<Shadowing 공부법>
1단계: 선택
- 자신에게 딱 맞는 수준의 자료를 고르기 (너무 어렵지 않게, 70~80%는 알아들을 수 있는 정도)
2단계: 청취 (Listening)
처음에는 스크립트를 보지 말고 2~3번 정도 전체를 듣기. 어떤 내용인지 전체적인 흐름을 이해.
3단계: 분석 (Understanding)
스크립트를 보면서 모르는 단어, 표현, 억양을 체크합니다. 리듬, 강세, 멈춤(pause) 등을 유심히 들어요.
4단계: 쉐도잉 (Shadowing)
원어민의 음성을 들으며 0.5~1초 뒤에 거의 동시에 따라 말하기. 처음에는 문장 단위로 짧게, 점점 길게 늘려가세요. 발음보다 리듬과 억양을 먼저 맞추는 게 핵심.
5단계: 녹음 & 피드백
자신의 음성을 녹음해 원본과 비교. (억양, 강세, 속도, 발음 등을 점검) 계속 반복하며 개선해나가면 자신의 영어 억양이 눈에 띄게 자연스러워집니다.
<Tip>
1. 처음엔 완벽히 따라하려고 하지 말고, “리듬”에 집중.
2. 입을 크게 벌리고, 소리를 흉내 낸다는 느낌으로 연습
3. 매일 10분이라도 꾸준히 하는 게 중요
4. 익숙해지면 뉴스보다 대화체가 있는 드라마나 인터뷰로 넘어가기.
0:33
Well, a couple of things here.
So, first of all, I don't think anybody doubts that Lisa Cook committed some mortgage fraud.
Weather a local authorities decideds to prosecute her or Federal authirities prosecute her, off course, the president doesn't get involved in those decisions
But she made a mistake// and she potentially made a criminal mistake.
And the question is,/ do we want a person/ who makes mistake like that/ to be a person who sits on the Federal Reserve Board/ which makes important monetary policy for the entire country?
I think that position should be held to the highest possible standard.
So whether it's criminal,/ whether it's intential or not,/ we know that/ this is a person/ I think who doesn't meet/ the standard that we should expect for the Federal Reserve/, which is why the president fired her.
And he does have the leagal right to fire her.
And this goes into a second, I think, a much more fundamental question.
Let's just say for the sake of argument( ~라고 가정을 해보자) that Lisa Cook had done absolutely nothing wrong.
Isn't it a little preposterous(얼토당토 않는, 가당치도 않는) to say that the president of the United States,/ the elected president of the United States,/ working of course in concert with(~와 협력하여, ~와 동시에/나란히) Congress/, doesn't have the ability to make these determinations?
What people who are saying the president has no authority here/ what they're effectively saying/ is that seven economists and lawyers/ should be able to make an incredibly/ critical decision for the American people with no/ democratic input.
Like I thought: the people control this country./ The people made the determinations in this country through their elected representatives, including the president of the United States.
I don't think that we allow bureaucrats to sit from on high(높은 곳에서 지시하다)/ and make decisions about monetary policy/ and interest rates/ without any input from the people that were elected to serve the American people.
And I think that's fundamentally what this is about/: who makes the decisions about this country?/ Is it those the American people elect/, or unelected bureaucrats?
I feel very strongly/ that the president of the United States is much better able to make these determinations.
And by the way,/ if the American people disagree with the president/, they, of course, can throw out the president every four years/ and throw in a new president.
But you can't say that the American people — that the democratic decision-making process — has no influence over monetary policy. That's a really really I think an anti-democratic principle.
2:50
No. Not at all. I think the president has a view that we should enforce the law, and if people broke the law, then of course they should face prosecution for doing so.
All the people you named/ they're at some level of investigation.// But unlike the Biden’s Department of Justice,/ what the president of the United States has told his Department of Justice is let the facts and the law drive these decisions.
If you do these investigations/ and it's determined nobody broke the law/, then of course you don't prosecute anybody.
But if you have people who broke the law/, if you have people violated the public trust/, if you have people mishandled critical information in a way that harmed the American people/, and they committed a violation of the law in the process/, of course you've got to prosecute people.
