O.V. Kuznetsova
Reading American Papers
Part 2
IRKUTSK
2015
НОУ ДПО «Байкальский институт
непрерывного образования »
O.V. Kuznetsova
Reading American Papers
Part 2
IRKUTSK
2015
ББК 81.432.1-3я73
УДК 811.111
К 89
| Рецензенты: | кандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры иностранных язызков БГУЭиП Т.В. Сметанина; |
| кандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры зарубежного регионоведения ЕАЛИ МГЛУ Ю.Б. Дюндик. |
Кузнецова О.В.
К 89
Reading American Papers: part II [Текст] : учебное пособие / О.В. Кузнецова. – Иркутск: НОУ ДПО «Байкальский институт непрерывного образования», 2015. – 69 с.
ISBN 978-5-91344-911-5
Данное учебное пособие предназначено для студентов-бакалавров 4 курса языковых направлений подготовки, а также тех, кто имеет средний уровень владения английским языком. Пособие состоит из двух частей, включает подборку текстов публицистической направленности, содержание которых отражает отношение к обсуждаемой проблеме в США. Кроме этого, издание снабжено списком лексических единиц по изучаемой тематике, рядом лексических упражнений, направленных на усвоение и закрепление изученного материала.
ББК 81.432.1-3я73
| © Кузнецова О.В. , 2015 © НОУ ДПО «Байкальский институт непрерывного образования», 2015 |
CONTENTS
| UNIT 4. NOW IN THE NEWS: POLITICS UNIT 5. NOW IN THE NEWS: CRIMES and PUNISHMENT REFERENCES | 5 38 67 |
| UNIT 4. NOW IN THE NEWS: POLITICS |
Basic Vocabulary
Ex. 5. Make up a story using all the expressions from the box.
| 1. a treaty on disarmament to establish contacts a visit of friendship majority of votes break of diplomatic relations an item of the agenda | 2. to tour a country to maintain contacts to be on a visit to reshuffle the cabinet secretary of State to elect by a landslide |
| 3. top-level talks to accept an invitation a host country sovereignty a treaty on disarmament mutual confidence | 4. to expand contacts to reject an invitation elections by secret ballot embassy multilateral talks unanimity of views |
Ex. 7. Listen to the lesson about political collocations, write them down and study (listening 1).
Ex. 8. Study the following collocations.
Government and election
Complete the sentences with the correct form of the above verbs and expressions:
1. The government was...................... ………..last year. They've now been in office for 5 months.
2. This crisis could........................ ………down the government. We could be facing an election
3. The government is....................... ………..by a man who couldn't succeed in business.
4. The government has been...................... ……….for not doing enough for the elderly.
5. After the scandal, the minister was forced to…………….… from the government.
6. Who do you think will...................... ……………………the next government?
7. The military government promises to………...... democratic elections within a year.
8. The Democratic Party................ …………the election by a huge majority.
9. A number of parties are threatening to.................. ……………..the forthcoming election because they don't believe that it will be a free and fair one.
10. In 1967 Lyndon Johnson decided not to............... ………………..for election as President.
11. United Nations observers reported that the elections in the country were…………
by the ruling party to ensure that they would be returned to power.
12. Unemployment will be one of the big……………………….. in the next election.
13. A number of well-known politicians lost their………………..in the general election.
14. The Green Party continues to make big…………………….. in local elections.
15. There was a low…………….... in the local elections. Only 15% of people voted.
16. He's been selected by the local branch of the Republican Party as their………………….in the next election.
Ex.9.
Vote
The Language of Politics
Business and political communication share many characteristics. In an age where social communication dominates our lives the understanding of the language of politics interests not just linguists but all attentive observers of how political democracy really works.
Whether in the field of politics or business language is a weapon and a powerful tool in winning public support. Rhetoric has always been the cornerstone of political communication. Today it is the most effective tool of those who work in public relations, lobbying, law, marketing, professional and technical writing, and advertising. Good politicians often build around them teams of assistants who are capable of applying rhetoric in all these elements of communication.
Political discourse is a product of personal development. Factors like an individual’s educational experience, family influence, social circles, political beliefs and economic status affect the way a politician communicates with his or her audience. When politicians become important public figures they feel compelled to suppress some of these traces for the sake of survival.
To continue to be successful a politician must fall in love with rhetoric and never be influenced by Plato’s writing who defined rhetoric as “merely a form of flattery and functions similarly to cookery, which masks the undesirability of unhealthy food by making it taste good”. It is a sobering reality that politicians use language skills “to gain public support, and shirk responsibility when things go wrong”.
So what language strategies do political leaders use to make an impact on the electorate? One of the strategies that mainstream politicians adopt is the ‘inclusive technique’. Through this technique the politician directs his appeal to groups held together already by common ties, ties of nationality, religion, race, or social and economic status. One of the most targeted groups in modern politics are ‘the middle class’, presumably because they form the most dense sector of most western societies.
All of the artifices of flattery are used to harness the fears and hatreds, prejudices and biases, convictions and ideals common to this group. Politicians appealing to this group attempt to convince the electorate that both they and their ideals are ‘of the people’. They sing the virtues of the middle class and have no hesitation merging themselves with this important group. By projecting themselves as ‘ordinary citizens’, political leaders hope to assimilate with the targeted communal group.
