 |
Varieties of the English language.
|
|
|
|
English has been an international language for only 50 years. Geographically it’s the most widespread language on Earth, second only to Mandarin Chinese in the number of people who speak it. It’s the language of business, technology, sport and aviation. But there is a great number of dialects and accents of this language. First of all one should differentiate terms dialects and accent. A dialect is a variety of language spoken in one part of a country which is different from other forms of the same language. And an accent is a particular way of speaking, connected with the country, area, social class, background, etc.
The most famous varieties of English is American and British English. It isn’t only the question of accents, spelling and vocabulary are different too. The differences in spelling are well- known. Words like “colour” and “honour” are spelt without the “u” in the United States. While the British have kept the original spellings of many foreign words now used in the English language, Americans have made a point of simplifying spellings and often change them in ways that seen curious to their conservative cousins. (Catalog, cigaret). But some of the differences in vocabulary can lead to amusing situations. That concerns ground floor and some pieces of clothes. In some cases the British seem more modern in their use of English that the Americans – American English dates back to the language of the Pilgrim Fathers.
Some people would say that the differences are getting fewer. Now “language” we call Transatlantic English is helping to bridge the gap between two countries. It’s a mixture of British and American characteristics in accent and vocabulary, invented by the increasing number of tourists and businessmen who cross the Atlantic frequently.
But these are differences in language in 2 countries. There is a variety of dialects within one country: Cockney, queen’s English, BBC English, Scouse, Brummie, Glaswegian accent, upper-class accent, welsh accent, etc. Though it isn’t always easy to distinguish between people from different parts of Britain. That’s because British people move about the country more than they used to. More people settle in London and Southern regions. The North still has a character of its own and Southerners who settle in the North usually take on the Northern way of life. Their children soon pick up the accent form their school friends.
Northern accent is characterized by pronouncing [u] in words mother, much, done. [a:] in dance, chance.
Cockney have a pronunciation, accent and vocabulary unlike any other dialect. Cockneys live in the East of London and there is a legend about them. One who was born within the sounds of Bow Bells. There are some peculiar features of Cockney accent: [ei] becomes [ai], tongue doesn’t articulate much, there are no glottal stops, vowels go everywhere.
The Queen’s English is spoken by younger royalties, their language is posh, plumy, overripe.
|
|
|
Standard English is taught at schools and regarded to be right.
English is the national language in many other countries, and India is among them. Despite longstanding attempts to make Hindi the country’s chief language, English becomes more and more important. English is the language of commerce, finance, science, technology, social sciences. It’s the main language of the budding national television. It’s permeating the areas it never reached before. Even a poorest person would like to send his child to school where the medium ids English, one can cut back to one meal day. English commands respect, it enhances marriageability oа middle-class daughters. It’s spoken the length and breadth. But Hindi remains the link language between simple people. Hindi has incorporated many English words and this amalgam is called Hindish.
Increasing number of English words are creeping into different language as the influence of American culture. But in some countries governments try to keep their language pure like it is in France. 127 popular English words were banned. Those companies which use these banned words will face the legal action and will be fined. But simple people continue speaking a mixture of English and French which is called ….
English is one of the richest languages in world concerning its dialects and different accents. The differences between them can lead to misunderstanding. Hunting for a job becomes more difficult for those who doesn’t speak not PR. But many people think that we should change our attitude to the accent, not judging people at the same time, because variety is the spice of life.
*accent chameleons
*applying for a job
Leaders and leadership
Well, first of all we must ask ourselves such questions: Who we can name a leader? What qualities should the real leader possess? How we can become a leader?
All these questions are very important nowadays, because almost everyone wants to become a leader. Leadership is an inseparable item of our fast-moving world; the world of high technology, of international business, fast-growing economy, international tourism, the influential “Forth Estate”, of multiculturalism. In order to keep pace with our fast-changing, competitive world we should know how to become a leader. So let’s try to find the answer!
So, the first question is “Who is a leader?” In the dictionary we can find such a definition of a leader. LEADER – is a person who guides or directs a group of people and who makes the most important decisions. In other words it’s a person who stays under the leadership of others. I suggest that everyone, to some degree, wears the hat of a leader, even if it is self-leadership (which, to my point of view, is the most important leadership of all).
Another question is “What qualities should the real leader possess?”
