(株)エリア・エステートの口コミ・評判情報
レビュー・評価
(投票数：85)↑の星をクリックして、この不動産会社を評価してください。
Loading...(株)エリア・エステートの基本情報
(株)エリア・エステートは神奈川県の横浜市神奈川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)エリア・エステート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)エリア・エステート
- 店舗所在地：神奈川県横浜市神奈川区鶴屋町１－７－２１ ２階
- 免許番号：神奈川県知事(1)第27321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)エステートバンク1stの口コミ・評判情報
(株)エステートバンク1stの基本情報 (株)エステートバンク1stは神奈川県の横浜市神奈川区にある
-
(株)シンメイトの口コミ・評判情報
(株)シンメイトの基本情報 (株)シンメイトは神奈川県の横浜市神奈川区にある不動産会社(不動産管理会
-
三菱地所ハウスネット(株)神奈川営業部の口コミ・評判情報
三菱地所ハウスネット(株)神奈川営業部の基本情報 三菱地所ハウスネット(株)神奈川営業部は神奈川県の
-
(株)ベスタスコミュニティ反町店の口コミ・評判情報
(株)ベスタスコミュニティ反町店の基本情報 (株)ベスタスコミュニティ反町店は神奈川県の横浜市神奈川
-
有限会社丸正不動産の口コミ・評判情報
有限会社丸正不動産の基本情報 有限会社丸正不動産は神奈川県の横浜市神奈川区にある不動産会社(不動産管
-
センチュリー21(株)ヨコハマホームの口コミ・評判情報
センチュリー21(株)ヨコハマホームの基本情報 センチュリー21(株)ヨコハマホームは神奈川県の横浜
-
センチュリー21(株)エクセルホームの口コミ・評判情報
センチュリー21(株)エクセルホームの基本情報 センチュリー21(株)エクセルホームは神奈川県の横浜
-
(株)杉浦商事の口コミ・評判情報
(株)杉浦商事の基本情報 (株)杉浦商事は神奈川県の横浜市神奈川区にある不動産会社(不動産管理会社・
-
(有)アテインプラン横浜店の口コミ・評判情報
(有)アテインプラン横浜店の基本情報 (有)アテインプラン横浜店は神奈川県の横浜市神奈川区にある不動
-
(株)大徳建設不動産の口コミ・評判情報
(株)大徳建設不動産の基本情報 (株)大徳建設不動産は神奈川県の横浜市神奈川区にある不動産会社(不動
(株)エリア・エステートの口コミ・評判情報
このメンツ見てチャラく見えるなら、アンタ基準狂ってまっせ笑
今回は、消防士の立場からケイタさんにインタビュー。
消防士になった経緯や仕事内容などについて伺いました。
Q1：【志望動機、きっかけ】
仕事にいつも前向きな先輩の姿に惹かれて、消防士をめざすことに
A1：プロフィールにも書いてあるとおり、私が消防士になりたいと思ったきっかけは、高校時代の先輩でした。
ラグビー部で仲良くしていた先輩は高校を卒業し、消防士として就職。学校を卒業してからも、よく高校のグラウンドに遊びに来てくれていました。自分の車に彼女を乗せて、颯爽とグラウンドに降り立ち、彼女と仲良くボールをパスし合いながらこちらにやってくる姿を見て、「カッコいいなぁ！」と(笑)。憧れの存在でした。仕事と趣味のラグビーを両立している先輩が羨ましく、はじめは消防士の仕事内容より、平日に趣味の時間を持つことができるという点に興味を持ちました。
その後、将来進む道を決める時期になって、先輩から消防士の話を聞いたり、消防士の仕事を調べるように。過酷な現場活動があること、休みも関係なく、市民が寝ている間も働く仕事であること…。思った以上に大変な仕事だと知りましたが、いつも仕事に対して前向きな先輩の姿に、「いつか私もあんな消防士になりたい」と憧れを持つようになったんです。これが消防士をめざした一番の理由です。
Q2：【仕事内容】
「安心して暮らせる毎日」を、守っていく仕事
A2：私が勤務する消防署は、勤務日の8時30分から翌日の8時30分までの24時間を消防署で過ごします。その中で勤務時間は15時間30分で、残りは休憩・仮眠時間となります。基本的には24時間ずっと消防署内で過ごすので、入浴したり仮眠を交代で取ることになります。勤務日の一日の流れですが、まず前日に勤務していた職員との交替式を行なうところから一日がスタートします。
その後、消防車や救急車などの車両点検や現場活動で使用する資機材の点検、ミーティングなどを行ないます。出動があれば都度出動しますが、出動がなければ、年間の訓練計画に基づき火災・救急・救助の各種訓練を行ないます。
私は一時期レスキュー隊に所属していたこともあるのですが、このときは川やダム湖などの水の中に潜ることもありましたし、山に登って救助を行なったり、救助車のクレーン操作などを行なうこともありました。また事務所では事務仕事などもあります。ときには、消火訓練や救命講習会などに出向し、市民の方に対して火災予防や応急手当の啓発・指導を行なうことも。
私が仕事で心掛けているのは、体調管理ですね。いつ出動があるか分かりませんし、仮眠や食事もその日によってまちまちなので、生活が不規則になりがち。いつ出動があってもいいように、気を引き締めて生活しています。市民の方の中には、「救急車を呼ぶとご近所迷惑になるかもしれない…」と思ったり、「わざわざ救急車を呼ぶなんて迷惑かな」と思って、119番するのをためらわれる方も多いので、「そういうことは一切考えずに、辛いときはいつでも呼んでください」と言うようにしています。不安を取り除くのが、私たちの仕事なんだから、と。
Q3：【良かったこと・嫌だったこと】
人の命を守る喜び。そして、人の不幸に直面しなければならない辛さ
A3：一番のやり甲斐は、市民の方に感謝されること。救急出動して病院に搬送した患者さんや、火災で救出した方が元気になって戻ってきて、消防署に遊びに来てくださったり、心のこもったお手紙をくださったりすることもあります。こういうとき、「人のためになっているんだなぁ」と胸がじーんとしますね。救急車や消防車を呼んだ経験のある方は、とても少ないと思います。だからこそ、思いもよらないときに呼ばなくてはいけない場面に直面したとき、誰もが不安になるはず。そのときに不安を取り除くのが私たちの役目。救急車や消防車を呼んだことのない方でも、「家の側に消防署があると安心できる」、「いつしんどくなってもすぐに駆けつけてくれるから安心」と言ってくださる方もたくさんいます。私たちの存在が安心感につながっている。そう思ったときに、この仕事を選んで良かった、と強く感じました。
逆に辛いことは、ときに目を覆いたくなるような凄惨な現場を目の当たりにしたとき。普通に生活していたら経験しないような、火災現場や救急現場に駆けつけることも多くあります。中にはPTSDになってしまう隊員もいるほどです。人が不幸になる瞬間…助けられなかった命…。助けたくても、自分たちの力ではどうしようもできないケースもあり、自責の念に駆られることも多い仕事です。
地域に密着した活動をしていることもあって、知り合いのおじさんの最期を看取る…という胸が苦しくなるような出来事に遭遇することもあります。この仕事に就く前は、「消防士＝ヒーロー」というイメージを持っていました。テレビの戦隊モノでは、ヒーローがピンチのときに現れてハッピーエンドで終わるものですよね。だけど、この仕事はハッピーエンドで終わることはほとんどない。現実はそんなに甘くないということを身をもって知りました。
Q4：【イメージとのギャップ】
仕事で身に付いた“生活力”が、家庭でも活かせました
A4：この仕事を始めてから、なんと“生活力”が付きました。この仕事は24時間、消防署の中で過ごすこともあって、掃除や洗濯、裁縫、料理など、さまざまな家事をこなす必要があります。
うちの職場では食事は夕飯のみ自炊しており、ほとんどの職員が料理を作ることができるので、食事のレパートリーはかなり豊富。消防署に配属になって、まず先輩から教わったのは、野菜の切り方（笑）。キャベツを千切りに、と言われたのですが、私が作ったのはおよそ千切りと呼べないほどの代物…。先輩からは「ウサギのエサか！」なんて言われる始末でした。今だから話せる笑い話ですね。でもこうやって仕事をしながら、生きていく上で大切な生活力が磨けたのはとても良かったです。私は結婚をして子どももいるのですが、奥さんとの共働きでも仕事と家事の両立ができています。仕事で培った生活力を、家庭でも活かすことができていますね。
マイナスのギャップとしては、職員の心のケアがまだまだ手薄いところ。凄惨な現場を目の当たりにして気持ちが落ち込んだり、立ち直れなくなってしまうことは日常茶飯事です。PTSDを罹ってしまう職員もいます。そんな中、「こんなことで心が折れているようじゃだめだ」という風潮があり、弱い消防士というレッテルを張られてしまうことも多いんです。そういうときに、みんなで手を取り合って、自分の素直な気持ちや考えを声に出せる雰囲気を作っていくことが大事。私の職場では現場から帰ってきたらみんなでディスカッションをして、自分の気持ちを吐き出せるよう心掛けています。辛いことを一人で抱え込まないように、声がけすることが大事だと思っているんです。徐々に改善されつつありますが、まだまだ組織立ってのメンタルフォロー、職員の変化に気づけるような体制作り、署ごとの情報交換が足りていません。これが消防署の課題であり、私が取り組んでいきたいミッションでもありますね。
Q5：【一緒に働きたい人】
「この人に命を預けてもいい」と思えるような、信頼関係が築ける人
A5：何においても前向きな人。社会人として当事者意識を持てる人。自分の考えで行動できる人、ですね。
消防署では毎日訓練があります。そのときに、「こんな現場なんて実際はないよね」というようにやらされ感を持って取り組むと、頭にも入ってきませんし、周りのモチベーションも下げてしまいます。それよりも、「こういう訓練をしたいです」「こんな訓練を教えてくれませんか」というように、苦手なことでも前向きに取り組んでくれる人だと嬉しいですよね。こちらも、一緒に頑張ろうという気持ちが芽生えます。実際に、私の職場にもそういう先輩や後輩がたくさんいたので、仕事が楽しかった。仕事を辞めたいと思ったこともありません。この人たちとならどんな現場でも一緒に活動できる、と思っていました。この仕事はチームワークが命。現場では仲間に命を預けることも多いので、仲間との信頼関係が何より大切なんです。あらゆる現場を想定して、想像力を持って取り組める人と一緒に働きたいですね。
私は仕事を通じて、「消防士はどうあるべきか」、「市民の方からどう見られているか」を常に考え続けてきました。はじめは不純な動機から消防士に興味を持った私でしたが（笑）、今では一人の社会人、一人の人間として成長できたと思っています
火消し必死すぎでしょwww
それだけ図星って事www
従業員おつかれwww
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
dred 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
論文の書き方 実践編
１、基本的事項
１－１、論文と報告書／小説との違い
学生がはじめて卒業論文なりを作成すると、必ず“報告書”を作成してしまう。報告書では、自分が何をどのようにやったかが淡々と時系列につづられている。このような文書は“論文”とは種類が異なるものであることを初めに認識しなければならない。
論文において一番必要なことは、何をやったかではなく、何を新たな真理として主張するかである。つまり、新たにどのような意義のある結果が出てきたか、もしくは理論や価値を提案できたかである。よって、一番最初に行う作業として、自分が一番主張したいことを整理し、その主張を行うためにはどのような説明が必要かを考える必要がある。つまり、報告書とは発想が逆転しているのである。
もちろん論文は小説とも異なる。後にならないと結論がわからないような推理小説のような文章は論文としては最低である。推理小説を論文風に書けば、犯人は最初に書いてあって、何故その人が犯人なのかを説明することになるであろう。また、発見した！とか偶然見つけた！等のドラマティックな表現も禁物である。
１－２、客観と主観を区別する
結果や理論が客観的な事実なのか、もしくは筆者の主観的なものなのかを区別することが重要である。つまり、自分の考え（主観）を出来るだけ客観性のある事実に近づけることが要求される。この点が論文において一番重要で難しい点であろう。常に自分の提示した結果や概念に対して、客観的な目で時には批判的になって、考える必要がある。何故こうするのか、何故こうしたのかを常に厳しく自分に問いかける必要がある。論文に感想文や悩み事を書いてはいけない。
１－３、わかりやすく書こう
１－３－１、「察してくれるだろう」という甘い考えは捨てよ
日本文化の美徳の一つに「思いやりと察し」というのがあるが、理論的な論文にこのような概念は禁物である。決して「わかってくれるだろう」と思わないこと。
１－３－２、章立てに工夫を
わかりやすい文章を作る一つのこつは、全体を細かく章に分けてメリハリをつけることである。文字ばかりだらだらと書いてある文章は読みにくい。逆に見出しだけで論文の流れがわかるような文章は理解しやすい。
１－３－３、受験国語の呪縛から逃れよう。“その・この”の悪夢からの脱却
「そのようなことによって、○○の結論が得られる」
問題）下線部分が指す内容を示せ。
受験国語にこのような問題が多く見られ、悩んだ人も多いはずである。論文では、問題になって読者の頭を悩ますようなわかりにくい表現は絶対してはいけない！「この」「その」という表現は実は論理をはぐらかすときに良く使う。官僚・政治家のように表現をぼやかして、わざとわかりにくくするのは論文では最低なことである。本当に「この」・「その」が必要なのかを良く考え、無駄を無くすためにも、なるべく削除しよう。
２、論文の書き方の実践
まずは、全体の章立てを１－１、の概念に基づいて深く考える。
緒言
２－１、動機づけ・位置付けが非常に重要！
特に工学系の論文では、研究がどのように役に立つのか等の意義が重要な場合が多い。また、世界中で行われている研究の中で自分の研究がどういう立場にあるのかという“位置付け”の説明も必ず求められる。もちろん、意義や位置付けが完全に説明するためには相当量の勉強が必要であり、該当分野の専門家になる必要がある。よって、たくさん勉強しよう。
解析(実験)手法及び条件
２－２、単に、「こういう実験・計算をした」ということを書いてはいけない！
手法は、具体的な方法より、何故そのような手法を選定したのか、もしくは提案するのかが重要である。根拠が大事。
２－３、式を書いてさえおけば良いという考えかたはダメ
式は、本来文章で説明するところをよりわかりやすくするために使うもの。必ず式の説明はすること。記号の説明が抜けていてはいけない。また、式のかたちを示すよりもどうしてこの式を使ったかのほうが重要。
２－４、結果のところに解析条件を書いてはいけない。
結果をわかりやすくするために、結果で述べる解析条件はすべてここで示しておく。結果はシンプルに！
解析(実験)結果
２－５、結果は客観的に、考察は主観的に
結果と考察の区分には任意性があって、述べ方の展開の仕方によって、どちらに属するのかが決まる。読者がなるべくわかりやすいような分け方をする。一般に結果は客観性のある事実・考察は自分の考えなど主観性のある事実が述べられる。他の人が使えるような客観性のあるデータは結果、自分なりに結果に対して付加価値をつけた場合や、新しい提案は考察に入れる場合が多い（個々にスタイルがあるため、必ずではない）。誰がやっても同じ結果になるようなものは、結果に書く。また、自分の発見，実験結果に対して〈important〉，〈very interesting〉などの形容をすることは差し控えるべきである。
２－６、図・表はそれだけで内容がつかめるように
図・表は飾りではない、それだけを見ただけで内容が掴めるようにする。キャプションも刺身のつまではない、きちんと説明するように。“Fig. 1 result of analysis” というようなキャプションはなくても同じ。
２－７、結果の説明はちゃんとしよう
「結果を図１に示す」だけでは不親切。ちゃんとポイントを説明しよう。
２－８、結果のところに「解析条件」「自分の意見（考察）」などの余計なものを書いてはいけない。
２－９、解析条件と結果は１対１の関係が明確になるように。
考察
２－１０、こうなった・ああなったなど、結果から容易に想定できるものは「考察」ではない。
結果を単に説明するようなものは、結果の章にまわす。
２－１１、考察は責任を持って
考察には、自分でしっかり検討した責任の持てる内容のみを書く。よって、考察にも客観性は必要。追実験や計算を大いに行って、自分の考え・理論を証明しよう。無責任なこと妄想・感想文を書いてはいけない。
結論
２－１２、研究しなくても書ける結論はだめ
「～の解析を行い、～の有効性を示した」「～の評価手法を確立した」などの結論は論文の具体的内容が全く掴めない。もっと具体的に書こう。
その他
２－１３、緒言と結論だけを読まれる場合が多い
研究者が論文を読むときは、最初に「アブストラクト」を読み、興味があれば「緒言」と「結論」を次に読む。この３つだけで論文の内容の大半が伝わるようにしよう。
２－１４、冷めた目で客観的に自分の文章を読んでみよう。
論文が完成したら、少し時間を置いてから違った目線で（少し批判的に）、読み返してみよう。人によっては、客観性を持つため、執筆してから日本酒のように必ず「寝かせる」人もいる。他人に見てもらったり、議論するのが一番良い。
２－１５、引用はしっかりとしよう
学会等の発表で人の成果を自分の成果のように発表したり、引用を怠ったりすると、科学技術の世界から抹殺されることが冗談ぬきである。オリジナリティを大切にするアカデミックな世界では最も忌み嫌われる行為である。学生だから許されるだろうという甘え考えは禁物である。
２－１６、自分の仕事と他人の仕事を区別する。
自分のした仕事と他人の仕事の引用とがはっきり区別できるように書き，後者は出典を明らかにしなければならない．他の研究者の仕事を批評する時，たとえば「･････の結果だから信用度が低い」というように，個人攻撃に類する書き方をしてはいけない．批評は実験の方法，混入したと思われる誤差のように，客観的な面だけに向けるべきである．
「有価証編報告書虚偽記載罪で逮捕されたゴーン氏だが、そもそも会計人の眼から見れば、これは罪の要件を満たしていない」。『公認会計士vs特捜検察』などの著書のある会計人・細野祐二氏の特別レポート――。
本件の罪、成立せず
2018年11月19日午後、仏ルノー・日産自動車・三菱自動車の会長を兼務していたカルロス・ゴーン氏は、自家用ジェット機で羽田空港に入国するや直ちに空港内で東京地検特捜部に任意同行を求められ、同日夕刻、そのまま逮捕された。
逮捕容疑は有価証券報告書虚偽記載罪である。日産の代表取締役であったグレッグ・ケリー氏も同日同容疑で逮捕されている。
新聞報道によれば、日産自動車の2011年3月期から2015年3月期までの5事業年度において、カルロス・ゴーン前会長の役員報酬が実際には99億9800万円であったところ、これを49億8700万円として虚偽の有価証券報告書を5回にわたり関東財務局に提出したのが金融商品取引法違反（有価証券報告書虚偽記載罪）に問われているとのことである。対象期間の日産自動車の有価証券報告書には、代表者の役職氏名として、「取締役社長 カルロス ゴーン」と記載されている。
ここで、虚偽記載容疑として盛んに報道されているのが、ゴーン前会長が海外子会社に自宅として海外の高級住宅を購入させていたというものである。
日産自動車は、2010年ごろ、オランダに資本金60億円で子会社を設立。この海外子会社の資金を使って、リオデジャネイロの5億円超のマンションとベイルートの高級住宅が相次いで購入され、いずれもゴーン前会長に無償で提供された。購入費に加え、維持費や改装費も日産自動車が負担し、その総額は20億円超になるという。
一方、パリやアムステルダムでは日産の別の子会社などが、ゴーン前会長の自宅用物件として、高級マンションを購入したり借りたりしたが、ゴーン会長が負担すべき家賃について一部が支払われていなかった疑いがあると報道されている。
このほか、ゴーン前会長が家族旅行の費用など数千万円を日産自動車に負担させていた疑いもあるという。
さらにまた、
・日産自動車は、2003年6月の株主総会で、役員報酬としてストック・アプリシエーション権（SAR）と呼ばれる株価連動型インセンティブ受領権の導入を決定し、ゴーン前会長は2011年3月期以降、合計40億円分のSARを得ながら、その報酬額が有価証券報告書に記載されていないこと
・ゴーン前会長はオランダの子会社から2017年まで年間1億円から1億5千万円程度の報酬を受け取っていたが、これが有価証券報告書に記載されていないこと
なども大きく報道されている。
なるほど、ゴーン前会長は巨額の経済的便益を日産自動車から受けていたのであろう。しかし、巨額の経済的便益を受けていたことと有価証券報告書虚偽記載罪は何の関係もない。
これらの経済的便益が「有価証券報告書虚偽記載罪」の犯罪構成要件を満たすためには、
①問題となる経済的便益が、会計基準上有価証券報告書に記載すべき事項（＝犯罪事実）であり、かつ、②ゴーン前会長自身が、本件経済的便益は会計基準上有価証券報告書に記載すべきものと知りながら、敢えて不記載としたという認識（＝故意）
がなければならない。
「有価証券報告書虚偽記載」は故意犯なので、ゴーン会長に故意が認定できなければ、本件の有価証券報告書虚偽記載罪は成立しない。
2019年2月19日 15:42
先日予約をしてお店に行きました。
不安も多かったのですが話しやすい担当の方で良い物件を見つけることができました。
返信
2018年2月3日 20:15
他の方が書いているのと同じ、元ホストのような方が担当でした。
とある物件で内覧の時間を3分ほどしか貰えず、やたらと急かされました。理由を尋ねると「外に停めた車の駐禁を切られてしまうので、モタモタされると困る」とのこと……。内覧なんてみんな2、3分で終わらせますよーと言われましたが、まあそんなわけないですね。
色々な意味で信用できず後日お断りの電話を入れたところ、叩きつけるように無言で電話を切られました。
こんなお店でも他サイトの口コミではかなり優良店のように語られているので、物件選びに不慣れな学生さんや新社会人が空気に流されて無理やり契約させられていないか、とても心配です。
返信
56. 犠牲者 より:
2018年1月13日 21:39
以前こちらの管理のお部屋に入居しました。入居当時からエアコンからカビの臭いがキツくつけられず隣からはテレビの騒音、すべて対応してもらえずに泣く泣く３ヶ月で退去しました
信用できませんね
やめた方がいいです
返信
57. 匿名 より:
2017年9月20日 22:55
エリアのエステートだから良い会社に決まってます！
返信
58. なな より:
2017年9月20日 19:48
内見の際靴で上がる、汚いからと雨戸を開けない、家賃交渉すると言ったのにしない。期日が迫ってたので仕方なく決めましたがもう2度と利用したくありません。
返信
59. a より:
2017年8月23日 19:17
他の人も言っているように態度が最悪に悪かった。基本的に語尾が「〜っすよ」であり、また話し方もかなり上から、接客中に他の社員と雑談をする、接客中にいきなり席を外されたと思ったらタバコの匂いをさせながら帰ってきた等、物件以前の問題だった。
その場で断るのも怖かったので後日電話で丁寧に断ると何も言わずに電話を勢いよく切られた。断って良かったと心から思った。
返信
60. 匿名 より:
2017年3月7日 17:02
契約済みの物件をそのまま掲載しており(その後他社への問い合わせで知った)、その部屋がまだあるのかを尋ねても明確に答えずに、ひたすら店へ来ることを進める。対応は、大変ぞんざい。他の方も言っていたがまさしくチャラい。正直、最初の電話で相談に出向く気が失せた。
電話が何度もくるのでやんわり断ったが、その理由をしつこく聞いてきて、最後には投げつけるように電話を切られ、ただただ気分が悪い。
返信
61. けいた より:
2017年2月12日 05:24
とにかく全体的にチャラい。
いかにも『契約取るまで調子良い事しか言わない不動産屋』という感じで、客を金としか思ってないのが伝わる。
都合の悪い事は伝えず、バレると悪びれもせずに言い訳を並べる。
ちなみに隣で接客してた他の客にも契約に何か不備があったらしく説明を求めていたが、元ホストみたいな異様にテンションの高い話し方の担当が若い女性客相手に素人でも疑問を抱くような適当な言い訳で言いくるめてた。
少なくともここの営業を見る限り皆同じような感じなので、ここの経営者自体がはマトモではないのだろうと感じた。
返信
62. 犠牲者 より:
2016年10月10日 16:19
