Grammar:Present Time
Simple Present
Present Continuous
Present Perfect
Present Perfect Continuous
Monday, October 30, 2006
Talk the Talk?
Media Power
Why don’t we all sound like the talking heads? Jack Chambers explains how TV and the mass media do — and do not — affect our language. Read Summary
“Dad, you got punk’d!” says seven-year-old Luc, after his father told everyone at the dinner table how the price of gas dropped two minutes after he filled the tank.
The table explodes with laughter. Everyone beams at Luc. “Listen to the big shot,” says his older brother. His mother says, laughing, “Now where in the world did you pick up a word like that?”
But they know where Luc picked it up. The word became popular because of the MTV series Punk’d, which duped celebrities into doing something embarrassing or demeaning while they were filmed by hidden cameras. The celebrities are shown as the butt of elaborate practical jokes, as punks. In short, they’re punked.
Punk has entered the lexicon as a transitive verb derived from the old slang noun. Luc never gets to watch the TV show because it’s on too late. But his sister and brother watch it, sometimes with their parents. Luc and his playmates also know something from hearsay. By these means, he has learned the word and how to use it.
Television and the other mass media such as movies and radio have long been good at disseminating words and phrases that infiltrate the pop lexicon. Here’s a decade-by-decade sampler:
1950s:Sufferin’ succotash became a fashionable exclamation, usually pronounced with a lisp — Thufferin’ thuccotash! That’s how cartoon cat Sylvester said it in his fruitless pursuit of Tweetie bird.
1960s: People telling tales around the water cooler looked doubting listeners in the eye and said, “I kid you not,” assuming the manner and the Elizabethan syntax of late-night talk-show host Jack Paar.
1970s: Schoolyards rang with the mock battle cry Ya-ba-da-ba-doo! of the Paleolithic suburbanites known as the Flintstones.
1980s: Todd and Lisa Lupner, the clique-obsessed students on Saturday Night Live (played by Bill Murray and Gilda Radner), unleashed dripping sarcasm in the form of emphatically retracted compliments…Those are nice mauve socks you’re wearing — NOT!
1990s: Any unexpectedly insightful comment could meet with the retort, “Check out the brains on Brett,” a verbatim quotation from the 1994 film Pulp Fiction.
2004: Kids are likely to bizounce (leave, exit) a party in search of something more shiznit (really awesome), in the rap argot of Snoop Dogg.
Lexicographers eavesdropping at Luc’s house would instantly add punk (v.tr.) to their up-to-the-minute dictionaries — NOT! That would be imprudent, and lexicographers are notoriously prudent. There are two good reasons why: First, punk’d and the other words belong to the most ephemeral fringes of society, sharing more in common with fads and fashions than with language. For every buzzword dredged from memory a year or two after it peaks, a dozen are gone forever. To call something fab now dates you like a Nehru jacket.
Second, the lasting power of words that spread via the mass media has nothing to do with the various media themselves. Punk’d lasted just two seasons (2002-03). While it lasted, its name was raised into common parlance. What are the chances a word will persist for another five to 10 years? Not good. In buzzwords as in outré attire, there is a direct relationship between the height of the craze and the decline into oblivion. Fads mark their users as members of an in-group. The faster fads spread, the more pressure there is to find a new marker. Only your mother, if she was a beatnik, thinks rimless specs are groovy. Only your grandmother, if she was a gate, thinks black horn-rims are crazy.
The lasting power of punked will be probably determined by its usefulness before it was raised to buzzword status. MTV producers did not invent the word. They merely used it, and in doing so changed its former minority status among the words that mean pretty much the same thing. But it was not particularly useful before its fad, and that is not likely to change.
Which Came First: Linguistic Chickens or Eggs?Our implicit assumptions about media and language overrule common sense when the facts show that the media only spread words and phrases, but do not invent them. Another common assumption that the media influences not only vocabulary but also the deeper reaches of language — sound patterns and sentence structures. In fact, it does not touch them. A final common assumption is that the media leads language changes. In fact, it belatedly reflects the changes.
Linguists have searched in vain for evidence supporting the above mentioned assumptions — which are widespread, as the following cases clearly show:
From a journalist (Christopher Hitchens, Vanity Fair magazine, March 1997) “National broadcasting networks have contributed largely to the erosion of Piedmontese in Italy, Provençal in France, and Ruthenian in the Ukraine and the Czech lands.” On the contrary, the demise of these and other regional vernaculars was well underway by the time the networks came into being. The use of standard language in the media is tolerated in those enclaves only because of this kind of vernacular decline.
