<In order for “our students” to speak in a native context, I’m afraid they would have to look for such outside of the classroom. >
Well, I disagree, but you seem so convinced in your beliefs that I think it would be pointless to argue with you.
Creating "quaint" speakers?
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
As usual, a lot will depend on what the students are going to do with their English. Those who are going to spend a lot of time in business meetings with other NNSs might not worry too much about how "natural" their English is, for example, while those who are planning to work in an English-speaking country may well give it a higher priority.
IMO one the main causes of "quaint" English is the "grammar for grammar's sake" syllabuses that continue to be applied all over the world, if my experience of teaching EFL in the UK is anything to go by. Even in much of Europe, where there is now a common, skills-based language syllabus, classroom practice often remains where it was 20 or 30 years ago because some teachers just don't know how to teach any other way. So one way of avoiding "quaint", or perfectly understandable but completely unnatural language is to avoid stupid example sentences to make a grammatical point, and to give everything a context - not just "is this correct?" but "when is it correct?"
As regards pronunciation, my first French teacher actually taught phonetics before anything else. I think his rationale was that it's easier to avoid bad habits at the start than to break them a few years down the line, and in my case it seems to have worked. I still have an accent when I speak French, but people say it's pretty mild. Since I'll now be teaching young beginners, I plan to give pronunciation a high priority so as many students as possible can get it right first time.
IMO one the main causes of "quaint" English is the "grammar for grammar's sake" syllabuses that continue to be applied all over the world, if my experience of teaching EFL in the UK is anything to go by. Even in much of Europe, where there is now a common, skills-based language syllabus, classroom practice often remains where it was 20 or 30 years ago because some teachers just don't know how to teach any other way. So one way of avoiding "quaint", or perfectly understandable but completely unnatural language is to avoid stupid example sentences to make a grammatical point, and to give everything a context - not just "is this correct?" but "when is it correct?"
As regards pronunciation, my first French teacher actually taught phonetics before anything else. I think his rationale was that it's easier to avoid bad habits at the start than to break them a few years down the line, and in my case it seems to have worked. I still have an accent when I speak French, but people say it's pretty mild. Since I'll now be teaching young beginners, I plan to give pronunciation a high priority so as many students as possible can get it right first time.
Quaint English?
This is a recipe my mother brought from England when we immigrated. I have fond memories of my dad and I coming home, smelling Mom's cheeze & onion and attempting to devour it long before it's designated meal time. My Canadian husband has now carried on this tradition and I find it a favourite when taken to pot lucks, etc.
-
Stephen Jones
- Posts: 1421
- Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm
We're all talking about grammar limitations causing quaint English but no one has spoken about vocabulary limitations. I'm writing CALL material for a course at present and I must stick to the vocabulary limits of the course (the starting point is a vocabulary of around 2,200 words). I don't know if some of the phrases I come up with or quaint or not, but they certainly sound so to me!
I've been trying to work out why it sounded strange, and I think it's mixed registers: my mother but my dad, then Mom, and attempting to devour it long before it's (sic) designated meal time sounds a bit laboured, though that could be deliberate. I'd need to see the rest.metal56 wrote:Quaint English?
This is a recipe my mother brought from England when we immigrated. I have fond memories of my dad and I coming home, smelling Mom's cheeze & onion and attempting to devour it long before it's designated meal time. My Canadian husband has now carried on this tradition and I find it a favourite when taken to pot lucks, etc.
My Canadian husband has now carried on this tradition strikes me as a bit clumsy; the tradition of making cheeze (?) and onion, or the tradition of attempting to devour it? OK, so I can work it out but in good writing, the reader really shouldn't have to.
So, IMO, not so much quaint English as first-draft English.
Yeah, this can really be tough for some writers. Many of them have their heart set on a topic and clumsily address it with limited vocabulary parameters. At times certain articles just can't be easily reworked or tweaked to generate fluidity and I had to rewrite the whole thing in another direction still preserving the topic, or suggest that a different topic be employed altogether and the whole article redone by the author.Stephen Jones wrote:We're all talking about grammar limitations causing quaint English but no one has spoken about vocabulary limitations. I'm writing CALL material for a course at present and I must stick to the vocabulary limits of the course (the starting point is a vocabulary of around 2,200 words). I don't know if some of the phrases I come up with or quaint or not, but they certainly sound so to me!
It helps knowing that a set number of new vocabulary, like four or five, is permitted on every page; then strategy can be employed to make almost anything (good quality) possible with creativity. For those, however, who can't recast sentences well or who have definite limitations in their writing skills, textbook vocabulary limitations will usually render their texts awkward.
If they sound that way to you, they probably are.Stephen Jones wrote: I don't know if some of the phrases I come up with or quaint or not, but they certainly sound so to me!
Post a few here, if you will.
Last edited by metal56 on Mon Sep 17, 2007 6:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
I think he's saying that achieving genuine conversational English can only be done with two or more native speakers interacting with each other, during which different dynamics and principles operate. Perhaps one person lecturing tends to lend itself to "quaintness" or bookishness because it normally requires a different vocabulary or style than just flapping the gab with people — or perhaps talking genuinely conversational in the classroom (as one person) might cause us to think we sound as if we're sillily talking to ourselves or sound otherwise childish or, ironically, ungenuine — when in fact it's just inappropriate to most other lecturing venues.
Many people are afraid of sounding silly at first when they try appropriating genuineness in a foreign language; the same might be said of teaching genuineness as well.
Many people are afraid of sounding silly at first when they try appropriating genuineness in a foreign language; the same might be said of teaching genuineness as well.
By the way, Bryan Garner's quote of the day is interesting:
http://www.lawprose.org/subscribe_tips.php
They usually start coming in one week after subscribing.
You can subscribe to his grammar-usage tip and quote of the day here:Quotation of the Day: "To all parents who ask me what my advice is to their boys' education, I always say: 'Let them learn foreign languages: French, Italian, German, Spanish, as many more as they can. The other things -- the length of rivers, the accession of kings, the names of battles, even multiplication and subtraction -- are negligible; but conversation with foreigners is vital.'" E.V. Lucas, A Rover I Would Be 48 (2d ed. 1928).
http://www.lawprose.org/subscribe_tips.php
They usually start coming in one week after subscribing.