Guest Posted May 23, 2001 Report Share Posted May 23, 2001 quote: Originally posted by Bangkok Phil: Actually Raddemmo - I do take that most definitely as a flame, because I enjoy an excellent reputation as a teacher. This argument about what certain verbs mean is like the verb+gerund, verb+infinitive, verb+either gerund or infinitive argument? (and many other structures of course) Students ask me what the rule is regarding the structures. I know what the damn rule is but the last thing I'm going to do is fill students heads with it. I'll give them lots of exercises and opportunities to use them (because it's an important point)but I'm not going to explain rules. Thai students have a head full of grammar rules put there by years of Thai 'teachers' and they still can't converse at anything above basic level. I never teach the names of verb tenses either because they're a load of crap. They actually do mean something in latin but when adapted to English, there is nothing perfect about the present perfect. BP- I'm sorry about that little jab. It was uncalled for and I apologize. Anyway, I still disagree with your methodology. I guess the most important thing is that you get good results from your students. My first real job out of college was teaching juvenile delinquents and gifted children in an alternative school. Can you imagine having to deal with needs of both types of students in the same classroom? We had a comprehensive approach to teaching, so I taught a bit of everything, including English--mostly literature and writing. I have studied five different languages- English, Italian, Spanish, Czech and Thai. With the exception of Thai, all the other languages were taught, more or less, in the same way. I was taught Thai in way that seems close to your approach-- and it totally sucked. I was begging the teachers to teach the structure of the language. I wanted to learn the rules. Instead, the instructors thought learning by your "feeling" immersion method was the way to go. On the other hand, the instructors of the other languages I studied had a more comprehensive approach based upon the structure of the language. Yes, I was taught the rules and it was a good thing. You have pointed out in a few of your previous posts that you can speak Thai, yet you would like to study it. What for? You have been here for God knows how many years and by now you should have a "feeling" for the language. What is the point of studying Thai if you already know all its quirky little colloquialisms? Do you just want to sit in a classroom and chat in Thai? Personally, I would like to know what underpins the language--that makes sense to me. It makes sense to me that a student would want to understand the grammatical rules, and it makes sense to teach them. This debate is not new to me. My ex-wife is a linguist. She speaks six languages. One of my ex-girlfriends from college is a bi-lingual teacher, and another one is an English professor. God knows how many times we have talked shop. As professionals, we were all taught in pretty much the same way and we all agree that learning syntax, semantics, phonetics and all the other technical bs is the way to go. It must be done, however, in a comprehensive and interesting way. I would never suggest to a language instructor to sit and make his students draw sentence diagrams all day, which is not what I am infering at all. I have spoken to professors of English who were not originally from an English speaking country and have discussed different teaching techniques. Everyone I had spoken to agreed that learning the technical aspects of English helped them master it later, and gave them the tools to teach literature and to translate books in their language into English. And man, they had it a lot harder than I could possibly imagine. They were taught medieval Anglo-Saxon as a base. No Beuwulf for me, thank you very much. Most Thais I have come across who speak some English, speak it using Thai grammatical rules and have a difficult time conjugating verbs. I wonder why? I guess they didn't pick up on the vibrations in their English course and a magical immersion of perfect grammar and verb tense did not mystically materialize in their brains. Have you ever noticed how people from Holland and the Scandanavian countries speak English better than most people from English speaking countries? It is because the technical aspects of English were rammed down their throats. You can ask people from those countries if that is true or not. Lastly, I would contend that the way I told Roger how to teach his little Thai friend the distinction between the verbs see,look and watch was a lot more effective in getting the point across than your "English has no rules, so bugger all" advice. Late, Raddemo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 OK Raddemo, you've made a good post and I respect your opinion. Let's agree to disagree and part as friends. At least we're both passionate about language. I speak Thai reasonably well, but there are just times when I feel I need to push things further and add another 500+ words to my vocabulary bank. I've spent too much time speaking English basically and very little time socializing with the natives (I wouldn't embarrass myself by trying to speak Thai with my girlfriend, because her English is so good) Can I just add to this excellent debate the idea of 'exposure' to a language. Even though I have worked here for 12 years I don't get all that much exposure to the language. I don't watch Thai TV, and I work with excellent English speakers. Thais are often poor in English because they think that studying 4 hours a week puts them on the road to fluency. 