Liberty! The American Revolution

By what specific steps did the American Revolution transform from a revolt of thirteen British colonies meant to secure the colonists’ traditional English rights under Crown rule in a war meant to establish an independent nation in which the people are sovereign and equal rights before the law?Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Liberty! The American Revolution specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More Explanation The American revolt started as a fight against inequality. The thirteen colonies were not strangers to the oppressions and intolerable acts of the British parliament. The oppression included harsh tax laws. The people were not represented in their tax revenues and termed the oppression as an act of inequality. Similar oppressions broke out in different colonies. In Boston, the people rejected Townshend law and called for a rebellion. The British branded the rebellion as a sign of weakness on their part. They used force to crush the rebellion among the colonies. The colonies defended themselves against the oppression and gave their lives for the common cause. They organized a continental meeting and pledged to protect each other against any oppression. The continental meeting in 1774 signaled the turning point of the American Revolution. The American Revolution began without a cause against inequality. The oppressions of the colonies by the British became a regular occurrence and the people sought a solution. The colonies were loyal to the King, but they did not enjoy the treatments they received. They were dragged like slaves and used as tools for recreation. The Americans termed this act to be intolerable but did not foresee a chance of secession from the British rule. Within the colonies, small groups of rich men gathered to discuss politics of the day, each taking turns to curse the King and his troops.Advertising Looking for essay on history? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More It was difficult to revolt against the King given their present predicament. The colonies were slaves to the British by every standard. The food they ate, the water they drank, the wages they received, came from the British. How could they stage a revolt when all their supplies came from the British? The oppression continued and the people of Boston became defiant with the King’s troops. They staged a peaceful revolt against the King. The militia in Boston dumped an entire shipment of tea into the sea prompting wild outrage. This incident set in motion a chain of events called the American Revolution. The colonies came together as a union to transform a revolt under crown rule to a war meant to establish an independent nation called America. The words of the tea party spread across Britain within days, the British troops described the rebellion as a revolt in the family and decided to flush the tiny group before they grew in n umbers. The King ordered the occupation of Boston by the British military and the use of force if necessary to enforce their loyalty. The Boston revolt did not gain acceptance by the majority because they never saw a chance of victory against the King. Even the sober or drunkard did not curse the King or boast the independence. The revolt gathered momentum; small groups of militias grew in numbers. People began to weigh the events that played out with caution. They argue that the same treatment given to Boston could be replicated to another colony charged with rebellion. By 1774, fifty-six leaders among the colonies met in Massachusetts to pledge their allegiance to a common cause: defend or die trying.Advertising We will write a custom essay sample on Liberty! The American Revolution specifically for you for only $16.05 $11/page Learn More The colonies were strangers to themselves, they hardly relate. They were closer to the King’s men than them selves. The meeting in Philadelphia signaled the turning point of the American Revolution. People with different backgrounds from thirteen colonies united in a common cause. Their cause became known as a common sense. The thirteen colonies were adequately protected by British troops, but they wanted liberty. During the meeting in Philadelphia, the delegates comprising of businessmen, plantation owners, jurists, lawyers pledged their loyalty to each other. They agreed to a bond, in pain and sorrow to fight any form of operation. They agreed to stop the importation of British goods and depend on their local supplies. Their businessmen refused to trade with the British and closed all routes of the slave trade in their colonies. These steps changed the course of a revolt in a war for an independent nation. The businessmen in London suffered from the boycott. They petitioned the British parliament. To enforce their authority, British troops ordered the arrest of the leaders of the militi as and seizure of ammunitions. The troops led by General Cage entered Lexington to enforce their authority. The events of that evening changed American history. Words of war echoed across the thirteen colonies and they united with a common cause to defend their territory. When the tales of Lexington broke out, the remaining colonies knew the time has come and there was no way back.Advertising Looking for essay on history? Let's see if we can help you! Get your first paper with 15% OFF Learn More The British troops, driven by anger to suppress the rebellion, fought with courage and the people of America who took their fight as a revolt from the traditions of the British rule, believed in the American Revolution. The second meeting held by the thirteen colonies voted money to assist the militias in Boston. They drafted the declaration of independence and the United States of America became a dream. This essay on Liberty! The American Revolution was written and submitted by user Bo B. to help you with your own studies. You are free to use it for research and reference purposes in order to write your own paper; however, you must cite it accordingly. You can donate your paper here.

