Linguists like me learn early in their careers that people don't want to hear about linguistics.
They REALLY don't want to hear about it. Like the quote at the top of my blog says, "Don't talk about syntax [a subfield of linguistics] at parties; people will walk away from you."
But that certainly doesn't stop people from talking about language. All the time. People comment on things that they and other people say often, and have lots of ideas about them such as which accents are good and which are bad and what grammar is good and bad. But these ideas are largely uninformed by rigorous study of language and how it works. One of my mentors once compared this to someone saying, "I know all about cell biology. In fact, I'm doing it right now."
An example: Recently I was in the dressing room of a store trying on some clothing. I overheard a young woman in another booth in the dressing room talking about a Filipina woman she had met like this: "She was trying to say 'Oh my God' but she couldn't say it. She just kept saying 'Oh my gut. Oh my gut.' It was so weird." The implication was that there was something wrong with this Filipina.
It was a bit hard to resist the temptation to go over to the other part of the dressing room and explain to the young woman that there was no need to think it was weird; saying "gut" instead of "God" is a simple phonological process common to many learners of new languages.
But I did resist. Because people don't want to hear about linguistics. Especially from strangers in dressing rooms. Regardless of how many advanced degrees in linguistics the person has. (I've got two!)
But in this post, I am going to tell you one reason why you should want to hear about linguistics: if you knew more about lingustics, you would find it easier to make choices about what language learning activities and programs you would do and purchase, and which you would avoid.
Why would I want to read this post?
Lots of people nowadays would like to learn a new language. Your reasons might range from the fact that it's cool to travel opportunities to hoping to increase your job opportunities. I don't think anyone would argue that learning a new language would be a life asset in some way.
But, as many people know, language learning is kind of challenging. Or at least it seems that way. Enter people who want to help.
There are lots of books, CD sets, computer programs, and classes designed to help people who want to learn new languages. Some of them have pretty obvious methodologies, others use techniques you might not have thought of. But all of them promise that they work.
Wouldn't it be great if you knew which of all these methods were good and which were largely a waste of time?
People seem to be pretty savvy when they buy things like computers, dishwashers, TVs, and so forth. They study the features of the product and buy the one that will meet their needs. But if you don't truly understand your needs, you won't make a purchase that will serve you. And that is where people go wrong in spending money and time on language learning methods that don't work. Lots of people have tried ways of language learning that aren't very efficient or effective. As a result, they don't get far, and they feel frustrated.
No wonder that people think they can't learn a new language or that it's too hard or they are too old. If you try something that doesn't work, it's natural that it won't get results. It's like saying, "Goodness, no matter how much of this carpet I buy, I can't lose weight!" or "I keep reading books on history, but my car's oil still hasn't been changed." It seems obvious that buying carpet or reading history would not have an effect on weight loss or automotive maintenance, because people know a bit about those things and know that they aren't related. But people don't know much about language and language learning (even though they think they do), so they can't judge whether a methodology is good or not.
Couple that with not wanting to hear about linguistics and you have a lot of people spending time and money on language learning programs that aren't teaching them language or changing their oil.
In this post I point out the promises that a lot of these language learning programs offer and why you shouldn't just believe them.
The problem with choosing a language-learning method based on your own logic
As I mentioned earlier, people are largely uninformed about what works and what doesn't when it comes to learning language. And what happens in a vacuum of knowledge? Lots of pet theories. Language learning programs (both commercial and personal) are built on all kinds of principles that, as far as they know, may or may not actually work for learning language such as translation, worksheets, learning grammar rules, listening to music, clicking pictures on a computer, and so forth. But people think they will work, and that is the problem.
Take this silly possible situation: you believe that the thing that determines whether or not a person learns a language is the person has to be standing on one leg. So you sign up for your German class and you very diligently stand on one leg during all your classes. You also stand on one leg while doing all your assignments and while listening to German pop music on your iPod. You even stand on one leg while watching German television shows or reading a German newspaper. After months of careful effort at one-leg standing, you feel that you have successfully learned the skills in German you wanted to learn and you proudly announce: "See? I knew that standing on one leg would work!"
It is hopefully easy for people to see that it was probably all the other things you were doing, not the standing on one leg, that caused you to learn German. But people tend to focus only on those things they think will work. If you think standing on one leg is the way to go, you will discount all the other activities as unhelpful or extra, even though those were really the things that helped you to learn German. No matter how logical a methodology or technique seems, unless you know it has been researched and found to work under controlled or quasi-controlled scientific circumstances, a method that you think will work is only a guess, and may be completely ineffective. Doesn't it make a lot more sense to find out what really works in scientific research?
Why you shouldn't believe "It worked for me."
Just a couple of days ago I was in a bookstore and picked up a book that was designed to teach people how to learn languages. The author is a man who is apparently highly proficient in a few different languages and he decided to write this book to share with people how he did it. So in this book he shared his ideas about language learning and the techniques he followed as he learned these languages. The techniques mainly focused on how to use different forms of media in language learning. The back cover of the book promised that his ideas were based on research. But when I looked further, what did I discover? The research was about the media, not about language learning and what things are most effective and helpful for language learners. This man was simply sharing what he believed to work for language learning. His advice might as well have been "stand on one leg" for all he knew about language learning research.
Would you buy a book on car repair from someone who didn't have any special training in car construction or maintenance? Would you buy a self-help book from someone who wasn't a trained counselor or psychologist? Would you buy a book on business from someone who didn't have any experience or training in making money? I hope you wouldn't, so why buy a book on language learning from a non-linguist?
"But it worked for him!" you say. When he was learning those languages, he used the techniques that he is talking about. But for all he knows, and for all you know, all those techniques he used were as effective as standing on one leg or buying carpet. Even worse, they could have actually even limited or slowed down his language learning. He did them because he thought they would work, and because he perceives himself to be a successful language learner, he thought those techniques caused his success. But it is entirely possible that other things he was doing which he thought were extra turned out to be the true key to language learning.
Or, it could be that the things he was doing worked, but very inefficiently. Imagine you had the task to move a mountain, and the best idea you had about how to move mountains was with a shovel. So there you are, digging away with your best shoveling technique, thinking that you are moving the mountain by the best way possible. Your friend comes along asking for advice and you hand him a shovel, saying, "It worked for me!" Well, it does work a little, but shoveling is not the ideal way to move a mountain. If only we had a bulldozer or some dynamite!
No one person ever has the experience of learning the same language two different times using two different methods. So there is no way that one man can ever scientifically evaluate the experience that he had and judge which aspects were helpful or not. The only way this can be done is by carefully designed research that studies large numbers of language learners and tracks their progress using the scientific method.
Many language learning books and programs out there claim that they have the best way, and they have testimonials to back it up. But I hope you can see now why testimonials are not sufficient evidence for the effectiveness of a program.
Why are you being so negative?
In this post I have focused on fallacies that people commonly believe when it comes to language learning and shown you why they are fallacies. But I don't intend to end there. In future posts, I want to share with you what linguists and researchers know about what really does work. Then, you will be armed with the principles you need to evaluate what language learning techniques you want to use to meet your language learning goals. And I hope that, with the right principles under your belt, you will find language learning more pleasant and effective than your previous experiences. You may find that you will purchase programs and books, but you will use them in different ways than you previously would have. And I think you will also find that there are many things you can use to learn a new language that are easily accessible and cost little. Who doesn't like that?
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Friday, February 10, 2012
You see? I'm not the only one.
Apparently I'm not the only linguist who sometimes gets frustrated when people ask, "So how many languages do you speak?" Enjoy this little slide show that explains why that question works, but doesn't work, for a lot of us.
So you know a linguist
View more presentations from Jodie Martin
Tuesday, February 7, 2012
Wacky Language Learning: Zuiikin' English
Welcome to my first post in a requested series of posts about wacky language learning techniques that people have used over the years. I can't think of a better one to start with than Zuiikin' English, a wacky language learning system that is so memorable it has quite a cult following on the web.
