Job Discussion Forums

[leeroy]

DISCLAIMER: I didn't take the following post too seriously - I don't expect anyone else to either!

Following a discussion with a fellow ELT geek...

The third person 's' is one of those strange little things. It's one of the first things we teach, but one of the last the students learn. Evidently, this comes pretty late on the "natural order". Why bother teaching it at Elementary level if they're not going to get it before Upper-Intermediate?

Well, I suppose it's unavoidable. "I eat" / "He eats" is bound to be something that students will come across during their progression towards linguistic competence. But how forgiving should we be of erors here? Should we be completely draconian, stopping every student in their tracks and beating them with a cane every time Yuko says "he like the pub!"?

There is the "sod it - it doesn't matter" argument. The 3rd person 's', so I'm told, has no real semantic value - which is why students take so long to 'get it'. It doesn't mean anything - the little bugger's just there, for the sake of it. Students may well reason "what's the point?", they might be right you know.

However the issue of "effect on the listener" comes into play here. When a native speaker is listening to a foreigner murdering the third person, articles and prepositions (as is typical in free speech) they instinctively have to concentrate on what the learner is saying. Whereas you can subconciously process native English with no bother, "learner English" requires reprocessing by the listener. In short, it might not be a hassle for the student to leave out the third person 's' - but it is for the person listening to them.

It would be nice to think that as languages evolve, they become more streamlined. English is a relatively new language of the world, which may go some lengths to explaining why it sometimes seems unweildy. Bahasa Indonesia is blissfully simple;

"Sudah makan?" /already eat?/ - Have you (already) eaten?
"Sudah." /already/ - Yes I have.

In lots of languages (so I'm told), it is possible to omit both subjects and objects if they aren't necessary. In Korean, which I don't actually speak (but think I know some examples), you have

Salang hae!

Which literally means "love". When you say it to someone, however, it implies "I love you". Both the subject and object are obvious, so why bother with them?

As English globalises, I have a feeling it will need to simplify - or at least the "global English" dialect will. Learners are already doing this, out of a quiet protest for English rules they deem silly...

"Innit" as a question tag is now commonplace in London - "You're coming to the pub tonight innit?". Why bother with all the modal/pronoun bollocks when you can just contract "isn't it"? My students were overjoyed when they discovered this - despite my protests, "innit" became the new question tag for all occasions. "Teacher, we do a test today, innit?"

And so if the third person 's' really is the "appendix" of English linguistic evolution, then what else is to go? I'm all for getting rid of

capital letters
apostrophes
all word stress
"well" (a la American English - "He talks good!")
irregular verb forms
objective pronouns ("Give the beer to I!")
more than half of our prepositions
articles, unless we really need them

[Dr.J]

I'll try to get all the main arguments in before...

1) The grammarian: You are so wrong. We need grammar because of (insert minor semantic difference available from context). Even your message was full of errors. Are you really a teacher?

2) The language liberal: I agree. We should delete everything from English and - hell, why aren't we speaking Esperanto? Dis momento mendes, I speke esperanto solo parabola!

3) OK I'm fed up.

We need linguistic regularity to ensure everyone can understand each other. We can't go changing the lanuage to suit individuals. It kind of defeats the point. And there is no chance of it changing as radically as you suggest, so this is an empty (though amusing) train of thought.


capital letters - we use them to see quickly where a sentence starts and ends. these are useful, but maybe the period suffices.

apostrophes - shows the difference between hers and her's which are quite different semantically. though, probably available from context.

all word stress - are you on drugs? it's essential to pronunciation.

"well" (a la American English - "He talks good!") - ah, fair enough.

irregular verb forms - OK

objective pronouns ("Give the beer to I!") - OK.

more than half of our prepositions - what, so we lose, half our vocabulary?

articles, unless we really need them - fair enough. howbout optional articles?

Can I just say as a final word, all of the idiosyncracies in English allow a huge scope for exactness and artistic expression, not to mention the fun from playing with words and breaking linguistic rules. It's easier to read if letters are just black and white, but what happens to your painting?

[dyak]

Well, I�m not quite ready to succumb to students� abject laziness, nor could I bear the thought of churning out Ali G-esque students saying horrid things like,

"Teacher, we do a test today, innit?" Yuck.

Compared to most seemingly rule-less English, learning to put an �s� on the third person singular is not complicated. I do chastise them a bit for it, especially the lower levels because in advanced classes I�m still hearing, �everyone like the pub�, �ali love swimming� and so on.

Have you tried Esperanto? Judging from your list I think you might like it.

[naturegirl321]

Well, I think that we should stop them when they make mistakes, otherwise they will continue making the mistake. Write it in big letters on the board. He, she, it EATS. They will start to correct themselves and each other.

[leeroy]

(sigh)

A lot was meant in jest. I don't seriously want to get rid of capital letters. Actually, I quite like them. Don't worry guys, I'll stick to serious posts from now on.

