シャドーイング練習: Grammar rules you can stop sticking to - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ

練習モードを選ぶ

各モードは全画面の練習ルームで開きます。

320 文

文が短すぎたり長すぎる場合は、Editをタップして調整してください。

This one ain't gonna please no pence.

It's time to finally free ourselves from the tyranny of English's fake grammatical rules.

I'm going to tell you where these illegitimate linguistic laws came from.

Then I'll explain why absolutely none of them are worth sticking to anymore.

Hopefully you'll join me for what promises to be a very liberating episode of Rob Words.

I have broken one of these

so -called rules in no less than all six of the sentences I have said so far, including this one.

But did it make me any less understandable?

I reckon not.

You might not even have noticed some of them.

And that's going to be one of my big points as we progress through this video.

Oh, and I should mention about this virtual world that I find myself in, which is actually just a green sheet in my apartment.

It is freezing outside.

I'll get back out and about once the Berlin winter starts to play ball.

But in the meantime, I'm here and I'm just going to trust future me not to superimpose me onto anything stupid.

Now these are all actually rules that I encountered people spreading over 15

or so years of writing and reading out scripts for TV and radio, which is what I did before I did this YouTube -y thing.

As ever, if you disagree with anything that I say during this video, feel free to take me to task in the comments.

Okay, let's get started with a rubbish rule of English.

Number one.

Don't split the infinitive.

The infinitive in English is the form of a verb that has to at the start of it,

like to be, to have, to bump, to grind.

And I remember being told even back in school never to ignorantly put another word between

that to and the verb that it's accompanying.

Like I did just then.

Doing so is called splitting the infinitive, because you are splitting the two elements of the infinitive apart from one another,

and it is often described as a mistake. But why?

Well, I don't know.

I can think of no practical reason why splitting the infinitive is bad.

So how have we ended up with this perceived rule.

Well, I say, blame the Victorians.

And I'm going to cruelly lay the blame at the door of one

Victorian in particular, the writer of this highly influential book, A Plea for the Queen's English, by Henry Alford.

Henry Alford was a grammarian and a pedant of the highest order, and he took it upon himself to write this book,

setting out how he felt the English language language should be correctly deployed.

In it, he made his own proclamation about splitting the infinitive.

Using as an example the phrase to scientifically illustrate,

he says, surely this is a practice entirely unknown to English speakers and writers.

It seems to me that we ever regard the two of the infinitive as inseparable from its verb.

Did you notice something.

Surely this is a practice, it seems to me.

This is all just what he reckons.

And he's wrong.

He's writing this in the 1860s when unashamed users of the Split Infinitive have up to this point included William Shakespeare,

John Donne, Samuel Pepys, Daniel Defoe, William Worsworth, Benjamin Franklin, Lord Byron, Abraham Lincoln and George Eliot.

It is a perfectly normal thing to do.

So why has dear

Henry Alford got it into his head that it isn't?

Well, it seems likely that he

and others like him were having their judgement clouded by a fervent desire to make English more like

Latin – a language that has for centuries been considered of enormous prestige.

And in Latin, nobody ever splits the infinitive.

Why?

Because it's impossible.

But because English has this weird two -word infinitive, we can split it.

There's a reason, there's a space there.

Go ahead, fill it.

Indeed there are times when to not split the infinitive is almost impossible.

For example, if I write, I want to more than double my subscribers this year, please help me out, I have split the infinitive.

But what's the alternative?

I want more than to double my subscribers?

That means something different, doesn't it?

Like I want to double my subscribers and give each of them a kiss.

Don't unsubscribe, it's okay.

I probably won't.

Unless you ask.

And I want to double more than my subscribers makes it sound like I want to double something else, to.

Also, sometimes splitting the infinitive can sound more natural than to not do it.

See?

Hot take alert!

Wouldn't Hamlet sound a bit more like a normal person if the question were to be or to not be?

Something to think about.

So I'm going to happily continue splitting the infinitive.

And you should feel like you can too.

Onto nonsense rule number two.

Don't never use no double negative.

A double negative is when you use two negatives in one sentence or one thought short, like I ain't never been to space.

The received wisdom is that in such a sentence the two negatives cancel each other out,

meaning that I've just claimed to have at some point taken a trip beyond our atmosphere.

