BOX SET: 6 Minute English - 'Communication' English mega-class! 30 minutes of new vocab!

6 Minute English from BBC Learning English.

Hello. This is 6 Minute English from BBC Learning English. I'm Neil.

And I'm Beth.

There are many ways of saying sorry in English,

and they all have a slightly different meaning.

If you tell me you're ill, and I say, "Oh, I'm sorry",

that means 'I sympathise, and I hope you get better soon'.

If you step on my toes by mistake, and say, "I'm so sorry",

you mean 'oops, that was my fault and I didn't mean to do it'.

And if you don't really feel sorry, you might be sarcastic, "Oh, I'm sooo sorry!"

meaning exactly the opposite, that you're not sorry at all.

Saying sorry for something you've done in English can be quite confusing,

and to make things worse, the British are world champions at apologising.

In this programme, we'll discuss ways of saying sorry,

and as usual we'll be learning some useful new vocabulary as well.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to stop you there, Beth,

because first I have a question to ask.

We know that the British love to say sorry.

In fact, a recent survey found that some Brits apologise up to twenty times a day.

So, according to the same survey,

how many times per day does the average Brit say sorry?

Is it a) four times a day? b) six times a day? Or c) eight times a day?

Hmm, I'm going to guess it's six times a day.

OK, Beth, I'll reveal the answer later in the programme.

Since the British are famous for apologising,

it's no surprise that Louise Mullany

started researching the language of apologising in Britain,

at the University of Nottingham.

Now a professor of sociolinguistics,

Louise spoke with the BBC Radio 4 programme, Word of Mouth.

And I was really interested in looking at how people apologise,

particularly public figures,

so I did a lot of research in the workplace and looking at the media,

and looking at politicians in particular,

and one of the things that really interested me at the time

was a lot of writers were talking about us entering an age of an apology,

and there's a real sense that public figures in particular

are called upon to apologise for multiple different things,

and if they don't apologise, then that's a big faux pas.

Saying sorry is especially important in politics,

and Professor Mullany studied the apologies of 'public figures' —

'famous people, including politicians,

who are often discussed in newspapers and seen on radio and television'.

When politicians make mistakes, they are expected to apologise,

and failing to say sorry is a 'faux pas' —

'a remark made in a social situation that causes embarrassment or offence'.

Most politicians hate apologising and with good reason.

Saying sorry means taking responsibility, and the apology needs to be sincere.

A good example of this is the apology Boris Johnson made

to the House of Commons during the Partygate scandal in the UK

when he broke COVID lockdown rules and had to pay a 'fine' —

that's 'a sum of money paid as a punishment for breaking the rules'.

Here, Professor Louise Mullany analyses the apology

for BBC Radio 4 programme Word of Mouth.

It's very unusual in a political apology,

because he comes out and says, "I am responsible",

but there is the caveat that he wasn't certain that he was breaking the rules,

he didn't realise, which he continues to say

in his apology that came out after the fine.

So, he repeats the apology, and he caveats it around other political events,

and he uses humility, when he was in the House the day after he'd paid his fine,

and was very quick to say, "I've paid the fine, I've given the reparation,

I've paid the money, let's draw a line under the whole business now".

Boris Johnson claimed he didn't know he was breaking the rules.

His apology contained a 'caveat' —

'a warning that what he said was limited, or not completely true'.

Eventually, Boris Johnson did apologise, but many people didn't trust him

and he couldn't draw a line under the Partygate scandal.

If you 'draw a line under something',

'you try to move on from a bad situation and make a fresh start'.

Apologising is hard work — the apology must be sincere,

and often the person does something to show they mean it.

Which reminds me that it's time to reveal the answer to my question, Beth.

Yes. You asked me how many times a day the average Brit says sorry,

and I guessed it was six. Was I right?

Well, I'm very sorry, but that was the wrong answer.

The average Brit says sorry around eight times a day,

making it probably the most over-used word in the English language. Sorry about that!

Right, let's recap the vocabulary we've learned from this programme

about saying sorry, starting with 'sarcastic',

'doing or saying the opposite of what you really mean',

for example, saying "I'm really sorry" when you aren't.

