쉐도잉 연습: The Concept of Language (Noam Chomsky) - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

The following program is a UW -TV classic.

From the University of Washington in Seattle, upon reflection with Al Page.

Our guest is Professor Noam Chomsky from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a guest lecturer at the University of Washington.

What determines how language in a particular country evolves?

Why is French, for example, so different from German?

Well, first of all, you're assuming that French is different from German.

The French would probably say so.

There's no simple measure of how different languages are from one another.

In fact, if you look at the languages structurally the way a linguist would look at them, French is different from the other Romance languages in a variety of ways,

which make it more similar to German and other Germanic languages.

There are a number of features of French which are sort of Germanic in character.

Give us some of those features.

Well, just to take a simple one, in all the Romance languages,

except for French, you can delete the subject of a sentence.

You can say the equivalent of walks to the store, meaning he walks to the store.

We can't do that in English, but you can do it in Italian or Spanish.

In fact, it's common romance, because right back to Latin, French is the only romance language in which you can't do that.

It's like a Germanic language, pretty much, in that respect.

In what they call clitics, small pronouns that you attach to verbs.

So you say the equivalent of I, him, saw.

That's common romance.

But in the other Romance languages, you can do things like, I, him, want to see.

You can do that in all meaning, I want to see him, but not in French.

And for a variety of constructions, actually, there are quite a number of respects in which French is different from the other Romance languages.

Incidentally, Old French, Middle French, French in the medieval period was not.

It was like the other Romance languages.

So something happened to it that made it less like the Romance languages and more like the Germanic languages.

How does language change over time?

How did 18th century French change compared to 12th century French?

Well, you know, when we talk about language change, that's very misleading.

I mean, there is no such thing as a language in France.

I mean, up until, say, the turn of the century, you could find people in nearby villages in France who couldn't understand one another, virtually could not understand one another.

The idea of a national language is a pretty modern phenomenon.

It has to do with the rise of nationalism and communication and so on, or take, say, Italy today or Germany today.

I mean, the differences among the things that we call German are enormous, so enormous as to lead to non -mutual intelligibility.

You have to learn the national language when you go to school.

It's a different language than the one you spoke at home.

And when we talk about language changing, what's actually happening is that there's some—it's kind of like species changing.

There's a mixture of all sorts of dialects, and the mix changes over time,

either because of conquest or some political change

or boundaries are drawn in a different place or some kind of commercial interchange or whatever.

The mixture of these things changes over time, and you take a look at it a few centuries apart, it looks like there's a different language.

But what happens is that between generations, there are usually small changes having to do with other influences from the outside and so on.

And these things are cumulative.

Sometimes they lead to pretty dramatic changes.

I mean, within a couple of generations, the language can change structurally in quite dramatic ways.

And of course, in, say, lexicon, you know, the words of the language, well, that's a different matter altogether.

So when technology develops, you get a whole new vocabulary.

But if you were in France in the 12th century and you understood all the nuances of language, could you have predicted how these various languages would have evolved over time?

No, it's totally impossible.

But is it partially random?

It's not so much that it's random.

It's not actually random.

For all we know, it might be completely deterministic.

There's just too many factors involved.

It's like predicting the weather.

There's just too many things going on.

Human life is a pretty complicated affair.

And now our culture, speakers of English can be misled by this.

English is relatively homogeneous.

You can go a long way in the United States.

I mean, I just came from Boston, and I understand everybody in Portland and Seattle and so on.

But that's not true of most of the world.

Most of the world, language areas, you can get very different languages pretty close by.

And much of the world is what we would call multilingual.

Thank you.

The closer I get to the border between France and Germany would the closer the languages become.

Yeah, well, in particular, if you go from, say, Paris to Rome, as you go toward the Italian border, it starts to sound more like Italian.

And at some point it becomes Italian.

And there isn't, in fact, I mean, by now there's, you know, there's enough national unity and so on so you can really find the border.

But if you go back a little ways, there was no border there was just a, I wouldn't say a continuum, there's just constant changes and fluctuations and variations,

and you started speaking one thing in one place and another thing in another place, and they're not mutually intelligible often, but along the way there's just all sorts of changes.

