Ok, I see what you mean in the last post, I'm happy to feel I'm getting somewhere! But then how about "Will he have passed his exams?". How do we know this is a question about the past? Maybe you will say it isn't, but we can't say it unless the exams are over. Why not?
Metal, as to nuances, surely they follow from the core meanings. Past is not as immediate as present, so for a past form to have a nuance of distance is natural. But why should a distant form hold a nuance of past rather than future? I don't think the question of theoretical matters is an issue here.
And I'd much appreciate an answer to my two other questions-
Why is it somewhat strange for the store clerk to say 'Did you want to see the manager?' when the customer suddenly flares up at him/her about something he/she has just done? (and I'm talking really instant flaring here!)
Why can't we ever say "I met him tomorrow"?
Grammar is based on viewpoints (?)
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
It isn't strange to me, only to students that have been taught functionally inadequate labels as "Past Tense". If you want to know why the clerk would do so, distancing. A type of mock politeness applying the norms of formal distancing to appear to show respect but in reality to allow the clerk to remain detached. Annoying to say the least! Or, depending on the way it is said, to create distance/detachment in order to suggest the customer do the same.And I'd much appreciate an answer to my two other questions-
Why is it somewhat strange for the store clerk to say 'Did you want to see the manager?' when the customer suddenly flares up at him/her about something he/she has just done? (and I'm talking really instant flaring here!)
Either way, when a clerk does the same in my company, it really riles me.
Answered?
Why can't we ever say "I met him tomorrow"?
In my dream, I met him tomorrow.
Next?
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Well, um, yes, you're right. I will say it isn't (necessarily). And I will also say it isn't necessarily true that we can't say it unless the exams are over.woodcutter wrote:Ok, I see what you mean in the last post, I'm happy to feel I'm getting somewhere! But then how about "Will he have passed his exams?". How do we know this is a question about the past? Maybe you will say it isn't, but we can't say it unless the exams are over. Why not?
Here we have (sigh!) another example of an unfortunately named verb form. This one is known as "Future Perfect Tense". That is poorly named both because many people will say it arguably isn't a tense at all, but rather an aspect, and also (more importantly) it isn't (necessarily) about the future. Very confusing for students, as you can imagine.
The inclusion of "will" in the verb form signals that the overall meaning incorporates someone's opinion of the situation under discussion. Next question is, "Whose opinion?" If the sentence is a statement, then the opinion asserted is that of the speaker. In this case, however, the sentence is a question. That means it is a request for the opinion of the hearer. "About what?" It looks like it's about a retrospective view of "him passing his exams". What remains unclear at the moment is the point (in time) from which this retrospection should take place. It might be at some future time, as we can clarify by adding some words to the sentence: "Will he have passed his exams (before the Olympic games start)?" But the request for retrospection could possibly even ask for a past time reference point. "Will he have passed his exams (yesterday)?" The context in which the question is asked is likely to make the timing clear.
But the major point is that "will" does not automatically mean that reference is made to future time. It predicts, or asks for a prediction, and the prediction might be appropriate because the event under consideration is physically removed from where the interlocutors are at the moment. It might be appropriate because the event is in the future. The construction could be used any time when one or both of the interlocutors cannot know, for any reason, for a fact about the event in question.
Larry Latham
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
But your answer isn't referring to the situation as I described it. "Will" does not have a central meaning of future, obviously in isolation that isn't the chief thing it conjures up. It does seem to take on that kind of meaning sometimes though, and I don't personally think there is a problem with telling students that it sometimes means "future", but that is a different thing.
I am not talking about "will", but saying that the (regular) past-tense form always means the past unless you clearly alter the perspective, or unless the past and the present are interchangeable in any case. In order to make your example "after the olympics" you have altered the perspective, so that the past is plausible. If the perspective is not altered, it absolutely must be referring to a past event. If not it will elicit the reply, "He hasn't taken them yet!". Ditto with "In my dream I met him tomorrow", though I must confess (metal) that is a good answer to my question. If this is so, why not keep the explanation as simple as possible?
My point with the clerk is that he would NOT say "Did you want to see the manager?" when the customer suddenly flares up. As you say, if it was done, then it would be highly annoying, becasue it would have not be something done with the knowledge it was not appropriate, a facetious false alteration of perspective. It usually sounds fine.
Sorry to confuse your respective posts in this way, by the way.
