# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
English vs. Singaporean Pronunciation | TMTV

# data[].attributes.headline
Singlish language tips (Singaporean English)

# data[].attributes.subject
Singlish language tips (Singaporean English)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Singlish language tips (Singaporean English)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Learning Singlish (Singaporean English) - Xiaxue's Guide To Life: EP178

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
English speakers already have over a million words at our disposal – so why are we adding 1,000 new ones a year to the lexicon? And how?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An academic essay critiquing the models of World Englishes, which focus on national varieties of English.

Models of World Englishes have accounted for the different types of English that emerge independently from British and American English. One such model is Kachru's Concentric Circles model, which delineates countries into three circles - inner circle, outer circle and expanding circle, based on the "types of spread, patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages" (Kachru, 1985). The countries in the inner circle are associated with the native speakers (UK and America), those in the outer circle are mainly post colonial countries with institutionalized presence of English (India and Philippines) and countries in the expanding circle use English primarily as a foreign language or for international communication (Japan and Korea). This delineation gives rise to the different types of English across the countries and each type is considered the national variety for that particular country. Consequently, these national varieties like Indian English and Korean English increasingly become the focus of such models. Initially, the models may seem clear and robust with the neat categorization. However, they assume internal homogeneity, focusing only on the codified type used in the country - the national variety. Moreover, they reinforce the notion of native superiority and further perpetuate the dichotomy between natives versus non- natives. This essay will discuss the criticism to such models and how they apply to understanding English in Singapore.

Models of World Englishes tend to focus on national varieties, which are considered the correct or standard form. They discount the fact that there may be other varieties (pidgins and creoles) that also represent the English of the country and may have contributed to the history of the national variety. The codified versions are considered the correct form and any other varieties are frowned upon or worse, suppressed. Often, these national varieties do not belong to the inner circle and the countries have been subjected to colonial rule. They still look to the native standards (inner circle) and are influenced by them (Schneider, 2003). The effects of colonialism with regard to the English language are still felt although the physical presence of these colonial powers is no longer around (Phillipson, 1992). As such, they do not entirely represent the English of the country. This pervasive native influence is highlighted in the way Kachru's concentric circles are drawn up (Schneider, 2003). The native or inner circle forms the core and the outer and expanding circles where the national varieties are found can be seen as the peripheries. Hence, these national varieties essentially do not represent the English of the country entirely but rather can be thought of as an extension of the native varieties. Also, by focusing on these national varieties without taking into consideration the other possible varieties, these models of World Englishes are limited (Schneider, 2003). They assume only one monolithic variety exists (national variety), which everyone in the country subscribes to.

These models then further reinforce the idea of native superiority and perpetuate the dichotomy between natives versus non- natives and standard versus non- standard. The national varieties are considered the standard forms and any deviations are deemed incorrect. As mentioned earlier, since they subscribe to exonormative values, the native varieties are also considered to be the correct and much superior forms. Terms, used by certain models, such as English as Native Language (ENL), English as Second Language (ESL) and English as Foreign Language (EFL) "automatically create attitudinal problems, for it is almost unavoidable that anyone would take "second" as less worthy" (Kachru, Braj & Nelson, 1996). Having belonged to the outer and expanding circles, these national varieties then will always be thought as second to the native varieties albeit they are still the standard forms in the countries. In addition, even though some of these non- native countries have reached Phase 4: Endonormative Stabilization of Schneider's Dynamic Model, are adopting and accepting an indigenous linguistic norm and have English as the first language, their varieties are still considered as inferior to the native varieties and will never be in the inner circle (Schneider, 2003). Hence, it may seem at first that the models of World Englishes are welcoming of national varieties aside the native varieties but they are in fact rigid and serve to emphasize the distinction made between the native and non- native (national) varieties.

Having said that, these criticisms to such models are exemplified when looking at the English situation in Singapore. According to Kachru's model, Singapore belongs to the outer circle and Standard Singapore English (SSE) is the national variety. Due to Singapore's colonial past, SSE looks to and is heavily influenced by British English and is regarded as the correct form (Alsagoff, 2007). Any deviation from SSE is deemed incorrect and non- standard. The focus of these models has been on this high national variety (SSE), disregarding the existence of another variety considered as the low variety, which is the Singapore Colloquial English (SCE) or Singlish (Alsagoff, 2007). In other words, the criticism towards these models as being limited is clearly seen, as they do not account for the prevalent diglossic situation in Singapore.

