|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kepler
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
|
 Posted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
This seems pretty pointless to me. What will they have to say about their time in Korea?
"I wasn't able to communicate with anyone for three months."
There is a member of this board who did a similar experiment for three months, but he had already attained an intermediate level in Korean before doing so.
They'd have a more meaningful experience if they chose one language and stuck with it for the whole year. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kpjf
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| kpjf wrote: |
| in Mandarin wouldn't it be a totally different ball game? |
Korean is hard as hell to pronounce (well enough to be understood) as well. It's debatable which language has more difficult pronunciation. Listening (distinguishing what is said) is ridiculously tough in Korean. I think most people agree speaking Korean (with its insane convoluted grammar) is harder than speaking Chinese (which has easy, straight forward grammar). Writing in Chinese is more difficult (but most day to day communication on the street is spoken, not written).
|
That's interesting. I wasn't aware of that, and just imagined Korean pronunciation to be easier than Mandarin, but had been aware Korean grammar was quite tough.
Can I ask for anybody learning Korean: have you had serious problems with people not understanding you due to pronunciation problems or can Koreans generally work out what you mean? I'd imagine it's the former, no?
| World Traveler wrote: |
There was a study counting syllables spoken per minute. Korean is one of the fastest languages in the world. Chinese: one of the slowest.
Korean: significantly faster than English. More syllables per minute in both news broadcasts and casual conversation. |
Spanish is supposedly faster than English too, but don't know how it compares to Korean. This article is interesting: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fast-talkers
Interestingly, even though Spanish is a lot faster than Mandarin they both convey the same amount of information in the same amount of time:
Mandarin: slower, yet more information per syllable given
Spanish: faster, yet less information per syllable given
It must just balance out. I wonder where Korean fits in here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kpjf
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kepler wrote: |
This seems pretty pointless to me. What will they have to say about their time in Korea?
"I wasn't able to communicate with anyone for three months."
There is a member of this board who did a similar experiment for three months, but he had already attained an intermediate level in Korean before doing so.
They'd have a more meaningful experience if they chose one language and stuck with it for the whole year. |
Well, I think 3 months is fine for Spanish/Portuguese. Of course they're not going to be fluent by any means and the "problem" (for some not a problem per se) is that they are going to have superficial knowledge of the language. I have experienced this knowing people abroad who kind of learn the language like this: essentially if they had to do an exam they'd fail because their grammar knowledge is superficial and weak and if they had to read some literature they'd be lost. Personally, I'd prefer to advance at a lesser pace improving my grammar in order to not only in time be able to converse with natives but also be accurate.
I think for the Mandarin/Korean aspect you're right, it should be longer, but disagree about time. 6 months would have been ok, because as many people know the hours to learn languages differs depending on your mother tongue; in other words for English native speakers studies have shown that the easiest are Spanish, Danish, French etc and the hardest group is Japanese, Mandarin, Arabic, Korean etc so obviously they're not going to reach anywhere near the level in Mandarin/Korean as Spanish/Portuguese in the same time. Are they simply ignorant of this or just wanted to make it a neat 4 languages x 3 months?
Furthermore, they'll be unable to guess; for instance in the video the guy says something like obstacles (trying to say it in a Spanish way) instead of the correct word obstáculos. You can't away with that in languages such as Mandarin etc where I'd imagine such words have absolutely no similarity to English. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jan 04, 2014 5:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kpjf wrote: |
Interestingly, even though Spanish is a lot faster than Mandarin they both convey the same amount of information in the same amount of time:
Mandarin: slower, yet more information per syllable given
Spanish: faster, yet less information per syllable given
It must just balance out. I wonder where Korean fits in here. |
Because Korean has an inefficient grammatical system (조사,등) and honorifics (존댓말), it takes more syllables to convey an idea than English. If you don't believe me, look at a newspaper translated from English to Korean. Count the number of syllables in the Korean passage (which is even using 서술어) then count the number of syllables in the English passage. This is why Korean is spoken so quickly- much faster than English. (It's a mouthful and gets tiresome after a while.) That's why I love English (and why other peoples around the world do too). It is straightforward with no honorifics. You can use the same words whether talking to a child or Barak Obama. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| [ That's why I love English (and why other peoples around the world do too). It is straightforward with no honorifics. You can use the same words whether talking to a child or Barak Obama. |
So you would call a child "Mr. President"? 
Joking aside yes you can use the same words...but you'd probably be regarded as pretty rude if you talked the exact same way to the President as to a child. (not using his title or another honorific.)
And also English is full of honorifics. The fact they are not used on a daily basis is beside the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_honorifics
| Quote: |
In the English language an English honorific is a title prefixing a person's name, e.g.: Miss, Ms, Mr, Sir, Mrs, Dr, Lady or Lord. They are not necessarily titles or positions that can appear without the person's name, as in the President, the Earl.
