|
Post by Otaku on Nov 6, 2008 12:03:34 GMT 8
New Horizon's 1st grade textbook, pg. 47. Dialog goes like this... Mike: "Oh, no! My cola! I don't have any tissues. Do you have any?" Emi: "No, but I have a handkerchief. Here. Use this." I'll skip over the the not-sentences issue and go straight into the too-much-Japanese-culture in the textbook... 1. Outside of Japan, I would dare argue that the word 'cola' isn't used. You would usually refer to the drink by its name. However, since 'cola' is used in-country, it finds its way into the textbook. Hell, if you enter "cola" into www.dictionary.com, it isn't even classified as a word. Now, I understand that different countries might use various words, like soda or pop, but only Japan uses 'cola'. I would argue that this isn't acceptable in an English textbook. 2. My bigger issue is with the word 'tissue' and how it is being used in the sentence. It's being used as a cleaner-upper for food. Back home, tissue was designed for noses, not food. It wasn't until I came to Japan that I even heard of it being used as a napkin, serviette (Irish). GET THE JAPANESE CULTURE OUT OF THE TEXTBOOK!!
|
|
|
Post by regardo on Nov 19, 2008 9:05:19 GMT 8
the german speaking countries also use the brand name ... but japan and germany have a long history, don't they? i told the kids "it's COKE! not cola!". but what use is it, if your jte doesn't back you up, ね.
|
|
|
Post by junkdna on Nov 19, 2008 9:39:16 GMT 8
Cola is not the name of the product though, it's a type of drink. Coca(ine)-Cola, Pepsi-Cola, RC-Cola, et al. A: Hey dude, you want a cola to drink? B: Yeah, what you got? A: Pepsi okay? B: Sure. So cola, is correct. And to back up me up, good ol' Wikipedia: Cola.
|
|
|
Post by gsuiris on Nov 19, 2008 9:52:45 GMT 8
Technically it is incorrect to call it a "Coke" because maybe I want a "Pepsi."
Where I grew up we always called it a coke no matter what brand, but being from the South and seeing as Coke is from there, that should be no surprise. A lot of people call it soda, pop, soda pop, or cola.
|
|
|
Post by junkdna on Nov 19, 2008 10:14:46 GMT 8
Being from Iowa, and having lived in Illinois and California, I have experienced each of these.
|
|
|
Post by mybelovedsushi on Nov 21, 2008 12:56:44 GMT 8
Hmmm. I completely disagree with the first poster. From 4 different angles. A: napkins/serviettes are used by different countries. When I went to college in the USA, I asked for a serviette and people had no idea what I was saying until I explained a lot. AND then they made fun of me. Not a pleasant experience. I daresay the British would do the same to anyone saying they want a napkin (sounds like Nappie (diaper) ) So which shall we teach the kids? Something country-neutral like tissue would be fine. B: The word NAPKIN in Japan means sanitary napkin for woman on their monthly cycles. Lets not embarass / encourage bullying of the girls who are already super sensitive about puberty. C: The word TISSUE in Japan means something you blow your nose on anyway.(Well... wipe your sweaty brow ) So they already know that. D: Why couldnt he have actually brought a tissue to the picknic? Hes just a kid! maybe he forgot to get the napkins/serviettes and he ran out of pocket tissues because he has a cold. I think our role is to teach the kind of English that can be understood by any country. Otherwise, I would be teaching them all about Bakkies and lekker, and takkies and serviettes. But nobody outside my country would understand those words - except serviettes maybe France and England. And also, in my country, a coke/cola/pop/soda is called a col'drink. So I mean, how can we be fair to the diversity of English out there? I think that for once, the textbook hit it dead on. Cola is a universally understood word in my opinion. And tissue as well - something thin, white, papery, soft that absorbs liquids. I dare anyone to tell me an example of an English speaker who wouldn't understand the words tissue or cola. And by the way, arent there some copyright issues using the word "coke" or "pepsi" in a text? All those who think I am a knowitall smartass say aye. (aye) Oh well....
|
|
|
Post by junkdna on Nov 21, 2008 14:22:56 GMT 8
Aye... love you.
|
|
|
Post by jed on Nov 21, 2008 15:16:09 GMT 8
soda pop ? I have never used this, and it sounds out of a 1950's US kids program do they still use that?
|
|
|
Post by rollypop on Nov 25, 2008 7:53:23 GMT 8
Yup. In some parts of the USA. Basically everyone thinks everyone else is crazy for calling `colas` by the `wrong` name. ; P
|
|
|
Post by junkdna on Nov 25, 2008 9:39:55 GMT 8
Just to throw this in.... regular paper napkins are called just that, Ž†ƒiƒvƒLƒ“.
A serviette sounds like a tray. The British are weird. Good thing we Americans rearranged the language properly.
