The worst relative pronoun exercises you've ever seen...

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 3:46 am

I'm really interested in any BAD exercises or activities that you might have seen.

I can offer two, to get this thread rolling:

1) This was of the "combining sentences" variety - as though we can automatically assume that any speaker/writer starts off with two propositions and mechanically combines them/substitutes a relavitizer for a pronoun?! This assumption wouldn't be so bad (and might even be psycholinguistically defensible, for all I know) if the resulting sentences weren't so lame:

I met a man. His name was Tom > I met a man whose name was Tom.

What about relexicalization and the "zero" relavitizer?! (I met a man [who was] called Tom), or simple pauses/unmarked coordination?: I met a man, ([and] his name was) Tom...and why is the damn name so important to know?! I met this really interesting guy the other day, he had three legs and could run really fast...I think his name was Tom...anyway, one of his legs suddenly fell off...

2) This was of the "ready-made, whole sentence, fluency" variety; it was REALLY bad:

Who is the sumotori (sumo wrestler) who is Yokozuna (Grand Champion) now?

I shuddered to think what kind of confusing effect this example would have had (that's right, I refused to use it!) on the student's grasp of forming questions/question words, let alone relative pronouns!

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 5:18 am

Oh, if you aren't able to think of many more bad 'uns, then maybe some musings about what constitutes a GOOD activity for practising relative pronouns would be appropriate (I have a few ideas myself that I might share).

I guess this all might better have been posted on the Activities and Games Forum, but I thought something, anything would make for a change from the monotonous tripe that's been posted here on the AL Forum recently.

Also, it must be said, we don't see much linguistics applied/linguists actually applying themselves beyond analysis of language on the AL Forum, and it would be interesting to see how some of you guys actually tackle things like relative pronouns, the passive etc etc.

Basically, there isn't much discussion going on on the other forums, so maybe we could start hybrid analysis-feeding-into-implicit-activity/counter-traditional-activity kind of threads here? Sort of like: "I see the language as going something like this and this, and to create a mental need for this kind of language, I would therefore need to set up such and such a situation and get the students thinking along the following lines..."

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:04 am

I also have little time for "defining" games where little thought has gone into the selection of the items to be defined, and where consequently forming the definitions is often harder than the actual word being defined, or where any difficult words have absolutely no conceivable use at all.

There would be some point in such an activity if the goal was not to elicit easy "forgotten" or "unknown" words from the long-suffering but sporting listener, but rather to think of words associated with the defined word e.g. actual duties or responsibilities in jobs, in which case we could just start with the job words "out in the open" and simply build up associated vocabulary (in which case some actual learning might take place besides "learning how to 'use' relative pronouns").

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 6:53 am

People are too quick to say something has "no point" in my view. For example, lolwhites said that the kind of method school in which I worked was "useless". I suppose If I had screamed like a howler monkey in each class there it would have been of equal educational value? I think we should all learn to say "not quite as effective as it might be" about things we don't like.

My favorite relative pronoun exercise is just to go round the class and get each student to add an element to a phrase or sentence - ie A dog, a big dog, a big dog is sitting down, a big dog which is chewing a bone is sitting down etc.

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:18 am

Wow, thanks WC, I've added that to my MUST TRY OUT pile!

Sentence building is a "traditional" kind of activity, all well and good, but it can take a while for a sensible proposition to emerge (especially when you can each only contribute a single word).

Which reminds me, relative pronouns are a good area in which to practise cutting down, rather than always building up (often the relative pronoun is not required: it can be ellipted, or changes in word order etc can convey the necessary meaning). You could ask students how much/little is absolutely necessary in sample sentences:

I hate people who smoke > I hate smokers.
The guy who lives in the apartment above me... > The guy above me...

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 7:31 am

Years ago some students of mine from a posh girls' school said they had an exam on which/who/that and that they hadn't been able to reconcile what they knew with what the teacher had just told them. This was when students who also went to extra private classes, especially mine of course (!), were streets ahead of the other students and often in front of the teacher. The exam was going to be gap-fills only, almost certainly some practice ripped off from a grammar book, so I naughtily suggested that they put "that" as the answer to every single question. They all got 90%.

So I nominate an exam which I have never seen as the worst relatives exercise I have ever seen.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 8:41 am

While I like the look of Woodcutter's exercise, I feel I should point out that I never used the word "useless" in the post referred to above. In future, when we quote people can we agree to use the words they actually wrote or, at the very least, say if we're paraphrasing?

Duncan Powrie · Post by **Duncan Powrie** » Tue Oct 19, 2004 9:06 am

Nice anecdote, JTT!

I suppose I should slap WC for slipping in his little "For example...", that spat should be resolved on the appropriate thread, not here, on "my one".

<<SLAP>> You are a naughty boy, WC! Happy now, lol? And do you have any activities, good or bad, that you wish to add?

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 1:19 pm

I've outlined what I think is a "good" (quite natural) kind of exercise in the recent "Relative pronouns" thread (it's to do with actor's roles in movies).

If movies aren't your students' cup of tea, pictures/photos (or series of them) in black and white, showing similarly dressed people doing things at e.g. a party, would provide opportunities for practice.

