Read What is a language, and write a short essay (about 750 words)

Read What is a language, and write a short (about 750 words) summarizing the arguments they give in support of their cla - Essay Example Within modern linguistic theory, claiming that a language is rule-managed is to maintain that it can be described in terms of grammar which is a set of rules (Smith and Wilson 332). Grammar has two major roles; separating grammatical from incorrect sentences and providing explanation of each grammatical sentence indicating how it should be pronounced and what it depicts (Smith and Wilson 333). Speakers of a language habitually behave as if their language was rule-governed yet not all speakers of the same language possess same set rules. For each speaker, there is a right and a wrong way of constructing and understanding sentences. This can neither be explained exclusively in terms of customs nor are habits, since the case novel utterances, produced and comprehended without having been heard before (Smith and Wilson 333). It can also not be explained solely in terms of convention or social agreement as each speaker has varying methods of construction and understanding which he shares with no one else (Smith and Wilson 334). Rule system can easily be created and operated by one individual such as, cases of children learning their first language and that of adults with idiosyncratic speech patterns (Smith and Wilson 339). ... The grammar that a speaker actually possesses will depend, at least in part, on the utterances he has heard in the past-mainly as a child learning language for the first time.Since each speaker will have heard different set of utterances, it is not surprising that he comes to possess a slightly different grammar from those of people around him (Smith and Wilson 333). Strictly speaking, in spite of the miscellany of the utterances of which speakers are exposed in learning their language, Smith and Wilson argue that there seems to be incredible similarity in grammars which result from learning process (333). The linguistic knowledge that speakers have is unconscious knowledge. The work of a linguist is to devise explicitly conscious grammatical conventions that speakers are acquainted with. The distinction between rule-governed regularities and fortuitous patterns in language is usually by significant generalization and accidental generalizations (Smith and Wilson 334). Accidental gene ralizations occur by chance while significant are those attained after operation of rules; thus, the search for linguistic rules has two aspects. One is the search for patterns and second is the rejection of those patterns which are considered accidental (Smith and Wilson 335). According to a study by Noam Chomsky, human beings are inherently disposed to learn certain varieties of language (Smith and Wilson 336). In other words, the languages that actually exist are the ones that children are subjected to learn. This is supported further by two facts: first, that human languages exhibit noteworthy similarities; second, children follow remarkable parallel routes to

Goethe’s Faust Essay Example for Free

Goethe’s Faust Essay Scene vii of Faust ii act v takes place in a steep, rocky side of an unspecified mountain. The scene is dominated by female characters and takes place on earth. It starts with a chorus of nature spirits, in which the nature is describes the mutually interdependent processes taking place. The idyllic conditions described by the chorus of nature are the celebration of processes like plant and animal life, earth and water. Then enter the four anchorite fathers, who seem to represent progressively increasing degrees of spiritual attainment. First there is Pater Ecstaticus who is hovering up and down in the air. Then there is Pater Profundus who apparently lives in the depth of the earth. He marvels at the creative processes of nature and describes lightning, trees which strive to reach heaven and water flowing from heaven to earth. His heart is however is not at peace and he asks for a divine illumination from the Lord â€Å"Oh, God! Calm my thoughts, pacify us/ And bring light to my needy heart! † The third father is Pater Seraphicus. He lives in the middle regions, (probably between the air and earth). He invites the spirits of young boys who died at birth and had not thus experienced earthly life to come and experience the world through his body. Then a group of angels pass by carrying the soul of Faust and relate why they rescued Faust’s soul. We learn that Faust soul was saved because he struggled so much in developing his projects (â€Å"Whoever strives, in his endeavor, we can rescue from the devil. †). In this instance we are also told of the other reason why Faust’s soul was saved which is that Gretchen was interceding for him to Mother of God. The Younger Angels say of how they distracted the Mephistopheles by using roses of holy love. The More Perfect Angels also say that even though the heart of Faust has â€Å"escaped the flames† it is still impure and that the bond between the soul and body is left for â€Å"Eternal Love† to unwind. The angels then take Faust’s soul to the blessed boys above who â€Å"Joyfully receive Him as a chrysalis† after all the ‘threads that surround him’ disappear since ‘divine love has found him. ’ Then we meet the fourth anchorite father, Doctor Marianus who resides in ‘the purest cell’. When he sees â€Å"womanly shapes† floating around he starts praising Mater Gloriosa and together with the choir of penitent women, Magna Peccatrix, (the woman who anointed Jesus’ feet), the Samaritan woman who met Christ at the well and Mary of Egypt together plead to Mater Gloriosa not to begrudge the true soul of Gretchen. They plead that she transgressed without knowledge of her fall. The Gretchen herself goes to Mater Gloriosa and pleads on behalf of Faust asking Mater Gloriosa to allow her, Gretchen, to teach him the new ways there since he is still blinded by the bright light. She says that Faust is a completely new person having â€Å"thrown off every bond/ Of his old earthbound integument,† The scene ends when Mater Gloriosa accepts Faust’s soul and beckons Gretchen and all the others to follow her into the higher sphere. This scene takes place by the Aegean Sea where the Sirens are addressing the Moon. The Nereids and Tritons are also swimming around and even swim to the Greek mythological island of Samothrace, ‘the domain of the mighty Cabiri’ in an effort to show that they are more than fish. Meanwhile, Thales and Homunculus have gone to visit the sea god, Nereus for advice on how Homunculus can be reborn completely. Thale tells Homunculus that though Nereus is stubborn and a grumbler, people respect him