Othello – success of influence
(243 words)
I think that Iago is more successful at influencing Othello. His methods are premeditated. He plans each step psychologically and is accurate in his delivery. There is a subliminal aspect about aspects to his work, with which he is able to convince Othello of Desdemona’s wrongdoing. He never admits his thoughts to Othello because he would be able to find an excuse or deny such direct implication. Instead, Iago makes Orthello think the worst, he is not able to deny his own heart.
Desdemona is much less successful in her attempt to influence Othello. She is straightforward and naïve. She takes it upon herself to get Cassio his job back. Believing that Othello will not resist her plea, she puts little strategy into her effort. Also, by not doing so she is forced to see him in a very childlike manner. This does not impress Othello, but Desdemona does not notice his displeasure or the fact that she is not having the right effect on him.
Iago is more successful because the plans each step. He makes Othello succumb to his own thoughts about Desdemona. It makes him so angry that he can no longer think rationally about the situation.
Desdemona is less successful because of her tactless approach. She is not aware of what Iago has said, and this plays into his hands when she is hassling Othello about Cassio. She only angers him more, which reinforces his suspicions about her.
Chunking and phrases
(300 words)
So, what is so important of moving from vocabulary to adverbial phrases, complements, and objects such as “on the way”, “one night”, “from outer space”, or even “a monster from outer space”. Here lie examples of chunking of words and the Lexical Approach. The principles of the Lexical Approach have been around since Michael Lewis published ‘The Lexical Approach’ in 1993. The principles of the Lexical Approach have [been around] since Michael Lewis published ‘The Lexical Approach’ [20 years ago]. [It seems, however, that] many teachers and researchers do not [have a clear idea of] what the Lexical Approach actually [looks like] [in practice].
All the parts in brackets are fixed or set phrases. Different commentators use different and overlapping terms – ‘prefabricated phrases’, ‘lexical phrases’, ‘formulaic language’, ‘frozen and semi-frozen phrases’, are just some of these terms. We use just two: ‘lexical chunks’ and ‘collocations’.
‘Lexical chunk’ is an umbrella term that includes all the other terms. We define a lexical chunk as any pair or group of words that are commonly found together, or in close proximity.
‘Collocation’ is also included in the term ‘lexical chunk’, but we refer to it separately from time to time, so we define it as a pair of lexical content words commonly found together. Following this definition, ‘basic’ + ‘principles’ is a collocation, but ‘look’ + ‘at’ is not because it combines a lexical content word and a grammar function word. Identifying chunks and collocations is often a question of intuition.
Here are some examples.
Lexical Chunks (that are not collocations)
by the way
up to now
upside down
If I were you
a long way off
out of my mind
Lexical Chunks (that are collocations)
totally convinced
strong accent
terrible accident
sense of humour
sounds exciting
brings good luck
Photograph of the day – Khon Khaen at dusk
Image Posted on Updated on
What can be more idyllic than walking around Thailand’s Khon Khaen city lake at dusk watching the sun go down past Nong Waeng Temple? The peace and tranquility of the moment was not hard to find. What was more was the Thai people all coming out from where they had been at twilight to create a communal spirit which seems hard to find these days. Couples, families, friends, and joggers made their way around the circumference of the lake all happily doing their own thing, making conversation with each other. I recommend a leisurely stroll. Hopefully, you build up a hunger as Khon Kaen night market will then deliver a culinary treat.
The Melancholy Hussar: The way Thomas Hardy might have thought about the story.
(539 words)
As a fatalist, Thomas Hardy presents human beings as largely unable to escape the forces of destiny. In his fictional world, chance, circumstance, and forces beyond individual control frequently determine the course of human lives. Consequently, personal desire and individual effort offer only limited power to alter one’s circumstances; indeed, attempts to resist or overcome fate often become the very means through which individuals are defeated.
In this story, fate brings Matthäus, a German Hussar, and Phyllis together, although each arrives at their meeting through circumstances beyond their control. Matthäus is brought into Phyllis’s world through the movements of the army, while Phyllis’s isolation is a consequence of her father’s reclusive way of life. Both characters are, moreover, emotionally deprived before their meeting: Matthäus is homesick and separated from his homeland, while Phyllis has been deprived of meaningful friendship and companionship. Their apparently accidental encounter can therefore be interpreted as the culmination of a series of circumstances that Hardy has subtly constructed as preparations for their meeting.
