|
|
|
|
コメント(72)
>Ian
I chose B, because in a formal situation,
"researches" is more appropriate to be used than "research".
But when I think about it again,
the original question has an adjective "cancer" before research,
in this case, maybe you are right. Only D must be the right answer.
Thank you for your commnet to make me think again.
I chose B, because in a formal situation,
"researches" is more appropriate to be used than "research".
But when I think about it again,
the original question has an adjective "cancer" before research,
in this case, maybe you are right. Only D must be the right answer.
Thank you for your commnet to make me think again.
Mika, the key to the question you posted is really the lead-in "engaged in". "Research" is sometimes used as a countable noun, but only in cases where you refer to more than one set of research. So you could say, "His researches into economics are well-respected.", but it implies that the person has made several different forays into economics research.
But since your question says "engaged in ____", it's clear that it is only referring to one set of research - the research that he is currently engaged in. So "research" is used singly, even though that research consists of many different experiments and so on.
But since your question says "engaged in ____", it's clear that it is only referring to one set of research - the research that he is currently engaged in. So "research" is used singly, even though that research consists of many different experiments and so on.
OK, so you are saying that "research" is basically uncountable
and it can be plural only when we talk about more than
one different kinds of researches.
If research is the same kind, it still remains as "research"
never "researches" no matter how many differnt experiments are
involved in it. I agree with you. But sometimes people omit "a ... of"
like, "a coffee" which actually means "a cup of coffee".
So I thought it's OK to say "many researches" instead of
"many different kinds of researches".
The problem is that I think I didn't realize that
"engaged in" implys only one set of research, not many.
Thank you for your input on this. φ(．． )memomemo...
and it can be plural only when we talk about more than
one different kinds of researches.
If research is the same kind, it still remains as "research"
never "researches" no matter how many differnt experiments are
involved in it. I agree with you. But sometimes people omit "a ... of"
like, "a coffee" which actually means "a cup of coffee".
So I thought it's OK to say "many researches" instead of
"many different kinds of researches".
The problem is that I think I didn't realize that
"engaged in" implys only one set of research, not many.
Thank you for your input on this. φ(．． )memomemo...
Actually I wonder if there isn't a kind of trap involved with uncountable nouns. Suppose somebody walks up and says, "I like to drink many coffees." I think in most cases, if the speaker is not very good at English, we would assume they have made a mistake, and they mean to say "a lot of coffee". But if it's a native speaker, we'll assume they are using the more uncommon countable sense of the word, meaning that they drink many different kinds of coffee. Makes things tough on a non-native speaker!
"I don't drink as much coffee as I used to, but I'll still have five coffees on most days."
It's true, I drink way too much coffee but aside from that I think it's OK to use "coffees" in this sort of situation. I'm not sure if it's correct, it would probably be more correct to say "five cups of coffee" but I often hear people using "coffees", well I hear Australians saying this anyway.
I don't really want to throw too many spanners into the discussion, but since I've thrown one I may as well throw the other which I was thinking about. I hear some people say "moneys". I think it's quite a recent evolution in language and it may or may not take, but I've heard quite a few young people use the word over the past few years.
It's true, I drink way too much coffee but aside from that I think it's OK to use "coffees" in this sort of situation. I'm not sure if it's correct, it would probably be more correct to say "five cups of coffee" but I often hear people using "coffees", well I hear Australians saying this anyway.
I don't really want to throw too many spanners into the discussion, but since I've thrown one I may as well throw the other which I was thinking about. I hear some people say "moneys". I think it's quite a recent evolution in language and it may or may not take, but I've heard quite a few young people use the word over the past few years.
Yes, it's very tough for a non-native speaker to see
which is socially acceptable and which is not.
When I go to a café with my friend, I never bother
to say "two cups of coffee" but just "two coffee" to
a waitress though.
I've never taken TOEIC before but I am learning
what the test writers expect us from workbooks.
I'll keep all that you taught me in mind and do
my best on the test day!
which is socially acceptable and which is not.
When I go to a café with my friend, I never bother
to say "two cups of coffee" but just "two coffee" to
a waitress though.
I've never taken TOEIC before but I am learning
what the test writers expect us from workbooks.
I'll keep all that you taught me in mind and do
my best on the test day!
41 Mika
> I don't know if there are some reasons for it though.
The reason, if you're interested, is briefly that a thousand years or so back, English had five or six different kinds of plurals (as well as three genders, several cases, etc), but after the Norman conquest, the invaders forced a rapid simplification of the language. As part of that process, most words were consolidated into using the most common plural form (-s), but a smaller number retained other plural endings (like -en, for ox/oxen, brother/brethren). And for some words, like fish, there was originally a plural ending but it was simply dropped. Which ending each word got depended on the word's gender and declension before the change.
> I don't know if there are some reasons for it though.
The reason, if you're interested, is briefly that a thousand years or so back, English had five or six different kinds of plurals (as well as three genders, several cases, etc), but after the Norman conquest, the invaders forced a rapid simplification of the language. As part of that process, most words were consolidated into using the most common plural form (-s), but a smaller number retained other plural endings (like -en, for ox/oxen, brother/brethren). And for some words, like fish, there was originally a plural ending but it was simply dropped. Which ending each word got depended on the word's gender and declension before the change.
I personally opt for "do" research instead of "make" research
i've been thinking, maybe.... whoever came up with make research actually derived it from
make a decision (making decisions) / make a choice (making choices)?
as both decision & choice are nouns and u used it with "make"
so the person actually thought of using "make' research in the noun form?
other than this 2 or (make any attempt), i would say 80% of the time u associate making with physical things? like...
make/bake a cake
make/brew a cup of tea
etc etc?
just my opinion though
43 fenomas3
ox/oxen is still taught in school but as for brethren, is it considered old english? What we are taught now is normally brothers for the plural of brother. its my 1st time seeing this word or maybe just not commonly use in my community
i've been thinking, maybe.... whoever came up with make research actually derived it from
make a decision (making decisions) / make a choice (making choices)?
as both decision & choice are nouns and u used it with "make"
so the person actually thought of using "make' research in the noun form?
other than this 2 or (make any attempt), i would say 80% of the time u associate making with physical things? like...
make/bake a cake
make/brew a cup of tea
etc etc?
just my opinion though
43 fenomas3
ox/oxen is still taught in school but as for brethren, is it considered old english? What we are taught now is normally brothers for the plural of brother. its my 1st time seeing this word or maybe just not commonly use in my community
Also 44 Gale:
I wouldn't go looking for too many patterns in the usage of a word like "make" - it's one of those words that is used so promiscuously it crops in every kind of usage you can think of. People don't just make tea or cakes, they make sure, make a nice couple, make good time, make do, make an offer, make their case, make tracks, or even make my day.
