Marketing Plan for Triumph Spares Limited Essay

Marketing Plan for Triumph Spares Limited - Essay Example Our market consist of both the final consumers and the b2b selling. However, it is noted that bulk of our sales are done through b2b channel, and only 20% of our sales is made to small customers through the shop. Therefore, we need to plan a strategy that will help us widen the both sectors and will lead to increase in the profits and revenues.The company has divided its market into two segments:Business Buyers: Here the deals are made with the other business and the company keeps a margin of 50%. This is the segment where the company earns the maximum revenue and almost 80% of its sales are made through this segment. Hence, we need to understand that this segment is most important to us in terms of its size and contribution to the profit. Hence, we need to devise a policy that sustains and grows the revenues earned from this segment. In other words, we can conclude that this is a priority segment for us. We need to look after this segment and need to give it much more importance and attention than the other sector. The sales made in this sector are in bulk and hence we can exploit on economies of scale if we continue to give importance to this sector given the size of this sector.General Public: This is the other market segment; we are currently selling our products to. Here the profit margins are high but the sales volume is very low, so we cannot rely just on this segment. We need to make sure that both the segments are sustained are served together if we need to maximize our profits.

Management Research Paper Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 2500 words - 1

Management - Research Paper Example In a clinical setting, the scientific organization approach remains founded on the idea of planning of job to attain effectiveness, consistency, specialization, and generalization. The Bureaucratic approach sees the clinic as section of a wider community organized in structure as one unit. Aims at bringing different units under one roof. Administrative theory emphasizes on the management goals and their achievement in a clinic (Ziegenfuss, 2007). Neoclassical theory stresses on a person’s or team trend and human associations in assessing output. It explains how clinic staff coordinates to bring out the desired results in an organization. The modern theory consists of three approaches, the systems approach, the socio-technical, and the contingency or situational approach. The systems approach considers the clinic like a system made up of a set of connected dependent branches. Socio-technical approach recognizes the clinic as made up of social scheme, technical scheme and its su rrounding. This ensures effective mixing with the surrounding to produce the desired results in a clinic. The contingency approach considers a clinic like institutional scheme connected to the surrounding and that various surroundings need varying institutional associations for efficient functioning of the clinic (Ziegenfuss, 2007). ... Mintzberg’s grouping recognizes (Kelly, 2012): Interpersonal role Informational role Decisional role Interpersonal role In this category, there are three types of interpersonal roles, which include: a. Figurehead: all managers, however, mainly senior managers, remain figure leaders since they participate in figurative and official functions like greeting guests and making dialogues at institutional occasions. The challenge that could remain incurred in this situation is communication barrier and the timing of the communication to suit your audience and make them comfortable. b. Liaison: it entails official and informal within and without contacts; the challenge that could prevail here is the ability to maintain all the contacts and be able to reach them evenly. c. Influencer: comprises of tasks intrinsic in the directing activity, the function of which is to encourage and head. The challenge that may prevail here is lack of enough knowledge and expertise to be able to deal wit h all the team members in the organization as well as keep them motivated and ready to work. Informational role The informational roles of a manager comprise of the following: Monitor- The manager has to view and follow the flow of information and the progress of the staff to ensure that they all conform to the set instructions and act to directives accordingly. The challenges the managers can encounter here are the other staff viewing them as dictators and completely following up their affairs and thus develop hatred towards them. This will affect the performance of the subordinate workers as well as that of the managers hence leading to low output. Disseminator- the managers have the role of spreading information to their subordinates when necessary to

How And When Children Acquire Language English Language Essay

How And When Children Acquire Language English Language Essay Introduction: The question to consider is how children acquire language and at which stage they could improve their speaking and listening skills. In particular, syntax and vocabulary are the main concern of the language acquisition domain. The task of psycholinguistics is to discover the relationship between language and the human mind (Field: 2003). Many theories, therefore, have emerged in exploring this relationship, which seek to explain the way in which children understand and acquire language. Over the last five decades these theories have offered various ideas and interpretations of the relationship. For example, in Behaviourist theory, which is associated to skinners research into language, language acquisition is considered a collection of habits. It is thought that children learn how to form correct utterances through positive reinforcement from the people around them (Patten and Benati: 2010). Cognitive theory, which is associated with Piaget, is considered a way of discovering how ind ividuals create and use language in their social context (ibid, p71). Interaction theory, related to Bruner, holds that language comes from the interaction between children and their environment (ibid, p99). There are, however, two theories in the relevant acquisition literature which oppose one another and provoke countless debates: Chomskys theory and Tomasellos theory. In Chomskys theory, children biologically possess an innate ability to acquire their language. This ability is mainly specific to language. Whereas, in Tomasellos theory language is acquired through language use by means of social skills, such as, joint attention and general learning mechanisms (Behrene: 2009). This paper seeks to explore these two theories in order to contrast them. The first and second parts of the paper present an overview of the main ideas in the two theories. The third part focuses