採寸データはめちゃくちゃ。
契約についても約束を守らない。
少なくとも信頼できる会社ではない。
返信
63. 犠牲者 より:
2016年3月31日 11:28
総じて対応は良くない。物件を探せば良いと思っている。そういう会社。もう利用しません。
返信
64. レン より:
2015年12月4日 02:25
担当の対応がとても良かった。
いっぱい不動産屋にいってみて、はじめてよかったと思える引越しだったと思う。
返信
65. ちま より:
2015年2月26日 09:24
内見の際はこちらの要望にも快く応えてくれ、知識も豊富だと感じた。
しかし、自分で県の資料を確認したところ、検討していた物件の所在地が
土砂災害警戒区域であることがわかった。
営業の方に確認すると、そのことを知らなかった様子。
「マンションタイプなので基礎はしっかりしているはず」という根拠のない返答が返ってきた。
横浜は土砂災害警戒区域の多い地域であるし、
契約を取りたいのはわかるが、対応に誠意を感じられなかった。
返信
先日予約をしてお店に行きました。
不安も多かったのですが話しやすい担当の方で良い物件を見つけることができました。
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
In the aftermath of the resignation of U.S. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Dec. 20, attention has turned to Patrick Shanahan, who was set to become acting defense secretary on Jan. 1, as well as the search for a permanent replacement.
The 56-year-old Shanahan was elevated to the acting role by U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 23 via Twitter. Shanahan has little experience in international affairs, having worked for Boeing Co. for more than three decades, where he rose to a senior vice president position before he became Pentagon deputy in July 2017.
Whoever is chosen as Mattis’ permanent replacement will almost certainly face sharp questioning by Congress about the administration’s murky foreign policy.
Mattis’ resignation letter outlined his belief that the U.S. cannot protect its interests without “showing respect to (U.S.) allies.”
“Because you have the right to have a Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours on these and other subjects, I believe it is right for me to step down,” the letter read.
日産自動車前会長、カルロス・ゴーン容疑者（６４）の逮捕を機に、日産・仏ルノー連合の行方が焦点となってきた。仏政府はルノーに１５％出資する筆頭株主だが、ルメール仏経済・財務相はまるでルノーのスポークスマンのように連日、ルノー側に立って発信している。背景にあるルノーと仏政府の深い関わりを探る。【毎日新聞経済プレミア】
◇仏経済相「ルノー・日産連合の維持を懸念」
ルメール仏経済・財務相の発言を追ってみよう。ゴーン前会長が逮捕された１１月１９日、記者会見で「ルノーの株主としてルノーの安定とルノー・日産連合の維持をまず懸念している。やれることは全てやる」と発言。ルノーの雇用継続を保証することが「経済閣僚としての私の責任だ」と強調した。
ルノーが臨時取締役会で、ゴーン会長兼最高経営責任者（ＣＥＯ）解任を先送りすると、翌２１日にルノーＣＥＯ代理に就任したティエリー・ボロレ氏らと記者会見し、技術革新への取り組みが必要な自動車産業で、ルノー・日産連合は「切り札だ」と主張した。
ルメール経済・財務相の一連の発言は、１５％筆頭株主の立場を超えているようにも映る。なぜ、閣僚がそうした発言を繰り返すのか。マクロン仏政権は業績好調な日産を活用して、低迷しているルノーをテコ入れする考えを強めているが、それだけではない。仏政府とルノーの関わりを知るにはルノーの歴史を押さえておく必要がある。
◇ルノー公団総裁が暗殺された歴史
ルノーは１８９９年にフランスの技術者、ルイ・ルノーが設立し、仏最大の自動車会社に育った。第二次世界大戦中、ドイツ占領下でルノーはドイツ軍に接収される。フランス解放後の１９４４年、ルイ・ルノーは産業利敵協力を問われて告訴・逮捕され獄中で病死する。戦後、ルノーは資産を政府に没収され、仏指導者ドゴール将軍（後の大統領）の行政命令で国営化され、「ルノー公団」となった。
戦後は大衆車を相次いでヒットさせ、代表的な国営企業として存在感を高めた。「ルノーがかぜをひけば、フランスがくしゃみする」とも言われた。だが、８０年代には余剰労働者と老朽化した設備を抱え、膨大な累積赤字に苦しんだ。肥大化した本社機構、強力な労働組合が効率化をはばむ障害となった。状況は、日本のＪＲの前身・旧国鉄と似たところがあった。
８６年にはトップのジョルジュ・ベス総裁が左翼テロで暗殺される悲惨な事件も経験した。他の国営企業トップを長年務めてきた技術畑出身の経営者で、粘り強い労使協議で２万１０００人の人員整理を行うなど、手腕を見せていたさなかだった。時代は違うが、戦後の混乱期に総裁がれき死体となって発見された日本の旧国鉄とここでも重なる。
◇９６年に完全民営化
旧国鉄は巨額の赤字を抱え８７年に分割・民営化されたが、仏ルノーも収益性と競争力を高める狙いで９０年に株式会社化した。９６年に完全民営化され、名前から「公団」が外れた。といっても仏政府は４６％の株式を保有していた。その後比率が減少し、１５％になった。
完全民営化と重なるように９６年、仏大手タイヤメーカー、ミシュランの北米部門ＣＥＯだったゴーン前会長がルノー入りし上級副社長になる。当時のルノー会長兼ＣＥＯの直々のスカウトだった。その後、２００５年にＣＥＯ職を引き継ぎ、ルノーの「ゴーン体制」が確立する。その体制が今日まで１３年間続いたのである。
Some doctors are calling this “Nail-Fungus” Trick a cleansing miracle.
Studies show it helps remove toe & finger nail fungus… starting the very first time you use it. And within 7-DAYS… Watch it Now ?
Every single one of the thousands of patients who used this crazy cheap method 1st thing in the morning…
Erased their fungal infection forever in as little as a couple of days by eating THIS for breakfast…
While completely regenerating their skin and regrowing their nails…
And without using any expensive creams or dangerous antibiotics in the process.
Visit the link below to find out all about this counter-intuitive hack:
Weird “Nail-Fungus” Trick -> Eat for Breakfast & Destroy it fast (7-Days)
Once you see , you’ll wonder how you ever survived without it, trust me.
Helping You Reverse Nail Damage,
Dr. James Larson
P.S. Don?t laugh, this weird little “method” actually works?
“…absolutely changed my nails in just 7 days.”
“THIS STUFF IS AMAZING.”
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 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 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
tered 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 pet
укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры
четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский,
построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятникпостроили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, ом архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский,
построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятникпостроили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, ом архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пятипостроили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский,
построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тпостроили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, онн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский,
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский,
Кремлём в древности называлась центральная часть города, укреплённая стенами и башнями. Кремли стали появляться в одиннадцатом веке.
Московский Кремль начали строить в тысяча сто пятьдесят шестом году. Он находиться на берегу Москвы-реки, на высоком холме, и составляет треугольник. На каждой из трёх сторон треугольника семь башен, и ни одна из этих семи башен не повторяет другую; все они разные. К седьмому ноября тысяча девятьсот тридцать седьмого года на пяти главных башнях установили огромные звёзды, которые светят ночью.
Сначала стены Московского Кремля были деревянными. В тысяча триста шестьдесят седьмом году построили стены из белого камня. Новые стены, которые сохранились до сих пор, построили в конце пятнадцатого века.
Посетители проходят через ворота за стены Кремля. Они останавливаются у колокольни Ивана Великого. Эту колокольню строили почти сто лет, с тысяча пятьсот пятого года по тысяча шестисотый год. Высота её около восьмидесяти метров. У подножия колокольни Ивана Великого стоят Царь-колокол и Царь-пушка. Царь-колокол весит около двухсот тонн. Царь-пушку отлили в тысяча пятьсот шестьдесят восьмом году. Для шестнадцатого века это была огромная пушка.
Интересным памятником архитектуры четырнадцатого – пятнадцатого веков являются кремлёвские соборы – Успенский, Благовещенский и Архангельский.
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
misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship
fe styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and wo
近年、経済のグローバル化の帰結として日本を含む東アジアで製造業の部品貿易が活発化している。また、企業レベルに視点を移してみても、１９８０年代のバブル期以降、日本の多国籍企業をはじめとして海外生産活動を急速に拡大させてきた。これにより、労働集約的な生産工程は、アジア各国を始めとする低賃金の国で生産されるようになり、各国から安価な工業製品の輸入が盛んに行なわれるようになった。このことによって、日系企業のコスト削減による企業の強みを発揮することができ、消費者にとってはより安価な製品を手に入れることができるようになり日本国内で見ると厚生水準は上がるはずである。しかしその反面、生産拠点の移行により地方を中心とする日本国内の産業空洞化の議論が巻き起こってきた。日本国内へのインパクトとして、非熟練労働者の労働需要を下げ賃金水準を押し下げる一方、高付加価値な生産工程に特化することによる熟練労働者の労働需要の増加により賃金水準を上げ、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差が広がっているかもしれない。また、非熟練労働者の需要が減少することにより多くの失業者が生まれているかもしれない。１９８０年以降、アメリカやイギリスなどの多くの先進国で熟練労働者と非熟練労働者との賃金格差が広がってきていることが、政治的に叫ばれその原因を解明しようとする研究が進められてきた。それらの研究では労働集約的な中間投入財の輸入などを代理変数としたアウトソーシングや、コンピュータ化などの偏向的技術進歩が重要な賃金格差や労働市場にインパクトをもたらす要素であるということが国際経済学の先行研究で多く結論付けられた。
当然、日本においても労働集約的な生産工程の海外シフトにより、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や従業者数などの労働市場に影響を与えていることが予想される。日本の労働市場を解明し、アメリカやイギリスなどと同様にアウトソーシングが労働市場に与える影響を解明することは非常に重要である。しかし、日本においては賃金データの不備やアウトソーシングの代理変数の難しさにより同様の研究は非常に少ない。熟練労働者と非熟練労働者を、生産労働者と非生産労働者の区分で分析した日本における先行研究は筆者の知る限り存在しない。だが今回私は、厚生労働省実施の賃金構造基本統計調査の『賃金センサス』に未収録のデータを利用して産業中分類まで、生産労働者と管理・事務・技術労働者という枠組みで賃金データを手に入れることができた。そこで、本稿ではアウトソーシングが日本の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や熟練労働者比率などの労働市場に与える影響について分析する。
本研究における方法論はイギリスについて研究を行ったAnderton and Brenton (1998)に従うことにする。アウトソーシングの変数の取得方法についても同研究を参照とした。
本稿ではイギリスのAnderton and Brenton (1998)とは異なる次のような結論を得た。アウトソーシングの進展が日本の労働市場において熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に影響を与えているという有意な係数は推定されなかった。一方、被説明変数を、全労働者に占める熟練労働者数（熟練労働者比率）とした場合はアウトソーシングの進展が熟練労働者比率の上昇に影響を与えているという有意な係数が推定された。日本においては、グローバル化の帰結によるアウトソーシングの進展により、労働者の賃金よりもむしろ従業者数に影響を及ぼしているのである。今後、アウトソ
3
ーシング変数の工夫や偏向的技術進歩の変数の工夫により本研究の精緻化が望まれ一層の研究の重要性を示唆している。
本論文の構成は以下のとおり。第二節では、アウトソーシングに関連するターミノロジーと、アウトソーシングの進展が賃金格差に与える影響についての先行研究をサーベイする。第三節では、近年の日本をめぐるアウトソーシングの進展状況と、日本の労働市場内の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金や従業者数について分析・考察していく。そして第四節では、アウトソーシングの進展が、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差または熟練労働者比率に影響を与えているか否かについて実証分析をする。最後に第五節で本論文から得られた結論と今後の課題について言及し本論文の結びとしたい。
２ 先行研究のサーベイ
本章では、アウトソーシングと労働市場の関係について分析を進めた先行研究をサーベイしていく。国際貿易論の文脈でのアウトソーシングの広義の意味とされる、「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して行なわれること Feenstra and Hanson (2001)」を、厳密に捉え数値化することのできる指標は研究者の間で統一されていない。アウトソーシングやfragmentationといった多くのターミノロジーが存在する。そこで本章では、まず第１節でこうしたターミノロジーや指標をサーベイし本分析で私が採用したアウトソーシング変数の道程を示したい。また、第２節ではアウトソーシングが各国の労働市場に与える影響について分析した先行研究をサーベイしていきたい。
２．１ アウトソーシングに関連する理論・ターミノロジーのサーベイ
Feeenstra and Hanson (2001)によれば、アウトソーシングを「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して生産活動が行なわれること」としている。彼らが、アウトソーシングが熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に与える影響について分析する際にアウトソーシングの数値化を試みた。それは、輸入中間投入額を中間財額または非エネルギ中間財額で除したものである。輸入に注目し簡単にアウトソーシングを数値化し賃金格差に与える影響について分析してきた。しかし、ある多国籍企業のアウトソーシングを考える際、この定義では厳密ではない。例えば、日本から部品を持ち込み東アジアなどの低賃金国で組立てをする場合などもアウトソーシングと言える。この場合、輸入という要素以外にも、輸出という要素が入っているため輸入しか捉えていない彼らのアウトソーシングの定義ではこうしたアウトソーシングを把握することができない。
このため、アウトソーシングに関連して多くの研究者によってターミノロジーや理論の研究がなされている。以下ではこうした先行研究について考察する。
近年、経済のグローバル化の帰結として日本を含む東アジアで製造業の部品貿易が活発化している。また、企業レベルに視点を移してみても、１９８０年代のバブル期以降、日本の多国籍企業をはじめとして海外生産活動を急速に拡大させてきた。これにより、労働集約的な生産工程は、アジア各国を始めとする低賃金の国で生産されるようになり、各国から安価な工業製品の輸入が盛んに行なわれるようになった。このことによって、日系企業のコスト削減による企業の強みを発揮することができ、消費者にとってはより安価な製品を手に入れることができるようになり日本国内で見ると厚生水準は上がるはずである。しかしその反面、生産拠点の移行により地方を中心とする日本国内の産業空洞化の議論が巻き起こってきた。日本国内へのインパクトとして、非熟練労働者の労働需要を下げ賃金水準を押し下げる一方、高付加価値な生産工程に特化することによる熟練労働者の労働需要の増加により賃金水準を上げ、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差が広がっているかもしれない。また、非熟練労働者の需要が減少することにより多くの失業者が生まれているかもしれない。１９８０年以降、アメリカやイギリスなどの多くの先進国で熟練労働者と非熟練労働者との賃金格差が広がってきていることが、政治的に叫ばれその原因を解明しようとする研究が進められてきた。それらの研究では労働集約的な中間投入財の輸入などを代理変数としたアウトソーシングや、コンピュータ化などの偏向的技術進歩が重要な賃金格差や労働市場にインパクトをもたらす要素であるということが国際経済学の先行研究で多く結論付けられた。
当然、日本においても労働集約的な生産工程の海外シフトにより、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や従業者数などの労働市場に影響を与えていることが予想される。日本の労働市場を解明し、アメリカやイギリスなどと同様にアウトソーシングが労働市場に与える影響を解明することは非常に重要である。しかし、日本においては賃金データの不備やアウトソーシングの代理変数の難しさにより同様の研究は非常に少ない。熟練労働者と非熟練労働者を、生産労働者と非生産労働者の区分で分析した日本における先行研究は筆者の知る限り存在しない。だが今回私は、厚生労働省実施の賃金構造基本統計調査の『賃金センサス』に未収録のデータを利用して産業中分類まで、生産労働者と管理・事務・技術労働者という枠組みで賃金データを手に入れることができた。そこで、本稿ではアウトソーシングが日本の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や熟練労働者比率などの労働市場に与える影響について分析する。
本研究における方法論はイギリスについて研究を行ったAnderton and Brenton (1998)に従うことにする。アウトソーシングの変数の取得方法についても同研究を参照とした。
