Thread: ребёнка / дети

Originally Posted by scotcher

Wait wait wait.
All of it? Just like that?

All educational systems (assuming that each system is itself uniform, which they aren't) in the dozens of countries that make up the vague geopolitical grouping cum meta-society known as "the west" (no matter whose definition of "the west" you are using), are all uniform enough to have exactly the same problem, and you really have enough experience of all those systems or people who have gone through these systems to state this categorically?

And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?

Hehe, nah sorry, I think you're talking out of your antipodean date.

Well, if you had an experience of studying in Russian school or university, you would know that the Soviet approach of education (which is still maintained by the majority of educational institutions throughout former USSR) was very different from the approach "western" countries have.
And yes, I use western (i.e. of western culture) referring to North America, european countries (those wich weren't influenced by the Soviet system) and some others (Australia, etc.)

The main difference, as I see it: Soviet system gives you plenty of grammar from the early beginning + a lot of academic info, smacks you on the head for every mistake, focused not on everyday vocabulary, but on more sophisticated one. In worst-case scenario you'll be able to discuss art or poetry, but unable to ask where bathroom is or make an order at the restaurant. You're not supposed to like the process, but you're supposed to learn as much as possible.

"Western" system thinks too much of personality, it's afraid of hurting students feelings, or exausting them, or freaking them out (and inventing moronic ways of studing Russian, like the one, where they don't use cyrillics), giving them as little scholastic info as possible and (in worst-case scenario) teaching them to repeat some phrases parrot-like style and nothing else. You're supposed to like studying, but nobody can garantee, that you will really learn something.

It is a generalisation, of course. Systems differ from country to country, but the difference between "them" and Soviet-style system remains, and it's huge.

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

Originally Posted by scotcher

Wait wait wait.
All of it? Just like that?

All educational systems (assuming that each system is itself uniform, which they aren't) in the dozens of countries that make up the vague geopolitical grouping cum meta-society known as "the west" (no matter whose definition of "the west" you are using), are all uniform enough to have exactly the same problem, and you really have enough experience of all those systems or people who have gone through these systems to state this categorically?

And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?

Hehe, nah sorry, I think you're talking out of your antipodean date.

Well, if you had an experience of studying in Russian school or university, you would know that the Soviet approach of education (which is still maintained by the majority of educational institutions throughout former USSR) was very different from the approach "western" countries have.
And yes, I use western (i.e. of western culture) referring to North America, european countries (those wich weren't influenced by the Soviet system) and some others (Australia, etc.)

The main difference, as I see it: Soviet system gives you plenty of grammar from the early beginning + a lot of academic info, smacks you on the head for every mistake, focused not on everyday vocabulary, but on more sophisticated one. In worst-case scenario you'll be able to discuss art or poetry, but unable to ask where bathroom is or make an order at the restaurant. You're not supposed to like the process, but you're supposed to learn as much as possible.

"Western" system thinks too much of personality, it's afraid of hurting students feelings, or exausting them, or freaking them out (and inventing moronic ways of studing Russian, like the one, where they don't use cyrillics), giving them as little scholastic info as possible and (in worst-case scenario) teaching them to repeat some phrases parrot-like style and nothing else. You're supposed to like studying, but nobody can garantee, that you will really learn something.

It is a generalisation, of course. Systems differ from country to country, but the difference between "them" and Soviet-style system remains, and it's huge.

Nah, sorry, I'm not having this. What you are both saying is simply silly. It's akin to saying

"All Chinese people are short. All of them. I know I'm generalising, but it's true."


Firstly, you are positing that "western education" is homogenous enough to be compared with that of a single country, Russia. This is plainly absurd. How much do you really think the teaching methods in, say, Norway, have in common with those in Spain, or Scotland? Even just inside the UK, there are two separate systems (a bachelor's degree takes three years in England and Wales, but four in Scotland, for one example), and within these systems each institution is completely independent and autonomous, free to teach using whatever methods they see fit, so long as the examinations are properly audited and meet the standards of the QAA.

