5

This regards a High school English test question in South Korea

I am an English language instructor based in South Korea. I am writing to seek your expert opinion on a disputed question from a high school English exam, as the outcome has significant implications for students' university admissions.

Here is the full context.

"There is one important thing to note about momentum. Because motion is relative, only velocities measured in relation to another object are meaningful. In reality, every velocity is defined relative to some frame of reference. For example, on the surface of the Earth, we usually measure motion with respect to the ground, without (A)______. This illustrates that what truly matters is not absolute speed, but how fast an object moves compared to its surroundings. From this perspective, momentum also depends on relative motion, since it is determined by velocity within a chosen reference frame."

The two options at issue:

② without considering the Earth's own movement through space [designated correct answer]

⑤ without recognizing the Earth's continuous motion through space [marked incorrect]

The school's position is that "recognize" implies a mere failure of perception, and "continuous" is an unnecessary overspecification; hence only ② is the correct answer.

However, I believe "recognize" is equally appropriate, as it encompasses acknowledging factors we functionally or unconsciously overlook. Furthermore, "continuous" is scientifically self-evident common knowledge, not an over-specification. Therefore, I argue that the difference between the two is too marginal to be used as a criterion for assessing ESL learners' reading proficiency.

I sincerely value your time and consideration. Thank you.

Improve this question
New contributor
Jae Han is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering. Check out our Code of Conduct.
8
  • 1
    Korean English exams would be challenging for native speakers and the majority of High school teachers alike, let alone students! Surely, you would need to be familiar with the dynamics of astrophysics. Commented yesterday
  • Continuous has multiple meanings: differentiable to a particular degree, with uninterrupted extension, unbroken, etc. Commented yesterday
  • You can also recognise something and then ignore it. Commented yesterday
  • 3
    I'd love to know what the downvote is for. The question is limited to a single request, the OP explains their dilemma clearly, we have a source, and the question is perfectly suited to EL&U, it's definitely not a learner's question. We cannot seriously expect the OP to find the answer in a dictionary. The downvoter should have the good manners to explain why they consider/recognise the post as being unclear, off topic or not useful. Commented 23 hours ago
  • The two answer options are too similar to say one is wrong. Unfair. Commented 21 hours ago

4 Answers 4

Reset to default
4

I agree with the answer key. "Recognize" would be acceptable if we were talking about noticing something's velocity casually, but the paragraph is about measuring it. Measurement is a more technical activity, and "considering" refers to the factors that we account for.

The use of "continuous" is irrelevant, in my opinion.

I do agree with you that this is a very subtle distinction, so it's not a good question in an ESL class. It might be more appropriate in a high school English (or Physics!) class for native speakers.

Improve this answer
4

Looking at "to recognize" in the best possible light, that is, picking a definition that confers an idea of taking into account a known state of affairs or phenomenon—there is such a definition—, then, strictly speaking, there is not much that can be said against using this verb.

SOED recognize 4 b Acknowledge or consider as or to be.

However, the matter is not so simple; the dilemma that is explained in this question post is a recurring one found in countless multiple choice tests. If the idea of "considering something" is explicitly contained in "to recognize", it is so as embodied in a comparatively rarely used acceptation of this verb, whereas the main impact of it in the language has to do with identification. As there is a natural propensity on the part of the instructors who conceive the tests to consider the most typical form and at the same time the less ambiguous one as that believed to be most useful, the form with less specificity is being discarded, although somewhat arbitrarily, as having instead its more usual meaning; I must say that I go along with this point of view, although the principle I just mentioned should perhaps, somehow, be made clear to the students.

As I see this problem, both teacher and student are right, but the teacher is "more" right.

The addition of "continuous" makes merely for a fuller description of the motion of the earth, and this extra information is perhaps not yet to be considered as too compendious (viz. "the continuous motion of the earth about the sun in 365 days", "the continuous motion of the earth in an elliptical orbit about the sun").

Improve this answer
1
  • Yes. 'Recognise' can certainly mean 'take into account' (though the default meaning is almost certainly 'realise'). And though 'consider' doesn't have the polyseme problem of ambiguity, a test insisting 'recognise' is incorrect here seems out of place for non-graduates. Commented 11 hours ago
1

As a scientist and native speaker I can only assert that in my experience the usage, is unequivocally “considering”.

This is without considering grammar or linguistic definitions. For what it’s worth, “without recognizing” conveys to me the idea of denial that of earth’s movement, or at least a neutral position on that question — clearly not what is intended.

Improve this answer
1
  • As a scientist and a native speaker, I disagree. Though it's probably not optimal here, 'recognise' can certainly mean 'take into account'. I've seen rather high-flown language like this in science textbooks, and even articles. Commented 11 hours ago
0

My immediate thought is that the two phrases mean very different things.

without recognizing the Earth's continuous motion through space -- not even realizing that this is a factor

without considering the Earth's own movement through space -- this is such a minor component that we don't need to bother calculating its contribution

The choice is made clearer when you read the next sentence:

This illustrates that what truly matters is not absolute speed, but how fast an object moves compared to its surroundings.

If you are measuring relative speed it just doesn't matter that the Earth and the "moving object" are moving together through the galaxy. We simply shouldn't (or, more strongly, must not) take that into consideration; whether or not we recognize it is irrelevant to the question at hand.

Improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.