on their different aspects, including the: poverty of stimulus argument, linguistic creativity, modularity and language specific domain versus domain- general learning mechanisms. The fourth and final part, discusses some weak points in the two theories. Overview of Chomskys (Innatist) theory: In language acquisition domain, Chomskys theory is called an innatist theory, because he proposed that children biologically possess suitable abstract knowledge for the task of first language learning .This abstract knowledge shapes the linguistic system which they learn. In fact, through this innate knowledge children can discover the rules of their language system and reduce hypothesis formation and guessing. (Patten and Benati: 2010). Chomskys main argument is that all human beings are born with an innate knowledge which is particularly designed for language acquisition (ibid). This argument is indeed, opposed to the one that language is a result of the interaction between human beings and the environment or item-usage learning (e.g. Skinner, 1957; Tomasello, 2003). Furthermore, The term Language Acquisition Device (LAD) was coined by Chomsky in this context to refer to such innate knowledge or the little black box (Patten and Benati: 2010).The (LAD) comprises the universal princi ples of all languages, by which children can be kept on track and not confused by all the complex rules of particular languages. When this (LAD) is activated, the child can discover the structure of the language s/he is to learn by matching the innate knowledge of basic grammatical relationships to the structures of the special language in the environment (Lightbown and Spada: 1999). However, since the 1960s, instead of (LAD) universal grammar hypothesis (UG) was introduced by Chomsky. It was given much concern by him instead of, the (LAD), because, in Chomskys view this hypothesis means that there is an innate knowledge source which governs the shape of natural language (Patten and Benati: 2010). It should be noted that the first appearance of Chomskys theory was in 1959 in his critical review of Skinners book Verbal Behavior in 1957. Chomsky in his review pointed out many shortcomings in applying Skinners theories to language acquisition. For example, Skinners experiment using rat boxes is not relevant to language because the behaviour of rats is unlike human behaviour. As a result, Skinner has a mistaken understanding of the nature of language. Furthermore, the environment considered solely as learning mechanism can not be the basis of language acquisition and therefore, mans ability to acquire language must be innate (Aitchison, 2007). Overview of Tomasellos theory (usage-based theory): The account of language acquisition provided by Tomasello comes under the umbrella of usage-based theories. Recently, a new view of language and human linguistic competence has emerged (Tomasello: 2003). This view comes from a set of theories usually called cognitive-functional linguistics, and also called usage -based linguistics in order to emphasize their main ideas that language structure is produced or appears from language use (e.g. Langacker, 1987a ; Croft, 1991; Tomasello, 1995, 2003). It is note worthy that this view stands in direct opposition to Chomskys innatist theory. Because, Tomasello in his theory is mainly concerned with the question of how children get from here to there from the constructions of infant level speech to the abstract constructions of adult thought through one set of processes of acquisition (Tomasello: 2003:3). In Tomasellos theory it is impossible that humans can have been born with a specific collection of communicative behaviours only for language . This collection more probably learned by children during their years from the linguistic conventions used around them. They must possess flexibility in order to learn both the different words and the suitable expressions of each language and the different types of abstract constructional pattern which historically these languages have grammaticized (ibid). Tomasello emphasizes, however, four points in his theory: First, the innate skills which people have are not specific to language but can be used as means for language learning. Second, theory of mind is central to symbol use, because humans can understand symbols while nonhuman do not possess this ability, because they use signal system. Thirdly, word-learning skills include: joint attention, which means the ability that children possess in their first year old whereby they can understand other people as intentional agents and interact socially through an object to which both pay attention; children note this attention to both it and themselves; Intention reading, means the ability to understand the social world around them through imitating adult acts; the construction-learning skills encompassing: analogy and pattern-finding. The latter means the distributional analysis based on statistical information in the primary linguistic data and the ability to form perceptual and conceptual figures of similar objects or situations (Tomasello: 2003). The differences between the two theories: It is noteworthy that the accounts provided by Chomsky and Tomasello comprise many opposed aspects, of which the main ones are as follows: 3.1. Poverty of stimulus argument: The basic argument of the nativist theory is based on Chomskys assumption of the poverty of stimulus (1965).This assumption means that the data provided by the input to which people exposed are not rich enough to account for language acquisition (Patten and Benati:2010). In other words, it means that the language to which children are exposed as their input or the primary linguistic data is solely a set of individual utterances yielding some abstract principles of grammar which seem ambiguous for language acquisition .The best solution he can provide is the universal grammar hypothesis (UG), which means that all humans are born with an innate universal language containing a number of abstract principles which can lead the acquisition process (Tomasello: 2003). Despite the fame of the poverty of stimulus argument in the language acquisition domain and childrens language research, it has certain, if we contrast it with the account provided by Tomasellos usage-based theory. We find that the research into the developmental psychology of language acquisition has provided many arguments which support the richness of stimulus in usage-based theories (e.g Clark2003, Tomasello 2003). In fact, the significance of social pragmatic interaction in language acquisition is evidenced by extensive findings in this domain (Tomasello: 2003). To put it more simple, Tomasello in his theory emphasizes that: There is no poverty of the stimulus when a structured inventory of construction is the adult endpoint (Tomasello: 