Zuiikin' English is a series of shorts that showed on Japanese TV during the early 90s. It was a morning show that aired near the morning news. In this program, Japanese women dressed in exercise clothing lead the viewer through a series of exercises where they make body movements and say English sentences in time to percussive music, as the sentence is displayed in both English and Japanese on the screen. The sentences involve topics that would be of interest to a business traveler from Japan, such as how to meet people to date, safety, and getting medical help in an English speaking country. Many of these videos have made their way to YouTube. Here is a quintessential example:
The theory: Unfortunately there is very little available about the theory behind Zuiikin' English, so I have to base this whole section on the Wikipedia article on Zuiikin' English and what I remember from reading about it before. Apparently the person who invented this language learning method feels that speakers of different languages use different body parts more in their everyday movements, and thought that practicing certain kinds of body movements would help the language learner to more naturally learn the language of the people who use those body parts more. I assume this is the reason that the exercises seem to involve a lot of arm movement in comparison to movements of other body parts.
Why it doesn't work: As many language learners know, memorization of a sentence does not mean that you can speak the language of the sentence. Ignoring the movement part of the video, basically you have an English sentence and a Japanese sentence on the screen at the same time. The learners aren't really learning English, then; they are just thinking of a sentence in Japanese and then saying a memorized series of sounds associated with that Japanese sentence. This is the language equivalent of repeating your times tables, being able to spit out an answer that is associated with a question. You can do this without understanding the meaning behind the English words or grammar in the English sentence at all. (Any other language learning program that teaches sentences in the target language by glossing them in the learner's native language has the same problem.) The body movements probably aid the memorization process, but the underlying theory that body movements of certain groups of people are somehow associated with their languages has no research basis that I am aware of.
Another more minor problem with Zuiikin' English is the rhythms associated with the sentences. There is no doubt that different languages have different rhythms (this is one of my favorite topics on language) and a big part of comprehensibility in English pronunciation is using the rhythm that listeners expect. In Zuiikin' English
the rhythm of the English sentences is changed to go along with the music. If learners speak these sentences with this rhythm, it may be more difficult for native speakers to understand them.
If we look at Zuiikin' English as just a fun program rather than a serious language learning methodology I can definitely see the appeal. Enjoy this list of Zuiikin' videos on YouTube. And what better way to end this post than this video:
Zuiikin' English is a series of shorts that showed on Japanese TV during the early 90s. It was a morning show that aired near the morning news. In this program, Japanese women dressed in exercise clothing lead the viewer through a series of exercises where they make body movements and say English sentences in time to percussive music, as the sentence is displayed in both English and Japanese on the screen. The sentences involve topics that would be of interest to a business traveler from Japan, such as how to meet people to date, safety, and getting medical help in an English speaking country. Many of these videos have made their way to YouTube. Here is a quintessential example:
The theory: Unfortunately there is very little available about the theory behind Zuiikin' English, so I have to base this whole section on the Wikipedia article on Zuiikin' English and what I remember from reading about it before. Apparently the person who invented this language learning method feels that speakers of different languages use different body parts more in their everyday movements, and thought that practicing certain kinds of body movements would help the language learner to more naturally learn the language of the people who use those body parts more. I assume this is the reason that the exercises seem to involve a lot of arm movement in comparison to movements of other body parts.
Why it doesn't work: As many language learners know, memorization of a sentence does not mean that you can speak the language of the sentence. Ignoring the movement part of the video, basically you have an English sentence and a Japanese sentence on the screen at the same time. The learners aren't really learning English, then; they are just thinking of a sentence in Japanese and then saying a memorized series of sounds associated with that Japanese sentence. This is the language equivalent of repeating your times tables, being able to spit out an answer that is associated with a question. You can do this without understanding the meaning behind the English words or grammar in the English sentence at all. (Any other language learning program that teaches sentences in the target language by glossing them in the learner's native language has the same problem.) The body movements probably aid the memorization process, but the underlying theory that body movements of certain groups of people are somehow associated with their languages has no research basis that I am aware of.
Another more minor problem with Zuiikin' English is the rhythms associated with the sentences. There is no doubt that different languages have different rhythms (this is one of my favorite topics on language) and a big part of comprehensibility in English pronunciation is using the rhythm that listeners expect. In Zuiikin' English
the rhythm of the English sentences is changed to go along with the music. If learners speak these sentences with this rhythm, it may be more difficult for native speakers to understand them.
If we look at Zuiikin' English as just a fun program rather than a serious language learning methodology I can definitely see the appeal. Enjoy this list of Zuiikin' videos on YouTube. And what better way to end this post than this video:
Monday, January 23, 2012
A little tip for guys who send me messages online
If you want to make a good impression on me, I suggest that you don't:
1. Tell me what subfield of linguistics I should study. Having written a dissertation on second language phonology is kind of proof that I've already chosen that one. And I really don't like it when people tell me what they think I should do unsolicited. How about this question instead: "Why did you choose that field? What do you find interesting about it?"
2. Make up garbage, unoriginal theories about linguistics, based on your own strange ideas about languages and language learning. Know-it-alls are not attractive, especially because I have my own know-it-all tendencies. How about this instead: "I've always thought such-and-such, but I don't know much about linguistics. What have you studied on that topic?"
To the guy who did both of these things in as many messages to me: major turnoff.
A little friendly advice for Republican delegates
Dear Republican delegates,
A little friendly advice, since it seems like many of you want to actually have a Republican president in office again. I realize there are many of you out there who don't want a Mormon president, no matter what. But you should ask yourselves -- are you willing to lose the election over it?
As all the pundits are saying, Gingrich seems to be collecting votes from anyone who doesn't want a Mormon president. But imagine Gingrich against Obama. Gingrich is much less TV-friendly (let's face it, he's not particularly good-looking) and already, criticisms of his handling of his personal life and moral behavior are coming under question. In addition, Gingrich's politics are far right, which doesn't usually play well in the main presidential election where voters tend to lean moderate instead of extreme. Next to our smooth, family-man, progressive incumbent president, I don't think Gingrich will end up the victor.
Romney, on the other hand, is relatively good-looking and has already established himself as moderate in the sense that he is conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Such a moderate platform will appeal more to the general public, who drives the electoral college.
So if your top priority is to not have a Mormon as president, go with Gingrich, and get ready for an Obama re-election. If you want a Republican in office, though, Romney's your man as far as I can tell. Don't let prejudice prevent you from achieving your main goal.
Sincerely,
ww
(Just in case you're wondering where I'm coming from, I'm not affiliated with any party, but have generally conservative leanings on many domestic issues.)
A little friendly advice, since it seems like many of you want to actually have a Republican president in office again. I realize there are many of you out there who don't want a Mormon president, no matter what. But you should ask yourselves -- are you willing to lose the election over it?
As all the pundits are saying, Gingrich seems to be collecting votes from anyone who doesn't want a Mormon president. But imagine Gingrich against Obama. Gingrich is much less TV-friendly (let's face it, he's not particularly good-looking) and already, criticisms of his handling of his personal life and moral behavior are coming under question. In addition, Gingrich's politics are far right, which doesn't usually play well in the main presidential election where voters tend to lean moderate instead of extreme. Next to our smooth, family-man, progressive incumbent president, I don't think Gingrich will end up the victor.
Romney, on the other hand, is relatively good-looking and has already established himself as moderate in the sense that he is conservative on some issues and liberal on others. Such a moderate platform will appeal more to the general public, who drives the electoral college.
So if your top priority is to not have a Mormon as president, go with Gingrich, and get ready for an Obama re-election. If you want a Republican in office, though, Romney's your man as far as I can tell. Don't let prejudice prevent you from achieving your main goal.
Sincerely,
ww
(Just in case you're wondering where I'm coming from, I'm not affiliated with any party, but have generally conservative leanings on many domestic issues.)