(And if you add in prepositions you'll be here all night - make up, make up for, make up with, make out, make over, make for....
)
I wouldn't go looking for too many patterns in the usage of a word like "make" - it's one of those words that is used so promiscuously it crops in every kind of usage you can think of. People don't just make tea or cakes, they make sure, make a nice couple, make good time, make do, make an offer, make their case, make tracks, or even make my day.
(And if you add in prepositions you'll be here all night - make up, make up for, make up with, make out, make over, make for....
)
>> I'm not trying to sound anal, but don't you think "drink" should
>> NOT be used with "Hot Liquid" (Coffee, Tea, etc...) in the same
>> sentence?
well....when I'm alone and nobody can see, I'll sometimes fill a bathtub
with coffee or tomato soup and hop in....but in public I usually drink
it.
Make peace/babies/a decision/choice/it up to someone.
Re. simplification:Unfortunately with several countries having English as a main language, the language goes in many different directions.
While it makes it hard for learners to master "REAL ENGLISH" (it's long gone, along with excalibur), it makes for a rich and varied language where even native speakers are constantly learning new things.
I enjoy deciphering the idioms and expressions people use, whether it be an American friend or a fellow Englishman.
Re. simplification:Unfortunately with several countries having English as a main language, the language goes in many different directions.
While it makes it hard for learners to master "REAL ENGLISH" (it's long gone, along with excalibur), it makes for a rich and varied language where even native speakers are constantly learning new things.
I enjoy deciphering the idioms and expressions people use, whether it be an American friend or a fellow Englishman.
matrix110
You are so foolish
The articles you linked to on that site WERE NOT written by a native speaker of british or American standard English.
Some points people are missing here
#1 THERE ARE MANY VARIETIES OF ENGLISH
#2 'CORRECT ENGLISH' is usually BVE (British vernacular English) or American standard English. VALID English tests and lessons are created by and for speaking with native English speakers of a national variety of English. Aside from American/british standard English there are another dozen odd countries (south Africa, Australia, canada, New Zealand etc. etc. etc.) that have their own varieties of English. Smaller countries tend to learn an outdated standard American or British English in school, but speak a dialect on the street.
Some things correct in British English ARE NOT correct in American and vice versa. This problem is most prevelant with the use of 'a' 'the' and noun-verb pairing. With the other dialiects, like Australian vareities, its a box of chocolate, you never know what you are gonna get.
Tangent- my personal opinion, these statements directed at japanese teachers of English specifically- Non-native speakers of English have NO RIGHT to weigh in on what is or isn't correct. You have your own language, if you only want to talk with other Japanese, use Japanese. If a native speaker says your sentence is wrong, weird etc. THEN IT IS. Further you wont be understood no matter how 'right' you think you are. So swallow your pride and learn real English already. If one native tells you one thing and another tells you something else, its probably because THEY ARE FORM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. Dont expect your British and American freinds to agree about English, because since Webster they never have and never will.
#3 English, like all other languages, changes over time. Japanese as well. English teachers in the US/England/Australia change their textbooks every so many years to reflect convention changes, just like japanese Kokugo.
#4 Because language LIVES in countries where it is spoken natively you can't learn and teach it. Whatever you learn will change over time. In order to know correct native English, you must become a native speaker. You must LIVE in the language and be DIRECTLY connected to the community/cultures that speak it.
For example- I am not a native speaker of British English, so i don't teach it. I am an American.
Make research is COMPLETELY FRCKING WRONG in American English. British? I don't know ask a Brit. Australia, same. My guess though is that its completely wack to them too. I also HIGHLY doubt that research is countable.
Finally you will learn to use determiners in English correctly when you attach meaning to them and stop thinking about them in japanese. Learn what 'a' MEANS not some abstract rule about when to use it or not. Native speakers don7t add 'a' because we have to. We say 'a' because its ONE Thing we are talking about, and more specifically ONE ununique thing. If it was Unique we would say 'the'. If it were many things we add s to the word, and if it is a specific group of things we add the plus s. If something can7t be counted then we use nothing, unless it is unique then we add the. This is about meaning and communication, not stupid rules.
You are so foolish
The articles you linked to on that site WERE NOT written by a native speaker of british or American standard English.
Some points people are missing here
#1 THERE ARE MANY VARIETIES OF ENGLISH
#2 'CORRECT ENGLISH' is usually BVE (British vernacular English) or American standard English. VALID English tests and lessons are created by and for speaking with native English speakers of a national variety of English. Aside from American/british standard English there are another dozen odd countries (south Africa, Australia, canada, New Zealand etc. etc. etc.) that have their own varieties of English. Smaller countries tend to learn an outdated standard American or British English in school, but speak a dialect on the street.
Some things correct in British English ARE NOT correct in American and vice versa. This problem is most prevelant with the use of 'a' 'the' and noun-verb pairing. With the other dialiects, like Australian vareities, its a box of chocolate, you never know what you are gonna get.
Tangent- my personal opinion, these statements directed at japanese teachers of English specifically- Non-native speakers of English have NO RIGHT to weigh in on what is or isn't correct. You have your own language, if you only want to talk with other Japanese, use Japanese. If a native speaker says your sentence is wrong, weird etc. THEN IT IS. Further you wont be understood no matter how 'right' you think you are. So swallow your pride and learn real English already. If one native tells you one thing and another tells you something else, its probably because THEY ARE FORM DIFFERENT COUNTRIES. Dont expect your British and American freinds to agree about English, because since Webster they never have and never will.