2003:7). He notes that the hypothesis of an innate universal grammar has two major problems, namely, first, the linking problem and the problem of continuity. The first problem is how children can connect their abstract universal grammar with the particular language which they learn. The second problem deals with the developmental changes in childrens language, for example, how people can understand childrens language during their developmental change if we accept that universal grammar is always the same. It, therefore, seems useful to provide a description or explanation of child language acquisition which ignores any hypothesis of universal grammar which creates these problems (Tomasello: 2003). Accordingly, it is important to note that Chomsky and Tomasello are opposed on the argument of the poverty of stimulus. Tomasellos view, however, seems stronger, because nativists provide no support for their claims. As Pullum and Scholz (2002:47) point out, the poverty of stimulus argument still a waits even a single good supporting example. Moreover, Akhtar (2004) seems to agree with this criticism, in that she indicates that this argument was the basis for a number of nativist claims, yet indeed lack supporting empirical evidences. 3.2. Language is creative: Another difference between Chomsky and Tomasello is the formers belief that language is creative. From Chomsky perspective, creativity in language has three- fold support. First, people possess the ability to understand and produce strange sentences which they have never before heard or spoken (Aitchison: 2007). Second, the creative use of language is free from the external and internal affects of the stimulus control (Chomsky: 1968). Third, the way in which people use the language considered to be coherent and appropriate to the situation (Hegde: 1980). By the way of contrast, we can see that Tomasello does not ignore creativity in language, but he has little concern for it. According to him, it results from the attempt of humans to create categories in their own language (Tomasello: 1995). Chomsky asserts that the creativity in language is something which can not be acquired solely through environmental learning methods (Aitchison: 2007). Tomasello contrastingly asserts that, during a period of time, children obtain the communicative conventions are obtained step by step from the people around them. For example, their social cognitive skills and developing cognition are utilised to internalise these conventions. Childrens basic abilities are used to learn their first words. They create concepts so as to understand adult speech and then to produce suitable new words in their communicative contexts (Tomasello: 1995). It is thought, however, from the contrast between the two views that Chomskys view about the creativity of language has some limitations. For one thing, nativists assert that every utterance we hear and say is completely novel and accepted. This assertion seems to be wrong. The reason is that to accept it we would need to assume that each word or sentence has a separate existence. Moreover, we have to assume that our past language experience is sufficient to provide a clear understanding of the present utterances. But, if these assumptions are accepted, the result will be that human communicative behaviour has no continuity (Hegde: 1980). The second point, on the creativity of language free from the control of stimulus, seems to be weak, because, as discussed above in section (3.1) no evidence has been offered in its support. Furthermore, with regard to the third point, in Chomskys view the way that people use language is coherent and appropriate to the situation. It could be argued that this point is somewhat vague, since Chomsky admits that he can give no clear meaning to the terms appropriateness and coherent in this context (ibid). However, he stresses that the creative aspect of language is common. Humans constantly create novel utterances and many who lack this ability might be brain damaged (Aitchison: 2007). This view would be more popular if it took into account the effect of environmental learning methods in producing our utterances, since the one question that needs to be asked here is, how humans can produce them without communication with their input. 3.3. Modularity: In the areas of linguistics and philosophy of mind, the idea of modularity has raised a great deal of concern (Garfield: 1987). There seems to be another difference between Chomsky and Tomasello, about the modularity of mind in language acquisition. To illustrate, the definition of modularity according to Crystal (1998: 246) is: A term used in recent discussion of language in two slightly different ways. On the one hand, it is proposed, especially in J. A. Fodors The Modularity of Mind, that the mind is modular in the sense that it consists of a number of different systems ( modules) each has its own distinctive properties , such as the language system and the vision system. On the other hand, it is suggested, especially in government-binding theory that language system itself is modular in the sense that it consists of a number of different subsystems which interact in specific ways. The concept of modularity is that the brain is divided into separate parts, an idea to which Chomsky gives much attention (1965).He identifies the language area as a separate faculty of mind, in that language is autonomous in the mind and a separate module in the brain (Aitchison: 2007). Furthermore, he goes on to argue that the human mind is, like other complex biological systems, modular in its internal formation (Chomsky: 1984). The main idea of modularity, according to him, is that the modularity of syntax means that the structures of syntax are not the same as the structures exist in other cognitive (Chomsky: 1968 cited in Tomasello: 1995). By the way of contrast, we can see that Tomasello does not agree that language is a separated module in the brain, because, by his reasoning, in order to have a perfect grammatical theory the syntactic abilities should be combined into cognition and not like an autonomous sub-system (Parisse: 2005). To sum up, Chomskys view is a modular view in which there are different sub-parts in the mind each one possessing special characteristics. Tomasello, however, take the non-modular view that there are general principles employed in all cognitive domains which control the mind (Archibald: 1993). However, to return to the account of modularity provided by Chomsky, one of the difficulties with this account is the claim that syntactic structures are not like the structures which exist in other cognitive domains. This seems to be wrong, because it gives the idea that the syntax module is innate, yet if we give the example of the game of chess, we find that it possesses a number of unique structures, such as, the images of a knight fork or queen-a side attack- in human cognition. But there is no need to presume that this uniqueness chess- playing form needs an innate mental form (Bates et al. 1991). Moreover, the structures of cognitive thought which adults utilise in order to play the game of chess come through a process in which people employ general cognitive processes to face their problems in their social interaction which they may have had in learning to play a constructed game (Tomasello:1995). Hence, it is thought that Chomskys view seems to be weak because it is difficult to specify which part of the brain is responsible for language. As Bates asserts, it still far from knowing perfectly which parts of the brain are responsible for language (Bates in press, cited in, Tomasello 1995). 