Figure1.

For example, each cardholder has an internal goal of “Buy Goods with Smart Card”. When an element is expressed as a goal, it means there might be several alternatives to accomplish this, i.e.,the cardholder can either “Buy Goods with Credit Card”, or “ Buy Goods with Stored Value Card”. These are represented as tasks. A

Figure 3: Strategic Rationale model of smart card based system

LEGEND

Position Resource Task Goal

Softgoal

Task-Decomposition Link Means-Ends Link Contribution Link

Counter Contribution Link

task specifies one particular way of doing things in terms of further decomposition into subtasks, subgoals, resources, and softgoals. Here the task of “Buy Goods with Stored Value Card” is composed of three subtasks: “Apply for a Card”, “Pre-store some Money”, and “Use the Card”.

For a card issuer, “Sell Service by Issuing Card” is his high level goal. This goal can be achieved by issuing different kinds of cards, e.g., stored value card, VisaCash card, prepaid phone card etc. Offering stored value card service involves doing “Accept Card Application”, “Collect Pre-Stored Money”, “Get a new Card”,“Create a new Account”, and “Assign a card” to the applicant. At the same time, he also has to “Provide Terminal” to terminal owner. “Create a new account” is a subgoal, indicating that there are different ways to achieve it.

On the side of the card manufacturer, “Manufacture Card Hardware” is his high level goal. One of the two ways to accomplish the goal is to “Provide Total Card Solution” (such as the Mondex solution [10]), the other is “Provide Cheap Card Solution” (such as Millicent Solution [10]). Both solutions contribute somewhat positively to the softgoal “profitable”.“Provide Total Card Solution” will help the safety of the system, while “Provide Cheap Card Solution” will hurt the safety of the system.

The positive contribution types for softgoal are Help (positive but not by itself sufficient to meet the higher goal), Make (positive & sufficient) and Some+(positive in unknown degree). The corresponding negative types are Hurt, Break and Some-. And means if all subgoals are met, then the higher goal will be sufficiently met. Or means the higher goal will be sufficiently met if any of its subgoals are met. During system analysis and design, softgoals such as profitability and safety are systematically refined until they can be operationalized and implemented [6]. Unlike functional goals, nonfunctional qualities represented as softgoals frequently interact or interfere with each other, so the graph of contributions is usually not a strict tree structure [4].

3. STUDY OF TRUST IN SMART CARD

BASED SYSTEM

We now use i* to model some aspects of trust in the smart card example. Most of the dependencies in Figure 1 relate to the normal operations of a smart card. In considering potential problems and threats, further dependencies need to be identified (Figure 4). For example, the cardholder depends on the card issuer to provide a card that is usable (as opposed to a fake or defective one). The cardholder also expects the issuer to protect the privacy of the personal information. Note that these are constituent elements that eventually contribute towards the cardholder trusting the card issuer for the operation of the smart card system.

3.1 Analyzing Possible Attacks

If the card issuer is not operating in good faith, the cardholder's expectations may not be met, i.e., the dependencies may not be viable. In the Strategic Rationale model, we model attacks (Figure 5) as negative contributions from the attackers (from their specific methods of attack) toward the dependums. A Break contribution indicates that the attack is sufficient to make the dependum unviable. For clarity of analysis, we place the attack-related intentional elements of the card issuer into a role called “Card Issuer As an Attacker”. Details of the attack methods (e.g., privacy invasion, sell unusable card) can be elaborated by further decomposition and means-ends analysis. Negative contribution links can then be used to show attacks on more specific vulnerability of the depender (e.g., refinements of “Privacy Be

Figure 4: A Strategic Dependency model depicting some trust-related relationships in a smart card system

Protected”). The refinements (and possible attack routes) may be based

on analysis of the SD and SR models of the normal operations of the smart card, e.g., what resources an actor accesses,what types of interactions exist, etc.

For the cardholder to trust the smart card system, he has to trust both the card issuer And the terminal owner. The cardholder depends on the terminal owner to “Read/Write Card Correctly”. If the terminal owner is malicious (Terminal Owner As Attacker),there are a number of attacks that are sufficient to make that dependency not viable (Break ). Note that each part may potentially attack any other part that it interacts with.

3.2 Modelling Defensive Actions

With the knowledge of some possible attacks, actors may change their methods of operation, or add countermeasures to protect their interests and security. Figure 6 shows a SR model with defender roles as well as attacker roles. Defense mechanisms are adopted to counteract specific attacks. In some cases, defenses can be found which are sufficient to defeat a strong attack (defense Break link (dotted arrow) pointing to an attack Break link). For example,each of "Use Monitors on Back End" and "Make Secure

Connection between Card and Back End" is considered to be sufficient for overcoming the four different attacks from the terminal owner to the data owner's dependency of "Transmit Correct Data".

Other countermeasures may only be partially effective in defending against their respective attacks (through the Hurt or Some- contribution types).

Unviable dependencies due to potential attacks lead to erosion of trust of the smart card system. Incorporating sufficient countermeasures restores trust.

3.3 Evaluating System Trust Situation

Having created the model with attacks as well as countermeasures against them, we can evaluate the trust situation under the current system configuration.

