I think we should teach the minimum of meta-language but there is some it would be difficult to do without. Verb, auxiliary, subject for example.
Incidentally I always refer to the '-ing' form because I think it's more scientific than gerund or present participle.
Need for metalanguage?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
I think the French must be related to Chinese and Koreans. Most of my students insist on using metalanguage, the more complicated the better. I usually tell them they don't have to worry about what it's called as long as they can use it correctly, which they all have problems with. No, I'm not saying the metalanguage doesn't matter. But when students can't use the grammar for talking about it, something is amiss.lolwhites wrote:Here in France they seem to love unnecessary, complicated grammatical terminology (the more complicated the better, in fact) and sometimes don't feel they really understand something until they have a long name for it.
-
JuanTwoThree
- Posts: 947
- Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2004 11:30 am
- Location: Spain
I broadly agree that if the goal is to learn one language the metalanguage can be kept down to a necessary minimum. But a justification for metalanguage is that by studying one foreign language you end up with the tools to look at your own and others.
Despite my traditional Brit education we only learnt the grammar of foreign languages: Latin, French and a little Ancient Greek in some cases, but never English itself.
This certainly helped me to look at English and learn German and Spanish later, though perhaps only because I learnt these in a similar way at first.
If and how much every last one of these imported terms (like infinitive or gerund) apply to English though is another matter. As is the sheer obscurantism of the terminology:
"The adjective goes before the noun. Now the Present Continuous"
Nevertheless I wonder how to explain briefly why:
The man I saw yesterday wore a hat
is right, but:
The man saw me yesterday wore a hat
is not without using the word "subject".
Despite my traditional Brit education we only learnt the grammar of foreign languages: Latin, French and a little Ancient Greek in some cases, but never English itself.
This certainly helped me to look at English and learn German and Spanish later, though perhaps only because I learnt these in a similar way at first.
If and how much every last one of these imported terms (like infinitive or gerund) apply to English though is another matter. As is the sheer obscurantism of the terminology:
"The adjective goes before the noun. Now the Present Continuous"
Nevertheless I wonder how to explain briefly why:
The man I saw yesterday wore a hat
is right, but:
The man saw me yesterday wore a hat
is not without using the word "subject".
Thank you, JuanTwoThree for very aptly pointing out the other side of the problem. It's a fine line we walk, and we must adapt to individual situations.
Perhaps you have pinpointed the reason why my students get so caught up in metalanguage. They never study their own languages, so they think the metalanguage is the way to study another one. I have long suspected local native Cantonese speaking teachers of perpetuating this myth, because teaching metalanguage is easier than teaching fluency. I do not mean these teachers are lazy; they are employing the same teaching methods under which they learned. Since rote memorization has long been the preferred method of instruction for Chinese classrooms, this method lends itself well to teachers. Fortunately, there is now a push among Chinese teachers for more innovative, student centered teaching. I am anxiously awaiting the results of this in ESL classes that are taught by Chinese speakers rather than NETs. Unfortunately, I must wait for about five or six years before I can tell what it means for English ability.
Perhaps you have pinpointed the reason why my students get so caught up in metalanguage. They never study their own languages, so they think the metalanguage is the way to study another one. I have long suspected local native Cantonese speaking teachers of perpetuating this myth, because teaching metalanguage is easier than teaching fluency. I do not mean these teachers are lazy; they are employing the same teaching methods under which they learned. Since rote memorization has long been the preferred method of instruction for Chinese classrooms, this method lends itself well to teachers. Fortunately, there is now a push among Chinese teachers for more innovative, student centered teaching. I am anxiously awaiting the results of this in ESL classes that are taught by Chinese speakers rather than NETs. Unfortunately, I must wait for about five or six years before I can tell what it means for English ability.