Comprehensive Activity of Hardware Technology

Can you create an evaluation using this information PHONETICS VS. PHONOLOGY Whereas phonetics is the study of sounds that occur in language, phonology is the study of how these sounds are organized and how they function in language. It uses the classifications of sounds derived from phonetics to describe and analyze how sounds occur in speech. STRUCTURALIST PHONEMICS STRUCTURALIST PHONEMICS As linguists began to study sounds in fine detail, they recognized increasingly complex aspects of phonetic organization. For example, the sound /p/ appears in different varieties in English. STRUCTURALIST PHONEMICS One of the varieties of /p/ is indicated by [ph]. This sound is produced with an accompanying puff of air called aspiration, as in the words “pill,” and “peace.” Another sound, indicated by [p•], is produced when there is little or no aspiration; this sound occurs in a word like “spill.” A third major variety for the /p/ sound is the unreleased [p– ], which may occur at the end of a word like “stop.” To deal with these variations for the /p/ sound, the structuralists suggested the existence of an abstract unit which they termed a phoneme. STRUCTURALIST PHONEMICS A phoneme was defined by the structuralists as an abstract phonological unit that represents a class of real sounds, termed the allophones of a phoneme. The phoneme /p/ in English, then, is represented by the allophones [ph], [p•], and [p– ]. STRUCTURALISTS: MINIMAL PAIRS How do we know what these abstract units of sound called phonemes are? In order to find the phonemes of a language, the structuralists developed the concept of the minimal pair, defined as any two words that: a) Contain the same number of segments b) Differ in meaning c) Exhibit only one phonetic difference. STRUCTURALISTS: MINIMAL PAIRS In practical terms, phonemes distinguish meanings; and a phoneme can also be defined as the smallest meaning-distinguishing unit of sound. For instance, the words “pin” /pɪn/ and “bin” /bɪn/ mean different things, and the only one difference in these words occurs in the initial sounds. STRUCTURALISTS: MINIMAL PAIRS By using the concept of a minimal pair, we can determine that the three variations of the /p/ sound do not represent three phonemes. Certainly, it is possible to pronounce the word cap with either an aspirated [ph ] or unreleased [p– ]; however, the two forms [kæph ] and [kæp– ] are not a minimal pair, even though they involve different sounds, because they are identical in meaning. STRUCTURALISTS: FREE VARIATION The two forms [kæph ] and [kæp– ] are, therefore, said to exhibit free variation: that is, the pronunciation may vary without signifying a change in meaning. In other words, we may conclude that the unreleased [p– ] and the aspirated [ph ] are not representations of different phonemes in English; they are, in fact, allophones of one phoneme, /p/. STRUCTURALISTS: COMPLEMENTARY DISTRIBUTION When phonemes have more than one allophone in a language, the allophones are said to be in complementary distribution. Complementary distribution means that the allophones of a phoneme occur in different phonetic environments (that is, with different sounds surrounding them). TRANSFORMATIONAL- GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY TRANSFORMATIONAL-GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY Transformational-generative phonology is a relatively recent development in linguistic theory. Chomsky launched Transformational-Generative Grammar in 1957, but the earliest studies within this framework were largely concerned with syntax. A decade later, the first comprehensive transformational-generative treatment of English phonology appeared: Chomsky and Halle’s The Sound Pattern of English (1968). TRANSFORMATIONAL-GENERATIVE PHONOLOGY Transformational-generative phonologists strongly oppose the structuralists’ phonemic level. They replace this level by a series of rules that directly relate underlying representations to observed phonetic representations. The central mechanisms in transformational-generative phonology, then, are underlying representations and phonological rules. PHONOLOGICAL RULES A rule is an operational statement in which some linguistic entity is modified, resulting in a new linguistic entity. Rules may add elements, remove elements, or change elements. By