I am not talking about "will", but saying that the (regular) past-tense form always means the past unless you clearly alter the perspective, or unless the past and the present are interchangeable in any case. In order to make your example "after the olympics" you have altered the perspective, so that the past is plausible. If the perspective is not altered, it absolutely must be referring to a past event. If not it will elicit the reply, "He hasn't taken them yet!". Ditto with "In my dream I met him tomorrow", though I must confess (metal) that is a good answer to my question. If this is so, why not keep the explanation as simple as possible?
My point with the clerk is that he would NOT say "Did you want to see the manager?" when the customer suddenly flares up. As you say, if it was done, then it would be highly annoying, becasue it would have not be something done with the knowledge it was not appropriate, a facetious false alteration of perspective. It usually sounds fine.
Sorry to confuse your respective posts in this way, by the way.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
I differ with you here, woodcutter, in perhaps a subtle, but nonetheless significant way. If you put it that way to students (that "will sometimes means the future"), the result will almost always be confusion. The logical follow-up question then, but virtually never asked by EFL students, is: "On which occasions does it mean "the future" and which other occasions does it mean something else...and how can I tell them apart?" I much prefer to delve deeper into the meaning of modal "will", so that I can try to explain to students what it always means. Then, if I have succeeded with that, I can suggest that in each use the deeper meaning is open to a certain limited range of interpretation, and that one interpretation might be that the event in question occurs in future time. The central meaning of will, however, is not different in this case from its meaning in other cases, but the particular pragmatic value on this occasion might be.woodcutter wrote:...I don't personally think there is a problem with telling students that it sometimes means "future", but that is a different thing.
I don't fully understand your comment here, woodcutter, but I don't agree if your meaning is that my addition of "...before the olympics begin" alters the basic meaning of "Will he have passed his exams?" This does not absolutely refer to a past time event. It refers to an event the truth of which is not factually available to the speaker at the moment of speaking (or, since it is a question, to the hearer). The hearer can only answer with an opinion, based on whatever information he does have at the moment, including whatever asumptions he may wish to make.woodcutter also wrote:I am ...saying that the (regular) past-tense form always means the past unless you clearly alter the perspective, or unless the past and the present are interchangeable in any case. In order to make your example "after the olympics" you have altered the perspective, so that the past is plausible. If the perspective is not altered, it absolutely must be referring to a past event.
Larry Latham
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
I don't know why the perspective idea should be difficult. As soon as we have the phrase "before the olympics start", then our perspective is then, the start of the olympics (or just before), lets say in August 1994. The taking of the exams, in say July, is now in the past, perspective wise.
What does "will" always mean? The central meaning as I see it is "mental intention". This makes some sort of sense in "He will go to the shops", in that he has a plan. But in "The car will fall off the cliff" the meaning has become unrecognizable, though we may guess how such phrases came about. You have to be prepared to judge the meaning of a word from its context, in some situations. It's not rocket science for students to do that.
At the risk of being tedious about my storeclerks, how about this? Is this then a question about the present?
Did you want to see the the manager?
Yes, I did, but I've changed my mind. Please give me..............
What does "will" always mean? The central meaning as I see it is "mental intention". This makes some sort of sense in "He will go to the shops", in that he has a plan. But in "The car will fall off the cliff" the meaning has become unrecognizable, though we may guess how such phrases came about. You have to be prepared to judge the meaning of a word from its context, in some situations. It's not rocket science for students to do that.
At the risk of being tedious about my storeclerks, how about this? Is this then a question about the present?
Did you want to see the the manager?
Yes, I did, but I've changed my mind. Please give me..............
A hand....
Good morning all.
Just back after a wonderful four-day weekend cleaning a friend's front lawn in a puny village in the foothills. And I wanted to begin by giving you all a hand in the development of this thread's discussion.
Reading over all the posts to get my feet on the ground, I have identified certain levels, or distinctions (not necessarily wanting to put these in any particular order):
detailed explanation of word-units
use in the classroom (in and out of context)
use in everyday life
The first has been particularly fascinating to me and has truely helped me to organize some loose ends in my own particular understanding of the verb in English. How many times have I drawn concentric circles with all the verb forms trying to get a clearer vision of that part of speech! For many years now I have used a "now" "before now" "before now but still valid in some way or another" "after now, more or less distant from now", etc. The actual terminology bores students in my class, as it usually confuses them superficially and needs several repetitions to gel. Though I've only ever used "distance" as a word in referring to the future, I see now how using that word might group a good number of concepts conveniently for classroom economy.
