शैडोइंग अभ्यास: 1. Introduction: What is Political Philosophy? - वीडियो के साथ अंग्रेजी बोलना सीखें
अभ्यास मोड चुनें
हर मोड पूरी स्क्रीन का अभ्यास कक्ष खोलता है।
338 वाक्य
यदि वाक्य बहुत छोटे या लंबे हों, तो समायोजित करने के लिए Edit पर क्लिक करें।
1
Let me start today by asking the question, what is political philosophy?
2
Custom dictates that I say something about the subject matter of this course at its outset.
3
This in some ways might seem a case of putting the cart before the horse
4
or the the course maybe because how can you say,
5
how can we say what political philosophy is in advance of doing it?
6
Anyway, let me try to say something that might be useful.
7
In one sense, you could say political philosophy is simply a branch
8
or what we call a subfield of the field of political political science, yes, right?
9
It exists alongside of other areas of political inquiry like American government,
10
comparative politics, and international relations.
11
Yet in another sense, political philosophy is something much different than simply a subfield.
12
It seems to be the oldest and most fundamental part of political science.
13
Its purpose is to and lay bare, as it were, the fundamental problems,
14
the fundamental concepts and categories which frame the study of politics.
15
In this respect,
16
it seems to me much less like just a branch of political science than a foundation of the entire discipline.
17
The study of political philosophy often begins,
18
as this course will people do also with the study of the great books
19
or some of the great books of our field.
20
Political philosophy is the oldest of the social sciences
21
and it can boast a wealth of heavy hitters from Plato and Aristotle to Machiavelli,
22
Hobbes, Hegel, Tocqueville, Nietzsche and so on.
23
You might say that the best way to find out what political philosophy is,
24
is simply to study and read the works of those who have shaped the field, yes, right?
25
But to do that is, I recognize, not without dangers, often severe dangers of its own.
26
Why study just these thinkers and not others?
27
Isn't any so -called list of great thinkers
28
or great texts It's likely to be simply arbitrary
29
and to tell us more about what such a list excludes than what it includes.
30
Furthermore, it would seem that the study of the great books
31
or great thinkers of the past can easily degenerate into a kind of antiquarianism, into a sort of pedantry.
32
We find ourselves easily intimidated by a list of famous names and end up not thinking for ourselves.
33
Furthermore, doesn't this study of old books,
34
often very old books, risk overlooking the issues facing us today?
35
I mean, what can Aristotle or Hobbes tell us about the world of globalization,
36
of terrorism, of ethnic conflict and the like?
37
Doesn't political science make any progress.
38
After all, economists no longer read Adam Smith.
39
I hesitate to, but I don't hesitate to say
40
that you will never read Adam Smith in an economics course here at Yale,
41
and it is very unlikely that you will read Freud in your psychology classes.
42
So why then When does political science, apparently uniquely among the social sciences,
43
continue to study Aristotle, Locke, and other old books?
44
These are all real questions, and I raise them now myself
45
because they are questions I want you to be thinking about as you do your reading and work through this course course,
46
I want you to remain alive to them throughout the semester, yes?
47
Okay.
48
One reason I want to suggest that we continue to read these books is not
49
because political science makes no progress or that we are somehow uniquely fixated on an ancient past,
50
but because these works provide us with the most basic I'll see you next week questions that continue to guide our field.
51
We continue to ask the same questions that were asked by Plato, Machiavelli, Hobbes, and others.
52
We may not accept their answers, and it's very likely that we do not,
53
but their questions are often put with a kind of unrivaled clarity and insight.
54
The fact is that there are still people in the world, world, many people who regard themselves as Aristotelians,
55
Thomists, Lockeans, Kantians, even the occasional Marxist can still be found in the Ivy League universities.
56
These doctrines have not simply been refuted or replaced or historically superseded,
57
they remain in many ways constitutive of our most basic outlooks and attitudes.
58
They are very much alive with us today, right?
59
So political philosophy is not just some kind of strange historical appendage attached to the trunk of political science.
60
It is constitutive of its deepest problems.
61
If you doubt the importance of the study of political ideas for or politics, consider the works of a famous economist,
62
John Maynard Keynes, everyone's heard of him.
63
Keynes wrote in 1935, the ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong,
64
are more powerful than is commonly understood.
65
Practical men, Keynes continues,
66
practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt developed from any intellectual influence are usually the slave of some defunct economist.
67
Mad men in authority who hear voices in the air are
68
distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back.