本稿ではイギリスのAnderton and Brenton (1998)とは異なる次のような結論を得た。アウトソーシングの進展が日本の労働市場において熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に影響を与えているという有意な係数は推定されなかった。一方、被説明変数を、全労働者に占める熟練労働者数（熟練労働者比率）とした場合はアウトソーシングの進展が熟練労働者比率の上昇に影響を与えているという有意な係数が推定された。日本においては、グローバル化の帰結によるアウトソーシングの進展により、労働者の賃金よりもむしろ従業者数に影響を及ぼしているのである。今後、アウトソ
3
ーシング変数の工夫や偏向的技術進歩の変数の工夫により本研究の精緻化が望まれ一層の研究の重要性を示唆している。
本論文の構成は以下のとおり。第二節では、アウトソーシングに関連するターミノロジーと、アウトソーシングの進展が賃金格差に与える影響についての先行研究をサーベイする。第三節では、近年の日本をめぐるアウトソーシングの進展状況と、日本の労働市場内の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金や従業者数について分析・考察していく。そして第四節では、アウトソーシングの進展が、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差または熟練労働者比率に影響を与えているか否かについて実証分析をする。最後に第五節で本論文から得られた結論と今後の課題について言及し本論文の結びとしたい。
２ 先行研究のサーベイ
本章では、アウトソーシングと労働市場の関係について分析を進めた先行研究をサーベイしていく。国際貿易論の文脈でのアウトソーシングの広義の意味とされる、「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して行なわれること Feenstra and Hanson (2001)」を、厳密に捉え数値化することのできる指標は研究者の間で統一されていない。アウトソーシングやfragmentationといった多くのターミノロジーが存在する。そこで本章では、まず第１節でこうしたターミノロジーや指標をサーベイし本分析で私が採用したアウトソーシング変数の道程を示したい。また、第２節ではアウトソーシングが各国の労働市場に与える影響について分析した先行研究をサーベイしていきたい。
２．１ アウトソーシングに関連する理論・ターミノロジーのサーベイ
Feeenstra and Hanson (2001)によれば、アウトソーシングを「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して生産活動が行なわれること」としている。彼らが、アウトソーシングが熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に与える影響について分析する際にアウトソーシングの数値化を試みた。それは、輸入中間投入額を中間財額または非エネルギ中間財額で除したものである。輸入に注目し簡単にアウトソーシングを数値化し賃金格差に与える影響について分析してきた。しかし、ある多国籍企業のアウトソーシングを考える際、この定義では厳密ではない。例えば、日本から部品を持ち込み東アジアなどの低賃金国で組立てをする場合などもアウトソーシングと言える。この場合、輸入という要素以外にも、輸出という要素が入っているため輸入しか捉えていない彼らのアウトソーシングの定義ではこうしたアウトソーシングを把握することができない。
このため、アウトソーシングに関連して多くの研究者によってターミノロジーや理論の研究がなされている。以下ではこうした先行研究について考察する。
近年、経済のグローバル化の帰結として日本を含む東アジアで製造業の部品貿易が活発化している。また、企業レベルに視点を移してみても、１９８０年代のバブル期以降、日本の多国籍企業をはじめとして海外生産活動を急速に拡大させてきた。これにより、労働集約的な生産工程は、アジア各国を始めとする低賃金の国で生産されるようになり、各国から安価な工業製品の輸入が盛んに行なわれるようになった。このことによって、日系企業のコスト削減による企業の強みを発揮することができ、消費者にとってはより安価な製品を手に入れることができるようになり日本国内で見ると厚生水準は上がるはずである。しかしその反面、生産拠点の移行により地方を中心とする日本国内の産業空洞化の議論が巻き起こってきた。日本国内へのインパクトとして、非熟練労働者の労働需要を下げ賃金水準を押し下げる一方、高付加価値な生産工程に特化することによる熟練労働者の労働需要の増加により賃金水準を上げ、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差が広がっているかもしれない。また、非熟練労働者の需要が減少することにより多くの失業者が生まれているかもしれない。１９８０年以降、アメリカやイギリスなどの多くの先進国で熟練労働者と非熟練労働者との賃金格差が広がってきていることが、政治的に叫ばれその原因を解明しようとする研究が進められてきた。それらの研究では労働集約的な中間投入財の輸入などを代理変数としたアウトソーシングや、コンピュータ化などの偏向的技術進歩が重要な賃金格差や労働市場にインパクトをもたらす要素であるということが国際経済学の先行研究で多く結論付けられた。
当然、日本においても労働集約的な生産工程の海外シフトにより、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や従業者数などの労働市場に影響を与えていることが予想される。日本の労働市場を解明し、アメリカやイギリスなどと同様にアウトソーシングが労働市場に与える影響を解明することは非常に重要である。しかし、日本においては賃金データの不備やアウトソーシングの代理変数の難しさにより同様の研究は非常に少ない。熟練労働者と非熟練労働者を、生産労働者と非生産労働者の区分で分析した日本における先行研究は筆者の知る限り存在しない。だが今回私は、厚生労働省実施の賃金構造基本統計調査の『賃金センサス』に未収録のデータを利用して産業中分類まで、生産労働者と管理・事務・技術労働者という枠組みで賃金データを手に入れることができた。そこで、本稿ではアウトソーシングが日本の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や熟練労働者比率などの労働市場に与える影響について分析する。
本研究における方法論はイギリスについて研究を行ったAnderton and Brenton (1998)に従うことにする。アウトソーシングの変数の取得方法についても同研究を参照とした。
本稿ではイギリスのAnderton and Brenton (1998)とは異なる次のような結論を得た。アウトソーシングの進展が日本の労働市場において熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に影響を与えているという有意な係数は推定されなかった。一方、被説明変数を、全労働者に占める熟練労働者数（熟練労働者比率）とした場合はアウトソーシングの進展が熟練労働者比率の上昇に影響を与えているという有意な係数が推定された。日本においては、グローバル化の帰結によるアウトソーシングの進展により、労働者の賃金よりもむしろ従業者数に影響を及ぼしているのである。今後、アウトソ
3
ーシング変数の工夫や偏向的技術進歩の変数の工夫により本研究の精緻化が望まれ一層の研究の重要性を示唆している。
本論文の構成は以下のとおり。第二節では、アウトソーシングに関連するターミノロジーと、アウトソーシングの進展が賃金格差に与える影響についての先行研究をサーベイする。第三節では、近年の日本をめぐるアウトソーシングの進展状況と、日本の労働市場内の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金や従業者数について分析・考察していく。そして第四節では、アウトソーシングの進展が、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差または熟練労働者比率に影響を与えているか否かについて実証分析をする。最後に第五節で本論文から得られた結論と今後の課題について言及し本論文の結びとしたい。
２ 先行研究のサーベイ
本章では、アウトソーシングと労働市場の関係について分析を進めた先行研究をサーベイしていく。国際貿易論の文脈でのアウトソーシングの広義の意味とされる、「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して行なわれること Feenstra and Hanson (2001)」を、厳密に捉え数値化することのできる指標は研究者の間で統一されていない。アウトソーシングやfragmentationといった多くのターミノロジーが存在する。そこで本章では、まず第１節でこうしたターミノロジーや指標をサーベイし本分析で私が採用したアウトソーシング変数の道程を示したい。また、第２節ではアウトソーシングが各国の労働市場に与える影響について分析した先行研究をサーベイしていきたい。
２．１ アウトソーシングに関連する理論・ターミノロジーのサーベイ
Feeenstra and Hanson (2001)によれば、アウトソーシングを「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して生産活動が行なわれること」としている。彼らが、アウトソーシングが熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に与える影響について分析する際にアウトソーシングの数値化を試みた。それは、輸入中間投入額を中間財額または非エネルギ中間財額で除したものである。輸入に注目し簡単にアウトソーシングを数値化し賃金格差に与える影響について分析してきた。しかし、ある多国籍企業のアウトソーシングを考える際、この定義では厳密ではない。例えば、日本から部品を持ち込み東アジアなどの低賃金国で組立てをする場合などもアウトソーシングと言える。この場合、輸入という要素以外にも、輸出という要素が入っているため輸入しか捉えていない彼らのアウトソーシングの定義ではこうしたアウトソーシングを把握することができない。
このため、アウトソーシングに関連して多くの研究者によってターミノロジーや理論の研究がなされている。以下ではこうした先行研究について考察する。
近年、経済のグローバル化の帰結として日本を含む東アジアで製造業の部品貿易が活発化している。また、企業レベルに視点を移してみても、１９８０年代のバブル期以降、日本の多国籍企業をはじめとして海外生産活動を急速に拡大させてきた。これにより、労働集約的な生産工程は、アジア各国を始めとする低賃金の国で生産されるようになり、各国から安価な工業製品の輸入が盛んに行なわれるようになった。このことによって、日系企業のコスト削減による企業の強みを発揮することができ、消費者にとってはより安価な製品を手に入れることができるようになり日本国内で見ると厚生水準は上がるはずである。しかしその反面、生産拠点の移行により地方を中心とする日本国内の産業空洞化の議論が巻き起こってきた。日本国内へのインパクトとして、非熟練労働者の労働需要を下げ賃金水準を押し下げる一方、高付加価値な生産工程に特化することによる熟練労働者の労働需要の増加により賃金水準を上げ、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差が広がっているかもしれない。また、非熟練労働者の需要が減少することにより多くの失業者が生まれているかもしれない。１９８０年以降、アメリカやイギリスなどの多くの先進国で熟練労働者と非熟練労働者との賃金格差が広がってきていることが、政治的に叫ばれその原因を解明しようとする研究が進められてきた。それらの研究では労働集約的な中間投入財の輸入などを代理変数としたアウトソーシングや、コンピュータ化などの偏向的技術進歩が重要な賃金格差や労働市場にインパクトをもたらす要素であるということが国際経済学の先行研究で多く結論付けられた。
当然、日本においても労働集約的な生産工程の海外シフトにより、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や従業者数などの労働市場に影響を与えていることが予想される。日本の労働市場を解明し、アメリカやイギリスなどと同様にアウトソーシングが労働市場に与える影響を解明することは非常に重要である。しかし、日本においては賃金データの不備やアウトソーシングの代理変数の難しさにより同様の研究は非常に少ない。熟練労働者と非熟練労働者を、生産労働者と非生産労働者の区分で分析した日本における先行研究は筆者の知る限り存在しない。だが今回私は、厚生労働省実施の賃金構造基本統計調査の『賃金センサス』に未収録のデータを利用して産業中分類まで、生産労働者と管理・事務・技術労働者という枠組みで賃金データを手に入れることができた。そこで、本稿ではアウトソーシングが日本の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や熟練労働者比率などの労働市場に与える影響について分析する。
本研究における方法論はイギリスについて研究を行ったAnderton and Brenton (1998)に従うことにする。アウトソーシングの変数の取得方法についても同研究を参照とした。
本稿ではイギリスのAnderton and Brenton (1998)とは異なる次のような結論を得た。アウトソーシングの進展が日本の労働市場において熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に影響を与えているという有意な係数は推定されなかった。一方、被説明変数を、全労働者に占める熟練労働者数（熟練労働者比率）とした場合はアウトソーシングの進展が熟練労働者比率の上昇に影響を与えているという有意な係数が推定された。日本においては、グローバル化の帰結によるアウトソーシングの進展により、労働者の賃金よりもむしろ従業者数に影響を及ぼしているのである。今後、アウトソ
3
ーシング変数の工夫や偏向的技術進歩の変数の工夫により本研究の精緻化が望まれ一層の研究の重要性を示唆している。
本論文の構成は以下のとおり。第二節では、アウトソーシングに関連するターミノロジーと、アウトソーシングの進展が賃金格差に与える影響についての先行研究をサーベイする。第三節では、近年の日本をめぐるアウトソーシングの進展状況と、日本の労働市場内の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金や従業者数について分析・考察していく。そして第四節では、アウトソーシングの進展が、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差または熟練労働者比率に影響を与えているか否かについて実証分析をする。最後に第五節で本論文から得られた結論と今後の課題について言及し本論文の結びとしたい。
２ 先行研究のサーベイ
本章では、アウトソーシングと労働市場の関係について分析を進めた先行研究をサーベイしていく。国際貿易論の文脈でのアウトソーシングの広義の意味とされる、「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して行なわれること Feenstra and Hanson (2001)」を、厳密に捉え数値化することのできる指標は研究者の間で統一されていない。アウトソーシングやfragmentationといった多くのターミノロジーが存在する。そこで本章では、まず第１節でこうしたターミノロジーや指標をサーベイし本分析で私が採用したアウトソーシング変数の道程を示したい。また、第２節ではアウトソーシングが各国の労働市場に与える影響について分析した先行研究をサーベイしていきたい。
２．１ アウトソーシングに関連する理論・ターミノロジーのサーベイ
Feeenstra and Hanson (2001)によれば、アウトソーシングを「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して生産活動が行なわれること」としている。彼らが、アウトソーシングが熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に与える影響について分析する際にアウトソーシングの数値化を試みた。それは、輸入中間投入額を中間財額または非エネルギ中間財額で除したものである。輸入に注目し簡単にアウトソーシングを数値化し賃金格差に与える影響について分析してきた。しかし、ある多国籍企業のアウトソーシングを考える際、この定義では厳密ではない。例えば、日本から部品を持ち込み東アジアなどの低賃金国で組立てをする場合などもアウトソーシングと言える。この場合、輸入という要素以外にも、輸出という要素が入っているため輸入しか捉えていない彼らのアウトソーシングの定義ではこうしたアウトソーシングを把握することができない。
このため、アウトソーシングに関連して多くの研究者によってターミノロジーや理論の研究がなされている。以下ではこうした先行研究について考察する。
近年、経済のグローバル化の帰結として日本を含む東アジアで製造業の部品貿易が活発化している。また、企業レベルに視点を移してみても、１９８０年代のバブル期以降、日本の多国籍企業をはじめとして海外生産活動を急速に拡大させてきた。これにより、労働集約的な生産工程は、アジア各国を始めとする低賃金の国で生産されるようになり、各国から安価な工業製品の輸入が盛んに行なわれるようになった。このことによって、日系企業のコスト削減による企業の強みを発揮することができ、消費者にとってはより安価な製品を手に入れることができるようになり日本国内で見ると厚生水準は上がるはずである。しかしその反面、生産拠点の移行により地方を中心とする日本国内の産業空洞化の議論が巻き起こってきた。日本国内へのインパクトとして、非熟練労働者の労働需要を下げ賃金水準を押し下げる一方、高付加価値な生産工程に特化することによる熟練労働者の労働需要の増加により賃金水準を上げ、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差が広がっているかもしれない。また、非熟練労働者の需要が減少することにより多くの失業者が生まれているかもしれない。１９８０年以降、アメリカやイギリスなどの多くの先進国で熟練労働者と非熟練労働者との賃金格差が広がってきていることが、政治的に叫ばれその原因を解明しようとする研究が進められてきた。それらの研究では労働集約的な中間投入財の輸入などを代理変数としたアウトソーシングや、コンピュータ化などの偏向的技術進歩が重要な賃金格差や労働市場にインパクトをもたらす要素であるということが国際経済学の先行研究で多く結論付けられた。
当然、日本においても労働集約的な生産工程の海外シフトにより、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や従業者数などの労働市場に影響を与えていることが予想される。日本の労働市場を解明し、アメリカやイギリスなどと同様にアウトソーシングが労働市場に与える影響を解明することは非常に重要である。しかし、日本においては賃金データの不備やアウトソーシングの代理変数の難しさにより同様の研究は非常に少ない。熟練労働者と非熟練労働者を、生産労働者と非生産労働者の区分で分析した日本における先行研究は筆者の知る限り存在しない。だが今回私は、厚生労働省実施の賃金構造基本統計調査の『賃金センサス』に未収録のデータを利用して産業中分類まで、生産労働者と管理・事務・技術労働者という枠組みで賃金データを手に入れることができた。そこで、本稿ではアウトソーシングが日本の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や熟練労働者比率などの労働市場に与える影響について分析する。
本研究における方法論はイギリスについて研究を行ったAnderton and Brenton (1998)に従うことにする。アウトソーシングの変数の取得方法についても同研究を参照とした。
本稿ではイギリスのAnderton and Brenton (1998)とは異なる次のような結論を得た。アウトソーシングの進展が日本の労働市場において熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に影響を与えているという有意な係数は推定されなかった。一方、被説明変数を、全労働者に占める熟練労働者数（熟練労働者比率）とした場合はアウトソーシングの進展が熟練労働者比率の上昇に影響を与えているという有意な係数が推定された。日本においては、グローバル化の帰結によるアウトソーシングの進展により、労働者の賃金よりもむしろ従業者数に影響を及ぼしているのである。今後、アウトソ
3
ーシング変数の工夫や偏向的技術進歩の変数の工夫により本研究の精緻化が望まれ一層の研究の重要性を示唆している。
本論文の構成は以下のとおり。第二節では、アウトソーシングに関連するターミノロジーと、アウトソーシングの進展が賃金格差に与える影響についての先行研究をサーベイする。第三節では、近年の日本をめぐるアウトソーシングの進展状況と、日本の労働市場内の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金や従業者数について分析・考察していく。そして第四節では、アウトソーシングの進展が、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差または熟練労働者比率に影響を与えているか否かについて実証分析をする。最後に第五節で本論文から得られた結論と今後の課題について言及し本論文の結びとしたい。
２ 先行研究のサーベイ
本章では、アウトソーシングと労働市場の関係について分析を進めた先行研究をサーベイしていく。国際貿易論の文脈でのアウトソーシングの広義の意味とされる、「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して行なわれること Feenstra and Hanson (2001)」を、厳密に捉え数値化することのできる指標は研究者の間で統一されていない。アウトソーシングやfragmentationといった多くのターミノロジーが存在する。そこで本章では、まず第１節でこうしたターミノロジーや指標をサーベイし本分析で私が採用したアウトソーシング変数の道程を示したい。また、第２節ではアウトソーシングが各国の労働市場に与える影響について分析した先行研究をサーベイしていきたい。
２．１ アウトソーシングに関連する理論・ターミノロジーのサーベイ
Feeenstra and Hanson (2001)によれば、アウトソーシングを「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して生産活動が行なわれること」としている。彼らが、アウトソーシングが熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に与える影響について分析する際にアウトソーシングの数値化を試みた。それは、輸入中間投入額を中間財額または非エネルギ中間財額で除したものである。輸入に注目し簡単にアウトソーシングを数値化し賃金格差に与える影響について分析してきた。しかし、ある多国籍企業のアウトソーシングを考える際、この定義では厳密ではない。例えば、日本から部品を持ち込み東アジアなどの低賃金国で組立てをする場合などもアウトソーシングと言える。この場合、輸入という要素以外にも、輸出という要素が入っているため輸入しか捉えていない彼らのアウトソーシングの定義ではこうしたアウトソーシングを把握することができない。
このため、アウトソーシングに関連して多くの研究者によってターミノロジーや理論の研究がなされている。以下ではこうした先行研究について考察する。
