On the effects of over-simplified rules

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 1:16 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:Lewis clearly states in "The English Verb" that the students will not be introduced to remoteness theory until they are fairly advanced; from which we can imply that they will first be "taught" the use of the Past Simple for Past Time, and it will only be at some time during the acquisition of the non-temporal uses of the Past Simple that they will be introduced to the concept of remoteness. I may add that at that stage it seems an exceptionally useful concept.

Rather than calling "the non-temporal uses of the Past Simple...remoteness", why not just say "This here isn't about/to do with the past" (if such a hint or reminder is necessary)?

Atréju · Post by **Atréju** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 8:37 pm

Well, I, student, don't see the need of teaching grammar rules, be they short or long...

Just so you know!

[The above was written in complete ignorance of explicit English rules of grammar.]

Metamorfose · Post by **Metamorfose** » Thu Dec 30, 2004 11:42 pm

Further reading on A Teacher's Grammar has shown that I will need take lots of time to digest it, it's rich, although not that comprehensive.

The school that I teach use its own methodology and as it is a series of textbooks created by Brazilians it's needless to say that all the Latin-system has been stuffed in it, so one gets all the annoying latin and graeco plural forms, gender distinctions (stallion and mare) as we would teach Portuguese.

I've been able to diminish the load of information in areas as the comparasion of adjectives and adverbs, I tell my pupils that some two syllable words can have either -er form or more before the word and they will surely come across both forms, but I'd rather teach them the more form.

Just for you to have any idea of the picture, at very earlier stages the coursebook presents students with how,like,since and as just because all of them match the Portuguese word como.

Here focus on written form are still given prior importance than the ones of pronunciation, but I am a foreigner speaker, I do lots of drills and oral exercises on each new item I teach to cement the form on them, yet being foreigner.

I'm really trying and experiencing to make sence of English rules, or rather, am trying to teach my students that indeed English is more logical than one first think, even my text book states that "English has destroyed logics."

José

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 12:28 am

Rather than calling "the non-temporal uses of the Past Simple...remoteness", why not just say "This here isn't about/to do with the past" (if such a hint or reminder is necessary)?

Because the closeness/remoteness polarization explains all the non-temporal uses of the past simple, and you would find it difficult to explain concisely when you use backchaining in reported speech for example without taking the concept into consideration.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:16 am

Referring back to Larry's post, he says that the problem is teachers telling students incomplete rules rather than them finding them for themselves. That is easy to solve. To combat the problems caused by that all we need to do is make sure to emphasize again and again that the rules are not complete. Unfortunately it has been traditional to teach rules as if they are written in stone. What other people do should not be allowed to warp what we do.

I think we must get beyond the stage of everything we do being a response to the actions of Latin and Greek obsessed cane wielding bigots, or grammar fanatics in the developing world. Modern teaching methods are as warped as them, because everything we do seems to be a counter-measure to what they do, or did.

By the way, if, as Atreju says, teaching does not require any knowledge of grammar, then it really is probably currently best performed by those who do not know any, no? Unlearn!

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:25 am

Stephen Jones wrote:Because the closeness/remoteness polarization explains all the non-temporal uses of the past simple, and you would find it difficult to explain concisely when you use backchaining in reported speech for example without taking the concept into consideration.

Reported speech isn't an area that's been discussed much, if at all, in relation to "remoteness"; and even if it has been, I'd still reckon that the co-text, in the context, would tell the student a lot more than so much wristflapping on the part of the teacher.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:59 am

Reported speech is very badly explained nearly everywhere.

What else but remoteness would you invoke to explain the difference between
He said he was coming tomorrow
and
He said he's coming tomorrow

For all the non-temporal uses, you can find an explanation that doesn't involve remoteness, but you end up with an unstructured pot pourri of one-off rules and ad hoc explanations.

There is also the psychological factor to consider. The authors of Metamorphose's textbook were presumably taught by the Buvard and Pécuchet school of grammarians who simply listed sub-rule after sub-rule and this explains their ridiculous, and anti-pedagogoc statement "English has destroyed logics [sic]."

Thje question is when to introduce the concept of remoteness. I believe it is counter-productuive to introduce it when they first come across non-temporal uses of the past simple, but when they know certain uses than they can be introduced to the concept that unifies the disparate examples. In the general order of English teaching I would say round about the time you teach either reported speech or the use of the second form of the modals (can you/could you?).

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 12:01 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:What else but remoteness would you invoke to explain the difference between
He said he was coming tomorrow
and
He said he's coming tomorrow

There would be no clear-cut difference in meaning between using either of those forms; and even if there was some doubt as to whether "he" was definitely coming, a reassurance wouldn't necessarily use or stress "is" over "was" or other, more "remote" forms (No, he said he'd definitely be here!).