He must be:
1. Self Starter - Leaders are made, not found.
2. Ability to see the big picture - vision.
3. Selector of good people - People are the most important asset.
4. Trainer of people - Motivator - Build a team.
5. Good communicator - Good listener.
6. Risk taker.
7. High energy level - hard work is the only career plan.
8. Sense of Humor - Doesn't take himself/herself too seriously.
9. Strategic thinker.
Another important question is “How we can become a leader?”
|
|
|
First of all we should become the sculptor of our own career and life – not the sculpture. Leaders are the authors of their own lives. We must show our supremacy and the desire to become a leader. We should take responsibility for our professional development. We should print it in our minds because no one has a greater investment in our success and satisfaction than we.
So, the first and most important step for a leader is the decision to become a leader. At some point in time, leaders decide that they want to provide others with vision direct the course of future events and inspire others to success, they want toinstill (внушить) in others a hope and belief that they can create change for the better. They want to bring out in people their best talents.
In conclusion I would like to say that leadership is the ability to work hard and get real results, to set goals and obtain them. I think that leadership is a great responsibility, rather than a privilege. Because when things go wrong (and they always do) leaders are always the scapegoats. So, personally I would вnot like to become a leader.
Modern family values.
A lot of things in this world can change us but we start & end with the family. It’s the corner stone of our society. More than any other force, it shapes our attitudes, our hopes, our ambitions & and our values. In fact, there R various views on family life: some people can’t do without the support & love of their families, others perceive it as the source of their frustrations in life. Whatever the truth is, the family is definitely a powerful institution.
Few can doubt that our modern family unit is in a state of crisis. Psychologists & sociologists all over the world R calling for a return to traditional family values, which R naturally a thing of a past. When I thing about a typical traditional family, I imagine an extended family with a great number of children, which is characterized by fixed gender roles. The father is the only bread-winner (so it’s male-dominated) while the mother’s duty is to take care of children & keep the house. This family is noted for stability, devotion & even self-denial, high moral standards.
In comparison with a traditional family, a modern family is associated with a nuclear family. Besides, gender roles Rn’t fixed anymore. Usually both parents work, thus they don’t spend much time with their children. This actually leads to a great number of “latch-key children”, who R constantly left at home without required parental care. Moreover marriage today is no longer a permanent & lifelong situation, but rather a temporary enterprise two people R willing to undertake until it’s mutually beneficial. Modern families R faced with the problem of frequent divorces. Parents can split up easily just because they lack understanding & tolerance. However, those who really suffer in this case R children. It’s a deep emotional trauma for them. What is more, we can see such deviations as homosexual marriages, group marriages, communal living arrangements & swingers’ group.
In my view, it’s important to strengthen traditional families. It’s necessary to put the traditional family into the center of social policy. Politicians should tackle the problem & provide a nice balance of home & work responsibilities, fully accepting part-time jobs, maternal periodicity, child-care provision & fair pension entitlements. Schools & other public services for health, education & welfare must be drawn in to support the family. There must be systematic education in the art of committed parenting.
Single-Parent Families.
Single-parent families have become very usual in our society. The percentage is much higher than 50 years ago. But what is it connected with? Why do many children nowadays have only one parent? The reasons for single parenting may be different. A mother or father can be alone because of the death of his spouse, early pregnancies contribute to single-parenting a lot. But the main reason is divorce and personal irresponsibility of many people.
|
|
|
There are several views on the life in the families with one parent. Some people are convinced in the fact that single-parenting can lead children to problems, both personal and social. But in my opinion all sorts of things can make kids go astray- it depends on the quality of your home environment, not on how many parents you have. There is great number of people brought up by a single parent and they are doing really well. Moreover, when a parent struggles to work things out, but the other one doesn’t even contribute financially or practically to the home that may lead to the situation when children witness lots of rows and fights. And I think that it’s better for children not to see that. Most of the children don’t show emotional trauma and moreover some of them often see their parents on weekends. Also for many children divorce means a lot of freedom and they learn to be more independent. They usually don’t miss having a male model at home.
On the other hand things can be not so easy. Sometimes mothers brainwash their children because of their father’s faults. I think it’s not right to interfere in relations of children and their second parent. But psychological factor is not the only one that causes troubles within a single-parent family. Sometimes money cause much more troubles. It’s hard for mother to earn enough money and usually women take fathers of their children to court for maintenance. In our country it isn’t always easy to get the money from your ex-husband even if the court decided so. Also women find sometimes disciplining their children hard and they wish to have someone to back them up.
