Comparatives
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
john martin
- Posts: 43
- Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 11:12 am
Hi all. There was a comment about fuzzy areas, and we know how many of those there are in any language. I always tell my students that what I teach them is correct up to a certain point, but there will always be strange situations. But most students seem to want to know the "rule". Only some can deal with the "fuzzy". What is the best way to make the fuzzy understandable and not intimidating?
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
Hello Johnjohn martin wrote:Hi all. There was a comment about fuzzy areas, and we know how many of those there are in any language. I always tell my students that what I teach them is correct up to a certain point, but there will always be strange situations. But most students seem to want to know the "rule". Only some can deal with the "fuzzy". What is the best way to make the fuzzy understandable and not intimidating?
That's what I also feel. During the process of learning their mother language, one never cares about the rules or exceptions, they simply get the way of the language, and when it comes to foreign/second language then we have pupils with headaches, concerns about the use of prepositions, etc, etc.
In one hand, just telling "that's the way it works" sound too simplist and it may prevent further discovering by the part of the pupils, on the other hand, we can go so deep that our main target, communication, gets lost within so many explanions, theories and emphasis on the 'whies' and 'becauses' of the fuzzy areas (more common or commoner, What shoud I use now????, Am I suppose to put an "in"or "at" now????), and again, there is no magical formula, how to balance the simple "that's the way natives use it" against "there are sutudies on how to use 'more' instead of -er particle" will always be our question as teachers, for each situation demands a certain kind of response, isn't it just a matter of teaching our pupils to face languages like languages, I mean, the human instinct that lies within, the chaos, the possibilities, the richness of human communication, that is quite different to learning physics or chemistry (although these sciences surely have their fuzzy areas), and in my case I have to add that I am not a native speaker, so what I take for granted may not be the accurate or current usage.
What do you do generally? I am trying to simplify at maximum my explanations and let them alone find out the fuzzy areas (as I have to do myself) so that's a good way for them to think over the matter, it would end up being much better than giving then the rules/fuzzies and see most of them not giving a danm to it.
Please reply
José
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
For students learning English, and for many teachers too 
, it seems almost as if this language is nearly unlearnable because of all the apparent ‘exceptions’. “What is the rule?”, they plead. “Just give me the rule.” And then, they feel, we can move on to some other ‘rule’ or exercise, or game, or whatever. And the teachers struggle to come up with ‘the rule’, pretty much for the same reasons. But they are, I think, missing the big picture. And they’re missing out on much of the fun, too. 
English (or any other language) is not like a set of instructions for putting together a bicycle on Christmas Eve, or for installing a piece of software into your computer. It is a tool, something they can use, and tools are used either clumsily or expertly by those who wield them. If you asked a chef exactly how he makes a certain sauce, he may be able to give you a recipe which contains a list of ingredients and instructions on how to combine them, but it is that recipe in his expert hands that produces the wonderful, creamy, delicate and delicious sauce which he uses to top your Eggs Benedict. He understands the nuances which are not always written in the recipe, but which he has learned not only from his training, but from countless hours in the kitchen and as many mistakes that he has had to dispose of in the trash. He knows the difference between “blending” and “folding.” He makes a distinction between “frying” and “sauteing”, and knows when to use each method (and also when not to) because he has tried them all and seen (and tasted) the results. He has a feel for when to use low or medium heat and when to sear with extreme temperatures and brief exposures.
Users of a language also, if they want to become expert at using it, need to develop their skills, not so much with practice as with thought. Teachers, if they really understand this struggle, can help to guide their students, but cannot always just reduce it to an operating manual. Jose asked, “How do I know whether to use ‘in’ or ‘at’ in a prepositional phrase, and because he is a teacher, what he really wants to know is what to tell his students. Well, there may not always be a clear directive from the textbooks with questions such as his. An "explanation", here, is not likely to be effective. But one thing Jose can do is try to figure out (perhaps together with his students) what the difference is between ‘in’ and ‘at.’ Look at a number of expressions with each word in place:
in the restaurant
at the restaurant
in a corner
at a corner
in school
at school
etc.
