- •Section 2
- •Determiners, pre-determiners and pre-modifiers
- •2.1. Commentaries and explanations
- •2.1.4. Substitution and omission as basic mechanisms of discourse.
- •2.2. Assignments
- •2.2.1. A) Complete the sentences using all proper pre-determiners and determiners defined by the context (including “no articles”).
- •2.2.4. A) Complete the following utterances using hints. Make use of proper pre- and central determiners, pre-modifiers and prepositional groups.
- •2.2.5. Read and translate the following word groups into Russian distinguishing between the meanings of participles. .
- •2.2.6. Specify through participle modifiers. Use the given verbs as hints. In some examples both participles can be used; explain the difference in meaning.
- •2.2.7. Read the text and specify the meaning of be stuck by choosing the appropriate description:
- •2.2.8. Read and do tasks (a) - ( ) given below.
- •2.2.9. Specify nouns through other nouns.
- •2.2.10. Practice nouns in sequence using a dictionary if necessary:
- •2.2.11. Arrange the words modifying the marked noun into a string of pre-modifiers and make a sentence using it.
- •2.2.12. Make use of some compound modifiers according to the sample pattern.
- •2.2.13. Practice compound pre-modifiers answering the following questions and arranging a discussion.
- •2.2.14. Comment on the statements using adverbs “modifying modifiers”.
- •2.2.15. Practice substitution and omission as complementary speech mechanisms.
- •2.2.16. Analyze italicized substitutes and restore their reference. There are items marked which are not substitutes - specify them.
- •2.2.17. Analyze the following noun groups arranged according to types of pre-modifiers and give their Russian equivalents.
- •2.2.18. Read the text and discuss its basic ideas relying on analyzing the modifiers of 2.2.12 as well as the questions and vocabulary notes given below.
- •Text concordance
- •2.2.19. Practice vocabulary.
2.2.14. Comment on the statements using adverbs “modifying modifiers”.
Choose proper items from the menu supplied.
e.g. Scientific laws must be on a different logical level from the tangible world, and a logically superior one.
You say: That is, most notably, a well-grounded statement.
1. The habit of abstract pursuits makes learned men much inferior to the average in the power of visualizing, and much more exclusively occupied with words in their thinking.
2. There is an inherent fuzziness about all our measurements and all our physical concepts.
3. It is difficult to imagine the order of complexity that would be involved in any mathematical representation of a simple, familiar, peaceful every-day scene.
4. Fundamental laws are mostly presented in a fundamental form.
5. Scholars agree that philosophy attends to principles, be they scientific, ethical or religious.
6. This is the fourth volume of a series covering several aspects of solar-terrestrial phenomena.
7. In a subject such as ionosphere, articles should be published promptly.
You might also use the following hints:
I would like to stress / to emphasize that …; in this writer’s view / opinion … ;
it is a good / typical / classic /obvious example of … ; … and more, it is undoubtedly ….;
There should be a rationale for such a method. There must be a theoretical basis for such assertions.
This is to some extent unavoidable.
(not) entirely clear, highly improbable (questionable, debatable, contentious), self-evidently fundamental, handsomely produced, well thought out, rapidly advancing, unmistakably true
2.2.15. Practice substitution and omission as complementary speech mechanisms.
Specify omissions and substitutes and retrieve the words they stand for.
On the desk, when Kate got back to it, was a small stack of those little red-and-white While-You-Were-Out notes. All of them urged her to phone Mr. Hollingshead, at Hollingshead and Farren. Kate picked up her phone and called the front desk.
‘Which Mr. Hollingshead? ‘ she asked.
‘You what?’ replied Rosie on reception.
‘There’s more than one of them,’ Kate explained. “An old one and a young one.’ Pause.
‘You’ve left a note on my desk saying I’ve got to call back a Mr. Hollingshead, of Holl - ‘
‘Yes, that’s right. No need to make a three-hour bloody miniseries of it.’
‘Sorry. Look, did he say which one he was?’
‘No.’
‘All right,’ Kate said. ‘Did he sound old or young?’
‘Search me. All you humans sound the same.’
‘Look - ‘ Kate snapped, but Rosie on reception went on: ‘He sounded really annoying and swore a lot, if it’s any help.’
‘Ah,’ Kate said. ‘That’ll be Mr. Hollingshead senior.’
‘There you go , then,’
2.2.16. Analyze italicized substitutes and restore their reference. There are items marked which are not substitutes - specify them.
Physics originally began as a descriptive macrophysics containing an enormous number of empirical laws with no apparent connections. In the beginning of a science, scientists may be very proud to have discovered hundreds of laws. But, as the laws proliferate, they (1) become unhappy with this state of affairs; they (2) begin to search for underlying unifying principles. Some (3) felt that science must find such principles because otherwise (4) it would be no more than a description of nature, not a real explanation. Others (5) thought that (6) that (7) was the wrong approach, that (8) underlying principles belong only to metaphysics. They (9) felt that (10) the scientist’s task is merely to describe, to find out how natural phenomena occur, not why.
Today we smile a bit about the great controversy over description versus explanation. We can see that (11) there was something to be said for both sides (12), but that (13) their way of debating the question was futile. There is no real opposition between explanation and description. Of course, if description is taken in the narrowest sense, as merely describing what a certain scientist did on a certain day with certain materials, then the opponents of mere description were quite right in asking for more, for a real explanation. But today we see that description in the broader sense, that (14) of placing phenomena in the context of more general laws, provides the only type of explanation that can be given for phenomena.