Figure 7 shows some of the evaluation of the model of Figure 6.The process of evaluation used is an interactive labeling algorithm,which propagates a series of labels through the modelling framework [4]. A label (or satisficing status) on a node is used to indicate whether that intentional element (goal, task, resource, or

Figure 5: A Strategic Rationale model showing some rationales in attacker roles

softgoal) is viable or not (e.g., whether a softgoal is sufficiently met). A qualitative reasoning scheme is used. Labels can have values such as Satisfied (￥ ?9r vrq?

In the example of Figure 7, the analyst labels all the attack leaf nodes as "Satisficed" since they are all judged to be possible. Similarly all the defense leaf nodes are judged to be viable, thus labelled "Satisificed". The values are then propagated along contribution links.

Consider the cardholder’s situation. He has dependencies on the card issuer and terminal owner. He has a defense “Buy Card From Issuer With Good Reputation” against the card issuer’s attack on

“Card Be Usable”. But the defense may only be a partial one

(Some-). So the dependency is judged to be weakly satisficed

(W+). The attack by the card issuer on “Privacy Be Protected” is a

partial one (Hurt), but the Cardholder has no defense for it. So the

dependency is judged to be weakly denied (W-). The combination

of these two contributions leads to the judgement that the

trustworthiness of the card issuer is weakly denied (W-).

Figure 7: A labeled Strategic Rationale model showing evaluation details of selected attacker and defender roles

Regarding the cardholder’s dependency on the terminal owner for “Read/Write Card Correctly”, there are three possible attacks. One of them “Steal Card Info” is counteracted by three defense measures, though each one is partial (Hurt). Another attack “Remember Account Number & Password” has a defense of unknown strength (Some-). The third attack has no defensive -measure. The “Read/Write Card Correctly” dependency is thus judged to be unviable. The Trustworthiness of Terminal Owner is denied, leading to the Cardholder to conclude that its Trustworthiness goal of the smart card system is not met.

When all known ways in which a system can be attacked are resisted by countermeasures that are strong enough, the system may be judged to be a trustworthy system. The model needs to be revised as new attack routes are identified, and when countermeasures are installed. The reasoning in the model can further be justified by a network of beliefs or assumptions. These are not shown in this paper. Having created the model with attacks as well as their countermeasures, we can further evaluate the trust situation under various system configurations.

3.4 Dealing with Changes of Configuration

In the above modelling, the various participants in a smart card system were modelled as positions and analyzed generally. However, in real world smart card systems, specific organizational parties occupy these positions. Thus, to actually understand their trust situations, we have to apply the generic model to the real world configurations. We consider two representative kind of smart card based systems. One is the Digital Stored Value Card, the other is the Prepaid Phone Card [11].

3.4.1 Digital stored value cards

These are payment cards intended to be substitutes for cash. Both Mondex and VisaCash are examples of this type of system. The cardholder is the customer. The terminal owner is the merchant. The data owner and the card issuer are both the financial institutions that support the system. The card manufacturer and software manufacturer are both technology providers like Mondex. In such a configuration, the previously isolated positions of data owner and card issuer are occupied by the same physical agent, namely, Financial Institution. Similarly, card manufacturer and software manufacturer are combined into one physical agent – the Smart Card Technology Provider. Figure 8 describes the Strategic Dependency model of a digital stored value card. Here the software manufacturer’s attack to card manufacturer can be ignored since they belong to the same agent – the smart card technology company.

3.4.2 Prepaid phone cards

These are simply special-use stored value cards. The cardholder is the customer. The terminal owner, data owner, manufacturer and card issuer are all combined into one agent – the phone company. Figure 9 shows the Strategic Dependency model of a prepaid card system. Under such a system configuration, more attack-defense

Figure 8: A Strategic Dependency model of a store value smart card system

pairs disappear. Only four possible attacks need to be considered now. Three of them are from the phone company, which are to hurt privacy, to issue unusable card, to read write card incorrectly. The other attack is from the cardholder, who might use an illegitimate card.

Note that each time new positions are created, the possibility of new attacks arises. These models reflect Schneier’s observation that the fewer splits we make, the more trustable the target system might be [11].

4. DISCUSSION

In this paper, we have illustrated the use of i*to model some sample smart card environments. Note that trust is not treated as a distinguished concept with special semantics. Instead, trust is modeled as one of the goals that strategic agents pursue, among others. Thus, it competes with, or complements, as the case may be, other goals such as convenience, profitability, performance, time-to-market, etc.

This approach encourages and facilitates the analysis of trust-related issues within the full operational and social context of the involved actors. The models can be used to encompass normal-case operational procedures, potential attacks, countermeasures against perceived threats, as well as factors not directly related to trust or security. For example, trust issues can be examined in the context of customers’ options among different kinds of payment systems, e.g., credit card, cash, smart card, with tradeoffs among convenience, security, and privacy issues.

Figure 9: A Strategic Dependency model of prepaid phone card system

This approach is complementary to the various theories and techniques currently being developed for specifically addressing trust (e.g., [1] [2]). i*offers a structural representation of intentional relationships among actors and within actors, as well as structural concepts such as intentional agents, roles, and positions. These may provide a structural framework for integrating other concepts and techniques for dealing with trust. For example, the qualitative reasoning approach of i*may be used in a first-pass preliminary analysis, to be followed by techniques with stronger semantics.

