Shadowing Practice: Grammar rules you can stop sticking to - Learn English Speaking with Video
Kies een oefenmodus
Elke modus opent een volledig scherm oefenruimte.
320 zinnen
Als zinnen te kort of te lang zijn, klik op Bewerken om ze aan te passen.
1
This one ain't gonna please no pence.
2
It's time to finally free ourselves from the tyranny of English's fake grammatical rules.
3
I'm going to tell you where these illegitimate linguistic laws came from.
4
Then I'll explain why absolutely none of them are worth sticking to anymore.
5
Hopefully you'll join me for what promises to be a very liberating episode of Rob Words.
6
I have broken one of these
7
so -called rules in no less than all six of the sentences I have said so far, including this one.
8
But did it make me any less understandable?
9
I reckon not.
10
You might not even have noticed some of them.
11
And that's going to be one of my big points as we progress through this video.
12
Oh, and I should mention about this virtual world that I find myself in, which is actually just a green sheet in my apartment.
13
It is freezing outside.
14
I'll get back out and about once the Berlin winter starts to play ball.
15
But in the meantime, I'm here and I'm just going to trust future me not to superimpose me onto anything stupid.
16
Now these are all actually rules that I encountered people spreading over 15
17
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.
18
As ever, if you disagree with anything that I say during this video, feel free to take me to task in the comments.
19
Okay, let's get started with a rubbish rule of English.
20
Number one.
21
Don't split the infinitive.
22
The infinitive in English is the form of a verb that has to at the start of it,
23
like to be, to have, to bump, to grind.
24
And I remember being told even back in school never to ignorantly put another word between
25
that to and the verb that it's accompanying.
26
Like I did just then.
27
Doing so is called splitting the infinitive, because you are splitting the two elements of the infinitive apart from one another,
28
and it is often described as a mistake. But why?
29
Well, I don't know.
30
I can think of no practical reason why splitting the infinitive is bad.
31
So how have we ended up with this perceived rule.
32
Well, I say, blame the Victorians.
33
And I'm going to cruelly lay the blame at the door of one
34
Victorian in particular, the writer of this highly influential book, A Plea for the Queen's English, by Henry Alford.
35
Henry Alford was a grammarian and a pedant of the highest order, and he took it upon himself to write this book,
36
setting out how he felt the English language language should be correctly deployed.
37
In it, he made his own proclamation about splitting the infinitive.
38
Using as an example the phrase to scientifically illustrate,
39
he says, surely this is a practice entirely unknown to English speakers and writers.
40
It seems to me that we ever regard the two of the infinitive as inseparable from its verb.
41
Did you notice something.
42
Surely this is a practice, it seems to me.
43
This is all just what he reckons.
44
And he's wrong.
45
He's writing this in the 1860s when unashamed users of the Split Infinitive have up to this point included William Shakespeare,
46
John Donne, Samuel Pepys, Daniel Defoe, William Worsworth, Benjamin Franklin, Lord Byron, Abraham Lincoln and George Eliot.
47
It is a perfectly normal thing to do.
48
So why has dear
49
Henry Alford got it into his head that it isn't?
50
Well, it seems likely that he
51
and others like him were having their judgement clouded by a fervent desire to make English more like
52
Latin – a language that has for centuries been considered of enormous prestige.
53
And in Latin, nobody ever splits the infinitive.
54
Why?
55
Because it's impossible.
56
But because English has this weird two -word infinitive, we can split it.
57
There's a reason, there's a space there.
58
Go ahead, fill it.
59
Indeed there are times when to not split the infinitive is almost impossible.
60
For example, if I write, I want to more than double my subscribers this year, please help me out, I have split the infinitive.
61
But what's the alternative?
62
I want more than to double my subscribers?
63
That means something different, doesn't it?
64
Like I want to double my subscribers and give each of them a kiss.
65
Don't unsubscribe, it's okay.
66
I probably won't.
67
Unless you ask.
68
And I want to double more than my subscribers makes it sound like I want to double something else, to.
69
Also, sometimes splitting the infinitive can sound more natural than to not do it.
70
See?
71
Hot take alert!
72
Wouldn't Hamlet sound a bit more like a normal person if the question were to be or to not be?
73
Something to think about.
74
So I'm going to happily continue splitting the infinitive.
75
And you should feel like you can too.
76
Onto nonsense rule number two.
77
Don't never use no double negative.
78
A double negative is when you use two negatives in one sentence or one thought short, like I ain't never been to space.
