Hi everyone. I thought I'd type a few lines to basically wish you all a Merry Christmas.
I also think that this season is an opportunity for you to get (re)acquainted with some archaic expressions that only seem to pop up in poems and traditional songs. I'm talking about the pronoun ye (=you), the possessive thy (=your), the adverb yon (=around / over there), obsolete meanings in words such as gay (=happy) and terms like Yuletide (=Christmas) that you may not hear often. Check out those meaning so you don't freak out the next time you hear O Come All Ye Faithful or listen to that other classic carol:
Have yourself a merry little Christmas / Make the yuletide gay
I happen to like Michael Bublé, but I'm definitely not a fan of Ariana Grande. That said, boy can she sing! Her range is off-the-charts awesome and her technique is simply impeccable. Enjoy this short clip and remember that, in a few hours, Santa Claus is coming to town.
Chances are... if you are reading this post you're probably an English student trying to get to or stay in the advanced level. Understandably, you think the classroom material you covered years ago is somehow "beneath you". Stuff like relative sentences, prepositions and irregular plurals are "a thing of the past", which is why you probably prefer to center on truly advanced content: lexical accuracy (epaulet, flout, etc.), inversions (seldom would I dream of...), emphatic structures (an opinion he voiced in no uncertain terms) and that sort of thing. Fair enough. That's a healthy C1 obsession. And if you're inching towards the coveted C2 certificate you may even choose brood over he subtle semantic differences between terms such as masterful and masterly.
Okay. I'm painting something of a caricature. I know. Still, deep down, you know what I'm talking about here, right?
Let's just consider the following situation (which is, by the way, no caricature). Imagine you are reading the press and you stumble upon this:
Now, as the European Union regulators edge closer to approving two of those vaccines...
You stop reading, go online and look up the verb to edge. You immediately realize that its meaning is quite specific: "to move gradually". That is a word you need to incorporate right away (because you're a bit of a word nerd). Somehow, while you look for your vocabulary notebook on your cluttered desk, you vaguely remember a synonymous verb (to inch), which your teacher used in his blog (check out line 7 of this post). Anyway, you finally find the notebook and jot down the word "edge" and its meaning. Who knows? You might also take down a sentence that illustrates how to use the term in a real context. Some days later you decide to use the recently acquired word. So you say:
We're edging close to face a new economic crisis
The sentence does not conform to the grammar rules of the English language. After the adverb close you use the "-ing" form of a verb. Just reread the sentence above ("...edge closer to approving..."). What does this little thought experiment tell us? The answer is quite clear. You may learn an "advanced" word but fail to use it properly due to "intermediate" issues.
This is why I've decided to revisit B1 material and by that I mean prepositions, singular/plural forms, etc. Just this week I touched on the case of weird plurals. Yes. In my C1.2 class we read an article about the kind of life that papparazzi lead. I mentioned that the singular form of papparazzi is, of course, papparazzo. I went on to remind my students that the plural of nucleus is nuclei and the plural of kibutz is kibutzim. I added that this state of affairs makes many native speakers rather uncomfortable, which explains why some language users will write several ultimata but most people prefer the regular several ultimatums.
Of course it's not only Latin terms and loanwords that have unusual plural forms. Take the case of "secretary general". What is its plural form? It is "secretaries general". I know. It feels bizarre, but that's the way it is. Is it possible, then, to be learning sophisticated grammar and make basic mistakes? I'm afraid it is, but the solution to that is extremely simple. Read up on the subject!
If you are curious about the history of irregular plurals in English the video below is an entertaining condensed lesson that will put things into some kind of perspective. Have fun.
______________________
N.B. Word to the wise: check your Educantabria mailbox you should soon receive an email informing you that there's a new quiz ready for you. If you are a C1.1 student the test will be about ways of describing "importance" without using the word "important". Students in the C1.2 and C2 courses will take a quiz about singular and plural forms. Don't panic if your score is not too high. Both quizzes are really challenging. I haven't designed them to boost your self-esteem but rather to teach you some necessary grammar/vocabulary.
This may sound like an obvious statement, but lately I have noticed a gaping divide between two kinds of students: those who still struggle to build sentences and those who simply say them. I know it seems simplistic, but just bear with me.
At the advanced level you're not really supposed to build sentences anymore. By that I mean that you don't make many choices in terms of word combinations. When you want to describe how you feel about a sensitive personal situation you may (understandably) take your time to find the right words. But as far as expressing yourself in most contexts you string sentences together without giving much thought to the grammar or the collocations that are needed. Allow me to repeat this: you do make decisions, of course, but not many.