Ansaldo (2004) proposes that there is the existence of an English- based pidgin predating SSE, which may have already been in use in Singapore for instrumental purposes after independence. Due to the belief that learning English allows access to economic success (Wee, 2002), the locals may have picked up English and through language contact, resulted in the emergence of this pidgin possibly the earliest form of Singlish. SSE only surfaced in retaliation to Singlish with the introduction of the Speak Good English Movement in 2000. This means that the national variety (SSE) will simply not have come into being without the pidgin. Furthermore, Singlish is clearly effective in reinforcing nationalistic feelings among Singaporean diaspora (Wee, forthcoming). Thus when these models only focus on SSE, Singapore's linguistic environment is not captured in its entirety. There are even instances where Singlish features have crept into SSE and to disregard the effects Singlish has will be inaccurate (Alsagoff, 2007). That being said, even with the growing local literary canon and English being championed as the first language in Singapore, SSE itself can never match up to the native varieties and will always be regarded only as a national variety in the outer circle (Schneider, 2003).

The standard versus non- standard dichotomy that results from these models of World Englishes manifests itself through the polarity between SSE and Singlish. The schism between SSE and Singlish highlights that there is a standard and correct form. With the Speak Good English campaign and the government's tough stand against SCE (Wee, forthcoming), Singaporeans are compelled to subscribe to SSE while completely disregard the other (SCE), although both varieties do serve a function (Alsagoff, 2007). On one hand, SSE is utilized in public domains and in a more global context when communicating with other English users in other countries. Having access to SSE connotes overt prestige (Labov, 1972), promises social mobility and users get to enjoy more economic opportunities (Wee, 2002). On the other hand, Singlish is employed in private domains to build solidarity, foster close relationships with peers and connotes covert prestige (Labov, 1972). The use of Singlish is also to bridge educational differences and mediate across different social groups. (Alsagoff, 2007) However, not everyone can get access to SSE. Often, SSE only favours and is accessible to the more educated Singaporeans. In other words, only those who manage to secure a place in the system are more likely to get the opportunity to enjoy the associated economic benefits of SSE. Hence, through just focusing on SSE, the widening divide between the standard and non- standard resulted from the models is clearly seen. The focus these models take only prize the socially and colonially constructed standard variety (national variety) and denigrate the other non- standard variety, albeit both are beneficial (Alsagoff, 2007).

In conclusion, by focusing on national varieties, these models of World Englishes have proven to be limited in scope and do not take into account possible multifarious linguistic situations in the country. They simply assume that there is only the existence of one variety- the national variety and it is taken to be the standard and correct form. The issue becomes more problematic as these national varieties are often heavily influenced by the native varieties and they try to emulate the latter (Schneider, 2003). As such, they seem to be more of an extension of the native varieties rather than varieties in their own right, further perpetuating the notions of native superiority and the disparity between native versus non- native, standard versus non- standard and right versus wrong. These models that focus on national varieties are then rigid and can be considered as continually preserving the native hegemony. These criticisms serve to better understand English in Singapore. The limitation and rigidity of the models when focusing on national varieties result in Singlish being downplayed although it is instrumental in understanding the linguistic context in Singapore. Nonetheless, as much as SSE has developed and English is considered the first language in Singapore, it will never be comparative to the native varieties and Singapore will never be displaced from the outer to the inner circle.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Models of World Englishes - Hairianto D. - Medium

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Models of World Englishes have accounted for the different types of English that emerge independently from British and American English. One such model is Kachru's Concentric Circles model, which delineates countries into three circles - inner circle, outer circle and expanding circle, based on the "types of spread, patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages" (Kachru, 1985).

# data[].attributes.headline
Three Circle Model of World Englishes English

# data[].attributes.subject
Three Circle Model of World Englishes English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our essay writing service. You can view samples of our professional work here.

Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

The Three-circle Model of World Englishes was developed by Kachru in 1985 and it remains one of the most influential models for grouping the varieties of English in the world (Mollin, 2006, p.41). Kachru (1985) described the spread of English in terms of three concentric circles: the Inner Circle, the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle. These circles represent "the type of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages" (Kachru, 1985, p.12). Although Kachru's three-circle of English is still an important initial stepping stone for the division of Englishes, drawbacks and variations have been identified by several authors, including Kachru himself (Yoneoka, 2002). The Kachru's Three-circle Model will be introduced and evaluated in this paper.

In the Kachru's Three-circle Model, the Inner Circle Kachru's model refers to the traditional bases of English, dominated by the mother-tongue varieties, where English acts as a first language (White, 1997). The countries involved in the Inner Circle include the USA, the UK, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. The varieties of English used here are said to be 'norm providing'. The Outer Circle consists of the earlier phases of the spread of English in non-native settings, where the language has become part of a country's chief institutions, and plays an important 'second language' role in a multilingual setting (Rajadurai, 2005). Most of the countries included in the Outer Circle are former colonies of the UK or the USA, such as Malaysia, Singapore, India, Ghana, Kenya and others (Rajadurai, 2005). The English used in the outer circle is considered as 'norm-developing'. The Expanding Circle refers to the territories where English is learnt as a foreign language. The territories do not have a history of colonization by members of the Inner Circle and institutional or social role. English is taught asa 'foreign' language as the most useful vehicle of international communication (White, 1997). The countries in the Expanding Circle include China, Japan, Greece and Poland (Crsytal, 1997). The English used in the Expanding Circle is regarded as 'norm dependent'.