Now, with the rise of national states, and especially national communications and national education systems and all of these things, which is a pretty modern phenomenon,

then you get what we call national languages.

Now, as I say, English is unusual.

The reason, after all, you go to pre -colonial times, there were just hundreds of thousands, probably, of different languages spoken in what's now called the United States.

Well, through the destruction of the indigenous population, and it was real destruction,

kind of genocidal, and the conquest by speakers of basically one group you ended up having a large homogeneous language.

But how could anybody have predicted that?

I mean, it had to do with the invention of guns and, you know, political conquest and all sorts of things.

And that's pretty much what human history is.

There are some French theorists, for example, who argue that they must work very hard to keep the French language pure.

What does that mean?

It doesn't mean anything.

I mean, there's an old...

I mean, virtually every national language, every national culture, or at least the European ones, maybe others, has a mythology that that's the only real,

pure language, and all the others are corrupt.

In France, this position is kind of extreme.

In fact, if you go back to its origins, it's even a little bit comical.

I don't know if anybody's actually studied it, but if you go back to, say, the 18th century, and you read,

say, Diderot, he explains Diderot very seriously that...

He says, here's a prediction for you.

He says, France is going to be the language of science, and German and English will be the languages of literature.

And the reason for this is that French is very clear.

In France, the words follow the order of the thoughts, whereas if you listen to German and English, the words don't quite follow the words of the thought.

So, France is good for telling, French is good for telling the truth because of its, what later came to be called its Gallic lucidity and clarity.

Whereas German and, I think his examples were German and English, maybe Italian, they're good languages for telling fantasies and falsehoods,

so they'll be the languages of literature.

Now you can, it's a sort of naive point of view, but you can see what was going on in his head.

100

I mean, for him, the words in French follow the order of thoughts.

101

When you hear German, it seems all confused, I mean, thinking of some other way.

102

Speaker of German looks the opposite, of course.

103

And I suspect that the mythology of the purity and lucidity and clarity of French goes back to ideas of that kind.

104

After all, French culture had a certain dominance and appeal for a long time, so these attitudes get established.

105

But what does it mean for the language to be pure?

106

Or when people say they want English to be pure, what are they talking about?

107

Was Shakespeare pure?

108

In fact, every stage of history, languages are...

109

First of all, there is no such thing as a language.

110

There are just lots of different ways of speaking that different people have, which are more or less similar to one another.

111

And some of them may have prestige associated with them.

112

For example, some of them may be the speech of a conquering group, group or a wealthy group or a priestly caste or one thing or another, and we may decide, okay,

113

those are the good ones and some other one is the bad one.

114

But if social and political relations reversed, we'd make the opposite conclusions.

115

Let's take black English today.

116

Black English is considered not quite proper English.

117

On the other hand, if blacks happened to have all the power

118

and own all the corporations and whites were working for them, it would be the other way around.

119

Black English would be the language of culture and science and so on, and the stuff that you and I speak would be considered a degenerate dialect, which you have to get people out of so that they'll be able to think.

120

But that raises an interesting question.

121

Why does language have rules?

122

Why were we taught these rules in grade school?

123

Why is bad grammar bad grammar?

124

Well, when you're taught rules of your own language in grade school, the chances are very strong that what you're being taught is false.

125

Otherwise, you wouldn't have to be taught it.

126

but I can see every grade school teacher about to throw an orange at you on the screen.

127

There's, unfortunately, well, we have to, let me be a little more nuanced.

128

One of the things you learn in grade school is the literary language.

129

Now, in English, the literary standard is not so radically different from what, say, you and I grew up with, but it's somewhat different.

130

The literary standard is not what I learned in the streets.

131

It's not very different, but it's a little different.

132

And when I went to school, I was taught the literary standard.

133

Now, the literary standard has some principles associated with it, some of which are those of a real language, some of which are completely artificial.

134

They were made up by people who had crazy ideas about language.

135

And they're all given names you never heard of before.

136

And in fact, the reason you have to teach them is because they are not the person's language.

