Korean Job Discussion Forums

[n3ptne]

Lately I've been stumped...

One of my on the job pet peeves is to help my students rectify sloppy a/the usage problems, and I'm sure I'm not the only teacher who sees this.

I've managed to come up with a semi-solid premise behind the concepts that exist, by which English speakers naturally differentiate between usage, but I'm coming up short for a justification on why we don't use them at times.

1. I need to go to bank - (Konglish)
2. I need to go to a bank - (Proper, the concept being that while you need to go to a bank, there isn't one in paticular that you need to go to [in order to do whatever it is you need to do])
3. I need to go to the bank - (Proper, the concept being that you need to go to a specific bank, or franchise, in order to accomplish what needs doing)

Essentially, the concept behind A is any, and the concept behind THE is one. THE also implies assumed prior knowledge:

Q. Where were you on Tuesday?

A: I was at party - (Konglish)
A: I was at a party - (Proper, the concept being that you were at one specific party, but as that as all parties are the same (any) it indirectly implies that the person answering doesn't believe the person questioning has former knowledge of the party)
A: I was at the party - (Proper, the concept being that you were at one specific party, as above, but also that you know the questioner is aware of what party you are referencing)

Now, so far I'm somewhat happy with the explanation, but if the noun is changed so does the article... and implications, and basically the 'concrete' a/the theory above falls completely apart.

A: I was at the golf course. (Proper, implies no prior knowledge of which golf course, but is definately specific to a single one)
A: I was at a golf course. (Proper in a grammatic sense, but irregular in speech. Is essentially the same as using "the")

A: I was at/with a friend['s]. (Proper, implies no prior knowledge of which friend, but definately implies a specific one)
A: I was at/with the friend['s] (Not even sure if it is proper. Highly irregular, but definately, in concept, implies a single one with no implied prior knowledge (the seems to become a part of the name, i.e. I was with "the govenor"))

A: I was at [my] home. (Proper)
A: I was at the home. (?, implies one home with prior knowledge, seems to become part of the name)
A: I was at a home. (?, implies one home with no prior knowledge)

A: I was at [my] baseball practice. (Proper)
A: I was at the baseball pratice.
A: I was at a baseball practice. (Implies someone's practice other than your own)

So......

Yeh, I'm a bit confused. It would seem that a/the are omitted when MY is indicated, when either omitted, in the circumstance of "home", or when present, such as "[I was at my] party".

I would then go on to argue that a/the are somewhat interchangebale, at times, but often completely different in implication depending on what they refer to. For example "I was at a golf course" is "proper", except that it implies a sort of evasiveness, a subtle indication that the answerer doesn't want the questioner to know which golf course.

Also... in the instance of "bar"... I wasn't at the bar/I wasn't at a bar are the same, and niether imply (colloquially) any specific single location. If changed to "restaurant", the implies a single restaurant, a does not. Is this because we use the phrase "the bar" in a loose sense, making "bar" proper and including "the" as part of the "name"?

S: Were you at the bar?
A: I wasn't at the bar.
A: I wasn't at a bar.

S: I'm going to the bar after work. (doesn't imply a specific one, only that you are specifically going)
S: I'm going to a bar after work. (insinuates evasiveness)

Maybe it would be best to eradicate the idea of a "concrete" a/the theory.

And about about sports? I'm playing basketball, I'm playing the basketball, I'm playing a basketball. I'm going to baseball game, I'm going to the baseball game, I'm going to a baseball game... etc.

Fin' dictionary has 14 varied listings for the, and 3 for a, and that isn't even including the possible substitutions/all too common crossovers... is there any sane way to approach teaching them to kids? Tricks, etc?

I'm washing the car. (implies the car is mine, yours, ours, or someone whose ownership is known, the takes the place of the adjective.)
I'm washing a car.
I'm washing car.

Bah.

[Ya-ta Boy]

There's a book called 'The Article Book' that lists 50 (yes, fifty) rules for the uses of a, an and the. It's quite useful in dealing with this problem.

[n3ptne]

Whose it by? Can I get it on Amazon?

I'm not as interested in the rules as I am in the logic that goes behind their implementation.

English is a fucked up language.

[some waygug-in]

How about the problem of new teachers who start habitually omiting articles in their everyday conversations.

This is driving me up the wall. The new guy now assumes that Koreans can't understand anything he says unless he omits all articles.
What is the use of having a native speaker who's going to speak pidgeon English to them? He even does it to the Korean English teachers (who are quite fluent). If I were them, I would feel insulted by it.

[SuperHero]

Teaching proper article usage is fine and dandy however expecting your students to fully acquire it is fruitless. Article acquistion is one of the final language bits fully acquired by learners - do some research into order of acquisition and you'll fully understand this.

Order of Acquisition is also most likely behind English speakers problems with particles in Korean.

[Bee Positive]

Surely I can't be alone in thinking that articles can be fiendishly difficult even for us native speakers.

We're just scratching the surface with British "in hospital" versus American "in THE hospital."

