Vokation

Adpositions and Possession

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Fri, 05 Mar 2010 05:03:00 +0000

Where certain language universals are concerned, English is a little odd. It is said that in a language with prepositions, the possessor follows the possessed in a genitive construction. English certainly has prepositions, and it also has this sort of genitive (i.e. "the home of Steve Allen"). However, English also has another sort of genitive construction where the participants occur in the reverse order (i.e. "Steve Allen's home"). Perhaps it's no coincidence that English also has a handful of postpositions then, as shown in the following examples:

two hours ago
five inches apart
20 feet away
a few miles back
from the 1950s on

That last example even has a preposition thrown in there too! (So is it a prepositional phrase embedded in a postpositional phrase or the other way around?) In any case, it's clear that English has both of the two logically possible types of genitive constructions. That said, these two constructions are not always completely interchangeable.

the leg of the table
the table's leg
the dog of my friend
my friend's dog

While all of the above phrases are grammatically acceptable, the first and last sound more natural than the middle two. The cleanest generalization seems to be that the possessor-first construction (shown in examples 7 and 9 above) is the more common form for animate possessors such as people and animals, and the possessor-last genitive is more for inanimate possessors (such as "the table" above). Given that an animal is animate, but its meat is not, consider how the following phrases differ in meaning.

a leg of lamb
a lamb's leg

This distinction borders on splitting hairs, which is why it presents so much trouble to ESOL learners. It's much easier for a native speaker of English to learn possessives in Spanish (with prepositions and a possessor-last genitive) or in Japanese (with postpositions and a possessor-first genitive) than it is for native speakers of these languages to learn to use both genitive constructions of English correctly. How lucky to grow up speaking such an odd language natively!

The Word Order of Questions in English

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 04:16:00 +0000

Word order can be a little tricky in English questions. You have to remember that for all questions, the first little verbal element of the sentence moves to the front. This could be a modal like 'can', some form of 'be', or just a verbal affix like '-ed'. For WH questions, the WH expression then moves to the very front. Let's look at some examples. The moving elements are underlined and marked with numbers.

Statement: Joe can₁ play basketball₂ really well.
Yes/No Question: Can₁ Joe (1) play basketball₂ really well?
WH Question: What₂ can₁ Joe (1) play (2) really well?

Statement: Joe's₁ a big fan of soccer₂.
Statement: Joe is₁ a big fan of soccer₂.
Yes/No Question: Is₁ Joe (1) a big fan of soccer₂?
WH Question: What₂ is₁ Joe (1) a big fan of (2)?
WH Question: What₂'s₁ Joe (1) a big fan of (2)?

Statement: Joe watches₁ sports₂ on TV every night.
Statement: Joe does₁ watch sports₂ on TV every night.
Yes/No Question: Does₁ Joe (1) watch sports₂ on TV every night?
WH Question: What₂ does₁ Joe (1) watch (2) on TV every night?

Statement: The Smiths watch₁ sports₂ on TV every night.
Statement: The Smiths do₁ watch sports₂ on TV every night.
Yes/No Question: Do₁ the Smiths (1) watch sports₂ on TV every night?
WH Question: What₂ do₁ the Smiths (1) watch (2) on TV every night?

Statement: Joe watched₁ sports₂ on TV last night.
Statement: Joe did₁ watch sports₂ on TV last night.
Yes/No Question: Did₁ Joe (1) watch sports₂ on TV last night?
WH Question: What₂ did₁ Joe (1) watch (2) on TV last night?

Statement: Joe watched₁ sports on TV last night₂.
Statement: Joe did₁ watch sports on TV last night₂.
Yes/No Question: Did₁ Joe (1) watch sports on TV last night₂?
WH Question: When₂ did₁ Joe (1) watch sports on TV (2)?

Statement: Joe watched₁ sports on TV₂ last night.
Statement: Joe did₁ watch sports on TV₂ last night.
Yes/No Question: Did₁ Joe (1) watch sports on TV₂ last night?
WH Question: How₂ did₁ Joe (1) watch sports (2) last night?

Statement: Joe₂ watched₁ sports on TV last night.
Statement: Joe₂ did₁ watch sports on TV last night.
Yes/No Question: Did₁ Joe₂ (1) watch sports on TV last night?
WH Question: Who₂ did₁ (2) (1) watch sports on TV last night?
WH Question: Who₂ (2) (1) watched₁ sports on TV last night?

Notice that sequences like 'did watch' are not normal even in questions unless you put stress on 'did'. Any questions?

Learning and Acquisition, Teaching and Guiding

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 00:36:00 +0000

The core of Krashen's Monitor Model is that subconscious "acquisition" is the primary means by which proficiency in a second language develops and that the key to this acquisition is "comprehensible input". The problem of determining exactly what constitutes comprehensible input for a given learner, then, is central to the task of second language teaching. Informally, input may be considered comprehensible if the learner seems to "get the gist" of what is being said in the target language. This description is inherently subjective, however, and how exactly this might be quantified in more precise terms is up in the air.

It seems to me that, over the course of a semester, several short diagnostic exams should be administered to students in second language classrooms. These exams should focus solely on comprehension and be timed such that very little deliberate analysis of the input can be performed. They should not affect student's grades, except possibly as extra credit. If such exams are very carefully constructed, then student's correct answers to content questions can be used as indicators of their acquisition of particular grammar points. Students' scores on these diagnostic exams would be used to determine when input containing more difficult grammar points should be introduced to the class. Of course, not all of input the students receive in the classroom will be fully comprehensible, but consistent use of this method could increase overall comprehensibility, especially in written materials.

While I am inclined to agree with Krashen's general approach, his assertion that "conscious learning makes only a small contribution to communicative ability" is a bit too strong for me. He insists that "learned" information can never be directly incorporated into the "acquired" system and is really only useful for monitoring L2 output. However, just as in first language acquisition, I believe that a learner's output feeds back into their "language acquisition device" as input. If this is true, then optimal use of the Monitor - or even heavy reliance on learned routines and patterns - should be expected to profoundly affect the acquisition process. In short, practice makes perfect.

For Krashen, the language teacher's role is not to present explicit grammatical rules or even to correct students' errors. These things are simply "not relevant to language acquisition". Instead, language teachers should be more concerned with simplifying their presentations (both written and spoken) so that everyone in class can more-or-less understand. As the natural acquisition process progresses, less and less simplification should be necessary. This method may sound a bit loose, but a structured syllabus can (and should) still be followed. Providing naturalistic input at just the right level of difficulty (both grammatical and lexical) is no mean task! I think the most important point is that organizing a syllabus and actually teaching a language class are two very different things. As teachers, we must not let the structures that we're trying to help learners acquire get in the way of that acquisition. We should be more guides than teachers in the traditional sense. As Krashen puts it, "We teach language best when we use it for what it was designed for: communication."

Conjugations of Common English Verbs

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 20:03:00 +0000

What follows is 150 or so of the most common verbs in English. I've listed the entire conjugation paradigm for each verb and organized them into groups based on the pattern they follow.

Regular '-ed' Verbs:
Bare	Present	Progressive	Past	Perfective
act	acts	acting	acted
add	adds	adding	added
agree	agrees	agreeing	agreed
allow	allows	allowing	allowed
answer	answers	answering	answers
ask	asks	asking	asked
believe	believes	believing	believed
borrow	borrows	borrowing	borrowed
brush	brushes	brushing	brushed
burn	burns	burning	burned*
call	calls	calling	called
care	cares	caring	cared
carry	carries	carrying	carried
change	changes	changing	changed
check	checks	checking	checked
cheer	cheers	cheering	cheered
chew	chews	chewing	chewed
chop	chops	chopping	chopped
clean	cleans	cleaning	cleaned
clear	clears	clearing	cleared
close	closes	closing	closed
count	counts	counting	counted
cross	crosses	crossing	crossed
decide	decides	deciding	decided
die	dies	dying	died
disagree	disagrees	disagreeing	disagreed
dress	dresses	dressing	dressed
drop	drops	dropping	dropped
explain	explains	explaining	explained
face	faces	facing	faced
figure	figures	figuring	figured
fill	fills	filling	filled
finish	finishes	finishing	finished
fix	fixes	fixing	fixed
follow	follows	following	followed
hand	hands	handing	handed
happen	happens	happening	happened
help	helps	helping	helped
joke	jokes	joking	joked
jump	jumps	jumping	jumped
lay	lays	laying	laid
learn	learns	learning	learned*
lie	lies	lying	lied
like	likes	liking	liked
listen	listens	listening	listened
live	lives	living	lived
look	looks	looking	looked
mix	mixes	mixing	mixed
move	moves	moving	moved
name	names	naming	named
need	needs	needing	needed
nod	nods	nodding	nodded
occur	occurs	occurring	occurred
open	opens	opening	opened
order	orders	ordering	ordered
own	owns	owning	owned
pass	passes	passing	passed
pay	pays	paying	paid
pick	picks	picking	picked
play	plays	playing	played
point	points	pointing	pointed
present	presents	presenting	presented
promise	promises	promising	promised
pull	pulls	pulling	pulled
remember	remembers	remembering	remembered
rule	rules	ruling	ruled
save	saves	saving	saved
seem	seems	seeming	seemed
settle	settles	settling	settled
slow	slows	slowing	slowed
spell	spells	spelling	spelled*
start	starts	starting	started
stay	stays	staying	stayed
stop	stops	stopping	stopped
study	studies	studying	studied
suggest	suggests	suggesting	suggested
talk	talks	talking	talked
tie	ties	tying	tied
tire	tires	tiring	tired
touch	touches	touching	touched
travel	travels	traveling*	traveled*
try	tries	trying	tried
turn	turns	turning	turned
use	uses	using	used
wait	waits	waiting	waited
walk	walks	walking	walked
want	want	wanting	wanted
wash	washes	washing	washed
watch	watches	watching	watched
wipe	wipes	wiping	wiped
work	works	working	worked
worry	worries	worrying	worried
Variations:
Bare	Present	Progressive	Past	Perfective
have	has	having	had
hear	hears	hearing	heard
make	makes	making	made
say	says	saying	said
sell	sells	selling	sold
tell	tells	telling	told
Verbs Taking a Short Vowel and '-t':
Bare	Present	Progressive	Past	Perfective
cost	costs	costing	cost
cut	cuts	cutting	cut
feel	feels	feeling	felt
hit	hits	hitting	hit
keep	keeps	keeping	kept
lead	leads	leading	led
leave	leaves	leaving	left
let	lets	letting	let
light	lights	lighting	lit*
lose	loses	losing	lost
mean	means	meaning	meant
meet	meets	meeting	met
put	puts	putting	put
read	reads	reading	read
send	sends	sending	sent
set	sets	setting	set
shut	shuts	shutting	shut
sleep	sleeps	sleeping	slept
spend	spends	spending	spent
Variations:
Bare	Present	Progressive	Past	Perfective
bring	brings	bringing	brought
buy	buys	buying	bought
catch	catches	catching	caught
think	thinks	thinking	thought
Two-Way Vowel Change:
Bare	Present	Progressive	Past	Perfective
find	finds	finding	found
hang	hangs	hanging	hung
hold	holds	holding	held
sit	sits	sitting	sat
stick	sticks	sticking	stuck
win	wins	winning	won
Variations:
Bare	Present	Progressive	Past	Perfective
stand	stands	standing	stood
understand	understands	understanding	understood
Three-Way Vowel Change:
Bare	Present	Progressive	Past	Perfective
become	becomes	becoming	became	become
begin	begins	beginning	began	begun
do	does	doing	did	done
come	comes	coming	came	come
ring	rings	ringing	rang	rung
run	runs	running	ran	run
Vowel Change with Past Form plus '-en':
Bare	Present	Progressive	Past	Perfective
break	breaks	breaking	broke	broken
forget	forgets	forgetting	forgot	forgotten
get	gets	getting	got	gotten*
lie	lies	lying	lay	lain
speak	speaks	speaking	spoke	spoken
tear	tears	tearing	tore	torn
wake	wakes	waking	woke	woken
wear	wears	wearing	wore	worn
Vowel Change with Bare Form plus '-en':
Bare	Present	Progressive	Past	Perfective
blow	blows	blowing	blew	blown
draw	draws	drawing	drew	drawn
eat	eats	eating	ate	eaten
fall	falls	falling	fell	fallen
give	gives	giving	gave	given
grow	grows	growing	grew	grown
know	knows	knowing	knew	known
see	sees	seeing	saw	seen
take	takes	taking	took	taken
throw	throws	throwing	threw	thrown
Variations:
Bare	Present	Progressive	Past	Perfective
drive	drives	driving	drove	driven
fly	flies	flying	flew	flown
go	goes	going	went	gone
show	shows	showing	showed	shown
write	writes	writing	wrote	written

* Several forms listed here vary by region. In all cases, I've given the most standard forms for American English.

