(株)エルeサーチの口コミ・評判情報
レビュー・評価
(株)エルeサーチの基本情報
(株)エルeサーチは神奈川県の横浜市西区にある不動産会社(不動産管理会社・不動産仲介業者)です。
神奈川県は不動産会社が不動産ノートに掲載されている店舗だけでも3066店舗あり、全国で2番目に多いエリアです。
この不動産会社は免許の届け出を神奈川県にしており、神奈川県に営業拠点を構えています。
(株)エルeサーチの宅建免許の更新回数は1回あり、不動産業者としての営業年数は浅めであると言えます。
- 店舗/企業名:(株)エルeサーチ
- 店舗所在地:神奈川県横浜市西区高島2-14-17
- 免許番号:神奈川県知事(1)第28574号
- 代表者名:-
不動産ノートではあなたの口コミを募集しています。こちらよりコメントをお願いします。
このページを見る人がよく見るページ
-
(株)ベスタスコミュニティ横浜駅西口店の口コミ・評判情報
(株)ベスタスコミュニティ横浜駅西口店の基本情報 (株)ベスタスコミュニティ横浜駅西口店は神奈川県の
-
(株)ハウスメイトショップ横浜店の口コミ・評判情報
(株)ハウスメイトショップ横浜店の基本情報 (株)ハウスメイトショップ横浜店は神奈川県の横浜市西区に
-
ERA(株)湘建の口コミ・評判情報
ERA(株)湘建の基本情報 ERA(株)湘建は神奈川県の横浜市西区にある不動産会社(不動産管理会社・
-
(株)ウィズ・コーポレーションの口コミ・評判情報
(株)ウィズ・コーポレーションの基本情報 (株)ウィズ・コーポレーションは神奈川県の横浜市西区にある
-
(株)VALOR横浜店の口コミ・評判情報
(株)VALOR横浜店の基本情報 (株)VALOR横浜店は神奈川県の横浜市西区にある不動産会社(不動
-
(有)サークルホーム横浜西口店の口コミ・評判情報
(有)サークルホーム横浜西口店の基本情報 (有)サークルホーム横浜西口店は神奈川県の横浜市西区にある
-
(株)アドバンスネット横浜店の口コミ・評判情報
(株)アドバンスネット横浜店の基本情報 (株)アドバンスネット横浜店は神奈川県の横浜市西区にある不動
-
(株)パワーコンサルティングネットワークス神奈川支店の口コミ・評判情報
(株)パワーコンサルティングネットワークス神奈川支店の基本情報 (株)パワーコンサルティングネットワ
-
(株)ジェイエーアメニティーハウス横浜南営業所の口コミ・評判情報
(株)ジェイエーアメニティーハウス横浜南営業所の基本情報 (株)ジェイエーアメニティーハウス横浜南営
-
ピタットハウス横浜西口店(株)日建企画の口コミ・評判情報
ピタットハウス横浜西口店(株)日建企画の基本情報 ピタットハウス横浜西口店(株)日建企画は神奈川県の
(株)エルeサーチの口コミ・評判情報
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
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.
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
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!!!!!!
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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。
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。
ちんちん!
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。
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。
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
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。
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
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☆
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。
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 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
…ちんちん!
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。
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.
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.
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
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。
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!!!)
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。
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。
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。
親切に対応してもらえました。
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
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。
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!!!!!!
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。
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。
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。
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。
歯が汚い人も多い!!
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!!
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
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。
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。
自作自演ほど恥ずかしい事はないよ。
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
GOOD
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。
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。
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
まともな会社ではない。
ベイスクワット掲示板にウソの書き込みしてませんか?
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。
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。
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
嘘はやめて。
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。
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。
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
礼金上乗せされた。許さん。最悪。最悪。
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。
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。
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
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。
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。
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。
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。