[Roger]

...and, leeroy, it ISN'T that difficult to teach the third-person -S! I taught it at a kindergarten with way above-average success - compared to the underachieving college students in this country!
The point is that the S-ending is a convention to which all native speakers owe allegiance; we should demand respect for certain rules from non-native ("foreign") speakers of our English! It is not the only rule, but one of the more defining ones.
Actually, modern English has shed a lot of its grammar trappings: in older versions of English there were more different verb endings:
I have, thou hast, he/she hath, we/you/the have;
just like in other Indo-European languages!

[leeroy]

Fair points - all of you.

Evidently, mixing my points with a (bad) form of dry humour didn't work very well, so I'll try it straight this time.

Agreed, the 3rd person 's' isn't the biggest thing for teachers to worry about. It is a simple rule, and one that students can learn/use in controlled practice easily. However, in my (and others') experience, in completely free speaking the 3rd person 's' is often something left out, even at relatively high levels.

A woman I did my DELTA course with (who, by the way, had a PHd in Linguistics) reasoned that this was because the third person 's' carries very little meaning by itself. Perhaps there is a slight consolidation that this sentence is indeed in the 3rd person by adding '-s' - but it is not strictly necessary - there is no dramatic loss or change in meaning if the 3rd person 's' is omitted - (it just sounds wrong).

The reason we (rightly) teach it to our students is because it is correct - and what native speakers expect.

However, as Roger pointed out, English is evolving, and in many ways simplifying - and will probably continue to simplify. As it does, will the 3rd person 's' die out? And how will English change as its role moves ever closer to The Global Language?

More and more people will be learning to speak English, but mostly not to native speakers. Chinese people will be speaking English to Brazilians, and when this is commonplace - how will things like the 3rd person 's' fare?

[leeroy]

Fair points - all of you.

Evidently, mixing my points with a (bad) form of dry humour didn't work very well, so I'll try it straight this time.

Agreed, the 3rd person 's' isn't the biggest thing for teachers to worry about. It is a simple rule, and one that students can learn/use in controlled practice easily. However, in my (and others') experience, in completely free speaking the 3rd person 's' is often something left out, even at relatively high levels.

A woman I did my DELTA course with (who, by the way, had a PHd in Linguistics) reasoned that this was because the third person 's' carries very little meaning by itself. Perhaps there is a slight consolidation that this sentence is indeed in the 3rd person by adding '-s' - but it is not strictly necessary - there is no dramatic loss or change in meaning if the 3rd person 's' is omitted - (it just sounds wrong).

The reason we (rightly) teach it to our students is because it is correct - and what native speakers expect.

However, as Roger pointed out, English is evolving, and in many ways simplifying - and will probably continue to simplify. As it does, will the 3rd person 's' die out? And how will English change as its role moves ever closer to The Global Language?

More and more people will be learning to speak English, but mostly not to native speakers. Chinese people will be speaking English to Brazilians, and when this is commonplace - how will things like the 3rd person 's' fare?

[Capergirl]

[Snoopy]

Has nobody noticed that third-person s distinguishes between present and past in verbs such as "put" and "cut"? I am used to hearing bongo-English (Ahmed late, he have accident) but try to teach more accurate use of our language amongst other skills, as opposed to non-communication skills as advocated by certain correspondents.

[dyak]

Speaking of distinguishing between tenses and the fine line between 'simplified' English and 'dumbed down' English... around these parts it's becoming more and more commonplace to use the present tense as the past tense with some verbs, such as,

'I see him yesterday, he come round my house.'

It makes my ears cringe, it's a very fine line.

[SweetOne]

One reason to insist our students get comfortable with the rules is if a person speaks with someone for whom English is their L1, then it is critical (for full and continued comprehension) that the speaker use as many of the grammar rules as possible. How often have you heard someone trying to convey a thought, but because they are leaving so many of the grammar rules out, you stop listening and instead think "what?" while the speaker continues on. You get distracted. In some cases, it even occurs to the listener that the speaker is quaint and cute, rather than someone who should be taken seriously. Yes, this applies more to people interacting with native speakers, but if we are going to teach them, why not teach them correctly?

Just mho.....

Peace

[Celeste]

In my hometown in Northern British Columbia, Canada, we have a local dialect that incorrectly uses the past participle verb form. "I seen him yesterday." " I done my homework before dinner." are quite common and punctuated with plenty of "eh"s and "F***"s. We have quaint local phrases such as "yeah, eh"(to agree with an affirmative stament), "yeah, no, eh" (to agree with a negative statement) and "F*** yeah, eh" (to strongly agree with an affirmative statement). Imagine how strange it was for me to move to Vancouver to go to university and have the whole room stop, stare, and snicker every time I opened my mouth.

I use this anecdote to emphasize to my students the necessity of studying grammatically correct English.

[denise]

But how do we get all of the various English speakers of the world to agree on one standard of "correctness"? I suppose the third person 's' is fairly standard, but some of the regional variations--such things as the British vs. American uses of the present perfect--might be more debatable. And if we do agree on one standard, and we prescriptively teach that standard, then what happens when our students go to certain parts of Canada/the States/Britain/etc., where there is more variation? Hearing them speak straight out of a textbook might seem quaint, as well. I'm certainly not advocating linguistic anarchy, though. I just think we need to educate our students about context--regional variation, degrees of formality, etc.

d

[dduck]