improve & change

Today's post is really one of the most frequent mistakes I've seen among my students.

The verbs "change" and "improve" are tricky because they could be translated as either 바꾸다/개선하다 or 바뀌다/개선되다. The problem is, when students see the latter, they automatically translate it using a passive voice construction. This is not necessarily incorrect, but could make your sentence stilted and wordy. Unless you really want to emphasize that there is a third-party do-er, I recommend using the active voice.

For example, for 상황이 개선되었다:

• The situation has improved: perfectly fine
  
• The situation has been improved: this is ok, but makes the reader wonder "by whom?"

Similarly, for 그의 의견이 바뀌었다:

• His opinion has changed: perfectly fine
  
• His opinion has been changed: makes the reader wonder who made him change his opinion
  

...은 말할 것도 없이

A recent translation prompt that I sent out had a phrase "A는 B에 도움이 되지 않는다. C는 말할 것도 없다." And I had quite a few students who said "it is a matter of course..." which is not the right phrase in this case.

A matter of course means naturally/automatically/normally. When you do something as part of a normal procedure, without consciously thinking about whether you should do it or whether you want do it, it is a matter of course. Take a look at the following examples:

• A recent visit to France reminded me of the differences between the "new world" of America and the "old world" of Europe in approaching historic preservation. The French have been saving, restoring and adaptively reusing their architectural patrimony as a matter of course for many centuries. To us, 100-year-old buildings are antiques (Washington Post, November 19, 2010): Here, the author is emphasizing how old buildings are such a natural part of French cities by saying "a matter of course"
• By the end of the 1930s, most states in the world, including those that retained political freedoms, had imposed restrictions on trade, migration and investment as a matter of course. Some achieved near-total economic self-sufficiency (autarky), the ideal of a de-globalized society (from Niall Ferguson, The Ascent of Money): Here, the author is using "as a matter of course" to stress that protectionism was a norm across the world in the 1930s.

What my students should have used is not to mention, which means "let alone" or "also something/someone else." It is used to add emphasis to what you are saying. For example:

• Ortiz estimates that, just among the buildings his company represents, about 2,000 units in larger high-rise buildings have gone smoke-free. Add to those hundreds more in smaller buildings, down to two-flats and three-flats, not to mention individually owned condominiums whose owners have decided to rent them out as smokeless, he said (Chicago Tribune, November 19, 2010): Here, the author is emphasizing his point that a lot of buildings are going smoke-free by adding examples with "not to mention"
  

In fact, I'm writing this post not just to explain the difference between not to mention and as a matter of course. It is about a bigger problem that I see among my students: learning words in context. I'm suspecting that many students used "as a matter of course" because that is the first thing you get when you look up "...은 말할 것도 없이" in N*v*r (let's not name names) dictionary. The problem with using N*v*r dictionary (and many other Korean-English dictionaries) is that they don't give you the context in which a particular word is used. In most cases, they simply give you a definition of the word.

What you need to do, therefore, is:

1. Use an English-English dictionary that gives you both the definition of a word and a few sample sentences from which you can learn the context to use the word.
2. If your dictionary doesn't give you sample sentences, go to the websites of major newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal etc.) and search the word. You will get hundreds of articles in which the word is used.
   

This method is particularly helpful when it comes to learning verbs. It may be a little bit more work than usual, but the reward makes it all worth it. Hope this helps!

Controversy, debate, and dispute

Crisp word choice is always very important. But it is not easy, especially when the Korean equivalents of different English words are pretty similar to one another, if not the same. A good example is controversy, debate, and dispute. They can all be translated as 논란/논쟁 in Korean. The best way to go about is to look up their definitions in an English dictionary, and find sample sentences that capture the differences among the words.

A controversy means a contentious dispute, usually carried on in public or in the press, close to 논란 in Korean.

• The outcry over Sharia law has been tied in large part to the controversy around the Islamic cultural center two blocks from the site of the Sept. 11 attacks, as well as other mosques around the country. In August, Dick Morris said on Fox News that the cultural center will be used to "train and recruit Sharia law advocates who become terrorists." (CBS News, October 13, 2010)
  

A dispute means a quarrel or conflict with someone, usually when parties don't agree on the validity of something, close to 분쟁 in Korean.

• The WTO estimated that "anti-dumping" disputes (which involve accusations of predatory pricing by selling goods abroad below the price in one's home country or below the cost of production) will reach 437 this year -- more than double from 2008 (Washington Post, January 3, 2010)
  

A debate means a discussion involving opposing viewpoints, close to 논의/논쟁/토론 in Korean. Legislative/election debates where lawmakers make arguments against or for certain bills are a good example.

• Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York and the Republican seeking to unseat him, Jay Townsend, sparred over health care, federal spending and Wall Street on Sunday in a debate marked by tart exchanges. Mr. Townsend attacked Mr. Schumer again and again, at one point accusing the senator of selling out the interests of New York to curry favor with his colleagues in Washington as he attempts to ascend in the Senate hierarchy (New York Times, October 24, 201)
  

Astonishing/astounding

When something is astonishing or astounding, it causes great surprise or amazement. It overwhelms you because it is so impressive. In other words, astonishing/astounding carries a positive connotation, unless you are using the words in a sarcastic way.

• The psychologist pulled strings to enroll in one of these trials. She was, by nature, effortlessly persuasive, and her illness had made her bold. She enrolled in a Gleevec trial at a teaching hospital. A month later, her tumors began to recede at an astonishing rate. Her energy reappeared; her nausea vanished. She was resurrected from the dead (New York Times, October 29, 2010): Here, astonishing means amazing/impressive/great.

