A native-speaker survey

[metal56]

A survey was undertaken a few years ago to study the choices native English speakers make when having to judge on acceptable, or even incorrect, usage. One of the exercises from that study is posted below. If you would like to participate in a revival of a part of that study, you could try to answer those questions. If you have any opposition to personally participating in such surveys, then I point out that it is not obligatory to do so.

If, before you decide to participate, you would like me to publish the answers I gave, I will be more than happy to. This is not a test! This post is mainly addressed to native English speakers. If you are a non-native and choose to participate, could you please indicate that in your reply.

Thanks.

Good luck!


Thinking about your own usage and not just grammar rules, in which slots/gaps below do you think that:

WOULD is possible, but SHOULD is not
SHOULD is possible, but WOULD is not
Both WOULD and SHOULD are possible


1. We ... be delighted to ask our representative to call.
2. We ... like once more to apologise for the inconvenience you have been caused.
3. We ... be grateful if you could despatch the orders by return.
4. The work ... take about 3 months if we are able to start on the 1st of April.
5. We ... be grateful if you ... pass on this information to your client.

[lolwhites]

1. Both (but should sounds more formal)
2. Both (but I prefer would)
3. Would but not should
4. Both (with differences is meaning)
5. 1st - Both, 2nd - would only

I'd be interested to see your earlier results but if you don't want to prejudice your findings this time round, feel free to send them as a private message.

Incidentally, I assume you're aware of the reasearch that showed that non-native teachers make more corrections to their students' work than native speakers.

[fluffyhamster]

I'm in agreement with lolwhites.

[metal56]

1. Both (but should sounds more formal)
2. Both (but I prefer would)
3. Would but not should
4. Both (with differences is meaning)
5. 1st - Both, 2nd - would only

I'd be interested to see your earlier results but if you don't want to prejudice your findings this time round, feel free to send them as a private message.

Incidentally, I assume you're aware of the reasearch that showed that non-native teachers make more corrections to their students' work than native speakers.

Thanks, Lol.

I imagine that would be so. Although I do not understand some of the corrections that many native teachers make to their students work.

[metal56]

I'm in agreement with lolwhites.

Thanks.

[lolwhites]

I do not understand some of the corrections that many native teachers make to their students work

Maybe they've read too many grammar books. It's surprising how some teachers seem to prefer what the books say to their own instincts. I once had an argument with a teacher who was writing a list of verbs "not used in the present continuous"; her reply was "I got it from a grammar book".

[fluffyhamster]

Maybe they are torn between the rules, and the inevitable exceptions to them; and explaining both will keep them busy and in employment for years to come, won't it (though not, "unfortunately", with the same class).

[lolwhites]

My point was that I'm not impressed when someone's best argument is "the book says so". When a rule has loads of exceptions, it's time to take another look at the rule.

[Stephen Jones]

I agree with lolwhites over the alternatives for the questionnaire.

I also agree that non-native speakers are often prone to correct non-existent faults.

Amongst native speakers I would suspect English graduates to be the least likely to mistakenly correct, since thay normally have more confidence in their own intuitions and less so in the so-called rules, but that may be a personal prejudice.

It would be interesting to give the same sets of student compositions to both native and non-native English teachers to correct. I suspect you would see the same number of corrections, but considerable difference in what both groups decided to correct.

[metal56]

I do not understand some of the corrections that many native teachers make to their students work

Maybe they've read too many grammar books. It's surprising how some teachers seem to prefer what the books say to their own instincts. I once had an argument with a teacher who was writing a list of verbs "not used in the present continuous"; her reply was "I got it from a grammar book".

Sh*t happens, eh?

I have one ESLite arguing strongly against the use of "are able to" below. he insists that it should be, and only be, "were able to". I told him that it depends on what one wants to express and that conditional type sentences are no different fom any other regarding the meaning of each individual clause.

He says:

The work would take about 3 months if we are able to start on the 1st of April.

Is incorrect.

[metal56]

Maybe they are torn between the rules, and the inevitable exceptions to them; and explaining both will keep them busy and in employment for years to come, won't it (though not, "unfortunately", with the same class).

LOL! I don't go in for this rule and then exceptions way of teaching. what many ESL teachers call a rule is often nothing more than a hint at usage, (a partial story), therefore, not a rule.

[metal56]

It would be interesting to give the same sets of student compositions to both native and non-native English teachers to correct. I suspect you would see the same number of corrections, but considerable difference in what both groups decided to correct.

Yes, it would.

The original survey was in fact given to native speaking office workers. There was a lot of disagreement about what was possible, but very few of them resorted to grammar rules to explain their varying choices.

[fluffyhamster]

I have one ESLite arguing strongly against the use of "are able to" below. he insists that it should be, and only be, "were able to". I told him that it depends on what one wants to express and that conditional type sentences are no different fom any other regarding the meaning of each individual clause.

He says:

The work would take about 3 months if we are able to start on the 1st of April.

Is incorrect.

Maybe what that guy means is he feels he was forced to choose between "would" and "should", but that his preference would be for neither i.e. he would use "will" instead (in which case his "be able to" follows on rather nicely, it must be said).

Certainly, I wouldn't trust workmen who start(ed) hedging on how long something will take: The work will take about 3 months if we are able to start on the 1st of April, so we should be finished by the end of June/very beginning of July at the latest.

All that being said, I see nothing wrong with your sentence, metal.

[metal56]

Certainly, I wouldn't trust workmen who start(ed) hedging on how long something will take: The work will take about 3 months if we are able to start on the 1st of April, so we should be finished by the end of June/very beginning of July at the latest.

All that being said, I see nothing wrong with your sentence, metal.

You have to bit a careful above though.

If you choose to employ us, the work would take ...


Polite, and not too pushy, builders do exist.

,-)

[fluffyhamster]

(Amazed hamster).