because of his wisdom. They then meet Nereus, who is angry and wants to send them away, he tells them of how men can never heed advice and tells them of how Paris laughed at him when he told him of the future he saw, he also tell them of how he warned Ulysses of ‘Cyclops’ horrors and of Circes wiles’ but the advice brought Ulysses no gain. He tells them finally to go to Proteus, the shape changer since he is waiting for Dorides and Galatea. Nereids and Triton arrive then carrying Cabiri in a turtle-shell and Thales and Homunculus watch the procession. Proteus, who is hovering near is so attracted by the light that that homunculus emits. He draws near and Thales asks for advice on Homunculus’ behalf. Proteus suggests that homunculus can repeat the human birth process by starting in the sea and then develop to a full being. They then all (Thales, Proteus and Homunculus) leave together to go and watch the sea festival. In the procession, the Telchines, the nine dog-headed Children of the Sea, pass by and boast that they were the first to shape gods in the image of man. Galatea finally arrives and Nereus, the Sirens and Thales comment on the doves of Paphos which accompany Galatea. Galatea comes closer to her father. And in the process Homunculus drawn near and smashes the glass that holds him at the feet of Galatea and all marvels as the light of Homunculus mixes with the waves in a symbolic marriage with the sea. Analysis of the acts In both these two acts there is a strong reference to the female presence. The female presence in act v is represented by Mater Glorioso, Gretchen, Choir of Female Penitents, Magna Peccatrix, The Woman of Samaria, Mary of Egypt and the female forms that hover in the sky which Dr. Marianus. The strong women influence in this act, as in the rest of the drama, shows the empathetic face of women. The three repentant women plead for Gretchen while Gretchen pleads for Faust. The women are a strong symbolism to life givers. Mater Glorioso gives Faust soul another life by uttering few words. In this act we also know that the soul Faust is received by the young boys in a ‘pupal’ stage. This is so like Homunculus, who is a half being and only survives in a bottle. The rebirth of Homunculus takes place when he joins with the Galatea in a sea wedding. This is what completes Homunculus. Faust soul is also completed by the love of Gretchen. It is Gretchen’s love that finds him and is to lead him in the new place since ‘The new light still blinds him. ’ In act ii, there is also an overwhelming female presence. The sirens, Nereids and Tritons, Galatea, Dorides are all representative of female personalities. Generally this act is one in which the three, Homunculus, Faust and Mephistopheles are on a search of what completes them, which in the three cases happen to be the female personality. References Wolfgang, Johann von Goethe. Faust. Berlin: Bernhard Tauchnitz, 1867.

Maiden Name Philip Larkin Analysis

Maiden Name Philip Larkin Analysis In a pocket diary note, Philip Larkin stated: At 1.45 am let me remember that the only married state I know (i.e. that of my parents) is bloody hell. Never must it be forgotten. Larkin expresses a loss of beliefs and ideals in marriage prominently in The Whitsun Weddings (TWW) and The Less Deceived (TLD) by examining the ideas that marriage signifies imprisonment and leads to a loss of identity, as well as that all marriages are banal and similar. However, there are notions of the idea that perhaps not all is lost, and this is summed up best in Larkins famous words from An Arundel Tomb, What will survive of us is love. Whether these words actually mean what they say is debatable either the romantic idea that love triumphs death or the realistic view that the couple in the poem had not actually intended to be eternally faithful to each other. Nevertheless, it is clear that Larkin holds a certain disbelief regarding the existence of a happy marriage through his observations of ordinar y people, his use of regular structure and the straightforwardness of his writing. Philip Larkin seems to have shared Russells views, as he rejected the idea of marriage and committed himself to bachelorhood, as he says, I see life more as an affair of solitude diversified by company than as an affair of company diversified by solitude (Hirsch, p.114). According to Edward Hirsch, Larkin never recovered from his parents cramped, loveless marriage, a bloody hell he vowed never to repeat (p.118). His parents marriage also led him to believe that Two can live as stupidly as one. Larkin enjoyed several sexual relationships without ever getting married, showing that he clearly did not agree with public institutions in the 1950s and 60s, but was more representative of the ideas of independence and freedom of choice of the common man. TWW was published in 1964, and brought [Larkin] a remarkable measure of popular esteem (Swarbrick, p.5). In this anthology, Larkin explores the various forms that love can take and what it meant to him. Andrew Swarbrick explains that love and death remain at the centre of TWW (p.92). This consolidates the overall theme existing in most of his poems loss and death. However, Larkins biographer, Andrew Motion, chose to look at it from a different point of view: Reading his poems in chronological sequence, it is clear that his obsession with death is inextricable from his fascination with love and marriage. (Hirsch, p.120) This suggests that Larkins constant fixation with death in TWW and TLD, published in 1955, is actually shadowed by an interest in the inner workings of marriage. Hirsch clarifies, What Motion calls fascination is more accurately described as fascinated revulsion. (p.120) Even though Larkin made no secret of his aversion towards marriage (he thought of it as a revolting institution), he actually presents a diverse range of feelings towards marriage in his poems. Love Songs in Age explores how an older woman feels about love, or the loss of love, when she recovers her faded sheet music that had vanished in the daily frenzy of marriage and family. Only once she enters widowhood is she given a chance to pause and reminisce about her youthful feelings about love, that hidden freshness. Motion identifies the widow in the poem as Larkins mother (Swarbrick, p.108). In Stanza 2, Larkin seems to adopt a tone of optimism, expressing the vivacity of youthful energy with the use of the simile, spread out like a spring-woken tree, implying that the widow had moved from the winter to the spring of her life, if only for that moment when she plays her love songs. This optimism seems to carry on to the next stanza, where Larkin describes love as that much-mentioned br illiance. This description of