So what do you tell/show them?If I teach future, I teach "going to" and "will". I don't describe at that level how you can use one for spur of the moment stuff (I'll do it!) and how the other can be used for predictions like "I see the black clouds. It's going to rain."
Toward regularisation
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
Such "creativity" only leads to confusion in later levels - as shown here.I see metal's view on "two pasts." I don't think I would call that a rule---as if it were presented in a textbook somewhere. I think it was someone's simplified attempt to explain a rule from his or her own creative perspective, albeit obviously misleading, as Lorikeet points out.
I don't mind teachers simplyfying things, but what I do object to is teachers using the word "rule" when they are teaching partial-rules or half-baked hints.
Ask teachers for the rule on the use of "some" and "any" and you can be sure that 70% of them will mouth the age old rule of "some for affirmative statements, and any for questions and negative statements", which is not a rule at all. Then, much later, students are confronted with usage that does not fit what they thought was a rule. They become cofused are begin doubting the wisdom of English grammar rules. Yes, partial rules or classroom hints should be taught as just that and not as rules per se.
One good example of "rules for a certain level" is the classic "lists of verbs not normally used in the continuous". R.A. Close says:
But I think I'm preaching to the converted here.The teacher must distinguish between helpful advice and absolute statement. He [or she!] would be justified in advising his [or her!] pupils not to use know, remember etc in the ...ing form of the verb until they are more advanced. He would be wrong in making them learn a "rule" to the effect that these words are not used in the progressive form at all.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
The basic problem of giving rules at a lower level is that the teacher actually has to know more than if he was giving them at the higher level, and that is not the case.
You can pretty well be sure that "I'm knowing" is never used (remember that reading Shun is perjudicial to the grammardar) -- Google gives 55 hits to three and a half million for I know --- but "I'm hearing" is very common, and "I'm understanding" gets a quarter of a million hits, 5% of "I understand".
You can pretty well be sure that "I'm knowing" is never used (remember that reading Shun is perjudicial to the grammardar) -- Google gives 55 hits to three and a half million for I know --- but "I'm hearing" is very common, and "I'm understanding" gets a quarter of a million hits, 5% of "I understand".
But do you get beginners to examine the semantics of the verb know to establish that it wouldn't usually be logical is the progressive aspect, or do you tell them not to use it in the progressive and go into the whys and wherefores when they'll be knowing enough language to make the necessary comparisons and analyses? 
Actually, I just checked the Cobuild Concordance and Collocations Sampler, and in all be one of the examples of BE+knowing it threw up, knowing was a gerund e.g. the hardest thing is knowing what to do.
Actually, I just checked the Cobuild Concordance and Collocations Sampler, and in all be one of the examples of BE+knowing it threw up, knowing was a gerund e.g. the hardest thing is knowing what to do.
Indicidentally, I get questions in Taiwan all the time about McDonald's "I'm loving it." They want to know why they don't follow the rules. I tell them it is rhetoric and emphasis, or just having fun with words. I think it is dialect, isn't it? I remember my dad saying that when really emphasizing the fact — and that was before McDonalds came out with it.
On the standarization question, is there anyone who wants a standard consensus board like in France, where no English words — or words from other languages, I assume — are allowed?
On the American side, we used to have standard-English authorities. It was called the dictionary. Once upon a time, our dictionaries, though they differed as to what different kinds of information they offered, i.e., maps, almanac information, etc., they were all pretty consistent about usage. They didn't shy away from giving guidance. They were authoritative and could settle arguments rather than engender them. As they were prescriptionist in nature, there were few arguments or debates about what was or wasn't standard grammar — until 1961.
That was when Websters 3rd edition followed Great Britain's linguistic philosophy and the Oxford Dictionary, the granddaddy of linguist dictionaries. That American dictionary unleashed hell and chaos when it was published this side of the Atlantic. Editors, on the spot, made sudden decisions to change their model dictionary after that. Ever since then, all the dictionaries have been hijacked by the linguist thinking; and the language wars have continued unabated. Linguist dictionaries are just a composite of words ever spoken by anyone claiming to be native speaker whether intentional or accidental; informed and educated or ignorant; or whether dialect or not. It is no more an authority on standard English as it is an authority on mere data compilation, a list of cold data. One has to be aware of that when looking up words in the dictionary; they are still good for telling you what words are that you don't know, but they're not good for solving questions about usage or for guidance on effective writing or speaking. One must depend on grammar usage books for that, nowadays. There are still people who buy old dictionaries today, even though the language has changed, because of the rich guidance and the precision of definitions.
As with politics and philosophical trends, there is a movement, still incipient, toward the other direction. Bill Gate's new Encarta gives much more advice and caution to users than any mainstream dictionary today. I wouldn't say it is prescriptionist, but it certainly is less descriptivist. A truly prescriptionist dictionary published today would probably be a breath of fresh air, prove to be historic, and rock foundations (like the 1961 dictionary did), as there is a monopoly and seems to be little competition in the area now.