Competence vs. Performance in Linguistic Research

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Sat, 30 Jan 2010 18:14:00 +0000

In language, as with any other complex skill, performance does not always relect internal knowledge, or competence. Just as a professional basketball player who knows very well how to shoot the ball from the free-throw line will occasionally miss the shot, perfectly competent speakers of English routinely fumble with their words or suddenly find themselves unable to retrieve a word they've used thousands of times. This sort of flub is purely a performance error and says nothing about the speaker's competence. The difficulty inherent in linguistic research is that all we can directly measure is performance. A given speaker's competence is always buried in the "black box" of the human mind and can only be estimated through the combined efforts of countless researchers and theoreticians.

For an example of how sharply linguistic performance can differ from competence, try to imagine your first date. Or better yet, try to imagine mustering up the courage to ask your high school crush to the prom. Of course you know how to talk perfectly well, but the words just don't come out right. Your heart is racing, your hands are sweating, and your throat is bone dry. All of these factors conspire to make you . . . less than eloquent. Or imagine you're in a meeting with your boss trying to figure out the best way to ask for a raise. Or giving a presentation to an auditorium full of your colleagues and superiors. Whenever your audience has the power to affect your life for better or worse, your anxiety level may rise and your performance decline.

This same phenomenon occurs (though perhaps to a much lesser extent) with many participants in linguistic experiments. In an experimental setting, when confronted by a credentialed researcher hanging on their every word (and hoping against hope for some "interesting" data), it's perfectly reasonable that some people will freeze up a bit. Apart from being overly concerned with grammatical correctness, participants may also attempt to give the researcher what they want to hear, making guesses about what the focus of the research is all the while. This makes linguistic research particularly tricky, even among the social sciences. But after all, if it were easy to gain a coherent picture of a given speaker's linguistic competence, research would not be necessary, and many of us would be out of a job.

The Danger (and the Value) of Linguistic Profiling

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Fri, 29 Jan 2010 17:47:00 +0000

While it's true that no dialect is inherently superior to another, the level of prestige attached to a particular dialect by society can vary wildly for no obvious reason. Whether we realize it or not, this external value is the only reason to prefer one dialect over another. It is a glaring and malignant mistake to assume that a speaker of a given dialect is necessarily less intelligent or less friendly than a speaker of another. If a person speaks in roughly the same manner as their parents, their siblings, and their friends, this is perfectly natural and says much more about the individual's geographic location than their mental capacity or personality.

Linguistically, it makes little difference whether you pronounce the 'z' in the Spanish word paz like the 'ss' in the English pass or the 'th' in the English path. The only objective measures for a difference in pronunciation is the markedness of the relevant speech sounds and their potential for distinguishing would-be homophones. If the former criterion is used, the Latin American 'ss' pronunciation wins out because of its ease of pronunciation. If the latter, the Castilian 'th' is superior because it makes possible a distinction between words like casa and caza. A similar situation exists in American English with the vowel sound occurring in words like paw and caught. In the Eastern US, people tend to distinguish these words from words like Pa and cot, but in the West, such words are homophonous. Speakers of most eastern dialects have the advantage of being able to clearly distinguish such words by pronunciation alone, but at the cost of one more distinction to make in an already crowded vowel system. As you can see, when truly objective measures are used to compare two dialects, no clear victor emerges.

Having pointed out that dialectical beauty is in the ears of the beholder, I must also stress that what dialect a person speaks is, to some degree, a choice. I grew up in a small town in east Texas. Both of my parents have a fairly noticeable Texan accent, and I was exposed to a lot of regional vocabulary items such as skillet for frying pan, commode for toilet, and coke for soda. I was easily identifiable as a Texan until somewhere around the onset of adolescence, when I apparently became more self-conscious. I didn't want to sound like a Texan, just an American. Since then, I've consciously and deliberately made several subtle adjustments to my pronunciation and vocabulary so that people wouldn't mistakenly perceive me as a "hick" or a "redneck" as soon as I opened my mouth. While I can't assume that people who haven't chosen to make similar adjustments are less intelligent than myself, I can make certain guesses about their social identity. It is for this reason alone that not all linguistic profiling is entirely unfounded.

The Words Every ESOL Learner Should Know

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Sun, 17 Jan 2010 06:15:00 +0000

Based on several sources I've listed in previous posts on English word frequency, here is my short list of the words that every student of English for speakers of other languages should learn first.

Numbers:

(n)one
two
three
four
five
six
seven
eight
nine
ten

Pronouns:

me / myself / I
my / mine
us / ourselves / we
our(s)
you(rself) / yourselves
your(s)
him(self) / he
his
her(self) / she
her(s)
it(self)
its
them(selves) / they
their(s)

Nouns:

air
answer
apple
arm
back
ball
bank
bear
bed
bird
body / bodies
book
box(es)
boy
bread
brother
building
case
cause
child(ren)
church(es)
city / cities
cold
color
company / companies
corn
country / countries
course
cover
cut
day
door
dress(es)
drink
ear
earth
east
egg
end
eye
face
fact
fall
family / families
father
field
fire
floor
flower
fly / flies
food
foot / feet
form
friend
front
garden
girl
god
gold
ground
group
guy
hair
half / halves
hand
head
heart
hill
home
horse
house
hundred
kind
king
land
left
letter
life / lives
light
line
man / men
mark
matter
mile
milk
mind
money
month
morning
mother
mountain
name
nation
night
north
number
order
paper
part
person / people
picture
piece
place
plan
plant
problem
program
rain
reason
rest
right
river
road
rock
roll
room
school
sea
second
ship
side
silver
sister
soldier
sound
south
spring
state
step
stone
story
street
summer
sun
system
table
thing
thousand
time
tire
top
town
train
tree
wall
war
water
way
week
west
wind
window
winter
woman
wood
word
world
year

Other Nominals:

a(n)
all
any
both
each
(n)either
every
few
many
more
most
Mr. / Ms. / Mrs. / Miss
much
(an)other
same
several
some
somebody / nobody / anybody / everybody
someone / no one / anyone / everyone
something / nothing / anything / everything
such
that / those
the
this / these
what
which
who(m)

Verbs:

answer
ask
be / am / are / is / was / were / been
become / became
begin / began / begun
believe
blow / blew / blown
bring / brought
build / built
burn
buy / bought
call
care
carry / carries / carried
cause
change
clear
close
come / came
consider
cover
cross(es)
cut
develop
die
do(es) / did / done
draw / drew / drawn
dress(es)
drink / drank / drunk
drive / drove / driven
drop
eat / ate / eaten
fall / fell / fallen
feel / felt
fill
find / found
fly / flew / flown
follow
force
form
get / got(ten)
give / gave / given
go(es) / went / gone
govern
grow / grew / grown
have / has / had
hear / heard
help
hold / held
hope
increase
interest
keep / kept
kill
know / knew / known
land
laugh
lay / laid
lead / led
learn
leave / left
let
like
live
look
lose / lost
love
make / made
mark
matter
mean / meant
measure
meet / met
mind
miss(es)
move
need
open
order
own
pass(es)
pay
plan / planned
plant
play
point
present
put
rain
reach(es)
read
remember
ride / rode / ridden
roll
run / ran
save
say(s) / said
see / saw / seen
seem
send / sent
serve
set
show / shown
sing / sang / sung
sit / sat
sleep / slept
speak / spoke(n)
stand / stood
start
state
stay
step
stop
take / took / taken
talk
tell / told
thank
think / thought
tire
train
try / tried
turn
use
visit
wait
walk
want
watch(es)
wish(es)
work
write / wrote / written

Other Verbals:

can
could
may
might
must
should
will
would

Interjections:

(good)bye
hello / hi
hey
huh
no
oh
please
uh / um
well
yes / yeah

Adjectives:

afraid
alone
bad(ly) / worse / worst
beautiful(ly)
big / bigger / biggest
black / blacker / blackest
blue / bluer / bluest
clear(ly) / clearer / clearest
cold / colder / coldest
dark / darker / darkest
dead
dear
deep(ly) / deeper / deepest
early / earlier / earliest
even(ly)
fair(ly)
far / farther / farthest
fast / faster / fastest
final(ly)
fine(ly) / finer / finest
first(ly)
fresh / fresher / freshest
full(y) / fuller / fullest
general(ly)
glad(ly) / gladder / gladdest
good / well / better / best
great(ly) / greater / greatest
green / greener / greenest
happy / happily / happier / happiest
hard(ly) / harder / hardest
heavy / heavily / heavier / heaviest
high(ly) / higher / highest
hot(ly) / hotter / hottest
kind / kinder / kindest
large(ly) / larger / largest
last
late(ly) / later / latest
little / littler / littlest
long / longer / longest
low / lower / lowest
near(ly) / nearer / nearest
new(ly) / newer / newest
next
normal(ly)
OK
old / older / oldest
plain(ly) / plainer / plainest
poor(ly) / poorer / poorest
possible / possibly
pretty / prettier / prettiest
probable / probably
public(ly)
quick(ly) / quicker / quickest
ready / readily
real(ly)
red / redder / reddest
rich(ly) / richer / richest
right(ly)
round / rounder / roundest
second(ly)
short(ly) / shorter / shortest
small / smaller / smallest
soft(ly) / softer / softest
sorry / sorrier / sorriest
strong(ly) / stronger / strongest
sure(ly) / surer / surest
sweet(ly) / sweeter / sweetest
true / truly / truer / truest
usual(ly)
warm(ly) / warmer / warmest
white / whiter / whitest
whole / wholly
wide(ly) / wider / widest
young / younger / youngest

Prepositions:

about
above
across
after
again
against
along
around
at
away
before
behind
between
by
down
during
for
from
in
into
of
off
on
out
over(ly)
through
to
under
until / till
up
with
without

Other Modifiers:

almost
also
always
and
as
because
but
enough
even
(n)ever
here
how
however
if
just
like
maybe
more
most(ly)
not
now
often
once
only
(n)or
own
since
so
sometime(s)
somewhere / nowhere / anywhere / everywhere
soon
still
than
then
there
though
today
together
too
very
when
where
while
why
yet

If you have more words to add to this list or you see some words you feel should not be on the list, please post your suggestions as a comment.

Introducing: Phonicizer!

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:06:00 +0000

Many different strategies may be employed when designing programs for the public good, but the most obvious involves simple charity. However, perhaps even more effective and certainly more efficient is education. Language education in particular can have very far-reaching benefits as it facilitates other forms of learning. For example, imagine taking a college-level biology course without a good technical vocabulary or the ability to read fluently.

When the English language is an educational target, the most obvious difficulty that must be overcome by young children and non-native speakers alike is its complicated and unreliable spelling system. Certainly, proper spelling is difficult for adult native speakers, but the problem is most glaring when one examines the time required for a learner to attain competency in written English. In fact, an appalling number of Americans never acquire this basic competency. According to a 1993 study conducted by the U.S. Department of Education, 21 to 23 percent of the adult population is functionally illiterate.

Although the spelling system is full of inconsistencies, the vast majority of English words really can be "sounded out" using regular rules of phonics. Literacy problems can often be traced back to the perception of written English as a jumble of words, each with its own particular spelling that doesn't necessarily have much to do with its pronunciation. If spelling and pronunciation are viewed as two distinct aspects of a word that must be memorized separately, then the task of learning to read or learning English as a second language is greatly augmented. In order to deal with unfamiliar words encountered in writing, learners must perceive a connection between sound and spelling.

Over the past few years, I have perfected a system for marking English text in such a way that the appropriate pronunciation is indicated simply and clearly, without the use of diacritics or other such devices that would alter the overall shape of a given word.

Guidelines for Marking Text:

Letters making their normal, default sound should be unmarked. To keep the system from getting overly complex, differences in consonant voicing (such as "sss" vs. "zzz") and certain minor vowel differences should be ignored.
All silent letters should be faded out (usually to a mid-gray). Whenever a letter may or may not be pronounced (such as the "t" in "match" or the second "l" in "bell"), it should be marked as silent. This reduces the number of letters a learner will have to a pay attention to when reading a marked text.
When a syllable takes some level of stress in a given word, it's main vowel(s) should be boldfaced. A completely stressless syllable (such as the "a" in "about" or the "er" in "water") should never appear in boldface.
Letter combinations with a special pronunciation (such as "sh" and "ee") should take a solid underline.
Letters that don't make their normal sound but instead use some secondary pronunciation (such as the "soft C" or "long A") should take a dotted underline. Combinations with a secondary pronunciation should include this dotted underline below their solid underline.
Any letter or combination requiring some unusual pronunciation not listed in the key (such as the "o" in "one") should be italicized. Abbreviations and initialisms should be italicized and boldfaced.
Wherever possible, marking should facilitate the discovery of consistent patterns. Where redundancy occurs in the spelling and it is unclear which letter(s) should be marked as silent, the first such letter should generally carry the pronunciation.

To see this system in action, visit L7 Phonicizer and enter a sentence such as "That beautiful bird has only one egg." A set of the most common English words has already been entered into a list specifying how these words should be marked, so this sentence should appear fully marked for pronunciation after you hit the "Convert Text" button. However, any word not in this list will have to be coded overtly, as shown below.

