[Music] Hi, my name is Daniel Altshuler. I'm a tutorial fellow at Jesus college and a lecturer at   Brasenose, and I'm also a faculty member and associate professor of semantics in the faculty   of Linguistics, Philology and Phonetics. Hi, my name is Sandra Paoli. I'm a tutor at Balliol college and I am a member of the faculty in Linguistics and I specialize in the romance languages.   Wonderful. And the way that we'll proceed today is we're going to say a little bit about our program   and we'll talk about the structure and the format of the interview, what students can expect when   they interview for the course. We generally interview two types of tracks; one is Philosophy   Psychology and Linguistics - PPL - and another one is Modern Languages and Linguistics - or MLL - and  the way usually that in my experience we've been interviewing is we have two sorts of data   sets that we often look at. One sort of a data set that we'll see in a real live interview in   a bit involves analyzing data that a student hasn't had exposure with, that gets us to think   about various analytical skills and reasoning through an unfamiliar language. And the sort of the second kind of a question that one might expect is a little bit more open-ended. So as a   professor of semantics I like to invite the student to think about different aspects of   meaning that various expressions can have, but the second question can vary in various   different respects. We've had examples where we analyze humor and jokes, and thinking about   what about the linguistic expression make something funny and so students can just   generally expect to have a back and forth thinking about various aspects of linguistic expressions.   Yeah Daniel that's really important - you've actually hit on a couple of keywords there.   So data that the students haven't seen yet, they're not familiar with, and I think this   is part of what makes Linguistics - to my mind anyway - a really interesting degree, because   we're not expecting students to turn up and already know lots of things about language. So looking at a set of data that they haven't seen before it's a way of kind of tapping into   you know the way they navigate the data, and also in the way they pick up on things and   notice and spot patterns that are there. We're not expecting them to turn up and use specific   vocabulary or display a certain knowledge that we don't believe they would have got from school.   So this kind of leads us into linking, you know, the importance of the interview, because   of course, not having done Linguistics before at school, the interview really is crucial for them   to sort of show us that aptitude towards analyzing language or their interest in doing it.   Right, and I think Linguistics is unique in that respect because there aren't typically A-Levels in   Linguistics or students that are coming outside of the UK might not have had a lot of exposure   to Linguistics. So really, what we're looking for is we imagine that someone loves language.   We want to see passion and the ability to think critically and analytically about language, being   able to identify patterns. And some of the things that I know as we've done interviews before that   we like to assess is also 'coachability'. So, the sort of questions that we purposefully make up are not   easy. They require someone to think outside the box. There might be certain questions that they   couldn't possibly have any exposure with, not only in terms of the language, but the sort of questions   that we're asking. So we don't have expectations for someone to give the right answer or really   even to figure it out. What we're really looking for in someone is how they can talk through some   very difficult sorts of problems and then take advice. Is someone able to take advice and   then take it to a different sort of a level, are able to identify a new pattern with the   sort of advice that we have? What are some of the other things that you look for when assessing?   To me what really matters is that kind of almost undefinable spark that you see in the student when   they engage with a puzzle, a language puzzle. You know, the willingness to really put themselves out there, to engage with the data, to be willing to say something - even, you know, something that   could be perhaps defined as a mistake, right, but then being willing to engage with that mistake   and take advice and take, you know, the kind of conversation, you know, extract the useful bits   from a conversation and then apply that knowledge and revise their view. So 'coachability', as you say, I think it's really important for me. It's that spark of interest - you see them, they light up. You know, they enjoy the challenge - I think that says a lot about how a student is likely to   engage with the course itself, because I mean ultimately, you know, there will be an awful lot   of data analysis and, you know, in their classes and their tutorials and their small group teaching, so   that for me is that. And also a willingness to put themselves out there, you know, just go for it. That, you know, 'it feels like this, I'm just gonna say it', and I think I find that quite quite precious.   