Questões de Inglês

WHAT IS STRESS?

Hans Selye defined stress as the body’s nonspecific response to any demand, whether it is caused by or
results in pleasant or unpleasant stimuli. It is essential to differentiate between the unpleasant or harmful
variety of stress termed distress, which often connotes disease, and eustress, which often connotes
euphoria. During both eustress and distress, the body undergoes virtually the same non-specific responses
[5] to the various positive or negative stimuli acting upon it. However, eustress causes much less damage
than distress. This demonstrates conclusively that it is how an individual accepts stress that determines
ultimately whether the person can adapt successfully to change. Selye hypothesized a General Adaptation
or Stress Syndrome; this General Stress Syndrome affects the whole body. Stress always manifests itself by
a syndrome, a sum of changes, not by simply one change.

[10] There are three components to the General Stress Syndrome. The first stage, which is termed the alarm
stage, represents a mobilization of the body’s defensive forces. In other words, the body is preparing for
the “fight or flight” syndrome. This involves a number of hormones and chemical excreted at high levels,
as well as an increase in heart rate, blood pressure, perspiration, respiration rate, etc. In the second phase
— the stage of resistance — the body becomes adaptive to the challenge and even begins to resist it.
[15] The length of this stage of resistance is dependent upon the body’s innate and stored adaptation energy
reserves and upon the intensity of the stressor. Just as any machine wears out even if it has been properly
maintained, so do living organisms that sooner or later become the victim of this constant wear and tear.
The acquired adaptation is lost if the individual is subject to still greater exposure to the stressor. The
organism enters into the third and final stage —the exhaustion stage — and then dies because it has used
[20] up its resources of adaptation energy. Thankfully, few people ever experience this last stage!

Stress diseases are maladies caused principally by errors in the body’s general adaptation process. They
will not occur when all the body’s regulatory processes are properly checked and balanced. They will not
develop when adaptation is facilitated by improved perception and interpretation. The biggest problems
with derailing the General Stress Syndrome and causing disease is an absolute excess, deficiency,
[25] or disequilibrium in the amount of adaptive hormones — for example, corticoid, ACTH, and growth
hormones produced during stress. Unfortunately, if stress is induced chronically, our defense response
lowers its resistance since fewer antibodies are produced and an inflammatory response dwindles.

Stress is a natural physical and mental reaction to life experiences. Everyone expresses stress from time
to time. Anything from everyday responsibilities like work and family to serious life events such as a
[30] new diagnosis, war, or the death of a loved one can trigger stress. For immediate, short-term situations,
stress can be beneficial to your health. It can help you cope with potentially serious situations. Your body
responds to stress by releasing hormones that increase your heart and breathing rates and ready your
muscles to respond.

Yet if your stress response doesn’t stop firing, and these stress levels stay elevated far longer than is
[35] necessary for survival, it can take a toll on your health. 

Excerpt from the text What is Stress?. The American Institute of Stress stress.org, 17/03/2019.

WHY THE REFUSAL TO VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN IS DANGEROUS FOR YOUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY

January 30, 2018 […]

Let’s get a few things out of the way before we begin, so we have a better chance of understanding one
another: I’m a pediatrician who works in a hospital. It’s true that sick kids pay my bills, but I would much
rather that kids never got sick, even if it meant losing my job. (I’m adaptable. I’m sure I’d be OK.)

I’m also a person who thinks that when young people become seriously ill from diseases that might have
[5] otherwise been prevented, it’s a tragedy. Pertussis outbreaks in this country are on the rise; paralytic
polio quickly returned to Syria after immunization rates dropped due to the war; the measles outbreak
currently taking young lives in Europe may now do the same in Texas. When children die of these diseases,
it’s unconscionable.

I am, as you might have guessed, pro-vaccine. I am amazingly grateful that my own children are growing
[10] up in an era in which it is highly unlikely that I will have to watch them die. One hundred years ago, it was
ordinary to lose a child before they reached the age of five. Can you imagine? I don’t even want to. That’s
me, in a nutshell. What about you?