Are any of these wrong? Incorrect? ...No? Then do they mean the same thing? If not quite, then they must have different meanings and therefore different uses. What, exactly, is the difference? Perhaps it will help to put them in full sentences where both can appear:
“I’ll meet you in the restaurant.”
“I’ll meet you at the restaurant.”
Does that help to make the difference clearer? What about ‘on’? Can I understand the idea of “on the restaurant”? How about, “on the corner”? Why does it seem OK to say, "...on the corner", but strange to say "...on the restaurant"?
I believe time spent in class with explorations like these (as opposed to explanations) is very well spent. It may be “fuzzy”, in the sense that you can’t make a ‘rule’ that tells students when to use ‘in’ or ‘at’ or ‘on’, because the choice depends on the intentions of the user. But it does help to develop their confidence in detecting differences in meaning when they hear one of them used rather than another. It helps them to realize that choosing to use ‘in’ is also a choice not to use ‘at’. It makes them think about English. It helps them to more skillfully choose between the alternatives when they produce English themselves. It helps them to realize that there may be a wide range of acceptable alternatives for them to use if only they can start to understand what the implications are of the choices they can make.
Explanations, in cases like these, will not very likely result in increased student skill. Nor will exercises or other 'activities'. Despite their sometime reluctance to do so, students may have to think to learn English. Don't you agree?
Larry Latham
, it seems almost as if this language is nearly unlearnable because of all the apparent ‘exceptions’. “What is the rule?”, they plead. “Just give me the rule.” And then, they feel, we can move on to some other ‘rule’ or exercise, or game, or whatever. And the teachers struggle to come up with ‘the rule’, pretty much for the same reasons. But they are, I think, missing the big picture. And they’re missing out on much of the fun, too. English (or any other language) is not like a set of instructions for putting together a bicycle on Christmas Eve, or for installing a piece of software into your computer. It is a tool, something they can use, and tools are used either clumsily or expertly by those who wield them. If you asked a chef exactly how he makes a certain sauce, he may be able to give you a recipe which contains a list of ingredients and instructions on how to combine them, but it is that recipe in his expert hands that produces the wonderful, creamy, delicate and delicious sauce which he uses to top your Eggs Benedict. He understands the nuances which are not always written in the recipe, but which he has learned not only from his training, but from countless hours in the kitchen and as many mistakes that he has had to dispose of in the trash. He knows the difference between “blending” and “folding.” He makes a distinction between “frying” and “sauteing”, and knows when to use each method (and also when not to) because he has tried them all and seen (and tasted) the results. He has a feel for when to use low or medium heat and when to sear with extreme temperatures and brief exposures.Users of a language also, if they want to become expert at using it, need to develop their skills, not so much with practice as with thought. Teachers, if they really understand this struggle, can help to guide their students, but cannot always just reduce it to an operating manual. Jose asked, “How do I know whether to use ‘in’ or ‘at’ in a prepositional phrase, and because he is a teacher, what he really wants to know is what to tell his students. Well, there may not always be a clear directive from the textbooks with questions such as his. An "explanation", here, is not likely to be effective. But one thing Jose can do is try to figure out (perhaps together with his students) what the difference is between ‘in’ and ‘at.’ Look at a number of expressions with each word in place:
in the restaurant
at the restaurant
in a corner
at a corner
in school
at school
etc.
Are any of these wrong? Incorrect? ...No? Then do they mean the same thing? If not quite, then they must have different meanings and therefore different uses. What, exactly, is the difference? Perhaps it will help to put them in full sentences where both can appear:
“I’ll meet you in the restaurant.”
“I’ll meet you at the restaurant.”