Yeah and I think it's important in putting oneself out there to acknowledge that there   might be multiple sorts of routes and analytical options out there, right. And that's I think another   thing that we'd love to highlight - that we love the students for them to talk out the different   sorts of options: 'I'm thinking that the way to analyze this could be a, b, or c, and I'd love to   tell you a little bit about what I'm thinking in terms of a, b, and c, right. I'm actually not sure   which of those options is best but if I had more examples of this sort, or if I had more information   then maybe I could discriminate between these three different options.' That's kind of where we could come in and help out, right, and it's a sort of conversation that really mirrors   what the sort of tutorials would be like, right. Ultimately we're seeing and imagining what would   it be like for you to sit in our office and engage with other students, be part of our community, right.   We do have a group learning environment in many of the things that we experience, so   again it's that conversation; being humble to admit that certain things might be difficult, or there's a lack of knowledge. Again that's something that we expect - one couldn't possibly   come in into these interviews and know everything and we know that going ahead of time. Absolutely, yeah. And so, another thing that I think is  important to kind of highlight, is we do I think try to generalize our interviews to where - regardless of which course a student   is applying, whether it's MLL or PPL - at the end of the day, I think, wouldn't you agree, that many   of the things that we just highlighted, we'd be looking for very similar sorts of things. Yeah absolutely. So, generally speaking, if you have a student who's applying for the combination of   Modern Languages and Linguistics, they have developed an interest in language through   study of a foreign language for them. The people who come here applying for Psychology, Philology - Philosophy, sorry - and Linguistics, it's somebody who perhaps has had more an exposure   to maybe more of a scientific aspect, so maybe more maths, or you know psychology itself. And so   perhaps they will be more interested in the sort of more abstract patterns. But generally speaking it's exactly the same set of skills that we will be trying to kind of assess in both kind of type   of candidates. Right, and it's important to also acknowledge that because these are combined courses, there will be interviews also. So a student, a PPL student, has a choice of choosing,   you know, if they chose Linguistics as one of their courses that they want to pursue, they'll choose   either Psychology or Philosophy and there'll be a further interview in Psychology or Philosophy.   And similar with the modern language that they choose. So, yeah, so the sort of interviews   that we provide for Linguistics are supposed to be comprehensive respective of the course that   they choose, knowing that there'll be also further interviews in the other courses that they choose.   One thing that also might be worth talking a little bit about is whether there's a   difference in the interviews between the different colleges - or in general, depending on the college,   how would the courses be pursued. And I guess I'll start off by just noting that, as I said   a little bit, the one difference might be that for example as a semanticist oftentimes there   might be certain questions that I might draw on my personal experience. And so to some extent, each interview - depending on who's interviewing - might be slightly different. But I think for the   most part, the sort of things that we're looking for and the sort of questions that we're asking   really go quite a bit across the colleges, and as a faculty we discuss and kind of have ideas   for different things that we're looking for. I definitely share that I think that inevitably there will be a little element of, you know, difference between different colleges. I mean after   all they are different entities, right. So each college will have their own attitude, their own   practice of interview or the things they prefer, but you will have an element of subjectivity when   it comes to what kind of questions are being asked. And as you say, you tap into your own expertise.   But generally speaking, I think the set of skills, I think it will be the same across colleges. So,   you know, an interest in working with language. And something we haven't mentioned is curiosity   towards facts of language, you know. You really want to know the answer of something, it's not just 'oh   here we go another set of data', but you really want to know. So those are things that I think will   just apply across all colleges. Right. And I think, kind of as this rounding up of thinking about the expectations and knowledge that we  have of the applicant, I do want to underscore   again that we're not looking for someone to show certain prior knowledge that they   have in Linguistics. Because, again, this is a very unique course, where for many people we're   really teaching Linguistics for the first time and something that the exposure. So the goal of the interview is not for someone, for the student - we don't have expectations for them to come in   and, let's say, show off the prior knowledge of things that they've read and thought about. The sort of way that we really structure is we want the student to feel comfortable in analyzing   data and really thinking about data as they work with us back and forth. And so the sort of general   expectations and knowledge is to be yourself, to be curious, to be interested, to kind of talk about   what it is that you're thinking about with us in real time, right. And I think kind of just allowing yourself to be yourself, and to show why it is that you're interested in languages through the   analysis and the exercises that we put forth really places someone in a wonderful context   to be able to engage properly. Absolutely, and I think it's worth underscoring, Daniel