The single decisive action they undertake together—their attempt to escape—ultimately turns against them with devastating consequences. Here again, Hardy presents fate as determining the course of events. Phyllis is fated to overhear Humphrey Gould, and her upbringing and sense of propriety compel her to behave in accordance with what she believes to be proper conduct. As a result, she misinterprets Humphrey’s presence and believes that he has returned to be with her. Matthäus, meanwhile, is subject to an equally cruel accident of circumstance: in attempting to escape, he rows towards Jersey and thereby misses France. Their actions are therefore not simply expressions of personal choice; they are continually constrained and redirected by circumstances that neither character fully understands.
Ultimately, their hopes are destroyed and both characters are psychologically broken by the consequences of events. Matthäus willingly submits to execution, while Phyllis, gradually becoming conscious of her tragic mistake and of the role her absence played in Matthäus’s capture, is left to live out the remainder of her life in solitude and mourning. Her suffering is particularly poignant because her actions were motivated not by malice, but by the social expectations and moral assumptions that have shaped her behaviour.
Hardy concludes the story with a final and deeply ironic image: in death, Matthäus and Phyllis are at last united in the grave. The physical proximity denied to them in life is achieved only after their hopes, love, and individual futures have been destroyed. The ending therefore reinforces Hardy’s fatalistic vision, in which the characters can achieve fulfilment only when it is too late for that fulfilment to have any meaning in their lives.
This interpretation suggests that Hardy’s central concern is not simply the power of fate, but the tragic interaction between fate, chance, social convention, and individual desire. The characters make choices, but their choices are repeatedly shaped—and ultimately overwhelmed—by circumstances beyond their control. At the same time, however, the story invites a more nuanced question: to what extent are Matthäus and Phyllis genuinely victims of fate, and to what extent do their own personalities, assumptions, and decisions contribute to their tragedy? How we answer that question may significantly affect the way we understand Hardy’s characters and the story as a whole.
Homo loquens
(540 words)
Homo sapiens describes a species capable of thought, while homo loquens is used to describe a species capable of speech. Humans are unique in their ability to communicate through complex speech and language. Animal calls represent a much more limited form of vocal communication. Animals are also capable of making facial expressions, using hand movements, and communicating through touch, just as humans do. However, what distinguishes us from other animals is our use of language. The basis of chimpanzee society is grooming, or cleaning one another, whereas human society is largely based on speech and language. The development of vocal communication in human beings has been a long process, dating as far back as five to eight million years ago.
Language is primarily vocal, although it can also be written. Even today, many people remain illiterate and therefore rely primarily on spoken language. Speech is often closely connected to other forms of non-verbal behaviour. While speaking, body language can play an important role in communication. Non-verbal communication, including gestures, has a language of its own. Gestures that are acceptable in some cultures may be offensive or inappropriate in others.
Tone of voice is also an important aspect of communication. Most of us can relate to the familiar example of a mother calling her child. When the mother first calls the child, her voice may be calm and normal. However, as the child continues to play and ignores her, the mother’s tone of voice may change, often becoming more forceful and with greater emphasis placed on each syllable of the child’s name.
Language has two different layers. Smaller units, such as letters and sounds, may have little or no meaning on their own. However, these units can be combined to form meaningful words. For example, the letters s, t, o, and p can be combined to form the word “stop.” This system of combining smaller, meaningless units to create meaningful words is a distinctive feature of human language.
Another feature of the English language is stress. By shifting the stress placed on a word, its pronunciation and meaning can change. For example, “wind” can be pronounced differently depending on its meaning.
Another feature of language is redundancy. One advantage of redundancy is that it makes speech easier to understand, even when some sounds or words are unclear or misheard.
Language is not determined entirely by our genes. A person who grows up speaking Spanish will generally learn Spanish as a child because they are exposed to it in their environment. For example, if a baby born in Peru were adopted and moved to Thailand, the child would most likely grow up speaking Thai rather than Spanish. According to Noam Chomsky, often referred to as the “Godfather of Linguistics,” some of our language abilities may have a genetic basis.
Language is thought to have emerged in modern humans approximately 100,000 years ago and subsequently spread throughout the world.
Linguists primarily focus on the structure and development of existing languages, while paying less attention to the precise origins of language itself. Nevertheless, the study of linguistic evolution provides valuable insight into human development. As one perspective suggests, studying linguistic evolution is “a good way to appreciate what has made our species so remarkable.”