From a novelist (Harold Horwood, in Tomorrow Will Be Sunday, 1966) “The people of Caplin Bight [a Newfoundland port], when addressing a stranger from the mainland, could use almost accentless English, learned from listening to the radio, but in conversation among themselves there lingered the broad twang of ancient British dialects that the fishermen of Devon and Cornwall and the Isle of Guernsey had brought to the coast three or four centuries before.” The idea that the they could master the mainland accent (supposedly “accentless English”) from listening to the radio is linguistic science-fiction.
From a press release (Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Ontario, 1988) “The Bible is still the most popular source for boys’ names in Ontario.…Girls’ names continue to be dominated by those made popular on television, particularly afternoon soap operas, the ministry said.” Notwithstanding the fact that the list of popular names for both boys and girls had about equal distribution between Biblical sources (Michael, Matthew, Jessica, Sarah, etc.) and non-Biblical (Kyle, Justin, Amanda, Jennifer, etc.), the demeaning assumption that parental tastes are dictated by the most trivial television fare should be examined critically by the politicians who authorize press releases such as this one.
That last case, involving trends in baby names, is like that of the buzzwords discussed above because it partly involves fashion, with some of the same social forces at work — such as the rapidity of popularity spikes and decline with over-use. The association of those spikes with mass media has been soundly refuted. Sociologist Stanley Lieberson, in an exhaustive study of given names (A Matter of Taste: How Names, Fashions and Cultures Change, 2000) searched for correlations between media names and real-life children’s names and found exactly the opposite to what is generally assumed: Media names tend to reflect real-world naming practices, not vice-versa.
Lieberson’s conclusion supports my larger conclusion about the media and language in general. He writes, “Without precise information, …it is easy for the casual observer to err by reversing the cause from the effect.”
Does the mass media drive all kinds of language changes?
The same fallacy seems to underlie the casual assumption that the mass media drives all kinds of language changes. People notice buzzwords when others use them, and know their source. They then adapt them as prototypes for other changes in language. If the mass media can popularize words and expressions, then “presumably” it can also spread other kinds of linguistic changes. We generalize from one limited effect to a host of others.
The fact remains: There is zero evidence for television or the other popular media disseminating or influencing sound changes or grammatical innovations. How do we know? We look at situations where, if the mass media were an active agent in language change, we would expect to find strong positive effects — and we find no such effects at all, positive or negative.
Putting the Media Cart Before the Language Horse
Let’s look at three sociolinguistic situations in which mass media influence, should it exist, would be obvious: First, social settings with intense exposure/overexposure to mass media; second, linguistic situations in which changes are disseminated globally; third, domestic settings in which television became the primary input for the acquisition of language by infants.
Regional dialects continue to diverge
Number 1: Regional dialects continue to diverge from standard dialects despite the exposure of dialect speakers to television, radio, movies and other mass media. The best-studied dialect divergence is occurring in American inner-cities, where the dialects of the most segregated African-Americans sound less like their white counterparts with respect to certain features than they did two or three generations ago. Yet these groups are avid consumers of mass media. William Labov observes that in inner-city Philadelphia the “dialect is drifting further away” from other dialects despite up to eight hours of daily exposure to Standard American English on television and in schools. Uptalk occurs in the speech of people under 40
Number 2: One of the best-studied global changes is an intonation pattern called uptalk, in which people make declarative statements with yes/no question intonation. This feature occurs mainly (but not exclusively) in the speech of people under 40. In the few decades of its existence, uptalk has spread to virtually all of the world’s English-speaking communities; it has been studied in Australia, Canada, England, New Zealand and the United States. Its uses: It is heard when the speaker is establishing common ground with the listener as the basis for the conversation (Hello. I’m a student in your phonetics tutorial?) and when the speaker is seeking silent affirmation of some factor that might require explanation before the conversation can continue (Our high school class is doing an experiment on photosynthesis?). Its uses have generalized to include situations in which its pragmatic value is not quite as clear (Hello, my name is Robin?).