• Senator Donie Cassidy has apologised for saying it "wasn't easy for senators with families to get by on €65,000 a year". This was in response to Senator David Norris. Mr Norris said it was "astonishing" for any politician to have suggested €65,000 was hard to live on at a time when "people are losing their jobs, are living on the minimum wage of €8.60 per hour and cannot pay their mortgages" (Independent, October 30, 2010): This is a good example of how you can use astonishing in a cynical way. Note how the author put the word in quotation marks, clearly indicating that he is being sarcastic.

Indeed vs. In fact

It is always very important to use the right sentence connector. One thing that has confused many of my students is the difference between indeed and in fact. I believe the confusion comes from the fact that both are translated as 실제로는 (in reality) in Korean.

In fact is generally used when you are contradicting the previous statement with facts. For example:

• When a federal court finds a federal statute to be in violation of the Constitution, as Judge Phillips did in the LCR case, we often speak of the Court "striking down" that federal statute, as if the court's order removes it from the books altogether. That is not, in fact, what happens. Federal courts don't have the power either to enact or to repeal federal statutes. What they have the power to do is declare federal statutes unconstitutional and issue orders prohibiting their enforcement. (Huffington Post, October 24, 2010)

Indeed is generally when you are reinforcing your previous statement and adding certainty to it with actual examples. For example:

• Mr. Cuomo, the state attorney general, sought to promote an image as someone who can reduce the size of government. He said he would leave the state attorney general’s office smaller than he found it. Indeed, during his tenure, the office has reduced spending by 8 percent and reduced staffing by a similar percentage. (New York Times, October 18, 2010)
  

Ally vs. Alliance

My apologies for the silence on my end.

Today's post is about the difference between ally and alliance. It is something rather simple, and may even come across as too obvious. But surprisingly enough, I've seen many many students of mine confusing the two.

Alliance is a close association of nations or other groups, formed to advance common interests or causes. The entities involved in such associations are called allies. Take a look at the following example:

• NATO allies are moving toward approving an anti-missile system that would protect Europe, the alliance's secretary general said Thursday, adding that he hoped Russia would join in creating such a shield (AP, October 20, 2010).
• Galisatus, president of the Aragon High School Gay Straight Alliance, says he can identify with the isolation and pain the suicide victims felt. Seeing a classroom full of purple would help gay students see they have allies, he says (USA Today, October 19, 2010).

collaboration vs. cooperation

I've noticed that whenever my students see the word 협력, they automatically translate it to cooperation. But understanding the subtle difference between collaboration and cooperation will help you take your vocabulary to the next level, and construct a more sophisticated, clear sentence.

Cooperation is when a group of people work together for a common objective. The goal is usually specific and narrowly-defined, so that cooperative parties don't really have to change their individual ways of doing things. For example, a drug dealer may cooperate with law enforcement to get a lighter punishment. But this doesn't necessarily mean that the criminal would work with the authorities on a long-term basis, essentially changing who he (or she, for that matter) is or how he works.

Collaboration is when a cohesive group of people work together for a common goal. It is a kind of cooperation that generally involves sharing responsibilities, learning, and resources, transforming participants' individual approaches for the common goal. In other words, a collaborative relationship is usually more closer and comprehensive than a cooperative relationship. Take a look at the following examples:

• The United Nations Human Rights Council’s fact-finding mission concluded that Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza was unlawful because of the humanitarian crisis there, and that the military raid on the flotilla was brutal and disproportionate. The Israeli Foreign Ministry responded by saying the Human Rights Council had a “biased, politicized and extremist approach.” The Palestinian group Hamas, which controls Gaza, praised the report and called for those involved in the raid to be tried. Israel refused to cooperate with the panel, but is working with a separate United Nations group that is examining the incident. (AP World Briefing, September 22, 2010): Here, you can't replace "cooperate" with "collaborate" because Israel doesn't have to transform itself to work with the panel.
  
• A novel collaboration between design and geoscience has led to the groundbreaking discovery of what may be the earliest known form of animal life.Bradley Samuels, one of the five principals of Situ Studio in Brooklyn, a firm that specializes in design and fabrication, and Adam Maloof, a Princeton University geosciences professor, met in high school, where they were ski buddies. Despite their different career paths, both men are visual thinkers and realized that the tools and methods of their respective “trades” could be used to expand each other’s worlds. Their joint effort began a few years ago, when Maloof was working on a project involving a meteor crater and recognized that the digital technology that Situ’s designers use to visualize data could be used to map the crater...For Situ Studio, the most exciting aspect of this collaboration is that we were able to successfully employ knowledge developed within an architectural practice to help solve problems in an entirely different field by applying design tools to spatial problems on a completely different scale,” Samuels explains. (New York Times Style Magazine, September 2, 2010): Here, collaboration is a better word choice than cooperation, because the two presumably disparate fields changed their ways of doing things for this project, and shared lessons and methodology in doing so.
  

잘못된 정책

There are many different ways of translating "잘못된 정책" but my students' favorite seems to be "a wrong policy." This is not necessarily incorrect, but many seem to not understand the connotation it carries.

