|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
alongway
Joined: 02 Jan 2012
|
 Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:16 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Fox wrote: |
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| I'd have thought nowadays they base grammar distinctions like this on text corpuses with millions of examples of everyday speech. |
Millions of examples of every day speech would include people who recognize the interchangeability of these terms though (unless they were cherry picked with the utmost caution). If "going to" is used 75% of the time in a given circumstance and "will" is used 25% of the time, does that make one wrong, or simply less commonly used? Or even a 95%/5% split? I don't think so, at least not necessarily (though there might be room for laying down regional distinctions if the minority which used it alternatively were all from a given country). Yet authoritative "Lesson 21" lays down an absolute mandate.
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| 'Going to' also has the function of prediction based on physical evidence, like your two examples. It's a different usage. |
Yet I can just as easily substitute will in those sentences without changing the meaning. "Based on the evidence, I think it's going to rain at 3:00." "Based on the evidence, I think it'll rain at 3:00." "When you open that door, you're going to see a very messy room." "When you open that door, you'll see a very messy room." "I'm going to go to the park, then have some ice cream." "I'll go to the park, then have some ice cream." I don't believe that outside of the context of this conversation anyone here would feel the slightest sense of incongruity at these sentences being used interchangeably, nor even think there was any real difference in the subtleties of the ideas being expressed (absent any change in intonation anyway). |
Just because something is accepted casual speech doesn't mean it's "right" or that there isn't a distinction between two terms.
Regional and education level variations aside, there is a usage difference between them. Everyone will generally understand it, but that doesn't mean you won't come off as less educated for using it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
The Cosmic Hum
Joined: 09 May 2003
Location: Sonic Space
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| I'd have thought nowadays they base grammar distinctions like this on text corpuses with millions of examples of everyday speech. |
Millions of examples of every day speech would include people who recognize the interchangeability of these terms though (unless they were cherry picked with the utmost caution). If "going to" is used 75% of the time in a given circumstance and "will" is used 25% of the time, does that make one wrong, or simply less commonly used? Or even a 95%/5% split? I don't think so, at least not necessarily (though there might be room for laying down regional distinctions if the minority which used it alternatively were all from a given country). Yet authoritative "Lesson 21" lays down an absolute mandate.
| edwardcatflap wrote: |
| 'Going to' also has the function of prediction based on physical evidence, like your two examples. It's a different usage. |
Yet I can just as easily substitute will in those sentences without changing the meaning. "Based on the evidence, I think it's going to rain at 3:00." "Based on the evidence, I think it'll rain at 3:00." "When you open that door, you're going to see a very messy room." "When you open that door, you'll see a very messy room." "I'm going to go to the park, then have some ice cream." "I'll go to the park, then have some ice cream." I don't believe that outside of the context of this conversation anyone here would feel the slightest sense of incongruity at these sentences being used interchangeably, nor even think there was any real difference in the subtleties of the ideas being expressed (absent any change in intonation anyway). |
Just because something is accepted casual speech doesn't mean it's "right" or that there isn't a distinction between two terms.
Regional and education level variations aside, there is a usage difference between them. Everyone will generally understand it, but that doesn't mean you won't come off as less educated for using it. |
Nonsense.
The 'rule' is at best descriptive, yet you are making it out as prescriptive...and then applying educational standards to it.
You might be surprised to find that highly educated people enjoy knowing what is acceptable language and then using it as they see fit.
The English language is growing more flexible every nanosecond the internet is turned on.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEpsKnWZrJ8
The internet is awesome. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 9:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| alongway wrote: |
Just because something is accepted casual speech doesn't mean it's "right" or that there isn't a distinction between two terms. |
I would say that native speakers accepting something does mean it's right. The fact that casual speech and formal speech are not always identical does not mean one is "wrong," it simply means they are different. Perhaps a teacher should impress upon their student that certain constructs are used in casual speech while others are used in writing, but that's entirely different than telling them one is right and one is wrong. More importantly, though, this "will" vs "going to" distinction is not a matter of casual vs non-casual speech. One could exchange these terms in a formal situation without experiencing any problem at all, either in terms of comprehension or even in terms of inducing a sense of incongruity in the listener.
| alongway wrote: |
| Everyone will generally understand it, but that doesn't mean you won't come off as less educated for using it. |
This on the other hand is exactly correct: speaking in a fashion prescribed by a grammar manual is a great way to come off as educated.