Monday, January 2, 2012
The McDonald's embargo
I haven't blogged in months (as you can see by the date on my previous post) and that's mostly because I didn't feel like I had anything to say, at least not anything to say to the audience on the interwebs. And I'm still not sure that I have anything to say, but I am going to tell you about my only-semi-official boycott of McDonald's.
First of all, I want to make it clear that I don't have anything political against McDonald's. My main complaint is that their food is generally poor quality. If I want a burger, there are lots of other restaurants out there where I can get a better burger. And over the years some items they have offered have been incredibly unhealthy (such as McGriddle and, more recently, their oatmeal). Which means that I am not highly motivated to go there...
Which leads me to the "boycott". I don't eat at McDonald's. It's a long-standing tradition.
The last time I can remember purchasing food at McDonald's is when I was in high school on our choir tour to California. We pulled into a town at night in our choir bus for a quick food and wash-yourself-a-bit-in-the-bathroom visit. As far as I know (with one limited experience I'll tell you about later), I have not purchased food at McDonald's since then. So that would be an estimated 17 years that I have gone without Mickey D's. I have eaten a couple of burgers during that time that my dad brought home when they were having a sale or something. But during that time I have not stepped foot into a McDonald's restaurant or purchased anything there as far as I can remember. And after it had been a time, it sort of became a thing and I sort of made a point of avoiding McDonald's. Which isn't hard because I don't think I am missing much when it comes to the food.
When I was in the Czech Republic I learned that my favorite city (at least from the ones that I experienced) was Pilsen, and there is a McDonald's there. McDonald's is popular in the Czech Republic because it was started by a guy with Czech parents, Ray Kroc (yes, Kroc is not actually supposed to be pronounced "krok" like the first syllable of crocodile, but "krots", a good, solid Czech name.) I remember at one point that someone mentioned to me that I could go to McDonald's while I was there, assuming that I wanted to go to McDonald's because I'm American. But I don't want to eat there. I just stayed outside and took a photo of the Ray Kroc plaque on the side of the building. And I am glad that my Czech friends think McDonald's is cool but honestly I think the US of A could be known for something a little better quality than McDonald's food. And I know that a lot of Americans like to eat at McDonald's when they are abroad because, I guess, it's a form of comfort food to them, something from "home" that they can relate to and know what they are getting. But I am totally fine with exploring other cuisines.
(P.S. I didn't notice until posting the picture on the blog that the plaque is in English.)
So why don't I eat at McDonald's? Because it's been so long since I ate at McDonald's. It's a self-perpetuating thing. And I guess there is a part of me that wants to be a bit of a snob and be different from what everybody else in America is doing (though that's not really true). I have to admit that some of their more modern menu items seem more appealing than the classic Big Mac (which, in my my memory, is disgusting) but they have really been advertising the Big Mac lately and I'm also not interested in collecting collectible different-colored Coke glasses or whatever. So maybe in the future I will want something there or be really hungry or be in a small town where McD is the only option and give it a try, but I have a feeling that the McDonald's embargo is going to continue for some time.
That said, this last summer when I passed through Washington, D.C., I visited the National Mall and bought a bottle of water from a cart on the mall. And after I had placed the order I realized that the person at the cart was wearing a McDonald's uniform. Apparently McD's has a contract to provide all the food services in the area. So technically I bought a bottle of water from McDonald's, I guess. And that doesn't really bother me because there isn't a really good reason for the whole Mickey D's standoff anyway. But don't expect to see me in there tomorrow.
First of all, I want to make it clear that I don't have anything political against McDonald's. My main complaint is that their food is generally poor quality. If I want a burger, there are lots of other restaurants out there where I can get a better burger. And over the years some items they have offered have been incredibly unhealthy (such as McGriddle and, more recently, their oatmeal). Which means that I am not highly motivated to go there...
Which leads me to the "boycott". I don't eat at McDonald's. It's a long-standing tradition.
The last time I can remember purchasing food at McDonald's is when I was in high school on our choir tour to California. We pulled into a town at night in our choir bus for a quick food and wash-yourself-a-bit-in-the-bathroom visit. As far as I know (with one limited experience I'll tell you about later), I have not purchased food at McDonald's since then. So that would be an estimated 17 years that I have gone without Mickey D's. I have eaten a couple of burgers during that time that my dad brought home when they were having a sale or something. But during that time I have not stepped foot into a McDonald's restaurant or purchased anything there as far as I can remember. And after it had been a time, it sort of became a thing and I sort of made a point of avoiding McDonald's. Which isn't hard because I don't think I am missing much when it comes to the food.
(P.S. I didn't notice until posting the picture on the blog that the plaque is in English.)
So why don't I eat at McDonald's? Because it's been so long since I ate at McDonald's. It's a self-perpetuating thing. And I guess there is a part of me that wants to be a bit of a snob and be different from what everybody else in America is doing (though that's not really true). I have to admit that some of their more modern menu items seem more appealing than the classic Big Mac (which, in my my memory, is disgusting) but they have really been advertising the Big Mac lately and I'm also not interested in collecting collectible different-colored Coke glasses or whatever. So maybe in the future I will want something there or be really hungry or be in a small town where McD is the only option and give it a try, but I have a feeling that the McDonald's embargo is going to continue for some time.
That said, this last summer when I passed through Washington, D.C., I visited the National Mall and bought a bottle of water from a cart on the mall. And after I had placed the order I realized that the person at the cart was wearing a McDonald's uniform. Apparently McD's has a contract to provide all the food services in the area. So technically I bought a bottle of water from McDonald's, I guess. And that doesn't really bother me because there isn't a really good reason for the whole Mickey D's standoff anyway. But don't expect to see me in there tomorrow.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
A message to the guys of the world
Dear Men,
Unless you have a legitimate reason (like being in the military), do not, I repeat, do not get a crew cut with a flat top. It does not look good on anyone.
Love,
ww
Monday, March 28, 2011
Words.
I don't know exactly why, but I think the word "spatula" has a really cool sound. What words do you like?
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Monday, March 7, 2011
What?
Last night, I had a long and seemingly somewhat meaningful IM session with a guy on a singles' site where we both expressed mutual interest, etc. Today, his profile is completely gone from the site. Huh?
Friday, February 18, 2011
An apology
Dear birds that built the nest outside my window,
I was really excited to see that you had built a nest in the branch where I could see it so easily from my bedroom, honest! When I woke up today and saw the nest was gone (apparently blown away by the strong winds we have had the last couple of days) I was really sad. It was only after that I realized the clumps of grassy stuff I threw for the neighbor's dog to fetch the other day must have been the broken-up parts of your nest. I was just looking for something to throw to him because he loves to fetch things. I'm sorry! I hope that when these winds are over you will decide to put another nest in the same tree -- I would love to see you again.
Love,
ww
I was really excited to see that you had built a nest in the branch where I could see it so easily from my bedroom, honest! When I woke up today and saw the nest was gone (apparently blown away by the strong winds we have had the last couple of days) I was really sad. It was only after that I realized the clumps of grassy stuff I threw for the neighbor's dog to fetch the other day must have been the broken-up parts of your nest. I was just looking for something to throw to him because he loves to fetch things. I'm sorry! I hope that when these winds are over you will decide to put another nest in the same tree -- I would love to see you again.
Love,
ww
Sunday, January 9, 2011
To my future husband
I have seen a couple of blogs lately where each blog entry is a concise statement about what the person wished his/her future married relationship would be like. It got me thinking about what kinds of things I would like to tell my future husband. Here are some that come to mind:
Respect. Yes, I assume you will hold the door open for me if you reach it before I do. That is a sign of respect that you should show to anyone. If I happen to reach the door first, I will hold it for you. So opening the door as a cursory sign of respect is not going to cut it. If you really want to show respect for me, listen to my opinions and the reasons behind them, even if you disagree.
Trust. When people ask me what kind of man I want to marry, I say it is someone I can trust. That pretty much sums it all up for me -- I can trust that you will do the right things, even in hard situations (at least most of the time), I can trust you with my heart without too much fear that you will hurt it, and I can trust you with my intimate thoughts and secrets knowing that you won't judge me. I can trust that you will give me good advice when I need it, and that you will give me room to grow and become a better person continually.