Saying a policy is "wrong" implies moral judgment based on your personal belief and principles, suggesting that the policy is not only misguided and erroneous, but also unfair and unjust. In other words, "a wrong policy" is more of a political statement than an objective assessment. Take a look at the following examples:

• Greece's main opposition leader Antonis Samaras said Saturday that the socialist government has mishandled the economy with a wrong policy mix, but it will abide by international lenders' strictures. Speaking at his first major annual policy speech on the sidelines of the Thessalonica International Trade Fair, the center-right leader said "tough austerity policies could have been avoided had the government acted in time." (Wall Street Journal, September 18, 2010)
• What’s wrong with President Obama and his administration is that they don’t know rights from wrongs. They are more concerned with...[t]he PLO’s rights rather than the PLO’s wrongs. In inviting Palestine Liberation Organization Chairman Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to Washington to restart peace talks after a two-year hiatus, Obama perpetuated the illusion that the PLO has any credibility as a reliable partner. The PLO has repeatedly reinforced its commitment to kill Jews and destroy Israel. For decades, the PLO has misappropriated countless billions in U.S. and foreign aid. Before it gets negotiating “rights” the PLO needs to demonstrate through actions that it is capable of renouncing violence and corruption and that it can honor—rather than consistently violate—any agreement. (Fox News Opinion, September 3, 2010)
  

Had the above texts used words like "misguided," instead of "wrong," they wouldn't have conveyed the strong sense of disagreement as much as the word "wrong" does.

So next time you call something "wrong," keep in mind that it is a strong statement of your position, and make sure to give a better reason as to why it is not right, rather than simply saying it is wrong.

React vs. Repond

There seems to be a lot of confusion about react vs. respond.

To react means to act in response to a stimulus or prompting, close to 반응하다 in Korean. A reaction has a more passive connotation than a response, because people often react to a situation quickly, without much thought. Take a look at the following example:

• An Egyptian billionaire with a penchant for risk is transforming a sleepy Swiss village into a ritzy resort that may one day rival Verbier. Sawiris, 53, made his fortune developing towns in the Middle East. Now he’s betting that a revived Andermatt will compete for skiers with more well-known resorts...Sawiris caught the attention of Zermatt Mayor Christoph Buergin when announcing the project.“I know Andermatt very well and hearing someone coming from Cairo saying he’ll build a resort here, my first reaction was that he must be stupid,” Buergin said in a July 20 telephone interview. “But now I think it’s a very good thing. This is a man with plans.” (Bloomberg, September 1, 2010)

To respond means to show a response to something, a close equivalent of 대응하다 in Korean. More often than not, a response is more calculated than a reaction, with a thorough understanding of the entire situation, rather than perceiving a specific stimulus within the situation. Take a look at the following example:

• A decade ago, Japan was a byword for failed economic policies: years after its real estate bubble burst, it was still suffering from chronic deflation and slow growth. Then America had its own bubble, bust and crisis...In the 1990s, Japan conducted a dress rehearsal for the crisis that struck much of the world in 2008. Runaway banks fueled a bubble in land prices; when the bubble burst, these banks were severely weakened, as were the balance sheets of everyone who had borrowed in the belief that land prices would stay high. The result was protracted economic weakness. And the policy response was too little, too late. The Bank of Japan cut interest rates and took other steps to pump up spending, but it was always behind the curve and persistent deflation took hold...Like their Japanese counterparts, American policy makers initially responded to a burst bubble and a financial crisis with half-measures. I’ve lamented that fact, but at this point it’s water under the bridge. The question is: What happens now? (New York Times, Op-Ed by Paul Krugman, September 9, 2010)

But sometimes to react and to respond are used almost interchangeably as in the following sentence.

• Solicitor General Elena Kagan, who was named President Obama's latest nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court is already being scrutinized by Congressional Republicans, particularly on how she might react to administration policy decisions (Source: Time)

The word react here does not necessarily imply an immediate reaction without much thought. Kagan, then-Supreme Court nominee, would not have risked her career by reacting to policy decisions without carefully reviewing and analyzing them first.

Demolish, Collapse, and Damage

I recently assigned my students to translate short prompts about the floods in Pakistan and the Haiti earthquake this past January. Understandably, the prompts had many words related to 파괴/파손, and there were some common points of confusion.

1) Demolish
To demolish means to tear something down completely and deliberately. In other words, demolishing implies premeditation and complete destruction. It is a close equivalent of 무너뜨리다, 철거하다 in Korean. Take a look at the following example:

• For the fourth time in less than four weeks, Israeli forces demolished the unrecognized Bedouin village of Kafr al Arakib this week. A mix of international and Israeli volunteers return each week to help rebuild, even though Israel insists that the village was built illegally and therefore must be razed (NPR, September 5, 2010)

2) Collapse
To collapse means something falls down suddenly and abruptly, a close equivalent of 붕괴되다, 무너지다. Because the Korean words end with "~되다" or "~지다," a lot of people incorrectly use a passive voice construction (i.e. Something "is" collapsed) in English. Keep in mind that "to collapse," not "to be collapsed," is what you need for "to crumble."

• Relatives of 33 miners trapped underground in Chile have held a ceremony to mark one month since the mineshaft collapsed. They sounded horns and whistles as a flag for each miner was planted in the ground at the estimated time the cave-in happened on 5 August (BBC News, September 6, 2010)

3) Damage
To damage means to harm or injure a person or a property, 손상/파손시키다 in Korean. Something/someone damaged may be impaired and dysfunctional, but is by no means completely useless or destroyed. In other words, to damage and to destroy are not interchangeable.