#3 English, like all other languages, changes over time. Japanese as well. English teachers in the US/England/Australia change their textbooks every so many years to reflect convention changes, just like japanese Kokugo.
#4 Because language LIVES in countries where it is spoken natively you can't learn and teach it. Whatever you learn will change over time. In order to know correct native English, you must become a native speaker. You must LIVE in the language and be DIRECTLY connected to the community/cultures that speak it.
For example- I am not a native speaker of British English, so i don't teach it. I am an American.
Make research is COMPLETELY FRCKING WRONG in American English. British? I don't know ask a Brit. Australia, same. My guess though is that its completely wack to them too. I also HIGHLY doubt that research is countable.
Finally you will learn to use determiners in English correctly when you attach meaning to them and stop thinking about them in japanese. Learn what 'a' MEANS not some abstract rule about when to use it or not. Native speakers don7t add 'a' because we have to. We say 'a' because its ONE Thing we are talking about, and more specifically ONE ununique thing. If it was Unique we would say 'the'. If it were many things we add s to the word, and if it is a specific group of things we add the plus s. If something can7t be counted then we use nothing, unless it is unique then we add the. This is about meaning and communication, not stupid rules.
53 ShiffD
Calm down. All this was hashed out weeks ago, quite amiably until you arrived.
> 'CORRECT ENGLISH' is usually BVE (British vernacular English) or American standard English.
There is no such single thing as "correct" language; language is used differently in different situations. The same phrase might be considered correct in a classroom and incorrect in a boardroom, or vice-versa. What you're trying to say is that there is no situation where native US or UK speakers would consider "make research" correct. I agree, but as I said, was worked out weeks ago.
> Non-native speakers of English have NO RIGHT to weigh in on what is or isn't correct.
This is a discussion forum. Anybody has the right to weigh in on anything they bloody well please.
> If a native speaker says your sentence is wrong, weird etc. THEN IT IS
Piffle. Native speakers make mistakes (if your post is anything to judge by
). Even when they don't, and even if they are perfectly educated, there are points of usage on which even the experts cannot come to agreement. "Make research" isn't one of those points, but there are still a great many.
> British? I don't know ask a Brit.
Or read the goddamn thread you're posting in, Captain Capslock.
> I also HIGHLY doubt that research is countable.
Then you should HIGHLY check a dictionary. Research is countable when referring to multiple instances of research, as for example by different researchers. That's why there are dozens of academic journals with titles like "Researches in Psychology", etc.
Calm down. All this was hashed out weeks ago, quite amiably until you arrived.
> 'CORRECT ENGLISH' is usually BVE (British vernacular English) or American standard English.
There is no such single thing as "correct" language; language is used differently in different situations. The same phrase might be considered correct in a classroom and incorrect in a boardroom, or vice-versa. What you're trying to say is that there is no situation where native US or UK speakers would consider "make research" correct. I agree, but as I said, was worked out weeks ago.
> Non-native speakers of English have NO RIGHT to weigh in on what is or isn't correct.
This is a discussion forum. Anybody has the right to weigh in on anything they bloody well please.
> If a native speaker says your sentence is wrong, weird etc. THEN IT IS
Piffle. Native speakers make mistakes (if your post is anything to judge by
). Even when they don't, and even if they are perfectly educated, there are points of usage on which even the experts cannot come to agreement. "Make research" isn't one of those points, but there are still a great many.
> British? I don't know ask a Brit.
Or read the goddamn thread you're posting in, Captain Capslock.
> I also HIGHLY doubt that research is countable.
Then you should HIGHLY check a dictionary. Research is countable when referring to multiple instances of research, as for example by different researchers. That's why there are dozens of academic journals with titles like "Researches in Psychology", etc.
>>ShiffD
>Some things correct in British English ARE NOT correct in American and vice versa. This problem is >most prevelant with the use of 'a' 'the' and noun-verb pairing.
It's not really a huge issue though. Yanks and Brits can still understand each other.
>Non-native speakers of English have NO RIGHT to weigh in on what is or isn't correct.
They have every right. You just said they're many different dialects; in the above instance it was odd to everyone but if someone asked me how to spell 'colour' and then they questioned it, I would just explain the difference between the American spelling of it. It can at least give learners the option of how they want to learn it.
>#3 English, like all other languages, changes over time.
In the last 400 years the amount of words in English has increased by over 300,000. - some useless trivia for you.
>Whatever you learn will change over time.
You make it sound like English changes on a daily basis.
English isn't like technology, it isn't going to be outdated in 3-4 years.
>You must LIVE in the language and be DIRECTLY connected to the community/cultures that >speak it.
You don't -need- to be, it just helps..
>For example- I am not a native speaker of British English, so i don't teach it. I am an American.
I'm sorry.
>I also HIGHLY doubt that research is countable.
It is.
>We say 'a' because its ONE Thing we are talking about, and more specifically ONE ununique >thing. If it was Unique we would say 'the'. If it were many things we add s to the word, and if it is >a specific group of things we add the plus s. If something can7t be counted then we use nothing, >unless it is unique then we add the.
In British English, that's what they class as a set of rules.
>>fenomas
>There is no such single thing as "correct" language
Well, technically, what the Queen uses is correct English. Remember, American English is a derivative of that.
>Some things correct in British English ARE NOT correct in American and vice versa. This problem is >most prevelant with the use of 'a' 'the' and noun-verb pairing.
It's not really a huge issue though. Yanks and Brits can still understand each other.
>Non-native speakers of English have NO RIGHT to weigh in on what is or isn't correct.
They have every right. You just said they're many different dialects; in the above instance it was odd to everyone but if someone asked me how to spell 'colour' and then they questioned it, I would just explain the difference between the American spelling of it. It can at least give learners the option of how they want to learn it.
>#3 English, like all other languages, changes over time.
In the last 400 years the amount of words in English has increased by over 300,000. - some useless trivia for you.
>Whatever you learn will change over time.
You make it sound like English changes on a daily basis.
English isn't like technology, it isn't going to be outdated in 3-4 years.
