Language desk
< February 23	<< Jan \| February \| Mar >>	February 25 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Language Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

February 24[edit]

Is mastery of close reading expected of all students at the primary, secondary, and/or tertiary levels in other countries outside of the United States?[edit]

Over the past decade, I've noticed a pattern of odd edits among many Wikipedia editors from outside the United States which reveals a fundamental lack of understanding of close reading. For a long time, I would see weird edits that betray a profound inability to perform close reading of a cited source, and I would wonder, "what's wrong with this person?" Then more recently I began to wonder if it's a skill they were not introduced to in the first place. (I've learned from playing internationalized versions of the trivia game Who Wants To Be A Millionaire? on in-flight aircraft entertainment systems that what is considered to be essential knowledge varies widely from one educational system to the next.)

In the United States, basic proficiency in close reading is expected of all high school graduates. It's also expected of all graduates of four-year universities regardless of their major or concentration. I was just running some cursory searches on Google and I see plenty of materials for American K-12 educators on how to teach close reading to children. This is probably because close reading is part of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. I don't see quite as much for educators elsewhere. Is my hunch correct that close reading is not necessarily mandatory in other countries outside of the United States? --Coolcaesar (talk) 20:11, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be under the impression that close reading is a Good Thing. Some people would disagree. DuncanHill (talk) 20:50, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That article does raise a legitimate point that close reading is excruciatingly tedious for children. I'll be the first to admit that I found it painfully tedious for many years until I finally mastered it in college. But it is so important that some American educators contend it should be taught even earlier than junior high, as in elementary school.

It's like how algebra is expected of American high school graduates, even though algebra is tedious for all but true math geeks and very few people actually write out equations in their daily work except for mathematicians, scientists, and engineers. The point is to develop basic skills which are universally applicable to all fields of human endeavor. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I could make out, the standards promoted by CCSSI are not generally accepted and established. A general problem with established educational standards is that the next thing is the establishment of standardized tests in accordance with these standards, and then the inevitable result is "teaching to the test", with all its attendant misery for everyone (except for the companies producing textbooks and test-preparation materials and courses) and a general decline in the knowledge and understanding of the students subjected to such drills instead of a more free-flowing form of education. The usual understanding of the term "close reading" is that it is a form of text interpretation that was briefly en vogue among literary critics, and not what I see in the page by the ASspen Institute linked to in the question, which has it as being the methodical investigation of a complex text through answering text dependent questions geared to unpack the text's meaning" [my underlining. --L.]. In practice that will amount to a series of multiple-choice test questions. I do not have the references ready, but in countries where this has been tried, one issue that kept coming up was that this seemed a better test of general erudition and intelligence than of the ability to read and understand the specific text fragments – the more erudite students could often mark the "correct" answer without even having seen the text fragments. Other students were sometimes unable to understand why the "correct" answer was better than their answer, also on close re-examination afterwards, since the inference relied on a piece of knowledge not contained in the text, knowledge that they did not already possess. In one notable incident, the author of the selected text fragment (used in an officially conducted test) flunked the test. He could not figure out the intended meaning of the "text dependent questions geared to unpack the text's meaning". --Lambiam 21:52, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean by generally accepted and established. The Common Core standards are definitely accepted and established in the United States, where 41 states currently use them. --Coolcaesar (talk) 22:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

So that's not even all the subnational entities of one country. How is that generally accepted? Fgf10 (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, generally accepted in the United States, of course. We're talking about a country that imposes global hegemony through both its cultural and educational systems. So it's kind of surprising that its strong emphasis on close reading at the secondary and tertiary levels does not seem to have been more widely accepted elsewhere, especially since we're talking about the country that produces the most successful screenwriters in the world. By success, I'm referring to how words that emerge from the imaginations of successful American screenwriters like Christopher Markus and Stephen McFeely are far more likely to be seen and heard by people around the world than by screenwriters from virtually any other country. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This seems less like a question, more like a complaint of some kind. But I'll take it as a question. "Is my hunch correct that close reading is not necessarily mandatory in other countries outside of the United States?" I'll take myself as an example. I never experienced it (or Who wants to be a millionaire?), from which I infer that back in the last century it wasn't mandatory. I have no reason to think that it has since become mandatory, and would bet that it hasn't become mandatory in the nation that issues me a passport. And it seems vanishingly unlikely that it (or any other educational practice) is mandatory everywhere from Chile to North Korea, from Canada to Eswatini. -- Hoary (talk) 03:38, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my question. The question wasn't whether it was mandatory everywhere in all countries, it was whether close reading is mandatory at any level in any other country besides the United States. And I've been to two of the countries you mentioned. (I have never been to North Korea or Eswatini, but I have visited South Africa twice, which is next to Eswatini.) --Coolcaesar (talk) 06:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reading comprehension, Lesekompetenz in German, is a component of the instruction in the German language (Deutschunterricht) in German primary education. Another term, a calque of the English term, is Leseverständnis. There are standardized tests, but I do not know if they are mandatory. In the Dutch educational system this is called begrijpend lezen. A final test of primary education is mandatory since 2015. There is not a single nation-wide final test; schools can choose between a number of approved tests. In at least some of these, begrijpend lezen is one of the test components. The French term is compréhension écrite, literally "written comprehension". It is an accepted component of elementary instruction in the French language, but I do not know its status. --Lambiam 11:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, at primary level to quote this source "Comprehension is a key strand of the National Curriculum and is assessed in the Key Stage 1 SATs and Key Stage 2 SATs". By the age of 16, in English Literature GCSE, this description of the course content and assessment states that reading comprehension represents 20% of the marks in the exam. In English Language GCSE this description also shows emphasis on "Critical reading and comprehension" representing 50% of the exam. There is no mention anywhere of "close reading" in government publications that I can find, but it does turn up in some individual schools' descriptions of what they teach. Mikenorton (talk) 12:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In England and Wales of course we have been exhorted to "read, marke, learne, and inwardly digeste" since 1549. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible what you call 'odd edits' are just different (equally correct) variations of English you may not have come across before? Also, I don't see what your Millionaire point has to do with this. Knowing random facts has nothing to do with reading comprehension. Also, expecting everyone to consider the same things as you important smacks of cultural bias. Fgf10 (talk) 09:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

