UGC-NET&SET-ENGLISH-MODEL PAPER-5
UGC-NET&SET-ENGLISH-MODEL PAPER-5
41. Which of the following is NOT the opening of the well-known Romantic poem ?
(A) My heart aches, and a drowsy numbness pains/My sense
(B) Hail to thee, blithe spirit !
(C) Margaret, are you grieving/Over Goldengrove unleaving ?
(D) The world is too much with us
42. “Politics and the English Language” is an essay by :
(A) F.R. Leavis
(B) Terry Eagleton
(C) George Orwell
(D) Raymond Williams
43. “The mind-forged manacles” is phrase from :
(A) “London”
(A) F.R. Leavis
(B) Terry Eagleton
(C) George Orwell
(D) Raymond Williams
43. “The mind-forged manacles” is phrase from :
(A) “London”
(B) “Eternity”
(C) “A Poison Tree”
(C) “A Poison Tree”
(D) “I Asked a Thief”
44. “He is not fully recognized at home; he is not recognized at all abroad. Yet I firmly believe that the poetical performance of __________ is, after that of Shakespeare and Milton, undoubtedly most considerable in our language.”
To whom does Matthew Arnold refer in the above statement ?
(A) Edmund Spenser
(B) John Keats
(C) William Wordsworth
(D) S.T. Coleridge
45. The Globe Theatre opened in :
(A) 1585
44. “He is not fully recognized at home; he is not recognized at all abroad. Yet I firmly believe that the poetical performance of __________ is, after that of Shakespeare and Milton, undoubtedly most considerable in our language.”
To whom does Matthew Arnold refer in the above statement ?
(A) Edmund Spenser
(B) John Keats
(C) William Wordsworth
(D) S.T. Coleridge
45. The Globe Theatre opened in :
(A) 1585
(B) 1593
(C) 1599
(D) 1603
Read the following passage carefully, and select the right answers from the alternatives given below in the questions 46 to 50 :
We need to begin by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the notion of literature. The mere fact that the word exists, or that an academic institution has been built around it, does not mean that the thing itself is self-evident.
Reasons–perfectly empirical ones, to begin with – are not hard to find. The full history of the word literature and its equivalents in all languages and all eras has yet to be written, but even a perfunctory look at the question makes it clear that the term has not been around for ever. In the European languages, the word literature in its current sense is quite recent : it dates back – just barely – to the nineteenth century. Might we be dealing with a historical phenomenon rather than an ‘eternal’ one ? Moreover, many languages (many African languages, for example) have no generic term covering all literary productions. To these initial observations we may add the fragmentation characteristic of literature today. Who dares specify what is literature and what is not, given the irreducible variety of the writing that tends to be attached to it, from vastly different perspectives ?
The argument is not conclusive : a notion may legitimately exist even if there is no specific term in the lexicon for it. But we have been led to cast the first shadow of doubt over the ‘naturalness’ of literature. A theoretical examination of the problem proves no more reassuring. Where do we come by the conviction that there is indeed such a thing as literature ? From experience. We study ‘literary’ works in school, then in college; we find the ‘literary type of book in specialized stores; we are in the habit of referring to ‘literary’ authors in everyday conversation. An entity called ‘literature’ functions at the level of intersubjective and social relations; this much seems beyond question. Fine. But what have we proved ? That in the broader system of a given society or culture, an identifiable element exists that is known by the label literature. Have we thereby demonstrated that all the particular products that take on the function of ‘literature’ possess common characteristics, which we can identify with legitimacy ? Not at all.
46. This passage casts doubt on :
(A) the assumption called literature.
(B) the idea of literature.
(C) the institution of literature.
(D) the notion of literature.
47. Literature is unsustainable because :...
(A) we are unclear as to what it means.
(B) we are unsure as to its message.
(C) we are not persuaded that the claims made for it are allowable and acceptable.
(D) we cannot prove that its definitions are the right and the only possible ones.
48. How does the writer argue that the existence of literature is hardly self-evident ?
(i) by citing reasons for its non-existence.
(ii) by citing reasons for interrogating its legitimacy.