Cultural Differences in Perception Essay Example

Cultural Differences in Perception Essay Example Cultural Differences in Perception Essay Cultural Differences in Perception Essay The cultural influence of difference in focus and categorization In the research article, â€Å"The influence of culture: holistic versus analytic perception† provided by Richard E. Nisbett and Yuri Miyamoto, there is evidence that perceptual processes are influenced by culture. The research found that Western cultures focus on salient objects and use rules and categorization for purposes of organizing the environment, whereas, East Asian cultures focus more holistically on relationships and similarities among the objects when organizing the environment. In an illustrative study both rural Chinese and American children were shown a picture of a man, a woman, and a baby. The Chinese children tended to group the woman and the baby because of the relationship between the two, a woman takes care of a baby. American children tended to group the man and the woman because they are both adults. The results indicated that culture influences late stages of perception and categorization. In another study East Asians and European Americans were presented with the Rod-and-Frame Test. In this test a rod or line is shown inside a frame, which can be rotated around the rod. The participants were asked to state when the rod appeared vertical even if the position of the frame was in a different position. The East Asian participants made more errors than the European American participants. This indicated that the East Asians were attending more to the whole field which made it difficult to ignore the frame. It was found that East Asians not only attended more to the field, but they noticed it earlier, remembered more about it, and related the object to the field in memory. Additional evidence that Asians pay more attention to context comes from work by Masuda and Nisbett. They presented American and Japanese participants with two animated pictures of a farm. The two pictures had various small differences in details. Some of the changes differed in focal objects and other changes were made in the field and relationships between objects. The findings showed small differences in styles of attending to information in the environment. In conclusion Nisbett and Miyamoto found, â€Å"considerable evidence that shows that Asians are inclined to attend to, perceive and remember contexts and relationships whereas Westerners are more likely to attend to, perceive and remember the attributes of salient objects and their category memberships† (Paragraph 10). Eye-movements during scene perception In the past hundred years, cultural differences in perceptual judgment and memory have been observed. It has been found that Westerners pay more attention to focal object whereas East Asians pay more attention to contextual information. Hannah Faye Chua, Julie E. Boland, and Richard E. Nisbett wrote a research article, â€Å"Cultural variation in eye movement during scene perception† in which they studied such cultural differences. They examined the possibility that the differences came from culturally different viewing patterns when confronted with a nature scene. The authors did so by measuring the eye movements of both American cultured individuals and Chinese cultured individuals while they viewed photographs with a focal object in a complex background. They found that the Americans fixated more on focal objects and the Chinese participants paid more attention to the background. It appeared to Nisbett, Boland, and Chua that the differences in judgment and memory may have come from differences in what is actually attended as people view a picture. In the study performed by Nisbett, Boland, and Chua participants were asked to sit in front of a computer screen with a head-mounted eye-movement tracker. The individual would start the session by looking at a plus sign in the middle of a black screen followed by a scenic picture. The findings from study Easterners and Westerners differ in assigning information to objects versus backgrounds. The East Asians were less likely to correctly recognize old foregrounded objects when presented in new back grounds. Providing more evidence that East Asians appear to bind objects with backgrounds in perception. Therefore the cultural differences in visual memory are likely caused by how people from Eastern and Western cultures view scenes and are not only due to cultural norms. American participants looked at the foregrounded object sooner and longer than the Chinese whereas the Chinese looked more at the background than the Americans did. It is thought that this is due to the fact that East Asians live in relatively complex social networks. Thus, attention to context is important for effective functioning. Westerners, however, live in less constraining social worlds that stress independence which allows them to pay less attention to context. Thought habits in different cultures In the research done by Nisbett and his colleges it is found that individuals not only think about different things but think differently over all. In all the studies it was found that Easterners think more holistically, paying more attention to context and relationship and relying more on experience-based knowledge than abstract logic and showed more tolerance for contradiction. Westerners are more analytic, tending to detach objects from their context to avoid contradiction. They relied heavily on formal logic. The Asian participants in the studies showed greater attention to the background of scenes than the objects in the background whereas the Americans showed greater attention to the objects. When it came to interpreting events in the social world, the Asians seemed similarly sensitive to context more quickly than the Americans did. This can cause different views when perceiving world events.

