Poetry

This post is for my C1.2 students. As you know, we have already ventured into what I deem to be uncharted territory for most of you: poetry. Indeed, your textbook offers a high-minded approach to its C2 part. However, I fear that poetry is not many people’s cup of tea and yet it is part of every language. Lots of expressions you use now had a lyrical taste to them centuries ago. Not only that. We happen to be surrounded by different kinds of lyrical expression. Whether you like it or not the truth is that present day rap is actually a form of poetry and, just last year, Bob Dylan was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature for the texts he wrote for his songs.

Anyway, let’s be as objective as possible. According to my trusty Merriam Webster Dictionary "poetry" is any kind of writing that formulates a concentrated imaginative awareness of experience in language chosen and arranged to create a specific emotional response through meaning, sound and rhythm. In other words, a poetic text should make use of imagination, have some rhythm, and convey an interesting meaning in order to elicit an emotional response in the reader/listener. Do you think all that has little to do with you? Think twice.

Firstly, many everyday mainstream expressions came into existence out of the verses. The poetry in the King James Bible or the works written by William Shakespeare are two obvious cases. Secondly, the poetic germ exists even in extremely modest utterances. Needless to say, appreciation of poetry requires a certain degree of sensitivity. In terms of language, if it’s the meaning that you care about you can obviously forget about poetry. Poetry is most certainly about meaning, yes, but always expressed in a specific non-standard fashion. I feel good, as free as a bird is clearly NOT poetic at all.

In a way it’s not unlike appreciating a good car. Some people may just need a vehicle that takes them from A to B. They don’t really care if they drive a secondhand clunker or a sleek high-performance car but then again, some people don’t care for elaborate dishes because, well, a cheeseburger is enough for them.

For those of you that aspire to something beyond cheeseburgers let’s start from the bottom. Before we write/enjoy a poem we should consider a poem or even a verse we should probably consider the evocative power a simple collocation. Just check out the differences between these three phrases:

a) the grim truth     b) the naked truth    c) the unvarnished truth

Strictly speaking, no adjectives are exactly necessary to convey the idea. You can, for instance, “go B2” and just say “the truth is…”. People will get the message, right? But, of course, you can already say that. Let’s now try and take it up a notch, then.

Suppose you feel the need to emphasize the fact you’re about to reveal "the truth of the matter" without any kind of flourishes or euphemisms. The most elegant option might well be the unvarnished truth. It alludes to a metaphoric varnish. It is evocative. The expression “a sugar-coated version” also paints a picture, even it is not that lyrical. But it contains another metaphor: the figurative type of coating. Do you see/feel the difference?

Anyhow, at this point in your learning process nobody expects you to come up with poetic language, but it is not a bad idea for you to try and learn to admire. That’s why I recommend that you take a listen to The Slowdown, the podcast published daily by U.S. Poet Laurate Tracy K. Smith. In her podcasts (which you can download) she shares other writers’ interesting poetic texts and includes an insightful introduction. That's the part you may find endlessly useful. Make the most of it. It's worth it.

Topicalization and objectivity

Sheldon Cooper: Evolution is not opinion. It's a fact.

Mary Cooper: And that's your opinion.

The electric can opener fluctuation

One of the most frustrating obstacles you can encounter in a conversation is the moment in which someone tries to counter a cold fact with an opinion. In the excerpt above, taken from an episode of The Big Bang Theory, we have an exchange between Sheldon Cooper (a scientist) and his mother (a fundamentalist Christian). If no respect is shown for facts then a conversation is quite unlikely to be successful. How can we express a certain degree of objectivity? For starters we can use formulas such as according to a UN report or a recent study conducted by the London School of Economics shows that... Of course sometimes we don't have that kind of reference readily available. No problem. That's when we play it safe, act cautiously and simply go with I may be wrong but I think that... or I am under the impression that...

A little bit of objectivity doesn't hurt anyone and goes a long way.

Another lexical strategy we should also master is the one linguists call topicalization. Whenever we discuss a subject, it is important to set some boundaries and establish the scope of your references. After all, there is precious little one can say about serious issues like unemployment, domestic violence or education without ever mentioning facts. Just imagine you say "according to the IMF, the rate of unemployment in Spain was 17.2 % in October of 2017" and your friend's reply is a terse "I don't agree".

I understand that a friendly chat in a bar may consist in a simple exchange of general opinions but the truth is that a productive conversation might demand a certain degree of "verbal signposting". Let's say we want to talk about life in general: is it better now than it used to be fifty years ago?

Saying something like "In my view life is much worse now" is quite an empty statement, isn't it? Does it refer to life in Spain? In Europe? On the whole planet? And does that opinion consider medical advances and pollution at the same time? It doesn't take an expert to realize that now we can benefit from scientific breakthroughs that just did not exist 50 years ago but, of course, the world was probably a lot less polluted half a century ago. So, how do we talk about it? Well... a safe approach may include a couple of topicalizing phrases like these:

In terms of healthcare...
Regarding civil rights...
If we consider the state of the oceans...
As far as biodiversity goes...
With respect to human rights...

