英語を英語のまま理解するというのが理想だろうが、これは日本人には身につけることはまず出来ないというのが、私の結論だ。
それに比べれば、語順どおりに頭の中で訳しながら理解していく方法は、身につく可能性は、はるかに高い。
それでも、実際にこの手法を身につけるとなると、容易なことではない。
講師を務めている英語の学習会でも、語順どおりの訳して理解したほうがスムーズに出来ますよ、ということを折に触れ言及するが、レッスンでほんの少し時間を取ったぐらいでは身につかないから、具体的方法を説明したりはしない。
かくして、構文の複雑な文が連続するような内容の文章だと、全員が口をそろえて、難しかったと感想を述べる。
最近、この学習会で取り上げた新聞記事の一部を抜粋してみる。
Viewed cynically, these features together suggest that the system is designed to ensure that the criminal justice system continues to generate the same "correct" results as always, while at the same time deflecting some of the criticism currently directed at the courts: that the judges heavily favor prosecutors to the extent of finding innocent people guilty on scant evidence, or that they are too lenient in sentencing. In this light, a system which maximizes the appearance of citizen participation while giving lay judges only a minority role in terms of actual influence makes sense. Excluding people who know something about law also makes sense since it ensures that judges will not be subject to any credible second-guessing. Imposing a lifetime confidentiality obligation on lay judges may also have the benefit of ensuring that only professional judges and other legal system insiders will be able to talk authoritatively about how the system is functioning. The government is supposed to review the system after three years and, thanks to the secrecy obligation, it will probably be able to do so with a minimum of troublesome unfiltered input from people who have actually been lay judges.