In class, the example of "I slept in the bed" would have appeared in two possible frameworks. The first might be in a drill exercise, though it would have probably included some expression of time, like "yesterday" to mark the moment. "Sleep" is irregular and so one can identify it's past in speech, but "hit" doesn't change so I like to shift the student's attention to the words that will give them time information more clearly. The second would also concern context, for example the participants would be talking about a camping trip or a weekend stay at a friend's stone house that she built with her own two hands in a once abandoned Spanish village in the foothills....(sigh, why can't vacation last nine months and the rest the three?) So there would be other words or suppositions around the sentence. Yet there is no choice there, I tell them to be sure to include such a sentence or sentences in the exercise. I doubt this sentence would crop up in classroom chat, since that is limited to questions about vocabulary or structure, they are unlikely to break into a gossip session in English yet...."She slept in the bed!¡!"
And now we take that sentence out into the real world. Imagine that sentence leaving the mouth of the following people:
The shopkeeper to her boss.
The husband to his wife.
A teenager to her father.
A lover.
I can think of a reason for each of these people to have said the sentence. But, of course, I've got such ideas in my mind and until I exchange them with another person through a series of utterances that set the stage, or having lived through the situation myself but looking for additional information or just a good fight, they represent my own personal understanding of the sentence. If any of these people burst onto the scene shouting "I slept in the bed!" or even huskily chest-voicing "I slept in the bed...." I'd have a hard time undestanding what they were talking about. (Though those same voices or that same surprise might be the information I need to come to my own conclusions, because I will try to understand such an odd entrance....)
Well, once again, thank you all for this debate. I see some bridge work that I have to do in the next few classes. Oh well, back to work, this week at least!
peace,
revel.
Just back after a wonderful four-day weekend cleaning a friend's front lawn in a puny village in the foothills. And I wanted to begin by giving you all a hand in the development of this thread's discussion.
Reading over all the posts to get my feet on the ground, I have identified certain levels, or distinctions (not necessarily wanting to put these in any particular order):
detailed explanation of word-units
use in the classroom (in and out of context)
use in everyday life
The first has been particularly fascinating to me and has truely helped me to organize some loose ends in my own particular understanding of the verb in English. How many times have I drawn concentric circles with all the verb forms trying to get a clearer vision of that part of speech! For many years now I have used a "now" "before now" "before now but still valid in some way or another" "after now, more or less distant from now", etc. The actual terminology bores students in my class, as it usually confuses them superficially and needs several repetitions to gel. Though I've only ever used "distance" as a word in referring to the future, I see now how using that word might group a good number of concepts conveniently for classroom economy.
In class, the example of "I slept in the bed" would have appeared in two possible frameworks. The first might be in a drill exercise, though it would have probably included some expression of time, like "yesterday" to mark the moment. "Sleep" is irregular and so one can identify it's past in speech, but "hit" doesn't change so I like to shift the student's attention to the words that will give them time information more clearly. The second would also concern context, for example the participants would be talking about a camping trip or a weekend stay at a friend's stone house that she built with her own two hands in a once abandoned Spanish village in the foothills....(sigh, why can't vacation last nine months and the rest the three?) So there would be other words or suppositions around the sentence. Yet there is no choice there, I tell them to be sure to include such a sentence or sentences in the exercise. I doubt this sentence would crop up in classroom chat, since that is limited to questions about vocabulary or structure, they are unlikely to break into a gossip session in English yet...."She slept in the bed!¡!"
And now we take that sentence out into the real world. Imagine that sentence leaving the mouth of the following people:
The shopkeeper to her boss.
The husband to his wife.
A teenager to her father.
A lover.
I can think of a reason for each of these people to have said the sentence. But, of course, I've got such ideas in my mind and until I exchange them with another person through a series of utterances that set the stage, or having lived through the situation myself but looking for additional information or just a good fight, they represent my own personal understanding of the sentence. If any of these people burst onto the scene shouting "I slept in the bed!" or even huskily chest-voicing "I slept in the bed...." I'd have a hard time undestanding what they were talking about. (Though those same voices or that same surprise might be the information I need to come to my own conclusions, because I will try to understand such an odd entrance....)