The Psychology Victimization of Miss Lonelyhearts Essay

The Psychology Victimization of Miss Lonelyhearts - Essay Example This paper analyzes the psychological victimization of Miss Lonelyhearts. It argues that Miss Lonelyhearts is a victim of his society, relationships, and his own spiritual and emotional disintegration, and his psychology has become too nihilistic that he could no longer feel his humanity and find meaning in his existence. Society has victimized Miss Lonelyhearts through the capitalist labor system that treat people as means to corporate ends. Capitalism has numbed Miss Lonelyhearts and made him incapable of acknowledging and responding to human suffering (Scheurich and Mullen 572). He receives many letters that range from the mundane to the terribly appalling. One letter is from a vain girl with no nose, while the other confides that his mentally-ill sister has been raped, and he does know what to do. These letters, however, are not trivial for they represent a â€Å"great mass of suffering† that have interrelated social, economic, political, and cultural dimensions (Scheurich and Mullen 573). Particularly recurrent is the demand for material goods and physical attraction. Correspondents are concerned of their physical appearance to institutions or individuals that they regard as important. People are also complaining of getting more money and not feeling that they have enough wealth to satisfy their needs, as well as others, and so life has become a means of pursuing materialist existence. Capitalism is represented in this pursuit of superficial happiness that spans physical and material needs (Bromige 4). In addition, capitalism exists in the labor markets and its dynamics. Workers like Miss Lonelyhearts are trapped in jobs that are monotonous and exploitative, but they cannot easily find new ones for lack of better job opportunities. Furthermore, their managers treat them as means to corporate ends. Shrike uses Miss Lonelyhearts as an emotional punching bag. He also demeans correspondents, because their plight is not truly important to him. Shrike fin ds joy in using people and ensuring readership for his newspaper. Different social relationships also oppress Miss Lonelyhearts. Miss Lonelyhearts is a victim of a bully at the workplace. Because of his emotionally and spiritually exhausting job, he often feels unwell and looks for means to alleviate his inner turmoil. One time, after being sick and staying in his room for three days, Betty nudges him to leave his job. Miss Lonelyhearts admits that he took the job as a joke, but the joke no longer means anything to him. Pleas for advice force him to examine his own values and conditions, and he, too, has turned into â€Å"the victim of the joke† (Bromige 3). Shrike breaks into the room and mocks him to live at the South Seas: â€Å"I take your silence to mean that you have decided against the soil. I agree with you. Such a life is too dull and laborious. Let us now consider the South Seas† (West). The South Seas represent the expanse of opportunities that are paradoxic ally not available to Miss Lonelyhearts. He can only dream about his attempt to escape his world. Miss Lonelyhearts also victimizes his own identity by not resolving his inner conflicts. He uses Betty and other people to fill his emptiness. For instance, in a vacation, he spends time with Betty, but he does not feel better afterwards. The same feeling of

Tax File Memorandam Assignment Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 750 words

Tax File Memorandam - Assignment Example According to Section 165(c) (3): Reg. Â §1.165-7, losses which can be in partial or complete damage of properties that are contributed due to storm, shipwreck or fire, or any other casualty are considered to be deductible casualty losses. Again, IRS Publication 547: Casualties, Disasters, and Theft [2013] demands that, any damage associated with any automobile accident becomes considered under a deductible casualty loss. It is when the automobile is used for either business or for personal use as stated in Reg. Â §1. 165-7(a) (3). However, it is required that for a taxpayer to be able to claim the casualty deductible, the event that causes the casualty must be determined as sudden [see Rev. Rul. 72-592, 1972-2 CB 101]. A sudden event is required to be swift and happens very fast at ones. It is different from an even which is progressive and takes time gradually. We would consider that Georges automobile submerged into the frozen lake at ones and not gradually since it occurred with in a short period. The event is qualified to be a swift, hence a sudden one. George can only be denied the deduction if the court carries out its research well and finds out that it is through Georges negligence, (W.H. Carpenter v Commr, 25 TCM 1186, Dec.28.148 (M)), that his automobile was submerged and destroyed (Reg. Â §1. 165-7(a)(3)(i)). However, under the circumstance of sudden destruction of the automobile, including looting, fire or theft, George and any other taxpayer will be allowed a deduction. It is, therefore, determined that, in Georges case, the damage to the automobile was more likely than not, caused by a causality. The determination could only occur if George were not aware of the possibility that the frozen lake could submerge. However, if it could be determined that George was aware of the possibility that the frozen lake could possibly submerge, and he went ahead to park his car on it, then the deduction could be denied due to

Why is Frankenstein Guilty?