The Kachru's model is in a dynamic nature. According to Kachru (1985), dividing English speakers into Inner, Outer and Expanding circles is preferable to the traditional native, ESL and EFL labels which involve the dichotomy between native and nonnative speakers (Rajadurai, 2005). English native speakers are visually not privileged since they are not placed at the top of the Three-circle Model. However, the model is not sufficiently dynamic to reflect the reality of English use in the world. It still prefers the English native speakers in the inner circle. The limitations of the model will be discussed in the following.

According to Patil (2006), the model assumes that the three circles represent linguistic reality perfectly. Kachru (1985) himself has noted that the concentric circles may be oversimplified and fuzzy areas exist. Some special cases like South Africa and Jamaica are difficult to be classified. As Kachru himself has acknowledged, the fact is that the categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive and grey areas exist between the circles (Rajadurai, 2005). Apart from the fuzzy classification between circles, Tripathi (1998) points out that there are no mechanisms to differentiate varieties within a circle. Therefore, Crystal (1997) suggests not defining the boundaries of Kachru's concentric circles in such absolute terms.

Kachru's model describes the Inner Circle, Outer Circle and Expanding Circle as 'norm-providing', norm-developing' and 'norm-dependent'. However, Crystal (1995) comments that the model cannot represent the reality of international English use because the reality is often not so clear-cut. Crystal wonders it is difficult to distinguish whether the Outer Circle looks to Inner Circle norms or it creates its own norms. Norms development is also possible in the Expanding Circle.

The Three-circle Model fails to consider the growth of English in the world. It cannot

account for the growing use of English, namely English as a lingua franca between speakers who do not share a first language (Mollin, 2006, p.41-42). English is now overwhelmingly widespread in international settings. It is the language choice in international organizations, companies as well as academic world (Katzner, 2002, p.39). It is also commonly used in the domains of the internet, international mass media and entertainment (Phillipson 1992). Crystal (1997, p.22) states that "the speed with which a global language scenario has arisen is truly remarkable". The so called "Expanding Circle" of foreign language speakers included more than 750 million EFL speakers in 1997, compared to 375 million first language speakers and 375 million second language speakers. It is important to point out that the number of English users is developing at a faster rate as a language of international communication than as a language of intranational communication (Thesis, 2009). International communication has become a common phenomenon between the circles and the increased mobility of people has made personal relationships across language borders (Thesis, 2009). Kachru's concentric circles seem to acknowledge diversity but little commonality across Englishes, describing the English varieties as separate (Burt, 2005). Due to the increasing international communication, the distinction between the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle becomes fuzzy and cannot account for the growing use of English in today's world.

In the Kachru's model, the Expanding Circle refers to the territories where English is learnt as a foreign language. However, because of the growth of English, the language has become a necessity in today's world; English is not only learnt in the expanding circle, or even mostly, to enable communication with the Inner and Outer Circles (Patil, 2006). The importance of English is keep increasing in the world, especially in the Expanding Circle. As a result, learning English can no longer be seen as learning a foreign language in the traditional sense (Patil, 2006). Graddol (2006) has even argued that knowing English has become a basic skill in the global world. Nunan shares the same feeling with Graddol that knowing English makes more sense than simply "learning English" for EFL or ESL (Robertson, 2005).

The functions of English are highly restricted in the Expanding Circle which can not reflect the actual use of English. Englishes in the Expanding Circle are seen as far removed from the Inner Circle core and marginalized. As the description of the Expanding Circle mentioned in Kachru (1992), "The performance varieties of English have a highly restricted functional range in specific contexts; for example, those of tourism, commerce, and other international transactions". In fact, the range of English use in the Expanding Circle has become much wider due to the increasing growth of English. "There is much more use of English nowadays in some countries of the expanding circle, where it is 'only' a foreign language ..., than in some of the countries where it has traditionally held a special place" (Crystal, 1997, p. 56). For example, although Egyptian English is classified in the Expanding Circle, "there are a number of Egyptian contexts, such as medicine, higher education, the sciences, or in tourism, which extend limbs into the Outer circle as well." (Yoneoka, 2002). The above example shows that the functions of Expanding Circle English today are not as restricted as Karchru mentioned. It can be observed that there is a merging of the Outer and Expanding Circles.