近年、経済のグローバル化の帰結として日本を含む東アジアで製造業の部品貿易が活発化している。また、企業レベルに視点を移してみても、１９８０年代のバブル期以降、日本の多国籍企業をはじめとして海外生産活動を急速に拡大させてきた。これにより、労働集約的な生産工程は、アジア各国を始めとする低賃金の国で生産されるようになり、各国から安価な工業製品の輸入が盛んに行なわれるようになった。このことによって、日系企業のコスト削減による企業の強みを発揮することができ、消費者にとってはより安価な製品を手に入れることができるようになり日本国内で見ると厚生水準は上がるはずである。しかしその反面、生産拠点の移行により地方を中心とする日本国内の産業空洞化の議論が巻き起こってきた。日本国内へのインパクトとして、非熟練労働者の労働需要を下げ賃金水準を押し下げる一方、高付加価値な生産工程に特化することによる熟練労働者の労働需要の増加により賃金水準を上げ、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差が広がっているかもしれない。また、非熟練労働者の需要が減少することにより多くの失業者が生まれているかもしれない。１９８０年以降、アメリカやイギリスなどの多くの先進国で熟練労働者と非熟練労働者との賃金格差が広がってきていることが、政治的に叫ばれその原因を解明しようとする研究が進められてきた。それらの研究では労働集約的な中間投入財の輸入などを代理変数としたアウトソーシングや、コンピュータ化などの偏向的技術進歩が重要な賃金格差や労働市場にインパクトをもたらす要素であるということが国際経済学の先行研究で多く結論付けられた。
当然、日本においても労働集約的な生産工程の海外シフトにより、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や従業者数などの労働市場に影響を与えていることが予想される。日本の労働市場を解明し、アメリカやイギリスなどと同様にアウトソーシングが労働市場に与える影響を解明することは非常に重要である。しかし、日本においては賃金データの不備やアウトソーシングの代理変数の難しさにより同様の研究は非常に少ない。熟練労働者と非熟練労働者を、生産労働者と非生産労働者の区分で分析した日本における先行研究は筆者の知る限り存在しない。だが今回私は、厚生労働省実施の賃金構造基本統計調査の『賃金センサス』に未収録のデータを利用して産業中分類まで、生産労働者と管理・事務・技術労働者という枠組みで賃金データを手に入れることができた。そこで、本稿ではアウトソーシングが日本の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や熟練労働者比率などの労働市場に与える影響について分析する。
本研究における方法論はイギリスについて研究を行ったAnderton and Brenton (1998)に従うことにする。アウトソーシングの変数の取得方法についても同研究を参照とした。
本稿ではイギリスのAnderton and Brenton (1998)とは異なる次のような結論を得た。アウトソーシングの進展が日本の労働市場において熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に影響を与えているという有意な係数は推定されなかった。一方、被説明変数を、全労働者に占める熟練労働者数（熟練労働者比率）とした場合はアウトソーシングの進展が熟練労働者比率の上昇に影響を与えているという有意な係数が推定された。日本においては、グローバル化の帰結によるアウトソーシングの進展により、労働者の賃金よりもむしろ従業者数に影響を及ぼしているのである。今後、アウトソ
3
ーシング変数の工夫や偏向的技術進歩の変数の工夫により本研究の精緻化が望まれ一層の研究の重要性を示唆している。
本論文の構成は以下のとおり。第二節では、アウトソーシングに関連するターミノロジーと、アウトソーシングの進展が賃金格差に与える影響についての先行研究をサーベイする。第三節では、近年の日本をめぐるアウトソーシングの進展状況と、日本の労働市場内の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金や従業者数について分析・考察していく。そして第四節では、アウトソーシングの進展が、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差または熟練労働者比率に影響を与えているか否かについて実証分析をする。最後に第五節で本論文から得られた結論と今後の課題について言及し本論文の結びとしたい。
２ 先行研究のサーベイ
本章では、アウトソーシングと労働市場の関係について分析を進めた先行研究をサーベイしていく。国際貿易論の文脈でのアウトソーシングの広義の意味とされる、「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して行なわれること Feenstra and Hanson (2001)」を、厳密に捉え数値化することのできる指標は研究者の間で統一されていない。アウトソーシングやfragmentationといった多くのターミノロジーが存在する。そこで本章では、まず第１節でこうしたターミノロジーや指標をサーベイし本分析で私が採用したアウトソーシング変数の道程を示したい。また、第２節ではアウトソーシングが各国の労働市場に与える影響について分析した先行研究をサーベイしていきたい。
２．１ アウトソーシングに関連する理論・ターミノロジーのサーベイ
Feeenstra and Hanson (2001)によれば、アウトソーシングを「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して生産活動が行なわれること」としている。彼らが、アウトソーシングが熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に与える影響について分析する際にアウトソーシングの数値化を試みた。それは、輸入中間投入額を中間財額または非エネルギ中間財額で除したものである。輸入に注目し簡単にアウトソーシングを数値化し賃金格差に与える影響について分析してきた。しかし、ある多国籍企業のアウトソーシングを考える際、この定義では厳密ではない。例えば、日本から部品を持ち込み東アジアなどの低賃金国で組立てをする場合などもアウトソーシングと言える。この場合、輸入という要素以外にも、輸出という要素が入っているため輸入しか捉えていない彼らのアウトソーシングの定義ではこうしたアウトソーシングを把握することができない。
このため、アウトソーシングに関連して多くの研究者によってターミノロジーや理論の研究がなされている。以下ではこうした先行研究について考察する。
近年、経済のグローバル化の帰結として日本を含む東アジアで製造業の部品貿易が活発化している。また、企業レベルに視点を移してみても、１９８０年代のバブル期以降、日本の多国籍企業をはじめとして海外生産活動を急速に拡大させてきた。これにより、労働集約的な生産工程は、アジア各国を始めとする低賃金の国で生産されるようになり、各国から安価な工業製品の輸入が盛んに行なわれるようになった。このことによって、日系企業のコスト削減による企業の強みを発揮することができ、消費者にとってはより安価な製品を手に入れることができるようになり日本国内で見ると厚生水準は上がるはずである。しかしその反面、生産拠点の移行により地方を中心とする日本国内の産業空洞化の議論が巻き起こってきた。日本国内へのインパクトとして、非熟練労働者の労働需要を下げ賃金水準を押し下げる一方、高付加価値な生産工程に特化することによる熟練労働者の労働需要の増加により賃金水準を上げ、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差が広がっているかもしれない。また、非熟練労働者の需要が減少することにより多くの失業者が生まれているかもしれない。１９８０年以降、アメリカやイギリスなどの多くの先進国で熟練労働者と非熟練労働者との賃金格差が広がってきていることが、政治的に叫ばれその原因を解明しようとする研究が進められてきた。それらの研究では労働集約的な中間投入財の輸入などを代理変数としたアウトソーシングや、コンピュータ化などの偏向的技術進歩が重要な賃金格差や労働市場にインパクトをもたらす要素であるということが国際経済学の先行研究で多く結論付けられた。
当然、日本においても労働集約的な生産工程の海外シフトにより、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や従業者数などの労働市場に影響を与えていることが予想される。日本の労働市場を解明し、アメリカやイギリスなどと同様にアウトソーシングが労働市場に与える影響を解明することは非常に重要である。しかし、日本においては賃金データの不備やアウトソーシングの代理変数の難しさにより同様の研究は非常に少ない。熟練労働者と非熟練労働者を、生産労働者と非生産労働者の区分で分析した日本における先行研究は筆者の知る限り存在しない。だが今回私は、厚生労働省実施の賃金構造基本統計調査の『賃金センサス』に未収録のデータを利用して産業中分類まで、生産労働者と管理・事務・技術労働者という枠組みで賃金データを手に入れることができた。そこで、本稿ではアウトソーシングが日本の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や熟練労働者比率などの労働市場に与える影響について分析する。
本研究における方法論はイギリスについて研究を行ったAnderton and Brenton (1998)に従うことにする。アウトソーシングの変数の取得方法についても同研究を参照とした。
本稿ではイギリスのAnderton and Brenton (1998)とは異なる次のような結論を得た。アウトソーシングの進展が日本の労働市場において熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に影響を与えているという有意な係数は推定されなかった。一方、被説明変数を、全労働者に占める熟練労働者数（熟練労働者比率）とした場合はアウトソーシングの進展が熟練労働者比率の上昇に影響を与えているという有意な係数が推定された。日本においては、グローバル化の帰結によるアウトソーシングの進展により、労働者の賃金よりもむしろ従業者数に影響を及ぼしているのである。今後、アウトソ
3
ーシング変数の工夫や偏向的技術進歩の変数の工夫により本研究の精緻化が望まれ一層の研究の重要性を示唆している。
本論文の構成は以下のとおり。第二節では、アウトソーシングに関連するターミノロジーと、アウトソーシングの進展が賃金格差に与える影響についての先行研究をサーベイする。第三節では、近年の日本をめぐるアウトソーシングの進展状況と、日本の労働市場内の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金や従業者数について分析・考察していく。そして第四節では、アウトソーシングの進展が、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差または熟練労働者比率に影響を与えているか否かについて実証分析をする。最後に第五節で本論文から得られた結論と今後の課題について言及し本論文の結びとしたい。
２ 先行研究のサーベイ
本章では、アウトソーシングと労働市場の関係について分析を進めた先行研究をサーベイしていく。国際貿易論の文脈でのアウトソーシングの広義の意味とされる、「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して行なわれること Feenstra and Hanson (2001)」を、厳密に捉え数値化することのできる指標は研究者の間で統一されていない。アウトソーシングやfragmentationといった多くのターミノロジーが存在する。そこで本章では、まず第１節でこうしたターミノロジーや指標をサーベイし本分析で私が採用したアウトソーシング変数の道程を示したい。また、第２節ではアウトソーシングが各国の労働市場に与える影響について分析した先行研究をサーベイしていきたい。
２．１ アウトソーシングに関連する理論・ターミノロジーのサーベイ
Feeenstra and Hanson (2001)によれば、アウトソーシングを「ある財の生産活動が２国、３国に分散して生産活動が行なわれること」としている。彼らが、アウトソーシングが熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に与える影響について分析する際にアウトソーシングの数値化を試みた。それは、輸入中間投入額を中間財額または非エネルギ中間財額で除したものである。輸入に注目し簡単にアウトソーシングを数値化し賃金格差に与える影響について分析してきた。しかし、ある多国籍企業のアウトソーシングを考える際、この定義では厳密ではない。例えば、日本から部品を持ち込み東アジアなどの低賃金国で組立てをする場合などもアウトソーシングと言える。この場合、輸入という要素以外にも、輸出という要素が入っているため輸入しか捉えていない彼らのアウトソーシングの定義ではこうしたアウトソーシングを把握することができない。
このため、アウトソーシングに関連して多くの研究者によってターミノロジーや理論の研究がなされている。以下ではこうした先行研究について考察する。
近年、経済のグローバル化の帰結として日本を含む東アジアで製造業の部品貿易が活発化している。また、企業レベルに視点を移してみても、１９８０年代のバブル期以降、日本の多国籍企業をはじめとして海外生産活動を急速に拡大させてきた。これにより、労働集約的な生産工程は、アジア各国を始めとする低賃金の国で生産されるようになり、各国から安価な工業製品の輸入が盛んに行なわれるようになった。このことによって、日系企業のコスト削減による企業の強みを発揮することができ、消費者にとってはより安価な製品を手に入れることができるようになり日本国内で見ると厚生水準は上がるはずである。しかしその反面、生産拠点の移行により地方を中心とする日本国内の産業空洞化の議論が巻き起こってきた。日本国内へのインパクトとして、非熟練労働者の労働需要を下げ賃金水準を押し下げる一方、高付加価値な生産工程に特化することによる熟練労働者の労働需要の増加により賃金水準を上げ、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差が広がっているかもしれない。また、非熟練労働者の需要が減少することにより多くの失業者が生まれているかもしれない。１９８０年以降、アメリカやイギリスなどの多くの先進国で熟練労働者と非熟練労働者との賃金格差が広がってきていることが、政治的に叫ばれその原因を解明しようとする研究が進められてきた。それらの研究では労働集約的な中間投入財の輸入などを代理変数としたアウトソーシングや、コンピュータ化などの偏向的技術進歩が重要な賃金格差や労働市場にインパクトをもたらす要素であるということが国際経済学の先行研究で多く結論付けられた。
当然、日本においても労働集約的な生産工程の海外シフトにより、熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や従業者数などの労働市場に影響を与えていることが予想される。日本の労働市場を解明し、アメリカやイギリスなどと同様にアウトソーシングが労働市場に与える影響を解明することは非常に重要である。しかし、日本においては賃金データの不備やアウトソーシングの代理変数の難しさにより同様の研究は非常に少ない。熟練労働者と非熟練労働者を、生産労働者と非生産労働者の区分で分析した日本における先行研究は筆者の知る限り存在しない。だが今回私は、厚生労働省実施の賃金構造基本統計調査の『賃金センサス』に未収録のデータを利用して産業中分類まで、生産労働者と管理・事務・技術労働者という枠組みで賃金データを手に入れることができた。そこで、本稿ではアウトソーシングが日本の熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差や熟練労働者比率などの労働市場に与える影響について分析する。
本研究における方法論はイギリスについて研究を行ったAnderton and Brenton (1998)に従うことにする。アウトソーシングの変数の取得方法についても同研究を参照とした。
本稿ではイギリスのAnderton and Brenton (1998)とは異なる次のような結論を得た。アウトソーシングの進展が日本の労働市場において熟練労働者と非熟練労働者の賃金格差に影響を与えているという有意な係数は推定されなかった。一方、被説明変数を、全労働者に占める熟練労働者数（熟練労働者比率）とした場合はアウトソーシングの進展が熟練労働者比率の上昇に影響を与えているという有意な係数が推定された。日本においては、グローバル化の帰結によるアウトソーシングの進展により、労働者の賃金よりもむしろ従業者数に影響を及ぼしているのである。今後、アウトソ
3
ーシング変数の工夫や偏向的技術進歩の変数の工夫により本研究の精緻化が望まれ一層の研究の重要性を示唆している。
日本では、あまりスペイン語に縁がないという人は多いことでしょう。スペイン語には、「名詞に性別がある」「形容詞が変化する」「動詞の変化が多い」など、日本語にはない難解な特徴がいろいろあるので、取っつきにくいと感じる人は多いのかもしれません。
でも、そのような難しいことはさておき、ここでは初心者の方にスペイン語に親しんでいただくために、すぐに使えるスペイン語の挨拶や自己紹介の簡単フレーズをご紹介します。スペイン語圏の人に会う機会があったら、ぜひ使ってみてくださいね。
スペイン語会話に欠かせない2つのフレーズ
会話する女性
スペイン語で会話をするにあたって、初めに2つのフレーズを覚えておく必要があります。1つめは、これが分からなければ、会話にならないほど重要なフレーズ「はい」と「いいえ」です。スペイン語では、「はい」と「いいえ」は”Sí”（スィ）と”No”（ノ）といいます。
そして2つめが、「～してください」という丁寧な言い方です。英語でいえば「Please」にあたる表現を、スペイン語では”por favor”（ポル ファボール）といいます。具体的には以下のような使い方をします。
「お水を1杯ください」
Agua, por favor. （アグア ポル ファボール）
今すぐ使えるスペイン語の挨拶
まずは、知っておくと便利なスペイン語で一番簡単な挨拶を2つ紹介します。時間を選ばずに使える便利な挨拶で、友人同士などの親しい間柄でよく使われます。
「やあ！」
¡Hola!（オラ）
「さよなら／またね！」
¡Chao!
“¡Hola!”は、英語の「Hi」や「Hello」にあたります。また、イタリア語の“Ciao”は会ったときと別れるときの両方で使われますが、スペイン語の“¡Chao!”は別れの際にのみに使います。
ただし、この2つはとてもくだけた印象を与える挨拶です。そのため、目上の人に対しては、くれぐれも次のような丁寧な挨拶をする必要があります。
「おはよう」
Buenos días.（ブエノス ディアス）
「こんにちは」
Buenas tardes.（ブエナス タルデス）
「こんばんは／おやすみなさい」
Buenas noches.（ブエナス ノーチェス）
“Bueno”は日本語で「良い」という意味で、直訳すると“Buenos dias”は「良い日」、“Buenas tardes”は「良い午後」、“Buenas noches”は「良い夜」という意味になります。
ちなみに、アルゼンチンの首都のブエノスアイレス（Buenos aires）は、直訳すると「良い空気」という意味なんです。
また、“Ciao”のほかにも、スペイン語には別れ際の挨拶がいろいろあります。
「さようなら」
Adiós.（アディオス）
「また明日」
Hasta mañana.（アスタ マニャーナ）
「またね！」
Hasta luego.（アスタ ルエゴ）
日本語の「さようなら」と同じように、“Adiós”もどちらかといえば改まった表現です。“o”にアクセント記号がついているので、“オ”の部分を強く「アディオス」と発音します。
“Hasta mañana”は翌日に必ず会う人に対して限定される挨拶ですが、“Hasta luego”は英語の「See you」のように、次にいつ会うかが決まっていなくても使える表現です。
また、日本語でいう「おやすみなさい」にも、“Buenas noches”以外の言い方があります。
「ゆっくり休んでね」
Que descanses.（ケ デスカンセス）
「いい夢をみてね」
Dulces sueños.（スェーニョス）
“Que descanses”は別れ際に使うフレーズです。相手をねぎらうニュアンスがあるので、日本語で言うと「お疲れ様」に近い言い方かもしれません。
“Dulces sueños”の“dulces”は「甘い」、“sueños”は「夢」という意味です。直訳すると「甘い夢を」となるので、恋人や家族などの特に親しい間柄の相手に使うとよいでしょう。
自己紹介で初対面の相手に使えるフレーズ
初めて会った相手に自己紹介をする際の、スタンダードなフレーズを紹介します。
「はじめまして」
¡Mucho gusto!（ムーチョ グスト）
「私の名前は○○です」
Soy Hanako.（ソイ ハナコ）
Me llamo Hanako.（メ ジャモ ハナコ）
「お会いできてうれしいです」
Encantado.（エンカンタード）～あなたが男性の場合
Encantada.（エンカンターダ）～あなたが女性の場合
「私はスペイン語を勉強中です」
Estudio español.（エストゥディオ エスパニョール）
“Soy～”は英語の「I am～」、“Me llamo～”は「My name is～」にあたります。意味的にはあまり違いはありませんが、“Soy～”の方が少しくだけた印象を与えるかもしれません。
知っておくと役立つ基本フレーズ
まずは、スペイン語でよく使われる基本的なフレーズを紹介します。
「ありがとう」
Gracias.（グラシアス）
「本当にありがとう」
Muchas gracias.（ムーチャス グラシアス）
「どういたしまして」
De nada.（デ ナーダ）
「ごめんなさい」
Lo siento.（ロ シエント）
“De nada”の「nada」は「何でもない」という意味なので、直訳すると「大したことではありません」となります。
次は、相手の調子をたずねる疑問形のフレーズを紹介します。主語を省略することが多いスペイン語は、通常の文章と疑問文の語順が変わらない場合があるので、語尾のイントネーションを上げることで疑問文であることを相手に伝えます。
「ご機嫌いかがですか？」
¿Qué tal?（ケ タール）
¿Cómo estás?（コモ エスタス）
“Como estas”は、親しい間柄の人に聞く場合に使われます。目上の人に尋ねる場合は、最後の“s”を付けずに「Como esta」となります。
また、相手から「調子はどう？」と聞かれたら、次のように答えましょう。
「とても調子がいいです」
Muy bien.（ムイ ビエーン）
「まぁまぁです」
Más o menos.（マッソ メノス）
「調子が悪いです」
Malo.（マーロ）
知っておくと便利な応用フレーズ
相手が日本語を話せるかどうか知りたい
相手に日本語を話せるかどうかを聞く場合は、次のようにフレーズを使います。
「日本語を話せますか？」
¿Habla japonés?（アブラ ハポネス）
反対に、相手から「スペイン語は話せますか？」と聞かれた場合、話せるなら胸を張って“Si”と答えます。残念ながら自信がないという場合は、次のように答えるとよいでしょう？
「少しだけ（話せます）」
Un Poco.（ウン ポコ）
「スペイン語をうまく話せません」
No hablo español bien.（ノ アブロ エスパニュール ビエン）
また、相手の言っている内容が分からない、聞き取りにくいという時には、次のように相手に伝えるとよいでしょう。
「分かりません」
No entiendo.（ノ エンティエンド）
「もう一度言ってください」
Otra vez,por favor.（オートラ ベス パルファ ボール）
相手の好みが知りたい・自分の好みを伝えたい
相手の好みを聞くときや、自分の好みを相手に伝える際は、ここで紹介するフレーズを使ってみましょう。例えば、フラメンコについて話をする場合は、次のようになります。
「私は○○が好きです」
Me gusta el flamenco.（メ グスタ エル フラメンコ）
「○○は好きですか？」
¿Te gusta el flamenco?（テ グスタ エル フラメンコ）
「私も好きです」
A mí también.（ア ミ タンビエン）
「はい、好きです／いいえ、好きではありません」
Sí, me gusta. （スィ メ グスタ）／No me gusta.（ノ メ グスタ）
また、相手に好意を伝える場合は、スペイン語では次のような2つの言い方があります。
「あなたを愛しています」
Te quiero.（テ キェロ）
Te amo.（テ アモ）
どちらも「愛してる」という同じ意味のフレーズです。
“Te amo”の「amo」は「愛」という意味ですが、“Te quiero”の「quiero」には「欲しい」という意味もあることから、「たまらなく愛している」という強い気持ちが込められているといえます。
President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.