if I may just once more, that we're not looking for the  full package, like the finished product. We want to see potential. So even if during the discussion of the data set, you know, there might be a feeling   that perhaps the student hasn't really got what the purpose or the pattern that, you know, was   there to spot, but is willing to engage in the conversation of, you know, 'what is it that caught   my attention, and this is my mental process, this is how I thought about the data' - that in itself   is so precious. The actual right or wrong answer does not matter. It's more, you know, to be able to   engage with the data and show the process that they've gone through in their minds. Hi, very nice to meet you, my name is Daniel Altshuler. I'm a tutorial fellow at Jesus college   and it's an honor to be joined by Professor Sandra Paoli from Balliol. Welcome, how are you doing? Yeah, not too bad, thank you. Awesome. So the way that this interview will proceed is that it'll have two different parts. First we'll begin with an analysis that Sandra Paoli will carry forward and then after that we'll come and do  the second part of the interview with me - how does that sound? Yeah that sounds all right, thank you. I'll hand it over to Professor Paoli. Emerald, before we begin, just in case - if there are any technical problems we'll try and sort them out here and now, we've got some technical  assistance with us. If it happens that they can't be sorted out don't worry about a thing, we'll try and reschedule the interview. Does that sound good? Also we will start with questions for you, but remember at the end there's always   time for you to ask any questions that you may have. Or indeed if there was anything that   you really wanted to say in the interview and you didn't get the chance that will be it. All right, thank you. Okay so, Emerald, for this  task it would be very helpful if you had access to a pencil or a pen and a piece of paper. Do you have that with you? Yes I do yeah. Brilliant. So I'm gonna share my screen now and I will show you a  set of data from a language that I don't think you've seen before. Can you see that? Yes. Brilliant. Okay so these are some sentences   from a language that you have probably not seen before - it's Nepali. And we will start with   the sort of table that you have there under 'data'. You have one to seven sentences.   In the right hand side column you've got the  English translation, in the left hand side column   you've got the Nepali itself. So what I would  like you to do, I would like you to take a couple   of minutes just to look at the data and try to  figure out the sort of meaning or function   of each of the forms that you see. So if we start  now, we'll give it about two minutes. Yeah, okay. Right we've had our two minutes - they go really fast don't they? Yeah. Not to worry - okay   So Emerald, let's see what you've got so far. Okay so I started with things that appear in   every sentence, because first I thought only  'child' did but then I realized 'sees' also does.   So now I think either nani  is 'child' or, I don't know how to say this properly,   but dekhche is 'child' or 'sees', of the two. But then, I think that maybe nani is potentially, because   I think that kukur is 'dog' because that  appears in the last four sentences and so does that word. And in sentence four, kukur is accompanied with lai which I think might be a modifier, and nani also appears with that. So then to me, that suggests that they'll both be nouns.   Right okay. There's an awful lot going on here  and you're absolutely right, you need to check for   the sort of permutations of that particular word  across the data set. So there is one element in   the sentence that always remains the same. So you were saying every sentence has got 'child'. That is true, but as you see from the translations, in some 'child' is the subject - so it's what it sort of does   the scene, if you like - and in two it's actually  what is being seen, it's the object. But there's one thing that never ever changes and what is that? I guess the verb will be the thing that's consistent. Yeah and so which is the thing in the data  set you have in front of you which actually is consistent throughout, not just in terms of  the form that it has but also the position? So that would be dekhche, I'd say it like that, yeah. Yeah, I share that. I think that is definitely   that, you know we've got good solid indication to  tell us that that is the verb. Fantastic. Then when   you were telling me about what you noticed in the data, you brought up this kukur and kukurlai. So we've got two forms for what seems to be the same word, 'dog'. Yeah. So where do you see the two forms then? So in four it's 'kukurlai' and in and five as well. Then in six and seven it's 'kukur'.  Right. Oh sorry. No, carry on. I was just gonna say it seems to co-occur with the position of the, like, as a subject or object. So when it's the object then it has the 'lai', then when it's the  subject it doesn't. Ah that's interesting,   I like that. Okay, so there is a possibility. So we  have a hypothesis here - that it is well possible   this 'lai' at the end, you put it on when the noun is an object right. So here, for example in four, the dog is the thing that is being seen. Yeah. Okay, so if that is the case then and you see both 'lai' on the dog and on the child, I then ask you: if you look at the sentences in one   and two, we also have an object back there  right? So we have a house that's been seen and   the big book that is being seen. Yes. So why  do you think we don't have a 'lai' on those? So the house and the big book are  both inanimate objects. So I guess maybe they   can't see anything, so you don't need  the suffix to like express that they   are the object, because it's obvious from the  context. But then with the dog and the child   they could both be seeing, so you would need to modify it to make it clear   I think that makes a lot of sense, right. So whenever we have an animate element it's important to make   sure that it's super clear whether it's a subject  or the object. Absolutely fabulous, thank you. Let's have a look at some more words. What about in two and four, what's that 'yo' word at the very beginning? So I would suggest that that's 'this'. Yeah I think so. And what's the word for 'the', then? You know, in one and three: the child, the house, the big book.    