The Three-circle Model implies that the Outer Circle cannot merge into the Inner Circle (Patil, 2006). However, sometimes it is difficult to define which one owns English as the first language and which one knows English as a second language. "There are several countries where population movement, language loss, divergent language attitudes, and massive shifts in language use have made it difficult to answer the question: "What is your first language?"(Crystal, 1995, p. 363). Therefore, not only the classification between the Outer and Expanding Circles, that between Inner Circle and Outer Circles can also be tough.

Some researchers suggest that Kachru's Three-circle Model should not base the classification of English speakers on national identity. "National identity should not be a basis of classification of speakers of an international language. The more English becomes an international language, the more the division of its speakers into 'native' and 'nonnative' becomes inconsistent." (Brutt-Griffler and Samimy, 2001, p.104). Refer to this problem; Rajadurai (2005) has presented a different Three-Circle Model: "While acknowledging the fuzzy distinctions between circles, in principle, the inner circle could comprise all users who are proficient in English and able to instinctively codeswitch between international and national or regional varieties to communicate in the most appropriate way. The second circle could consist of speakers who are proficient only in regional varieties, i.e. native and nonnative speakers with restricted intranational proficiency, while the outer circle could be made up of learners of the language."

Although English native speakers visually do not have higher hierarchy since they are not placed at the top of the Three-circle Model, it still prefers the English native speakers in the inner circle. As Burt (2005) comments, the Inner Circle clearly establishes at the top of the hierarchy. The idea that English is someone's second language implies that it is someone else's first language. It gives the impression that English belongs to the native speaker who owns it as his first language. Kachru has acknowledged that "it is almost unavoidable that anyone would take 'second' as less worthy" (Kachru and Nelson, 1996, p.79). In order to ease the problem, Yano (2001, p.122-123) has suggested that the ENL and ESL circles can merge into a single ENL circle with two sets of varieties: genetic and functional ENL.

To conclude, Kachru Three-Circle model has limitations to reflect the reality of English use. The model is oversimplified and the classification among the three circles is fuzzy. In fact, the three varieties are mutually inclusive and grey areas exist. Due to the rapid growth of English, English status has increased in the Expanding Circle. English is not only learnt but more widely used in different settings. The classification between the Outer Circle and the Expanding Circle becomes difficult. Therefore, the Three-circle Model should be modified to a more dynamic one to represent the actual use of English. Instead of categorizing the English speakers based on national identity, the revised model can be classified in terms of the English proficiency in international and regional varieties. More research related to World Englishes should also be conducted in the future to meet the rapid growth of English.

Featured review

"Thank you UK Essays for your timely assistance. It has helped me to push forward with my thesis."

Tajeram M

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Three Circle Model of World Englishes English

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Disclaimer: This work has been submitted by a student. This is not an example of the work produced by our essay writing service. You can view samples of our professional work here. Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommendations expressed in this material are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of UK Essays.

# data[].attributes.headline
New Englishes - Adapting the Language to Meet New Needs

# data[].attributes.subject
New Englishes - Adapting the Language to Meet New Needs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The term "New Englishes" refers to regional and national varieties of the English language used in places where it is not the mother tongue of the majority of the population. The phrase is also known as new varieties of English, non-native varieties of English, and non-native institutionalized varieties of English.

New Englishes have certain formal properties- lexical, phonological, and grammatical-that differ from those of British or American standard English. Examples of New Englishes include Nigerian English, Singapore English, and Indian English.

Examples and Observations

"Most adaptation in a New English relates to vocabulary, in the form of new words ( borrowings-from several hundred language sources, in such areas as Nigeria), word-formations, word-meanings, collocations, and idiomatic phrases. There are many cultural domains likely to motivate new words, as speakers find themselves adapting the language to meet fresh communicative needs."

- David Crystal, "English as a Global Language, 2nd ed." Cambridge University Press, 2003

"The pioneer in the study of New Englishes has been, without doubt, Braj B. Kachru, who with his 1983 book The Indianization of English initiated a tradition of describing non-native varieties of English. South Asian English remains a well-documented institutionalized second-language variety, yet the cases of Africa and South East Asia are by now also relatively well described."

- Sandra Mollin, "Euro-English: Assessing Variety Status." Gunter Narr Verlag, 2006

Characteristics of New English

"A term that has gained popularity is 'New English,' which Platt, Weber and Ho (1984) use to designate an English variety with the following characteristics:

(a) It has developed through the education system (possibly even as a medium of education at a certain level), rather than as a first language of the home.
(b) It has developed in an area where a native variety of English was not spoken by a majority of the population.
(c) It is used for a range of functions (for example, letter-writing, government communications, literature, as a lingua franca within a country and in formal contexts).
(d) It has become nativised, by developing a subset of rules which mark it as different from American or British English.

