belova_ep_praktikum_po_annotirovaniiu_i_referirovaniiu_inost

7.How did the first kirza boots look like? Were they practical?

8.What was the name under which kirza first came into Russian vocabulary? When did it happen?

9.What was the history of kirza boots after the revolution in Russia?

10.Who received the Lenin State Prize? When and why?

11.When did kirza make the mark on history?

TEXT 12. PILATES: PHILOSOPHICAL GYMNASTICS

Task 1. Read the text.

Pilates is a cross between fitness and yoga and ideal for keeping your body in shape. When doing it on a regular basis, ladies acquire beautiful and smooth muscles and men get some desirable relief.

Joseph Pilates, who was born in 1880 near Dusseldorf, created the Pilates method of exercise. Joe was frail as a child, suffering from asthma, rickets and rheumatic fever. He overcame his physical limitations with exercise and bodybuilding, and he also learned yoga, marital arts, Zen meditation and Greco-Roman wrestling. All that experience helped him create his own unique method of physical and intellectual concentration. Joseph's first trainees were wounded First World War soldiers. They did his exercises in their beds, which is why contemporary Pilates equipment looks the way it does. However, it is actually possible to do Pilates both with special equipment, and without it.

In 1923 Joseph and his wife Clara moved to New York and opened a fitness studio sharing an address with the New York City Ballet. At the beginning of the 1930s and later many famous dancers and choreographers like George Balanchine started working out to the Pilates method. Dancers always suffered a lot from injuries leading to long and painful periods of rehabilitation. Pilates exercises helped them make a comeback much faster. By the early 1960s, Pilates could count many New York dancers among its clients. As the New York Herald Tribune noted in 1964, “in dance classes around the United States, hundreds of young students limber up daily with an exercises they know as Pilates without knowing that the word has a capital «P», and a living, breathing namesake.” In the 1970s, Hollywood celebrities discovered Pilates via Ron Fletcher's studio in Beverly Hills. Where the stars go, the media follows. “I'm fifty years ahead of my time,” Joe once claimed. He was right. No longer the workout of the elite, Pilates entered the fitness mainstream.

Today millions of people follow the system of Pilates; there are world class sportsmen and stars like Madonna, Jessica Lange, Sigourney Weaver who are greatly interested in the exercises. Recently British Airways announced its intention to use Pilates to improve the health of passengers during long-haul intercontinental flights.

41

The Pilates method is based on training the pelvis, thorax, shoulderblades, the head and the cervical part of the spine. Most of the exercises include the development of a correct rhythm of breathing. The exercises restore natural backbone bends and promote a re-balancing of the muscles around joints. The Pilates concept may remind one of yoga: you're trained to turn off your mind to the outside world and concentrate on every move. Pilates is unique, however, because it involves not only the larger outer muscles but also the deeper smaller ones that it is usually impossible to reach with the usual gym exercises. Meanwhile, the internal muscular layers support the spine and joints. The Pilates techniques are based on the principle of balancing the body and allow you not only to get your body into shape but also to improve your coordination. Generally these gymnastics are slow and may remind some of physiotherapy, only in a more conceptual and philosophic way. Pilates allows you to strengthen the muscular corset with minimal exertion on the spine, and to develop and improve your flexibility and movements. It appears that the system is faultless and has no negative effects or age restrictions. The only thing it doesn't do is increase muscular mass - but do you really want that?

(The inflight magazine of the Transaero Airlines, June/ July 2005)

Task 2. Answer the following questions:

1.What is the Pilates Method? What do people get when doing it?

2.Who created this Method? When was it created?

3.What is Pilates Method based on?

4.Who were the First trainees of the Method? How did they do exercises?

5.Who showed the greatest interest in Pilates in New York? What was the reason for that interest?

6.What is the further destiny of Pilates in Hollywood?

7.What was the note given by the New York Herald Tribune in 1970?

8.What’s the difference between the Pilates Method and yoga or physiotherapy?

9.What results can be achieved with the help of the Pilates Method?

42

ЗАДАНИЯ ДЛЯ РАБОТЫ С ТЕКСТАМИ

Для работы над текстами могут быть использованы задания общего характера, представленные в этом разделе. Преподаватель самостоятельно выбирает те или иные задания для работы с конкретным текстом. Таким образом, задания могут быть использованы целиком или выборочно.

