The love Lab

How we communicate with our romantic partners can have a strong impact on the quality of our relationships. Psychologists John and Julie Gottman run the "Love Lab", where thousands of couples have been studied over the last 30 years. The purpose of their research is to determine the factors that lead to happy and unhappy relationships. From their data, they have concluded that contempt, criticism, defensiveness, and stonewalling are the most significant factors that can hurt a marriage or relationship.

Among these, contempt is the biggest predictor of divorce. People who feel contempt for their partner often convey disapproval without addressing the issue. They sometimes label their partner with insulting words such as "lazy" "stupid" or "emotional", which is particularly damaging.

Many couples try to address issues by criticizing their partners flaws or mistakes directly. Being too direct with criticism can hurt your partner's self-esteem. Some people may react to criticism by becoming defensive and focused on winning the argument, rather than on improving themselves. Others may react to criticism by stonewalling, where they refuse to acknowledge and respond to their partner for a period of time.

Unfortunately, fighting back or ignoring your partner can make it difficult to determine the root of your problems. If your partner feels that they aren't valued, it may lead to increased dissatisfaction with the relationship.

The Gottmans maintain that being aware of these factors in communication is the first step to improving a relationship. It is important to acknowledge that all relationships have issues. The goal shouldn't be to avoid these issues but to learn to resolve them. In particular, we should avoid communicating in ways that hurt our partner's self-esteem. It is better to discuss problems in a way that is less confrontational and can better help your partner sympathize with your perspective. For example, rather than saying "Why are you ignoring me? It's rude!" one could say "l feel hurt and undervalued when I don't get a response from you." By being conscious of how we communicate with our partner, we can begin to build a healthier relationship.

The Lost City of the Incas

Machu Picchu is one of the world's most impressive historical sites. It was built around 1450 by the Incas, who ruled most of South America at that time. They called themselves children of the Sun, the powerful god they worshipped as the source of light and life.

Located in the Andes Mountains of Peru, at 8,000 feet above sea level, the "City of the Incas" was mysteriously abandoned just 100 years after its construction. This was when the Spanish were beginning their conquest of the Inca Empire, in the 1530's. There is no evidence that the Spanish invaders ever attacked or even reached the mountaintop city, so many believe that the city's inhabitants deserted the site because of a smallpox epidemic.

The city was almost forgotten until 1911 when it was discovered by an American historian, Hiram Bingham after he heard rumors of its existence. Bingham was led to the site by local farmers and was amazed by what he saw, which seemed like an unbelievable dream. He wondered if anyone would believe what he had found. Though the surrounding jungle had overgrown the site, what remained was impressive. The city had been built on a remote and nearly inaccessible mountaintop, often shrouded in clouds. Forty rows of farming terraces hugged the steep mountainside, each over 10 feet high and linked together by over 3000 stone steps. Among the city were what appeared to be neighborhoods of homes and exquisite stone buildings that are thought to be temples. Even today, the mystery remains as to the purpose of these temples, how the city was used and what its citizens did.

Despite its remote location, Machu Picchu has become one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world. Every year, thousands of people travel to Peru to admire its magnificent stonework and breathtaking design. What they see is a wonderful harmony between the city and the landscape around it that is captivating.

What's wrong?

You look awful.

My boyfriend and I have just had another fight.

I think I'm going to break up with him.

Hey, you've said that before.

Calm down.

Is that really what you want to do?

Yeah, I think so.

I don't see any future in our relationship.

Is there anyone else you're interested in?

No, but there are some guys on the internet who have sent me messages.

What, you've been online?

Sure, just for fun.

It's nice to know that I can meet people if I want to.

Does your boyfriend know about it?

No, if he knew it, he'll be furious.

He can be very jealous, and he has a violent temper.

Anyway, what was your fight about?

Oh, it's just the way he talks to me.

He never shows any interest in what I'm doing or what I'm feeling.