Political leaders like to win the trust of the electorate by using the ‘testimony technique’
Another important strategy for political leaders is the ‘enforcement strategy’. With both the printed and electronic media obsessed with what our politicians say, the effectiveness of political communication is a top priority for politician: “The effectiveness of delivery, proverbs, poetry of expression and emotional investment of the rhetoricians gives the audience a gauge for determining the speaker’s sincerity.”
Trust is the most fragile of assets as it is easily shattered. Politicians know this too well. So to convince their audience, political leaders like to win the trust of the electorate by using the ‘testimony technique’ – listing their achievements in a language that impresses the targeted audience. The problem with this technique is that often economic achievements are exaggerated and their cost under-estimated.
Testimonial technique can be used to construct a fair well-balanced argument. However, very often it is used in ways that are unfair and misleading. For instance, they superficially refer to short-term economic successes, but fail to delve deeply in the long-term tough structural issues that have such an important influence on society’s future wellbeing. How many European politicians, for instance, are prepared to tackle their countries’ pension problems?
Another often used weapon in the armoury of politicians is the ‘fear technique’. This technique makes the public aware of a potential threat, then it is extrapolated superficially in apocalyptic terms, and finally a solution is offered. Very often this solution is simple. The politician projects himself as a saviour as long as the electorate trust him to lead them out of the wilderness.
UKIP leader Nigel Farage often uses this technique to promote his anti-immigration prejudice. Perhaps more glaring was Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu’s snubbing President Obama and going to the US Congress to paint a catastrophic picture of what would happen to the world if Iran entered into an agreement not to use nuclear research to build nuclear weapons. The Israeli prime minister was using fear to distract attention from the hardships that the Israeli people were facing because of a faltering economy.
Ultimately, political language is mostly made up of slogans, sound bites and propaganda, rather than statements of truth and facts.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20150406/business-news/the-language-of-politics.562777
Ex. 22. George Orwell, a famous English novelist, in his essay 'Politics And The English Language', described the use of ready-made political phrases like 'lay the foundations' and 'achieve a radical transformation' as something which 'anaesthetises a portion of one's brain'. Read the essay and express your opinion. Do you agree that the language politicians use is damaging politics?
Politics and the English Language (abridged)
Most people who bother with the matter at all would admit that the English language is in a bad way, but it is generally assumed that we cannot by conscious action do anything about it. Our civilization is decadent and our language — so the argument runs — must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes.
Now, it is clear that the decline of a language must ultimately have political and economic causes: it is not due simply to the bad influence of this or that individual writer. But an effect can become a cause, reinforcing the original cause and producing the same effect in an intensified form, and so on indefinitely. A man may take to drink because he feels himself to be a failure, and then fail all the more completely because he drinks. It is rather the same thing that is happening to the English language. It becomes ugly and inaccurate because our thoughts are foolish, but the slovenliness of our language makes it easier for us to have foolish thoughts. The point is that the process is reversible. Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary first step toward political regeneration: so that the fight against bad English is not frivolous and is not the exclusive concern of professional writers. I will come back to this presently, and I hope that by that time the meaning of what I have said here will have become clearer. Meanwhile, here are five specimens of the English language as it is now habitually written.
I list below, with notes and examples, various of the tricks by means of which the work of prose-construction is habitually dodged.
DYING METAPHORS. A newly invented metaphor assists thought by evoking a visual image, while on the other hand a metaphor which is technically ‘dead’ (e. g. iron resolution) has in effect reverted to being an ordinary word and can generally be used without loss of vividness. But in between these two classes there is a huge dump of worn-out metaphors which have lost all evocative power and are merely used because they save people the trouble of inventing phrases for themselves. Examples are: fishing in troubled waters, on the order of the day, Achilles’ heel, swan song, hotbed. Many of these are used without knowledge of their meaning, and incompatible metaphors are frequently mixed, a sure sign that the writer is not interested in what he is saying. Some metaphors now current have been twisted out of their original meaning without those who use them even being aware of the fact. For example, the hammer and the anvil, now always used with the implication that the anvil gets the worst of it. In real life it is always the anvil that breaks the hammer, never the other way about: a writer who stopped to think what he was saying would avoid perverting the original phrase.
OPERATORS OR VERBAL FALSE LIMBS. These save the trouble of picking out appropriate verbs and nouns, and at the same time pad each sentence with extra syllables which give it an appearance of symmetry. Characteristic phrases are render inoperative, militate against, make contact with, be subjected to, give rise to, give grounds for, have the effect of, play a leading part (role) in, make itself felt, take effect, exhibit a tendency to, serve the purpose of, etc., etc. The keynote is the elimination of simple verbs. Instead of being a single word, such as break, stop, spoil, mend, kill, a verb becomes a phrase, made up of a noun or adjective tacked on to some general-purpose verb such as prove, serve, form, play, render. In addition, the passive voice is wherever possible used in preference to the active, and noun constructions are used instead of gerunds (by examination of instead of by examining). The range of verbs is further cut down by means of the -ize and de- formations, and the banal statements are given an appearance of profundity by means of the not un- formation. Simple conjunctions and prepositions are replaced by such phrases as with respect to, having regard to, the fact that, by dint of, in view of, in the interests of, on the hypothesis that; and the ends of sentences are saved by anticlimax by such resounding commonplaces as greatly to be desired, cannot be left out of account, a development to be expected in the near future, deserving of serious consideration, brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and so on and so forth.
