Korean Job Discussion Forums

[coolsage]

[EFLtrainer]

[n3ptne]

wanna is one syllable...

but i do agree that such slang should be eradicated from the korean vernacular. its one thing to use the term intentionally, quite another to subsitute it for proper tense.

oh, and what ocean? theres only one...

[Maserial]

[Mr. Kalgukshi]

[baldrick]

[the_beaver]

[n3ptne]

Someone messaged me a question asking, more specifically, exactly what I've been doing... it grew to be long so I figured I'd post it here.

And wanna could be technically one or two syllables, though one would be more correct. "WAH-NA" is obtuse, the essence of slang to reduce meaning so that a concept can more easily roll of the tongue. Since "wanna" is the combination of "WANT TO" (two syllables), it really becomes one (or two), said quickly. Though I see where the argument could be made that, even if said quickly as one, it remains as two in regards to what a syllable is, a speech pattern of stresses and naturally created pauses.

Furthermore, I don't believe it is our job to teach slang, or to "reduce" the language. The reduction happens beyond anyone�s ability or comprehension, it is a natural progression that runs as a function of having hundreds of millions of people speaking it. There is High English, and there is normal conversational English. Wanna is unacceptable in the former, but because of its lyrical advantage it is highly effective in the latter and for the instance of writing, especially to keep accuracy in dialogue, it is not only effective, but the preferred method. Never forget that teachers teach the language to those who will use it. Writers change the language, and in fifty years the teachers will revise their system (after bitching about it the entire time) to accommodate said changes. Look at �ain�t� if you don�t believe me� two hundred years ago it wasn�t considered a �word�, now it�s easily found in most dictionaries. That wasn�t a function of its perpetuation as a device of slang, but by the use of it by famous writers who could not be ignored by academia. Essentially, the teachers had to come up with an explanation for it� and teach �ain�t�: Thus standardizing it.

Now on to the post�

I don't do it in my main classes either, too large and I focus on pronunciation... though I do introduce new concepts and have taught all of them the phonetical sysetm (like... this is what a similie is, lets all make one, etc), and when we run out of things to do based on the syllabus, I have them pronounce words in turns and then look up the definition. If they do it properly, they get a piece of candy. No more hangman/bingo/scrabble/crap.

Later in the evenings I have 1-1 and 1-2 sessions, and I use it there. I give them a book and have them read a paragraph out loud. Then I read the paragraph out loud and they stop me whenever they don't understand a word. Afterwards I have them tell me what they think the word means based on how it appears and is used.

For instance the other day a student of mine didn't know the definition of "hut", when used similarly to this "I thought of the hut I lived in and of the forest behind it". So I led him by asking questions like this:

What is a hut? What do we know about it, what has the author told us about it?
>That he lives in it.

Ok good, he lives in it, right (lots of positive reinforcement), good job. Now where is the hut located? What�s it by?
>A forest.

Very good. Now try and remember, what kind of job does the main character do. What does he do everyday?
>A Hunter.

Great, so we know that it�s a house by the forest that a hunter lives in. We know all that because... (Then point out where the sentences are, before and after and read them out loud that contain information about the word hut)... Now, what tell me what you think a hut looks like? (And hand them a pen for a little picture).

He drew a small house with trees behind it. Then I asked questions like "is a hut big? does it have nice furniture? etc, etc." All of which he answered correctly. In the event a student doesn't, I rephrase the same questions and restate the information until they figure it out. Then we look up the definition in a Korean/English dictionary and the student gets all happy because they figured it out "all by themselves". Gotta build their security of they're NEVER gonna read on their own, which is really the key to the whole thing.

Since we've just started last week I am going to continue taking as much time as necessary on each unknown word until my students get comfortable and used to thinking on their own. Already one of them, who�s quite good, is way past such a simple stage.

He read a sentence that talked about the main character having a touch of arthritis in his left foot, a result of an old shot wound that healed up years ago.

He didn't know what arthritis or wound meant, but took initiative and told me that he thought a wound was an injury, since it was something that healed up years ago. Then he told me that arthritis must being something "wrong" with his left foot as a result of being shot. Then we looked up both words, he saw he was right, and moved swiftly on.

First time introducing the exercise you'll be lucky to make it through an entire paragraph with the student having a full understanding of exactly what�s going on, what everything means, and being able to pronounce everything accurately. But that changes very rapidly, or, will sooner than later if you have the appropriate reading material. At the moment I wouldn't think of letting the students take the books home, they just aren't ready yet, but maybe in a week or two. Also I plan to "read" ahead of them, makes notes of any words I know they won't understand and look up the Korean definition to write it down and save time in class.

I really want to get one of those pocket translators. Anyone know how much they run? A student of mine uses his in class and it works like a charm.

Oh, last thing� you are, to whomever said that we don�t learn by literature� 100% wrong. Your opinions are crap and you are a bad teacher. Literally hundreds of citations exist that completely contradict them� you yourself are an example of one whose learned by reading, you just don�t realize it. I don�t mean to offend you, but that is honestly the absolute worst opinion I have ever seen formed about the English language, especially by a teacher, and one that I have no idea as to how it was formed. Basically a similar analogy would be a swimmer who doesn't believe that the first step to winning a race is by getting wet.

[ddeubel]

N3ptne and those other petty tyrants.

There is no one way to teach, learn Ennnnnglish. It is personal and mostly happens through ATTENTION whether that be a book, a website, a person (the best), a newspaper or speaking to oneself in the mirror.

Sorry I am in a bad mood. Too many people pretending to know it all and say...............this is the way. It is simple....make the student really WANT
to learn and leave all the wavelength theory at home...Works fine for poets and mother tonguers -- nada for the workin joe hoping to get a higher salary......build a better universe somewhere else....

DD

Beaver, keep cutting down those trees. You are picking the right ones...[/list]

[n3ptne]

No dude... you learn by reading (if you dont live in an English speaking country), its the best and only way. A person can only teach a nonspeaker so much, sentence structure, etc. The rest has to be done by the student through their own initiative, reading...

The wave thing isnt a theory... its how we speak, its why we speak... its why we say "back and forth" instead of the more literally accurate "forth and back" (though we say "to and fro" (literally accurate) instead of "fro and to" (same as back and forth)) Its WHY English is such a complex language, because we don't say what we mean, we say what sounds "good" and attach meaning. Only place someone can learn that aspect... is through literature, and conveinently enough.. the students want to read, they get just as bored as I do with these BS workbooks.

[Mr. Kalgukshi]

[EFLtrainer]

[Zenpickle]

[EFLtrainer]

[baldrick]

Beaver wrote: