Reading — 2026 May–Aug Recall Set 12

Olive oil is produced from the fruit of the olive tree, which is a member of the Oleaceae plant family. The trees require some cold weather during the year, but also tolerate hot, dry conditions, and do not like moisture when they are flowering. They actually produce better when subjected to these stressful conditions, and as a result, olive trees have traditionally been grown on land where little else will survive. Archaeologists today are divided over exactly where the first domestication of the olive occurred: some say it was in the area which is now Iran, Syria, Jordan and Egypt, while others contend it was in mainland Greece or on the island of Crete. The one thing that can be said with certainty is that cultivation began at least 6,000 years ago and spread slowly westward across the lands bordering on the Mediterranean Sea. Olive oil was used for a variety of purposes during these early times, including as a pharmacological ointment and in rituals for anointing royalty. The ancient Greeks believed the olive tree was a priceless gift from the goddess Athena and used its oil in sacred religious rituals. In fact, the Greek poet Homer called olive oil ‘liquid gold’, and during the 6th and 7th centuries BC, Greek law forbade the cutting down of olive trees and made it punishable by death. The ancient Middle Eastern ruler King David valued his groves of olive trees and his olive oil warehouses so much that he posted guards around the clock to protect them. Over the years, olive oil developed other uses. Its employment in cooking dates at least as far back as the 5th century BC, as described by the Greek philosopher Plato. Its use as an aid to beauty and health later became ingrained in many Mediterranean cultures. The Romans, for example, are said to have used generous amounts on their bodies to moisturise their skin after bathing. With the spread of the Roman Empire, olive oil became a major commodity, and its trade promoted commerce throughout the ancient world. It is generally believed that in the 1st–2nd centuries BC, olive trees were taken to North Africa and then to Spain, which was later to become the world’s largest producer of olive oil. Artefacts found at various Mediterranean archaeological sites include olive oil storage vessels with olive plant residue still in them. Historical evidence still in existence in the form of wall paintings and ancient manuscripts (including the works of the Roman naturalist and philosopher, Pliny the Elder) all record production techniques and the various uses of olive oil. Making olive oil in those early days was a laborious process accomplished without mechanisation. Processing or milling the fruit involved several distinct stages to extract the liquid. The olives were harvested from the trees by hand or by beating the fruit from the trees with long sticks. The olives were then rinsed and crushed to separate out the large seed found in the centre of each. The remaining seedless flesh was put in woven bags and pressed. Hot water was then poured over the bags to separate the oil from the solid bits of olive. The liquid produced in this process, consisting of oil and water, was drained into stone basins or tanks, where it was allowed to settle and separate. In cold weather, a bit of salt was added to speed up the process. As much oil as possible was drawn off the water, but the result was still not pure oil. Therefore, this impure mixture was allowed once more to settle in vats and then separated in order to refine the product. The waste water from the milling process, which is called amurca, is a bitter-tasting and foul-smelling liquid. In many ancient civilisations it was often simply discarded, causing serious pollution because of its acidity and high salt content. However, in the Roman period it was regarded as a very useful substance. When spread on surfaces, amurca forms a hard finish and therefore it was often applied to the floors of grain storage buildings where it hardened, keeping out water, mud and pests. When boiled down, amurca was applied to leather to soften it so that it was easier to shape into articles of clothing and shoes. It could also be eaten by farm animals and was, in fact, fed to livestock suffering from malnutrition. According to ancient texts, amurca was also utilised in moderate amounts by farmers as a fertiliser or as a pesticide, helping them to protect their crops from insects and even small rodents.

