|
|
Academic language vs ordinary language
This is a follow-up to my last flashcard thread:
My name
>>Some kind of similarity between your name and the name of that website's editor, the fact that both of you are Chinese... Go figure, that's a combination of two things that rang a bell with me.<<
I've actually been blatantly using a pinyin version of my family name, which millions of Chinese also share. Luckily, no namesakes yet. The editor's name sounds a bit bizarre, but certainly unrelated to mine.
Acquisition
>>I always want a great accent in the language I'm learning and I want to be proficient, but I don't want to "become" Japanese, for example. It is enough to understand the ways that some cultures think about things.<<
I've been thinking of something that someone said. The person, an Anglophone, has apparently learned multiple languages, most of them European, and all are up to a "near-native level", so that you don't find anything difficult to read. While that doesn't require academic proficiency at all, it implies the ability to read, say, novels.
Or think of Chinese. If I were a near-native like this, I should have no problem reading any newspapers and novels, though I might not be able to do any subject in Chinese at all at any university in my country (except Hong Kong where only Chinese is taught in Chinese). Any high school graduate is a real native minus the academic proficiency which isn't strictly necessary.
======
Academic language vs ordinary language
Given this, it may follow that I may be able to see what's wrong with many of us learning English.
In learning English, most people are purely pursuing academic proficiency, NOT the kind of general abilities which are too general to mention. They won't want to learn English aimlessly and instead devote their time and effort, sometimes unconsciously, on written language only. And so they end up speaking like writing. In fact, among us in Hong Kong, we also complain how come we learned so much English at school which is hardly useful even in our environment where English is very commonplace. I personally still have great difficulties understanding the "ordinary English". Once I'm removed from the academic environment, my English also becomes limited.
But a guy who's doing his PHD in Germany reminded me of his way. He simply ignores dialects, oral language, etc, and focus largely on written language only. I met at least 3 foreign students (1 Chinese, 2 Africans) in Germany, and they were less competent in speaking (even than me) but quite OK in comprehending the speech of me and real Germans. This approach is a limited but realistic one if you only care about your PHD - in fact, it's hard enough that you won't have much time for improving German anyway.
In that case, I think I should distinguish clearly between languages whose academic language is important, and those where I can do anything freely. But I know, most learners like college guys won't want to settle on the latter normally. They THINK they can learn a language with a lot of effort, but most of them end up not even reaching a sufficient level for studying in that language. I'm raising this issue because I need to decide on which category German should belong to. I'm leaning toward the latter.
English vs/and German
Let's say my only targets now are English and German. Obviously, I'm even doing English stuff in English, so my English is, while certainly not very proficient (oral), quite sufficient for doing a degree. In fact, like me, many Hong Kong students entered university with a local language exam which corresponds roughly to C1+/C2- English according to European standards. The same standards for any other European language would allow me to do another degree elsewhere.
But as Lomb wrote, there are lots of people who are actually much better at passive skills than active, and better at written than oral, owing to time constraints.
I witnessed, and while I don't exclude the possibility of German for a degree, and the chance isn't that slim, anyone familiar with Germany can think of some difficulties with this issue.
And because of time constraints, it's matter of academic language OR ordinary language, not and. Even for English, I'm yet to have enough exposure in ordinary language. I think it's a must to attack (even) English from multiple sides, but so far it's been rather hard - but I'm already one of the extremely small minority that still learns English with such ideas at university. Most people won't care.
As a non-native speaker, you are always better at passive skills than active, and always better in written language than in oral. Where do you think is the difference? In vocabulary? In syntax? Does that really matter? Or is it just timidness or the new situation of being forced to actually speak than just write?
BTW, why do many learners like to reach a near native level of foreign language command? Is that really necessary?
Dear Xie
I am a native English speaker living in Scotland and I often find the natives incomprehensible. I do not think that there is anything wrong in restricting yourself to 'academic English'. You can only do so many things in one life time.
In a previous Topic, Tom* used the expression 'crap' to describe a dictionary. I do not like the use of such language because although it is succinct and concise, it does not explain why something is 'crap'. If you use more academic language you are forced to explain why you do not like something. Academic language by its very nature tends to be more moderate, polite and considered.