• Three days after 72 migrants were found dead on a ranch near the Texas border, a local prosecutor involved in the investigation was reported missing on Friday and the office of a national television network in the region was damaged by an explosion, the authorities said (New York Times, August 27, 2010)

Uncountable Nouns: Evidence & Research

Evidence means something that is used to determine the truth of a claim. Since evidence in reality is more often than not a discrete and quantifiable object, such as a statement, document, or material object, many students understandably say "an evidence" or "evidences." However, evidence is not a countable noun in the English language. In other words, you should not put "an" before evidence, or pluralize the word. Take a look at the following examples:

• How much evidence does the government need before trying something new in the troubled realm of public education? Should there be airtight proof that a pioneering program works before we commit federal money to it — or is it sometimes worth investing in promising but unproven innovations? (New York Times Opinion, August 19, 2010): Notice how the author said "much evidence" instead of "many evidences."
• "We're announcing the discovery of two Saturn-size planets, which we're calling Kepler 9B and Kepler 9C," Holman said. And there's evidence of a third planet, he said — a much smaller one. Its diameter appears to be just 50 percent larger than Earth's. "If it is confirmed, it would have a radius of about 1.5 times the radius of Earth." Holman's discovery, in fact, is an early scientific harvest from NASA's new planet-finding machine — a telescope called Kepler. (NPR news, August 27, 2010): Note that the author said "there's evidence," not "there's an evidence"

The same rule applies to research. Although the word reminds people of a book or a report on a particular topic, making many people say "a research" or "researches," but this is incorrect. If you want to pluralize research or put an "a" before it, you should say "a study" or "studies" instead. Take a look at the following examples:

• U.S. scientists reacted with dismay to Monday's decision by a U.S. judge to halt any expansion of stem cell research using federal funds..."It's an enormous impact, and it hurts more now trying to stop the additional research that's been going on [since the Obama order]," said Paul Sanberg, a stem cell expert and director of the University of South Florida Center for Aging and Brain Repair in Tampa. "Fortunately," he added, "there's still a lot of research on non-embryonic stem cells that is showing a lot of promise and going into clinical trials." (Business Week, August 25, 2010): Notice how the author did not say "stem cell researches" to refer to the research as a whole. Also note that he did not say "there are still a lot of researches."
• Motor vehicle accidents don't just impact the people involved, they also impact the economy, to the tune of just under $100 billion for medical care and injury-related productivity losses in the United States each year, according to a study released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Wednesday. (CNN, August 25, 2010): Unlike research, study is a countable noun. So you need "a" for a singular study.
  
• The governor can point to several studies that found little difference in binge drinking, alcohol-related fatalities or drunken-driving deaths between the 18 states that retain some control over the sale of alcohol and the other 32 states and the District, which do not. But McDonnell did not acknowledge other studies, completed by researchers across the country, that found public health differences between the two situations. (Washington Post, August 28, 2010): Again, study is a countable noun, so you can pluralize it with -es.
  

technology vs. technique

There seems to be a lot of confusion about the correct use of the word technology. Today's post is a continuation of a post I wrote on August 3, 2010.

Although technology and technique could both be translated as 기술 in Korean, they are not completely interchangeable in English. Technology means the application of scientific knowledge/method/tools, a close equivalent of 과학기술 in Korean. Take a look at the following example.

• Technology’s potential to bring about social good is widely extolled, but its failures, until now, have rarely been discussed by nonprofits who deploy it...“We are taking technology embedded with our values and our culture and embedding it in the developing world, which has very different values and cultures,” Soren Gigler, the World Bank specialist, told those at the FailFaire event here in July. Behind the events is a Manhattan-based nonprofit group, MobileActive, a network of people and organizations trying to improve the lives of the poor through technology. Its members hope light-hearted examinations of failures will turn into learning experiences — and prevent others from making the same mistakes. (New York Times, August 16, 2010)

Technique means a skill or command with which one handles a "particular" task, a close equivalent of 기법/기량 in Korean. For example:

• The prospect of a government attack on a popular estate-planning technique, referred to as a grantor retained annuity trust, or GRAT, has been a topic of much discussion among wealth advisors and tax professionals over the past several months. President Obama drew attention to the technique in his 2011 budget proposals, and provisions targeting "short-term" and "rolling GRAT" techniques have been included as revenue offsets in legislation passed by the House. (Forbes, August 18, 2010)

And/or in a negative sentence

A lot of students seem to be confused about whether to use "and" or "or" in a negative sentence. To make things clear, take a look at the following sentences.

• I like milk and coffee: This is an ambiguous sentence. It could mean that you like having the two together. But it could also mean that you like milk as well as coffee.
  
• I like milk or coffee: This is what you would say when asked "what do you like to drink in the morning?" You like both of them, but don't really care which one you have.
  
• I don't like milk and coffee: This means you don't like having the two together. But you may like having milk or coffee alone.
  
• I don't like milk or coffee: This means you don't like milk and you don't like coffee either.
  

The point is, when there are two or more items, and you want to negate all of them, you should use "or," NOT "and."

Last January vs. This Past January

Another very common point of confusion: last vs. past.

99% of my students translate "지난 something" automatically to "last something." But note that in the Korean language "지난" could simply mean "past (이미 지나간)," not "most recent (현재를 기준으로 가장 최근)," depending on the context. For example, if you say "지난 1월" in May 2010, you are referring to January 2010. You should say "작년/지난해 1월" for January 2009. But if you say "지난 1월" in January 2010, you are referring to January 2009.

In the 2005 Foreign Service Exam, students were asked to translate "올해 초 동북아시아 세 국가는 서로 협력적이고 우호적인 관계로 나아가기로 되어 있었다. 지난 1월 서울에서는...한일 우정의 해가 선포되었다." The formal announcement of the friendship year by the Korean and Japanese governments took place in January 2005. But a lot of students said:

• Earlier this year, the three Northeast Asian countries—Korea, Japan, and China—were expected to follow the path towards a cooperative and amiable relationship. The Korea-Japan Friendship Year was announced in Seoul in last January...

