Quiz

As I explained in class last week, we will have a dictation quiz on the first two paragraphs of "Scout and Atticus" in class next week.  Be sure to prepare for the quiz.

EnglishCentral

If you have not done so already, please join my "American Culture 2012" class on English Central. Please click here to do so.

Scout and Atticus

Download the audio (right click)
Download the video (right click)
Download the text (right click)

Loading the player ...

Last week we began watching "To Kill a Mockingbird." The movie is narrated by a little girl called "Scout." "Scout" is a nickname, not the girl's real name. I think it's an unusual nickname. I've never met a little girl in the U.S. who was called "Scout." The word "scout" means "to look for something." So, perhaps Scout's father decided to call her "Scout" because she was always looking around for things.

Scout calls her father "Atticus." This is also unusual because "Atticus" is her father's first name and most American children don't call their parents by their first names. Dill, the little boy that Scout and her brother Jem meet early in the movie, wants to know why Scout calls her father "Atticus" because it's so unusual:

Dill: Why do you call your daddy Atticus?
Scout: 'Cause Jem does.
Dill: Why does he?
Scout: I don't know. He just started to ever since he began talking.

On the other hand, I have heard of other children calling their parents by their first names. As a matter of fact, my sister's children called her "Marti," which is her first name. Still, most American children call their parents something like "Mom" or "Dad."

In the beginning of the movie, a man named Mr. Cunningham brings some nuts for Atticus. Scout calls Atticus when she sees Mr. Cunningham, even though Mr. Cunningham says that there's no need to bother him. After Mr. Cunningham leaves, Atticus tells Scout not to call him the next time Mr. Cunningham comes. Listen to the dialogue:

Atticus: Scout, I think maybe . . . next time Mr. Cunningham comes, you better not call me.
Scout: I thought you'd wanna thank him.
Atticus: Oh, I do. I think it embarrasses him to be thanked.

Atticus is a very kind man and father. He would like to thank Mr. Cunningham for the food that he brings him, but he can see that being thanked embarrasses Mr. Cunningham so he tells Scout not to call him next time. Now, let's listen to the rest of the conversation between Scout and Atticus to find out why Mr. Cunningham feels embarrassed when he brings food to Atticus's family:

Scout: Why does he bring you all this stuff?
Atticus: He's paying me for some legal work I did for him.
Scout: Why does he pay you like this?
Atticus: That's the only way he can. He has no money.
Scout: Is he poor?
Atticus: Yes.
Scout: Are we poor?
Atticus: We are indeed.
Scout: [Are] we as poor as the Cunninghams?
Atticus: No, not exactly. Cunninghams are country folks, farmers. Crash hit them the hardest.

Atticus is a lawyer and Mr. Cunningham was his client. As Atticus explains to Scout, Mr. Cunningham has no money and so the only way that he can pay Atticus is to bring food from his farm.

The "crash" that Atticus mentions is the stock market crash of 1929. The crash of the stock market was the beginning of the Great Depression, which lasted for about 10 years. This movie takes place in the 1930s, during the Great Depression.

During the Great Depression, food prices dropped. This hurt the farmers because they could not get much money for the food they produced. This is one reason that Atticus says that the crash hit the farmers the hardest. Another reason is that the farmers were already very poor before the crash of the stock market.

Now, let's study the dialogue in more detail.

Atticus: Scout, I think maybe . . . next time Mr. Cunningham comes, you better not call me.

When Atticus says "you better not call me" it means the same as "you had better not call me." In English, you can say "you had better do such-and-such" to mean "you should do such-and-such" and some people just say "you better do such-and-such," as Atticus did here.

When people speak they sometimes leave out words that they would include if they were writing. Atticus's leaving out the "had" in "you had better not call me" is one example of this. Another example is when Scout leaves out the word "are" in the question "Are we as poor as the Cunninghams?":

Scout: [Are] we as poor as the Cunninghams?

When people speak in informal situations, they also tend to pronounce two or more words together as one word, instead of saying each word clearly. For example, instead of saying "do not" people often say "don't." In the following sentence Scout pronounces "you would" as "you'd" and "want to" as "wanna."

Scout: I thought you'd wanna thank him.

In standard English, this would be "I thought you would want to thank him." When you speak, I recommend that you say "want to" because "wanna" can sound a bit childish, unless you are speaking very quickly. When you write, you should definitely write "want to," not "wanna."

Scout: Why does he bring you all this stuff?
Atticus: He's payin' me for some legal work I did for him.

"Legal" means having to do with the law. So, Atticus is referring to work that he did as a lawyer as "legal work." When Atticus says "paying me" he pronounces it "payin' me." Americans often talk this way in informal situations. However, when Atticus speaks in court, he pronounces the "ing" sound at the end of words clearly.

Now that we have studied the dialogue, I hope you will find it easier to understand. Let's conclude by listening to the entire dialogue one more time.

