Isn't It Time We Made Things A Little Bit Easier For Everyone?

[Hannahcopacabana]

"How long you stay in Thailand?" One of the first questions your friendly cabbie desirous of practising his English will ask you. 'Well what does he mean?' You wonder, whilst grinning mindlessly into the rearview mirror. 'How long have I been here? How long am I staying?' Sure, it's frustrating at times but you can normally get around it with a bit of probing ("How long already? Or when do I go back home?" She asks, finally cracking it). So why are we teaching all these ridiculous tenses with such complex structures when we can get by with a few verbs and a decent set of time signifiers?

Before I start this, I just want to say I'm not talking about translating the Metaphysical Poets into Orwellian new-speak and burning the original texts. I'm talking about creating some kind of internationally recognised English-based form of communication to be used by people who only want to use English to conduct themselves in international business or talk to tourists. This 'official pidgin' could then exist alongside the kind of English you'd study if you actually wanted to learn how to write 'an engaging short story, in no fewer than six paragraphs, using a variety of tenses, time markers and linking phrases... (<deleted> use is that to my calculator salesman?)

So what do you think? Is it time for a New Word Order?

PS: Mr Copacabana just accused me of being a troll but I'm serious about this! I mean, how many flippin' conditionals does the average Thai highschool student really need unless they're going for IELTS and stuff?

[JSixpack]

Too much time on your hands? Can't you find something productive to do?

[wangsuda]

Actually, I agree with you . . . to a point. What is taught needs to be scaled back. In my opinion, the following changes would make English easier to learn in Thailand:

1. Teach basic speaking before anything, ESPECIALLY grammar. Grammar comes naturally as people learn to speak.

2. Cut back on the number of verb tenses taught. Currently Thai students learn 12 basic tenses PLUS six complex tenses. All they need for basic, clear, and error-free communication is six basic tenses.

3. Teach Thai ELL students that sentences contain ONE idea and are nowhere near as verbose as Thai sentences.

4. Remove the G-D D-MN passive voice from ELL education! Active voice is much simpler to learn and to use.

Edited November 9, 2008 by wangsuda

[Loaded]

Dumbing down language would only work if you introduce universal rules. But just remember you will no longer be speaking English. Teaching a Thai to speak some sort of pidgin dialect does not help a Thai understand a native speaker. A native speaker (most anyway) uses all tenses skllfully and there cannot be accurate and relevant interaction with a non-native speaker unless everyone is reading from the same rule book. Pidgin English exists as an informal version of English in Singapore but it's only used and understood by Singaporeans and is therefore useless outside of this small group.

I strongly believe that we don't add to something that is already challenging. The focus should be on better resources, materials and teachers and not on developing a new set of rules.

Edited November 9, 2008 by Loaded

[elkangorito]

Dumbing down language would only work if you introduce universal rules. But just remember you will no longer be speaking English. Teaching a Thai to speak some sort of pidgin dialect does not help a Thai understand a native speaker. A native speaker (most anyway) uses all tenses skllfully and there cannot be accurate and relevant interaction with a non-native speaker unless everyone is reading from the same rule book. Pidgin English exists as an informal version of English in Singapore but it's only used and understood by Singaporeans and is therefore useless outside of this small group.

I strongly believe that we don't add to something that is already challenging. The focus should be on better resources, materials and teachers and not on developing a new set of rules.

I fully agree with Loaded.

I teach my students a "simplified" version of verb tenses wherein verbs (one word) only have two tenses...past tense & present tense. The future tense can be created by adding the word "will", e.g. I will sing. The simplified past tense is "I did sing".

Whilst this may not be an ideal method, it allows "beginners" to easily deal with tenses but only if they are speaking.

Amazingly, my Thai teaching colleagues have endorsed my idea & I now teach these methods repetitively...& it is paying off. Students, using the above simplified methods, can now speak in tenses.

Of course, this is merely an initial step & is intended to allow students to speak & exercise the language. It is by no means, something that should be encouraged to remain unchanged.