I mean I don't know if they have a word for 'the'. It doesn't seem that they do. You're right, it doesn't seem   like they do, because we have 'nani' - which you know, by now we figured out it means child - we've got the   word for the verb. And what about 'gher' there in one? That would be house. Okay, so with that knowledge now we've already established have a look at for example the English translation in two. You've got an adjective there: big book. Yeah. What do you think that word is in the Nepali sentence? 'Thulo', so the third word. Yeah and does it appear before or after book? Um, before, yeah. Before, yeah, that's interesting. Okay  that's absolutely brilliant. Okay so have we got time to ask a couple more questions Daniel? Yeah I think there's time just for maybe another question and a half. Yeah fantastic. So let's  go back to the data set so I can see it myself. Yes let's - Emerald take  a look at the question in D. In fact there are three questions. Let's look at A and B. Okay. You know we have a minimal pair in   the data set. Like if you look at sentences  four and seven you've got 'yo nani' and 'tyo raato kukur'. And if you look at the translation, 'yo' comes  out as 'this' and 'tyo' comes out as 'that'. Yeah. So the question for you is now if 'here' is 'hyaha'  what do you think 'there' might be in Nepali? I mean, it could just have a t before it. It could indeed. And how do you think that is gonna work? Oh I should say, how do you  think that 't' then, how did you come to   the conclusion that that 't' could be what you would need to have a 'there'? What did you base that kind of hypothesis on? So I guess that would be the difference  between 'this' and 'that' is the presence of the 't'.   And if you say 'this' is like the closer one, like  the one right there, and then 'that' is the further   one then if you use that same relationship, 'here'  will be the close one so 'there' will be the further one.   Absolutely I think that makes beautiful sense, Okay, I think we're done here so thank you Emerald.  And thank you Emerald and Sandra to both of you. I feel like now I know a lot more about Nepali   than I had coming in. We're now going to move  to another language Emerald - how is English? Sometimes more difficult, we'll see. Yeah it can be right. But we are gonna now talk about the language we're a little bit both more familiar with and I want to do an exercise on adjectives. So before we begin, let me just kind of get  the ball rolling a little bit by asking you   what do you think is the sort of semantic  function of adjectives? And by that I mean why do you think we even have  adjectives in the language? What's their purpose? Well I guess the base definition is to describe  nouns. And I guess the purpose of describing   nouns is sometimes to differentiate  between objects - so like the big and small, the   big one, the little one like that. It helps to know  which one. Yeah I think that was like the main reasons is to differentiate between things. And then also just to be able to describe the world   in a way that everyone can understand. Yeah, and so here's my favorite kind of definition with a little typo that I just got rid of. It says 'adjectives are expressions that alter,   clarify, or adjust the meaning contributions of  nouns', right - pretty much exactly kind of how you   thought about it. I want you to kind of hold this close to your heart as we start   to investigate a little bit about how different  adjectives might differ, okay? And so the way that we'll do that, and we'll begin with the first kind  of piece of data - we'll think about the adjective 'hairy'. Okay so I'm going to give you a kind of an  argument and tell me what you think all right? Okay. Roger is a hairy rabbit. Roger is my pet  therefore, Roger is my hairy pet. What do you think, do you think that this is a valid argument? If A and B are true, do you think C follows? Um... Kind of. Like I feel like it slightly doesn't but  I don't really know why. Like I think you could say that it's the case. So let's say that  it is, and then maybe we could come back to this intuition that it might not, and I'm really  curious to hear more about that. But for the time being let's assume that it does. What do you think we learn about the meaning of 'hairy', right? So in A we say it's a hairy rabbit. But in B we just  say that it's my pet, right, or it's Roger's pet. It says nothing about whether  the pet is hairy or not, but lo and behold when we get to C, we kind of conclude that. So what do we learn about 'hairy', what do you think? So I guess it's an adjective that can be used to describe a rabbit and then also,  as a rabbit is a subset of a pet, can be extended  to also the pet. Yeah interesting, and the notion of a subset, right, kind of this mathematical  notion, seems to play kind