Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Reading Skills
T. Eugnio C. Brito
http://www.uefap.com/reading/readfram.htm
'Primitiveness' in Language
'Primitive' is a word that is often used ill-advisedly in discussions of language.Many people think that 'primitive' is indeed a term to
be applied to languages, though only tosomelanguages, and not usually to the language they themselves speak. They might agree
in calling 'primitive' those uses of language that concern greetings, grumbles and commands, but they would probably insist that
these were especially common in the so-called 'primitive languages'. These are misconceptions that we must quickly clear from our
minds.
So far as we can tell, all human languages are equally complete and perfect as instruments of communication: that is, every
language appears to be as well equipped as any other to say the things its speakers want to say.It may or may not be appropriate to
talk about primitive peoples or cultures, but that is another matter. Certainly, not all groups of people are equally competent in
nuclear physics or psychology or the cultivation of rice or the engraving of Benares brass. But this is not the fault of their language.
The Eskimos can speak about snow with a great deal more precision and subtlety than we can in English, but this is not because the
Eskimo language (one of those sometimes mis-called 'primitive') is inherently more precise and subtle than English. This example
does not bring to light a defect in English, a show of unexpected 'primitiveness'. The position is simply and obviously that the
Eskimos and the English live in different environments. The English language would be just as rich in terms for different kinds of
snow, presumably, if the environments in which English was habitually used made such distinction important.
Similarly, we have no reason to doubt that the Eskimo language could be as precise and subtle on the subject of motor manufacture
or cricket if these topics formed part of the Eskimos' life.For obvious historical reasons, Englishmen in the nineteenth century could
not talk about motorcars with the minute discrimination which is possible today: cars were not a part of their culture. But they had a
host of terms for horse-drawn vehicles which send us, puzzled, to a historical dictionary when we are reading Scott or Dickens. How
many of us could distinguish between a chaise, a landau, a victoria, a brougham, a coupe, a gig, a diligence, a whisky, a calash, a
tilbury, a carriole, a phaeton, and a clarence?
The discussion of 'primitiveness', incidentally, provides us with a good reason for sharply and absolutely distinguishing human
language from animal communication, because there is no sign of any intermediate stage between the two.Whether we examine
the earliest records of any language, or the present-day language of some small tribe in a far-away place, we come no nearer to
finding a stage of human language more resembling animal communication and more 'primitive' than our own. In general, as has
been said, any language is as good as any other to express what its speakers want to say. An East African finds Swahili as
convenient, natural and complete as an East Londoner finds English. In general the Yorkshire Dalesman's dialect is neither more nor
less primitive or ill-fitted to its speaker's wants than Cockney is for the Londoner's. We must always beware the temptation to adopt
a nave parochialism which makes us feel that someone else's language is less pleasant or less effective an instrument than our
own.
This is not to say that an individual necessarily sounds as pleasant or as effective as he might be, when using his language, but we
must not confuse a language with an individual's ability to use it.Nor are we saying that one language has nodeficiencies as cornpared with another. The English words 'home' and 'gentleman' have no exact counterparts in French, for example. These are tiny
details in which English may well be thought to have the advantage over French, but a large-scale comparison would not lead to the
conclusion that English was the superior language, since it would reveal other details in which the converse was true. Some years
ago it came as something of a shock to us that we had no exact word for translating the name that General de Gaulle had given to
his party -Rassemblement du Peuple Francais.The B.B.C. for some time used the word 'rally', and although this scarcely answers the
purpose it is a rather better translation of 'rassemblement' than either of the alternatives offered by one well-known French - English
dictionary, 'muster' and 'mob'.
The more we consider the question, then, the less reasonable does it seem to call any language 'inferior', let alone 'primitive'.The
Sanskrit of the Rig-Veda four thousand years ago was as per-fect an instrument for what its users wanted to say as its modern
descendant, Hindi, or as English.
Read the first and the last paragraphs in the following text.
What Is Anthropology?
Anthropology is the study of humankind, especially ofHomo sapiens,the biological species to which we human beings belong.
It is the study of how our species evolved from more primitive organisms; it is also the study of how our species developed a
mode of communication known as language and a mode of social life known as culture. It is the study of how culture evolved
and diversified. And finally, it is the study of how culture, people, and nature Interact wherever human beings are found.