Lost in time

We are in 2019. To many of you it might just be another year, little different from 2018 or 2020. To me, however, 2019 is the year in which Blade Runner (1982) is set. I have numerous reasons to love that sci-fi masterpiece. To start with, it was the first film I ever saw in its original version in a cinema. It also has the very first movie lines I ever learnt by heart in English (the poignant Tears In Rain soliloquy). Besides, the themes in the film are truly powerful. What does it mean to be human? Is empathy exclusive to humans? What is the future of our planet? What is the value of memories? If by the end of the movie you have not reflected on your own mortality, you're probably way too young or there is something clinically wrong with you. 

The thing is... I came out of the movie theater emotionally drained. Soon I became obsessed with the film. It was like the Borgesian zahir. I simply couldn’t get it out of my mind. Seriously. I read countless books about it, saw as many documentaries as I could get my hands on and, of course, watched all five available versions of the film over and over again. I believe it is fair to say that I have turned into something of a Blade Runner aficionado. So… Why do I bring up this particular fixation of mine? Because the unit we are exploring (in the C1.1 course) deals precisely with memories. And memories happen to be a key element in Blade Runner.

Early in the movie Tyrell, the creator of the replicants, explains how memory implants allow him to control his androids better since fake memories offer them "a cushion or pillow for their emotions". We also get to witness Rachael’s deep sadness when she learns that everything she remembers about her childhood is actually not real (her memories are someone else's). And, of course, there’s the unforgettable final monolog. Sensing his imminent death Roy Batty, the last surviving replicant, delivers a moving 41-word speech in which he mentions some of the astonishing experiences he’s had in his short-lived existence. His conclusion is utterly devastating: “all those moments will be lost in time like tears in rain”. Kudos to actor Rutger Hauer, who came up with that line which hits us hard partly because, like Harrison Ford's character (Deckard) we are forced to see him die and because, as spectators, we are compelled to consider not only our impending mortality but also our own memories.

Just think about it. What would we be without memories? Isn’t that the greatest tragedy of suffering from Alzheimer’s disease? You forget who you are. Who will remember us when we’re dead? That is, by the way, a central theme in the Pixar movie Coco (2017). I’m afraid I have to agree with Roy Batty. When we are gone, all our memories will certainly be lost in time. There's not much we can do about that. But for the time being, we can enjoy them, treasure them and talk about them. How do we do that?

Well, in class we have learnt quite a few expressions that may help us discuss our past. A smell, for instance, might take you back to your childhood. The taste of a particular dish might bring back fond memories. When you look back on your salad years you might realize how blissfully happy you were back then. So, even if those files will eventually vanish into the unfathomable vastness of the universe, it is undeniably true that, at least for a couple of decades, some of our experiences may be etched or seared into our memory.

Today let me conclude this rather lengthy post by sharing a video that combines the evocative power of words and the complexity of some people’s feelings about the past.

It was at the end of a class on Tuesday that I happened to mention John Koenig and his Dictionary of Obscures Sorrows, a thought-provoking website (and YouTube channel) that explains neologisms which Koening himself coins in order to capture otherwise unnamable emotions. I specifically referred to one of his most memorable concepts: nostalgia for a time you’ve never known. He calls it anemoia. Here’s his video for that delicate word. Enjoy.

N.B. One last thing. C1.1 students: The 280-word essay I asked you to write should discuss the question Has Google made us all stupid? and don't forget that the video you're supposed to tape (1-2 minutes) should discuss either of thsese topics: Is it alright to keep secrets? or Is the world better now than it was 50 years ago?

SCALES

I chose “scales” as the title for this post for a very simple reason. Anybody that has ever learnt to play a musical instrument properly knows how necessary it is to practice scales. It’s no secret that the workout regimen of ballet dancers involves performing repetitive movements for several hours a day. For obvious reasons the same can be said about martial arts practitioners. Yes. In order to integrate automatic moves one must (of necessity) resort to good old repetition. Now… I don’t know if excellence in any field requires 10,000 hours as Malcolm Gladwell suggests in his famous book Outliers but there is no denying that the key to success lies in the intensive practice of specific tasks: in the case of a guitarist or a pianist scales.

In the case of language instruction repetition has a name: drilling. It fell from grace when the "communicative language approach" took the world by storm in the 1970s. As I have often pointed out, this method has recently been called into question. I personally believe that it's been totally and completely debunked but let's not get into that. My point is that, regardless of its bad reputation, repetition is effective. That's how children learn to speak, by the way... So I decided to blog about this. I didn't know how, though.

I thought of the old wax-on-wax-off scene from the 80s classic Karate Kid but I believe some of you may consider it to be an archaeological relic so I decided to go in a different direction...

Below you can find a relatively recent BBC clip (uploaded in 2017) which offers some tips to English teachers willing to use drilling techniques. As you will see, the hosts have this infectious happy-go-lucky attitude that is so common among primary school teachers but don't panic their advice is sound and can be extremely useful for you. Notice how they casually mention the concept of “connected speech”, which is the holy grail of a genuine advanced speaker. Okay. I recommend that you try and repeat simple sentences, stock phrases or lexical chunks until they simply flow out of you. You can start with I can’t imagine what it must be like. Repeat it over and over again. Eventually you won’t know even what you’re saying. It works. Trust me.