A 'public figure' is 'a famous person

whose life and behaviour is often discussed in the media and in public'.

A 'faux pas' is 'a socially embarrassing remark or action'.

A 'fine' is 'a sum of money paid as a punishment

for doing something illegal or breaking a rule'.

If you say something with a 'caveat',

it 'contains a warning that what you have said

may not be completely true or is limited in some way'.

And finally, if you 'draw a line under something',

you 'consider it finished in order to move on and make a fresh start'.

I'm sorry to say that, once again, our six minutes are up

and it's time to draw a line under this programme. Goodbye for now!

Bye!

Sorry, everyone, we haven't finished yet.

Oh, yeah, sorry. We want to tell you about some of our other podcasts.

Actually, we shouldn't have to apologise because the other podcasts are brilliant!

True. You can learn vocabulary from news headlines in News Review.

Impress your friends with idiomatic expressions in The English We Speak.

And we have even more.

Go to BBC Learning English.com and download them for free.

6 Minute English from BBC Learning English.

Hello and welcome to 6 Minute English, the show that brings you an interesting topic,

authentic listening practice and six new items of vocabulary. I'm Dan.

And I'm Neil. We'll be discussing the rise

of those little graphics we call emojis and emoticons.

You know, I think emojis are a vital tool for communication

and, actually, they're not that new either.

— Oh, really? — Well, that's the perfect opportunity

to ask this week's question.

When was the first emoticon used?

Was it a) 1606? b) 1862? c) 1982?

It must be 1982. I'll go with c).

We'll find out if you're right or wrong later in the programme.

You know, I think we should clear one thing up before we go any further —

what's the difference between an emoticon and an emoji?

Good point. 'Emoticons' came first.

They're 'the images made using normal keys on a keyboard,

usually punctuation, letters and numbers.'

For example, a colon — two dots —

followed by the curved line of a close brackets is a...?

— A smiley face. — Hey!

Something you use in way too many of your emails!

Well, thanks!

Whereas an 'emoji' is something completely different. It's 'an actual image'.

It could be a simple, yellow, smiley face

or something like a dancing lady or even a bowl of noodles.

Ah, yes, all those little images we have in our phones.

But you'll have to convince me — why do people use them so much?

Well, let's listen to Professor Vyv Evans. He wrote a book called The Emoji Code.

They enable us to express emotion and empathy in digital communication.

Increasingly, what we're finding is that digital communication is taking over

from certain aspects of face-to-face interaction.

In the UK today, for example, adults spend 22 hours online on average each week.

One of the reasons emojis are so interesting

is that they really do enable us

to express our emotional selves much more effectively.

OK, so he used a very useful word — 'empathy'.

It means 'the ability to show you understand someone else's feelings'.

OK, tell me more, Dan.

Yes, adding an emoticon can show you understand and express emotion

and show empathy more clearly.

In digital communication,

we lack the visual signals we have in face-to-face interaction, as he says.

'Interaction', meaning 'when people or things communicate with each other'.

We can also interact with things like machines, computers and social media.

Yes, Professor Evans says 60% of information

when we're talking to each other comes from non-verbal cues.

Wow, that's a lot.

A 'cue' is 'a signal that you need to do something'.

For example, an actor goes on stage after their cue.

And 'non-verbal' means 'without using spoken language'.

So, here in the studio there are lots of other 'non-verbal' signals

about how we're feeling, 'non-verbal cues'.

For example, my facial expression, my body language, the look in my eyes, Dan.

There's a glint of rage in there somewhere, Neil.

OK, so let's apply this to digital communication.

Imagine I sent you a text saying I hit my finger with a hammer —

how would you respond?

Well, it depends. Did you hurt yourself badly?

If I followed it with a sad face emoji, then?

Then I guess I'd know you hurt yourself. Poor you.

But if I followed it with a laughing emoji,

the one with the tears coming out because I'm laughing so much?

Then I'd probably reply saying how stupid and clumsy you are!

Dan Exactly — without adding the emoji, it's hard to know my emotional state.

The emoji is the 'non-verbal cue', like my facial expression.