I remember when I was learning Spanish, I had great trouble with verb tenses since most of the Spanish verbs are Irregular. As a result, I would add something at the end of my sentence to signify in which tense I was speaking. Although incorrect, it worked as everybody understood me. From what my Thai colleagues tell me, Thai language also adds something to a sentence to signify past, present or future tense.

[PeaceBlondie]

When I first taught Matayom 4 students, who had learned over 3 years of increasingly difficult English, the Thai Ed.D. went behind my back and taught about 16 tenses to them. Absurd, as if well-read native speakers often say, "He will have been being assassinated during dinner tomorrow." She also taught them passive voice, and I had to explain it again to them.

But we native speakers have been talking like that, and we have been talked to like that, for most of our lives. As Loaded said, we are not teaching students to converse in English if they cannot recognize native speakers' normal uses of any of the tenses.

If you can, try to skip extra tenses until the students are at intermediate level. Maybe limit the lessons to about five tenses: simple and continuous present and past, and simple future. I would avoid "will swim" versus "going to swim" because I see no agreement among native speakers on which use is definite or tentative, and which to use when.

Irregular verbs are horrendous, especially in Spanish, because most of the common verbs are irregular. But I swam today, not swimmed.

And who amongst us teachers can allow "I go to shopping yesterday" and "Tasaporn have five finger"?

[Hannahcopacabana]

I like Wangsuda's rules, particularly this one:

4. Remove the G-D D-MN passive voice from ELL education! Active voice is much simpler to learn and to use.

Reminds me of an eccentric lecturer I had once who distributed a list of rules for creative writing, one of which was that 'the passive voice should be avoided at all cost.'

Elkangorito's method sounds great. I think that's sort of what I had in mind but was too tangled up to externalise it properly. Verb bases with clear time signifiers would do the trick and is what many people communicate in already. How many times have you overheard bar girls saying to farang guys something along the lines of "Now we drink beer, maybe later we go boom-boom"? Does this disprove the point about teaching simplified English to SOLs impeding their understanding of native speakers? It gets the message across every bit as accurately as "If you are amenable, we can spend some time in this bar and then afterwards we could engage in some light rumpy-pumpy." Equally, who among us hasn't been privvy to those hilarious conversations where farang use pidgin to talk to to Thais. ("Me cocktail no have. I drink only beer. I no pay her drink.")

PeaceBlondie's suggestion is ideal for those teachers lucky enough to have any kind of autonomy over what they actually teach. I hope to be a similar situation myself one day. Unfortunately, at the moment I'm restricted to 'orrible text books which cover a new tense every couple of pages, a module guide which specifies 2 pages per lesson, and an end of module test which assesses the grammar and vocab from the book. Tempted as I am, I wouldn't want to 'set a student up to fail' a test (however pointless) by spending the necessary time on function and usage rather than drilling the structure of a new tense. ... and (shame on me for thinking like this) the test results, being inevitably lower, would reflect really badly on the perceived quality of my teaching.

I'm with you on the cringing at really basic errors though - especially from students who really ought to know better.

PS: Halfway through typing this post, my mum phoned and she told me that 'pidgin,' as a word, came into existence because it was the closest that 19th Century Chinese traders could come to saying 'business.' Never knew that.

[markg]

Wow, some jolly lovely stuff on here guys and galls.

I too try to keep things as simple as possible, by using specified time frames, (yesterday, tomorrow etc)

I have often wondered if Thais add -ing to all verbs because the tenses are so confusing. They know the verb changes, so they just add -ing to be on the safe side (Can we meeting for the eating later?) for example.

Wangsuda. You and me both will be tried for heresy by the TCT and hung (1. Teach basic speaking before anything, ESPECIALLY grammar. Grammar comes naturally as people learn to speak.)

I teach my kids to speak. I give them the confidence to communicate. By being confident, they try out new stuff and are not afraid to make mistakes. My kids can communicate effectively BUT INCORRECTLY. And do you know what - at this stage, i dont believe it matters. Teacher, yesterday i go shopping, is wrong, but at least i'm in no doubt as to what the kid did yesterday.

The trouble is that the Thai national English exams at P6 and M3 levels are barking up the wrong tree with their over-emphasis on grammar grammar and more fuc_king grammar.