Well, once again, thank you all for this debate. I see some bridge work that I have to do in the next few classes. Oh well, back to work, this week at least!
peace,
revel.
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
maybe I should quit at this point.....
I've noticed, with shame, that it is silly to be telling Larry that "will" has a central meaning that is only a useful guideline, while "walked" has a central meaning that cannot be ignored.
I suppose why I have done this is that the real point about "walked" (or let's switch to "swam" and cut out the pesky past participle) is that we have chosen to inflect that word for past meaning (as I see it). We didn't need to do that, and if there was no possibility of past meaning around at all we wouldn't have done so. Just as if there is no negative meaning we do not attach the prefix "Un".
I suppose why I have done this is that the real point about "walked" (or let's switch to "swam" and cut out the pesky past participle) is that we have chosen to inflect that word for past meaning (as I see it). We didn't need to do that, and if there was no possibility of past meaning around at all we wouldn't have done so. Just as if there is no negative meaning we do not attach the prefix "Un".
-
woodcutter
- Posts: 1303
- Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
- Location: London
distance at the chalkface
OK, you've all been through this before, many times I suppose, with people far better read than me. Shuntang, for example, uses "context" where I have chosen to say "perspective". And I don't have access to the Lewis book (only my parochial mind resides in London).
I would like to hear how the concept works in class, if you don't mind, though. How does the student distinguish whether
"Were you a policeman?" is a polite or a past question?
I would like to hear how the concept works in class, if you don't mind, though. How does the student distinguish whether
"Were you a policeman?" is a polite or a past question?
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Nuances
Good morning.
Woodcutter asks:
"I would like to hear how the concept works in class, if you don't mind, though. How does the student distinguish whether "Were you a policeman?" is a polite or a past question?"
I tell them, that's part of my job.
My 12 Chamber of Commerce students almost all have an acceptable level of spoken Englsih. They are in my class because of a work-related contact with the English language. They want to be able to use English as a tool in their work. They want to feel more confident using English, since it is important in their economic activity.
In this culture there is a linguistic separation between being close to a person and maintaining distance (professional, emotional, etc). The Spanish use this naturally from childhood. Yet in English, the third-person distancing is seemingly more complex because it rests in word-choice, structure choice, tone of voice, body language. (Aware we are of the probability of exceptions in these gross generalizations I am making....)
Keeping the theory explanations simple, black / white, gato / gata (boy cat / girl cat), do / does, Iyouwethey / hesheit -- this concept can help in the formal or distancing language vs day to day chatter. So, when a student develops a perfectly fine sentence:
"I want two tickets to London, please."
I take them to the other side by instructing:
"I'd like two tickets to London, please."
It's not that the first one is wrong, or that it is even inappropriate. On a "get what you want" level, I am sure that person will be sold the two tickets asked for, despite having used a less "formal" presentation. Yet, I insist on the second because the students are used to the first. If all of them can make the first sentence it ought to be a case of simple substitution ("want" to "'d like") to begin using a form that establishes the distancing that they want in all of their English contact situations.
The same would apply to the use of "do" or "did" in the questions about seeing the manager. The speakers will get what they want at one level or another. Maybe the clerk wants to p*ss off the customer, maybe the customer really wanted to see the manager and give him/her a piece of his/her mind. Disagreement seems to be a case of interpretation or misinterpretation of what is being said and why. If that information isn't there, the sentence doesn't mean anything, to me at least, beyond the meaning of each word in its place in the sentence.
peace,
revel.
Woodcutter asks:
"I would like to hear how the concept works in class, if you don't mind, though. How does the student distinguish whether "Were you a policeman?" is a polite or a past question?"
I tell them, that's part of my job.
My 12 Chamber of Commerce students almost all have an acceptable level of spoken Englsih. They are in my class because of a work-related contact with the English language. They want to be able to use English as a tool in their work. They want to feel more confident using English, since it is important in their economic activity.
In this culture there is a linguistic separation between being close to a person and maintaining distance (professional, emotional, etc). The Spanish use this naturally from childhood. Yet in English, the third-person distancing is seemingly more complex because it rests in word-choice, structure choice, tone of voice, body language. (Aware we are of the probability of exceptions in these gross generalizations I am making....)
Keeping the theory explanations simple, black / white, gato / gata (boy cat / girl cat), do / does, Iyouwethey / hesheit -- this concept can help in the formal or distancing language vs day to day chatter. So, when a student develops a perfectly fine sentence:
"I want two tickets to London, please."