We know how it is used, but we do not know why it came into being or how it spread so far. Many people automatically assume that a change like this could never be so far-reaching unless the equally far-reaching media abetted it. Nothing could be farther from the truth. To date, uptalk is not a feature of any newsreader’s or weather analyst’s speech on any national network anywhere in the world. More important, it is also not a regular, natural feature of any character’s speech in sitcoms, soap operas, serials and interview shows anywhere in the world. Undoubtedly it may soon be, but that will only happen when TV catches up with language change — not the other way around.
Only face-to-face contact stimulates language acquisition
Number 3: Mass media does not work as a stimulus for language acquisition. Hearing children of deaf parents do not acquire language from exposure to radio or television. Case studies now go back more than 25 years, starting when psycholinguist Susan Ervin–Tripp studied children who failed to begin speaking until they were spoken to by other people, in ordinary situations. More recently, Todd and Aitchison charted the progress of a boy named Vincent, born of deaf parents who communicated with him by signing, at which he was fully competent from infancy. His parents encouraged him to watch television regularly, expecting it to provide a model for the speech skills they did not have. But Vincent remained speechless. By the time he was exposed to normal speech at age three, his speaking ability was undeveloped and his capacity for acquiring speech was seriously impaired.
Ain’t Nothing Like the Real Thing
The fact that certain language changes are spreading at the same time in history that mass media are going global should not be confused with cause and effect. It may be that the media fosters tolerance of other accents and dialects. The fact that standard speech reaches dialect enclaves from the mouths of anchorpersons, sitcom protagonists, color commentators and other admired people presumably adds a patina of acceptability to the way those people speak — and thus, presumably, adds the same patina to any regional changes that are standardizing. But there is no question: Changes themselves must be conveyed in face-to-face interactions among peers.
Mobility has greater social significance than the media explosion
Finally, we should note that high mobility has even greater social significance than the media explosion. Today, more people meet face to face across greater distances than ever before. The talking heads on our mass media may sometimes catch our attention, but it’s a one-way street: They never engage us in dialogue. Travelers, sales reps, neighbors and colleagues from distant places speak to us — and we hear not only what they say but how they say it. We may unconsciously borrow some features of their speech; they may borrow some of ours. That’s all quite normal. But it takes real people to make an impression … for us no less than little Vincent.
Sunday, October 22, 2006
Collocation Use with Miss, Get, Do and Make
Choose which one of the following four verbs goes with the expressions listed below
Miss Get Do Make
a goal -- miss
home -- get
homework -- do
progress -- make
an effort -- make
the shopping -- do
a chance -- miss
frightened -- get
the sack -- get
the point -- miss
money -- make
the housework -- do
someone a favor -- do
permission -- get
a flight -- miss
a mess -- make
business -- do
a surprise -- get
one's family -- miss
a mistake -- make
nothing -- do
furniture -- make
the message -- get
a lesson -- miss
one's home -- miss
a noise -- make
the washing up -- do
lost -- get
ready -- get
trouble -- make
an opportunity -- miss
the cooking -- do
a job -- get
peace -- make
an appointment -- miss
a job -- do
nowhere -- get
a change -- make
someone's help -- miss
one's best -- do
Friday, October 13, 2006
Women Talk Too Much
No, they don’t. Rather, they don’t in every situation. Social context and relative power determine who talks more, men or women. Janet Holmes sets the record straight and establishes the reasons for the lingering myth of female chattiness. (The research cited in this essay was first published in 1999.)
Do women talk more than men? Proverbs and sayings in many languages express the view that women are always talking:
Women’s tongues are like lambs’ tails – they are never still. –English
The North Sea will sooner be found wanting in water than a woman at a loss for words. –Jutlandic
The woman with active hands and feet, marry her, but the woman with overactive mouth, leave well alone. –Maori
Some suggest that while women talk, men are silent patient listeners.
When both husband and wife wear pants it is not difficult to tell them apart – he is the one who is listening. –American
Nothing is so unnatural as a talkative man or a quiet woman. –Scottish
Others indicate that women’s talk is not valued but is rather considered noisy, irritating prattle:
Where there are women and geese, there’s noise. –Japanese.
Indeed, there is a Japanese character which consists of three instances of the character for the concept ‘woman’ and which translates as ‘noisy’! My favourite proverb, because it attributes not noise but rather power to the woman speaker is this Chinese one:
The tongue is the sword of a woman and she never lets it become rusty.
So what are the facts? Do women dominate the talking time? Do men struggle to get a word in edgewise, as the stereotype suggests?