PRETENTIOUS DICTION. Words like phenomenon, element, individual (as noun), objective, categorical, effective, virtual, basic, primary, promote, constitute, exhibit, exploit, utilize, eliminate, liquidate, are used to dress up a simple statement and give an air of scientific impartiality to biased judgements. Adjectives like epoch-making, epic, historic, unforgettable, triumphant, age-old, inevitable, inexorable, veritable, are used to dignify the sordid process of international politics, while writing that aims at glorifying war usually takes on an archaic colour, its characteristic words being: realm, throne, chariot, mailed fist, trident, sword, shield, buckler, banner, jackboot, clarion. Foreign words and expressions such as cul de sac, ancien regime, deus ex machina, mutatis mutandis, status quo, gleichschaltung, weltanschauung, are used to give an air of culture and elegance. Except for the useful abbreviations i. e., e. g. and etc., there is no real need for any of the hundreds of foreign phrases now current in the English language. Bad writers, and especially scientific, political, and sociological writers, are nearly always haunted by the notion that Latin or Greek words are grander than Saxon ones, and unnecessary words like expedite, ameliorate, predict, extraneous, deracinated, clandestine, subaqueous, and hundreds of others constantly gain ground from their Anglo-Saxon numbers.
MEANINGLESS WORDS. Words like romantic, plastic, values, human, dead, sentimental, natural, vitality, as used in art criticism, are strictly meaningless, in the sense that they not only do not point to any discoverable object, but are hardly ever expected to do so by the reader. Many political words are similarly abused. The word Fascism has now no meaning except in so far as it signifies ‘something not desirable’. The words democracy, socialism, freedom, patriotic, realistic, justice have each of them several different meanings which cannot be reconciled with one another. In the case of a word like democracy, not only is there no agreed definition, but the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using that word if it were tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to think he means something quite different. Other words used in variable meanings, in most cases more or less dishonestly, are: class, totalitarian, science, progressive, reactionary, bourgeois, equality.
Now that I have made this catalogue of swindles and perversions, let me give another example of the kind of writing that they lead to. This time it must of its nature be an imaginary one. I am going to translate a passage of good English into modern English of the worst sort. Here is a well-known verse from Ecclesiastes:
I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.
Here it is in modern English:
Objective considerations of contemporary phenomena compel the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.
This is a parody, but not a very gross one. It will be seen that I have not made a full translation. The beginning and ending of the sentence follow the original meaning fairly closely, but in the middle the concrete illustrations — race, battle, bread — dissolve into the vague phrases ‘success or failure in competitive activities’.
In our time it is broadly true that political writing is bad writing. Where it is not true, it will generally be found that the writer is some kind of rebel, expressing his private opinions and not a ‘party line’. Orthodoxy, of whatever colour, seems to demand a lifeless, imitative style. The political dialects to be found in pamphlets, leading articles, manifestos, White papers and the speeches of undersecretaries do, of course, vary from party to party, but they are all alike in that one almost never finds in them a fresh, vivid, homemade turn of speech. When one watches some tired hack on the platform mechanically repeating the familiar phrases — bestial, atrocities, iron heel, bloodstained tyranny, free peoples of the world, stand shoulder to shoulder — one often has a curious feeling that one is not watching a live human being but some kind of dummy: a feeling which suddenly becomes stronger at moments when the light catches the speaker's spectacles and turns them into blank discs which seem to have no eyes behind them. And this is not altogether fanciful. A speaker who uses that kind of phraseology has gone some distance toward turning himself into a machine. The appropriate noises are coming out of his larynx, but his brain is not involved, as it would be if he were choosing his words for himself. If the speech he is making is one that he is accustomed to make over and over again, he may be almost unconscious of what he is saying, as one is when one utters the responses in church. And this reduced state of consciousness, if not indispensable, is at any rate favourable to political conformity.
In our time, political speech and writing are largely the defence of the indefensible. Things like the continuance of British rule in India, the Russian purges and deportations, the dropping of the atom bombs on Japan, can indeed be defended, but only by arguments which are too brutal for most people to face, and which do not square with the professed aims of the political parties. Thus political language has to consist largely of euphemism, question-begging and sheer cloudy vagueness. Defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they can carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are imprisoned for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. Consider for instance some comfortable English professor defending Russian totalitarianism. He cannot say outright, ‘I believe in killing off your opponents when you can get good results by doing so’. Probably, therefore, he will say something like this:
‘While freely conceding that the Soviet regime exhibits certain features which the humanitarian may be inclined to deplore, we must, I think, agree that a certain curtailment of the right to political opposition is an unavoidable concomitant of transitional periods, and that the rigors which the Russian people have been called upon to undergo have been amply justified in the sphere of concrete achievement.’
The inflated style itself is a kind of euphemism
Probably it is better to put off using words as long as possible and get one's meaning as clear as one can through pictures and sensations. Afterward one can choose — not simply accept — the phrases that will best cover the meaning, and then switch round and decide what impressions one's words are likely to make on another person. This last effort of the mind cuts out all stale or mixed images, all prefabricated phrases, needless repetitions, and humbug and vagueness generally. But one can often be in doubt about the effect of a word or a phrase, and one needs rules that one can rely on when instinct fails. I think the following rules will cover most cases:
Never use a metaphor, simile, or other figure of speech which you are used to seeing in print.