Personal space. I need space to get my things done. You need space to get your things done. But just so you know, if we are in the same room it will be hard to avoid talking to you. I won't be offended if we work in separate rooms for a while.
Evenings. Though I obviously enjoy being near you and spending time with you, if you want to spend some time with your friends without me, I understand. I like my girlfriends too. But if you want to stay home and make out in front of the TV that is okay too. ;)
Mind games. I am not out to trick you, I promise, and I don't expect you to read my mind. Contrary to popular rumors, women are not completely unreasonable and impossible to communicate with. Try me.
Just hold me. Really. Sometimes all I want is the physical evidence that you care.
I don't want to be a diva or a princess. I don't expect you to give me expensive gifts all the time. I don't expect you to try to impress me with your superknowledge or your car or by keeping up with the Joneses. I don't expect you to flatter me all the time just to boost my ego. I just want you to be a good man who loves and respects me. Having the sincere love and admiration of a good man is much more of a self-esteem boost than baubles or words easily thrown in my direction.
I can handle it if you have a different opinion. We don't have to agree on politics, what kind of food we like, or our favorite sports. That's not what I chose you for.
You didn't catch me or trick me into marrying you. I am yours because I choose to give myself, not because you took me from anyone else. I retain the ability to take myself away if you don't treat me right.
I just might write more of these if the mood strikes.
Respect. Yes, I assume you will hold the door open for me if you reach it before I do. That is a sign of respect that you should show to anyone. If I happen to reach the door first, I will hold it for you. So opening the door as a cursory sign of respect is not going to cut it. If you really want to show respect for me, listen to my opinions and the reasons behind them, even if you disagree.
Trust. When people ask me what kind of man I want to marry, I say it is someone I can trust. That pretty much sums it all up for me -- I can trust that you will do the right things, even in hard situations (at least most of the time), I can trust you with my heart without too much fear that you will hurt it, and I can trust you with my intimate thoughts and secrets knowing that you won't judge me. I can trust that you will give me good advice when I need it, and that you will give me room to grow and become a better person continually.
Personal space. I need space to get my things done. You need space to get your things done. But just so you know, if we are in the same room it will be hard to avoid talking to you. I won't be offended if we work in separate rooms for a while.
Evenings. Though I obviously enjoy being near you and spending time with you, if you want to spend some time with your friends without me, I understand. I like my girlfriends too. But if you want to stay home and make out in front of the TV that is okay too. ;)
Mind games. I am not out to trick you, I promise, and I don't expect you to read my mind. Contrary to popular rumors, women are not completely unreasonable and impossible to communicate with. Try me.
Just hold me. Really. Sometimes all I want is the physical evidence that you care.
I don't want to be a diva or a princess. I don't expect you to give me expensive gifts all the time. I don't expect you to try to impress me with your superknowledge or your car or by keeping up with the Joneses. I don't expect you to flatter me all the time just to boost my ego. I just want you to be a good man who loves and respects me. Having the sincere love and admiration of a good man is much more of a self-esteem boost than baubles or words easily thrown in my direction.
I can handle it if you have a different opinion. We don't have to agree on politics, what kind of food we like, or our favorite sports. That's not what I chose you for.
You didn't catch me or trick me into marrying you. I am yours because I choose to give myself, not because you took me from anyone else. I retain the ability to take myself away if you don't treat me right.
I just might write more of these if the mood strikes.
Saturday, December 18, 2010
Things I would like to tell my students.
Anyone who has gone to school knows something about the interaction between students and teachers, but now that I have years of teaching university-level classes under my belt I think I have a very different perspective on the situation than I did when I was an undergraduate. Here are a few things I wish I could tell my students (but probably won't):
1. I know more than you think I know. I know that you are watching the latest soccer game or texting/IMing your friends on your iPhone/iPad/laptop in the back of class. I know that you fell asleep during class today. I know that the reason you are wearing your hat over your eyes is because you think I won't be able to tell that you came to class high. I know from looking at the test papers who cheated off of whom. I know when you didn't write your paper, even if I can't google the site you copied directly (which I usually can). Just because I don't constantly interrupt class to tell you to stop texting or passing notes with your friends doesn't mean I don't know you are doing it. I'm not stupid. In fact, not being stupid is kind of a requirement for this job.
2. Well-done work is easier and faster to grade than poorly done work. It takes me much longer and costs much more mental pain to grade a bad paper or test than a good paper or test. Why don't you make it better for both of us by just doing good work?
3. I don't take it personally. Every semester things happen in students' lives that affect their scholastic performance even though these things have nothing to do with school. I don't blame you for missing class because your boyfriend is having surgery, because you have to get a new job so you can make your car payment, or because your mom needs help. I don't take your absence from class as a personal comment on my teaching. I was a freshman once who didn't want to go to class either. But I hope you will also not take it personally when you get a bad grade because you didn't get the material we covered in class when you were gone. It really does affect the quality of your work.
4. Please be an adult. Please do not talk to me or e-mail me at the end of the semester asking for me to bump up your grade or asking for extra credit work. I am not disposed to assign you extra work which I will then have to grade because you didn't do your other work. I am sorry that you are disappointed with your grade but that alone is not a reason for me to change it. As a wise person once told me, "Failure is feedback." It is not the end of the world to fail a class and have to do it again (and I can say that because I've done it myself!). I am sympathetic that your parents will be disappointed and you will have to scrape together the money for another semester, but in the grand scheme of things it will be okay.
Glad I got that off my chest! :)
1. I know more than you think I know. I know that you are watching the latest soccer game or texting/IMing your friends on your iPhone/iPad/laptop in the back of class. I know that you fell asleep during class today. I know that the reason you are wearing your hat over your eyes is because you think I won't be able to tell that you came to class high. I know from looking at the test papers who cheated off of whom. I know when you didn't write your paper, even if I can't google the site you copied directly (which I usually can). Just because I don't constantly interrupt class to tell you to stop texting or passing notes with your friends doesn't mean I don't know you are doing it. I'm not stupid. In fact, not being stupid is kind of a requirement for this job.
2. Well-done work is easier and faster to grade than poorly done work. It takes me much longer and costs much more mental pain to grade a bad paper or test than a good paper or test. Why don't you make it better for both of us by just doing good work?
3. I don't take it personally. Every semester things happen in students' lives that affect their scholastic performance even though these things have nothing to do with school. I don't blame you for missing class because your boyfriend is having surgery, because you have to get a new job so you can make your car payment, or because your mom needs help. I don't take your absence from class as a personal comment on my teaching. I was a freshman once who didn't want to go to class either. But I hope you will also not take it personally when you get a bad grade because you didn't get the material we covered in class when you were gone. It really does affect the quality of your work.
4. Please be an adult. Please do not talk to me or e-mail me at the end of the semester asking for me to bump up your grade or asking for extra credit work. I am not disposed to assign you extra work which I will then have to grade because you didn't do your other work. I am sorry that you are disappointed with your grade but that alone is not a reason for me to change it. As a wise person once told me, "Failure is feedback." It is not the end of the world to fail a class and have to do it again (and I can say that because I've done it myself!). I am sympathetic that your parents will be disappointed and you will have to scrape together the money for another semester, but in the grand scheme of things it will be okay.
Glad I got that off my chest! :)
Thursday, December 16, 2010
Lies We Tell Our Students: Countability of Nouns
This is the first post in a series that I call "Lies We Tell Our Students". I am thinking specifically of misinformation that ESL/EFL teachers often give to their ESL/EFL students. Since I have taught ESL for multiple years and have come up against these issues again and again, I bring them up in the hope that other teachers (and therefore students) will benefit.
First let me qualify the title: I am pretty sure that most teacher who teach the myths about English that I am addressing in this series of posts do not believe that they are false. And those who do are probably teaching their students a simplified rule for the purpose of making it easier to understand. So the word "lies" is more for dramatic purposes than for accuracy.
