DCTP Forums

Do you stick in the "official grammar" even if it's practically obsolete compared to the actual use of the language?
I got into an argument about which approach is better and since there are a few people involved with languages in this forum, I decided to ask...

I did a "teaching english as a foreign language" course, and you're advised to teach whatever grammar structure will be most useful to actually using the language. You wouldn't teach Shakespearian grammar to students, for example. Uou're nto supposed to teach entirely slang or anything, just spoken grammar. Of course, this can be a problem for speakers of quite strong dialects, like me ^_^; I got advised to "teach the Queen's English" XDXD

If i am to become an english teacher, i wouldn't care at all about the grammar..

Instead, everyday class will be filled with lot of Manga scan discussion And i will have my whole class to watch American TV series without sub-tittle...

I did it myself, and I've never faced any situation where i had to study the English textbooks before the test and exam in my whole life 

The best way to learn a language is apparently to immerse yourself in a country where it's primarily spoken. Just listening to people speaking it a lot. If you're teaching english in a foreign country, you're meant to stick to an "english-only" policy in your classroom, even if your students don't know all the words that you're saying, they'll pick them up quickly.

Thanks for your answers.

mangaluva wrote: I did a "teaching english as a foreign language" course, and you're advised to teach whatever grammar structure will be most useful to actually using the language. You wouldn't teach Shakespearian grammar to students, for example. Uou're nto supposed to teach entirely slang or anything, just spoken grammar. Of course, this can be a problem for speakers of quite strong dialects, like me ^_^; I got advised to "teach the Queen's English" XDXD

That's what I believe too.
Just-wrong-grammar and not-in-the-textbooks-grammar are not the same thing.

PS. I'm also a dialectical speaker  :-\ Not that I hate it - au contraire-, but yeah it's a slight disadvantage if you are trying to teach, even if it's not in a formal classroom.

The basic idea is that you learn a second language in a similar manner to how you learned your first- just by picking it up from people speaking it around you. Still, when teaching it, it's best to stick to an approximate standard grammar, and let them get the hang of the dialects later. (There was a guy on my course who spoke a LOT of Cockney. With my heavy Scottish dialect, neither of us ever understood each other- and we're speaking nominally the same language XD)

I agree with the rest. Kinda reminds me of the "speak english" policy implemented at school...it only lasted for at least an hour. 

mangaluva wrote: The basic idea is that you learn a second language in a similar manner to how you learned your first- just by picking it up from people speaking it around you. Still, when teaching it, it's best to stick to an approximate standard grammar, and let them get the hang of the dialects later. (There was a guy on my course who spoke a LOT of Cockney. With my heavy Scottish dialect, neither of us ever understood each other- and we're speaking nominally the same language XD)

In my case it was neither a dialect problem not a very complex grammar structure. It was a trivial rule of when a certain euphonic suffix should be used and when not (a phonology thing). The textbook rule is very strict and does not reflect actual usage, plus it creates ambiguousness in some cases. I listed few exceptions in that rule which are widely accepted by linguistics and professional writers but that other girl said everything I said was BS... Anyway, that girl is always like that. If it's not in hers 40-years-old "Standard Grammar of Modern Greek" book, then it's wrong.

meidei wrote: In my case it was neither a dialect problem not a very complex grammar structure. It was a trivial rule of when a certain euphonic suffix should be used and when not (a phonology thing). The textbook rule is very strict and does not reflect actual usage, plus it creates ambiguousness in some cases. I listed few exceptions in that rule which are widely accepted by linguistics and professional writers but that other girl said everything I said was BS... Anyway, that girl is always like that. If it's not in hers 40-years-old "Standard Grammar of Modern Greek" book, then it's wrong.

That reminds me of when I learned English, there were some rules I never understood and which turned out to be very strange.
Even today I wonder why it was explained that we should use "goes" if it happens regularly and "is going" in other cases when it is much more easy to explain (at least to a German) that if you can add a "gerade" in the German sentence it's "is going" and if not, it's "goes".
You'll always only understand a language completely after you've developed a Sprachgefühl (LEO says that's an English word), and before, I'd suggest to explain it like it's spoken. The foreigner will finally develop a Sparchgefühl for the language that will enable him to differentiate between spoken and written/official language.
Oh, BTW while learning English, I found it really useful to watch something in any language (not necessarily English) I don't understand, for example Japanese , with English subtitles. It's probably so useful because you get the emotions via articulation, mimic and gesture and what they say via subtitles, and you can therefore easily learn how the words are used. If you'd only learn from books, it's much more difficult to realize where to use maybe and where to use perhaps.

Callid wrote: a Sprachgefühl (LEO says that's an English word)

What on earth does that mean? O_o

I like watching anime in Japanese without subs and trying to see how much I can understand. Just seeing people speak whatever language you're trying to learn is helpful; again, it's the same way you learned your first language.

My elementary level German recognize the words "language" and "feel". I guess its the equivalent to the Greek "γλωσσικό αισθητήÏ

[quote="meidei"]
My elementary level German recognize the words "language" and "feel". I guess its the equivalent to the Greek "γλωσσικό αισθητήÏ

"Feel for language" sounds right.

mangaluva wrote: "Feel for language" sounds right.

Really? To me it's kind of clumsy. I wonder if this means that I have no Sprachgefühl for English...

it's simply a composite of "Sprach(e)" (in this context: language) and "Gefühl" (in this context: feeling).

Hm, many Greek linguistic terms were created according the German ones. I believe that's another one term we imported from German and tweaked a bit.

meidei wrote:

mangaluva wrote: "Feel for language" sounds right.

Really? To me it's kind of clumsy. I wonder if this means that I have no Sprachgefühl for English...

It also sounds somewhat strange to me. I had simply created language feeling.

meidei wrote:

mangaluva wrote: it's simply a composite of "Sprach(e)" (in this context: language) and "Gefühl" (in this context: feeling).

Hm, many Greek linguistic terms were created according the German ones. I believe that's another one term we imported from German and tweaked a bit.

I've once learned that the German ability to build new words (like Sprachgefühl) is only matched by Old Greek. Perhaps New Greek still has good word-building abilities?