How to Code Pronunciation:

Letter combination: enclosed in curly braces ({}), underlined
Secondary pronunciation: followed by a carat (^), dotted underline
Other pronunciation: followed by two carats (^^), italicized
Syllabic with stress: followed by a tick (`), boldfaced
Silent: followed by a tilde (~), faded

If such markings were added to early educational texts across the U.S., the benefit to our society as a whole would be enormous. Because the South has such a high proportion of native Spanish speakers studying English as a second language, this region should see a particularly substantial increase in literacy. Moreover, if these ESOL learners are led to discover the systematic correspondence between written and spoken English, their acquisition of the spoken language will be greatly accelerated. And nothing opens the doors of opportunity faster than the ability to communicate clearly, both in speech and in writing.

Teaching Passives with QWERTY

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:53:00 +0000

Here's another pair of paragraphs that can be used to illustrate a particular structure of English grammar: the passive voice. The level is a little advanced, but textbooks do tend to put off passives for a while, so that might be fine. As with my post on Bigfoot, I've marked the subject and verb of each sentence, but this time I've also enclosed embedded clauses in curly braces so that they can be marked as well.

The first paragraph below uses no passive constructions, and the second keeps approximately the same content but introduces several passives. Just by perusing the sentential subjects of these paragraphs (appearing in bold), it's easy to see that the passive voice can be used to shift attention from one part of the sentence to another.

Q-W-E-R-T-Y... Why does nearly every keyboard use this particular arrangement of keys? People could certainly memorize an alphabetical layout more easily. You might imagine {that skilled engineers designed the QWERTY layout to help people type faster}, but it's actually quite inefficient. In addition to common letters like A and S, the home row also includes some very infrequent letters such as J and K. This row even includes the semicolon, {which people hardly ever use}! QWERTY's creator actually based the keyboard we know today on an alphabetical layout but then made several adjustments to slow down typists {so that their machines wouldn't jam}. Today, this wouldn't be a problem, but we still keep teaching and using this silly QWERTY arrangement anyway.

Q-W-E-R-T-Y... Why is this particular arrangement of keys used by nearly every keyboard? An alphabetical layout could certainly be memorized more easily. You might imagine {that the QWERTY layout was designed to help people type faster}, but it's actually quite inefficient. In addition to common letters like A and S, some very infrequent letters such as J and K are also included in the home row. Even the semicolon is included, and it's hardly ever used! The QWERTY keyboard we know today was actually based on an alphabetical layout, but then several adjustments were made to slow down typists {so that their machines wouldn't jam}. Today, this wouldn't be a problem, but this silly QWERTY arrangement keeps being taught and used anyway.

"does nearly every keyboard use" /
"is this particular arrangement of keys used"
"People could certainly memorize" /
"An alphabetical layout could certainly be memorized"
"skilled engineers designed" /
"the QWERTY layout was designed"
"the home row also includes" /
"some very infrequent letters such as J and K are also included"
"people hardly ever use" /
"it's hardly ever used"
"QWERTY's creator actually based" /
"The QWERTY keyboard we know today was actually based"
"QWERTY's creator ... then made" /
"several adjustments were made"
"we still keep teaching and using" /
"this silly QWERTY arrangement keeps being taught and used"

Teaching Embedded Clauses with Bigfoot

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 04:09:00 +0000

Here's an assignment I recently completed for a course in English pedagogy. These two paragraphs are basically the same, but the second includes several embedded sentences which make use of the complementizer "that". Both of the paragraphs have their subjects and verbs (well, verb strings really) marked, and the embedded clauses are marked in the list that follows.

Humans have quite a lot in common with chimpanzees, but we may have an even closer relative living in our forests. Many thousands of people have seen this creature personally. Are they all mistaken? Could a giant, hairy ape-like being really go undetected for so long? Maybe our government is keeping these creatures hidden. The Bigfoot situation could become a national embarrassment since the native population of this country was treated similarly. Still, most Americans refuse to believe in such a creature.

Everyone knows that humans have quite a lot in common with chimpanzees, but we may have an even closer relative living in our forests. Many thousands of people say that they have seen this creature personally. Is it just that they're all mistaken? It seems unlikely that a giant, hairy ape-like being could go undetected for so long. It may be that our government is keeping these creatures hidden. Perhaps they're worried that the Bigfoot situation could become a national embarrassment. It might remind people that the native population of this country was treated similarly. Still, most Americans refuse to accept the possibility that such a creature exists.

[...knows] that humans have a lot in common with chimpanzees
[...say] that they have seen this creature personally
[...Is it just] that they're all mistaken
[...unlikely] that a giant, hairy ape-like creature could go undetected for so long
[...It may be] that our government is keeping these creatures hidden
[...worried] that the Bigfoot situation could become a national embarrassment
[...remind people] that the native population of this country was treated similarly
[...possibility] that such a creature exists

Jones Romanization: Mandarin Chinese

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 05:31:00 +0000

This may seem strange since I don't speak much Chinese, I have no Chinese ancestry, and I've never been to China, but I've been nursing an obsession with Mandarin phonology for several years now, since before I even got into linguistics. It's not like I have a lot of time to kill. Aside from my family life, I'm currently working on my Master's thesis, managing a language acquisition research lab, and preparing to teach my first ESOL course next semester. But I still can't help working on stuff like this, if only to blow off some steam, and I figure it's about time I show my work.

Before I can get on with the Romanization scheme, you'll need a quick overview of Mandarin phonology. To start with, here is a table of all the speech sounds that occur in Standard Mandarin (more or less). Note that /c/ is not purely "palatal" but also involves friction at the gumline. Where two palatal sounds are listed in the same cell below, the second is rounded.

	labial	alveolar	retroflex	palatal	velar	glottal
stops	p	t			k
nasals	m	n			N
fricatives	f	s	S	c	H	h
voiced fricative			Z
lateral		l
glides	w		r	y, Y
close vowels	u		R	i, ü	ï
close lax vowels	U			I
mid vowels	o			e	ë
mid lax vowels	O			E, Ö	Ë
open vowels				a	A

That's a fairly thorough representation of the sounds that come out when someone speaks Mandarin Chinese, but that's not what has to be memorized. Here's a much smaller table of the phonemes of Mandarin in my analysis. Of course, this isn't the only way to analyze the sound system, but it seems pretty concise and explanatory to me.

	lips	gums	back
weak stops	b	d	g
strong stops	p	t	k
nasals	m	n	N
fricatives	f	s	h
lateral		l
glides	w	r	y
close vowel			*
mid vowel			@
open vowel			a

The symbols in the preceding table can be strung together to form all the syllables of the language. The pronunciation of these syllables (represented as sequences of sounds from the first table) can be predicted from this phonemic form, which is hypothesized to exist in the mind of any given speaker of Mandarin.

In fact, this table could be reduced even further. For example, /m/ only occurs at the start of a syllable, and /N/ occurs only at the end, so they might be be represented as a single phoneme, say /M/, if syllable divisions are included in the underlying phonemic representation. Also, the aspiration that accompanies what I've called "strong stops" might really be a combination of a stop plus /h/. Rather than keep reducing until I reach a truly minimal inventory of phonemes, I've settled on these 19 for the sake of convenience.

Just to give a quick picture of my Romanization scheme and show how it compares the Hanyu Pinyin, I've split the syllables into "onsets" and "rhymes". This is pretty standard, but it's not perfect. For most of the rhymes, two forms have to be listed: the first stands alone as a complete syllable, and the second combines with an onset.

Onset Form	Pronunciation	Hanyu	Jones
/b/	[p]	b
/d/	[t]	d
/ds/	[ts]	z	ds
/dr/	[tS]	zh	dr
/g/	[k]	g
/gy/	[tc]	j	dy
/p/	[ph]	p
/t/	[th]	t
/ts/	[tsh]	c	ts
/tr/	[tSh]	ch	tr
/k/	[kh]	k
/ky/	[tch]	q	ty
/m/	[m]	m
/n/	[n]	n
/f/	[f]	f
/s/	[s]	s
/sr/	[S]	sh	sr
/h/	[H]	h
/hy/	[c]	x	sy
/r/	[Z]	r
/l/	[l]	l

Rhyme Form	Pronunciation	Hanyu	Jones
/w*/	[wu]	wu, ~u
/w@/	[wO]	wo, ~uo, ~o	wo, ~uo
/w@n/	[wËn]	wen, ~un	won, ~un
/w@N/	[wËN, UN]	weng, ~ong	wong, ~ung
/w@y/	[wey]	wei, ~ui	wei, ~uei
/wa/	[wa]	wa, ~ua
/wan/	[wan]	wan, ~uan
/waN/	[wAN]	wang, ~uang
/way/	[way]	wai, ~uai
/y*/	[yi]	yi, ~i
/y@/	[yE]	ye, ~ie
/y@n/	[yin]	yin, ~in
/y@N/	[yIN]	ying, ~ing
/y@w/	[yëw]	you, ~iu	you, ~iou
/ya/	[ya]	ya, ~ia
/yan/	[yEn]	yan, ~ian
/yaN/	[yAN]	yang, ~iang
/yaw/	[yAw]	yao, ~iao	yau, ~iau
/yw*/	[Yü]	yu, ~ü	yu, ~iu
/yw@/	[YÖ]	yue, ~üe	yue, ~iue
/yw@n/	[Yün]	yun, ~ün	yun, ~iun
/yw@N/	[YUN]	yong, ~iong	yung, ~iung
/ywan/	[YEn]	yuan, ~üan	yuan, ~iuan
/*/	[ï, R]	i	e
/@/	[ë]	e	o
/@n/	[Ën]	en	on
/@N/	[ëN]	eng	ong
/@w/	[ëw]	ou
/@y/	[ey]	ei
/a/	[a]	a
/an/	[an]	an
/aN/	[AN]	ang
/aw/	[Aw]	ao	au
/ay/	[ay]	ai
/ar/	[Ar]	er	ar

You may also have noticed that /y/ is listed at the end of some onsets and at the beginning of some rhymes. This really represents a single sound in the syllable. Rather than spell this sound twice, just remember that in the Jones system the sequence "yi" is actually rendered "y" in the middle of a syllable. Hanyu Pinyin is a little weird in this respect. It keeps the "i" after "j", "q", and "x", but it renders "ü" as "u" in this position. (This means that the syllable spelled "quan" in Hanyu is actually pronounced much closer to the Jones spelling "tyuan", something like "chew-ann" or "chwenn".)

Another point of contention between the two systems is the treatment of the schwa-like phonemes that I've designated /*/ and /@/ when they occur alone in a rhyme. Hanyu Pinyin spells these sounds as "i" and "e", but the Jones system uses "e" and "o" respectively. The pronunciation of these vowels, especially /*/, is heavily dependent on the surrounding consonants, so /s*/ sounds like [sï], /r*/ sounds like [rR], /y*/ sounds like [yi], and so on. Since Hanyu Pinyin doesn't really make use of "o" as a rhyme, it's free to shorten existing rhymes down in certain syllables. Following any labial consonant, /w@/ is rendered simply "o".

There's one more syllable that doesn't really fit with the rest of Mandarin phonology. It's spelled "lo" in Hanyu, and its pronunciation is something like [lo]. This is pretty rare, and I think it may be an allomorph of /l@w/. It seems to only occur in the stressless "neutral" tone. I'd really like to spell this syllable as "lou" in the Jones system, but until I'm sure these sounds really are in complementary distribution, I'll go with "loh". (If you have any information to add on this, please leave a comment!)

The following very large table lists all the basic syllables of Mandarin first in the Zhuyin system of representing Chinese sounds (AKA "Bopomofo"), then in a few of the most prominent Romanization schemes to date, and finally in my own original scheme, which I of course feel is the best.

