|
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 |
MartinK
Joined: 01 Mar 2003
Posts: 344
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 8:42 am Post subject: ... |
 |
|
...
Last edited by MartinK on Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:28 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
PanamaTeacher
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 278
Location: Panama
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 2:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bertrand,
You said:
| Quote: |
| It's just a different genre of vocabulary. There is an interesting chapter in a recent publication by the linguist Sampson (2001), Empirical Linguistics, entitled 'One English or Many Englishes' [sic] in which Sampson shows, through corpus analysis, that there is only one underlying grammar of all the different socio-linguistic registers. |
I think that to dismiss teaching business english as a matter of vocabulary is too simplistic. Do you have a background in business? And what is your point about there being one underlying grammar? Assuming that is true, it has no relevance whatsoever to this question. It is like saying all humans have a common ancestor. But guess what--we have evolved and are now all quite different from one another. Likewise languages have evolved and are different. It has value in terms of understanding the development of language, but what earthly difference can it make to the average teacher.
If the point you are trying to make is that teaching grammar should not be the focus of a business english class, I am happy to agree with you on that point. I think business english should focus on substance, not on rules of grammar. The question then becomes, who is the student. That determines the content of the course.
If the students are low-level employees, then the course could very well focus on vocabulary and skills used in everyday communication in the business world (your point I believe). However, if your students are in management or are executives you need to find out what their daily English needs are and focus on those. In my experience, it breaks down to 3 areas: a) some students are concerned with handling face-to-face meetings and negotiations, b) some students are concerned with interpreting, and responding to, business correspondence, c) some students have needs specific to their jobs--drafting contracts, preparing proposals, giving speeches, reviewing sales material, etc.
If the needs of the student are simple, there are books and material to help you teach general business english. For example Kimo sounds pretty knowledgeable. If content and substance are more important be careful if you do not have a business background. A list of commonly used words will not help you teach a student how to interpret an investment proposal or a contract, or how to handle negotiations to secure business that is potentiallly worth millions of dollars.
I would say that while you can pick up a few extra dollars teaching english for a special purpose such as business english, if you don't know your stuff and don't have experience in handling business matters, it is not worth it cause with time you will find yourself doing your student's job and being under the same pressure he or she is under. I say kick back and teach conversation, it's less money but it's low stress. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
scot47
Joined: 10 Jan 2003
Posts: 15343
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:19 pm Post subject: call yourself a teacher ? |
|
|
"present progressive verbs but not past tense irregular verbs, I would teach something like `Toyota makes cars`. "
If you do not know the difference between Present Simple and Present Progressive you are in the wrong job. I have just added your name to a file on my database " Characters Who Must Never Be Employed as EFL Teachers" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MartinK
Joined: 01 Mar 2003
Posts: 344
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:41 pm Post subject: ... |
|
|
...
Last edited by MartinK on Tue Nov 18, 2003 4:30 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steiner
Joined: 21 Apr 2003
Posts: 573
Location: Hunan China
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Martin, been watching Fargo recently, have you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PanamaTeacher
Joined: 26 Jun 2003
Posts: 278
Location: Panama
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 08, 2003 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That's a classic of Business English--an offer you can't refuse  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Celeste
Joined: 17 Jan 2003
Posts: 814
Location: Fukuoka City, Japan
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 09, 2003 12:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| If you do not know the difference between Present Simple and Present Progressive you are in the wrong job. |
Scot47- you took the words right out of my mouth!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bertrand
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 293
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Marcoregano wrote: |
| A question for the good doctor....What is the point in posting stuff which the majority of us cannot follow? |
Don't follow it, then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bertrand
Joined: 02 Feb 2003
Posts: 293
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 5:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| PanamaTeacher wrote: |
Bertrand,
You said:
| Quote: |
| It's just a different genre of vocabulary. There is an interesting chapter in a recent publication by the linguist Sampson (2001), Empirical Linguistics, entitled 'One English or Many Englishes' [sic] in which Sampson shows, through corpus analysis, that there is only one underlying grammar of all the different socio-linguistic registers. |
I think that to dismiss teaching business english as a matter of vocabulary is too simplistic. Do you have a background in business? And what is your point about there being one underlying grammar? Assuming that is true, it has no relevance whatsoever to this question. It is like saying all humans have a common ancestor. But guess what--we have evolved and are now all quite different from one another. Likewise languages have evolved and are different. |
What is the tilte of your (published?) research project that allows you to say - with such confidence - that YOU know the way it is? Have you ever collected empirical data? Have you ever recorded 'business English' and compared and contrasted it to 'non-business English'? If not, what are you basing your assertions on? Layman intuitions? Sorry to have to be the one to tell you but no one is interested in your throw away, off the cuff remarks on areas you have no knowledge in. Let's all study, not Business English, but, say, Pet English. 'I have a dog' would, according to you, be 'Pet English', would it? (Laughable!) Let's assume it has a seperate grammar and that it has 'evolved'!!!!! Also, what area of computational language origins and evolution have you researched and studied? You seem to speak with great confidence that, even though you have never studied it, language 'evolves' (whatever you mean by that). Remember, you know (at least) one language, this does not entail that you know ABOUT any languages or language.
