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.