Now, on to countability of nouns.
Pretty much all grammar books that I've ever seen claim that nouns in English come in two classes: count (countable) and noncount (uncountable). Count nouns can be either singular or plural, and in singular form take an indefinite article sometimes. Noncount nouns occur only in singular form and cannot take indefinite articles. Here are some examples (the asterisk indicates something is wrong in the sentence):
My living room has a lot of furniture (noncount).
*My living room has many furnitures (count).
*This burrito has a lot of bean (noncount).
This burrito has a lot of beans (count).
In other words, there seems to be a pattern to the way certain nouns are used, and it appears that some nouns can be used in some contexts and other nouns can be used in other contexts.
The way to decide between these types of nouns is usually explained in terms of countability: items that come in discrete, individual units are count nouns, while items that come in abstract masses are noncount.
Except it's not true.
Problem 1: It appears that any noun can be used as count or noncount.
I have never found a noun that I couldn't get to work as count or noncount, with the correct context. Let's take the example of furniture that I used above. It works well as a noncount in this context:
My living room has a lot of furniture. (Meaning: I have a desk, a chair, an armoire, a sofa, etc.)
And in the example above, using it as count doesn't seem right:
*My living room has many furnitures. (Same meaning).
But what if I provided a different context; could I get it to work as count then?
The Museum of French Design offers several examples of famous French furnitures, such as Postmodern Furniture and Furniture a la Carte. (Meaning: I am talking about styles of furniture rather than individual pieces of furniture.)
How about another example? This time, a noun that is usually considered count?
There are two dogs on my street. (count, meaning individual animals)
Can I use it as noncount? How about this?
I really liked this soup, until I found out it was made of dog. (noncount, meaning dog meat)
Another example: ice is usually considered to be noncount, but one time I heard a sentence like the following on a science program:
Pluto is composed of methane and water ices.
I have never found an example of a noun that I couldn't use as both count and noncount, in the right context.
Problem 2: The way to distinguish count from noncount is hazy at best.
Like I said above, typically ESL students are instructed to distinguish count nouns from noncount nouns by whether the thing comes in discrete units. Well this turns out to be not very helpful. Sure, bean, a typical count noun, comes in small units, but so does rice, a typical noncount noun. And when you consider ice as a count or noncount noun, should we think of it as the substance that comes in large sheets in Antarctica, or the thing that comes in little square cubes in my drink at the restaurant? And what about when something like the following happens:
Me: I would like some water, please. (noncount use).
My Friend: Could I also have some water? (noncount use)
Waiter: No problem. Two waters. (count use)
So even if we tell our students that the "rule" doesn't work and they just have to memorize which nouns are count and which are noncount, what about nouns like "water" that appear to be both?
My proposal: the count/noncount distinction does not exist. Any noun can be used as count/noncount. We should find something more helpful to teach our students.
I did not come up with this idea all by myself. I had the privilege of hearing a talk some years ago by Kathrin Koslicki, whose dissertation deals with this topic. Koslicki's proposal, as I understand it, is that there are three ways to use nouns: count, noncount, and plural. Each of these three types of noun use has a different meaning.
Unfortunately, my training in semantics isn't deep enough to allow me to fully understand Koslicki's dissertation and/or the subsequent article she published on the topic, but I have found the concept very helpful in my teaching.
In the grammar class I taught this semester, my students and I listed various nouns in count and noncount forms and defined them (pictures were very helpful in this discussion). The list looked something like this:
Count Noncount
An egg Egg
(picture of an egg) (picture of egg salad)
A water Water
(a glass of water) (waterfall)
Histories History
(books)
and so on. By listing many examples and showing the differences in their meanings, the students were able to induce the semantic differences between count and noncount uses of various words. I think in the future these could even be listed as a set of discrete semantic principles. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Koslicki has already detailed these semantic differences in her dissertation. With some modification we teachers should be able to convert them to some principles that students can use to decide how to use a certain noun in a certain semantic context.
Notice that, when I taught my students about this concept this semester, I did not distinguish between singular and plural uses of count nouns like Koslicki does. I have not tested whether it is feasible to try to convince students that singular and plural are two completely different uses of the same noun (even though I like Koslicki's argument that they are). But I think that teaching students that any noun can be used in different use contexts empowers them. They can use this knowledge to analyze the language they actually see and hear, and it certainly must be able to help them more than the current "rules" they are usually taught.
I am interested to read your comments and additions to what I have presented here.
First let me qualify the title: I am pretty sure that most teacher who teach the myths about English that I am addressing in this series of posts do not believe that they are false. And those who do are probably teaching their students a simplified rule for the purpose of making it easier to understand. So the word "lies" is more for dramatic purposes than for accuracy.
Now, on to countability of nouns.
Pretty much all grammar books that I've ever seen claim that nouns in English come in two classes: count (countable) and noncount (uncountable). Count nouns can be either singular or plural, and in singular form take an indefinite article sometimes. Noncount nouns occur only in singular form and cannot take indefinite articles. Here are some examples (the asterisk indicates something is wrong in the sentence):
My living room has a lot of furniture (noncount).
*My living room has many furnitures (count).
*This burrito has a lot of bean (noncount).
This burrito has a lot of beans (count).
In other words, there seems to be a pattern to the way certain nouns are used, and it appears that some nouns can be used in some contexts and other nouns can be used in other contexts.
The way to decide between these types of nouns is usually explained in terms of countability: items that come in discrete, individual units are count nouns, while items that come in abstract masses are noncount.
Except it's not true.
Problem 1: It appears that any noun can be used as count or noncount.
I have never found a noun that I couldn't get to work as count or noncount, with the correct context. Let's take the example of furniture that I used above. It works well as a noncount in this context:
My living room has a lot of furniture. (Meaning: I have a desk, a chair, an armoire, a sofa, etc.)
And in the example above, using it as count doesn't seem right:
*My living room has many furnitures. (Same meaning).
But what if I provided a different context; could I get it to work as count then?
The Museum of French Design offers several examples of famous French furnitures, such as Postmodern Furniture and Furniture a la Carte. (Meaning: I am talking about styles of furniture rather than individual pieces of furniture.)
How about another example? This time, a noun that is usually considered count?
There are two dogs on my street. (count, meaning individual animals)
Can I use it as noncount? How about this?
I really liked this soup, until I found out it was made of dog. (noncount, meaning dog meat)
Another example: ice is usually considered to be noncount, but one time I heard a sentence like the following on a science program:
Pluto is composed of methane and water ices.
I have never found an example of a noun that I couldn't use as both count and noncount, in the right context.
Problem 2: The way to distinguish count from noncount is hazy at best.
Like I said above, typically ESL students are instructed to distinguish count nouns from noncount nouns by whether the thing comes in discrete units. Well this turns out to be not very helpful. Sure, bean, a typical count noun, comes in small units, but so does rice, a typical noncount noun. And when you consider ice as a count or noncount noun, should we think of it as the substance that comes in large sheets in Antarctica, or the thing that comes in little square cubes in my drink at the restaurant? And what about when something like the following happens:
Me: I would like some water, please. (noncount use).
My Friend: Could I also have some water? (noncount use)
Waiter: No problem. Two waters. (count use)
So even if we tell our students that the "rule" doesn't work and they just have to memorize which nouns are count and which are noncount, what about nouns like "water" that appear to be both?
My proposal: the count/noncount distinction does not exist. Any noun can be used as count/noncount. We should find something more helpful to teach our students.
I did not come up with this idea all by myself. I had the privilege of hearing a talk some years ago by Kathrin Koslicki, whose dissertation deals with this topic. Koslicki's proposal, as I understand it, is that there are three ways to use nouns: count, noncount, and plural. Each of these three types of noun use has a different meaning.
Unfortunately, my training in semantics isn't deep enough to allow me to fully understand Koslicki's dissertation and/or the subsequent article she published on the topic, but I have found the concept very helpful in my teaching.