Wool is part of Britain’s history and heritage, more so than any other commodity ever produced in that country. It was made into cloth there in the Bronze Age, which began about 1900 BC. By the time the Romans invaded in 55 BC the Britons had developed an appreciation for the fineness of British woolen cloth. Although Saxon invasions in the fifth century nearly destroyed the industry, it is known that in the eighth century Britain was exporting woolen fabrics to continental Europe, and after the arrival of the Norman conquerors in 1066 the industry expanded. By the twelfth century, wool was becoming England’s greatest national asset. Cloth making was widespread, particularly in the large towns of southern and eastern England, nearest to France. But the greatest wealth came from exports of raw wool. Kings and their ministers welcomed the revenue that resulted from exports and export taxes - and also the power it gave to the king, who could grant or withdraw permits for the wool towns and for the industry. Trade associations, known as ‘guilds’, were founded to guarantee good work by experienced weavers (people who produce cloth from woolen threads), and were powerful for hundreds of years. The peak of cloth production was reached in the thirteenth century. Then the wool trade declined for a long period because of political conflict. In 1331, King Edward III encouraged master weavers from Flanders (an area of present-day Belgium) to settle in England. These Flemish weavers and their descendants were to play a part in the final development of English cloth. The export trade in raw wool recovered and the first half of the fourteenth century was a time of prosperity for English wool farmers. But it was overshadowed by a long war with France (export taxes on wool were one of the principal means of financing the war) and by bubonic plague (the Black Death), which in 1349 caused devastation: in many villages as much as three-quarters of the population died. This led to an increase of the sheep flocks, for there were not enough people left to cultivate the land for arable crops. Despite setbacks, raw wool exporting expanded, and so also did manufacturing of wool fabrics. This was becoming both specialized and localized. The area of England known as the West Country had three advantages - extensive sheep pastures, a supply of soft water for washing, scouring and dyeing wool, and water-power to drive machinery. Similarly, the hills of Yorkshire and Lancashire in the north of England had soft water and fast running streams. Water from the latter could be used to drive mills for ‘fulling’, a shrinking process which makes the fabric firmer and its surface more compact. In East Anglia there was soft water, but no hills or fast-running streams to provide power for fulling mills. Instead, East Anglia used the long, fine wool from its native sheep breeds to produce a cloth which did not require the fulling process. This was the type of cloth which is now called ‘worsted’, after the village of Worstead. For four hundred years East Anglia dominated the worsted trade, with skills inherited from the Flemish settlers of 1331. English cloth quickly achieved an international reputation. From being primarily a raw wool exporter, the country became in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries a manufacturer and exporter of cloth. At the end of the fifteenth century, it was said that England was largely a nation of sheep farmers and cloth manufacturers. The next two centuries saw continued expansion of the industry despite conflicts at home and abroad. In the sixteenth century, French weavers, persecuted for their Protestant religion, sought refuge in England and took their skills with them. England began to surpass Flanders in woolen manufacture: by the end of the seventeenth century it comprised two-thirds of the value of its exports. Radical changes lay ahead, in the geographical location of the industry, in labor use and in manufacturing processes. By 1770, output of worsted from Yorkshire equalled that of East Anglia, and its cloth manufacturing district began to take shape with the expansion of major towns: Leeds, Bradford, Halifax, Huddersfield and Wakefield. The Industrial Revolution of 1750-1850 also brought change. It led the way for new inventions stemming from the Lancashire cotton industry, to mechanize and speed dramatically the processes of spinning and weaving. Manufacturing methods, unchanged since the revival of the trade in the fourteenth century, were now superseded. Mechanization had been opposed in the past and it was again. The widespread unrest of 1812 led to the destruction of equipment by bands of rioters, who feared they would lose employment. But machinery won the day. Over the course of the nineteenth century, the older areas such as East Anglia, where opposition had been most bitter, permanently declined. They were overtaken by Yorkshire, where machinery was more readily accepted. The younger industry jumped ahead and never lost its lead, supported by abundant supplies of inexpensive coal to generate steam and, later, electrical power. Other specialized types of manufacturing developed in Scotland, famed for its tweeds (a range of coloured woolen cloth with characteristic designs), and in the West Country, which focused on the production of high-quality, woolen carpets.