I think that unless you prosecute people who broke the law,/ you don’t have a real constitutional republic(헌정공화국).
The president has been willing, frankly, to pardon(사면하다) people from the other side political aisle.
In my hometown, Cincinnati, PG Sittenfeld was prosecuted by the last Department of Justice. The president issued that pardon. He’s a sort of famous Democratic official.
This is not about the politics;/ this is about the law.
And if the president thinks a person has been unfairly prosecuted, he’ll pardon that person or commute their sentence(형을 감형하다).
If he thinks a person has violated the law, whether they are Republican or Democrat, he's going to encourage his Department of Justice to go after(추궁하다, 법적으로 조치하다) that person.
4:20
Well, I think it's an interesting question.
I think the president has the legal authority to deploy the National Guard to fight crime.
And obviously, we are going to do things that are in compliance with the legal processes of our country.
But the president said a couple of times in the past couple of days that he really want this process to be driven by the local authorities here, whether it's the state government or the local mayors, and I think it makes a lot of sense.
Look, we don't want to go in where we are unwelcome.
There's a political reason/ because what might very well happen/ is that these people, mayors, or local governors stand up and say/, "We don't want the National Guard./ This is a dictatorship(독재), Trump is fascist blah blah."
We don't want people to stand up before/ a press conference/ and accuse the president of being a facist,/ accuse the National Guard of being part of some dictatorial(독재적인) coup.
When in private/ they're actually thinking us/ for bringing law and order back to this communities.
So there's a political reason not to do it./ There's also just a basic cooperation reason to do it.
Look, if you look at Chicago, or if you look at Baltimore, or if you look at Los Angeles, these cities have murder rates that are totally unacceptable in the world’s wealthiest country.
We should want — whether you are Black or White, rich or poor — you should be able to walk down America's city street in safety and in comfort.
You should not, if you're the mom or dad of young kid, have to cross the street, when you are walking through San Francisco in broad daylight, because there's a crazy person screaming at you on the street corner. We should have some basic level of comfort and security on our streets.
And what the president had said is these local mayors, these local governors want help, he's more than willing to provide it. I think he could provide it even without their request.
But fundamentally, the president and I think right now what he said is we want to work together with the these localities, and we want to bring law and order back to the American streets.
We want to make American's city safe again. But we want to do it working in concert with the local authorities. And that right now is where the president is.
6:21
You're saying if we deploy the National Guard, how long would it stay?
Well I think fundamentally, that would be up to local governors and the local authorities, in concert with the President of the United States, to make those determinations.
I think it obviously makes determinations based on local crime rates, what’s happening with murder, what’s happening with armed robberies, what’s happening with carjackings.
I mean, we don't want indefinitely to put the National guardsmen on the streets of our cities. We just want to make those streets more safe.
And I think once we've accomplished the goal and created, you know, some local foundation for the local police to continue police those streets successfully.
Then I think that would sort of accomplish the goal and that's what we would need to do. And in DC particular, which is of course the only place where we've done this.
I think the President’s view is that 30 days is probably not enough. If you look at how bad the problem has gotten here, how bad armed robberies have gotten, how bad the carjackings have gotten— I don't think 30 days is enough.
But what we really want with Washington, D.C., is to put it on a sustainable footing where the local authorities and local police can actually bring safety back to the streets of Washington, D.C.
I think you have have been in the press conference yesterday. There were a couple of journalists who talked about being mugged on the streets of Washington, D.C.
I have a dear friend of mine who used to live in Washington. His then-girlfriend, now they are married, but when they are dating, she came back home crying, because she had been mugged at a CVS in the middle of Washington, D.C. This is crazy. We don’t have to accept this.
I think our message to the American people is: we don’t have to live like this. All you need is your political leadership—at national and local level—that's really willing to actually go after the bad guys and make America's streets safe for Americans again.
8:15
Well, I think what the President has said for, first of all, he has told the Department of Justice to do full transparency here — to release what we have, to release credible information.
And I think you saw Todd Blanch, just a couple of days ago, actually released a 9-hour transcript of the interview he did with Gileain Maxwell.
What the President has also said is that we’ve got a whole host of things(매우 많은 것들) that we can focus on. You can both order the Department of Justice to do full transparency. You can also ask the Department of Justice to enforce the law. and you can also ask the National Guard to make sure D.C.’s streets are safe. You don’t have to do one of these things or the other.
So, I don't think that's a distraction, especially when I think the President ordered the administration to be more transparent about this than any other issue.
Now yes. I’m certainly aware that there have been folks, even some of our supporters, who have criticized the response of the President and the Department of Justice.
But I think if you look at this in full(전체적으로 보다) and you give this the proper amount of time, what your are gonna find is that the administration has been far more open and transparent about this issue than many other administrations.
We have to remember, this entire thing happened , this entire story blew up(크게 터지다) during the Biden administration. The Biden administration had four years to release this information. They did absolutely nothing.
The President actually has directed his Department of Justice to release whatever information that we can, and also to go further — I mean, to talk to Ghislaine Maxwell for nine hours to see if there are any other leads(단서) we can uncover(덮개를 벗기다, 밝혀내다, 폭로하다), to actually identify crimes that we can prosecute.
But again, what the President has always said is: we are gonna let the Department of Justice be driven by the facts and the law. We are not going to prosecute people just because other people want us to.
We are going to prosecute people if they committed a crime. That’s true in Epstein’s situation, and that’s true in a lot of other issues as well. That’s why the President is focused on credibility here and real evidence.
10: 27
You mean between my relationship with President Zelensky? Look, we had a number of conversations. They have always been positive conversations.
And look, sometimes people disagree — so you ask, would I change anything?
I mean, do I wish that we had blown up(폭발하다, 격렬히 싸우다) in the Oval Office in the public? Not necessarily.
But do I think that it actually elucidated(명확히 설명하다) some of the real issues of disagreement between the United States side and Ukraine side? Yes. And I think that was useful for the American people to see.
And I think I'll continue to have these conversations. And look, there are a lot of issues of agreements between the United States and Ukraine. There are occasionally some issues of disagreements between the United States and Ukraine.
And you know what really always bothered me about the relationship was not the Ukrainian as much as it was the American side — specifically, the democratic administration of Joe Biden.
* not A as much as(=but) B: A라기 보다는 B이다
I mean, you know, Zelensky would come to Washington, he'd leave with a $50 billion or $100 billion without any real goal, any real diplomacy, any real sense of what we were going to buy with hundred billion dollars.
And that was always frustrated me far more than Zelensky was asking for help from Washington.
It was that the Biden administration had no plan how to end the war, no real credible theory for how giving another $100 billion would solve the problem.
And it just felt like this weird money pit( 돈만 계속 들어가고, 아무리 투자해도 끝이 없는 곳(혹은 일, 물건) ) where we'd throw money after the problem without any plan to solve the problem. That always really frustrated me.
But look, we have had a number of good conversations — both with me and with the President of the United States and with President Zelensky. We are going to keep on working for peace and our goal, I think, just to step back a little bit(조금 뒤로 물러나서 보다) is very clear .
And I think on this iusse, we're pretty aligned with President Zelensky, even though we have some disagreements. We of course want to protect Ukraine’s territorial integrity; we don’t want Russia to conquer the entire country.
We also want the killing to stop and think the war has reached a point where Russians aren't really accomplishing anything by continuing to fight. The Ukiranians aren't really accomplishing anything.
What's the best for everybody, including the United States, would be to stop the killing and bring this to a peaceful settlement.
12:46
I haven't talked to Governor DeSantis about it, though. I think that he's doing a good job and he's doing the right thing in Florida — not just on the redistricting question, but he's a very effective governor in a whole host of ways(여러가지 면에서, 다양한 방식으로).
I haven't talked to Mike DeWine recently about the redistricting fight.
And you mentioned another governor.
No, I haven't talked to Governor Kiho either. But look, all these guys — we've talked to officials in all of these places.
And I think everybody understands pretty much where the White House is, which is that there’s a fundamental question of fairness.
For 10, 20, 30 years, the Democrats have aggressively gerrymandered (선거구를 자당(自黨)에 유리하게 인위적으로 조정하다) their states.