>You must LIVE in the language and be DIRECTLY connected to the community/cultures that >speak it.
You don't -need- to be, it just helps..
>For example- I am not a native speaker of British English, so i don't teach it. I am an American.
I'm sorry.
>I also HIGHLY doubt that research is countable.
It is.
>We say 'a' because its ONE Thing we are talking about, and more specifically ONE ununique >thing. If it was Unique we would say 'the'. If it were many things we add s to the word, and if it is >a specific group of things we add the plus s. If something can7t be counted then we use nothing, >unless it is unique then we add the.
In British English, that's what they class as a set of rules.
>>fenomas
>There is no such single thing as "correct" language
Well, technically, what the Queen uses is correct English. Remember, American English is a derivative of that.
OMG! What's going on here!!
>ShiffD
>Non-native speakers of English have NO RIGHT to weigh in on what is or isn't correct.
> If a native speaker says your sentence is wrong, weird etc. THEN IT IS
What an arrogant bigot you are!! I have met so many people so called "native English speakers" who made very simple mistakes in their spoken English and could not write even a simple letter satisfactorily , let alone an academic writing. From my point of view as an English learner, it's not always true that Native English speakers are the best teacher of English. They might know the language well but don't always have to know how to teach well. Having a good command of the language is one thing and teaching it efficiently is another.
For me, a good teacher is the one who understand a certain level ofhis/her student's native language, otherwise he will never know what is preventing the student from better understanding. So the student might seems very slow in your eyes instead.
Your "English speakers only" theory sounds like Sushi!! Now Sushi is very popular all over the world but in some countries it has been being eaten in very strange ways (to Japanese eyes) with some fruit or avocado on rice!? Are they really Sushi? Totally deviated away from the Japanese traditional way of Sushi. There are some Japanese who consider it outrageous, Sushi should be made with the right materials and the right way and should be eaten in the right manner. Those people think that no foreigner understand the art of Sushi profoundly. I think they are also bigots too. I think it is good to see many foreigners who love Sushi and create a new style to enjoy it with their own ideas.
Well, languages are not Sushi of course but the main idea behind is the same. They are not only for people who invented or originated, but can be shared by everybody.
55 カイル
> Well, technically, what the Queen uses is correct English. Remember, American English is a derivative of that.
Stuff and bullshit. When English people arrived in America they spoke the same language as those who stayed home, but in the centuries since both versions of the language have evolved. Where modern British and American English differ, in some cases the UK version is the "original", and on others it's the US version.
Random examples: dropping the hard "r" at the end of words (that is, pronouncing "tuner" similarly to "tuna") is a British change. Your ancestors said "tuner" about the way Americans do now. Ditto for spellings like "organise" and "realise" - Dr. Johnson's dictionary doesn't even list them. (Apparently part of the reason they're popular in the UK now is the mistaken idea that "-ize" is an Americanism.) And a whole slew of words - commuter, teenager, lengthy, reliable, etc. - are all American terms that were borrowed into British.
In other words, both dialects descend from a common ancestor which is no more similar to one than the other. Calling one "derivative" of the other is the sort of glib oversimplification that doesn't hold up for people burdened by any idea what they're talking about.
With that said, I will grant you that the Queen's English is indisputably "correct" whenever one is speaking to the Queen. In all other cases I stand by what I said.
> Well, technically, what the Queen uses is correct English. Remember, American English is a derivative of that.
Stuff and bullshit. When English people arrived in America they spoke the same language as those who stayed home, but in the centuries since both versions of the language have evolved. Where modern British and American English differ, in some cases the UK version is the "original", and on others it's the US version.
Random examples: dropping the hard "r" at the end of words (that is, pronouncing "tuner" similarly to "tuna") is a British change. Your ancestors said "tuner" about the way Americans do now. Ditto for spellings like "organise" and "realise" - Dr. Johnson's dictionary doesn't even list them. (Apparently part of the reason they're popular in the UK now is the mistaken idea that "-ize" is an Americanism.) And a whole slew of words - commuter, teenager, lengthy, reliable, etc. - are all American terms that were borrowed into British.
In other words, both dialects descend from a common ancestor which is no more similar to one than the other. Calling one "derivative" of the other is the sort of glib oversimplification that doesn't hold up for people burdened by any idea what they're talking about.
With that said, I will grant you that the Queen's English is indisputably "correct" whenever one is speaking to the Queen. In all other cases I stand by what I said.
So many points to address...
I put a '' around correct English for a reason.
In the US and in the UK they will have very specific idea of 'correct English' in public schools and colleges etc. That is what I was referring to.
When a Japanese person wants to study and earn credit in a foreign University they need to figure out which variety of English is being used as the standard at their university. So learning 'correct English' is not a crazy goal to have.
In Japan students are grilled by Japanese instructors on 'correct' English which is basically a random collection of conventions they make up on the fly, hodgepodging input from Australian, American, British and Japanese languages. Its very unuseful and unrealistic most of the time. I propose that this image of 'correct English' in japan is invalid. Whereas nations that use English as their primary langauge have standards, which lead to a valid concept of 'correct English' to be taught to native and non-natives alike- for usage in and with their nation. Like BVE
Some of you suggest that there are people out there who have learned to speak English very accurately and fluently as a second langauge. I agree. Native/non-native are not that useful of terms- I just use them because its what people know.
I prefer the terms accurate and fluent. Native-like is usually the term used to refer to a accurate fluent speaker who isn't what we traditionally think of as a 'native speaker'.
I think people can develop native-like proficiency in multiple languages, it happens in Europe all the time. VERY RARE in Japan.
Sorry if my opinions offend people here. I am educated in linguistics and know the following things- A- most people only speak one language well enough to teach it B- it is possible to speak multiple languages at a native-like level and C- It takes more work than most Japanese English teachers have put in to be able to teach a langauge (and to weigh in on correct/incorrect English usage). Personally if this were a forum about Japanese I would prefer native Japanese evaluations of what is correct over mine any day of the week. Its just common sense to ask a native.
Do you guys have any clue how much work it takes to generate a native level of ability in a 2nd or 3rd langauge? I'm not talking about just being able to use a language.