However, it’s up to children to decide whether they are happy or not living in one-parent family. The statistics show that most of them feel quite normal. They say that they are more responsible, they are able to do all work about the house, and there is no problem in disciplining them at all. It’s better for them not to see the rows and fights of their parents and to live peacefully. Moreover, most of the children see their fathers very often, they communicate with them and have quite stable relationships. But some children say that they feel the lack of financial support from their fathers, that’s why they can’t go to private schools, as far as Britain is concerned.
As for me, I was brought up in a rounded family, that’s why I don’t really know what single-parent family means in practice. I’m very happy that I have mum and dad, who love each other very much. Still, I think that single-parenting is a phenomenon of the 20th century and our society can’t control the process of increasing divorces nowadays, that’s why such families will exist. I believe that there is nothing wrong, when the situation is like that, but both of the parents, together or not, should pay great attention at upbringing of their children. Also they should remember that their personal problems in relationships must not influence their children’s future lives.
Adoption of Children.
Adoption of children is a very tricky question for many people. It’s difficult to say why some people go though long procedures and finally have their adopted child and some people can’t even think about adopting a child.
Why do people want to adopt a child? Some of them just can’t have kids because of health troubles. There are people whose motivation to adopt isn't because they can't have kids. These are the people whose children are in their teens or have left home, or if they have young children they realize they have a lot to give a child with special needs, or a sibling group. But everyone knows that it is not easy at all to adopt a child.
|
|
|
Only seven of up to 10,000 children in Britain awaiting adoption every year. With only 3,500 registered couples waiting to adopt at any time, it's easy to see that there aren't enough potential parents to go round. But the real scandal is that there are many more hopeful parents around who have had their applications for adoption refused. Although the law doesn't set any rules about the type of parent deemed acceptable, until recently it allowed local authorities to do so, as long as the decision is made in 'the best interest of the child'. As a result, the interpretations of such loose guidelines varied widely across the country. 'There have been incidences where a local authority seems to practice cut off point for suitable parents - whether that be a set age, class or race, but it is not a practice endorsed by the government or in law. Yet this has meant many children staying in care and a large number of desperate couples searching for a child abroad, often illegally, to offer a Romanian, Chinese or other foreign child the love and support they were denied giving a British child. However, the recent introduction of more flexible guidelines by the Government should help change this. With people having children later in life, age will no longer be an automatic barrier. And while race is still seen as an important issue - ideally adopters should be from the same ethnic background as the child — after a realistic time limit the search for same-race prospective parents should be ended. As a result, adoption is set to be a fairer deal for everyone concerned. And, unfortunately, it is often the most needy children who are not adopted: those who have special needs, the abused, the neglected. It's a rare couple that's willing to adopt three children at the same time.
In our country the situation is almost the same. You have to go though routine procedures in order to prove that you have enough money, place at home, physical and moral strength to have an adopted child. You have to collect a number of papers and attend special courses. Finally, the child should live at your place some time in order to see whether you can live and communicate.
If you want to adopt the child there are some rules and restrictions. You can adopt if you're over 21, in good health and have the energy to care for children until they reach adulthood and beyond. It doesn’t matter whether you are single, married or living together. If you have children already — some children will benefit from being adopted by a couple with children of their own. If you have no children — some children benefit from being the only child in a family. If you are single and can offer certain children the one-to-one attention they may
require. If you can offer older children the encouragement to develop their personalities, interests and talents. If your income is low, you can apply for adoption allowance.
All in all, one can see that adoption isn’t an easy procedure. But I believe that adoption is a kind of heroic deed and if a person has come to decision to do that it won’t matter how long it will take to collect all necessary documents and papers. I think that kind intentions will always be praised.
Ageism
Our society is used to stereotypes of elderly people. The image of your grannies and granddads is closely connected with orthopedic boots, walking-frames and Horlicks. But the image of ageing became rejuvenated. Increasingly, old people are depicted not as dentured cronies but as leotarded achievers. But ageism hasn't gone away; it's had a face lift.