using phonological rules, linguists attempt to demonstrate that there is order in linguistic phenomena and that linguistic patterns are systematic. PHONOLOGICAL DERIVATION A phonological derivation is an operation that begins with an underlying representation and, through the application of a set of specific rules, yields the actual sound the speaker produces. The representation of a phonological rule has the following general appearance. /A/ → [B] / C “A” changes to “B” under condition “C” PHONOLOGICAL RULE – EXAMPLE In most Southern dialects, the word ten is pronounced like the word tin. This is not an isolated fact, for den is pronounced like din and Ben is pronounced like bin, and so on. This very general fact can be represented by the phonological rule: /ɛ/ → [I] / ___ [n] den /dɛn/ → /dIn/ Ben /bɛn/ → /bIn/ ten /tɛn/ → /tIn/ /ɛ/ → [I] / ___ [n] - high - low - tense + front + high - tense + front + sonorant + anterior + coronal - continuant NOTATIONAL DEVICES IN PHONOLOGICAL RULES The statement of phonological rules can be complex, and linguists have developed several notational devices for writing them. Often, the following symbols will be necessary for stating the conditions under which rules apply: # indicates a word boundary + indicates an intraword boundary $ indicates a syllable boundary UNDERLYING REPRESENTATIONS AND RELATED ISSUES The transformational-generative description of phonology relates underlying representations to phonetic representations by rules. This can be represented in a simple example: In English, there are certain pairs of words like sign / signature, and malign / malignant that exhibit a regular alternation in their phonetic representations: [g] is present in the second member of the pairs but absent in the first member. UNDERLYING REPRESENTATIONS AND RELATED ISSUES To explain the relatedness of words such as sign / signature, we could claim that the underlying representation of the segment in all such pairs is /g/ and that a rule operates to delete /g/ before syllable-final nasals. Thus, the rule “/g/ is deleted before syllable-final nasal” would appear formally as: + voice - anterior →∅ ____ [+ nasal] $ - coronal UNDERLYING REPRESENTATIONS AND RELATED ISSUES On the left-hand side of the arrow, we place the features needed to uniquely specify /g/ among the consonants; that is, no other consonant has the features [+ voice], [- anterior], and [- coronal]. The symbols → mean that the sound /g/ changes to nothing or more properly “/g/ is deleted.” The horizontal line following the slash mark refers to the position of /g/ - namely, before a segment that is [+nasal]. Finally, this [+nasal] segment occurs before a syllable boundary, as indicated by $. A less formal way of writing this rule would be: /g/ → / _ [+nasal] $ Notice that this rule also helps describe such alternations as phlegm/phlegmatic and paradigm/paradigmatic. Application Activity: Think of other words in which this rule can be applied. Write the sound segments to prove /g/ is deleted. Another example is the process through which the prefix meaning “not” is added to words. This prefix alternates among the forms /Im/, /In/, and /Iŋ/, depending on the point of articulation of the initial segment of the following word. -If the segment begins in the extreme front part of the mouth (labials), the form is /Im/, as in improper. -If the segment begins in the extreme back part of the mouth (velars), the form is /Iŋ/, as in incomplete. -If the segment begins in the mid-region of the mouth (all other sounds), the form is /In/, as in indecent. *Exceptions:Words beginning with /r/ or /l/. Analyze the Word “in + complete,” for example. /n/ → [ŋ] / __ [k] - continuant - continuant - continuant + sonorant → + sonorant - sonorant + anterior - anterior - strident + coronal - coronal - coronal + tense THE VELAR SOFTENING RULE Still another example of alternation in English is found in pairs of words like “electric / electricity,” in which the segments /k/ and /s/ alternate. /k/ changes to [s] only before non- low, front vowels. THE VELAR SOFTENING RULE /k/ → [s] / __ - continuant + continuant - strident → - sonorant V - anterior + anterior - low - coronal + coronal - back

Activity #3: Now that you have read the brief introduction of Statement of Comprehensive Income you can answer the statement below. Write the correct letter only.

