Applied Systemic Functional Linguistics

[WienSam]

The Danish students in particular caught on quickly because English is so similar and as they said, based on Danish.

I find that rather arrogant of them, to say the least. The last known record of a Danish invasion was in 851 AD. At that time, the English language was predominantly Anglo-Saxon and remained so for about the next 500 years or more.

So, since when is English 'based on Danish'? If they are refering to the invasion (over a thousand years ago) , then the Italians (Romans), Germans (Saxons), French (Normans), Swedes (Vikings), and Norwegians (Norsemen) could make the same claim and, frankly, would have more right to do so.

Modern English is NOT based on Danish.

[Stephen Jones]

At that time, the English language was predominantly Anglo-Saxon and remained so for about the next 500 years or more.

A contentious statement to put it mildly.

I wasn't aware that Anglo-Saxon was a language; the language is normally called Old English. It was a Germanic language.

The influence of Danish was considerable. For example the vowel in put and putt is pronounced the same North of a line that more or less coincides exactly with the Danegeld. Had the language of 'Gawain' triumphed over the language of the 'Canterbury Tales' then modern English would have many more Danish influences.

then the Italians (Romans), Germans (Saxons), French (Normans), Swedes (Vikings), and Norwegians (Norsemen) could make the same claim and, frankly, would have more right to do so.

There are scarcely any Latin words that came into English through the Romans; they almost all entered through French or directly through Latin through the influence of the monasteries or universities.

The Vikings were Norsemen, not Swedes (and the languages are similar anyway). The Danes settled and thus their influence was greater but we are talking about very closely related languages anyway. And Germanic and Scandinavian languages are sibling sub-families anyway.

The Normans were originally Vikings, but by the time they invaded they were Norman French speakers. They of course had little effect on the English of the North of England, and none whatsoever on the English of Scotland, which explains why Scots is a dialect of English with many less words of French provenance.

The fusion of Old English with Norman French, which produced the Middle English of the South East, and later Modern English, was more or less complete by the 13th century - considerably less than the 500 years you mention.

[lolwhites]

Spoken English in the North of England and Scotland has a clear Viking influence (the slang terms bairn for child and kirk for church spring to mind), and when I studied Swedish I saw clear cognates (kan for "can", vi for "we") but that's a long way from saying English is "based on Danish".

I suppose that if it hadn't been for Alfred the Great, we probably would be speaking a language based on Danish.

Anyway, here's what Wikipedia has to say on the subject:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_language#History

[WienSam]

I wasn't aware that Anglo-Saxon was a language; the language is normally called Old English. It was a Germanic language.

Quote: "Like English, Scots is a direct descendant of Old English, also known as Anglo-Saxon." (from Wikipedia)

Also "After Scots, the next closest relative is Frisian—spoken in the Netherlands", which explains why I could never understand Chaucer until I had lived in Holland for 2 years and learned to speak Dutch. When I returned, and read Chaucer as if it was Dutch, I understood it perfectly...

Interestingly enough "The current status of the English language at the start of the new millennium compares with that of Latin in the past."

James D. Nicoll made the oft-quoted observation: "The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that English is about as pure as a cribhouse *beep*. We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and riffle [sic] their pockets for new vocabulary"

[JuanTwoThree]

Curiously Scots does have a lot of French borrowings

fash:get angry

greet:cry

tassie: a small cup and many more.

These come from French-Scottish royal and aristocratic connections which are much later than the Normans.

What I was taught was definitely called Anglo-Saxon in those days but Old English seems to be the favoured term now.

[tigertiger]

this is a long way from SFL
How did we get here??????????????

[geordie]

Tiger - yes but most impressive - such erudition. The original request was for practical examples from anybody having experience at the chalk-board. So far it seems there is only Sally.

[JuanTwoThree]

Yes, a lot of knowledge is like that: without many applications, unsystemic and not functional!

This SFL. I've got to middle age without hearing much about it. I accept that there are multiple ways of describing grammatical structure but
If some of the posters here can't get their heads round it ("a crock") I wonder if it would significantly cut down the 300 say , to pluck a number from the air, hours of effective contact with the target language that are needed to produce a significant change in the students' level. It sounds like it might even make matters worse.

I'm not belittling SFL by the way, or any other kind of erudition. But I wonder if it's any more applicable than knowing something about the origins of some Scots words.

I use C rods, boxes, arrows, colours to avoid overloading the students with terminology but at some point the terminology takes over. But why substitute one set of jargon (participants, processes etc) for another (the traditional ones). Will it help?

