|
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 |
fidel
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Location: North Shore NZ
|
 Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 8:24 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
quote]Formal English requires the distinction; ergo, we should teach the distinction in the classroom so as to properly guide our young Padawan learners.[/quote]
I fully agree. Now perhaps you could acknowledge you were wrong to argue that using can for permission is somehow grammatically incorrect, and you can move on from this rather embarrassing thread. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
| And for every source quoted on this board I can find a link which says otherwise. |
So far your first link was seventeen years old at a minimum, and your second link contradicts your claim (read the next paragraph to see why). While I have no doubts that you may be able to eventually find a link to a current book that supports you, it's quite obvious to all that it's not a common event or else this thread would have such many links already cited.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The same source implies that the rule is weakening, but that formal standard usage still insists on the distinction between can and may. The last applicable source, Practical English Usage -new edition, reiterated much the same information already stated with one exceptional twist. When talking about permission already given or refused, about freedom which people already have, or about rules and laws, can is the preferred modal auxiliary |
Game. Set. Match. |
On page 123 of this book, the author wrote: "in fact can and could are normally preferred in informal educated usage, especially in British English." He also goes on to talk about how can/could is correct, and that may/might is simply more correct. 3.14 vs. 3.14159. Sounds like an endorsement to me, and this was from a source dated ten years ago.
The section also goes into saying that children should be taught the difference between can and may, as well as use of could, would and will and how politeness ties into everything. But he was very clear in saying "can" is acceptable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
| Quote: |
| What, in your eyes, makes a grammatical rule "proper"? |
Well, for instance, the fact that many authorities still consider it thus.* |
Does that work in the negative sense, too? For instance, "many authorities" say that "can" can be used to ask permission. "Many authorities" also say that "may" may be used to ask for permission. So... are both rules proper, or are both rules invalid?
You need to think about these things if you want to be a good teacher. I'm not coming out of the blue with this idea. Abraham didn't come down off the mountain with English grammar rules engraved on stone tablets.
Are the students going to benefit more from learning how English is spoken, or from you teaching them how you think English ought to be spoken? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| your second link contradicts your claim (read the next paragraph to see why |
Contradicts which claim? My original claim that our textbook should not have a chapter titled "Can I have some water?" I fail to see how.
| Quote: |
| ....in fact can and could are normally preferred in informal educated usage, especially in British English.... |
I have never claimed NOT to use can in informal situations (read all my previous posts). On the contrary, I have argued that in a classroom setting (as formal as it gets) one should not stray from rules that are, while contentious, at least ,anchored in tradition.
| Quote: |
| Now perhaps you could acknowledge you were wrong to argue that using can for permission is somehow grammatically incorrect, and you can move on from this rather embarrassing thread |
Embarassing? Embarassing is when people try to defend a sh*tty textbook. I have already conceded that grammar rules change (but you didn't read that post, did you?), especially in the context of informal situations. However, ask a few teachers back home (like I did) what they are teaching (can or may?) I wasn't surprised by their answers. You might be. So you have found textbooks that say blah blah is grammatically acceptable. Great. As I have mentioned in previous posts, that isn't going to save some student's ass when they run up against a teacher/professor like me in the future.
Perhaps YOU are the future. A future where the rules of grammar change on a whim and traditions, GOOD traditions, fall by the wayside in favor of slang and sloppiness. English will only remain an effective means of communication as long as basic rules exist to serve as a guide. I could (should?) teach my kids "ain't", but I'm not, eventhough I'm sure some ass out there has written a book that says "Well, you know, people have like, been saying it for like, ever, so it's basically just, you know, good grammar now." Maybe I'd teach it as an aside. Maybe. But I'd never title a chapter of a book "I ain't got any water!"
| Quote: |
| Are the students going to benefit more from learning how English is spoken, or from you teaching them how you think English ought to be spoken? |
Not how I think it should be spoken (and not spoken, TAUGHT! TAUGHT!) How most teachers (yes, I've interviewed 87% of all teachers in the U.S.) think English should be TAUGHT. And anyway, I hope you were being faceitous in that post, Fifel, because approximately 78.349% of Koreans will NEVER ENGAGE IN AN ENGLISH CONVERSATION IN THEIR LIVES after school. Therefore, it's simply GOOD SENSE to teach them what they need to know to pass the damn SU-NEUNG, which is the POINT OF IT ALL if you haven't figured it out yet.
