The British National Corpus revealed that the expression "not exactly" is used ironically by native speakers 60% of the time while the Longman Learner's Corpus revealed it is used ironically by ESL students only 20% of the time.
What's going on?
What's going on?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Interesting...it's a shame that learner's don't use "not exactly" more, because it would clearly signal the intent behind their words (and thus probably help make them feel more comfortable about using things such as irony in their efforts to be "understood").
Would you agree, though, metal, that the function is more to signal sarcasm (that is, I have sometimes thought that a clearer definition of sarcasm would be, "similar to but more clearly signalled than 'irony', because the intention is often not simply to be humorous, but often to mock or even hurt").
Would you agree, though, metal, that the function is more to signal sarcasm (that is, I have sometimes thought that a clearer definition of sarcasm would be, "similar to but more clearly signalled than 'irony', because the intention is often not simply to be humorous, but often to mock or even hurt").
Interesting....
Hey all.
Isn't this something like responding with "interesting" when asked to opine on something?
John: What did you think of my presentation?
Mary: Hmmm, well, it was interesting....
This thread promises to be just that....interesting....
(evil mad-doctor laughter: HA ha ha ha!)
peace,
revel.
Isn't this something like responding with "interesting" when asked to opine on something?
John: What did you think of my presentation?
Mary: Hmmm, well, it was interesting....
This thread promises to be just that....interesting....
(evil mad-doctor laughter: HA ha ha ha!)peace,
revel.
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Umm, Revel, I didn't JUST say "Hmm, interesting...", but followed it up with something that indirectly answers the original question ("What's going on?"). Opine enuff? Or have I misunderstood your intention? I mean, it isn't exactly the best post to ever appear on Dave's, your one there, is it!Isn't this something like responding with "interesting" when asked to opine on something?
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
An explicit answer to metal's question (as if it were needed?) would be:
"Irony is not well-presented or developed in learning materials, and there is little systematic reference to it even when it might well be found in e.g. learner dictionaries. This is no doubt partly due to not having had adequate descriptions until quite recently (upon which teaching would draw), especially when one considers that irony is often signalled more through devices that plain text does not fully capture (and where there are explicit textual clues, they may not be frequent enough to form a basis for approaching irony generally, as it usually occurs).
Another reason for its neglect might be the lack of cross-cultural perspectives in TEFL/TESL/TESOL; that is, some things (such as reading "skills") are not assumed to be transferable and are explicitly taught, whereas "personality" and "individual expression" are assumed to take care of themselves, or be noticeable/recoverable and learnable from the linguistic contexts learners are presented with, in spite of there not always being (as we mentioned above) enough explicit input (there is then also the question of the learners' culture acting like an "affective filter" to any such input).
It is therefore hardly surprising that discrepancies are often noted between the frequency of native-speaker and learner use of irony (metal56, Collected Postings from Dave's ESL Cafe Vol.XXVIII page 666)."
(This excerpt was taken from the DP (Dog-poop) Encyclopedia of Painfully-extracted Linguistic LOLs).
Put simply, from metal's figures, learners obviously do not know "enough" (about how to be ironic), probably because they are not being taught enough about it; that being said, just because they become aware of irony in English does not necessarily mean that they need to BECOME ironic types themselves (especially if their culture does not in fact "encourage" or value irony to perhaps quite the same degree that English-speaking ones seem to). Ultimately, the figures that metal quotes say little or nothing about whether learners understand irony receptively, and this would seem to be an area in which the productive "test" or "measure" is too loaded with differing cultural assumptions about what makes for "good" English to really be valid.
Anybody now care to take a stab at answering my post about the Macmillan English Dictionary (on another thread)? I have thought of some reasons myself, but obviously it's more fun to pick your brains and see if your thoughts coincide with mine than tell you what I'm thinking straight away.
What, may I ask, do YOU think is going on, metal?
"Irony is not well-presented or developed in learning materials, and there is little systematic reference to it even when it might well be found in e.g. learner dictionaries. This is no doubt partly due to not having had adequate descriptions until quite recently (upon which teaching would draw), especially when one considers that irony is often signalled more through devices that plain text does not fully capture (and where there are explicit textual clues, they may not be frequent enough to form a basis for approaching irony generally, as it usually occurs).
Another reason for its neglect might be the lack of cross-cultural perspectives in TEFL/TESL/TESOL; that is, some things (such as reading "skills") are not assumed to be transferable and are explicitly taught, whereas "personality" and "individual expression" are assumed to take care of themselves, or be noticeable/recoverable and learnable from the linguistic contexts learners are presented with, in spite of there not always being (as we mentioned above) enough explicit input (there is then also the question of the learners' culture acting like an "affective filter" to any such input).