Excluded from their designation New English are the 'Newer Englishes' of the British Isles (i.e. Scots and Celtic-influenced varieties like Hiberno-English); immigrant English; foreign English; pidgin and creole Englishes."

- Rajend Mesthrie, "English in Language Shift: The History, Structure, and Sociolinguistics of South African Indian English." Cambridge University Press, 1992

A Controversial Term

"The varieties of English spoken in outer circle countries have been called 'New Englishes,' but the term is controversial. Singh (1998) and Mufwene (2000) argue that it is meaningless, in so far as no linguistic characteristic is common to all and only 'New Englishes' and all varieties are recreated by children from a mixed pool of features, so all are 'new' in every generation. These points are certainly true, and it is important to avoid suggesting that the new (mainly non-native) varieties are inferior to the old (mainly native) ones. . . . Nevertheless, the Englishes of India, Nigeria, and Singapore and many other outer-circle countries do share a number of superficial linguistic characteristics which, taken together, make it convenient to describe them as a group separately from America, British, Australian, New Zealand, etc. varieties."

- Gunnel Melchers and Philip Shaw, "World Englishes: An Introduction." Arnold, 2003

Old Englishes, New Englishes, and English as a Foreign Language

"We can view the spread of English in terms of the 'old Englishes,' the 'new Englishes' and English as a foreign language variety, representing the types of spread, the patterns of acquisition and the functional domains in which English is used across cultures and languages. . . . The 'old varieties' of English, for example, might be traditionally described as British, American, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand, etc. The 'new Englishes' on the other hand have two major features, in that English is only one of two or more codes in the linguistic repertoire and that it has acquired an important status in the language of such multilingual nations. Also in functional terms the 'new Englishes' have extended their functional range in a variety of social, educational, administrative, and literary domains. Moreover, they have acquired great depth in terms of users at different levels of society. India, Nigeria and Singapore would be examples of countries with 'new Englishes.' The third variety of English, that of English as a foreign language, has often been characterized by the fact that unlike the countries where we find the 'new Englishes' these countries do not necessarily have a history of colonization by the users of the 'old Englishes' but use English as a necessary international language. Japan, Russia, China, Indonesia, Thailand, etc. would fall into this category."

- Joseph Foley, Introduction to "New Englishes: The Case of Singapore." Singapore University Press, 1988

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
New Englishes: Adapting the Language to Meet New Needs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
New Englishes are varieties of the English language used in places where it's not the mother tongue of the majority of the population.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the past few decades, Singapore English has been emerging as an independent variety of English with its own distinct style of pronunciation, grammar and word usage. All the findings presented in the book are illustrated with extensive examples from one hour of recorded conversational data from the Lim Siew Hwee Corpus of Informal Singapore Speech, as well as some extracts from the NIE Corpus of Spoken Singapore Speech and recent blogs.

# data[].attributes.headline
English in New Cultural Contexts: Reflections from Singapore

# data[].attributes.subject
English in New Cultural Contexts: Reflections from Singapore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This book explores the spread of English as a world language and the different ways in which the language has developed and adaapted in new sociocultural contexts.

# data[].attributes.headline
Between status and solidarity in Singapore

# data[].attributes.subject
Between status and solidarity in Singapore

# data[].attributes.headline
The Step-tongue: Children's English in Singapore

# data[].attributes.subject
The Step-tongue: Children's English in Singapore

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In Singapore, multilingualism is the norm, and English (often the local variety) is widely acquired and used. This book examines the social and historical context of children's English in Singapore, and traces the development of four Singaporean children who have English as a native language. The implications for education and speech therapy are discussed.

# data[].attributes.body
I

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Italians Speaking English || GINEVRA IORIO

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
First, I want to point out that the sentence structure of Italian is something that you should be grateful for as an Italian language learner, especially if this is your first foray into foreign language learning.

For the most part, it's pretty straightforward.

HOWEVER, Italian is known to have a fluid sentence structure.

I'll go over the basics first and then toward the end, I'll describe what having a fluid sentence structure really means.
1.) The basic form is: subject (whoever the sentence is about) + verb (the action that's happening) + object (not the subject) Esempi:
- Lucia ha paura. - Lucia has fear.
- (io) ho una mela. - I have an apple.
- (io) parlo inglese - I speak English.

TIP: The subject 'io' is often dropped because 'Parlo' is already conjugated to show that it's 'I'. So you can just say 'Parlo Inglese.'