This is incorrect as "last January" here refers to January 2004. The correct answer is:

• Earlier this year, the three Northeast Asian countries—Korea, Japan, and China—were expected to follow the path towards a cooperative and amiable relationship. The Korea-Japan Friendship Year was announced in Seoul in January...

You could say "this past January" but it is already clear from "earlier this year" that you are talking about 2005. So it sounds a little redundant to say "this past."

For another example, take a look at the following excerpt from an August 2, 2010 New York Times Op-Ed.

• From the start, President Obama made clear that recovery from a crisis of this magnitude would not come quickly and that the recovery would not follow a straight line. We saw that this past spring (i.e. Spring 2010), when the European fiscal crisis posed a serious challenge to the markets and to business confidence, dampening investment and the rate of growth here...Panicked by the collapse in demand and financing and fearing a prolonged slump, the private sector cut payrolls and investment savagely. The rate of job loss worsened with time: by early last year (i.e. early 2009), 750,000 jobs vanished every month. The economic collapse drove tax revenue down, pushing the annual deficit up to $1.3 trillion by last January (i.e. January 2009)

In conclusion, think about when things actually happened before translating "지난" to "last."

과학기술

On July 20, I wrote a post about "infrastructure vs. social infrastructure." Today's post is along the same line. Often times, Korean students add unnecessary or awkward English words in their translation because they are so focused on translating every single Korean word into English.

A good example is 과학기술. When asked to translate "science and technology" into Korean, most students correctly say 과학기술. But when asked to translate 과학기술 into English, a lot of students say "scientific technology." This could sound awkward as you are not necessarily contrasting "scientific" and "unscientific" technology. The correct expression is "science and technology," or simply "technology." Take a look at the following example:

• China's focus on science and technology is relentless, and it's occurring at all levels of its society. Its labor pool is becoming increasingly sophisticated, its leadership is focused on innovation, and the country is adopting policies designed to pressure U.S. firms to transfer their technology. (Bloomberg Business Week, July 9, 2010)
  

surveillance vs. monitoring

On March 30, 2010, I wrote a post about the difference between government control and government regulation. Today's post is along the same line. Although both surveillance and monitoring can be translated as 감시 in Korean, they are used in very different contexts in English.

Surveillance means a watch kept over a person/group, especially those who are under suspicion, such as a suspect or prisoner. Take a look at the following example:

• Congressional Republicans and Democrats alike demanded answers from the Bush administration on Thursday about a report that the National Security Agency had collected records of millions of domestic phone calls, even as President Bush assured Americans that their privacy is "fiercely protected." ... Fifty-two members of Congress asked the president to name a special counsel to investigate the N.S.A.'s domestic surveillance programs (New York Times, May 12, 2006)

Monitoring means overseeing/regulating/observing/detecting something by checking it continually and keeping track of it. Take a look at the following:

• Autonomy, the UK search specialist, has launched a product that monitors what is being said on internet social networks, such as Facebook and Twitter. Autonomy argues that as social media come to affect more businesses, they need to spot potentially compromising blog posts, tweets or online comments. (Financial Times, June 16, 2010)
• Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh told survivors in the central Indian city that he will head a panel set up to monitor the government's effort to decontaminate the site, which activists say has polluted the groundwater in the neighborhood and led to chronic ailments (Washington Post, July 9, 2010)
  

But note that surveillance in the field of public health may have nothing to do with suspicion. It means a type of observational study that involves continuous monitoring of disease occurrence within a population.

• Surveillance is systematic ongoing collection, collation and analysis of data and the timely dissemination of information to those who need to know so that action can be taken. Tobacco control surveillance includes prevalence of tobacco use, its health and economic consequences, its socio-cultural determinants and tobacco control policy responses and tobacco industry activities. (Excerpt from WHO, Tobacco Free Initiative)
  

사회기반시설

When asked to translate infrastructure to Korean, most students correctly say 사회기반시설. But when asked to translate 사회기반시설 to English, most students say "social" infrastructure, which does not mean the same as infrastructure.

Infrastructure means "the basic physical and organizational structures and facilities needed for the operation of a society or enterprise" (Oxford Dictionaries Online). Although people define and categorize infrastructure differently, it generally includes:

• economic infrastructure (e.g. distribution networks and financial institutions)
• political infrastructure (e.g. legal systems and government institutions)
• technological infrastructure (e.g. computers and wireless connectivity)
• physical infrastructure (e.g. roads, buildings, and sewage)
• social infrastructure (e.g. education, health care, and social networks)
  

That is, social infrastructure is a particular kind of infrastructure. The correct English translation of 사회기반시설, therefore, is infrastructure, not social infrastructure!

~이 최저/최고를 기록하다

When you want to say A가 최저/최고를 기록하다 (A being a statistical index like unemployment rates), you could say "A hits its lowest/highest level" or "A is at its lowest/highest level."

A lot of people say "A records its lowest" but this is not correct. You could say "area/person/thing records its lowest/highest rate" instead.

Take a look at the following examples.

• The divorce rate among young adults has been falling continuously over the past 10 years, and is now at its lowest level since 1990
  
• The average interest on a 20-year, fixed-rate mortgage hits its lowest level in 5 years
• State revenues usually decrease when unemployment hits its highest rate
• Seoul records the highest number of car thefts in Korea, and, understandably, it has the highest auto-insurance rates
• Our evening news recorded the lowest viewership in 4 years. We need to do something about it or my boss will kill me!
  

prevalent vs. prevailing

When translating ~한 여론이 우세하다/지배적이다, a lot of my students say "the prevalent opinion is that..."

