Fourth lesson was again all right. This time we were dismantled and formed into new groups for some (pseudo)scientific conversation, but first we had a glance about differences between English and American English. We were given sheets with both American and English terms and instructed to match them. To my sincere shock, I realised how deeply I had been influenced by American English and been using terms and words from both of them together which would, as the lecturer pointed out, make the scientific text written in such manner seem quite inconsistent. I have to focus on the pure English for now. When thinking of it, for my shock I could also remember a news article from BBC website with same inconsistencies, making the matter even more confusing; the very bastion of pure English grammar is compromised. Luckily, we were given some thumb rules and an address to a “.Pdf”-file concentrating to the differences between the vocabularies.
We were later instructed to reflect our group discussions based on the articles we had with us, related to our interests and / or research subjects. Since our class consists of several different sciences of the Faculty of Arts, you may probably believe our conversation was quite diverged. We were randomly formed into new groups before the task, and even though I find myself very fond of my normal group, the new one I was introduced to was not a bad composition either. I felt quite bad for the other members of my newly-formed group, for my article concentrated on the history of democratisation of the Republic of Korea (R.O.K, also known as South Korea). The idea behind it was to form three questions before the conversation to which the other members were supposed to answer; I found it a bit difficult to make adequately unspecific questions of the said subject. It came very clear to me that normal people do not know quite a lot about R.O.K, not to mention the very gruesome and bloody democratisation either. However, during those eight minutes we had I felt good because we could actually end up with reasonably good conversation. The second topic was about idioms in languages and how do we define them of which I have to say, jolly well thought and interesting questions (they did launch quite interesting conversation even for us, the rest of the group who were totally laymen considering the linguistic issues, unlike me for I only managed to confuse my teammates at the very start due to the unfamiliar subject to 95 per cent of this planets population). Third conversation which was about whether we need philosophy or not, also sparked a fruity debate; we ended up with a conclusion that natural sciences and mathematics cannot explain everything, thus there is a need for philosophy. Fourth and the final topic was about whether a graffiti artist could be a superhero was also interesting; I remember pointing out that graffiti is not only a form of art or urban culture, but with strong and visible statements an individual could fight against tyranny (well, quite summed up I said something like that, I came up to the conclusion via some tenuous link and due to the lack of coherence of my ramblings explaining how did I end up to the said summary would serve no purpose at all).
I found myself a bit critical about this conversation, however; it could have made things quite a lot easier if we were given a brief moment of explaining about our articles before digging into the questions. I would have chosen a different article for the mere sake of sanity of my teammates. And to make things even more ridiculous, we were instructed to print out another article for the next lesson concentrating to the same subject we had started a conversations about. Well, I have chosen another one and this time friendlier one.