My kids cannot pass this piece of turd exam - yet they have the confidence to go up to any foreigner and communicate in English. I contrast that with the Thai grammar teacher, who can conjugate any verb in any tense, but cannot speak or use the language effectively.

I will continue to teach basic communicative English. If the kids later aspire to be the editor of the Bangkok post, they can learn the correct grammar at that stage.

So should we simplify English? Yes we should - for any kid below (say) mathayom 3 in a Thai school - then only 3 tenses are really needed. Learning tables of fuc_king verbs for 12 tenses is a waste of time.

[Ijustwannateach]

Grammar translation doesn't work, yet unfortunately many Asian countries have invested huge amounts of bureaucracy and human capital in it. Ideally the approach for the youngest children would be experential, adding bits and pieces of the formal grammar, writing and reading skills later until students would be nearly proficient at the high school level. Unfortunately, this would require a population of Thai teachers with suitably graduated skills and training.

For schools whose students have no hope of full proficiency, I sympathise with a lot of what is said on this thread; however, there are schools where the students have a chance of doing well on the IELTS et al- and at those schools, the difficulty generally needs to be increased at all levels from what I've seen. Even most 'well-educated' Thais at high-school level have no notion how far behind they are same-age children with similar years of study of English in non-Asian countries. In those schools, teachers who want to go back to 'basic TEFL' do their students no favours.

"S"

[Jim's_a_Thai_Fox]

English language is pretty goofey (as my Californian friend would say) and it can be fun to teach Thai friends pidgin' English (i wouldn't recommend for 'real' teaching for the reasons outlined above)... it really helps knowing Thai also - you can really understand their errors made whilst speaking English.

I know what the OP means - language is primarily about communicating ideas to each other, so why not develop an unofficial lingo amongst your Thai / farang contingent if it helps with rudimentary, day to day communication.

Whilst we're at it, let's throw out articles and prepositions - waste of bleedin' time.

[Hannahcopacabana]

Whilst we're at it, let's throw out articles and prepositions - waste of bleedin' time.

Edited November 17, 2008 by Hannahcopacabana

[JSixpack]

We've broken through here to a startlingly new teaching principle that should enlighten many a hapless farang and revolutionize the teaching of English in Thailand: "When teaching a complex subject to a beginner, start simply with the very basics."

Sheer genius. Can we patent it?

[Hannahcopacabana]

Thanks, 'Jsixpack.' You made your feelings about this topic abundantly clear with your first thrilling post.

On your bike, son.

[Hannahcopacabana]

Ideally the approach for the youngest children would be experential, adding bits and pieces of the formal grammar, writing and reading skills later until students would be nearly proficient at the high school level.

I am preparing an 11yo student for an interview with an international school right now, and he fits this mould pretty accurately. He can and does communicate relatively easily, though with basic errors. We've spent two weeks working solely on present simple, past simple and pronunciation of verb endings. I'm not going to touch any other tenses until he's got those sorted. Having said that, he's nearly there... what next: 'will' or 'going to' future?

[PeaceBlondie]

Ideally the approach for the youngest children would be experential, adding bits and pieces of the formal grammar, writing and reading skills later until students would be nearly proficient at the high school level.

I am preparing an 11yo student for an interview with an international school right now, and he fits this mould pretty accurately. He can and does communicate relatively easily, though with basic errors. We've spent two weeks working solely on present simple, past simple and pronunciation of verb endings. I'm not going to touch any other tenses until he's got those sorted. Having said that, he's nearly there... what next: 'will' or 'going to' future?

I helped a timid 11 year old girl to get accepted into two of the best international schools, but she had already been going to a middle tier int'l school for a couple years. You need to know if he will be admitted to their EFL program, which the best schools do not even have. I heard of an interviewee who flunked the interview because he could not discuss current events, and coulod not answer a fairly simple problem solving question. The last student I prepped for an interview was fully ready, but was denied a second interview. I suggest that you work on conversation, mock interview, and sentence phrasing.