You are saying that, in spite of this freedom, they all, from universities founded 500+ years ago through to plate-glass unis founded in the inner cities in the 1960s, choose to employ exactly the same flawed (in your opinion) teaching methods you listed above, and not only that, but so do all the institutions in all the other countries that make up "the west".

Secondly, you are then positing that these teaching methods are in some way a 'problem', in fact 'the problem', without offering the slightest evidence that any such problem even exists. Is "the west" lagging behind Russia, or anyone else ('the east'?) in any sphere of academia? Or commerce? Or any other measurable you can think of? Surely you would expect this to be the case were their academic institutions so rife with this endemic 'problem'? Even assuming that you can accuse 'western education' of all being too focused on the individual, and too politically correct, where is there the slightest bit of evidence that, on balance, it works any better or any worse than the Russian system with which you are comparing it?

I'm sorry, but I don't care how relatively vast your own personal experience may be, it doesn't come close to being in the vicinity of the ballpark of being adequate to back up any of that.

Originally Posted by scotcher

And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?

Yes, I am making a sweeping generalisation here. Just as i am when I say that the West has become increasingly Americanised in the last few dacades, due to pop culture, McDonald's and American TV etc., ..........but I doubt that anyone would disagree with that.

And it is that Americanisation that helps lead the "feelgood" education system increasingly more towards the point where kids in school can not be disciplined or even chastised by teachers. Where there are no longer competitions for fear of hurting the losers feelings. So everyone gets a First Place Prize.
It is PC and Equality brought to the extreme. You can't tell me it isn't happening in Great Britain. It is happening in Australia! Perhaps France, Italy and Germany are not as bad as the USA but they are bound to be catching up.

First, it's impossible to say which system is better, both have their faults and advantages. But I prefer the one I used to.

I'm not talking about methods or curriculum (who cares whether it's 4 years or 7, one school or another), I'm talking about general (or more wide-spread) approach.

I believe Russian traditional approach (it is changing) is more academic, while in the world prevails more practical approach.
How do kids in UK state schools learn foreign language in their first year?
Do they deeply study grammar from the very beginning or just get necessary and clipped explanations?

At our school we began studying English from the first grade (7 years old). After memorizing the alphabet we were made to memorize reading rules ("in the closed syllable "a" pronounced as "

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by scotcher

And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?

Yes, I am making a sweeping generalisation here.

Right, you are, which is what I objected to (though to something Rtyom said, not you), only to have to come back and claim they weren't sweeping generalisations at all. Glad we got that cleared up.

Just as i am when I say that the West has become increasingly Americanised in the last few dacades, due to pop culture, McDonald's and American TV etc., ..........but I doubt that anyone would disagree with that.

No, they wouldn't disagree. I don't think many people would stop at the west though, isn't everywhere getting Americanised?

And it is that Americanisation that helps lead the "feelgood" education system increasingly more towards the point where kids in school can not be disciplined or even chastised by teachers. Where there are no longer competitions for fear of hurting the losers feelings. So everyone gets a First Place Prize.
It is PC and Equality brought to the extreme. You can't tell me it isn't happening in Great Britain. It is happening in Australia! Perhaps France, Italy and Germany are not as bad as the USA but they are bound to be catching up.

See this is where you are making leaps of faith. You are taking your own prejudices (which, when it comes to discipline in schools, I must admit I share), some personal experience of a few badly-educated individuals, and the occasional story of political-correctness-gone-mad, which invariably get loads of coverage in the knee-jerky right-wing press, and offering this as proof that there is a problem with the whole education system, when in fact it is no such thing, it is simply evidence that the system is not perfect and that it fails some people. It is categorically not evidence that the system is worse on the whole, for the majority of students, than that which went before or than that which still exist in Russia. If you can offer any such evidence I'll gladly hear it.

And in any event, yes, I probably wouldn't have disputed the generalisation had it been confined to English-speaking countries, even if I would still have disputed that there is necessarily a "problem", as opposed to just a different method.

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

First, it's impossible to say which system is better, both have their faults and advantages. But I prefer the one I used to.