Why is Frankenstein Guilty? I may die; but first you, my tyrant and tormentor, shall curse the sun that gazes on your misery. Beware; for I am fearless, and therefore powerful. -The Monster, Ch. 20 I, the miserable and the abandoned, am an abortion, to be spurned at, and kicked, and trampled on. In Waltons final letter to his sister, he recounts the words that the monster speaks to him over Victors dead body. This eruption of angry self-pity as the monster questions the injustice of how he has been treated compellingly captures his inner life, giving Walton and the reader a glimpse into the suffering that has motivated his crimes. This line also evokes the motif of abortion: the monster is an unwanted life, a creation abandoned and shunned by his creator. Frankenstein was a man whose ambition led to a disaster; His actions led to evil. Is Frankenstein an innocent? In my opinion, he was not an innocent. The meaning of innocent is to free from evil or guilt. The word Frankenstein is defined in the dictionary (Encarta Dictionary) as a creator of something that causes ruin or destruction, or brings about a personal downfall, showing a well suited name. A common quotation is that One is innocent until proved guilty, If this quotation is applied to Victor Frankenstein, he would be innocent, for creating a human, which was morally and contextually incorrect; He would be innocent for allowing the murders of William, Justine, Elizabeth and Clerval to take place. It may be true that Frankenstein did not physically murder, however, he is the main cause, and the reason they died. Frankenstein never admitted to his families what he had done; he never took responsibility for his actions. The so called monster murdered for companionship, not to seek revenge from his victims, but to seek revenge from Frankenstein. The circumstances forced Frankensteins monster to do so, Victor was the instigator of these circumstances. My first thought was to discover what I knew of the murderer and cause instant pursuit to be made. But I paused when I reflected on the story I had to tell.(Frankenstein, Mary Shelley), This shows that Victor had the knowledge that he was the reason William was dead. Frankenstein didnt need to know about the murderer, because he indirectly was the murderer, through the circumstances he created for the monster, as I mentioned briefly before. Frankensteins reason for creating the creature was his interest in his studies, which led him to the idea of bettering mankind. Victor thought he was doing a service to humanity by creating a new human. A new species would bless me as its creator and source; many happy and excellent natures would owe their being to me. I might in process of time (although I now found it impossible) renew life where death had apparently devoted the body to corruption. This quote shows his ego behind these plans. He wanted to conquer death, something the average human could not do. He wanted to be revered highly by this so called perfect and beautiful creature. According to him, it may have been acceptable to play the role of god; maybe his being a scientist is why he didnt think of what was morally correct. However, the quote shows that right from the start, Victor had an idea of how he would somewhat be stepping into the shoes of a godlike figure, he outlines the fact that he would be superior, and he would have the power to renew the dead. This proves that he had no innocence, or naivety in terms of knowing precisely what he was doing and what it would lead to. After creating his creature, on the basis of aesthetics, he shunned it. He may also have shunned it because he already conquered death, so in his view, he may have already obtained the status of god, or a superior power, something no one had achieved. He didnt think about anything past the ugliness of the creature, or his personal benefits. His selfishness is what ultimately destroyed him and others as well. The creature he created is more like a project to Frankenstein, his aim is to conquer death, and once he has done so, the project is over. Not once does he consider the fact that he has simply given birth to a new human being, with feelings and emotion, a live creature who has to be taught the ways of life as if it is a baby. Frankensteins abandonment of the creature is another factor that proves him guilty, and not innocent. Frankenstein was wrong for being irresponsible, short sighted, and neglecting his creature. He didnt give his creature anything he needed. Its his own fault that the creature comes back saying I may die; but first you, my tyrant and tormentor, shall curse the sun that gazes on your misery. Beware; for I am fearless, and therefore powerful. The creature was deprived of the companionship, which he could only get from his creator. The creature figures that the only way he can get some attention, is by threatening his creator. This could be compared to a situation with a child and a parent. Frankenstein is somewhat the parent of his creature. His job is to nurture him, but because of his own ego, he runs away. If it were a parent and a child, the child would be defenceless because it hasnt even developed physically, however the creature is an example where he is an uneducated child, with a higher physical strength. Frankensteins creature thinks through intuition, as any child who hasnt learnt anything