Statistically speaking, I know that you are smart and educated people. You love your children as much
as I love mine. You want what’s best for them. You are not and do not want to be confused with the
[15] unhinged anti-vax bloggers who believe vaccines are part of a government conspiracy to intentionally
injure children. […] You’re normal and rational enough to know that while there is formaldehyde in some
vaccines, it’s also present in pears, which your children have probably enjoyed in both puréed and solid
forms. And you are not, no matter what I say, going to vaccinate your son or daughter just because I think
you should. […]

[20] You understand that these are real and lethal illnesses. Roald Dahl was not lying when he described how
his daughter Olivia, seemingly on the mend from measles, suddenly had trouble moving her hands and
told him she felt “all sleepy.” Hours later, she was dead.

Medicine has progressed in leaps and bounds since Olivia died in 1962, but even so, treatment for measles
remains supportive — there are no medicines that can cure the virus itself, and the more severe cases will
[25] still result in death. […]

Do what you believe is best for your family, but if that means not vaccinating, I’m imploring you to keep it
to yourself. Otherwise, you are putting your children at increased risk. Steer clear of private schools where
immunization rates are so low that infections would spread right through the entire community like wildfire.
Don’t click on articles by anti-vax conspiracy theorists just so you can feel validated in your worldview.

[30] My children don’t enjoy getting jabbed, but they get their shots with a normal degree of grumbling. […] I
hope enough people in your community feel the same as I do and will create a protective bubble around
your own children, even if you’re not willing to do so for theirs. Appreciate that gift for what it is. Don’t
poke the bubble, or it might pop. Instead, consider saying thank you.

Sincerely,

Meghan MacLean Weir, MD

Meghan MacLean Weir is a pediatrician and the author of Between Expectations: Lessons From a Pediatric Residency and the upcoming novel The Book of Essie.

www.lennyletter.com

WHY THE REFUSAL TO VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN IS DANGEROUS FOR YOUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY

January 30, 2018 […]

Let’s get a few things out of the way before we begin, so we have a better chance of understanding one
another: I’m a pediatrician who works in a hospital. It’s true that sick kids pay my bills, but I would much
rather that kids never got sick, even if it meant losing my job. (I’m adaptable. I’m sure I’d be OK.)

I’m also a person who thinks that when young people become seriously ill from diseases that might have
[5] otherwise been prevented, it’s a tragedy. Pertussis outbreaks in this country are on the rise; paralytic
polio quickly returned to Syria after immunization rates dropped due to the war; the measles outbreak
currently taking young lives in Europe may now do the same in Texas. When children die of these diseases,
it’s unconscionable.

I am, as you might have guessed, pro-vaccine. I am amazingly grateful that my own children are growing
[10] up in an era in which it is highly unlikely that I will have to watch them die. One hundred years ago, it was
ordinary to lose a child before they reached the age of five. Can you imagine? I don’t even want to. That’s
me, in a nutshell. What about you?

Statistically speaking, I know that you are smart and educated people. You love your children as much
as I love mine. You want what’s best for them. You are not and do not want to be confused with the
[15] unhinged anti-vax bloggers who believe vaccines are part of a government conspiracy to intentionally
injure children. […] You’re normal and rational enough to know that while there is formaldehyde in some
vaccines, it’s also present in pears, which your children have probably enjoyed in both puréed and solid
forms. And you are not, no matter what I say, going to vaccinate your son or daughter just because I think
you should. […]

[20] You understand that these are real and lethal illnesses. Roald Dahl was not lying when he described how
his daughter Olivia, seemingly on the mend from measles, suddenly had trouble moving her hands and
told him she felt “all sleepy.” Hours later, she was dead.

Medicine has progressed in leaps and bounds since Olivia died in 1962, but even so, treatment for measles
remains supportive — there are no medicines that can cure the virus itself, and the more severe cases will
[25] still result in death. […]

Do what you believe is best for your family, but if that means not vaccinating, I’m imploring you to keep it
to yourself. Otherwise, you are putting your children at increased risk. Steer clear of private schools where
immunization rates are so low that infections would spread right through the entire community like wildfire.
Don’t click on articles by anti-vax conspiracy theorists just so you can feel validated in your worldview.

[30] My children don’t enjoy getting jabbed, but they get their shots with a normal degree of grumbling. […] I
hope enough people in your community feel the same as I do and will create a protective bubble around
your own children, even if you’re not willing to do so for theirs. Appreciate that gift for what it is. Don’t
poke the bubble, or it might pop. Instead, consider saying thank you.