Zhuyin	Wade-Giles	Yale	Hanyu	Jones
ㄅㄚ	pa	ba	ba	ba
ㄅㄛ	po	bwo	bo	buo
ㄅㄞ	pai	bai	bai	bai
ㄅㄟ	pei	bei	bei	bei
ㄅㄠ	pao	bau	bao	bau
ㄅㄢ	pan	ban	ban	ban
ㄅㄣ	pen	ben	ben	bon
ㄅㄤ	pang	bang	bang	bang
ㄅㄥ	peng	beng	beng	bong
ㄅㄧ	pi	bi	bi	bi
ㄅㄧㄝ	pieh	bye	bie	bie
ㄅㄧㄠ	piao	byau	biao	biau
ㄅㄧㄢ	pien	byan	bian	bian
ㄅㄧㄣ	pin	bin	bin	bin
ㄅㄧㄥ	ping	bing	bing	bing
ㄅㄨ	pu	bu	bu	bu
ㄆㄚ	p`a	pa	pa	pa
ㄆㄛ	p`o	pwo	po	puo
ㄆㄞ	p`ai	pai	pai	pai
ㄆㄟ	p`ei	pei	pei	pei
ㄆㄠ	p`ao	pau	pao	pau
ㄆㄡ	p`ou	pou	pou	pou
ㄆㄢ	p`an	pan	pan	pan
ㄆㄣ	p`en	pen	pen	pon
ㄆㄤ	p`ang	pang	pang	pang
ㄆㄥ	p`eng	peng	peng	pong
ㄆㄧ	p`i	pi	pi	pi
ㄆㄧㄝ	p`ieh	pye	pie	pie
ㄆㄧㄠ	p`iao	pyau	piao	piau
ㄆㄧㄢ	p`ien	pyan	pian	pian
ㄆㄧㄣ	p`in	pin	pin	pin
ㄆㄧㄥ	p`ing	ping	ping	ping
ㄆㄨ	p`u	pu	pu	pu
ㄇㄚ	ma	ma	ma	ma
ㄇㄛ	mo	mwo	mo	muo
ㄇㄜ	me	me	me	mo
ㄇㄞ	mai	mai	mai	mai
ㄇㄟ	mei	mei	mei	mei
ㄇㄠ	mao	mau	mao	mau
ㄇㄡ	mou	mou	mou	mou
ㄇㄢ	man	man	man	man
ㄇㄣ	men	men	men	mon
ㄇㄤ	mang	mang	mang	mang
ㄇㄥ	meng	meng	meng	mong
ㄇㄧ	mi	mi	mi	mi
ㄇㄧㄝ	mieh	mye	mie	mie
ㄇㄧㄠ	miao	myau	miao	miau
ㄇㄧㄡ	miu	myou	miu	miou
ㄇㄧㄢ	mien	myan	mian	mian
ㄇㄧㄣ	min	min	min	min
ㄇㄧㄥ	ming	ming	ming	ming
ㄇㄨ	mu	mu	mu	mu
ㄈㄚ	fa	fa	fa	fa
ㄈㄛ	fo	fwo	fo	fuo
ㄈㄟ	fei	fei	fei	fei
ㄈㄡ	fou	fou	fou	fou
ㄈㄢ	fan	fan	fan	fan
ㄈㄣ	fen	fen	fen	fon
ㄈㄤ	fang	fang	fang	fang
ㄈㄥ	feng	feng	feng	fong
ㄈㄨ	fu	fu	fu	fu
ㄉㄚ	ta	da	da	da
ㄉㄜ	te	de	de	do
ㄉㄞ	tai	dai	dai	dai
ㄉㄟ	tei	dei	dei	dei
ㄉㄠ	tao	dau	dao	dau
ㄉㄡ	tou	dou	dou	dou
ㄉㄢ	tan	dan	dan	dan
ㄉㄣ	ten	den	den	don
ㄉㄤ	tang	dang	dang	dang
ㄉㄥ	teng	deng	deng	dong
ㄉㄧ	ti	di	di	di
ㄉㄧㄝ	tieh	dye	die	die
ㄉㄧㄠ	tiao	dyau	diao	diau
ㄉㄧㄡ	tiu	dyou	diu	diou
ㄉㄧㄢ	tien	dyan	dian	dian
ㄉㄧㄤ	tiang	dyang	diang	diang
ㄉㄧㄥ	ting	ding	ding	ding
ㄉㄨ	tu	du	du	du
ㄉㄨㄛ	to	dwo	duo	duo
ㄉㄨㄟ	tui	dwei	dui	duei
ㄉㄨㄢ	tuan	dwan	duan	duan
ㄉㄨㄣ	tun	dwen	dun	dun
ㄉㄨㄥ	tung	dung	dong	dung
ㄊㄚ	t`a	ta	ta	ta
ㄊㄜ	t`e	te	te	to
ㄊㄞ	t`ai	tai	tai	tai
ㄊㄠ	t`ao	tau	tao	tau
ㄊㄡ	t`ou	tou	tou	tou
ㄊㄢ	t`an	tan	tan	tan
ㄊㄤ	t`ang	tang	tang	tang
ㄊㄥ	t`eng	teng	teng	tong
ㄊㄧ	t`i	ti	ti	ti
ㄊㄧㄝ	t`ieh	tye	tie	tie
ㄊㄧㄠ	t`iao	tyau	tiao	tiau
ㄊㄧㄢ	t`ien	tyan	tian	tian
ㄊㄧㄥ	t`ing	ting	ting	ting
ㄊㄨ	t`u	tu	tu	tu
ㄊㄨㄛ	t`o	two	tuo	tuo
ㄊㄨㄟ	t`ui	twei	tui	tuei
ㄊㄨㄢ	t`uan	twan	tuan	tuan
ㄊㄨㄣ	t`un	twen	tun	tun
ㄊㄨㄥ	t`ung	tung	tong	tung
ㄋㄚ	na	na	na	na
ㄋㄜ	ne	ne	ne	no
ㄋㄞ	nai	nai	nai	nai
ㄋㄟ	nei	nei	nei	nei
ㄋㄠ	nao	nau	nao	nau
ㄋㄡ	nou	nou	nou	nou
ㄋㄢ	nan	nan	nan	nan
ㄋㄣ	nen	nen	nen	non
ㄋㄤ	nang	nang	nang	nang
ㄋㄥ	neng	neng	neng	nong
ㄋㄧ	ni	ni	ni	ni
ㄋㄧㄚ	nia	nya	nia	nia
ㄋㄧㄝ	nieh	nye	nie	nie
ㄋㄧㄠ	niao	nyau	niao	niau
ㄋㄧㄡ	niu	nyou	niu	niou
ㄋㄧㄢ	nien	nyan	nian	nian
ㄋㄧㄣ	nin	nin	nin	nin
ㄋㄧㄤ	niang	nyang	niang	niang
ㄋㄧㄥ	ning	ning	ning	ning
ㄋㄨ	nu	nu	nu	nu
ㄋㄨㄛ	no	nwo	nuo	nuo
ㄋㄨㄢ	nuan	nwan	nuan	nuan
ㄋㄨㄣ	nun	nwen	nun	nun
ㄋㄨㄥ	nung	nung	nong	nung
ㄋㄩ	nü	nyu	nü	niu
ㄋㄩㄝ	nüeh	nywe	nüe	niue
ㄌㄚ	la	la	la	la
ㄌㄛ	lo	lo	lo	loh
ㄌㄜ	le	le	le	lo
ㄌㄞ	lai	lai	lai	lai
ㄌㄟ	lei	lei	lei	lei
ㄌㄠ	lao	lau	lao	lau
ㄌㄡ	lou	lou	lou	lou
ㄌㄢ	lan	lan	lan	lan
ㄌㄤ	lang	lang	lang	lang
ㄌㄥ	leng	leng	leng	long
ㄌㄧ	li	li	li	li
ㄌㄧㄚ	lia	lya	lia	lia
ㄌㄧㄝ	lieh	lye	lie	lie
ㄌㄧㄠ	liao	lyau	liao	liau
ㄌㄧㄡ	liu	lyou	liu	liou
ㄌㄧㄢ	lien	lyan	lian	lian
ㄌㄧㄣ	lin	lin	lin	lin
ㄌㄧㄤ	liang	lyang	liang	liang
ㄌㄧㄥ	ling	ling	ling	ling
ㄌㄨ	lu	lu	lu	lu
ㄌㄨㄛ	lo	lwo	luo	luo
ㄌㄨㄢ	luan	lwan	luan	luan
ㄌㄨㄣ	lun	lwun	lun	lun
ㄌㄨㄥ	lung	lung	long	lung
ㄌㄩ	lü	lyu	lü	liu
ㄌㄩㄝ	lüeh	lywe	lüe	liue
ㄌㄩㄣ	lün	lyun	lün	liun
ㄍㄚ	ka	ga	ga	ga
ㄍㄜ	ko	ge	ge	go
ㄍㄞ	kai	gai	gai	gai
ㄍㄟ	kei	gei	gei	gei
ㄍㄠ	kao	gau	gao	gau
ㄍㄡ	kou	gou	gou	gou
ㄍㄢ	kan	gan	gan	gan
ㄍㄣ	ken	gen	gen	gon
ㄍㄤ	kang	gang	gang	gang
ㄍㄥ	keng	geng	geng	gong
ㄍㄨ	ku	gu	gu	gu
ㄍㄨㄚ	kua	gwa	gua	gua
ㄍㄨㄛ	kuo	gwo	guo	guo
ㄍㄨㄞ	kuai	gwai	guai	guai
ㄍㄨㄟ	kuei	gwei	gui	guei
ㄍㄨㄢ	kuan	gwan	guan	guan
ㄍㄨㄣ	kun	gwun	gun	gun
ㄍㄨㄤ	kuang	gwang	guang	guang
ㄍㄨㄥ	kung	gung	gong	gung
ㄎㄚ	k`a	ka	ka	ka
ㄎㄜ	k`o	ke	ke	ko
ㄎㄞ	k`ai	kai	kai	kai
ㄎㄠ	k`ao	kau	kao	kau
ㄎㄡ	k`ou	kou	kou	kou
ㄎㄢ	k`an	kan	kan	kan
ㄎㄣ	k`en	ken	ken	kon
ㄎㄤ	k`ang	kang	kang	kang
ㄎㄥ	k`eng	keng	keng	kong
ㄎㄨ	k`u	ku	ku	ku
ㄎㄨㄚ	k`ua	kwa	kua	kua
ㄎㄨㄛ	k`uo	kwo	kuo	kuo
ㄎㄨㄞ	k`uai	kwai	kuai	kuai
ㄎㄨㄟ	k`uei	kwei	kui	kuei
ㄎㄨㄢ	k`uan	kwan	kuan	kuan
ㄎㄨㄣ	k`un	kwen	kun	kun
ㄎㄨㄤ	k`uang	kwang	kuang	kuang
ㄎㄨㄥ	k`ung	kung	kong	kung
ㄏㄚ	ha	ha	ha	ha
ㄏㄜ	ho	he	he	ho
ㄏㄞ	hai	hai	hai	hai
ㄏㄟ	hei	hei	hei	hei
ㄏㄠ	hao	hau	hao	hau
ㄏㄡ	hou	hou	hou	hou
ㄏㄢ	han	han	han	han
ㄏㄣ	hen	hen	hen	hon
ㄏㄤ	hang	hang	hang	hang
ㄏㄥ	heng	heng	heng	hong
ㄏㄨ	hu	hu	hu	hu
ㄏㄨㄚ	hua	hwa	hua	hua
ㄏㄨㄛ	huo	hwo	huo	huo
ㄏㄨㄞ	huai	hwai	huai	huai
ㄏㄨㄟ	hui	hwei	hui	huei
ㄏㄨㄢ	huan	hwan	huan	huan
ㄏㄨㄣ	hun	hwen	hun	hun
ㄏㄨㄤ	huang	hwang	huang	huang
ㄏㄨㄥ	hung	hung	hong	hung
ㄐㄧ	chi	ji	ji	dyi
ㄐㄧㄚ	chia	jya	jia	dya
ㄐㄧㄝ	chieh	jye	jie	dye
ㄐㄧㄠ	chiao	jyau	jiao	dyau
ㄐㄧㄡ	chiu	jyou	jiu	dyou
ㄐㄧㄢ	chien	jyan	jian	dyan
ㄐㄧㄣ	chin	jin	jin	dyin
ㄐㄧㄤ	chiang	jyang	jiang	dyang
ㄐㄧㄥ	ching	jing	jing	dying
ㄐㄩ	chü	jyu	ju	dyu
ㄐㄩㄝ	chüeh	jywe	jue	dyue
ㄐㄩㄢ	chüan	jywan	juan	dyuan
ㄐㄩㄣ	chün	jyun	jun	dyun
ㄐㄩㄥ	chiung	jyung	jiong	dyung
ㄑㄧ	ch`i	chi	qi	tyi
ㄑㄧㄚ	ch`ia	chya	qia	tya
ㄑㄧㄝ	ch`ieh	chye	qie	tye
ㄑㄧㄠ	ch`iao	chyau	qiao	tyau
ㄑㄧㄡ	ch`iu	chyou	qiu	tyou
ㄑㄧㄢ	ch`ien	chyan	qian	tyan
ㄑㄧㄣ	ch`in	chin	qin	tyin
ㄑㄧㄤ	ch`iang	chyang	qiang	tyang
ㄑㄧㄥ	ch`ing	ching	qing	tying
ㄑㄩ	ch`ü	chyu	qu	tyu
ㄑㄩㄝ	ch`üeh	chywe	que	tyue
ㄑㄩㄢ	ch`üan	chywan	quan	tyuan
ㄑㄩㄣ	ch`ün	chyun	qun	tyun
ㄑㄩㄥ	ch`iung	chyung	qiong	tyung
ㄒㄧ	hsi	syi	xi	syi
ㄒㄧㄚ	hsia	sya	xia	sya
ㄒㄧㄝ	hsieh	sye	xie	sye
ㄒㄧㄠ	hsiao	syau	xiao	syau
ㄒㄧㄡ	hsiu	syou	xiu	syou
ㄒㄧㄢ	hsien	syan	xian	syan
ㄒㄧㄣ	hsin	syin	xin	syin
ㄒㄧㄤ	hsiang	syang	xiang	syang
ㄒㄧㄥ	hsing	sying	xing	sying
ㄒㄩ	hsü	syu	xu	syu
ㄒㄩㄝ	hsüeh	sywe	xue	syue
ㄒㄩㄢ	hsüan	sywan	xuan	syuan
ㄒㄩㄣ	hsün	syun	xun	syun
ㄒㄩㄥ	hsiung	syung	xiong	syung
ㄓ	chih	jr	zhi	dre
ㄓㄚ	cha	ja	zha	dra
ㄓㄜ	che	je	zhe	dro
ㄓㄞ	chai	jai	zhai	drai
ㄓㄟ	chei	jei	zhei	drei
ㄓㄠ	chao	jau	zhao	drau
ㄓㄡ	chou	jou	zhou	drou
ㄓㄢ	chan	jan	zhan	dran
ㄓㄣ	chen	jen	zhen	dron
ㄓㄤ	chang	jang	zhang	drang
ㄓㄥ	cheng	jeng	zheng	drong
ㄓㄨ	chu	ju	zhu	dru
ㄓㄨㄚ	chua	jwa	zhua	drua
ㄓㄨㄛ	cho	jwo	zhuo	druo
ㄓㄨㄞ	chuai	jwai	zhuai	druai
ㄓㄨㄟ	chui	jwei	zhui	druei
ㄓㄨㄢ	chuan	jwan	zhuan	druan
ㄓㄨㄣ	chun	jwen	zhun	drun
ㄓㄨㄤ	chuang	jwang	zhuang	druang
ㄓㄨㄥ	chung	jung	zhong	drung
ㄔ	ch`ih	chr	chi	tre
ㄔㄚ	ch`a	cha	cha	tra
ㄔㄜ	ch`e	che	che	tro
ㄔㄞ	ch`ai	chai	chai	trai
ㄔㄠ	ch`ao	chau	chao	trau
ㄔㄡ	ch`ou	chou	chou	trou
ㄔㄢ	ch`an	chan	chan	tran
ㄔㄣ	ch`en	chen	chen	tron
ㄔㄤ	ch`ang	chang	chang	trang
ㄔㄥ	ch`eng	cheng	cheng	trong
ㄔㄨ	ch`u	chu	chu	tru
ㄔㄨㄚ	ch`ua	chwa	chua	trua
ㄔㄨㄛ	ch`o	chwo	chuo	truo
ㄔㄨㄞ	ch`uai	chwai	chuai	truai
ㄔㄨㄟ	ch`ui	chwei	chui	truei
ㄔㄨㄢ	ch`uan	chwan	chuan	truan
ㄔㄨㄣ	ch`un	chwen	chun	trun
ㄔㄨㄤ	ch`uang	chwang	chuang	truang
ㄔㄨㄥ	ch`ung	chung	chong	trung
ㄕ	shih	shr	shi	sre
ㄕㄚ	sha	sha	sha	sra
ㄕㄜ	she	she	she	sro
ㄕㄞ	shai	shai	shai	srai
ㄕㄟ	shei	shei	shei	srei
ㄕㄠ	shao	shau	shao	srau
ㄕㄡ	shou	shou	shou	srou
ㄕㄢ	shan	shan	shan	sran
ㄕㄣ	shen	shen	shen	sron
ㄕㄤ	shang	shang	shang	srang
ㄕㄥ	sheng	sheng	sheng	srong
ㄕㄨ	shu	shu	shu	sru
ㄕㄨㄚ	shua	shwa	shua	srua
ㄕㄨㄛ	shuo	shwo	shuo	sruo
ㄕㄨㄞ	shuai	shwai	shuai	sruai
ㄕㄨㄟ	shui	shwei	shui	sruei
ㄕㄨㄢ	shuan	shwan	shuan	sruan
ㄕㄨㄣ	shun	shwun	shun	srun
ㄕㄨㄤ	shuang	shwang	shuang	sruang
ㄕㄨㄥ	shung	shung	shong	srung
ㄖ	jih	r	ri	re
ㄖㄜ	je	re	re	ro
ㄖㄠ	jao	rau	rao	rau
ㄖㄡ	jou	rou	rou	rou
ㄖㄢ	jan	ran	ran	ran
ㄖㄣ	jen	ren	ren	ron
ㄖㄤ	jang	rang	rang	rang
ㄖㄥ	jeng	reng	reng	rong
ㄖㄨ	ju	ru	ru	ru
ㄖㄨㄛ	jo	rwo	ruo	ruo
ㄖㄨㄟ	jui	rwei	rui	ruei
ㄖㄨㄢ	juan	rwan	ruan	ruan
ㄖㄨㄣ	jun	rwun	run	run
ㄖㄨㄥ	jung	rung	rong	rung
ㄗ	tzu	dz	zi	dse
ㄗㄚ	tsa	dza	za	dsa
ㄗㄜ	tse	dze	ze	dso
ㄗㄞ	tsai	dzai	zai	dsai
ㄗㄟ	tsei	dzei	zei	dsei
ㄗㄠ	tsao	dzau	zao	dsau
ㄗㄡ	tsou	dzou	zou	dsou
ㄗㄢ	tsan	dzan	zan	dsan
ㄗㄣ	tsen	dzen	zen	dson
ㄗㄤ	tsang	dzang	zang	dsang
ㄗㄥ	tseng	dzeng	zeng	dsong
ㄗㄨ	tsu	dzu	zu	dsu
ㄗㄨㄛ	tso	dzwo	zuo	dsuo
ㄗㄨㄟ	tsui	dzwei	zui	dsuei
ㄗㄨㄢ	tsuan	dzwan	zuan	dsuan
ㄗㄨㄣ	tsun	dzwen	zun	dsun
ㄗㄨㄥ	tsung	dzung	zong	dsung
ㄘ	tz`u	tsz	ci	tse
ㄘㄚ	ts`a	tsa	ca	tsa
ㄘㄜ	ts`e	tse	ce	tso
ㄘㄞ	ts`ai	tsai	cai	tsai
ㄘㄠ	ts`ao	tsau	cao	tsau
ㄘㄡ	ts`ou	tsou	cou	tsou
ㄘㄢ	ts`an	tsan	can	tsan
ㄘㄣ	ts`en	tsen	cen	tson
ㄘㄤ	ts`ang	tsang	cang	tsang
ㄘㄥ	ts`eng	tseng	ceng	tsong
ㄘㄨ	ts`u	tsu	cu	tsu
ㄘㄨㄛ	ts`o	tswo	cuo	tsuo
ㄘㄨㄟ	ts`ui	tswei	cui	tsuei
ㄘㄨㄢ	ts`uan	tswan	cuan	tsuan
ㄘㄨㄣ	ts`un	tswen	cun	tsun
ㄘㄨㄥ	ts`ung	tsung	cong	tsung
ㄙ	ssu	sz	si	se
ㄙㄚ	sa	sa	sa	sa
ㄙㄜ	se	se	se	so
ㄙㄞ	sai	sai	sai	sai
ㄙㄟ	sei	sei	sei	sei
ㄙㄠ	sao	sau	sao	sau
ㄙㄡ	sou	sou	sou	sou
ㄙㄢ	san	san	san	san
ㄙㄣ	sen	sen	sen	son
ㄙㄤ	sang	sang	sang	sang
ㄙㄥ	seng	seng	seng	song
ㄙㄨ	su	su	su	su
ㄙㄨㄛ	so	swo	suo	suo
ㄙㄨㄟ	sui	swei	sui	suei
ㄙㄨㄢ	suan	swan	suan	suan
ㄙㄨㄣ	sun	swen	sun	sun
ㄙㄨㄥ	sung	sung	song	sung
ㄚ	a	a	a	a
ㄜ	e	e	e	o
ㄞ	ai	ai	ai	ai
ㄟ	ei	ei	ei	ei
ㄠ	ao	au	ao	au
ㄡ	ou	ou	ou	ou
ㄢ	an	an	an	an
ㄣ	en	en	en	on
ㄤ	ang	ang	ang	ang
ㄦ	erh	er	er	ar
ㄧ	i	yi	yi	yi
ㄧㄚ	ya	ya	ya	ya
ㄧㄝ	yeh	ye	ye	ye
ㄧㄠ	yao	yau	yao	yau
ㄧㄡ	yu	you	you	you
ㄧㄢ	yan	yan	yan	yan
ㄧㄣ	yin	yin	yin	yin
ㄧㄤ	yang	yang	yang	yang
ㄧㄥ	ying	ying	ying	ying
ㄨ	wu	wu	wu	wu
ㄨㄚ	wa	wa	wa	wa
ㄨㄛ	wo	wo	wo	wo
ㄨㄞ	wai	wai	wai	wai
ㄨㄟ	wei	wei	wei	wei
ㄨㄢ	wan	wan	wan	wan
ㄨㄣ	wen	wen	wen	won
ㄨㄤ	wang	wang	wang	wang
ㄨㄥ	weng	weng	weng	wong
ㄩ	yü	yu	yu	yu
ㄩㄝ	yüeh	ywe	yue	yue
ㄩㄢ	yüan	ywan	yuan	yuan
ㄩㄣ	yün	yun	yun	yun
ㄩㄥ	yung	yung	yong	yung