The approach is also consistent with the recent call for “reinventing” security [9]. The i*approach acknowledges vulnerability (and thus insecurity) as an inherent feature of any social network, because of the intentional and strategic nature of dependencies. In general, vulnerabilities cannot be totally eliminated, so the emphasis is on finding measures that are sufficiently strong to mitigate them. Also insecurity can be moved around, as demonstrated by the different allocations of positions to agents in the smart card example.

A related area of work is the use of threat trees or attack trees (e.g.,

[15], [8]) in security analysis. Attack trees describe all possible attacks against a system in a tree structure. The central idea is to use goal-decomposition as in AI. Different ways of achieving an attack are explored and evaluated in terms of possibility and the presumed cost. The i*approach draws on similar ideas but embeds intentional and means-ends reasoning into a network of social actors with dependencies. The model may include normal operations, attacks and defenses among all parties, not just attacks from one viewpoint. A notion of satisficing within a qualitative reasoning framework is used to capture the application of judgemental thresholds at each decision point in a reasoning network.

This paper has taken a rather simplistic view of the nature of trust, for example, by making a fairly direct connection to security in the softgoal graphs. In future work, we plan to incorporate more detailed analysis of the varieties of trust being identified in the emerging literature in this area. We also hope to use i* to analyze broader issues related to trust, including issues of privacy, power, and public policy, as discussed, for example in [7]. A tool is currently being developed to support modelling and reasoning using the i* framework.

REFERENCES

[1]Autonomous Agents ’98 Workshop Proceedings on

“Deception, Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies”, Minneapolis/St Paul, USA, May 9, 1998.

[2] C. Castelfranchi, Y.-H. Tan, R. Falcone, and B. S. Firozabadi,

eds. Autonomous Agents ’99 Workshop Proceedings on “Deception Fraud and Trust in Agent Societies”, Seattle, Washington. May 1999.

[3]L. Chung, Representing and Using Non-Functional

Requirements for the Information System Development: A Process-Oriented Approach, Ph.D. Thesis, also Tech. Report DKBS-TR-93-1, Dept. of Comp. Sci. University of Toronto, June 1993.[4]L. Chung, B.A. Nixon, E. Yu, and J. Mylopoulos,Non-

Functional Requirements in Software Engineering. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000.

[5]J. Mylopoulos, L. Chung, B. Nixon, Representing and Using

the Non-Functional Requirements: A Process-Oriented Approach, IEEE Trans. Soft. Eng. 18(6), June 1992.

[6]J. Mylopoulos, L. Chung, and E. Yu, From Object-Oriented

to Goal-Oriented Requirements Analysis, Communications of the ACM, 42(1): 31-37, January 1999.

[7] F. Stalder, A. Clement, Exploring Policy Issues of Electronic

Cash: The Mondex Case, Canadian Journal of Communication, 24(2). 1999.

[8]S. Salter, O. Saydjari, B. Schneier, and J. Wallner, Toward a

Secure System Engineering Methodology, New Security Paradigms Workshop 1998 Proceedings, IEEE Computer Society Press.

[9]Fred B. Schneider, ed. Trust in cyberspace. Committee on

Information Systems Trustworthiness, Computer Science and Telecommunications Board, National Research Council.

Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1999. Also available at https://www.sodocs.net/doc/1513025383.html,/tic.htm.

[10]B.Schneier, Attack Trees Modelling Security Threats.

Dr.Dobb’s Journal, December 1999. Also available at https://www.sodocs.net/doc/1513025383.html,/attacktrees-ddj-ft.html.

[11]B. Schneier, A. Shostack, Breaking Up Is Hard To Do:

Modelling Security Threats for Smart Cards. Available at https://www.sodocs.net/doc/1513025383.html,/smart-card-threats.html. Also First USENIX Symposium on Smart Cards, USENIX Press, to appear.

[12]E. Yu, Modelling Strategic Relationships for Process

Reengineering, Ph.D. thesis, also Tech. Report DKBS-TR-94-6, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Toronto, 1995.

[13]E. Yu, Towards Modelling and Reasoning Support for Early-

Phase Requirements Engineering, Proc. 3rd IEEE Int. Symp.

On Requirements Engineering (RE’97), Annapolis, Maryland, USA, January 1997.

[14]E. Yu, J. Mylopoulos, From E-R to ‘A-R’ – Modelling

Strategic Relationships for Business Process Reengineering, Int. Journal of Intelligent and Cooperative Information Systems, 4(2&3), 1995, pp.125-144.

[15]E. Yu, J. Mylopoulos, Understanding ‘Why’ in Software

Process Modelling, Analysis, and Design, Proc. 16th Int.

Conf. On Software Engineering, May 1994, pp. 159-168. [16]E. Yu, J. Mylopoulos, and Y. Lesp p rance, AI Models for

Business Process Reengineering, IEEE Expert, August 1996, pp.16-23.