In the grammar class I taught this semester, my students and I listed various nouns in count and noncount forms and defined them (pictures were very helpful in this discussion). The list looked something like this:
Count Noncount
An egg Egg
(picture of an egg) (picture of egg salad)
A water Water
(a glass of water) (waterfall)
Histories History
(books)
and so on. By listing many examples and showing the differences in their meanings, the students were able to induce the semantic differences between count and noncount uses of various words. I think in the future these could even be listed as a set of discrete semantic principles. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Koslicki has already detailed these semantic differences in her dissertation. With some modification we teachers should be able to convert them to some principles that students can use to decide how to use a certain noun in a certain semantic context.
Notice that, when I taught my students about this concept this semester, I did not distinguish between singular and plural uses of count nouns like Koslicki does. I have not tested whether it is feasible to try to convince students that singular and plural are two completely different uses of the same noun (even though I like Koslicki's argument that they are). But I think that teaching students that any noun can be used in different use contexts empowers them. They can use this knowledge to analyze the language they actually see and hear, and it certainly must be able to help them more than the current "rules" they are usually taught.
I am interested to read your comments and additions to what I have presented here.
Monday, December 13, 2010
Plagiarism
For people like me who teach at the college level, plagiarism is a common topic of discourse. In the case of most of my students, they commit plagiarism because they have not yet learned difficult language skills such as paraphrase and summary. For that reason, most of the time I see plagiarism as a teaching opportunity. But there are of course, a few people who know what plagiarism is and do it anyway.
Today I happened to be searching the Internet while preparing an activity for my ESL students and ran across a book, called English for College Learners. This book appears to have been copied practically verbatim from another book called Refining Composition Skills. Only a few of the exercises (which depend on a video) appear to be missing. I am very familiar with Refining Composition Skills because I have used it multiple times as a text in ESL classes I have taught. You can use the links in this sentence to compare the table of contents from English for College Learners to the table of contents of Refining Composition Skills. As you can see, it appears that only the video activities have been removed.
The ultimate irony: Refining Composition Skills includes an activity teaching students about a legal case dealing with plagiarism and the consequences with intent to educate students not to plagiarize. This, of course, was one of the activities that has been removed in English for College Learners.
Today I happened to be searching the Internet while preparing an activity for my ESL students and ran across a book, called English for College Learners. This book appears to have been copied practically verbatim from another book called Refining Composition Skills. Only a few of the exercises (which depend on a video) appear to be missing. I am very familiar with Refining Composition Skills because I have used it multiple times as a text in ESL classes I have taught. You can use the links in this sentence to compare the table of contents from English for College Learners to the table of contents of Refining Composition Skills. As you can see, it appears that only the video activities have been removed.
The ultimate irony: Refining Composition Skills includes an activity teaching students about a legal case dealing with plagiarism and the consequences with intent to educate students not to plagiarize. This, of course, was one of the activities that has been removed in English for College Learners.
Sunday, August 15, 2010
Online dating -- why I started and why I'm now moving on.
About a year ago, I started putting some serious time (and money) into online dating. I figured that for a person like me, who is looking to marry someone of a particular faith and has a profession where I don't meet a lot of new people all the time, this would be a good way for me to find like-minded people. (I recently made the joke that, unless I start dating my students, I have to meet people online.) I have profiles on several dating sites, some of which are small, local, and geared specifically to a latter-day saint audience and some of which are larger and more general.
After about a year in the online dating world, I have made some observations about the pros and cons of online dating and how it's different from meeting people in other ways. Here are some of the things I have learned.
1. Online dating sites represent only certain types of people.
That is, the kind of people who sign up for online dating sites are the kind of people who would sign up for online dating sites. Though there may be many people on the site, the segment of society that one finds on an online dating site is not really a sampling of all society but rather people who thought that online dating would be a good thing for them because they feel comfortable with technology (and because, perhaps, they feel uncomfortable with other ways of meeting people). And that implies that there are other people out there who I am not meeting because they generally meet people in other ways.
2. The site itself makes a big difference.
Certain features that exist or don't exist on the dating site have a lot to do with the kind of success I feel I am having at finding the people I want. In my case, faith is very important to me and I want to find a boyfriend and future husband who belongs to the same religious organization. Some sites, such as match.com, allow me to specify which characteristics about the person I'm seeking and how important those characteristics are to me. Other sites only search based on basic information such as age and place. I know there are a lot of guys in their early 30s that live in my area, but a lot of them are not the people that I specifically are looking for. So the more specific the search on the site, the more I feel like I can find people I would actually want to get along with. And who cares if eHarmony thinks I'm a perfect match for someone who lives in Alabama? I want to meet someone that I could actually date, which in my mind means that we need to be in reasonable proximity to each other. Nevertheless, I would say that my online dating efforts have been somewhat successful in the sense that I have done a lot more dating in the past year than I would have otherwise.
3. Meeting people online is just like meeting people in other settings...
Some people are flaky, some people are kind, some people say inappropriate things, some people seem to be conceited, some people seem to be normal, some people are superficial, and so forth. Just like in real life I have been rejected and have done the rejecting on a number of occasions. It's not really any easier on the ego than meeting people in other ways.
4. ...except it isn't.
The one major aspect of meeting people online that differs quite a bit from meeting in person is the fact that you get to know quite a bit of information (age, profession, whether the person is divorced, whether the person has children, etc.) before you ever talk to or meet the person. I have learned from experience that no matter what the person seems like on his profile, and even by e-mail or phone, I really have to meet the person to discover if there is potential for a romantic connection. This leads to a lot of "first dates" where we are just meeting up to see if there is any possibility. This kind of first date is different from what I would consider a traditional first date where you have already seen and talked to the person and therefore know that you have at least some interest in each other. I now consider the first date with someone that I met online to be "Date 0", that is, the date before the first date. I doesn't usually take long on a Date 0 to figure out how I feel about taking the next step. So in a way it seems like, when dating online, things happen in kind of a backwards order.
In sum, I have met some good guys, some weirdos, some perverts, and some platonic friends online. And I feel that I have more or less explored the possibilities that online dating offers. Though new people join the sites all the time, the population of people fitting the characteristics I am looking for gets new additions only occasionally, meaning that many of the profiles I see are profiles I have seen before. While I don't feel a need to remove my profiles from the various sites, I will definitely be spending less time and money on online dating. I plan to focus more on meeting people through activities for LDS singles of my age in my area.
After about a year in the online dating world, I have made some observations about the pros and cons of online dating and how it's different from meeting people in other ways. Here are some of the things I have learned.
1. Online dating sites represent only certain types of people.
That is, the kind of people who sign up for online dating sites are the kind of people who would sign up for online dating sites. Though there may be many people on the site, the segment of society that one finds on an online dating site is not really a sampling of all society but rather people who thought that online dating would be a good thing for them because they feel comfortable with technology (and because, perhaps, they feel uncomfortable with other ways of meeting people). And that implies that there are other people out there who I am not meeting because they generally meet people in other ways.
2. The site itself makes a big difference.
Certain features that exist or don't exist on the dating site have a lot to do with the kind of success I feel I am having at finding the people I want. In my case, faith is very important to me and I want to find a boyfriend and future husband who belongs to the same religious organization. Some sites, such as match.com, allow me to specify which characteristics about the person I'm seeking and how important those characteristics are to me. Other sites only search based on basic information such as age and place. I know there are a lot of guys in their early 30s that live in my area, but a lot of them are not the people that I specifically are looking for. So the more specific the search on the site, the more I feel like I can find people I would actually want to get along with. And who cares if eHarmony thinks I'm a perfect match for someone who lives in Alabama? I want to meet someone that I could actually date, which in my mind means that we need to be in reasonable proximity to each other. Nevertheless, I would say that my online dating efforts have been somewhat successful in the sense that I have done a lot more dating in the past year than I would have otherwise.