79
The received wisdom is that in such a sentence the two negatives cancel each other out,
80
meaning that I've just claimed to have at some point taken a trip beyond our atmosphere.
81
For that reason, double negatives are considered a no -no. Although no -no is weirdly one double negative that apparently doesn't cancel itself
82
Now, I'm not going to argue that double negatives are a great thing.
83
I would never write one down, for example, it is ambiguous on the page and would potentially lead to some misunderstandings.
84
But I am going to defend its use in speech.
85
Because I don't believe that when said out loud, a double negative is particularly ambiguous.
86
Remember that internet lady who said, ain't nobody got time for that?
87
And then the smoke got me.
88
I got bronchitis.
89
Ain't nobody got time for that.
90
Well, of all the countless memes that she sparked,
91
did a single one of them rely on the interpretation that she in fact did have time for that?
92
Of course not.
93
In fact, the clip's popularity is partly down to how emphatic she is about not having time for that.
94
And that emphasis is largely down to the double negative.
95
As a rhetorical device, the double negative can be highly effective.
96
And what's more, we've known that for over a thousand years.
97
Just have a look at this.
98
This is a quote from Anglo -Saxon England.
99
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.
App downloaden
Alles wat je nodig hebt om vloeiend te spreken
AI UitspraakScoor elke zin
IPA OefeningBeheers elk geluid
WoordenschatBouw je woordenschat op
WoordenspelLeren terwijl je speelt
Zelfde Kanaal
FOR YOU
Aanbevolen Video
B22
18 zinnen
English rules should be consumed in moderation 🤓 #english #englishteacher #speakenglish
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B188 zinnen
27 Common Phrasal Verbs in English
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B2311 zinnen
When British Actors Are Forced to Do American Accents!
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B11
68 zinnen
English Grammar - Gerund or Infinitive? ('I like swimming' or 'I like to swim'?)
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
46 zinnen
You Have to Write Every Day. ChatGPT Won’t Save You.
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
1037 zinnen
Fix These English Mistakes Before They Become Habits | B1–B2 English Podcast
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
18 zinnen
English doesn’t have 5 vowels!
Daily ConversationUniversity StudentsWorking Adults
B23
172 zinnen
Don't learn grammar! Do THIS!
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
122 zinnen
Why learning English is so difficult.
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B22
471 zinnen
10 Rules to Sound Like a Native English Speaker | British English
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
C11
118 zinnen
“Never have I”, “Little did I know”, “Not only is” | English Word Order Inversion
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
B21
114 zinnen
From Beginner to Advanced English in 6 Minutes | Learn "Jump the Gun" & More Idioms
Daily ConversationWorking Adults
Woordenschat en spreektips bij deze les
Deze spreekles is gebaseerd op de video “Grammar rules you can stop sticking to”. Deze woorden komen het vaakst terug: English, rule, fewer, negative, language. Deze video bevat 205 zinnen en 3806 woorden om na te spreken. Het gesproken deel duurt 23:50. De spreker praat in een natuurlijk tempo van ongeveer 160 woorden per minuut, dicht bij een alledaags gesprek. Slechts 81% van de woorden hoort bij de 3.000 meest gebruikte Engelse woorden, dus de woordenschat is pittig.
Belangrijke woorden in deze video
15 woorden uit de video die het leren waard zijn, met uitspraak en betekenis:
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| fewer | /ˈfjuː.ɚ/ | minder |
| verb zelfstandig naamwoord | /vɝb/ | werkwoord |
| phrase zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈfɹeɪ̯z/ | uitspraak |
| nonsense zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈnɒn.səns/ | nonsens, onzin |
| demonstrate werkwoord | /ˈdɛm.ənˌstɹeɪt/ | demonstreren |
| cancel werkwoord | /ˈkæn.sl̩/ | doorhalen, schrappen |
| myth zelfstandig naamwoord | /mɪθ/ | mythe |
| lottery zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈlɑtɚi/ | loting, loterij |
| evolve werkwoord | /ɪˈvɑlv/ | ontwikkelen |
| whereas | /(h)wɛɹˈæz/ | hoewel, terwijl |
| bother werkwoord | /ˈbɑðɚ/ | storen |
| journalist zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈd͡ʒɝnəlɪst/ | dagboekschrijver |
| grammar zelfstandig naamwoord | /ˈɡɹæm.ə(ɹ)/ | spraakkunst, grammatica |
| strictly bijwoord | /ˈstɹɪktli/ | strikt, streng |
| inform werkwoord | /ɪnˈfɔɹm/ | informeren, inlichten |
Phrasal verbs die je zult horen
| Woord | Uitspraak | Betekenis |
|---|---|---|
| check out werkwoord | onderzoeken | |
| get off werkwoord | van ... afgaan | |
| go back werkwoord | teruggaan | |
| go out werkwoord | naar buiten gaan | |
| point out werkwoord | aanwijzen, aanduiden | |
| set out werkwoord | /ˈsɛt‿aʊt/ | uitzetten, uiteenzetten |
Zinnen om te herhalen
Korte, volledige zinnen uit de video die je in alledaagse gesprekken kunt gebruiken:
- 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.