69
So this course will be devoted to the study of those academic mcScribblers who have written books that continue to impress
70
and create the forms of authority with which we are familiar.
71
But one thing we should not do, right, one thing we should not do is to approach these works as if they provide somehow answers,
72
ready -made answers to the problems of today only we can provide answers to our problems.
73
Rather, the great works provide us,
74
so to speak, with a repository of fundamental or permanent questions that political scientists still continue to rely on in their work.
75
The great thinkers are great, not because they've created some set of museum pieces that can can be cataloged,
76
admired, and then safely ignored like a kind of antiquities gallery in the Metropolitan Museum of Art,
77
but rather because they have defined the problems that all later thinkers
78
and scholars have had to use in order to make sense of their world at all.
79
Again, we still think in terms of the basic concepts and categories that were created for us long ago.
80
So one thing you will quickly note is that there are no permanent answers in a study of political philosophy.
81
A famous mathematician once said, every question must have a correct answer answer.
82
For every question, one answer.
83
That itself is an eminently contestable proposition.
84
Among the great thinkers, there is profound disagreement over the answers to even the most fundamental questions concerning justice,
85
concerning rights, concerning liberty.
86
In political philosophy, it is never a sufficient answer to answer a question with the statement,
87
because Plato says so, or because Nietzsche says so.
88
There are no final authorities in that respect in philosophy because even the greatest thinkers disagree profoundly with
89
one another over their answers, and it is precisely this disagreement with one another that makes it possible for us,
90
the readers today, to enter into their conversation.
91
We are called upon...
92
First, to read and listen and then to judge who is right.
93
How do we know?
94
The only way to decide is not to defer to authority,
95
whoever's authority, but to rely on our own powers of reason and judgment.
96
In other words, the freedom of the human mind to determine to determine for us what seems right or best, okay?
97
But what are these problems that I'm referring to?
98
What are these problems that constitute the subject matter of the study of politics?
99
What are the questions that political scientists try to answer?
100
such a list may be long, but not infinitely so.
101
Among the oldest and still most fundamental questions are, what is justice?
102
What are the goals of a decent society?
103
How should a citizen be educated?
104
Why should I obey the law?
105
And what are the limits, if any, to my obligation?
106
What constitutes the ground of human dignity?
107
Is it freedom?
108
Is it virtue?
109
Is it love?
110
Is it friendship?
111
And of course, the all -important question, even though political philosophers and political scientists rarely pronounce it,
112
namely, quid sit Deus?
113
What is God?
114
Does he exist? and what does that imply for our obligations as human beings and citizens?
115
Those are some of the most basic and fundamental problems of the study of politics.
116
But you might say, where does one enter this debate?
117
Which questions and which thinkers should one pick up for oneself?
118
Perhaps the oldest and most fundamental The fundamental question that I wish to examine in the course of this semester
119
is the question, what is a regime?
120
What are regimes?
121
What are regime politics?
122
The term regime is a familiar one.
123
We often hear today about shaping regimes or about changing regimes, but what is a regime? regime?
124
How many kinds are there?
125
How are they defined?
126
What holds them together and what causes them to fall apart?
127
Is there a single best regime?
128
Those are the questions I want us to consider.
129
The concept of the regime is perhaps the oldest and most fundamental of political ideas.
130
It goes back to Plato and even before him.
131
In fact, the title of the book that you will be reading part of for this semester, Plato's Republic, is actually a translation,
132
the title of it, of the Greek word politeia that means constitution or regime.
133
The Republic is a book about the regime
134
and all later political philosophy is a series of footnotes to Plato
135
and that And that means that it must provide a series of variations, so to speak, on Plato's conception of the best regime.
136
But what is a regime?
137
Broadly speaking, the regime indicates a form of government, whether it is ruled by the one,
138
the few, the many, or as more common, some mixture or combination of these three ruling powers.
139
The regime is defined in the first instance by how a people are governed and how public offices are distributed by election,
140
by birth, by lot, by outstanding personal qualities and achievements and what constitutes a people's rights and responsibilities.
141
The regime again refers above all to a form of government.
142
The political world does not present itself as simply an infinite variety of different shapes.
143
It is structured and ordered into a few basic regime types.
144
And this I take it to be one of the most important propositions and insights of political science.
145
Right? So far?
146
But there is a corollary to this insight.
147
The regime is always something particular.
148
It stands in a relation of opposition to other regime types.
149
And as a consequence, the possibility of conflict,
150
of tension and war is built into the very structure of politics.