If you're into geeky linguistics like me, the above tip means that Italian has a 'null subject parameter.' Gasp. So fascinating.
2.) Some adjectives go before whatever they're describing. Esempi:
- Una bella ragazza cammina per strada - A beautiful girl walks down the street
- Il passato è una brutta bestia - The past is an ugly beast. (Popular Italian saying!)
- È la stessa cosa - It's the same thing.
- Luca è un bravo ragazzo. - Luca is a good guy.
Other adjectives that typically go before whatever they're describing are:
- buono (good)
- caro (dear)
- cattivo (bad)
- giovane (young)
- grande (large)
- lungo (long)
- vero (true)
- vecchio (old)
- piccolo (small)
3.) But most adjectives go after whatever they're describing. Esempi:
- il bambino biondo - the blond boy
- la bambina bionda - the blonde girl
- il romanzo italiano - the Italian romance novel
- le ragazze intelligenti - the intelligent girls
- il vestito rosa - the pink dress
4.) Nouns agree with adjectives.
If you've noticed, the ends of the adjective change when the ends of the thing they're describing change. So unlike me and a Voldemort-like Italian ex-boyfriend, nouns actually agree with adjectives.

This is because Italian has masculine/feminine and singular/plural nouns.

Need to know more about those? Open up this article.

Need to know more about what it means for adjectives, nouns, and verbs to agree? Read this article.
Esempi:
- ragazzo italiano - Italian boy- gelati italiani - Italian gelatos
- piazza italiana - Italian piazza

- macchine italiane - Italian cars

So a lot of people come to me complaining about how the sentence structure confuses them because they imagine it as being similar to English and are pleased when it is, but then confused when suddenly the verb is at the beginning of the sentence and no longer after the subject.

For example, a sentence in English might say:

Rosa is coming.

We would never say "Coming is Rosa" or just "Is coming."
But in Italian, you can. In Italian, this example would look like:
- Rosa arriva.
- Arriva Rosa.
- Arriva.*

*You would use this one if it was clear who you were speaking about.

All three are perfectly acceptable sentence structures, and you'll often find that you just have to get a feel for what native speakers use.

Here is a short list of some other notable sentence structure differences from English to Italian

- You'll often find that you create sentences from English and you use the wrong prepositions. This is because prepositions are used in a variety of different ways in Italian and because prepositional phrases are common in Italian - meaning that certain phrases with prepositions come set in stone and paired with specific verbs.

Want to know the right ways to use prepositions? Check this article out.

- Indirect object pronouns and direct object pronouns - meaning to her/to him or it - can go at the beginning of the sentence or tack onto the end of verbs.

Not sure what I'm talking about when I say all of that pronoun nonsense? Go here to figure it out.
Questions/comments? Drop 'em in the comments below.
FlashSticks makes it easier + more fun for you to build your vocabulary in Italian. Each Post-It note is color-coded so you can remember the gender and includes a picture next to it.

What's more you get a free mobile app to help you master the pronunciation.

But what I really love is that when you get a FlashSticks deck, you can stick the Post-It notes all over your house and constantly run into the word.

My little sister and I are always finding creative games to play with FlashSticks so we're learning vocab, improving our grammar, and getting the practice we need to become fluent. (She's learning French, and I'm learning Italian.)

If you want to build your vocabulary using FlashSticks, you can use the discount code iceberg that's special to listeners of the 30 Minute Italian podcast for 15% off.

Go to icebergproject.co/flash to try it out now.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Basic Italian Sentence Structure (or where do I put all of the words!?)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
First, I want to point out that the sentence structure of Italian is something that you should be grateful for as an Italian language learner, especially if this is your first foray into foreign language learning. For the most part, it's pretty straightforward. HOWEVER, Italian is known to have a fluid sentence structure.

# data[].attributes.headline
Kachru Model “The Three Circles of English”

# data[].attributes.subject
Kachru Model “The Three Circles of English”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What is phonology, and why does it matter to you as a student of Italian? According to Marina Nespor, Italian linguist and author of the book "Fonologia," it's "that branch of grammar that is occupied with the sounds that are systematically used in natural languages for communicating meanings."

Put more simply, phonology studies the meanings of the sounds we make when we speak.

One important fact to begin with is the difference between phonology ( fonologia) and phonetics ( fonetica). Phonetics analyzes all sounds arising from human speech, regardless of the language or meaning.

Phonology studies the sounds in context, searching for patterns by determining which sounds contain meaning, then explaining how these sounds are understood by a native speaker. So while phonetics studies how the letter "f" is produced (what parts of the mouth are used and how) and how it's perceived, phonology analyzes how the words fa ( fare) and va ( andare) have different meanings, despite only differing by one sound. Phonology is the musical side of linguistics.