Never use a long word where a short one will do.
If it is possible to cut a word out, always cut it out.
Never use the passive where you can use the active.
Never use a foreign phrase, a scientific word, or a jargon word if you can think of an everyday English equivalent.
Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous.
These rules sound elementary, and so they are, but they demand a deep change of attitude in anyone who has grown used to writing in the style now fashionable. One could keep all of them and still write bad English, but one could not write the kind of stuff that I quoted in those five specimens at the beginning of this article.
Ex. 23. A television commercial has an average of thirty seconds to make an impact. Although television is primarily a visual medium, the choice of language in political advertisements also plays a crucial role in conveying a message. The language of campaign commercials combines a strong political message with the verbal techniques and emotional appeals typical of television advertising. You will be analyzing a presidential ad in order to understand how the language and the visual elements of the ad work together.
Underline three phrases or words in the text that stand out. Place a "+" next to a phrase that gives them a positive feeling.
Text:
"NARRATOR: It's morning again in America. Today, more men and women will go to work than ever before in our country's history. With interest rates at about half the record highs of 1980, nearly 2,000 families today will buy new homes, more than at any time in the past 4 years. This afternoon, 6500 young men and women will be married, and with inflation at less than half of what it was just 4 years ago, they can look forward with confidence to the future. It's morning again, in America, and under the leadership of President Reagan our country is prouder, and stronger, and better. Why would we ever want to return to where we were less than 4 short years ago?"
Questions for discussion:
1. What phrases or words did you mark as "positive"? Why?
2. What phrases or words did you mark as "negative"? Why?
3. How does the ad portray President Reagan?
4. What does the ad say about the opposing candidate? Is there any direct or indirect criticism?
5. If you had to pick a phrase to use as a title for this ad, what would it be?
6. Is the ad in color or black-and-white? What effect does that have?
7. What do you think the ad is about? Why?
Task:
Often we search hard for words to define our opponents. Sometimes we are hesitant to use contrast. Remember that creating a difference helps you. These are powerful words that can create a clear and easily understood contrast. Apply these to the opponent, their record, proposals and their party.
| abuse of power | betray | bizarre | bosses | bureaucracy |
| cheat | collapse(ing) | corruption | crisis | cynicism |
| decay | destroy | destructive | devour | disgrace |
| endanger | excuses | failure (fail) | greed | hypocrisy |
| ideological | impose | incompetent | insecure | intolerant |
| lie | limit(s) | machine | obsolete | pathetic |
| permissive attitude | pessimistic | selfish | shallow | shame |
| sick | spend(ing) | stagnation | steal | taxes |
| they/them | threaten | traitors | waste | welfare |
Ex. 24. The decisions people make about social and political issues are often influenced by what they hear, see, and read in the news. For this reason, it is important to learn about the techniques used to convey political messages and attitudes. Analyze a political cartoon, say what political event it describes and determine whether you agree or disagree with the author's message (taken from http://www.politicalcartoons.com/).
1)
2)
3)
4) 5)
6)
7)
8)
9) 
10) 11)
12)
Sample of the Analysis
The article I’m going to give a review of is written by Oleg Atbashian and published on the 11th of March, 2015. The headline of the article is “Who Killed Boris Nemtsov: The Chaff vs. the Wheat”. Using such a catchy headline the author is evidently trying to attract our attention by promising to reveal the truth about a recent sensational assassination.
The main idea of the article is to show the readers a bad side of president Putin and to declare that all Russian mass media is run by Kremlin. Thus, the article focuses on blaming Russian media for total submission to the government. To prove his words the author takes Nemtsov’s assassination and all the rumors connected with it as an example.
The author starts by describing what kind of person Boris Nemtsov was, giving us a bright description of a great man. Let me quote the article: he claims that “he didn’t crawl on his knees begging forgiveness but carried on with his head held high”.
Then the author comments on the Russian governmental system and highlights that Russia is not a democratic country with free mass media. To support this idea he compares our president with a monarch saying that Putin began his reign by overtaking Russia’s newly independent press and weaponizing its content. The author continues by giving us 8 versions, as he calls them, “chaotic theories” of Nemtsov’s assassination. The most ridiculous idea, to my mind, is that he “broke many hearts by dating a gorgeous young model from Kiev”, and his death was a crime of passion. It’s evident that the author implies that all these theories are aimed at making people believe that it wasn’t done by Putin’s will. According to the author’s words this theory is the most obvious one.
After showing us the probable reasons of the assassination the author switches over to another case. He reminds us of the tragedy when Malaysian Airlines Plane crashed over eastern Ukraine. Furthermore, he again lists 8 ideas of what had actually happened there. Some of them are absurd, for instance, the theory that the plane had dead bodies from the very beginning. It seems to me, he is trying to draw our attention to the similarity of ways and concepts Russian media gives while reporting these two cases.
Finally the author comes to the conclusion that Russian media is censored harshly and the whole nation is deceived by pro-Kremlin journalists.