By the way, is there an emoji meaning clumsy?

'Clumsy' means 'physically awkward' —

someone who's 'clumsy' falls over a lot and drops things.

Anyway, you were saying emoticons aren't as new as I think?

Yes, I asked when they were invented.

Is it a)1606? b)1862? Or c)1982?

And I said 1982.

Well, in fact, a witty speech Abraham Lincoln reprinted in a newspaper

as far back as 1862 included a semicolon with a close brackets.

Like a winking face?

Exactly. Though people think this was sadly just a typographical error

or what we normally call a typo.

A 'typo', 'a spelling mistake made when typing too fast or carelessly'.

The official birth of emoticons is usually given as 1982,

when a US professor instructed his students

to use smiley faces to indicate jokes in a digital communication.

Wow, so they're over 30 years old. Maybe I should start using them.

Let's round up with another look at today's words.

Sure. The first word we had was 'empathy'. Do you have a lot of 'empathy', Neil?

Yes, I think I'm quite good at 'understanding other people's feelings'.

My friends tell me that, anyway!

It's important to empathise with your colleagues too.

That's not what I saw in your eyes!

Yes, 'empathy' is an important part of all human interaction.

Nicely done. If two people 'interact',

it means they 'communicate with each other and react to each other'.

It's a pretty broad term.

We could also talk about the way children 'interact' with the internet.

Way too much!

Next up, we had 'non-verbal', meaning 'without spoken language'.

When I first travelled to Poland,

I used a lot of 'non-verbal' communication to get my message across.

Hand movements, counting with fingers, things like that. Next word, Dan?

Next word? Aha! That is my 'cue' to say the next word, which is in fact 'cue'.

A 'cue' is 'a signal to do something'.

A commander could give his officer a 'cue' to attack.

Or I could give you a 'cue' to sing a song?

No, thanks. I'll stick with defining words, thank you.

Like 'clumsy', meaning 'physically awkward'.

I'd have to say, Dan, you're a sporty guy, a talented footballer,

you're not 'clumsy' at all.

That's what I thought until I broke my leg after a 'clumsy' opponent ran into me.

Ouch. Finally, we had type.

No, no, hang on, that's not right. It should say 'typo'.

A 'typo' is 'a mistake in a written document or a digital file or message'.

Always check your scripts for 'typos' before reading them, Neil.

And that's the end of today's 6 Minute English. Please join us again soon!

And we are on social media too — Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube.

See you there.

— Bye! — Bye!

6 Minute English from BBC Learning English.

Hello. This is 6 Minute English from BBC Learning English. I'm Neil.

And I'm Beth.

If you're Deaf or hard of hearing,

watching television would be impossible without 'subtitles',

'the words of dialogue added at the bottom of the screen

explaining what the characters are saying'.

Subtitled captions aren't only for dialogue.

In the most dramatic, action-packed scenes of a movie,

there might be no-one speaking, but there are plenty of sounds —

a scream, a thrilling car chase —

and all these sounds need to be described as well.

In this programme, we'll be meeting Karli Witkowska,

a subtitler who works on the Stranger Things show,

to find out more.

And, of course, we'll be learning some useful new vocabulary as well.

But first I have a question for you, Neil.

Movie subtitles are written ahead of time,

but subtitling for live TV has to be done in the moment, as the person is speaking.

This can lead to mistakes, sometimes very funny ones,

including a subtitle which appeared in an interview

for the BBC Six O'Clock News in 2019.

But what did the subtitle say?

Was it a) We can't allow Spider-Man to become prime minister?

b) We can't allow Superman to become prime minister?

Or c) We can't allow Batman to become prime minister?

Hmm, I guess the subtitling mistake involved Spider-Man.

I'll reveal the answer later in the programme.

Of course, it's not just Deaf audiences that subtitles help.

The translated subtitles of foreign films are great for learning languages,

letting you read a word and hear how it's pronounced at the same time.

And because subtitles describe everything, from monster squelches to bombs exploding,

it's a great way to learn new adjectives.

