View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Sashadroogie
Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 11:49 am Post subject: Becker's Criterion for the Cafe? |
|
|
Becker's Criterion - a useful, if humorous, editorial guide for those great minds who publish turgid linguistic research, materials, course books etc.
"Any theory ( or partial theory ) of the English Language that is expounded in the English Language must account for ( or at least apply to ) the text of its own exposition."
Can we re-work this to apply to posting on Dave's? I'm not sure how to go about doing this. But here's my offering as it looks thus far.
Sasha's Criterion:
Any post about English teaching should demonstrate previous English learning.
Not a very snappy formulation, I know. So, comrades! What do you say to some collectivist effort in order to try to raise the standards of discourse to glorious levels? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spiral78
Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash
|
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sashadroogie
Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh dear, that's right. I remember now. Hmmmmmm. Still, we should stand firm! Defend the sacred high ground with our last drops of lifesblood! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
santi84
Joined: 14 Mar 2008 Posts: 1317 Location: under da sea
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I try, but I'm typing with one hand and feeding a newborn in the other I like to keep up with the current ESL conditions while on my many maternity leaves |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Teacher in Rome
Joined: 09 Jul 2003 Posts: 1286
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
"Any theory ( or partial theory ) of the English Language that is expounded in the English Language must account for ( or at least apply to ) the text of its own exposition." |
Sorry Sasha, but you lost me here.
Any chance of having this in plain English? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sashadroogie
Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ha ha ha! Boom boom! Excellent! Love it! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 7:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Teacher in Rome,
I know you're kidding, but using the English language to espouse a theory about the English language reminds me of this:
"The human brain is very good at figuring things out, except about itself.
Think about it. A brain capable of sophisticated reasoning has to be very complicated � so complicated that it would take an even more sophisticated brain to figure out how it works. But an even more sophisticated brain would be even harder to figure out. As the brain gets smarter and smarter, and thus more and more complex, it becomes ever more difficult to explain how it works. The brain can never catch up."
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Teacher in Rome
Joined: 09 Jul 2003 Posts: 1286
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 8:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
I know you're kidding |
Actually, and hilariously for Sasha, I wasn't! I really did not have a clue what he meant - which is probably the joke...
I think this proves that clever people on forums can get hoist by their own pedantics. Or is that hoist by semantics? I'll leave cleverer people than me to work that out! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Teacher in Rome,
Hey, I resent that - I'm not at all clever; I'm a teacher
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Posts: 12844 Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
Posted: Tue Dec 04, 2012 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
spiral78 wrote: |
http://forums.eslcafe.com/job/viewtopic.php?t=94582&start=60
I tried this in the past, and if I recall, was basically boo-ed, hissed, and shoved off the floor. Assuming you are referring to accuracy issues.... |
That post went on for nearly 3 pages with sensible dialogue before one person began to take it in that direction. That thread was pretty good, I thought. Look at the vote it generated, too. More than 2/3 of 33 voters said people should be more careful about their posting here. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sashadroogie
Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, Glenski's words ring true. But it is still a pity that the forces of counter-revolution managed to drag down a valuable thread into bickering in the end. With luck, similar problems will be avoided on this thread. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sashadroogie
Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Teacher in Rome wrote: |
Quote: |
I know you're kidding |
Actually, and hilariously for Sasha, I wasn't! I really did not have a clue what he meant - which is probably the joke...
I think this proves that clever people on forums can get hoist by their own pedantics. Or is that hoist by semantics? I'll leave cleverer people than me to work that out! |
Ah, Teacher in Rome! I'll assume that you are being serious then and interpret the quotation for you. But please bear in mind that Becker is a much cleverer person than I am, and it is he who is being hoist (hoisted?) with his own criterion/petard.
The basic idea is that if a EFL/linguistics guru is writing about English, say communicative competencies, then that text itself should be competent communicatively. One's own rules must be respected. Yet how much of these publications are dull, leaden texts?
Similarly, if you are expounding on a particular grammar structure and say it has specific, clearly-defined rules, then your explanation of it must not use that structure in a way which breaks those very rules! I remember a classic moment in an observed lesson:
"Teacher, can I say 'I have any money?'"
"No, Mehmet, you can use 'any' only for questions and negatives. If there are any situations where this is not true, I'll be a monkey's uncle!"
Poor fellow. If we apply Becker's criterion to his explanation, I think we'll agree that he fails to meet the standard, and his 'rule' is close to worthless.
Click on the link below to read an abstract of Becker's article 'The Phrasal Lexicon', where from comes his criterion. Very well-written it is too : )
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=980212 |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Sashadroogie
Joined: 17 Apr 2007 Posts: 11061 Location: Moskva, The Workers' Paradise
|
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Now, back to Sasha's Criterion. Anyone able to improve on the phrasing? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
scot47
Joined: 10 Jan 2003 Posts: 15343
|
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
I must miantian mu right to tyops ! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
spiral78
Joined: 05 Apr 2004 Posts: 11534 Location: On a Short Leash
|
Posted: Wed Dec 05, 2012 8:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
"Any theory ( or partial theory ) of the English Language that is expounded in the English Language must account for ( or at least apply to ) the text of its own exposition." |
Any post on a forum for teachers of the English language who purport to teach said language to others should, for heaven's sake, be written in decent English.
or
'This ain't yer cell phone. We isn't yer friends. We be profs. Write proper.' |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|