Fair enough. I don't accept the premise that there are only two systems to compare, that's kind of my whole point, but if you want me to play along and pretend that the education systems in all the countries in the west have the same problem, the problem described above by DDT, then OK, I probably prefer the Russian one too.

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

I'm not talking about methods or curriculum (who cares whether it's 4 years or 7, one school or another), I'm talking about general (or more wide-spread) approach.

I believe Russian traditional approach (it is changing) is more academic, while in the world prevails more practical approach.
How do kids in UK state schools learn foreign language in their first year?
Do they deeply study grammar from the very beginning or just get necessary and clipped explanations?

British kids don't always even learn English grammar, so there would be little point in trying to teach them that of a foreign language.

But... so what? English-speaking countries are notoriously bad at teaching kids foreign languages by any methods, in contrast to... pretty much every other country in Europe. You can't condemn "the western education system" just because English-speakers are arrogant

I'll tell you something from my own personal experience, my very own anecdotal generalisation: of all the foreigners I have met, Russians don't even come close to matching people from elsewhere in Europe when it comes to speaking English as a second language. Almost without exception, the Dutch and the Scandanavians I've met speak better English than half the population of the UK, almost without an accent, or even with a hint of an identifiable British or American accent. The French and Germans come a close second, being able to communicate easily but retaining very strong accents from their own languages. Russians have the worst pronunciation, and the hardest time communicating. And I'm not talking about Russians who didn't study English at all, I'm talking about people like my wife who went to a school specialising in English, and studied it throughout her education. When we first met when she came here to study, her English was appalling. Her written English, on the other hand, was excellent. I've even met a Russian who teaches English in Russia, who I had to ask to speak in Russian because I couldn't understand him when he spoke English.

Another one of my experiences was spending time in Russia a few years ago when my wife was finishing her degree, and getting to witness how half her class openly bribed their way through "protecting their dissertation" or whatever the expression is. And as far as I was led to believe, that was just the middle class students. The really rich students had paid enough to bypass the whole course, in some cases my wife said she hadn't seen some of the graduates since the week of enrolment.

So those are my personal experiences. Now, would it be fair of me to jump to the conclusions that the second experience must automatically be responsible for the first, and therefore feel safe in proclaiming that bribery is the problem with "all Eastern European education"?

No, of course it wouldn't!

[quote]At our school we began studying English from the first grade (7 years old). After memorizing the alphabet we were made to memorize reading rules ("in the closed syllable "a" pronounced as "

Originally Posted by DDT

Speaking a foreign language requires confidence and when someone pointd out a mistake in every word you say, how can you become confident in speaking that language?

And that's exactly where CDs like Pimsleur come in.

In the classroom setting the teacher should be correcting the pronunciation mercilessly during the early stages. There is no point in learning everything wrong and then having to re-learn it all again later. Bad habits are hard to lose!

In the first year of a language course at university taken from the beginner's level there is a LOT to fit in and time and attention has to be allocated to all areas of the language. Yes, it is ideal to spend hours and hours on pronunciation, but it's just not practical. My class at uni had about 30 people in it. You say there must be merciless correction. That must mean that for the pronunciation to be correct there must be no trace of a foreign accent, as, afterall, if it sounds foreign, then it's not correct Russian pronunciation. A teacher that mercilesly corrects students in a bad teacher.

And what is wrong pronunciation? Let's take the example of the French. When French people speak English they almost all have a strong French accent. Even the ones who are fluent in English still have a French accent. Now this accent is incorrect English pronunciation, but is understandable.

Teachers have to make sure the students' pronuncation is understandable, not to make them sound 100% native.

My final thought: Accent is something that can be developed relatively easily later on in the learning proccess through listening to CDs, Radio etc., recording one's own pronunciation. With exposure to the foreign language the accent will develop naturally. Explaining often complex grammar points, explaining the nuances of words and phrases and the like is what a teacher is needed for more than anything.

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by scotcher

And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?

It is PC and Equality brought to the extreme. You can't tell me it isn't happening in Great Britain. It is happening in Australia! Perhaps France, Italy and Germany are not as bad as the USA but they are bound to be catching up.