This is all assuming you want to learn correct English, like the starter of this thread. IF you don't mind having an accent and never plan on your English being judged by anyone then non-native speakers with disfluent innacurate English are fine. You can make up anything you want.
In my experience most people who study foreign languages want accurate information about how to speak accurately. They do not want to have their accent exagerated more than it already is by being taught strange innacurate phrases like 'make researches'. They want to know what normal average everyday native speakers would say. The best way to find that out is to ask a normal average everyday native speaker, not some non-native speakers random contemplation on what might be passable.
I put a '' around correct English for a reason.
In the US and in the UK they will have very specific idea of 'correct English' in public schools and colleges etc. That is what I was referring to.
When a Japanese person wants to study and earn credit in a foreign University they need to figure out which variety of English is being used as the standard at their university. So learning 'correct English' is not a crazy goal to have.
In Japan students are grilled by Japanese instructors on 'correct' English which is basically a random collection of conventions they make up on the fly, hodgepodging input from Australian, American, British and Japanese languages. Its very unuseful and unrealistic most of the time. I propose that this image of 'correct English' in japan is invalid. Whereas nations that use English as their primary langauge have standards, which lead to a valid concept of 'correct English' to be taught to native and non-natives alike- for usage in and with their nation. Like BVE
Some of you suggest that there are people out there who have learned to speak English very accurately and fluently as a second langauge. I agree. Native/non-native are not that useful of terms- I just use them because its what people know.
I prefer the terms accurate and fluent. Native-like is usually the term used to refer to a accurate fluent speaker who isn't what we traditionally think of as a 'native speaker'.
I think people can develop native-like proficiency in multiple languages, it happens in Europe all the time. VERY RARE in Japan.
Sorry if my opinions offend people here. I am educated in linguistics and know the following things- A- most people only speak one language well enough to teach it B- it is possible to speak multiple languages at a native-like level and C- It takes more work than most Japanese English teachers have put in to be able to teach a langauge (and to weigh in on correct/incorrect English usage). Personally if this were a forum about Japanese I would prefer native Japanese evaluations of what is correct over mine any day of the week. Its just common sense to ask a native.
Do you guys have any clue how much work it takes to generate a native level of ability in a 2nd or 3rd langauge? I'm not talking about just being able to use a language.
This is all assuming you want to learn correct English, like the starter of this thread. IF you don't mind having an accent and never plan on your English being judged by anyone then non-native speakers with disfluent innacurate English are fine. You can make up anything you want.
In my experience most people who study foreign languages want accurate information about how to speak accurately. They do not want to have their accent exagerated more than it already is by being taught strange innacurate phrases like 'make researches'. They want to know what normal average everyday native speakers would say. The best way to find that out is to ask a normal average everyday native speaker, not some non-native speakers random contemplation on what might be passable.
Mika,
so much to say so little care/time.
Japanese English education has been failing for 50 years. At the core of this system is the belief that speaking Japanese is more important than speaking English. Go outside and smell the Xenophobia, you are wrong.
I learned Japanese by talking to native speakers who didn't speak any English at all. Its how language is learned.
Having English explained to you in Japanese does not work, if it did then Japanese people would have started speaking English 50 years ago and native speaker help would have never been important.
Arrogance and bigotry is assuming that gaijin are inferior and subordinating them to assistants in the education system. Arrogance is japanese English teachers giving lecturs on English grammar in Japanese and only calling in the natives to pronounce stuff for them.
I live in Japan so you can't bullshit me. I know everyone is taught Eigo from Japanese teachers in Japanese and that most people CAN NOT speak English. The most annoying thing for me is when people TRY to speak English to me. Its not shyness or lack of confidence. Every day someone gets up the courage to try out their English on me, 1/5 times they actually speak English, the other 80% of the time I'm stuck with the responsiblity of breaking the news to them that they've been swindled for 6plus years of their life by fake Japanese English teachers.
I repeat, speaking Japanese is not necessary to teach English. Speaking English is.
I agree with you that teaching method is important too. For this reason many Japanese who speak English still can't teach it, because when they teach it they imitate public school teachers and use the same methods that have failed for the last 50 years. So even though they speak English great they are often still really really crappy teachers. This is why Foreigners with no formal training in TESL are usually better English teachers than 50year veteran Japanese, because they have better methods.
Arrogant or not I'm right and you know it. Ignoring the truth for another 50 years is ignorant AND wrong and probably what japanese English teachers will do.
so much to say so little care/time.
Japanese English education has been failing for 50 years. At the core of this system is the belief that speaking Japanese is more important than speaking English. Go outside and smell the Xenophobia, you are wrong.
I learned Japanese by talking to native speakers who didn't speak any English at all. Its how language is learned.
Having English explained to you in Japanese does not work, if it did then Japanese people would have started speaking English 50 years ago and native speaker help would have never been important.
Arrogance and bigotry is assuming that gaijin are inferior and subordinating them to assistants in the education system. Arrogance is japanese English teachers giving lecturs on English grammar in Japanese and only calling in the natives to pronounce stuff for them.
I live in Japan so you can't bullshit me. I know everyone is taught Eigo from Japanese teachers in Japanese and that most people CAN NOT speak English. The most annoying thing for me is when people TRY to speak English to me. Its not shyness or lack of confidence. Every day someone gets up the courage to try out their English on me, 1/5 times they actually speak English, the other 80% of the time I'm stuck with the responsiblity of breaking the news to them that they've been swindled for 6plus years of their life by fake Japanese English teachers.
I repeat, speaking Japanese is not necessary to teach English. Speaking English is.
I agree with you that teaching method is important too. For this reason many Japanese who speak English still can't teach it, because when they teach it they imitate public school teachers and use the same methods that have failed for the last 50 years. So even though they speak English great they are often still really really crappy teachers. This is why Foreigners with no formal training in TESL are usually better English teachers than 50year veteran Japanese, because they have better methods.
Arrogant or not I'm right and you know it. Ignoring the truth for another 50 years is ignorant AND wrong and probably what japanese English teachers will do.
58 ShiffD
> Sorry if my opinions offend people here.
