| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Sekhmet
Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 329
Location: Alexandria, Egypt
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:34 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
The only way native speakers are always right, linguistically, is in the terms of pronunciation. By definition, unless a native speaker s using an unfamiliar word, they are going to have perfect pronunciation, albeit with an accent of some kind.
In terms of grammar, the differences between "descriptive" and "prescriptive" grammar are important. Whereas "prescriptive" is all the grammar rules that have been laid down unchanged for the past few hundred years, "descriptive" grammar is all about the changes that the language goes through. I think. Feel free to flame away if I'm wrong... |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
moonraven
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Posts: 3094
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not interested in flaming, simply in stating that the idea of "perfect pronunciation" makes no sense to me.
I have heard a nearly uncountable number of mispronunciations by native speakers (including those who say "mispronounciation")--possibly because that was the way they heard the words from someone else or because many words in English simply do not sound the way they appear.
One's use of the language, unfortunately, usually reflects one's social class (exception made in the case of the current US president, whose misusages and mispronunciations have become legendary). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Posts: 4124
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| One of the many reasons I stopped hiring native speakers of English here in Mexico is that their English skills were very marginal |
Let's see if I get this right. They are capable of conducting all their affairs in English yet their skills are marginal.
| Quote: |
| What they really were: arrogant fracturers of the English language. |
You mean they disagreed with you every now and again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Posts: 4124
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Whereas "prescriptive" is all the grammar rules that have been laid down unchanged for the past few hundred years, "descriptive" grammar is all about the changes that the language goes through. I think. Feel free to flame away if I'm wrong... |
You are wrong but there is no need to flame you.
Prescriptive grammar often means the irrational prejiudices of someone ignorant and self-important enough to set himself up as a judge of others' speech.
What is should be however is the description of the accepted standard dialect of the language.
Now when we are talking about EFL or ESL we have a second factor. Prescriptive grammar for native speakers is basically saying what constructions and dialects are allowed to form part of the socially dominant norm, aka the National Standard. It will also involve deciding what is approrpriate for what register. That is to say dealing with native speakers a prescriptive grammarian is not saying something is ungrammatical - he is merely deciding what sub-category of grammatical statements forms par of what is considered to be the norm. On the other hand non-native speakers can produce constructions that are not grammatical in any variety of the language, and in that case the prescriptive grammarian is indistinguishable from the descriptive grammarian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Posts: 4124
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 7:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I am not interested in flaming, simply in stating that the idea of "perfect pronunciation" makes no sense to me. |
For once, I partially agree.
| Quote: |
| I have heard a nearly uncountable number of mispronunciations by native speakers (including those who say "mispronounciation") |
True and guilty as charged, both in the general and the particular. The matter is not that relevant though. As with spelling and meaning a good dictionary is the way to sort things out.
| Quote: |
| (exception made in the case of the current US president, whose misusages and mispronunciations have become legendary). |
Many of Bush's so called "mis-pronunciations" are purposive. "Nookleeur" sounds much more down to earth than the standard East Coast version. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
moonraven
Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Posts: 3094
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 09, 2005 8:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Stephen:
As usual, you did NOT get it right. The fracturers of the English language may have been conducting all their affairs in English--but not very successfully, since they were not qualified to be hired for the posts they were seeking as teachers. Their poor language skills MAY have even been a factor in their inability to get jobs in the US, as well.
Your snide comment in regard to their disagreeing with me is not germane to this issue; as I chose not to hire them, there was nothing with which to disagree.
Now we find out that Bush's brain is NOT Karl Rove, but the person who posts on Dave's under the nom de guerre of Stephen Jones! That WOULD be news, if it were true. However, I don't think many people are gullible enough to believe it.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deconstructor
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 775
Location: Montreal
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 1:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| carnac wrote: |
Disagree with Deconstructor's 3rd point which is agreed upon by Red Baron. "Is bringing" is acceptable, as always depending on context.
"What's wrong with her?"
"Well, for one thing, she is bringing her children to the park every day when she should be working on her thesis!"
Arguably, the present simple is the more common usage, but the use of present progressive (continuous) emphasises the speaker's sense of wrongness in this instance. And it is not "Indian English". |
The reason why "She is bringing her children to the park every evening" is incorrect is because using the present continuous can be used if the action is temporary, i.e. "She is bringing her children to the park every evening this month". There is no such indication in the OP's example. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
valley_girl
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 272
Location: Somewhere in Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 2:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Deconstructor wrote: |
The reason why "She is bringing her children to the park every evening" is incorrect is because using the present continuous can be used if the action is temporary, i.e. "She is bringing her children to the park every evening this month". There is no such indication in the OP's example. |
I respectfully disagree. In English, many times the time period involved is implied rather than implicitly stated. Without knowing the context of that sentence (not knowing what came before it or what will follow it), we cannot label it 'incorrect'.