It is happening in Britain but I don't think it's due to 'Americanisation'.

Originally Posted by scotcher

isn't everywhere getting Americanised?

Yes, but I hope that Russia is far, far behind. But, here is a thought. Perhaps it is not exactly right to say that the world is becoming "Americanised." Perhaps the world is just blending. I say this because I see some things that are more "European" happening to America and Australia, as well.

Originally Posted by scotcher

See this is where you are making leaps of faith. You are taking your own prejudices (which, when it comes to discipline in schools, I must admit I share), some personal experience of a few badly-educated individuals, and the occasional story of political-correctness-gone-mad, which invariably get loads of coverage in the knee-jerky right-wing press, and offering this as proof that there is a problem with the whole education system, when in fact it is no such thing, it is simply evidence that the system is not perfect and that it fails some people. It is categorically not evidence that the system is worse on the whole, for the majority of students, than that which went before or than that which still exist in Russia. If you can offer any such evidence I'll gladly hear it.

I can't give any proof. Only personal observations as a volunteer teacher's aid at my local middle school. For instance; When learning about Great Britain recently, it seemed very important to see English culture through the eyes of a young Muslim boy and his love for the Koran. I am not stupid. I can see what is going on here. Every time I show up in class I see some type of social engineering going on having nothing to do with basic education.

Originally Posted by scotcher

And in any event, yes, I probably wouldn't have disputed the generalisation had it been confined to English-speaking countries,

Well, perhaps I should have confined my generalisation to English speaking countries, just to be sure.

Originally Posted by TATY

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by scotcher

And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?

It is PC and Equality brought to the extreme. You can't tell me it isn't happening in Great Britain. It is happening in Australia! Perhaps France, Italy and Germany are not as bad as the USA but they are bound to be catching up.

It is happening in Britain but I don't think it's due to 'Americanisation'.

Perhaps then just the natural evolution of "Pop Culture"? Or perhaps from new psychological developments born of the 60's movement? What do you think it is?

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by TATY

Originally Posted by DDT

Originally Posted by scotcher

And you don't think you are making sweeping generalisations?

It is PC and Equality brought to the extreme. You can't tell me it isn't happening in Great Britain. It is happening in Australia! Perhaps France, Italy and Germany are not as bad as the USA but they are bound to be catching up.

It is happening in Britain but I don't think it's due to 'Americanisation'.

Perhaps then just the natural evolution of "Pop Culture"? Or perhaps from new psychological developments born of the 60's movement? What do you think it is?

I think it's general Western culture, general social development. The education system has been evolving constantly in the direction you described as 'americanism'. Back in the day left-handed kids were told this was wrong and made to write with there right hand, then later the general opinion changed to thinking this was wrong and was no longer practised. Kids used to be caned, beat, belted at school, then it was banned in country after county. The current system is just the continuation of the 'be nice to the kid' attitude.

Just because it may have happened first in America doesn't mean that when it happens elsewhere it is a result of 'Americanisation'. Afterall, the term "The West" exists because the countries it describes generally share common values, ways on life when in comparison with whatever isn't 'The West'. This is why Australia, despite being East on the map, is grouped in with 'The western-world'.

Excerpt from the AATSEEL newsletter. Back issues in .PDF format also available free on the site.

Article talks about the человек/люди, ребёнок/дети issue.

http://www.aatseel.org/100111/pdf/aatseeldec06nl150.pdf

The last noun is ребенок — дети. БТС lists ребенок as having two plurals: дети and ребята, although ребята is listed separately as well. The word ребенок has a number of meanings: a very small child or a baby, one’s own child, and an older pre-teen child. The plural for the first two is
only дети, while the plural of the last one can be either дети or ребята. Ребята also means ‘lads, guys’. БТС’s example Своих ребят у него нет, meaning ‘He has no children of his own’ is not representative, since it is much harder to envision this sentence with a feminine pronoun, and it is said about a man of lower social standing.