love seems to contradict Larkins pessimistic views on love, and complies with societys conventional views that love is brilliant. However, the use of the word glare downplays the bright incipience of love, as it suggests that the brilliance of love is too much to bear, and therefore impossible. The poem thus ends on a negative note, where the lady in the poem realises that love has not managed to deliver its promises to solve, and satisfy, as she is left alone after her husbands death, and has to admit lamely that love had not done so then, and could not now, referring to loves failure to last or to deliver. This poem therefore contradicts the feelings of some individuals, such as G.M. Carstairs, who in 1962, argued that young people are rapidly making marriage itself more mutually considerate and satisfying through premarital sex. (Lewis, p.259) Love Songs in Age dissipates the idea that marriage is mutually considerate, by looking at a marriage that ended too early and left one party alone and in tears, dispelling the fairytale conception of happily ever after. Even though TLD was published 9 years earlier than TWW, Larkin shows an early awareness of the reality of marriage, and the negative aspects it entails, suggesting that marriage causes a loss of identity in Maiden Name. This poem is about a womans role in getting married and is written in second person, such as in since you were so thankfully confused. This makes the reader feel drawn into the text, as if the persona is speaking directly to him/her, highlighted by the use of imperatives Try whispering it slowly. The poem was written about Winifred Arnott, with whom Larkin had a brief relationship. This relationship ended when she left for London and became engaged in 1954, which lends to the personas tone of betrayal in this poem, such as in since youre past and gone, implying that Arnotts marriage caused her old self to disappear. The persona insists that the five light sounds of her maiden name no longer means your face,/Your voice, and all your variants of grace. It is unusual th at a name should mean a face and a voice, rather than the person herself, and Larkin might do this in order to point out the different aspects of a person that a name can recall. In its regular rhyme scheme (a,b,b,a,c,c,a) and structure, this poem seems like a conventional love poem, according to societys ideas. This is highlighted in the intimate tone of Try whispering it slowly. Just like the hidden song sheets in Love Songs in Age, the womans name in Maiden Name has been abandoned in old things, eliciting a rhetorical question from the persona: Then is it scentless, weightless, strengthless wholly/Untruthful? The tone of voice here seems uncertain and the repetition of -less implies that the woman has been diminished after marrying. The persona is adamant that the woman has lost a part of herself after marrying, as he gushes, How beautiful you were, and near, and young, /So vivid, suggesting that she does not have as much of these qualities anymore. This poem therefore argues that marriage leads to the depreciating of a womans identity and beauty with the extra luggage that comes with marriage, referring to the husband. In doing so, Larkin discourages women from getting married and expresses his loss of beliefs in marriage. Nowadays, an increasing number of women are overcoming the problem of losing ones identity when getting married by simply keeping their maiden name and pairing it with their husbands name. The Larkin that is present in TLD seems more sentimental as compared to in TWW, where he is more discerning to the realities of relationships. Talking in Bed is about the gap between expectation and reality. The tone of the poem is set in the first line, where Talking in bed ought to be easiest, the word ought suggesting uncertainty and untruth. It suggests that there is no honesty in all relationships even at its most intimate. This is emphasized by the pun on the word Lying, in that the couple is lying next to each other as well as lying to each other. Larkin uses an extended metaphor to compare the relationship in the poem to the disturbing weather outside: the winds incomplete unrest. Larkin therefore exposes the turmoil of marriage and forces the reader to reconsider whether marriage actually results in security and comfort, or if it causes incomplete unrest. Jane Lewis essay explains that public institutions in the 1960s attempted to refute the idea that marriages are insecure by setting up marriage counsellors and stressed the importance of a personally grounded morality for a happy marriage. Larkin has a specific style throughout all his poems. Most of them follow a rigid structure, where each stanza has a fixed number of lines. For example, Talking in Bed consists of four tercets, which give the appearance of security and regularity. The structure of the poem thereby belies its content of uncertainty. This is also evident in the regular structure of The Whitsun Weddings, where there are 8 stanzas of 10 lines each, which also gives the impression that all marriages are standard. The title poem of TWW is perhaps one of Larkins most famous. The Whitsun Weddings describes a train ride Larkin took from Hull to London, and in a frail/travelling coincidence ends up on the same train all the newlyweds also take on Whitsun Day. The Whitsun Day celebrates the coming of the Holy Spirit as described in Acts, Chapter 2, (Leach) and falls 50 days after Easter Sunday. It is financially advantageous for couples to be married for taxation reasons on this day, and as Larkin decided to write about Whitsun Day, he implies that marriage is cheap. Larkin uses vivid imagery (sound, sight, smell and touch) and a colloquial tone (We ran/Behind the backs of houses) to portray the English countryside through the windows of the train carriage. The images appear like snapshots, giving the reader a sense of immediacy: Wide farms went by, short-shadowed cattle, and Canals with floatings of industrial froth; A hothouse flashed uniquely: hedges dipped And rose: and now and then a smell of grass (14-18) This serves as an introduction that builds up to the fourth stanza, where the persona finally notices the fanfare and excitement surrounding the train, where the wedding-days/Were coming to an end. Larkin describes the newlyweds as fresh, implying that they will not last long. He also mentions the secret like a happy funeral, an oxymoron suggesting that marriage is joyful, but also signifies the end of freedom for the couple. Another bold figure of speech Larkin uses is the religious wounding, which could refer to the sexual anticipation of losing the brides virginity that their friends feel or the fact that the religious