I see nothing grammatically incorrect with any of the four choices mentioned in the OP. I think sometimes English teachers get overzealous when correcting grammar, finding mistakes where there are none. As a result, students develop grammar anxiety and perhaps even grammar phobias. No wonder.
Please consider all possibilities when correcting students' grammar and don't be so quick with those red Xs. There are few absolutes when it comes to English grammar, especially in contemporary language. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sekhmet
Joined: 05 Apr 2004
Posts: 329
Location: Alexandria, Egypt
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ok, I completely see the point about "perfect pronunciation", and it drives me mad too when people say "pronounciation"!!! But still, accents can change the sound of a word so that it is different from other accents. Is it therefore wrong? Take, for example, the word "about". Is it wrong for Canadians to say "aboot"? Granted, it's not perfect pronunciation, but it is easily recognisable as the word it's "supposed" to be. The same goes for "bath" and "bath" in British English (sorry, can't make my phonomap work on this forum!!). They're not the same pronunciation, but it doesn't mean that either of them are wrong.
That was what I meant! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ls650
Joined: 10 May 2003
Posts: 3484
Location: British Columbia
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sekhmet wrote: |
| Is it wrong for Canadians to say "aboot"? |
Sigh.
http://www.yorku.ca/twainweb/troberts/raising.html
"To American ears, the Canadian pronunciation of about often sounds like aboot, but this is only an illusion. Because the more familiar pronunciation of /aw/ is articulated with the tongue in a low position, and because it raises to a mid position in Canadian English when the vowel precedes the voiceless obstruents listed above, speakers of other varieties of English will immediately detect the vowel raising, but will sometimes think that the vowel has raised farther than it actually does, all the way to /u/, which is a high vowel--hence the mishearing (and not-quite-right imitation) of this pronunciation as aboot." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
valley_girl
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 272
Location: Somewhere in Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thank you, Is650. You beat me to it.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Deconstructor
Joined: 30 Dec 2003
Posts: 775
Location: Montreal
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| valley_girl wrote: |
| Deconstructor wrote: |
The reason why "She is bringing her children to the park every evening" is incorrect is because using the present continuous can be used if the action is temporary, i.e. "She is bringing her children to the park every evening this month". There is no such indication in the OP's example. |
I respectfully disagree. In English, many times the time period involved is implied rather than implicitly stated. Without knowing the context of that sentence (not knowing what came before it or what will follow it), we cannot label it 'incorrect'.
I see nothing grammatically incorrect with any of the four choices mentioned in the OP. I think sometimes English teachers get overzealous when correcting grammar, finding mistakes where there are none. As a result, students develop grammar anxiety and perhaps even grammar phobias. No wonder.
Please consider all possibilities when correcting students' grammar and don't be so quick with those red Xs. There are few absolutes when it comes to English grammar, especially in contemporary language. |
You talk about context, well I gave you some. THIS MONTH is the context. There is nothing wrong with the OP's sentences (as you said) if you take the contexts away. Structurally they're sound, but there is very little meaning.
As far as grammar phobia is concerned: the only way to prevent it is to teach it as something secondary. As long as English classes have grammar as their focal point, no EFL student will learn it. This has been my experience after ten years of teaching. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
valley_girl
Joined: 22 Sep 2004
Posts: 272
Location: Somewhere in Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 4:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see what you are saying but I do find it difficult to teach grammar points in small doses. It often takes a great deal of explanation, tons of examples, and oodles of practice for students to grasp a grammar concept. It is no easy feat to incorporate grammar lessons in any 'secondary' way. This has just been my experience, however. Perhaps you are simply a much better grammar teacher than I.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
willy
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Posts: 215
Location: Samarinda,Kalimantan,Indonesia(left TW)
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Funny thing is ALL the local teachers here and most of the students said (2) brings is correct.
thanks for your input
Last edited by willy on Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Stephen Jones
Joined: 21 Feb 2003
Posts: 4124
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 10, 2005 5:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Decon seems to have got hold of the wrong side of the horse here. There is no need to add any further context to
She is bringing the childen to the park every evening.
The use of the continous aspect is putting the stress on the time period (which is what the continous aspect does) and thus by implication suggesting that the time period is temporary.
The OP considers the phrase to be wrong because she has learned her grammar from the "laundry list" method. This has one entry that states "Present Simple for habitual actions" and another that states "Present Continous for now". It might be the only way of learning L2 grammar, but it at a certain level it creates many more problems than it solves.
Incidnetally, Decon's comment that overemphasis on the grammar point inhibits learning of it, strikes me as very perceptive. If attention can be taken away from the grammar point more and more grammar will sink in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