The Evidence
Despite the widespread belief that women talk more than men, most of the available evidence suggests just the opposite. When women and men are together, it is the men who talk most. Two Canadian researchers, Deborah James and Janice Drakich, reviewed sixty-three studies which examined the amount of talk used by American women and men in different contexts. Women talked more than men in only two studies.
In New Zealand, too, research suggests that men generally dominate the talking time. Margaret Franken compared the amount of talk used by female and male ‘experts’ assisting a female TV host to interview well-known public figures. In a situation where each of three interviewers was entitled to a third of the interviewers’ talking time, the men took more than half on every occasion.
I found the same pattern analysing the number of questions asked by participants in one hundred public seminars. In all but seven, men dominated the discussion time. Where the numbers of women and men present were about the same, men asked almost two-thirds of the questions during the discussion. Clearly women were not talking more than men in these contexts.
Even when they hold influential positions, women sometimes find it hard to contribute as much as men to a discussion. A British company appointed four women and four men to the eight most highly paid management positions. The managing director commented that the men often patronized the women and tended to dominate meetings.
I had a meeting with a [female] sales manager and three of my [male] directors once…it took about two hours. She only spoke once and one of my fellow directors cut across her and said ‘What Anne is trying to say Roger is…’ and I think that about sums it up. He knew better than Anne what she was trying to say, and she never got anything said.
There is abundant evidence that this pattern starts early. Many researchers have compared the relative amounts that girls and boys contribute to classroom talk. In a wide range of communities, from kindergarten through primary, secondary and tertiary education, the same pattern recurs – males dominate classroom talk. So on this evidence we must conclude that the stereotype of the garrulous woman reflects sexist prejudice rather than objective reality.
Looking for an Explanation
Why is the reality so different from the myth? To answer this question, we need to go beyond broad generalizations and look more carefully at the patterns identified. Although some teachers claim that boys are ‘by nature more spirited and less disciplined’, there is no evidence to suggest that males are biologically programmed to talk more than females. It is much more likely that the explanation involves social factors.
What is the Purpose of the Talk?
One relative clue is the fact that talk serves different functions in different contexts. Formal public talk is often aimed at informing people or persuading them to agree to a particular point of view (e.g. political speeches, television debates, radio interviews, public lectures, etc.). Public talk is often undertaken by people who wish to claim or confirm some degree of public status. Effective talk in public and in the media can enhance your social status – as politicians and other public performers know well. Getting and holding the floor is regarded as desirable, and competition for the floor in such contexts is common. (There is also some risk, of course, since a poor performance can be damaging.)
Classroom research suggests that more talk is associated with higher social status or power. Many studies have shown that teachers (regardless of their gender) tend to talk for about two-thirds of the available time. But the boys dominate the relatively small share of the talking time that remains for pupils. In this context, where talk is clearly valued, it appears that the person with most status has the right to talk most. The boys may therefore be asserting a claim to higher status than the girls by appropriating the majority of the time left for pupil talk.
The way women and men behave in formal meetings and seminars provides further support for this explanation. Evidence collected by American, British, and New Zealand researchers shows that men dominate the talking time in committee meetings, staff meetings, seminars and task-oriented decision-making groups. If you are sceptical, use a stopwatch to time the amount of talk contributed by women and men at political and community meetings you attend. This explanation proposes that men talk more than women in public, formal contexts because they perceive participating and verbally contributing in such contexts as an activity which enhances their status, and men seem to be more concerned with asserting status and power than women are.
By contrast, in more private contexts, talk usually serves interpersonal functions. The purpose of informal or intimate talk is not so much status enhancement as establishing or maintaining social contact with others, making social connections, developing and reinforcing friendships and intimate relationships. Interestingly, the few studies which have investigated informal talk have found that there are fewer differences in the amount contributed by women and men in these contexts (though men still talked more in nearly a third of the informal studies reviewed by Deborah James and Janice Drakich). Women, it seems, are willing to talk more in relaxed social contexts, especially where the talk functions to develop and maintain social relationships.
Another piece of evidence that supports this interpretation is the kind of talk women and men contribute in mixed-sex discussions. Researchers analysing the functions of different utterances have found that men tend to contribute more information and opinions, while women contribute more agreeing, supportive talk, more of the kind of talk that encourages others to contribute. So men’s talk tends to be more referential or informative, while women’s talk is more supportive and facilitative.