151
Regimes are necessarily partisan, that is to say they
152
install certain loyalties and passions in the same way
153
that one may feel partisanship to the New York Yankees
154
or the Boston Red Sox or to Yale over all rival colleges and institutions, right?
155
Fierce loyalty, partisanship.
156
It's inseparable from the character of regime politics.
157
These passionate attachments are not merely something that take place, you might say, between different regimes,
158
but even within them as different parties and groups with loyalties and attachments contend for power,
159
for honor, and for interest.
160
Christ.
161
Henry Adams once cynically reflected that politics is simply the organization of hatreds
162
and there is more than a grain of truth to this, right?
163
Although he did not say that it is also an attempt to channel
164
and redirect those hatreds and animosities towards something like a common good.
165
This raises a question.
166
Is it possible to transform politics, to replace enmity and factional conflict with friendship,
167
to replace conflict with harmony?
168
Today it is the hope of many people, both here and abroad, that we might even overcome,
169
might even transcend the basic structure of regime politics politics all together and organize our world
170
around global norms of justice and international law.
171
Is such a thing possible?
172
It can't be ruled out, but such a world, I would note, that is to say a world administered by international courts of law,
173
by judges and judicial tribunals,
174
would no longer be a political world politics only takes place within the context of the particular.
175
It is only possible within the structure of the regime itself.
176
But a regime is more than simply a set of formal structures and institutions, okay?
177
It consists of the entire way of life, of the moral and religious practices,
178
the habits, customs and sentiments that make a people what they are.
179
The regime constitutes an ethos, that is to say a distinctive character that nurtures distinctive human types.
180
Every regime shapes a common character, a common character type with distinctive traits and qualities studies.
181
So the study of regime politics is in part a study of the distinctive national character types that constitutes a citizen body.
182
To take an example of what I mean, when Tocqueville studied the American regime, or the democratic regime, properly speaking,
183
in Democracy in America, he started first with our formal political institutions as enumerated in the Constitution, such things as the separation of powers,
184
the division between state and federal government and so on, but then went on to look at such informal practices as American manners and morals,
185
our tendency to form small civic associations, our peculiar moralism and religious life, our defensiveness about democracy and so on.
186
All of these intellectual and moral customs and habits help to can constitute the democratic regime.
187
In this sense, the regime describes the character or tone of a society,
188
what a society finds most praiseworthy, what it looks up to, okay?
189
You can't understand a regime unless you understand, so to speak, what it stands for, what a people stand for,
190
what they look up to, as well as, again, its structure of institutions and rights and privileges.
191
This raises a further set of questions that we will consider over the term.
192
How are regimes founded?
193
The founding of regimes.
194
What brings them into being and sustains them over time?
195
For thinkers like Tocqueville, for example, regimes are embedded in the deep structures of human history
196
that have determined over long centuries the shape of our political institutions and the way we think about them.
197
Yet other voices within the tradition, Plato, Machiavelli, Rousseau come to mind,
198
believe that regimes can be self -consciously founded through deliberate acts of great statesmen or founding fathers as we might call them.
199
These statesmen, Machiavelli for example, refers to Romulus, Moses, Cyrus,
200
as the founders that he looks to we might think of men like Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the like,
201
are shapers of peoples and institutions.
202
The very first of the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton even begins by posing this question in the starkest terms.
203
It has been frequently remarked,
204
Hamilton writes, that it seems to have been reserved to the people of this conduct and example to decide the important question,
205
whether societies of men are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection and choice,
206
or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.
207
There we see Hamilton asking the basic question about the founding of political institutions.
208
Are they created, as he puts it, by reflection and choice, that is to say by a deliberate act of statecraft and conscious human intelligence?
209
Or are regimes always the product of accident, circumstance, custom, and history?
210
But the idea that regimes may be created
211
or founded concluded by a set of deliberate acts raises a further question
212
that we will study and is inseparable from the study of regimes.
213
N 'est -ce pas? Who is a statesman?
214
What is a statesman?
215
Again, one of the oldest questions of political science, very rarely asked by the political science of today,
216
today that is very skeptical of the language of statesmanship.
217
In its oldest sense, political science simply was a science of statecraft.
218
It was addressed to statesmen or potential statesmen charged with steering the ship of state.
219
What are the qualities necessary for sound statesmanship?