“There’s No Such Thing as Sound Science” by By Christie Aschwanden was a lead science writer for FiveThirtyEight. FiveThirtyEight, Science, Dec. 6, 2017 Science is being turned against itself. For decades, its twin ideals of transparency and rigor have been weaponized by those who disagree with results produced by the scientific method. Under the Trump administration, that fight has ramped up again. In a move ostensibly meant to reduce conflicts of interest, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt has removed a number of scientists from advisory panels and replaced some of them with representatives from industries that the agency regulates. Like many in the Trump administration, Pruitt has also cast doubt on the reliability of climate science. For instance, in an interview with CNBC, Pruitt said that “measuring with precision human activity on the climate is something very challenging to do.” Similarly, Trump’s pick to head NASA, an agency that oversees a large portion the nation’s climate research, has insisted that research into human influence on climate lacks certainty, and he falsely claimed that “global temperatures stopped rising 10 years ago.” Kathleen Hartnett White, Trump’s nominee to head the White House Council on Environmental Quality, said in a Senate hearing last month that she thinks we “need to have more precise explanations of the human role and the natural role” in climate change. The same entreaties crop up again and again: We need to root out conflicts. We need more precise evidence. What makes these arguments so powerful is that they sound quite similar to the points raised by proponents of a very different call for change that’s coming from within science. This other movement strives to produce more robust, reproducible findings. Despite having dissimilar goals, the two forces espouse principles that look surprisingly alike: Science needs to be transparent. Results and methods should be openly shared so that outside researchers can independently reproduce and validate them. The methods used to collect and analyze data should be rigorous and clear, and conclusions must be supported by evidence. These are the arguments underlying an “open science” reform movement that was created, in part, as a response to a “reproducibility crisis” that has struck some fields of science.1 But they’re also used as talking points by politicians who are working to make it more difficult for the EPA and other federal agencies to use science in their regulatory decision-making, under the guise of basing policy on “sound science.” Science’s virtues are being wielded against it. What distinguishes the two calls for transparency is intent: Whereas the “open science” movement aims to make science more reliable, reproducible and robust, proponents of “sound science” have historically worked to amplify uncertainty, create doubt and undermine scientific discoveries that threaten their interests. “Our criticisms are founded in a confidence in science,” said Steven Goodman, co-director of the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford and a proponent of open science. “That’s a fundamental difference — we’re critiquing science to make it better. Others are critiquing it to devalue the approach itself.” Calls to base public policy on “sound science” seem unassailable if you don’t know the term’s history. The phrase was adopted by the tobacco industry in the 1990s to counteract mounting evidence linking secondhand smoke to cancer. A 1992 Environmental Protection Agency report identified secondhand smoke as a human carcinogen, and Philip Morris responded by launching an initiative to promote what it called “sound science.” In an internal memo, Philip Morris vice president of corporate affairs Ellen Merlo wrote that the program was designed to “discredit the EPA report,” “prevent states and cities, as well as businesses from passing smoking bans” and “proactively” pass legislation to help their cause. The sound science tactic exploits a fundamental feature of the scientific process: Science does not produce absolute certainty. Contrary to how it’s sometimes represented to the public, science is not a magic wand that turns everything it touches to truth. Instead, it’s a process of uncertainty reduction, much like a game of 20 Questions. Any given study can rarely answer more than one question at a time, and each study usually raises a bunch of new questions in the process of answering old ones. “Science is a process rather than an answer,” said psychologist Alison Ledgerwood of the University of California, Davis. Every answer is provisional and subject to change in the face of new evidence. It’s not entirely correct to say that “this study proves this fact,” Ledgerwood said. “We should be talking instead about how science increases or decreases our confidence in something.” The tobacco industry’s brilliant tactic was to turn this baked-in uncertainty against the scientific enterprise itself. While insisting that they merely wanted to ensure that public policy was based on sound science, tobacco companies defined the term in a way that ensured that no science could ever be sound enough. The only sound science was certain science, which is an impossible standard to achieve. “Doubt is our product,” wrote one employee of the Brown & Williamson tobacco company in a 1969 internal memo. The note went on to say that doubt “is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’” and “establishing a controversy.” These strategies for undermining inconvenient science were so effective that they’ve served as a sort of playbook for industry interests ever since, said Stanford University science historian Robert Proctor. The sound science push is no longer just Philip Morris sowing doubt about the links between cigarettes and cancer. It’s also a 1998 action plan by the American Petroleum Institute, Chevron and Exxon Mobil to “install uncertainty” about the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. It’s industry-funded groups’ late-1990s effort to question the