I mean, look at Massachusetts. Every year in Massachusetts — yes, it's a blue state — but about one-third (1/3) of voters in Massachusetts vote for Republican congressional candidates. Massachusetts has zero Republicans.
Illinois, by some measures a very massive state — yes, a Democratic state — is the most gerrymandered state in the entire country.
And then California, where Governor Newsom is threatening to gerrymander it even more, actually is already one of the most gerrymandered states in the country.
California is massive. California has millions upon millions of Republicans voters every single cycle. Something like 40% of Californians vote for Republicans,18% of California’s of federal legislators are Republicans.
So our basic contention (기본적인 주장, 핵심 논점) is that Democrats have rigged the game (게임의 규칙을 조작하다). They have made it so that even when the American people vote for Republicans, they don't necessarily get Republican congressional majorities.
And so we're encouraging states like Indiana, Missouri, like Florida to go in another direction — to actually counterbalance that Democratic unfairness with Republicans playing a little bit of hardball (좀 더 강경하게 대응하다).
We think a lot of Republicans are going to do what we think is right. And we do think that, on balance, this will ultimately make American elections much more fair and much more credible to American voters.
14:47
What the president said yesterday is, One Big Beautiful Bill, is great name when it's bill, but now it's a law.
And now, we have to actually explain to the Amerian people. We've got to do the job politics(정치적인 역할을 하다) and actually talk to the American people what's in the bill.
The reality is, it's the biggest working families tax cut in a generation. It increases the child tax credit. It eliminates taxes on tip. I know a lot of folks are dependent on tips.
When I was growing up, a lot of single moms who waited tables(식당에서 서빙하다) who are now going to get a big tax cut, because of this legislation.
It eliminates taxes on overtimes. I know a lot of people who work those extra 10, those exrea 20 hours a week. And our view is, if you're going to work all those extra hours, the Federal Government ought to keep it's money out of your poket(주머니 안에 돈을 채워두다. 표현은 out of poket이지만, 사실상 주머니 안에 둔다는 뜻).
And there's a lot of other good pieces of good tax news to American people that we just gotta talk about. We got to make sure that people are aware what's actually in this legislation, because I think when they realize what's in it, they're going to be very gratified(satisfy와 유사함, 기뻐하다, 만족하다) their Federal Government working for them.
And the most important thing is we are going to make it easier to build a business, to create a job, to work a job in the United Sates of America, while simultaneously punishing people for building businesses overseas.
We want to invest and save and build things in America and reward people for doing so.
But if you going to build a factory in some freign country. That's what tariffs do, tariffs actually penalize(처벌하다, 불이익을 주다) you for building overseas while the working families tax cut rewards you for building here something in the United States of America.
And I think it's part of whole economic agenda that finally puts federal government back on the side of American workers, back on the side of American businesses.
So I don't think it's , you know, you asked about the healthcare question.
So, if you actually look what we've done on rural healthcare. We inheritated a country where the rural healthcare systems in this country was completly falling apart(무너지다, 망가지다).
Because the Biden administration had chronically(만성적으로, 지속적으로) underinvested in it.
Thanks to the working families taxbill, we put billions of dollars into rural healthcare that's going to solidify(굳히다, 공고히하다) some of these rural healthcare systems.
And the only people, who are going to lose access to Federal healthcare benefits are two groups.
Number one, people who refuse to even look for a job.
Number two, people who don't have a legal right to be in this country. Illegal aliens(불법체류자).
I happen to think(내 개인적인 생각으로는, 나는 이렇게 생각해요), if you even won't look for a job, and in this country inlegally, you should not receive Federal healthcare benefits.
That's a principal disagreement with our democratic friends.
But's it's a disagreement and it's something I think the American people support. And I think they're on our side, again, especially when they learn, what's in this legislation that's going to help them out.
17:42
Well. I've gotten a lot of on the job training over last 200 days, but also say that(on top of that =what's more) the president is in incredibly good health. He's got incredible energy.
And while most of people who work around the president of United States are younger than he is.
I think, we find that he actually is the last person who goes to sleep and he's the last person making phone calls at night.