220
How does statecraft differ from other kinds of activities? must the good statesman, as Plato believed, for example,
221
be a philosopher versed in poetry, mathematics and metaphysics, or is statesmanship,
222
as Aristotle believed, a purely practical skill requiring judgment based on deliberation and experience,
223
is a streak of cruelty and a the willingness to act immorally necessary for statecraft,
224
as Machiavelli infamously argued.
225
Must the statesman be capable of literally transforming human nature,
226
as Rousseau maintains, or is the sovereign a more or less faceless bureaucrat in the manner of a modern,
227
modern, say, a modern CEO as, for example, someone like Hobbes seems to have believed.
228
All of our texts that we will read, the republic, the politics, the prince, the social contract, have different views on the qualities of statecraft
229
and what those qualities necessary to found and maintain states that we will be considering.
230
All of this in a way is another way of saying, or at least implying, okay,
231
that political philosophy is an eminently practical discipline, a practical field.
232
Its purpose is not simply contemplation.
233
Its purpose is not reflection alone.
234
It is advice giving.
235
None of the people we will study this semester were cloistered scholars detached from the world,
236
although this is a very common prejudice against political philosophy,
237
that it is somehow uniquely sort of pie in the sky and detached from the world.
238
But the great thinkers were very far from being just, so to speak, Catholic, detached intellectuals.
239
Plato undertook three long and dangerous voyages to Sicily in order to advise the king Dionysius.
240
Aristotle famously was a tutor of Alexander the Great.
241
Machiavelli spent a large part of his career in the foreign service of his native Florence
242
and wrote as an advisor to the of the Medici.
243
Hobbes was the tutor to a royal household who followed the king into exile during the English Civil War.
244
And Locke was associated with the Shaftesbury Circle,
245
who also was forced into exile after being accused of plotting against the English king.
246
Rousseau had no official political connections, but he signed his name always, Jean -Jacques Rousseau, citizen of Geneva,
247
and was approached to write constitutions for Poland and for the island of Corsica.
248
And Tocqueville was a member of the French National Assembly
249
whose experience of American democracy deeply affected the way he saw the future of Europe.
250
So the great political thinkers were typically engaged in the politics of their times, and help in that way to provide us,
251
okay, with models for how we might think about ours.
252
Take a little break for refreshment.
253
But this goes in a slightly different direction as well.
254
Not only is this study of the regime as we've seen, as I've just tried to indicate, rooted in, in many ways,
255
the practical experience of the thinkers we'll be looking at,
256
but the study of regime politics either implicitly or explicitly raises a question that goes beyond the boundary of any given society.
257
A regime, as I've said, constitutes a people's way of life, what they believe makes their life worth living, or to put it, again,
258
slightly different, what a people stand for.
259
Although we are most familiar with the character of a modern democratic regime, such as ours,
260
The study of political philosophy is in many ways a kind of immersion into what we might call today comparative politics,
261
that is to say it opens up to us the variety of regimes, each with its own distinctive set of claims or principles,
262
each vying and potentially in conflict with all the others, okay?
263
Underlying this cacophony of regimes is the question always, which of these regimes is best?
264
What has or ought to have a claim on our loyalty and rational consent?
265
Political philosophy is always guided by the question of the best regime.
266
But what is the best regime?
267
Even to raise such a question seems to pose insuperable obstacles?
268
Isn't that a completely subjective judgment, what one thinks is the best regime?
269
How could one begin such a study?
270
Is the best regime as the ancients tended to believe,
271
Plato, Aristotle and others, is it an aristocratic republic in which only the few best habitually rule?
272
Or is the best regime, as the moderns believe,
273
a democratic republic where in principle political office is open to all by virtue of their membership in society alone?
274
Will the best regime be a small closed society that through generations has made a supreme sacrifice towards self -perfection?
275
Think of that.
276
Or will the best regime be a large cosmopolitan order embracing all human beings,
277
perhaps even a kind of universal league of nations consisting of all free and equal men and women.
278
Whatever form the best regime takes, however, it will always favor a certain kind of human being with a certain set of character traits.
279
Is that type the common man as found in democracies?
280
Those of acquired taste and money as in aristocracies?
281
The warrior or even the priest as in theocracies?
282
No question that I can think of can be more fundamental.
283
And this finally raises the question of the relation between the best regime
284
or the good regime and what we could say are actually existing regimes, regimes that we are all familiar with.
285
What function does the best regime play in political science?
286
How does it guide our actions here and now?
287
This issue received a kind of classic formulation in Aristotle's distinction of what he called the good human being
288
and the good citizen.