of an important role   here right? That we're describing a particular kind of an object, namely a rabbit, right, and saying something of that. Then, there's  a certain kind of relationship to the   effect that if the rabbit is my pet, that also  follows that they must be hairy. Okay I want you  to hold this idea of like, as you nicely expressed, a 'subset', to think about a different sort of an adjective. So let's think about talented, right. So  imagine I tell you: Alice is a talented violinist. Alice is my surgeon. Can I therefore  conclude that Alice is my talented surgeon? No. Okay so why not? Can you kind of give a context  that would show that this is an invalid argument? And then the sort of second question is, how is talented and hairy different then? So, Alice could be a really good  violinist but just not be a very good surgeon.   Um, yeah. Nice. She might be still  the medical student, right? Yeah, yeah. Great, but then I mean so we could  kind of come back to your initial intuition right. You're like I think it's a valid argument,  but there's also a sense I think when you could  maybe understand hairy that would still maybe  not make it such. But nevertheless this intuition   that this is a valid argument is much stronger  than for talented right? So why do you think that is, and what do you think we could learn from  kind of the difference between talented and hairy? Um, so talented only describes the specific  adjective that it's supposed - sorry, noun that's   supposed to describe, or that it has described  in the sentence given. So you can't I guess apply it to anything. So like, with hairy - hairy describes the rabbit / pet   as a whole, so you can extend it. Whereas with talented, it describes Alice in a particular   capability um and that doesn't extend to  everything. Yeah that's really cool, that's awesome right. And kind of thinking it back to  this term of thinking about this as being having something to do with sets and subsets, right - any idea what we could say about talented then? So do you think that then, in a way, that  doesn't seem like subset could apply here right? Yeah, yeah... Unless it's like... because I was thinking maybe if it was like 'Alice  is a talented musician' and then you said 'she's a   talented violinist' then a violinist is I  guess a subset of a musician. But then, because of the... that's also kind of an assumption because there's loads of ways you can be a musician. So if there was actually a subset where violinist was like clearly  inside the subset of another noun, then maybe. But yeah. Awesome, awesome yeah. Great. So let  me give you a couple of other adjectives and   I'll give you kind of 30 seconds to think about  these. What I just want to know is whether you   think they differ in anyway like from talented  or hairy, or do you think they're similar   in some sense? What do you think we could learn about these? So I'll read these out loud for you: 'Ava is a former senator. Smith  is an alleged murderer - again with   a typo - and I have one million  pounds worth of counterfeit money.'   What do you think about these three adjectives? Spend just a little bit of time thinking this through. Do any of these in particular  jump out at you, what do you think?  Um I'd say the last one probably the most, because I think it's kind of similar for   all of them but especially the last one. The adjective is invalidating the information   given by the noun, basically. And like with 'alleged' it's kind of similar, it's like it's not,   it's not definite, which is not the same but  like similar. And then with former it's like   they were, but they're not anymore. But with counterfeit it's like there just isn't basically. So it's like the strongest version of like an  adjective that invalidates the noun. Yeah really cool. And I like how you're keeping really kind of with our original definition of like, how does it   adjust the meaning contribution of a noun right? Well, 'counterfeit money' sounds like well it's no   longer money, right. And if I'm hearing you right, 'alleged murderer' we actually don't know, it's   something about our knowledge. And then the former really has to do with our time. And just as a quick follow-up, if this isn't money, how do we make sense of this sentence? What does it mean to have one million pounds worth of counterfeit money? What could that possibly mean what do you think?  Well I guess it's something that looks a lot like money but doesn't have the   necessary characteristics to make it valuable  as money. Uh-huh. Or I guess maybe another way of thinking about it possibly is counterfeit money  maybe it doesn't have the actual bit but it still   may be made of paper other things. And you have, I don't know, so much of it that it's actually like   a million pounds worth of that paper. Yes, yeah. So it's a curious sentence right? It could also be kind of like paradoxical right. And then as the very final question, just curious what you think of this dialogue  and whether we could learn something about the adjective 'yummy'. So imagine Sam says 'this  sushi is yummy.' And Sasha says 'um no it's not.' Do you think that they have really means to argue with each other? So is yummy something that is   could be established as such? So is only one of  them right or could they both be right? What do you think, what's your intuition? And then based on that intuition, what do we learn about adjectives right? So to kind of remind you, if I say Roger is a hairy pet rabbit or hairy pet, it either is or isn't, right. Either Alice is a talented violinist or she isn't. Either Ava is a former Senator is not, right.  