I think our exchange has gone as far as it can here. It has become fairly clear that neither of us is going to persuade the other, which is fine. I understand your position well enough, and I appreciate the time you took to articulate it for me. Have a nice day, Alongway. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
schwa
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
Location: Yap
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| T-J wrote: |
I'd like to throw one more word into the mix because the waters are clearly not muddy enough:
Shall
|
I'll take up this gauntlet. Heres a nice overview of its use:
http://www.quickanddirtytips.com/education/grammar/shall-versus-will?page=all
I like this quote: 'No American under 80 uses shall.'
This is another nice example of a grammar "rule" growing obsolete right in front of us under the weight of ordinary usage. Rules cannot stem this tide. Language refuses to be pinned down.
Next to die: the subjunctive. About time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
edwardcatflap
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jul 04, 2014 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In British English it's pretty normal to use shall in the following ways
What shall we do next?
Shall I go first?
The article claims these would be polite or mock formal in US English. I don't think they would be in British English. The article also suggests will has replaced shall for nearly everything so an American would say
What will we do next?
Will I go first.
To me the fist one sounds like a change in function from asking for a suggestion to a prediction. Also the second sounds strange, though you do hear this structure in Irish English a lot. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DavidVance
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Nice to see this sort of debate.
Although I accept that languages evolve, I'm for not adding to the bastardization or corruption of a language by promoting clumsily undifferentiated usage, as this can result in clumsily undifferentiated thinking... Maybe we ought not drag ESL learners down to the lowest common denominator of our own native populations...
A usage that is sub-optimal but commonplace and thereby nonetheless clearly understood may be ambiguous or more plainly incorrect when transferred to another similar usage.
In general, I like Fowler's Dictionary of English Usage (I think he was a genius) for its linguistic competency, and i also enjoy the liberal sprinkling of sarcasm incorporated in his given of examples of incorrect (/sub-optimal) usages.
Let's keep trying to find the best compromise, without any lazy cop-outs..
Cheers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DavidVance
Joined: 21 Apr 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 14, 2014 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Correction: remove the "of" after the "given" - I had two possible versions in mind, and was in too much of a hurry to properly select one of them... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Voyeur
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2014 7:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
English is fluid and evolving. Even the distinction between prescription and description can be fuzzy.
I think it makes sense to teach students the distinction between 'will' and 'going to' based on the former being more spontaneous and the latter involving more planning. When it comes to prediction, the distinction essentially reverses itself with 'will' having more to do with a prediction based on previous knowledge and 'going to' being based more on what you see right now. As with almost all things English, this is far from a perfect rule. I tell my students that. I give them the analogy that it is like training wheels to get them to sound more native, and that as they become more fluent they will be able to choose their language more on feel.
The distinction between a plan and an arrangement ('going to' Simple Present versus the Present Progressive) is even more nebulous. I'm not sure an arrangement necessarily requires having communicated your intentions in some way, but it is clearly a bit stronger and more binding than a plan. And the will/going to distinction really gets a lot more fuzzy and feel-based when you start venturing into the Future Progressive, Perfect, or Perfect Progressive. For these tenses I do tend to tell students that 'will' and 'going to' are essentially interchangeable, but that yes, there is a difference, if only on the 'poetic' level. But English verb usage distinctions are often like that, so students need to get used to it. Teaching the use of the Perfect Progressive is often all about feel: what is the difference between 'I have lived in Boston for many years' and 'I have been living in Boston for many years'? |
|
| 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
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