There are a huge number of different varieties of English. Can you understand what is meant in the following sentence, which uses imagery?
"Combat brings them to the balls of their feet; by contrast, they tend to spring leaks on calm seas."
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1720094,00.html
To be fair, 'crap' is a word that also uses an image, it is just not a very nice image.
>>BTW, why do many learners like to reach a near native level of foreign language command? Is that really necessary?<<
I just have some personal reasons. But other than that, my level is already fairly above average. It isn't bad to expect more.
>>There are a huge number of different varieties of English. Can you understand what is meant in the following sentence, which uses imagery?
"Combat brings them to the balls of their feet; by contrast, they tend to spring leaks on calm seas."
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1720094,00.html
<<
No. Time isn't strictly academic - my sense is narrow and limited only to the English I use as an undergraduate. Speaking of my experiences, the Chinese used in Chinese history (I took courses) was also so difficult that someone of my background without experiences with history at high school would also find it terribly difficult. In real life, however, rarely anyone needs to know that much academic language, and people rarely read books like history, and more so books that use very difficult language.
>>If you read enough or listen enough you will hear the "new" vocabulary you encounter if the vocabulary is common enough. [...] If you read more difficult magazines in German or English, you will get a better vocabulary, but if you hang out with slackers you may never use the vocabulary.<<
(K. T. Wed Sep 02, 2009 5:03 pm GMT, flashcard thread)
This reminds me of the same thing that antimoon says, namely why some people do not "automatically" improve their language while being in a foreign country, and their level in it could actually decline. The reason is such people read far less there. That was the same for me, but I had been cautious enough to have done some reading exercise unconsciously back in Germany. And needless to say, although I did stay with young German students, we NEVER really talked about anything serious. You would spend more time on words like crap than on serious vocab - academic language does mean a lot of serious vocab.
==
And about literacy
I hope I didn't repeat this. I have a lot of cousins that are now foreign nationals, most of them having been born and raised abroad without any Chinese people accompanying them, except my family. Needless to say, many of such second generation kids simply can't speak Chinese properly at all. Some are so anglicized that they complain about their parents, all of them are native speakers and have to learn Chinese all over again, but simply lack motivation. I can't comprehend my little cousins at large.
What's wrong? Nothing wrong, maybe. They just spent time becoming literate in English (in Australia/Germany/etc), anyway, not in Chinese. Without the kind of education I had, it's just impossible to know that much Chinese only to order dimsum in a restaurant near my home. They just couldn't order anything.
Language learners at large - those I witnessed - expect rather unrealistic proficiency but never quite manage to reach this kind of literacy I speak of. Neither do I, though it's quite trivial because I can pick up rather easily with a strong foundation in, say, your "academic language". Unfortunately, academic proficiency does take years. Fortunately, though, it still sounds realistic because at least this was what I did before, once in my time, for both Chinese and English.
But I note, though, that I don't need to know, say, the food in the US/UK/Germany. I didn't know anything about Germany, but I picked up my own taste (ah, acquired!) back in Germany. I don't need to know how to call certain kinds of food. Just try more, and I'll remember. All I needed to know was to order THIS and THAT in German. I don't even know what people eat elsewhere outside my province in China, either. I only need practical, conversational Mandarin to ask everybody.
I think the gulf between spoken and literary English is pretty vast, possibly moreso than in most languages. I think it stems to a large degree from the fact the most literary words in English are not created from basic language roots as they are in other languages, but borrowed from French/Latin. Of course other languages borrow many words too, but not quite to the same extent English did, so they always mantain that distance, loftyness, or pretentiousness even, and British culture in general does not like any show of pretentiousness, which of course America and especially Australia have inherited to some extent. In Britain people will rarely ever even call someone 'sir' or 'madam' for instance for the same reason.
Oh, a note though:
in fact, my family is very ordinary, but many of us did go through language shift. Those who still stay in my province maintain Cantonese but younger generations lost everything except Cantonese. My cousins speak just a bit of Cantonese. Teochew and Hakka will be dead by the time my grandparents... you know. Given that my family isn't interested at all in maintaining them, I'm naturally only able to speak what is now used in Hong Kong.