would do. He doesnt know whats right and wrong, so he doesnt know its wrong to threaten; he doesnt know its wrong to kill. Blaming him is like blaming a child for breaking a valuable, such as a vase. You cant blame the child because their knowledge hasnt developed, they havent yet learnt. However in the childs case, after making such a mistake, the child would be taught not to do so again, creating a basis of how it is wrong, this does not take place for the creature. It could be argued that the creature shou ld know through Victors fear, but does a child learn anything when it senses fear? No, it anything, it will only learn to keep intimidating. Frankensteins faults of his creation, or you could say his faults in parenting, in fact started from the very beginning. Frankensteins creature is described as having dark black hair, yellow skin, black lips and eyes sunk into his sockets (Shelly 56). Its quite ironic that Frankenstein feared his own creation, he is the one who hand-picked the features his so called perfect man would have. For him to say breathless horror and disgust filled my heart(56), towards a creation of his own, just shows his tendency towards aesthetics, and how backward he is in terms of being accepting, yet how forward he is in terms of doing something new. He is responsible for the way the creature turned out. This once more, proves his irresponsibility, and his view to the creation as a project. His attitude towards the creature is why he was irresponsible. He wasnt serious enough, or perhaps he wasnt ready to face negative consequences, seeing as he was a perfectionist. The background Frankenstein created in terms of nurture is what caused his creature to murder. Victor admitted to creating the monster, but he denied that he drove the monster to commit murder. He wouldnt admit to anyone; not himself, not his family, that he was the one who allowed the murders to take place. He allowed Clerval, his wife Elizabeth, his brother William and Justines death to take place because he didnt take the blame for his actions. If he had admitted to his actions earlier, less deaths would have been caused, if he had been responsible, and given the creature what it needed, he would not be guilty of four murders. In the end, Frankenstein was at loss of everything close to him, he blamed the monster, but it was his fault. He had a faint idea that it was his fault, although no one could possibly be able to admit to murdering the people close to you. The only way he could be innocent, is for not literally taking a knife and stabbing his relatives. However the pain he got from his creature was his own fault. Innocence lies in having no sense of guilt for any action of yours, this, Victor did clearly not have. The creature couldnt stop himself from destroying Victor, because Victor couldnt stop himself from creating the creature. The creature was an innocent; it only reacted to the actions of society. Victor was guilty in every way.

King control Essay

After 400 AD, there was no central power in the West, but a central ecclesiastical power, which claimed primacy from the earliest times. The barbarian invasions and the ensuing anarchy resulted in a tremendous growth in the power of the papacy. With the appearance of strong political powers in Europe, a struggle between the papacy and the kings started to grow. The principal disagreement was the proper distribution of power; the king was believed to be the ruler by divine right. Should the King control church as well, contrary to the belief of pope as vicar of God on earth? It was in these circumstances that, Pope Boniface VII appeared on the religious scene in Europe. As Papacy was congested with internal wrangling of war of succession, it is believed that Pope Benedict VI (973-974) was strangled to death. For Boniface VII, papacy was a secular issue, rather than a divine mission, which had to be acquired by all means. After his accession, with in a month, he was forced to leave the Constantinople, but he did not hesitate to steal a large sum of money from the Vatican treasury. After nine years of exile, he returned with an army to depose his successor Pope John XIV (983-984). All these deeds earned him the name of Antipope. According to historians Boniface VII sitting in Peter’s chair was at the lowest point in the papal history. This decline and corruption in church was visible at the time of Gregory VII accession to the papacy. He laments the unhappy state of the Church in the following words, â€Å"Wherever I turn my eyes–to the west, to the north, or to the south, I find bishops who have obtained their office in irregular ways†. Gregory made efforts to stamp out the Church from major evils, for him the Bishop of Rome was not simply the court of last appeal, but the pope was to govern the universal Church as a vicar of St Peter. The medieval kingdoms were religious states and king as the head of people was the supreme authority in religious, as well as in political matters. The spiritual governance was now in the hands of the bishops and pope, kingship had to be understood differently and new foundations laid for the political authority of the state. The state deprived of its spiritual authority was forced to conceive itself as a corporate body independent of the Church. Gregory knew that the customs prevailing in the Church and society had no