|
Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
wangdaning
Joined: 22 Jan 2008 Posts: 3154
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 1:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not sure what is going on with this thread anymore. Passives are now easier than conjugation?
Text spelling and grammar have their place in text messages. It makes sense. Otherwise, it is a sign of ignorance. When these young native speakers take their exams and enter the real world, they are going to find the harsh reality that it makes them sound stupid.
As far as language acquisition is concerned, children do not naturally know what is correct/incorrect. I carried plenty of my parents linguistic inaccuracies with me for years. I remember being mocked for saying wa(r)sh instead of wash. I quickly corrected, as I would today, but I never saw anything wrong before being mocked.
Whether native speakers or ESL students, I still stand by my statement that the biggest issue here is laziness. The time and effort it takes to understand a language is too much for most.
I have studied both Spanish (in high school) and Chinese (university), and it was completely obvious who was putting in the time as far as reading, listening, speaking and writing. The lazy one's have no chance. Studying a language takes time, and many students are not willing to put in any time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Teacher in Rome
Joined: 09 Jul 2003 Posts: 1286
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 1:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
"Although I agree that good grammar and good punctuation are what helps you not just avoid misunderstanding but also play with the language for effect, . . . "
I know this is naughty of me, but I can't resist: compound subject = plural verb (i.e. "help".) |
Do you know, I could have sworn that I'd read that, then changed the "helps" to "help". Obviously didn't!
Quote: |
" . . . they still unconsciously know what's correct and what's incorrect . . ."
I have to wonder how you (or anyone else) can know what "they . . . unconsciously know . . . ." |
Because if you say something that is incorrect, like "rats-catcher" a child will say "no, rat-catcher". That's what I mean. They can't say why, but they know correct / incorrect English. If they're at the right place on the curve.
Quote: |
I remember being mocked for saying wa(r)sh instead of wash |
Wangdaningg - isn't that accent, rather than grammar? |
|
Back to top |
|
|
johnslat
Joined: 21 Jan 2003 Posts: 13859 Location: Santa Fe, New Mexico, USA
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 1:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Teacher in Rome,
First of all, thank you for being so good-natured about my smarminess.
As I mentioned, I've taught ESL to young children (three to five year olds,) so I have to tell you that this statement doesn't match my experience:
"Because if you say something that is incorrect, like "rats-catcher" a child will say "no, rat-catcher"."
Are you writing about "native speaker" children (although I've never been present when one of them made such a correction, either?)
Regards,
John |
|
Back to top |
|
|
wangdaning
Joined: 22 Jan 2008 Posts: 3154
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 1:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Teacher in Rome wrote: |
Quote: |
I remember being mocked for saying wa(r)sh instead of wash |
Wangdaningg - isn't that accent, rather than grammar? |
But I would only know to spell it correctly because we were taught to do it. To be honest I can't remember the date of the mocking, but it probably came at about the same time. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Teacher in Rome
Joined: 09 Jul 2003 Posts: 1286
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 2:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hi John
Yes, talking about native speaker children.
It would be interesting if anyone could fish out some research about what NS and NNS students learn. The order, the ease of acquisition, and so on.
As I've been saying - Chomsky's idea is that there's a universal grammar, which enables NS children to know if something's correct or not. (But they can't necessarily articulate this.) The "rats-catcher" is just an example. This because children are exposed to all sorts of language - correct and incorrect - but they STILL end up knowing the grammar - even if not taught the right stuff. (This is what threw behaviourism theories of lang acquisition out the window.)
And I'm saying that I see this sort of learning curve with ESL students. They don't always acquire what we think of simple grammar (i.e. third person s) early on. As another poster has suggested, maybe because this doesn't convey meaning. So my original point was that it's a waste of breath trying to insist on something that students aren't ready to learn.
And at this point, I'm going to back out of the discussion. If anyone's interested, I'm sure a bit of googling will turn up much more learned reasoning than I'm able to provide!
Thanks for all the comments and feedback - most interesting thread! |
|
Back to top |
|
|
Glenski
Joined: 15 Jan 2003 Posts: 12844 Location: Hokkaido, JAPAN
|
Posted: Wed May 18, 2011 2:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Teacher in Rome wrote: |
No, my message wasn't that they learn by experience alone. Sorry if I gave that impression. |
No problem.
Quote: |
Their experience will expose them to both standard and non-standard forms of the language, plus native speaker errors. Yet despite this, they still unconsciously know what's correct and what's incorrect - but only progressively. It's not like they "know" all the rules right from word go. |
How do they know what's incorrect? I mean really know? If they did, they wouldn't make those mistakes.
Quote: |
Exposure to language is vitally important. There was the case of a girl who'd been locked in a room at an age where exposure to language is crucial in order to "activate" the knowledge. In later life, she never got beyond a very infantile knowledge and use of language, because she was missing that early exposure to language. |
Again, agreed. But mere exposure isn't going to teach rules of grammar and spelling. If it did, everyone would be perfect after a few years. So, someone has to teach the rules. We're back to the article again now.
Quote: |
Whenever before did friends communicate so frequently with their friends in writing? Or publish their own content for peers and colleagues?
I think we're seeing a change in style (perhaps more informal text-speak) but also a change in purpose. |
To some extent, yes, a change in some things.
Quote: |
Although I agree that good grammar and good punctuation are what helps you not just avoid misunderstanding but also play with the language for effect, I also think that what most people complain about (abbreviated textspeak and "sloppy spelling") is only really possible when you know what the rules are to begin with! (i.e. you can only abbreviate successfully if you know what the entire word is.)
Views? |
Is this really the point? Texting involves abbreviating or creating abbreviations to get a point across with minimal effort/characters. One does not need to know the spelling of "four" to type "4", though. And, in some cases entire symbols do the abbreviating ("I <heart> NY"), so spelling can be moot.
Good writers can play with the language for effect (puns, for example, or good metaphors in compositions). But, things like those are accomplished well in some cases only through a good understanding of the grammar and spelling in the first place (plus creativity, of course).
Technological advances in communication have shortened our attention spans. People don't want to read/ or can't read as long as possible without losing concentration. Does the shortened attention span cross over into classroom pedagogy? I read somewhere that most people can only keep focused on a lecture for 10-15 minutes at most, and unless something happens after that, people lose interest or concentration. So, if teachers don't engage their students with breaks/changes/segues in the lesson, students may not absorb what is presented. Doesn't have to be limited to writing, but consider that writing is probably the toughest of the 4 language skills, simply because it has to do with creating original thoughts (like speaking) but go a step further and lay those thoughts out in some pattern (poetry, topic sentence vs. support sentence, outline, mind map, transition words between paragraphs, etc.). Writing also involves having the opportunity to see every word one generated, unlike speaking, where things are easily forgotten, and to have a more complete chance to revise the original statement(s).
Teaching writing can also give students far more to think about in L2 than speaking can. When you correct a speaker, a good teacher will not always correct every single word, and communicating the thought alone is often enough, even without perfect grammar. Not usually the case in writing, I feel, depending on circumstances. |
|
Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling. Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
|