This book is an Introduction togeneral anthropology,which is an amalgam of four fields of study traditionally found within
departments of anthropology at major universities. The four fields are cultural anthropology (sometimes called social
anthropology), archaeology, anthropological linguistics, and physical anthropology. The collaborative effort of these four fields
is needed in order to study our species in evolutionary perspective and in relation to diverse habitats and cultures.
Cultural anthropologydeals with the description and analysis of the forms and styles of social life of past and present ages. Its
subdiscipline,ethnography,systematically describes contemporary societies and cultures. Comparison of these descriptions
provides the basis for hypotheses and theories about the causes of human lifestyles.
Archaeologyadds a crucial dimension to this endeavor. By digging up the remains of cultures of past ages, archaeology
studies sequences of social and cultural evolution under diverse natural and cultural conditions. In the quest for understanding
the present-day characteristics of human existence, for validating or invalidating proposed theories of historical causation, the
great temporal depth of the archaeological record is indispensable.
Anthropological linguisticsprovides another crucial perspective: the study of the totality of languages spoken by human
beings. Linguistics attempts to reconstruct the historical changes that have led to the formation of individual languages and
families of languages. More fundamentally, anthropological linguistics is concerned with the nature of language and Its
functions and the way language Influences and is Influenced by other aspects of cultural life. Anthropological linguistics is
concerned with the origin of language and the relationship between the evolution of language and the evolution of Homo
sapiens.And finally, anthropological linguistics is concerned with the relationship between the evolution of languages and the
evolution and differentiation of human cultures.
Physical anthropologygrounds the work of the other anthropological fields in our animal origins and our genetically
determined nature. Physical anthropology seeks to reconstruct the course of human evolution by studying the fossil remains of
ancient human and infrahuman species. Physical anthropology seeks to describe the distribution of hereditary variations
among contemporary populations and to sort out and measure the relative contributions made by heredity, environment, and
culture to human biology.
Because of Its multidisciplinary, comparative, and diachronic perspective, anthropology holds the key to many
fundamental questions of recurrent and contemporary relevance. It lies peculiarly within the competence of
general anthropology to explicate our species' animal heritage, to define what is distinctively human about
human nature, and to differentiate the natural and the cultural conditions responsible for competition, conflict,
and war. General anthropology is also strategically equipped to probe the significance of racial factors in the
evolution of culture and in the conduct of contemporary human affairs. General anthropology holds the key to
an understanding of the origins of social inequality - of racism, exploitation, poverty, and underdevelopment.
Overarching all of general anthropology's contributions is the search for the causes of social and cultural
differences and similarities. What is the nature of the determinism that operates in human history, and what
are the consequences of this determinism for individual freedom of thought and action? To answer these
questions is to begin to understand the extent to which we can increase humanity's freedom and well-being by
conscious intervention in the processes of cultural evolution.
Adapted from http://www.uefap.com/reading/exercise/skim/anthrop.htm
Exercise 1
Read the following text quickly and fill in the table. What do the numbers given in the table refer to?
1%2%6%13%16%30%3/486%
Spoon-fed feel lost at the cutting edge
Before arriving at university students will have been powerfully influenced by their school's approach to learning particular
subjects. Yet this is only rarely taken into account by teachers in higher education, according to new research carried out at
Nottingham University, which could explain why so many students experience problems making the transition.Historian Alan
Booth says there is a growing feeling on both sides of the Atlantic that the shift from school to university-style learning could be
vastly improved. But little consensus exists about who or what is at fault when the students cannot cope. "School teachers
commonly blame the poor quality of university teaching, citing factors such as large first-year lectures, the widespread use of
inexperienced postgraduate tutors and the general lack of concern for students in an environment where research is dominant
in career progression," Dr Booth said.Many university tutors on the other hand claim that the school system is failing to prepare
students for what will be expected of them at university. A-level history in particular is seen to be teacher-dominated, creating a
passive dependency culture.But while both sides are bent on attacking each other, little is heard during such exchanges from
the students themselves, according to Dr Booth, who has devised a questionnaire to test the views of more than 200 first-year
history students at Nottingham over a three-year period. The students were asked about their experience of how history is
taught at the outset of their degree programme. It quickly became clear that teaching methods in school were pretty
staid.About 30 per cent of respondents claimed to have made significant use of primary sources (few felt very confident in
handling them) and this had mostly been in connection with project work. Only 16 per cent had used video/audio; 2 per cent had