If I have a bad headache or anything he says nothing.

So who started the fight?

He came over and wanted to kiss me, and I turned away.

I told him I didn't feel anything for him right then.

So then he got angry, and we both blew up.

Now we're not talking to each other.

Oh, is that all?

That kind of thing is normal.

Maybe you're overreacting.

No, it's just that I'm beginning to realize that I don't feel anything for him anymore.

Our relationship is getting cold.

I don't feel appreciated.

Well then, maybe you should break up for a while and start seeing other man.

But be careful.

If I were you, I wouldn't start seeing anybody else until I break up first.

Why do you think so?

If he sees that you're serious about breaking up, he may change.

Maybe, but I doubt it.

It could be that he feels the same way about you.

Maybe he has lost interest.

So it's best to find out.

You need to have a serious conversation with him.

Hemm, you're right.

Maybe it's time to really find out.

Now that you're studying English at a high level, let's get a better understanding of modals.

By now you should already have a good understanding of what they mean.

Here are the modals which are used to express degrees of certainty.

will shall may can

These modals are used for making predictions, judgments and speculations.

They indicate how much a speaker knows about the likelihood of an event.

First, the modal "will" expresses certainty, as in "If you heat water, it will boil."

Based on what is known, the speaker is CERTAIN it will happen.

The modal "may" expresses possibility, as in "It may rain this evening, but I'm not sure."

Based on what is known, the speaker asserts that the event is possible rather than certain or impossible.

The modal "can"express potentiality, or ability, as in "He can afford it, but he may decide not to buy."

The modal "shall" is a bit different from the others.

"Tina shall be there" means the speaker is determined that Tina will be there.

In other words, the speaker is determined to get her to come and will try to influence events to make it happen.

We would never say: "It shall rain."

Nobody can make it rain, so whether or not it rains is beyond anyone's control.

If someone were to say that, it would seem as if they were claiming the power to control or influence nature.

Note that the question "Shall I open the door?" invites the person who is asked to make the decision.

Whether or not the door is opened depends on the person's answer.

In contrast, "Will I open the door?" asks for a prediction rather than a decision.

Note that these modals can be weakened or removed from reality by the use of their past tense form.

would/should/might/could

"We would go if we had more money, but we don't."

This sentence expresses the speaker's certainty of going IF they had more money, which they don't.

So the certain prediction exists but in an imaginary or unreal situation.

The modal "might" expresses less possibility than "may", so "might go" is less likely than "may go".

The modal "could" expresses less potential than "can", and is often used in conditionals.

"If he could come" expresses less potential than "If he can come' .

The sentence, "If he could come, we would all be happier" expresses the feeling that in fact, he can't come.

Here is the second set of modals.

These modals express degrees of logical force or social expectation.

must/ had better/ should/ ought to

Note that none of them has a past tense or weakened form.

The first one, "must indicates logical or social necessity.

It expresses the strongest logical or social force.

The modals "should" and "ought to" assert that something is probable or expected, but not necessary.

The modal "had better" expresses advisability.

In other words, if someone "had better" do something, they should do it or there may be negative consequences.

Therefore, "had better" has the feeling of a threat, as in "You had better be there."

This isn't the same as "You should do it," which means you are expected to do it, but without an implied threat if you don't.

One interesting rule is that no more than one modal can be used with any verb.

There are no exceptions to this rule.

Therefore, it's incorrect to say: "He will must be there."

To avoid breaking this rule, there are other words that have the same meaning but are not modals.

In the case of "must", for example, we use "have to" as in "He will have to be there."

Similarly, we cannot say "He may can come."

Instead, we say "He may be able to come."

One last thing to note about modals.

They use the same form regardless of what the subject is.

If the grammatical subject is l, it, we or they, we use the same form, will.

We would never say "He wills be there."

But with non-modal forms, such as "have to" we must change the form to match the subject.

"He has to be there" and "I have to be there".