Wednesday, 23 May 2012
Tuesday, 22 May 2012
The passage from George Orwell's 1984 from Section A of the ELLA 3 January Exam
The passage from George Orwell's 1984. The B text from the ELLA3 Section A part of the exam for January 2012.
For added context I've added a little bit more at the end of the passage. Winston Smith is in Room 101 and being threatened with torture.
'The rat,' said O'Brien, still addressing his invisible audience, 'although a rodent, is carnivorous. You are aware of that. You will have heard of the things that happen in the poor quarters of this town. In some streets a woman dare not leave her baby alone in the house, even for five minutes. The rats are certain to attack it. Within quite a small time they will strip it to the bones. They also attack sick or dying people. They show astonishing intelligence in knowing when a human being is helpless.'
There was an outburst of squeals from the cage. It seemed to reach Winston from far away. The rats were fighting; they were trying to get at each other through the partition. He heard also a deep groan of despair. That, too, seemed to come from outside himself.
O'Brien picked up the cage, and, as he did so, pressed something in it. There was a sharp click. Winston made a frantic effort to tear himself loose from the chair. It was hopeless; every part of him, even his head, was held immovably. O'Brien moved the cage nearer. It was less than a metre from Winston's face.
'I have pressed the first lever,' said O'Brien. 'You understand the construction of this cage. The mask will fit over your head, leaving no exit. When I press this other lever, the door of the cage will slide up. These starving brutes will shoot out of it like bullets. Have you ever seen a rat leap through the air? They will leap on to your face and bore straight into it. Sometimes they attack the eyes first. Sometimes they burrow through the cheeks and devour the tongue.'
The cage was nearer; it was closing in. Winston heard a succession of shrill cries which appeared to be occurring in the air above his head. But he fought furiously against his panic. To think, to think, even with a split second left -- to think was the only hope. Suddenly the foul musty odour of the brutes struck his nostrils. There was a violent convulsion of nausea inside him, and he almost lost consciousness. Everything had gone black. For an instant he was insane, a screaming animal. Yet he came out of the blackness clutching an idea. There was one and only one way to save himself. He must interpose another human being, the body of another human being, between himself and the rats.
The circle of the mask was large enough now to shut out the vision of anything else. The wire door was a couple of hand-spans from his face. The rats knew what was coming now. One of them was leaping up and down, the other, an old scaly grandfather of the sewers, stood up, with his pink hands against the bars, and fiercely sniffed the air. Winston could see the whiskers and the yellow teeth. Again the black panic took hold of him. He was blind, helpless, mindless.
'It was a common punishment in Imperial China,' said O'Brien as didactically as ever.
The mask was closing on his face. The wire brushed his cheek. And then -- no, it was not relief, only hope, a tiny fragment of hope. Too late, perhaps too late. But he had suddenly understood that in the whole world there was just one person to whom he could transfer his punishment -- one body that he could thrust between himself and the rats. And he was shouting frantically, over and over.
'Do it to Julia! Do it to Julia! Not me! Julia! I don't care what you do to her. Tear her face off, strip her to the bones. Not me! Julia! Not me!'
http://www.george-orwell.org/1984/21.html
Sunday, 20 May 2012
"The Great Debaters" - Key Debates from the film
Two speeches from The Great Debaters (2007)
Film extracts and transcripts of these scenes are included. Of course, the scenes would have been edited versions of real debates. The second scene is with Harvard, which was a piece of fiction as the real debate was with UCLA in 1935.
"Resolved" means the proposition for the debated. It is traditionally placed in the past tense by the speakers for the "affirmative" as if the debate has been won.
Wiley College did beat Harvard the 1930s . . . and also a touring debate team from Oxford University.
Film extracts and transcripts of these scenes are included. Of course, the scenes would have been edited versions of real debates. The second scene is with Harvard, which was a piece of fiction as the real debate was with UCLA in 1935.
"Resolved" means the proposition for the debated. It is traditionally placed in the past tense by the speakers for the "affirmative" as if the debate has been won.
Resolved: Negroes Should be Admitted to State Universities
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechthegreatdebaterswileyvsoklahomacitycollege.html
Resolved: Civil Disobedience is a Moral Weapon in the Fight for Justice
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/MovieSpeeches/moviespeechthegreatdebaterswileycollegevsharvarduniversity.html
Wiley College did beat Harvard the 1930s . . . and also a touring debate team from Oxford University.
Why do some Americanisms irritate people?
This is a very interesting article on lexis, especially words we use today which once outraged people long ago!
Why do some Americanisms irritate people?
Why do some Americanisms irritate people?
The Art of Persuasive Debate - Logos, Ethos and Pathos
Logos, Ethos and PathosWhenever you read an argument you must ask yourself, "is this persuasive? And if so, to whom?" There are seveal ways to appeal to an audience. Among them are appealing to logos, ethos and pathos. These appeals are prevalent in almost all arguments.
Logos: The Greek word logos is the basis for the English word logic. Logos is a broader idea than formal logic--the highly sybolic and mathematical logic that you might study in a philosophy course. Logos refers to any attempt to appeal to the intellect, the general meaning of "logical argument." Everyday arguments rely heavily on ethos and pathos, but academic arguments rely more on logos. Yes, these arguments will call upon the writers' credibility and try to touch the audience's emotions, but there will more often than not be logical chains of reasoning supporting all claims. |
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)