3.4. Language- specific versus domain- general learning mechanisms: Another point of difference between Chomsky and Tomasello concerns the way in which children acquire language. is another different point between Chomsky and Tomasello. The difference lies in the contention over whether language should be a specific domain or a domain general learning mechanism. A specific domain in this context means a domain specific to language, whilst, domain general refers to learning mechanisms which are not specific to language, yet applied generally. From Chomskys perspective, since, human beings are able to learn language and animals are not, this ability is considered genetically inherited (Aitchison: 2007). Nativist theory, in fact, hypothesises that children are born with universal grammar (UG), a set of innate principles and parameters. This possession helps children to learn language without making errors as they learn (Conroy and Thornton: 2005). Therefore, this assumes that children possess a pre- existing domain- specific innate form which specifies the form of their language knowledge. Moreover, in language learning in particular, syntax children obtain ability without exposure to adequate stimulus (Chomsky; 1986, Pinker; 1994). However, Tomasello believes that it is false to suppose that children have genetically endowed grammar (Tomasello: 2003). To his mind, children in order to learn their language employ item-based learning integrated with some general learning mechanisms that are used in other cognitive domains , such as, analogy (Conroy and Thornton: 2005). Moreover, in Tomasellos view the properties of language structure come from joint attention figures and not from innate language specific mechanisms (Segalowitz: 2001). As a result, Tomasello significantly did not ignore language universals; however, to him they not universals of form or a special type of syntax or linguistic symbols but are instead, the universals of human communication and cognition. For example, human beings use language in similar social contexts in order to provide solutions in language for communicative tasks, such as, describing specific entities (Tomasello: 2003). Consequently, Chomskys view that language has a specific-do main is weak , because languages differ in their grammatical relations, of subject and object, for example, Acehnese, an Indonesian language, and Tagalog, a Philippine language, do not possess these grammatical relations ( Tomasello:1995). 4. Some weakness in both theories: Tomasello, then, introduced a new model of usage-based theories in language acquisition in which he paid attention to a main set of skills, namely, intention reading, joint attention and pattern-finding skills. These skills are general skills utilised also in other types of cognition and not in language alone. Furthermore, although they are innate, they are not like the universal grammar (UG) invented by Chomsky, because they are not specific to language (Tomasello, 2003). But Tomasellos account seems to entail some limitations. It is thought that he does not provide a clear explanation for the fact that these skills are sufficient for language acquisition. As Wilson (2006:138) points out: Tomasellos central claim is that joint attention and intention reading are foundational and prerequisite for language acquisition. It does seems reasonable to assume that they are necessary for language development, but the big question is, are they sufficient? Can they entirely account for all of the complexities of language à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ ¦ from parsing speech stream to the emergence of complex grammatical structures? Hollich et al. (2000), on the other hand, seems to agree with this criticism, because they assert that Tomasellos theory, which is one of the social constructivist theories, does not possess a complete or sufficient explanation for the fact that children can produce increasingly inserted sentences in their utterances. Moreover, the problem with these theories is that they still offer no clarification of childrens ability to discover the relationships between language units. In contrast to this, Chomskys theory is considered one of the famous theories in the language acquisition domain. It has indeed, affected the entire literature language acquisition, because of the controversy surrounding it. Yet this theory too attracts a number of criticisms. In this section, we focus on four critical points made against this theory. A major criticism concerns the universal grammar hypothesis (UG) which has been discussed above. Although (UG) aroused widespread interest in language acquisition debates, it is thought, that it is based solely on abstract thinking and lacks empirical support. As Kadarisman (2007a) points out, the concept of universal grammar must be without meaning unless it has empirical evidence. But, without adequate explanations, it seems to be more a slogan than a scientific effort. Moreover, due to its abstraction, (UG) neglects the local importance of language used in the cultural context (Becker: 1995). Second, Chomskys theory is criticised for relying on logical arguments only. As Palmer (2000) indicates, Chomskys nativist claims remain are still the same as they have been fir the past two decades. Because his claims are based on logical arguments instead of, direct evidences or reasonable interpretations, his argum ents have no external support. Tomasello seems, agree with Palmer in this criticism because he states that Chomsky in his account relies strongly on logical arguments, not using the scientific study of human behaviour and cognition (Tomasello: 1995). Third, it is criticised because it can not be tested. This creates some contention around Chomskys account. The reason is that his theory has no clear cut procedures which could be examined. To put it more simple, Chomsky considered theory-construction in linguistics as similar to theory- construction in the physical