I doubt anyone minded your opinions - the idea that native speakers are the best judges of correctness is hardly controversial. You posted it all as if you're arguing with someone but I can't imagine who you think disagrees. I think it was more the yelling, the calling a guy foolish because he was wrong about something that was worked out a while ago, etc..
> Do you guys have any clue how much work it takes to generate a native level of ability in a 2nd or 3rd langauge?
No. None of us here in the English forum of a Japanese site have any idea what that's like.
> Sorry if my opinions offend people here.
I doubt anyone minded your opinions - the idea that native speakers are the best judges of correctness is hardly controversial. You posted it all as if you're arguing with someone but I can't imagine who you think disagrees. I think it was more the yelling, the calling a guy foolish because he was wrong about something that was worked out a while ago, etc..
> Do you guys have any clue how much work it takes to generate a native level of ability in a 2nd or 3rd langauge?
No. None of us here in the English forum of a Japanese site have any idea what that's like.
カイル、
If something is red, then you use the word red to describe it. If something is blue, you use the world blue.
If you want to call that a set of rules, then so be it. You are splitting the hairs semantically.
English determiners have meaning. Trust me when you explain what 'a' and 'the' means to a Japanese person (instead of just saying its a rule) its much much easier for them to understand and use correctly. Actually its impossible learn how to use them correctly without knowing what they mean on some level. That is kinda the point, and my point.
If something is red, then you use the word red to describe it. If something is blue, you use the world blue.
If you want to call that a set of rules, then so be it. You are splitting the hairs semantically.
English determiners have meaning. Trust me when you explain what 'a' and 'the' means to a Japanese person (instead of just saying its a rule) its much much easier for them to understand and use correctly. Actually its impossible learn how to use them correctly without knowing what they mean on some level. That is kinda the point, and my point.
61 ShiffD
Who ever suggested that people don't need to know the meanings of articles? Who ever said native teachers have no place in language education? Most of your posts seem to be arguing vigorously against things that nobody agrees with.
> If you want to call that a set of rules, then so be it. You are splitting the hairs semantically.
About your minimal overview it's arguable, but the same can hardly be said of actual learning resources. E.g.:
http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/english-as-a-second-language/definite-article
Sorry, but that's a list of rules.
Who ever suggested that people don't need to know the meanings of articles? Who ever said native teachers have no place in language education? Most of your posts seem to be arguing vigorously against things that nobody agrees with.
> If you want to call that a set of rules, then so be it. You are splitting the hairs semantically.
About your minimal overview it's arguable, but the same can hardly be said of actual learning resources. E.g.:
http://www.writing.utoronto.ca/advice/english-as-a-second-language/definite-article
Sorry, but that's a list of rules.
>>fenomas
>Stuff and bullshit. When English people arrived in America they spoke the same language as those >who stayed home, but in the centuries since both versions of the language have evolved.
Yes, but the the usage the Queen uses has been passed down through the royal family. Of course words would have been added but the grammar and sentence structure wouldn't change.
Besides, I never said that English hasn't changed. There's only about 8% of people in Britain who use it.
>In other words, both dialects descend from a common ancestor which is no more similar to one than >the other. Calling one "derivative" of the other is the sort of glib oversimplification that doesn't hold >up for people burdened by any idea what they're talking about.
But it is still a derivative of British English. The sentence structure and grammar are based from British English. I never said they haven't changed over the years.
And I wouldn't use words not being in Dr. Johnson's dictionary as good evidence, there's been about 400,000 new words appear since he wrote his dictionary.
>>ShiffD
>Personally if this were a forum about Japanese I would prefer native Japanese evaluations of >what is correct over mine any day of the week. Its just common sense to ask a native.
Native speakers don't always know why they use certain articles/words/whatever in the place they do. Sometimes it helps to ask someone who is learning it at a higher level.
EG - I asked a Japanese friend of mine something about Japanese speech, and his response was "We do? umm, dunno why..."
>They do not want to have their accent exagerated more than it already is by being taught strange >innacurate phrases like 'make researches'.
You know what would be funny. Japanese kids learning from a Scot and coming away with a Highland accent.
>Stuff and bullshit. When English people arrived in America they spoke the same language as those >who stayed home, but in the centuries since both versions of the language have evolved.
Yes, but the the usage the Queen uses has been passed down through the royal family. Of course words would have been added but the grammar and sentence structure wouldn't change.
Besides, I never said that English hasn't changed. There's only about 8% of people in Britain who use it.
>In other words, both dialects descend from a common ancestor which is no more similar to one than >the other. Calling one "derivative" of the other is the sort of glib oversimplification that doesn't hold >up for people burdened by any idea what they're talking about.
But it is still a derivative of British English. The sentence structure and grammar are based from British English. I never said they haven't changed over the years.
And I wouldn't use words not being in Dr. Johnson's dictionary as good evidence, there's been about 400,000 new words appear since he wrote his dictionary.
>>ShiffD
>Personally if this were a forum about Japanese I would prefer native Japanese evaluations of >what is correct over mine any day of the week. Its just common sense to ask a native.
Native speakers don't always know why they use certain articles/words/whatever in the place they do. Sometimes it helps to ask someone who is learning it at a higher level.
EG - I asked a Japanese friend of mine something about Japanese speech, and his response was "We do? umm, dunno why..."
>They do not want to have their accent exagerated more than it already is by being taught strange >innacurate phrases like 'make researches'.
You know what would be funny. Japanese kids learning from a Scot and coming away with a Highland accent.
63 カイル
> Yes, but the the usage the Queen uses has been passed down through the royal family.
Not true. I've heard her speak and it didn't sound at all like German.
> Of course words would have been added but the grammar and sentence structure wouldn't change.
You're mad. Grammar changes over time just as vocabulary does. Even in royal families...
> But it is still a derivative of British English. The sentence structure and grammar are based from British English.
This is incorrect for the same reason it's incorrect to say that humans evolved from chimpanzees - in fact humans and chimps both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither a human nor a chimp, but somewhere in between. Similarly, British English and American English are both derived from a third dialect which is no longer spoken anywhere.
