Explaining the Abstract
Whooo… If you want a really fun exercise, try explaining an abstract concept (usually a difference in the meanings of similar English words) to a Japanese teacher of English. Sometimes, especially at my academic school, they come to me looking forlorn with some awkward question that their students have handed them. They’re looking for help with an albatross – and man, I love nothing more than attempting to reconcile these problems. (Probably because it means a student out there somewhere is curious enough to go past the necessary exam related English and into speculation. But also because there is nothing more gratifying than watching someone “get something” for the first time. The epiphany is what I live for in this job.)
Yesterday, one of my favorite teachers (who is, through a schedule fluke, not teaching with me this year) came up and asked me this one. What is the difference between a circle and a ring? I started thinking about it. I said that a ring is always a circle, but a circle is not always a ring. He drew two circles on a piece of paper and shaded one in with his pencil. He asked me which was which. I pointed to the un-filled shape and said it was both a ring and a circle, but then to the shaded one and said that it was only a circle, not a ring. I told him that a circle just has the shape of a circle. And then the “duh” moment came – I told him a ring MUST have a hole in its center. I pulled out 2 coins – the 10 yen and 5 yen. A 10 yen coin is a circle. A 5 yen coin is a ring. He started to get it. I pointed out that you can call the hole itself in the 5 yen coin a circle, because that’s the shape it has. It clicked. He got it. Ha ha. I asked him to name a donut that is a ring and a donut that is a circle. He did it.
Then I related the problem to the whole issue of rectangles and squares. A square is always a rectangle, but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. It’s a problem directly concerned with strict interpretations of the words’ definitions. But I’m a stickler. I did, however, point out afterward that in casual speech, it’s ok to misuse words as long as the meaning is conveyed. In any event, he was thrilled to be able to answer his student, and to have grasped the meaning fully for himself too. It was great.
Another weird one that I was asked at that school involves English language conventions when counting, especially when speaking about temperature. I was asked how to say the following temperatures: -1°C, 0°C, 1°C, and 2°C. I replied, “Negative one degree Celcius, zero degrees Celcius, one degree Celcius, and two degrees Celcius.” (Of course you may substitute Centigrade for Celcius. It’s the same thing. Or Fahrenheit, actually, since the question isn’t changed by it.) The teacher was flabbergasted. Why do you put an S on “degree” when zero is not plural?!? Hmmm… I reasoned that it was just a speech convention. (I have no formal English training, after all. I rely only on my natural speech – which is rarely, but occasionally incorrect.) I gave the example that I could say “I have two pencils” and “I have one pencil.” However, zero is neither singular nor plural. It simply isn’t. Therefore, I could say “I have no pencils” or “I haven’t any pencils.” I concluded that it’s sort of the same thing. I think that’s a fair equivalency. I told her that really -1° and +1° are the odd cases, since they are the only singular numbers. Man, you’d have thought she was loaded for bear the way she marched off all confidently to hunt down her question-asking student. Ha ha.
What weird things or snags have you tried to explain? Do you have any that you want to kick around? (Grammatical issues aside, hopefully…cause those are decidedly not fun.)
*Side note – spell check needs to get revamped. It didn’t like the words “Celcius” or “equivalency,” but both are in the dictionary. Curious.
