Page 1 of 1
By what principles?
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:26 am
by metal56
Discussion:
By what principles do we select one item as a good example of a particular usage, and reject another as being marginal or eccentric?
---------------------------------------------------------------
Sentence borrowed from Patrick Hanks (1991) and then bastardised.
The original was focusing only on lexis, I'd like to extend it to all items of language usage.
Original:
By what principles do we select one citation as a good example of a particular sense or usage, and reject another as being marginal or eccentric?
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 3:50 pm
by Metamorfose
The principle of
likelyhood would I dare say.
(1) Do you be on extention 213?
At least this is a good example I wouldn't show my pupils
José
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 8:31 pm
by Stephen Jones
Too vague a question. Who is 'we' and is the present simple implying best or normal practice.
We could say frequency (though it is difficult to determine the linguistic unit we are going to chose for the frequency sample, and often just as difficult to test it).
IN general we start with our own prejudices and the more conscientious or cautious amongst us then attempt to check our hunches.
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:04 pm
by metal56
Stephen Jones wrote:Too vague a question. Who is 'we' and is the present simple implying best or normal practice.
We could say frequency (though it is difficult to determine the linguistic unit we are going to chose for the frequency sample, and often just as difficult to test it).
IN general we start with our own prejudices and the more conscientious or cautious amongst us then attempt to check our hunches.
<Too vague a question. Who is 'we' and is the present simple implying best or normal practice. >
We, the users of language. Dogs and cats excluded.
<IN general we start with our own prejudices and the more conscientious or cautious amongst us then attempt to check our hunches>
Sounds like me.
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 9:46 pm
by fluffyhamster
metal56 wrote:<IN general we start with our own prejudices and the more conscientious or cautious amongst us then attempt to check our hunches>
Sounds like me.
Get your students to compare
at least these 4 sentences (there are many more possible combinations):
If you allow us to pat you on the back, that will/would be surprising.
If you allowed us to pat you on the back, that would be wonderful.
If you allowed us to pat you on the back, that would be surprising.
If you did allow us to pat you on the back, that is surprising.
There's a good lesson or two to be had here! Have fun!
Posted: Mon Apr 04, 2005 10:41 pm
by metal56
fluffyhamster wrote:metal56 wrote:<IN general we start with our own prejudices and the more conscientious or cautious amongst us then attempt to check our hunches>
Sounds like me.
Get your students to compare
at least these 4 sentences (there are many more possible combinations):
If you allow us to pat you on the back, that will/would be surprising.
If you allowed us to pat you on the back, that would be wonderful.
If you allowed us to pat you on the back, that would be surprising.
If you did allow us to pat you on the back, that is surprising.
There's a good lesson or two to be had here! Have fun!
They finished it in 5 mins. Or should I say finished with it in 5. They say it sounds as if those have been written by a trainee teacher, and as a result, are boring examples.
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 12:51 am
by fluffyhamster
Completed/binned within just 5 minutes, eh? You should've got them making passives too, then - might've filled a few more minutes. I have plenty more teaching tips like that, if you need 'em.
Posted: Tue Apr 05, 2005 1:18 am
by fluffyhamster
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 12:06 am
by metal56
<... I'm currently re-educating in my conditionals masterclass. >
Do you have a hidden earphone somewhere and the master dictating the teaching process to you?
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 8:18 am
by fluffyhamster
Seeing as there's not much else happening here on the AL Forum at the moment, I suppose we may as well continue with this thread for a while, eh!
I tried the hidden radio mic and tuned it in to "Metal56 FM's Methodological Morsels", but there was too much static...
Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:44 pm
by metal56
fluffyhamster wrote:Seeing as there's not much else happening here on the AL Forum at the moment, I suppose we may as well continue with this thread for a while, eh!
I tried the hidden radio mic and tuned it in to "Metal56 FM's Methodological Morsels", but there was too much static...
I think you've got it tuned to
Bedtime Story, you are putting me to sleep.
Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:35 pm
by Andrew Patterson
I've just watched an episode from "Keeping up appearances". In it there was a scene where Richard was lying on a couch unable to move because a big dog was on top of him. Hyacinth shoos the dog away. The dialog then procedes as below:
Hyacinth: Oh Richard, you're covered in hairs.
Richard: As far as I'm concerned that's an improvement - a minute ago, I was covered in dog.
Now Richard's quip is perfectly natural but we tell our students that "dog" is countable.
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 12:46 am
by Lucjan
Hyacinth: Oh Richard, you're covered in hairs.
Richard: As far as I'm concerned that's an improvement - a minute ago, I was covered in dog.
Now Richard's quip is perfectly natural but we tell our students that "dog" is countable.
So is Hyacinth's but there are those who might tell their students that "hair" is uncountable because it is more commonly the case.
Depends whether you tell them everything from the start, don't ever tell them or tell them fibs until they're big enough and good enough to be told the truth.
I scribbled on a man's hand once to show how having pen on one's hand is different from having pens on one's hand, he wasn't as impressed with my quick thinking example as I was.
Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2005 9:25 am
by lolwhites
While lying on the sofa, one of my cats decided to sit on me. The other instantly became jealous and decided to do the same, with the result that both cats circled each other, on me, squaring up for a fight.
My response? I'm drowning in cat. Of course, I could have said I'm drowning in cats but the latter would have suggested at least two individual animals as opposed to an amorphous mass of fur, whiskers and claws. The countable/uncountable distinction is far less rigid than grammar books suggest.