Let's suppose that you're working on a project with a friend who feels frustrated because of a minor mishap. You may say: "Hey! Keep your chin up. It's not the end of the world". I know that those are two idioms, which means they are somewhat predictable. Few people want to speak in cliches. And that's commendable, but first things first. Before an English learner sets out to speak "originally" (whatever that means) they should master the "obvious" phrases. The beauty of this approach is that, when you finally resort to fixed phrases, you realize that you don't even stop to think of the potential options, that is to say, you don't have to choose between these sentences:
Keep your eyes up
Keep your hair up
Keep your chin up
You just know what you are supposed to keep up: your chin. This way a silly mistake is avoided. As for the second sentence, again, you don't really need to consider the following options:
the end of the universe
the end of the cosmos
the end of the galaxy
See what I mean? You just say "the end of the world" because it is the conventional expression. So, you don't have to hesitate and consider nonstandard/"incorrect" alternatives.
A speaker that is "sort of familiar" with the idea (in the phrase "the end of the world") might ponder the merits of such phrases as "the finish for the world", "the world's ending", "the termination of the galaxy", etc. which needless to say, do not conform to the convention. For all I know, they may be translating from their mother tongues. Unfortunately, that happens to be irrelevant. It just doesn't work in English, which means it's a no-no in an advanced class. Anyway, my point is that all those moments of hesitation vanish into thin air when you know the sequence and say it.
So that's what I mean when I say that "some students just know what to say". They've heard an expression before and simply use it when they identify the function that it serves. Yes. That's the way to go about it, I'm afraid. Less grammar and more "usage awareness".
I can anticipate your reaction: "But I want to be myself. I don't want to speak in stock phrases" (because you avoid cliches like the plague). Well, I've got news for you: you already speak in stock phrases in your mother tongue. Yes, you do. Unless you're a creative speaker, the kind of language user that can come up with dazzling never-before-used similes, the talker that coins neologisms and creates new turns of phrase, you are using expressions that somebody else has created and millions have used. Even great writers are compelled to resort to conventions (even if they often go beyond them). Otherwise nobody would understand their texts. So, however idiosyncratic your English may be, it is, it cannot be not totally original. And that's not sad. That's what a language is: a complex set of conventions. Certain combinations do feel refreshing even if their "components" are not new. Millions of speakers use time-honored expressions to good effect. Some sound predictable and boring while others shine.
I remember Amazon.com used to offer an interesting piece of information about most books: the so-called SIPs (Statistically Improbable Phrases). I haven't seen that feature for a while, but I recall sitting and reading them before buying a book. What are SIPs? Simply put, they are unusual combinations that can give an on-line shopper a taste of what makes a book quirky or different. Think about it. If I told you about a book that contains the phrase turophobic chucklehead, would you be curious or put off by it? I haven't checked (I just put those two words together), but I can imagine not many books in the world contain sentences which include that peculiar "word sequence". So, how many unusual combinations can you come up with? Do you still be want to be original or are you ready to settle for something... less demanding? The good new is... you don't have to be that creative to be an advanced speaker and, of course, you have time to become a writer. Just don't get ahead of yourself.
In short, be humble. Find competent speakers and imitate what they say. Do not try to improve on those expressions. Not yet, anyway.
I know most of you are logophiles in one way or another. That's why your eyes light up whenever I write terms like regolith on the blackboard. Okay. You're probably aware that every language is a repository of memories, beautiful metaphors and wondrous concepts. Memories? Concept? Metaphors? Yes. If you don't believe me simply think of these three etymologies:
The origin of the English word enthusiasm is the Greek term enthousiázein, whose exact meaning was possessed by a god. Yes. In English, if you are enthused you are in touch with the divine.
In Spanish the word anhelar (obviously related to the English verbs exhale or inhale) means to have trouble breathing. Therefore its current meaning (to long for something) is suggestive of a situation in which a strong desire will barely let a person breathe.
Last but not least, consider the term consider. There is no consensus on its actual etymology but a tantalizing hypothesis interprets the original term (considerare) as a combination of cum (i.e. with) and sidus (i.e. star), which leads us to contemplate the notion that to consider an idea consists basically in examining it "while looking up at the stars".
Isn't all this fascinating? Indeed, it is... Words can have that power, which is why many advanced students relish the acquisition of new vocabulary. They collect words as though they were precious gems. That said, their grammar sometimes leaves much to be desired. This is the reason why I would like you say a thing or two about the lowly prepositions.