The way常见用法

The way 的用法 Ⅰ常见用法： 1)the way+ that 2)the way + in which（最为正式的用法） 3)the way + 省略（最为自然的用法） 举例：I like the way in which he talks. I like the way that he talks. I like the way he talks. Ⅱ习惯用法： 在当代美国英语中，the way用作为副词的对格，“the way+ 从句”实际上相当于一个状语从句来修饰整个句子。 1)The way =as I am talking to you just the way I’d talk to my own child. He did not do it the way his friends did. Most fruits are naturally sweet and we can eat them just the way they are—all we have to do is to clean and peel them. 2）The way= according to the way/ judging from the way The way you answer the question, you are an excellent student. The way most people look at you, you’d think trash man is a monster. 3）The way =how/ how much No one can imagine the way he missed her. 4）The way =because

The way的用法及其含义(二)

The way的用法及其含义（二） 二、the way在句中的语法作用 the way在句中可以作主语、宾语或表语： 1.作主语 The way you are doing it is completely crazy.你这个干法简直发疯。 The way she puts on that accent really irritates me. 她故意操那种口音的样子实在令我恼火。The way she behaved towards him was utterly ruthless. 她对待他真是无情至极。 Words are important, but the way a person stands, folds his or her arms or moves his or her hands can also give us information about his or her feelings. 言语固然重要,但人的站姿,抱臂的方式和手势也回告诉我们他(她)的情感。 2.作宾语 I hate the way she stared at me.我讨厌她盯我看的样子。 We like the way that her hair hangs down.我们喜欢她的头发笔直地垂下来。 You could tell she was foreign by the way she was dressed. 从她的穿著就可以看出她是外国人。 She could not hide her amusement at the way he was dancing. 她见他跳舞的姿势，忍俊不禁。 3.作表语 This is the way the accident happened.这就是事故如何发生的。 Believe it or not, that's the way it is. 信不信由你, 反正事情就是这样。 That's the way I look at it, too. 我也是这么想。 That was the way minority nationalities were treated in old China. 那就是少数民族在旧中

(完整版)the的用法

定冠词the的用法： 定冠词the与指示代词this ,that同源,有“那(这)个”的意思,但较弱,可以和一个名词连用,来表示某个或某些特定的人或东西. (1)特指双方都明白的人或物 Take the medicine.把药吃了. (2)上文提到过的人或事 He bought a house.他买了幢房子. I've been to the house.我去过那幢房子. (3)指世界上独一无二的事物 the sun ,the sky ,the moon, the earth (4)单数名词连用表示一类事物 the dollar 美元 the fox 狐狸 或与形容词或分词连用,表示一类人 the rich 富人 the living 生者 (5)用在序数词和形容词最高级,及形容词等前面 Where do you live?你住在哪? I live on the second floor.我住在二楼. That's the very thing I've been looking for.那正是我要找的东西. (6)与复数名词连用,指整个群体 They are the teachers of this school.(指全体教师) They are teachers of this school.(指部分教师) (7)表示所有,相当于物主代词,用在表示身体部位的名词前 She caught me by the arm.她抓住了我的手臂. (8)用在某些有普通名词构成的国家名称,机关团体,阶级等专有名词前 the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国 the United States 美国 (9)用在表示乐器的名词前 She plays the piano.她会弹钢琴. (10)用在姓氏的复数名词之前,表示一家人 the Greens 格林一家人(或格林夫妇) (11)用在惯用语中 in the day, in the morning... the day before yesterday, the next morning... in the sky... in the dark... in the end... on the whole, by the way...

“the way+从句”结构的意义及用法

“tｈｅwａｙ+从句”结构的意义及用法 首先让我们来看下面这个句子: Ｒead the foｌloｗｉnｇpassagｅａnd talkａbout ｉt wi ｔh your classmaｔes．Try tｏｔeｌl whaｔyｏu thiｎk ｏf Tom aｎd ｏｆｔhe ｗay the chiｌｄrenｔrｅated ｈim. 在这个句子中，ｔhe waｙ是先行词,后面是省略了关系副词that或in whｉch的定语从句。 下面我们将叙述“the ｗaｙ+从句”结构的用法。 1.tｈe wａy之后，引导定语从句的关系词是tｈat而不是hoｗ,因此，<<现代英语惯用法词典＞＞中所给出的下面两个句子是错误的：Ｔhｉs is ｔｈeｗayｈowｉtｈａppened. This is the way how he ａlwａｙs treats me. 2．在正式语体中,thaｔ可被in which所代替;在非正式语体中，ｔhat则往往省略。由此我们得到theｗay后接定语从句时的三种模式：1) tｈe ｗaｙ＋ｔhａt-从句２）the way +ｉn whiｃh－从句3) the ｗay +从句 例如：Ｔｈe way(in whiｃh ，thａt) ｔhｅｓｅｃomｒade ｓloｏｋａｔｐrobｌems is wrong．这些同志看问题的方法

不对。 Ｔｈｅｗａy(that ,ｉn ｗhiｃh)yoｕ’ｒe doinｇit is comple ｔeｌy crａzy.你这么个干法,简直发疯。 Wｅａdmiｒｅd him for thｅｗay ｉｎｗhｉch he fａｃeｓdiｆficultieｓ． Waｌlａｃe ａｎd Ｄarwiｎｇreed ｏn the way ｉｎwhi ｃh ｄｉfｆｅrｅnt forms ｏf life had ｂegｕn.华莱士和达尔文对不同类型的生物是如何起源的持相同的观点。 Thｉs is ｔｈe ｗaｙ（tｈａｔ) hｅdｉd it. I lｉkeｄｔhe waｙ(ｔhat) ｓｈeｏｒganized ｔhe ｍeetｉng． 3.theｗay(tｈat)有时可以与hｏw(作“如何”解）通用。例如： That’s tｈe ｗaｙ(tｈaｔ) shｅspoke. = Tｈat’s how shｅspoke.