Overall, then, women seem to use talk to develop personal relationships and maintain family connections and friendships more often than to make claims to status or to directly influence others in public contexts. Of course, there are exceptions, as Margaret Thatcher, Benazir Bhutto and Jenny Shipley demonstrate. But, until recently, many women seem not to have perceived themselves as appropriate contributors to public, formal talk.
In New Zealand, we identified another context where women contributed more talk then men. Interviewing people to collect samples of talk for linguistic analysis, we found that women were much more likely than men (especially young men) to be willing to talk to us at length. For example, Miriam Meyerhoff asked a group of ten young people to describe a picture to a female and to a male interviewer. It was made quite clear to the interviewees that the more speech they produced the better. In this situation, the women contributed significantly more speech than the men, both to the male and to the female interviewer.
In the private but semi-formal context of an interview, then, women, contributed more talk than men. Talk in this context could not be seen as enhancing the status of the people interviewed. The interviewers were young people with no influence over the interviewees. The explanation for the results seems to be that the women were being more cooperative than the men in a context where more talk was explicitly sought by the interviewer.
Social Confidence
If you know a lot about a particular topic, you are generally more likely to be willing to contribute to a discussion about it. So familiarity or expertise can also affect the amount a person contributes to a particular discussion. In one interesting study the researcher supplied particular people with extra information, making them the ‘experts’ on the topic to be discussed. Regardless of gender, these ‘experts’ talked more in the subsequent discussions than their uninformed conversational partners (though male ‘experts’ still used more talking time in conversation with uninformed women than female ‘experts’ did with uninformed men).
Looking at people’s contributions to the discussion section of seminars, I found a similar effect from expertise or topic familiarity. Women were more likely to ask questions and make comments when the topic was one they could claim expert knowledge about. In a small seminar on the current state of the economy, for instance, several women economists who had been invited to attend contributed to the discussion, making this one of the very few seminars where women’s contributions exceeded men’s.
Another study compared the relative amount of talk of spouses. Men dominated the conversations between couples with traditional gender roles and expectations, but when the women were associated with a feminist organization they tended to talk more than their husbands. So feminist women were more likely to challenge traditional gender roles in interaction.
It seems possible that both these factors – expert status and feminist philosophy – have the effect of developing women’s social confidence. This explanation also fits with the fact that women tend to talk more with close friends and family, when women are in the majority, and also when they are explicitly invited to talk (in an interview, for example).
Perceptions and Implications
If social confidence explains the greater contributions of women in some social contexts, it is worth asking why girls in school tend to contribute less than boys. Why should they feel unconfident in the classroom? Here is the answer which one sixteen-year-old gave:
Sometimes I feel like saying that I disagree, that there are other ways of looking at it, but where would that get me? My teacher thinks I’m showing off, and the boys jeer. But if I pretend I don’t understand, it’s very different. The teacher is sympathetic and the boys are helpful. They really respond if they can show YOU how it is done, but there’s nothing but ‘aggro’ if you give any signs of showing THEM how it is done.
Talking in class is often perceived as ‘showing off’, especially if it is girl-talk. Until recently, girls have preferred to keep a low profile rather than attract negative attention.
Teachers are often unaware of the gender distribution of talk in their classrooms. They usually consider that they give equal amounts of attention to girls and boys, and it is only when they make a tape recording that they realize that boys are dominating the interactions. Dale Spender, an Australian feminist who has been a strong advocate of female rights in this area, noted that teachers who tried to restore the balance by deliberately ‘favouring’ the girls were astounded to find that despite their efforts they continued to devote more time to the boys in their classrooms. Another study reported that a male science teacher who managed to create an atmosphere in which girls and boys contributed more equally to discussion felt that he was devoting 90 per cent of his attention to the girls. And so did his male pupils. They complained vociferously that the girls were getting too much talking time.
In other public contexts, too, such as seminars and debates, when women and men are deliberately given an equal amount of the highly valued talking time, there is often a perception that they are getting more than their fair share. Dale Spender explains this as follows:
The talkativeness of women has been gauged in comparison not with men but with silence. Women have not been judged on the grounds of whether they talk more than men, but of whether they talk more than silent women.
In other words, if women talk at all, this may be perceived as ‘too much’ by men who expect them to provide a silent, decorative background in many social contexts. This may sound outrageous, but think about how you react when precocious children dominate the talk at an adult party. As women begin to make inroads into formerly ‘male’ domains such as business and professional contexts, we should not be surprised to find that their contributions are not always perceived positively or even accurately.