However, prevalent means widespread/in general use/commonly accepted, 일반적인/널리 퍼진 in Korean. Depending on the context, it could mean having the superiority or ascendancy, but not always. Take a look at the following example:

• The company sponsoring the dot-xxx domain, the ICM Registry, said it had a vision of a red-light district in cyberspace that was a clean, well-lighted place, free of spam, viruses and credit card thieves. Content would be clearly labeled as adult and the whole neighborhood would be easy to block. Anyone offended by pornography could simply stay out...That did not satisfy religious groups that opposed the dot-xxx domains, fearing they would make pornography even more prevalent online (New York Times, June 25, 2010): Here, prevalent simply means commonplace. That is, it is not hard to find pornography online.
  

Prevailing means predominant or having superior influence, 우세한/지배적인 in Korean. When you are talking about an idea/sentiment/opinion that predominates a society, it is better to say prevailing than prevalent.

• Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele's most recent gaffe...has effectively eliminated any chance he might have had to return to his post after the 2010 election, according to a number of individuals close to the committee. However, those same sources insisted that Steele is likely to survive until the election...the source said, "the prevailing sentiment is that it's not worth the commotion with four months to the midterm [elections] and six months until a new chairman." (Chris Cillizza on Washingtonpost.com, July 6, 2010)

Acronym rules

According to the Chicago Manual of Style, one of the most widely used writing and citation style guides in America, there are some basic rules about acronyms.

1) Spell it out on first use!
Unless an acronym is so well-known that spelling it out is silly and almost insulting (e.g. CD-ROM), you should spell it out upon first reference. Put the acronym in parentheses on first use, and starting the second reference on, just use the acronym. Take a look at the following example:

• The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is an organization of 10 countries located in Southeast Asia. ASEAN was created in 1967 and aims at promoting economic growth and cooperation among its member nations: (o)
  
• ASEAN is an organization of 10 countries located in Southeast Asia. ASEAN was created in 1967 and aims at promoting economic growth and cooperation among its member nations (x): some readers may not know what ASEAN is. you should spell it out on first reference!
• The Association of Southeast Asian Nations is an organization of 10 countries located in Southeast Asia. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations was created in 1967 and aims at promoting economic growth and cooperation among its member nations (x): repetitive and wordy! use the acronym to make it succinct.

2) Lowercase vs. Uppercase
There is no reason to capitalize the first letters of a noun just because it has an acronym. You only uppercase first letters when the noun is a proper noun.

• Lowercase (non-proper nouns): free trade agreements (FTAs), improvised explosive device (IED), standard operation procedures (SOPs) ...
  
• Uppercase (proper nouns): American Bar Association (ABA), North Carolina (NC), Department of Defense (DOD) ...
  

정책을 마련/제시하다

A key to writing a good essay is presenting your views without being repetitive. A case in point is 정책을 마련/제시하다. A lot of Korean students repeatedly say "make a policy," but there are many different ways to say it.

To lay out something means to make a detailed plan for something, 자세히 설명하다/계획하다 in Korean.

• President Barack Obama on Monday laid out an overarching new US policy on outer space, calling for more international and private sector cooperation on exploration, climate change and orbiting debris (AFP, June 28, 2010)

To come up with something means to produce, supply, bring forth something, close to 방법을 고안하다, 방안을 마련하다 in Korean.

• Even if the Legislature did pass the appropriations bill, it would still need to pass further legislation to come up with enough revenue to pay for the spending it restored (New York Times, June 28, 2010)

To detail means to report fully and distinctly, close to 방안을 구체화하다 in Korean.

• Many analysts said the austerity plans, which include a rise in value-added tax to 20 percent from next year, would help the UK to avoid ratings downgrades suffered by some euro zone countries. But they added that sterling gains on the back of the budget may be limited as the government needs to detail how it will slash spending, while others were concerned that tightening the country's purse strings may choke economic growth (Reuters, June 23, 2010)
  

To put forth means to propose or present an idea, close to 계획이나 대책을 제시하다 in Korean.

• But I think it's really clear on one point that the American people understand very clearly: They understand that there should be an end to discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions. The proposals we put forth end discrimination on the basis of preexisting conditions. The Republican bill does not (House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the White House Health Summit, February 25, 2010) .
  

find vs. find out

Although both to find and to find out could be translated as 알아내다, 발견하다 in Korean, they don't mean the same in English.

To find out means to discover the true, often negative, nature of something, or to detect a wrongdoing. It is usually (but not always) associated an offense.

• As soon as she found out (= to detect a wrongdoing) that her husband had been cheating on her, she hired a divorce attorney.
  
• The concerns, fed largely by unease over military operations in southern Afghanistan that are progressing slower than anticipated, spurred lawmakers to schedule last-minute hearings this week to assess progress on the battlefield and within the Afghan government. "The hearing is an attempt to find out (= to discover the truth) what is going on in Kandahar," said a Senate Armed Services Committee aide, adding that Sen. Carl M. Levin (D-Mich.), the panel's chairman, "is particularly focused on whether there has been a change in strategy or timetable for the Kandahar campaign." (Washington Post, June 15, 2010)

To find means to discover/perceive/attain something, usually through study, consideration, or search.

• Scientists at the Carnegie Institution of Washington at Stanford University synthesized carbon emissions and trade patterns and found (= discover through study) that more than one-third of CO2 emissions related to the consumption of goods and services in developed countries are actually emitted outside their national borders. (Time, March 9, 2010)
• I finally found (= discover through search) my sister's journal in her dresser. I am so tempted to read it, but she will get very upset if she finds it out (= detect a wrongdoing; "it" refers to the fact that I read her journal).
  