I know. Prepositions are not sexy. Some may say: "Who cares if we're supposed to say FOR or TO? Listeners will get the message". Right? Well, maybe not. I could argue that, sometimes prepositions make all the difference. Just check out the comic strip below:
Likewise, arriving ON time is not the same as arriving IN time. I know. I know. The context can often dispel any misunderstanding. However, I don't think I need to remind you that no self-respecting advanced learner should ever rely on the context alone. It just goes against the grain, doesn't it? Occasionally a confusing use of a preposition can make your interlocutor stop listening to you (so they can figure out what you meant) and if those arguments mean little to you just remember that, as a teacher I can tell you it's always kind of disappointing to hear a student bandy about fancy words like obstreperous, sialoquent, nudiustertian or mercurial in sentences that fail to include the right prepositions. So remember that you should learn prepositions in several positions:
After a noun: Human beings have an instinctive sense FOR cause and effect
Before a noun: I grew up ON a farm. He's stuck IN a rut.
After an adjective: eligible FOR, indifferent TO, hopeless AT, absent FROM
After a verb: to comply WITH the rules, to marry INTO money,
Within an idiom: lay claim TO, you hold me TO a high standard, a pie IN the sky, look ON the bright side of life, you lay the groundwork FOR...
Every now and then you may have options: Thanks for coming AT/ON such short notice, different TO/FROM, etc. but, more often than not there is an appropriate preposition for every sentence. So, remember: it's perfectly okay to learn big words, but please make sure that you have a handle ONyour prepositions. Don't put them ON the back burner.
As some of you may already know, in a past life I lived in a few countries and learned a few languages. One of the greatest benefits of that patchwork of experiences has to do with the mind-blowing variety of concepts for which I could not find one-word translations. The lexical area of feelings is particularly complicated. Different cultures, it seems, categorize romance (for instance) in so many different ways that it becomes tempting to even question whether different societies experience the same feelings. The author of this academic article published in 2015 claims to have an answer to that question:
Love is a universal
emotion experienced by a majority of people, in various historical eras, and in all the
world’s cultures, but manifests itself in different ways because culture has an impact
on people’s conceptions of love and the way they feel, think, and behave in romantic
relationships.
In my experience, languages offer a glimpse into those subtle differences. In German, for example, there are two ways of declaring your love for someone: Ich liebe dich and Ich habe dich lieb. Considering the striking similarities in those two expressions, it comes as no surprise that both should be customarily translated as I love you. Yet, any native German speaker will tell you that there is a significant difference in those two kinds of love. Analogous problems arise whenever a learner delves into the intricacies of lexical taxonomy regarding other semantic areas. Whether we like it or not, languages simply classify reality in similar but not quite identical ways.
I have chosen to discuss the topic of love because it is the vocabulary area that my C1.1 students are learning. Remember? It's part of the second unit ("Relationships"). So far as I can remember, we looked into all kinds of interesting words: hero-worship, crush, mutual love, etc. By the way, could you answer the questions below without using a dictionary?
What adjective describes one-sided love?
Can you accurately explain the difference between love and infatuation?
Infatuation is superficial and short-lived. Real love is not.
A fling is a casual kind of love. An affair usually involves some form of betrayal. Liaison, on the other hand, is always illicit.
Both refer to a former lover, but while ex is a neutral word, old flame retains a certain romantic ring to it. In other words, an old flame may be an ex for whom one still has feelings.
Those of you that don't find this post sickeningly sweet should probably watch this wonderful video,which presents some thought-provoking love-related words from around the globe. I believe some comments are a tad exaggerated. Other have been simplified. If you ask a Portuguese speaker to explain what saudade means they might probably come up with a simpler description than the one presented in the clip. Conversely, the Japanese expression wabi-sabidefines (as far as I can tell) a profound, philosophical concept that goes far beyond the mere idea of romantic love. Anyhow, I do like the video and I think you should watch it if only because it can greatly stimulate your endless love of words.
"Is this correct?" That's quite a common question among students who (understandably) tend to feel the urge to know if a particular phrase is acceptable or not. The thing is... the labels "correct" and "incorrect" are not exactly technical terms.
Most languages are made up of a variety of dialects, which -needless to say- have their own rules. Therefore what is standard in a dialect may be alien (i.e. incorrect) in another. This is true across the board.
Take the case of the personal pronouns. How do you translate I saw him into Spanish? A native speaker from Bogotá may well translate it as "lo vi". However somebody from Bilbao might render it as "le he visto". We have not one, but TWO differences in a very short phrase. The verb tenses are different and so are the pronouns. The pronouns. Should we say "le" or "lo"? Well, it depends. Let's consider another difference. "¿Dónde está Javier?" asks somebody. "Lo tengo aquí" replies a Bilbao speaker. A speaker from Santander (just 70 miles away from Bilbao) will say "le tengo aquí". Again, which one is correct?