1.Прочитайте статью и кратко охарактеризуйте её:

-кто автор статьи.

-какой теме посвящена статья.

-относится ли данная статья к вашей специальности.

-содержит ли статья методические рекомендации

-ваше мнение о практической ценности статьи для преподавателя.

2.Выпишите выходные данные статьи.

3.Переведите заголовок статьи и определите её характер (научный, методический, исторический).

4.Прочитайте статью и определите (сформулируйте) её цель.

5.Определите, кому адресована статья.

6.Охарактеризуйте тематику, полноту и новизну сообщенных в статье сведений.

7.Определите практическую значимость статьи.

8.Прочитайте статью и сформулируйте задачи, поставленные авторами.

9.Составьте перечень проблем, затронутых в статье.

10.Кратко сформулируйте проблему, которой посвящена данная

статья.

11.Решите, к какой области относится рассматриваемая в тексте проблема.

12.Выпишите (сформулируйте) методические и практические рекомендации авторов и скажите, насколько они могут быть полезны читателю.

13. Определите, содержит ли текст интересную информацию

свашей профессиональной точки зрения.

14.Дайте точный перевод на русский язык заголовка статьи и определите, соответствует ли он её содержанию.

15.Переведите отрывок статьи.

16. Ознакомьтесь с приведенными данными об авторе статьи

ирасскажите о нем.

17.Выпишите даты

18.Опираясь на даты, приведенные в тексте, составьте хронологию событий, описываемых в статье.

19.Расшифруйте встречающиеся в тексте аббревиатуры.

20.Объясните данные таблиц(ы), приведенных(ой) в статье.

43

21.Ознакомьтесь с рисунками, опишите их и скажите, достаточно ли наглядно они иллюстрируют содержание статьи, что добавляют.

22.Переведите названия книг, статей и т.п. упомянутых в статье.

23.Напишите фамилии ученых, упоминаемых в статье, в русской транскрипции.

24.Напишите географические названия, встречающиеся в статье,

врусской транскрипции.

25.Найдите в тексте предложения, где автор описывает.

26.Решите, есть ли необходимость включить приводимые в статье данные (вычисления) в реферат (сможет ли читатель воспользоваться рекомендациями автора, если их не включать).

27.Сформулируйте точку зрения авторов на предмет исследования.

28.Укажите две (все) точки зрения, рассматриваемые в тексте.

29.Сформулируйте выводы авторов статьи.

30.Укажите абзац, в котором дается главный вывод автора.

31.Прочитайте N абзац текста и сформулируйте его основную

мысль.

32.Выделите ключевые положения абзацев № ...

33.Кратко изложите содержание абзацев №....

34.Выразите содержание каждого абзаца текста одним предло-

жением.

35.Максимально сократите текст статьи, и подготовьте сообщение о её содержании.

36.Выделите из каждой части положения, которые, по вашему мнению, необходимы для включения в реферат, аннотацию.

37.Прочтите текст и разделите его на смысловые части; придумайте заголовки к ним.

38.Внимательно прочтите статью и выделите её ключевые фрагменты.

39.Выделите основные разделы статьи и передайте содержание каждого из них одним-двумя предложениями.

40.Выпишите предложения, которые помогут вам кратко изложить содержание статьи.

41.Выпишите ключевые предложения (фрагменты) из каждого

абзаца.

42.Отметьте предложения, абзацы, которые могут быть опущены без ущерба для содержания текста.

43.Разделите статью на вступление, основную часть и заключение (выводы автора); напишите краткое изложение основного содержания текста по данной схеме.

44.Составьте план текста.

45.Составьте (краткий) план статьи в виде вопросов.

46.Составьте план реферата статьи.

44

47.Выделите в статье положения, необходимые для включения

ваннотацию.

48.Выделите в статье новую информацию, которую необходимо включить в текст реферата, аннотации

49.Выделите из каждой части положения, которые, по вашему мнению, необходимы для включения в реферат, аннотацию.

50.Выпишите предложения, необходимые для включения в анно-

тацию.

51.Сократите реферат до аннотации.

