LL text 6: Skim the following text to form a general idea of its contents. Next, follow the instructions provided below to complete worksheet 3. Leaving Little to Chants The Benedictine hitmakers are back with anew album — and a spat over money. By DAVID E. THIGPEN ife for the singing monks of Santo Domingo de Silos has never been the same since they became recording stars. Last year Chant, their Latin-language recording of medieval Gregorian sung prayer, achieved the nearest thing to a record-industry miracle: it ascended to No. 3 on the U.S. pop music charts, lodging next to hits by Snoop Doggy Dogg and Nine Inch Nails. Soon the ancient walls of their remote monastery in northern Spain were besieged by tourists and paparazzi. Even more troubling, the monks came to feel that their record company had given them a raw deal. Though Chant sold 6 million copies worldwide and grossed more than $50 million for EMI Records (whose stars range from Sinéad O’Connor to Digable Planets), Laurentino de Buruaga, the group’s choirmaster, complains that the monks have earned a paltry $40,000 from it — hardly enough to patch the leaky roof over their medieval cloister. In response, the monks have followed the example of secular recording stars from time immemorial: they've switched labels. Their new CD, The Soul of Chant, was released last month by Milan Records, a smaller classical label. According to Buruaga, Chant was a disenchanting experience for the monks even before it soared on the charts. First, EMI blundered by putting a painting of brown-robed Franciscan friars on the CD’s cover instead of black-robed Benedictine monks the ecclesiastical equivalent of putting 2 Yale man on the cover of the Harvard yearbook. Then, as Chant’s sales took off, an overeager EMI executive flew to Silos to talk to the monks about a follow-up album. Suspicious of the machinery sf stardom — and the private helicopter whirring overhead — the monks greeted oa executive through a peephole in the monastery’s front door and told him to hit the road. “That made them very cross,” recalls Buruaga. But what really ruffled the monk’s cowls was EMI’s insistence on holding them toa contract the Benedictines had signed 30 years ag0 with Hispavox Records, which EMI later bought out. That agreement entitled them to only a flat $1,500 per record, though a small royalty was added later. “The monks say they were paid legally” says musicologist Alejandro Masso, who produced their new album, “but they also say they could have been paid more elegantly.” “Ridiculous,” responds EMI executive Steve Murphy. He asserts that the monks have received “substantial” royalties in excess of $40,000, adding that Buruaga is not privy to details of the contract. “That,” Masso retorts, “is like telling a cardinal he doesn’t know the business of the church.” Murphy accuses Milan Records of fomenting the dispute for “publicity purposes” and says EMI will release another album of the monks’ music soon. The Soul of Chant, in any event, has risen to No. 10 on the U.S. classical charts — not a blockbuster like Chant, but enough to make ven saan Emmanuel Camboredon rejoice. att ny die robes hitmakers, he says, was a7 COHESION AND COHERENCE 13 oD Worksheet 3: 1. In the space provided for you below, list all the words and expressions you can Sind in text 6 which may be associated with the worlds of religion, on the one hand, and music, business and the recording industry, on the other. Religion Recording Industry, Music & BusinessMa Goss) ay ld) Go Worksheet 4: The following is a text which has been divided up into individual sentences. The sentences are out of order. Use the blanks provided to the left of each sentence to place the sentences in the correct order, in such a way that they form a logically een marked for sequenced and coherent text. The initial sentence of the text has bi you. 1_ Most children want to know the “dirty words” almost as soon as they begin to| study another language. People in the American speech community “talk dirty” for many reasons. ____An interest in these words continues unabated into adult life, even though the| American speech community has placed social sanctions against their use in most public} places, particularly those where “ladies” are present. Closely related to this reason is another: to display the speaker’s contempt for the} standards that his society upholds. Finally, talking dirty is a way to sexually mock authority figures—parents, teachers, clergymen, policemen, political leaders — thereby relieving the speaker of his own feelings of inadequacy. One of them, of course, is to attract attention to the speaker because of the jolting| effect of obscenity in places, such as public forums and the media, considered inappropriate. Further, militants of every persuasion have shown that talking dirty is an effective| rhetorical device for verbal aggression, an easy way to provoke confrontations. es Such a speaker often regards civil