Why Do You Think Hamlet Argues That Human Nature Is Not Universal? Why, And Why?
Christie sutanto
LING 425
Exam1
Set 1.
Bohannan in “Shakespeare in the Bush” argues that human nature is not universal and context can be understood differently depending on cultural backgrounds or individual experience. Why did the author initially expect Hamlet to be universal and why did it turn out not to be universal as she thought? How did these different patterns of interethnic communication lead to miscommunication and mistranslation? Which cultural practices in Hamlet were interpreted differently by the Tiv elders and why? As a teacher, what cultural relativism do you see in this article to extend to your own co-constructing contexts and meanings with non-main stream students?
The author first claims that “Hamlet had only one possible interpretation, and that one …show more content…
But, they emphasize on words and letters, and they are not encouraged to relate the content of reading to the real world experiences. They sometimes interpret the story book and telling the story in a simplified way. Unlike Maintown who ask a question beyond the content of the book, Roadville adults ask a question about specific elements in the book. Because they are being exposed to the words and letters, they do well on a first three years of elementary school. However, in later grades, when they have to work independently or expands the knowledge beyond the textbook, they begin to fall behind. Trackton children, unlike Roadville and Maintown, do not have reading materials- no bedtime stories. Parents and caregivers do not interact with the children (they have never asked questions about book’s content). The stories are sometimes told by their older siblings. The older sibling read to the younger and sometimes “play school” with them. Since the stories told are mostly about their own lives, Trackton children are a master in describing events. But they are bad at identifying specific elements in books and answering
LING 425
Exam1
Set 1.
Bohannan in “Shakespeare in the Bush” argues that human nature is not universal and context can be understood differently depending on cultural backgrounds or individual experience. Why did the author initially expect Hamlet to be universal and why did it turn out not to be universal as she thought? How did these different patterns of interethnic communication lead to miscommunication and mistranslation? Which cultural practices in Hamlet were interpreted differently by the Tiv elders and why? As a teacher, what cultural relativism do you see in this article to extend to your own co-constructing contexts and meanings with non-main stream students?
The author first claims that “Hamlet had only one possible interpretation, and that one …show more content…
But, they emphasize on words and letters, and they are not encouraged to relate the content of reading to the real world experiences. They sometimes interpret the story book and telling the story in a simplified way. Unlike Maintown who ask a question beyond the content of the book, Roadville adults ask a question about specific elements in the book. Because they are being exposed to the words and letters, they do well on a first three years of elementary school. However, in later grades, when they have to work independently or expands the knowledge beyond the textbook, they begin to fall behind. Trackton children, unlike Roadville and Maintown, do not have reading materials- no bedtime stories. Parents and caregivers do not interact with the children (they have never asked questions about book’s content). The stories are sometimes told by their older siblings. The older sibling read to the younger and sometimes “play school” with them. Since the stories told are mostly about their own lives, Trackton children are a master in describing events. But they are bad at identifying specific elements in books and answering