way 用法

表示“方式”、“方法”，注意以下用法： 1.表示用某种方法或按某种方式，通常用介词in(此介词有时可省略)。如： Do it (in) your own way. 按你自己的方法做吧。 Please do not talk (in) that way. 请不要那样说。 2.表示做某事的方式或方法，其后可接不定式或of doing sth。 如： It’s the best way of studying [to study] English. 这是学习英语的最好方法。 There are different ways to do [of doing] it. 做这事有不同的办法。 3.其后通常可直接跟一个定语从句(不用任何引导词)，也可跟由that 或in which 引导的定语从句，但是其后的从句不能由how 来引导。如： 我不喜欢他说话的态度。 正：I don’t like the way he spoke. 正：I don’t like the way that he spoke. 正：I don’t like the way in which he spoke. 误：I don’t like the way how he spoke. 4.注意以下各句the way 的用法： That’s the way (=how) he spoke. 那就是他说话的方式。 Nobody else loves you the way(=as) I do. 没有人像我这样爱你。 The way (=According as) you are studying now, you won’tmake much progress. 根据你现在学习情况来看，你不会有多大的进步。 2007年陕西省高考英语中有这样一道单项填空题： ——I think he is taking an active part insocial work. ——I agree with you_____. A、in a way B、on the way C、by the way D、in the way 此题答案选A。要想弄清为什么选A，而不选其他几项，则要弄清选项中含way的四个短语的不同意义和用法，下面我们就对此作一归纳和小结。 一、in a way的用法 表示：在一定程度上，从某方面说。如： In a way he was right.在某种程度上他是对的。注：in a way也可说成in one way。 二、on the way的用法 1、表示：即将来(去)，就要来(去)。如： Spring is on the way.春天快到了。 I'd better be on my way soon.我最好还是快点儿走。 Radio forecasts said a sixth-grade wind was on the way.无线电预报说将有六级大风。 2、表示：在路上，在行进中。如： He stopped for breakfast on the way.他中途停下吃早点。 We had some good laughs on the way.我们在路上好好笑了一阵子。 3、表示：(婴儿)尚未出生。如： She has two children with another one on the way.她有两个孩子，现在还怀着一个。 She's got five children，and another one is on the way.她已经有5个孩子了，另一个又快生了。 三、by the way的用法

The way的用法及其含义(一)

The way的用法及其含义（一） 有这样一个句子：In 1770 the room was completed the way she wanted. 1770年，这间琥珀屋按照她的要求完成了。 the way在句中的语法作用是什么？其意义如何？在阅读时，学生经常会碰到一些含有the way 的句子，如：No one knows the way he invented the machine. He did not do the experiment the way his teacher told him.等等。他们对the way 的用法和含义比较模糊。在这几个句子中，the way之后的部分都是定语从句。第一句的意思是，“没人知道他是怎样发明这台机器的。”the way的意思相当于how；第二句的意思是，“他没有按照老师说的那样做实验。”the way 的意思相当于as。在In 1770 the room was completed the way she wanted.这句话中，the way也是as的含义。随着现代英语的发展，the way的用法已越来越普遍了。下面，我们从the way的语法作用和意义等方面做一考查和分析： 一、the way作先行词，后接定语从句 以下3种表达都是正确的。例如：“我喜欢她笑的样子。” 1. the way+ in which +从句 I like the way in which she smiles. 2. the way+ that +从句 I like the way that she smiles. 3. the way + 从句(省略了in which或that) I like the way she smiles. 又如：“火灾如何发生的，有好几种说法。” 1. There were several theories about the way in which the fire started. 2. There were several theories about the way that the fire started.

way 的用法

way 的用法 【语境展示】 1. Now I’ll show you how to do the experiment in a different way. 下面我来演示如何用一种不同的方法做这个实验。 2. The teacher had a strange way to make his classes lively and interesting. 这位老师有种奇怪的办法让他的课生动有趣。 3. Can you tell me the best way of working out this problem? 你能告诉我算出这道题的最好方法吗？ 4. I don’t know the way (that / in which) he helped her out. 我不知道他用什么方法帮助她摆脱困境的。 5. The way (that / which) he talked about to solve the problem was difficult to understand. 他所谈到的解决这个问题的方法难以理解。 6. I don’t like the way that / which is being widely used for saving water. 我不喜欢这种正在被广泛使用的节水方法。 7. They did not do it the way we do now. 他们以前的做法和我们现在不一样。 【归纳总结】 ●way作“方法，方式”讲时，如表示“以……方式”，前面常加介词in。如例1； ●way作“方法，方式”讲时，其后可接不定式to do sth.，也可接of doing sth. 作定语，表示做某事的方法。如例2，例3；

the-way-的用法讲解学习

t h e-w a y-的用法

The way 的用法 "the way+从句"结构在英语教科书中出现的频率较高, the way 是先行词, 其后是定语从句.它有三种表达形式:1) the way+that 2)the way+ in which 3)the way + 从句(省略了that或in which),在通常情况下, 用in which 引导的定语从句最为正式,用that的次之,而省略了关系代词that 或 in which 的, 反而显得更自然,最为常用.如下面三句话所示,其意义相同. I like the way in which he talks. I like the way that he talks. I like the way he talks. 一.在当代美国英语中,the way用作为副词的对格,"the way+从句"实际上相当于一个状语从句来修饰全句. the way=as 1)I'm talking to you just the way I'd talk to a boy of my own. 我和你说话就象和自己孩子说话一样. 2)He did not do it the way his friend did. 他没有象他朋友那样去做此事. 3)Most fruits are naturally sweet and we can eat them just the way they are ----all we have to do is clean or peel them . 大部分水果天然甜润,可以直接食用,我们只需要把他们清洗一下或去皮.