sciences, particular, physics. Yet, there is a deference between these two domains, because, the mathematical model in physics depends on physical phenomena and is testable, whereas, Chomskys model relies on subjective judgments made by individual native speakers who may disagree with each other. Consequently, it can not be tested (Moor and Carling: 1987). Fourth, Chomskys theory is criticised in terms of its ideas, if considered as philosophical ideas, for instance the adoption of such innatist ideas as, the universal grammar (UG) hypothesis which is based on the hypothesis of an innate language faculty. Subsequently, many linguists (e.g. Hegde, 1980; Moore and Claring, 1987) have strongly criticised these ideas. For example, Hegde asserts that the concept of a nativist theory is merely part of an ancient philosophical idea. Furthermore, Moore and carling believe that Chomskian linguistics are linked by these ideas to philosophy, in particular, epistemology, the part of philosophy concerned with knowledge theories. Conclusion: The domain of language acquisition possesses a varied collection of theories. Their main concern is to discover the way in which people, in particular children, can acquire language. The accounts given by Chomsky and Tomasello can be critically contrasted, as seen above. They obviously stand on two opposite sides. In Chomskys theory, children are born with an innate ability by which they acquire their language, whereas, in Tomasellos theory, language is acquired through language use and not by biologically innate ability. Furthermore, the innate abilities which children have are not specific to language. However, the main aspects which have been contrasted in this paper comprised: first, the poverty of stimulus argument, in which, according to Chomsky, the input is not sufficient to acquire language, while, from Tomasellos perspective there is no poverty of stimulus; second, Language to Chomsky is creative, because it is free from the control of stimulus while in Tomasellos view lang uage results from the attempt of humans to create categories in language; third, modularity, Chomskys assertion that the mind is separated into sub-parts, whereas Tomasello believes, that general principles control the mind; and fourth, Language- specific versus domain- general learning mechanisms; either there are universals specific to language, as in (UG) hypothesis of Chomsky or, as Tomasello states universals is not specific to language but apply to all human communication and cognition. Hence, we can conclude that Chomskys account strongly relies on the hypothesis of universal grammar (UG) to support his view on the poverty of stimulus argument, creativity of language, modularity and the language- specific domain. It should be noted that the universal grammar hypothesis (UG) brought a great deal of debate among scholars of language acquisition, even though one of its limitations is that it has no empirical evidence to support it. Tomasellos account, conversely, depends on general skills in language acquisition, such as, joint attention, intention reading and pattern finding skills. Yet he did not provide adequate explanation to convince us that these are sufficient for language acquisition.

Microsoft Versus the Department of Justice Essays -- Computers Microso

Microsoft Versus the Department of Justice In today’s high-tech ultra-fast paced world, there can be no debate as to the importance of personal computers. Personal Computers control virtually every aspect of our daily lives. Businesses, regardless of their size, have local area networks, company Intranets and high-speed wide area networks. Billing, inventory and invoicing would be impossible without help from our Personal Computers. Stocks, bonds and commodities are traded in the markets around the world entirely by computer. The Banking industry relies enormously on Personal Computers for every transaction. Communicating without email, fax transmissions and other forms of computer aided information transfers would be unimaginable. The media would be unable to produce news and information for the masses in the timely manner we know today. Law enforcement agencies, from local police, to field agents of the F.B.I. depend on computer databases for crucial information. Air traffic controllers rely on their computer s to safely land and route thousands of planes into airports around the world everyday. Even the military depends on computers to defend our very own borders and interests. With the important role that Personal Computers serve in society today, is it really a good idea to have one company exclusively control the technology running virtually every aspect of our lives? Ninety percent of all computers sold worldwide are IBM or IBM compatible clones. Microsoft's infamous operating system licensing agreements required all personal computer makers to pay Microsoft a royalty on every computer they manufactured, even when no Microsoft product was loaded on the machine.(Kaphing 1) This forced the Personal Computer makers into only using the Microsoft operating system. They could not choose a different Operating System even if they so desired, because at that time all of the Personal Computer clone manufacturers were small start up companies, having very limited capital. They couldn't afford to pay both Microsoft and another company for a different operating system. In 1994 The United States Justice Department barred Microsoft from engaging in this sort of extortion, but it was already too late, the Operating System monopoly had been realized. After the 1994 decision, Microsoft resorted to a new anti-competitive tactic. Yet another ... ... and largely as a result of that barrier, Microsoft’s customers lack a commercially viable alternative to Windows. Microsoft possesses a dominant, persistent, and increasing share of the world-wide market PC operating systems. Every year for the last decade, Microsoft’s share of the market for Intel-compatible PC operating systems has stood above ninety percent. For the last couple of years the figure has been at least ninety-five percent, and analysts project that the share will climb even higher over the next few years. Even if Apple’s Mac Operating System were included in the relevant market, Microsoft’s share would still stand well above eighty percent. It was proven in court that many of the tactics that Microsoft has employed have also harmed consumers indirectly by unjustifiably distorting competition. The actions that Microsoft took against Navigator hobbled a form of innovation that had shown the potential to depress the applications barrier to entry sufficiently to enable other firms to compete effectively against Microsoft in the market for PC operating systems. That competition would have conduced to consumer choice and nurtured innovation.

