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.

THE PROBLEM OF DEFINITION:

BEEF, COWS AND CHAIRS

1. COWOR

BEEF?

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 non-chair 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?