On the standarization question, is there anyone who wants a standard consensus board like in France, where no English words — or words from other languages, I assume — are allowed?
On the American side, we used to have standard-English authorities. It was called the dictionary. Once upon a time, our dictionaries, though they differed as to what different kinds of information they offered, i.e., maps, almanac information, etc., they were all pretty consistent about usage. They didn't shy away from giving guidance. They were authoritative and could settle arguments rather than engender them. As they were prescriptionist in nature, there were few arguments or debates about what was or wasn't standard grammar — until 1961.
That was when Websters 3rd edition followed Great Britain's linguistic philosophy and the Oxford Dictionary, the granddaddy of linguist dictionaries. That American dictionary unleashed hell and chaos when it was published this side of the Atlantic. Editors, on the spot, made sudden decisions to change their model dictionary after that. Ever since then, all the dictionaries have been hijacked by the linguist thinking; and the language wars have continued unabated. Linguist dictionaries are just a composite of words ever spoken by anyone claiming to be native speaker whether intentional or accidental; informed and educated or ignorant; or whether dialect or not. It is no more an authority on standard English as it is an authority on mere data compilation, a list of cold data. One has to be aware of that when looking up words in the dictionary; they are still good for telling you what words are that you don't know, but they're not good for solving questions about usage or for guidance on effective writing or speaking. One must depend on grammar usage books for that, nowadays. There are still people who buy old dictionaries today, even though the language has changed, because of the rich guidance and the precision of definitions.
As with politics and philosophical trends, there is a movement, still incipient, toward the other direction. Bill Gate's new Encarta gives much more advice and caution to users than any mainstream dictionary today. I wouldn't say it is prescriptionist, but it certainly is less descriptivist. A truly prescriptionist dictionary published today would probably be a breath of fresh air, prove to be historic, and rock foundations (like the 1961 dictionary did), as there is a monopoly and seems to be little competition in the area now.
Last edited by jotham on Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:14 pm, edited 4 times in total.
-
mrandmrsjohnqsmith
- Posts: 48
- Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:56 pm
- Location: Japan
Binding Theory
Apparently, binding of reflexives provides an area of debate for/against the Universal Grammar theory. Hamilton published a mind-bending study on this, and the literature refers to several other relevant studies as well. It's a little over my head (understatement), but basically her findings supported UG.
Hamilton, R. (1998). Underdetermined binding of reflexives by adult Japanese-speaking learners of English. Second Language Research, 14/3, 292-320
Hamilton, R. (1998). Underdetermined binding of reflexives by adult Japanese-speaking learners of English. Second Language Research, 14/3, 292-320
For me, I'm loving it means "I'm enjoying myself". So you could quite grammatically sit in McDonald's and say "I'm loving it (i.e. while I'm here - temporary situation)" as opposed to "I love it (i.e. going to McDonald's - general truth, regardless of whether I'm sitting in a McDonald's at the moment of speaking)". So they are following the rules, just not the overgeneralisations that your Taiwanese have been led to believe is gospel.
Whether or not you could say it truthfully, of course, will depend on your age and taste.
Whether or not you could say it truthfully, of course, will depend on your age and taste.
But I think I'm preaching to the converted here.[/quote]lolwhites wrote:One good example of "rules for a certain level" is the classic "lists of verbs not normally used in the continuous". R.A. Close says...
I agree with Close: don't speak about rules unless that which you are describing is a rule.
One of the main ways of explaining the use is to give a list of such verbs and then say "we don't use verbs like that in the progressive". Students, from a certain age up, will ask why. They might even ask what "verbs like that" means. If the teacher has an explanation, all well and good, but if he/she can only say "because we do" or "you'll find out later", for me, he/she is a poor teacher.But do you get beginners to examine the semantics of the verb know to establish that it wouldn't usually be logical is the progressive aspect, or do you tell them not to use it in the progressive and go into the whys and wherefores when they'll be knowing enough language to make the necessary comparisons and analyses?
The BNC threw up only these:lolwhites wrote:For me, I'm loving it means "I'm enjoying myself". So you could quite grammatically sit in McDonald's and say "I'm loving it (i.e. while I'm here - temporary situation)" as opposed to "I love it (i.e. going to McDonald's - general truth, regardless of whether I'm sitting in a McDonald's at the moment of speaking)". So they are following the rules, just not the overgeneralisations that your Taiwanese have been led to believe is gospel.
4 HY6 How do I best practise it and know that I am loving God? " The systematic answers reveal that love is essentially in
5 K52 . "Football is a game of chance and I am loving every minute of it. I can see signs of improvement throughout