Conclusion
We have now reached the conclusion that the question ‘Do women talk more than men?’ can’t be answered with a straight ‘yes’ or ‘no’. The answer is rather, ‘It all depends.’ It depends on many different factors, including the social context in which the talk is taking place, the kind of talk involved and the relative social confidence of the speakers, which is affected by such things as their social roles (e.g. teacher, host, interviewee, wife) and their familiarity with the topic.
Who talks more is based on social context
It appears that men generally talk more in formal, public contexts where informative and persuasive talk is highly valued, and where talk is generally the prerogative of those with some societal status and has the potential for increasing that status. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to contribute in private, informal interactions, where talk more often functions to maintain relationships, and in other situations where for various reasons they feel socially confident.
Finally, and most radically, we might question the assumption that more talk is always a good thing. ‘Silence is golden,’ says the proverb, and there are certainly contexts in all cultures where silence is more appropriate than talk, where words are regarded as inadequate vehicles for feelings, or where keeping silent is an expression of appreciation or respect. Sometimes it is the silent participants who are the powerful players. In some contexts the strong silent male is an admired stereotype. However, while this is true, it must be recognized that talk is very highly valued in western culture. It seems likely, then, that as long as holding the floor is equated with influence, the complexities of whether women or men talk most will continue to be a matter for debate.
Neither or Either?
"Either" and "neither" are both singular adjectives meaning "one or the other of two." "Neither" of course means "not the first one and not the second one."
In formal writing, we usually use a singular verb because "either" and "neither" signal that one of the following nouns is the subject, but not both:
Either Bill or Bob is going to the conference. (One or the other is going, but not both.)
Neither Joan nor Jane likes sushi. (= Joan doesn't like sushi. Jane doesn't like sushi either!)
Notice that we say "either...or" and "neither...nor." In informal English, most people would say "Neither Joan OR Jane LIKE sushi." That's all right in conversation, but in formal documents you should prefer the formal usage.
Of course we have a confusing exception to this rule. You can use a plural verb if you have a plural noun next to the verb:
Either Joan or the Kennedys are going to the conference.
But put the singular noun closer to the verb, and it goes back to singular!
Either the Kennedys or Joan is going to the conference.
And it's the same with "neither":
Neither Jane nor her brothers like sushi.
Neither her brothers nor Jane likes sushi.
Of course the verb will be plural if both nouns are plural:
Either the Smiths or the Robinsons are meeting us at the station.
Neither the Canadians nor the Americans are interested in this problem.
Match the sentence halves to make a complete sentence.
Both Peter Not only do we want to go Either Jack will have to work more hours That story was Students who do well not only study hard In the end he had to choose Sometimes it is I would love to take | but we have enough money. neither true nor realistic. not only wise to listen to your parents but also interesting. and I are coming next week. either his career or his hobby. both my laptop and my cell phone on holiday. but also use their instincts if they do not know the answer. or we will have to hire somebody new. |
Combine the following sentences into one sentence using paired conjunctions: both ... and; not only ... but also; either ... or; neither ... nor
We could fly. We could go by train.
She will have to study hard. She will have to concentrate to do well on the exam.
Jack is not here. Tom is in another city.
The speaker will not confirm the story. The speaker will not deny the story.
Pneumonia is a dangerous disease. Small pox is a dangerous illness.
Fred loves traveling. Jane wants to go around the world.
It might rain tomorrow. It might snow tomorrow.
Playing tennis is good for your heart. Jogging is good for your health.
To the teacher: Read the following aloud and have students use paired conjunctions to respond. Example: You know Peter. Do you know Bill? Student: I know both Peter and Jack.
You like tennis. Do you like golf?
You don't know Jane. Do you know Jack?
You are studying Math. Are you studying English?
You need to work on the weekend. Do you need to work in the evening?
You don't eat fish. Do you eat beef?
I know your country has good universities. Does England have good universities?
He collects money. Does he collect stamps?
They haven't visited Rome. Have they visited Paris?
Friday, October 06, 2006
Some simple tips for improving your memory:
1)When you need to remember something important, find a way to create an image about it in your mind that is very funny or bizarre. Your brain easily remembers things that are unusual, or funny or scary, while it easily forgets things that don’t stand out in any way.
2)Make written lists of what you need to do or to remember. This will free up your brain to remember other things that are more important.
