Multiple Choice Practice--quiz 1

The word "chopsticked" is an example of a verb form created from a noun. In this case, the noun "chopstick" has been transformed into a verb by adding the suffix "-ed" to indicate past tense. This usage is not a common or widely accepted verb form, and it is unlikely to persist in the English language.

The word "hygienists" in line 16 is used to add a touch of mock humor to the discussion. This implies that the author is not taking the subject matter too seriously and is using sarcasm or irony to lighten the tone. The word choice of "hygienists" in this context is unexpected and playful, creating a humorous effect.

The correct answer is "so what's really going on" (line 40). This point marks a shift in the development of the argument because it introduces the idea of language being a reflection of power dynamics and social hierarchies. Prior to this point, the passage discusses the history and evolution of language, but it is at this point that the argument takes a deeper dive into the implications and underlying reasons behind language changes.

The examples in paragraph 4 demonstrate how nationalism can influence reactions to linguistic changes. The author provides examples of countries like France and Japan, where language policies and attitudes towards linguistic changes are shaped by nationalist sentiments. In France, there is a strong emphasis on preserving the French language as a symbol of national identity, leading to resistance against foreign loanwords. Similarly, in Japan, there is a push to promote the use of the Japanese language and limit the influence of English. These examples illustrate how nationalism can play a significant role in shaping language attitudes and policies.

The author refers to "weeds" as usage changes. This suggests that the author is referring to words or phrases that have evolved or changed in meaning over time. The term "weeds" implies that these changes are undesirable or unwanted, similar to how weeds are unwanted plants in a garden.

The author presents John Wallis, Samuel Johnson, and Johnathan Swift as hostile to unnecessary changes in word usage in their eras. This can be inferred from the fact that the author mentions these individuals in relation to their criticism or opposition towards certain language-related issues. The mention of these individuals suggests that they were against making unnecessary changes to the way words were used during their respective time periods.

The author suggests that international reactions to Americanized spellings of words can reflect resentment of America's cultural and economic status. This implies that some people may view American influence as imposing and dominating, leading to negative feelings towards American spellings.

The author's relation to the reader is best described as that of an informed commentator because they provide information and analysis on a particular subject. They are knowledgeable and well-informed, offering insights and opinions without being emotionally involved or biased. The author is not necessarily sympathetic, angry, amused, or aloof, but rather takes on a neutral and objective stance, presenting their views in a professional and informative manner.

The correct answer is "anxious about how their use of language affects others' perception of them." This is implied in paragraph three (lines 40-53) where it is mentioned that those who strictly follow rules of the English language feel uneasy when they have to correct others' linguistic errors. This suggests that they are concerned about how their use of language may be perceived by others.

The example of Alfred the Great serves to build on the point made in lines 1-5. This suggests that the information about Alfred the Great further supports or enhances the argument or idea presented in the earlier lines.

The author's discussion of reaction to changes in language develops by broadening from people's immediate circle of contacts to their own larger society and then to an international perspective. This means that the author starts by discussing how language changes affect individuals in their immediate social circle, then expands the discussion to how these changes impact society as a whole, and finally considers the global implications of language changes. The author is showing how the scope of the discussion widens as they explore different levels of language change and its effects.

The author's attitude toward the English language is one of interest in its past and optimism for its future. This can be inferred from the mention of "regard for the early scholars of English grammar" which suggests an appreciation for the language's history, and the mention of "optimism for the future of English" which indicates a positive outlook for the language's development.

The passage is best described as thoughtful yet playful because it presents ideas and thoughts in a reflective and contemplative manner, while also incorporating elements of humor and light-heartedness. The tone is not dramatic, as there is no sense of intense emotion or tension. It is not confidential, as the passage is not sharing private or secret information. It is not impressionistic, as it does not rely on subjective impressions or vague descriptions. It is not moralistic and rigid, as it does not impose a strict moral code or judgment.

The author employs rhetorical questions to engage the reader and provoke thought. The author also references grammatical terms to support their arguments and provide clarity. Quotations from famous writers are used to lend credibility and authority to the author's claims. Additionally, examples from diverse eras are used to illustrate the universality and timelessness of the author's arguments.