3. Meeting people online is just like meeting people in other settings...
Some people are flaky, some people are kind, some people say inappropriate things, some people seem to be conceited, some people seem to be normal, some people are superficial, and so forth. Just like in real life I have been rejected and have done the rejecting on a number of occasions. It's not really any easier on the ego than meeting people in other ways.
4. ...except it isn't.
The one major aspect of meeting people online that differs quite a bit from meeting in person is the fact that you get to know quite a bit of information (age, profession, whether the person is divorced, whether the person has children, etc.) before you ever talk to or meet the person. I have learned from experience that no matter what the person seems like on his profile, and even by e-mail or phone, I really have to meet the person to discover if there is potential for a romantic connection. This leads to a lot of "first dates" where we are just meeting up to see if there is any possibility. This kind of first date is different from what I would consider a traditional first date where you have already seen and talked to the person and therefore know that you have at least some interest in each other. I now consider the first date with someone that I met online to be "Date 0", that is, the date before the first date. I doesn't usually take long on a Date 0 to figure out how I feel about taking the next step. So in a way it seems like, when dating online, things happen in kind of a backwards order.
In sum, I have met some good guys, some weirdos, some perverts, and some platonic friends online. And I feel that I have more or less explored the possibilities that online dating offers. Though new people join the sites all the time, the population of people fitting the characteristics I am looking for gets new additions only occasionally, meaning that many of the profiles I see are profiles I have seen before. While I don't feel a need to remove my profiles from the various sites, I will definitely be spending less time and money on online dating. I plan to focus more on meeting people through activities for LDS singles of my age in my area.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Linguistic policy gone bad
The Arizona Department of Education, motivated by No Child Left Behind policy, has recently instituted a policy to remove teachers with "heavily accented or ungrammatical" English from teaching English in Arizona schools.
Here is a Wall Street Journal article that reports on the policy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html
A significant number of professors from the U. of Arizona prepared the following statement, which explains problems with this policy:
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~hammond/ling_statement_final.pdf
In addition, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), an international professional organization for English teachers, released this reaction:
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/bin.asp?CID=1&DID=13248&DOC=FILE.PDF
A couple of reactions of my own:
1. "Accent" and "fluency" are not the same thing.
In this case, I assume that the words "fluent" and "fluency" are being used as a general measurement of overall proficiency in the language. It is quite a common, but incorrect, belief that the "heaviness" of someone's accent reflects how proficient they are with a language. Many people who learned English after another language speak English with an accent, but that does not mean that their English is ungrammatical or bad. In my work, for example, I interact with a number of professors and graduate students who speak with accents because they are non-native speakers of English, but whose English proficiency is good enough to write papers for research journals, teach university classes, and otherwise contribute to the academic community. The fact that "heavily accented" is being used as a criterion to decide that teachers aren't fit to teach English suggests that the creators of the policy based the policy on their own opinions about language rather than linguistic fact and research. Current research shows that foreign-accented English is no less intelligible to non-native speakers than native-accented English. (In fact, two colleagues and I are currently engaged in a research project about this very phenomenon.) Just because a native speaker thinks they can't understand a teacher doesn't mean the students will not.
2. It is not bad to learn a language from a non-native speaker.
Non-native speakers who teach language often have some distinct advantages over their native-speaker peers. Since native speakers of a language can use the language without having explicit conscious knowledge of grammar, often non-native speakers have a superior knowledge of the patterns of how the language works. Because they have had the experience of learning the language after their native language, they are familiar with the pitfalls their students might have and are therefore able to help students avoid them. In addition, if the teacher shares another language with the student, that language can be used to explain things that the student might not be getting when they are explained in English. Research shows that language learners do not learn mistakes from each other. In other words, just because students are exposed to grammatical mistakes that the teacher makes does not mean that the students will acquire those same grammatical mistakes.
3. Good teaching is more than just knowledge of the subject to be taught.
I think many people have had experiences where they had a teacher who was very knowledgeable on the subject, but just couldn't do a good job of teaching it to others. In the case of English teaching, just because a person is able to speak English does not make that person qualified to teach it to others. This is why at my university, for example, we have a TESOL certificate program that takes a minimum of a year of coursework for people to become educated in how to teach English to non-native speakers. A teacher with lower English proficiency, but good teaching skills, may be more effective at helping students than a poor teacher with high proficiency.
4. Reassignment of teachers is problematic.
First of all, teachers cannot be simply reassigned to other classes because sometimes they don't have the necessarily skills and certifications in the new subject they are supposed to teach. You can't take a history teacher, for example, and assign them to teach math. Second, if jobs already exist that these teachers don't have, won't the jobs already be filled by other teachers? Third, and most importantly, it is hard to imagine that anywhere in Arizona, a teacher could be assigned to a class that didn't include some English language learners. Just because a student has been "mainstreamed" does not mean that they can't benefit from additional language-learning help. In fact, because of this, where I live, all new teachers entering the field are required to have an ESL endorsement. So reassigning teachers to other classes would not remove them from interacting with ESL students, and therefore the policy would not have the intended effect of protecting (as it were) ESL learners from non-native English.
To be fair to the Arizona Department of Education, apparently they are not solely to blame for this poorly-conceived idea. According to the Wall Street Journal article referenced above, in order to receive No Child Left Behind funds the state should ensure that English students are being taught by "fluent" speakers. However, Arizona has chosen to define fluency by including accentedness as one of the criteria. The Arizona Department of Education should inform itself of current linguistic research before making policies of this type.
Here is a Wall Street Journal article that reports on the policy.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703572504575213883276427528.html
A significant number of professors from the U. of Arizona prepared the following statement, which explains problems with this policy:
http://www.u.arizona.edu/~hammond/ling_statement_final.pdf
In addition, Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL), an international professional organization for English teachers, released this reaction:
http://www.tesol.org/s_tesol/bin.asp?CID=1&DID=13248&DOC=FILE.PDF
A couple of reactions of my own:
1. "Accent" and "fluency" are not the same thing.
In this case, I assume that the words "fluent" and "fluency" are being used as a general measurement of overall proficiency in the language. It is quite a common, but incorrect, belief that the "heaviness" of someone's accent reflects how proficient they are with a language. Many people who learned English after another language speak English with an accent, but that does not mean that their English is ungrammatical or bad. In my work, for example, I interact with a number of professors and graduate students who speak with accents because they are non-native speakers of English, but whose English proficiency is good enough to write papers for research journals, teach university classes, and otherwise contribute to the academic community. The fact that "heavily accented" is being used as a criterion to decide that teachers aren't fit to teach English suggests that the creators of the policy based the policy on their own opinions about language rather than linguistic fact and research. Current research shows that foreign-accented English is no less intelligible to non-native speakers than native-accented English. (In fact, two colleagues and I are currently engaged in a research project about this very phenomenon.) Just because a native speaker thinks they can't understand a teacher doesn't mean the students will not.
2. It is not bad to learn a language from a non-native speaker.
Non-native speakers who teach language often have some distinct advantages over their native-speaker peers. Since native speakers of a language can use the language without having explicit conscious knowledge of grammar, often non-native speakers have a superior knowledge of the patterns of how the language works. Because they have had the experience of learning the language after their native language, they are familiar with the pitfalls their students might have and are therefore able to help students avoid them. In addition, if the teacher shares another language with the student, that language can be used to explain things that the student might not be getting when they are explained in English. Research shows that language learners do not learn mistakes from each other. In other words, just because students are exposed to grammatical mistakes that the teacher makes does not mean that the students will acquire those same grammatical mistakes.
3. Good teaching is more than just knowledge of the subject to be taught.
I think many people have had experiences where they had a teacher who was very knowledgeable on the subject, but just couldn't do a good job of teaching it to others. In the case of English teaching, just because a person is able to speak English does not make that person qualified to teach it to others. This is why at my university, for example, we have a TESOL certificate program that takes a minimum of a year of coursework for people to become educated in how to teach English to non-native speakers. A teacher with lower English proficiency, but good teaching skills, may be more effective at helping students than a poor teacher with high proficiency.