For that reason, double negatives are considered a no -no. Although no -no is weirdly one double negative that apparently doesn't cancel itself

Now, I'm not going to argue that double negatives are a great thing.

I would never write one down, for example, it is ambiguous on the page and would potentially lead to some misunderstandings.

But I am going to defend its use in speech.

Because I don't believe that when said out loud, a double negative is particularly ambiguous.

Remember that internet lady who said, ain't nobody got time for that?

And then the smoke got me.

I got bronchitis.

Ain't nobody got time for that.

Well, of all the countless memes that she sparked,

did a single one of them rely on the interpretation that she in fact did have time for that?

Of course not.

In fact, the clip's popularity is partly down to how emphatic she is about not having time for that.

And that emphasis is largely down to the double negative.

As a rhetorical device, the double negative can be highly effective.

And what's more, we've known that for over a thousand years.

Just have a look at this.

This is a quote from Anglo -Saxon England.

It's in Old English, the language that would one day become the language we speak today.

100

Ne rochte he yet, na ne wundra op en lice.

101

In modern English, this translates to, he hasn't yet worked any miracles openly.

102

But what it literally says is, not wrought he yet, no wonders openly.

103

It contains a double negative.

104

He's not worked no miracles openly yet.

105

You see, in Old English, two negatives did not cancel each other out.

106

Instead, they supported one another.

107

Indeed, the philosophy was that if one part of the sentence was negative, it all should be for consistency's sake.

108

Check out this old English quote too from an Anglo -Saxon bible.

109

Ne josea navre, nan man god.

110

Has not seen never, no man god.

111

Or in modern parlance, no man ain't never seen god.

112

It's a triple negative.

113

Perhaps you're thinking, yeah but Rob, that is over a thousand years ago.

114

We've evolved from then.

115

Okay, if that's not

116

Not recent enough for you.

117

How about this from Middle English?

118

How cool is this 13th century document, by the way?

119

This bit says, I can't say no falsehood.

120

A double negative.

121

Or, if that's too old still, how about this from early modern English, from Shakespeare no less.

122

I cannot go no further.

123

Oh, you want even newer still, do you?

124

Well, how about the last time you said neither one thing nor the other?

125

That is a double negative.

126

Neither this or that would make perfect sense.

127

But But we use two negatives for consistency.

128

It's a relic of that old English approach.

129

So why say don't you not be feeling bad about using them?

130

Now, I don't want you thinking that I'm making an argument against precision in language here.

131

I'm really not.

132

One of my issues with these rules is that they don't do anything to help with clarity.

133

I do think that the words we use are important.

134

Language is important.

135

For example, you know how

136

Mark Zuckerberg recently announced that

137

Meta was doing away with facts -checkers?

138

Well, your view on

139

that story may well have been influenced by the specific language of the news sources you heard it from.

140

On Ground News, they've pulled together over 30 different sources on that story from across the political spectrum, allowing us to compare the coverage.

141

Look how left -wing outlets use terms like blindsiding and assault to describe Zuck's move as an attack on journalists and truth.

142

Whereas many of the right -wing outlets lord it as a victory for free speech.

143

Now as someone who's been a journalist for over a decade and a half,

144

I can't stress enough how crucial it is to understand the political biases and reliability of your news sources.

145

That's why I use

146

Ground News, not just for their app and website, but also their excellent interest pages like those for the UK and Germany,

147

which help me stay informed about the stories that I think matter most to me.

148

If you want to see how language shapes the news and make sure you're fully informed,

149

go to ground .news slash robwords or use my special QR code

150

and get 40 % off unlimited access like I have to Ground News.

151

Okay, on to our next bit of nitpicky nonsense, which is that none is always singular.

152

Have you ever said something along the lines of, oh, we were going to go out tonight but none of us have any money,

153

and been told, um, actually, it should be none of us has any money?

154

I don't know where that voice came from.

155

But I do remember being corrected like that back when I worked at the BBC,

156

an organisation staffed by many of the most particular users of the English language you could ever expect to meet.

157

And thankfully so, someone has to maintain standards.

158

And on this occasion, it was explained to me that none is a contraction of not one,

159

and therefore should only ever be treated as singular.

160

Makes sense.