act of marriage is painful. Lewis clarifies: Marriage as a public institution had traditionally been supported by a rigid code of Christian sexual morality. An interesting note about this poem is that Larkin does not mention where the train stops, and this suggests that marriage has no direction, and is therefore uncertain. In Stanza 7, Larkin shows how all marriages are the same in that their lives would all contain this hour, dissipating any notions that each wedding is unique. On the other hand, Larkin is inevitably caught up with the couples as We hurried towards London. He seems to be immersed in the excitement of the Whitsun Weddings, seeing himself as part of them. The image of something as dangerous as an arrow-shower changing into cleansing rain gives a sense of rebirth and rejuvenation. However, only somewhere does it become rain, which could mean that the arrow-shower is still lethal in other places. It could also signify the inevitable breakdown of marriage, as the arrows descend and rain could mean mould and cause floods. Martin Amis elaborates that, to Larkin, Hull was as dull as rain. Rain was what Larkin felt marriages turned into, rain was what love and desire eventually become. (http://ghrendhel.tripod.com/textos/amispolitical.htm) This highlights Larkins belief that all marriages are banal and dull. Where Larkin looks at multiple simultaneous weddings in The Whitsun Weddings, he focuses on a specific wedding in The Wedding-Wind, published in TLD and completed in 1946. This poem explores the feelings of a farmers bride a day after her wedding. She is evidently delighted, seen as my wedding-night was the night of the high wind, the strong wind suggesting passion. However, the wind could also symbolise unrest, just like in Talking in Bed. However, the image in the final line, Our kneeling as cattle by all-generous waters, depicts the womans appreciation for being married. It echoes the feelings of most women after they marry, believing that they are on the path to completing their purpose in life. Marriage guidance advocates in the 1960s concurred that womens needs were above all for traditional marital relationships. (Lewis, p.235) Although The Wedding-Wind expresses the womans ecstatic mood, Andrew Swarbrick believes that there is beyond her a lurking sense of threat. This is evident when the bride is abandoned for a while on her wedding-night, leaving her stupid in candlelight. It is interesting as well to note that the husband is mostly absent from the poem, leaving the bride to stare. This implies that women are neglected in marriage. The three questions that end the poem suggest uncertainty, and expose her vulnerability (Swarbrick, p.45). Larkin thereby conveys the ambiguous feelings of the woman, leaving the reader unsure as to whether marriage brings happiness or loneliness. The final poem in TWW is An Arundel Tomb, which discusses the fate of marriage and love after death. It describes the tomb of the Earl and Countess of Arundel at Chichester Cathedral that Larkin had visited. The gentleness with which Larkin describes, One sees, with a sharp tender shock, /His hand withdrawn, holding her hand, shows the pleasant surprise he felt to see everlasting love set in stone. However, this is dismissed with the next line, They would not think to lie so long, which suggests that the couple had not expected to be next to each other for so long, and the pun on the word lie in that they lie next to each other, and also lie to the world that they are in love just like in Talking in Bed, implies that such faithfulness in effigy is actually just a fabrication. The final stanza confirms this, as Time has transfigured them into/Untruth. As mentioned before, this poem (and thus the entire anthology) ends with What will survive of us is love. Yet this has been taken out of context, so the previous one and a half lines have to be looked at: 2544 Words and to prove Our almost-instinct almost true: What will survive of us is love. (40-42) The repetition of almost gives a sense of being so close to the truth, but not actually reaching it; and therefore the last line is thrown into a different perspective. Our almost-instinct seems to be our need to believe in everlasting love after death; but since it is only almost true and not entirely true, the last line is one that the persona wants to be true, but is not necessarily so. Therefore, Larkin still expresses a loss of beliefs in love and marriage. He commented on An Arundel Tomb, a rather romantic poem I dont like it much, which confirms his dislike for the romantic ideas about marriage the poem imparts. As he chose to end the anthology with this poem, it makes it all the more significant that Love isnt stronger than death just because statues hold hands for 600 years, which is what Larkin wrote on the manuscript draft (Swarbrick, p.114). Even through Larkins evident distaste for marriage, his literary executor, Anthony Thwaite, claims that, The fact that he has never married and has no children doesnt entail ignorance of, or contempt for, the institution or its usual result. Larkin rearticulates: Ive remained single by choice, and shouldnt have liked anything else. Public institutions from 1920-1968 tried to appealà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦to the biologically determined needs of women for traditional marital relationships (Lewis, p.262) by publicising marriage guidance. Through the fact that they needed to do this, it can be inferred that there were rising divorce rates or fewer marriages in the 1960s, showing that Larkin was part of, and his poetry appealed to, a growing group of people who were unmarried. For the rest of society, Larkins poetry was a basis for reconsidering the purpose and effect of marriage. Larkins most effective technique, arguably, of portraying his messaging is his use of the casual, colloquial tone paired with enjambement that imitates daily speech, which is easily understandable and allows him to connect with people from different walks of life. Thus, it is easy for the reader to comprehend Larkins views about marriage and his poems make the reader reconsider what marriage actually constitutes. Is it imprisonment, a happy funeral, an almost-instinct or is it a loss of identity? Regardless of the answer, Philip Larkin effectively conveys his message through the use of regular rhythm, rigid structure, enjambement, imagery and observations of ordinary people. Since Larkin never married, most of his poems are a generalisation of marriages that he observed and felt what marriage was like. Thus, we cannot whole-heartedly agree with all his views. As Larkin chose the path of bachelorhood, he probably used poetry as a replacement for marriage.