speech as the behavior of those who uphold status quo, whereas talking dirty is a symbol of “honest” rebellion against the pc Ye structure.139 COHESION AND COHERENCE & Worksheet 5: Circle all elements participating in cohesive ties in the text below, and aan arrows to indicate the connections between the elements you have circled. Underline any discourse linkers you find. Most children want to know the “dirty words” almost as soon as they begin to study another language. An interest in these words continues unabated into adult life, even though the American speech community has placed social sanctions against their use in most public places, particularly those where “ladies” are present. People in the American speech community “talk dirty” for many reasons. One of them, of course, is to attract attention to the speaker because of the jolting effect of obscenity in places such as public forums and the media, considered inappropriate. Closely related to this reason is another: to display the speaker’s contempt for the standards that his society upholds. Such a speaker often regards civil speech as the behavior of those who uphold the status quo, whereas talking dirty is a symbol of “honest” rebellion against the power structure. Further, militants of every persuasion have shown that talking dirty is an effective rhetorical device for verbal aggression, an easy way to provoke confrontations. Finally, talking dirty is a way to sexually mock authority figures—parents, teachers, clergymen, policemen, political leaders — thereby relieving the speaker of his own feelings of inadequacy. ~COMPARISON AND, CONTRAST, LF Worksheet 6: Read Texts 7 and 8, below, and follow the instructions given in each case. OO text 7: 1) Both slander and libel are false and malicious statements 2) that are made about a living person and that tend to bring the 3) subject into public hatred, ridicule, or contempt, or to injure the 4) subject in his or her business or occupation. But the methods of 5) such defamation are different. Slander is spoken in the 6) presence of a third person. Libel, on the other hand, is expressed 7) in print, writing, pictures, or signs, or, with the advent of radio 8) and television, broadcast. 1. As a text characterized by a comparison/contrast structure, the passage above discusses the similarities and differences to be observed in two separate concepts, in this case, the notions of slander and libel. Locate the fragments of the text in which these similarities and differences are discussed, the line numbers to which they correspond, and fill in the blanks provided below. Similarities: Lines Differences: Lines ——___________ 2. Now, complete the chart below by filling in the corresponding information regarding similarities and differences between slander and libel as outlined in the text. Common features Distinguishing features Slander Libelined in the text for 3. Listed below are the linking devices which have been under xt fi whether the linking you. In the space provided to the right of each one, state device in question has a comparative or contrastive function. But: on the other hand: a Text 8: J) In the last stage of their metamorphosis a butterfly and a 2) moth emerge from a cocoon, to begin life as an adult insect. 3) Both have a sucking mouthpart, a slender body, ropelike antennae, 4) and four scaly wings. However, moths are typically smaller than 5) butterflies, their wings are usually not as brightly colored, and 6) the tips of their antennae are simple or feathery rather than. 7) knobbed. Most butterflies fly from flower to flower by day, 8) feeding on nectar, whereas most moths do so by night. 1. The preceding passage outlines the similarities and differences to be found in butterflies and moths. Locate the fragments of the text in which these similarities and differences are discussed, the line numbers to which they correspond, and fill in the blanks provided below. Similarities: Lines = Differences: Lines = 2. Now, complete the chart below by filling in the corresponding information regarding similarities and differences between butterflies and moths as outlined in the text. ‘Common features Distinguishing features Butterflies Moths ook adquirit per al294934 cl 04-03-2014 en www.tenda.uji.csJUSTINE BREHM CRIPPS 142 listed for You been e whether the ned in the text have stat 3. The linking words and phrases underlir Hee phrase, below. In the space provided next to each wol function of each is comparative or contrastive. Both: — However: ——_ rather than: Both...and: = whereas:. & & Worksheet 7: 1. Compare texts 7 and 8. Are the order in which similarities and differences are discus the same? sed 2. Compare the linking devices used in texts 7 and 8. Are they the same or similar? 3. Review texts 7 and 8 to determine how the different f features of sl i one hand, and moths and butterflies, on the other, are pfssdnd wean ao of ie device does text 8 use which is not present in text 72 . ceed)