4. Reassignment of teachers is problematic.
First of all, teachers cannot be simply reassigned to other classes because sometimes they don't have the necessarily skills and certifications in the new subject they are supposed to teach. You can't take a history teacher, for example, and assign them to teach math. Second, if jobs already exist that these teachers don't have, won't the jobs already be filled by other teachers? Third, and most importantly, it is hard to imagine that anywhere in Arizona, a teacher could be assigned to a class that didn't include some English language learners. Just because a student has been "mainstreamed" does not mean that they can't benefit from additional language-learning help. In fact, because of this, where I live, all new teachers entering the field are required to have an ESL endorsement. So reassigning teachers to other classes would not remove them from interacting with ESL students, and therefore the policy would not have the intended effect of protecting (as it were) ESL learners from non-native English.
To be fair to the Arizona Department of Education, apparently they are not solely to blame for this poorly-conceived idea. According to the Wall Street Journal article referenced above, in order to receive No Child Left Behind funds the state should ensure that English students are being taught by "fluent" speakers. However, Arizona has chosen to define fluency by including accentedness as one of the criteria. The Arizona Department of Education should inform itself of current linguistic research before making policies of this type.
Saturday, May 29, 2010
Well-behaved women
I've seen it many times, usually in bumper-sticker form: "Well-behaved women rarely make history." The message, of course, is that women should break out of their expectations for behavior if they really want to make a difference in the world.
But it seems to me that I can list a lot of good women who behaved according to appropriate principles who also made a big difference in the world. Eve, Miriam, Deborah, Mary, Elizabeth and Anna are women in the Bible who come to mind. We could also mention people like Betsy Ross, Florence Nightingale, Emily Dickinson, Jane Austen, and Jackie O., who are certainly famous and not for doing anything "wrong". Personally I choose to defy the message that a woman can't be important if she is good.
But it seems to me that I can list a lot of good women who behaved according to appropriate principles who also made a big difference in the world. Eve, Miriam, Deborah, Mary, Elizabeth and Anna are women in the Bible who come to mind. We could also mention people like Betsy Ross, Florence Nightingale, Emily Dickinson, Jane Austen, and Jackie O., who are certainly famous and not for doing anything "wrong". Personally I choose to defy the message that a woman can't be important if she is good.
Hugs.
My best friends know that I love hugs. And, when I think about it, I enjoy being held but I think I enjoy holding someone else even more. Of course it's practically impossible to tell because they are both happening at the same time. Sweet.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Why I'm a Cougar
Okay, I don't really see myself as a COUGAR, exactly, but I thought it would make a dramatic title. This post is about why I prefer to date younger men.
In order to explain all this, I have to explain that I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I live in Utah. This is a big part of the issue because here in Utah about 50% of people are latter-day saints, meaning that LDS beliefs have an overall pretty big impact on the culture and how people live around here.
And in case you're not familiar with LDS beliefs we believe strongly in the importance of the family. We believe that marriage and family is where we can find our greatest happiness in life, and that families who are joined in a temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will continue to enjoy each other's love and company beyond death. These are fundamental beliefs in the Church, and these beliefs cause latter-day saints to seek marriage earnestly and take it seriously. Which means that, in the area where I live, people get married younger, often when the guy is in his mid-twenties and when the girl is in her early twenties. According to U.S. Census Bureau figures, the median age of first marriage in the United States is 28.1 for men and 25.9 for women, where the median age of marriage in Utah is 24.6 for men and 22.1 for women, according to these figures published by Utah Department of Workforce Services. (Although the former group of figures comes from 2009 and the latter group of figures apparently comes from 2005, even comparing 2005 numbers to each other the median ages are lower in Utah than the rest of the United States.) The same report from Workforce Services also mentions that a greater percentage of people in Utah are married than people in any other state (60% people 15 years or older).
In other words, marriage is a big deal where I live and in the communities I am a part of. That coupled with the fact that the population of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is about 2/3 women and 1/3 men means that the men have their pick, as it were. On the Utah LDS singles scene it seems that there are more women than men out there. If you're a latter-day saint male from Utah and you're not married by age 30, there is quite likely a good reason. For example, the last guy I went out with that was near to my own age (and he didn't even grow up in Utah) apparently had some kind of psychological problem that made him think it wasn't okay to shower before he went on the date and he smelled. I could hardly stand to sit next to him in the movie we saw. Another famous stereotype of the Utah bachelor is the guy that is so picky that, while he has met lots of wonderful women, he will not date or marry any of them.
So what's a 32-year-old LDS Utah gal supposed to do? The obvious choice is to date younger men.
There is another group of men that I see as generally potentially dateable. That is men who are around my age (30sish) who are divorced. Divorce is common everywhere these days, so if I didn't want to date divorced men it would cut out quite a large sector of the dating pool, as it were. Plus, I figure that these were men who were willing to get married at least once. All of the divorced guys that I have dated so far treated me very well and seemed to be good men.
Why not date older men, say guys who are in their 40s or 50s? Personal preference. I tend to get along better with younger people; for example, most of my friends are younger than I am. Also, when I envision my future marriage partner, I envision a partner, not someone who is going to die 20 years before I do.
Of course the opinions expressed in this post are a generalization; individuals do not always reflect the characteristics of the age groups they belong to.
In order to explain all this, I have to explain that I am an active member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and I live in Utah. This is a big part of the issue because here in Utah about 50% of people are latter-day saints, meaning that LDS beliefs have an overall pretty big impact on the culture and how people live around here.
And in case you're not familiar with LDS beliefs we believe strongly in the importance of the family. We believe that marriage and family is where we can find our greatest happiness in life, and that families who are joined in a temple of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints will continue to enjoy each other's love and company beyond death. These are fundamental beliefs in the Church, and these beliefs cause latter-day saints to seek marriage earnestly and take it seriously. Which means that, in the area where I live, people get married younger, often when the guy is in his mid-twenties and when the girl is in her early twenties. According to U.S. Census Bureau figures, the median age of first marriage in the United States is 28.1 for men and 25.9 for women, where the median age of marriage in Utah is 24.6 for men and 22.1 for women, according to these figures published by Utah Department of Workforce Services. (Although the former group of figures comes from 2009 and the latter group of figures apparently comes from 2005, even comparing 2005 numbers to each other the median ages are lower in Utah than the rest of the United States.) The same report from Workforce Services also mentions that a greater percentage of people in Utah are married than people in any other state (60% people 15 years or older).
In other words, marriage is a big deal where I live and in the communities I am a part of. That coupled with the fact that the population of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is about 2/3 women and 1/3 men means that the men have their pick, as it were. On the Utah LDS singles scene it seems that there are more women than men out there. If you're a latter-day saint male from Utah and you're not married by age 30, there is quite likely a good reason. For example, the last guy I went out with that was near to my own age (and he didn't even grow up in Utah) apparently had some kind of psychological problem that made him think it wasn't okay to shower before he went on the date and he smelled. I could hardly stand to sit next to him in the movie we saw. Another famous stereotype of the Utah bachelor is the guy that is so picky that, while he has met lots of wonderful women, he will not date or marry any of them.
So what's a 32-year-old LDS Utah gal supposed to do? The obvious choice is to date younger men.
There is another group of men that I see as generally potentially dateable. That is men who are around my age (30sish) who are divorced. Divorce is common everywhere these days, so if I didn't want to date divorced men it would cut out quite a large sector of the dating pool, as it were. Plus, I figure that these were men who were willing to get married at least once. All of the divorced guys that I have dated so far treated me very well and seemed to be good men.
Why not date older men, say guys who are in their 40s or 50s? Personal preference. I tend to get along better with younger people; for example, most of my friends are younger than I am. Also, when I envision my future marriage partner, I envision a partner, not someone who is going to die 20 years before I do.
Of course the opinions expressed in this post are a generalization; individuals do not always reflect the characteristics of the age groups they belong to.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)