Active Directory User Groups Implementation :: Active Directory (AD) Implementation

Active Directory User Groups Implementation Synopsis of Proposal Subsequent to the Active Directory (AD) implementation discussion, this proposal addresses possible user accounts and group organizations for Riordan Manufacturing. This document discusses user and group accounts available through AD, and addresses possible implementation plans for the parent domain of riordanmanufacturing.com. These plans could also be implemented in the child domains for the four Riordan facilities, though addressing the actual implementations for those sites falls beyond the scope of this document. Users and Groups AD recognizes several types of accounts. User accounts refer to individual system users. Groups refer to user groupings based on function, need, department, or any number of criteria set by the company and/or the system administrator. User accounts fall into two categories: domain user accounts and local user accounts. Local user accounts define users to local computers with resource access restricted to resources associated with that local computer. Local user accounts cannot access any other resources within the domain. Domain user accounts contain information that defines users to the domain, AD stores this information, and the information is replicated to the domain controller. User groups further set and assign permissions for security and access to domain resources. Local groups represent a collection of local users on a single server or computer, with permissions assigned only to resources associated with that single server or computer. Domain local groups represent a collection of domain user accounts or groups specific to the local domain, with permissions to access resources specific to the local domain. Global groups also contain user accounts or groups from the local domain, but these groups’ permission can define access to all domains within the AD tree. Universal groups can contain users from any domain in the AD tree, with permissions set accordingly. Group Configuration and Nesting Presuming Riordan follows the multiple domain design previously discussed, a good strategy for Riordan would be to incorporate domain local groups, global groups, and universal groups. Universal groups would be reserved for widely-used groups that are fairly static in nature. In order to provide the most flexible user and group configurations, allowing for network growth and reducing the number of permission assignments, the following provides a guideline for groups and group nesting: Â § Global groups – organized based on administrative needs

An Event in Your Life

Chapter 1 The Bertolini: Summary: We open in Florence at the Pension Bertolini, a pension for British travelers. Young  Lucy Honeychurch  and her cousin,  Charlotte Bartlett, are bemoaning the poor rooms that they have been given. They were promised rooms with views. The two women sit at dinner in their pension, along with the other guests. Lucy is disappointed because the pension hostess has turned out to be British, and the decor of the pension seems lifted right out of a room in London. While Miss Bartlett and Lucy talk, an old man interrupts them to tell them that his room has a nice view. The man is  Mr.Emerson; he introduces his son,  George Emerson. Mr. Emerson offers Miss Bartlett and Lucy a room swap. The men will take the rooms over the courtyard, and Lucy and Charlotte will take the more pleasant rooms that have views. Miss Bartlett is horrified by the offer, and refuses to accept; she begins to ignore the Emersons and resolves to switch pensions the next day. Ju st then,  Mr. Beebe, a clergyman that Lucy and Charlotte know from England, enters. Lucy is delighted to meet someone she knows, and she shows it; now that Mr. Beebe is here, they must stay at the Pension Bertolini. Lucy has heard in letters from her mother that Mr.Beebe has just accepted a position at the parish of Summer Street, the parish of which Lucy is a member. Mr. Beebe and Lucy have a pleasant talk over dinner, in which he gives Lucy advice about the sites of Florence. This vacation is Lucy's first time in Florence. Soon, almost everyone at the table is giving Lucy and Miss. Bartlett advice. The torrent of advice signifies the acceptance of Lucy and Miss Bartlett into the good graces of the pension guests; Lucy notes that the Emersons are outside of this fold. After the meal, some of the guests move to the drawing room. Miss Bartlett discusses the Emersons with Mr.Beebe; Beebe does not have a very high opinion of Mr. Emerson, but he thinks him harmless, and he believes no harm would have come from Miss Bartlett accepting Mr. Emerson's offer. Mr. Emerson is a Socialist, a term that is used by Mr. Beebe and Miss Bartlett with clear disapproval. Miss Bartlett continues to ask Mr. Beebe about what she should have done about the offer, and if she should apologize, until Mr. Beebe becomes annoyed and leaves. An old lady approaches the two women and talks with Miss Bartlett about Mr. Emerson's offer. Lucy asks if perhaps there was something beautiful about the offer, even if it was not delicate.Miss Bartlett is puzzled by the question; to her, beauty and delicacy are the same thing. Mr. Beebe returns: he has arranged with Mr. Emerson to have the women take the room. Miss Bartlett is not quite sure what to do, but she accepts. She takes the larger room, which was occupied by George, because she does not want Lucy to be indebted to a young man. She bids Lucy goodnight and inspect her new quarters, and