way的用法总结大全

way的用法总结大全 way的用法你知道多少，今天给大家带来way的用法，希望能够帮助到大家，下面就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。 way的用法总结大全 way的意思 n. 道路,方法,方向,某方面 adv. 远远地，大大地 way用法 way可以用作名词 way的基本意思是“路,道,街,径”,一般用来指具体的“路,道路”,也可指通向某地的“方向”“路线”或做某事所采用的手段,即“方式,方法”。way还可指“习俗,作风”“距离”“附近,周围”“某方面”等。 way作“方法,方式,手段”解时,前面常加介词in。如果way前有this, that等限定词,介词可省略,但如果放在句首,介词则不可省略。

way作“方式,方法”解时,其后可接of v -ing或to- v 作定语,也可接定语从句,引导从句的关系代词或关系副词常可省略。 way用作名词的用法例句 I am on my way to the grocery store.我正在去杂货店的路上。 We lost the way in the dark.我们在黑夜中迷路了。 He asked me the way to London.他问我去伦敦的路。 way可以用作副词 way用作副词时意思是“远远地,大大地”,通常指在程度或距离上有一定的差距。 way back表示“很久以前”。 way用作副词的用法例句 It seems like Im always way too busy with work.我工作总是太忙了。 His ideas were way ahead of his time.他的思想远远超越了他那个时代。 She finished the race way ahead of the other runners.她第一个跑到终点,远远领先于其他选手。 way用法例句

the_way的用法大全教案资料

t h e_w a y的用法大全

The way 在the way+从句中, the way 是先行词, 其后是定语从句.它有三种表达形式:1) the way+that 2)the way+ in which 3)the way + 从句(省略了that或in which),在通常情况下, 用in which 引导的定语从句最为正式,用that的次之,而省略了关系代词that 或 in which 的, 反而显得更自然,最为常用.如下面三句话所示,其意义相同. I like the way in which he talks. I like the way that he talks. I like the way he talks. 如果怕弄混淆，下面的可以不看了 另外，在当代美国英语中,the way用作为副词的对格,"the way+从句"实际上相当于一个状语从句来修饰全句. the way=as 1)I'm talking to you just the way I'd talk to a boy of my own. 我和你说话就象和自己孩子说话一样. 2)He did not do it the way his friend did. 他没有象他朋友那样去做此事. 3)Most fruits are naturally sweet and we can eat them just the way they are ----all we have to do is clean or peel them . 大部分水果天然甜润,可以直接食用,我们只需要把他们清洗一下或去皮. the way=according to the way/judging from the way 4)The way you answer the qquestions, you must be an excellent student. 从你回答就知道,你是一个优秀的学生. 5)The way most people look at you, you'd think a trashman was a monster. 从大多数人看你的目光中,你就知道垃圾工在他们眼里是怪物. the way=how/how much 6)I know where you are from by the way you pronounce my name. 从你叫我名字的音调中,我知道你哪里人. 7)No one can imaine the way he misses her. 人们很想想象他是多么想念她. the way=because 8) No wonder that girls looks down upon me, the way you encourage her. 难怪那姑娘看不起我, 原来是你怂恿的

the way 的用法

The way 的用法 "the way+从句"结构在英语教科书中出现的频率较高, the way 是先行词, 其后是定语从句.它有三种表达形式:1) the way+that 2)the way+ in which 3)the way + 从句(省略了that或in which),在通常情况下, 用in which 引导的定语从句最为正式,用that的次之,而省略了关系代词that 或in which 的, 反而显得更自然,最为常用.如下面三句话所示,其意义相同. I like the way in which he talks. I like the way that he talks. I like the way he talks. 一.在当代美国英语中,the way用作为副词的对格,"the way+从句"实际上相当于一个状语从句来修饰全句. the way=as 1)I'm talking to you just the way I'd talk to a boy of my own. 我和你说话就象和自己孩子说话一样. 2)He did not do it the way his friend did. 他没有象他朋友那样去做此事. 3)Most fruits are naturally sweet and we can eat them just the way they are ----all we have to do is clean or peel them . 大部分水果天然甜润,可以直接食用,我们只需要把他们清洗一下或去皮.

the way=according to the way/judging from the way 4)The way you answer the qquestions, you must be an excellent student. 从你回答就知道,你是一个优秀的学生. 5)The way most people look at you, you'd think a trashman was a monster. 从大多数人看你的目光中,你就知道垃圾工在他们眼里是怪物. the way=how/how much 6)I know where you are from by the way you pronounce my name. 从你叫我名字的音调中,我知道你哪里人. 7)No one can imaine the way he misses her. 人们很想想象他是多么想念她. the way=because 8) No wonder that girls looks down upon me, the way you encourage her. 难怪那姑娘看不起我, 原来是你怂恿的 the way =while/when(表示对比) 9)From that day on, they walked into the classroom carrying defeat on their shoulders the way other students carried textbooks under their arms. 从那天起,其他同学是夹着书本来上课,而他们却带着"失败"的思想负担来上课.

