(株)エルeサーチの口コミ・評判情報

(株)エルeサーチの口コミ・評判情報

1. 匿名 より:

   2018年10月17日 12:56

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyo
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the of English

   返信
2. 匿名 より:

   2018年10月17日 12:56

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyo
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the of English teaching.

   返信
3. 匿名 より:

   2018年10月17日 12:56

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyo
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the of English teaching. Here it is us

   返信
4. ぞうさん大ぞうさん井 より:

   2018年10月13日 14:21

   す○ぞ△にすべて任せれば良いんだぞ(」’ω’)」ｵｫｵｫｵ!!!ｳｳｩｩｱｱｫｵ!!!!!!

   返信
5. す〇ぞ より:

   2018年10月12日 10:33

   としま より:

   2016年9月25日 08:15

   礼金上乗せされた。許さん。最悪。最悪。
   匿名 より:

   2016年9月9日 08:16

   エルeサーチ、エリアエステートは「抜き」行為をしています。
   お客さんにヨソの会社で見た部屋は0.25で紹介するとメールで送っています。泥棒ですね。

   返信

   55. 匿名 より:

   2016年6月10日 18:32

   ひどかったです
   こっちは時間ないのに講釈たれてひとつも部屋見せてくれないし、嘘つくわ待たせるわで散々。
   結局問い合わせたアパートは無くてちょっとむかついたから上司呼んだら後悔しました
   上司なのに謝らないし開き直りだす始末。
   終いには脅すような事を言ってきたので怖いから謝って帰りました
   すぐに川崎にある不動産会社に行きそこで契約しました
   そちらの担当の方が言うにはオーナーがヤ〇ザらしいとの事です・・・
   同じ横浜駅にあるエリアエステートも系列会社で怖い人がいるとのこと
   それ聞いた瞬間背筋凍りました

   豆知識ですが不動産会社の免許番号が（１）だと開業５年以内でヤク〇系が多いとの事です
   大手や老舗だと（５）で２５年選手みたいですよ

   ご参考までに

   返信

   56. 匿名 より:

   2016年4月25日 22:16

   エリアエステートという店の系列の様です。
   市場に出回っている物件は基本的にどの会社でも取り扱えるのは常識ですが、こちらの会社は他社では検索しきれない おとり物件と言われる一見ステキで惹かれる物件を掲載すると他社で聞きました。
   ついでに、連絡でもワンマンぶりが伺えます。

   返信

   57. 匿名 より:

   2015年11月19日 16:11

   部屋を決めるまでは頻繁にメールをよこしてくるくせに、入金後は、こちらから催促して初めて動くといったような印象です。また、契約書類に複数誤記があったり、担当者間で連携できていなかったり、対応が杜撰でした。

   二度とかかわりたくないです。

   返信

   58. 匿名 より:

   2015年4月4日 22:54

   元エーアイアールばかり。エーアイアールは、、、、。ご利用は自己責任で。

   返信

   59. 匿名 より:

   2015年3月25日 02:17

   友人とこちらの不動産屋に行きました。
   まず、口臭と煙草の匂いがとても臭かったです。
   隣のお客さんは無職の方で、普通なら部屋は借りられないが、提携しているアリバイ会社に加入すれば部屋を借りる事ができると説明していました。
   友人と怪しいお店だと気付き逃げるように帰りました。
   すぐ近くに別物件で内覧予約をしていた不動産屋があり、そこのお店で先程の話をしたら、横浜駅にある
   エリアエステートという店の系列会社で、無職、水商売、生活保護のお客さんを得意とする不動産屋で業界内でも評判が悪いと教えてくれました。

   返信

   返信
6. 匿名 より:

   2018年10月11日 14:28

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyo
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the of English teaching. Here it is us

   返信
7. 匿名 より:

   2018年10月11日 14:28

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyo
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the of English teaching. Here it is us

   返信
8. 匿名 より:

   2018年10月11日 14:25

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyo
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the of English teaching. Here it us

   返信
9. 匿名 より:

   2018年10月11日 14:25

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyo
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that

   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
   My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
   Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
   carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
   least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
   it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
   billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
   spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
   fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
   every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
   varieties of Chinese.
   English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
   international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
   story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
   like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
   is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
   significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
   or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
   or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
   has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
   Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
   In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
   language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
   different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
   violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
   television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
   foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
   backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
   with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
   research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
   poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
   hundreds of thousands.
   The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
   that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
   course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
   English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
   or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
   other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
   That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
   tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
   us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
   like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
   our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
   rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
   people to have pets?
   New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
   Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
   characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
   Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
   defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
   characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
   farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
   of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
   distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
   Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
   it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
   can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
   capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
   pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
   not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
   and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
   varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
   carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
   animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
   contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
   Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
   pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
   Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
   of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
   interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
   because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
   (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
   research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
   interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
   or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
   animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
   Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
   other kids on tests of basic biology.
   Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
   researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
   them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
   report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
   study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
   they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
   be kinder to others than children without pets.
   Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

   positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
   be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
   else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
   who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
   (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
   homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
   violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
   that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
   humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
   are more likely to have pets.
   Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
   some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
   The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
   landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
   hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
   probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
   thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
   Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
   and seven million Englishmen.
   Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
   seventeenth century and the present, the of English teaching. Here it is