Does that help to make the difference clearer? What about ‘on’? Can I understand the idea of “on the restaurant”? How about, “on the corner”? Why does it seem OK to say, "...on the corner", but strange to say "...on the restaurant"?
I believe time spent in class with explorations like these (as opposed to explanations) is very well spent. It may be “fuzzy”, in the sense that you can’t make a ‘rule’ that tells students when to use ‘in’ or ‘at’ or ‘on’, because the choice depends on the intentions of the user. But it does help to develop their confidence in detecting differences in meaning when they hear one of them used rather than another. It helps them to realize that choosing to use ‘in’ is also a choice not to use ‘at’. It makes them think about English. It helps them to more skillfully choose between the alternatives when they produce English themselves. It helps them to realize that there may be a wide range of acceptable alternatives for them to use if only they can start to understand what the implications are of the choices they can make.
Explanations, in cases like these, will not very likely result in increased student skill. Nor will exercises or other 'activities'. Despite their sometime reluctance to do so, students may have to think to learn English. Don't you agree?
Larry Latham
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
Dear Larry
Yeah, I got you, giving it a second thought , I think that sometimes we as teachers perceive things in a narrow way and lose all the opportunities which looking at the big picture can gives us. We (I'm talking about me and teachers who behave like me) teach our students some bad habits when we promptly answer their doubts, give them rules, we do not commit learning through practice, as you told using 'it' is linked to not using 'at' and vice-versa.
I just have to say "thank you" for your enlightment explanations, for when one reads things like this, they surely, sooner or later, become more and more confident in relax the ridigness of formal learning.
José
Yeah, I got you, giving it a second thought , I think that sometimes we as teachers perceive things in a narrow way and lose all the opportunities which looking at the big picture can gives us. We (I'm talking about me and teachers who behave like me) teach our students some bad habits when we promptly answer their doubts, give them rules, we do not commit learning through practice, as you told using 'it' is linked to not using 'at' and vice-versa.
I just have to say "thank you" for your enlightment explanations, for when one reads things like this, they surely, sooner or later, become more and more confident in relax the ridigness of formal learning.
José
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
That's the way, Jose. If you can relax and enjoy yourself in class, the liklihood is your students will have a good time too. It's clear to me that you are a true professional. What makes you professional in my eyes is your concern to learn, as you go, to be the best you can be. No one knows everything about English. Not the most famous professor, not the textbook writers, not anybody on the planet. There is no shame at all in saying to your students, "I don't know. But I'll try to find out and get back to you." And then you do just that. Such a teacher is to be admired by everyone.
Good luck to you, Jose. Your students are already lucky to have you. Those in your future will be even more so.
Larry Latham
Good luck to you, Jose. Your students are already lucky to have you. Those in your future will be even more so.
Larry Latham
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
Thanks Larry for your encouraging words
In fact, my students in the future might be lucky, that's funny, I started teaching back in 1999 and if I had the power I would re-teach all those people
Teaching is a fascinating thing just for this, you have to get lots of background knowledge and spare just a little bit of them for there is no sufficient time for more, I've read somewhere that the teacher is someone who is always needy, someone in need of discussion and change knowledge, someone who is never satisfied and I've found out that I actually need people, I need my neighbour to learn something.
If I happen to be a true professional, it is also thanks to people like you and the others in forums like this where people with the same goal always help the newcomers, once more thanks.
José
In fact, my students in the future might be lucky, that's funny, I started teaching back in 1999 and if I had the power I would re-teach all those people
Teaching is a fascinating thing just for this, you have to get lots of background knowledge and spare just a little bit of them for there is no sufficient time for more, I've read somewhere that the teacher is someone who is always needy, someone in need of discussion and change knowledge, someone who is never satisfied and I've found out that I actually need people, I need my neighbour to learn something.
If I happen to be a true professional, it is also thanks to people like you and the others in forums like this where people with the same goal always help the newcomers, once more thanks.