foundation in ancient Christian tradition. According to him faithfulness did not mean slavish obedience to the rituals, but faith required deeper understanding of the religion. Gregory began his great work of purifying the Church by a reformation of the clergy and enacted a number of decrees, such as banning the office of sacred orders by payment, baring guilty priests from exercising ministries, and rejection of the clerics who failed to obey these injunctions. These decrees were met with vigorous resistance, but were partially successful. Pope Boniface VII and Gregory VII had the same ambitions, but with different point of views. According to Pope Boniface VII, Church cannot not be separated from the state, there had to be balance for this co-existence. Gregory VII, on the contrary de-sacralized the authority of the king, and separated the spiritual world from politics. As a result, the Church became a sovereign body with its own head, administrative structure, body of law, and courts, which eventually gave rise to the modern state. Source: Ullmann. W (1962), The Growth of Papal Government in the Middle Ages: A Study in the Ideological Relation of Clerical to Lay Power, Methuen London. Catholic Encyclopedia, Pope St. Gregory VII (8 Nov. 2005), http://www. newadvent. org/cathen/06791c. htm

Mother Tongue and Foreign Language Learning Essay

These five basic theories are, furthermore, very much complementary to each other, serving different types of learners or representing various cases of language learning. They must not automatically make us presume that first and second language learning are identical or alike processes, though second language learning is strongly tied up with first language acquisition. Obviously, native language growth must pave the way for foreign language growth. Then these five basic language learning theories are fundamental pillars of language learning whose relevance to education is undeniable. The Principle of the Behaviorist Theory The behaviorist theory believes that â€Å"infants learn oral language from other human role models through a process involving imitation, rewards, and practice. Human role models in an infant’s environment provide the stimuli and rewards,† (Cooter & Reutzel, 2004). When a child attempts oral language or imitates the sounds or speech patterns they are usually praised and given affection for their efforts. Thus, praise and affection becomes the rewards. However, the behaviorist theory is scrutinized for a variety of reasons. If rewards play such a vital component in language development, what about the parent who is inattentive or not present when the child attempts speech? If a baby’s language learning is motivated strictly by rewards would the speech attempts stop merely for lack of rewards (Cooter & Reutzel, 2004)? Other cases against this theory include â€Å"learning the use and meaning of abstract words, evidence of novel forms of language not modeled by others, and uniformity of language acquisition in humans† (Cooter & Reutzel, 2004). The Background of the Behaviorist Theory I) Behaviorist theory dwells on spoken language. That is, primary medium of language is oral: speech is language because there are many languages without written forms, because we learn to speak before we learn to read and write. Then, language is primarily what is spoken and secondarily what is written. That’s why spoken language must have a pri ¬ority in language teaching. 2)Behaviorist theory is the habit formation theory of language teaching and learning, reminding us the learning of structural grammar. Language learning concerns us by â€Å"not problem-solving but the in ¬formation and performance of habits† (Nelson Brooks, 1960; 46-47). In other words, language learning is a mechanical process leading the learners to habit formation whose underlying scheme is the conditioned reflex. Thus it is definitely true that language is controlled by the con ¬sequences of behavior. 3)The stimulus-response chain, Response, is a pure ease of conditioning. Behaviorist learning theory â€Å"emphasizes conditioning and building from the simplest conditioned responses to more and more complex behaviors† (David S. Palermo, 1978; 19-20). This comes to mean that clauses and sentences are learned linearly as longer and lon ¬ger stimulus-response chains, produced in a left-to right series of sequence like as probabilistic incidents, which are basically Markov’s processes. Each stimulus is thus thc caser of a response, and each response becomes the initiator of a stimulus, and this process goes on and on in this way. 4) All learning is the establishment of habits as the result of rein ¬forcement and reward. Positive reinforcement is reward while negative reinforcement is punishment. In a stimulus situation, a response is exer ¬ted, and if the response is positively augmented by a reward, then the association between the stimulus and response is itself reinforced and thus the response will very likely be manipulated by every appearance of stimulus. The result will yield conditioning. When responses to stimuli are coherently reinforced, then habit formation is established. It is be ¬cause of this fact that this theory is termed habit-formation-by-reinfor ¬cement theory. 