(iii) by citing reasons and proving by argument that its legitimacy can be interrogated.
(iv) by citing reasons to show that the label does not match the thing we know to be literature.
We need to begin by casting doubt on the legitimacy of the notion of literature. The mere fact that the word exists, or that an academic institution has been built around it, does not mean that the thing itself is self-evident.
Reasons–perfectly empirical ones, to begin with – are not hard to find. The full history of the word literature and its equivalents in all languages and all eras has yet to be written, but even a perfunctory look at the question makes it clear that the term has not been around for ever. In the European languages, the word literature in its current sense is quite recent : it dates back – just barely – to the nineteenth century. Might we be dealing with a historical phenomenon rather than an ‘eternal’ one ? Moreover, many languages (many African languages, for example) have no generic term covering all literary productions. To these initial observations we may add the fragmentation characteristic of literature today. Who dares specify what is literature and what is not, given the irreducible variety of the writing that tends to be attached to it, from vastly different perspectives ?
The argument is not conclusive : a notion may legitimately exist even if there is no specific term in the lexicon for it. But we have been led to cast the first shadow of doubt over the ‘naturalness’ of literature. A theoretical examination of the problem proves no more reassuring. Where do we come by the conviction that there is indeed such a thing as literature ? From experience. We study ‘literary’ works in school, then in college; we find the ‘literary type of book in specialized stores; we are in the habit of referring to ‘literary’ authors in everyday conversation. An entity called ‘literature’ functions at the level of intersubjective and social relations; this much seems beyond question. Fine. But what have we proved ? That in the broader system of a given society or culture, an identifiable element exists that is known by the label literature. Have we thereby demonstrated that all the particular products that take on the function of ‘literature’ possess common characteristics, which we can identify with legitimacy ? Not at all.
46. This passage casts doubt on :
(A) the assumption called literature.
(B) the idea of literature.
(C) the institution of literature.
(D) the notion of literature.
47. Literature is unsustainable because :...
(A) we are unclear as to what it means.
(B) we are unsure as to its message.
(C) we are not persuaded that the claims made for it are allowable and acceptable.
(D) we cannot prove that its definitions are the right and the only possible ones.
48. How does the writer argue that the existence of literature is hardly self-evident ?
(i) by citing reasons for its non-existence.
(ii) by citing reasons for interrogating its legitimacy.
(iii) by citing reasons and proving by argument that its legitimacy can be interrogated.
(iv) by citing reasons to show that the label does not match the thing we know to be literature.
(A) (i)
(B) (i) and (ii)
(C) (iii)
(C) (iii)
(D) (iii) and (iv)
49. “Might we be dealing with a historical phenomenon rather than an ‘eternal’ one” ? What makes this a reasonable question to consider in this context ?
(A) A historical phenomenon lends itself to better empirical verification than an ‘eternal’ one.
(B) A historical phenomenon has more legitimacy than an ‘eternal’ one.
(C) A historical phenomenon can be debated and possibly settled while an ‘eternal’ one must be taken on trust or not at all.
(D) A historical phenomenon is well above disputation while an ‘eternal’ one is not.
50. What does “the fragmentation characteristic of literature today” suggest to the writer ?
(A) the fragmentation of modern consciousness.
(B) the divided perceptions of literature by its readers.
(C) the lack of specificity of literature.
(D) the blur that frustrates further investigation into this concept.
49. “Might we be dealing with a historical phenomenon rather than an ‘eternal’ one” ? What makes this a reasonable question to consider in this context ?
(A) A historical phenomenon lends itself to better empirical verification than an ‘eternal’ one.
(B) A historical phenomenon has more legitimacy than an ‘eternal’ one.
(C) A historical phenomenon can be debated and possibly settled while an ‘eternal’ one must be taken on trust or not at all.
(D) A historical phenomenon is well above disputation while an ‘eternal’ one is not.
50. What does “the fragmentation characteristic of literature today” suggest to the writer ?
(A) the fragmentation of modern consciousness.
(B) the divided perceptions of literature by its readers.
(C) the lack of specificity of literature.
(D) the blur that frustrates further investigation into this concept.