And he's first person wakes up and first person making phone calls in the morning.
So, yes, things can always happen. Yes terrible tragedies happen. But I feel very confident that the president of United States is in good shape, he is going to serve out remainder of this term and do great things about American people.
And if god forbid( 그런 일이 일어나지 않기를 바라지만), there's a terrible tragedy, I can't think of better on the job training than what I have gotten for past 200 days.
18:26
I think she thinks what I think which is let's focus on the job that we have right now,
Let's do as good a job as possible. And if that door opens later on, we will figure out them.
Oh, sure. I mean, with any job, you have to ask yourself, what effect is it going to have on your family.
I think this job, this job, you know, does have its challenges for family life, but it also has a lot of upsides and a lot of benefits for our kids. I think they've gotten to see the country through a totally different perspective.
They get to meet a lot of different new people. They of course get to a Secret Service(비밀 경호국) detail(경호를 받다) which I think puts their father's mind at ease when they go out and see a lot of people some of whom don't like their dad or don't like what I do.
So, I think it's on balance(전반적으로 봤을때, 종합적으로 판단하면) and it's been a great thing for the family.
And we will just keep on doing as good a job as we can for the American pople. Ush and I will keep on doing as good a job as we can at being a mom and dad.
And I think, again, it does have challenges, but it's worked out for( ~에게 잘 되다 / 좋은 결과가 되다 / 잘 풀리다 ) the kids.
They are happy and healthy. I should say our 5-year-old become a kindegartener yesterday, had his first day of kindergarten. And we showed up to the car line with a few more cars than is normal for most families.
But on balance, I think this job has been a great blessing(축복) both for me personally, but also for the family.
What I hope is that it's been a good thing for American people. And I work everyday to make sure that it is.
20:05
Well, president obviously has his very distinctive style and he's made billions of dollars building beautiful buildings all over the world.
What I really like about the Oval Office is brighter.
The first time that I ever walked in the Oval Office was January 21st of this year.
I was of course the new vice president of the United States. It was an amazing thing.
I was overwhelmed by grandeur of office, all of the incredible history that had been made.
But, if I'm being honest, it was middle of winter.
The drapes were closed. It was very dark. It had kind of dark and gloomy(흐린, 어두운) feeling.
This is the workplace of the leader of the free world. It should be a little brighter. I like what the president what he has done to it.
And it's fuuny. We have three kids. 8-year-old, 5-year-old, 3-year-old.
Our 8-year-old , you know, it was funny. I think he probably say his favorite color is blue, our 3-year-old, her favorite color is 100% red. But our 5 year old, his favorite color is gold.
And whenever he walks into the Oval Hall, he's just blown away( (사람을) 깜짝 놀라게 하다 / 감동시키다 ) by it, because it does have brightly, lively feel. And I think it's fitting for the, again, the place where leader of free world comes to work everyday.
21:28
You know, I think by and large(전반적으로) people want politicians focus on politics and they want celeberities to focus on whatever it is that made them famous whether singing, dancing or acting.
But you know, I'm a romantic when I see two people who are in love getting married, I just wish them best and I congratulate them and I hope they have long and healthy and happy life together.
I will say as a football fan, Cincinnati Bengals fan, I hope that the NFL does not put a thumb on(한쪽에 유리하게 조작하다 / 불공정하게 편들다) the scale for the Kansas City Chiefs, just because Travis Kelce is now getting merried may be the most famous woman in the world.
You guys can't sort of have this. I'm worried they're going to have like a Super Bowl wedding thing this season. Can't do it. The Kansas City Chiefs have to follow the same rules as everybody else.
So, if we see the refs being particularly friendly to Kensas City Chiefs players, then I think football fan should be pushing back on(이의를 제기하다) NFL and say "Look, you guys got to be fair." Just because Travis is getting married to Taylor you can't just put your thumb on the Kensas City Chiefs.
https://youtu.be/NuaEjUixvlY?si=n2b_UAtd-BMj4zlt
'Business English > Shadowing' 카테고리의 다른 글
| [Shadowing] Ryan Gosling Interview (0) | 2025.10.28 |
|---|