Grammatica in deze video
De structuren die de spreker het meest gebruikt, met de exacte woorden uit de video:
| Structuur | In de video |
|---|---|
| Present perfect have/has + voltooid deelwoord — iets uit het verleden dat nu nog telt | have broken · have said · have noticed |
| Lijdende vorm be + voltooid deelwoord — het gaat om wat er gebeurt, niet om wie het doet | being told · is called · is often described |
| Betrekkelijke bijzinnen who / which + zin — extra informatie over een persoon of ding | radio, which is · nonsense, which is · people who cling |
Uitspraak om op te letten
De spreker gebruikt 80 samentrekkingen en verkorte vormen, zoals don't, I'm, ain't. Spreek ze kort uit, zoals je ze hoort.
- De “th”-klanken: myth /mɪθ/, bother /ˈbɑðɚ/, twentieth /ˈtwɛn.ti.əθ/
- De klanken “sh” en “zh”: distinction /dɪˈstɪŋkʃən/, influential /ɪnflʊˈɛnʃəl/, conclusion /kənˈkluːʒən/, sheet /ʃit/, potentially /pəˈtɛnʃ(ə)li/
- Lange woorden — let op de klemtoon: influential /ɪnflʊˈɛnʃəl/, supermarket /ˌsupɚˈmɑɹkət/, ambiguous /æmˈbɪɡ.ju.əs/, potentially /pəˈtɛnʃ(ə)li/, organisation /ˈɔː.ɡə.naɪˌzeɪ.ʃən/
Klanken die Nederlandstaligen lastig vinden:
- Stemhebbende eindmedeklinker — /b/, /d/, /g/, /z/, /v/ niet verscherpen: verb /vɝb/, phrase /ˈfɹeɪ̯z/, evolve /ɪˈvɑlv/, whereas /(h)wɛɹˈæz/, pig /ˈpɪɡ/
- /æ/ — opener dan de Nederlandse “e”: cancel /ˈkæn.sl̩/, whereas /(h)wɛɹˈæz/, fancy /ˈfæn.si/, grammar /ˈɡɹæm.ə(ɹ)/, ambiguous /æmˈbɪɡ.ju.əs/
- /g/ — een harde plofklank, geen Nederlandse “g”: grammar /ˈɡɹæm.ə(ɹ)/, pig /ˈpɪɡ/, singular /ˈsɪŋ.ɡjə.lɚ/, ambiguous /æmˈbɪɡ.ju.əs/, argue /ˈɑɹ.ɡju/
Zo oefen je met deze video
- Luister de hele video één keer zonder te spreken en noteer de woorden die je niet kent.
- Begin op 0,75× snelheid, spreek zin voor zin na en ga terug naar normale snelheid zodra het makkelijk gaat.
- Neem jezelf op en vergelijk met het origineel; let daarbij op woorden als fewer, verb, phrase.
Wat is de Shadowing-techniek?
Shadowing is een wetenschappelijk onderbouwde taalleermethode die oorspronkelijk is ontwikkeld voor professionele tolkentraining en gepopulariseerd door polyglot Dr. Alexander Arguelles. De methode is eenvoudig maar krachtig: je luistert naar native Engelse audio en herhaalt het onmiddellijk hardop — als een schaduw die de spreker volgt met slechts 1–2 seconden vertraging. In tegenstelling tot passief luisteren of grammaticadrills, dwingt shadowing je hersenen en mondspieren om echte spraakpatronen tegelijkertijd te verwerken en te reproduceren. Onderzoek toont aan dat het de uitspraaknauwkeurigheid, intonatie, ritme, verbonden spraak, luisterbegrip en spreekvaardigheid aanzienlijk verbetert — waardoor het een van de meest effectieve methoden is voor IELTS Speaking-voorbereiding en echte Engelse communicatie.