The Cantabrian use of "le" does not conform to the usage of standard European Spanish. That is what we call "wrong". That said, a Colombian professor may argue that "le he visto" is wrong. There are actually very good reasons to support that claim. So... it's complicated.
In English we find a similar state of affairs. Something which is "acceptable" in certain circumstances may be a mistake in a different situation and that affects to pronunciation, vocabulary and, of course, grammar.
Read these phrases:
I am going to do it
I'm gonna do it
I'ma do it
The first and the second phrases are pretty normal. Uttering one or the other depends entirely on how fast the speaker is talking. The third one, though, is way too slangy. You may hear it in hip-hop songs and some films but it sounds careless. It clearly does not comply with the rules of the standard dialects (i.e. the prestigious varieties) and should, therefore, be avoided by learners.
Grammar rules also challenge the narrow interpretation of what is "correct", which is why an intermediate student may feel befuddled when facing seemingly contradictory structures. Consider these options:
She suggests (that) he should go over
She suggests (that) he go over
She suggests (that) he goes over
All three are correct. What about these two?
It is essential that he is on time
It is essential that he be on time
Again, both are correct. Using one or the other depends on style or personal choice. I know it appears to be a grey area. In a way, it is, because things are not black or white.
Alright. This does NOT mean that anything can be okay. Some productions (e.g. they has doing it) are unequivocally wrong. However, it is not always easy to spot incorrect productions. Grammar books, for instance, don't usually consider literary devices. Something written by a top-tier poet may be deemed incorrect by an old school grammar book. For a learner the wisest approach consists in paying heed to prestigious dictionaries, well-established writers and competent speakers. What is wrong now may well become the norm in just two decades. Take my word for it.
Eons ago, when I started learning English, the sentence "I can't believe what I'm hearing" was considered incorrect. Today it's not uncommon, even amongst prestigious speakers. It goes without saying, any by-the-book, stuffy teacher will tell you that it is "incorrect". The fact remains, it is ubiquitous. You come across it on talk shows, serious films, news, you name it. In short, its use is pervasive enough to be considered "acceptable". So there you go. Something which was non-standard just a while ago is now normal.
With this in mind, I have edited a video which gives you several examples of phrases that look "obviously wrong" but happen to be okay. Most of it is stuff that can be found in the best dictionaries. Yet, many of you would probably wince at them. I'm talking about subjectless phrases, unconjugated verbs... that kind of "wrong". For kicks, I have included two phrases that you should NOT use. One demands that your English be virtually second nature to you (in which case you could theoretically pull if off). The other is plain inappropriate for a foreign speaker, that is to say, incorrect by all conventional standards. I hope you enjoy the clip:
A couple of friendly reminders.
There will be no classes on 17 November.
C1.1 students: your essay on on-line shopping is due next Tuesday (24 Nov).
C1.2 students: the deadline for your essay on gender equality is Tuesday (24 Nov).
C2 students. I have received five digital packs for those students who bought the simple edition of Keynote Proficiency. You should get them on Wednesday. By the way, I would like you to write a 300-word essay on the subject of creativity. Is it prerogative of artists or can we all develop some form of creativity? How are "creative people" different? Deadline: 30 Nov.
Today I would like to tackle one of those vocabulary areas that I find truly fascinating: the worldview inherent in a language.
Last week, in my C1.1 class, I briefly discussed the controversial case of linguistic relativity: the notion that a person's mother tongue basically shapes their worldview and thought processes. While there are several schools of thought on the subject, there is nothing in the neighborhood of academic consensus. My personal take on the whole issue lies somewhere in the middle. In my experience skeptics of the hypothesis (those who dismiss the idea out of hand) tend to be people that may speak several languages but don't think in those languages. I am fortunate enough to be able to think in two languages and I can tell you that thinking in a language does have an impact on your thoughts. The differences are not stark, but I do feel them. The problem is I can't quite specify to what extent languages affect me. I'm not a cognitive scientist, nor am I a language researcher. Yet, I don't quite feel the same when I speak English, when I think in English. The reason I mention this has to do with the very beginning of this process, which really should be part of your learning experience.
By the way, if you are curious as to what linguistic relativity is about, feel free to watch this three-minute clip, which offers a pretty good summary of the topic.
As I said, I only mention this "problem" because the hypothesis of linguistic determinism lies at the core of the transition to the advanced level of a language. Long before a student is capable of complex thought processes in a second language, they must master the conventions that make up that language.