Here's subtitler Karli Witkowska

explaining to BBC Radio 4 programme Word Of Mouth

how her choice of adjective creates emotion for the viewer.

It depends on the genre and depends on the shows,

and so if you have a very upbeat sort of period piece

where the music is very jaunty,

like, you would use the word 'jaunty' to describe the music.

It just... It's creating an idea of what a sound is like

and using a very, very descriptive word in order to do so.

Karli bases her descriptions on the film's 'genre' —

'a style of film, music or book with its own particular set of features'.

The sound effects needed for a thriller like Stranger Things —

creaking stairs and sudden screams —

are very different from the sounds used in historical period dramas

which are more 'upbeat', 'light-hearted and cheerful'.

This influences the adjective Karli chooses to describe a sound.

For example, 'upbeat' music might be described as 'jaunty' —

'full of energy and confidence'.

Subtitles started out as an accessibility feature for Deaf audiences

and to translate foreign language films into English.

But, since the growth of online streaming services like Netflix,

subtitling has become something of an art.

Karli belongs to a team of subtitlers

who try to make their descriptions as close as possible to the sounds they hear.

Here she tells BBC Radio 4's Word Of Mouth

about a time her team found exactly the right word.

I loved 'gobsmacked silence',

because you were able to tell that people were, like, almost on the verge of a gasp,

or on the verge of, like, a shock, and that was the atmosphere,

but there wasn't actually a sound,

so when my colleague came up with that one,

I definitely wanted to give him a virtual high five.

In this scene, the surprised characters were about to 'gasp' —

'take in a short, quick breath of air'.

There was no speech or sound in the scene,

but Karli's team found the perfect adjective to describe the silence —

'gobsmacked', which is slang for 'being so surprised you can't speak'.

This was definitely one description that deserved a 'high five' —

'lifting up your hand to clap hands with someone else

as a greeting or to say well done'.

In fact, the phrase 'gobsmacked silence' was so good it went viral

and started being used in all kinds of situations.

Maybe gobsmacked was how the viewers of that TV news programme felt,

you know, the mistaken subtitle you asked me about in your question.

I guessed the incorrect subtitle

was "We can't allow Spider-Man to become prime minister".

Which was the wrong answer, I'm afraid.

In fact, the interviewee said, "We can't allow that man to become prime minister",

speaking about Boris Johnson, but the misheard subtitle appeared as Batman.

OK, let's recap the vocabulary we've learnt from this programme on subtitles,

starting with 'genre' —

'a style of film, music or book with its own particular set of characteristics'.

Something which is 'upbeat' is 'cheerful, hopeful and light-hearted'.

The adjective 'jaunty' means 'full of energy and confidence'.

If you 'gasp', you 'take in a short, quick breath of air in surprise or in pain'.

You can use the slang expression 'gobsmacked'

when someone is 'so surprised they can't speak'.

And finally, if you give someone a 'high five',

you 'hold up your hand above your head,

clapping hands with somebody else as a greeting, or to say well done'.

Once again, our 6 minutes are up. Goodbye for now!

Bye!

6 Minute English from BBC Learning English.

Hello. This is 6 Minute English from BBC Learning English. I'm Sam.

And I'm Rob.

The British are not famous for their food,

or rather they are famous, but for bad food!

While French and Italian cooking is admired around the world,

the UK has a reputation for overboiled vegetables, mushy peas,

and 'black pudding' — 'a dish made from pig's blood'!

Ugh, that doesn't sound very tasty, does it?

But I don't think our reputation for bad cooking is still true today, Sam.

The last twenty years have seen big changes

as Brits have fallen in love with international foods

like Indian curry and Asian rice dishes,

and with non-traditional cooking like vegetarian and vegan food.

Some of the most popular food in Britain comes from other countries,

and includes the recipes, flavours and tastes of those faraway places.

But how do recipes and cooking ideas from all over the world

make their way onto the British dining table?

In this programme, we'll be finding out.

We'll be meeting the recipe translators.

These chefs translate 'recipes' —

'the instructions explaining how to combine the different items,

the ingredients, they will cook' — from their own language into English.

And, of course, we'll be learning some new vocabulary as well.