If you listen closely to Italian-whether you understand what you're hearing or not-you may notice that the rhythm differs greatly from English. Several linguists have conducted phonological investigations into the various rhythmic patterns of languages. Using computer programs, the linguists replaced all consonants with the letter "s" and all vowels with the letter "a."

The final product, read aloud by the computer program and sounding like a stuttering snake, demonstrates distinct variations in the frequency and stress of consonants and vowels. As a result of this simplification, each language differs only by its own musicality.

The road to sounding like a native speaker is filled with obvious barriers such as accent and vocabulary, however sometimes even a flawless mastery of both is not enough. Knowing where to put the correct stress, how to have proper inflection and intonation-that is, the more musical aspects of languages-are more subtle obstacles. Phonology is the study that helps identify these elusive keys to fluency and is a foundation upon which other branches of linguistics such as morphology begin their studies.

At one of the intersections between phonology and morphology lies an interesting mystery: that of words. Surprisingly, linguists find it enormously difficult to define the exact properties of a word, though at first, it may not be apparent why.

For those learning Italian, pay close attention to how what you hear changes from nonsense sounds to words packed with meaning as you progress and learn new vocabulary. You may be inclined to use phonological cues (such as tone, stress, and pauses for breath) to classify a word, however, as we'll see in the next article on morphology, this definition may not always be accurate.

Certainly, phonology is a very broad subject covering other inquiries with complicated names such as assimilation, epenthesis (adding sounds to words), and phonotactics (which sound combinations are permissible within a given language).

However, there are more recognizable inquiries as well, for instance, the mysterious properties of the letter "s" in Italian, " erre moscia," and the role of doubled consonants. Each is intriguing because of the misconceptions surrounding them, however, it's through mastery of puzzles such as these that you can come closer to understanding Italian, regardless of whether or not you're a native speaker.

About the Author: Britten Milliman is a native of Rockland County, New York, whose interest in foreign languages began at age three when her cousin introduced her to Spanish. Her interest in linguistics and languages from around the globe runs deep but Italian and the people who speak it hold a special place in her heart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What is phonology, and why does it matter to you as a student of Italian? According to Marina Nespor, Italian linguist and author of the book "Fonologia," it's "that branch of grammar that is occupied with the sounds that are systematically used in natural languages for communicating meanings."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
While phonology concentrates on the musical building blocks of language, morphology ( morfologia) is the study of the rules that govern how these blocks are put together. Sergio Scalise, in his book Morphologia, gives three practically identical definitions which basically state that morphology is the study of rules that govern the internal structure of words in their formation and alteration.

Let us refer back to the conjugations for the verb parlare in our introduction to Italian linguistics, which were used as an example of how words alter linguistically. In this instance, morphological rules changed the verb for each person (the subject of the verb, such as I of "I talk" or of " io parlo"): parlo, parli, parla, parliamo, parlate, parlano. Though verb conjugations are more overtly apparent in Italian, they are not as clear in English because English is a very morphologically poor language. Take the same verb in English: I , you , he/she talks, we , they talk. Only one verb form is different.

The uniformity of English verbs is even more pronounced in the past tense where all forms look the same: talked. As a result, English relies heavily upon the rules governing word order in a sentence. Such rules are studied by syntax.

During our discussion of Italian phonology, I mentioned that the topic of defining a word has become a puzzling enigma. Printed words are easily distinguished because of the spaces between them. However, trying to use phonological cues-for instance which parts of a sentence are stressed or where the speaker pauses for breath-would fall short of a complete definition. If a native were to say to you " in bocca al lupo" (an Italian proverb meaning good luck), it would probably come out sounding like " nboccalupo" with no way of determining where a word ends and another begins. In addition, the meaning of the word " lupo" (wolf) has nothing to do with "good luck," so it is impossible to divide the phrase into meaningful parts in order to identify each word.

Morphology complicates the matter.

The example of " in bocca al lupo" raises two problems with classifying words: how to classify completely unrelated meanings of one word and how to classify many words with the same meaning, such as each of the numerous conjugations of verbs. Should each variation-such as parlo, parlerò, parlerebbe-be counted as a separate word or as variations of one word? Would conjugations such as ho parlato or avrò parlato count as two words or as one? These questions are morphological because they deal directly with the formation and alteration of words. So how do we resolve these issues? The simple answer is that there is no simple answer. Instead, linguists have recognized a specialized filing system called a lexicon.

The lexicon is the dictionary of the mind. However, this dictionary is more complex than Merriam-Webster, Oxford, and Cambridge combined. Think of it like a large collection of spider webs that are all interconnected. At the center of each lies a word or a morpheme (part of a word which carries meaning, such as - tion in English or - zione in Italian).

