Job Discussion Forums

[Sashadroogie]

I don't subscribe to that.

[buravirgil]

[fluffyhamster]

It probably helps if you've read or at least have access to the full text of any book you're commenting on. For example, the following is a detailed summary by Sampson of his book (and by extension of Pinker's, Chomsky's, and umpteen other author's works), but the points will be easier to follow if you read his actual book.
http://www.grsampson.net/ATin.html

You're welcome.

[Sashadroogie]

[Sashadroogie]

[fluffyhamster]

[Sashadroogie]

Ah, I see! You have read 'The Language Instinct', then. But not the style guide. Sorry, I was confused by your remarks on which books you'd read a few pages ago, which were sandwiched between comments about Brits and Yanks, and VietCanada, and weren't in the slightest bit overgeneralized or distracting.

[fluffyhamster]

I doubt any of us have yet bought let alone read Pinker's style guide yet. Have YOU? If not why not, eh eh EH? Wow what a tiresome approach of questioning (and irrelevant, as I haven't actually criticized that guide, or rather, the article drawing from it. All I and several others have done is wonder why EFL teachers spend often unwarranted time on or worrying about this stuff. Communication involves choice, often subconscious, and many "proscribed" usages are anything but in terms of the spontaneous masses of actual usage). If you want a review pronto then buy it yourself and write a likely short piece for that book reviews thread of yours.

As for "Brits and Yanks", I only posted that due to Johnslat's apparent insistence that no experiences other than his could really count (nothing like arguing with hard facts, eh). VietCanada meanwhile is entitled to his opinions (I for one never said otherwise, I was simply noting how others were responding to him, and suggesting he'd need to deal with that personally), though it would still be helpful if he could at least post links to the potted accounts he's read (they might be useful sources). I'm not sure where you got the idea that I hadn't read TLI (I've read all the books I mentioned and more importantly may have counter-recommended, what would be the point otherwise?). Anyway, I won't bother to respond to further instances of wilful misreading.

[johnslat]

Dear fluffyhamster,

". . . . due to Johnslat's apparent insistence that no experiences other than his could really count . . ."

WHAT!!!!! YOU, fluffy, were the one who initially, used YOUR experience as the end-all criteria. I offered my own anecdotal experience ONLY as a counter to YOUR anecdotal experience.

Wow - I'm both surprised and a little miffed that you'd write what you did.

Regards,
John

[Sashadroogie]

Dearie me! So many miffed posters. Such a sea of troubles! What ever happened to reading a nice improving book?

[fluffyhamster]

Well, let's look at what was actually posted, John.

1. You started the thread, so you definitely have an interest in this market, even though you are now more descriptivist than precriptivist.

2. You then invited (midway down pg 3) others to share their experiences to see if yours (36 years in EFL then ESL, in which you've 'known a good number of teachers who parroted at least some of these "hard and fast" rules as immutable laws of English') was atypical ('Am I alone in experiencing this?').

3. Taking the ESL portion of your experiences, along with the usage-manual quotes I then soon supplied as my cue, I was polite enough to say 'I hope you don't mind my saying, but it tends in my experience to afflict Americans more than Brits'.

I made no claim for the "be-all" criteria of my experiences, and if anything it was you (pg 4) who then actually contested my reply (hence my quoting the hard market facts from those usage manuals):

[johnslat]

Dear Fluffyhamster,

How about a little more context:

John: "Maybe my experience IS atypical, but in thirty-six years in EFL/ESL, I've known a good number of teachers who parroted at least some of these "hard and fast" rules as immutable laws of English. As I even (blushingly) admitted, I used to think that way about a few of them.

Am I alone in experiencing this? And if I'm not, how can the sensible (to me, anyway) explanations that Mr. Pinker provides be "irrelevant" to EFL/ESL teaching?"

FH: "And I hope you don't mind my saying, but it tends in my experience to afflict Americans more than Brits, say (well, in more modern times, anyway). As for the relevance, well, yes, one may need to be aware of these "rules" to be in a better position to counter them, . . "

John: Since we're limiting ourselves to "our experiences," mine are certainly very different from yours. I've found it to be pretty evenly spread among all generations, from 20-somethings to geezers like me. And having had a lot of experience in my 20+ years of EFL with British, Irish, Australian, etc. "native speakers," well, in MY experience, British EFLers were at least (and probably more) afflicted than other nationalities.

So, if it's anecdotal "evidence" that we're using, I suspect that, thanks to longevity, I've may have a lot more of it than you do."


FH: "I can supply more than anecdotes."

I called the cut and paste that followed, what another poster termed as your cherry-picking," irrelevant

"It's irrelevant because the issues that you're raising have little or nothing to do with the article itself. You've dropped at least two red herrings on this thread, introducing personal beliefs (1. that Mr. Pinker writes tripe - although, in the case of the article itself, you don't seem to advance any rebuttal and 2. that Americans are more prone to be guilty of holding to hard and fast usage rules than other native speakers - which, since we Americans make up such a big percentage of TEFLers, would instead seem to indicate the relevance of the article to this forum).

What seems very odd to me is that your second red herring actually appears to argue against your first."

So, please show me where THIS took place: "As for "Brits and Yanks", I only posted that due to Johnslat's apparent insistence that no experiences other than his could really count (nothing like arguing with hard facts, eh)."

Regards,
John

[fluffyhamster]

But I've already dealt (on page 5) with your claims of "irrelevancy" and "contradiction". As for your "not" insisting your experiences were more valid, well, just read what you wrote (or we can leave others to decide). Even if we agree that our experiences simply differ and cancel each other out, there is still the apparent (and to me, puzzling) disbelief that America would seem, just by the size and appetite of its usage manual market, a more linguistically-insecure and prescriptively-minded nation. And even if one individually doesn't necessarily swear or abide by the half of what one reads, it is still a distraction from the honest business of communicating (especially for non-native learners, who shouldn't be held to a higher standard).

I'll sign off with this, again from Landau (pg 264), anything to disgree with here?

[johnslat]

Dear fluffyhamster,

So, you really don't see the difference between these?

"Johnslat's apparent insistence that no experiences other than his could really count . ."

and this

"Since we're limiting ourselves to "our experiences," mine are certainly very different from yours. I've found it to be pretty evenly spread among all generations, from 20-somethings to geezers like me. And having had a lot of experience in my 20+ years of EFL with British, Irish, Australian, etc. "native speakers," well, in MY experience, British EFLers were at least (and probably more) afflicted than other nationalities.

So, if it's anecdotal "evidence" that we're using, I suspect that, thanks to longevity, I've may have a lot more of it than you do."


Wow, fluffy.

Regards,
John

[fluffyhamster]

Sorry John, but you used caps ('well, in MY experience'). It's unforgivable really, as Buravirgil will tell you.