The keywords here (to me) are "said" and "coming tomorrow" - the utterance is placed in the past (although it could be reported as "present" e.g. on the 'phone: He says he's coming tomorrow), and the "coming tomorrow" is...well I don't know what it is, but it isn't a finite verb!

Spank me gently, SJ!

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 4:27 pm

to understand the difference you need to realize that whilst the choice of tense is determined by the point of view of the speaker in reported speech there are two possible speakers to determine the tense - the original speaker whose direct speech is being reported and the speaker who is reporting it.

The difference between the use of the present and the past tense in the example given is how close/interested the reporter feels to the action. If he says
"He said he was coming tomorrow".
we can presume that either he, the person he is reporting to, or both, don't feel that close to/interesed in his coming.
If he says
"He said he's coming tomorrow".
we can presume his coming is closer in some way to the situation of the reporter and the person he is reporting to.

Now, you can explain this in another way, but the point about the remoteness concept is that is allows you to tie together all the non-temporal uses of the past simple and in the case of reported speech explains the choice of whether to backchain or not in every case where temporality is not an issue.

Andrew Patterson · Post by **Andrew Patterson** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 5:04 pm

I am a fan of the romoteness concept, however, I would argue that it is possible to interpret all forms of reported speach in a temporal sense.

When we report what someone said their speach might have been in the present tense, but we can argue that their speach did indeed happen before the time in which it was reported.

The reporter is also remote from the event so I think it can be interpreted either way.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 7:04 pm

Stephen wrote:...but the point about the remoteness concept is that [it] allows you to tie together all the non-temporal uses of the past simple

Bravo! But why limit this idea to "non-temporal" uses? Remoteness also explains temporal uses of Past Simple forms. So, why not just say that remotness explains all uses of Past Simple Tense? "Reported speech" included. Then we have an example of the "no exceptions" kind of rule we all are seeking.

Can anyone doubt the value of that?

Larry Latham

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:34 pm

The reason is Larry that it is simply not true. Temporality overrides remoteness. My (well the library) copy of the" English Verb" is in the staffroom at the moment but Lewis himself gives a very clear example of this, and then acts as if it doesn't happen.

There is no way Larry you can make me think that
The wave swept away all my family just a second ago
can be construed as being more remote than
Haley's comet next arrives in 170 years time.
yet is is impossible to substitute 'sweeps' for 'swept' in that sentence.

The main problem with Lewis is that he has this strange quais-religious belief that there is one explanation. Often there neither is nor need be. When he tries to make up some kind of core meaning for modality he makes a complete ass of himself.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 8:37 pm

When we report what someone said their speach might have been in the present tense, but we can argue that their speach did indeed happen before the time in which it was reported.

The reporter is also remote from the event so I think it can be interpreted either way.

Correct, but you need to concept of remoteness to concisely explain why one sometimes backchains and sometimes doesn't.
The difference between the two senteices I gave cannot be explained in a temporal sense.

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 10:49 pm

Stephen wrote:There is no way Larry you can make me think that
The wave swept away all my family just a second ago
can be construed as being more remote than
Haley's comet next arrives in 170 years time.
yet is is impossible to substitute 'sweeps' for 'swept' in that sentence.

Well, Stephen, it might be that there is no way I can make you think anything at all. However, you might read that copy of The English Verb reposing in your staff room once again. Lewis explains it in a way that is crystal clear to me, and should be to anyone else who pauses just a moment to reflect.

Lewis says that use of past simple indicates the user's concept of a remote fact. Only one of your sentences above could be construed by the speaker as a remote fact, and that one contains the past simple tense verb. The other sentence, though "remote" in the sense of far away, could not be interpreted as a fact, as it hasn't happened. Your assertion that, "...yet is is impossible to substitute 'sweeps' for 'swept' in that sentence", is exactly right, of course, because such a substitution would create an unmarked sentence. How could any person utter such a sentence and leave it unmarked? Impossible to imagine. It is--must be--marked by remoteness.

Larry Latham

LarryLatham · Post by **LarryLatham** » Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:10 pm

It is New Years Eve here in So. Cal.

Despite the devestating events in south Asia in the last few days, let us hope that the worst is now behind us, and that relief efforts gradually improve the lives of those who survived. I cannot begin to imagine what kind of life remains for many of them, but we all can hope that it gets better from here, even if the improvement is slow to come. So when I say a heartfelt, "Happy New Year" to all, I mean my wishes are that 2005 means better lives ahead. Better than now, if not better than they were a week ago.

Happy New Year, everyone.

Larry Latham