Czy ten zestaw bedzie dobry?

Temat przeniesiony do archwium
Witam wszystkich. Wiem ze ten temat byl poruszany juz kilka razy ale chcialabym zapytac jeszcze raz.
Ponizej sa ksiazki, ktore wybralam do samodzielnej nauki do CPE.

1. Masterclass Proficiency (student's book i workbook)
2. Grammar and vocabulary for Cambridge Advanced and Proficiency - Side & Wellman
3. Advanced vocabulary and structure practice - Matasek
4. 1000 trios - Kiljan
5. New Proficiency testbuilder - Harrison
6. Successful writing proficiency - Evans

i testy, testy i jeszcze raz testy.

Chcialam zapytac tych ktorzy juz egzamin zdawali lub sa w trakcie nauki czy taki zestaw mi wystarczy do przygotowan.

Z gory dziekuje.
Wystarczy. Zadbaj jeszcze o kogoś do konwersacji i będzie idealnie.
Konwersacje mam na codzien bo mieszkam i pracuje w UK :)
Dzieki bardzo za odpowiedz.
I would correct one title "Proficiency Masterclass", besides Upstream Proficiency is by far the best Proficiency textbook as it has not only SB and WB, but Student's Companion - with all the vocabulary explained and translated into Polish as well as extra exercises to really fix them into your mind. If you are lucky enough you can even have recordings or reading texts not only listening comprehension tasks.

Unfortunately, Upstream Proficiency can hardly be called a CPE coursebook, let alone the best one. The word proficiency in its title indicates that it is geared toward proficiency level learners so it can be used as supplementary material but it is not a CPE coursebook proper.
Cytat: Lagerkvist
Unfortunately, Upstream Proficiency can hardly be called a CPE coursebook, let alone the best one. The word proficiency in its title indicates that it is geared toward proficiency level learners so it can be used as supplementary material but it is not a CPE coursebook proper.

You may get that impression while looking it carelessly over, but I have completed a language course based on this textbook and successfully passed CPE, that is why I recommend it.
That's not my impression, it's a fact.
Says who? Any arguments to support your hypothesis?
Where does the book mention the CPE exam?
Upstream Proficiency is a modular secondary-level course for learners of the English language at CEF C2 level.
Cytat: Lagerkvist
Where does the book mention the CPE exam?

I does not mention it but both SB (pp. 239) and WB (pp. 104) contain practice test in format and level of difficulty that exactly corresponds to CPE in the current (i.e. 2002 - ) version.

The fact that first units look (and some of the exercises actually are) slightly easier than the past CPE papers should not obliterate the fact that the book is very good preparation for CPE exam.

Cytat:
Upstream Proficiency is a modular secondary-level course for learners of the English language at CEF C2 level.

I still can't find the word CPE here.



'nuff said.
Cytat: Lagerkvist
Cytat:
Upstream Proficiency is a modular secondary-level course for learners of the English language at CEF C2 level.

I still can't find the word CPE here.

If I were as petty as you are I would mock you and said 'why should there be CPE'? as current name of the exam is CEP (Cambridge English: Proficiency.)

http://www.cambridgeesol.org/exams/general-english/cpe.html

So why do you obstinately pick on a word and not its sense?. Have you heard of Chomsky's deep and surface structure, eh?
@Dario
sorry to butt in like that, but colourful green ideas sleeping furiously has nothing to do with semantics :-)

@MG
Who / what are you referring to by 'colourful green ideas sleeping furiously'?
colourless, right?
Cytat:
If I were as petty as you are I would mock you and said 'why should there be CPE'? as current name of the exam is CEP (Cambridge English: Proficiency.)

A simple search on the website yields 707 hits for CPE and 0 hits for CEP. So where did you find CEP?

Cytat:
So why do you obstinately pick on a word and not its sense?

Because I can see the difference between a coursebook for proficient learners and a coursebook for CPE candidates.

Cytat:
Have you heard of Chomsky's deep and surface structure, eh?

Your question is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Besides I might know more about Chomsky than you.



To end this discussion, I can understand that you like the book. I simply don't.
@Lagerkvist

Cytat:
A simple search on the website yields 707 hits for CPE and 0 hits for CEP. So where did you find CEP?

I provided link in my original post. You deleted it and ask where I found it - pathetic.
So I have to put the link again. See below:

http://www.cambridgeesol.org/exams/general-english/cpe.html

Besides number of google hits does not prove correctness, just popularity.


Cytat:
Because I can see the difference between a coursebook for proficient learners and a coursebook for CPE candidates.

I can see the difference too, but the textbook is for CPE/ CEP candidates for the very simple reason: its content and format of exercises exactly corresponds to the content of the exam what is proved by the format and content of practice test of both SB and WB - I wrote it before but it probably escaped your notice. So if the entire practice exam content exactly corresponds to the exam you mentioned there is no use picking on the name of the exam in question.

Cytat:
Your question is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. Besides I might know more about Chomsky than you.