137

Your actual language, nobody teaches you.

138

Your language just grows in your head.

139

You can't stick a young child in an environment where people are speaking language,

140

and that child can no more help knowing that language than the child can help growing.

141

It's just part of human growth is for some component of the brain to pick up the language.

142

You can't learn it, and you don't learn it anymore than you learn to see.

143

Now, the fact is that the system that grows in the brain is sometimes different from a system which is regarded,

144

for whatever reason as necessary or appropriate or approved or something, some prestige dialect.

145

And it may be different from what grew in your brain.

146

It typically is.

147

Or it may be a way of trying to get us to have a common bond through language.

148

Well, it's possible.

149

I mean, I think that's a problem in places like, say, Italy.

150

In Italy, if somebody grows up in the Piedmont area and somebody else grows up in the Naples area,

151

They're speaking totally different languages.

152

They can't, neither can understand a word the other's saying.

153

So there, when you teach what they call Italian, which is the language roughly of the area of Florence, of Tuscany, you're teaching people what amounts to a second language,

154

and it's the national language.

155

Same is true in Germany and China.

156

Well, China's even worse, because what we call Chinese is a set of languages

157

which are as different from one another as the different Romance languages.

158

They just happen to be all yellow on the map or something, and they happen to be a unified political area, but there's no sense in which they're the same language.

159

We call them Chinese dialects, but that would be like calling French and Romanian two different dialects of the same language, Latin or something.

160

I mean, these terms have no linguistic meaning.

161

They have only sociopolitical meaning of a very complex sort, and the way in which they interact with authority structures is crucial.

162

So what we call good English is a system which is partly artificial, I should say, which is taught to people because it was legislated to be good English.

163

Now, some of what it's taught, it breaks the rules of any conceivable human language.

164

That's why it has to be taught over and over again.

165

So I don't know if people still do it in school, but when I was in school, you had to learn all sorts of complicated nonsense about shall and will, which nobody could ever remember.

166

I mean, I forget what it was, I shall, you will, or some strange thing.

167

That violates...there's no...I mean, there are certain principles of human biology which determine what a language can be, and no language can be like that.

168

So that had to be...in fact, you can trace that back and you can find out who invented it.

169

You know, some bishop in the 17th century or something invented it and decided that's the way it's supposed to be.

170

Now, that kind of thing, of course, has to be taught because it's totally artificial.

171

Or you have to teach people how to say, he and I, instead of him and me.

172

Well, English sort of works the other way.

173

I mean, if nobody was bothering you in English, you'd probably say him and me are here or something like that.

174

But you're taught in the standard language not to do that.

175

There's some other invented language, which is called the literary standard, in which you don't do it.

176

And you ask the question, why do you have to teach people?

177

Well, you have to teach them because it's artificial.

178

It's not their language.

179

And often it's not just not their language.

180

Sometimes it's not even any possible language.

181

Why is pronunciation and intonation so important to language?

182

Why aren't words themselves sufficient to convey meaning?

183

Well, you have to understand somebody else's words.

184

I mean, if you go to central London and somebody's speaking cockney

185

and the words happen to match errors at some abstract level, you still may not understand them.

186

The pronunciation may be different enough so

187

that part of your knowledge of language is a way of decoding noises

188

that you hear and converting them into a system that matches your own representations.

189

Sometimes, in order for that decoding system to work, the systems have to be close enough.

190

You and I can do it.

191

Actually, if you listen to us closely, we're speaking different languages, but they're close enough so that we don't have any, I don't have a problem decoding you and you don't have a problem decoding me.

192

But again, that's a little artificial.

193

That's because of the artificial unity of the English language.

194

spoken in the United States.

195

I happened to be in England last week

196

and I confine myself in places in England where I don't understand what they're saying.

197

I mean, if I listen to them for a while, we can establish communication, but you have to kind of retune your system in some manner that's not understood

198

so that you can begin to decode what you're hearing.

199

What role does slang have in language?

200

Why does slang exist?

201

Well, people are, why, I don't know, but the fact is people are very innovative and they like to do things differently, and especially teenage cultures.

202

Why do teenagers wear different clothes?