> And I wouldn't use words not being in Dr. Johnson's dictionary as good evidence, there's been about 400,000 new words appear since he wrote his dictionary.
Huh? You seem to have missed the point - Dr. Johnson's dictionary doesn't omit the words, it lists the "American" versions of them and not the "British". That is, for words ending in "-ize/-ise", Americans are using the "original" version of the language, as it was used in Dr. Johnson's day, and the British are using a derived form. Such cases (and there are many, in both directions) belie the simplistic notion that either dialect derived from the other.
I mean for hell's sake, a great big bunch of those new words you mentioned were American first and later borrowed by the British. Does that mean I should say your vocabulary "derives" from mine? If I'm to be snide and nationalistic, yes, but if I'm to be sensible and correct, no. It is with characteristic American humility that I opt for the latter.
> Yes, but the the usage the Queen uses has been passed down through the royal family.
Not true. I've heard her speak and it didn't sound at all like German.
> Of course words would have been added but the grammar and sentence structure wouldn't change.
You're mad. Grammar changes over time just as vocabulary does. Even in royal families...
> But it is still a derivative of British English. The sentence structure and grammar are based from British English.
This is incorrect for the same reason it's incorrect to say that humans evolved from chimpanzees - in fact humans and chimps both evolved from a common ancestor which was neither a human nor a chimp, but somewhere in between. Similarly, British English and American English are both derived from a third dialect which is no longer spoken anywhere.
> And I wouldn't use words not being in Dr. Johnson's dictionary as good evidence, there's been about 400,000 new words appear since he wrote his dictionary.
Huh? You seem to have missed the point - Dr. Johnson's dictionary doesn't omit the words, it lists the "American" versions of them and not the "British". That is, for words ending in "-ize/-ise", Americans are using the "original" version of the language, as it was used in Dr. Johnson's day, and the British are using a derived form. Such cases (and there are many, in both directions) belie the simplistic notion that either dialect derived from the other.
I mean for hell's sake, a great big bunch of those new words you mentioned were American first and later borrowed by the British. Does that mean I should say your vocabulary "derives" from mine? If I'm to be snide and nationalistic, yes, but if I'm to be sensible and correct, no. It is with characteristic American humility that I opt for the latter.
>>fenomas
>Not true. I've heard her speak and it didn't sound at all like German. ウインク
Touché.
>British English and American English are both derived from a third dialect which is no longer spoken >anywhere.
Fair point. Old English is actually derived from, German, Greek, French, Gaelic, Roman, Norwegian, some words Jim made up one day, etc, etc
>Americans are using the "original" version of the language, as it was used in Dr. Johnson's day,
But spelling in that day varied from person to person.
>That is, for words ending in "-ize/-ise"
He would have used both variants.
I looked it up. American spelling only accepts -ize, British accepts either and they are using -ize more often these days.
Funny how here, -ise is only accepted.
>American first and later borrowed by the British
Which you took and claimed as your own, no doubt.
>American humility
Does not compute.
"We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language."
― Oscar Wilde
>Not true. I've heard her speak and it didn't sound at all like German. ウインク
Touché.
>British English and American English are both derived from a third dialect which is no longer spoken >anywhere.
Fair point. Old English is actually derived from, German, Greek, French, Gaelic, Roman, Norwegian, some words Jim made up one day, etc, etc
>Americans are using the "original" version of the language, as it was used in Dr. Johnson's day,
But spelling in that day varied from person to person.
>That is, for words ending in "-ize/-ise"
He would have used both variants.
I looked it up. American spelling only accepts -ize, British accepts either and they are using -ize more often these days.
Funny how here, -ise is only accepted.
>American first and later borrowed by the British
Which you took and claimed as your own, no doubt.
>American humility
Does not compute.
"We have really everything in common with America nowadays except, of course, language."
― Oscar Wilde
>ShiffD
>At the core of this system is the belief that speaking Japanese is more important than speaking English. Go outside and smell the Xenophobia, you are wrong.
Of course! Japanese ability is much more important to us as it is our native language. All skills of Japanese is the fundamental for us living in this country. If you don't have a good command of your native language, what is the point of learning foreign languages? For most of us, ability to speak another language is a plus, but only on the premise that he/she is fluent in Japanese. That's also what the most Japanese companies think and they are willingly hire those people. Exceptions are those who are engaged in English learning schools /programs or maybe some more, I'm not sure though.
And actually, I think Japanese is the most amicable people to foreigners.
Most Japanese extend their kindness to foreigners, partly they might see gaijins as their "guests" visiting the foreign country, no matter how long they live, who should be treated politely and kindly. In this sense, yes, you might be right. Some Japanese are Xenophobia. But that's not unique to Japan.
I agree with you that J-English education system has been failing for such a long years. There could be many reasons, I don't agree with your reasons though. English education in Japan is commercialized too much, which makes it difficult for students to spot which one they should follow. When it comes to English education in Japan, it is nothing similar to education, it's more business oriented and requires a lot of entertainment.
You complain about the system and I've heard it all before! Everybody keeps saying we should do this, shouldn't do that but the truth is that nobody hasn't proved which way is the most efficient yet! Direct method seems to have failed either. So many Japanese have been brainwashed by the plausible idea that language should be taught by native speakers. But it is not always true. Maybe there is no such a thing, "the best way" in learning foreign languages. It really depends on learner's preference. The more you like, the longer you keep learning.
I know why you are so frustrated and I feel sorry for you.
>At the core of this system is the belief that speaking Japanese is more important than speaking English. Go outside and smell the Xenophobia, you are wrong.
Of course! Japanese ability is much more important to us as it is our native language. All skills of Japanese is the fundamental for us living in this country. If you don't have a good command of your native language, what is the point of learning foreign languages? For most of us, ability to speak another language is a plus, but only on the premise that he/she is fluent in Japanese. That's also what the most Japanese companies think and they are willingly hire those people. Exceptions are those who are engaged in English learning schools /programs or maybe some more, I'm not sure though.
And actually, I think Japanese is the most amicable people to foreigners.
