Job Discussion Forums

[struelle]

Ludwig, your post was interesting and I learned a lot from it, but why did you have to respond in a condescending tone?

For example:

[AsiaTraveller]

Struelle,

Herr Ludwig knows only two ways of responding here at Dave's Cafe: patronizingly or sarcastically (ideally a combination of both).

Imagine how he treates language learners who don't live up to his highly inflated standards!!

[leeroy]

(a symptom, I believe, of having a linguistics degree)

[AsiaTraveller]

Easier still...

Try this for a general rule:

You can usually use "gonna" as a substitute for "going to" if "to" is part of a subsequent infinitive.

You cannot use "gonna" as a substitute for "going to" if "to" functions as a preposition.

Will that work?

N.B.
I have a linguistics degree (among others). I hope I don't exhibit Herr Ludwig's online and (presumably) classroom behaviors.

[johnslat]

Dear AsiaTraveller,
It'll work most of the time - no always, no never with languages - the problem being words that are used as noun/verb with about equal frequency:

e.g. I gonna work - OK, if "work" is being used as a verb, but not if it's being used as a noun.

Regards,
John

[AsiaTraveller]

John's example:

I'm going to work ---> I'm gonna work


John, your example works perfectly with the rule I tried to formulate.

If work is used as a verb, it's okay to use "gonna" because the word "to" is part of the infinitive "to work".

If work is used as a noun, then "to" is a preposition and it's NOT okay to use "gonna".

How's that?

[johnslat]

Dear AsiaTaveller,
I didn't make myself clear - what I meant was from a student's point of view it would/could cause trouble, since they're usually not as easily able to distinguish the noun "work" from the verb "work".
But yes, your rule works (so to speak) fine.
Regards,
John

[AsiaTraveller]

Yes, that's an incredibly subtle distinction for language learners:

I'm going to work. ("to work" as verb)

I'm going to work. ("to work" as prepositional phrase, with "work" being a noun vaguely referring to one's place of work. It would be so much clearer if "work" required the article "the" here.)

With verbs other than "work" that can also function as nouns, it might be easier to show the case for "gonna":

I'm going to play now. ---> I'm gonna play now.

I'm going to the play now. ---> [can't substitute "gonna" because "play" is a noun and "to" is its preposition]

[johnslat]

Dear AsiaTraveller,
Another common one's "sleep":

What's Bob doing now?
He's going to sleep.

What's Bob going to do?
He going to (gonna) sleep.

Notice how it only works with verbs that can also be non-countable nouns.
If the verb turns into a countable (as in your example, "play"), then you're (usually) going to have an "a" or a "the" with the noun.

Regards,
John

[shmooj]

Stress.... something Ludwig seems to induce rather than explain

The "trouble" with Struelle's lesson is that it was a snapshot. It did not follow on from work on connected speech, nor is it likely to be the precursor to more work. This is quite lamentable. Struelle, why were you not teaching discourse markers and connected speech from Day 1?

If you had done, your students would already be keyed in to the fact that words that are essential for meaning are rarely contracted. Hence the difference between something as simple as

I'm not. and I am not.

This would help your students to move closer to making assumptions about where connected speech will happen and when it will not. Then, to help them towards this, you could give them a series of examples such as those Ludwig posted above. Then, THEY can do the donkey work and, in the process, raise their awareness of the limitations of connected speech.

Sometimes one lesson on the fly that works is really not that great a thing because, being a one-off, it is unlikely to help students acquire anything.

[struelle]

Shmooj, I must agree with you here.

Since about January or so, I met with my TT and had a sort of breakthrough in lesson planning. Previously I'd do a series of one-off lessons that were great for each class but didn't have much long-term recycling or retention.

Since that meeting, I've been planning entire series of lessons that build on each other. This was what I'd done with my students all along since Jan, and we followed a progression of connected speech like you said.

But this latest colloquial bit was more of a scramble than anything else, thanks to my FAO who sprung a last-minute class on me. It fit into what we did during the term, more or less, so I lucked out.

On the other hand, if cumulative lesson plans are going to work, then the attendance of the students must be consistent throughout the term. If students come and go as they please, then they miss earlier lessons and get stuck later on. One of the problems at a place I worked last year was that students would come sporadically. Hence, one-off lesson plans weren't all that bad in this context.

Steve

[prawn]

always enjoy seeing that ludwig has posted mainly due to the reaction he gets from those who feel uncomfortable with anybody who has strength enough to express themselves with conviction...