At large, I think the world nowadays simply speeds up language shift. I think even myself am going thru some language attrition in Germany and also back at university in Hong Kong. Despite all that Chinese fad, the reality is: first, some Chinese could be linguistically racist; second, a lot of Chinese are fighting over foreign passports (citizenship); third, millions of us are rushing abroad for education. A native must be biased in some ways or other, and I do think, if I weren't one, I wouldn't regard this language a very pleasant choice. As somebody already put it, something isn't that worth the effort if its owners don't even care much about it.
>>In Britain people will rarely ever even call someone 'sir' or 'madam' for instance for the same reason.<<
What then? I've longed to ask this.
Can you answer my question (Xie)?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>There are a huge number of different varieties of English. Can you understand what is meant in the following sentence, which uses imagery?
"Combat brings them to the balls of their feet; by contrast, they tend to spring leaks on calm seas."
From Time magazine
I suspect that your (Xie) comprehension is not so good!
Your reply (Xie)
No. Time isn't strictly academic - my sense ...
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have answered my question for you.
I think that this is a clever sentence. In this sentence are two powerful images.
__________________________________________________________
"Combat brings them to the balls of their feet"
This sentence makes me think of a boxer, dancing around the ring, avoiding punches and waiting for the moment to strike the knock out blow.
___________________________________________________________
"they tend to spring leaks on calm seas."
I can imagine a sailing ship waiting in the doldrums for the trade winds to take them to distant shores. While the ship is idle, the crew argue amongst themselves and everything goes wrong.
'They' - Hillary and Bill Clinton
Bill Clinton was famous for his sexual scandal with Monica Lewinsky. You might have imagined that the American President had more important things to attend too.
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
I will answer your question
___________________________________________________________
>>In Britain people will rarely ever even call someone 'sir' or 'madam' for instance for the same reason.<<
What then? I've longed to ask this.
__________________________________________________________
British culture in general does not like any show of pretentiousness, which of course America and especially Australia have inherited to some extent. In Britain people will rarely ever even call someone 'sir' or 'madam' for instance for the same reason.
___________________________________________________________
Quite often 'Sir' and 'Madam' are used. I personally do not like calling other people 'sir' but I am always a little bit flattered when people call me 'sir'.
Policemen in particular are inclined to use the word 'sir'. The are careful to be formal and polite.
On the train to Glasgow the ticket inspector called me 'pal'. Well! I am not his 'pal' and I do not like to be called 'pal'. This is an example of local practice and dialect to a certain extent.
Increasingly Call Centres will ask if you would prefer to be called by your first name or your surname. I prefer to be called by my surname - Mr ______. I prefer to have a more formal polite conversation with someone I do not know or like.
You are right, if people do not use Sir or Madam, what do they use? This problem is particularly acute with young women. Is it 'Miss', Mrs, or Ms? It is not always easy to ask for what is essentially personal information.
How would you like to be called?
There's a story about this in the Bible (Old Testament/Jewish Bible) and that's probably the origin of the word. It certainly is a story for language learners to think about.
I'm interested in shibboleths.
In the southern part of the US (and I've lived in various parts of the US), it is more common to hear "sir" and "ma'am" and frankly, I don't like this, even though I sometimes address people this way. If you address a woman as "ma'am" she may even take offense as it may imply that she is older than she thinks she is. Think about that...
That said, I will say something like "Excuse me, sir." if a man drops something in order to get his attention.
Older than she wants people to think she is, lol.
>>I think the gulf between spoken and literary English is pretty vast, possibly moreso than in most languages. I think it stems to a large degree from the fact the most literary words in English are not created from basic language roots as they are in other languages, but borrowed from French/Latin. Of course other languages borrow many words too, but not quite to the same extent English did, so they always mantain that distance, loftyness, or pretentiousness even, and British culture in general does not like any show of pretentiousness, which of course America and especially Australia have inherited to some extent. In Britain people will rarely ever even call someone 'sir' or 'madam' for instance for the same reason.<<
To me at least, I tend to treat literary English as if it were a classical language, and hence tend to regard learning only literary English as if one learned only Latin during the Early Middle Ages and not Romance. Such may be perfectly good for just reading or writing, but is of little use for actually speaking with laypersons in Real Life by itself.
|