161

You wouldn't say, one of us have money, would you?

162

So I went along with it, for ages in fact, until I actually looked it up, and found that for centuries,

163

writers have used none with the plural, like I did.

164

See?

165

And that's because, contrary to what I was told, none isn't just short for not one.

166

Since at least the time of Henry VIII, it's been short for not any as well.

167

So just as to say, do any pigs have wings? is okay.

168

To say, none of the pigs have wings is also okay.

169

And to deny that is to apply an approach that our language grew out of 500 years ago.

170

So let's agree that none of us have to keep it up.

171

I've actually broken two rules there.

172

I've also flouted the next one on our list.

173

Don't end a sentence with a preposition.

174

This is a rule you might never have heard of.

175

But one I just broke again, just there.

176

It centres around words called prepositions.

177

They're those little words like of, with, to, from, up, down, over, out.

178

That you used before a noun or noun phrase or a pronoun to show its relationship with what's come before it.

179

I go to the shops.

180

The cat sits in my lap.

181

Alan pierced his foot on a spike.

182

They're essential elements of our language

183

and it is often said to be a misuse of English to put one at the end of a sentence.

184

But I reckon that's something we need to think over.

185

It's an issue we need to get into.

186

A myth we need to reckon with.

187

Oh look, I've just broken that rule three times.

188

But did it sound weird?

189

I don't think so.

190

The usual trick to avoid flouting this false law is to rearrange the sentence.

191

But just listen to how much worse these are.

192

That's something over which we need to think.

193

It's an issue into which we need to get.

194

A myth with which we need to reckon.

195

Gross.

196

Someone who's said to have shared my revulsion is a certain Winston Churchill.

197

The story goes that on receiving a complaint about his use of a sentence -terminal preposition, he's said to have scrawled a note saying,

198

this is the sort of pedantic nonsense up with which I will not put.

199

Or words to that effect.

200

It depends on where you're reading it and to The point is, the ugliness of the sentence demonstrates the folly of the rule.

201

The idea

202

that ending a sentence with a preposition is a misuse of

203

a beautiful language is thought to go back only as far as the 17th century.

204

Researchers reckon the first proponent of it was the English poet and critic John Dryden who, doing what critics do best, criticised the brilliant

205

Ben Jonson's use of prepositions at the end of sentences, calling it a common fault with him.

206

Now, the jibe is unlikely to have bothered

207

Ben Johnson too much because he was comfortably dead at the time.

208

But Dryden's opinion, and that's all it was, really, appears to have planted a seed that took root among the grammarians that came after him.

209

And one book, written about a century later, is credited with turning that opinion, Interlexicological Law.

210

It was written by an Oxford professor, Robert Louth, and called A Short Introduction to English Grammar.

211

In it, he bemoans the fact that the preposition is often separated from the relative

212

which it governs and joined to the verb at the end of the sentence, or of some member of it.

213

He then gives an example, Horace is an author whom I am much delighted with.

214

While he admits

215

that popping the preposition at the end of a sentence is something our language is strongly inclined to

216

and that it suits very well with the familiar style of writing,

217

he also posits that not doing so is more graceful as well as more perspicuous.

218

Ironically, perspicuous means easy to understand.

219

So his argument for avoiding ending a sentence with a preposition is that it is inelegant and confusing.

220

Which it just isn't.

221

But note that also he doesn't dress this up as a rule, more just a preference for when trying to write formally.

222

This preference is again likely down to scholars preoccupation with making English more like

223

Latin, because again this is a rule that it's impossible to break in Latin.

224

Word order doesn't allow it.

225

But English is not a language descended from Latin.

226

It is a Germanic language.

227

And in Germanic languages, you can end a sentence with a preposition.

228

Indeed, in German, it is often essential.

229

However, Louth's book was hugely influential.

230

It was used in British schools until as recently as the 20th century.

231

Seriously.

232

And And despite him not calling the preposition thing a rule, millions of school children came away with the impression that it was,

233

school kids not generally being known for their appreciation of nuance.

234

Even our Victorian pal

235

Henry Olford accepted that sometimes ending with a preposition was preferable.

236

He wrote, where do you come from is the only way of putting that enquiry.

237

Whence come you is of course pedantic, though accurate.