A study of non-verbal communication carried out in 1967 continues to be widely quoted today. David Lapakko looks at limitations in the original study. Description of the Study The findings of a study on verbal and non-verbal messages in communication by Albert Mehrabian and his colleagues at UCLA in 1967 have been quoted so frequently that they are now often regarded as a self-evident truth. In the first experiment, subjects were asked to listen to a recording of a female saying the word “maybe” in three tones of voice to convey liking, neutrality, and disliking. The subjects were then shown photos of female faces expressing the same three emotions and were asked to guess the emotions in the recorded voice and the photos. It was found that the photos received more accurate responses than the voices. In the second experiment, subjects listened to nine recorded words spoken in different tones of voice. Three words had positive meanings (e.g. honey), three were neutral (e.g. oh), and three were negative (e.g. terrible). Again, the subjects had to guess the speaker’s emotions. It was found that tone of voice carried more meaning than the individual words. From these experiments the researchers concluded that 7% of our feeling towards a speaker is based on the actual words they use, 38% on their tone of voice, and 55% on their body language (e.g. facial expression). Methodological Issues However, a closer look at the study reveals several limitations. The first is that the entire study involved only 62 subjects. Of these, 25 were used to select the word for the first experiment, while the key issue – comparing verbal and non-verbal communication – was determined by only the 37 remaining subjects. All were female undergraduates who participated as part of their introductory psychology course, and their ages and academic qualifications seem remarkably uniform. Thus, the findings may simply be a product of the nature of the sample. Critics have also pointed out that the 7–38–55 formula is flawed since it was pieced together from two different experiments, neither of which involved all three channels (verbal, vocal, and facial). In addition, in the first experiment the single word “maybe” was used throughout so it was impossible for the effects of changes in verbal input to be assessed. The researchers intentionally used a “neutral” word so naturally the subjects found little meaning there. Clearly, such a methodology lacks validity. In the real world, people communicate in a particular context and speak in phrases and full-blown sentences, making extensive use of the multi-faceted vehicle of language. My concern is that interpretations of this study have gained such prominence in our pedagogical literature. This 7–38–55 formula appears in many basic texts, used for training in public speaking, interpersonal communication, and organizational communication. Lessons to consider Clearly, one appealing aspect of the Mehrabian study is its numerical precision. Communication is a complex phenomenon, but it seems less so when we can rely on these three magical numbers. In contrast to the ambiguities of language, numbers seem to possess exactness. And the popular appeal of the study has given the 7–38–55 formula enormous credibility. There is a certain mystique about non-verbal communication, and the continued references to this research sustain it, encouraging people to believe in the overwhelming importance of the non-verbal message compared with the verbal one. Yet we know that even one ill-chosen word to a colleague or friend can make or break a communicative effort. Words do matter. Bradley (1991), one of the few textbook writers to criticize the Mehrabian study, makes the same point when he observes, “If we could communicate 93% of information and attitudes with vocal and facial cues, it would be wasteful to spend time learning a language.” Mehrabian himself believes his research should not be interpreted to devalue the role of language in communication, saying: “Please remember that all my findings… dealt with communications of feelings and attitudes… it is absurd to imply or suggest that the verbal portion of all communication constitutes only 7% of the message… anytime we communicate abstract relationships (e.g., x = y – the square of z) clearly 100% of the entire communication is verbal.” (Mehrabian, 1995) To be fair, many textbook writers attempt to be faithful to the context of Mehrabian’s research. For example, Stewart and D’Angelo (1988) write: “Mehrabian argues that when we’re uncertain about what someone’s feeling, or about how much we like him or her, we rely… only 7% on the words that are spoken.” Others try to play down the specific percentages, saying that an understanding of the general importance of non-verbal cues is more important. Nonetheless, other textbook authors simply use the numbers without placing any limits on their meaning. Conclusion Since this relatively small study was first published it has achieved an influence far beyond its intended scope. We need to put it into its proper perspective and learn some important lessons from it regarding social science research, communication pedagogy, and the forces which have created widespread misunderstanding about communication.