Either something's counterfeit or not. But what  about yummy and what can we learn about this? Um well I don't know, going back to the summary that you've given I feel like   particularly maybe 'talented' is also a  bit subjective which is what I'm going to say about yummy. I think counterfeit is definitely like either it is actual money or isn't, and there's like things you know about  counterfeit money that you could use to test that. But with yummy like, that's an opinion. And I think talented could also be an opinion. Like I mean if, if Alice performed and she like messed up really badly and the violin was like squeaking, then   like you might say she's not talented. But if you'd seen her the week before and she did a really good   concert, then you'd be like, 'Alice is talented, she  just messed up', I don't know. So like, yeah, talented it's also complicated. And I think yummy is complicated as well because it's an opinion. So Sam can think it's yummy and Sasha can think it's not and they can both be right in that they're in   allowed to have opinions. What about hairy? Do you think  hairy works a different way? And I wanted to make sure that you can voice your original kind of insight - so to go full circle where you were like   'yeah I could see that this is a valid argument'. But do you think we could kind of extend your argument even further to something like hairy? Do you think that's a kind of objective state or not?  Is that something that one could argue, whether a rabbit is hairy or whether a pet is hairy? Um I think there's like a threshold of hairiness for like, I don't know, for most things. And I think some people might think it's different. But then I also think, like I don't know, if you're like, if   you know a lot about rabbits and  you've seen enough rabbits to know like that's an objectively very hairy rabbit, then yeah. But like, I don't. So I feel like I could just see a rabbit that's like a bit hairy, and be like 'that's a hairy rabbit.' But someone else could be like 'no like that's low-level hairy, I've seen so much worse', I don't  know. Yeah, yeah, wonderful. Thank you so much. I hope you've enjoyed this sort of exercise to see how, on the one hand, yes the adjectives   change kind of the meanings of the nouns and they may alter it in different ways, right, but like once   you kind of get into the nitty-gritty, right, there's quite a bit of difference, and it   requires some thought to truly understand their meanings. Great, so this officially concludes the interview, but as Professor Paoli noted, we wanted to make sure to give   you a little bit of time if there's any questions that you have about the course, or if there's   certain things that you wanted to talk about and you wish you had but we didn't really ask you, if there's anything that you have? Again this is not part of the interview this is just an opportunity for you to talk and for us to talk a little bit at the end. Okay well I think I'm all right, thank you  I really enjoyed the interview, but yeah I don't   think I have any further questions. Thank you so much Emerald it was wonderful to meet you. Thank you. Thank you Emerald, take care and  good luck with your next interviews. Thank you. So I thought that interview went  quite well, what did you think Sandra?  Wow, yes, so I did too. I think there was a lot of engagement there with the data and I like   the way she took her time over the data you know. The two minutes she had, I know they go they go really fast, but she really engaged with the set of data that I was doing with her.  And she was in there, you know she was following, you know, the logical steps so   she was looking for the constant elements, so the one that was there throughout. I was really impressed by the way she  immediately spotted the, you know, the 'kukur' and the 'kukurlai' pair, where you got the dog with the ending and without the ending. Yeah and I don't know for my set of   data I really like also the way she engaged with the questions that I was asking, she   was really kind of focusing on what I was asking, thinking about the data and answering. No, I mean and you could see she liked it right? Yeah I think she was enjoying it, and I think that one thing I really appreciated is you asked her to talk through the process and you know   instead of just saying 'here's what I think', she took kind of at the very outset, right. She said 'here's what my thought process, here are the two possibilities for what I think a child could be, and here's kind of how I tried to figure it out', right. And I really kind of appreciated   understanding exactly what she was thinking about, and it very much mirrors the sort of things that   we'll be doing in tutorials and in the course, right. Again, we're not looking for the answer, we're looking about how do you reason, what's the sort of evidence that you have and what's the   best sort of conclusion that we can draw based on that evidence, and I think that she did really   well. I do also appreciate it, I thought she was a very good listener, and that she took her time,   right, and I think that's one of the advice that I can give, right, for future applicants: to really   take their time. Yes there's a certain amount of time pressure, but at the same time, right, where   it's important to kind of give yourself a chance and think through. There's a level of   focus that you could see. She was really into the data, that allowed her to navigate and really give   herself a chance, right, to even go to some of the further questions which might not have been   part of a a given interview, right. We