When two syllables are strung together there might occasionally be some confusion as to which letters belong to which syllable. Say if the first syllable were "ying" and the next were "on", it might look like the syllables were "yin" and "gon" instead. To avoid this sort of problem, simply insert an apostrophe like so: "ying'on".

In the Beijing dialect, /r/ (spelled simply "r" in both Hanyu Pinyin and the Jones system) may be appended to a given syllable. This has the affect of adding an [R] sound that syllable and deleting a preceding /n/ or /y/ coda if one exists. If this /r/ follows /N/, the /N/ is deleted, but not entirely. The preceding vowel becomes nasalized. One more change to note is that the main vowel of syllables ending in /yan/ and /ywan/ shifts from [E] to [A].

The final issue to tackle in any Chinese Romanization scheme is tone marking. Mandarin makes use of four full tones (high, rising, low, and falling) and one short, neutral tone, sort of like the schwa of tones. If you change the tone, you often change the word in Chinese, so the tones have to be marked somehow. Hanyu Pinyin makes heavy use of diacritic marks. The syllable /ma/ is spelled "ma" (in the neutral tone), "mā" (high), "má" (rising), "mǎ" (low), and "mà" (falling).

This is acceptable in the Jones system, but another method, which makes use of fewer special characters, is also available. You could spell these same syllables as "ma", "máá", "maá", "maa", and "máa". This method might be better to use with those less familiar with Mandarin phonology because it highlights the simplicity of the tones. In each of these syllables "á" is a high pitched [a] sound, and "a" is [a] with a lower pitch. That's really all you need to describe the five tones of Mandarin Chinese.

Overall, the differences between Hanyu Pinyin and most other Romanization systems, including my own, is that Hanyu Pinyin was developed not by Westerners but by the Chinese government. Because of this, you see several attempts at space saving and internal consistency that take away from readability. For example, "qia" is read something like the English "cha", "ca" is something like "tsa", and "xa" is something like "sha" or "hya". In my system, these syllables are spelled "tya", "tsa", and "sya" respectively. You're probably familiar with the term "feng shui" but you may not know it's really more like "fung shrway" in Chinese. In the Jones system, this would be rendered "fong sruei". Neither system is perfect, but I think Jones Pinyin gets a lot closer.

Using Timelines to Sort Out Verb Forms

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Thu, 08 Oct 2009 05:08:00 +0000

When comparing English verb forms, the grammatical complexity of each form must be taken into account. Even where a clear semantic distinction can be made between two forms, such as the "simple present" and the "present progressive", the grammatically simpler of the two tends to be used (regardless of its semantics) in the absence of such a distinction. This is most clearly exemplified in the class of verbs known as "statives".

Statives can be considered verbs with no inherent punctuality. They describe states or properties rather than complete actions.

1) a. She has an apple.
   b. You're crazy.
   c. I like this town.
   d. They want to leave.

The vast majority of English verbs do not fall into this class and might instead be called "actives". These verbs denote punctual, complete events and therefore take on a habitual or predictive meaning in the simple present tense. If an event is viewed as a complete, unbroken unit, it can't really be occurring right at this moment, but it might occur repeatedly over a period of time that includes the present moment, or it might occur in the future.

2) a. I work at home.
   b. He drinks whiskey.
   c. They leave in the morning.
   d. We take the bus.

Notice the ambiguity in (2c). Actually, each of the above examples might be interpreted as either habitual or future events, depending on their context. Any active verb such as these can be used to express a stative meaning if the present progressive is used.

3) a. I'm working at home.
   b. He's drinking whiskey.
   c. They're leaving in the morning.
   d. We're taking the bus.

Ambiguity between present and future still exists in these examples, but with a subtle shift in meaning. It's easy enough to see this in the present interpretation; we're simply talking about "right now" as opposed to "generally". If these sentences refer to the future, the progressive form seems a bit more deliberate. The examples in (2) sound like the subject has little or no control over the event; it just happens that way. In (3), the subject has made a conscious decision.

The differences between the forms in (2) and (3), in both their present and their future interpretations, can be summed up as an external vs. an internal view of the events. Those in (2) are viewed from the outside as dots on a timeline, but in (3) we go inside the dot and view it from within. From this perspective, the events in (3) are always incomplete. What we're really talking about is more like a state than an event.

