TOEFL Booster / For higher marks try using idioms
Lawrence J. Zwier Special to The Daily Yomiuri
Back in June, before our guest columnist took on the TOEFL Booster for the summer (thank you, Lynn!), we had just introduced the topic of idiomaticity. We'll pick up that topic again today and see how valuable it is in getting higher writing scores.
The rubric--scoring guide--for the independent writing task shows the import!ance of idiomatic writing in this section of the TOEFL. If an answer deserves the highest possible score, 5, it should show "consistent facility in the use of the language, demonstrating syntactic variety, appropriate word choice, and idiomaticity, though it may have minor lexical or grammatical errors."
To get the next-highest score, 4, it should show "consistent facility in the use of the language, demonstrating syntactic variety and range of vocabulary, though it will probably have occasional noticeable minor errors in structure, word form, and use of idiomatic language that do not interfere with meaning."
You can find the complete scoring rubrics for the TOEFL writing at www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/Writing Rubrics.pdf. Interestingly, idiomaticity is mentioned only for these two high-score levels. It is a characteristic of better-than-average writing.
Imagine two people responding to the writing prompt, "Describe an incident during which you were very embarrassed." Part of Response 1: "Feeling proud of my top-of-the-world clothing, I commenced onward to school. After many fives of minutes, a friend pointed to my shirting. It was completely in reverse, and the tag with the price marked on it by the store employees was still affixed." Part of Response 2: "I was very proud of my stylish new clothes. I went on to school, where I walked past hundreds of other students before a friend finally said, 'Dude, your shirt's inside out.' To make matters even worse, the price tag was still on it."
Response 1 is not bad, but it would probably be scored 3 or 4. It is certainly not a 5, while Response 2 almost certainly is. The biggest difference between the two is that Response 2 is smooth and idiomatic, while Response 1 is not. There is an odd formality to parts of Response 1 (commenced onward, affixed.) It also contains misapplied stock phrases (top of the world does not fit with clothing) and forms (like shirting) common in some dialects of English but not in most.
As we saw when this term first came up in June, idiomaticity--the quality of being idiomatic--does NOT have much to do with the "idioms" you may have studied, colorful ｅxpression!s like kick the bucket or go off the deep end. Instead, idiomaticity in the rubrics means "the quality of being expressed in terms that most people find normal."
Of course, different ｅxpression!s seem normal to different speakers of English. Americans prefer "take an exam" over the British ｅxpression! "sit an exam." Both ｅxpression!s are understandable; it's just that one or the other may seem strange to certain English speakers.
That hints at the essence of unidiomatic writing. It is understandable if a reader thinks about it long enough, but it just does not sound right. If a passage is not understandable at all, idiomaticity is not even an issue. The writer has far more basic problems, with grammar or word choice, to work on first.
Here is an example of an unidiomatic statement: "The planet Venus appears to be a milky white globe near the ascending or descending sun." Most good readers of English would eventually figure out what the writer means. The statement is not so much hard to understand as simply odd.
Why? What's strange about it? First of all, appear is a well-chosen verb in this context. But its meaning depends a lot on what follows it. When it is followed by an infinitive (e.g., to be) it means "seems." What the author meant to say would have been better expressed by appears as, in which the verb means "come into view." Understandable, but odd.
The writer says that Venus comes into view as a "globe"--understandable and close to correct, but not quite right. Venus (like all planets) is spherical, so it is a globe, but that is not how it appears to us on Earth. We cannot see any depth to it, only a point of light (with the naked eye) or a seemingly flat disk (with a telescope). Either point of light or disk would be a more idiomatic choice here.
Finally, ascending and descending are perfectly accurate for the apparent motion of the sun, but they are not idiomatic. The idiomatic choices would be rising and setting. Why? Because that is just what people say. Those terms have become conventional and, outside poetry or other artistic contexts, they should be used. Ascending and descending can be used in relation to other things, but not the sun.
It takes a lot of experience with any language to use it idiomatically. You have to read and listen with an awareness of the standard ways of expressing concepts. But one, two, or even 20 exposures are not enough for you be confident that a pattern exists or for it to lodge in your memory. Many, many encounters are necessary for you to realize, for example, that two businesspeople can strike a deal, but they cannot hit one. They can cut a deal but not slice one. And so on.
Predictably enough, an avid reader or eager listener will gain idiomaticity faster than a half-hearted observer. You want to do a lot of reading and listening in areas of special interest to you, but idiomaticity comes easier if you read and listen broadly. Newspapers, television programs, and (especially) magazines are great sources for up-to-date, idiomatic ｅxpression!s.
The raters of TOEFL writing are generalists in the language, not specialists in most fields. To coax the highest scores out of them, you need to use English that seems idiomatic to typical speakers of the language.
Next month, we will see how, in the listening section, two similar types of questions--organization questions and function questions--differ from each other.
Zwier teaches at Michigan State University and has written extensively about the TOEFL.