she finds a piece of paper pinned to the washstand that h as an enormous â€Å"note of interrogation† scrawled on it. Though she feels threatened by it, she saves it for George between two pieces of blotting paper.Chapter Two In Santa Croce with No Baedeker: Summary: Lucy looks out her window onto the beautiful scene of a Florence morning. Miss Bartlett interrupts her reverie and encourages Lucy to begin her day; in the dining room, they argue politely about whether or not Miss Bartlett should accompany Lucy on a bit of sightseeing. Lucy is eager to go but does not wish to tire her cousin, and Miss Bartlett, though tired, does not want Lucy to go alone. A â€Å"clever lady,† whose name is Miss Lavish, intercedes. After some discussion, it is agreed that Miss Lavish and Lucy will go out together to the church of Santa Croce.The two women go out, and have a lively (but not too involved) conversation about politics and people they know in England. Suddenly, they are lost. Lucy tries to consult her Baedeker travel guide, but Miss Lavish will have none of it. She takes the guide book away. In their wanderings, they cross the Square of the Annunziata; the buildings and sculptures are the most beautiful things Lucy has ever seen, but Miss Lavish drags her forward. The women eventually reach Santa Croce, and Miss Lavish spots Mr. Emerson and George. She does not want to run into them, and seems disgusted by the two men. Lucy defends them.As they reach the steps of the church, Miss Lavish sees someone she knows and rushes off. Lucy waits for a while, but then she sees Miss Lavish wander down the street with her friend and Lucy realizes she has been abandoned. Upset, she goes into Santa Croce alone. The church is cold, and without her Baedeker travel guide Lucy feels unable to correctly view the many famous works of art housed there. She sees a child hurt his foot on a tomb sculpture and rushes to help him. She then finds herself side-by-side with Mr. Emerson, who is also helping the child. The child's mother app ears and sets the boy on his way.Lucy feels determined to be good to the Emersons despite the disapproval of the other pension guests. But when Mr. Emerson and George invite her to join them in their little tour of the church, she knows that she should be offended by such an invitation. She tries to seem offended, but Mr. Emerson sees immediately that she is trying to behave as she has seen others behave, and tells her so. Strangely, Lucy is not angry about his forwardness but is instead somewhat impressed. She asks to be taken to look at the Giotto frescoes. The trio comes across a tour group, including some tourists from the pension, led by a clergyman named  Mr.Eager. Mr. Eager spews commentary on the frescoes, which Mr. Emerson heartily disagrees with; he is skeptical of the praise and romanticizing of the past. The clergyman icily leads the group away. Mr. Emerson, worried that he has offended them, rushes off to apologize. George confides in Lucy that his father always has t hat effect on people. His earnestness and bluntness are repellent to others. Mr. Emerson returns, having been snubbed. Mr. Emerson and Lucy go off to see other works. Mr. Emerson, sincere and earnest, shares his concerns for his son. George is unhappy. Lucy is not sure how to react to this direct and honest talk; Mr.Emerson asks her to befriend his son. She is close to his age and Mr. Emerson sense much that is good in the girl. He hopes that these two young people can learn from each other. George is deeply saddened by life itself and the transience of human existence; this cerebral sorrow all seems very strange to Lucy. George suddenly approaches them, to tell Lucy that Miss Bartlett is here. Lucy realizes that one of the old women in the tour group must have told Charlotte that Lucy was with the Emersons. When she seems distressed, Mr. Emerson expresses sympathy for her. Lucy becomes cold, and she informs him that she has no need for his pity.She goes to join her cousin. Chapter Three Music, Violets, and the Letter â€Å"S†: Summary: One day after lunch Lucy decides to play the piano. The narrator tells us that Lucy has a great love for playing; she is no genius, but she is talented and passionate, always playing â€Å"on the side of Victory. † Mr. Beebe recalls the first time he heard her play, back in England, at Tunbridge Wells. She chose an unusual and intense piece by Beethoven. At the time, Mr. Beebe remarked to someone that if Lucy ever learned to live as she plays, it would be a great event. Now, Mr. Beebe makes the same remark to Lucy directly.Miss Bartlett and Miss Lavish are out sightseeing, but it is raining hard outside. Lucy asks about Miss Lavish's novel, which is in progress. Lately, Miss Lavish and Miss Bartlett have become close, leaving Lucy feeling like a third wheel. Miss Catharine Alan enters, complimenting Lucy's playing. She discusses the impropriety of the Italians with Mr. Beebe, who half-agrees with her in a subtly a nd playfully mocking way. They discuss Miss Lavish, who once wrote a novel but lost the thing in heavy rains. She is working on a new book, set in modern Italy. Miss Alan talks about Miss Lavish' first meeting with the Emersons.Mr. Emerson made a comment about acidity of the stomach, trying to be helpful to another pension guest. Miss Lavish was drawn to his directness. She tried to stand up for the Emersons for a while, talking about commerce and how it is the heart of England's empire. But after dinner, she went into the smoking room with them. A few minutes later, she emerged, silent. No one