203

Well, you know, whatever the reason is, they want to be different.

204

They like to be innovative.

205

They're creative.

206

So there's a lot of fashions in language?

207

Oh, sure.

208

And in fact, there are styles of different groups.

209

Some of them change very rapidly.

210

The words that are in one era are archaic, and in another era can be three years or something like that.

211

And people are playing with their languages often.

212

Again, this is not too common in our societies.

213

Our societies, remember, are basically technological societies.

214

Our intelligence and creativity and so on goes into other things.

215

But if you go to, say, Central Australia, where you're finding basically Stone Age tribes, there's a lot of innovation in language.

216

A lot of the cultural wealth has to do with playing games with languages

217

and constructing elaborate kinship systems and things which probably have no or little functional utility.

218

It's just the creative mind at work.

219

So you get very complex language games, a special language system taught as a puberty rite, and only a particular group of people speak it, and nobody else understands it.

220

How does language differ in the way that it's used in the arts?

221

First of all, there's a variety of conventions,

222

of formal conventions that are humanly created but undoubtedly reflect our aesthetic capacities.

223

that set a framework within which they set a framework of rule, humanly imposed rule, within which people create.

224

So if you find an extreme case, if you write a sonnet, you have to come pretty close to a fixed frame.

225

And while that's an extreme case, the same is true of other literary conventions.

226

I mean, part of human creative intervention has been to create forms,

227

aesthetic forms, which are somehow either appealing to us or challenge our intelligence or whatever, and you work within them.

228

I mean, after all, painting on a piece of canvas that has a boundary, that's pretty recent in human history,

229

and that itself imposes a framework which determines the kind of art

230

that you can produce

231

and in the literary use of language is just everything from

232

the structure of a novel to the metric character of a poetic form is one or another human invention.

233

Do you respond to poetry? Do I?

234

Sure.

235

I have time to read it.

236

Does it make you think differently?

237

What goes on in your thought process?

238

Well, you know, I don't feel competent to say, but it's a topic that has been discussed quite intelligently.

239

So, for example, if you read, say, not by me, I have nothing to say about it, no one will pretend to, but if you read, say, William Amson's Seven Types of Ambiguity,

240

you get an intriguing account of why poetry makes you think, in part because it's so compressed, and you only get hints,

241

so the reader has to impose a lot of structure You have to put your own self into it.

242

And in part because the formal structure itself imposes a challenge to the intelligence.

243

If you're just throwing paint around randomly, it's not a work of art.

244

But when it's done within the framework of a humanly constructed system of rule,

245

at least you've got the prerequisites for a work of art, it still may not be.

246

whatever it takes, whatever creativity is, and that's not understood, that has to be there too.

247

But I, certainly I have nothing to say about these topics.

248

I wouldn't pretend to.

249

We bring up another area you can claim you have no expertise in, and that's the use of humor.

250

We respond to people who use humor in communication, yet it's not taught in grade school.

251

We don't, we're not taught how to be comedians, but we respond to it, and that seems to be the case in almost every language.

252

Well, see, I don't think that has too much to do with language.

253

We can be humorous in other ways, too.

254

A clown can be humorous without using language, and nobody teaches a child how to laugh at a clown.

255

Now, I think we're going here to interesting topics, but topics where nothing is understood.

256

There's no doubt in my mind that there's something about human nature the basic structure of the human mind -brain,

257

which makes certain things comical and other things not.

258

Just as there are certain things about the human brain

259

that make some things come out to be a human language and others not, although they could be a Martian language or something.

260

And at its root, it's, I don't think, fundamentally different from the fact that we grow arms and not wings.

261

Now, we don't know why we grow arms and not wings, but you assume that it's got something to do with the human genetic endowment.

262

And I think the comparable assumption is true in all these cases.

263

Part of the fascination of the study of language is

264

that it's one of the few examples where you can really get some insight into how it works.

265

These other topics that you're mentioning, say humor, should be subjected to the same kind of study, but so far it hasn't been clear how to do it.