N. два ребёнка пять детей
A. двух детей пять детей двадцать два ребёнка
G. двух детей пяти детей
D. двум детям пяти детям
I. двумя детьми пятью детьми
P. о двух детях о пяти детях

The alternative form and its declension are quite predictable:

N. пять ребят
A. пять ребят
G. пяти ребят
D. пяти ребятам
I. пятью ребятами
P. о пяти ребятах

However, one has to keep in mind that this paradigm is more likely to get replaced by the the collective numeral paradigm:
N. пятеро ребят
A. пятерых ребят
G. пятерых ребят
D. пятерым ребятам
I. пятерыми ребятами
P. о пятерых ребятах

Overall these new emerging paradigms with numerals have a certain amount of leveling off: instead of having two completely different paradigms, the tendency is to have a single paradigm with one or two exceptions.
© 2006 by Alina Israeli

N. пятеро ребят
A. пятерых ребят
G. пятерых ребят
D. пятерым ребятам
I. пятерыми ребятами
P. о пятерых ребятах

The case order should be N, G, D, A, I, P.

Originally Posted by Zaya

Well, I remember filling in questionnaire that was called 'Needs and requirements analysis'. There was the point 'When you are having a duscussion in your group should the teacher:
- interrupt you every time you make a mistake?
- interrupt you only if you keep making the same mistake?
- never interrupt, but note down the mistakes for explanation later?'
.

Being a student of 2 languages at a university, I've been taught phonetics by 4 teachers (2 of them English, and 2 Russian). All of them used different techniques, one that proved to be the most effective (at least in my opinion) was when the teacher recorded us reading some short stories, then listened to it carefully at home, and later one, during the next class, gave each and every single one a tiny piece of paper with our mistakes and her notes; what should we especially focus on and so on, and so forth. It must've been very time-consuming, but at the same time, it seemed to help all of us greatly. Another teacher was just listening to us speaking, taking notes and then asking us to repeat the words we mispronounced and giving us hints what should we work on. It seemed to work just fine, but on the other hand, at the end of the day, plenty of us forgot what was he saying way too fast, hence I think having it written down works best. :P

Originally Posted by TATY

My final thought: Accent is something that can be developed relatively easily later on in the learning proccess through listening to CDs, Radio etc., recording one's own pronunciation. With exposure to the foreign language the accent will develop naturally. Explaining often complex grammar points, explaining the nuances of words and phrases and the like is what a teacher is needed for more than anything.

You do have a point, on the other hand, though, it's fairly difficult to get rid of some of the speaking habits, if we spoke with them for a long time. An example off the top of my head, quite trivial, but still gives some insight into what I mean: up until I went to the uni I've been taught to pronounce "ate" like /eit/, then suddenly we were supposed to speak according to the RP standards of pronunciation - you have no idea how long did it take me to start saying /et/ instead of /eit/. Perhaps it's not the very best example, since both of the forms are fine in everyday Eng, but it was the first one that popped my mind when it comes to overcoming some of our habits. What I basically mean, it takes much longer to change them once we're used to them, than to learn to seak properly from the very beginning. In high school they didn't really pay much attention to our pronunciation, unless it was an obvious mistake. Chances are, though, that the people will NEVER learn to speak properly simply 'cause it'll be too difficult for them to get rid of their old habits. I know people who have been learning English for more than 10 years and still keep on saying /f/ instead of the /th/ sound 'cause no one took the time to practise a little with them before.

Originally Posted by kamka

one that proved to be the most effective (at least in my opinion) was when the teacher recorded us reading some short stories, then listened to it carefully at home, and later one, during the next class, gave each and every single one a tiny piece of paper with our mistakes and her notes; what should we especially focus on and so on, and so forth.

Sounds great. It must be quite helpful.

Originally Posted by kamka

up until I went to the uni I've been taught to pronounce "ate" like /eit/, then suddenly we were supposed to speak according to the RP standards of pronunciation - you have no idea how long did it take me to start saying /et/ instead of /eit/.

Er... RP? What's that? I still pronounce "ate" as /eit/. Is it considered wrong?

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

Er... RP? What's that? I still pronounce "ate" as /eit/. Is it considered wrong?