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Nov 25, 2008 12:17:19 GMT 8
A serviette sounds like a tray. The British are weird. Good thing we Americans rearranged the language properly. Disclaimer: for anyone who doesn't know JunkDNA, he's just kidding! I think...
|
|
|
Post by junkdna on Nov 26, 2008 8:24:05 GMT 8
*boggle*
|
|
|
Post by MES Mark on Nov 29, 2008 22:19:29 GMT 8
Not that I believe there couldn't be improvements to the textbook, but where do you think the Japanese masses are going to use English? I completely disagree with the first poster. From 4 different angles. A: ... B: ... C: ... D: ... Well said! Otaku?
|
|
|
Post by junkdna on Dec 2, 2008 8:02:36 GMT 8
I've been asking that question for years, and questioning the sanity of the Japanese for even introducing English into the education system in the first place. The Japanese don't need English. Never have, never will. Only those with the gumption to get out into the world will need it, and they have never needed the education system to teach them English. Or Spanish or French, or whatever mess the Nords speak.
|
|
|
Post by Otaku on Dec 5, 2008 14:09:41 GMT 8
Sorry, I been meaning to answer a couple of these threads but I have been extremely busy recently.
First of all, MesMark, you asked, "Where do you think the Japanese masses are going to use English?" I would answer that question with "Japan". That being said, the implicit point I was making in the initial thread was that the vocabulary being used in the English textbook sounds strange. You can't honestly tell me you are trying to argue that even if I can prove that strange English being taught, it is acceptable because that weird English is being used in-country?
Do we at least agree that when studying a foreign language, it shouldn't matter if the foreign language sounds acceptable within the borders of a country whose language is something other than that of the foreign language? Meaning, if the Japanese language was taught nationwide in America, would it be more important to teach the Japanese language according to what is acceptable within the boundaries of America, even if it sounds strange to the average native Japanese speaker?
I think we can all agree that when learning a foreign language, nobody wants to be told they sound strange when they're using that language. For example, I studied the Japanese language in college but when I came to Japan everybody kept telling me that I sounded funny because I kept using the ‚Ü‚·-form. However, that was the form we learned in college and always practiced using. While there is a time and place for everything, the majority of the time, ‚Ü‚· isn't used in everyday life. My intention studying the Japanese language was not to sound funny when I spoke it; the last thing a basic speaker of a language wants is to sound funny when they are using that language. The very first thing I did when I found out I spoke strange was email my Japanese teacher and suggest she teach the plain form instead.
The same goes for English, weird English is just that...it's weird,@no matter where it is used. I honestly don't think the average learner of English in Japan wants to sound weird when they are using their English. Therefore, if I can show that certain word choices in the textbook sound strange to the average native English speaker, then I have proved the point I was making in my initial post.
Moving onto MyBelovedSushi's (MBS) comments:
1. NAPKINS/SERVIETTES/TISSUES: I think we can agree that napkins & serviettes, casting word choices aside, were designed for the same purposes. I think we both also can agree that if someone asked for a tissue, you would give it to them expecting they were going to blow their nose with it, not clean up a drink spill.
Furthermore, and please don't think I'm trying to be ethocentric, the textbooks were written utilizing North American English standards. Therefore, it would logically and systematically follow that North American word choices would be chosen. In following with the words 'favorite' and 'color', I think the word napkin should replace tissue and all non-American English teachers would proceed to keep taking taking the piss out American words choices and teach the kids what they say in their home country.
All that being said, I am the first person to jump on-board with a country-neutral English textbook. However, the point I was making in my initial post was the reason the word 'tissue' was chosen, was NOT because the textbook writers were trying to make a more English-neutral textbook, but rather it was because tissues in Japan are regularly used as food-cleaner-uppers. If the textbook writers were actually trying to make a English-neutral textbook, I wouldn't have a problem with the word tissue...however, I don't think they were trying to do that.
2. NAPKINS AS SANITARY AIDS: MBS, you said the word 'napkin' shouldn't be used because in Japan 'napkin' is defined as the monthly sanitary napkin. First of all, should the English language be faulted or changed just because the Japan borrowed a foreign word and then changed its meaning? That aside, I can understand the argument you made about girls being bullied but I'm not convinced its a strong argument because in the story, while the girl might have the napkin, the BOY is the one asking for and using it. I'm not even convinced that bullying would take place if the word 'napkin' was used, and if there was bullying, I could see it falling on both sides of the gender divide.
3. TISSUE IN JAPAN IS KNOWN: Just because Japan defines and uses the word 'tissue' in the way that we would use 'napkin/serviette' back home, doesn't mean its okay for textbook writers to redefine the word and use it in the English textbook for the simple fact that is how the Japanese use that word. At the point that a native English speaker from any country would agree that the word tissue is used to blow your nose and not commonly used as food cleaner-upper, I think this would put the word 'tissue' as defined in the textbook into the weird English category. This goes back to the argument I was making earlier about acceptable vs. weird English.
4. BRINGING TISSUES TO A PICNIC: I understand the 'what if...' comment you made about, "What if he actually brought a tissue to the picnic?" However, I don't believe we are arguing about the possibilities of a kid actually bringing a tissue to a picnic, but rather how the word 'tissue' is defined.
I believe all my comments were directed towards the 'arguments' and not any individuals.
I think it's good to have discussions like this and I'm glad people are voicing their disagreements!
|
|
|
Post by junkdna on Dec 8, 2008 7:46:19 GMT 8
Actually tissues are tissues here too. And kami napkins are napkins. =) 'member I said that? =~(
|
|