266

Words are endlessly fascinating, I think, because it's amazing how somebody can walk in a room,

267

hear a few words and walk out crying or angry or this whole series of emotions simply with a few words.

268

Doesn't that constantly amaze you?

269

It's not just words again.

270

It could be a fleeting picture.

271

Take a caricature.

272

You see a few lines and it brings to your mind a person in a situation,

273

maybe a tragic situation or a comical situation or whatever.

274

I mean, the human mind is a very marvelous thing.

275

It's got an extremely intricate and complex structure, which, at least at a scientific level, we understand very little about.

276

But what you're pointing to is a central part of it.

277

Little hints here and there succeed in evoking in us very rich experience and interpretation.

278

And what's more, it's done surprisingly uniformly for different people.

279

And it's, of course, done without any training or very minimal training.

280

Nobody would know how to train people to do this.

281

So it somehow must be the only logical possibility, aside from angels or acts of God, is it's something rooted in our nature.

282

I mean, qualitatively speaking, these phenomena are very much like physical growth.

283

The nutrition that's given to an organism, to an embryo, is not what determines that it's going to be a human or a bird.

284

What determines that it's going to be a human

285

or a bird is something about its internal structure and what determines

286

that we are going to be the kind of creature

287

that can speak and that can interpret a sign

288

or a couple of lines or something as evoking an emotional experience or whatever, that's something in our nature.

289

But it's so far beyond what we know how to study

290

that you can only wave your hands at it at the moment.

291

How should parents react with respect to exposing their children to language? should they expose them to all aspects of language, or should they simply let them develop any way they develop?

292

I suspect there's very little that parents can do to change the course of language development.

293

I mean, you can, we know from experience.

294

Again, let me say I'm not speaking about this from any expertise.

295

I don't have any more expertise than personal experience.

296

There's nothing in linguistic theory that gives answers to this question.

297

but experience suffices to indicate, in no cases, that you can create an environment in

298

which a five -year -old will sound like a college professor and it's kind of comical, but they'll use big words and, you know, complicated sentences and so on.

299

I suspect you're probably harming the five -year -old, but it's possible to do that.

300

Children can be molded.

301

On the other hand, if you just leave them alone, they're going to pick up the language of their culture.

302

Typically, they'll pick up the language of their peers.

303

Quite typically, there are exceptions, but typically children will learn the language they heard in the streets.

304

So take me, my father spoke with a Ukrainian accent

305

and my mother spoke with a mixed New York -Lithuanian accent

306

and I spoke urban Philadelphia because that's what the kids were talking in the streets.

307

And undoubtedly if you really took my speech patterns and

308

so on aside you'd find influences from the parents and the uncles and so on, but overwhelmingly it's you pick up the peer culture.

309

Why this happens nobody knows, but there's something about humans,

310

children, that gets them to grow the language that's roughly that of their peers.

311

And it's a very rich system.

312

It's an extremely rich system.

313

They don't try.

314

They can't prevent themselves from doing it.

315

They can't make it happen.

316

The parents can enrich the.. anyone who has a two -year -old knows that

317

the kid is running around all over the place trying to find out what the name of everything is.

318

What's that?

319

What's that?

320

What's that?

321

And you can help them.

322

And you can read the children and show them pictures.

323

And they're all fascinated with it.

324

They're periods very rapid language growth where you just can't satiate the curiosity fast enough.

325

Amazingly so.

326

It's unbelievable, in fact.

327

What actually happens is really astonishing.

328

I mean, there have been, for example, at the peak periods of a, forget the structure of language, which is complicated enough, but just take vocabulary acquisition, the simplest part.

329

At peak periods of acquisition of vocabulary, learning new words, children are picking them up at maybe a rate of one an hour or something,

330

which means that they're essentially learning a word on one exposure.

331

And the adults go into adult education and die trying to learn a new language.

332

Oh, yeah.

333

But, you know, if you think what it means to learn a word on one exposure, the way to understand how amazing an achievement this is, is to try to define a word.

334

So suppose you had an organism that wasn't equipped to learn the words of human language, and you really had to teach it those words by training.

335

Well, you'd first have to define a word.

336

What is the meaning of table, for instance?