The question is relevant as you seem to put attention to word and not its meaning. Besides 'Proficiency' is commonly used abbreviation for CPE/CEP. The very word appears in the book on numerous occasions.





Cytat: Lagerkvist
To end this discussion, I can understand that you like the book. I simply don't.

This is totally irrelevant whether you like it or not. The question was whether it prepares well for the C2 level exam in English, commonly known as: 'Proficiency', 'CPE', but form this year on as you can see on the website of University of Cambridge ESOL examinations : Cambridge English: Proficiency or CEP for short. I can prove it prepares well as I have passed the exam and worked through the entire book with all its components. You looked it over, disliked it and probably for that reason maintain obstinately that it does not prepares well to the exam.
Cytat: mg
colourless, right?

I must repeat the question: who were you referring to?
Your attempts to offend me fail. I will not continue thid discussion.
Cytat: Lagerkvist
Your attempts to offend me fail. I will not continue thid discussion.

I did not want to offend you - I wanted to get to the bottom of the problem - whether the book is a good preparation to Cambridge English: Proficiency - commonly known as Certificate of Proficiency of English. I provided arguments supporting this hypothesis - you preferred to get offended - typical reaction of those who lack content-related arguments. We live in a society where when one if cannot prove he/she is right - starts to either shout and use offensive language or gets offended and fails to prove he/she is right.
Cytat: Lagerkvist
Your attempts to offend me fail. I will not continue thid discussion.

Should you have any content-based arguments I do implore you to provide them.
Cytat: DARIO_SPIRITUAL
Cytat: mg
colourless, right?

I must repeat the question: who were you referring to?

Oh, dario, you should know. Chomsky ‘coined it’ to account for PL and LF in generative syntax. You came out with his ( Chomskyan) D and S structures here , did you not ?

At “S-structure” ( should be taken ironically here as our ‘mental transformed output’ :), mg was referring to the irrelevance of dragging up the above terms to prove your point. This is pure generative grammar, has nothing to do with semantics, hence ‘that’ distinction between phonological and logical form that Chomsky came up with.

Even if we imagine ( theoretically ) for a while that the phrase ‘CPE’ is at D-structure tree and ‘CEP’ ( or whatever is there ) is at S-structure tree , the former would be in a theta-bar position and then it cannot be construed as being at D-structure in the first place. By the way, Chomsky ditched the idea of D/S-structures many years ago.

But other than that, guys, I really don’t know what all this spat is about here ? CPE , CEP, CIA, FBI, FSB..KKK haha …What difference does it make ? :)
Cytat: savagerhino
Cytat: DARIO_SPIRITUAL
Cytat: mg
colourless, right?

I must repeat the question: who were you referring to?

Oh, dario, you should know. Chomsky ‘coined it’ to account for PL and LF in generative syntax. You came out with his ( Chomskyan) D and S structures here , did you not ?

At “S-structure” ( should be taken ironically here as our ‘mental transformed output’ :), mg was referring to the irrelevance of dragging up the above terms to prove your point. This is pure generative grammar, has nothing to do with semantics, hence ‘that’ distinction between phonological and logical form that Chomsky came up with.

Even if we imagine ( theoretically ) for a while that the phrase ‘CPE’ is at D-structure tree and ‘CEP’ ( or whatever is there ) is at S-structure tree , the former would be in a theta-bar position and then it cannot be construed as being at D-structure in the first place. By the way, Chomsky ditched the idea of D/S-structures many years ago.

But other than that, guys, I really don’t know what all this spat is about here ? CPE , CEP, CIA, FBI, FSB..KKK haha …What difference does it make ? :)


So it turns out I was misinformed about Chomsky's conception - as I did not study linguistics and get to know about it from second hand sources. Thanks for enlightening me, then. Till today I was under the, mistaken, impression that surface structure is form and deep structure is its meaning.

As to this 'discussion' - I used apostrophe as it is not held 'sine ire et studio' - I am just convinced that the textbook Upstream Proficiency is a good preparation to the C2 level exam - be its name what it may whereas the other guy picks on three magical letters that spell terror - C P E and asks incessantly wherein in the textbook the three magical C P E letters appear as if it proved anything.
I’m not much of a ‘syntactician’ but if you’re interested, try “Syntactic Structures” by Chomsky
( 1957). It’s not exactly light reading though, it’s extremely boring and taxonomical and even could make some puke :) but can give you the basic ideas about early PSR ( phrase structure rules ) and the background for his later X-bar theory.
I also recommend Andrew Carnie’s “ Syntax: A Generative Introduction” but take a second edition, it’s much more user-friendly in the above sense. ( I like Canadians:)) Besides, I know the guy personally, you know, email correspondence..)

>>I’m not much of a ‘syntactician’

Since when did I start quoting myself ? :)

I lied. I'm a 'devoted syntactician'. :)
Temat przeniesiony do archwium

« 

Pomoc językowa - Sprawdzenie