Sounds good, Rob, but first I have a question for you.

It may be true that British cooking is better than it used to be,

but there's still some pretty bad food out there.

So, according to a 2019 YouGov survey, which UK food was voted the worst?

Was it a) steak and kidney pies? b) Scotch eggs? Or c) haggis?

Oh, I've got to say Scotch eggs, I've never liked them that much!

OK. All right, Rob, I'll reveal the answer later in the programme.

Now, as anyone who speaks more than one language knows,

translating involves more than getting the dictionary out.

Recipe translators need to know the vocabulary

for different ingredients and cooking techniques,

while also preserving the heart of the recipe.

Listen as BBC World Service programme The Food Chain

talks with recipe translator Rosa Llopis.

Long story short, I began to work as an interpreter for Le Cordon Bleu,

the French cuisine school, and I realised there was no,

I mean, no such a specialisation, in Spain at least,

like, in gastronomy or cooking translation.

Recipe translation is closely connected to 'gastronomy' —

'the art and knowledge involved in preparing and eating good food'.

This is contained in a country's traditional recipes,

written in its own language, not English,

hence Rosa's decision to specialise in recipe translation.

If you 'specialise' in a subject,

you 'focus on studying and learning all about it'.

When Rosa is asked how she became a recipe translator,

she begins by saying 'to cut a long story short'.

This phrase can be used when you are

'explaining what happened in a few words, without giving all the details'.

Like most recipe translators, Rosa's goal is to produce a cookbook in English

containing the best recipes from her own country, Spain.

But doing this is not so easy,

as she explained to BBC World Service programme The Food Chain.

If my readers can't replicate those recipes, they won't buy the book,

so what I mean is, I don't only have to find, for instance,

the translation of the name of an ingredient.

If it's an ingredient that we don't use or we don't have in Spain,

I always try to offer an alternative so they can mimic the flavour or the results.

Rosa's cookbook allows readers to 'replicate' her dishes —

'to make them again in exactly the same way'.

But this isn't easy when the recipe includes

ingredients which are difficult to find.

Something like lemongrass, which is used in some Spanish cooking,

but can be hard to find in the shops.

For this reason, Rosa gives an alternative —

a substitute ingredient which 'mimics', or 'copies', the flavour of a certain food.

To mimic the flavour of lemongrass, for example, she recommends using lemon juice.

It's not easy work, but thanks to recipe translators like Rosa,

people here in the UK can cook something

a little tastier than meat and boiled vegetables.

Speaking of which, it's time to reveal the answer to my question, Rob.

Yes, you asked which food was voted the worst by a recent UK YouGov survey

and I said it was Scotch eggs.

That's boiled eggs wrapped in sausage meat and breadcrumbs, yuck!

Well, in fact, the correct answer was c) haggis, which doesn't sound much nicer,

because the Scottish dish haggis is made using a sheep's stomach!

Eurgh, yuck!

OK, let's quickly move on to recap the vocabulary

we've learnt from this programme, starting with 'ingredient' —

'an item of food that is combined with other food to prepare a particular dish'.

'Gastronomy' is 'the art and knowledge

involved in preparing and eating good food'.

If you 'specialise' in something,

you have 'spent time studying and learning all about it,

becoming an expert in that subject'.

The phrase 'to cut a long story short' is used in British English

when you want 'to explain what happened in a few words,

without giving all the details'.

To 'replicate' something means 'to make or do it again in exactly the same way'.

And finally, to 'mimic' something means

'to copy the way in which it is done, sometimes in a funny way'.

Well, once again, our six minutes are up. Bye for now!

Bye-bye!

6 Minute English from BBC Learning English.

Hello. This is 6 Minute English from BBC Learning English. I'm Sam.

And I'm Rob.

When Sarah Ott was growing up in Florida in the 1990s, she loved playing in nature.

She picked up litter in the street and took it home to recycle.

But later, in college, Sarah became surrounded by people in her community

who didn't share her love of the environment —

people who didn't believe that climate change was real.

And, slowly, Sarah started to doubt it as well.