ЧАСТЬ II. ТЕКСТЫ ДЛЯ САМОСТОЯТЕЛЬНОЙ РАБОТЫ

TEXT 1.

CORRECTING THE MISUSE OF AMERICAN POWER

George Soros is the well-known, fabulously wealthy speculator who has written prolifically on matters political and global. Readers may recall - as he recalls ruefully here - that in 1997 he made an "unconditional prediction" about the "imminent collapse of the global capitalist system." (Perhaps he was simply premature.) He has been in the news recently because of his pledge to devote a chunk of his considerable fortune to the electoral defeat of the present occupant of the White House. Here he goes further and argues that "it is not enough to defeat President Bush at the polls. America has to reexamine its role in the world and adopt a more constructive vision." He is livid about how Washington has used "terror as a pretext for waging war," in an obvious reference to the present quagmire-cum-fiasco in Iraq. "Communism used to serve as the enemy; now terrorism can fill the bill," he concludes. This billionaire is upset that in the run-up to this conflict the "possibility that the United States was motivated by considerations such as ensuring the flow of oil supplies could not even be mentioned, because it would have been regarded as unpatriotic or worse." Soros, on the other hand, sees petrol as very much at issue in the decision to go to war. At the same time he sees Saudi Arabia, a major source of this valuable resource, as a "treacherous ally" - a rapidly developing consensus amongst the US ruling class (except, conspicuously, the Bush White House).

Thus, Soros sees the present outsized status of US imperialism as akin to a stock market bubble, i.e. a form of inflation that is overdue for a correction. In other words, he does not see the present role of Washington - flouting international law, stiff-arming allies, invading nations weakened by sanctions and borrowing promiscuously particularly from China finance this roguery - as sustainable. He scorn what he calls "market fundamentalists" - who sees as akin to the religious variety - for their mystical devotion to market forces and their disdain for the public sector. He is concerned since "the burden of taxation has shifted from the owners of capital to the consumers,

45

from the rich to the poor and the middle classes." He is similarly concerned with the global manifestation of this widening gap between rich and poor, as "some 1.2 billion people live on less than a dollar a day; 2.8 billion on less than two dollars a day."

He sees a relationship between these economic and political forces, denouncing both "market fundamentalists" and "American supreme cists" - or as columnist Thomas Friedman once put it, how McDonnell-Douglas is deployed to insure the spread of McDonald's. Thus, though hi finds "much to criticize in the leadership of the Democratic Party," he is now a supporter since "it is a matter of life and death which party [wins] the elections" in November.

Now before a delegation is dispatched to Soros’ office in an attempt to recruit him to the Communist Party, keep in mind that he is proud that his foundation can claim substantial "credit for the collapse of the Communist regime" in his formerly homeland, Hungary. He is equally proud about hi: role in what he terms "regime change" in formerly socialist Eastern Europe. He sees no connection between the erosion of the socialist camp as a counterweight and the concomitant accretion of power of US imperialism with which he is now concerned. Similarly, before the recent elections in Brazil, it was Soros who was ringing alarm belle about the platform of current President - and former factory worker - the Workers' Party leader "Lula" da Silva, whose ideas have energized this South American giant.

But, of course, his disgust with Bush policies augurs well for the possibility of inflicting a mortal blow against both the "market fundamentalists" and "American supremacists" who compelled Soros to write this useful book.

(Political Affairs, May 2004, by Gerald Home)

TEXT 2.

SECURITY?

On a weekend in April a couple of hundred people walked along Kirribilli Avenue to the Prime Minister's residence to protest against the refugee policy and the Iraq war. They lit some candles, waved placards and eventually went home. For that 24 hour period phalanxes of state and federal police, convoys of police cars and paddy wagons, three water police boats, a helicopter and even a rubber ducky manned by black uniformed commandos, took over the Kirribilli peninsula. We do not know if the prime minister was home. We learned, on good authority, that the operation cost the taxpayer around $2m.

If you lived around there you needed to negotiate police road blocks and prove your identity to armed police.

This "security" extravaganza induced, among most residents, a sense of insecurity and uncertainty.