This "external vs. internal" analysis is supported by the fact that the simple present can be used in narratives without its usual non-present-moment interpretation. If you say, "A man sits down and orders a cup of coffee. He reads the paper as he waits..." each of these events seem to happen at the present moment, but the entire situation is viewed from the outside, hence the simple present.

But what are we to make of the following examples? If verbs that are already stative in the simple present can also occur in the present progressive, then what does this mean?

4) a. She's having an apple.
   b. You're being crazy.
   c. I'm liking this town.
   d. They're wanting to leave.

Actually, many stative verbs can occur in the progressive aspect, but their meaning changes, sometimes dramatically. In (1a), someone is in possession of an apple, but in (4a), she's eating it! These are very different ideas. As soon as a stative verb is put in the progressive, it seems to be converted into an active verb. The meaning of this new homophonous verb is typically more deliberate or incipient than its stative counterpart.

In addition to the sort of contrasting examples I've provided here, I think the difference between the simple present and the present progressive could be illustrated through exercises involving timelines. To chart a given event, a circle or ellipse would be drawn onto a blank timeline so that it covers the entire duration of the event. (In the case of a habitual or repeated action, there would be more than one circle on the timeline.) If we're viewing this event from the outside as a complete unit with both the beginning and the end in sight, then the circle should be filled in. Otherwise it should be left empty to symbolize our viewing the action from the inside.

Drawing these timelines might be a bit tricky for students, so more focus should be put on matching example sentences to their correct representations. The more context provided for these example sentences, the more obvious the right timeline choice should become. For active verbs, timeline circles associated with the simple present should always be filled in, and those associated with the present progressive should always be left empty. For true statives (and not their homophonous active counterparts), only empty circles should be used.

This timeline approach could also be used with another verb form whose interpretation and use might prove difficult to learners: the "present perfect". Consider the following examples.

5) a. I've worked at home.
   b. He's drunk whiskey.
   c. They've left in the morning.
   d. We've taken the bus.

The most typical usage of the present perfect in American English refers to an experience at some unspecified (and presumably unimportant) point in the past and often involves the adverb "before". I find the way this particular notion is expressed in Japanese to be quite elegant and enlightening.

6) Anata-wa ika-o tabeta-koto-ga aru?
   You-TOPIC squid-OBJECT ate-event-SUBJECT exists?
   Does the experience of having eaten squid exist for you?
   Do you have the experience of having eaten squid?
   Have you ever eaten squid?

I used so many intermediate translations here to illustrate how clearly and literally the concept is expressed in Japanese. (The word "koto" is really vague, almost like "thing" but only for referring to events, experiences, deeds, and that sort of thing.) If you have eaten squid, you literally "have" that experience. It's no accident that we use the word "have" in our expression of the same concept. This could be a useful memory hook when introducing the present perfect for the first time.

As we talk about having a given experience, we're still in the present tense because this past event is only a memory used to explain or comment on our present situation. This is true even for less common uses of the present perfect such as this classic:

7) I've fallen and I can't get up!

Just as the simple present can step into territory normally reserved for the present progressive, the simple past can step in here. In fact, (7) sounds a little stilted for modern American English. A more natural version of (7) would be:

8) I fell down and I can't get up!

Of course, as you introduce more and more verb forms to students of English, things will just get more and more complicated. For example, combining the progressive with the perfect, you get the following minimal set.

9) a. I work out.
   b. I'm working out.
   c. I've worked out.
   d. I've been working out.

If timelines are used to represent the events expressed in (9a-c), then the proper interpretation of (9d) should be fairly easy to predict. (9a) would involve filled circles scattered evenly across the timeline (beginning in the past and going into the future). (9b) would be an empty circle around the timeline's center marker. (9c) is unclear, but it could involve a filled circle or two in the past (and none in the future). (9d) should have several empty circles drawn right up to the present (but not past it).

In my experience, I've found this sort of explanation through charting events onto timelines to be effective and memorable. If the students don't share an L1 (or if the instructor doesn't speak this language), then a graphical explanation of this nature is pretty much the only option.

Awesome Keyboard Layout

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Fri, 21 Aug 2009 20:16:00 +0000

I know this probably won't go anywhere since pretty much everybody reading this is already comfortable with the QWERTY layout, but I can't help but give rearranging the keyboard a try. It's such a nice, neat little puzzle. Other people do crosswords; I stay up late doing this.

` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 - =
   Q G K C H X L Y W ; [ ] \
    N D T S R A E I O U '
     M B P F Z J V , . /

I've bolded everything that's either a home key or easily accessible with the index fingers. These are the keys that are easiest to hit, so they should be some of the most frequently occurring letters, ideally.

Here are some letter frequency lists for English, Spanish, and the two languages combined. I've bolded the same number of letters as in the layout above so you can see how closely they match up.

English:  ETAOINSHRDLCUMWFGYPBVKJXQZ
Spanish:  EAOSRNIDLCTUMPBGYVQHFZJXWK
Combined: EAOSTNIRDLCHUMPGFBYWVKZJXQ

Of course, letter frequency wasn't my only concern in designing the layout. I also wanted to organize the sounds in a way that made sense phonetically, no matter what the language. I don't think that's been a concern of many other alternative keyboard layouts.

Here's a few more layouts to compare, if you're interested.

Sholes (QWERTY):

` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 - =
   Q W E R T Y U I O P [ ] \
    A S D F G H J K L ; '
     Z X C V B N M , . /

Dvorak:

` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 [ ]
   ' , . P Y F G C R L / = \
    A O E U I D H T N S -
     ; Q J K X B M W V Z

Colemak:

` 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 - =
   Q W F P G J L U Y ; [ ] \
    A R S T D H N E I O '
     Z X C V B K M , . /

I just found a really cool app where you paste in some text and it analyzes how efficiently it would be typed on several different keyboard layouts. Totally fun! (If you're a nerd, that is.)

And here's a pretty good tirade about the QWERTY layout, why we have it, and why we should all be using Dvorak instead. I think my layout beats Dvorak, but the guy's argument still holds.

Free Downloads from Berlitz!

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Sun, 16 Aug 2009 23:16:00 +0000

I recently checked out Berlitz Japanese Guaranteed and found it to be pretty comparable to the Pimsleur equivalent I was raving about a few months ago. I highly recommend this sort of thing for an introduction to a new language or (as in my case) a quick refresher course for someone who hasn't kept up with practicing very well. I'd recommend Pimsleur or Michel Thomas for new learners, but Berlitz isn't bad, probably the third best all-audio system I've heard.

Anyway, my hunt for the advertised free audio script available online led me to the official Berlitz Publishing Online Content Downloads Page. Very good stuff here! Not only are these downloads good additions to whatever Berlitz products you may have, but the audio scripts are actually pretty good references in their own right!

The Guaranteed series includes audio scripts for the following languages: Arabic, Chinese, French, German, Italian, Japanese, Spanish, and English (for Spanish speakers). Have fun!

Mini-Spoonerisms

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 08:11:00 +0000

Earlier today, I was wiping my daughter Mei's face, and I said she had some "schmutz" (/Smuts/) on it. Being a talkative little three-year-old, she immediately started repeating the word to tell her mom what was going on. I barely caught it, but I noticed that she actually pronounced the word more like "smuch" (/smutS/). This charming little slip of the tongue is called metathesis. (It would be a spoonerism if it happened across at least two words, but I think it's too small to qualify, really.)

You get what happened? It looks like the initial /S/ and the final /s/ traded places, right? Or could it be that a single phonological feature (such as [+palatal] or [-anterior]) simply got misplaced? This sounds like a stretch until you consider my next example.

About a week ago, Mei had a slip of the tongue that really tickled my fancy. She was saying the word "Japan" (/dZ@pan/), a word she knows very well and has never had any trouble pronouncing, and it came out like "Chaban" (/tS@ban/)! She immediately corrected herself, confirming that this really was just a production error. In this case, it seems like the voicing feature of the first syllable's onset moved to the second. Or the [-voice] feature of the second syllable moved to the first. However you look at it, some metathesis occurred, but only at the feature level. She could've just as easily said "Pajan" (/p@dZan/), I suppose, but that's not what happened.

This may not be such a big deal, actually. I've just never heard of this sort of thing occurring, but that doesn't make it unheard of. If anyone has seen any analysis of this sort of thing, please point me to it!

So was the first example (/Smuts/ and /smutS/) a case of segment switching or feature switching? The fact that it's impossible to say based only on the observable evidence should be a clue that this isn't a very productive question. Phonological segments seem to be nothing more than convenient groupings of features anyway. Just as it's hard to say what exactly constitutes a word, the definition of a segment gets a little fuzzy under scrutiny too. The more time passes, the more I think an approach like I outlined in "Active Phonology" is headed in the right direction.

"King Will" (A Phase 1 Story)

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 07:37:00 +0000

I just wrote a children's book using only the following 60 words:

a along and as at back bed big black box but can can't carry drink drinking end fast fill from full get gets had hands has his hot hundred in is jump just king lands last lot many men milk must not nuts of on red rest rock run sack silk spring step stop strong ten until very will yet

You're probably thinking Big deal, it's a short book, right? That's true, but if you look closely at the above words, you won't find any "long" vowels, confusing digraphs (like `ch` and `th`), or even silent letters besides the occasional doubled sound (like `ll` and `ck`). Also, with a few possible exceptions, these words are all very basic vocabulary items, probably within the first 500 or so core words of English according to recent research I've been doing on that subject.

The point is that each and every one of the words in this story is easy to read, objectively speaking. You might notice a few deviations from 100% phonetic spelling (such as `full` and `is`), but these pronunciation differences are so slight that they should be easy for the reader to correct upon hearing them.

I used to teach kids to read in Japan, and I really could've used some books with a restricted vocabulary like this. Each story can gradually add more spelling patterns into the mix until all the basic patterns are mastered. I think this approach is best for any young reader, but it's absolutely essential for non-native speakers. Reading isn't much fun if you don't know half the words and you can't even fake it because the spelling seems totally random.

Well, enough preface. Here's the story. If you happen to like illustrating, feel free to send me some images. I'll have to draw my own to read this to/with my daughter, but I'd love to post different interpretations here!

King Will

Will is king of many lands.
But not a lot is on his hands.

Will is fast and very strong.
As a king, Will gets along.

Ten strong men can't stop a king.
A king will box and step and spring.

A king can run and jump and get
a hundred nuts (but not just yet).

A king can carry on his back
a big black rock in a big red sack.

A king can drink hot milk until
at last a king has had his fill.

A king is full from drinking milk.
A king must rest in a bed of silk.

End.

Top 50 Words in English Conversation

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:33:00 +0000

Here's a handy list that's not so easy to find online: the top 50 most frequent words of spoken North American English according to the Cambridge International Corpus.

I
and
the
you
uh
to
a
that
it
of
yeah
know
in
like
they
have
so
was
but
is
it's
we
huh
just
oh
do
don't
that's
well
for
what
on
think
right
not
um
or
my
be
really
with
he
one
are
this
there
I'm
all
if
no

Comparing this list to the 500 or so I came up with in my last post on essential English vocabulary, I noticed a handful of words present in this list and not in the other.

don't
huh
I'm
it's
oh
really
that's
uh
um
yeah

Contractions seem to have been systematically excluded from the other lists, and some of these are really particular to conversation, but I was kind of surprised to see `really` and `yeah` show up here. They're definitely less common in the written language but still essential any way you look at it.