If the point you are trying to make is that teaching grammar should not be the focus of a business english class, I am happy to agree with you on that point. I think business english should focus on substance, not on rules of grammar. The question then becomes, who is the student. That determines the content of the course.
If the students are low-level employees, then the course could very well focus on vocabulary and skills used in everyday communication in the business world (your point I believe). However, if your students are in management or are executives you need to find out what their daily English needs are and focus on those. In my experience, it breaks down to 3 areas: a) some students are concerned with handling face-to-face meetings and negotiations, b) some students are concerned with interpreting, and responding to, business correspondence, c) some students have needs specific to their jobs--drafting contracts, preparing proposals, giving speeches, reviewing sales material, etc.
If the needs of the student are simple, there are books and material to help you teach general business english. For example Kimo sounds pretty knowledgeable. If content and substance are more important be careful if you do not have a business background. A list of commonly used words will not help you teach a student how to interpret an investment proposal or a contract, or how to handle negotiations to secure business that is potentiallly worth millions of dollars.
I would say that while you can pick up a few extra dollars teaching english for a special purpose such as business english, if you don't know your stuff and don't have experience in handling business matters, it is not worth it cause with time you will find yourself doing your student's job and being under the same pressure he or she is under. I say kick back and teach conversation, it's less money but it's low stress. [/quote] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richard ame
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 319
Location: Republic of Turkey
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:26 am Post subject: Nice one kid |
|
|
| Linda you REALLY ARE in such a bad arse mood today but I like it ,the way you gave that pompus wind bag a piece of ,go to it girl ,kick ass .But hey doesn't that sound a little violent ? We don't like that do we ? You can dish it out no doubt about that, however ,when I tried to have a little fun as you put it I get jumped on ,isn't that a foul? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linda L.
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 9:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Ricky:
Why don't you try posting your thread again without any reference to any physical action against anyone?
I accepted your explanation and realized that you merely made an inappropriate word choice.
I have enough faith in you that you could rephrase your thread in an unobjectionable way.
Go ahead, give it a try!!!!! Please? I think worded properly it could be a fun thread, but why limit it to women? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
richard ame
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 319
Location: Republic of Turkey
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 11:51 am Post subject: Ok but |
|
|
| Linda we seem to be at odds today stop calling me ricky and we'll take it from there . And for goodness sake lighten up ! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Linda L.
Joined: 03 Jul 2003
Posts: 146
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Dear Richard Ame:
I have been very polite to you.
I could have addressed you as Ricky A$$ but refrained.
I just knew Ricky would get to you.
Now let me clue you in on something. never show your enemy your weakness. If you had ignored the Ricky i would have dropped it sooner than later. But since it got a rise out of you i now know how to get to you any time I want. Never show your weakness like that.
OK Ricky?
Linda Linda
(Because my name is so complex my friends are alloowed to just call me Linda, but you are not my friend so it is Linda L. to you)  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schminken
Joined: 06 May 2003
Posts: 109
Location: Austria (The Hills are Alive)
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 12:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Betrand,
You stated that the present progressive is not a tense, it is an aspect.
Isn't it a present tense with a progressive aspect?
Present describes the tense (time) and aspect describes the nature of the action (�ncomplete).
Just asking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dyak
Joined: 25 Jun 2003
Posts: 630
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh... you had to go and ask?! |
|
| 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
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