5) The learning, due to its socially-conditioned nature, can be the same for each individual. In other words, each person can learn equally if the conditions in which the learning takes place are the same for each person. The behaviorist theory believes that â€Å"infants learn oral language from other human role models through a process involving imitation, rewards, and practice. Human role models in an infant’s environment provide the stimuli and rewards,† (Cooter & Reutzel, 2004). When a child attempts oral language or imitates the sounds or speech patterns they are usually praised and given affection for their efforts. Thus, praise and affection becomes the rewards. However, the behaviorist theory is scrutinized for a variety of reasons. If rewards play such a vital component in language development, what about the parent who is inattentive or not present when the child attempts speech? If a baby’s language learning is motivated strictly by rewards would the speech attempts stop merely for lack of rewards (Cooter & Reutzel, 2004)? Other cases against this theory include â€Å"learning the use and meaning of abstract words, evidence of novel forms of language not modeled by others, and uniformity of language acquisition in humans† (Cooter & Reutzel, 2004). Behaviorist theory, which is basically a psychological theory in its essence, founded by J. B. Watson, is actually a theory of native language learning, advanced in part as a reaction to traditional grammar. The supporters of this theory are Leonard Bloomfield, O. N. Mowrer, B. F. Skinner, and A. W. Staats. Behaviorism was advanced in America as a new approach to psychology in the early decades of the 20th-century by making a particular emphasis on the importance of verbal behavior, and received a considerable trust from the educational world of 1950s. The major principle of the behaviorist theory rests on the analyses of human behavior in observable stimulus-response interaction and the association between them. E. L. T. Thorndike was the first behaviorist to explore the area that learning is the establishment of associations on particular process of behavior and consequences of that behavior. Basically, â€Å"the behaviorist theory of stimulus-response learning, particularly as developed in the operant conditioning model of Skinner, considers all learning to be the establishment of habits as a result of reinforcement and reward† (Wilga Rivers, 1968, 73). This is very reminiscent of Pavlov’s experiment which indicates that stimulus and response work together. According to this category, the babies obtain native language habits via varied babblings which resemble the appropriate words repeated by a person or object near him. Since for his babblings and mutterings he is rewarded, this very reward reinforces further articulations of the same sort into grouping of syllables and words in a similar situation. In this way, he goes on emitting sounds, groups of sounds, and as he grows up he combines the sentences via generalizations and analogy (as in *goed for went, *doed, for did, so on), which in some complicated cases, condition him to commit errors by articulating in permissible structures in speech. By the age of five or six, or babblings and mutterings grow into socialized speech but little by little they are internalized as implicit speech, and thus many of their utterances become indistinguishable from the adults. This, then, obviously, means that behaviorist theory is a theory of stimulus-response psychology. â€Å"Through a trial-and-error process, in which acceptable utterances are reinforced by comprehension and approval, and un acceptable utterances are inhibited by the lack of reward, he gradually learns to make finer and finer discriminations until his utterances approximate more and more closely the speech of the community in which he is growing up (Wilga M. Rivers, 1968; 73). To put it in other words, children develop a natural affinity to learn the language of their social surroundings whose importance both over language learning and teaching must never be underestimated. In this respect behaviorist theory stresses the fact that â€Å"human and animal learning is a process of habit formation. A highly complex learning task, according to this theory may be learned by being broken’ down into smaIl habits. These are formed correct or incorrect responses, are rewarded or, punished, respectively ‘. (Hubbard Jones and Thornton Wheeler, 1983; 326). Thus it is clear that the acquisition of learning in infancy is governed the acquisition of other habits. Basic Tenents of Behaviorist Theory The following principles illustrate the operating principles of behaviorism: Counterarguments on Behaviorist Theory of Language Learning Needless to say, language teaching anticipates certain theories on language learning because language learning as a fruitful area that embodies the working of human behavior and mental processes of the learners. Each theory may not be complete model for the investigation of language learning. The following counter-arguments can be made upon the working principles of behaviorist theory: 1) Basic strategies of language learning within the scope of behaviorist theory are imitation, reinforcement, and rewarding. However, researches made on the acquisition of learning have demonstrated that children’s imitation of structures show evidence of almost no innovation; moreover children â€Å"vary considerably in the amount that they imitate† (L. M. Bloom, L. Hood, and P. L. Lightbown, 1974; 380-420). Since children do not imitate such structures like words, phrases, clauses and sentences at the same rate they will naturally learn at different rates even though it must be admitted that imitation is very useful in the acquisition of new vocabulary items. As for reinforcement, â€Å"Unfortunately this view of learning receives little support from the available evidence† (Herbert H. Clark and Eve V. Clark, 1977; 336), for the parents only correct the sample structures, and complex structures are occasionally corrected. 