337

Nobody can do that.

338

You have to define the definition you're using to define the word.

339

But, you see, what we call definitions are not definitions.

340

They're just hints.

341

If you take the Oxford English Dictionary, you know, the one you read with the magnifying glass, and they give you a long, detailed thing, which they call the definition of a word.

342

In fact, it's very far from the definition of a word.

343

It's a few hints that a person who already knows the concept can use to understand what's going on.

344

But remember, the child is picking that up not from the Oxford English Dictionary with its whole array of hints.

345

The child is picking it up from seeing it used once or twice.

346

Now, that can only mean one thing.

347

It can only mean that the concept itself, in all of its richness and complexity, is somehow sitting there waiting to have a sound associated with it.

348

Now, that can't be quite true, but something very much like that is probably true.

349

That's why you and I will have essentially the same concept of table and the same concept of person and of,

350

you know, nation or all sorts of things.

351

And not complicated things.

352

I mean really simple things like person, for instance, or thing.

353

We'll have that even though we all have very limited experience because basically we started with those concepts.

354

We're getting down to the end of the show.

355

Do you ever see a time when the study of language and linguistics will not fascinate you?

356

Well, I suppose it must come sometime when your mind deteriorates to the point where you can't deal with hard questions, I guess that'll happen.

357

Professor Noam Chomsky from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a guest lecturer at the University of Washington.

358

Upon reflection.

359

To see more UW -TV classics, visit uwtv .org slash classics.

✨ 추천 영상

17 문장

이 레슨의 어휘와 말하기 포인트

이 C1 수준 말하기 레슨은 영상 “The Concept of Language”을(를) 바탕으로 합니다. 가장 자주 반복되는 단어는 다음과 같습니다: language, word, French, English. 이 영상에는 섀도잉할 문장 359개와 단어 4878개가 있습니다. 말하는 구간의 길이는 27:41입니다. 화자는 분당 약 176단어로, 일상 대화에 가까운 자연스러운 속도로 말합니다. 단어의 86%가 영어에서 가장 많이 쓰이는 3,000단어에 속합니다. 나머지는 연습 전에 미리 확인해 두세요.

이 영상의 핵심 어휘

영상에서 가장 어려운 단어 15개를 발음, 뜻과 함께 정리했습니다.

단어	발음	뜻
hint 명사	/hɪnt/	힌트, 실마리
invent 동사	/ɪnˈvɛnt/	발명하다
conquest 명사	/ˈkɑnkwɛst/	정복
vocabulary 명사	/vəˈkæb.jə.lə.ɹi/	어휘, 어휘력
humour 명사	/ˈhjuːmɚ/	유머, 해학
pronunciation 명사	/pɹəˌnʌn.siˈeɪ.ʃən/	발음
organism 명사	/ˈɔɹ.ɡəˌnɪz.əm/	생물, 유기체
mythology 명사	/mɪˈθɑ.lə.d͡ʒi/	신화
linguistic 형용사	/lɪŋˈɡwɪstɪk/	언어의
lecturer 명사	/ˈlɛkt͡ʃəɹə/	강사
prestige 명사	/pɹɛsˈtiːd͡ʒ/	위신, 명망
clown 명사	/ˈklaʊ̯n/	어릿광대, 광대
creativity 명사	/kri.eɪˈtɪv.ᵻ.ti/	창의력, 창조력
aesthetic 형용사	/ɛsˈθɛ.tɪk/	미적
invention 명사	/ɪnˈvɛnʃən/	발명

영상에 나오는 구동사

단어	뜻
pick up 동사	줍다
bring up 동사	꺼내다
go back 동사	돌아가다

따라 말해 볼 만한 문장

영상에 나오는 짧고 완결된 문장으로, 일상 대화에서 그대로 쓸 수 있습니다:

Why were we taught these rules in grade school?
Do you respond to poetry?
Does it make you think differently?
What goes on in your thought process?
Doesn't that constantly amaze you?

이 영상의 문법

화자가 가장 많이 쓰는 문형을 영상 속 실제 표현과 함께 정리했습니다.