science the EPA was using to set fine-particle-pollution air-quality standards that the industry didn’t want. And then there was the more recent effort by Dow Chemical to insist on more scientific certainty before banning a pesticide that the EPA’s scientists had deemed risky to children. Now comes a move by the Trump administration’s EPA to repeal a 2015 rule on wetlands protection by disregarding particular studies. (To name just a few examples.) Doubt merchants aren’t pushing for knowledge, they’re practicing what Proctor has dubbed “agnogenesis” — the intentional manufacture of ignorance. This ignorance isn’t simply the absence of knowing something; it’s a lack of comprehension deliberately created by agents who don’t want you to know, Proctor said.2 In the hands of doubt-makers, transparency becomes a rhetorical move. “It’s really difficult as a scientist or policy maker to make a stand against transparency and openness, because well, who would be against it?” said Karen Levy, researcher on information science at Cornell University. But at the same time, “you can couch everything in the language of transparency and it becomes a powerful weapon.” For instance, when the EPA was preparing to set new limits on particulate pollution in the 1990s, industry groups pushed back against the research and demanded access to primary data (including records that researchers had promised participants would remain confidential) and a reanalysis of the evidence. Their calls succeeded and a new analysis was performed. The reanalysis essentially confirmed the original conclusions, but the process of conducting it delayed the implementation of regulations and cost researchers time and money. Delay is a time-tested strategy. “Gridlock is the greatest friend a global warming skeptic has,” said Marc Morano, a prominent critic of global warming research and the executive director of ClimateDepot.com, in the documentary “Merchants of Doubt” (based on the book by the same name). Morano’s site is a project of the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow, which has received funding from the oil and gas industry. “We’re the negative force. We’re just trying to stop stuff.” Some of these ploys are getting a fresh boost from Congress. The Data Quality Act (also known as the Information Quality Act) was reportedly written by an industry lobbyist and quietly passed as part of an appropriations bill in 2000. The rule mandates that federal agencies ensure the “quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information” that they disseminate, though it does little to define what these terms mean. The law also provides a mechanism for citizens and groups to challenge information that they deem inaccurate, including science that they disagree with. “It was passed in this very quiet way with no explicit debate about it — that should tell you a lot about the real goals,” Levy said. But what’s most telling about the Data Quality Act is how it’s been used, Levy said. A 2004 Washington Post analysis found that in the 20 months following its implementation, the act was repeatedly used by industry groups to push back against proposed regulations and bog down the decision-making process. Instead of deploying transparency as a fundamental principle that applies to all science, these interests have used transparency as a weapon to attack very particular findings that they would like to eradicate. Now Congress is considering another way to legislate how science is used. The Honest Act, a bill sponsored by Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas,3 is another example of what Levy calls a “Trojan horse” law that uses the language of transparency as a cover to achieve other political goals. Smith’s legislation would severely limit the kind of evidence the EPA could use for decision-making. Only studies whose raw data and computer codes were publicly available would be allowed for consideration. That might sound perfectly reasonable, and in many cases it is, Goodman said. But sometimes there are good reasons why researchers can’t conform to these rules, like when the data contains confidential or sensitive medical information.4 Critics, which include more than a dozen scientific organizations, argue that, in practice, the rules would prevent many studies from being considered in EPA reviews.5 It might seem like an easy task to sort good science from bad, but in reality it’s not so simple. “There’s a misplaced idea that we can definitively distinguish the good from the not-good science, but it’s all a matter of degree,” said Brian Nosek, executive director of the Center for Open Science. “There is no perfect study.” Requiring regulators to wait until they have (nonexistent) perfect evidence is essentially “a way of saying, ‘We don’t want to use evidence for our decision-making,’” Nosek said. Most scientific controversies aren’t about science at all, and once the sides are drawn, more data is unlikely to bring opponents into agreement. Michael Carolan, who researches the sociology of technology and scientific knowledge at Colorado State University, wrote in a 2008 paper about why objective knowledge is not enough to resolve environmental controversies. “While these controversies may appear on the surface to rest on disputed questions of fact, beneath often reside differing positions of value; values that can give shape to differing understandings of what ‘the facts’ are.” What’s needed in these cases isn’t more or better science, but mechanisms to bring those hidden values to the forefront of the discussion so that they can be debated transparently. “As long as we continue down this unabashedly naive road about what science is, and what it is capable of doing, we will continue to fail to reach any sort of meaningful consensus on these matters,” Carolan writes. The dispute over tobacco was never about the science of cigarettes’ link to cancer. It was about whether companies have the right to sell dangerous products and, if so, what obligations they have to the consumers who purchased