The way的用法及其含义(三)

The way的用法及其含义（三） 三、the way的语义 1. the way=as（像） Please do it the way I’ve told you.请按照我告诉你的那样做。 I'm talking to you just the way I'd talk to a boy of my own.我和你说话就像和自己孩子说话一样。 Plant need water the way they need sun light. 植物需要水就像它们需要阳光一样。 2. the way=how（怎样，多么） No one can imagine the way he misses her.没人能够想象出他是多么想念她！ I want to find out the way a volcano has formed.我想弄清楚火山是怎样形成的。 He was filled with anger at the way he had been treated.他因遭受如此待遇而怒火满腔。That’s the way she speaks.她就是那样讲话的。 3. the way=according as （根据） The way you answer the questions, you must be an excellent student.从你回答问题来看，你一定是名优秀的学生。 The way most people look at you, you'd think a trash man was a monster.从大多数人看你的目光中,你就知道垃圾工在他们眼里是怪物。 The way I look at it, it’s not what you do that matters so much.依我看，重要的并不是你做什么。 I might have been his son the way he talked.根据他说话的样子，好像我是他的儿子一样。One would think these men owned the earth the way they behave.他们这样行动，人家竟会以为他们是地球的主人。

way的用法

一．Way：“方式”、“方法” 1.表示用某种方法或按某种方式 Do it (in) your own way. Please do not talk (in) that way. 2.表示做某事的方式或方法 It’s the best way of studying [to study] English.。 There are different ways to do [of doing] it. 3.其后通常可直接跟一个定语从句(不用任何引导词)，也可跟由that 或in which 引导的定语从句 正：I don’t like the way he spoke. I don’t like the way that he spoke. I don’t like the way in which he spoke.误：I don’t like the way how he spoke. 4. the way 的从句 That’s the way (=how) he spoke. I know where you are from by the way you pronounce my name. That was the way minority nationalities were treated in old China. Nobody else loves you the way(=as) I do. He did not do it the way his friend did. 二．固定搭配 1. In a/one way：In a way he was right. 2. In the way /get in one’s way I'm afraid your car is in the way， If you are not going to help，at least don't get in the way. You'll have to move－you're in my way. 3. in no way Theory can in no way be separated from practice. 4. On the way (to……) Let’s wait a few moments. He is on the way Spring is on the way. Radio forecasts said a sixth-grade wind was on the way. She has two children with another one on the way. 5. By the way By the way，do you know where Mary lives? 6. By way of Learn English by way of watching US TV series. 8. under way 1. Elbow one’s way He elbowed his way to the front of the queue. 2. shoulder one’s way 3. feel one‘s way 摸索着向前走；We couldn’t see anything in the cave, so we had to feel our way out 4. fight/force one’s way 突破。。。而前进The surrounded soldiers fought their way out. 5.. push/thrust one‘s way（在人群中）挤出一条路He pushed his way through the crowd. 6. wind one’s way 蜿蜒前进 7. lead the way 带路，领路；示范 8. lose one‘s way 迷失方向 9. clear the way 排除障碍，开路迷路 10. make one’s way 前进，行进The team slowly made their way through the jungle.

the way的用法大全

在the way+从句中, the way 是先行词, 其后是定语从句.它有三种表达形式:1) the way+that 2)the way+ in which 3)the way + 从句(省略了that或in which),在通常情况下, 用in which 引导的定语从句最为正式,用that的次之,而省略了关系代词that 或in which 的, 反而显得更自然,最为常用.如下面三句话所示,其意义相同. I like the way in which he talks. I like the way that he talks. I like the way he talks. 如果怕弄混淆，下面的可以不看了 另外，在当代美国英语中,the way用作为副词的对格,"the way+从句"实际上相当于一个状语从句来修饰全句. the way=as 1)I'm talking to you just the way I'd talk to a boy of my own. 我和你说话就象和自己孩子说话一样. 2)He did not do it the way his friend did. 他没有象他朋友那样去做此事. 3)Most fruits are naturally sweet and we can eat them just the way they are ----all we have to do is clean or peel them . 大部分水果天然甜润,可以直接食用,我们只需要把他们清洗一下或去皮. the way=according to the way/judging from the way 4)The way you answer the qquestions, you must be an excellent student. 从你回答就知道,你是一个优秀的学生. 5)The way most people look at you, you'd think a trashman was a monster. 从大多数人看你的目光中,你就知道垃圾工在他们眼里是怪物. the way=how/how much 6)I know where you are from by the way you pronounce my name. 从你叫我名字的音调中,我知道你哪里人. 7)No one can imaine the way he misses her. 人们很想想象他是多么想念她. the way=because 8) No wonder that girls looks down upon me, the way you encourage her. 难怪那姑娘看不起我, 原来是你怂恿的 the way =while/when(表示对比) 9)From that day on, they walked into the classroom carrying defeat on their shoulders the way other students carried textbooks under their arms.