Sincerely,

Meghan MacLean Weir, MD

Meghan MacLean Weir is a pediatrician and the author of Between Expectations: Lessons From a Pediatric Residency and the upcoming novel The Book of Essie.

www.lennyletter.com

WHY THE REFUSAL TO VACCINATE YOUR CHILDREN IS DANGEROUS FOR YOUR ENTIRE COMMUNITY

January 30, 2018 […]

Let’s get a few things out of the way before we begin, so we have a better chance of understanding one
another: I’m a pediatrician who works in a hospital. It’s true that sick kids pay my bills, but I would much
rather that kids never got sick, even if it meant losing my job. (I’m adaptable. I’m sure I’d be OK.)

I’m also a person who thinks that when young people become seriously ill from diseases that might have
[5] otherwise been prevented, it’s a tragedy. Pertussis outbreaks in this country are on the rise; paralytic
polio quickly returned to Syria after immunization rates dropped due to the war; the measles outbreak
currently taking young lives in Europe may now do the same in Texas. When children die of these diseases,
it’s unconscionable.

I am, as you might have guessed, pro-vaccine. I am amazingly grateful that my own children are growing
[10] up in an era in which it is highly unlikely that I will have to watch them die. One hundred years ago, it was
ordinary to lose a child before they reached the age of five. Can you imagine? I don’t even want to. That’s
me, in a nutshell. What about you?

Statistically speaking, I know that you are smart and educated people. You love your children as much
as I love mine. You want what’s best for them. You are not and do not want to be confused with the
[15] unhinged anti-vax bloggers who believe vaccines are part of a government conspiracy to intentionally
injure children. […] You’re normal and rational enough to know that while there is formaldehyde in some
vaccines, it’s also present in pears, which your children have probably enjoyed in both puréed and solid
forms. And you are not, no matter what I say, going to vaccinate your son or daughter just because I think
you should. […]

[20] You understand that these are real and lethal illnesses. Roald Dahl was not lying when he described how
his daughter Olivia, seemingly on the mend from measles, suddenly had trouble moving her hands and
told him she felt “all sleepy.” Hours later, she was dead.

Medicine has progressed in leaps and bounds since Olivia died in 1962, but even so, treatment for measles
remains supportive — there are no medicines that can cure the virus itself, and the more severe cases will
[25] still result in death. […]

Do what you believe is best for your family, but if that means not vaccinating, I’m imploring you to keep it
to yourself. Otherwise, you are putting your children at increased risk. Steer clear of private schools where
immunization rates are so low that infections would spread right through the entire community like wildfire.
Don’t click on articles by anti-vax conspiracy theorists just so you can feel validated in your worldview.

[30] My children don’t enjoy getting jabbed, but they get their shots with a normal degree of grumbling. […] I
hope enough people in your community feel the same as I do and will create a protective bubble around
your own children, even if you’re not willing to do so for theirs. Appreciate that gift for what it is. Don’t
poke the bubble, or it might pop. Instead, consider saying thank you.

Sincerely,

Meghan MacLean Weir, MD

Meghan MacLean Weir is a pediatrician and the author of Between Expectations: Lessons From a Pediatric Residency and the upcoming novel The Book of Essie.

www.lennyletter.com

T E X T

English in the World Today

    The English language has changed
considerably over the last thousand or so
years. It has changed in terms of its lexis
(vocabulary), its orthography (spelling)
[5] and its semantics (meaning). And it has
also changed in terms of its syntax (word
order).
    One of the reasons for the change
that has happened to English over the
[10] centuries is that, since its very
beginnings, English has always been in
contact with other languages. The
influence from this contact can be seen
most clearly in the way that English is full
[15] of what are known as loanwords. The
term loanword, or borrowing, is used to
refer to an item of vocabulary from one
language which has been adopted into
the vocabulary of another. The process is
[20] often the result of language contact,
where two or more languages exist in
close geographical or social proximity.
The dominant language often absorbs
new items of vocabulary, either to cover
[25] concepts for which it has no specific word
of its own, or to generate a slightly
different function or nuance for concepts
for which it does have existing words.
    Some loanwords retain their
[30] 'foreign’ appearance when they are
adopted, and people will often then use
them specifically for the sense of
exoticism that they impart. One can talk
of a certain je ne sais quoi, for example,
[35] or of a joie de vivre when speaking
English – in both cases invoking images
of French culture to enhance the meaning
of what is being communicated. Other
loanwords, however, have become
[40] completely naturalized, until speakers of
the language no longer notice their
‘foreignness’ at all.
    English has, over its lifetime,
absorbed influences from countless
[45] sources – and so just as English is now a
presence in diverse contexts all across
the globe, so diverse contexts from
across the globe also have a presence in
the language itself.
[50]     The history of English can
therefore be seen as a record of the
changes that have occurred in the
populations of those who speak the
language. When two languages come into
[55] contact, what actually happens is that
two communities who speak different
languages engage with each other, and 