Now let me briefly tell you about the language of the article. The article is about politics, thus its style can be called agitational or propagandistic. It can be proved by the fact that the author shows his opinion clearly and distorts some facts for his own benefit. We can come across numerous political vocabulary: assassination, information warfare, anti-Putin opposition, conspiracy, junta, etc. Besides, the author hyperbolizes the statements with the help of colorful adjectives and other emotional words like such, most, many, too: too many powerful enemies, the single and most obvious theory, a psychedelic scene, idle gossipers, an incompetent fool, the bloodthirsty junta. I must confess, he is quite gifted at using bright and vivid comparisons. To prove it I’d like to quote the article: Are Russian journalists really such a bunch of unruly and idle gossipers? Besides rather offensive and pejorative adjectives unruly and idle, the sentence contains two intensifiers of our evaluation really and such. What is more, it’s a rhetorical question which is an effective persuasive device, subtly influencing the kind of response one wants to get from an audience. Other comparisons are even more colorful: just like werewolves on a full moon losing their humanity and acting like conspiracy-obsessed lunatics.
It’s obvious that the author doesn’t approve of Putin’s policy and wants his readers to feel the same way. We can see it from the way he speaks about Putin: every time Putin gets caught with his hand in the cookie jar; Putin began his reign; with Johnny Depp as a lovable Russian president.
The headline can be divided into 2 parts. The first one “Who Killed Boris Nemtsov” has a typical structure: by asking a question in the headline journalists assure readers that they will definitely find all the clues to the riddle after reading. The second part The Chaff vs. the Wheat reminds us of a well-known biblical saying to sort the wheat from the chaff. By doing it the author hints that we should be really careful while reading the Russian press if we want to find the truth.
Moreover, speaking about the structural organization of the article I would say that it’s rather clear: the author first announces the problem, then gives its brief description and specific examples and eventually compares the main problem with another one.
In my opinion, the author attempts to impose his point of view on average Americans media consumers who are not particularly keen on foreign policy. His main goal is to impact on the reader by providing him with some doubtful facts. I’m of the opinion that the author contradicts himself. I believe if all the Russian media was run by Kremlin, there would not be so many variants given to us. Moreover, Russians are not that isolated, they can compare facts and make inferences. In addition, it’s worth mentioning that in Russian press there are articles criticizing Putin’s policy.
To my mind, it’s highly doubtful that the article can be trusted fully as soon as there is no proof for the listed claims. For example, there are no statements of reliable sources, definite numbers or names are not given. The facts are often exaggerated and filled with emotional background.
Ex. 28. Do you know what the expression ‘political correctness’ means? Listen to the explanation (listening 7) and express your point of view: do you consider it really necessary?
Ex. 29. Look at the following magazine covers. What events do you think they describe? What inferences can we make?
Ex. 30. Write an essay.
- “I don’t know what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones.” (Albert Einstein)
2. Abraham Lincoln described the USA basic political principles as ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’. Decide whether this preference can still win some credibility today.
3. Democratically governed nations are more likely to secure the peace, deter aggression, expand open markets, promote economic development, protect citizens, combat international terrorism and crime, uphold human and worker rights, avoid humanitarian crises and refugee flows, improve the global environment, and protect human health.
4. In a few decades Russia will become a law-abiding and prosperous country.
5. Do you believe that it is possible to hold fair elections?
| UNIT 5. NOW IN THE NEWS: CRIMES and PUNISHMENT |
Basic Vocabulary
United States Court System
In the United States court system, the Supreme Court is the final authority on the interpretation of the federal Constitution and all statutes and regulations created pursuant to it, as well as the constitutionality of the various state laws; in the U.S. federal court system, federal cases are tried in trial courts, known as the U.S. district courts, followed by appellate courts and then the Supreme Court. State courts, which try 98% of litigation, may have different names and organization; trial courts may be called "courts of common plea," and appellate courts may be "superior courts" or "commonwealth courts." The judicial system, whether state or federal, begins with a court of first instance, is appealed to an appellate court, and then ends at the court of last resort.
The Supreme Court of the United States is the highest court in the United States. It has ultimate appellate jurisdiction over all federal courts and over state court cases involving issues of federal law, and original jurisdiction over a small range of cases. The Court, which meets in the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C., consists of a chief justice and eight associate justices who are nominated by the President and confirmed by the United States Senate. Once appointed, justices have life tenure unless they resign, retire, or are removed after impeachment.
II.
| 1. A drug addict \ a junkie | a) Is a formal or legal word for smb who is guilty of a crime. |
| 2. An assailant | b) takes things or people illegally into or out of a country. |
| 3. A bigamist | c) deceives others in order to get money from them. |
| 4. A conspirator | d) gives information to the police in return for money. |
| 5. A culprit | e) is unable to stop himself or herself from taking drugs. |
| 6. A hostage | f) hides on board a ship or inside a plane in order to get a free ride. |
| 7. An informer | g) sees a crime being committed. |
| 8. A murderer | h) is the person blamed for a crime or for doing something wrong. |
| 9. An offender | i) is a formal or legal word for someone who attacks another person. |
| 10. A pickpocket | j) is someone who has been attacked or against whom a crime has been committed. |
| 11. A recidivist | k) is kept as a prisoner by a person or organization and may be killed if people don't do what the person or organization are demanding. |
| 12. A smuggler | l) steals things from people's pockets and handbags in crowded places. |
| 13. A stowaway | m) takes part in a secret plan to do something against the law. |
| 14. A swindler | n) keeps going back to a life of crime even after being punished. In other words, an incurable criminal |
| 15. A victim | o) marries illegally because he or she is already married to someone else. |
| 16. A witness | p) deliberately kills someone |
II.