Atticus: Scout, I think maybe . . . next time Mr. Cunningham comes, you better not call me.
Scout: I thought you'd wanna thank him.
Atticus: Oh, I do. I think it embarrasses him to be thanked.
Scout: Why does he bring you all this stuff?
Atticus: He's paying me for some legal work I did for him.
Scout: Why does he pay you like this?
Atticus: That's the only way he can. He has no money.
Scout: Is he poor?
Atticus: Yes.
Scout: Are we poor?
Atticus: We are indeed.
Scout: [Are] we as poor as the Cunninghams?
Atticus: No, not exactly. Cunninghams are country folks, farmers. Crash hit them the hardest.

教室について

この授業は講義・映画鑑賞の教室（1244教室）とパソコン教室（13AB）を交互に使います。今日は1244教室で、その次の5月10日（ゴールデンウィークの後）は13ABで授業をします。

出欠

今日はここをクリックして、出欠などのためのデータを入力してください。

EnglishCentral

Today, I would like all of you to join my "American Culture 2012" class on English Central. Please click here to do so.

Also, please use the dictionaries on this blog to study the text of "Reasonable doubt" as you practice listening to it. If would like to have a printed copy of the text but forgot to bring it with you to do, you can print another copy in class.

Reasonable doubt

Download the audio (right click)
Download the video (right click)
Download the text (right click)

The first movie we will study in this class is called "12 Angry Men." It came out in 1957 and shows how 12 men decide whether or not a 17 year old boy is guilty of the crime of murder.

I'd like to begin by talking about the some of the judge's instructions to the jury at the beginning of the movie.

You've listened to the testimony. You've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case. It's now your duty to sit down and try and separate the facts from the fancy.

Now, let's look at each sentence.

You've listened to the testimony.

"You've listened to the testimony." The judge is not speaking very clearly here. He sounds a little bored. I think he must be saying "You've listened to the testimony" but I can't hear him say "you've." The Longman English Dictionary says that the word "testimony" means "a formal statement that something is true." When people speak in a court of law about what happened in a case like this one, their speech is called "testimony." One important job of a juror is to listen to testimony.

You've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case.

"You've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case." Ordinary people become jurors. Unlike judges and lawyers, they are not experts on the law but they must make very important decisions based on the law. It is the job of the judge to make sure that the jurors have had the relevant laws read to them and that the laws have been explained properly. The jury system is based on the idea that, in a democracy, ordinary citizens are smart enough to understand the laws. In other words, ordinary citizens may not have broad knowledge of the law but they have the ability to understand the laws if they are explained properly.

It's now your duty to sit down and try and separate the facts from the fancy.

"It's now your duty to sit down and try and separate the facts from the fancy." A duty is something that someone must do. Longman says that it is "something that you have to do because it is morally or legally right." "Fancy" is something that is imagined but is not true. Longman says that fancy means "an idea or opinion that is not based on fact." So, in other words, the jurors must sit down and decide what is true and what is not true.

Now, let's listen to this part of the judge's instructions again.

You've listened to the testimony. You've had the law read to you and interpreted as it applies in this case. It's now your duty to sit down and try and separate the facts from the fancy.

Soon after this the judge tells the jurors that they must make their decision on the basis of "reasonable doubt."

If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused -- a reasonable doubt -- then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty. Now if, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must in, good conscience, find the accused guilty.

"If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused -- a reasonable doubt -- then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty." Longman says that "doubt" is "a feeling of being not sure whether something is true or right." The phrase "not sure" is important. Even if we think that it is likely that something happened, we may still have some doubts about it. It is also important to think about why we do not feel sure. The judge uses the phrase "reasonable doubt." "Reasonable" is based on the word "reason." If a doubt is "reasonable" there are reasons for it. It is possible to doubt anything. We might doubt, for example, that the sun will come up again tomorrow. However, if we don't have a reason to doubt that the sun will come up, our doubt is not a reasonable one. When the judge says "If there's a reasonable doubt . . . you must bring me a verdict of not guilty" he is saying that the jurors must consider whether or not there is a good reason to think that the boy might not be guilty. This is very different from considering whether or not the boy is probably guilty. This idea of "reasonable doubt" is at the heart of the jury system and this movie. Let's listen to the judge talk about reasonable doubt one more time.

If there's a reasonable doubt in your minds as to the guilt of the accused -- a reasonable doubt -- then you must bring me a verdict of not guilty. If, however, there's no reasonable doubt, then you must in good conscience find the accused guilty.

The "verdict" is the decision that the jurors make. They will either say "guilty" or "not guilty." "The accused" is the boy. He has been accused of murder so he is called "the accused."

Then, the judge tells the jurors that their decision must be unanimous.

However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous.

"However you decide, your verdict must be unanimous." Longman says that "a unanimous decision, vote, agreement etc is one in which all the people involved agree." Everyone must agree. This, too, is a very important idea in the American jury system and in this movie. If one or more people on the jury do not agree with the other jurors they must talk more. The requirement that the decision be unanimous often forces the jurors to talk more than they would if it were only necessary that a majority or the jurors agree. It also makes it harder to find the accused guilty. In order to find the accused guilty, all twelve jurors must agree that there is not a reasonable doubt about the guilt of the accused.