   返信
10. 匿名 より:

    2018年10月11日 14:24

    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyo
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that

    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the of English teaching. Here it is us

    返信
11. 匿名 より:

    2018年10月11日 14:23

    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyo
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that

    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the of English teaching. Here it is us

    返信
12. 某不動 より:

    2018年10月5日 10:52

    ここは系列含め同業からも評判悪いですよ。
    抜き、指し、アリバイ、キャンセル等何でもアリな会社っていうのは業界では有名な話。

    返信
    • 匿名 より:

      2018年10月6日 11:12

      何回か取引したけどその度に担当個人の口座に振り込めとか会社に入れろとか、横領以前に
      会社として大丈夫かなって。

      結局今この会社から問い合わせきても申し込みが入ってるというようにしてる。

      返信
13. 匿名 より:

    2018年10月5日 10:36

    ちんちん！

    返信
14. age より:

    2018年10月4日 09:56

    友人とこちらの不動産屋に行きました。
    まず、口臭と煙草の匂いがとても臭かったです。
    隣のお客さんは無職の方で、普通なら部屋は借りられないが、提携しているアリバイ会社に加入すれば部屋を借りる事ができると説明していました。
    友人と怪しいお店だと気付き逃げるように帰りました。
    すぐ近くに別物件で内覧予約をしていた不動産屋があり、そこのお店で先程の話をしたら、横浜駅にある
    エリアエステートという店の系列会社で、無職、水商売、生活保護のお客さんを得意とする不動産屋で業界内でも評判が悪いと教えてくれました。

    返信
15. 橋 より:

    2018年10月2日 10:19

    先日の出来事。
    他の会社で内見する物件はあるかと聞かれたので答えた所、その物件は終わっているだとか、その会社は評判も悪いから行かないほうがいいなどと言われたが、あまりにも怪しかった為後日その会社に行ったら普通にあり内見も出来た。

    ただの嘘つき会社です。

    返信
16. 匿名 より:

    2018年10月1日 11:03

    火消しに必死なので、上げときます。

    匿名 より:

    2016年10月12日 08:10

    他社が紹介した部屋を奪うより、自らが紹介してよ。やり方ヒドいよ。

    返信

    40. 匿名 より:

    2016年10月5日 20:34

    仲介料0.25ヶ月。そこまでして売上欲しいか。ガツガツしてますね

    返信

    41. としま より:

    2016年9月25日 08:15

    礼金上乗せされた。許さん。最悪。最悪。

    返信

    42. 匿名 より:

    2016年9月11日 17:43

    この店の少し先にある不動産屋に行くと凄く安く紹介してもらえるよ。

    返信

    43. 匿名 より:

    2016年9月9日 08:16

    エルeサーチ、エリアエステートは「抜き」行為をしています。
    お客さんにヨソの会社で見た部屋は0.25で紹介するとメールで送っています。泥棒ですね。

    返信

    44. 匿名 より:

    2016年6月10日 18:32

    ひどかったです
    こっちは時間ないのに講釈たれてひとつも部屋見せてくれないし、嘘つくわ待たせるわで散々。
    結局問い合わせたアパートは無くてちょっとむかついたから上司呼んだら後悔しました
    上司なのに謝らないし開き直りだす始末。
    終いには脅すような事を言ってきたので怖いから謝って帰りました
    すぐに川崎にある不動産会社に行きそこで契約しました
    そちらの担当の方が言うにはオーナーがヤ〇ザらしいとの事です・・・
    同じ横浜駅にあるエリアエステートも系列会社で怖い人がいるとのこと
    それ聞いた瞬間背筋凍りました

    豆知識ですが不動産会社の免許番号が（１）だと開業５年以内でヤク〇系が多いとの事です
    大手や老舗だと（５）で２５年選手みたいですよ

    ご参考までに

    返信

    45. 匿名 より:

    2016年4月25日 22:16

    エリアエステートという店の系列の様です。
    市場に出回っている物件は基本的にどの会社でも取り扱えるのは常識ですが、こちらの会社は他社では検索しきれない おとり物件と言われる一見ステキで惹かれる物件を掲載すると他社で聞きました。
    ついでに、連絡でもワンマンぶりが伺えます。

    返信

    46. 匿名 より:

    2015年11月19日 16:11

    部屋を決めるまでは頻繁にメールをよこしてくるくせに、入金後は、こちらから催促して初めて動くといったような印象です。また、契約書類に複数誤記があったり、担当者間で連携できていなかったり、対応が杜撰でした。

    二度とかかわりたくないです。

    返信

    47. 匿名 より:

    2015年4月4日 22:54

    元エーアイアールばかり。エーアイアールは、、、、。ご利用は自己責任で。

    返信

    48. 匿名 より:

    2015年3月25日 02:17

    友人とこちらの不動産屋に行きました。
    まず、口臭と煙草の匂いがとても臭かったです。
    隣のお客さんは無職の方で、普通なら部屋は借りられないが、提携しているアリバイ会社に加入すれば部屋を借りる事ができると説明していました。
    友人と怪しいお店だと気付き逃げるように帰りました。
    すぐ近くに別物件で内覧予約をしていた不動産屋があり、そこのお店で先程の話をしたら、横浜駅にある
    エリアエステートという店の系列会社で、無職、水商売、生活保護のお客さんを得意とする不動産屋で業界内でも評判が悪いと教えてくれました。

    返信

    返信
17. 家探ししている皆様へ より:

    2018年10月1日 11:00

    真剣にお家探ししている方のご参考になれば、と思い投稿させていただきます。

    先日こちらに伺いましたが、本当に過去最悪の不動産でした。

    こちらが疑問に思ったことを質問しただけなのに、客を馬鹿にしたような態度。担当者の話口調は馴れ馴れしいし、上から目線だし、客の話など聞かずにすぐに決めなければ物件が埋まってしまうと急かすばかり。他の不動産会社を馬鹿にするような言動も目立ち、自分本位の本当にどうしようもない担当者でした。この不動産は本当に客に部屋を貸す気があるのか？
    自分の他にもネガティブな口コミが投稿されていますが、サクラの皆様によって見事に叩かれていますね。多分私が投稿したこのコメントもまた叩かれるのでしょう。でも、真剣に家探しをしている方は騙されずに、是非もっと安心できる不動産で家探しして下さい。第一、普通の方が他の人の口コミを叩くメリットありますか？ないですよね。このサクラの叩きも明らかにこの不動産の仕業です。

    最後に一言不動産に直接言いたいことですが、そんな小手先でやりくりしても続きませんよ。あなた方のお仕事は客商売です。お客様あってのお仕事です。もっと誠実にお客様に向き合わないと、いつまでもそのレベルのままですよ。

    返信
18. 匿名 より:

    2018年9月30日 16:46

    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyo
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that

    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the of English teaching. Here it is us

    返信
19. あい より:

    2018年6月28日 19:41

    お気に入りのお部屋が見つかりました！
    ありがとうございました☆

    返信
20. 匿名 より:

    2018年6月26日 21:43

    他の不動産会社が空いていないと言う物件が紹介されていた。駄目元で空室確認したところ、空いているとのこと。それならとアポを取ったら、問い合わせ直後にたったいま他の申し込みが生じたため紹介できないと言われた。最初から空いてなかったのではないか。たまたま情報入手が遅れたにせよ、故意にせよ、非常に残念な対応だった。

    返信
21. 匿名 より:

    2018年6月22日 18:35

    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyo
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that

    返信
22. 匿名 より:

    2018年6月11日 12:41

    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyo

    返信
    • 大井ピ＾ー より:

      2018年6月12日 10:16

      …ちんちん！

      返信
23. 匿名 より:

    2018年6月11日 12:01

    地方からの引っ越しで土地勘もなく不安だったが、地理に詳しいスタッフのおかげで良い物件に決めることができた。また引っ越しの際は利用したいと思う。ありがとうございました。

    返信
24. 匿名 より:

    2018年6月9日 12:48

    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.
    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.

    返信
25. 匿名 より:

    2018年6月9日 12:47

    My home is unusual. Why? It’s not because the kitchen floor is painted blue
    or because it’s littered with the latest technological devices. Compared to
    other homes in the US, we’re unusual due to the simple fact that we own no pets:
    That puts us in a 37 percent minority. (1)My wife and I have even had people
    tell us we were cruel to our children because we never let them have pets. To
    us, it never made sense to have pets: We’re busy people, and pets just seemed
    like an added expense and trouble. Yet most Americans own pets. Even though
    our society is no longer rural and pets are not needed for security or catching
    rats, clearly a lot of people see them as essential. What motivates so many
    people to have pets?
    New York anthropologist Krystal D’Costa wrote last month about a paper by
    Pat Shipman arguing that our special connection with animals is one of the key
    characteristics that distinguish humans from all other creatures on Earth.
    Anthropologists, philosophers, and others have reflected for centuries on what
    defining characteristics make us “human.” Traditionally, the main
    characteristics of humans have been sophisticated communication, tool use, and
    farming of animals. Shipman argues that the fact that people take the farming
    of animals one step further and adopt pets as family members is an additional
    distinguishing characteristic of human beings.
    Shipman calls this close bond with animals the “animal connection,” and says
    it unites (2)all the other human characteristics. Unlike other animals, who
    can only communicate via a limited set of signals, humans have languages
    capable of expressing complex concepts ― and we share our language with our
    pets, treating them as if they understand our words (even though in many, if
    not most cases, they do not!). While some animals such as chimpanzees do make
    and use tools, no other animal utilizes so many tools in such complex and
    varied ways as humans do. We even use animals themselves as tools ― from
    carrier pigeons to police dogs. In nearly every case where humans work with
    animals, they form close bonds. (3)Indeed, animal abusers are treated with
    contempt seldom aimed at criminals who prey on human victims.
    Why do people have pets? The most common reason parents mention for acquiring
    pets is the belief that it benefits their children. Graduate student Jason
    Goldman writes frequently about pets and studies the psychological development
    of children, and he recently noted that few studies have focused on the
    interaction of children and pets. Presumably parents get pets for their kids
    because they think pets are good for them, but what evidence do we have that
    (4)this is so? Goldman points to a review by Gail Melson of the relevant
    research on children and animals. Very young kids are certainly more
    interested in live animals than they are in other things like stuffed animals,
    or even adult humans. Young children are much more likely to interact with real
    animals than they are to play with realistic stuffed animals. And a study in
    Japan showed that children who took care of a pet goldfish did better than
    other kids on tests of basic biology.
    Kids also develop important emotional bonds with their pets. When
    researchers asked them to identify ten individuals who were most important to
    them, seven- to ten-year-olds typically named two animals. Older children
    report relying on their pets for emotional support at very high rates: One
    study found that 75 percent of pre-teens gained comfort from their pets when
    they were upset. In another study, children who cared for pets were found to
    be kinder to others than children without pets.
    Goldman is careful to note that these studies don’t show that pets cause the

    positive behaviors in children; the studies only measure correlations. It may
    be, for example, that parents who buy their kids pets are also doing something
    else that promotes the understanding of others. Or it could be that children
    who show better understanding of others are more likely to want pets.
    (5)The latter argument is supported by other correlative work finding that
    homes where animal cruelty occurs are also likely to be scenes of domestic
    violence. If having pets caused people to be more warmhearted, it seems to me
    that we wouldn’t also find that people who are cruel to animals are cruel to
    humans; a more plausible explanation is that people who are more warmhearted
    are more likely to have pets.
    Of course, not everyone who is warmhearted will decide to have pets ― and
    some cruel people will get pets. (6)Perhaps that irregularity, too, is part
    The (a)rise of English is a remarkable success story. When Julius Caesar
    landed in Britain over two thousand years ago, English did not exist. Five
    hundred years later, Old English, incomprehensible to modern ears, was
    probably spoken by relatively few people with little influence. Nearly a
    thousand years later, at the end of the sixteenth century, when William
    Shakespeare was in his prime, English was the native speech of between five
    and seven million Englishmen.
    Four hundred years later, the contrast is extraordinary. Between the
    seventeenth century and the present, the speakers of English, including Scots,
    Irish, Welsh, American and many more, traveled into every corner of the globe,
    carrying their language and culture with them. Today, English is used by at
    least seven hundred and fifty million people, and barely half of those speak
    it as a mother tongue. Some estimates have put that figure closer to one
    billion. Whatever the total, English is more widely scattered, more widely
    spoken and written, than any other language ( 1 ). About three hundred and
    fifty million people use English as a mother tongue. They are scattered across
    every continent and surpassed, in numbers, only by the speakers of the many
    varieties of Chinese.
    English has a few rivals, but no equals. Neither Spanish nor Arabic, both
    international languages, has the same influence in the world. The remarkable
    story of how English spread within predominantly English-speaking societies
    like the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand is not unique. It
    is a process in language that is as old as Greek or Chinese. The truly
    significant advancement, which has occurred only in the last one hundred years
    or so, is the use of English, taking the most conservative estimates, by three
    or four hundred million people for whom it is not a native language. English
    has become a second language in countries like India, Kenya, Nigeria or
    Singapore, where it is used for administration, broadcasting and education.
    In these countries, now ( 2 ) more than fifty, English is a vital alternative
    language, often unifying huge territories and diverse populations with
    different languages. When the late Rajiv Gandhi (b)appealed for an end to the
    violence that broke out after the assassination of his mother, he went on
    television and spoke to his people in English. Then there is English as a
    foreign language, used in countries like Holland or Yugoslavia where it is
    backed up by a tradition of English teaching. Here it is used to have contact
    with people in other countries, usually to promote trade and scientific
    research, but to the benefit of international communication generally. A Dutch
    poet is read by a few thousands., he can be read by
    hundreds of thousands.
    The growth of English as a global language has recently inspired the idea
    that we should talk not of English, but of many Englishes. The future, of
    course, is unpredictable, but one thing is certain ― present developments of
    English are part of a process that goes back to Shakespeare and beyond.