the nature of that engagement will
determine how the languages influence
[60] one another. In other words, it is
important when we study English not to
forget that what we are actually studying
is the language as it is and was used by
real people.
[65]     There is a problem in talking about
statistics such as those which say that
English is spoken by almost two billion
people the world over because they make
large generalizations about the nature of
[70] the English involved, and the relationship
that people have to the language. Such
statistics can never fully represent the
diversity of experiences that speakers of
the language have, either about whether
[75] they feel they are ‘authentic’ English
speakers or about what they themselves
understand English to be.
    The attitudes people have towards
the language are a part of their own
[80] personal history. But this personal history
is always a part of the wider history of
the community in which they live. It is
often the case that not only is the
language of importance to the individual’s
[85] sense of identity, but that it also plays a
part in the cultural identity of a group or
nation. It is within this context that the
history of English – and especially the
reasons behind its global spread – can be
[90] of great significance for the attitudes
people have towards the language.
    Decisions about the language
made by institutions such as national
governments and education systems
[95] have an impact on the form of the
language and on the way it is perceived
and used. In contexts such as these,
English cannot simply be considered a
neutral medium of communication;
[100] instead it is a politically charged social
practice embedded in the histories of the
people who use it.
    The English language is and
always has been a diverse entity. It has
[105] changed dramatically over the centuries
since it first arrived on the shores of
Britain from the north of Europe, and
these changes mean that the language
that was spoken at that time is almost
[110] incomprehensible to us now. As the
language has spread beyond Britain it
has continued to change, and to change
in different ways in different contexts. It
has diversified to such an extent that
[115] some scholars suggest that it is no longer
accurate to talk of a single ‘English’; that
instead there are many different English
languages around the world today.
    At the same time, however,
[120] English exists in the world today as a
means of international communication –

as a way for people from different social
groups to communicate with each other –
and to fulfil this function it would seem
[125] that variation in the language needs to
be curtailed to a certain extent. That is to
say, if the language becomes too diverse
it will not remain mutually
comprehensible across different social
[130] groups. So we have two impulses at work
that are seemingly incompatible, or
perhaps even in conflict, and the question
we are faced with is how to render them
as consistent, as both being part of the
[135] existence of a single entity we call
‘English’. This is one of the central issues
in English language studies today – and it
is a very modern issue because it has
come about as a direct result of the
[140] unprecedented position that English now
occupies in the world: as a language with
global scope which is implicated in the
history and present-day existence of
societies all around the world.

Adapted from: https://www.open.edu/

T E X T

How a Canadian Chain Is Reinventing Book Selling

By Alexandra Alter

    About a decade ago, Heather Reisman, the chief executive of Canada’s largest bookstore chain, was having tea with the novelist Margaret Atwood when Ms. Atwood inadvertently gave her an idea for a new product. Ms. Atwood announced that she planned to go home, put on a pair of cozy socks and curl up with a book. Ms. Reisman thought about how appealing that sounded. Not long after, her company, Indigo, developed its own brand of plush “reading socks.” They quickly became one of Indigo’s signature gift items.

    “Last year, all my friends got reading socks,” said Arianna Huffington, the HuffPost cofounder and a friend of Ms. Reisman’s, who also gave the socks as gifts to employees at her organization Thrive. “Most people don’t have reading socks — not like Heather’s reading socks.”

    Over the last few years, Indigo has designed dozens of other products, including beach mats, scented candles, inspirational wall art, Mason jars, crystal pillars, bento lunchboxes, herb growing kits, copper cheese knife sets, stemless champagne flutes, throw pillows and scarves.

    It may seem strange for a bookstore chain to be developing and selling artisanal soup bowls and organic cotton baby onesies. But Indigo’s approach seems not only novel but crucial to its success and longevity. The superstore concept, with hulking retail spaces stocking 100,000 titles, has become increasingly hard to sustain in the era of online retail, when it’s impossible to match Amazon’s vast selection.