them. Similarly, the debate over climate change isn’t about whether our planet is heating, but about how much responsibility each country and person bears for stopping it. While researching her book “Merchants of Doubt,” science historian Naomi Oreskes found that some of the same people who were defending the tobacco industry as scientific experts were also receiving industry money to deny the role of human activity in global warming. What these issues had in common, she realized, was that they all involved the need for government action. “None of this is about the science. All of this is a political debate about the role of government,” she said in the documentary. These controversies are really about values, not scientific facts, and acknowledging that would allow us to have more truthful and productive debates. What would that look like in practice? Instead of cherry-picking evidence to support a particular view (and insisting that the science points to a desired action), the various sides could lay out the values they are using to assess the evidence. For instance, in Europe, many decisions are guided by the precautionary principle — a system that values caution in the face of uncertainty and says that when the risks are unclear, it should be up to industries to show that their products and processes are not harmful, rather than requiring the government to prove that they are harmful before they can be regulated. By contrast, U.S. agencies tend to wait for strong evidence of harm before issuing regulations. Both approaches have critics, but the difference between them comes down to priorities: Is it better to exercise caution at the risk of burdening companies and perhaps the economy, or is it more important to avoid potential economic downsides even if it means that sometimes a harmful product or industrial process goes unregulated? In other words, under what circumstances do we agree to act on a risk? How certain do we need to be that the risk is real, and how many people would need to be at risk, and how costly is it to reduce that risk? Those are moral questions, not scientific ones, and openly discussing and identifying these kinds of judgment calls would lead to a more honest debate. Science matters, and we need to do it as rigorously as possible. But science can’t tell us how risky is too risky to allow products like cigarettes or potentially harmful pesticides to be sold — those are value judgements that only humans can make.

Create a quiz where you describe aspects of Alex's appearance and background, and students have to guess which character you're talking about. For example, "This character has brown hair and wears a black t-shirt. Who is it?" This activity tests students' comprehension of the character's description.

Alexa and Brittany were best friends. They’d known each other since Brittany moved next door in 2nd grade. They hung out almost every day after school… when they were getting along, that is. They were very different people. Alexa did great with her school work, read a lot of books, and took ballet classes. Brittany, on the other hand, would rather play soccer, chat with other kids at school, and rarely sat still for long enough to finish reading a chapter of a book. Often, Alexa and Brittany would play together at the park across the street. They’d play on the equipment, play tag with a group of neighborhood kids, or play soccer. If it was raining outside, they’d go in one of their houses to make crafts, play video games, or do their nails. Some days they could spend hours together without a single problem, but other days they just could not agree on what to do. “Come on, let’s play on the equipment. We’ve played soccer for the last three days!” Alexa said. “They just cut the grass, I love playing soccer when the grass is nice and short. I don’t want to play on the equipment,” Brittany replied. “We always do what you want to do Brittany, it’s my turn to choose.” Alexa was getting frustrated. “Fine, go play on the equipment by yourself, I’m playing soccer, ” Brittany shouted. Grade 5 Reading Comprehension Worksheet Reading and Math for K-5 © www.k5learning.com Alexa left. She was fuming. When she got home, she realized she still had Brittany’s notebook. Well, I’m not giving it back today. I’m too mad at her. Alexa thought. The next day at school, their teacher asked for their notebooks. Brittany didn’t have hers, and asked Mrs. Stone if she could bring it in tomorrow instead. Mrs. Stone let us have one late assignment a month, but Brittany had already used hers. Brittany looked upset, and walked quietly back to her desk. Alexa was having an internal conflict. She knew she should tell Mrs. Stone that she had the notebook, but she was still mad at Brittany for not compromising with her at the park yesterday. When it was time for lunch, Alexa hung back to talk with Mrs. Stone. “Mrs. Stone, I have Brittany’s notebook. I should have said something earlier, but Alexa and I had a problem yesterday, and I’m still mad at her. Would you be able to help us solve our problem?” Alexa asked. “Thank you for being honest, Alexa. I’m sure Brittany will appreciate that you gave me her notebook when you could have made her get another late mark instead. I’m glad you asked for help solving the problem. It’s really hard to solve a problem by yourself when you’re still feeling upset, so this is a good solution.” At recess, Mrs. Stone sat and talked with the girls. They each revealed that they get frustrated with the other person a lot because they don’t always want to do the same things, but they real ized that they never really solved their problem. One of them just always went home. Mrs. Stone helped them realize that maybe they didn’t have to play together every day to be best friends. They decided to just play together a couple times a week, and take turns picking the activity. Alexa and Brittany were hopeful that this would solve a lot of the arguments they’d been having lately!

Guided comprehension activity from travel guided

Related quizzes

Related quizzes