    返信
26. 匿名 より:

    2018年6月9日 12:38

    Deep in the hundred acre wood
    Where Christopher Robin plays
    You’ll find the enchanted neighborhood
    of Christopher’s childhood days.

    A donkey named Eeyore is his friend
    And Kanga and little Roo
    There’s Rabbit and Piglet and there’s Owl
    But most of all Winnie the Pooh

    Winnie the Pooh, Winnie the Pooh
    Tubby little cubby all stuffed with fluff
    He’s Winnie the Pooh, Winnie the Pooh
    Willy nilly silly old bear

    Winnie the Pooh, Winnie the Pooh
    Tubby little cubby all stuffed with fluff
    He’s Winnie the Pooh, Winnie the Pooh
    Willy nilly silly old bear

    返信
27. 家探ししている皆様へ より:

    2018年6月5日 21:47

    真剣にお家探ししている方のご参考になれば、と思い投稿させていただきます。

    先日こちらに伺いましたが、本当に過去最悪の不動産でした。

    こちらが疑問に思ったことを質問しただけなのに、客を馬鹿にしたような態度。担当者の話口調は馴れ馴れしいし、上から目線だし、客の話など聞かずにすぐに決めなければ物件が埋まってしまうと急かすばかり。他の不動産会社を馬鹿にするような言動も目立ち、自分本位の本当にどうしようもない担当者でした。この不動産は本当に客に部屋を貸す気があるのか？
    自分の他にもネガティブな口コミが投稿されていますが、サクラの皆様によって見事に叩かれていますね。多分私が投稿したこのコメントもまた叩かれるのでしょう。でも、真剣に家探しをしている方は騙されずに、是非もっと安心できる不動産で家探しして下さい。第一、普通の方が他の人の口コミを叩くメリットありますか？ないですよね。このサクラの叩きも明らかにこの不動産の仕業です。

    最後に一言不動産に直接言いたいことですが、そんな小手先でやりくりしても続きませんよ。あなた方のお仕事は客商売です。お客様あってのお仕事です。もっと誠実にお客様に向き合わないと、いつまでもそのレベルのままですよ。

    返信
    • Oh Muneo より:

      2018年6月6日 14:36

      ああ！？真剣な奴はこんなサイト見ねえよ！けど、もしいるならす○ぞうは最悪って覚えとけ！（ガチャ！！！）

      返信
28. 匿名 より:

    2018年6月4日 16:45

    あるブスの少女アルプスの少女ハイジ は、バリアフリー問題について取り上げたアニメである。

    スミスのおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおおお

    スイスの山村に住むアルムおんじ（ハイジの祖父）のところに、5歳のハイジが預けられてくる。おんじはハイジを育てることになる。そして数年が過ぎた。

    ハイジはフランクフルトの金持ちの家庭に預けられることになった。その家の少女クララの話し相手としてである。クララは歩けないので車椅子を使用していた。

    クララの家はハートビル法に対応しておらず、段差のあるところでは召使のセバスチャンたちがクララを持ち上げて運んでいた。

    そのあと、ハイジはアルムに戻り、クララもアルムに行くことになった。

    アルムに行ってみると、そこはバリアフリー法の効力の及ばない地で、エレベータやスロープはなく、人力で坂道を上げ下ろししなければならなかった。

    そこで、同行していたロッテンマイヤーさんが、国土交通省に早く山にもエレベータやスロープ、エスカルといった設備をつくるように陳情に行った。

    とりあえず、クララの移動用にスズキ・セニアカーを買ってきた。免許不要で乗れるバイク型の電動車椅子である。

    あるとき、ハイジが言った「セニアカーがあるからそれに頼って歩けるようにならないのよ。」そして、ハイジはセニアカーのバッテリーを全部放電させてしまった。

    クララは歩く練習に励んだがなかなか歩けないので、セニアカーを使おうとおもって保管場所の納屋へ行く。そして電源プラグのある場所まで移動させようとしたら誤って坂から転がしてしまい壊してしまう。しかし気がついてみるとかなりの距離を自分であるいていたのである。

    国土交通省に陳情に行っていたロッテンマイヤーさんが、工事決定の知らせを持ってアルムにまたやってきた。そして言った「近日中にここでも車椅子が使えるようになりますよ」それを聞いたクララは立ち上がり歩きながら「もう車椅子は使っていないのよ」と答えた。

    返信
29. tanaka より:

    2018年5月25日 18:58

    急な引越しでしたが、親切に対応してもらえました。
    ありがとうございました。

    返信
30. 匿名 より:

    2018年4月9日 12:22

    すばらしいプロフェッショナルな担当の方でした。
    100点以上の物件と契約出来ました。

    本当にありがとうございます。

    ネガティブなコメントを方々はかわいそうです？
    恐らく契約をこの会社さんでされてないのでは？お金も発生してないのにクレームする方の意見は参考になりません。
    それじゃあただのクレーマーですね。
    日本語読めますか。
    馬鹿ですか。
    死にますか。
    生保ですか。
    高卒ですか。

    本当に良い不動産屋さんでした。

    返信
31. 匿名 より:

    2018年4月8日 18:48

    親切に対応してもらえました。

    返信
32. 匿名 より:

    2018年3月15日 22:05

    不動産ノートは引っ越しを真剣に検討している人のための情報サイトです。不動産ノートは正しい情報をもとに、ユーザーのみなさんが不動産・賃貸取引ができるようにすることが目的で作られました。基本的に事実関係が明確に書かれている場合は、公益性があると考え、削除はしません。しかし事実無根の投稿や個人を特定しうるネガティブな投稿が発見された場合には投稿を削除することがあります。もしそのような投稿があった場合は、お問い合わせフォームからご連絡下さい。内容を確認の上、削除することがあります。また基本的に削除の基準は管理人が判断します。意味のない投稿や単純な誹謗中傷を繰り返す、サイトの方針に納得いただけない場合はアクセスを禁止する場合があります

    返信
33. 匿名 より:

    2018年3月15日 21:49

    不動産ノートは引っ越しを真剣に検討している人のための情報サイトです。不動産ノートは正しい情報をもとに、ユーザーのみなさんが不動産・賃貸取引ができるようにすることが目的で作られました。基本的に事実関係が明確に書かれている場合は、公益性があると考え、削除はしません。しかし事実無根の投稿や個人を特定しうるネガティブな投稿が発見された場合には投稿を削除することがあります。もしそのような投稿があった場合は、お問い合わせフォームからご連絡下さい。内容を確認の上、削除することがあります。また基本的に削除の基準は管理人が判断します。意味のない投稿や単純な誹謗中傷を繰り返す、サイトの方針に納得いただけない場合はアクセスを禁止する場合がありますのでご注意ください。

    返信
34. 匿名 より:

    2018年3月11日 15:52

    DEATH NOTE（デスノート）は、大場つぐみ原作·小畑健作画による漫画。デスノートを扱った作品。第3部として週刊少年サンデーにLOST＋BRAIN序章では北斗の拳という名前で連載されてたりした。また外伝がりぼんファンタジー増刊号にHAL-ハル-という名前で連載されていた。マガジンドラゴンの（勝手に）クロスオーバーコミックメガバカにも参加している。

    デスノートL一派殺人犯仮説とは従来、夜神月が殺人犯だとされていたのをLの方が殺人犯だと見直す仮説である。また夜神月のみならずLもおかしいという説である。

    返信
35. 倒●して亡くなれよ！ より:

    2018年3月10日 10:50

    返信が異常に遅いうえに
    返信が来なくなりました。
    で、検索してここに来ました。

    グーグルでの口コミがないのは、口コミ出来ないようにしているようですね！！！！！！

    すげえムカツク許せねえ！！！！！！

    返信
36. 匿名 より:

    2018年3月5日 23:53

    １月下旬に訪問しましたが、気分の悪い部屋探しになりました。
    担当者は、話し方が馴れ馴れしく世間話しが多かったです。
    物件を見に行くのは、独りでした。なにやら繁忙期で忙しいとかの理由で。しかたなく、独りで物件まで行き、現地から電話するよう指示されたので電話をし物件内に入る方法を聞き室内を見学しました。

    このエルeサーチさんの周囲のスタッフの会話が聞こえましたが、私の担当者同様、馴れ馴れしい感じで、不動産知識が低い担当者が多いと感じました。
    建物設備や入居者保険内容も理解してないに等しかったです。

    さらに、カウンターにいる眼鏡をかけた中肉の男性スタッフは、貧乏揺すりが視線に入り邪魔でした。
    入口手前にいる男性スタッフは平成ノブシコブシの吉村さんに似てました。
    仕草もナルシスト感が一段と似てました。
    話しが脱線しましたが、この会社へ行くなら、地元の不動産会社や不動産を管理している会社へ直接連絡を取ってやり取りしたほうが、交渉事が上手く行きそうな気がします。

    返信
37. 匿名 より:

    2018年3月5日 14:30

    メールで
    「遠方から電車に乗って行くので本日中に内覧希望」
    と伝えておいたにも関わらず
    内覧希望していた物件はまだ入居中で内覧できないとのことでした。
    内覧ができないなら最初から言って欲しかったです。
    探してくれる物件もたいしたいい物がなく
    ネットで見た物件ばかりでした。
    もう使いたくないです。

    返信
38. 匿名 より:

    2017年11月16日 19:10

    本当に親切に対応してもらえました。
    また引っ越しする際にはお願いしようと思います。

    返信
39. 匿名 より:

    2017年11月13日 18:03

    先月ですが、急な訪問にも関わらず丁寧に対応して頂きありがとうございました。
    無事気に入った家にも住めまして満足しております。
    個人の意見ではありますが友人や同僚にもお勧めできる不動産屋さんです。

    返信
40. 匿名 より:

    2017年11月13日 18:00

    歯が汚い人も多い!!