“the-way+从句”结构的意义及用法知识讲解

“the way+从句”结构的意义及用法 首先让我们来看下面这个句子： Read the following passage and talk about it with your classmates. Try to tell what you think of Tom and of the way the children treated him. 在这个句子中，the way是先行词，后面是省略了关系副词that 或in which的定语从句。 下面我们将叙述“the way+从句”结构的用法。 1．the way之后，引导定语从句的关系词是that而不是how,因此，<<现代英语惯用法词典>>中所给出的下面两个句子是错误的：This is the way how it happened. This is the way how he always treats me. 2. 在正式语体中，that可被in which所代替；在非正式语体中，that则往往省略。由此我们得到the way后接定语从句时的三种模式：1) the way +that-从句2) the way +in which-从句3) the way +从句 例如：The way(in which ,that) these comrades look at problems is wrong.这些同志看问题的方法不对。

The way(that ,in which)you’re doing it is completely crazy.你这么个干法，简直发疯。 We admired him for the way in which he faces difficulties. Wallace and Darwin greed on the way in which different forms of life had begun.华莱士和达尔文对不同类型的生物是如何起源的持相同的观点。 This is the way (that) he did it. I liked the way (that) she organized the meeting. 3.the way(that)有时可以与how(作“如何”解)通用。例如： That’s the way (that) she spoke. = That’s how she spoke. I should like to know the way/how you learned to master the fundamental technique within so short a time. 4．the way的其它用法：以上我们讲的都是用作先行词的the way，下面我们将叙述它的一些用法。

定冠词the的12种用法

定冠词the的12种用法 定冠词the 的12 种用法，全知道?快来一起学习吧。下面就和大家分享，来欣赏一下吧。 定冠词the 的12 种用法，全知道? 定冠词the用在各种名词前面，目的是对这个名词做个记号，表示它的特指属性。所以在词汇表中，定冠词the 的词义是“这个，那个，这些，那些”，可见，the 即可以放在可数名词前，也可以修饰不可数名词，the 后面的名词可以是单数，也可以是复数。 定冠词的基本用法： (1) 表示对某人、某物进行特指，所谓的特指就是“不是别的，就是那个!”如： The girl with a red cap is Susan. 戴了个红帽子的女孩是苏珊。 (2) 一旦用到the，表示谈话的俩人都知道说的谁、说的啥。如：

The dog is sick. 狗狗病了。(双方都知道是哪一只狗) (3) 前面提到过的，后文又提到。如： There is a cat in the tree.Thecat is black. 树上有一只猫，猫是黑色的。 (4) 表示世界上唯一的事物。如： The Great Wall is a wonder.万里长城是个奇迹。(5) 方位名词前。如： thenorth of the Yangtze River 长江以北地区 (6) 在序数词和形容词最高级的前面。如： Who is the first?谁第一个? Sam is the tallest.山姆最高。 但是不能认为，最高级前必须加the，如： My best friend. 我最好的朋友。 (7) 在乐器前。如： play the flute 吹笛子

Way的用法

Way用法 A:I think you should phone Jenny and say sorry to her. B:_______. It was her fault. A. No way B. Not possible C. No chance D. Not at all 说明：正确答案是A. No way，意思是“别想！没门！决不！” 我认为你应该打电话给珍妮并向她道歉。 没门！这是她的错。 再看两个关于no way的例句： （1）Give up our tea break? NO way! 让我们放弃喝茶的休息时间？没门儿！ （2）No way will I go on working for that boss. 我决不再给那个老板干了。 way一词含义丰富，由它构成的短语用法也很灵活。为了便于同学们掌握和用好它，现结合实例将其用法归纳如下： 一、way的含义 1. 路线

He asked me the way to London. 他问我去伦敦的路。 We had to pick our way along the muddy track. 我们不得不在泥泞的小道上择路而行。 2. （沿某）方向 Look this way, please. 请往这边看。 Kindly step this way, ladies and gentlemen. 女士们、先生们，请这边走。 Look both ways before crossing the road. 过马路前向两边看一看。 Make sure that the sign is right way up. 一定要把符号的上下弄对。 3. 道、路、街，常用以构成复合词 a highway（公路），a waterway（水路），a railway（铁路），wayside（路边）

way与time的特殊用法

way/time的特殊用法 1、当先行词是way意思为”方式.方法”的时候,引导定语从句的关系词有下列3种形式： Way在从句中做宾语 The way that / which he explained to us is quite simple. Way在从句中做状语 The way t hat /in which he explained the sentence to us is quite simple. 2、当先行词是time时,若time表示次数时,应用关系代词that引导定语从句,that可以省略; 若time表示”一段时间”讲时,应用关系副词when或介词at/during + which引导定语从句 1.Is this factory _______ we visited last year? 2.Is this the factory-------we visited last year? A. where B in which C the one D which 3. This is the last time _________ I shall give you a lesson. A. when B that C which D in which 4.I don’t like the way ________ you laugh at her. A . that B on which C which D as 5.He didn’t understand the wa y ________ I worked out the problem. A which B in which C where D what 6.I could hardly remember how many times----I’ve failed. A that B which C in which D when 7.This is the second time--------the president has visited the country. A which B where C that D in which 8.This was at a time------there were no televisions, no computers or radios. A what B when C which D that