3)Be sure to get enough sleep. Your brain uses its sleeping hours to put new information into long term memory storage.
4)To remember a long string of letters or numbers such as a telephone number, break the information up into small chunks of two or three numbers or letters at a time, such as 555 – 216 - 9827. Most people will find it very hard to remember 9 or 10 numbers in a row, but they can easily remember two or three numbers in a row.
5)When you need to learn and remember something, give yourself time to review the same material the next day for a few minutes and then a week later for a few minutes. Repetition and review will help your brain remember the material better.
6)When you are studying a lot of material, schedule a break every forty minutes to get up and walk and do something completely different. When you sit down to study again, your brain will be more refreshed and better able to pay attention.
7)When you are trying to study something, give yourself plenty of time to understand it and review it several times. Cramming at the last minute doesn’t work very well.
8)Give your brain a good workout by practicing memorization as a fun exercise. Every few days, pick a new poem or favorite passage to memorize, and then write it out or speak it out loud.
9)Get a basic children’s arithmetic book with simple number exercises such as 1 + 8 = ___ or 5 X 3 = ___ and commit to doing fifty such calculations every day as quickly as you can. Research has shown that quickly doing very simple arithmetic problems activates a lot of your brain.
10)Reduce the stress in your life by simplifying your schedule, delegating more tasks to others, getting regular physical exercise and practicing daily meditation. Long term stress can interfere with your ability to concentrate and to think clearly, and with your ability to form memories or to recall them later.
11)Get yourself a study buddy or a conversation partner, and try teach the other person what you are learning. This is a good way to signal your brain that what you are learning is important and you will remember more.
12)Learn how to create and use mind maps to organize your information. Many people can learn better by using mind maps than by writing out notes the traditional way.
13)Make up little rhymes and songs to help you remember important information. It's often a lot easier to remember facts that have been made into a song or a rhyme, such as "Thirty days hath September, April, June and November".
14)Your brain will remember things a lot better if you are breathing deeply in a relaxed way. Instead of just breathing shallowly from the upper part of your chest, learn to breathe smoothly from your belly, using your diaphragm muscle to move the air in and out.
15)Include a lot of berries in your diet that have dark red and blue colored skins. In an experiment where aging rats were fed a diet high in blueberries, their memory losses reversed and they grew new brain cells.
16)When you need to remember several unrelated items, use the first letter of each word and try to make a word out of it that will help you remember them. For example, if you need to buy bread, milk, apples, ink and bananas, you could use the first letter of each word to create the word "BAMBI" to jog your memory.
17)Focus on doing one task at a time and concentrating on one topic at a time. When you try to do too many things at once, your mind will be distracted and it will be difficult to perform every task as well as you need to, and difficult to remember what you need to remember.
18)Your brain is about 85 % water, so it is easily dehydrated. Try to avoid drinking too much coffee and too many pop drinks and instead, give your brain the hydration it craves by drinking half a fluid ounce of water for every pound of your body weight each day.
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Why do people cross their fingers for luck?
There are a number of curious gestures and sayings in our modern society that leave us scratching our heads. Apparently, we have superstitious folk in merry old England to thank for the peculiar practice of crossing our fingers for luck.
Witches, ghosts, and other supernatural ghouls were very real to people living in the 16th century. Illnesses and bad luck were blamed on these evil forces. Faith in the power of the Christian cross, therefore, was strong. A cough, a sneeze, or even a mention of a cold (thought to be a sign of the plague) was reason enough to cross yourself. The proper way to make the sign of the cross involves four steps -- touch the forehead, heart, left shoulder, then right shoulder with you right hand.
When a suspected witch crossed your path, you could make a cross shortcut by crossing your index and second finger or the index fingers of both hands. This would provide protection and ward off the evil influence. Just like in Dracula movies, it was believed the power of the cross or any religious talisman would combat the forces of darkness. People also wore crosses or carried their Bibles in case they happened upon a nefarious being. A clove of garlic worn around the neck was ammunition against werewolves and bad spirits, and both peasants and nobles attached bells known as "bezants" to their garments, hoping the sound would scare away evil spirits.
Though many of these beliefs have slowly died, the gestures they inspired have lived on. Let's face it, in today's scary world, we need all the luck we can get. If crossing your fingers, carrying a rabbit's foot, hanging a horseshoe, or rubbing a lucky penny helps you through the day, more power to you!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
