Лексика для составления резюме

Рекомендации к составлению резюме

2. Внимательно изучите текст. Прочтите его один раз, чтобы получить общее представление о содержании, а затем второй раз, принимая во внимание детали, разграничивая факты и мнение автора, общую информацию и конкретные примеры.

3. Определите ключевые моменты текста и изложите их своими словами в форме заметок. По мере необходимости используйте слова и выражения из текста, однако не переписывайте предложения целиком.

4. Расположите заметки в логической последовательности.

5. Напишите первый черновой вариант, опираясь на свои записи, а не на текст. Иначе ваш текст будет слишком длинным и представлять собой набор предложений, а не резюме. Избегайте слишком сложных по структуре предложений, которые с трудом воспринимаются на слух.

6. Проверьте, все ли ключевые моменты отражены в вашем резюме, вычеркните ненужные детали, уберите прямую речь, сократите слишком длинные фразы, исправьте грамматические ошибки.

7. Напишите конечный вариант резюме.

В начале резюме следует сказать, откуда взят отрывок текста, назвать заголовок и автора монографии (или статьи), а также определить основную проблему, которой посвящена данная статья. Для этого потребуются следующие слова и выражения:

The extract in question is taken from the book... – отрывок, о котором идет речь, взят из книги ….

The title of the book is … – название монографии …;

The author of the book is …/The book is written by … – автор монографии …/ монография написана…

The extract is about (The extract deals with …, is concerned with …, is devoted to the problem of …, centers on …, focuses on …) – в отрывке рассказывается о … (отрывок посвящен проблеме …)

The main idea message of the extract is that … – основная мысль отрывка из монографии заключается в том, что ….

При изложении чьей-либо точки зрения (автора статьи, интервьюируемого или лиц, упоминаемых в статье) полезными могут оказаться следующие выражения и коммуникативные глаголы:

from smb.’s point of view, … – с чьей-либо точки зрения;

in smb.’s opinion, … - по чьему-

либо мнению

according to smb., … – по словам кого-либо, …;

think / believe – думать, полагать;

explain – объяснять;

point out – указывать;

assert – утверждать;

admit – признавать;

deny – отрицать;

confess – сознаваться;

agree – соглашаться;

refuse – отказываться;

advise – советовать;

promise – обещать;

suggest (doing smth.) – предлагать;

accuse smb. of smth. – обвинять кого-либо в чем-либо;

suspect smb. of smth. – подозревать кого-либо в чем-либо;

blame smb. for smth. – винить кого-либо в чем-либо;

condemn – осуждать;

warn [wo:n] – предупреждать.

Для выражения логической связи между предложениями или частями предложения используйте следующие связочные слова:

also – также

both … and – как … так и, и … и

besides – кроме того

in addition to – вдобавок к, кроме того

moreover – более того

as a result – в результате

accordingly - соответственно

hence – отсюда (следует)

consequently - следовательно

therefore – поэтому, следовательно

thus – таким образом

but/yet - но

although/even though - хотя

however - однако

nevertheless – тем не менее

in spite of/despite (that) – несмотря на

while – в то время, как

on the one/other hand – с одной/другой стороны

at the same time – в то же время

Если отрывок носит логически законченный характер, то в конце резюме можно подвести итог всему сказанному в виде вывода:

The conclusion of the extract is … – из отрывка следует …

The author concludes that … – автор делает вывод о том, что ….

SAMPLE TEXT

In its original, basic sense, the concept of civil society appeared at the very beginning of European political philosophy: Aristotle used it in the opening paragraphs of Politics, describing the polis as a koinonia politike, which was translated by the Romans as societas civilis. For over two millennia of the history of European political thought, this ‘old civil society’, as illustrated by Manfred Riedel (1981: 595 and 1975: 746), remained the basic notion used to describe the idea of the body politic. It differed fundamentally from the contemporary understanding of the state as an institution clearly separated from society. Societas civilis meant an organic unity of the ‘state’ and ‘society’. According to this tradition, only citizens, cives, were members of a political community (polis, civitas). The concept of citizenship was, therefore, unequivocally connected with political participation. A citizen was, by nature, a person participating in political life: ‘citizenship’ meant ‘political activity’. The simple fact of residence within the boundaries of the polis was not sufficient grounds for considering someone a citizen.

Only those who lived in status civilis sive politicus were citizens, or members of ‘society’. This restriction means that the social dimension of the collective existence as it is understood today was not included in the political community, societas civilis, which stood above the social structure, the economy. Consequently, property ownership was not an essential element of citizenship. Even though Aristotle stressed its importance as a condition of participation in communal life, in no way did he assume that a necessary relationship existed between citizenship and enterprise. Quite the contrary: Citizens should own property exclusively to have free time, necessary to attend to the affairs of the polis.

It is precisely this way of thinking about the political community that formed the basis of a centuries-long tradition, which continued throughout the antiquity and the Middle Ages, up to the modern age, during which there occurred a break-up with the classical tradition, an event fraught with consequences. A new tradition was born – the essence of which lies in the separation of ‘state’ from ‘society’. In the context of the question posed in the title of this article, a dispute between Manfred Riedel and John Keane seems to be a particular relevance in a larger dispute pinpointing the date of the break-up with the classical tradition. Both authors agree on the fundamental importance of the breakthrough in political thought related to the change in the way of thinking about civil society.

However, they do differ on its causes and on the answers to the question that arose with the new tradition initiated by one of the great theorists of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries. Manfred Riedel, showing the whole complexity of the transformations of the modern political tradition rooted in and largely dependent on the classical theory, points to Hegelian philosophy as the turning point. According to Riedel, by giving a new sense to the concept bürgerliche Gesellschaft, Hegel brought about a political philosophy breakthrough comparable to that caused earlier by Bodin’s introduction of the concept of sovereignty and Rousseau’s introduction of the concept of general will. Apparently sticking to the old, classical term, he actually gave it completely new content. The thrust of the change was to consist of the introduction of the social factor and a dynamic, teleological understanding of history into reflection on civil society.