RP is Received Pronunciation, also known as BBC English. As far as I know /eit/ is consdered ok in standard English, what is more, I think it's more popular than /et/, since RP is not THAT widely spoken, I can be wrong though. Bet TATY will know best, since he's British

Originally Posted by Оля

N. пятеро ребят
A. пятерых ребят
G. пятерых ребят
D. пятерым ребятам
I. пятерыми ребятами
P. о пятерых ребятах

The case order should be N, G, D, A, I, P.

There isn't a definite fixed order. If you don't learn the names and use the "First case, second case" nomenclature then of course it matters which order they are in, but if you name them it doesn't matter. NAGDIP is commonly used in English books on Russian.

Originally Posted by TATY

There isn't a definite fixed order.

There is. There isn't a definite fixed order only for English speakers who don't understand its importance and its historical traditions (roots).

Originally Posted by TATY

but if you name them it doesn't matter.

Of course if you NAME them it doesn't matter, but if you WRITE them , it does.
I.e. when I check something Russian wrote this way (NAGDIP), it is hard to me to check it well.

Originally Posted by TATY

NAGDIP is commonly used in English books on Russian.

You know, I even don't doubt on it...
By the way, there is no Russian books on English where English words are wrote in Cyrillic alphabet...
A genitive was the second case in Ancient Greek, in Latin, it is Russian, in German, also in Polish, etc.
There isn't a definite fixed case order only for English speakers, but it is important, so you just don't want to know it...

Интересно, что Оля заметила ошибку в порядке падежей. Я просто цитировал прямо с страниц газеты. Но когда я изучал русский язык, порядок бы такой же как у неё. Думаю, что понимаю причину такого порядка NAGDIP (иногда N=A, иногда А=G, с таким порядком парадигмы легче понять). Есть и G2 (чашку чаю), и Locative (в лесу).

Originally Posted by chaika

Интересно, что Оля заметила ошибку в порядке падежей. Я просто (про)цитировал прямо со страниц газеты. Но когда я изучал русский язык, порядок был (?) такой же, как у неё. Думаю, что понимаю причину такого порядка NAGDIP (иногда N=A, иногда А=G, с таким порядком парадигмы легче понять). Есть и G2 (чашку чаю), и Locative (в лесу).

А что такое G2?
Не знаю, с чем это связано, но могу подтвердить, что падежи должны стоять в строго определённом порядке.
Немецкие падежи меня тоже учили писать в одном и том же порядке.
N
G
D
A
При этом N=A во всех случаях, кроме одного (м. р.), а G - как раз наоборот, никогда не совпадает с N.
Помню, кому-то из одногруппников сделали замечание по этому поводу, хотя параллельно заметили, что в каких-то старых учебниках был и другой порядок написания падежей. Может, новые есть, в которых пишут N, а потом A, но лично мне удобно, если A находится в конце, потому что можно туда особо и не заглядывать. Ещё в учебниках могут писать падежи в том порядке, в котором они изучаются (в моём вот вообще NADG).

Originally Posted by Zaya

А что такое G2?

Ну вот это как раз "чашка чаю", как chaika написал. Иначе "чаю" - это какой падеж?.. Ага-аа?

Originally Posted by Zaya

Не знаю, с чем это связано, но могу подтвердить, что падежи должны стоять в строго определённом порядке.

Думаю, прежде всего, с традицией.
Слово "падеж" даже происходит от слова "падать" (как в греческом - не помню, но в латыни тоже так). И нам даже схему-график такой рисовали, где стрелка от именительного падежа "падает" к винительному, по дороге "пересекая" родительный и дательный.

Родительный обязательно должен быть вторым. Например, в латинских словарях для каждого существительного дана форма родительного падежа, и даже само название "родительный" именно такое потому, что этот падеж как бы "рождает" все остальные падежи, в том смысле, что содержит в себе основу, которая при спряжении повторяется в остальных косвенных падежах (так и в греческом, и в латинском, и в русском). Например:

дочь
дочери
дочери
дочь (=nom.)
дочерью
дочери

дочери
дочерей
дочерям
дочерей
дочерями
дочерях