2) In behaviorist theory, the process of learning relies more on generalization, rewarding, conditioning, three of which support the development of analogical learning in children. But it can be argued that a process of learning or teaching that encourages the learner to construct phrases, clauses and sentences modeled on previously settled set of rules and drills is thought to obstruct the instinctive production of language. Then, habit formation exercises may not naturally promote intrinsically oriented language learning. 3) Obstructions made on instinctively-based learning will doubtedlessly harm the creative way of learning. It takes a long time to be capable enough to master a language at least a bit intrinsically. There is a threshold level in language learning. This means that learners must learn consciously supported by repetition and drilling to build up an effective linguistic intuition, acquisition of which marks the establishment of threshold level. Before obtaining the threshold level, the language learner is not creative, cannot use the language properly in new situations in a real sense. it is, then, obvious that the intrinsic learning will be delayed, owing to the Iate acquisition of threshold level because of previously settled set of rules and drills. 4) The rate of social influence on learning is not satisfactorily explained. To what extent and rate, does the social surrounding promote language learning? This question remains unexplained. 5) It is highly unlikely for learning to be the same for each individual; that is, each person cannot learn equally well in the same conditions in which learning takes place, for the background and the experience of the learners make everybody learn differently. In addition, according to Chomsky, there must be some innate capacities which human beings possess that predispose them to look for basic patters in language. 6) The main strategies of the behaviorist theory can only be true for the early stages of learning which takes place when the kids are in infancy and in early childhood periods. Moreover, this theory is fruitful for the most part on animal experimentation and learning. 7) Many of the learning processes are mostly too complex, and for this reason there are intervening variable s, which cannot be observed between stimulus and response. â€Å"That’s why, language acquisition cannot take place through habit formation, since language learners are thrown between stimulus and response chain, for language is too far complicated to be learned in such a matter, especially given the brief time available. CONCLUSION It is clear that language learning and its development, for the behaviorists, is a matter of conditioning by means of imitation, practice, reinforcement, and habituation, which constitute the paces of language acquisition. It must be born in mind that all behavioristic theories of learning are associationistic, including Thorndike’s, Guthrie’s, Hull’s, Skinner’s, and the theory of the school of functionalism. Apparently, behaviorism has its shortcomings, but it cannot be denied that learning process is for the most part a behavioristic processing, a verbal behavior. In language teaching area, behaviorism establishes the basic background of exercises, either oral or written in viewing language as stimulus and response. In addition, it gives a great deal of insight into the recognition of the use of controlled observation to discover the laws of behavior. It has exerted a great impact by influencing many teaching methods on the area of language teaching, for example, Audiolingual Method, Total Physical Response, and Silent Way embody the behaviorist view of language; also, British Structuralism has created the theory of language called Situational Language Teaching. In a word behaviorist theory aims at discovering behavioral justifications for designing language teaching in certain ways, being a hub a of many language teaching and learning theories. It must not be forgotten that it has given a push for the creation of empiricist language learning which became very fashionable in U . S. A. and in Europe. BIBLlOGRAPHY Bloom, L. M. (1974). â€Å"Imitations in Language Development: If, When, and Why†, â€Å"Cognitive Psychology†, pp. 380-420. Brooks, Nelson (1960). â€Å"Language and Language Learning†. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World. Clark, Herbert and Eve Clark (1977). â€Å"Language and Psychology: An Introduction to Psycholinguistics†. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich. Jones, Hubbard and Thornton Wheeler (1983). † A Training Course for TEFL†. Oxford University Press. Palermo, David S. (1978). â€Å"Psychology of Language†. Dallas: Scott, Foresman and Co. Rivers, M. Wilga (1968). â€Å"Teaching Foreign Language Skills†. Chicago: Chicago University Press.