46

How do we rationally measure "security", "safety", "threat", "risk"? The individual. If we focus on the individual we might say he/she seeks

the physical safety of his person, from the drunk driver as he crosses on the green light and from the terrorist bomb on his bus and the street mugger. His economic security depends on the continuity of his employment and the continuing value of his assets and investments. Her physical safety demands protection from domestic violence. Her economic safety requires the cracking of the glass ceiling. Socially they find safety in their family and the communities to which they belong. They will find security in a familiar political and institutional order which controls civil conflict and disorder and in which they have a role in the decision making. They will look for the security of their inherited values, whether ethnic, religious or ideological; and they might insist on the protection of their natural and ecological environment.

If these are the indices of individual "security", is it possible to measure the level of safety individuals feel, or more accurately, their perception of "insecurity"?

A number of other elements now need to be introduced to the equation. Firstly, predictability. I want to feel that I will be as safe crossing the road to-morrow as I am to-day; my life depends on those green pedestrian lights; that the value of my home will be assured for years; that my political system will continue to deliver the expected benefits; that environmental vandals will not lay waste the trees in my street. To-day's security means lit-

tle if tomorrow is a void.

Secondly, the identification of threat. The level of insecurity is proportionate to the level of the threat posed. The threat can be "real", according to some objective measurement, or imagined and all in the mind. It can be accurately judged or miscalculated or misperceived; it can be exaggerated or underplayed, sometimes by design, with commercial or political or evil intent.

Thirdly, the calculation of risk. Almost everything we do has some element of risk attached, from plugging in the iron to driving the car to joining the police force to catching a plane. Individuals will be conscious of these risks in very different ways. Those with acute paranoia may never leave the bedroom. Sky divers may be seen as mad.

Fourthly, the relativity of experience. Crossing the road in Wagga Wagga has a very different threat/risk / expectation factor to crossing Nanjing Road in Shanghai when the lights have failed, or strolling to the market in downtown Bagdad. The ferry trip across Sydney Harbour is not the same as crossing the Hoogly in an overcrowded boat.

Fifthly, the various versions of the "weapons equation" i.e., the perception that an individual's ownership or access to weapons is a key element in personal security. The heritage of the cowboy culture in the U.S., the "right to bear arms" and the proliferation of weapons at every level of American

47

society is clearly integral to a sense of security as much as, arguably, a sense of insecurity. In Japanese civil society, the relationship between weapons and security has a very different connotation.

Now, all we have to do is to factor in all these variables into the individual's security equation to gauge his/her perception of security or insecurity.

The nation. But if that is all too hard, we can focus on the security of the state or national security. In every day rhetoric, this comes down to the physical security of the state faced with threats from other states, though the security of the national economy is also a consideration as is the maintenance of domestic order.

Highly simplified, the logic of national security is something like this. As a nation, we seek a peaceful, ordered, threat-free strategic environment, defined in terms of our own interests and values. To achieve this we need to identify the threats and dangers to the sort of world order we want. In seeking protection from these threats, and because of the violent nature of the international system, we need to acquire a "defence capacity", i.e. an adequate level and sophistication of weaponry to meet the perceived threats. Once we have secured the homeland we can go forth and establish a threat free environment and our version of world order.

Thus the key to a sense of national security is the acquisition of the appropriate weapons. All states have them. Something like 5% of total global production is devoted to the manufacture of weapons and to preparing for their use. Australian taxpayers spend about $ 14 billion a year on this exercise. In this way, the government argues, we are contributing to the physical security of Australian individuals, social and ethnic groups, the sovereign state itself, the international system of states and global order.

American taxpayers pay hundreds of billions of dollars on the same exercise. Are they getting their money's worth in terms of homeland security or in establishing their version of world order? Probably not

And note that in the name of "national security", millions of individuals, ostensibly being protected by their governments from outside threats, find themselves at acute levels of personal insecurity. The governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and of Eritrea and Sudan and Colombia and Cuba spend much of their limited resources on armaments to "protect the state ", while their people live a life of penury, civil disorder and persecution.

Even among our enlightened democracies, "homeland security" is the justification for laws which deprive individuals and ethnic minorities of their expected level of security.