The Monster

The monster, in Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein, is the nameless creature whose physical grotesqueness and murderous deeds label him as the embodiment of evil, when in actuality he is a remarkably sensitive and benevolent being. The monster is Victor Frankenstein’s creation, assembled from old body parts and strange chemicals, brought to life by supernatural means. He enters life with the strength of a giant, yet an infant mind. He is abandoned by his own creator and rejected by society. His feelings are the deepest of any characters in this novel, as well as the most conflicted. He states, â€Å"I do know that for the sympathy of one living being, I would make peace with all. I have love in me the likes of which you can scarcely imagine and rage the likes of which you would not believe. If I cannot satisfy the one, I will indulge the other† (Shelley 104) Mary Shelley aims to portray the monster as more of a human with humane characteristics. Unknown to them, the monster collects firewood for the De Laceys and leaves it at their door. He even saves a girl from drowning, but his good deed is rejected and he is beaten for his outward appearance. The monster is also an extremely intelligent creature. He persuaded Victor to hear his story about how he learned and acquired knowledge through reading and observing the De Laceys. However, his education only made him more aware of his isolation. The monster also desires love and companionship like any human. He ask of Victor, â€Å"I am alone and miserable; man will not associate with me; but one as deformed and horrible as myself would not deny herself to me. My companion must be of the same species and have the same defects. This being you must create† (Shelley 146) It is his loneliness and rejection by society that makes him so malicious but he might have been a different creature if only his desire for a female companion was satisfied. Unfortunately the monster’s mere physical ugliness is the reason society does not accept him. After being so cruelly rejected, he is enthralled with a desire for revenge. He murders Victor’s loved ones because he himself is denied closeness with anyone and wants to make Victor suffer like he did. However, even after his creator’s death, the monster is only somewhat relieved. He had taken full revenge on Victor but had also ruined his only relationship with another person. The monster’s life is intertwined with his creator and he is nothing without Victor. He asserts, â€Å"He is dead who called me into being; and when I shall be no more, the very remembrance of us both will speedily vanish. I shall no longer see the sun or stars, or feel the winds play on my cheeks. Light, feeling, and sense will pass away; and in this condition must I find my happiness† (Shelley 224-225) The monster is as much a part of Frankenstein as he is his own being, so after Victor’s death he seeks to find peace in death.

Behavioral Finance

Behavioral finance is a study which involves the influence of psychology on the attitudes and behavior of investors and its subsequent effects on the markets. Behavioral Studies is still in its development stages, but it is instrumental in determining/ explaining as to why or how markets might be inefficient. The difference between traditional finance and behavioral finance is that traditional finance is based on the following concepts: – Investors have rational behavior – Capital Asset Pricing Model (CAPM) – Markets are efficientBehavioral finance on the other hand says that, the psychological forces interfere with these concepts. It says that there are both internal and external behavioral obstacles towards the value creation of any company. In practical terms it brings forward the errors in judgments made by both individual investors and fund managers and the various biases to which we as humans are prone. Analyzing this will place us in a position to make dec isions which avoid errors/mistakes committed in the past . INVESTORS: Individual investors: An individual investor is a person who purchases small amounts of securities for him/herself.He is not professionally involved in investment services and whatever purchases he/she makes are on an arm’s length basis. Individual investors are highly regulated because they are thought of as amateurs with little or no knowledge. An individual investor is also known as retail investor or small investor . Professional investor: These investors are usually all those businesses which are involved in giving investment services either directly or indirectly for example, investment companies, mutual funds, investment banks, brokerage houses etc.Besides them professional investors could also be individuals which are professionally involved in giving investment services. Professional investors are also known as institutional investors. These investors are subject to fewer regulations probably becau se they are perceived as having superior knowledge to individual investors . Behavioral biases: Individual and Institutional investors are both prone to almost similar biases, because institutional investors are although organizations in their own right but in actual are lead by a handful of managers.Proponents of this study argue that humans are prone to bias in making their judgments no matter how qualified or experienced they may be. They say that humans make frequent use of heuristics, mental shortcuts/rules of thumb to simplify decisions and tasks that are complex. Availability heuristic: With availability heuristic it is believed that for humans the probability of an event occurring is dependent on how easily one can imagine that event happening. The more clear is the image the greater the probability.A related concept is Illusory correlation which describes we imagine and hence interpret evidence. Although this bias is limited for retail investors since not only their investm ents are smaller but they also don’t have various charts, patterns analyzing past year data at their disposal, as for institutional investors this bias is at a much more magnified level because many fund managers use charts and technical