Swan speaks, Widdowson waffles

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 2:21 am

fluffyhamster wrote:Nobody is rejecting your first two ("another route?" and "lost?" sort of examples, where the facts are not yet known, by the way.

If I may say so myself, I think my "notation" there would be quite useful in these sorts of discussions (the "question" mark indicates the outcome is still actually open/unknown/incomplete, to which we might in contrast use an exclamation mark e.g. "fallen!" (='You could have fallen.')).

Actually, only joking, because in every example that's been introduced on this thread (excluding Swan's), the additional (con)text that's supplied helps convey the intended meaning beyond any doubt.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:12 am

Metamorfose wrote:The only drawback (if it is really a drawback) is the fact that when one tries to be creative in this manner, mainly when it comes to coursebooks, they run the risk of being silly or even ridiculous to say the least, you know, the author might intend some effect and it may turn out to something totally unpredicted, I mean, instead of a weird and catchy example it can sound disgusting, what do you think?

I think Widdowson makes a valid point about the value of the (truly creative? Or just so-called "creative"? KISS!) language in children's textbooks for the children...but then again, nobody has ever been seriously suggesting that we give them photocopies from The Economist instead.

Widdowson starts to sound like he's waffling and handwaving, casting around for convincing arguments, a bit though, when he continually tries in his more recent writings to downplay the value of computerized corpora...but again, what he has to say will have served its purpose if it's read by the sort of teacher who would otherwise simply dump lots of random 'authentic text' into the classroom ('Ere's a fotocopy from th'konomist, 'av a look at it and sircall anyfink ya dunnos').

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 3:40 am

Dammit, what exactly have I been banging on about (about decontextualized examples)? Swan's example has two instances of 'you', and that great stonking 'You were stupid to go climbing there' too...

However, I still think 'could/might' sounds better and is more symmetrical (with 'were') than 'may' (although one could argue that we are actually looking at 'may have', which is perfective, which blah blah blah), and "reserving" the 'may' for that e.g. "lost?" function I mentioned would leave the average listener's or reader (probably they form a majority) unfazed (especially if it was ever an e.g. printed decontextualized sentence they'd been forced to ponder for whatever strange reason - part of the reason I forgot Swan's still not entirely satisfactory (to me) sentence wasn't decontextualized is partly because it's "natural" to focus on the modal, and partly because of the seemingly endless discussion of conflicting (often decontextualized) "minimal" pairs of "examples" that we often have on Dave's, the style of which discussion I unwittingly began to perpetuate in my own mind at least on this very thread, such is the force of this Dave's/ESL "habit"!).

Anyway/so, yea or nay to "Swan's" abomination?

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:28 am

fluffyhamster wrote:OK (and thanks for all that, metal), but Swan's example is not so obviously a conditional (I suppose I am more willing, at least subconsciously, to process and accept the 'may have' for "logical possibility" when it's accompanied by an if-clause), and you still haven't told us whether YOU think the use of 'may have' THERE (in Swan's "bare, unaccompanied" example) really makes sense and is acceptable to YOU.
For me, "you may have hurt yourself" is used when the speaker cannot confirm the facts.

Same here:

"You may have hurt yourself when you were playing football. I'd go to the doctor's if I were you."

i.e. You may now be hurt. ("may" present time and possibility)

Other than that:

"You might have hurt yourself when you were playing football. I'd go to the doctor's if I were you."

("might" present time and more remote possibility.)

"You might/could have hurt yourself playing with those fireworks like that! In fact, you are very lucky that you didn't."

("might" past time and remote possibility. "Could have" being a less remote possibility, but sharing the same time reference as "might have".)

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:42 am

what he has to say will have served its purpose if it's read by the sort of teacher who would otherwise simply dump lots of random 'authentic text' into the classroom ('Ere's a fotocopy from th'konomist, 'av a look at it and sircall anyfink ya dunnos').