| 1. Assassination | a) Is bad or improper behavior by a person in a position of authority or trust, such as a doctor, dentist, police officer |
| 2. Bribery & corruption | b) Is stealing things form people’s pockets or handbags, usually in crowds or in public places |
| 3. Drug trafficking | c) Is saying smth untrue about smb with the intention of damaging his or her reputation |
| 4. Hit and run | d) Is deliberately damaging public buildings and other public property, usually just for the fun of it |
| 5. Looting | e) is offering money or gifts to someone in a position of authority, e.g. a government official, in order to persuade them to help you in some way. |
| 6. Misconduct | f) is the crime of lying in court while giving evidence, when you have promised to tell the truth. |
| 7. Mugging | g) is the crime of taking things or people illegally into or out of a country. |
| 8. Perjury | h) is murdering a public figure such as a king, a president, etc. |
| 9. Pickpocketing | i) is entering privately owned land or property without the permission of the owner. |
| 10. Pilfering | j) is attacking someone, usually in a public place, in order to rob him or her. |
| 11. Slander | k) is trading in illegal drugs such as heroin, cannabis, cocaine, LSD, etc. |
| 12. Smuggling | l) is the crime of betraying your own country by helping its enemies. |
| 13. Terrorism | m) is stealing small amounts of goods or things of little value, often over a long period of time. |
| 14. Treason | n) is a car accident in which the guilty driver does not stop to help. |
| 15. Trespassing | o) is the use of violence such as murder and bombing in order to obtain political demands or to influence a government. |
| 16. Vandalism | p) is stealing from shops, buildings, etc. left unprotected elfter a violent event or a natural disaster such as an earthquake. |
Ex. 19. Do you know what white-collar crimes is? Listen to the text and fill in the blanks (listening 12).
Did You Know?
More than 12 million crimes are committed in the United States every year, the highest number in the world at present. ______________________________________________, for quite a few years, has been the definition and classification of crime itself. The ______________________________________________ are fading away. What has remained unchanged though, is the apparent consequence of a crime - harm. It may be _____________________________________________. The hardships faced by a victim of a serious crime are intense, and the damages, irrevocable.
Crimes are categorized in broad types, and blue-collar and white-collar crimes come in the same type. The kind of perpetrators, ___________________________________ of these two types generally differ drastically. One enters your house, while the other enters your bank account. The perils of living in a society where both coexist are strongly felt. Though both the terms are ambiguous, this article chalks out a simplified comparative analysis of white-collar and blue-collar crimes.
Definition and History
White-collar Crime. A ____________________________ crime that is committed for some kind of financial gain is referred to as a white-collar crime. These crimes are responsible for directly or indirectly affecting the finances of millions of investors. They are generally committed by _____________________________ __________________, which makes them extremely complex in nature. It usually takes a while for such crimes to be unearthed.
The term was coined by sociologist Prof. Edwin Sutherland. He put the definition based on social class, rather than the nature of the crime. It was focused on 'who did it', rather than 'what he did'. The scope for white-collar crimes have ____________________________________________ after the Industrial Revolution. Laws were revised, acts were passed, and policies were updated to keep them from happening. Government agencies like the FBI, SEC, and IRS take stringent action against anyone who undertakes any unlawful activities which come under these types of crimes.
Blue-collar Crime. This term, in criminology, is used to describe crimes committed by an individual from a lower social class, whereas white-collar crimes are associated with people from a higher social class. The nature of these crimes is __________________________, as opposed to white-collar crimes which possess a higher level of sophistication.
The original term 'blue-collar' was coined in the ________s, where the labor class were called 'blue-collar workers' due to the color of their uniforms. The other term, blue-collar crimes, came into existence later, referring to the crimes committed by this class of people.
White-collar Vs. Blue-collar Crimes
Types/Examples
| __________ insider _________ ____________________ _________________ ________________ Trade secret _____________ Antitrust violations Securities ___________ ___________________ Internet/computer ___________ Counterfeiting | ____________ _______________ _____________ Drug abuse Gambling _______________ __________________ ________________ |
Motivational Factors
| _____________ Financial gains __________________ Fear of losing status and position | _________________ Financial greed _______________ Peer pressure |
Impact
| ______________________ Personal losses to victims Huge financial losses to investors _______________________ Loss of services to customers | Physical and psychological hardships to the victims and their families __________________________________ Negative influence on children |
Punishments
| ________________ Restitution Probation ______________________ | _________________ ________ _________________________ Life-sentence Death Long-term imprisonment without probation |
Fading Boundaries
It is evident that white-collar crimes involve meticulous ________________________________, whereas blue-collar crimes are a result of instinctive thinking backed by emotional weight. Yet, with changing times and circumstances, there has been a role reversal in this domain too. On one hand, some white-collar crimes are ventured upon just for the thrill of it, and on the other hand, some blue-collar crimes are precisely planned and carried out. Adding to this, there has been a sort of ___________________ of these two. White-collar crimes are known to be carried out using blue-collar techniques, taking it to a dangerous level of sophistication.
For instance, consider a high level official of a huge corporation indulging in _______________________. He has messed up the accounts books, broken the rules, and has put the company in _________________. He has arrived to the point where he can no longer continue the act in concealment. Someone has to be blamed. These are situations when white-collar crimes may become potentially harmful to innocent people involved with the corporation. This official might take up practices like threatening certain employees, or even go up to the point of causing them physical harm.