knows what happened, but since then, Miss Lavish has made no attempt to be friendly to the men. Lucy asks Miss Alan and Mr. Beebe if the Emersons are nice; after some discussion, Mr. Beebe gives a qualified yes and Miss Alan a no. Mr.Beebe, though he does not say it, does not approve of the Emerson's attempts to befriend Lucy. Mr. Beebe feels badly for the Emersons nonetheless; they are thoro ughly isolated at the pension. He silently resolves to organize a group outing so that everyone will have a good time. Evening comes on and the rain stops. Lucy decides to go out for a walk and enjoy the last bit of daylight. Clearly, Miss Alan disapproves and Mr. Beebe does not approve entirely. But Lucy goes out anyway; Mr. Beebe chalks her behavior up to too much Beethoven. Analysis: Music and Lucy's relationship to her music is one of the novel's themes.Mr. Beebe's comment becomes the reader's hope for Lucy: perhaps one day she will play as well as she lives. Forster speaks in this chapter's opening pages of music's transcendent abilities. It can be the gift of anyone regardless of social class or education. Through Beebe's statement, Forster is suggesting that these qualities also apply to passionate living. To live life well is within the grasp of anyone, despite the prejudices and proprieties of Lucy's world. Her choice of unusual Beethoven pieces is indicative of her passion . She needs more of an outlet than music, but for now her music will have to do.Music puts her in touch with her desires and feelings; the passion of Beethoven makes her resolve to go out alone, despite the disapproval of others. Chapter Four: Summary: Lucy goes out longing for adventure, hoping for something great. She buys some photographs of great artworks at a junk shop, but remains unsatisfied. She wanders into the Piazza Signoria; it is nearing twilight, and the world takes on an aura of unreality. Nearby, she sees two Italians arguing. One of them is struck lightly on the chest; he wanders toward Lucy, trying to say something, and blood trickles from his lips.The light strike was actually a stabbing. A crowd surrounds them and carries the man away. She sees George Emerson, and then the world seems to fall on top of Lucy; suddenly, she is with George Emerson, sitting on some steps some distance away. She fainted, and George has carried her here. She thanks George and asks him to fetch her photographs, which she dropped in the square; when he leaves to get them, she tries to sneak away. George calls to her and persuades her to sit down. The man who approached her is dead or dying. A crowd surrounds the man, down by the fountain, and George goes to investigate.George returns, and they talk of the murder. They walk back to the pension along the river, and George suddenly tosses something into the water. Lucy angrily demands to know what he threw away, suspecting that they might be her photographs. After some hesitation, George admits that they were. He threw them away because they were covered with blood. At George's request, they stop for a moment. He feels something incredible has happened, and he wants to figure it out. Leaning over a parapet, Lucy apologizes for her fainting and asks that he not tell anyone at the pension what happened.She realizes that he is not a chivalrous man, meaning he is a stranger to old-fashioned ideas of courtesy and propriety , but she also realizes that George is intelligent, trustworthy, and kind. She says that events like the murder happen, and that the witnesses go on living life as usual. George replies that he does not go on living life as usual. Now, he will want to live. Analysis: Forster spends the first part of the chapter explaining Lucy's character. She is naive, but she has some strength and passion. She is frustrated by the constraints on her gender, but she is also no firebrand by nature.She feels that she should be ladylike, in the old-fashioned sense of the word, but in practice she wants to be more free and adventurous than that label allows. She feels her emotions most passionately and deeply after she has played piano. Forster often uses the landscape to mirror Lucy's mood. After she finished playing the piano, the rain cleared, mirroring Lucy's tendency to know her own desires most clearly after playing music. As she wanders into the square, the world seems touched by unreality. She longs for an adventure, and she is conscious of being in a different place and wanting to see something rule.It is twilight, a transitional time between day and night, and Lucy is about to have a very confusing and important experience. She is rescued by George, and she cannot seem to decide what to think about it. For his part, George is as taciturn and strange as ever. Forster lets us into his characters' heads, but with George and Mr. Emerson we have only their outward actions and dialogue. Lucy's experience is confusing not only because she watches a man die, but also because she is not sure how to deal with George and how he makes her feel.She recognizes that he is not chivalrous or proper, but she sees goodness in him. She stops by the river and feels somehow comfortable with him, but she nervously asks him not to tell anyone that she fainted and he carried her. For George too, the experience is important. For whatever reason, and in ways that Forster will not allow us to see directly, he is changed. He tells Lucy that he will not return to life as he lived it before; now, he wants to live. The experience has made him appreciate life, perhaps in part because he shared something extraordinary with Lucy.