238

Good lord, I agree with Henry.

239

So I hope you see my point

240

that even the greatest proponents of the don't end on a preposition idea never sold it as a rule.

241

It is a myth perpetuated by self -appointed pedants rather than actual reference books.

242

A made up rule of language that Winston Churchill demonstrated the pomposity of.

243

Sorry, a law the pomposity of which Winston Churchill demonstrated.

244

Yuck.

245

OK, next dodgy grammatical gripe.

246

Don't use less when you mean fewer.

247

A few years back, Tesco, the massive British supermarket chain, found itself at the centre of a semantics storm.

248

It was all down to the presence of these signs above some of the checkouts in its stores,

249

telling people to only use those checkouts if they had 10 items in their basket or less.

250

The source of the controversy?

251

The sign said 10 items or less instead of 10 items or fewer.

252

The criticism was that less and fewer have different, mutually exclusive meanings.

253

Less means lower in amount, degree or value, and fewer is lower in quantity.

254

So less should only be used for things that you can't count out.

255

So yes, based upon those definitions of less and fewer, Tesco's sign was wrong.

256

And such was the volume of the cause for the chain to ditch them that they did just that, replacing them with this utter cop -out.

257

But I think Tesco were too hasty to buckle to pedantic public pressure.

258

Because I think the definitions of less and fewer look less like this, and more like this.

259

I think we can all agree that you should not use fewer for amounts.

260

I want fewer milk in my tea does not work at all.

261

But who the heck decided that you can't use less when talking about quantities?

262

Well, apparently a guy called Robert Baker is the first person

263

that the clever folk at Oxford have found writing about the subject.

264

Back in 1770, he, in his reflections on the English English language,

265

wrote that less is most commonly used in speaking of a number where I should think fewer would be better.

266

He says, no fewer than a hundred appears to me not only more elegant than no less than a hundred, but more strictly proper.

267

There are real echoes of Louth and Alford there, aren't there?

268

He's just talking about what sounds better rather than any essential need to write in this way.

269

Mr Baker is making his statement in the 18th century when, as our friends at Merriam -Webster point out,

270

less has been used to modify plural nouns since the days of King Alfred.

271

They mean Alfred the Great, who ruled over a thousand years ago.

272

In Old English, less could be used in this way.

273

And looky here, here it is in the 15th century, a reference to less ploughs, and also in the 16th century, less faults.

274

So again, we're seeing that the tastes of self -appointed grammarians of the 18th

275

and 19th centuries are dictating how we speak today.

276

But before you take what I've said so far as permission to forget the difference between less and fewer…

277

Let me just say that I do see why some people are so particular about it.

278

One such group are the compilers of the Guardian newspaper's style guide, who make their position quite clear.

279

This is not just about supermarket signs that say seven items or fewer.

280

Only seven.

281

It can make a real difference in meaning.

282

It then talks about fewer bad people, meaning something very different to less bad people.

283

Which is true.

284

Fewer bad people are lesser in number, whereas less bad people are not as bad as worse people.

285

So I accept that here the distinction is helpful.

286

It defeats an ambiguity.

287

But is there any ambiguity at all in the phrase 10 items or less?

288

And how about this situation?

289

If I say to you, I have three fancy biscuits on my plate, do you have more or less?

290

Doesn't that sound infinitely more natural than, I have three fancy biscuits on my plate, do you have more or fewer?

291

More or fewer, it just doesn't work.

292

I suppose my overall point here is that this less versus fewer distinction shouldn't and really can't be applied in all situations.

293

And the more you look into it, the less reasons you find for treating it as a hard and fast rule.

294

Ok, onto the next one.

295

Hopefully has only one meaning.

296

This is the newest of the grammatical gripes that I'm trying to dispel, because it has only been an issue for around 100 years.

297

During the 20th century, beginning in the US, we got into the habit of using the word hopefully in a new way.

298

A way that didn't strictly adhere to its meaning.

299

We started saying things like, I did the accents.

300

We began using hopefully as an alternative to I hope that, or with any luck, terms like that.

301

And that's a way that it hadn't really been used before.

302

Prior to that, hopefully had only meant what its makeup suggests, to do something while full of hope.

303

Or in a hopeful manner.