Punishments in white-collar crimes are ________________. They vary from nation to nation, and the damages incurred. With the scale of frauds on the rise, the punishments pertaining to such crimes have become stricter. As for blue-collar crimes, given the distinctness of their nature, the punishments are pretty clear too.
Ex. 20. The words in this exercise are used a lot in the legal profession. Match the definitions on the left with the words on the right. Note that (a) there are more words than definitions, and (b) many of the words on the right can have more than one meaning, but only one of those meanings is in the column on the left.
| 1. Money claimed by someone as compensation for harm done. 2. To send someone to prison or to a court. 3. An adjective referring to a judge or to the law. 4. Not guilty of a crime. 5. Any act which is not legal. 6. A person who has studied law and can act for people on legal business. 7. A disagreement or argument between parties. 8. A specialist court outside the judicial system which examines special problems. 9. A set of arguments or facts put forward by one side in a legal proceeding. 10. An official who presides over a court. 11. To make an allegation in legal proceedings. 12. Someone who is accused of a crime in a criminal case. 13. A person who makes a claim against someone in a civil court. 14. An agreement reached after an argument. 15. To hold someone legally so as to charge them with a crime. 16. A case which is being heard by a committee, tribunal or court of law. 17. To find that someone is guilty of a crime. 18. Failure to carry out the terms of an agreement. 19. To bring someone to court to answer a criminal charge. 20. To ask a high law court to change its decision or sentence. 21. To say that someone has committed a crime. 22. Having the legal ability to force someone to do something. 23. An adjective referring to the rights and duties of private persons or organizations. 24. The arguments used when fighting a case. 25. A legal agreement between two or more parties. 26. An adjective referring to crime. 27. A group of 12 citizens who decide whether or not someone is guilty in a trial. 28. A written or spoken statement of facts which helps to prove or disprove something at a trial. 29. To order someone to pay money as a punishment. 30. A court order telling someone to stop doing something, or not to do something. | a) appeal b) arrest c) binding d) breach e) case f) charge g) civil h) claimant i) commit j) contract k) convict l) court m) crime n) criminal o) damages p) defense q) defendant r) dispute s) evidence t) fine u) guilty v) hearing w) injunction x) innocent y) judge z) judicial aa) jury bb) lawyer cc) legal dd) offence ee) plead ff) prosecute gg) sentence hh) settlement ii) trial jj) tribunal |
America’s Police on Trial
The United States needs to overhaul its law-enforcement system
Dec 13th 2014 | The Economist
THE store camera tells a harrowing tale. John Crawford was standing in a Walmart in Ohio holding an air rifle – a toy he had picked off a shelf and was presumably planning to buy. He was pointing it at the floor while talking on his phone and browsing other goods. The children playing near him did not consider him a threat; nor did their mother, who was standing a few feet away. The police, responding to a 911 caller who said that a black man with a gun was threatening people, burst in and shot him dead. The children’s mother died of a heart attack in the ensuing panic. In September a grand jury declined to indict the officers who shot Mr Crawford.
Most people have probably never heard this story, for such tragedies are disturbingly common: America’s police shoot dead more than one person a day (nobody knows the exact number as not all deaths are reported). But two recent cases have sparked nationwide protests. First Michael Brown, a black teenager, was shot dead in murky circumstances in Ferguson, Missouri, just after he robbed a shop, and then Eric Garner, a harmless middle-aged black man guilty only of selling single cigarettes on the streets of New York, was choked to death by a policeman while five cops watched – and this time the event was filmed by a bystander.
So far much of the debate within America has focused on race. That is not unreasonable: the victims were all black, and most of the policemen involved were white. American blacks feel that the criminal-justice system works against them, rather than for them. Some 59% of white Americans have confidence in the police, but only 37% of blacks do. This is poisonous: if any racial group distrusts the enforcers of the law, it erodes the social contract. It also hurts America’s moral standing in the world. But racial division, rooted as it is in America’s past, is not easily mitigated.
There is, however, another prism through which to examine these grim stories: the use of excessive violence by the state. It, too, has complex origins, but quite a lot of them may be susceptible to reform. In many cases Americans simply do not realise how capricious and violent their law-enforcement system is compared with those of other rich countries. It could be changed in ways that would make America safer, and fairer to both blacks and whites.
Don’t shoot
Bits of America’s criminal-justice system are exemplary – New York’s cops pioneered data-driven policing, for instance – but overall the country is an outlier for all the wrong reasons. It jails nearly 1% of its adult population, more than five times the rich-country average. A black American man has, by one estimate, a one in three chance of spending time behind bars. Sentences are harsh. Some American states impose life without parole for persistent but non-violent offenders; no other rich nation does. America’s police are motivated to be rapacious: laws allow them to seize assets they merely suspect are linked to a crime and then spend the proceeds on equipment. And, while other nations have focused on community policing, some American police have become paramilitary, equipping themselves with grenade launchers and armoured cars. The number of raids by heavily armed SWAT teams has risen from 3,000 a year in 1980 to 50,000 today, by one estimate.
Above all, American law enforcement is unusually lethal: even the partial numbers show that the police shot and killed at least 458 people last year. By comparison, those in England and Wales shot and killed no one.