There are many forms of honorifics that are used when addressing the members of the nobility, clergy, or royalty, mostly in countries that are monarchies. These include "Your Majesty" and "Your Highness", which are often used when speaking with royalty, or "My lord/lady" to address a peer other than a Duke, who is referred to as "Your Grace".
Some honorifics distinguish the sex of the person being referred to. Some titles of the nobility and of professional honorifics such as Doctor or General are not gender specific because they were traditionally male-only professions, and women have simply adopted the associated titles. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Sun Jan 05, 2014 5:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
And also English is full of honorifics. The fact they are not used on a daily basis is beside the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_honorifics
| Quote: |
In the English language an English honorific is a title prefixing a person's name, e.g.: Miss, Ms, Mr, Sir, Mrs, Dr, Lady or Lord. They are not necessarily titles or positions that can appear without the person's name, as in the President, the Earl.
There are many forms of honorifics that are used when addressing the members of the nobility, clergy, or royalty, mostly in countries that are monarchies. These include "Your Majesty" and "Your Highness", which are often used when speaking with royalty, or "My lord/lady" to address a peer other than a Duke, who is referred to as "Your Grace".
Some honorifics distinguish the sex of the person being referred to. Some titles of the nobility and of professional honorifics such as Doctor or General are not gender specific because they were traditionally male-only professions, and women have simply adopted the associated titles. |
|
Did you read the definition - In English...honorifics are titles.
Quite a bit different than honorifics in Korean...yes?
Not the same animal.
I see your point though...WT said no honorifics and you say English is full of them.
Well...somebody is full of something.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 3:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Cosmic Hum wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
And also English is full of honorifics. The fact they are not used on a daily basis is beside the point.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_honorifics
| Quote: |
In the English language an English honorific is a title prefixing a person's name, e.g.: Miss, Ms, Mr, Sir, Mrs, Dr, Lady or Lord. They are not necessarily titles or positions that can appear without the person's name, as in the President, the Earl.
There are many forms of honorifics that are used when addressing the members of the nobility, clergy, or royalty, mostly in countries that are monarchies. These include "Your Majesty" and "Your Highness", which are often used when speaking with royalty, or "My lord/lady" to address a peer other than a Duke, who is referred to as "Your Grace".
Some honorifics distinguish the sex of the person being referred to. Some titles of the nobility and of professional honorifics such as Doctor or General are not gender specific because they were traditionally male-only professions, and women have simply adopted the associated titles. |
|
Did you read the definition - In English...honorifics are titles.
Quite a bit different than honorifics in Korean...yes?
Not the same animal.
I see your point though...WT said no honorifics and you say English is full of them.
Well...somebody is full of something. |
Indeed. You are aware that honorifics in many cases are ALSO titles here? Try addressing a teacher(who you are not good friends with) without using the title "Seonsaeng-nim".
Again let's use wiki
| Quote: |
Honorific nouns
When talking about someone superior in status, a speaker or writer must indicate the subject's superiority by using special nouns or verb endings. Generally, someone is superior in status if he or she is an older relative, a stranger of roughly equal or greater age, an employer, a teacher, a customer, or the like
Seonsaeng-nim
Seonsaeng-nim (선생님, 先生님), commonly translated as "teacher", has much more formality and is used to show respect to the addressee.
Seonbae/Hubae
Seonbae (선배, 先輩) is used to address senior colleagues or mentor figures, e.g. students referring to or addressing more senior students in schools, junior athletes more senior ones in a sports club, or a mentor or more experienced or senior colleague in a business environment. As with English titles such as Doctor, Seonbae can be used either by itself or as a title. Hubae (후배, 後輩) is used to refer to juniors. However, the term is not normally addressed to them directly, and is mainly used in the third person. |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_honorifics |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 4:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| In any case, I do think TUM has a point that like Korean, English does use language differently with people of different social statures or different degrees of familiarity. It's not quite as hard-coded into the grammar, but it's there. To President Obama, one might say, "Please have a seat, sir," while to a child, one is likely to simply say, "Sit down." If a stranger in front of you is speaking on his cell phone in the movie theater, you might say, "Excuse me, could you please stop that?" while to your brother next to you you'd perhaps simply say, "Cut it out." It's more subtle and requires a firmer grasp of the language to perceive than the blatantly obvious and strictly codified particles and conjugations of Korean, but it's there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zyzyfer
Joined: 29 Jan 2003
Location: who, what, where, when, why, how?