304

For example, I was feeling lucky, so I hopefully bought a lottery ticket.

305

Now, there are people who cling to the idea that that is the sole meaning of hopefully,

306

and it should not be used in this newfangled way.

307

But unfortunately for them, these people have already lost the argument.

308

Bar more people would interpret I hopefully bought a lottery ticket as expressing hope that you bought a lottery ticket,

309

like I hopefully locked the door before I left the house

310

this morning than like you made the purchase in the hope of winning. In fact, I reckon these days someone can use the word hopefully thousands

311

of times during their lifetime without once meaning in a hopeful manner.

312

What's more, the new meaning is really useful.

313

I can't think of another single word that can replace hopefully in a sentence like this.

314

And we're not the only ones to have come to that conclusion.

315

In German, the equivalent, Hoffentlich, has evolved to serve exactly the same function.

316

So basically, don't let anyone tell you that you're using it wrongly if you do use it in the 20th century fashion,

317

because the meaning has undoubtedly evolved.

318

So there you go, less than seven rules of English grammar you hopefully ain't no longer going to even bother with.

319

If you have enjoyed this video, I hopefully ask you to subscribe and to maybe watch this video next and I'll see you over there.

320

Take care.

アプリをダウンロード

流暢に話すために必要なすべて

AI発音採点文ごとに採点

IPA練習すべての音をマスター

単語学習自分の単語帳を作る

単語ゲーム遊びながら覚える

QRをスキャン

Download on theApp Store Get it onGoogle Play

同じチャンネル

How the months got their names (and what we used to call them)

Daily ConversationWorking Adults

FOR YOU

このレッスンの語彙とスピーキングのポイント

このスピーキングレッスンは、動画「Grammar rules you can stop sticking to」を教材にしています。繰り返し出てくる語は次のとおりです：English, rule, fewer, negative, language。この動画には、シャドーイング用の文が205文、単語が3806語あります。音声の長さは23:50です。話す速さは1分あたり約160語で、日常会話に近い自然なペースです。英語の頻出3,000語に含まれる単語は81%だけなので、語彙は難しめです。

この動画の重要語彙

動画に出てくる覚えておきたい単語15語を、発音と意味つきで紹介します。

単語	発音	意味
verb 名詞	/vɝb/	動詞
subscriber 名詞	/səbˈskɹaɪbɚ/	購読者, 加入者
phrase 名詞	/ˈfɹeɪ̯z/	句, 語句
nonsense 名詞	/ˈnɒn.səns/	無意味, ナンセンス
cancel 動詞	/ˈkæn.sl̩/	取り消す, 取り止める
myth 名詞	/mɪθ/	迷信
lottery 名詞	/ˈlɑtɚi/	くじ, 宝くじ
journalist 名詞	/ˈd͡ʒɝnəlɪst/	記者, ジャーナリスト
grammar 名詞	/ˈɡɹæm.ə(ɹ)/	文法
inform 動詞	/ɪnˈfɔɹm/	告げる, 知らせる
pig 名詞	/ˈpɪɡ/	豚, ブタ
miracle 名詞	/ˈmɪɹ.ə.kəl/	奇跡, 霊験
distinction 名詞	/dɪˈstɪŋkʃən/	区別, 違い
quantity 名詞	/ˈkwɑn(t)ɪti/	量, 数量
outlet 名詞	/ˈaʊtlɛt/	出口

動画に出てくる句動詞

単語	発音	意味
check out 動詞		試験する, 検査する
do away with 動詞		止める
get off 動詞		降りる
go ahead 動詞	/ˌɡoʊ əˈhɛd/	どうぞお先に
go back 動詞		戻る, 帰る
go out 動詞		出る
point out 動詞		指す, 指し示す

繰り返し練習したい文

動画に出てくる短く完結した文です。日常会話でそのまま使えます。

Ooh, I’ve actually broken two “rules” there.
It’s an issue we need to get into.
Don’t use less when you mean fewer.