I teach Corporate Bankers, Business Analysts and Ambassadors. I use The Economist in many of my classes. Often, it's not what you use, it's how you use it.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:45 am

That's a pretty good summary there, metal. Add some extra-clear phrasing/explanation, some fancy fonts with a splash of colour, some paper, and finally a flashy glossy binding and you'd be able to take on Swan in the marketplace! (Personally though, I'd advise hitting the Bespectacled One with a goat or pig or some tacky but heavy touristy sort of ornament, or whatever else comes to hand in said marketplace, rather than with a paperback).

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:47 am

fluffyhamster wrote:Dammit, what exactly have I been banging on about (about decontextualized examples)? Swan's example has two instances of 'you', and that great stonking 'You were stupid to go climbing there' too...

However, I still think 'could/might' sounds better and is more symmetrical (with 'were') than 'may' (although one could argue that we are actually looking at 'may have', which is perfective, which blah blah blah), and "reserving" the 'may' for that e.g. "lost?" function I mentioned would leave the average listener's or reader (probably they form a majority) unfazed (especially if it was ever an e.g. printed decontextualized sentence they'd been forced to ponder for whatever strange reason - part of the reason I forgot Swan's still not entirely satisfactory (to me) sentence wasn't decontextualized is partly because it's "natural" to focus on the modal, and partly because of the seemingly endless discussion of conflicting (often decontextualized) "minimal" pairs of "examples" that we often have on Dave's, the style of which discussion I unwittingly began to perpetuate in my own mind at least on this very thread, such is the force of this Dave's/ESL "habit"!).

Anyway/so, yea or nay to "Swan's" abomination?

You've been banging on about a little grammar "error" that is committed by, you and Swan say, young people. Maybe you should look at your own usage regarding breaking your discourse into sentences of a reasonable length. Time well spent, IMO.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:49 am

metal56 wrote:For me, "you may have hurt yourself" is used when the speaker cannot confirm the facts.

Same here:

"You may have hurt yourself when you were playing football. I'd go to the doctor's if I were you."

i.e. You may now be hurt. ("may" present time and possibility)

Hmm, I think the fact that you used subordination, while Swan presented two separate sentences ('You were stupid to go climbing there. You may have killed yourself') had something to do with my "refusal" to process what "Swan" was saying.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:54 am

Yeah I bang on and on sometimes, but at least people will then be able to see genuine "discovery processes" at work rather than having to figure out what the Brilliant One (usually but not always you) means half the time in more enigmatic posts.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 8:56 am

metal56 wrote:
what he has to say will have served its purpose if it's read by the sort of teacher who would otherwise simply dump lots of random 'authentic text' into the classroom ('Ere's a fotocopy from th'konomist, 'av a look at it and sircall anyfink ya dunnos').
I teach Corporate Bankers, Business Analysts and Ambassadors. I use The Economist in many of my classes. Often, it's not what you use, it's how you use it.

Well, how DO you use it? Do you put on a posher voice, then, or what?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:06 am

metal56 wrote:You've been banging on about a little grammar "error" that is committed by, you and Swan say, young people.

So you definitely don't view it as an error (or even a strange usage), then. Me, I should read back through things again (especially your posts!) and make sure I get my head around everything before saying anything else (I've probably said quite "enough" already LOL).

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 01, 2005 11:28 am

How's this:

1a) *You were stupid to go climbing there. You may have killed yourself. (Speaker adds nothing more, to which listener climber will at least think if not respond, 'But I'm still alive, as you can well see! Duh!').

1b) You were stupid to go climbing there. You might/could have killed yourself. (Listener responds, 'You worry too much!').

2a) ?You were stupid to go climbing there. You may have hurt yourself. (Ambiguous without further speech, or elaboration by puzzled EFL teachers).

2b) You were stupid to go climbing there. You may have hurt yourself. Yes, I see you are limping, here, let me have a look at you.

Semantics of the verbs...hmm...