José
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
Re: Comparatives
dduck wrote:I think American English is continually being influenced by Spanish, consequently Spanish contstructions are gradually creeping into US language (e.g. mas cerca). No native speaker of British English would say "more close", for example.Metamorfose wrote:1.1 But, I've seen lots of natives (mainly) deviate this "rule" by using the word more before the adjective (more green, more close, more wise...) I've seen natives utter such sentences and in songs, is this a common phenomena? May I say that English is simplifying step-by-step the construction of comparasions?
Iain
Umm, sorry to be a pain, but the Collin's Online Corpus says different(ly). I searched for the string "more+close" in British English texts and came up with four indisputable examples of "more close":1. some sort of safety." [p] On more close inspection, the ice-encrusted walls
2.headway in the sense that we are more close to signing a ceasefire and entirely
3.held him most the time cos he's more close to my mum than me [F01] Right. Is
4.find yourself becoming rather cl more close to a brother if a brother ceases to
while it might be possible to claim one example as a mistake (if we discard linguistic objectivity and become prescriptive), four different examples looks like a pattern.
It would be interesting to consider whether "more close" means the same as "closer", though, particularly because it looks like the speaker started saying "closer" and intentionally changed to "more close" in example 4.
I just did a search on google:
Baeutiful 2,200 hits.
That's rather more than the 4 you were kind enough to quote. I feel quite brave when I say that this misspelling of beautiful doesn't represent any significant pattern of usage. Not when you compare it to the 25,500,000 hits you get for the correct spelling.
Perhaps, you could give some usage statistics to support you ideas about British English?
Iain
Baeutiful 2,200 hits.
That's rather more than the 4 you were kind enough to quote. I feel quite brave when I say that this misspelling of beautiful doesn't represent any significant pattern of usage. Not when you compare it to the 25,500,000 hits you get for the correct spelling.
Perhaps, you could give some usage statistics to support you ideas about British English?
Iain
Fair pointdduck wrote:I just did a search on google:
Baeutiful 2,200 hits.
That's rather more than the 4 you were kind enough to quote. I feel quite brave when I say that this misspelling of beautiful doesn't represent any significant pattern of usage. Not when you compare it to the 25,500,000 hits you get for the correct spelling.
Perhaps, you could give some usage statistics to support you ideas about British English?
Iain
, but I don't think we're comparing like with like. First of all, Google is searching the whole Internet rather than a principled collection/selection of texts. For one thing, the whole Internet includes millions of pages which are not written by native speakers of English. Secondly, I think we would have to ask what kind of mistake "Baeutiful" is - is it a linguistic mistake or a typing error? Does that matter? I think so...That's not to say that errors, typing or otherwise, don't crop up in corpora - of course they do. I should have been more careful in claiming that 4 represents a pattern
- when I get offline I'll have a look in the BNC and see if I can find any more. At any rate, do you think the four I discovered were mistakes (one-offs) or errors (systematic) or evidence of something that is, perhaps, not very common but nevertheless part of the language? Or something else?I'm still intrigued by the 4th example, though, where it looks as though the speaker deliberately chose the non-standard form. Perhaps "more close" sounds more emphatic?
-
LarryLatham
- Posts: 1195
- Joined: Thu Jan 16, 2003 6:33 pm
- Location: Aguanga, California (near San Diego)
In the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English, section 7.7.2, it says
As LGSWE has been produced by five of the most prominent corpus linguists, I think we can take that as the current final word. Can't we?In some cases, monosyllabic adjectives can alternatively take phrasal marking as well as inflectional. Examples of monosyllabic adjectives with phrasal marking are:
1 Wouldn't that be more fair?" she asked (FICT)
3 Our women are more fierce than our men. (NEWS)
5 We recently had a PM even more rude than Paul Keating. (NEWS)
A possible reason for this choice of the phrasal alternative here is that it makes the comparison more prominent; in speech, the comparison can additionally be stressed for emphasis.