  

Part II in our never-ending battle with "the": proper nouns and articles

1) proper noun
Proper nouns (고유명사) are nouns that represent unique entities, such as names, places, and things. Generally, you need to capitalize the first letters, and should not put "the" before them.

• Seoul, Tokyo, Samsung, Hong Gil-dong .... (o)
• seoul, tokyo, the Samsung, hong gil-dong .... (x)

But common nouns (일반명사) also serve as proper nouns when paired with other words to create a name for an entity. For example, words like ministry, trade, and foreign affairs are all common nouns, but the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade is a proper noun. This kind of proper nouns are generally preceded by the.

• the Department of State, the Harvard School of Government, the White House ... (o)
  
• Department of State, Harvard school of government, the white house ... (x)
  

2) proper noun + description
You need to determine which article to use depending on whether the proper noun is preceded or followed by the description thereof. Take a look at the following examples:

• The American tire maker Goodyear did...
• Goodyear, an American tire maker, did...
• American tire maker Goodyear's action is.... (You are pairing "American tire maker" and "Goodyear" into one proper noun. So no "the". It is like you never say "the Tom's book." You should always say "Tom's book")

• The Korean car company KIA said...
• KIA, a Korean car company, said...
• Korean car company KIA's sales increased...
  

3) Acronyms
I have already tried to explain this in another post (April 3, 2010 "Frustrated with a/an/the? You are not alone!"), but a lot of people still seem to be very confused. Let me give it another try!

When common nouns are paired to form a proper noun, the end result is generally a very long proper noun. So people usually use acronyms. For example, instead of saying "the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade," people say MOFAT. A lot of Korean students are not sure about which article (a,an, the) to put before acronyms.

• The FBI, the CIA, the UN ... : For acronyms of organization names that you pronounce each letter separately, use "the."
• WIPO, UNICEF, UNESCO, NATO ... : For acronyms of organization names that are pronounced as one word, do not put "the" before them.
• BP, LG, KFC, AT&T ... : Even if you pronounce each letter in these acronyms, they are so commonly used that they became non-acronymous proper nouns. That is, no one really cares what each letters stand for any more. In this case, do not use "the."
  

issue of direct translation III

When writing an essay in a foreign language, people tend to come up with ideas in their native language first and then translate it to the foreign language. Although this is natural and understandable, often times the end result is awkward expressions due to word-by-word direct translation. The following two examples are the most common cases of such that I have seen.

1) 정부는 ~에 더 관심을 기울여야 한다.
When asked to write a policy recommendation paper (정부 정책 제언), the most popular expression among Korean students seem to be either "the government should take/have more interest in something" or "the government should pay more/closer attention to something."

Although these are perfectly fine expressions, make sure you provide (either in the same sentence or in the following sentences) further explanations as to how/why the government can/should do so.

한국말로는 현안 A에 관하여 "정부가 관심을 가져야 한다"라고만 하면 충분히 제언이 되는 것 같지만, 영어로 그대로 번역해 놓으면 정부가 실제로 어떤 조처를 취하건 말건 간에 A에 대해 관심만 더 가지면 된다는 의미로 드릴 수 있습니다.

Take a look at the following example:

• The government should take more interest in the local context. (very vague)
• For more effective development assistance, the government should learn about the local context through research and community meetings (much more specific with "how" and "why")
  

2) Recently, ....
Interestingly, about 80% of the essays I have reviewed start with the word "recently." This is because expressions like "최근 우리 나라에서는.." "최근 한국 정부는..." are good and common ways of starting an essay in Korean.

However, as I explained in a previous post ("Unnecessary Words-Issue of Direct Translation I" April 20, 2010) with the case of "nowadays," the word "recently" implies that something is current and fresh, as opposed to being old or continuous. For example;

• Recently, the Illinois General Assembly Scholarship Program has fallen under intense scrutiny by the media and good government groups as a way for politicians to reward friends and donors by giving away full scholarships to a state college or university (Chicago Tribune, "Stop the Political Perks" June 10, 2010): Here, the author used "recently" to emphasize the fact that public attention to the scholarship program began only in the recent past.
  

Thus, for the sake of originality, try to start your essay with something other than "recently," unless you really want to point out that something happened in recent times.

word order-부사의 위치

Adverbs are not just words that end with "-ly." Anything that modifies a verb, adjective, or other adverb is an adverb. It does so by giving information about place, time, manner, cause, purpose, means , certainty, purpose etc. Therefore, words like here/there/fast are also adverbs, even if they don't end with "-ly."

There are so many different rules about where to put the adverb, and most of you do it just fine intuitively. But many students seem to be confused about word order when the verb is followed by more than one adverb. In this case, the correct order is "manner+place+frequency+time+purpose." For example, you should say "my friend studies hard in her room everyday after dinner to ace the final exam." If you break down the sentence, you can see what each element stands for.

