Job Discussion Forums

FGT · Joined: 14 Sep 2003 Posts: 762 Location: Turkey

Thanks Mind Traveller, that's an interesting idea but I think it's got more to do with stress than intonation. Rhythm and stress are inherently linked in English because English is a stress-timed language: if you imagine speaking normally to the accompaniment of a metronome, there will be one stressed syllable per beat regardless of how many unstressed get squeezed in before the next beat, eg

a/MERica is/BIGger than/BRITain

disregarding the first schwa, you then have stress + 3 unstressed, stress + 2 unstressed, stress + 1 unstressed each occupying the same time.

This I can teach because it can be demonstrated both orally and visually.

Intonation (think "Mmmm" = yummy vs "Mmmm" = maybe vs "Mmmm" = disapproval), I find, is harder because it's more difficult to both analyze and demonstrate, particularly with a visual cue. Maybe it's just me but I find I usually end up feeling like a prat with some hysterical but none the wiser students!!

mjed9 · Joined: 25 Oct 2003 Posts: 242

Actually what do people think is the hardest grammar point to teach ... and I'm not talking about just the structure but also correct usage

I used to think it was 3rd type conditionals ... when we talk about things untrue in the past (whatever that means!) but now top of the list has to be

relative clauses

This is the garden in which the boy who cannot speak English, which is an important language, plays on Sunday, which is usually considered by many people, who have bothered to think about this, as a day of rest.

Relative clauses, which are an integral part of our grammar, are b%ggers to teach.

johnslat · Posted: Tue Nov 11, 2003 2:32 pm Post subject: No rules

Dear mjed9,
To my mind, the "hardest" grammatical points to teach are the ones that can't be "taught": prepositions, separable / non-separable phrasal verbs /
when to use the gerund versus the infinitive, etc.
Regards,
John

mjed9 · Joined: 25 Oct 2003 Posts: 242

Actually John I agree with that

I hate to have to tell my students

"sorry but there is no rule ... you just going to have to remember that we say -in a taxi- and -on a train-"

Doh!

Anything else?

johnslat · Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2003 2:57 pm Post subject: I've just thought of these

Dear mjed9,
Well, these aren't strictly "grammatical", more writing, probably. But punctuation and spelling are also tough. With my Arab students - also writing - run-on sentences were a BIG problem and where to begin new paragraphs. Finally, in grammar - let's not forget the good old present perfect tenses. I mean, yikes - that's something even some native speakers have problems with.
Regards,
John

mjed9 · Joined: 25 Oct 2003 Posts: 242

and the past perfect !!!

What a f%%ked up tense that is!

mjed9 · Joined: 25 Oct 2003 Posts: 242

PS Actually they are strictly grammar.

It is a common misconception but the grammar of a language includes everything from semantics, syntax, morphology and the definition of vocab. Its just that most students refer to grammar as the rules of sentence structure (syntax)

FGT · Joined: 14 Sep 2003 Posts: 762 Location: Turkey

I agree that prepositions are a nightmare to teach (and for students to learn) and I usually fall back on "It just is. Learn it" but as far as the examples "on a train", "in a taxi" are concerned; I think there is probably a historical reason (though I've not heard/read this anywhere) that might be worth passing on to students:
Early buses and trains were not roofed, therefore the passenger was ON the bus/train. Taxis, though, have always (?) been enclosed so the passenger is IN the taxi (as IN a box). Pictures drawn on the board to illustrate this can help students to remember.

What's the problem with past perfect?

leeroy · Joined: 30 Jan 2003 Posts: 777 Location: London UK

Dr.J · Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 304 Location: usually Japan

There is a sense of 'bodily freedom' when we use 'on'. I can be 'on' a train and read a newspaper, but if I was 'in' a train, for some reason it would be harder. Think Wittgenstein and word families.

shmooj · Joined: 11 Sep 2003 Posts: 1758 Location: Seoul, ROK

Leeroy... sounds similar to what I tell students:

at = 1-Dimension
on = 2-D
in = 3-D

this not only works for prepositions of place a lot of the time but it also works well for prepositions of time too.

I usually accompany this with an illustration on the board of a point, a plane and a cube respectively.

While it may not be a perfect explanation, it has never failed yet to help my students make sense of the crazy world of prepositions.

PS. Sorry to resort to the present perfect there in the last paragraph Rolling Eyes

johnslat · Posted: Fri Nov 14, 2003 12:11 am Post subject: Plane facts

Dear leeroy and shmooj,
I'm impressed, seriously. Gosh, what I used to tell them was considerably simplier ( I think ), though not without its pitfalls:

You use on with transport when you have to ascend to board:

on a ship, on a plane, on a horse, on a camel, even ( OK, it IS a bit of a stretch ) on a motorcycle, on a bike.

You use in with other means of transport

Regards,
John

Just a guy · Joined: 06 Oct 2003 Posts: 267 Location: Guangxi

Just so you folks know,
this is a great thread for us newbies Very Happy

Kurochan · Joined: 01 Mar 2003 Posts: 944 Location: China

One thing that annoys me is when students ask me to explain something and then either don't believe or don't listen to my answer. What annoys me even more is when other teachers ask me a question and don't believe my answer.

For example, some students ask about the difference between luggage and baggage, and then don't believe me when I say there's no difference. Maybe there was a difference once, or maybe there wasn't, but that doesn't matter, because there's no difference now.

Also, sometimes my Chinese students say something I've taught them violates some sort of weird English rule. I don't know if these rules are bogus, British English, or last used in the west in 1873. For example, my students had a problem with something like, "Yesterday the president announced that he will visit Latin America next month." They said it should say "would." However, I've never heard of any hard and fast rule about this, and even got the original sentence from a grammar book.

Dr.J · Joined: 09 May 2003 Posts: 304 Location: usually Japan

luggage and baggage seem to have different nuances.

luggage emphasises personal belongings, while baggage seems more impersonal. so, 'I lost my luggage' (my personal stuff) vs. airline companies 'excess baggage' (everyone's luggage in general).

The one about the president seems OK, though again there is a difference in nuance. 'will' seems like reported speech and 'would' is just giving information.

I appreciate your frustration with students, but I understand their point of view. Many times I have asked for an explanation of a word from a native speaker and gotten a bogus answer, just because they got all puffed up like they knew everything about their language. Not saying that you are puffed up by the way. I shall end here.