289
For the good citizen, we'll read this chapter later on in the politics, for the good citizen, you could say,
290
patriotism is enough to uphold and defend the laws of your own country simply
291
because they are your own is both necessary and sufficient.
292
Such a view of citizen virtue runs into the obvious objection
293
that the good citizen of one regime will be at odds with the a good citizen of another,
294
a good citizen of contemporary Iran will not be the same as the good citizen of contemporary America.
295
But the good citizen, Aristotle goes on to say, is not the same as the good human being, right?
296
Well, the good citizen is relative to the regime.
297
You might say regime specific.
298
The good human being, so he believes, is good everywhere.
299
The good human being loves what is good simply, not because it is his own, but because it is good.
300
Some sense of this was demonstrated in Abraham Lincoln's judgment about Henry Clay,
301
an early idol of Lincoln's.
302
Lincoln wrote of Clay, he loved his country, he said, partly because it was his own country, partly because it was his own country,
303
but mainly because it was a free country.
304
His point, I think, is that Clay exhibited, at least on Lincoln's telling, something of the philosopher.
305
What he loved was an idea, the idea of freedom.
306
That idea was not the property of one particular country, but it was constitutive of any good society.
307
The good human being, it would seem,
308
would be a philosopher, or at least would have something philosophical about him or her,
309
and who may only be fully at home in the best regime.
310
But, of course, the best regime lacks actuality.
311
We all know that.
312
It has never existed.
313
The best regime embodies a supreme paradox, it would seem.
314
It is superior in some ways to all actual regimes, but it has no concrete existence anywhere.
315
This makes it difficult, you could say, and this is Aristotle's point, I think.
316
This makes it difficult for the philosopher to be a good
317
citizen of any actual regime philosophy will never feel fully or truly at home in any particular society.
318
The philosopher can never be truly loyal to anyone or anything but what is best.
319
Think of that, raises a question about issues of love, loyalty, and friendship.
320
This tension, of course, between the best regime and any actual regime is the space that makes political philosophy possible.
321
In the best regime, if we were to inhabit such, political philosophy would be unnecessary or redundant.
322
It would wither away.
323
Political philosophy exists and only exists in that call it zone of indeterminacy between the is and the ought,
324
between the actual and the ideal.
325
This is why political philosophy is always and necessarily a potentially disturbing undertaking.
326
those who embark on the quest for knowledge of the best regime may not return the same people that they were before.
327
You may return with very different loyalties and allegiances than you had in the beginning,
328
but there is some compensation for this, I think.
329
The ancients had a beautiful word, or at least the Greeks had a beautiful word for this quest, for this desire for knowledge of the best regime.
330
They called it eros, or love, right?
331
The quest for knowledge of the best regime must necessarily be accompanied,
332
sustained, trained and elevated by eros.
333
You may not have realized it when you walked into this class today,
334
but the study of political philosophy may be the highest tribute we pay to love.
335
Think of that.
336
And while you're thinking about it, you can start reading Plato's Apology for Socrates, which we'll discuss for class on Wednesday.
337
Okay?
338
It's nice to see you back and have a very good but thoughtful September 11th.
ऐप डाउनलोड करें
धाराप्रवाह बोलने के लिए ज़रूरी सब कुछ
AI उच्चारण स्कोरहर वाक्य का स्कोर
IPA अभ्यासहर ध्वनि में महारत
शब्दावलीअपना शब्द भंडार बनाएँ
शब्द गेमखेलते हुए सीखें
उसी चैनल से
C11
The Renovations of Notre-Dame | The Age of Cathedrals with R. Howard Bloch
University StudentsWorking Adults
C16
2. Socratic Citizenship: Plato's Apology
IELTS PrepTOEFL PrepCambridge Exam Prep
C15
Contract Law 1 Intro Hamer v Sidway (just say no)
Cambridge Exam PrepBusiness EnglishUniversity Students
C15
2. Foundations: This Is Your Brain
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C23
1. Introduction
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
FOR YOU
अनुशंसित वीडियो
C16
83 वाक्य
Plato’s Philosophy of Education
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C11
39 वाक्य
What is the role of emotion in political psychology?