문형	영상 속 표현
조건문 if + 절, will/would + 동사 — 조건과 그 결과	if social and political relations reversed, we'd make
수동태 be + 과거분사 — 누가 하는지보다 무슨 일이 일어나는지에 초점	are drawn · can be misled · be called
관계절 who / which + 절 — 사람이나 사물에 대한 추가 정보	French which are · things, which is · have, which are
현재완료 have/has + 과거분사 — 과거의 일이 지금도 관련이 있을 때	have predicted · has been · has been discussed

주의할 발음

화자는 don't, they're, you're 같은 축약형과 약화된 형태를 78번 사용합니다. 들리는 대로 짧게 발음하세요.

“th” 소리: mythology /mɪˈθɑ.lə.d͡ʒi/, aesthetic /ɛsˈθɛ.tɪk/, altogether /ɔl.tuˈɡɛð.ɚ/
“sh”와 “zh” 소리: pronunciation /pɹəˌnʌn.siˈeɪ.ʃən/, invention /ɪnˈvɛnʃən/, nationalism /ˈnæʃ(ə)nəˌlɪzəm/, prediction /pɹɪˈdɪkʃən/, assumption /əˈsʌm(p).ʃ(ə)n/
긴 단어 — 강세 위치에 주의: vocabulary /vəˈkæb.jə.lə.ɹi/, homogeneous /ˌhoʊ.moʊˈd͡ʒi.ni.əs/, lucidity /l(j)uːˈsɪdɪti/, pronunciation /pɹəˌnʌn.siˈeɪ.ʃən/, organism /ˈɔɹ.ɡəˌnɪz.əm/

이 영상으로 연습하는 방법

먼저 말하지 않고 영상을 끝까지 듣고 모르는 단어를 적어 둡니다.
0.75배속으로 한 문장씩 섀도잉을 시작하고, 익숙해지면 보통 속도로 돌아갑니다.
자신의 목소리를 녹음해 원본과 비교하고, hint, invent, conquest 같은 단어에 특히 주의합니다.

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법

쉐도잉(Shadowing)은 원래 전문 통역사 훈련을 위해 개발된 언어 학습 기법으로, 다언어 학자인 Dr. Alexander Arguelles에 의해 대중화된 방법입니다. 핵심 원리는 간단하지만 매우 강력합니다: 원어민의 영어를 들으면서 1~2초의 짧은 지연으로 즉시 소리 내어 따라 말하는 것——마치 '그림자(shadow)'처럼 화자를 따라가는 것입니다. 문법 공부나 수동적인 청취와 달리, 쉐도잉은 뇌와 입 근육이 동시에 실시간으로 영어를 처리하고 재현하도록 훈련합니다. 연구에 따르면 이 방법은 발음 정확도, 억양, 리듬, 연음, 청취력, 말하기 유창성을 크게 향상시킵니다. IELTS 스피킹 준비와 자연스러운 영어 소통을 원하는 분들에게 특히 효과적입니다.

섀도잉 방법: 단계별 전체 가이드 읽기 →

쉐도잉 연습: The Concept of Language (Noam Chomsky) - 영상으로 영어 말하기 배우기

Noam Chomsky on Language Aquisition

The Problem with ANGLISH (the de-Frenchified Version of English)

Husserl: Phenomenology and the Life World

Phonetics and Phonology: Introduction

Apprendre une langue, c’est s’y habituer

Contemporary Topics 3 Unit 1 COMMUNICATION STUDIES Slang ang language change

The different levels of how Claude thinks

Why You Cannot Understand Native Speakers Even When You Know The Words

Are we WRONG about most FAMOUS LINGUISTICS experiment??

LangChain in 5 Minutes (Explained Clearly)

Why a Language Map of the World is Impossible

Why is the English Language So Standardized — Ocean Vuong

이 레슨의 어휘와 말하기 포인트

이 영상의 핵심 어휘

영상에 나오는 구동사

따라 말해 볼 만한 문장

이 영상의 문법

주의할 발음

이 영상으로 연습하는 방법

쉐도잉이란? 영어 실력을 빠르게 키우는 과학적 방법