experienced field trips and less than 1 per cent had engaged in role-play.Dr Booth found students and teachers were frequently
restricted by the assessment style which remains dominated by exams. These put obstacles in the way of more adventurous
teaching and active learning, he said. Of the students in the survey just 13 per cent felt their A-level course had prepared them
very well for work at university. Three-quarters felt it had prepared them fairly well.One typical comment sums up the
contrasting approach: "At A-level we tended to be spoon-fed with dictated notes and if we were told to do any background
reading (which was rare) we were told exactly which pages to read out of the book".To test this further the students were asked
how well they were prepared in specific skills central to degree level history study. The answers reveal that the students felt
most confident at taking notes from lectures and organising their notes. They were least able to give an oral presentation and
there was no great confidence in contributing to seminars, knowing how much to read, using primary sources and searching for
texts. Even reading and taking notes from a book were often problematic. Just 6 per cent of the sample said they felt competent
at writing essays, the staple A level assessment activity.The personal influence of the teacher was paramount. In fact individual
teachers were the centre of students' learning at A level with some 86 per cent of respondents reporting that their teachers had
been more influential in their development as historians than the students' own reading and thinking.The ideal teacher turned
out to be someone who was enthusiastic about the subject; a good clear communicator who encouraged discussion. The ideal
teacher was able to develop students involvement and independence. He or she was approachable and willing to help. The bad
teacher, according to the survey, dictates notes and allows no room for discussion. He or she makes students learn strings of
facts; appears uninterested in the subject and fails to listen to other points of view.No matter how poor the students judged their
preparedness for degree-level study, however, there was a fairly widespread optimism that the experience would change them
significantly, particularly in terms of their open mindedness and ability to cope with people.But it was clear, Dr Booth said, that
the importance attached by many departments to third-year teaching could be misplaced. "Very often tutors regard the third
year as the crucial time, allowing postgraduates to do a lot of the earlier teaching. But I am coming to the conclusion that the
first year at university is the critical point of intervention".
Alison Utley,Times Higher Education Supplement.February 6th, 1998.
Answers
1895
Roentgen
1. they travel in straight lines
2. they are uncharged
3. they are a wave motion phenomenon
4. the waves are transverse
The
Autonomous
House - Design
and
Planning
for
Selfsufficiency
Read the
text
Excerpt from "The Autonomous House - design and planning for self-sufficiency" by Brenda
and Robert Vale
The autonomous house on its site is defined as a house operating independently of any inputs except
those of its immediate environment. The house is not linked to the mains services of gas, water,
electricity or drainage, but instead uses the income-energy sources of sun, wind and rain to service
itself and process its own wastes. (...)
Although the self-serviced house provides a useful starting-point for experiments in autonomy, as it
forms a small unit that can be designed, built and tested within a relatively short time, the idea can be
expanded to include self-sufficiency in food, the use of on-site materials for building and the reduction
of the building and servicing technology to a level where the techniques can be understood and
equipment repaired by a person without recourse to specialized training. Although it is possible to
survive with pre-industrial technology, this is not what is proposed by autonomous living. At present,
however, technology appears to be exploited for its own sake, without thought to its benefits, uses or
effects on people or the external environment. (...) What are essentials for the American way of life (full
central heating, air conditioning, a car per person) are considered, albeit less so now, as luxuries for
Europeans, and what are considered necessary for a satisfactory European life (enough to eat, a home
and fuel to heat it, access to transport) would be luxuries for the 'third world'. (...)
The autonomous house is not seen as a regressive step. It is not simply a romantic vision of 'back to the
land', with life again assuming a rural pace and every man dependent upon himself and his immediate
environment for survival. (...)
Stability would be an obvious goal were it not for the fact that society is so geared to growth in every
sense. A stable population, making only what it actually needs, with each article being considered with
regard to the material it is made of and what is to be done with it once its useful life is over, and finding
all its power from what can be grown or from the sun, would give man back a true place in the world's
system. The autonomous house would only form a very small part of this total picture, but it is an
object that can be grasped and realized in material terms at present. Any acceptance of the desirability
of autonomy can only be based on faith. If you believe that it is important for man to be part of his
natural ecology, to know how survival is accomplished, to be in control of his own life, then autonomy is
a logical outcome. If, however, you believe that mankind has always solved every problem that arises,
that eventually some way will be found for dealing with nuclear waste after a given number of years of
research and that the benefits of cheap nuclear power outweigh the possible dangers, then there is no
case for autonomy and the status quo will be maintained.