They literally explained that the WWTBAM reference was to note they understand that what is considered basic knowledge in one place is not in another. Matt Deres (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Matt Deres is correct. Which kind of proves my point.

Also, I have made a habit of reading foreign newspapers and magazines online every month for over 20 years. So I have an excellent sense of what constitutes good style in each of the major dialects of English. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Is mastery of close reading expected of all students at the primary, secondary, and/or tertiary levels in the United States?! This seems rather an assumption to say the least. ——Serial 12:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Go read the articles I linked to above. Again, some American educators contend it should be taught even earlier than junior high, as in elementary school. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How close is close reading? I'd wager that reading comprehension is taught at virtually every school that teaches reading at all and the difference seems to be one of degree. What one calls close reading, another might not. Certainly I (and my child who recently graduated) were taught reading comprehension, to the point of understanding implied, connotative, or other indirect statements. (Both in Canada). In my years at Wikipedia, I've seen a number of different kinds of errors when it comes to properly interpreting sources. Looked at one way, every misinterpretation of text is the result of not reading the text closely enough, but I'm not sure that's helpful. Matt Deres (talk) 15:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Liquor, liqueur and liquorice[edit]

How exactly are the words liquor, liqueur and liquorice related in the English language? Do some of the come from each other or are the similarities just a coincidence?

In Finnish they are quite different:

Liquor: No exact equivalent. "Viina" means any strong distilled spirit in general, but specifically vodka.
Liqueur (as in sweet, flavoured distilled spirit): Likööri
Liquorice (as in Glycyrrhiza glabra): Lakritsi

JIP | Talk 23:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the Wikipedia articles has some etymology info on the word's origin. Can you clarify what you are asking for? RudolfRed (talk) 23:57, 24 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Liquor and Liqueur share the same etymology, from the OED "Old French licur, licour, likeur, modern French liqueur (Provençal licor, liquor, Spanish licor, Portuguese licor , Italian liquore), < Latin liquor (in Lucretius also līquor ) liquidity (hence concrete a liquid, liquor), cognate with liquāre, liquēre, līquī (see liquate v., liquid adj. and n.). The later English forms have been assimilated graphically to the Latin word, without change of pronunciation".

Liquorice is unrelated, the OED says "Anglo-Norman lycorys, Old French *licorice, early modern French liquerice (Cotgrave), < late Latin liquiritia (whence Italian liquirizia, legorizia, Middle High German lakeritze, modern German lakritze, Dutch lakk(e)ris, Danish, Swedish lakrits), corruptly < Greek γλυκύρριζα (latinized glycyrrhiza by Pliny), < γλυκύς sweet + ῥίζα root. The Romance languages in general have metathetic forms of the late Latin word: Old French recolisse, regolisse, etc. (modern French réglisse), Provençal regalicia, Spanish regaliz(a, Portuguese regaliz, regalice, Italian regolizia". DuncanHill (talk) 00:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In American English it's spelled licorice, which has the advantage of not suggesting this false cognate. --Trovatore (talk) 00:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia we tend to pronounce it like "lickerish". Does that apply elsewhere too? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:15, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to say anecdotally that the "lickerish" pronunciation is more common in America than "lickeriss". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OED again "Pronunciation: Brit. /ˈlɪk(ə)rɪʃ/, /ˈlɪkərɪs/, U.S. /ˈlɪk(ə)rᵻʃ/, /ˈlɪk(ə)rᵻs/" DuncanHill (talk) 23:03, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Of course this relation of these words is particularly interesting to JIP, and I'll raise my glass of salmari to that! ---Sluzzelin talk 22:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here's another liquorice liqueur I rather like. JIP | Talk 00:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Am I correct, though, JIP, that the pictured bottle contains a more straight, bittersweet licorice flavor, quite unlike the Salmiak liquorice whose ammoniumy taste was an acquired one, for me (but presumably not for you :-)) ---Sluzzelin talk 22:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is sambuca flavoured with plain old regular liquorice, no ammonium chloride involved here. It's an Italian liqueur after all. =) JIP | Talk 22:21, 26 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]