You made a well-worded reply. It must have taken you
quite an effort, as it employed the kind of rhetorics
often reserved for academic writing (the last few
paragraphs are particularly profound).
You have strong command of the English language.
Good for you. I mean it.
But that's not to say that the points you made were
valid. Your post reflects exactly the problem with
English education in Taiwan - the cultivation of
obsession with grammar and word usage with little
regard to understanding CONTENT.
Pretty nasty accusation, isn't? Allow me to explain.
Some of my points were taken out of context,
because you COULDN'T READ.
>>Posts and comments in this forum serve a didactic
>>purpose, whether intended by the authors or not.
>>So, one is advised to focus the discussion on proper
>>usages and constructions of English, including
>>citing well-established grammatical rules from
>>publications on the conservative side while mentioning
>>recent developments in English language research
>>on the cutting edge.
Did I object to citing rules from publications
or consulting well-informed individuals?
I did not.
But you seem to think I did, because you made
the following allegations:
>>Unfortunately, the desired methods and formats
>>of this forum seem to be what you set out to
>>trivialize in this nonsensical advocacy of
>>"passable" English (「過得去」、「差不多就好」英文),
Right here. You are putting words in my mouth.
Did I target my rant at the methods and formats
in which discussions are held in this forum?
Nope. I was merely pointing at the laughable fixation
on a grammatic fuss.
I repeat. The point is the fixation, not the fuss itself.
'lenghty debate' and 'so hung up on' were the key
phrases in my post that you missed, or misinterpreted.
Did I say that I ADVOCATE bad English?
Let me quote myself:
>>個人不認為 It is raining soon. 是好英文，但是從
>>「同情的了解」角度出發，能夠解出語意。
I will elaborate on what I was trying to say near the
end of this post.
>>an example being "It is raining soon".
>>Pidgin English and specifically Chinglish
>>constructions are what teachers and students in
>>Taiwan strive to get rid of. It is deplorable that
>>you believe English as employed in standard tests
>>in Taiwan is acceptable as long as it
>>is passable, such as that uttered by rednecks and
>>less educated native speakers, other uninformed
>>English learners, and whatnot.
Let me quote myself again:
>>個人不認為 It is raining soon. 是好英文，但是從
>>「同情的了解」角度出發，能夠解出語意。
And you jumped right to conclusion. Where did I
say that it is acceptable for such usage to appear
on a standard test? In all my responses to this
thread not even once did I mention anything
regarding test of any kind.
You twisted my words and added your own
footnotes to them.
>>One would be amiss if one fails to point out
>>your double standard. You have shown no hesitation
>>on several occasions correcting improper English
>>constructions, including at length on someone
>>else's perceived Chinglish, on this forum and others.
Yes, I did. I was doing my part as one who knows
the language well enough to correct incorrect
usages when one sees it.
But did I ever, in your digging of my past comments,
get FIXATED on correcting one particular usage or another?
I often took part in a discussion and just left
it there. When disagreement arose I might have
elaborated, but never would I linger at the bottom
of a post and insisted that I was right, unless it was
something blatantly wrong.
Let me give an example of something that is blatantly wrong.
"They was good students."
(though in some context an African-American would
give this a thumb-up.)
>>Why didn't you simply accept the incorrect English
>>examples you saw?
Need me to quote myself again? I'll say it thrice.
It was not good English.
>>And, what are the sources of
>>the grammatical rules that you readily and implicitly
>>apply in your didactic corrections, if not the very
>>established conventions of grammar and usages published
>>, circulated in the teaching circle, and studied and
>>internalized by you at some point--the very conventions
>>you try to discredit in this feeble attempt at
>>supporting the validity of just one particular
>>sentence. It's penny wise and pound foolish when
>>you think of it. By doing so, you undermine your
>>own credibility in your future opinions. Worst of all
>>, you are doing a disservice to the entire language-
>>teaching profession.
phew, pretty racy stuff. What a huge cap to put on
my tiny little head. (excuse the Chinese-English)
In a nutshell, you frame me for something I did not do.
HERE COMES THE POINT I AM TRYING TO MAKE IN THIS POST.
If anything, I am glad you replied, for it gives us
an opportunity to examine the approaches to learing English.
We have all come to agree that the ever-evolving nature
of English, or any human language for that matter, allows
for the existence of grey areas.
There are rules that we stand behind with no compromise
, such as the construction of a complete sentence being S + V.
There are erroneous usages that we simply cannot tolerate, such as
'When it comes to eat, I am an expert.' (eat -> eating)
And there are grey areas that we have different opinions about.
The fate of these grey areas depends mainly on their
acceptance and popularity. The acceptance of the word 'like'
as an all-purpose utility word, thanks to the hit sitcom
'Friends' in the 1990s, is still frowned upon by some.
My high school teacher, who is probably dead by now,
resented the word 'basically' and insisted that
'essentially' be used instead. She said that it was
not a word, but today, you can't find a dictionary that
does not have an entry for it.
Grey areas may even be defined differently,
but I won't get into that.
I gather that you also agree that 'It is raining now.'
falls in the grey area, based on the following statement
you made.
>>They certainly were passable in the sense that the
>>speaker's intention was largely understandable.
If you disagree with my assumption, speak up.
With that established, how do we, or how SHOULD we,
deal with the grey areas when we come across them?
I believe that may be where our differences lie.
My approach is simple.
Because of their sheer number, I will never get
too hung up on them.
***
See an expression, pick it up.
See it twice or more, soak it in;
see a question about it, take note.
Most important, MOVE ON.
'It is raining soon.' is only passable English
and it should be left at that.
And we move on.
***
I believe this is how a language should be learned.
An ordinary person would never have what it takes to
research for every questionable expression, so
the best he or she can do, is take note and MOVE ON.
Your deep-digging approach is fitting for a scholar
and maybe you are one, but for any language enthusiast,
it entails so much pressure it takes the fun out of learning.
The grammar-centric, no-grey-area-allowed approach
may ultimately enable students to come up with
awe-inspiring, well-structured sentences, but in the process
it makes learning a language harder than it should be.
At the end of the day, someone wrote a great composition
while completing missing the point in the context of a reply.
And it's not hard to see why.
The approach I root for, on the other hand, allows students
to, well, learn a language and USE it.
Now you know why a lot of our scholars go completely silent
in international conferences?
It was on the news quite a while ago.
>>The kind of "ranting", or "bickering", as you seem
>>to have demonstrated or preferred to carry on, isn't
>>appropriate here.
That's for you to say. And who are you to say what's
appropriate or not? I will rant when I see a topic
being overly-discussed to a point that people become
obsessed with it, as such is not the right approach
to learning a language. Let me repeat my method:
Pick it up, soak it in or take note, and move on.
It's much easier to get your learning rolling this way.
The debated issue had grown out of proportion,
gone off the point, and developed into a dog fight.
Does that go in line with your idea of finding the
correct grammar usage?
>>however, I suggest you refocus your misdirected energy.
I suggest you learn to read before you fire a comeback next time.
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 219.69.124.133