It often starts with simple vocabulary differences, but as you hack your way through the L2 jungle you realize that not everything is easily translatable. Certain concepts and nuances are invariably "lost in translation" and a student feels frustrated when they can't quite say things in English the way they feel them in their mother tongue. Consider this example. Do the words farce, mess and joke accurately translate the meaning of cachondeo in Spanish?
Nevertheless, not every problem can be put down to translatability. Whether we like it or not, the culture-language spectrum in Anthropology (let's call it "spectrum") is not unlike the spacetime continuum in Physics. Yes. We can discuss one or the other, but ultimately they're so intricately interlaced that isolated discussions may not always make much sense. So... is it possible to learn a language without knowing the culture that made it possible? I fear it's not.
My contention is that history, religion, poetry and even science permeate the vocabulary and imagery of a language. Let's think of history for a while.
The Spanish phrase quemar las naves harkens back to none other than Alexander the Great (even if it was later reused by Hernán Cortés). The expression a buenas horas mangas verdes (meaning too little too late) refers to the Santa Hermandad (los mangas verdes), a police force established in the kingdom of Castile in the 15th century whose response time sometimes left much to be desired. As you see, history still has an effect on the expressions we use in the 21st century.
How about religion? Spanish uses the word ojalá, which means something to the effect of if only god wished. Adieu (i.e. to god) is the French term for goodbye, which in turn is a shortened form of god be with you. Even the days of the week are laden with religious references. Thursday is an obvious reference to Thor, a Scandinavian deity, just like the French word mercredi (Wednesday) is a reference to another god: Mercury. So there you go: religion is part of the vocabulary. Can we really avoid those (etymological) references. I'm afraid we can't: there are no synonyms for the days of the week.
That said, there is a deeper level of sophistication: understanding metaphors. The Spanish words pesar and pesadumbre, whose meaning is "grief" or "sorrow", refer to the idea of physical weight (peso). The underlying metaphor is that a person walks around as if carrying a heavy weight. Come to think of it, in English we say someone looks as though they carry the weight of the world on their shoulders. Similar references are ingrained in every language. In most European languages up is good. Down is bad. Just like North has a positive ring to it whereas South is usually negative. That's why heaven is supposed to be somewhere up in the sky and hell is some place underground. When we say you are my north it means something like "you are quite a reference to me", but when something goes south it is a disaster.
I would argue that other elements worth contemplating are just as important as vocabulary and may even affect a speaker's choices in terms of syntactical structures. Using the passive voice, for example, allows you to remain neutral. Languages in which personal subjects prevail or those whose grammar does not include a passive voice may not make it easy for a learner to deal with a subject without "getting personal", not an optimal approach in a business situation.
These simple notions are part of every language. So we don't even think about them, do we?
When a student transitions from the intermediate plateau to the advanced level, they should forgo not only vocabulary but also the tendencies dictated by their mother tongue so they can embrace the conventions of the English-speaking world. I believe you may keep a certain amount of your "color", but of course, but just go easy on it. A speaker of a language such as Spanish or Russian, which are often deemed to be more "direct" than English, will easily say something along the lines of you have to be careful when an English speaker would go for something more tentative, something like: you should probably be careful, you ought to be cautious, etc. The same is true when we voice an opinion. Consider all these common English phrases:
He strikes me as weird
He seems to be / he appears to be weird
As far as one can tell, he's a weird man
She usually comes off as weird
He comes across as weird
I'm under the impression that he's (sort of) weird
They are a far cry from in my opinion he is... right? At the C2 level you may want to resort to "wordier" turns of phrase even if you use the verb to be:
While that may be the case, he can also be...
I have a sneaking suspicion that she is...
I feel it in my bones. She is...
I'm of the opinion that he is...
Strange as it may seem, he is...
Should you feel the urge to steer clear of the verb to be (and I think you should) you may choose to describe someone like this:
He had none of the hallmarks that make it relatively easy for a layperson to spot a narcissist -the grandiosity, the need to be the center of attention, the haughty or overbearing remarks and competitiveness...
Do you see what this language user did? At no point does she say "he is".
Okay. Many of you will argue that all the expressions above have simple translations into your respective mother tongues and I will counter that the frequency with which a competent speaker in your L1 uses those equivalent phrases is extremely relevant. A speaker that overwhelmingly favors expressions as basic as I think he is great may sound simple-minded, unsophisticated or plain ignorant to speakers of a language which promotes a more tentative approach. It's inevitable. That's why you should not forget that frequency (e.g. he's sometimes brash) and tendency (e.g. he's prone to losing his temper) can be critical factors.
Remember: you want to become advanced English speakers (I gather that's why you come to class). Incorporating all those "fancy phrases" and understanding the value of nuance, be it tentativeness or uncertainty, simply come with the territory.