An information gap (based on identical photos) could be created by drawing a question mark over a guy (who "is" giving a present to a labelled "Lucy") on A's photo (B's would have "Lucy" and the name of the guy giving the present to her; B would obviously have different people than A's to ask about).

A would thus ask something like: "Who was that guy who gave Lucy a present?".

Avoid things like "Who was that guy who was talking to Lucy?", not only because the presence of a participle allows the RP to be dropped (Who WAS that guy (who was) talking to Lucy?), but because talking, as a two-way process, could be alternatively construed thus: Who was that guy (that) Lucy was talking to? (This links to what I said about "main actors, main movers and shakers" on that "Relative pronoun" thread).

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 6:27 pm

Ah Fluffy, you reminded me of an exercise I used to do to teach relative clauses. First I drew a picture (if you knew how I drew, stick figures and all, you'd understand how the picture broke the ice to start :p). Anyway, the picture was in a park, and there were numerous men, women, and children doing different activities, wearing and holding different things, etc.

I could use it for them to describe the picture. (The man who is standing under the tree doesn't see the woman in the red dress. or whatever) or to ask questions. (Where is the man who is reading the newspaper sitting?) although I think I started with something like "I'm looking at the man who's sitting on the bench." (which isn't quite as authentic, but if your partner then points to the person, you can still practice that way) etc.

I liked your movie idea by the way--if you and your students see the same movies, then it would work really well. Unfortunately, neither I nor my students are avid moviegoers (well most of them anyway) and so I had to come up with some kind of mutual information--hence the picture.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sat Nov 13, 2004 7:13 pm

Well, one way to get around the problem of not knowing many actors would be to show a couple of movies in class (perhaps to provide a basis for relating plots in Simple Present, in order to learn a greater number of verbs). Later in the course (after having studied ways to express past things), you could then start talking about actors, and ask if they know actor A, if they don't (well okay even if some of them do!) you'd then show a photo of that actor (who was in one of the movies they saw) and get them to predict what you are about to say (i.e. how you are going to "define" that actor in terms of the role, and what the character did).

Hmm I hope you don't mind me saying this, Lori, but I'd've thought that activity you mentioned would be more useful for practising prepositions (or, at most, reduced relative clauses)! That is, in each case the "who is" can be omitted, and in the case of the "standing" man, well, the keyword is "under"! (But I'm sure the students had a laugh at your artistic endeavours and learnt something).

It reminds me of a textbook for Japanese high schools that I once saw: an earlier chapter had a park scene with full relative clauses, and a later chapter a very similar exercise with the relative pronoun and following "be" both omitted. I thought that was an interesting way of showing how implicit structure can replace explicit ones, but it still didn't show students where relative pronouns were absolutely essential, which to my mind is what an activity (or, at least the major activity for whatever grammar point) should do.

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 1:24 am

Ah I guess I often include teaching things like "The man in the black hat..." and "The woman with the dog" with the category "relative clauses". I try to make it useful, but you never know. Too bad I don't like movies

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Sun Nov 14, 2004 12:05 pm

Lorikeet wrote:Ah I guess I often include teaching things like "The man in the black hat..." and "The woman with the dog" with the category "relative clauses".

I was just looking in my Eastwood (Oxford Guide to English Grammar) again, and found this right at the start of the chapter on relative clauses:

An adjective or prepositional clause can modify a noun. A relative clause does the same.

Adjective: the red team
Phrase: the team in red
Relative clause: the team (who were) wearing red

Thinking notionally, relative clauses are thus a kind of (more complex, verbal/participle, of the noun) modification. Seems we are on the same wavelength, Lori!

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:14 am

JuanTwoThree wrote:Years ago some students of mine from a posh girls' school said they had an exam on which/who/that and that they hadn't been able to reconcile what they knew with what the teacher had just told them. This was when students who also went to extra private classes, especially mine of course (!), were streets ahead of the other students and often in front of the teacher. The exam was going to be gap-fills only, almost certainly some practice ripped off from a grammar book, so I naughtily suggested that they put "that" as the answer to every single question. They all got 90%.

So I nominate an exam which I have never seen as the worst relatives exercise I have ever seen.

An item from a recent high school test here in Japan:

1. There are a lot of people _____ like music.
2. Look at the boy and the dog _____ are walking in the park.
3. This is the CD _____ I like the best.

You would have to use 'who', 'which' and 'that' once each.

I can see the point in saying that 'which' sounds a bit wierd for describing people, but 'who' would not sound out of place regarding the boy and dog (and like JTT says, 'that' would come to the rescue in all three instances).

Oh, and just to spice things up that little more, the underlined words weren't supplied but had to be filled in by the students on the basis of their translating Japanese sentences into English (not that such short sentences are much of a stretch for the average or above-average student).

stephen · Post by **stephen** » Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:28 pm

I realise this is not a relative pronoun exercise but a modal one. However, it is a fine example of Taiwan's government's high school textbooks. All the material is generally this bad!

Excuse me, _______ you speak English?

A can
B could
C would
D do

My boss at the time at the time insisted the answer was do. All the others were wrong. It said do in the teachers book!

I decided quickly to stop working for Taiwanese high schools as this kind of rubbish is quite typical of them.