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2014 6:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| In any case, I do think TUM has a point that like Korean, English does use language differently with people of different social statures or different degrees of familiarity. It's not quite as hard-coded into the grammar, but it's there. To President Obama, one might say, "Please have a seat, sir," while to a child, one is likely to simply say, "Sit down." If a stranger in front of you is speaking on his cell phone in the movie theater, you might say, "Excuse me, could you please stop that?" while to your brother next to you you'd perhaps simply say, "Cut it out." It's more subtle and requires a firmer grasp of the language to perceive than the blatantly obvious and strictly codified particles and conjugations of Korean, but it's there. |
Agreed. Find it odd when folks claim that there are not a range of levels of politeness in English. If they didn't exist, then the meanings of the various levels of politeness in Korean would be essentially impossible to express in English.
I would say the main difference is that it is rigidly enforced in Korean (and assume the case is the same in East Asian languages in general based on my meager experiences with them) due to culture, whereas English allots for a bit more wiggle room; i.e. you can get to know your boss and loosen up over time. Hierarchy versus familiarity, in a way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
World Traveler
Joined: 29 May 2009
|
| Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2014 1:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Indeed. You are aware that honorifics in many cases are ALSO titles here? Try addressing a teacher(who you are not good friends with) without using the title "Seonsaeng-nim". |
Korean kids do it all the time…to the Western foreign teachers. They just call them by their first name. When does a Korean kid ever call a foreign teacher Mr. and then their last name? Almost never (except in the case of Mr. Urban Myth because he is so great and wonderful). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Wed Jan 15, 2014 5:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| World Traveler wrote: |
| TheUrbanMyth wrote: |
| Indeed. You are aware that honorifics in many cases are ALSO titles here? Try addressing a teacher(who you are not good friends with) without using the title "Seonsaeng-nim". |
Korean kids do it all the time…to the Western foreign teachers. They just call them by their first name. When does a Korean kid ever call a foreign teacher Mr. and then their last name? Almost never (except in the case of Mr. Urban Myth because he is so great and wonderful). |
Finally a post that you have written that I can agree with. This is a ground-breaking moment. I must remember the date.
2014 January 07 at 9;56 AM.
Joking aside yes my students refer to me as Mr. "Myth"...because I taught them to. (Nor am I the only foreign teacher whom this happens to).
If they slip up and say "Urban Teacher" then the first couple of times I will look at the offender and say "Excuse me? What's my name?""
Generally that does the trick...and telling them that they'll have to write it out 20 times if they do it again serves wonders for the retention of the information.
If it's important to you...be a hardass about it. If it's not important, why complain about it or complain about/attempt to mock other teachers that have stricter rules for classroom deportment? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kepler
Joined: 24 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Here's a video of them speaking Spanish:
http://vimeo.com/80989256
speaking Portuguese:
http://vimeo.com/88766560
speaking Chinese:
http://vimeo.com/98520878
They're certainly doing better than I expected. Now they're in Seoul learning Korean.
"My goal for Korean in three months is still an ambitious one: be able to read simple writing and hold conversations about most everyday topics. This is a slightly lower bar than my Chinese, and because I believe I surpassed the bar for Chinese in being able to have a greater conversational range than I had previously imagined, I think it is possible to do the same with Korean."
http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2014/06/01/learn-korean/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| He's right to set a lower bar for Korean than for Chinese. For a native English speaker, conversational Chinese is easier than Korean by more or less any metric. Honestly I think even written Chinese is easier, and that's including the need to learn characters. With modern technology, looking up unknown characters is simply not particularly challenging, and writing in Chinese characters using modern computer input systems is a snap. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wanderkind
Joined: 01 Jan 2012
Location: Japan
|
| Posted: Sun Jul 13, 2014 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I read about these guys a little while back.
The blonde guy makes his living online with a website documenting his pursuit of living better, essentially a blog about adventures in life hacking and living life to the fullest. This is where his income is from so he'll be able to maintain that while travelling to some extent.
They said the 2 exceptions they'll make for speaking English is when it's required for his business (I guess he does consulting and stuff / merchandising) and to communicate with family. So blondie makes the money from the site and he pays his buddy to make the videos.
He (the main guy) has said they aim to become 'fluent', but he added he defines 'fluent' as conversational (whereas I would describe 'fluent' as mastery or near-native, but I guess that wouldn't drum up as many views). He's tight with that Irish 'fluent in 3 months' guy, who does much the same thing (I'm not exceptionally proficient in anything he's learned so I can't say for sure, but I get the impression he doesn't approach native-level, but rather achieves conversational ability).
I really think people underestimate how much we are hamstrung in our language learning by being English teachers. Being locked in L1 during the most cognitively functional hours of the day (and if you work with kids, often exhausted after) is such a massive limiting factor, it's not very surprising people lament Korean as being "incredibly difficult" to pick up. But by comparison those who are immersed and oriented toward acquisition full-time pick it up far more rapidly.
I definitely think these guys underestimate the difficulty of Mandarin and Korean, and they won't make as much progress as they expect, but I also think they may make more progress than you expect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
