Job Discussion Forums

[santi84]

[fluffyhamster]

The topic just to be clear was inauthentic, functionally useless language, mere presentationese, and not necessarily very low level learners (though I'd be interested to hear how you think the examples I've mentioned would help learners in even the short term let alone the long term). It is not my problem if you see nothing wrong with such language, and something wrong with any questioning of it. And I'll write how I damn well please thank you very much. (For what it's worth I was aiming for a somewhat jocular and ironic tone, guess some people have a total SOH bypass). As for lessons in manners and netiquette, I sincerely suggest you two take a very long hard look in the mirror. You've done more than your share here (and on other threads) to create the ugly tone you're hypocritically railing against. Newsflash - You are not the forum police, and if you don't like a topic don't post in it would be my advice, life's too short (or do you have nothing better to do than harass other members?). Finally, if you want to start a thread on AAC be my guest, or is there anything else you'd like to shoehorn in here? Your post is frankly a little bizarre, santi, but hey, it's only right that it should be all You You You eh. Take a step back and re-read what you wrote and the tone you used. I think you and Spiral owe me an apology, but I won't hold my breath.

[fluffyhamster]

Yup, I see low-level (i.e. poor) language/exemplars, not low-level learners. I honestly wonder if you and Spiral can tell the difference.

[santi84]

You'd be mighty blue waiting for that apology, Fluffy. Have a good night. Keep running that hamster wheel, and hopefully someone who meets your standards may engage in your discussion.

[spiral78]

Dear All
The real purpose of this thread is clearly to allow us all to lay offerings at the feet of the hamster. Sunflower seeds are presumably acceptable, but waving palm fronds is probably best so long as you bow low while waving. All Hail (insert appropriate title).
Best
Spiral

[fluffyhamster]

Earlier I asked if Gower et al's presentation of Past Perfect (the one example, CCQed to death) would withstand much analysis and be worth teaching. Now I'll answer that question, in the hope that some readers may find the answer somewhat interesting and useful.

In an example like They'd started the meeting when she arrived, it is by no means necessarily the case that she was late and had missed the start of the meeting. It would be just as reasonable to assert that the starting of the meeting was in fact simultaneous with her arriving (perhaps she was the most important person attending, and the start was thus contingent on her arrival. That she was likely pretty punctual is ultimately immaterial to this reading, for she could've been late and kept them waiting were she important enough and so minded. The most important thing now is that the meeting very possibly started simultaneously with her arrival).

In other words, 'when' here could simply mean 'on, upon, as soon as, very soon after, so soon in fact as to be virtually simultaneous with' than be relating to any appreciably earlier start in the woman's absence. (One will certainly search in vain to find any dictionary that defines 'when' as meaning 'before', despite what grammars may suggest. Yes, it's a possible meaning suggested in the grammar[s] if not quite the lexis, that is, by reading between the lines somewhat, but it isn't the overriding meaning, and the presence of perfect aspect doesn't necessarily grant it that magical meaning).

Furthermore, Past Perfect generally from a quick glance in e.g. Kennedy's Structure and Meaning in Use (Pearson 2003) makes up only around 2% of tense usage, and 'Although in narratives it sometimes occurs with time conjunctions such as when or before, e.g. When I got to the station, the train had already left, the most frequent use of it is when there is no time expression in the text to show the sequence of events' (pg 220).

To insist then that any clauses (and plural!) are necessarily in a state of temporal conflict and that the events that they describe are non-simultaneous would thus be pedagogically quite presumptuous, to say the least. A clear-out of ELT's linguistic baggage (all the rarefied distinctions that have built up in grammars and derived training) would seem in order, lest teachers continue to spend inordinate amounts of time burdening themselves and their students with things that simply do.not.matter (that is, are hardly a vital part of the living language).

There is then potentially quite an overlap with the corresponding Simple Past "equivalent": They started the meeting when she arrived. Gower et al in fact provided two such "contrasting" sentences a few pages earlier (pg 138) along with two small pictures to help illustrate the to them necessarily "marking a prior event" difference between them, but the more one looks at such "syntactic minimal pairs", the more one may wonder if there is really that much difference (indeed, why there is so little difference) between them, certainly on the surface (that is, the only obvious difference is in the presence or absence of the auxiliary 'had').

One gets the sneaking suspicion that students are being starved of even helpful adverbs like 'already' simply because the Simple Past half of the Gower minimal pair won't support it (compare They'd already started the meeting when she arrived with ??/*They already started the meeting when she arrived). This would appear to be putting pedagogical expedience or "ease of learning" (again, more like do-something, anything old thing! teaching) above students encountering authentic and helpful differences. Empirical grammars such as the LGSWE point out the occurrence of such adverbs, to which I would add 'by the time' rather than the decidedly wishy-washy and thus more difficult 'when' of the given exemplar(s).

In summary, ambiguous examples really are no way to teach surer meaning and use, and "contrasting" them with "alternatives" is no fix-it either (let alone a justification for the original ambiguity!). Some teaching just seems to be so much shoring if not covering up, a mere going through the motions that claims to be helpful, but is ultimately expending time and energy that would be better spent elsewhere. Priorities, people!

It might just about be excusable if books like Gower et al explicitly stated that they were only dealing with selected meanings via denuded, "necessarily" contrived examples, but they ever don't do that, do they. No, they always want to be seen as "the real deal", with the only pernicious influences being anyone and everyone but good old dependable thinking-man's them. You can learn a fair bit by questioning such received wisdom.

So, sunflower seeds, palm fronds, bowing and praises may indeed be in order. Apologies too, IMFO. The seeds can be sent to Professor Fluffyhamster, c/o The Antibraindead Teaching Institute Project (ATIP).

[spiral78]

Hamster, if you want to natter on about a 17-year-old grammar book, do feel free. You can also give yourself all the kudos you want for doing so. But I'll be very surprised if anyone is interested in engaging with you on this (or similar) topics. As santi has pointed out, you reply nastily to even people who agree with you, never mind your response to posters like myself who disagree. Why would anyone bother?

Anyway, throw yourself all the laurels you want in your solitary exhibition of hubris. Then, everyone will be happy.

[fluffyhamster]

Right (it was only one of the top recommendations at the time!). BTW, how recent do publications need to be, IYHO? Are people not allowed to refer to books according to some arbitrary date criteria set by you? (Curious minds want and need to know, so there can be a bonfire of any at all troubling thoughts). Anyway, it isn't a grammar book but a general methodology guide (which is doubtless why what little grammar in it isn't up to that much). I hardly used it, preferring Harmer, and Lewis & Hill, and only just came across it again recently while going through some old boxes. I was pleased that the CCQ section didn't fail to disappoint. And yes, it is of course totally irrelevant that the rather too selective methodology in it is still being used, still "going strong". You're also right that I'm the only snide one on these forums, no way is that a common default here. We should also count our blessings that most people are probably too busy nowadays working unpaid overtime or whatever to have much time or energy to read or post about anything, least of all my or your posts. But I can tell that you give each and every one of your posts the same thought, care and attention that I do to mine. You're a star! Anyway, I'm so glad that we agree on so much and have found some common ground finally.

[fluffyhamster]