Pronunciation

I have often explained the many reasons why working on your pronunciation pays off and, of course, I have also heard the countless excuses that students use to justify their inability to pronounce extremely simple sentences such as she lives here or you’re very special. Yes, you can certainly relay a message with pretty bad pronunciation but, then again, you can also attend a business meeting in military fatigues or wearing nothing but a speedo. Even if what you say at that meeting is reasonable... you know... the clothes may not be exactly appropriate. As a matter of fact they may be distracting. People might not take you seriously or may simply wonder why you chose to wear something so unusual. The clothes you wear, just like the tone of voice or your body language do affect the oral message you intend to deliver.

I know my example is extreme but I can’t find a better way to make this point: pronunciation is NOT irrelevant. It has all kinds of consequences. If you don't pronounce words well you may end up saying something you don't want to say (he's a son of a beach). You may confuse people (I feel it or I fill it?). You reinforce national stereotypes made popular by the likes of Pedro Almódovar, Guillermo Amor and Ana Botella. You can wind up uttering nonexistent terms (compare the huge difference between [bi:n'tas] and ['vIntIdʒ]) and simply force people to make a constant effort to try and decipher what it is that you're saying. I could go on...

That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having an accent (unless you’re an actor aspiring to play the role of a native speaker) but not pronouncing basic English sounds (like the last consonant in the word English) does seem like you are not trying hard enough. I have noticed that some of you have improved your pronunciation significantly since the beginning of the course, back in October. So congratulations are in order. Some of you, though, still need to keep working on it. Just remember that our goals are not ambitious. I would be happy if all of you overcame the quintessentially Spanish obstacles: [∫], [v], [st-] and the "-ed" ending.

Anyhow, I came across this little website, which lists five common pronunciation mistakes amongst Italian learners of English. I know. It’s for Italians. However, you will realize that errors three, four and five can be applied to most Spaniards.

Mister Gorbachev, tear down this wall

Every language poses challenges to its learners: Romance languages have a whimsical subjunctive mode, German has complicated declensions, Japanese has numeral classifiers, Swahili has its noun cases, Basque has an ergative system (to say nothing of its auxiliary verbs) and so on and so forth. Well… English has two main problem areas: pronunciation and, of course, phrasal verbs. Today I’d like to center on the latter.

For the most part we can talk around phrasal verbs. For instance, we can choose to say “I was educated by my grandparents” or “I was reared by my grandparents” but let’s face it… Even leaving semantic nuances aside, neither of those sentences sound as natural as “I was brought up by my grandparents”. The situation becomes slightly trickier when we realize that the one-word alternative does not always work. Do we really want to say “I always rise at seven o’clock in the morning"? Do we even have a realistic option in cases such as “turn on the television, please”?

In short, phrasal verbs are not technically necessary but they are widely used by native speakers. They also make your English sound more natural (I screwed up), tactful (he passed away), succint (he didn’t measure up) and accurate (I dusted myself off). I believe those are serious reasons to incorporate multi-word verbs into our repertoire.

These thoughts were running through my head during a recent stroll down Unter den Linden avenue in Berlin, the city one always goes back to.

Boris

So… The exams start to rear up their ugly head. Hm… Much has been said about the divergence between language schools and "the real world" (whatever that means). People tend to forget that proficiency standards can depend on fairly objective descriptors. By "objective" I mean "not subject to interpretation". Let's consider some examples:

Level	Descriptor	Example	Not good enough
B1	Hyponyms	Documentary	TV program
B1	Extreme adjectives	Filthy	Very dirty
B2	Expression of regret	I wish I had told you I regret not telling you	I’m sorry I didn’t tell you
C1	Use of idioms	I can’t make ends meet	I don’t earn enough money

However, reality is obstinate. Just yesterday I came across this video which recounts a story we’ve all heard a million times: poor immigrant makes it in America. I was particularly moved by this Russian craftsman, whose English is staggeringly simple despite having lived in the United States for the past forty years.

As you'll see he speaks with a thick accent and displays some of the symptoms of a learner who hasn’t made it past the elementary level. Yet he is obviously fluent and he can relay a message successfully. So... What is his actual competence in English? The answer is “who cares?” Boris is a charming man who can go about his business and lead a decent life in an English-speaking country. He does not appear to be the kind of person who can express his feelings with poetic accuracy. That said, we cannot help listening to his voice. The man that might not pass a basic language exam manages to grab our attention. Food for thought.

Pattern-seekers and Trump

Pattern-seekers. That’s one of the latest buzzwords in the area of neuroscience (along with brain plasticity and some others). In these days of lifelong learners and digital teaching, this last addition to the vocabulary of language instruction might just be surprisingly helpful. Why? Because one of the defining traits of successful language learners happens to be their ability to spot patterns. That’s why most polyglots don’t need many grammar explanations to grasp the basic structures of a language. Come to think of it, that’s exactly what little kids do. They simply pay close attention to many spoken texts, then proceed to isolate the similar structures and deduce the common denominator. That explains why they come up with charming but incorrect REGULAR forms (e.g. I goed fast or I can’t will today).

Let’s take a typically intermediate structure: he’s supposed to be here at five. Easy, right? Okay. The pattern seeker will eventually come across this other sentence: he’s expected to be here at five. She will notice the similarity and will somehow register those two phrases in the same mental notebook. She will then find other sequences (Jack is bound to succeed, we are meant to be together, etc.) The pattern seeker will soon identify the structure: subject + verb to be + past participle + to + infinitive.  Does she think in those technical terms? Of course not! She just realizes the similarity and then goes on to put it to use and try it out. What’s the advantage of that approach? For starters, she will not have to remember five different sentences but only one underlying structure. How's that for efficiency?

On a completely different note, I would like to share something funny with you. You know how often I have expressed my view that Donald Trump’s vocabulary is painfully limited, to the point that any foreign intermediate student can follow his speeches without missing a bit of information. As a matter of fact, Trump’s English would be pretty useless in an advanced class, where lexical accuracy, cultural connotations and subtle nuances are essential for attaining the required articulacy. To president Trump, accomplishments are either great or tremendous, terrorists are simply bad dudes and the health care reform is just complicated. Well, it turns out a lot of English teachers and learners have also latched onto that very idea. So much so that Wired magazine decided to publish an article about it. Apparently the glorious simplicity of Trump-speak can really help beginners and intermediate students. Feast your eyes.