Sifting through my list of the 100 or so most common words in recent Hollywood movies, I found these gems, which somehow didn't appear in any of the other lists! I guess that's why it pays to have multiple sources.

guy
hello
hey
hi
maybe
Mr.
Mrs.
Ms.
OK
sorry
yes

Absolutely Essential English

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 06:19:00 +0000

The first word list consists of words common to both the International Kindergarten Union list and the first 500 words of Thorndike's frequency list in The Teacher's Word Book. The result is 472 words that are not only very common but also familiar to most English-speaking children before entering first grade.

a about above across afraid after again against air all almost alone along also always am an and another answer any apple are arm around as ask at away back bad ball bank be bear beautiful because bed been before begin behind being believe best better between big bird black blow blue body book both box boy bread bring brother brought build burn but buy by call came can care carry case cause change child children church city clear close cold color come company corn could country course cover cross cut dark day dead dear deep did die do does done door down draw dress drink drive drop each ear early earth east eat egg end enough even ever every eye face fair fall family far fast father feel feet few field fill find fine fire first five floor flower fly follow food foot for found four fresh friend from front full garden gave get girl give glad go God gold good got great green ground grow had hair half hand happy hard has have he head hear heart heavy help her here high hill him himself his hold home hope horse hot house how hundred I if in into is it its just keep kill kind king know land large last late laugh lay lead learn leave left let letter light like line little live long look lost love low made make man many mark matter may me mean measure meet men might mile milk mind mine miss money month more morning most mother mountain move much must my name near need never new next night no north not nothing now number of off often old on once one only open or other our out over own paper part pass pay people picture piece place plain plant play please point poor present pretty put quick rain reach read ready reason red remember rest rich ride right river road rock roll room round run said sail same save saw say school sea second see seem seen send sent serve set several shall she ship short should show side silver sing sister sit six sleep small so soft soldier some something sometime soon sound south speak spring stand start stay step still stone stop story street strong such summer sun sure sweet table take talk tell ten than thank that the their them then there these they thing think this those though thought thousand three through till time tire to today together too top town train tree true try turn two under until up upon us use very visit wait walk wall want war warm was watch water way we week well went were what when where which while white who whole why wide will wind window winter wish with without woman wood word work world would write year yet you young your

This next list was excerpted from an updated version of the General Service List (compiled by John Bauman in 1995). It should be noted that, unlike the last list, this one consists solely of headwords. This means, for example, that the listing `a` actually stands for both `a` and `an`, and `be` stand for all its forms: `am`, `is`, `was`, `been`, etc. Statistically, each of these 208 words should appear (in some form) at least once in every 10,000 words of random text.

a about after again against all also and another any around as ask at back be because become before begin between both but by call can case change child city close come consider could course day develop do down during each early end even eye face fact feel few find first follow for force form from general get give go good govern great group hand have he head help here high hold home house how however I if in increase interest into it just keep know large last late lead leave life like line little long look make man many may mean meet might more most move much must nation need never new no not now number of off old on once one only open or order other out over own part people person place plan play point possible present problem program public put real right run same say school see seem set she should show since small so some stand state still such system take tell than that the then there these they thing think this those through time to too turn under up use very want water way we well what when where which while who will with without word work world would write year you

If you take both of these lists, put them together, and eliminate all the duplicates, you'll get the following list of 498 words. This is probably a good working vocabulary for either an introductory ESOL course or a children's book designed to teach reading.

a about above across afraid after again against air all almost alone along also always am an and another answer any apple are arm around as ask at away back bad ball bank be bear beautiful because become bed been before begin behind being believe best better between big bird black blow blue body book both box boy bread bring brother brought build burn but buy by call came can care carry case cause change child children church city clear close cold color come company consider corn could country course cover cross cut dark day dead dear deep develop did die do does done door down draw dress drink drive drop during each ear early earth east eat egg end enough even ever every eye face fact fair fall family far fast father feel feet few field fill find fine fire first five floor flower fly follow food foot for force form found four fresh friend from front full garden gave general get girl give glad go God gold good got govern great green ground group grow had hair half hand happy hard has have he head hear heart heavy help her here high hill him himself his hold home hope horse hot house how however hundred I if in increase interest into is it its just keep kill kind king know land large last late laugh lay lead learn leave left let letter life light like line little live long look lost love low made make man many mark matter may me mean measure meet men might mile milk mind mine miss money month more morning most mother mountain move much must my name nation near need never new next night no north not nothing now number of off often old on once one only open or order other our out over own paper part pass pay people person picture piece place plain plan plant play please point poor possible present pretty problem program public put quick rain reach read ready real reason red remember rest rich ride right river road rock roll room round run said sail same save saw say school sea second see seem seen send sent serve set several shall she ship short should show side silver since sing sister sit six sleep small so soft soldier some something sometime soon sound south speak spring stand start state stay step still stone stop story street strong such summer sun sure sweet system table take talk tell ten than thank that the their them then there these they thing think this those though thought thousand three through till time tire to today together too top town train tree true try turn two under until up upon us use very visit wait walk wall want war warm was watch water way we week well went were what when where which while white who whole why wide will wind window winter wish with without woman wood word work world would write year yet you young your

One final list that I think should prove very useful in English education is the following 182 items, which are common to both lists. Keep in mind that these are only headwords, so derived forms could also be introduced in a very basic text.

I've taken the liberty of sorting these words into three basic categories based loosely on both traditional parts of speech and modern linguistic terminology. I've also changed the subject pronouns given (`I`, `he`, etc.) into object pronouns (`me`, `him`, etc.) since the object forms have emerged as the most basic citation forms in modern English.

Verbals:

ask
be
begin
call
can
change
come
could
do
feel
find
follow
get
give
go
have
help
hold
keep
know
lead
leave
like
look
make
may
mean
meet
might
move
must
need
play
present
put
run
say
see
seem
set
should
show
stand
take
tell
think
turn
use
want
will
work
would
write

Nominals:

a
all
another
any
back
both
case
child
city
course
day
each
end
eye
face
few
hand
head
her
him
home
house
it
line
man
many
me
more
most
much
no
number
one
part
people
place
point
school
some
that
the
them
these
thing
this
those
time
us
water
way
what
which
who
word
world
year
you

Adjuncts:

about
after
again
against
also
and
around
as
at
because
before
between
but
by
close
down
early
even
first
for
from
good
great
here
high
how
if
in
into
just
large
last
late
little
long
never
new
not
now
of
off
old
on
once
only
open
or
other
out
over
own
right
same
small
so
still
such
than
then
there
through
to
too
under
up
very
well
when
where
while
with
without

You can find some other word lists that may be of interest to you here, here, and here. If you're anything like me, you'll have a lot of fun digging around on your own. But probably you're nothing like me.

Learn Kana by Memorizing 38 Words!

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Sun, 26 Jul 2009 03:58:00 +0000

The Japanese writing system is complicated. If you're a student of Japanese or just a fan of anime or other aspects of Japanese culture, you've probably noticed this by now. Japan's original writing system was borrowed from Chinese, which uses a separate character for each word (more or less). These borrowed Chinese characters are called kanji and still make up the bulk of Japanese writing.

However, because the Japanese language is very different from Chinese, a second set of characters had to be developed to represent speech sounds directly, without any inherent meaning attached. Rather than developing these new characters from scratch, ancient scribes chose to simplify existing kanji. The following chart shows how this was done for katakana, something like our uppercase alphabet.

Katakana is used mostly for foreign words imported into Japanese (excluding those that came from Chinese and already have kanji associated with them). It can also be used for emphasis in much the same way we use italics or capital letters.

Hiragana is yet another set of characters used to represent sounds in Japanese. It is considered more basic than katakana and roughly corresponds to our lowercase alphabet. It was developed from the same set of kanji as katakana, but instead of using just a few strokes from a given character, hiragana is a sort of cursive representation of the whole thing. Therefore, these two sets of kana run parallel to each other and often bear some surface similarity to each other. This is a lot like the Roman alphabet, actually. Upper- and lowercase versions of `C` are almost identical, but uppercase `A` looks nothing like lowercase `a`.

One substantial difference between our alphabet and Japanese kana you may have noticed is that in the Japanese system, each symbol tends to represent an entire syllable, not just a single consonant or vowel. This means many more symbols are necessary (though not quite as many as you might think since the Japanese sound system is much simpler than that of English). Putting aside diacritical marks and compound kana for now, we have about 91 basic characters to memorize: 45 katakana (46 if you count the horizontal line used to mark long vowels) and 46 hiragana. (The symbol for `wo` is really only used in hiragana as an object marker, and it's generally pronounced exactly the same as `o`. The kana for `wi` and `we` are archaic and not really used anymore.)

The following table shows how consonants (on the left) can be combined with vowels (at the top) to form syllables in Japanese. Remember that the letters used to represent the Japanese vowels have about the same values they'd have in Spanish or Italian, roughly `ah`, `ee`, `oo`, `eh`, and `oh`. Since the Japanese sound system is so simple, vowels often have an influence on the pronunciation of nearby consonants (and vice-versa). In the table below, what looks like it should be `si` actually sounds more like `shi`, `ti` is more like `chi`, `tu` is more like `tsu`, and `hu` is more like `fu`. Hold your mouse over any Japanese character below for a pop-up hint on pronunciation/Romanization.

	~a	~i	~u	~e	~o
	アあ	イい	ウう	エえ	オお
k~	カか	キき	クく	ケけ	コこ
s~	サさ	シし	スす	セせ	ソそ
t~	タた	チち	ツつ	テて	トと
n~	ナな	ニに	ヌぬ	ネね	ノの
h~	ハは	ヒひ	フふ	ヘへ	ホほ
m~	マま	ミみ	ムむ	メめ	モも
y~	ヤや		ユゆ		ヨよ
r~	ラら	リり	ルる	レれ	ロろ
w~	ワわ	ヰゐ		ヱゑ	ヲを
~n	ンん

Now that you can see what needs to be learned, I'll clue you in on how to learn it. Here's a hint: flashcards with a character on one side and a pronunciation on the other aren't such a good idea. That's because short-term memory involves shallow processing (based on visual and/or aural input), but long-term memory requires a deeper sort of processing based on meaning. In short, if you really want to remember something, it has to mean something. That's why, in my opinion at least, the absolute best way to learn to read phonetic characters is by learning real vocabulary items that use them.

I've distilled the whole Japanese kana system down into two short lists, 38 words total. How you decide to memorize them is up to you, but step 1 in learning to read Japanese is committing each and every one of these words to memory. Remember, you can hold your mouse over a given character to see its pronunciation. Enjoy!

Katakana:

ユーロ = euro
コーヒー = coffee
エアコン = air conditioning
アニメ = animation, cartoons
セミナー = seminar
ヘアケア = hair care
ワイヤ = wire
ノウハウ = know-how
カツ = breaded cutlet
カヌー = canoe
クリスマス = Christmas
トヨタ = Toyota
ソフト = software
レシート = receipt
レモン = lemon
ライオン = lion
ホテル = hotel
キムチ = kimchi
サムネイル = thumbnail (image)

Hiragana:

へや = room
みせ = store, shop
はな = flower
さかな = fish
うち = home, inside
えき = (train) station
きもの = clothes, kimono
いぬ = dog
おてあらい = restroom, toilet
きをつけて = Be careful.
ゆめ = dream
とり = bird
ふね = ship, boat
わたし = I, me
よろしく = Nice to meet you.
ひるま = daytime
それ = that (near you)
にほん = Japan
むすこ = son

Essential German Vocabulary

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Sun, 19 Jul 2009 20:33:00 +0000

A couple of days ago, I was thinking I should brush up on my German. Everybody has their own learning style, and I've found that I learn best by teaching, so here's what I came up with for the 200 or so most essential words to know in German. I used several word frequency lists to come up with these, so you're guaranteed to encounter each of these words quite often in natural German speech and writing.

Of course, you'll also need a good dictionary, both for mastering the various forms of these words and for adding new vocabulary along the way. If you're looking for something free online, BeoLingus is pretty good in my opinion.

Pronouns:

ich / mich / mir = I / me
du / dich / dir = you (familiar)
er / ihn / ihm = he / him / it
sie / ihr = she / her
es / ihm = it
wir / uns = we / us
ihr / euch = you guys / you (familiar plural)
sie / ihnen // Sie / Ihnen = they / them // you (formal)
mein / meiner = my / mine
dein / deiner = your / yours (familiar)
sein / seiner = his / its
ihr / ihrer // Ihr / Ihrer = her / hers / their / theirs // your / yours (formal)
unser = our / ours
euer = your / yours (familiar plural)
sich = myself / yourself / himself / herself / itself / ourselves / yourselves / themselves / each other
selbst = even / myself / yourself / himself / herself / itself / ourselves / yourselves / themselves
man = one / you / they / them (non-specific)
etwas // etwa = something / anything // about / around / approximately
alles // alle = everything // all / everybody / everyone
nichts // nicht = nothing // not

Verbs:

sein = be
haben = have
werden = will / be going to / become
können = can / be able to
müssen = must / have to
sagen = say
machen = do / make
geben = give
sollen = should / be supposed to
wollen = want
gehen = go
kommen = come
wissen = know
sehen = see
lassen = let / allow / have (something) done
stehen = stand
finden = find
bleiben = stay / remain
liegen = lie (physically)
heissen = be called

Numbers:

null = zero
eins // ein = one // a / an
zwei = two
drei = three
vier = four
fünf = five
sechs = six
sieben = seven
acht = eight
neun = nine
zehn = ten
elf = eleven
zwölf = twelve
dreizehn = thirteen
vierzehn = fourteen
fünfzehn = fifteen
sechzehn = sixteen
siebzehn = seventeen
achtzehn = eighteen
neunzehn = nineteen
zwanzig = twenty
einundzwanzig = twenty-one
zweiundzwanzig = twenty-two
dreiundzwanzig = twenty-three
dreissig = thirty
vierzig = forty
fünfzig = fifty
sechzig = sixty
siebzig = seventy
achtzig = eighty
neunzig = ninety
hundert = hundred
tausend = thousand

Nouns:

Jahr // Jahre = year // years
Mal // Male = time (instance or occurrence) // times
Zeit // Zeiten = time // times
Prozent // Prozente = percent / percentage // percents / percentages
Euro = euro
Beispiel // Beispiele = example // examples
Frau // Frauen = woman / wife / Mrs. // women / wives
Mensch // Menschen = person / human being / man
Kind // Kinder = child // children
Tag // Tage = day // days
Mann // Männer = man // men
Land // Länder = country / land // countries / lands
Frage // Fragen = question // questions
Haus // Häuser = house // houses
Fall // Fälle = fall / case (situation or grammatical) // falls / cases
Leute = people
Arbeit // Arbeiten = job // jobs
Hand // Hände = hand // hands
Stadt // Städte = city // cities
Herr // Herren = man / gentleman / Mr. // men / gentlemen

