| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rok_the-boat
Joined: 24 Jan 2004
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 4:52 pm Post subject: Grammatically Incorrect |
 |
|
http://education.independent.co.uk/schools/story.jsp?story=645257
| Quote: |
Grammatically Incorrect
Almost 40 per cent of 11-year-olds fail to reach the writing standards set by secondary schools. Is it any wonder, when many teachers would struggle too? By Steve McCormack 09 June 2005
How many times have we heard people ask why teachers don't teach our children grammar and punctuation any more? The answer may be as simple as it is shocking. They don't teach it because they don't understand it themselves. Put less sensationally, a substantial chunk of school teachers have such a shaky grasp of basic grammar that, at best, they fail to notice and correct their pupils' mistakes, and at worst they pass on their misconceptions. The most frequent way this comes to the surface is when teachers write reports. Most schools have had to put in place an elaborate checking and approval system, to try to ensure that the worst howlers do not get sent home. This sucks in hours of time, and often causes upset, when well-meaning teachers have to be told their reports are littered with mistakes.
Here are a few examples of glaring errors spotted in reports about to be put into envelopes at a big comprehensive just outside London this week:
1 "Sarah should of revised more thoroughly for her end of unit test."
2 "Your very capable of doing well in this subject."
3 "Try and practise the keyboard regularly." |
There is more, so if interested read the entire article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mack the knife
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: standing right behind you...
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yes. And all the while a lot of losers on this board claim "It's not important to teach grammar. We're just here to facilitate communication, blah blah blah..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott in HK
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: now in Incheon..haven't changed my name yet
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I am not sure that you can call them 'glaring errors' if you are talking about grammar knowledge.
The first one occurs because some people write what they hear when they speak, so the 've becomes 'of'. It is very likely that given a grammar test with this a a question the teacher would produce the correct answer.
The second is a miscue where someone is thinking one thing and writing another. A common mistake but not one made when answering grammar questions on a test.
The third is an error and is often missed. But it falls back into the writing what we hear when we speak.
These errors seem to me to be a lot like the spelling thread in the off topic forum....proofreading problems rather than actual errors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Perhaps a teacher who makes "should have" sound like "should of" maybe should not be teaching conversation?
I don't care really, just a thought. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Scott in HK
Joined: 15 Jan 2003
Location: now in Incheon..haven't changed my name yet
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 09, 2005 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
But they don't...
The make should've...sound like should of...and it is a fairly common reduction....for all native speakers of English |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
Good, That's settled then. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
Perhaps a teacher who makes "should have" sound like "should of" maybe should not be teaching conversation?
I don't care really, just a thought. |
uh, 'should have' and 'should of' DO sound identical in casual speech. Where do you think 'should of' comes from?
I'd hope that any decent conversation/pronunciation teacher would be able to teach about schwas, weak forms, linking, sentence and word stress etc (ie, the real features of English pronunciation), rather than teaching an 'ideal' English that isn't spoken by any normal person.
I don't care either though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| Wangja wrote: |
Perhaps a teacher who makes "should have" sound like "should of" maybe should not be teaching conversation?
I don't care really, just a thought. |
uh, 'should have' and 'should of' DO sound identical in casual speech. Where do you think 'should of' comes from?
I'd hope that any decent conversation/pronunciation teacher would be able to teach about schwas, weak forms, linking, sentence and word stress etc (ie, the real features of English pronunciation), rather than teaching an 'ideal' English that isn't spoken by any normal person.
I don't care either though. |
I do know where "should of" comes from - although I confess the first time I saw it written did shock me.
But I disagree that "should've" and "should of" make an indetical sound.
When it is the contraction, is sounds more like SHOOD-euv. The word "of" always sounds like "ov" not "euv".
BTW, that's the only way I can describe the sounds, but I do know there is a formal method. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
I do know where "should of" comes from - although I confess the first time I saw it written did shock me.
But I disagree that "should've" and "should of" make an indetical sound.
When it is the contraction, is sounds more like SHOOD-euv. The word "of" always sounds like "ov" not "euv".
BTW, that's the only way I can describe the sounds, but I do know there is a formal method. |
Fair enough - but does the 'euv/ov' (/schwa +v/ or whatever in IPA/phonemic script) sound different when you compare the sound in 'I should've killed her' and 'She's sort of dead''? To me it doesn't. If it does to you, then I guess that's just your dialect. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hanson
Joined: 20 Oct 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Just because they sound the same doesn't mean teachers are to be excused for writing them the same. Teachers (especially teachers of English) should be held to a higher standard. It would be disconcerting to be a parent receiving the comments mentioned in that article - enough to make me want to have a chat with my kid's teacher. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Hanson wrote: |
| Just because they sound the same doesn't mean teachers are to be excused for writing them the same. Teachers (especially teachers of English) should be held to a higher standard. It would be disconcerting to be a parent receiving the comments mentioned in that article - enough to make me want to have a chat with my kid's teacher. |
Oh God, if ANYONE is actually writing 'should of' they should be fired on the spot.
Edit: from ANY job.
Last edited by gang ah jee on Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:59 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Wangja
Joined: 17 May 2004
Location: Seoul, Yongsan
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 4:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| gang ah jee wrote: |
| Wangja wrote: |
I do know where "should of" comes from - although I confess the first time I saw it written did shock me.
But I disagree that "should've" and "should of" make an indetical sound.
When it is the contraction, is sounds more like SHOOD-euv. The word "of" always sounds like "ov" not "euv".
BTW, that's the only way I can describe the sounds, but I do know there is a formal method. |
Fair enough - but does the 'euv/ov' (/schwa +v/ or whatever in IPA/phonemic script) sound different when you compare the sound in 'I should've killed her' and 'She's sort of dead''? To me it doesn't. If it does to you, then I guess that's just your dialect. |
No. it does not sound the same, that is the point. There is no excuse. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
gang ah jee
Joined: 14 Jan 2003
Location: city of paper
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 5:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Wangja wrote: |
| No. it does not sound the same, that is the point. There is no excuse. |
Apparently 3/5 of 5/8 of naff-all isn't very much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jajdude
Joined: 18 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 10, 2005 9:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I hear the 's is used wrongly "alot" (or a lot) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
babtangee
Joined: 18 Dec 2004
Location: OMG! Charlie has me surrounded!
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 11, 2005 2:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| talk about anal. Those teachers probably have to write hundreds of those reports in a two week period. Like they are going to concentrate on proper grammar. It's a freakin' report, not a critical essay. If I was a parent I'd be focusing on the content, not the appearance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
