|
|
|
 Ralf
Language Coach
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: EU (Ireland and Germany)
|
|
 #3 (permalink) Tue Sep 09, 2008 15:53 pm Ridiculous ways of presenting rules. |
|
|
| For one, they use the grammar "tense" to explain the grammar "tense", and for two, they are limiting. It's the latter oddity I'm caught by. |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
 |
|
Ralf
Language Coach
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: EU (Ireland and Germany)
|
|
| #5 (permalink) Tue Sep 09, 2008 20:38 pm Ridiculous ways of presenting rules. |
|
|
| Ralf wrote: |
| How would you teach how to use these tenses without confusing or overwhelming your students, Molly? |
Are you saying that the explanations above are not vacuous, not ridiculous? You say you don't like threads which mislead, so I'm trying to get your take on the thread post. What is it? |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
| #6 (permalink) Tue Sep 09, 2008 21:15 pm Ridiculous ways of presenting rules. |
|
|
Your initial 'question':
| Molly wrote: |
What are some of the most ridiculous ways to write grammar rules? The "circularity approach" is one of them.
e.g.
The present perfect is used for an action which has just happened.
The present continuous is used for an action which is going on at the moment of speaking.
Useless, right?
|
Again, why is it ridiculous and useless to teach a tense by introducing a primary aspect of it? How would your more holistic approach look to enlighten B1 learners, Molly?
_________________
Test of English as a Foreign Language
TOEFL Preparation & TOEFL Vocabulary
Learn more: How to Become an English Teacher |
|
Ralf
Language Coach
Joined: 20 Apr 2006
Posts: 1485
Location: EU (Ireland and Germany)
|
|
| #7 (permalink) Tue Sep 09, 2008 23:03 pm Ridiculous ways of presenting rules. |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Again, why is it ridiculous and useless to teach a tense by introducing a primary aspect of it? |
As M Lewis said when talking about the same "If you as teachers cannot see what's wrong with such circular grammar "rules", you should at least pretend that you do see something wrong".
BTW, what's my holistic approach? I didn't know I had one.
Same question as before: Are you saying that the grammar explanations above are not vacuous, not ridiculous?
How would you react if I presented this as an explantion of the use of the present perfect, Ralf?
| Quote: |
| The present perfect is used when the present perfect is used. |
Would you ask me what's wrong with that? |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
| #8 (permalink) Tue Sep 09, 2008 23:17 pm Ridiculous ways of presenting rules. |
|
|
Here's another ridiculous rule straight from the grammar books. This time it's about the use of the passive:
You mention the agent if the agent is important to mention. |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
| #9 (permalink) Tue Sep 09, 2008 23:19 pm Ridiculous ways of presenting rules. |
|
|
The modal verbs are used for necessity, possibilty, etc.
???!!! "Etc"? |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
| #10 (permalink) Wed Sep 10, 2008 0:27 am Ridiculous ways of presenting rules. |
|
|
| Quote: |
Q: How would you teach how to use these tenses without confusing or overwhelming your students?
A: Are you saying that the explanations above are not vacuous, not ridiculous?
|
M., are you saying that a question about how you would do X is equivalent to a claim that some other way of doing X is not ridiculous?
MrP |
|
MrPedantic
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 1319
Location: Southern England
|
|
| #11 (permalink) Wed Sep 10, 2008 0:32 am Ridiculous ways of presenting rules. |
|
|
| Quote: |
| M., are you saying that a question about how you would do X is equivalent to a claim that some other way of doing X is not ridiculous? |
Come again? |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
| #12 (permalink) Wed Sep 10, 2008 0:44 am Ridiculous ways of presenting rules. |
|
|
You don't understand that your response here is a non sequitur?
| Quote: |
Q: How would you teach how to use these tenses without confusing or overwhelming your students?
A: Are you saying that the explanations above are not vacuous, not ridiculous?
|
MrP |
|
MrPedantic
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 13 Oct 2006
Posts: 1319
Location: Southern England
|
|
| #13 (permalink) Wed Sep 10, 2008 0:46 am Ridiculous ways of presenting rules. |
|
|
.
Believe it or not, I understood MrP's question perfectly, M.
. |
|
Yankee
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 16 Apr 2006
Posts: 8265
Location: USA
|
|
| #14 (permalink) Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:10 am Ridiculous ways of presenting rules. |
|
|
| I'm pleased for you. |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
| #15 (permalink) Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:11 am Ridiculous ways of presenting rules. |
|
|
| MrPedantic wrote: |
You don't understand that your response here is a non sequitur?
| Quote: |
Q: How would you teach how to use these tenses without confusing or overwhelming your students?
A: Are you saying that the explanations above are not vacuous, not ridiculous?
|
MrP |
I understand my response is based on getting an answer to the thread question before we go on to Ralf's request. Ralf has talked about not distracting posters from thread questions. |
|
Molly
I'm a Communicator ;-)
Joined: 12 Feb 2008
Posts: 4017
|
|
|
| Opinion on esltube.org and one video there. | "smashing" use |