    Indigo is experimenting with a new model, positioning itself as a “cultural department store” where customers who wander in to browse through books often end up lingering as they impulsively shop for cashmere slippers and crystal facial rollers, or a knife set to go with a new Paleo cookbook. Over the past few years, Ms. Reisman has reinvented Indigo as a Goop-like, curated lifestyle brand, with sections devoted to food, health and wellness, and home décor.

    Ms. Reisman is now importing Indigo’s approach to the United States. Last year, Indigo opened its first American outpost, at a luxury mall in Millburn, N.J., and she eventually plans to open a cluster of Indigos in the Northeast. Indigo’s ascendance is all the more notable given the challenges that big bookstore chains have faced in the United States. Borders, which once had more than 650 locations, filed for bankruptcy in 2011. Barnes & Noble now operates 627 stores, down from 720 in 2010, and the company put itself up for sale last year. Lately, it has been opening smaller stores, including an 8,300-square-foot outlet in Fairfax County, Va.

    “Cross-merchandising is Retail 101, and it’s hard to do in a typical bookstore,” said Peter Hildick-Smith, president of the Codex Group, which analyzes the book industry. “Indigo found a way to create an extra aura around the bookbuying experience, by creating a physical extension of what you’re reading about.”

    The atmosphere is unabashedly intimate, cozy and feminine — an aesthetic choice that also makes commercial sense, given that women account for some 60 percent of book buyers. A section called “The Joy of the Table” stocks Indigobrand ceramics, glassware and acacia wood serving platters with the cookbooks. The home décor section has pillows and throws, woven baskets, vases and scented candles. There’s a subsection called “In Her Words,” which features idea-driven books and memoirs by women. An area labeled “A Room of Her Own” looks like a lush dressing room, with vegan leather purses, soft gray shawls, a velvet chair, scarves and journals alongside art, design and fashion books.

    Books still account for just over 50 percent of Indigo’s sales and remain the central draw; the New Jersey store stocks around 55,000 titles. But they also serve another purpose: providing a window into consumers’ interests, hobbies, desires and anxieties, which makes it easier to develop and sell related products.

    Publishing executives, who have watched with growing alarm as Barnes & Noble has struggled, have responded enthusiastically to Ms. Reisman’s strategy. “Heather pioneered and perfected the art of integrating books and nonbook products,” Markus Dohle, the chief executive of Penguin Random House, said in an email.

    Ms. Reisman has made herself and her own tastes and interests central to the brand. The front of the New Jersey store features a section labeled “Heather’s Picks,” with a display table covered with dozens of titles. A sign identifies her as the chain’s “founder, C.E.O., Chief Booklover and the Heather in Heather’s Picks.” She appears regularly at author signings and store events, and has interviewed prominent authors like Malcolm Gladwell, James Comey, Sally Field, Bill Clinton and Nora Ephron.

    When Ms. Reisman opened the first Indigo store in Burlington, Ontario, in 1997, she had already run her own consulting firm and later served as president of a soft drink and beverage company, Cott. Still, bookselling is an idiosyncratic industry, and many questioned whether Indigo could compete with Canada’s biggest bookseller, Chapters. Skepticism dissolved a few years later when Indigo merged with Chapters, inheriting its fleet of national stores. The company now has more than 200 outlets across Canada, including 89 “superstores.” Indigo opened its first revamped concept store in 2016.

    The new approach has proved lucrative: In its 2017 fiscal year, the company’s revenue exceeded $1 billion Canadian for the first time. In its 2018 fiscal year, Indigo reported a revenue increase of nearly $60 million Canadian over the previous year, making it the most profitable year in the chain’s history.

    The company’s dominance in Canada doesn’t guarantee it will thrive in the United States, where it has to compete not only with Amazon and Barnes & Noble, but with a resurgent wave of independent booksellers. After years of decline, independent stores have rebounded, with some 2,470 locations, up from 1,651 a decade ago, according to the American Booksellers Association. And Amazon has expanded into the physical retail market, with around 20 bookstores across the United States.

    Ms. Reisman acknowledges that the company faces challenges as it expands southward. Still, she’s optimistic, and is already scouting locations for a second store near New York.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/01