Most Japanese extend their kindness to foreigners, partly they might see gaijins as their "guests" visiting the foreign country, no matter how long they live, who should be treated politely and kindly. In this sense, yes, you might be right. Some Japanese are Xenophobia. But that's not unique to Japan.
I agree with you that J-English education system has been failing for such a long years. There could be many reasons, I don't agree with your reasons though. English education in Japan is commercialized too much, which makes it difficult for students to spot which one they should follow. When it comes to English education in Japan, it is nothing similar to education, it's more business oriented and requires a lot of entertainment.
You complain about the system and I've heard it all before! Everybody keeps saying we should do this, shouldn't do that but the truth is that nobody hasn't proved which way is the most efficient yet! Direct method seems to have failed either. So many Japanese have been brainwashed by the plausible idea that language should be taught by native speakers. But it is not always true. Maybe there is no such a thing, "the best way" in learning foreign languages. It really depends on learner's preference. The more you like, the longer you keep learning.
I know why you are so frustrated and I feel sorry for you.
67 カイル
> Fair point.
Cheers. Only had to say it twice!
> But spelling in that day varied from person to person.
What are you trying to claim by saying that? Some words were spelled inconsistently, but that doesn't mean everything was random or that Johnson's dictionary gives no clue to how a word was spelled. More pertinently, I mentioned the dictionary to be illustrative, not as a proof of my claim. The claim itself - that in many cases it was British usage that deviated from American, rather than the reverse - is hardly controversial.
> > American first and later borrowed by the British
> Which you took and claimed as your own, no doubt.
If a word is invented in America and later borrowed by Britain, how do Americans go about claiming it as their own? Honestly, I'm curious.
> Does not compute.
That was the ironic twist of my comment, yes. Well spotted.
> Fair point.
Cheers. Only had to say it twice!
> But spelling in that day varied from person to person.
What are you trying to claim by saying that? Some words were spelled inconsistently, but that doesn't mean everything was random or that Johnson's dictionary gives no clue to how a word was spelled. More pertinently, I mentioned the dictionary to be illustrative, not as a proof of my claim. The claim itself - that in many cases it was British usage that deviated from American, rather than the reverse - is hardly controversial.
> > American first and later borrowed by the British
> Which you took and claimed as your own, no doubt.
If a word is invented in America and later borrowed by Britain, how do Americans go about claiming it as their own? Honestly, I'm curious.
> Does not compute.
That was the ironic twist of my comment, yes. Well spotted.
かいる、
Asking people 'why' is not always helpful. I learned a lot of Japanese without knowing how or why. This idea of native and non-native makes people think they have to know detailed rules about their non-native languages. Its a mistake.
meta-linguistic knowledge (knowing grammar explanaitions etc.) is unreliable and research proves shows that its contributions to the learning process are not as signifigant as people think. The grammar rules and translations that Japanese teach are often wrong, so I am certain that Japanese learners of English are better off WITHOUT getting the lectures. Learning language is an instinct. When metalinguist knowledge is offered, it needs to be accurate, in Japan it by-in-large is not.
On the scottish accent bit- This happens. This is minor issue in Jpaan compared to the other issues out there. There is nothing wrong with teaching someone to speak English with a Scottish accent, but there is osmething wrong with not letting them know that is what they are learning. Its dishonest IMO for any teacher to not let their students know about dialects and which specific dialect of English they are being taught. I let all of my students know that I'm teaching them west-coast American English and that, for example, it probably would not be considered correct pronunciation/grammar/diction in England. Its an inconvenient truth, but its an important one.
Asking people 'why' is not always helpful. I learned a lot of Japanese without knowing how or why. This idea of native and non-native makes people think they have to know detailed rules about their non-native languages. Its a mistake.
meta-linguistic knowledge (knowing grammar explanaitions etc.) is unreliable and research proves shows that its contributions to the learning process are not as signifigant as people think. The grammar rules and translations that Japanese teach are often wrong, so I am certain that Japanese learners of English are better off WITHOUT getting the lectures. Learning language is an instinct. When metalinguist knowledge is offered, it needs to be accurate, in Japan it by-in-large is not.
On the scottish accent bit- This happens. This is minor issue in Jpaan compared to the other issues out there. There is nothing wrong with teaching someone to speak English with a Scottish accent, but there is osmething wrong with not letting them know that is what they are learning. Its dishonest IMO for any teacher to not let their students know about dialects and which specific dialect of English they are being taught. I let all of my students know that I'm teaching them west-coast American English and that, for example, it probably would not be considered correct pronunciation/grammar/diction in England. Its an inconvenient truth, but its an important one.
71 ShiffD
> The grammar rules and translations that Japanese teach are often wrong, so I am certain that Japanese learners of English are better off WITHOUT getting the lectures.
I think there's a glimmer of truth to this but it's largely wrong. It's true that obviously native speakers learn their own language without knowing any "rules", which is why average native speakers don't how many types of verbs endings their language has, and so on. And it's also true that, to speak a language fluently, the learner must *eventually* get to the point where formations come naturally and not from memorized rules.
But picking up these rules naturally is something that can only happen with constant exposure over the course of years and years. When it comes to "studying" a language, you can't just go and live in a foreign country and hope you'll pick everything up within the decade. Realistically you must approach things systematically, by learning the rules that verbs follow, and which ones are irregular, and so on - even if that's information that native speakers aren't consciously aware of.
> The grammar rules and translations that Japanese teach are often wrong, so I am certain that Japanese learners of English are better off WITHOUT getting the lectures.
I think there's a glimmer of truth to this but it's largely wrong. It's true that obviously native speakers learn their own language without knowing any "rules", which is why average native speakers don't how many types of verbs endings their language has, and so on. And it's also true that, to speak a language fluently, the learner must *eventually* get to the point where formations come naturally and not from memorized rules.
But picking up these rules naturally is something that can only happen with constant exposure over the course of years and years. When it comes to "studying" a language, you can't just go and live in a foreign country and hope you'll pick everything up within the decade. Realistically you must approach things systematically, by learning the rules that verbs follow, and which ones are irregular, and so on - even if that's information that native speakers aren't consciously aware of.
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