この動画の文法

話し手がよく使っている文型を、動画の実際の表現とともに紹介します。

文型	動画での表現
現在完了形 have/has + 過去分詞 — 過去の出来事が今も関係している	have broken · have said · have noticed
受動態 be + 過去分詞 — 誰がするかより、何が起きるかに焦点を当てる	being told · is called · is often described
関係詞節 who / which + 節 — 人や物について情報を加える	radio, which is · nonsense, which is · people who cling

注意したい発音

話し手はdon't, I'm, ain'tなど、短縮形や弱形を80回使っています。聞こえたとおりの短い形で発音しましょう。

「th」の音: myth /mɪθ/, bother /ˈbɑðɚ/, twentieth /ˈtwɛn.ti.əθ/
「sh」と「zh」の音: distinction /dɪˈstɪŋkʃən/, influential /ɪnflʊˈɛnʃəl/, conclusion /kənˈkluːʒən/, sheet /ʃit/, potentially /pəˈtɛnʃ(ə)li/
長い単語（アクセントの位置に注意）: influential /ɪnflʊˈɛnʃəl/, supermarket /ˌsupɚˈmɑɹkət/, ambiguous /æmˈbɪɡ.ju.əs/, potentially /pəˈtɛnʃ(ə)li/, organisation /ˈɔː.ɡə.naɪˌzeɪ.ʃən/

日本語話者が苦手な音：

/r/ と /l/ の区別 — /l/ は舌先を歯茎につけ、/r/ はどこにもつけない: strictly /ˈstɹɪktli/, miracle /ˈmɪɹ.ə.kəl/, plural /ˈplʊəɹəl/, practical /ˈpɹæk.tɪ.kəl/, strongly /ˈstɹɔŋli/
/v/ — /b/ にならないように、上の歯を下唇に当てる: verb /vɝb/, evolve /ɪˈvɑlv/, virtual /ˈvɜɹt͡ʃuəl/, controversy /kənˈtɹɒv.ə.si/, clever /ˈklɛv.ɚ/
/f/ — 「フ」ではなく、上の歯と下唇で出す: fewer /ˈfjuː.ɚ/, phrase /ˈfɹeɪ̯z/, fancy /ˈfæn.si/, inform /ɪnˈfɔɹm/, influential /ɪnflʊˈɛnʃəl/

この動画での練習方法

まず声を出さずに動画を最後まで聞き、知らない単語をメモします。
まず0.75倍速で一文ずつシャドーイングし、慣れてきたら通常の速度に戻します。
自分の声を録音して元の音声と比べます。verb, subscriber, phraseなどの単語に特に注意しましょう。

シャドーイングとは？英語上達に効果的な理由

シャドーイング（Shadowing）は、もともとプロの通訳者養成プログラムで開発された言語学習法で、多言語習得者として知られるDr. Alexander Arguelles によって広く普及されました。方法はシンプルですが非常に効果的：ネイティブスピーカーの英語を聞きながら、1〜2秒の遅延で声に出してすぐに繰り返す——まるで「影（shadow）」のように話者を追いかけます。文法ドリルや受動的なリスニングと異なり、シャドーイングは脳と口の筋肉が同時にリアルタイムで英語を処理・再現することを強制します。研究により、発音精度、抑揚、リズム、連音、リスニング力、そして会話の流暢さが大幅に向上することが確認されています。IELTSスピーキング対策や自然な英語コミュニケーションを目指す方に特におすすめです。

シャドーイングのやり方: ステップ別の完全ガイドを読む →

シャドーイング練習: Grammar rules you can stop sticking to - 動画で英語スピーキングを学ぶ

練習モードを選ぶ

アプリをダウンロード

同じチャンネル

How the months got their names (and what we used to call them)

おすすめ動画

English rules should be consumed in moderation 🤓 #english #englishteacher #speakenglish

27 Common Phrasal Verbs in English

When British Actors Are Forced to Do American Accents!

English Grammar - Gerund or Infinitive? ('I like swimming' or 'I like to swim'?)

You Have to Write Every Day. ChatGPT Won’t Save You.

Fix These English Mistakes Before They Become Habits | B1–B2 English Podcast

English doesn’t have 5 vowels!

Don't learn grammar! Do THIS!

10 Rules to Sound Like a Native English Speaker | British English

Why You Always Forget English Words (Science Explains)

“Never have I”, “Little did I know”, “Not only is” | English Word Order Inversion

From Beginner to Advanced English in 6 Minutes | Learn "Jump the Gun" & More Idioms