Fewer armoured cars, more body cameras
One reason why so many American police shoot first is that so many American civilians are armed. This year 46 policemen were shot dead; last year 52,000 were assaulted. When a policeman is called out to interrupt a robbery, he knows that one mistake could mean he never makes it to retirement. As this newspaper has often pointed out, guns largely explain why America’s murder rate is several times that of other rich countries. And the vastly disparate rate at which policemen shoot young black men is not simply a matter of prejudice. Roughly 29% of Americans shot by the police are black, but so are about 42% of cop killers whose race is known.
If America did not have 300m guns in circulation, much of this would change. That, sadly, is not going to happen soon. But there are other ways to make the police less violent.
The first is transparency. Every police force should report how many people it kills to the federal government. And if communities want to buy gadgets, they should give their police body cameras. These devices deter bad behaviour on both sides and make investigations easier. Had the officer who shot Mr Brown worn one, everyone would know how it happened.
The second is accountability: it must be easier to sack bad cops. Many of America’s 12,500 local police departments are tiny and internal disciplinary panels may consist of three fellow officers, one of whom is named by the officer under investigation. If an officer is accused of a crime, the decision as to whether to indict him may rest with a local prosecutor who works closely with the local police, attends barbecues with them and depends on the support of the police union if he or she wants to be re-elected. Or it may rest with a local “grand jury” of civilians, who hear only what the prosecutor wants them to hear. To improve accountability, complaints should be heard by independent arbiters, brought in from outside.
The third, and hardest, is reversing the militarisation of the police. Too many see their job as to wage war on criminals; too many poor neighbourhoods see the police as an occupying army. The police need more training and less weaponry: for a start, the Pentagon should stop handing out military kit to neighbourhood cops.
In many ways America remains a model for other countries. Its economic engine has roared back to life. Its values are ones which decent people should want to spread. Yet its criminal-justice system, the backbone of any society, is deeply flawed. Changing it will be hard; but change is overdue.
Ex. 28. Write an essay.
1. “In view of the fact that the number of people living too long has risen catastrophically and still continues to rise.... Question: Must we live as long as modern medicine enables us to? We control our entry into life, it is time we began to control our exit”.
Is euthanasia a mercy killing or a crime?
2. Death penalty should be banned completely all over the world as an inhumane form of punishment.
3. Don’t you think that child abuse is very frequent in modern industrial society? Why?
4. Do juvenile killers deserve to be sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole?
5. Many countries prohibit the use of some hazardous drugs, as they believe it to be slow poison that weakens the nation’s future. However, some social groups strive to legalize the use of drugs. Should it be done?
REFERENCES
1. Political Science [Text]. – Boundless, 2013.
2. Watcyn-Jones, P. Target Vocabulary 3 [Text]. – Penguin books, 1995.
3. Woolard, G. Key Words for Fluency [Text]. – Thomson, 2005.
4. Wyatt, R Check your English Vocabulary for Law [Text]. – A&C Black, 2006.
5. http://www.buzzle.com/
6. http://ed.ted.com/lessons
Кузнецова Ольга Владимировна
Reading American Papers
Part 2
Учебное пособие
Печатается в авторской редакции
Подписано в печать 18.10.2015. Формат 60×90 1/16ю
Бумага офсетная. Печать трафаретная. Усл. печ. л. 4.
Тираж 100 экз. Заказ № 44810.
©Кузнецова О.В., 2015
© НОУ ДПО «Байкальский институт непрерывного образования», 2015
Отпечатано в ООО «Репроцентр А1»
664047, г. Иркутск, ул. Ал. Невского, 99\2
Тел. (3952) 540 940
O.V. Kuznetsova
Reading American Papers
Part 2
IRKUTSK
2015
НОУ ДПО «Байкальский институт
непрерывного образования »
O.V. Kuznetsova
Reading American Papers
Part 2
IRKUTSK
2015
ББК 81.432.1-3я73
УДК 811.111
К 89
| Рецензенты: | кандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры иностранных язызков БГУЭиП Т.В. Сметанина; |
| кандидат филологических наук, доцент кафедры зарубежного регионоведения ЕАЛИ МГЛУ Ю.Б. Дюндик. |
Кузнецова О.В.
К 89
Reading American Papers: part II [Текст] : учебное пособие / О.В. Кузнецова. – Иркутск: НОУ ДПО «Байкальский институт непрерывного образования», 2015. – 69 с.
ISBN 978-5-91344-911-5
Данное учебное пособие предназначено для студентов-бакалавров 4 курса языковых направлений подготовки, а также тех, кто имеет средний уровень владения английским языком. Пособие состоит из двух частей, включает подборку текстов публицистической направленности, содержание которых отражает отношение к обсуждаемой проблеме в США. Кроме этого, издание снабжено списком лексических единиц по изучаемой тематике, рядом лексических упражнений, направленных на усвоение и закрепление изученного материала.
ББК 81.432.1-3я73
| © Кузнецова О.В. , 2015 © НОУ ДПО «Байкальский институт непрерывного образования», 2015 |
CONTENTS
| UNIT 4. NOW IN THE NEWS: POLITICS UNIT 5. NOW IN THE NEWS: CRIMES and PUNISHMENT REFERENCES | 5 38 67 |
| UNIT 4. NOW IN THE NEWS: POLITICS |
Basic Vocabulary
Дата: 2018-11-18, просмотров: 296.