It is therefore hardly surprising that discrepancies are often noted between the frequency of native-speaker and learner use of irony (metal56, Collected Postings from Dave's ESL Cafe Vol.XXVIII page 666)."
(This excerpt was taken from the DP (Dog-poop) Encyclopedia of Painfully-extracted Linguistic LOLs).
Put simply, from metal's figures, learners obviously do not know "enough" (about how to be ironic), probably because they are not being taught enough about it; that being said, just because they become aware of irony in English does not necessarily mean that they need to BECOME ironic types themselves (especially if their culture does not in fact "encourage" or value irony to perhaps quite the same degree that English-speaking ones seem to). Ultimately, the figures that metal quotes say little or nothing about whether learners understand irony receptively, and this would seem to be an area in which the productive "test" or "measure" is too loaded with differing cultural assumptions about what makes for "good" English to really be valid.
Anybody now care to take a stab at answering my post about the Macmillan English Dictionary (on another thread)? I have thought of some reasons myself, but obviously it's more fun to pick your brains and see if your thoughts coincide with mine than tell you what I'm thinking straight away.
What, may I ask, do YOU think is going on, metal?
I agree with that definition of "sarcasm".Duncan Powrie wrote:Interesting...it's a shame that learner's don't use "not exactly" more, because it would clearly signal the intent behind their words (and thus probably help make them feel more comfortable about using things such as irony in their efforts to be "understood").
Would you agree, though, metal, that the function is more to signal sarcasm (that is, I have sometimes thought that a clearer definition of sarcasm would be, "similar to but more clearly signalled than 'irony', because the intention is often not simply to be humorous, but often to mock or even hurt").
Re: Interesting....
revel wrote:Hey all.
Isn't this something like responding with "interesting" when asked to opine on something?
John: What did you think of my presentation?
Mary: Hmmm, well, it was interesting....
This thread promises to be just that....interesting....
peace,
revel.
Student use of "interesting" from The Lexical Tutor concordance:
1 hers is certainly one of the most interesting adventure of my life and English gi
2 keep a conversation more long and interesting. Also, I could read more books or
3 e more responsibilities and a more interesting and my salary would also be increa
4 thing that my like would be more interesting and more funny with people.. It's
5 our horizons, which is a lot more interesting and profitable. I think that if my
6 ple. If what you want to say is interesting and relevant but you can not find
7 i will try my best to learn that interesting and useful language to put all cha
8 french would open the door to more interesting assignments and, perhaps, a promot
9 sh environment would also be very interesting. Because English is an internationa
10 on all of the world, reading many interesting books and as far as I am concerned
11 evel in English, I can't read many interesting books written in English and there
12 nd English. For my studies, every interesting books is in English. I want to know
13 science of languages) which seems interesting, but as this is my first year, i'm
14 ions and way of life, because I am interesting by cultural differences about comm
...There are many more example at the site.
.............................................................................
Well, without intending to appear lazy, I am in accord with your take on the whole thing. This is one of the key blocks to developing student's awareness of all types of language use:Duncan Powrie wrote:An explicit answer to metal's question (as if it were needed?) would be:
"Irony is not well-presented or developed in learning materials, and there is little systematic reference to it even when it might well be found in e.g. learner dictionaries. This is no doubt partly due to not having had adequate descriptions until quite recently (upon which teaching would draw), especially when one considers that irony is often signalled more through devices that plain text does not fully capture (and where there are explicit textual clues, they may not be frequent enough to form a basis for approaching irony generally, as it usually occurs).
Another reason for its neglect might be the lack of cross-cultural perspectives in TEFL/TESL/TESOL; that is, some things (such as reading "skills") are not assumed to be transferable and are explicitly taught, whereas "personality" and "individual expression" are assumed to take care of themselves, or be noticeable/recoverable and learnable from the linguistic contexts learners are presented with, in spite of there not always being (as we mentioned above) enough explicit input (there is then also the question of the learners' culture acting like an "affective filter" to any such input).
It is therefore hardly surprising that discrepancies are often noted between the frequency of native-speaker and learner use of irony (metal56, Collected Postings from Dave's ESL Cafe Vol.XXVIII page 666)."
(This excerpt was taken from the DP (Dog-poop) Encyclopedia of Painfully-extracted Linguistic LOLs).