(Oct. 25, 2007)
Lawrence J. Zwier Special to The Daily Yomiuri
Back in June, before our guest columnist took on the TOEFL Booster for the summer (thank you, Lynn!), we had just introduced the topic of idiomaticity. We'll pick up that topic again today and see how valuable it is in getting higher writing scores.
The rubric--scoring guide--for the independent writing task shows the import!ance of idiomatic writing in this section of the TOEFL. If an answer deserves the highest possible score, 5, it should show "consistent facility in the use of the language, demonstrating syntactic variety, appropriate word choice, and idiomaticity, though it may have minor lexical or grammatical errors."
To get the next-highest score, 4, it should show "consistent facility in the use of the language, demonstrating syntactic variety and range of vocabulary, though it will probably have occasional noticeable minor errors in structure, word form, and use of idiomatic language that do not interfere with meaning."
You can find the complete scoring rubrics for the TOEFL writing at www.ets.org/Media/Tests/TOEFL/pdf/Writing Rubrics.pdf. Interestingly, idiomaticity is mentioned only for these two high-score levels. It is a characteristic of better-than-average writing.
Imagine two people responding to the writing prompt, "Describe an incident during which you were very embarrassed." Part of Response 1: "Feeling proud of my top-of-the-world clothing, I commenced onward to school. After many fives of minutes, a friend pointed to my shirting. It was completely in reverse, and the tag with the price marked on it by the store employees was still affixed." Part of Response 2: "I was very proud of my stylish new clothes. I went on to school, where I walked past hundreds of other students before a friend finally said, 'Dude, your shirt's inside out.' To make matters even worse, the price tag was still on it."
Response 1 is not bad, but it would probably be scored 3 or 4. It is certainly not a 5, while Response 2 almost certainly is. The biggest difference between the two is that Response 2 is smooth and idiomatic, while Response 1 is not. There is an odd formality to parts of Response 1 (commenced onward, affixed.) It also contains misapplied stock phrases (top of the world does not fit with clothing) and forms (like shirting) common in some dialects of English but not in most.
As we saw when this term first came up in June, idiomaticity--the quality of being idiomatic--does NOT have much to do with the "idioms" you may have studied, colorful ｅxpression!s like kick the bucket or go off the deep end. Instead, idiomaticity in the rubrics means "the quality of being expressed in terms that most people find normal."
Of course, different ｅxpression!s seem normal to different speakers of English. Americans prefer "take an exam" over the British ｅxpression! "sit an exam." Both ｅxpression!s are understandable; it's just that one or the other may seem strange to certain English speakers.
That hints at the essence of unidiomatic writing. It is understandable if a reader thinks about it long enough, but it just does not sound right. If a passage is not understandable at all, idiomaticity is not even an issue. The writer has far more basic problems, with grammar or word choice, to work on first.
Here is an example of an unidiomatic statement: "The planet Venus appears to be a milky white globe near the ascending or descending sun." Most good readers of English would eventually figure out what the writer means. The statement is not so much hard to understand as simply odd.
Why? What's strange about it? First of all, appear is a well-chosen verb in this context. But its meaning depends a lot on what follows it. When it is followed by an infinitive (e.g., to be) it means "seems." What the author meant to say would have been better expressed by appears as, in which the verb means "come into view." Understandable, but odd.
The writer says that Venus comes into view as a "globe"--understandable and close to correct, but not quite right. Venus (like all planets) is spherical, so it is a globe, but that is not how it appears to us on Earth. We cannot see any depth to it, only a point of light (with the naked eye) or a seemingly flat disk (with a telescope). Either point of light or disk would be a more idiomatic choice here.
Finally, ascending and descending are perfectly accurate for the apparent motion of the sun, but they are not idiomatic. The idiomatic choices would be rising and setting. Why? Because that is just what people say. Those terms have become conventional and, outside poetry or other artistic contexts, they should be used. Ascending and descending can be used in relation to other things, but not the sun.
It takes a lot of experience with any language to use it idiomatically. You have to read and listen with an awareness of the standard ways of expressing concepts. But one, two, or even 20 exposures are not enough for you be confident that a pattern exists or for it to lodge in your memory. Many, many encounters are necessary for you to realize, for example, that two businesspeople can strike a deal, but they cannot hit one. They can cut a deal but not slice one. And so on.
Predictably enough, an avid reader or eager listener will gain idiomaticity faster than a half-hearted observer. You want to do a lot of reading and listening in areas of special interest to you, but idiomaticity comes easier if you read and listen broadly. Newspapers, television programs, and (especially) magazines are great sources for up-to-date, idiomatic ｅxpression!s.
The raters of TOEFL writing are generalists in the language, not specialists in most fields. To coax the highest scores out of them, you need to use English that seems idiomatic to typical speakers of the language.
Next month, we will see how, in the listening section, two similar types of questions--organization questions and function questions--differ from each other.
Zwier teaches at Michigan State University and has written extensively about the TOEFL.
(Oct. 25, 2007)