So, for example, the lexicon of an Italian would contain the word "lupo" and would have recorded in the surrounding spider web information such as the primary meaning (predatory wild canine beast), its meaning within the idiom "in bocca al lupo," as well as its grammatical status (that it is a noun). Also in the lexicon would be the ending - zione and between these two entries, the lexicon would have the bit of information that understands that combining the two to form lupozione is not possible in Italian.

As you progress in Italian, you are constructing and morphologically training an Italian lexicon to recognize words and what they mean, as well as which constructions are possible and which are not. By understanding the properties of a word, you can take shortcuts such as just remembering parl- and its various mutations, instead of trying to remember each conjugation as a separate word. It saves storage space in your mind.

About the Author: Britten Milliman is a native of Rockland County, New York, whose interest in foreign languages began at age three, when her cousin introduced her to Spanish.

Her interest in linguistics and languages from around the globe runs deep but Italian and the people who speak it hold a special place in her heart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
While phonology concentrates on the musical building blocks of language, morphology ( morfologia) is the study of the rules that govern how these blocks are put together. Sergio Scalise, in his book Morphologia, gives three practically identical definitions which basically state that morphology is the study of rules that govern the internal structure of words in their formation and alteration.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
From the study of the musicality of languages ( phonology) to the rules which govern the internal structure of words ( morphology) we move to that branch of linguistics which focuses on the rules that govern words in larger structures (phrases and sentences, for example). This study is known as syntax. According to the definition provided by Giorgio Graffi in his book Sintassi, syntax is the study of combinations of words and why some combinations are permissible in a particular language, while others are not.

When speaking about morphology, I demonstrated that English is a morphologically poor language. The phrase "talk" is incomplete; there is no way of knowing who is talking because the subject has been omitted. On the other hand, the Italian "parlo" is a complete thought because the subject is embedded within the verb itself. Due to the fact that English verbs do not contain as much information about who is completing the action, English must rely heavily on word order in order for its meaning to remain clear.

Here is an example taken from the introduction to Italian linguistics: "Dog bites man." No native of English would blink twice at a sentence such as this one. Although the word "bites" does not itself contain information about who is biting whom, the word order takes care of this clarification. In such a small sentence, word order is strict and inflexible. Note what happens when we make any changes: "Man bites dog" has a completely different meaning while another arrangement-"Bites dog man"-has no meaning at all and is not grammatically acceptable.

However, in Latin, these three sentences would not have differed greatly despite their word order. The reason for this is that Latin used case endings ( morphemes which indicate the role of a word within a sentence). As long as the correct ending was used, placement in the sentence would not have been as important. While the grammatical rules of Italian are not quite as flexible as they were in Latin, there is still more room to maneuver than in English.

Such a simple sentence of three words-"dog," "bites," and "man"-does not leave enough room to maneuver, so to demonstrate word order flexibility in Italian, we will look at a slightly longer one.

Let us examine the sentence, "The man, who the dogs bit, is tall." The part of this sentence on which we will be concentrating, is the phrase "who the dogs bit." In Italian the sentence would read "L'uomo che i cani hanno morso è alto." However, in Italian it is also grammatically correct to say: "L'uomo, il cui braccio hanno morso i cani, è alto." On the other hand, to change the word order in English would result in "The man, who bit the dogs, is tall" and would change the meaning completely.

While Italian allows some flexibility within word order, other formations-such as noun-adjective phrases -are stricter. For example, the phrase "the old suit" is always translated as "l'abito vecchio" and never as "il vecchio abito." This is not an absolute rule, however in cases where the noun and adjective may change position, the meaning changes, even if only subtly.

Changing the phrase "la pizza grande" to "la grande pizza" alters the meaning from "the large pizza" to "the grand pizza." It is for this reason that translation is so incredibly difficult and is very rarely an exact science. Those who try to translate phrases such as "keep it real" or "just do it" into Italian for a tattoo will acknowledge frustration at the loss or change of meaning.

The beauty of languages lies not in their similarities, but in their differences. Growing accustomed to the new structures of foreign languages will broaden your means of expressing yourself, not only in Italian, but in English as well. Furthermore, while most phrases lose some meaning in their translation, the further you take your studies, the more unique phrases you will discover in Italian that defy translation to English.

About the Author: Britten Milliman is a native of Rockland County, New York, whose interest in foreign languages began at age three, when her cousin introduced her to Spanish. Her interest in linguistics and languages from around the globe runs deep but Italian and the people who speak it hold a special place in her heart.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Italian Syntax - Word Order and Translation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Syntax is the branch of linguistics which focuses on the rules of word order in phrases and sentences. Growing accustomed to the new structure of Italian will broaden your means of expressing yourself, not only in Italian, but in English as well.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This page contains a course in Italian vocabulary and expressions as well as a list of other lessons in grammar topics and common expressions in Italian.