Put simply, from metal's figures, learners obviously do not know "enough" (about how to be ironic), probably because they are not being taught enough about it; that being said, just because they become aware of irony in English does not necessarily mean that they need to BECOME ironic types themselves (especially if their culture does not in fact "encourage" or value irony to perhaps quite the same degree that English-speaking ones seem to). Ultimately, the figures that metal quotes say little or nothing about whether learners understand irony receptively, and this would seem to be an area in which the productive "test" or "measure" is too loaded with differing cultural assumptions about what makes for "good" English to really be valid.
Anybody now care to take a stab at answering my post about the Macmillan English Dictionary (on another thread)? I have thought of some reasons myself, but obviously it's more fun to pick your brains and see if your thoughts coincide with mine than tell you what I'm thinking straight away.
What, may I ask, do YOU think is going on, metal?
Teachers seem to fear giving students such tools in case the students become less than th teachers would like them to be. But the job of teaching is to inform and THEN guide through personal opinion. The teacher has to make it clear what is available and also has to make clear that his/her views upon such use are wholly personal.just because they become aware of irony in English does not necessarily mean that they need to BECOME ironic types themselves
Re: Interesting....
revel wrote:Hey all.
Isn't this something like responding with "interesting" when asked to opine on something?
John: What did you think of my presentation?
Mary: Hmmm, well, it was interesting....
This thread promises to be just that....interesting....
peace,
revel.
Waiter 1: Hey Pete, where's the chicken sandwich?
Waiter 2: Number 12.
It works in Spanish too.
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Actually, what I'd prefer to say is that "personality" does not seem to be explicitly taught, and is left to transfer itself or not, as the case may be (which will depend on how much personality each individual learner had to begin with!), which is probably just as well with regard to things like irony (which, as I said, may not be quite what the learner needs or wants to productively develop in order to have "good" English)!I wrote:Another reason for its neglect might be the lack of cross-cultural perspectives in TEFL/TESL/TESOL; that is, some things (such as reading "skills") are not assumed to be transferable and are explicitly taught, whereas "personality" and "individual expression" are assumed to take care of themselves, or be noticeable/recoverable and learnable from the linguistic contexts learners are presented with, in spite of there not always being (as we mentioned above) enough explicit input (there is then also the question of the learners' culture acting like an "affective filter" to any such input).
But a stronger case could obviously be made for teaching irony to those learners with "integrative" motivation i.e. those who want to visit English-speaking countries and integrate themselves more fully into the culture.
By the way, metal, can I ask why you posted the concordances for "interesting"? (It actually took me a while to realize they WEREN'T concordances for "not exactly"!). Interesting... very...interesting...
Edited-in bit: Oh, I see you posted just before me! Can I also say, I don't get the chicken thing either! Still, it is 8:30 in the morning here, and I could do with some sleep!
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Sorry
Hey all!
Duncan, sorry, my short contribution does indeed seem to be making reference to your "interesting", stepping on its heels as it does, but I didn't realize it until you called such to my attention. So, please forgive the connection, it was totally unintentional!
I understand the chicken sententces (also thought 12 was menu item) but don't get the joke....or is it a joke? Or is it irony? Or is it simply interesting? (heehee)
peace,
revel.
Duncan, sorry, my short contribution does indeed seem to be making reference to your "interesting", stepping on its heels as it does, but I didn't realize it until you called such to my attention. So, please forgive the connection, it was totally unintentional!
I understand the chicken sententces (also thought 12 was menu item) but don't get the joke....or is it a joke? Or is it irony? Or is it simply interesting? (heehee)
peace,
revel.
-
Duncan Powrie
- Posts: 525
- Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm
Chug chug BEEP chug...computing data in gently steaming brainbox...chug...A-HA was a good Norwegian pop group anyway...METONYMY?metal56 wrote:Table 12.
Warmer now?
I could see that "Number 12" meant "table" and not "item" (guess I'm not as stupid in some ways as Larry and revel, then!
), but how does this link to irony (and revel's presumably ironical use of "interesting")? Saying a customer is a chicken sandwich is irony? What's it all about, Alfie? HELPPPPP, anyone, please! Michael Caine?!
Can you seriously expect the editor of the DP (Dogpoopen) Encyclopedia of Painfully-extracted Linguistic LOLs to have much mental energy left to devote to these questions of waiter/waitress sandwich-juggling?!
LOL!LarryLatham wrote:Oh! I had it as item number 12 on the menu.metal56 wrote:Table 12.Can I also say, I don't get the chicken thing either! Still, it is 8:30 in the morning here, and I could do with some sleep!
Warmer now?
Larry Latham
Waiter: Are you the Coq au Vin, sir?
Man: No, I'm the tartare.