    返信
41. 匿名 より:

    2017年11月13日 17:59

    見た目が気持ち悪い人が多いので女性はいかない方がいいですよー

    ほとんどここの人は口がくさい!!

    返信
42. 匿名 より:

    2017年8月24日 11:18

    良い物件にめぐりあいました。
    普通に良いお店、良いスタッフさんたちばかりでした。

    ここの掲示板で不平不満の投稿がありますが少なくとも渡はそんな事一切ありませんでした。
    (ここにそーゆーネガティブな事を書く人達はそれぞれ思いがあってやってると思いますが、人としてかわいそうだなぁって思います)

    また引っ越しする際は利用させていただきます。

    長文失礼します

    返信
43. 匿名 より:

    2017年8月15日 17:52

    対応、言葉遣い、全てが低レベル。他のコメントにもあるように、まともな会社ではないなと感じた。物件が気に入ったので、見積もりを出して欲しいとお願いしたら、他の会社とのトラブルになるからそれは出来ないと言われた。こっちが丁寧に、「見積もりが出せないのであれば他の会社にお願いします。ありがとうございました。また機会があればよろしくお願いします。」と伝えたら、「わかりました、失礼します。」とだけ返信。常識で考えてありえない対応。
    更にミスだとは思うが、担当の方の電話番号から、早朝に不在着信と3分にも渡る留守番電話。内容は誰かと話している声と生活雑音。 あまりにもプロフェッショナルではないなと感じました。 参考までに。

    返信
    • 匿名 より:

      2017年8月24日 11:16

      すばらしいプロフェッショナルな担当の方でした。
      100点以上の物件と契約出来ました。

      本当にありがとうございます。

      ネガティブなコメントを方々はかわいそうです？
      恐らく契約をこの会社さんでされてないのでは？お金も発生してないのにクレームする方の意見は参考になりません。
      それじゃあただのクレーマーですね。

      本当に良い不動産屋さんでした。
      ありがとうございました。

      返信
44. 匿名 より:

    2017年4月14日 22:47

    自作自演ほど恥ずかしい事はないよ。

    返信
    • 匿名 より:

      2017年8月24日 14:16

      家賃ちんよりおちんちん
      それ、ちんちんブラブラソーセジ！！！
      不動産ノートよりジャポニカノート

      返信
      • 匿名 より:

        2017年11月28日 18:51

        GOOD

        返信
45. 匿名 より:

    2017年4月8日 23:01

    良い物件にめぐりあいました。
    普通に良いお店、良いスタッフさんたちばかりでした。

    ここの掲示板で不平不満の投稿がありますが少なくとも渡はそんな事一切ありませんでした。
    (ここにそーゆーネガティブな事を書く人達はそれぞれ思いがあってやってると思いますが、人としてかわいそうだなぁって思います)

    また引っ越しする際は利用させていただきます。

    長文失礼します。

    返信
46. 匿名 より:

    2017年4月8日 17:43

    予約をして伺ったにもかかわらず、内見させて貰えませんでした。
    再度予約をしようとすると、当日になっても何時に開くか分からないのでまた連絡しますとのこと。

    黙っていればバレないから契約違反を勧めてくるなど、会社としてまったく信用に値しません。

    担当者の対応も馴れ馴れしく、とても社会人の対応とは思えませんでした。
    不快な思いをしないよう、他の不動産会社での物件探しをおすすめします。

    返信
47. ちゃんとやれ より:

    2017年3月27日 18:41

    金儲けしか考えてなさそう
    なんだかんだ言って 金がかかる方に誘導してくる
    信用できないし イライラする

    返信
48. 匿名 より:

    2017年3月15日 22:49

    まともな会社ではない。

    返信
49. SWD より:

    2017年3月15日 01:05

    ベイスクワット掲示板にウソの書き込みしてませんか？

    返信
50. 匿名 より:

    2017年2月16日 09:27

    この店より先にあるベイスクアッドの方が安くしてくれましたよ。

    返信
51. お世話になりました より:

    2017年2月9日 00:41

    横浜の不動産屋に行った後にこのお店に行きました。
    １件目があまりにも対応が悪かったこともありましたが、それを差し引いても担当のスタッフはもちろん他のスタッフも神対応でした。
    １件目では無理矢理条件に合ってない物件をごり押しされて、全然こちらの条件に合っている物件をオススメされなかったのですが、
    エルeサーチさんではすぐに良い物件を何件も紹介されました。
    しかも家賃も値下げしてもらえました。
    満足でした。

    返信
52. 匿名 より:

    2016年12月17日 00:34

    株式会社エルｅサーチ　横浜店
    西谷　俊からホームズの見学希望登録後電話来たので空きの物件明日見学したいって言ったら明日はカギの都合とか大家との連絡あるから無理だと言われて他の紹介会社で同じ物件聞いたら上の希望日で見学できた。しかも電話来た夜に見学はいつがいいかとか柔軟に対応いたしますとかずれた定型文ぽいメール送ってきた。後日何通もこの会社から物件希望見学のメールきたので物件決まったと返事したら返信何も無し。他の紹介会社は物件が他の紹介会社できまってもお祝いメールとか次回機会があればお願いしますとかの返信メールはあったのにここだけはなかった。一生利用する気になれない対応

    返信
53. 匿名 より:

    2016年11月5日 01:04

    嘘はやめて。

    返信
54. 匿名 より:

    2016年11月4日 08:36

    ホームズの口コミ件数見てください。口コミ1000件超えてます。
    凄く繁盛してます。
    でもお客さんのアイコンが他と違うのは理由があるのでしょうか。

    返信
55. 匿名 より:

    2016年10月12日 08:10

    他社が紹介した部屋を奪うより、自らが紹介してよ。やり方ヒドいよ。

    返信
56. 匿名 より:

    2016年10月5日 20:34

    仲介料0.25ヶ月。そこまでして売上欲しいか。ガツガツしてますね

    返信
57. としま より:

    2016年9月25日 08:15

    礼金上乗せされた。許さん。最悪。最悪。

    返信
58. 匿名 より:

    2016年9月11日 17:43

    この店の少し先にある不動産屋に行くと凄く安く紹介してもらえるよ。

    返信
59. 匿名 より:

    2016年9月9日 08:16

    エルeサーチ、エリアエステートは「抜き」行為をしています。
    お客さんにヨソの会社で見た部屋は0.25で紹介するとメールで送っています。泥棒ですね。

    返信
60. 匿名 より:

    2016年6月10日 18:32

    ひどかったです
    こっちは時間ないのに講釈たれてひとつも部屋見せてくれないし、嘘つくわ待たせるわで散々。
    結局問い合わせたアパートは無くてちょっとむかついたから上司呼んだら後悔しました
    上司なのに謝らないし開き直りだす始末。
    終いには脅すような事を言ってきたので怖いから謝って帰りました
    すぐに川崎にある不動産会社に行きそこで契約しました
    そちらの担当の方が言うにはオーナーがヤ〇ザらしいとの事です・・・
    同じ横浜駅にあるエリアエステートも系列会社で怖い人がいるとのこと
    それ聞いた瞬間背筋凍りました

    豆知識ですが不動産会社の免許番号が（１）だと開業５年以内でヤク〇系が多いとの事です
    大手や老舗だと（５）で２５年選手みたいですよ

    ご参考までに

    返信
61. 匿名 より:

    2016年4月25日 22:16

    エリアエステートという店の系列の様です。
    市場に出回っている物件は基本的にどの会社でも取り扱えるのは常識ですが、こちらの会社は他社では検索しきれない おとり物件と言われる一見ステキで惹かれる物件を掲載すると他社で聞きました。
    ついでに、連絡でもワンマンぶりが伺えます。

    返信
62. 匿名 より:

    2015年11月19日 16:11

    部屋を決めるまでは頻繁にメールをよこしてくるくせに、入金後は、こちらから催促して初めて動くといったような印象です。また、契約書類に複数誤記があったり、担当者間で連携できていなかったり、対応が杜撰でした。

    二度とかかわりたくないです。

    返信
63. 匿名 より:

    2015年4月4日 22:54

    元エーアイアールばかり。エーアイアールは、、、、。ご利用は自己責任で。

    返信
64. 匿名 より:

    2015年3月25日 02:17

    友人とこちらの不動産屋に行きました。
    まず、口臭と煙草の匂いがとても臭かったです。
    隣のお客さんは無職の方で、普通なら部屋は借りられないが、提携しているアリバイ会社に加入すれば部屋を借りる事ができると説明していました。
    友人と怪しいお店だと気付き逃げるように帰りました。
    すぐ近くに別物件で内覧予約をしていた不動産屋があり、そこのお店で先程の話をしたら、横浜駅にある
    エリアエステートという店の系列会社で、無職、水商売、生活保護のお客さんを得意とする不動産屋で業界内でも評判が悪いと教えてくれました。

    返信