Struelle, you have made no sense. There is no semantic distinction between the Processes (am going) of the clauses �I�m going to Harvard� or �I�m going to the shop�, and neither is fair game for a �gonna� contraction. These contractions do not usually occur when �going� or �want� is proceeded by the prepositional �to" of a Circumstance.

so if u are remotely interested:

... the so-called "gonna/ wanna" problem is resolvable by application of a Systemic approach, of whom Halliday is one of the guiding lights...and who by the by is one of the few who truly deserves the title of linguist, though there are many charlatans who would lay claim to it...

The fact that Chomsky, Pinker and their misguided ilk have absolutely no grounds for analysing their ridiculously misconstrued confabulations as being representative of real language notwithstanding:

The "want to" in a Clause Complex such as "Do you want to invite Mary to the party?" often becomes "wanna" because it violates no Clause Rank Boundary, as described below:

(IND = Independent Clause; DEP= Dependendent Clause; F= Finite; N.F. = Non-finite)

||| IND F. || DEP. F. |||
||| Do you || want to invite Mary to the party |||

In this case want to invite operates as a single Process, to which "want to" confers modality as a modal ( or some might say pseudomodal) finite - similar in application to the modal finite "have to".

�that is to say, because no Clause Rank Boundary separates �want� and �to�, we would feel justified in being able to run them together as in

||| Do you || wanna invite Mary to the party |||

On the other hand, the "want to" in the ridiculous Pinkerian confabulation "Who do you want to invite Mary to the party?" does not really invite the "wanna" contraction, because to do so would be to violate a Clause Rank Boundary, and the unitary meanings we express in English (at least) are tightly encapsulated within these boundaries,the integrity of which we keep ourselves under pressure to maintain

that is, in the following Complex

||| IND F. || DEP N.F. |||
||| Who do you want || to invite Mary to the party? |||

"want to" would most likely not become "wanna" , because there exists a Clause Rank Boundary ( indicated by the double vertical lines || ) that provides a clear delineation between the linguistic realms within which each of the constituents ( "want" - a Material Process in the first clause - and "to" - part of the Material Process "to invite" in the second (nonfinite) clause) lies. That is, in this case, there is no "want to" modal finite, but rather 2 Material Processes, "want" and "to invite".

(really a more usual offering might be
||| Who do you think || should invite Mary to the party ?|||
which follows the clause bounding pattern of the Chomskian/ Pinkerian nonsense above)

If you take the other example "Who does the coach want to shoot?/Who does the coach wanna shoot? ", the latter will more likely be construed as referring to an act of violence with a firearm because the clause set up is as follows:
||| IND. F. [[ EMBEDDED CLAUSE. ]] |||
||| Who does [[ the coach want to shoot? ]] |||
( = ||| Who does [[ the coach wanna shoot? ]] |||)

where the above contains only a single Process ( does) and therefore represents just 1 clause, within which there is an Embedded Clause that contains the �want to� modal finite; or you might say that because there is no Rank Clause Boundary between want and to, the contraction is allowed

while the alternative

||| IND. F. || DEP. N.F. |||
||| Who does the coach want || to shoot? |||

consists of 2 clauses, with "want" being the Material Process of the first clause, which is of course unconnected with the "to" of the Material Process of the subsequent Non-Finite Dependent Clause, and is thus unavailable for wanna contraction, and so would probably not be construed as available solely for the interpretation of violence with a firearm.

Similarly, �gonna� operates as a contraction of the modal �going to� , which has semantic similarities to the modal �will�.

There you go.

yours linguistically,

Prawn.

[Stephen Jones]

Dear Prawn,
Do all those qualified in applied linguistics have a special course on crankiness, petulance and partisanship, or is it a necessary pre-requisite for entry?

Do you make yourself feel any more imortant by calling Chomsky and Pinker charlatans?

You and Ludwig are of course basically right about the matter in hand. 'Contractions' are a can of worms, and plenty of books make a real mess. Look into Interactions Access where they make a dog's dinner of this very point.

Also we Brits, tend not to contract to the 'gonna' or gotta stages.

There is not a great deal of difference in a Brit's pronuncation of I'm going to John's" and "I'm going to see John". The schwa is there in both cases, as it is not in "Where are you going to?"

Cockneys, and Mockneys, would elide the 't' of "I want a coffee" and "I want to see you" indifferently, and most other British English speakers would leave it in.

[prawn]

er no...i wasn't being petulant. no need to get upset just because you didn't understand me.

[leeroy]

It's strange you know prawn, yourself, ludwig and Bertrand seem to share very similar characteristics...

We had long before already covered when to contract "going to" and when not to in this thread - I suspect your post(s) had more to do with showing off than resolving any "problems" that others may have had.