In any case, I'm glad this thread has already received a gajillion hits. It means some people do give a damn. Someone (Gord, Fidel) should make a poll to see what teachers are teaching in their classrooms with regards to can/may. My guess is that here in Korea, most people could give a damn if they taught good grammar (or any grammar, for that matter) in the classroom. After all, we're just here to help facilitate conversation, right? Bullsh**. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fidel
Joined: 07 Feb 2003
Location: North Shore NZ
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 10:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
Sure languages change (in usage), but that doesn't negate the fact that "can" is grammatically incorrect. Rules (as written in textbooks and such) rarely change. And I'm quite sure that even Korean English textbooks are attempting to teach grammar.
| Quote: |
Can or May?
Can as an auxiliary verb means "to be able to."
May as an auxiliary verb means "to be permitted to."
Incorrect: Can we talk?
(Well, if you can say it, you are able to talk!)
Correct: May we talk?
Correct: We may talk if you can listen to my side. |
So, once again it comes down to "Is it OK to be lazy with the rules" in the classroom? Since these kids will eventually be taking tests based on long established rules of English, the answer has to be "No". I concur with Peppermint, the CDs often have me in stitches! |
| Quote: |
| I have never claimed NOT to use can in informal situations (read all my previous posts). |
Perhaps you should read over what you posted, notice the sentences in bold above and below.
| Quote: |
Can" questions imply ability. "Can you swim?"
"May" questions imply permission. "May I have some water?"
It is not acceptable to interchange them, and neither one is "more polite" than the other. |
And you're naive to think that grammar rules never change. It used to be once that the verb was at the end of the sentence. Prepositions at the end of a sentence has gone the full circle, acceptable, unacceptable and currently moving towards acceptable. I could go on and on and on, but what is the point. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gord
Joined: 25 Feb 2003
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 10:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
| Contradicts which claim? My original claim that our textbook should not have a chapter titled "Can I have some water?" I fail to see how. |
Bit of both really. It didn't support what you said it supported when reading the entire passage instead of just the part you selectively quoted. "Can I have some water" is grammatically sound, if not as formal as you would like.
| Quote: |
| I have never claimed NOT to use can in informal situations (read all my previous posts). On the contrary, I have argued that in a classroom setting (as formal as it gets) one should not stray from rules that are, while contentious, at least ,anchored in tradition. |
You've shifted to that position now, but at first (as Fidel has already quoted), you were very clear that it was a mistake when it's simply a matter of you feeling it is not formal enough. It's no more "wrong" than not saying "please" or "sir" in the question. I vote that we replace "water" with "dihydrogen monoxide" as it's more formal.
Last edited by Gord on Tue May 17, 2005 4:31 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Billy Pilgrim
Joined: 08 Sep 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 16, 2005 10:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I fail to see the problem at all.
I almost NEVER use "may" when asking permission on conversation, and therefore I never teach it. What's the problem here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eddiebaby
Joined: 13 May 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 1:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
I think English is an evolutionary language, thats not to say that most aren��t, but as opposed to Spanish for example where the rules are essentially "set in stone" and you have institutions such as Instituto Cervantes which guard the language and must ratify any changes made to it, English tends to be more functional and in essence a practical language.
I do agrree that teachers should try to stick to the conventions of any given language but it is important to highlight the practical usage. Im British and I use "can" constantly, does this make me wrong?, maybe but I know it is a widely used way of asking for permission.
I guess that teaching children is different however. I teach adults and it is clear that they can grasp an obscure concept such as this but again i suppose whilst teaching kids its best to stick to the "correct" modal which would be "may".
Heres a Q. Do you guys teach/use "shall"? In my neck of the woods (south east England) it is just as common as "should" but Im told that in the north and Ireland it isn��t used. How about the US? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tzechuk
Joined: 20 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 1:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The posh use shall.. my school, a private one, taught us to use shall. you are right that it's not very common though. We use it a lot because my mum is from a different generation when shall was used as the polite term. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
joe_doufu
Joined: 09 May 2005
Location: Elsewhere
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 2:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mack the knife wrote: |
But I'd never title a chapter of a book "I ain't got any water!"
|
Excuse me but it's "I ain't got no water!" not to be confused with "Y'all ain't got no water!" which is less formal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Tue May 17, 2005 4:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Excuse me but it's "I ain't got no water!" not to be confused with "Y'all ain't got no water!" which is less formal |
.
Excellent point! And with that, I think it's time to stop beating this dead horse. It's been fun.  |
|
| 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