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C148 वाक्य
On freedom - Alan Macfarlane
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
106 वाक्य
What is History? E.H. Carr
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C13
159 वाक्य
Episode 1: "What is social ontology?" - Prof Brian Epstein
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C13
75 वाक्य
Become a great strategic thinker | Ian Bremmer
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
17 वाक्य
Nietzsche’s Philosophy Of Destroying Yourself
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
722 वाक्य
World Order By Henry Kissinger
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C13
85 वाक्य
AI Will End Philosophy, Physicist Claims
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
C11
143 वाक्य
Start With Dostoevsky
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C1136 वाक्य
Why Are US Politics Today So Divisive?: Crash Course US Government #1
Daily ConversationUniversity Students
C12
152 वाक्य
Both Russia and America only pursue power, not principle, argues Moosa Haraj
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
पहली छापें
इस वीडियो में, प्रोफेसर स्टेफन स्मिथ ने राजनीतिक दर्शन की मूल बातें समझाई हैं। यह बातचीत न केवल विचारोत्तेजक है, बल्कि सुनने में भी बेहद आकर्षक लगती है। प्रोफेसर का स्पष्ट और आत्मविश्वास से भरा बोलने का तरीका आपके अंग्रेजी बोलने के अभ्यास के लिए उत्कृष्ट सामग्री प्रदान करता है। जब आप उनके शब्दों को सुनते हैं, तो आप न केवल उनके विचारों को समझते हैं, बल्कि उनकी प्रस्तुति शैली से भी सीखते हैं। इस प्रकार, इस वीडियो को सुनकर आप अंग्रेजी बोलने का अभ्यास कर सकते हैं और अपने उच्चारण में सुधार कर सकते हैं।
इसको तोड़ें
वीडियो में कुछ वाक्य ऐसे हैं जो बेहद प्राकृतिक लगते हैं। उदाहरण के लिए, जब प्रोफेसर कहते हैं, "Political philosophy is simply a branch of political science,” तो यह वाक्य सरल और सीधा है। यहाँ पर 'simply' शब्द का उपयोग इसे और स्पष्ट बनाता है। इसके अलावा, जब वह कहते हैं, "We continue to ask the same questions that were asked by Plato,” तो यह दिखाता है कि विचारों का चक्र कैसे चलता है। इस तरह के वाक्यांश आपके लिए शब्दों के सही क्रम और अर्थ को समझने में मदद करते हैं। ऐसे वाक्य सुनने से आप अपनी अंग्रेजी बोलने की प्रवृत्ति को और मजबूत कर सकते हैं।
अभ्यास दिनचर्या
इस वीडियो से अंग्रेजी सीखने का एक सरल तरीका है “repeat-and-record” तकनीक का उपयोग करना। सबसे पहले, वीडियो को ध्यान से सुनें, फिर कुछ बार उन वाक्यों को दोहराएँ। जैसे ही आप प्रोफेसर के बोलने के साथ चलते हैं, उसे रिकॉर्ड करें। फिर, अपनी रिकॉर्डिंग को सुनें और अपने उच्चारण और ताल को सुधारें। इस अभ्यास को नियमित रूप से करें, इससे आपकी अंग्रेजी बोलने की क्षमता में सुधार होगा। इस प्रक्रिया के दौरान shadowing site का उपयोग करना भी काफी सहायक हो सकता है। इससे आप अपने बोलने के तरीके में सुधार कर सकते हैं और आत्मविश्वास बढ़ा सकते हैं।
इस वीडियो का व्याकरण
वक्ता जिन संरचनाओं का सबसे अधिक प्रयोग करता है, वीडियो के असली शब्दों के साथ:
| संरचना | वीडियो में |
|---|---|
| Present perfect have/has + past participle — बीता हुआ काम जिसका असर अभी भी है | have shaped · have not simply been refuted · have written |
| Passive voice be + past participle — ज़ोर इस पर कि क्या होता है, न कि कौन करता है | were asked · are often put · be found |
| Relative clauses who / which + उपवाक्य — व्यक्ति या वस्तु के बारे में अतिरिक्त जानकारी | those who have · people who regard · men who believe |
शैडोइंग तकनीक क्या है?
शैडोइंग (Shadowing) एक विज्ञान-समर्थित भाषा सीखने की तकनीक है जो मूल रूप से पेशेवर दुभाषिया प्रशिक्षण के लिए विकसित की गई थी। विधि सरल लेकिन शक्तिशाली है: आप मूल अंग्रेज़ी ऑडियो सुनते हैं और तुरंत इसे ज़ोर से दोहराते हैं — जैसे वक्ता की छाया 1-2 सेकंड की देरी से। शोध से पता चलता है कि यह उच्चारण सटीकता, स्वर, लय, जुड़ी हुई ध्वनियाँ, सुनने की समझ और बोलने की प्रवाहशीलता में काफ़ी सुधार करता है।