4 hours a day maybe. I look forward to more of your posts in this section, because you have much to offer I can see. Let's both hope that whichever method Roger chooses - he gets his prize! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 Interesting thread guys. I have read your respective viewpoints and have this to say:- You are both right, I have learnt Turkish, French and German by the "grammatical" route and have found each successive language easier than the last. I am trying to learn more Thai but while I think the "seat of the pants" method has a place it should be tempered with some grammar. It is so much easier to know about the individual bricks and the mortar of a language. Learners form original sentences much more rapidly when they know these "rules". Thankfully to fully explain them takes a teacher years. But the fun must not be forgotten, by combining the two methods I think this can be achieved. I agree about scandinavians, I took my CELTA with a norwegian girl who knew a hell of a lot more about English grammar than I did then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 24, 2001 Report Share Posted May 24, 2001 quote: Originally posted by Bangkok Phil: OK Raddemo, you've made a good post and I respect your opinion. Let's agree to disagree and part as friends. At least we're both passionate about language. I speak Thai reasonably well, but there are just times when I feel I need to push things further and add another 500+ words to my vocabulary bank. I've spent too much time speaking English basically and very little time socializing with the natives (I wouldn't embarrass myself by trying to speak Thai with my girlfriend, because her English is so good) Can I just add to this excellent debate the idea of 'exposure' to a language. Even though I have worked here for 12 years I don't get all that much exposure to the language. I don't watch Thai TV, and I work with excellent English speakers. Thais are often poor in English because they think that studying 4 hours a week puts them on the road to fluency. 4 hours a day maybe. I look forward to more of your posts in this section, because you have much to offer I can see. Let's both hope that whichever method Roger chooses - he gets his prize! BP- Originally, to be honest with you, I was kind of taking the piss out of you because you always seem so pedantic about everything. I have to admit you are my favorite poster, but I couldn't resist giving you some shit. Some people seem to have an obsequious devotion to some of the "experts" on the board and I thought I would have a little fun challenging you. I didn't really mean to insult you or sound pompous in my posts. I did it on purpose. I still stand by the content of what I wrote, but I know I could have been a little bit more tactful and not so arrogant. By the way, I did teach English in the Czech Republic for a short period of time. But it was so damn cold, I got the hell out of there. Late, Raddemo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 25, 2001 Report Share Posted May 25, 2001 I have never taught any English, but I am hopefully expectant to find some work when I finally return. So I would appreciate the critique of the learned to my aproach to explaining this. To "see" is to have visual sighting of something. To "watch" is to consciouly visually observe. To "Look" is to direct ones visual atention. And then further explain that these terms being used out of context are just examples of the complete bastardisation of the language. IE: You do not go to "See" a movie you go to "watch" a movie. What do you think ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 26, 2001 Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 It sounds wonderful Pom but totally unneccessary for the classroom. Of course the students would say khob khun maak ajarn and wander off and be none the wiser, but you would have made them happy. I've never ever been asked this question in the classroom (look, see, watch) and I honestly think that Roger's friend in the original post was just looking for an excuse to chat with him. Lucky old Roger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Posted May 26, 2001 Author Report Share Posted May 26, 2001 quote: I've never ever been asked this question in the classroom (look, see, watch) and I honestly think that Roger's friend in the original post was just looking for an excuse to chat with him. Lucky old Roger.[/QB] Well, i certainly hope so, i guess i will hace to offer her some private tuition. Did you get my pvt message Phil?? Roger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 5, 2001 Report Share Posted June 5, 2001 Roger, I found your private message and dutifully replied. I didn't know about that function - sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckyfarang Posted June 5, 2001 Report Share Posted June 5, 2001 Roger- my take on this: DOO - to look at, to watch HEN - to see, to be of the opinion that... KWAHM HEN - opinion MAUNG, MAUNG DOO - to stare (at) JER - to find, encounter, bump into HAA - to look for, to seek (Thais use this HAA MAW for "to see a doctor" You should point out to her that in english we use "see" and not "seek" a doctor KHON HAA - to search for HAA MAI JER - to look for and not find POHP - to meet (someone) HAA MAI PHOP - according to Raddemo this may be the correct way to say you looked for someone and did not find them, but in practice I have only heard HAA MAI JER used to mean this, even though it might only be correct for objects It is important to express to her that these words do not translate exactly to a single english word and she must learn the proper usages from experience. [ June 05, 2001: Message edited by: luckyfarang ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.