Hugh Laurie and Ellen: British slang
vs the American
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
wYmrg3owTRE
ACTIVITY
 Take
out a piece of paper.
 2 Minutes – come up with new words
 5 Minutes – rotate sheets and define new
words.
 The definition should be something that
actually exists—a thing, a phenomenon, a
mental concept—but that isn’t a word yet.
 Share
our new words
HOMEWORK
 Create
a word that will represent a
thought, action, or abstract
concept that already exists for
which there should be a word in
English but isn’t. Make sure you
include which part of speech
(noun, verb, adjective, adverb,
etc.) it is, as well as the definition.
Lastly, use it in a sentence.
BEEF, COWS AND CHAIRS
A lively introduction to the
slippery problem of definition
and the idea of universals
(Platonic forms).
You will work in pairs.
Each pair will get a set of paper
cards.
You will quickly turn over the
cards and categorize each of the
24 images as “beef” or “cow,”
placing them in two piles
according to their designation.
Next, from the “cow” images select
the most “cow-like.” Do the same
for the single most “beef-like” or
“beef-ish” of the “beef” images.
Are there central and more
marginal cases of what can be
acceptably designated to the
“cow” category or the “beef”
category?
Write down the criteria or
diagnostic features that you are
using for “cow” and for “beef.”
What difficulties arise?
2.
... A CONTINUUM OF CHAIRS...
Again you will work in pairs.
This time you will be provided
with a set of cards just as before.
1. Determine which chair is
the most “chair-like”—the
most “archetypal” chair.
2. Next determine the
card that is the least
“chair-like.”
Place the most chair-like
chair on the far left, and the
least chair-like, of the nonchair images, on the far
right.
Place the remaining cards in
order between these end cards to
create a kind of chair—non-chair
continuum. You may have to
switch the status of some of the
cards as you debate.
Write down your personal
definition of a chair. What
difficulties arise?
Why must we generalize? Could
we think or speak or reason at
all without universals? Is the
construction of universals,
stereotypes and models an
inevitable consequence of our
propensity for inductive
thinking?