Can`t see the wood for the trees

bonnietyler · Post by **bonnietyler** » Mon May 21, 2007 8:41 pm

Hello,

Would you be so kind as to help me with this problem.

Can someone tell me how i can explain the use of "to" to a spanish student.

My student always makes the same mistake in conversation for example he´ll say....

" Amanda called to me" or "I have to call to josef" etc etc

when one should say "Amanda called me" and " I have to call Josef"

How can i explain why its incorrect in the first two examples in order for him move on ... ....

Thank-You !

Lorikeet · Post by **Lorikeet** » Mon May 21, 2007 11:31 pm

Just tell him to remember that "call" doesn't take "to.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue May 22, 2007 12:13 am

Lorikeet wrote:Just tell him to remember that "call" doesn't take "to.

she had no call to mention that
it's a call to arms
one call to your wife is all it takes
it calls to mind..

You know students...

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue May 22, 2007 12:16 am

bonnietyler wrote:Hello,

Would you be so kind as to help me with this problem.

Can someone tell me how i can explain the use of "to" to a spanish student.

My student always makes the same mistake in conversation for example he´ll say....

" Amanda called to me" or "I have to call to josef" etc etc

when one should say "Amanda called me" and " I have to call Josef"

How can i explain why its incorrect in the first two examples in order for him move on ... ....

Thank-You !

Intransitive use is the norm, there:

2. To communicate or try to communicate with someone by telephone: I called twice, but no one answered.

It's the same with "phone".

sdhanel · Post by **sdhanel** » Tue May 22, 2007 7:20 am

This seems to be an example of what I was taught that in Spanish is referred to as the 'personal a'. This is a linguistic feature that we don't have in English.
Whether or not the preposition, to, is used does not depend on there being a person, even moi, as the object.

metal56 · Post by **metal56** » Tue May 22, 2007 9:00 am

sdhanel wrote:This seems to be an example of what I was taught that in Spanish is referred to as the 'personal a'. This is a linguistic feature that we don't have in English.
Whether or not the preposition, to, is used does not depend on there being a person, even moi, as the object.

Could you expand on that?

sdhanel · Post by **sdhanel** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:22 pm

In English we don't require that to be used whenever there is a reference to a person, whether it's a pronoun or noun. The a is required in Spanish when we refer to a person, hence the 'personal a'.
It looks like what Bonnie is seeing is a literal translation from Spanish to English of this 'personal a'.
The verb is irrelevant to the 'personal a'.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Tue May 22, 2007 3:51 pm

What confused me when I learned Spanish was that noone explained that personal a must refer to a specific person. So a single man looking for a partner might say Necesito una mujer but a married one might say Necesito a una mujer.

clio.gr · Post by **clio.gr** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:52 am

Well this sounds like Mother Tongue interference.
That is a result, I think, of not using authenitic materials from the start (from Junior classes).
Morever all this explaining in the MT and all these grammar rules do not help, you know.
The student should start speaking and learning the foreign language naturally. After all that happened when he/she started speaking the MT.

Now with your problem, I would say that someone can forget rules easily and retrieve to what he/she knows better, the MT. May advice is to bombard him/her with authentic material that he/ she can have fun. Video and audio recordings, comics, articles etc. Of course your student faces a particular problem with 'to' so you may choose semi-authentic material.

No rules that make no sense to a not native speaker.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri May 25, 2007 12:36 pm

The student should start speaking and learning the foreign language naturally. After all that happened when he/she started speaking the MT.

Yes, and it only took twelve hours a day, 365 days a year, for about fourteen years. At an hour a day, which is generous for ESL exposure, that would mean round about twenty years instruction before they start with papa and mama.

clio.gr · Post by **clio.gr** » Fri May 25, 2007 2:34 pm

It will take some time. So what. Do we want results or do we want to finish tones of grammar books?

Miss Elenious · Post by **Miss Elenious** » Fri May 25, 2007 4:53 pm

I think that in time she will get over mother tongue interference. It's a matter of habit because I'm sure that your student knows the grammar rule.
Revise the verbs often in context and don't correct her/him all the time, or make it sound like you don't correct her.
Teacher: Did you call anyone yesterday?
Student: Yes, I called to Jose.
Teacher : Was he there when you called him? (You see, you correct the mistake but it's not that obvious and the conversation can coninue naturally)
Also when you use the specific verbs stress your voice to attract her attention
I know that repetitive mistakes can be rather disappointing for the teacher
but most of the times , and even sometimes miraculously, they get over them.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri May 25, 2007 5:48 pm

It will take some time. So what. Do we want results

Having the language skills of a four year old after paying for sixty years of language instruction doesn't really seem to be that great a result, does it?

First language acquisition is genetically controlled; second language learning is not, and there is no serious study that suggests the most efficient way of second language learning is to mimic the path of first language acquisition.

clio.gr · Post by **clio.gr** » Fri May 25, 2007 6:21 pm

Have you tried it? I have and it doesn't take that long. And when I say to follow the same way, I mean exposure to authentic material and limitation of pure grammar and vocabulary teaching. They can be easily taught by using a cartoon or an episode from 'Yes minister' or 'Friends' or 'Desperate housewives' or 'Lion King'.

Of course there are studies and serious ones that talk about using mostly authentic materials and little grammar and vocabulary during your lesson.

There are also many studies that show that if a child is exposed to authenticity retains the knowledge longer than having heard the rule.

Haven't your students ever told you : "I know this is right but I don't know why" or "In so and so film someone said that." and then you notice that the student uses the expression?

Is first language acquisition genetical? I know many albanian kids who were born here and never have spoken albanian and they are native Greek speakers.

So, I'm sorry but here too the environment plays a great role.

Read some Chomsky to see what I mean.

lolwhites · Post by **lolwhites** » Fri May 25, 2007 8:13 pm

Read some Chomsky to see what I mean.

I think most posters here are familiar with Chomsky. Some of us are also aware that he has consistently said that he can't see how his theories can be applied to the teaching and learning of foreign languages.

Teacher Discussion Forums

Can`t see the wood for the trees

Can`t see the wood for the trees

Re: Can`t see the wood for the trees