If old people are now less likely to be invariably portrayed as passive victims, the new stereotype has stepped in smartly to take its place. Now the increasingly popular visual images of the old are on safari or climbing mountains; they effortlessly lap Olympic-sized pools, run marathons, complete Open University degrees, master Swahili. At first, the new images seemed refreshing and liberating. It was a relief to know that you didn't have to swap denim for crimplene when the free bus pass arrived. But something wasn't right. The new way of valuing older people was to highlight their youthfulness. These older people were being celebrated for looking and acting young. Ageing had become a social crime. In some ways this new stereotype of the "young old" is even more oppressive than the "old old" one was. Celebrities with their Hormone Replacement Therapy smiles and marathon running pensioners may inspire some, but to others they represent an unattainable aspiration. And like the previous stereotypes, the new ones still lump old people together as a category rather than acknowledging their differences.
|
|
|
There's a seemingly charming story about the American feminist Gloria Steinem. On her 50th birthday an admirer came up and told her that she didn't look 50. "This is what 50 looks like," she retorted. I used to like that story until it struck me that she was wrong: no, this is what some 50 year-olds look like. Those who've had materially or emotionally harder lives, who were widowed young or brought up kids alone, those whose genetic inheritance didn't include infinitely elastic skin or unshrinking bones, whose faces are mapped with past exertion and present fatigue, don't look like Gloria Steinem. But they shouldn't be punished for it.
There is a phenomenon of women caught between two generations. They are mature, they have adult kind and they their elderly mothers. Their mothers have become their children to care for, that’s why such women are mothers for their mothers. These women are feeling really trapped at home with their parents and they say that are loosing control of their lives because looking after their mother has become full-time work. Of course there is an alternative to send their parents to nursing houses but in that case there is emotional price to pay having a parent in a nursing home.
We have reached such a pitch that instead of admiring and learning from those who feel they've had enough and are ready to die, we're forever trying to jolly them up and yank them back to life.
But perhaps we shouldn't be hard on the new stereotype of ageing - it's only a response to the previous one. When everyone was portraying old people in a negative way, one antidote was to reverse the image, deny ageing, and remake the old as glamorous and athletic, even if for most old people in our society ageing is less about running a marathon and more about staff in residential homes intruding without knocking when residents are in the loo.
In my opinion the statement “You are only as old as you feel” is quite true. But these attempts to look younger by any price are really frightening for me. I think that a person shouldn’t be in conflict with his age, because the process of getting older is inevitable. That’s why one should accept the fact that he or she is not young any more and get satisfaction of his life. I believe that there is nothing to be afraid of in your old age, because the life is still going on.
Problems in the Family
It has been always a crucial question how to survive that l period of rows, sulks, late nights, dirty bedrooms and toe-nail clippings on the bathroom floor which can drive a family mad. In fact, when your children become teenagers it is really difficult to keep everything in order, to contact with them and not to go mad. That’s why there are special courses where parents are about to study the worst years of their children's lives.
Why do they spend their time at such classes? As one mother put it: "We've come because we don't want anything drastic to go wrong. I want to know that if a problem arises, I can deal with it.” Caring for teens demands special tactics. For some it is an innate skill, but others struggle tremendously. Their young ones are treading two paths — being children and young adults. They switch from one to the other and that is one of the things that makes it so difficult for parents. The course runs once a week for a month and is crucially aimed at parents whose children are aged 11 and 12: pre-teen. Start now, is the central message, and problems will be easier later. The rules are straightforward. It’s known that explosions occur when lifestyles drive early wedges between parents and their offspring. You remove those wedges by building confidence in your child, by learning to talk to them properly, and by defusing individual conflicts in an ordered, unemotional style. Easier said than done, of course, and the trouble with teaching parents to suck eggs is that it takes tact. So a major emphasis is on prompting students themselves to share their own solutions to individual flashpoints. For instance, how on earth do you manage to talk to your child when most evenings they are out rigorously improving themselves at drama, music, sports? One mother had come up with a neat solution: she had arranged for her three children to do their homework together around the dining-room table so that she could chat to them while cooking in the kitchen. Another mother (three-quarters of those who turned up were women) had stopped sending her two daughters to bed at the same time. With a year's difference in their ages she had an excuse to spread bedtime so that she could read each their own story instead of sharing the moment. A father said he had learnt to put his newspaper down when his daughter started chattering, explaining privately: «She just doesn't stop talking, and when I came here last week and they wrote up the subject heading: "How To Stop Your Child Talking To You" I thought: yes, I want that. But it was ironic. It was about the way we stop children communicating. It made me think."
Families facing individual conflicts — dirty rooms, late homecomings — were urged to adopt a six-point problem solving process to eliminate the utterly impossible and arrive at a compromise. The classes help parents and teachers to team up at a difficult stage, and there is a spin-off benefit: sitting in a classroom makes parents more comfortable about coming back at other times to discuss their child's general education.