President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
Convinced that the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:
1.The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
2.The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
3.Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
4.The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.
Having acknowledged that the U.S.-DPRK summit-the first in history-was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-on negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK summit.
President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new U.S.-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.
DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America
KIM JONG UN
Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
June 12, 2018
Sentosa Island
Singapore
President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held a first, historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.
President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive, in-depth, and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
Convinced that the establishment of new U.S.-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean Peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:
1.The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new U.S.-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity.
2.The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula.
3.Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.
4.The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.
Having acknowledged that the U.S.-DPRK summit-the first in history-was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulations in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-on negotiations, led by the U.S. Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the U.S.-DPRK summit.
President Donald J. Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new U.S.-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.
DONALD J. TRUMP
President of the United States of America
KIM JONG UN
Chairman of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea
June 12, 2018
Sentosa Island
Singapore
カツラっぽい人から接客されました。
不満は特にないのですが、カツラなのかカツラじゃないのか気になって仕方なかったので、そこの不動産屋はやめました。
2回ほど来店をして部屋を契約することが出来ました。
数多くの資料がでてきて最初戸惑いましたが、丁寧に説明をしてくれて大変参考になりました。
どこの不動産でも出てきて情報が本当に多いのでいろいろ比べたい方にはよいと思います。
全体的に親切な店員が多かったです。
担当者の方や別の方も詳しい説明などしてくれて好印象でした。
価格的に難しい条件でしたが納得いくお部屋が見つかりよかったです。
丁寧に対応していただけました！物件もたくさん見れて勉強になりました。
7月14日、宇都宮市文化会館で「稲川淳二の怪談ナイト」がツアー初日を迎えた。稲川が舞台を上手から下手へと歩きながら、観客一人ひとりに話しかけるように「ただいま」と手を振ると、満場の客席から「淳二～」「おかえり！」と歓声が上がる。
「8月で71歳になりますが、今年もこうして怪談を語れてありがたいです。怪談は昔から好きだけれど、仕事にするとは思わなかったので不思議ですね」
26年目を迎えた今年、「怪談ナイト」は全国54公演を予定。擬音を織り交ぜ、たたみかけるような語り口で観客を引き込んでいくのが稲川怪談の特徴だ。そもそも桑沢デザイン研究所を出て工業デザイナーになった稲川が、怪談を始めたきっかけは偶然の出来事だった。
「27歳の時でしたか、友人の結婚披露宴で司会をして大失敗したんです。でも、それが面白かったみたいでラジオ番組にスカウトされたんです」
数日後、ニッポン放送『オールナイトニッポン』のパーソナリティに抜擢された稲川は、独特の話術で人気を集めていく。やがて番組で披露した怪談が評判となり、リクエストされる機会が増えていった。芸能界での活躍の場は広がり、リアクション芸人としても一世を風靡したが、55歳で怪談に専念しようと決意する。
「1993年に初めて『怪談ナイト』を開催したら楽しくて。生前、山城新伍さんに『仕事を遊んじゃいけないけど、遊びが仕事になったらいいね』といわれていたこともあって、歳をとってテレビの仕事が減ったから怪談を、というのはお客様に対して失礼だから元気なうちに専念しようと思ったんです」
かくして怪談の語り部となったが、「いざやってみると疲れてボロボロです」と苦笑する。夏から秋とツアーで全国を回り、終われば翌年の準備に入る。毎年、オリジナルの新作怪談を発表するが、稲川が語るのは、現代社会のどこにでもありそうな身近な怖い話。全国に足を運び、地元の人に聞いた話を元に再取材して怪談を完成させる。
「真剣に取り組んでみると、次はもっといい仕事をしたいと思うから手が抜けません。私には怪談の師匠はいないし、習ったこともありません。原点はオフクロが聞かせてくれた怪談です」
戦後の娯楽が少ない時代、毎夜母が語る怪談は、稲川にとって身近な存在で、「日常そのもの」だった。
「東京でも夜は真っ暗。幽霊が出てもおかしくないんです。弟と並んで布団に入ると、私たちの間にお袋が座って『これはねぇ、私が子供の頃に本当にあった話なんだよ……』って、ぽつりぽつりと話してくれる。怖かったねぇ」
稲川の語り口は、母親から自然と習得したもの。聞いた怪談を学校で話すと、友達にせがまれるようになった。
「教室で『稲川君、怪談やって』と頼まれて、話すと喜んでくれた。女の子にモテました（笑い）。怪談は、人と人をつないでくれるんです」
怪談が人との縁を紡ぐという想いは、今も変わらない。
「毎年ライブに来てくれる人が大勢います。手紙をくれる男の子もいるし、昔はお母さんと一緒に来ていた女の子が、大きくなって結婚して、赤ちゃんを連れて来るんです。嬉しいですよ」
取材中、稲川は終始穏やかな笑顔で対応してくれた。彼の怪談には、ゾクゾクしつつも、どこか懐かしくホッとする安心感がある。それは、内側からあふれる温かい人情味によるのだろう。
5年前に難病で次男を亡くし、障害のある人への理解を深めたいと、講演やボランティア活動を行なう。そのなかには忘れられない出会いもあった。
「筋ジストロフィーの患者さんから、『ライブで怪談を聴くのが僕の夢です』と手紙をもらったことがありました。彼のいる施設に会いに行くと、とてもいい青年でね。怪談を語ったら、患者さんたちが喜んでくれました」
別れ際、青年から見事な切り絵をプレゼントされた。手を上手く動かせない彼が必死に作った絵を受け取った瞬間、手が震え、涙が止まらなかった。
「ただ怖い話をするのが怪談じゃない。彼の嬉しそうな顔が忘れられないし、怪談を後世に残していきたいと思ってね。最低でも30年は頑張ります（笑い）」
●いながわ・じゅんじ／1947年、東京都生まれ。怪談家。桑沢デザイン研究所卒業後、工業デザイナーとして活動。1976年にラジオ番組『オールナイトニッポン』（ニッポン放送）のパーソナリティを務め、番組内で披露した怪談が評判となる。1980年代はバラエティ番組で活躍したが、1993年から怪談ライブ『稲川淳二の怪談ナイト』に専念。26年目を迎えた今年は、46会場54公演の全国ツアーを開催中。
7月14日、宇都宮市文化会館で「稲川淳二の怪談ナイト」がツアー初日を迎えた。稲川が舞台を上手から下手へと歩きながら、観客一人ひとり飯に話しかけるように「ただいま」と手を振ると、満場の客席から「淳二～」「おかえり！」と歓声が上がる。
「8月で71歳になりますが、今年もこうして怪談を語れてありがたいです。怪談は昔から好きだけれど、仕事にするとは思わなかったので不思議ですね」
26年目を迎えた今年、「怪談ナイト」は全国54公演を予定。擬音を織り交ぜ、たたみかけるような語り口で観客を引き込んでいくのが稲川怪談の特徴だ。そもそも桑沢デザイン研究所を出て工業デザイナーになった稲川が、怪談を始めたきっかけは偶然の田出来事だった。
「27歳の時でしたか、友人の結婚披露宴で司会をして大失敗したんです。でも、それが面白かったみたいでラジオ番組にスカウトされたんです」
数日後、ニッポン放送『オールナイトニッポン』のパーソナリティに抜擢された稲川は、独特の話術で人気を集めていく。やがて番組で披露した怪談が評判となり、リクエストされる機会が増えていった。芸能界での活躍の場は広がり、リアクション芸人としても一世を風靡したが、55歳で怪談に専念しようと大決意する。
「1993年に初めて『怪談ナイト』を開催したら楽しくて。生前、山城新伍さんに『仕事を遊んじゃいけないけど、遊びが仕事になったらいいね』といわれていたこともあって、歳をとってテレビの仕事が減ったから怪談を、というのはお客様に対して失礼だから元気なうちに専念しようと思ったんです」
かくして怪談の語り部となったが、「いざやってみると疲れてボロボロです」と苦笑する。夏から秋とツアーで全国を回り、終われば翌年の準備に入る。毎年、オリジナルの新作怪談を発表するが、稲川が語るのは、現代社会のどこにでもありそうな身近な怖い話。全国樹に足を運び、地元の人に聞いた話を元に再取材して怪談を完成させる。
生まれたばかりの障害を持つわが子を殺めようとし、思いとどまったタレントがいる。怪談でおなじみの稲川淳二氏である。ラジオDJを皮切りに、テレビのレポーターやお笑い芸人として一世を風靡し、その後、怪談の語り手として人気を得る。一方、通産省(当時)のグッドデザイン賞の受賞経験もあるデザイナーでもある。そのマルチタレントが、なぜ、わが子を手にかけようとしたのか? 昨年末には前立腺がん(初期)がわかり、今年2月に手術したばかり。全国35ヵ所をめぐる「怪談ナイト」ツアーの真っ最中で超多忙の中、話を聞いた。
*
タレントとして一番忙しかったのは、30代から40代ですね。ラジオのレギュラーや、テレビの全国ネットの出演で、週に28本くらい出てました。休みもなく、働いてました。長男(俳優の貴洋氏)なんか、遊んでやる暇もなかった。
’77年に結婚して同じ年に長男が、’86年に次男が生まれました。ちょうど30代の忙しい頃です。次男の出生直後に医者が「稲川さん、実はまだ赤ん坊になってない」って言うんですよ。「なんで?」って聞いたら、泣いてないと。「泣いたら赤ん坊になるんですね」って念を押したら、そのうち泣いた。
ところが女房が「この子、少しおかしい。黒眼が上にあがっちゃって、白眼ばかりむいてる」って涙ぐんでる。それであちこち医者に診てもらったんですが、「別に問題はない」って言われたんですよ。ところが女房は「そんなはずはない。絶対これは問題がある」って言うもんですから、別の病院で診てもらったら、クルーゾン病だった。
〈クルーゾン病は、先天性の頭蓋骨の形態異常で、発話ができず、外見的には顔面の歪みや眼球突出などの特徴を持つ。鼻咽腔発育不全による呼吸障害などを伴い、水頭症を合併することもある。患者によって症状は異なり、稲川氏の次男の場合、視覚、聴覚、知能にも障害があった〉
生後4ヵ月で手術することになったんですが、電話口でそのことを告げる女房は、泣き声でした。普段泣かない、あの気の強い人がですよ。「手術をしても、もしかすると助からないかもしれない。助かったとしても一般の人と同じ生活はできないかもしれない」っていうようなことを言ったんですよ。
目の前がぱーっと白くなってね。あの言い方だと、死ぬか、あとは障害を持って生きるしかないじゃないですか。
これは違う。現実じゃない。自分の子供にこんなことがあっちゃいけないと思ったんですよね。その頃、クルーゾン病は、10代半ばぐらいまでしか生きられないっていう情報しかなかった。長い付き大合いはできないな、その間、大事にしてあげようかな、早くに逝くんだったら、あまり情をかけないほうが幸せなのか樹な、そんなことを考えました。
あまり言うと女房に怒られるけど、次男は目も耳も弱い。目と耳がやられて飯田しまったら、闇の中ですよ。知恵だってやられていますからね。頭が回らないところへもってきて、目が見えなくて耳が聞こえなかったら、生きていく意味があるのかと考えてしまう。女房だって、いつまでも若くいられるわけじゃないし。
できないことがいっぱいある次男は、かわいそうではあるんですが、もうそういうふうには考えないようにしています。奴に失礼だしね。
私、たまに講演を頼まれて行ったりすることがあるんですけど、「1億円あったら何をする」っていうような話は、間違いだって言うんですよ。五体が揃っている人間が、あれが欲しい、これが欲しいなんて言うんじゃないよって。そうでしょ。手がない人は何億出そうが手がほしい。そっからスタートですもん。苦労があったり悲しみがあったりするから、幸せがわかるわけじゃないですか。
次男が5歳のときに女房と別居しちゃってからは、彼とも接する機会はないです。長男から聞くんだけど、次男は楽に生活してるらしい。生活実習所には通ってるけど、世間(社会)には出てないから、上司にいじめられたとか、プレッシャーとかもない。周りの人が優しくて思いやりがあるから、そこにいられるわけですよね。世間を見ることはないだろうけども、それなりに幸せなら、それでいいんじゃないかな。
もう長い間、次男には会ってません。長男が近況を教えてくれるだけなんですよ。会ったって、たぶん、向こうは私が父親だってわからないでしょう。女房のことは一緒にいるから、わかるんですよね。長く別居中とはいえ、離婚はしませんよ。子供たちがかわいそうでしょ。
というのは、私もあと5年で70なんですよ。大事な友達やなんかが随分亡くなったりして、さみしい思いをしているけど、いつか自分もあちらに行くわけだ。
そのときにね、子供が迷うようなことがないように、何かしたいなと思って。子供に苦労かけないで人生を終わらせる方法。それが何なのかは、わからないですけどね。
次男がいるから、仕事も頑張れます。今は一生懸命生きていかないとっていう気があるから、時間を無駄にしたくない。一生懸命生きてる子供に悪いから。誰が生きていい、誰が死んでいい、なんてことはないんです。私のせがれも、要らない命じゃないんです。
私が怪談ツアーを20年もできたのも、きっと子供のことがあったからですよ。仕事に逃げてるわけじゃないんですが、頑張れますよね。これからも喜んでくれる人のために、怪談をやろうと思ってます。
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at superstores is convenient for the
many women who work during the week. The corner shop is now empty during the
day and people tend to use their local shops only in emergencies, if they
have ‘forgotten’ to buy something.
Corner shops are no longer profitable in the face of competition from the
‘giants.’ Britain could now be described as a nation of multiple retailers
(some with over 200 stores nationwide). Who could hope to survive and compete
against their computerized distribution systems, enormous choice and cheap
prices? Supporters of the corner shop say they prefer to pay higher prices
because they get a friendlier and more personal service. Others shop there
because they have no choice ― the elderly or disabled, people without cars
and young mothers with small children for whom a trip to a superstore would
take a lot of planning and effort ― but they are in the minority.
Unfortunately for small shopkeepers, the majority of customers prefer speed
and choice to the personal service of their local shop.
different towns, each branch selling the same goods and offering cheaper
prices than the local corner shop. The smaller shops closed as these large
‘chains’ of shops took over, Customers liked the chains as they were
self-service, offered a wider range of goods and introduced credit cards for
customers. People in Britain now like shopping at a ‘name’ they know, because
they can be sure of the quality.
The very large retailers have such an enormous number of stores that they
are called multiple retailers. During the ‘economic boom’ of the 1980s the
multiple retailers developed superstores, offering an even wider choice of
goods at even cheaper prices, on the edge of towns where giant shopping
complexes* often grew up around them.
Now that most British people are car-owners they are prepared to travel
further to shop, and like the choice offered by big stores. Most people are
now paid monthly and prefer to buy in bulk (large quantities) once a month.
The self-service and late-night shopping at
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
In trying to define “Internationalization,” we must first (a)dispose of one
serious misconception. Many Japanese think it means the Westernization of
Japanese life styles and values. They quite rightly see no need for this and
feel that Japan has already (1)shown itself to be the most open country in the
world to foreign influences. In earlier times, Japanese drank deeply of
Chinese culture, and in recent years Western cultural influences have poured
into the land. For example,(A)Japanese are now as familiar with Western music
as with their own, and they probably have as great a mastery of it as do most
of the peoples of the Occident. Foreign cultural influences, such as Chinese
painting and Western literature, have greatly enriched Japan and have
certainly made it culturally as international as any nation in the world.
Japan has also been fully open to foreign technology and (b)as a result has
now become a world leader in science and technology. The same is true of its
political and social institutions as well as its urban, industrialized life
styles. Although there is much that is distinctively Japanese in the way people
live, the general patterns of modern city life in Japan are basically much like
( 1 ) of life in any of the advanced (2)democracies in the world.
It should be obvious to anyone that Japan is (c)unquestionably a very
international country. No one could argue that it must make its patterns of
trade more international or that it needs to make its culture or its life style
less Japanese and more Western. (B)If Japan were to lose its Japanese identity,
this would be a great loss not only for it but for the whole world. Japan’s
cultural distinctiveness enriches the world, and no one should wish to see it
disappear like some endangered species of animal. That certainly cannot be the
meaning of the internationalization that people are talking about. They
clearly have something quite different in mind.
When I speak of internationalization, I do not mean the changing of external
life styles ( 2 ) the development of internal new attitudes. Our motivations
must be in step with the conditions of the time. For the two to be *out of
kilter with each other is a recipe for disaster, as Germany and Japan
discovered in the Second World (3)War.