always kind of set up to have more questions than we're probably going to ask but because of her level of focus, towards the end you even   kind of thought about 'okay should we engage, should we ask a few more questions' and I thought that was   great. Yeah it really worked well, I agree. You know, once again you said something really important there Daniel - it's actually taking your time to look at the data. So, you know, an interview will actually offer candidates a set of data, that's for sure. We need to see them in action to be able to get a sense of is this for them or not. So, you know, being able to   give themselves a chance, it's really important. So, take your time when you're looking at the data, and yeah. Yeah and also we should acknowledge that Emerald is currently finishing   her second year as a PPL student, so she does come with much more knowledge than we would   expect of an applicant, right. And this came out through a little bit in the interview especially   in the interaction when we talked about adjectives. So she used certain technical notions,   for example like subsets, started to articulate certain semantic relationships that she learned,   you know, taking the semantics course. But that's not an expectation that we would have and one of the things, you know, we appreciated and saw was that she was able to just talk general relationships of   like 'here's what it would take, here's the sort of context'. If the nouns were describing objects that, you know, stood in this sort of relation - whether you name it as a kind of a subset or   not, it doesn't really matter, right. Or for example in some of the data with you, we talked about, you know, subjects and objects, or we talked about maybe something that would be case marking,   right, but we're not expecting for someone to articulate what that would be like.   Any level of description is perfectly fine. Again what we're looking for is recognition of   patterns, being able to articulate hypotheses and what evidence you have. It doesn't matter to us so much that you have sort of like the "proper lingo" because many applicants - again   Emerald is in her second year, right - might not have developed these sorts of notions.   Absolutely. I also noticed how we were talking earlier about 'coachability'. I think in the interaction with us, Emerald showed to be incredibly coachable. You know, you   said she was a good listener, she was a brilliant listener. You know she took her time to look at the data, she had her own ideas, she came to the discussion with those ideas, and yet, you know, she was able to take what we were sort of offering her - you know, in my case it   was the constant element throughout, in your case it was the comparison between different adjectives  - and she took that and kind of integrated it with her own ideas and developed them further, right? Right, yeah. And I think we saw especially that developing   further in the bits about adjectives where she even questioned some of my own assumptions, right.  So towards the end, when I started to mention 'well, you know, things like talented, you either   are or you aren't, right?' and, you know, I wanted to contrast that with yummy which definitely has   more of a subjective flavor. She even questioned 'well look, you know, maybe talented is like that too' and you really kind of saw an individual start to shine, right? And if anything I could say that she could have done even better, right, you know hopefully we developed   this sort of comfort where you can challenge and you can actually say 'well you know what, I humbly   disagree' or 'here's actually what I think' and one should feel totally at ease of really expressing.   You should not guess what is the right answer that we're looking for, but really have the   freedom to express what you truly believe, right. I think Emerald kind of showed that it and maybe   with a little more time, or even maybe with a little bit more thought about you know 'counterfeit'   and 'alleged' and some of those adjectives, she could have maybe even taken it to the next   level. But of course there's always ways to do more and to kind of think outside   the box. I think, kind of what we were looking for she definitely fulfilled. Yeah, completely. I think also, you know, bringing in her own examples - so she was giving you a scenario, she was saying 'hang on   a second', just like you said, 'talented doesn't quite work like that' and she offered you   an alternative scenario and that really shows that she was thinking about it   and relating it to her knowledge of English, to her confidence in English. So have we had more time, you know, you could have had a whole a research paper out on this. Yeah absolutely. Are there final recommendations or advice that   you'd like to give, Sandra, for applicants that will be applying to either PPL or the MLL course? Well, I think to begin with - having the  opportunity to come for an interview, it's a super thing. Being yourself, trying to engage... so live in the moment, try and shut out your fears about 'oh my   God, what if and what', you know. Relax - we're here to work together, so this is an opportunity to   I would say engage. Not just with the data, with the task, but with us or the interviewer that   you have in front of you. You know, work with them. I think this is the best advice that I   can give and definitely if you have an interest in how a language works, have a go! You know, this could be for you. Absolutely, and with that we wish every applicant tons of luck and we very much look forward to interviewing thank you. Thank you, bye-bye. [Music]