In my opinion it’s really amazing when people understand that they need help and they want to get it from qualified people. It isn’t so dreadful to learn how to bring up your children because it influences your relationships and probably the future of your child.
Look deeper at a person.
Our world consists of different people. Someone can be really pleasant-looking & is dressed spick & span. But if you get on with this person you will discover that he keeps himself to himself, bottles up his feelings & moreover tends to be a loner. But there R people you can go for at once even if they don’t take much care over their appearance. They turn out the life & soul of every company, they R able to have everybody in stitches. In other words we can’t judge by appearance, we should look deeper at a person. But how can we do this?
There R many ways that can help us to identify whether this person is worth communicating with or not. One of such studies is physiognomy – the art of judging character from facial traits. Face watchers can get a clear portrait of our inner world examining our nose, eyes, lips & even gaze. For ex., if the forehead is longer & wider than the part of the face known as the low zone, then this person has an IQ above average & he is a fast learner. Such a person will surely get to the top. A wide & high forehead testifies to intelligence & smartness while a narrow one attests to light-mindedness. Lips can be of different kinds & focus & therefore can also signal different character features. For ex., full lips testify to human kindness while tight lips attest to cruelty & callousness. Even nostrils can give us some information about character. For ex., narrow nostrils suggest that a person is a spendthrift & moreover that he is untidy while straight nostrils exhibit patience. But I think we should pay special attention to people’s eyes, as it’s common knowledge that eyes R the mirror of the soul. If a person has narrow & elliptical eyes keep alert with him, because such a facial trait signals jealousy. Such people enjoy hogging the limelight & they can punish you by any means, foul or fair. People with deep-set, identically shaped eyes R usually intelligent, well- balanced & sociable.
Another way to comprehend inner world is making astrological make-up. If you friend is Leo, then he possesses such characteristics as pride, vanity, a wish to lead & to be loved. If you friend is Arias you must know that he is a natural leader. He is a sort of person who likes to dominate people. They R very active & rather impulsive, so they tend to do things on the spur of the moment. Such people lose their temper very easily. Taureans R characterized to be solid & reliable. They R also considered to control freaks.
Speaking about personality studies it should be mentioned about endless speculation as to what makes the great great, whether geniuses R born or made. Popular believe that geniuses such as Einstein, Picasso, Mozart were simply touched by the divine finger, but some scientists disagree. It was discovered, for ex., that a famous mathematician Carl Gauss was taught sophisticated mathematics by his educated uncle from the early age. The young Einstein was treated to practical demonstrations of physics as a child by his father. Mozart’s teacher (who was his father) went to enormous length to ensure that his son became a successful musician. From these examples we can conclude that many geniuses were subjected to a very unusual childhood regime as their talents required long & grueling periods of training. Besides, their parents tried to give them a head start in the increasing competition for better jobs & better lives, because they believed that long hard slog would definitely pay off.
But there is another group of scientists who insist on genetic influence on talent & intellectual achievement. They suggest that different hemispheres of our brain R responsible for different types of activities. For ex., left hemisphere is responsible for logical thinking while the right one deals with imagination. From people who R dominated by the left hemisphere appear good mental workers & from those who R dominated by the right, becomes good artists, painters, designers.
Of couse, all this is very doubtful, all these things R very individual. It’s more reasonable to say that a person should be judged not by his appearance, but his deeds
The British Press
In ancient times it took people half a life to learn as much information as we manage to learn during a day nowadays. We live in a flourishing world and progress is everywhere. In order to stay current with global changes and have a competitive edge we watch TV, listen to radio, read newspapers and magazines. And the assumption the newspapers will soon die out as a source of information is absurd. In many countries papers are still an essential part people’s everyday life.
One of the best examples is British people who are the world third biggest newspapers buyers. The Times enjoys the biggest circulation among the British papers and whenever you are a businessman or a housewife, a grandfather or a child you will always find something catering for your tastes and preferences.
It should be mentioned that every national paper can be characterized as belonging to one of the two distinct categories: the “quality papers” or “broadsheets” and “popular papers” or “tabloids”. The difference between these two types lies in the treatment of topics they cover and which topics are given the most prominence. Broadsheets cater for better educated readers. They devote much space to politics and serious news, however they do not completely ignore sex and scandal or any other aspect of public life.