World conditions are constantly changing; and attitudes must change with
them. If they do not, catastrophe (d)is bound to follow. The attitude that now
is most in need of change is the way we view the relationship of ourselves and
our countries to other lands. Not long ago it was possible to see ourselves
simply as citizens of one country and we regarded all other nations ( 3 )
potential enemies or at least hostile rivals. Such attitudes are dangerously
out of date in a world in which the weapons of military destruction have become
so terrible that their full use would destroy civilization; and international
economic relations have become so complex and interdependent that no country
can stand alone. We must see ourselves as citizens of a world community of
nations which cooperate with one another for their common good. For Japan,
which has become one of the economic giants of the world, these new attitudes
have to include a willingness to play a ( 4 ) larger role in world affairs than
it has in the past. This is the true meaning of internationalization and world
citizenship.
(注) out of kilter with each other: not working well together
knoAwllledogreg.anTihsemysdothifsrobmytthreyilnogwltyospoalrvaemetchieumprtooblheummsantshatth２ecy学ref期aatce髙e.３thＳeiＡr a(tnh1oe)Ttaawhgkaeaeyrintsdshtiterraeaicpngtahirotoabnmsa.tehaceWciaeludemm,,iigsihftt(o2rfs)iaberyaxsrattrmhepradlet,veeta.rhnsrdWoehuasegsnhaanttdhhrieetssheuenlpnctro,isumwnmiitomtedsirivffeiioterdowraligretadasnri(bnsaeem)hda”bvutimhoparst. ITaenlhiisemmuaigplngasaer,tsaitmho,eancs.lieauBamu(dt4sa)dw秩iahtpy序ttdsのooe(感(sb3)覚t)hm.iosTdhihifasyptopihretgnesa?nebiTneshvhmeiarvboeiunxommprpeeincbnttegsc”tsahhurroseocegukugilthtao,rtitrtlhiyie;akelpiataarlnadldmoeeeocsrtirhunoemorr,t tpaahArnelatlmieecrocirripoguaramtn’eiis”snmtsathshehseausvmhteportcitikhao.ilns”Bmu秩tothv,序aet.fのoiTr感thte覚chai,snshtcovhocienksrtyisenexrurpeeevacesotosnant,aiitsotsnheepvoaif(td5hre).encgcouelllai(rsciit)oinesr.evIetathliess atotdhuhaetipswathp秩(apbtr序)otpのhrei感aotb覚ejetachcttethsiiarotinen:ennivlatiobsrcloaeentnsmivenitngrhtoe.tnmhmIeentnoootbrjamdedeecvartan,ntctopeousriutstrhu.veiiinAvrgned,kintteo,hvweeolrroeyrdfgaglaneeni,eimisatnmlogmmlfuuerssaottrmnftiaitnktode. Ataacnhnqieoumtiaharleniirtnmrgaailsetsshmuimoospdnteikfinaoioswensl.suemdiApgntteisimoiabnslehsoaar(vcg6iau)noeprsr,dsoo;ctertidyhfuiiransengdootnfwolhtyer(ni7ba)eilcctoaairunsrsdeedceittrshrcetooryhveeehrleaeirvdmeritonoraatbsbieeyonwnsur:esointonghfg,e coosortrnadatteviirono,iundeaartniyhneemoax.bpsjeFtecorcrtataistgthhiwetoinslcalomouefrrserreme,eaagistunohlne,asyrttiachttoeuiiloehdnsuan.ntreeyIvd,feraoanrlnioimtcamahlataleatsvoomdbiojidvedsictnansgo,rteopgbuusjrleesancursteescottwuhhirealsmtle, ehraDrsiofrtfisoetrowezraniirtgtez(caudogn)gstnitilozeimtasekpbveeiucdmiietpenssscepiasonr”steio(ttcith)ohenimnlegeassn.sstBhpouerrtiemrdheiitcahgtsohasdbeuslrmebp.aytniiwomhnaislc.sh”thThaheveyepcdaaernvaedmleeotcpeiecutdm sttsehhpenreoscseuiagsamhlgeiiwzhvweeiadcy(hs8te)thndhesueeeypsawcraaarnmnenicsoniitgugmofhnot(lr,9y)ahddveoeoaetirsedicantngc,eerttrohaorrsrotpsueu,g,rhbssuutmtieetslc.tlain,Hnugamanasatnsiswsceusilmpolpalttvaieesoenptrsror,ouobcrtlhshe.rmosTuhigenh mgpruuSoseictsnescdhieuanrvgaeelsalhnoadsfdpretaecrciivoeaagslsnmtiauznssidttnogecrroerenovtroiifdneeulknainclmoeliwsynlaeastdogiglaoevine.n.spTtrhoetbyhleecimorsulaodsfs(us1um0rp)vti分iovan類ls,,すetるahrrlooyubjghehucmttashn:se nifwonertsio;egzchefttnrs,ugigdrtoiosorudencdtt,oiose(nna1,ot1w)s,o熟preiしecndeoて,,t;aいtnhwdるeoosdvooarroinne.ottuiT.sehaesTbyhloeekfynoecsrwotuontlnohdetes;m,sabpkteeehacesjitufvsdiagcreiqmoueuanstlthisprtleiaaaebntsoteusont.finsTmgihuzeodeyr,, dkintecwhheosw.Tthoeymakkneewsthrouwcttuorheusn:t,tehnotws,tohsuetcsu,rcea(g1e2s),fopoidt,s,clnoetthsi,ngf,irsehpellatceers.,Tahnedy
knewhowtomaintainthesocial(13)contractthatguaranteedpoliticalorderamanrdArlihlaogoweftatonhdimsatihknentoarwiulnleedtsgheeprwosahosicbi(ia1tl5i)no実grd用iemr的prb[oy実perr際esb的peeh]caなtviionkrgn.otwhleed(g1e4)instsiktiultlisonthoatf, hcehuoevmdleaeprndeysdi,snsilotitlukhvaeeetiiartonhnine.mearplHvrsuoo,mubashlnaessdmysasotcnoeqlfmuyisaprusreradvacitavfilauclllal.lthckAehnnsoodeiwclwseeekdiogmlfeulssrtestbphe(or1noc6sul)ege主shar観rtertq的ihuaaiなltreatdknhndetooweflrimerredosegttre eatlhniedAmsnietinrmsaaaktiliinsloilnnhsgaa,.vnednBout(rth1e7du)inspstaacimsulessesdkdeiosntrcdhreciomrpfitotisnivucetbiojzleetachnttegihuveyaemog,.uenpTgarhrae(ocyest)eic,coautllhdekynowonawclyolyueolpdfgdeerd.nfeoomtTroomndsaettshrbcearmit.riidbon,e fWiohtuoetrtnlaietknxheeaesmcpbthlioaernd,fglesaiegcnchosatnetssitnitahsnnetoalaypt(pi1armn8oed)a.潜cshw在iinf的gtldなyanigenenrermferylo,amtwithohonesteionsppiuotzseoi,
Review Exercises
WfuetWuedrihefufmieasrnsufnrhloaimvkeeolteyvhoetlroveabdneiimmnoatrloesqo(ud2id)tietnhsattnrhaawnthgaewtebhecaiosnogkasl.roeu(ar1d)yfWohhoaadtpepvaeennrdedh２waei学panpr期etnchs髙leoi３tpnhaＳeststhＡ..e (Ofh4tou)hrHmaeuamnrmnayauktnlnihsauninsgnagugrulaeaolwgvhte(eah3.te)fstaToerchexaevicieesttrpos,teixfawotarhnrcee.aetou.hWrneendBreuiactnireatepsresyiarashrszaypoyprosaseltgsoegtegmrhnieetcas,amlsloilasvobctewsunserienimsutopss,so,irtottaoryna,dnectvaaoesm(nmmiabuinlnzo)diancr-pfareretexeaeiftiseuantrrbeeeoonnuiutcrst.e Wbeosiwoeynruednhswsdua,samyant(dnah5sse)oharthaarhoseneagtmheezooqiracunetarzelhiianlsnsty,c,dosaemtwvmhrSeoaiolncnuoghtwpehiei,tdAnhmbhaeeabrcbdiiaiircutgdassesnesotntbiglhivaertendhAgsamwuyniaastgzwthoeientmawhrisbattirihhmineigilhvftatosorcrbtafellouasestst.tihfgaaAantclnaedool,nfsepbraoiaefgcmcioroonsewuegd.r aAopprvseoeAtdrlrrullaecailt(pgai6hto)itinpnvcreooisftmm.hpoaeautirrerissp,osrnoitumbhaneetdte-wapenrerienomldaacutlhciiivmenopsgradinaesdrn”dhluethmsoeasnawirvhniofincocgarhlmaiahbztuaiimtlvaieino)tsntishebaisnes.lwolBanisugmti,otntehchdaeeviehnvoospwcoehadaml.te YciienotmtBt,michuralendniisakc(neatitabhmiluaok)mln,a.wnsbosMyur,ostlrttdeeth,mheieeywnyvhfheiodancrovhtmehnahaootanutisgvahhemba,oitvslheptieetrmiylhenattanohcpgoosumdm,aamgktoieehns”edywa(ii7sut)ctshioenmhtcpuotamirapvhinreusomlodsaanuonnucsgwenudiuatstnghhdeete:mhtrahsbiteitsraiardnsnasditromhaniaergtlre.. lsbdiieuframMdfrmaesnonrinyaensnngbdt.icrafhHdlruuslomm,maa(nntwsshch.aiat)cTlhhustesowraeoerdheaatbvryymeepohesbusstumeliavoylneftsr(-.as8iloB)nuuiontntdchntsaeah:lrtilsesc.s,a,il”salnsntd,ohtessotuchncreghiseo,asnslw(yhaisdcidmha)inlogbafeyrtriebtnacybaiilbnleevstoo,wrleveaaent BalsetuyastIbstnlietarmbntt.igwhruBo,daisograofednnsdgwi,htatisnhecedeahlchfohautrrmhieeaenqnrddusiiiastvrctheiqiesdunruilgeareufleaiodrsrnnheoliatanbsetglhe,eairrs.awenomdraelaiddntuwiaienldxgeils:seytssasst,peaamlwi,ohnnwegcirsrteiyhadseaonnttdehheiapsa(hr9out)lnsdgieenqrucpeacllnarlccy”e.e o(aosv1fsoe0unr)noapdtolaserlrsaarlihlrsdyeeotlaeh.lssmltA-rnnaiduonmtdnpigonnironttbrtaoomongtanthela.lttbyiShioierhnmrdai.svpleaaaTtrnhatldeyimr,shenuia.mdnnaoinhunsubg,m.laesnT-oshul,enaadyoeusstriepnigugnmtlegenmtpsaserkgoeamsrveeinsdtfeeinostsfteaesdoofnuilnunydrttwsohhueeacnrnh dCrsaeiolsfAmiifsedfeoeorwnnreientnt,ithwahi,bhatuubshtmlaidarnnieda(lfllaoeaetlcnedtgeds)udas,egodaesisrida,milwpfetlfochyeutrelsbed.yns”tobl,nieTgsheteavoeebfnwnliheanwigittstetoih-onictngtrelhotleewhlinesrepwdSsehaocesnnirpgeaFessrr.arhnoAoecnfwid,osbrcbiaoortsdCahharemlbeaiiawyfr,aodhstrsahonvaniinetga abithnnedoffYuaoohgnruuhtenmsgattnhwhbeheiloramddneeesgcxvuhpehaaelganroeviipesmammereasnenttpbanyeloorlrfwiymhoaifdplculrhlooylfdtcuhosscinouestnbrg-rco.seolponlTentethgrdii,otslbiayviiesttsyhlpe(ielkfeeof)fttahtsrewieidteqbtuaeoibfrtbietlnthigydenpigwefb”hfriseacoerihfqenun,(hetu.negmcvaee)snn sapwehisernBhinguootrtdnth”oseroiymmcnaeralirtlvtehyeie.rcayafSlifirremepswiaetllrmaifordoenlidwtyf,h,f”yseewhraohuerlemnsdnac.neotssfMhaeaalnycilyqfsauebor.iierredexysiolsuhatnan.gvg;euMaootgstoehtelarbycwe,qisustoienrdletuyhrteimhynaeglinereavbseiorrsnedglnsesdaisurtirninivgtnoe.g Fceomnasildeesrraebmleainvasroinagtlioesns,isufnloeusnsdtbheetwyeaernet(hehso)ngwisthofthdeifmfealreenthorsmpeoncei.esAnodf
birds,morethanbetweendifferentlanguages.Inaddition,NilsaoesnuwgnaduZasef,gaaelis.aronSmldeoymwehklataoitknmaglep-isokd,,eitsaththeaefnelcnfioefgtehecattflpfercasoaisdnruc(,peaidcrro)bomytopvabewlrrohewidsicenhwvgiemrtaaahcklreotksshiselsotpimhebeneicttrtetidaormcpscau,oclomyafamsruaonwfbbiioocthotahumttmiltianehong,en insinpLgeaAheintctgl,husi,anageknIefdfb(woelartejstwasev)beeotntrotonhloeamibnyntkgsaauetikalhnafegp,eaocwoomieuranrritetgeaii.snnsogTtmahaednettaesdhyeisomnfkagoatfskileanimxpgkauoenahklbatioshneoedxm.scinoiniTmtggheehetmsteiolfnmuyitenr.sdlssotbveceuea-tnnltyepgrrroiaocnposconesoseafdlol.af DcOasaerantlnceaieucssspthtoisonvtlreiisalnflogurrusoacoienefsdostto.shhroeaHnvrtogehwnemeioavntmdeeeerdlso,,esdxuitucoAhahusilsasfalhotdoarhvvbeeeicor-torsturoyiranstrghesesamhrsei,onp”fbt,ewtaeiahsnfnedownaneitcegtohaaurtrcreiesktnpesgtodhano.ilsepej,,u”Itdmfogsoeuhorgieufgsrrerosiehmtdcueemedatanshnta.e BhmraiooblrsIdeitn,.stssdphooeofrrnhtota,thp,esh,ufbmoularlanknsegxouuafasmgepmelalenwa,kanissgniudana,nggeiaotdffdohtiarhtseimouabnsneauyalaulmtaloiiyredes.bepoCeufonrunpraaottsssuehirsilepetnohwtraasnadcinbstoiictrvudissitstyus.
Hi
Have you seen the nerve pain breakthrough that has doctors utterly baffled?
It’s an all-natural solutionfrom my friends at NerveRenew. This formula contains ingredients clinically tested to help diminish the numbness, tingling, and burning of nerve pain.
This is a whole new way to fight nerve pain — unlike anything I’ve ever seen before.
