placing words in quotation marks

An interesting thing that I have noticed among Korean students is that they are much more fond of so-called emoticons (ㅠㅠ, ^^, ^^; , etc). I think this somewhat spills over into their formal essay writing. A case in point is quotation marks (" ").

When students translate from Korean to English, they tend to put terminology (such as acronyms or other terms) in quotation marks. For example, when asked to translate GDP란 국내에서 한 해 동안 발생한 재화와 용역의 순가치를 의미한다, they tend to put the word GDP in quotation marks like the following;

• "GDP" is the market value of all final goods and services made within the borders of a country in a year.

But unless the original Korean text puts GDP in quotation marks, students are NOT supposed to do so in their translation. This is because quotation marks have particular functions: citing, emphasis, and disagreement. Take a look at the following example.

• After the Second World War, the U.S. government sought to persuade women to leave their jobs in factories, thus making room in the labor force for returning veterans. State laws limiting the daily work hours of female workers for their well-being conveniently accomplished this. Employers had only to declare that overtime hours were a necessary condition of employment. This way, women could be legally fired or refused jobs, all in the name of "protecting" their health.

In this prompt, "protecting" in quotations marks could suggest that

1) it is the exact quotation of the original text of the state laws in question (citing); or
2) the laws were genuinely protective of female workers (emphasis); or
3) the state laws were actually detrimental to female workers, despite the ostensibly protective intent behind them (disagreement)

But within the context of the paragraph, the author placed "protecting" in quotation marks most likely because he doubts that the laws in question actually protected women.

In short, when you "translate" between Korean and English, do not put words in quotation marks unless the original text does so.

tantamount

I see a lot of my students using "something is tantamount to something" to mean "~에 상당한다."

Keep in mind that "to be tantamount" is about being equivalent in significance or effect, not about being equal in value or amount.

Please take a look at the following examples:

• "$3 is tantamount to half of his weekly allowance" (x): you are comparing the amount, not the significance of $3 to this person. So "tantamount" here sounds awkward. You should say "$3 is half of his weekly allowance" instead.

• "Spending $300 on this video game is tantamount to wasting all of my monthly budget on something useless" (O)
  

Frustrated with "a/an/the"? You are not alone!

This is arguably the trickiest part of learning English for non-native speakers. Frankly, I am not convinced that even native English speakers know how to select the correct article (a, an, the). They just do it intuitively and often get it incorrect. So if you are frustrated with articles, don't be discouraged too much because there are millions of people out there struggling with the same issue.

In this post, I am going to focus on the correct use of "the." The basic rule is that "the" is for something specific. So what makes a noun specific? Here are some examples.

1) When you are referring to something you have already mentioned.

• I saw a guy lurking around my house. I told my mom and she asked the guy to leave.
  

2) Proper noun or well known entities

• The New York Times, the United Nations, the Supreme Court, the Cold War etc.

3) Acronyms: do NOT put "the" when they are pronounced as one word, but put "the" when each letter is pronounced (I have to warn you that there are so many exceptions to this rule)

• with "the": the FBI, the UN, the USA etc.
  
• without "the": NATO, AIDS (as in HIV/AIDS), UNICEF, UNESCO etc.
  
• exceptions: UCLA, MIT (as in Massachusetts Institute of Technology) etc.
  

4) Collective unit:

• The 1980s were characterized by the expansion of neo-liberalism.
  

5) Some nouns followed by a modifier (of, that, who etc.) that clearly limits the meaning of the noun

• I have the necessary skills that one needs for successful administrative coordination.
  
• The family of the victim filed a lawsuit.
  

Let me emphasize that these are not meant to be an exhaustive list of the rules behind "the". The only rule that holds in any context is that "the" is for something specific. Everything depends on the context!

The following is based on some of the most common mistakes I have seen among Korean students preparing for the Korean foreign service exam. Make sure you remember whether to put "the" or not with the following words!

WITHOUT the

• Congress (with capital C, meaning 미 의회): The Korea-US Free Trade Agreement is facing an uphill battle in Congress.
  
• society: Try to use your expertise to give back to society.
  

WITH the

• the AAAA industry: The newly enacted law is welcomed by the banking industry.
  
• the BBBB community: The international community is keenly concerned about human rights abuse in North Korea.
  
• the U.S. Congress: Members of the U.S. Congress are split on health care reform.
• the media: The media is a watchdog that ensures government transparency.
  
• the Internet (with capital I): The creation of the Internet changed our lives completely.
• the economy: "It's the economy, stupid!" (This is a phrase Bill Clinton used during his 1992 presidential campaign. When you are referring to 경제 as a general concept, i.e. everything related to the production and consumption of goods and services in an area, you need to put "the")
  

One last tip: when you are saying "AAAA's BBBB", make sure you do not modify BBBB with both "the" and possessives.

• The government's policy (o): "the" goes with "government", so it means "the policy of the government"
  
• the America's policy (x): here, "the" goes with "policy". So you are basically modifying "policy" redundantly with both "the" and "America's". The correct expression is "America's policy" or "the policy of America"
  

financial aid vs. financial aids

Another very very very common mistake among Korean students: aid vs. aids.

When you are translating 원조/지원, most of the time what you want to say is "aid", NOT "an aid" or "aids."

Think about it this way. Where do you draw a line between a singular aid and plural aids? Should aid worth $2 be "aids" because it is more than $1? If that was the case, you would probably have to use "aids" for any sort of financial or international aid. In fact, instead of "counting" aid itself, you are referring to 원조/지원 as a general, abstract concept. So say "aid", NOT "an aid" or "aids." Take a look at the following example.

• Nearly a week into the crisis, international aid was only just starting to get through to those in need, delayed by logistical and security concerns (Reuters, Jan 18, 2010).

However, when you are referring to specific "programs" of aid, which are numerically countable (e.g. program 1, program 2, program 3...), you need to use either "an aid" or "aids". Take a look at the following example.

• When you apply for a financial aid program, make sure that the aid need not be returned. Most of financial aids these days are granted to students as a loan, which the students have to pay back after they complete their education.

government control vs. government regulation

This is a very common mistake that I have seen in many essays written by Korean students. Although both "to control" and "to regulate" can be translated as "규제/제한하다" in Korean, there is a subtle difference between the two, and often they are not interchangeable.

Control means to exercise restraint over/to dominate/to command, a close equivalent of 통제하다, 장악하다 in Korean. Take a look at the following example.

• Google’s decision to scale back operations in China ends a nearly four-year bet that Google’s search engine in China, even if censored, would help bring more information to Chinese citizens and loosen the government’s controls on the Web. (New York Times, Mar 22, 2010)

Regulate means to direct according to rule or law/to adjust to a particular specification, a close equivalent of 규제하다, 조정하다 in Korean. Take a look at the following example.

• The Macao government is planning to regulate the building of new casinos in an attempt to curb investment in the gambling industry.

Here, the Macao government is not a dominating authority in a way that the Chinese government is; the former tries to drive the gambling industry to a certain direction through indirect measures including legal restrictions, while the latter imposes itself directly on the Internet through censorship.

Higher Chances vs. Better Chances

This is a common point of confusion for many Korean students. While both "better" and "higher" mean "more ", they are not always interchangable.

"Higher" should be used for something that is objectively measurable by itself.

• e.g. Students from lower income families are more likely to drop out than students from higher income families.

"Better" should be used for something that isn't objectively measurable by itself.

• e.g. There are better chances of reaching an agreement through the six-party talks, rather than through unilateral diatribes.