'Climate deniers' — 'people who don't believe that climate change is happening,

or that it isn't caused by humans' —

make up around nine percent of the American population,

according to some estimates.

Now, Sarah works as a climate campaigner

at the US National Center for Science Education,

teaching children the science behind climate change,

but her journey there was a difficult one, and she lost many friends on the way.

In this programme, we'll be discussing 'climate deniers',

and finding out how to talk with people who doubt the science of global warming.

And, as usual, we'll be learning some new vocabulary as well.

But before that, I have a question for you, Rob.

Whatever 'climate deniers' think, there is strong agreement on the issue

among scientists on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the IPCC.

So, what percentage of the world's scientific community

agree that climate change is real?

Is it a) 79 percent? b) 89 percent? Or c) 99 percent?

Ooh, I'll have a guess and I'll say it's 99 percent.

OK, I will reveal the answer later in the programme, Rob.

Marco Silva is a climate disinformation reporter for the BBC.

He told BBC World Service programme The Climate Question

what he's learned about reporting on the issue from around the world.

It's quite important to make here a very clear distinction between being wrong,

ill-informed about climate change and being a full-blown climate denier.

A lot of people may not be very well-versed with the science,

the facts of climate change.

To be honest, they can at times be quite complex, quite dense.

Some people may have genuine questions about the subject.

So, with information, with facts, those people can be convinced.

Climate deniers, though, people who reject the basic facts of climate change,

are likely to be more difficult to persuade.

Marco distinguishes a 'full-blown' 'climate denier' —

someone who 'is completely committed to the idea',

from someone who is simply 'ill-informed',

meaning someone who 'knows less than they should about a particular topic'.

Marco thinks it's possible persuade an ill-informed person

that climate change is a fact,

for example by sharing personal stories

of how the weather has changed in recent years,

or by asking them why they doubt the scientific evidence.

'Full-blown' 'climate deniers', on the other hand, are much harder to persuade.

Here's Marco Silva again, sharing some advice on how best to talk to people

about the climate with BBC World Service programme The Climate Question.

A number of researchers and academics have looked into exactly this topic before.

Professor Sander van der Linden,

Professor of Social Psychology at the University of Cambridge, is one of them.

He's been looking into this long and hard,

and when I spoke to him, he gave me a couple of tips.

For instance, don't challenge a climate denier directly.

Don't confront them telling them that they're this or that,

throwing insults at them, that their beliefs are wrong —

that sort of attitude or strategy is only likely to backfire.

If you do that, the chances are

people are just going to hold on to their views even more firmly.

Marco mentions Professor van der Linden,

a psychologist who has 'taken a long, hard look' at the issue of climate denial.

If you 'take a long, hard look' at something,

you 'examine it very carefully in order to improve it for the future'.

Professor van der Linden advises us not to challenge 'climate deniers' directly,

and never to 'throw insults' —

'to say offensive, hurtful things directly to someone'.

This approach is unlikely to work and will probably 'backfire',

or 'have the opposite effect from that intended',

such as making that person's opinion even stronger.

Instead, what's needed is understanding and empathy —

realising that 'climate deniers' cannot control the life events

that led them to mistrust science

and the patience to try to show them the difference between fact and fiction.

OK, it's time to reveal the answer to your question now, Sam —

what percentage of the global scientific community

agree that human-caused climate change is real?

And I guessed it was 99 percent.

— And that was the correct answer, Rob! — Aha!

The scientific evidence for a climate emergency is overwhelming,

leaving just the question of what we do about it.

OK, let's recap the vocabulary we've learned

from this programme on 'climate deniers' —

'people who do not accept that climate change is real'.

Someone who is 'ill-informed'

'knows less than they should about a particular topic'.

The adjective 'full-blown' means 'completely committed or developed'.

The idiom 'to take a long, hard look' at something

means 'to examine something very carefully in order to improve it for the future'.

If you 'throw insults',

you 'say offensive, hurtful things directly to someone'.

And finally, if your actions 'backfire',

they 'have the opposite effect from the one you intended'.

Once again, our six minutes are up! Bye for now!

Bye-bye!

6 Minute English from BBC Learning English.