If you can’t do your favorite activities, sleep, or even put on a pair of socks without wincing in pain… then please click the link
To Your Best Health
Fredrick S. Gammon ,
先日お世話になりました。担当の方はとても丁寧で、気配りの出来る方でした。土地勘の無い場所のお部屋をご案内して頂いたのですが、アパートから駅までの行き方を3ルート教えてくださり、車で3往復して下さいました。
また、周辺の地図を作って頂き、スーパーやコンビニの場所、郵便局や美味しい飲食店までマーカーで印を付けてくださったり、きめ細やかな対応を頂きました。
これまで引越しの経験が２度ありましたが、こんなに安心してお部屋を決めたことはありませんでした。
同じ名前の方が、色々な不動産会社にネガティブな書き込みをしていますが、個人的にはとても良い印象を受けました。
あまりにチャラすぎる
自分のところが出している部屋以外を勧めようとしない
内覧中もずっと文句ばかり
正直お勧めしません
メールや対応がとても雑。
契約前に物件紹介をされるところまでは多少丁寧だが、それも人による。担当がいきなり変わって、一から説明、もしくはこの前の物件が紹介されない。
最初はエレベーターまで見送りに来たのに、それ以降は担当だった人も挨拶すらしない。
おまけに鍵を管理会社に取りに行ったら、契約書を送っていない。暑い中往復三時間かけて行ったのに、さらに1時間待たされた。
今後はこの不動産には行かない。
ネットからならまずメールが来て担当者がわかります。
担当者が〇村だった場合は、見送るか担当者を替えてもらうべきです。
中〇は客にタメ語、1回目の内覧で契約しなければ
｢無駄でしたね｣
｢これお金にならないんすよ｣
非常識過ぎる
何か言うと
｢じゃあ契約してくれるんすか？｣
と恐喝紛いの言動
ここ自体全体的にそういう雰囲気なので本当にお勧めしませんが、せめて担当者が〇村だった場合は担当者変更を申し出ましょう。
付け焼き刃の知識で丸め込もうとしかしてきません。
あまりにチャラすぎる
自分のところが出している部屋以外を勧めようとしない
内覧中もずっと文句ばかり
正直お勧めしません
チャラチャラチャラチャラチャラチャラ
先日契約してきました。
古い物件を気に入ってしまい、担当の方から耐震基準？等についてたくさん教えていただき、たくさん心配していただきましたが、どう比較してもその物件が良く（フルリノベーションでとてもキレイでした）、結局決めさせていただきました。
担当の方は嫌がるわけではないけどとても心配そうにしてくれました。
が、なんと、、、
契約時には物件についてとんでも無い量のデータを出して調べつくしてくれていました。
耐震補強の有無、時期等もあり、結構時間がかかったと思います。
どこかに気がかりなデータがあったら説得しようとしてくれてたみたいです。
おかげで安心して入居することができました。
いろいろここに書いてあることを見ましたが（契約後ですが・・・）、少なくとも「今は」違うのではないでしょうか。
中村さん（お名前出して本当にすみません）、本当にありがとうございました。
ここの批評は全部す〇ぞ×の仕業だからな！(ガチャッ)
少し前ですが物件見学に訪問した感想です。
ベテランが多く落ち着いた雰囲気でした。
対応良かったのでまた相談をしに行こうと思います。
今回初めての引越しで利用をしました。
最初は緊張しましたが話しやすいスタッフの方で安心でした。ガツガツした感じも無く後日契約前に2度目の見学にも行きましたが快く引き受けてくれました。思っていたよりも楽しい部屋探しになり満足です。
突然の訪問にも関わらず素早く対応をしていただけました。
担当の方の印象もよく、土地勘も全くなかったですが物件を見に行くときに駅前や周辺の案内も分かりやすく助かりました。
総じて良かったと思います。
いろいろ話を聞いてくれて本当に丁寧でした。希望の沿線で物件も見つかり一安心です。
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。
投稿した口コミを削除したい
マンションノートではご投稿いただく全ての口コミについて、ガイドラインに基づいた目視による審査を行い、「誹謗中傷の含まれる口コミ」や「公序良俗に反する口コミ」が掲載されないような運営を行っております。
このため、サイトに掲載されている口コミは全て基本的にマンションノートの掲載基準を満たしたものであり、削除のご依頼があったとしても、原則としてはご依頼に応じかねますので、あらかじめご了承ください。
万が一、「誹謗中傷の含まれる口コミ」や「公序良俗に反する口コミ」を見つけた場合はご連絡ください。
口コミが読まれた回数について
口コミが読まれた回数はマンションノートの各ページで口コミが表示される毎に計測されます。計測をより公正に行うため、同一ブラウザーで表示された回数を一定のルールで除外するなどの工夫をしています。
なお、この計測は2015年7月24日から実施しており、それ以前に投稿を行った方に関しては、表示される口コミが読まれた回数が実際よりも少ない可能性があります。
《万叶集》是日本最早的诗歌总集，成立年限大家普遍认为是在8世纪后半期由大伴家持最终整理而成。称为日本古典中的古典，为日本民族精神之家园，是日本文学之源头。也被尊为日本的《诗经》，日本上古社会的“百科全书”。在了解日本文化方面具有决定意义。
《万叶集》共二十卷，共收录各种和歌4500余首。其中短歌约有4207首，长歌约265首，旋头歌约62首，连歌1首，佛足石歌1首。其中多首附有精美的汉文序、跋文字。
短歌是日本和歌的一种形式，相对长歌而言。一般共31拍，5句。排列顺序为五七五七七。7世纪前后形成并固定下来。
《万叶集》中的文字有的直接使用汉语词汇、佛教术语等，在汉字的音、义、形的运用及训读上造诣颇深。其中特别值得注意的是使用一字一音借音方法的万叶假名，它更成为了《万叶集》的代表性文字，也是后来创造的平假名、片假名的母体。
诗歌风格整体上真诚、质朴，表现手法直率、简练。被称为“诚”的文学。
あまりこの後味が良い話ではないんですがね……
もうどのくらいか前になりますが、声帯模写で有名なSさんという方と、仕事でご一緒だったんです。
それは九州の大分へ向かう飛行機の中で、二人で話しをしていたんです。
そしたらSさんが「俺、妙なもの見たんだよ」って言うんですよ。
それは、このSさんが仕事で、地方に行った時の話しだって言うんですよね。
時間があったもんで、宿でごろんと横になっていた。
ところがなんだか妙な感じがしたって言うんですよね。
その妙な感じというのが、何となく誰かが傍に居るような感じがした……って言うんですよ。
そんな遅い時間じゃないんですよ？
それでなんだろう？気のせいかなぁって思って、一応辺りを見たんですけどもちろん誰もいやしない。
でも確かになんだか嫌な感じがするんだよなぁって、何気なく障子の方を見てみたら、影が映っているって言うんですよ。
それが妙な影なんで、なんだろうあの影？と思った。
外にある木が映っているとかそういう感じじゃないんですよね。
そしてしばらくぼーっと見ているうちに、あらーっと思った。
それ、大きな人の顔だって言うんですよ。
かなり大きな人の顔だ。
でも何となくバランスがおかしい。
でもどう見たってそれは人の顔になっているんですよ。
でもそんな影が映るわけないんで、これは影が映っているんじゃない、そこには顔があるんだ。
でもこんなでかい顔はありえない。
なんだろうこれは？って思って、やけに気持ちが悪かった。
淳ちゃん、ただそれだけなんだけど……そしてその顔、すっと消えたんだよ……なんだか嫌な気分がしてね……
なんであんなもの見たんだろうなぁ？夢じゃないよ、もちろん。
そんなことがあったんだよねぇ……
ってSさんが話をしてくれたんですよ。
その後なんですよね。「Sさんが付き合っている女性に、包丁でめった刺しにされて亡くなった」って事件があったのは。
でね、それがなんだか引っかかるんですよ。
Sponsored Link
それからしばらく経ちまして、ラジオの番組をしていた時の事です。私はゲストコメンテーターで出ていたんですよ。
まぁ色々相談事を受けるんですが、どうしても怪談っぽい話が多くなるんですよね。
そんな時に７０いくつかのおじいちゃんなんですがね、夜にフッと起きたならば、自分のすぐ近くでもって大きな顔を見たって言うんですよ。
この話しを聞きながら、私は、あれ？って思った。
これが割と頻繁に見るようになったって言うんですよね。
廊下に出ると、廊下に大きな顔があるんですって言うんです。
終いには、トイレに行くとトイレに大きな顔が待っているって言うんです。
そしてその顔が真っ赤な大きな顔で、自分の目の前にボーンとあるんだ。
怖いというより、気持ち悪いというより、妙に嫌な感じがしたって言うんです。
その言い方、私がかつてSさんに聞いた同じような言い方をするんですよ。
妙に怖くなりましてね……
それで、ちょっと待って下さいよ、と。
「もしかすると失礼ですが、ご自分の身の回りで持って、腹が立つことだとか、何か気にしていることってあるんじゃないですか？」
って聞いたんです。
そしたら、「えぇ実はあるんです」って言うんです。
それで私もう一回聞いたんですよ。
「それは失礼ですけど、ご家族とか、ご自身の身の回りにすごく近いことじゃないですか？」って。
そしたら、「えぇそうなんです。」っていうんです。
話は進んでいくんですけど、なかなか話しの核心を言えないんですよね。
それで結果的には、局にも了承を得て、
「じゃあ番組が終わった後電話でもって少しお話しましょうね」
と電話でお話することになったんです。
そうしたならばこの方は、土地の事や財産の事でお兄さんと、揉めているっていうんです。
お兄さんと言っても、お兄さんもだいぶいい年なんですよ？
それでそのお兄さんと揉めてるって言うんですよ。
「実は稲川さん、その顔を見てからなんですがね、私本当に兄を殺そうと思って、包丁まで用意してたんですよ」
ってこの方が言ったんです。
それで私が、
「こんなことは赤の他人である私が言うのは申し訳ないんだけど……実は私の知っている芸人さんで、Sさんという方が居ましてね……その方、包丁でめった刺しにされて亡くなったんですよ」
って言ったんです。
「そうですか……そうなんですか……あの包丁捨てますよ」
って言ってましたよ。
その後の話しは何も聞いていませんが、この『大きな顔』には何かあるようですね。
自分の身近で何か腹立たしい事や、自分の身近で何かあった時に、その大きな顔って現れてくるんでしょうかね？
それはもしかすると、自分の心かもしれませんよね。
こんな妙な話、聞かされたことがあります。
Robin, Marie-Hélène
Analyse et modélisation des effets des pratiques culturales et de la situation de production sur les dégâts causés par les bioagresseurs des cultures. Application au blé d’hiver (Analysis and modelling of the effects of cropping practices and the production situation on injuries caused by pests on crops. Application to winter wheat.)
07 Février 2013.
Rakotonindraina, Toky Fanambinana
Analyse et modélisation des effets des pratiques culturales sur les épidémies de mildiou de la pomme de terre. Adaptation du modèle SIPPOM (Simulator for Integrated Pathogen POpulation Management) au pathosystème (Analysis and modelling of the effects of cropping practices on epidemics of potato late blight. Adaptation of the model SIPPOM (Simulator for Integrated Pathogen POpulation Management) to the pathosystem.)
14 Décembre 2012.
Lanini, Sandra
Analyse et modélisation des transferts de masse et de chaleur au sein des décharges d’ordures ménagères
10 Avril 1998.
Deslandes, Vincent
Analyse et Optimisation du Partage de Spectre dans les Systèmes Mobiles Intégrés Satellite et Terrestre (Analysis and Optimization of Spectrum Sharing in Integrated Satellite and Terrestrial Mobile Systems.)
27 Juin 2012.
Datas, Adrien
Analyse et simulation de mouvements d’atteinte contraints en position et orientation pour un humanoïde de synthèse (Analysis and simulation of human reaching motion with position and rotation constraints for humanoid synthesis.)
09 Juillet 2013.
Trajin, Baptiste
Analyse et traitement de grandeurs électriques pour la détection et le diagnostic de défauts mécaniques dans les entraînements asynchrones. Application à la surveillance des roulements à billes (Detection and diagnostics of faults in permanent magnet synchronous machines by signal processing of control data.)
01 Décembre 2009.
Ayed, Hamdi
Analyse expérimentale et modélisation du transfert de matière et du mélange dans une couche cisaillée à bulles. Démarche pour l’optimisation des réacteurs diphasiques en traitement de l’eau (Experimental analysis and modelling on mass transfer and mixing in a bubbly shear layer. Approach for the optimization of bubbly reactors in water treatment.)
26 Février 2007.
Gross, Hélène
Analyse managériale des rapports entre nature des outils et action pour la gestion agri-environnementale : Le cas de la gestion durable des ressources pastorales (Manager analysis of relationships between nature of tools and action in agri-environnemental management : The case of sustainable management of pastoral resources.)
01 Juillet 2011.
Moula, Guillaume
Analyse multi-échelle d’un écoulement réactif gaz-particule en lit fluidisé dense (Multiscale analysis of a reactive gas-particle dense fluidized bed.)
29 Juin 2012.
Rafat, Seyed Abbas
Analyse of an experiment of divergent selection for fleece weight in french angora rabbits (Analyse d’une expérience de sélection divergente pour le poids total de la toison chez le lapin angora.)
02 Juillet 2007.
Tamborindeguy, Cécilia
Analyse par les approches de la génomique fonctionnelle de l’induction de la polarité embryonnaire chez le tournesol (Analysis of embryo polarity induction in sunflower by functional genomics.)
16 Décembre 2004.
Haddadi, Parham
Analyse physiologique et génétique combinées pour améliorer le contenu en huile et la qualité du tournesol soumis à la sécheresse (Physiological and genetic analysis to improve quality and quantity of sunflower seed oil under drought stress.)
12 Juillet 2010.
El Akoury, Rajaa
Analyse physique des effets de rotation de paroi en écoulements transitionnels et modélisation d’écoulements turbulents autour de structures portantes (Physical analysis of the wall rotation effects in transitional flows and modelling of turbulent flows around lifting bodies.)
17 Décembre 2007.
Perrin, Rodolphe
Analyse physique et modélisation d’écoulements incompressibles instationnaires turbulents autour d’un cylindre circulaire à grand nombre de Reynolds (Physical analysis and modelisation of unsteady incompressible turbulent flows past a circular cylinder at high Reynolds number.)
05 Juillet 2005.
Martinat, Guillaume
Analyse physique et modélisation d’écoulements instationnaires turbulents autour de profils oscillants et d’éoliennes (Physical analysis and prediction of turbulent flows around oscillating aerodynamic configurations : application in wind-engine devices.)
13 Novembre 2007.
Kroll-Rabotin, Jean-Sébastien
Analyse physique et modélisation de la séparation centrifuge de particules ultrafines en film fluant : application au séparateur industriel Falcon (Physical analysis and modelling of centrifuge separation of ultrafine particles in a flowing film: application to the Falcon concentrator.)
03 Décembre 2010.
Bauer, Henri
Analyse pire cas de flux hétérogènes dans un réseau embarqué avion (Heterogeneous flows worst case analysis in avionics embedded networks.)
04 Octobre 2011.
Adnan, Muhammad
Analyse pire cas exact du réseau AFDX (Exact worst-case communication delay analysis of AFDX network.)
21 Novembre 2013.
Molette, Caroline
Analyse protéomique d’alterations de propriétés sensorielles et technologiques de la viande de dinde. (Alterations of sensory and technological properties in turkey meat : a proteomic analysis.)
27 Septembre 2004.
Montenon, Alaric
Analyse, mutualisation et optimisation par la commande de la consommation énergétique des héliostats autonomes des centrales à concentration solaire (Analysis, mutualization and optimization of the energy consumption of autonomous heliostats by the control for solar concentrated power plants.)
21 Mai 2013.
Touzi, Jihed
Aide à la conception de Système d’Information Collaboratif , support de l’interopérabilité des entreprises (Design of the collaborative information system (CIS), support of enterprises interoperability.)
09 Novembre 2007.
Codet de Boisse, Aurélien
Aide à la décision exploitant de la connaissance générale et contextuelle : application à la maintenance d’hélicoptère (Decision support using contextual and general knowledge: application to helicopter maintenance.)
05 Février 2013.
Galasso, François
Aide à la planification dans les chaînes logistiques en présence de demande flexible
23 Avril 2007.
Chau, Ming
Algorithmes Parallèles Asynchrones pour la Simulation Numérique (Parallel Asynchronous Algorithms in Numerical Simulation.)
03 Novembre 2005.
Gailly, Frédéric
Alimentation électrique d’un site isolé à partir d’un générateur photovoltaïque associé à un tandem électrolyseur/pile à combustible (batterie H2/O2) (Stand-Alone Power System based on photovoltaic generator and fuel cell/electrolyser association (H2/O2 battery).)
18 Juillet 2011.
Dauptain, Antoine
Allumage des moteurs fuseés cryotechniques (Ignition of cryotechnic rocket engines.)
16 Juin 2006.
Wagner, Vincent
Amélioration de la productivité en usinage d’un titane réfractaire : le Ti5553 (Improving productivity in machining of refractory titanium : the Ti5553.)
11 Mars 2011.
Pitiot, Paul
Amélioration des techniques d’optimisation combinatoire par retour d’expérience dans le cadre de la sélection de scénarios de Produit/Projet (Improvement of combinatorial optimization using experience feedback mechanism.)
25 Mai 2009.
Benhamed, Imane
Amélioration par ajout d’un métal de transition de la régénération in situ d’un charbon actif par oxydation catalytique (Improvement of oxidative regeneration of activated carbon by transition metal addition (Catalytic Wet Air Oxidation and H2O2 promoted CWAO).)
10 Avril 2015.
Mozzani, Nathanael
Amorçage de fissures de corrosion sous contrainte du Zircaloy-4 recristallisé en milieu méthanol iodé (Stress corrosion cracks initiation of recrystallized Zircaloy-4 in iodine-methanol solutions.)
17 Juin 2013.
Prosperi, Brice
Analyse de l’entraînement d’air induit par le développement instationnaire d’un spray conique creux. Application à l’injection directe essence (Analysis of gas entrainment induced by the unsteady development of an hollow-cone spray. Application to high pressure gasoline direct injection.)
30 Mai 2008.
Mostafa, Mahmoud
Analyse de sécurité et QoS dans les réseaux à contraintes temporelles (Analysis of security and QoS in networks with time constraints.)
10 Novembre 2011.
Amberg, Virginie
Analyse de scènes péri-urbaines à partir d’images radar haute résolution. Application à l’extraction semi-automatique du réseau routier (Analysis of peri-urban scene from high resolution radar images. Application to almost automatic extraction of roads.)
10 Novembre 2005.
Pandya, Nishant
Analyse de sensibilité paramétrique d’un outil de modélisation des conséquences de scénarios d’accidents. Application à la dispersion atmosphérique de rejets avec le logiciel Phast (Parametric sensitivity analysis of a modelling tool for consequence estimation. Application to the atmospheric dispersion of accidental releases with the Phast software.)
01 Décembre 2009.
Delay, Guillaume
Analyse des écoulements transitoires dans les systèmes d’injection directe essence. Effets sur l’entraînement d’air instationnaire du spray (Analysis of transient flows in gasoline direct injection fuel systems. Effects on spray instantaneous air entrainment.)
23 Mars 2005.
Kammoun, Bochra
Analyse des interactions génotype x environnement x conduite culturale de peuplement bi-spécifique de cultures associées de blé dur et de légumineuses à graines, à des fins de choix variétal et d’optimisation de leurs itinéraires techniques (Analysis of genotype-environment -crop management interactions of durum wheat-grain legume intercrops for optimizing cultivar choice and cropping system design.)
18 Décembre 2014.
Gondrand, Cécile
Analyse des transferts d’eau dans les micropiles à combustible (Analysis of water transfers in micro fuel cells.)
06 Novembre 2006.
Bedoussac, Laurent
Analyse du fonctionnement des performances des associations blé dur-pois d’hiver et blé dur-féverole d’hiver pour la conception d’itinéraires techniques adaptés à différents objectifs de production en systèmes bas-intrants (Analysis of the functioning and efficiency of durum wheat – winter pea and durum wheat – winter faba bean intercrops in order to design cropping systems.)
29 Septembre 2009.
Ben, Cécile
Analyse du transcriptome lors de l’embryogenèse précoce chez le Tournesol (Transcriptome analysis during early embryogenesis in sunflower.)
15 Septembre 2005.
Grieu, Jérôme
Analyse et évaluation de techniques de commutation Ethernet pour l’interconnexion des systèmes avioniques (Study and evaluation of the switched Ethernet technology for avionic systems interconnection.)
24 Septembre 2004.
Gaha, Hafedh
Analyse et Conception des Antennes Fractales : applications aux Télécommunications Large Bande (Fractal antennae analysis and design : application to large-band telecommunication systems.)
18 Juillet 2007.
Vitale, Eric
Analyse et contrôle des écoulements instationnaires décollés (Analyse and control of unsteady separated flow.)
11 Mai 2005.
Do Hoang, Quynh Anh
Analyse et justification de la sécurité de systèmes robotiques en interaction physique avec l’humain (Safety analysis and justification of human-robot interactions.)
17 Mars 2015.
Rebaï, Mehdi
Analyse et modélisation de l’écoulement et du colmatage d’un filtre à air plissé (Analysis and modelisation of the flow and the clogging of an air pleated filter.)
13 Novembre 2007.
Casadebaig, Pierre
Analyse et modélisation de l’interaction génotype – environnement – conduite de culture : application au tournesol (Helianthus annuus L.) (Analysing and modelling genotype-by-environment interaction : application to sunflower crop.)
04 Avril 2008.
Hanhoun, Mary
Analyse et modélisation de la précipitation de struvite : vers le traitement d’effluents aqueux industriels (Analysis and modelling of struvite precipitation: towards the treatment of industrial waste-water discharges.)
28 Juin 2011.
Mesnier, Raphaël
Étude des liens entre la texture et les propriétés de diffusion de molécules modèles dans des milieux poreux bimodaux (Link between the texture and the diffusion properties of probe molecules in biporous media.)
13 Mars 2008.
Boisier, Grégory
Nouvelles voies d’inhibition de la corrosion de l’alliage d’aluminium 2024 plus respectueuses de l’environnement : applications aux couches d’anodisation colmatées (Environmentally friendly corrosion inhibition of 2024 aluminium alloy : applications to hydrothermally sealed anodic films.)
19 Septembre 2008.
Ho, Anh Tai
Application des techniques multiporteuses de type OFDM pour les futurs systèmes de télécommunications par satellite (Multicarrier transmission techniques (OFDM) for future satellite communications systems.)
30 Mars 2009.
Borsa, Ramona
Elaboration de poudres et de dépôts de phosphates de calcium silicatés à usage de biomatériaux (Elaboration of silicated calcium phosphates powders and coatings for use as biomaterials.)
12 Novembre 2008.
Eadmusik, Sunee
Effets de la vitesse de glycolyse post mortem du muscle de dinde : une analyse biochimique et protéomique (Effect of post mortem glycolysis rate on turkey muscle : biochemic and proteomic approaches.)
24 Novembre 2008.
Kimse, Moussa
Caractérisation de l’écosystème cæcal et santé digestive du lapin : contrôle nutritionnel et interaction avec la levure probiotique saccharomyces cerevisiae (Characterization of the caecal ecosystem and digestive health in rabbit: nutritional control and interaction with the probiotic yeast saccharomyces cerevisiae.)
23 Février 2009.
Gao, Yuan
Stratégies de modélisation et protection vis à vis des décharges électrostatiques (ESD) adaptées aux exigences de la norme du composant chargé (CDM) (Simulation, realisation and characterization of ESD protection structures adapted to the CDM dischange.)
13 Février 2009.
Belkadi, Abdelkrim
Modélisation de la matière avec l’équation SAFT pour la prédiction des propriétés thermodynamiques des fluides complexes à travers simulis thermodynamics (SAFT modelling for the prediction of complex fluids thermodynamic properties within simulis thermodynamic property server.)
30 Septembre 2008.
Garduno Barrera, David Rafael
A differentiated quality of service oriented multimedia multicast protocol (Un protocole multimedia multipoint à qualité de service differenciée.)
08 Avril 2005.
Gillani, Sayed Tamiz ud din
A life cycle assessment and process system engineering integrated approach for sustainability : application to environmental evaluation of biofuel production (Approche intégrée en analyse de cycle de vie et génie des procèdes pour la durabilité : application à l’évaluation environnementale du système de production de biocarburants.)
26 Septembre 2013.
Falese, Mario
A study of the effects of bifurcations in swirling flows using Large Eddy Simulation and mesh adaptation (Etude du phénomène de bifurcation des écoulements vrillés par la Simulation aux Grandes Échelles et l’adaptation de maillage.)