On the hand, such a characteristic as shallowness can be applied to the other category of papers, to tabloids. They contain far less print and far larger headlines. Tabloids are written in a simpler style and concentrate on human interest stories which often mean “sex and scandal” and are sold to a larger readership than broadsheets.
All in all I can say that a typical feature of the British press is that it is owned by a small number of extremely large multinational companies. There is no government censorship and hence it is free from government influence and is referred as the fourth estate. I believe that it prides itself for the fact that it possesses the freedom of speech. What is more, none of the large newspapers an organ of a political party. Different papers have different outlooks.
Speaking about the most influential papers in Britain, I can’t but mention the Times renowned for its formidable editorials and coverage of world affairs (the first to employ foreign correspondents), the sister paper of the Times, The Sunday Times which is particularly strong on investigative journalism (Insight team) and has high reputation for its reviews of literature and the arts. The Observer, the oldest British newspaper, is deemed to be the first to use woodcuts and have a high reputation for responsible reporting, penetrating editorial comment. Owned by a trust, not a proprietor and having reputation for independence, the guardian is noted for political comment, arts reviews, women’s page, leftwards stance and appeals to middle-class readers (liberal-minded); its punning headlines are well-known all over the world. The Sunday Telegraph is famous for forthright and challenging views and columnists on political and social issues.
To sum up I’d like to say that news is our future and the press itself champions new ideas and tendencies which can be turn into professional growth.
Radio in GB
Though the BBC might be said to be “the mother of information services”, the radio remains absolutely at the core of GB national life and there are still many people who are forcefully and energetically passionate about it.
It is said that life is hectic as a reporter on busy London radio station. Some people deem that making radio is easy because it is not as technically difficult as TV. I can’t concur with it. As any other, may I say, “organization”, radio requires complete dedication and ability to rise to the challenge. Radio reporters are an amalgam of a person who is a desk-bound and of one who thinks on feet and is able to broadcast from the spot and is eager to try his hand at everything.
All in all there are several different types of radio stations: state, independent, private and illegal or pirate stations. Speaking about BBC radio, I should say that there are 5 national radio stations. For instance, Radio 1 is devoted almost entirely to pop music; its birth was a signal that popular youth culture could no longer be ignored by the country’s established institutions. On the contrary to Radio 1, Radio 2 broadcasts mainly light music and chat shows. If you want to listen to classical music, you are to tune into Radio 3. A variety of programmes from plays to comedy shows to consumer advice programmes and in depth news coverage is presented on Radio 4. Radio 5 is largely given over to sports coverage and news. While Radio 1 and 2 seem reasonably stable, Radio 3 and 4 are challenging and gradually disappearing as they have problems with audience expectations.
In spite of frequent raids by the department of trade and industry, pirate or illegal stations still do not pay copyright levies and still manage to put out a professional-sounding 24-hour show. They work for the love of it and build up a following of young people who can’t get what they want from the legal stations and tune into a pirate one, dealing with risqué material.
So variety is the spice of our life, and I suppose that people who deal with radio and the media in general and prepare whizz-bang news for us invoke respect.
· 13. TV in GB
· Nowadays people can’t do without television & radio, because they R creeping into different spheres of people’s life. It’s common knowledge that the public gets most of the information about events & current pace of life from mass-media. Television brings the world to our room.
· Television is the most significant form of broadcasting in Britain. Britain TV’s independence from the government interference is chiefly a matter of tacit agreement. The BBC is the matter of information services. It has the reputation for being accurate & impartial in news broadcasting. The basic principles of broadcasting that the BBC adheres R: independency, decency, unity, creativity, respect, objectivity, impartiality.
· The BBC depends neither on advertising nor on the government for its income. It derives financing from license fee which everybody who uses a television has to pay. However the government decides how much this fee is going to be. Its director general has the right to veto any BBC programme before it has been transmitted & even to take away the BBC’s license to broadcast. The BBC also runs 5 national radio stations. Today, the BBC World Service broadcasts around the globe in English and in several other languages.
· There’s no advertising on the BBC, but Independent Television (ITV) gets its money from advertising. It consists of a number of private owned companies, each of which is responsible for programming in different parts of the country. Both BBC1 and ITV show a wide variety of programmes. They R in constant competition with each other to attract the largest audience. They try to do the same type of programme better, but not broadcast a more popular one. This is known as the ratings war. These channels broadcast a relaxed style of news magazine with more formal news summaries, a mixture of popular discussion programmes, soap operas, dramas, comedies, films & various programmes of light entertainment & general interest.