[geordie]

Juan - Will it help?
I don`t know but I am giving it a go. I have used the American (modern) grammar book by Kolln & Funk as my `bible` for the past few years but to convey the ideas of Kellog and Reed diagrams and the `10 basic English sentences` to my Japanese students is beyond me. Australian teachers are apparently using SFL to good effect in Australia. Martha Kolln is embracing some of the ideas of SFL. Seems worth a try!

[Sally Olsen]

I thought it was cute to have my Danish students say that their ancestors were responsible for my native language. I have found that people like to change history if it puts them in a better light. In Mongolia the students told me that Mongolians had built the great wall to keep the Chinese out.
I think that the history of English is really important and always start out my adult lessons with a history that is front of the dictionary. I find that it helps them deal with the various "exceptions" that pop up all the time because they appreciate that the language grew through various stages and influences. I think that the SFL text books designed by Rhondda Faheyand others have similar history lessons even for the younger students.
I do think that if we can figure out how to understand SFL ourselves that our teaching will be better because we understand the ways of making meaning better. There are excellent curriculum outlines from Australia and one from Hong Kong and they seem to take about the same time to teach as traditional methods. I certainly seem to get more out of the concept of "process" rather than the word "verb" . I, too, had the experience of the students wanting more precise names for the various parts of speech but thought it was valuable for them to construct the categories from the coloured columns of words rather than just say to them that is a participant. It seemed to me a more scientific way of discovery and seemed to stick better. I also forgot to mention that I used coloured chalk on the blackboard when I was writing things up for them. At first it was awkward but the students soon started calling out what colours I would need. At first I wrote in yellow on a blue blackboard and then put coloured boxes around the words with the help of the students and finally wrote in coloured chalk for each word and got quite good at it. I just found that it got the students to look and think when often they would be fooling around as I wrote something on the board and the same with looking at their writing after correction. They found the colours interesting rather than the red pen my colleagues used and actually looked at their mistakes, at least most of them, and started to discuss why I had coloured in a word or to compare it to the column of words or add their word to the column of words. I also found that some of the younger children were arranging the words in the columns across the columns so they made sentences - often funny or rude of course, but still with meaning.

[WienSam]

I'm British (English to be even more precise) and was lucky enough to have a classical top-drawer education (though it has not done me any good - I am 46, studying for my 18th qualification, which also happens to be my third post-graduate qualification - all that and yet still without work, despite all my best efforts). Frankly, I resent the way colonials have the arrogance to try and presume to teach us how to teach OUR OWN (genuinely, i.e. not by adoption) MOTHER TONGUE. If it was good enough for statesmen (such as Churchill), poets (Keats, Byron, Shelley), playwrights (from Shakespeare to Shaw and Sheridan), why does it need to be reinvented? Are these people too stupid / arrogant to accept traditional language education?

Coloured pens indeed!

Perhaps I should sign off as 'Professor Higgins'

[JuanTwoThree]

My testimony:

I was taught Latin, Greek, German and French and their terminologies traditionally if not brutally and can hardly remember a thing.

Until University I'd never studied English grammar in my life. I think they thought we'd get the hang of it by studying those other languages. Maybe I did.

I only learnt the current crop of English terminology 15 years ago. I'm not over keen on it by any means. If these uncouth types from the Dominions can come up with something better then bring it on, says I, though I'm a bit late for it. Surely it can't be any worse than using the word "continuous" to describe temporary situations and so on.

[Stephen Jones]

I was taught Latin, Greek, German and French and their terminologies traditionally if not brutally and can hardly remember a thing.

Or of the languages or of the terminologies?

[JuanTwoThree]

It's all a blur of middles, ablatives, gerundives, neuters, imperfects, historics and so on. We had to parse chunks of language, accompanied by threats of strange punishments. How brutal is an early morning run? Or "extra German"? The punishments seem clearer in my memory than whatever I was being punished for not remembering. So much for a classical top-drawer education.

Curiously though, I find myself knowing Spanish words without really knowing why I know them. The vocabulary tests in Latin (Mondays) and French (Wednesdays) seem to have left their subconscious mark. Along with an aversion to running and to using homework as a punishment.

So, as I say, in my case yet another way of looking at structures would just add to the gallimaufry of half-learning passing for erudition resulting from my expensive education.

But if SFL is easy to get the head round and is applicable to more than one language then it might be a fresh start for others.

[geordie]

By gad sir,
These colonials and provincials are getting above themselves!
Another snifter before tiffin Major Bloodknock?