[Krupnik]

1. Teach basic speaking before anything, ESPECIALLY grammar. Grammar comes naturally as people learn to speak.

Exactly. There is not alot of point in teaching grammar because it is boring and kids/people don't learn that way. They just forget. Especially when there is such a complex rule system. The best way is practice - correct errors, hearing it and using it will drum it in.

[mgjackson69]

Whilst we're at it, let's throw out articles and prepositions - waste of bleedin' time.

This reminds me of a phone conversation between me and a friend some years ago:

Friend: "Where are you at?" ( A very common usage in the Great Plains region of USA)

Me: "Don't end a sentence with a preposition"

Friend: "Where are you at, asshol_e?"

[southerndown]

When I first taught Matayom 4 students, who had learned over 3 years of increasingly difficult English, the Thai Ed.D. went behind my back and taught about 16 tenses to them. Absurd, as if well-read native speakers often say, "He will have been being assassinated during dinner tomorrow." She also taught them passive voice, and I had to explain it again to them.

But we native speakers have been talking like that, and we have been talked to like that, for most of our lives. As Loaded said, we are not teaching students to converse in English if they cannot recognize native speakers' normal uses of any of the tenses.

If you can, try to skip extra tenses until the students are at intermediate level. Maybe limit the lessons to about five tenses: simple and continuous present and past, and simple future. I would avoid "will swim" versus "going to swim" because I see no agreement among native speakers on which use is definite or tentative, and which to use when.

Irregular verbs are horrendous, especially in Spanish, because most of the common verbs are irregular. But I swam today, not swimmed.

And who amongst us teachers can allow "I go to shopping yesterday" and "Tasaporn have five finger"?

this is the subject of the verb - and you use "us"???

and no need for comma

[PeaceBlondie]

When I first taught Matayom 4 students, who had learned over 3 years of increasingly difficult English, the Thai Ed.D. went behind my back and taught about 16 tenses to them. Absurd, as if well-read native speakers often say, "He will have been being assassinated during dinner tomorrow." She also taught them passive voice, and I had to explain it again to them.

But we native speakers have been talking like that, and we have been talked to like that, for most of our lives. As Loaded said, we are not teaching students to converse in English if they cannot recognize native speakers' normal uses of any of the tenses.

If you can, try to skip extra tenses until the students are at intermediate level. Maybe limit the lessons to about five tenses: simple and continuous present and past, and simple future. I would avoid "will swim" versus "going to swim" because I see no agreement among native speakers on which use is definite or tentative, and which to use when.

Irregular verbs are horrendous, especially in Spanish, because most of the common verbs are irregular. But I swam today, not swimmed.

And who amongst us teachers can allow "I go to shopping yesterday" and "Tasaporn have five finger"?

this is the subject of the verb - and you use "us"???

and no need for comma

Happy new year, southerndown. What, pray tell, is wrong with "students who had learned"? Dost thou thinkest it be "students whoms had learnedest?"

'Amongst us.' Are you suggesting the pronoun is not the object of the preposition amongst? Do you say "among we"?

Do you say there is no need for a comma, in this long sentence with an appositive clause?

"When I first taught Matayom 4 students, who had learned over 3 years of increasingly difficult English, the Thai Ed.D. went behind my back and taught about 16 tenses to them."

The phrase within the commas is equivalent to students. The commas are arguably optional, but definitely okey-dokey with the Ph.D. grammar professors at the University of Oklahoma. OK?

Now that southerndown has broken our Teaching Forum etiquette for wrongly attacking an English teacher for using bad grammar, every poster on ThaiVisa is welcome to pedantically and viciously criticize every single post that southerndown has posted on ThaiVisa, for perfect accuracy in spelling and grammar.

Happy New Year, y'all

[PeaceBlondie]

this is the subject of the verb - and you use "us"???

and no need for comma

Starting with southerndown's latest post, we notice that he cannot use upper case (Capital letters, amongst us Yankees and Southerners). We notice that he begins his second sentence with an uncapitalized "and," and leaves out the period (the full stop). Furthermore, it is not a complete sentence. Finally, every one of his points was wrong.

He is a naughty boy. I hope he is not teaching English in Thailand!

[Hannahcopacabana]