(From: ‘Is Civil Society Possible without Bourgeois Society?’ by D. Gawin // Civil Society in the Baltic Sea Region / Ed. By N. Götz and J. Hackmann. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2003.)

SAMPLE SUMMARY

The extract in question is taken from the article by Dariusz Gawin ‘Is Civil Society Possible without Bourgeois Society?, which is part of the monograph ‘Civil Society in the Baltic Sea Region’. This extract deals with the traditional notion of civil society.

The concept of civil society appeared at the very beginning of European political philosophy. It was first mentioned in Aristotle’s Politics. Civil society was understood as an organic unity of the state and society then. The concept of citizenship was based on political participation. A person was considered a citizen if he took part in political life. Residence within the boundaries of the city or property ownership was not an essential element of citizenship.

The view of civil society based on this way of thinking about the political community was a tradition during the antiquity and the Middle Ages. In the modern age there occurred a break-up with the classical tradition and a new tradition appeared. Its essence lies in the separation of ‘state’ from ‘society’.

The author of the article dwells on the dispute between two specialists in the history of civil society – Manfred Riedel and John Keane, who differ on the causes of the change in the understanding of civil society.

In the extract in question the point of view of Manfred Riedel is presented. According to him, the turning point in the transformation of the concept of civil society was Hegelian philosophy. Hegel introduced a social factor and a dynamic, teleological understanding of history into the way of thinking about civil society.

TRAINING TASK

1. Read the following extract and give its general idea.

Hegel pointed out the shortcomings of the natural law conceptions of civil society that were prevalent until the end of the seventeenth century. He argued that civil society was incapable of protecting itself against internal conflicts unless it was politically administered by a modern, bureaucratic state. Its task was to introduce the principles of objectivized reason into the complex network of mutual dependence, relationships, and conflicts characterizing the social sphere. This conception was then complemented in Marx’s philosophy.

From the Marxist perspective, civil society was a specific form of organization of the public sphere, closely related to a specific level of the productive forces: as capitalism expanded, the bourgeoisie turned into the dominant social and political factor. Thus, we can reason that modern civil society emerges together with the advent of the bourgeoisie; in other words, the form of ownership of the means of production determined the forms of public participation as appropriate for the bourgeoisie. Its ideology resulted from its financial interests – the willingness to protect ownership and dominate over the proletariat and its exploitation (Riedel 1975: 785).

2. Read the following extract and retell it.

John Keane (1988b) opposes the standpoint mentioned above. Without detracting in any way from Hegel’s greatness, Keane emphasizes that the beginnings of the modern tradition were much more complex. In the models he proposes and in the successive stages of what he calls the transformation of this concept, Hegel, though important, is but one of a number of crucial authors alongside Ferguson, Paine, and Tocqueville. Each of these four names symbolizes a successive stage in the complex process of transforming the old concept of society.

Its great differentiation notwithstanding, the modern debate on the sources of the political order has one fundamental feature, which, in Keane’s opinion, undermines Riedel’s position. He argues that the development of the productive forces and the advent of capitalism were not the most powerful stimuli in encouraging the theorists of the day to develop a new theory of civil society. Naturally, many theorists took note of the intensifying modernization processes, and took account of the role of the economy in the formation of modern societies, to mention but Adam Smith. The principal factor, however, lies elsewhere.

Keane (1988b: 44-6) argues that in the late eighteenth and the early nineteenth centuries, the focus of the theorists’ attention was not so much on the spirit of enterprise as on the growing threat to liberty posed by the ever more powerful state, as it built up its bureaucracy without being subject to any form of control. In social terms, authors writing on civil society belonged to the (mostly petty)’bourgeoisie’, since they included journalists, teachers, and lawyers, generally described as ‘men of letters’. These people were not fighting for their narrowly and precisely defined economic interests, but, rather, involved in an unceasing debate and exchange of views, contributed to the emergence of public opinion.

Their aim was to attain an order that safeguarded liberty, protecting it against the arbitrariness of the state. Therefore, Keane argues, the focus of their attention was not on the issues of ownership or on economic processes, but, rather, on developments of a political nature, affecting the condition of liberty. What authors such as Ferguson, Paine and Tocqueville feared above all was despotism, conceived as a destructive force that destroyed individual freedom and annihilated all indirect ties that had developed spontaneously and remained beyond its control. In England, America, and France (and to a lesser degree in Germany), it was the fear of despotism – to a much greater extent than the ‘love of capitalism’, as Keane (1988b: 67) put it – that was the cause for escaping from the status quo and the motivation to seek new ideas.

In the extreme positions represented by Riedel and Keane in the history of political philosophy, we can observe significant tension between two models of citizenship and the resulting models of civil society. They reflect two opposing modern citizenship paradigms of many. The first view emphasizes the importance of enterprise as a source of individual freedom and a condition for forging ties that make up a public sphere separate from the state. From this perspective, citizenship is closely related to ownership, and civil society as a specific form of social collaboration is an outcome of the historical evolution of free-market institutions. In other words, without the bourgeoisie, or the middle class, a viable civil society simply cannot exist. Under the second paradigm, citizenship is related to freedom, conceived as freedom from despotism and arbitrary political power which, through compulsion, strips man of dignity, and which always destroys the spontaneous, horizontal ties that are independent of the state and link free citizens in the public sphere.

Дата добавления: 2014-12-27