07 Octobre 2013.
Ferreira Lago, Rafael
A study on block flexible iterative solvers with applications to Earth imaging problem in geophysics (Étude de méthodes itératives par bloc avec application à l’imagerie sismique en géophysique.)
13 Juin 2013.
Braak, Etienne
Aération pour le décolmatage dans les bioréacteurs à membranes immergées pour le traitement des eaux usées : impact sur le milieu biologique et la filtration (Aeration for fouling limitation in submerged membrane bioreactors for wastewater treatment : impact on biological media and filtration.)
08 Novembre 2012.
Tsafack Menessong, Noëlline
Affiner la recherche | Nouvelle recherche | Suivant 100
Texte intégral/Titre dans une autre langue/Titre principal la thèse/Résumé/Mots-clés/Auteur(s)/Directeur de thèse/Département ou laboratoire/Date contient TOUS les mots “principal”. Résultats classés Par titre.
Affichage des résultats 1 de 100 à 962. Durée de la recherche : 0s.
[Index last built at: mar, 17 mai 2016 15:36:17 EST]
Cespedes Payret, Carlos
Dinámica de la materia orgánica y de algunos parámetros fisicoquímicos en Molisoles, en la conversión de una pradera a cultivo forestal en la región de Piedras Coloradas-Algorta (URUGUAY)
09 Novembre 2007.
Le, Xuan Kham
Variabilité des processus hydrologiques entrant dans le mécanisme de la genèse des crues sur les bassins à cinétique rapide (Variability of hydrological processes involved in flash floods on small watersheds.)
02 Octobre 2008.
Bidon, Stéphanie
Estimation et détection en milieu non-homogène, application au traitement spatio-temporel adaptatif (Estimation and detection in non-homogeneous environment, application to space-time adaptive processing.)
14 Octobre 2008.
Lam, Minh-Phuong
Modélisation 3D du transport particulaire asynchrone en simple et double continuum matrice-fractures : application au stockage de déchets nucléaires (3D asynchronous particle tracking in single ansd dual continuum matrix-fractures : application to nuclear waste storage.)
05 Juin 2008.
Lavedrine, Jacques
Simulations aux grandes échelles de l’écoulement diphasique dans des modèles d’injecteur de moteurs aéronautiques (Large-Eddy simulations of the two-phase flow in models of injectors of aeronautical engines.)
02 Juin 2008.
Delehelle, Adao
Étude d’un concept innovant d’actionneur électromécanique linéaire à effets magnétique et piézoélectrique en vue d’applications dans le domaine des commandes de vol (A novel concept of an electromechanical linear actuator combining magnetic and piezielectric effects for aeronautical applications.)
25 Juin 2008.
Bursztyka, Julian
Métabolisme du bisphénol A, de la vinchlozoline et de la génistéine dans les systèmes biologiques utilisés pour étudier les perturbateurs endocriniens : conséquences en terme de toxicité (Metabolism of bisphenol A, vinclozolin and genistein in biological systems used for testing endocrine disruptors : consequences in term of toxicity.)
21 Janvier 2008.
Tozlovanu, Mariana
Évaluation du risque de contamination alimentaire en mycotoxines néphrotoxiques et cancérogènes (notamment l’ochratoxine A) : validation de biomarqueurs d’exposition et d’effet (Risk assessment of food contaminated by nephrotoxic and carcinogenic mycotoxins (mainly ochratoxin A) : validation of biomarkers of exposure and effect.)
03 Juillet 2008.
Diez Medina, Rafael
Alimentation de puissance d’une lampe exciplexe à décharge à barrière diélectrique, en vue du contrôle du rayonnement (Power supply for dielectric barrier discharge exciplex lamp, for radiation control purpose.)
16 Octobre 2008.
Ferré, Pierre
Etude des lésions musculaires iatrogènes: Méthodes non invasives d’évaluation quantitative et mécanismes physiopathologiques (Injection site muscle damage : non-invasive quantitative evaluation methods and pathophysiological mechanisms.)
05 Novembre 2004.
Moldoveanu, Cristian-Emil
Simulation des grandes échelles de tourbillons longitudinaux soumis à une turbulence extérieure intense (Large eddy simulation of longitudinal vortices submitted to an intense external turbulence.)
18 Décembre 2007.
Quinton, Jean-Charles
Coordination implicite d’interactions sensorimotrices comme fondement de la cognition (Implicit coordination of sensorimotor interactions as a cornerstone of cognition.)
14 Novembre 2008.
Benmachou, Kader
Etude et modélisation du colmatage d’un filtre plissé (Study and modelling of the clogging of a pleated filter.)
11 Mars 2005.
Akin, Huberson
Evolution du pH pendant la fermentation alcoolique de moûts de raisins : modélisation et interprétation métabolique (Evolution of the pH during the alcoholic fermentation of grapes musts : modelisation and metabolic interpretation.)
10 Mars 2008.
Thalmensy, Hervé
Emulation de réseaux au niveau IP pour l’expérimentation de services et de protocoles de communication. Application aux réseaux satellites (An IP level network emulation solution for services and protocols evaluation applied on satellite networks.)
09 Novembre 2007.
Suleiman, Maha
Conception d’un capteur optoélectronique par interférométrie à réto-injection optique pour la démodulation des signaux de fibres optiques à réseaux de Bragg (FBG-based dynamic strain sensors demodulated by self-mixing interferometry.)
11 Décembre 2008.
Defaÿ, François
Commande prédictive directe d’un convertisseur multicellulaire triphasé pour une application de filtrage actif (A direct predictive control of a three-cell flying capacitor inverter : applied to an active power filtering operation.)
04 Décembre 2008.
Bourguet, Rémi
Analyse physique et modélisation d’écoulements turbulents instationnaires compressibles autour de surfaces portantes par approches statistiques haute-fidélité et de dimension réduite dans le contexte de l’interaction fluide-structure. (Physical analysis and modelling of compressible turbulent unsteady flows around airfoils by high-fidelity and low-dimensional statistical approaches in fluid-structure interaction context.)
03 Décembre 2008.
Srisuwan, Nakarin
Propriétés inhibitrices d’un mélange d’amines grasses et de sébaçate de sodium vis-à-vis de la corrosion d’un acier au carbone (Properties of the mixed inhibition of fatty amines and sodium sebacate vis a vis the corrosion of carbon steel.)
27 Juin 2008.
Pourrut, Bertrand
Implication du stress oxydatif dans la toxicité du plomb sur une plante modèle, Vicia faba (Oxidative stress implication in lead toxicity on a model plant, Vicia Fabia.)
04 Juillet 2008.
Bessière, Hélène
Assimilation de données variationnelle pour la modélisation hydrologique distribuée des crues à cinétique rapide (Variational data assimilation for distributed hydrological modelling of flash floods.)
18 Décembre 2008.
Hankache, Walid
Gestion optimisée de l’énergie électrique d’un groupe électrogène hybride à pile à combustible (Optimized electric power management in a fuel cell hybrid powertrain.)
16 Décembre 2010.
Résultats pour Recherche simple
Affiner la recherche | Nouvelle recherche | Suivant 100
Texte intégral/Titre dans une autre langue/Titre principal la thèse/Résumé/Mots-clés/Auteur(s)/Directeur de thèse/Département ou laboratoire/Date contient TOUS les mots “principal”. Résultats classés Par titre.
Affichage des résultats 1 de 100 à 962. Durée de la recherche : 0s.
[Index last built at: mar, 17 mai 2016 15:36:17 EST]
Cespedes Payret, Carlos
Dinámica de la materia orgánica y de algunos parámetros fisicoquímicos en Molisoles, en la conversión de una pradera a cultivo forestal en la región de Piedras Coloradas-Algorta (URUGUAY)
09 Novembre 2007.
Le, Xuan Kham
Variabilité des processus hydrologiques entrant dans le mécanisme de la genèse des crues sur les bassins à cinétique rapide (Variability of hydrological processes involved in flash floods on small watersheds.)
02 Octobre 2008.
Bidon, Stéphanie
Estimation et détection en milieu non-homogène, application au traitement spatio-temporel adaptatif (Estimation and detection in non-homogeneous environment, application to space-time adaptive processing.)
14 Octobre 2008.
Lam, Minh-Phuong
Modélisation 3D du transport particulaire asynchrone en simple et double continuum matrice-fractures : application au stockage de déchets nucléaires (3D asynchronous particle tracking in single ansd dual continuum matrix-fractures : application to nuclear waste storage.)
05 Juin 2008.
Lavedrine, Jacques
Simulations aux grandes échelles de l’écoulement diphasique dans des modèles d’injecteur de moteurs aéronautiques (Large-Eddy simulations of the two-phase flow in models of injectors of aeronautical engines.)
02 Juin 2008.
Delehelle, Adao
Étude d’un concept innovant d’actionneur électromécanique linéaire à effets magnétique et piézoélectrique en vue d’applications dans le domaine des commandes de vol (A novel concept of an electromechanical linear actuator combining magnetic and piezielectric effects for aeronautical applications.)
25 Juin 2008.
Bursztyka, Julian
Métabolisme du bisphénol A, de la vinchlozoline et de la génistéine dans les systèmes biologiques utilisés pour étudier les perturbateurs endocriniens : conséquences en terme de toxicité (Metabolism of bisphenol A, vinclozolin and genistein in biological systems used for testing endocrine disruptors : consequences in term of toxicity.)
21 Janvier 2008.
Tozlovanu, Mariana
Évaluation du risque de contamination alimentaire en mycotoxines néphrotoxiques et cancérogènes (notamment l’ochratoxine A) : validation de biomarqueurs d’exposition et d’effet (Risk assessment of food contaminated by nephrotoxic and carcinogenic mycotoxins (mainly ochratoxin A) : validation of biomarkers of exposure and effect.)
03 Juillet 2008.
Diez Medina, Rafael
Alimentation de puissance d’une lampe exciplexe à décharge à barrière diélectrique, en vue du contrôle du rayonnement (Power supply for dielectric barrier discharge exciplex lamp, for radiation control purpose.)
16 Octobre 2008.
Ferré, Pierre
Etude des lésions musculaires iatrogènes: Méthodes non invasives d’évaluation quantitative et mécanismes physiopathologiques (Injection site muscle damage : non-invasive quantitative evaluation methods and pathophysiological mechanisms.)
05 Novembre 2004.
Moldoveanu, Cristian-Emil
Simulation des grandes échelles de tourbillons longitudinaux soumis à une turbulence extérieure intense (Large eddy simulation of longitudinal vortices submitted to an intense external turbulence.)
18 Décembre 2007.
Quinton, Jean-Charles
Coordination implicite d’interactions sensorimotrices comme fondement de la cognition (Implicit coordination of sensorimotor interactions as a cornerstone of cognition.)
14 Novembre 2008.
Benmachou, Kader
Etude et modélisation du colmatage d’un filtre plissé (Study and modelling of the clogging of a pleated filter.)
11 Mars 2005.
Akin, Huberson
Evolution du pH pendant la fermentation alcoolique de moûts de raisins : modélisation et interprétation métabolique (Evolution of the pH during the alcoholic fermentation of grapes musts : modelisation and metabolic interpretation.)
10 Mars 2008.
Thalmensy, Hervé
Emulation de réseaux au niveau IP pour l’expérimentation de services et de protocoles de communication. Application aux réseaux satellites (An IP level network emulation solution for services and protocols evaluation applied on satellite networks.)
09 Novembre 2007.
Suleiman, Maha
Conception d’un capteur optoélectronique par interférométrie à réto-injection optique pour la démodulation des signaux de fibres optiques à réseaux de Bragg (FBG-based dynamic strain sensors demodulated by self-mixing interferometry.)
11 Décembre 2008.
Defaÿ, François
Commande prédictive directe d’un convertisseur multicellulaire triphasé pour une application de filtrage actif (A direct predictive control of a three-cell flying capacitor inverter : applied to an active power filtering operation.)
04 Décembre 2008.
Bourguet, Rémi
Analyse physique et modélisation d’écoulements turbulents instationnaires compressibles autour de surfaces portantes par approches statistiques haute-fidélité et de dimension réduite dans le contexte de l’interaction fluide-structure. (Physical analysis and modelling of compressible turbulent unsteady flows around airfoils by high-fidelity and low-dimensional statistical approaches in fluid-structure interaction context.)
03 Décembre 2008.
Srisuwan, Nakarin
Propriétés inhibitrices d’un mélange d’amines grasses et de sébaçate de sodium vis-à-vis de la corrosion d’un acier au carbone (Properties of the mixed inhibition of fatty amines and sodium sebacate vis a vis the corrosion of carbon steel.)
27 Juin 2008.
Pourrut, Bertrand
Implication du stress oxydatif dans la toxicité du plomb sur une plante modèle, Vicia faba (Oxidative stress implication in lead toxicity on a model plant, Vicia Fabia.)
04 Juillet 2008.
Bessière, Hélène
Assimilation de données variationnelle pour la modélisation hydrologique distribuée des crues à cinétique rapide (Variational data assimilation for distributed hydrological modelling of flash floods.)
18 Décembre 2008.
Hankache, Walid
Gestion optimisée de l’énergie électrique d’un groupe électrogène hybride à pile à combustible (Optimized electric power management in a fuel cell hybrid powertrain.)
16 Décembre 2008.
とても満足いくお部屋が見つかりました。ありがとうございました。
お話がすごく面白かったです（笑）！春から仕事頑張ります！
訪問したときの対応は早いが、それ以降の電話やメールの対応がとても遅い
引っ越し予定日を伝えたのに契約の連絡がなかなか来なくて焦る
メモ
・敬語を使わない
・社員同士で雑談
・部屋決めを急かしてくる
・平気で嘘をつく
人殺し
今回初めて利用されていただきました。
仕事の異動で急な引っ越しでしたが、スピーディで的確に対応してくれたのがとてもありがたかったです。
この度は大変助かりました。ありがとうございます！
客従業員に次々手を出す堕胎強要男
エリアメールとは、省庁など公的機関からエクストリーム・スポーツ参加資格が与えられた人に送るメールである。受信した端末を持っている人はその場で競技に参加することになっている。
Wikipedia
ユーモア欠落症患者のために、ウィキペディアの専門家気取りたちが「エリアメール」の項目を執筆しています。
目次 [非表示]
1 概要
2 参加資格
3 ルール
4 得点
5 脚注
6 関連項目
概要[編集]
いつ何が送られてくるかわからない。
ある時、人々が過ごしていると突然災害が起こったり、あれが飛ばされたりと思わぬ非常事態が起こることがある。それらを未然に防ぐために国は特定の人にどれだけ適切な対処が出来るかを試すための競技として抜き打ちで行うことにしている。
参加資格[編集]
エリアメールを受信できる端末(スマートフォン など)を持っている人持っていない人は何が起ころうと参加出来ない。
ルール[編集]
メールを受信したら、まずどうするか考える。
適切な対処方法であれば、審査員から加点され、不適切であれば減点となる。
強制参加なので、1回でも断ると以降参加不可なる。
得点[編集]
メールの内容によるが、大まかには以下の通りである。
地震の時玄関のドアや窓を開けて出入り口を確保する。(+1)
コンロの火を止める(0)
家が壊れないように外に出て建物を抑える。(危険なので-5)
何もしない。(-10)
テレビをつけてNHKにチャンネルを合わせる[1]。(+5) ←ここ重要
とりあえずネット上で実況する。(-10)
気象に関する特別警報が発表された時長靴を用意する。(+1)
戸建ての場合は避難し、マンションなどの場合はその場にいる。(+1)
大雨や台風に立ち向かう。(-5)
家が壊れないように外に出て建物を抑える。(危険なので-5)
テレビをつけてNHKにチャンネルを合わせる[2]。(+5) ←ここ重要
とりあえずネット上で実況する。(-10)
電力がひっ迫した時
滅多に起こらないので大した得点は期待できないのが特徴。
アンサイクロペディアの閲覧・執筆をあきらめる。(+10)
それでも電気をどんどん使う。(-10)
何もしない。(+1)
あれが飛んできた時とりあえず屋内に避難。(+1)
あれに攻撃する。(+20)
とりあえずネット上で実況する。(-10)
他の方が書いているのと同じ、元ホストのような方が担当でした。
とある物件で内覧の時間を3分ほどしか貰えず、やたらと急かされました。理由を尋ねると「外に停めた車の駐禁を切られてしまうので、モタモタされると困る」とのこと……。内覧なんてみんな2、3分で終わらせますよーと言われましたが、まあそんなわけないですね。
色々な意味で信用できず後日お断りの電話を入れたところ、叩きつけるように無言で電話を切られました。
こんなお店でも他サイトの口コミではかなり優良店のように語られているので、物件選びに不慣れな学生さんや新社会人が空気に流されて無理やり契約させられていないか、とても心配です。
以前こちらの管理のお部屋に入居しました。入居当時からエアコンからカビの臭いがキツくつけられず隣からはテレビの騒音、すべて対応してもらえずに泣く泣く３ヶ月で退去しました
信用できませんね
やめた方がいいです
エリアのエステートだから良い会社に決まってます！
内見の際靴で上がる、汚いからと雨戸を開けない、家賃交渉すると言ったのにしない。期日が迫ってたので仕方なく決めましたがもう2度と利用したくありません。
他の人も言っているように態度が最悪に悪かった。基本的に語尾が「〜っすよ」であり、また話し方もかなり上から、接客中に他の社員と雑談をする、接客中にいきなり席を外されたと思ったらタバコの匂いをさせながら帰ってきた等、物件以前の問題だった。
その場で断るのも怖かったので後日電話で丁寧に断ると何も言わずに電話を勢いよく切られた。断って良かったと心から思った。
契約済みの物件をそのまま掲載しており(その後他社への問い合わせで知った)、その部屋がまだあるのかを尋ねても明確に答えずに、ひたすら店へ来ることを進める。対応は、大変ぞんざい。他の方も言っていたがまさしくチャラい。正直、最初の電話で相談に出向く気が失せた。
電話が何度もくるのでやんわり断ったが、その理由をしつこく聞いてきて、最後には投げつけるように電話を切られ、ただただ気分が悪い。
とにかく全体的にチャラい。
いかにも『契約取るまで調子良い事しか言わない不動産屋』という感じで、客を金としか思ってないのが伝わる。
都合の悪い事は伝えず、バレると悪びれもせずに言い訳を並べる。
ちなみに隣で接客してた他の客にも契約に何か不備があったらしく説明を求めていたが、元ホストみたいな異様にテンションの高い話し方の担当が若い女性客相手に素人でも疑問を抱くような適当な言い訳で言いくるめてた。
少なくともここの営業を見る限り皆同じような感じなので、ここの経営者自体がはマトモではないのだろうと感じた。
採寸データはめちゃくちゃ。
契約についても約束を守らない。
少なくとも信頼できる会社ではない。
総じて対応は良くない。物件を探せば良いと思っている。そういう会社。もう利用しません。
担当の対応がとても良かった。
いっぱい不動産屋にいってみて、はじめてよかったと思える引越しだったと思う。
内見の際はこちらの要望にも快く応えてくれ、知識も豊富だと感じた。
しかし、自分で県の資料を確認したところ、検討していた物件の所在地が
土砂災害警戒区域であることがわかった。
営業の方に確認すると、そのことを知らなかった様子。
「マンションタイプなので基礎はしっかりしているはず」という根拠のない返答が返ってきた。
横浜は土砂災害警戒区域の多い地域であるし、
契約を取りたいのはわかるが、対応に誠意を感じられなかった。