analysis which according to them helps in identifying various patterns and price/stock moments . Representativeness heuristic:This concept says that humans are prone making judgments that involve consideration of stereo-types instead of the underlying features. For example, while hiring the selection process takes into consideration the qualifications, relevant experience, personality etc. however this in no way can predict the future job performance of the individual. This also incorporates a related concept called Illusion of validity which puts forward that the confidence in one’s judgment is primarily based on the representation of the situation instead of the characteristics.However, retail investors are more prone to this bias as compared to institutional investors because they have the information that is available to the general public for example, commentaries from financial journalists, analysts which believe that well known companies are good stock-market investment options, but in reality these two factors are largely unrelated . Anchoring and adjustment: This is another important heuristic according to which decisions made by humans are dependent on some key value/number.There is no process or logic behind determination of this value/number it could be any random number. For example, budgeting which involves use of current figures to determine future estimates. Many fund managers use current year figures and current year industry averages to determine future estimates. This bias is a product of our inherent conservatism which leads to our under reaction to new information. Institutional investors are more prone to this bias as compared to small investors. Probably because the managers of investment c ompanies actively use these techniques to draw conclusions.Small investors would hardly be aware so these techniques however those with an accounting background could be an exception . Loss aversion: It is also a key bias. It is based on the concept that humans find it very difficult to accept loss and the state of denial is such that we infact believe that holding onto it for longer periods of time would turnaround things some way or the other. This bias has some major consequences in financial decision-making. For instance, over the years it has been seen that many companies have kept running loss-making units and destroying shareholder wealth to the level at which it was irreparable.The reasons behind the strength of this bias as scholars put it is the shame and regret and feeling the blame for the loss incurred. Individual investors are more prone to this professional investors, a study revealed that individual investors sell those stocks that start to perform well quite soon an d hang on loss-making stocks for longer periods of time hoping that things might take a u-turn. This problem as professional traders put it is named get evenitis. Hindsight bias: It is based on the concept that humans are prone to that feeling â€Å"I knew it all the while† or precisely hindsight bias.To correct this bias is also very difficult because it’s natural for us to make differing conclusions regarding what happened in the past even though those decisions would have been correct according to the data and circumstances at hand then. For example, these days since the global economy is in recession even a layman is heard that this was inevitable. Individual investors are prone to this bias out of human nature, as for institutional investors they are less prone to this because they would be having greater access to information all the time .Over-confidence bias: Humans are naturally over-confident about their abilities normally. This further leads to over optimism i. e. we normally feel that we can be successful in most of our endeavors or do the right thing in most of the situations. However in reality that is not possible. Moreover the more information or data one gathers regarding a task, the more that person feels in greater control this is called Illusion of knowledge. Practically the biggest setback that one has to deal with results unfolds is that they are quite different than what was expected.Individual investors are much less prone to this bias as compared to institutional investors which suffer a lot more, because the over-confidence of a team of managers would prove more lethal financially. For example, 3Com which acquired US Robotics in 2000 made an IPO of its division that made the famous Palm pilots. Although the share prices went as high as $165 making 3Com the fourth largest technology firm then but announcement of a forthcoming product without the infrastructure yet in place saw its share prices dramatically fall to $1. 35 in 2001.This financial blunder was a result of a combined over-optimism of the then senior management. INVESTMENT BELIEFS: Characteristics of the Individual investor’s investment beliefs would be focused on limited aspects probably because they have limited knowledge of the market and they invest smaller amounts as compared to institutional investors. They would probably invest in companies that have good market reputation and which promise a good return within a short span of time. As for institutional investors their investment beliefs would be diverse since they are professionals.It would be important for them to take measures to avoid conflicts of interest. It would also be important for them to develop a clear view of capital markets in order to invest in companies that are expected to yield good returns . CONCLUSION: Behavioral finance has therefore highlighted that financial decision-making of both individual and institutional investors. The errors/mistakes made in yes ter-years both at the individual and organizational level if taken care of in future could result in making sound long-term decisions. WORKS CITED: Blanco. A.Behavioral Finance Possibilities and Limitations of Different Approaches. Wiesbaden, 2003 Fortune. Why CEOs Fail. February 10th 2009 Retrieved from :< http://money. cnn. com/magazines/fortune/>, 1999. Goldberg. J. Behavioral Finance. John Wiley, 2001. Montier. J. Behavioral Finance: Insights into Irrational Minds and Markets. J. Wiley. 2002. Owen. A. S. Behavioral Finance and the Decision to Invest in High Tech Stocks. School of Finance and Economics, University of Technology, 2002 Pompian. M. M. Behavioral Finance and Wealth Management: How to Build Optimal Portfolios That Account for Investor Biases.John Wiley and Sons, 2006. Redhead. K. Personal Finance and Investments: A Behavioral Finance Perspective. Routledge, 2008 Shefrin. H. Behavioral Finance. Edward Elgar Pub, 2001. Shleifer . A. Inefficient Markets: An Introduction to Behavioral Finance. Oxford University Press US, 2000. Stanyer. P, Dimson. E. The Economist Guide to Investment Strategy: How to Understand Markets, Risk, Rewards and Behaviour. Bloomberg Press, 2006. Taffler. J. R. (2001). Management Focus. Thaler. H. R. (1993). Advances in Behavioral Finance. Russell Sage Foundation