Indexicals:

der / die / das / den / dem / des = the
was = what
das // da = that // there / here / that / those / then / yet / since / because
dies / diese / dieser / dieses // diese = this // these
jenes // jene / jener / jenes = that // those
wo = where
wohin = where ... to / where
woher = where ... from
dort = there
hier = here
wann = when
dann = then
jetzt = now / currently / yet
nun = now / just
eben = just now
heute = today
gestern = yesterday
morgen = tomorrow
wer / wen / wem = who / whom
welche / welcher / welches = which / what

Prepositions:

in = in / into
zu = to / at / too
von = of / from / by / off
mit = with
auf = on / in / at / onto
für = for
an = at / on / by / to
bei = at / with / near / by
nach = after / to / for / past
aus = out of / from
um = around, at
über = over / above / about
vor = before, in front of, ago
durch = through / by
bis = until / by
unter = under / among
gegen = against / around
zwischen = between
ohne = without
seit = since / for (a period of time)

Adjectives:

neu = new
alt = old
gross = big / large / great
klein = small / little
gut = good
lang = long
hoch = high / tall
einfach = simple / easy
möglich = possible
schön = beautiful / pleasant / nice
spät = late
wichtig = important
weit = wide / far / long / way
erste // erst = first // at first
letzte = last
gleich = same
eigen = own
andere = other
weitere = additional
deutsch = German

Modifiers:

auch = also / too
so = so / such / this way / thus
noch = still / yet
also = so / therefore / well
nur = only
schon = already
mehr = more
immer = always
sehr = very
doch = but / still / though / however / nevertheless / after all
wieder = again
damit = with it / with that / because of that / therewith
ganz = all (of) / (the) whole / quite / entirely / completely
ja = yes / certainly / really
kein = no / not a / not an
wie = how / as / like
warum = why
eigentlich = actually
oben = up / above / ahead
vielleicht = perhaps / maybe

Conjunctions:

und = and
dass = that
als = as / when / than
oder = or
aber = but
wenn = if / when
weil = because
denn = because
sondern = but / rather
ob = whether
sowie = as well as
beziehungsweise / bzw. = respectively / and/or / rather / that is to say
obwohl = although
nachdem = after / having (done something)
bevor = before
sowohl (... und) = both (...and)
weder (... noch) = neither (... nor)
indem = while / by
entweder (... oder) = either (... or)
solange = as long as

Special thanks to Vistawide and Word2Word.

Border English in El Paso

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Sat, 11 Jul 2009 17:25:00 +0000

After living in El Paso, Texas, off and on for about three years, I just yesterday had the idea of describing the dialect around here. El Paso is mostly surrounded by desert, so in a lot of ways, it's like an island. Add to that the fact that (according to the 2001 census) 70% of El Pasoans speak Spanish at home, and you're bound to notice some peculiarities in the local English.

The dialectical trends I describe below seem particularly prominent in El Paso, but I'll bet they apply to some degree all across the Mexican border.

"Right now" either means very recently, something like "just now", or very soon.
I was talking to Joe right now and he said no.
We're gonna leave right now so get ready.
"Barely" means extremely recently, much like "just".
I barely got to my desk and the phone rang.
"Put" is very flexible and used really often. It might take the place of other verbs like "give".
Put me some.
I just put it.
Could you put the dog some food?
The meaning of "ugly" is extended just a bit to apply to smells, attitudes, and cleanliness.
It smelled ugly in there so we left.
Sorry my house is so ugly today.
Brand-name association (like the words "band-aid" and "kleenex") are much more common, with words like "pampers", "kotex", and "charmin" being synonymous with "diapers", "tampon", and "toilet paper" for some.
For native El Pasoans, the speech sounds of English are all pretty well present, but some odd pronunciation occurs nonetheless. For example, the "a" in words like "can" and "man" may be more open and less nasalized than in more standard American dialects. Occasionally, a word-final stop may be devoiced (as in "goot" for "good"), fricativized (as in "blanketh" for "blanket"), or both (as in something like "standarh" for "standard").
When a given word contains more than one stressed syllable, the primary stress may fall on a different syllable than in other American dialects. The tendency is for main stress to fall toward the end of the word, especially in Latinate words such as "simplify" and "frustrating".
In two-word adjective-noun combinations like "rubber band" and "corned beef", the first word often takes the primary stress, just as it would in noun-noun combinations such as "light bulb" and "ice cream". This also applies to some initialisms like "TV" and "CD" (which can sound a bit more like "teevy" and "seedy").
Intonation can be quite a bit like Spanish, giving each syllable about equal prominence. Phrasal stress often falls on unexpected words, causing a surprising amount of confusion for the uninitiated.

That's all I've got right now. If you can think of any properties of Border English that you've noticed, let me know by leaving a comment. Just keep in mind, I'm not talking about Spanglish here; I mean English as spoken by native (or near-native) speakers.

Humanized Mice Squeak Smarter

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Fri, 29 May 2009 16:21:00 +0000

Now they've gone and done it. They took a human gene thought to be partly responsible for language and stuck it in a mouse! This gene is called the FOXP2. In 1998, it was pinpointed as the cause of a genetic language defect in a large London family, and ever since then it's caused a bit of a stir for evolutionary biologists and linguists alike.

You can get the full results of the study from this scientific article, or I'll just sum up a few of the more interesting points for you.

The human version of the FOXP2 gene substitutes perfectly for the mouse version, with the only apparent effects showing up in the brain.
Humanized mice grew more nerve cells with more complex structure in their basal ganglia, an area known to be important for human language.
The whistles of baby mice separated from their mothers were slightly lower in pitch among mice with the human gene.
Humanized mice showed decreased exploratory behavior and lower concentrations of dopamine in the brain.
The overall effects of giving mice the human FOXP2 gene were in the opposite direction from impairing one of their FOXP2s (which in humans causes language impairment).

Here's a nice video summary as well. Very helpful in case you feel a little lost or just to get a better grasp on the whole thing.

Newspeak = Fail

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Sat, 09 May 2009 22:52:00 +0000

Here's an excerpt from George Orwell's 1984 about Newspeak, a modified version of English.

In your heart you'd prefer to stick to Oldspeak, with all its vagueness and its useless shades of meaning. You don't grasp the beauty of the destruction of words. Do you know that Newspeak is the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year? ... Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we will make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words to express it.

One thing I think people don't get about language, maybe the biggest misconception English speakers have, Orwell included... The size of a language's vocabulary is not the same thing as its expressive power. In fact, the two things may be inversely related. What really gives a language expressive power is how freely, logically, and consistently its small pieces can be combined into larger ones. As you might imagine, the more pre-built words you have, the less demand there seems to be for clear, productive word formation rules. But as soon as you want to express something there's no English word for, you might get a little tripped up having to use a whole sentence or two to make sure you're understood, which interrupts the flow of your speech or writing. So most people just find a rough equivalent to what they were trying to communicate and move on, generally without even noticing. (When you study a very different language like Japanese, by the way, you notice a lot of really useful things that aren't so easy to say in English.)

Most of our ability to create new words comes from Latin, actually. You can coin new words (or neologisms) pretty easily by following the word formation rules of Latin and using Latin roots and affixes. Scientists make extensive use of Latin in this way, but most everyone else won't feel comfortable using a given word unless they know it's listed in a dictionary somewhere, regardless of how clear the meaning is. New terms built from Germanic roots (such as "Newspeak") sound silly and childish whereas new terms from Latinate origins (such as "neoloquium") sound stilted and technical (and most people aren't literate enough to figure out the meanings very easily anyway). This uneasiness with new words is particularly prominent in English, and it actually makes clear communication in "Oldspeak" problematic.

Sure, the relative inflexibility of English word formation can make it difficult to express certain things from time to time, but an even bigger problem is all the connotation that gets attached to the words we do use frequently enough that they "sound right" (and not highfalutin or otherwise weird). A good example is the idea of "paranoia". If you say somebody's "paranoid", you're not only saying they think people are out to get them but also that the paranoid person is mistaken. What's it called when the paranoid person is right? Justified paranoia? Not really, that still implies the person is mistaken, just understandably so. If you're goal is to make thoughtcrime impossible, words like "paranoid" are a good start.

It's interesting to note that Orwell's Newspeak, which was designed to limit the expressive power of English, actually turned out to be really useful in labeling some ideas that weren't particularly easy to communicate in standard English: thoughtcrime, doublethink, unperson, etc. That's because he not only simplified the vocabulary of English but also simplified (and clearly delineated) its word formation rules. The way to limit expressive power is to eliminate or obscure virtually all word and sentence formation rules, which means you'd need quite a number of atomic, unanalyzable words to talk about anything.

If you could just extend people's attitudes about coining new words a little bit to make them uneasy generating new sentences they've never heard before, you'd really be controlling their minds. But that kind of language would look nothing at all like Newspeak. For one thing, almost every sentence would consist of a single word. Lame. Right?

A World Language

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Wed, 15 Apr 2009 00:25:00 +0000

As a world language, English is in the lead right now. But in the Middle Ages, the lingua franca (at least in Europe) was Latin. That's a big part of why English has so much Latin in it! (...The other part being England's rule by a French aristocracy in the early days of English.) In Central/South America and Africa, Spanish, Portuguese, and French, all three of which used to be dialects of Latin, are also major contenders. Australia, the US, and Canada all speak English, which is also a widely spoken official language in India.

We've covered the Americas and the southern hemisphere, and so far it's looking like some form of English or Latin is the best candidate. So what's left? Mostly just Eurasia. I may be wrong, but it's my current understanding that English is the language to learn all across that mega-continent, the de facto lingua franca. So if there's going to be some conscious effort to push a single existing language as the default language of business, science, politics, and such for the entire world, I'd say English is the obvious choice. But what sort of English? Even deciding between the American and British dialects is problematic. It seems to me that neither one is acceptable.

Anyone who's ever tried to study or teach English knows that its sound system is overly complex (especially the vowels), its grammar is far from consistent, and it has at least two words for almost everything: one Germanic and one Latinate. An obvious remedy to all these problems is to define an artificial dialect of English expressly for use as a world language. The most important motivation for this is reducing the time and effort required to learn the new language. When choosing between redundant vocabulary items, those coming from Latin (or any Romance language such as French or Spanish) should obviously be favored to facilitate maximum comprehensibility.

Additionally, this new form of English should be even more open to foreign borrowings than English is already. To get this rolling, all major world languages should be scanned for popular borrowings already in use in more than a few of them. These useful words could then be listed in the official definition of World English.

It's important to remember that this constructed dialect of English would not in any way be a replacement for anyone's native language. You don't teach your kid World English instead of whatever language you naturally speak; that's ridiculous! This is the sort of thing that could be learned in middle school, high school, or even college. Not everyone even needs to learn it; it's just a go-between language for people who travel a lot or have frequent dealings with speakers of foreign languages. For those people (an ever-growing segment of the world's population), some form of World English would be a big help.

If you're interested in this topic, check out this World English website for loads of good information both on what English is and on how it can be used as a world language. To see some more arguments on both sides, here's one article claiming that English is not going to become a world language and another claiming that it already has! Actually, they really don't disagree too much: English is very important globally, but it's not going to wipe out other important languages like Spanish or Chinese.

Getting Started in Spanish

jones@vokation.com (Jonesy) — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:30:00 +0000

If you're currently trying to learn Spanish, certainly a useful venture for any English speaker, I've got some links for you!

The BBC has a nice free set of online lessons, complete with video and activities, called "Talk Spanish". If you don't already have RealPlayer installed, you'll have to go to Real.com and get the free player before the videos will work. Just click the blue button at the top of the page that says "Get RealPlayer 11 - FREE". The BBC has several other useful tools for learning Spanish as well, so you might want to look around.

Spanish Pronto is a pretty small site, but it has a couple of really useful references: the Basic Study Reference and a categorized list of the 175 most common Spanish words. The latter can also be used as an informal evaluation tool to see how much you already know.

David Luton has built up a nice collection of basic Spanish lessons that amount to a small textbook. It's all free, though he does offer some print books as well.

One last website I'd like to mention is SpanishDict.com. As you might have guessed, it has an online Spanish-English dictionary. It also has several other useful features, though some of them are unavailable right now due to maintenance issues. It looks like they're expanding the site to include free online courses.

Now that I've pointed you to all this free stuff, I'd be remiss if I didn't link you to what I feel is the best way to learn a new language in a hurry (besides getting romantically involved with a native speaker): audio-based programs that make you answer back. Here are a few good ones you can buy from Amazon:

If something looks too expensive, look for other sellers under the main listing. You might be able to save a lot of cash! Just watch out for those cheap programs like Learn in Your Car. If all you're doing is hearing and repeating vocabulary, you're never going to get fluent.