I take them to the other side by instructing:
"I'd like two tickets to London, please."
It's not that the first one is wrong, or that it is even inappropriate. On a "get what you want" level, I am sure that person will be sold the two tickets asked for, despite having used a less "formal" presentation. Yet, I insist on the second because the students are used to the first. If all of them can make the first sentence it ought to be a case of simple substitution ("want" to "'d like") to begin using a form that establishes the distancing that they want in all of their English contact situations.
The same would apply to the use of "do" or "did" in the questions about seeing the manager. The speakers will get what they want at one level or another. Maybe the clerk wants to p*ss off the customer, maybe the customer really wanted to see the manager and give him/her a piece of his/her mind. Disagreement seems to be a case of interpretation or misinterpretation of what is being said and why. If that information isn't there, the sentence doesn't mean anything, to me at least, beyond the meaning of each word in its place in the sentence.
peace,
revel.
Re: Nuances
Hi RevelIn this culture there is a linguistic separation between being close to a person and maintaining distance (professional, emotional, etc). The Spanish use this naturally from childhood. Yet in English, the third-person distancing is seemingly more complex because it rests in word-choice, structure choice, tone of voice, body language. (Aware we are of the probability of exceptions in these gross generalizations I am making....)
I've just posted this on a number of fora, maybe it will interest you:
General Language Topics - The "Proximity and Distance" files.
I want to start up a collection of links to, and member's examples of, the way the perception of what is close to us and what is far from us subjectively and objectively effects our choice of language.
Please join in.
I'll begin with verb choice and what is commonly known as the Past simple tense.
One of the main reasons for using that tense is to express things as distant from the speaker. Three things are involved here:
Distance in TIME
Distance of POSSIBILITY
Distance in SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP
Examples of each:
I went to the cinema last night/month/year.(DISTANCE IN TIME)
I could swim when I was five. (Time involved but possibility is the main focus.
I COULD come tomorrow if you like? (Time involved but possibility is the main focus.)
Would you help me with my bags? (SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP)
Did you want to try that sweater, sir? (SOCIAL RELATIONSHIP)
Some students get confused when trying to understand why the Past Simple is used to express more than just past time. The above can be used to give them an idea of why.
More later, or please feel free to contribute other examples of proximity and distance in this and other areas of language use.
Check out "English for Specific Purposes" folder from time to time. Or the Dictionary.com forum. There's quite a bit of chat going on over there regarding this topic.
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Ah, just so, revel. Part of the reason your students find your classes interesting and worthwhile is that you go beyond what might be "correct" in English. Lots of stuff might be "correct", but so what? It's natural English that's most interesting and useful to them. And while it might be tricky to try to explain to them the differences between, "I want two tickets...", and "I'd like two tickets...", I believe you are really doing right by your students to expose them to both and by inviting them to explore uses of each.revel wrote:...when a student develops a perfectly fine sentence:
"I want two tickets to London, please."
I take them to the other side by instructing:
"I'd like two tickets to London, please."
It's not that the first one is wrong, or that it is even inappropriate. On a "get what you want" level, I am sure that person will be sold the two tickets asked for, despite having used a less "formal" presentation. Yet, I insist on the second because the students are used to the first. If all of them can make the first sentence it ought to be a case of simple substitution ("want" to "'d like") to begin using a form that establishes the distancing that they want in all of their English contact situations.
The same would apply to the use of "do" or "did" in the questions about seeing the manager. The speakers will get what they want at one level or another. Maybe the clerk wants to p*ss off the customer, maybe the customer really wanted to see the manager and give him/her a piece of his/her mind. Disagreement seems to be a case of interpretation or misinterpretation of what is being said and why. If that information isn't there, the sentence doesn't mean anything, to me at least, beyond the meaning of each word in its place in the sentence.
This could be very useful to both students and teachers, metal56. Have you established a specific site for this collection? Or is this it?metal56 wrote:I want to start up a collection of links to, and member's examples of, the way the perception of what is close to us and what is far from us subjectively and objectively effects our choice of language.
Larry Latham
No, I'm just putting out on a number of sites after detractors of the "proximity and distance" view kept saying that the interest was minimal in academic areas. I know that is not true.This could be very useful to both students and teachers, metal56. Have you established a specific site for this collection? Or is this it?