· BBC2 & Channel4 act as the main promoters of learning & culture. Both have been successful in presenting programmes on serious & weighty topics which R nevertheless attractive to quite large audience. Channel5 is a commercial one. Its emphasis is on the entertainment. However it makes all other types of programming too.
There is also a Welsh language channel for viewers in Welsh.
The Open University
Britain’s OU is a pioneer in distance learning, it has helped to set up scores of similar institutions around the world. In spite of the fact that MPs dismissed it as a blithering nonsense, it still remains at the core and is deemed to be the largest university in Britain.
Since its founding in 1969, the university has opened up educational opportunities for millions students, has inspired and helped similar distance education institutions in many countries and won a worldwide reputation for its pioneering methods of distance education.
The OU, originally referred to as the University of Air, from the outset was open to all – there are no entry qualifications for the undergraduate programme, except the minimum age of 18. It is offered a second chance to thousands of people who had not had the opportunity to go on to higher education in the past. For them part-time study based at home opened a whole world of learning. It was particularly important in a country with the smallest percentage of students in higher education in Europe.
The university says that women looking after a family at home have been the main beneficiaries of the OU’s openness. Despite of the fact that the OU was accused of being the university catering mainly for bored housewives, today a half of all OU students are woman and many use it as a part of a planned career break.
The flexibility of OU study means that full time workers can retain or gain extra qualifications at the same time. Even if we consider the economic side, it is an insurance against the ebb and flow of the job market. The university caters for many students by correspondence tuition, backed up by TV programmes and face-to-face tutorials. Since the beginning the OU has been in partnership with BBC.
OU students are a dedicated brunch as a study requires 10-15 hours a week for ten months a year and it usually takes 6 years to complete a first degree. In addition it is not cheap: the cost of a degree works out 2000 pounds. Actually it offers not only degree courses, but it has a huge professional and vocational programme. It should be mentioned that the OU is aiming at fostering distance learning in the world by creating different collaborative schemes and it foresees the technological changes such as easy access to the libraries and satellite transmission.
In conclusion, I’d like to tell the motto of the OU which is “open to people, open to places, open to ideas”. I suppose one more element should be added - open to the world!
Children and TV
Television affects children negatively, according to psychological research. It’s turning out to be a disastrous influence. The three major effects of television are:
· Children may become less sensitive to the pain and suffering of others.
· Children may be more fearful of the world around them.
· Children may be more likely to behave in aggressive ways toward others
FACT: The average American child will have watched 100,000 acts of televised violence, including 8000 depictions of murder, by the time he or she finishes sixth grade (approximately 13 years old).
Many parents have the mistaken belief that television is an entertainment medium in which little of enduring value is either taught or learned from it. Also, it’s known that TV hurts a child’s linguistic ability, because it’s a visual medium. Although human speech is heard on TV it’s picture to contain the most important things. Television can never teach what a medium like a book can teach and yet the educators are always trying to pretend that they can use television to promote the cognitive habits and the intellectual discipline that print promotes.
Language tends to be more abstract; it encourages the use of imagination. It is not true, as many insist, that watching TV is a passive experience. Anyone who has observed children watching television will know how foolish that statement is. In watching TV, children have their emotions fully engaged. It is their capacity for abstraction that is quiescent.
Video violence is another point of arguments all over the world. Britain, for example, has stricter censorship rules for films and TV that any other counties of Europe. Under 18s are not allowed to see very violent films in the cinemas and any TV programmes with violent scenes must be shown after 9 pm. There is a point of view that millions of people watch violent films and violent TV programmes, but they don’t all go out and commit crimes. May be that is right, but speaking about children it’s obvious that there is a great psychological effect on children and we should be very attentive to that fact.
But there is another point of view concerning the relations of children and TV. TV has the potential harm to viewers, but if only we let it. We all have the common sense to knoe how we should behave towards our children. Parking them in front of TV is going to be harmful to any child’s development. But that’s not the fault of the programme makers. We have to listen to children, read with them, chat to them about their favourite book and TV characters, eat round a table with them, expect good behavior form them and praise them when they do well. In that environment TV cannot harm them.
In fact, I agree with that point of view. We are too busy too look after our children. And may be it is a core problem, not TV. We should decide for ourselves, what we are looking for: self-comfort, while our children are brought up by TV or their mental and physical health. We should remember that TV is not the only means of entertainment.
|
|
|
