A case of discrimination between "in" and "with".

maraba

Senior Member
Spain
Which ought to make more sense?

"Pupils can face a language of a higher level in receptive skills than they do in productive ones."

"Pupils can face a language of a higher level with receptive skills than they do with productive ones."

Thank's very much for your time.
 
  • Which ought to make more sense?

    "Pupils can face a language of a higher level in receptive skills than they do in productive ones."

    "Pupils can face a language of a higher level with receptive skills than they do with productive ones."

    Thank's very much for your time.
    I'm afraid I don't fully understand your sentence, Maraba. Please can you make it a little clearer? Thank you.

    LRV
     

    maraba

    Senior Member
    Spain
    I intend to mean that pupils learning a foreign language are more competent when listening or reading than they are when speaking or writing; that is, the same knowledge of the foreign language but a distinct level of proficiency depending on the skills to use.
    I expect this helps to clarify the sense.:)
     

    loladamore

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Perhaps you could say 'Pupils have a higher level of proficiency in receptive skills than in productive ones'.

    When you say 'face', do you mean 'deal with', i.e., in reference to another speaker's language, or do you mean 'produce'?
     
    Which ought to make more sense?

    "Pupils can face a language of a higher level in receptive skills than they do in productive ones."

    "Pupils can face a language of a higher level with receptive skills than they do with productive ones."

    Thank's very much for your time.

    Thanks for the clarification, Maraba.

    I would write -

    Pupils can face a language at a higher level with receptive skills than they can with practical ones.

    LRV

    Edit: As Lola has indicated, there is a little confusion over the use of the word "face". Perhaps "tackle" might be better.
     

    winklepicker

    Senior Member
    English (UK)
    I intend to mean that pupils learning a foreign language are more competent when listening or reading than they are when speaking or writing; that is, the same knowledge of the foreign language but a distinct level of proficiency depending on the skills to use.
    I expect this helps to clarify the sense.:)
    Why not just say pupils learning a foreign language are more competent when listening or reading than they are when speaking or writing

    Or are you afraid that everyone will understand what you mean? ;)
     

    loladamore

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Ha ha ha! (cheeky winklepicker) :D

    Another way of conveying (more or less) the same message, but in the appropriate jargon:

    Pupils' receptive skills tend to be stronger than their productive skills.
     

    maraba

    Senior Member
    Spain
    Yes, winklepicker has a very refined sense of humour. Mightn't it be that in fact s/he has not a clue of English and that's why s/he never understands me? :D

    Seriously, this time the original question-matter is not of my own. It sounded odd even to me, and that's why I decided to call it into question. But to be honest, the only thing rare to me was "in", which if changed for "with" would make the most of the senses (to me, the person who knows English more proficiently than anybody on Earth :cool: ).

    Thank you very much.

    Pupils can tackle a language at a higher level with receptive skills than they can with practical ones.

    The above must satisfy you, musn't it?
     

    jess oh seven

    Senior Member
    UK/US English
    Pupils can tackle a language at a higher level with receptive skills than they can with practical ones.

    The above must satisfy you, musn't it?
    Hmm.

    I´m sorry but the sentence still doesn´t make any sense. The one La reine victoria posted is quite convoluted and difficult to understand too, I think.

    Pupils achieve a higher level of competence in receptive skills than in productive skills.

    At least the meaning is clear!
     

    maraba

    Senior Member
    Spain
    Uff.
    So, it's certainly true.

    Ok. Thank you jess oh seven, I'll have to reject it.

    Anyway, Pupils achieve a higher level of competence in receptive skills than in productive skills does make more sense than Pupils achieve a higher level of competence with receptive skills than with productive skills?
     

    loladamore

    Senior Member
    English UK
    A Pupils achieve a higher level of competence in receptive skills than in productive skills does make more sense than B Pupils achieve a higher level of competence with receptive skills than with productive skills?
    I don't think they mean the same thing.
    I understand A to mean that the students become more proficient in their receptive skills (listening/reading) than in production (speaking writing), that is, the usual "I can understand lots of the foreign language but have difficulty expressing myself in it".
    B, on the other hand, could be interpreted as meaning that working on receptive skills, perhaps at the expense of productive skills, is more likely to lead to a higher level of FL competence, ie, "you get further by understanding than by speaking".

    Is this getting any better or am I making it worse?

    The use of "face" is strange, too. That (to me) implies "tackle", as LRV suggests, rather than "produce", which is what you say it was supposed to mean. If you took this to Spanish/English, it could go on all day!

    Ay, ay, ay!
     

    maraba

    Senior Member
    Spain
    Too much level to me.:(

    I think I will take winklepicker's suggestion of going with my own words: pupils learning a foreign language are more competent when listening or reading than they are when speaking or writing.

    I think I understand what you say, Lola, but I don't see a considerable difference between A and B.
     

    loladamore

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Go with your own words, which convey exactly the same meaning as A, but in more straighforward terms. :thumbsup:

    If you use "with", you are explaining how ("with what") you achieve something, for example, with luck you will understand my explanations. I think I need some help with my productive skills. ;)

    I'll leave it there before I make things any worse!
    Saludos.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top