The globe. If we turn our attention to global security, similar contradictions appear. If we interpret it as planetary security, i.e. transcending national and international security, we are referring to issues which affect all six billion of us living on the planet, and are beyond the jurisdictional and management capacities of the international political system, and certainly

48

beyond those of independent states. Issues such as global warming, climate change, access to clean fresh water, pollution of the high seas, and natural disasters come to mind. Attempts to achieve global environmental security to benefit the security of individuals run foul of claims to economic development. Thus Australia and the US for example refuse to sign the Kyoto Protocols on climate change, because of the perceived consequences for national economic security.

Much progress has been made in establishing global principles of justice and equity, based on what the lawyers like to call the jus cogens, and which aim to secure the rights and aspirations of individuals, and which reflect the efforts of the global community to protect individuals by circumventing the authority of the state system in these areas. Hence for example the global and now very elaborate human rights regime, the beneficiaries of which are, in principle, the six billion individuals of the planetary community. And the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) to dispense justice on behalf of individuals, victims of war crimes and genocide, sometimes perpetrated by sovereign states themselves.

But again these initiatives at global security for individuals run contrary to the claims of the state to be the sole provider of the security of its citizens. Thus the U.S. refuses to support the ICC because its own citizens may find themselves in the dock; and Australia has been known to prevent delegations from the U.N. Human Rights Commission to visit refugee detention centres.

The system. But then perhaps, pragmatically, we should focus not on individual or state or global security, but on international security (19-24) i.e. the security and stability of the international "system", defined as the community of sovereign states. If the 190 or so sovereign states are the building blocks of the system and each claims sovereign authority over its citizens, territory and "domestic jurisdiction" (guaranteed by Article 2 of the U.N. Charter), then making this system work is our best assurance of security at every level. Emmanuel Kant's 200 year old dream of "perpetual peace" lies in this direction.

Thus international strategic security (19) is best served if all sovereign states are parties to collective security arrangements which provide collective assistance to each other in the event of attack. This of course is how the U.N. Charter is supposed to work, as are regional collective security arrangements such as N.A.T.O. and A.NZ.U.S, and this is why all sovereign states are parties to many thousands of multilateral and bilateral treaties and conventions, the purpose of which is to construct a peaceful, non-violent, cooperative and productive international political and economic system.

Making such a system work, it can be argued, is the best guarantee of individual, community and global security, because it combines the principles

49

of pluralism and self determination and voluntarism on one hand, with the formalities of sovereignty and the realities of power politics on the other. The fact that the system suffers dramatic breakdowns, into war, civil war and domestic disorder is not a reason for embarking on a wish list of impractical alternative security structures, but rather an incentive to make this one work.

And making it work now relies more and more on the proposition that war and violence between sovereign states have their origin in the domestic weaknesses and failures of the member states of the system. Globalization and acute interdependence of states ensure that a few bad apples infect the whole barrel. Hence the key to a secure international system is for the collectivity of states to ensure that no apples go bad - by supporting "failing" states and punishing "rogue" states, or better, preventing weak states falling into roguery.

From the "liberal democratic" perspective this means investing weak states with governments which are legitimate, popularly responsive and administratively competent, i.e.establishing good governance.

Such governments, it is famously argued, do not go to war with each other (can you imagine Australia going to war with New Zealand? But we have been at war with Indonesia) And thus international security is achieved, and, concomitantly, the security of individuals and communities is assured by "safe" democratic governments.

To conclude. These somewhat random and disjointed thoughts on the many possible categories and levels of "security" reflect the author's concern about the misleading political rhetoric on the subject; but beyond that, can we envisage an informed and balanced public debate on these issues, led by a reputable institution? On the Government side, perhaps the Office of National Assessment might, in grasping this nettle, retrieve some of its original mandate.

(Journal of Contemporary Analysis, May-June 2004, by Tony Palfreeman)

TEXT 3.

THE EFEKTA SYSTEM

Since 1965, EF has excelled in language training. It has helped students around the world become fluent in a new language, always committed to tearing down the language and cultural barriers that divide people. With forty years of experience, EF has accumulated tremendous knowledge that made it the world’s leading and largest language school organization. As a result EF schools are accredited by such prestigious organizations as the British Council, EAQUALS, ACCET, NEAS, and many other governmentapproved educational bodies.

A culmination of forty years of expertise in language learning which came with practice and developed over time is EF’s exclusive Efekta Sys-

50