• My friend: subject
• studies: verb
• hard: manner
• in her room: place
• everyday: frequency
• after dinner: time
• to ace the final exam: purpose
  

"criticize that"

Another word choice mistake I have seen from Korean students is the term "criticize that"; for example, "he criticized that she had been unfaithful." However, "criticize that" is not correct. The word "criticize" means to speak badly of someone's actions - the focus being on the fact that they did the bad action. While you can't "criticize that" someone did a certain thing, you can "criticize/blame them for doing it", "accuse them of doing it", or "assert that they did it". These all have different meanings:

• Pyeongyang's Naval command criticized that South Korea’s “reckless military provocation” was an attempt to maintain the Northern Limit Line(NLL). (x - does not make sense)
• Pyeongyang's Naval command asserted that South Korea’s “reckless military provocation” was an attempt to maintain the Northern Limit Line(NLL). (o - this means that North Korea is arguing that the provocation was an attempt to maintain the NLL)
• Pyeongyang's Naval command accused South Korea of “reckless military provocation”, in an attempt to maintain the Northern Limit Line(NLL). (o - this means that North Korea accused South Korea of taking provocative actions on purpose, in order to further the goal of maintaining the NLL)
• Pyeongyang's Naval command criticized South Korea’s “reckless military provocation” as an attempt to maintain the Northern Limit Line(NLL). (o - this means that the North sees the South's "provocation" as a bad thing, and interpreted it to be an attempt to maintain the NLL)

legitimate vs. legal

Legitimate means something is in accordance with established rules or standards, 정당한/타당한 in Korean. The established rules could be law, but not always. So being legitimate could imply lawfulness depending on the context, but that is not always the case.

• BP's CEO, Tony Hayward, has said the company will pay all "legitimate claims," well beyond the $75 million. But lawmakers have grown wary of the company's assurances as BP and other companies involved in the Gulf disaster have engaged in finger-pointing and resisted handing over video of the blown well. They are also worried about how BP will define "legitimate." (New York Times, May 25, 2010)

Here, legitimate means justified/genuine/reasonable, but not legal. Lawmakers are concerned because what a legitimate claim is in the Gulf oil spill case is not clearly defined by law, giving BP room for arbitrary liability.

• Make sure that he is the legitimate owner of the property you are about to purchase, as many cases of falsification of documents have been reported recently.
  

In this case, you could assume that legitimate also means legal/lawful, as real estate transactions are governed by law in most cases. When someone is a legitimate property owner, he or she must have acquired the property in a lawful way.

The following are some examples you might want to remember:

• illegitimate child: child outside of marriage
  
• illegal child (x)

• legal immigrants: immigrants who are in a country legally
• legitimate immigrants (x)

• legitimate copy: a copy that is authentic, not fake
• legal copy: a copy made in accordance with the law

• legal concerns: concerns that are related to the law
• legitimate concerns: justifiable and reasonable concerns
  

쉼표의 적절한 사용

By using commas properly, you can avoid making a run-on sentence (a sentence that has two or more complete sentences without appropriate conjunction or punctuation) and make your sentence a lot more clear.

1) name and title
When identifying something by name, after describing it more generally, use commas to separate out the name. Likewise, after stating someone's name, use commas to separate out their occupation.

• A government employee, Hong Gil-dong, said that....
• Professor Kim Chul-soo, the director of the Korean Center for Economic Development Research, said that...

But when you state a well-known person's official title that the person generally goes by, you don't need to separate out the title.

• Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that... (o)
• Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, said that... (x)

2) Parenthetical element
Use a comma before and after a parenthetical element to avoid confusion. Parenthetical element, or added/inserted clause, is a part of a sentence that can be removed without affecting the meaning of the original sentence.

• The leak was caused when the Deepwater Horizon rig, which had been drilling the well for BP, exploded April 20 and sank (Wall Street Journal, May 17, 2010): The sentence still makes sense without the italicized part, so you need a comma before and after it.
• Operation Rajprasong, which started on 14 May, has claimed the lives of at least 36 demonstrators (Guardian, May 17, 2010): Same thing here. The sentence still makes sense without the italicized part.
  

3) which, that, and comma
One of the most common mistakes I have seen: which vs. that

"A that B"는 명사의 의미를 좀더 분명하게 "제한"해 주기 위한 것이며 (A > B),
"A, which B"는 명사에 대한 "추가적인" 설명을 위한 것으로 (A=B) which앞에 쉼표를 써주어야 합니다.

• Jennifer likes purses that are expensive: 모든 핸드백이 다 비싼 것은 아니며 제니퍼는 핸드백 중에서도 비싼 핸드백만을 좋아하므로 that. (purses > expensive purses)
  
• Jennifer likes designer purses, which are expensive: 모든 명품 핸드백은 비싸며, 제니퍼는 그러한 명품 핸드백을 좋아한다는 의미이므로 쉼표 + which (designer purses = expensive purses)
• Designer purses, which are expensive, are what Jennifer likes: 이렇게 쓰면 which are expensive가 2번에서 설명한 parenthetical element가 됩니다.

4) such as
You need a comma if what follows "such as" is an example of what precedes it.
You don't need a comma if what follows "such as" narrows down what precedes it.

• I like movie stars, such as Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise: Brad Pitt and Tom Cruise are examples of movie stars. So you need a comma
• The house needs things such as furniture and bedding: Here, we don't know what category the "things" are. So "such as" narrows down what the "things" are, rather than giving examples of the "things."
  
• The house needs household goods, such as furniture and bedding: Now we know what category we are talking about (household goods), so you need a comma before "such as."

5) quotation and comma
Comma and period should come before the final quotation mark.

• “Starting today,” Justice Thomas wrote, “ours can count itself among the few in which judicial decree prevents voters from making that choice.”(New York Times, May 17, 2010)

6) series of items
When you list more than two items, use a comma to separate things. Make sure you use "and" only once before the last item. Some say that you don't need a comma before "and" but keep in mind that this is true only when your sentence is super clear. If there is any doubt that the last two items may be seen as one, use a comma.

• I like milk, egg, bread, and fruits for breakfast.
• I lost my key, got hit by a car, and broke up with my girlfriend. I hate my life.