Speaking Strategies for English Learners

Speaking Strategies for English Learners Many English students complain that they understand English, but dont feel confident enough to join a conversation. There are a number of reasons for this, which we include here along with possible solutions: Students try to translate from their native language into English. How to Fix  It? Identify the Little Man/Woman in Your Head  -   If you pay attention, youll notice that youve created a little person in your head that translates. By insisting on always translating through this little man or woman, youre introducing a third person into the conversation. Learn to identify this person and ask them nicely to be quiet! Production blocking occurs due to nervousness, lack of confidence, etc. How to Fix  It? Become a Child Again -   Think back to when you were a child learning your first language. Did you make mistakes? Did you understand everything? Allow yourself to be a child again and make as many mistakes as possible. Also accept the fact that you wont understand everything, thats okay! The speaker is looking for a specific word, rather than using simple language to describe what is meant. How to Fix  It? Dont Always Tell the Truth  - Students sometimes limit themselves by trying to find the exact translation of something theyve done. However, if you are learning English, its not necessary to always tell the truth. If you are practicing telling stories in the past, make up a story. Youll find you can speak more easily if you arent trying to find a specific word. There arent enough conversation opportunities in or outside of class. How to Fix  It? Use Your Native Language  - Think about what you like to discuss in your own native language. Find a friend who speaks your language, have a conversation about a topic you both enjoy in your own language. Next, try to reproduce the conversation in English. Dont worry if you cant say everything, just try to repeat the main ideas of your conversation. Students arent able to speak to peers (for example: mixed classes of adults and teenagers). How to Fix  It? Make Speaking Into a Game -   Challenge each other to speak in English for a short period of time. Keep your goals easy. Perhaps you can begin with a short two-minute conversation in English. As practicing becomes more natural, challenge each other for longer periods of time. Another possibility is to collect some money for each time you use your own language with a friend. Use the money to go out for a drink and practice some more English! Exam preparation focuses on grammar, vocabulary, etc. and leaves little time for active use. How to Fix  It? Create a Study Group  - If getting ready for a test is your primary goal for learning English, put together a study group to review and prepare - in English! Make sure your group only discusses in English. Studying and reviewing in English, even if its just grammar, will help you become more comfortable in speaking English.   Speaking Resources Here are a number of resources, lesson plans, suggestion pages, and more which will help you and your students improve English speaking skills in and outside of class. The first rule of improving speaking skills is to speak, converse, talk, gab, etc. as much as you can! However, these strategies can help you - or your students - make the most out of your efforts. American English Usage Tips - Understanding how Americans use English and what they expect to hear can help improve conversations between native and non-native speakers. These next two features help you understand how words stress plays a role in both understanding and being understood: Intonation and Stress: Key to UnderstandingWord Stress - Changes in Meaning Register use refers to the tone of voice and words that you choose when speaking to others. Appropriate register use can help you develop a good rapport with other speakers. Register UsageRegister Use in English Teaching Conversational Skills will help teachers understand specific challenges involved when teaching speaking skills in class. Social English Examples Making sure that your conversation starts well often depends on using social English (standard phrases). These social English examples provide short dialogues and key phases necessary. IntroductionsGreetingsSpecial DaysSpeaking to StrangersTraveling Phrases Dialogues Dialogues are useful in learning standard phrases and vocabulary used in common situations. These situations are some of the most common youll find when practicing your English. A Busy DayWeekend SportsAt a Restaurant Here are a number of dialogues based on level: Beginners DialoguesIntermediate Dialogues Conversation Lesson Plans Here are a number of lesson plans which have proven quite popular in ESL/EFL classrooms around the world. Well start with debates. Debates can be used in class to help motivate students and use phrases and vocabulary that they may not use on an everyday basis. Here are a few to start off with: Men and Women - Equal at Last?Multinationals -   Help or Hindrance? Games are also quite popular in class, and games which encourage to express their point of view are some of the best: Creating a New SocietyGuilty!Lego Blocks This page will lead you to all the conversation plans located on this site: Conversation Lesson Plan Resource