On a purely logical consideration, I like the British usage. But there is, I think, a certain logic to the fact that you're only in ONE hospital at a time--you know, THE hospital--and so, "She was hit by a car and was in the hospital for a week."

Of course, if we haven't yet established WHICH hospital that was, then, sure, the Brits have some logic on their side in saying simply "in hospital."

But American usage dictates that the article be included. It's a set phrase.

If it were purely a matter of logic, article usage would be straightforward--if not necessarily simple. But usage muddies the waters for us.

In (the) future, I hope to give the matter more thought . . .



BEE POSITIVE

[EFLtrainer]

[mindmetoo]

My mantra for my essay kids, when they forget articles, is "X IS A NOUN, MOST SINGLE NOUNS NEED A 'THE' OR 'A'."

They're actually pretty good with articles and countable/non countable nouns when they spend a second to think about it. But they're just lazy.

[n3ptne]

Nono, perhaps most of you have confused my intent.

I, as a native speaker, am perfectly able to differentiate between a/the similarities and usage when I am either hearing them or speaking them. In the case they are both "the same" (i.e. golf course) the difference, to me, in their usage is the intent of the speaker, namely that of an 'unimplied' will that 'the specific place' not be named. It's a psychological thing, if this example were to crop up in a conversation, "the" would most likely be used with a friend or close associate, while "a" would most likely be used with an employee, or person of distant acquaintance.

Essentially the variation is subconscious in some sets of examples, and in others a rule of logic (hospital, friend, etc.)

What I am interested in discussing, and contemplating, through my time in Korea is exactly how native speakers are able to "comprehend" the seemingly endless list of "rules" when it comes to A/The usage, as I gaurantee all but few of us know them... and yet, this doesn't stop us from (mostly) perfect use of them.

There has to be some sort of logical approach that we use, whether it being a function of "thinking" in English, being well read, or having years of practice, etc. Teaching that logical approach would be the best way to teach a Korean, I have no delusions of even trying to teach (or expect them to be capable of being taught) the 15 Dictionary cited rules, let alone the other uncited 40.

And yet, I notice with my Korean friends, the ones who speak English rather well... A/The usage isn't an issue, they do it rather well. Hmmm.

The reason I put up so many examples between -A/The, A, and The is simply to demonstrate the possible variations on speech, but of course, few of them ever happen. As for the bar one? Where I come from "the bar" is only indicative that you were at a bar, not a specific/usual one, but usually (though not always) a bar that is "known" in the area (i.e. popular). In the event you were at an "unknown" and "unspecific" bar, you would (again where I'm from) almost always say "I was at some bar". But again, usage in the situation would vary depending on who you were speaking to. To a close friend, "some bar", to a guy working at 7-11, "the bar" (even though it was some weird unknown bar).

[some waygug-in]

The short answer is that it's because we don't concentrate on rules when we speak, we concentrate on the meaning. Since English is our native tongue, we naturally understand the meaning, so we don't even consider the why or the mechanics of the language.

We don't try to make any rules as to how or why we use them. Only grammarians and foolish EFLers like me try to do that.

Why not make some activities where your students will have to use them correctly as practice.

In other words, instead of cloze type exercises where they have to decide what to use and will probably make a mistake, give them complete sentences to read so that they will be repeating the pattern as they use it in conversation. Songs, readings, dialogues with the proper articles already there. Games that have the correct articles in place so the student can use it naturally.

[n3ptne]

I agree, but its a bit of a double edged sword...

We make rules to justify the meaning and method of speech... then we use those rules to say what is and isn't correct... until such a time that everyone is doing it, and then we make or get rid of a rule (usually make, grammarians HATE getting rid of, and making I might add)..

I do have them "practice" the correct way, but I'm much more concentrated in my effort to make them think, I usually ask them lots of leading questions so that they can figure it out on their own. Three months ago I basically had to tell them the answer in the form of a question for them to repeat the question, but over time they're getting better and thinking more on the own... plus asking me questions like "Why do you do this, and not that"

[EFLtrainer]

[some waygug-in]

You're right. But a cloze exercise probably won't do much for them.

Something like a Mario Rivonuchi grammar snap game might be useful.
(sorry about the spelling)

He has the directions for the game in his "grammar games" book.

cheers

[Chow]

I find I have greater success teaching articles if I treat them as part of the bigger group of determiners (articles, possessives, demonstratives).

You will run into the same type of problems, eventually, but (at least in my experience) less often and less confusing for the teacher and the student.

If a student (and more importantly, the teacher) understands the difference between definite and indefinite as it applies to determiners, and if they have a general understanding of countable and uncountable nouns, singular and plural, and all that, the articles will come more naturally to them.

There are, of course, a few things that they will just have to memorize but the list is shorter than one might think.

[Binch Lover]

ECC has a new slogan "Building for the great future". To me that doesn't make any sense since by definition the future is unknown. I think it's hilarious that one of the biggest schools can make stupid mistakes like that when they employ a couple of hundred native speakers. Bunch of retards...