Mary Ann Warren–On Abortion

The question of abortion causes heated debates among politicians and moralists, sociologists and philosophers. The main problem society tries to solve is moral statue of fetus and its resemblance with the human being. In the essay â€Å"Abortion, and the concept of a Person† Mary Ann Warren proposes a unique vision on these problems and moral choice of women discussing a status of fetus and its moral rights. Following Judith Thomson, Warren discuses the status of fetus as a person and impact of this approach on moral side of abortion. Warren distinguishes two dimensions: a biological and moral status of fetus. Warren believes that a proper understanding of human biology can somehow rule out the possibility that a fetus is a separate human being. Similar to pro-life advocates she invokes our understanding of fetus, particularly the resemblance between fetuses and babies. Warren states that if we consider fetus a person, it should have the same human rights as other citizens. She opposes this opinion and in her words: ‘in the relevant respects, a fetus, even a fully developed one, is considerably less person-like than the average fish` (Warren). Warren singles out five main factors which could help to distinguish a person in moral and biological sense. A person has consciousness and can feel pain; it (he/she) has the ability to reason and act in ways that go beyond instinct (based on motives and goals). A person has â€Å"the ability communicate and a sense of self† (Warren). Warren rejects the idea that biological resemblance of fetus with the human beings is essential. She states that: [I]f the right to life of the fetus is to be based upon its resemblance to a person, then it cannot be said to have any more right to life than, let us say, a newborn guppy† (Warren). If researchers and moralists accept this position, the implications for women, and for the law, would be staggering. Of course, the traditional immunity of women from prosecution for abortion would be untenable. Any woman who had or sought an abortion would at least be liable to punishment for attempted murder or for aiding and abetting the physician who performed the deed. Warren gives a special attention to cloning and new technologies which could clone a cell from a human body. She asks: â€Å"Are all my cells now potential persons?† Trying to answer this question, she comes to conclusion that a part of a human body, â€Å"in some dim sense, [can] be a potential person† (Warren). Some might argue that a â€Å"person† comes into existence only at the point when there is a specific and determined chromosome genetic identity. Warren argues that if a new-born baby is â€Å"more-person like† and moralists justify abortion, they should also justify infanticide and murder. This is one of the most controversial parts of her essay, because if we assume that infanticide is wrong we should accept that abortion is also wrong. Also, Warren includes the case of homosexuals into discussion. If the society does not treat a fetus as ‘a person’, it should treat homosexuals the same way. In this case, â€Å"we can make a limited point: because of the differences we have noted between a skin cell and a fertilized ovum, it is at least not clear that Warren`s analogy is a good one† (Warren). In answering that question on the premise that the fetus is a person, it is important not to underestimate the extent of the sacrifice being asked of the woman. Critical remaining issues are whether a child which is never born alive is a person within the meaning of the statute, and whether it is possible to prove that the injury caused the unborn child's death. Warren addresses mothers’ choice and their freedom stating that: â€Å"The minute the infant is born, its preservation no longer violates any of its mother`s rights† (Warren). It sometimes is permissible for a pregnant woman to have an abortion because by means of an abortion she stops herself from helping bring about the state that she finds stressful. If she were not helping to bring about the state of affairs in the particular way that she is, she could not interfere with its coming about. Taking into account Warren’s arguments and logic, I suppose that she improperly uses different philosophical and moral categories, law and biological issues. Likewise, those who support abortion rights invoke principles of biology in support of their claim that whatever else it is, a fetus simply cannot be a separate â€Å"person†.   The same is true of the unfertilized ovum is alive. Warren’s arguments and approaches are not clear and even confusing in many points. Her argumentation lacks objectivity and logic that misleads and perplex readers. Thus I agree with Warren that the status of fetus is central in this debate, but we should also take into account mother’s rights and civil liberties. Pregnancy and childbirth are always physically risky activities. More significantly, they produce between woman and child real and life-altering bonds, both psychological and physiological. Woman denied the right to decide whether or not to end a pregnancy is not merely being asked to refrain from killing another person but being asked to make an affirmative sacrifice, and a profound one at that, in order to save that person. Still, there is some force to the moral argument that the right to choose abortion can be distinguished in cases of voluntary, as opposed to involuntary, pregnancy. To be sure, one powerful strand of feminist theory posits that within our society even most nominally sex, particularly in cases where the woman does not feel free to use or to suggest the use of birth control, involves coercion. But if one assumes a pregnancy that did not result from any sort of coercion, then perhaps the imposition of continued pregnancy on the woman may not be unjust. Warren does not include into discussion such important things as fetal age and weight. There remains considerable disagreement over which of many criteria is most adequate in determining viability, and over the precision of any such measures. In addition, the viability rule is difficult to apply because it is an indeterminate concept that depends on the individual development of a specific fetus and the health of the mother. The five factors she used to identify a person can be applied to many animals and primates but we do not consider them as ‘persons’. Thus, following Warren it is by no means enough to show that the fetus is person and that all persons have a right to life – so killing the fetus violates its right to life, i.e., that abortion is unjust killing. Abortion will not be morally wrong if we apply another criteria and factors to analysis of its legacy: typical requirements of the statutes include: the existence of a † person † who has died; the death of the person from injuries resulting from a wrongful act, neglect, or default that would have conferred a cause of action upon the person who has died, had that person survived; and the act, neglect, or default that caused the fatal injury must have been performed by another. I suppose that the logical fallacies are that Warren takes into account only a fetus and compares it rights, moral and legal status with human beings. It would be more important to compare rights and status of a mother vs fetus. The fetus, being person, has a right to life, but as the mother is a person too, so has she a right to life. I agree with Warren that a fetus in not a human yet, but I am disagree that we have a right to compare a fetus with a fish. Presumably they have an equal right to life. The main problem with Warren’s position is that she denies a moral status of fetus. Still, I agree with the author that: â€Å"a right of that magnitude could never override a woman`s right to obtain an abortion at any stage of her pregnancy` (Warren). The major remaining basis of the inconsistency of establishing the rights of the unborn to a cause of action for wrongful death is the question of whether or not a fetus is a person under the appropriate statutes and, if so, at what point in gestation? A related question is whether or not the fetus must be live born before action is allowed. This issue is crucial, because if the fetus is defined as a person, the action will be recognized; if not, the action will be dismissed.