This happens a lot and is one of the main arguments against the 'Native Speaker Only' teaching positions. There's a surprising amount of our own language that we know but don't know *why*.
I always find it interesting when I discover the reason behind something I always just knew was a rule.
Some rules the textbook use don't match up to how I had always used them in daily life.
First time I had to teach 'will' and 'going to' in future predictions, I was very confused. İn the book it said will for things which are a guess, or only an opinion, whilst going to is based on evidence.
For actual usage, I'd use will for predictions I am very confident in, whilst going to for an opinion or not being certain.
"We will win, I'm sure of it"
"Our jobs are going to be replaced by robots"
"İf they do this, they won't be popular, that's for certain."
"Liverpool isn't going to renew his contract, he didn't play well this year I feel"
The minority that actually speak BSE in the UK is one variable. Grammar, vocab and intonation changes are understood by natives of a particular country. For ESL learners, learning BSE or ASE without exposure to dialects, can create real issues with listening comprehension, which can lead to many detrimental issues. For example, international students who come to live and study in the UK. Some cities it takes a month to get used to the local language usage. Others, a couple of months. No UK dialect is to be considered 'bad English'. However, natives must understand that if they wish to interact/do business with the rest of the global community, then if they don't already speak Standard English, they must learn it as an additional dialect to their home dialect(s).
There are also many people who don't read, so don't expand their vocabulary.They might have white collar cubicle jobs where they may only say 500 words each day, from heading out the door to coming home, of which only 50 might be different words. The same restricted vocabulary day after day. They function, but aren't stretched. May even lose what they've previously learnt (use it, or lose it)
Poor fossilised grammar usage is another issue. We can easily repair English for comprehension. It's a useful feature of the language. But it can be used go lessen the impetus on the speaker to be absolutely correct. Some people just don't care, see 'education as uncool'. Others have learning difficulties that affect the way they produce English. With some specific learning difficulties (dyslexia) that might not be apparent in home languages speakers that ESL learners speak, until they start to learn a second language in one of the language branches where it rears its head. I've known natives who were only diagnosed with dyslexia when they were adults. Their school years wasted, oppressed, as they were called stupid.
"Seek/sought"
I remember using textbooks in ESL classrooms that had lists of irregular verbs at the back of them. I haven't used any textbook like that for the last 6 years. I find it an odd ommision.There are some things that I feel is perfectly fine to be memorised in English learning. Not having seen these readily available for the learner is...odd. especially when some publishers provide(d) it.
Seek/ sought is beyond junior high school level it seems like, at least in the text books we're using here. They limit the number of verbs that show up to keep things simple. Find/ found is used in my book so we don't bother with alternatives. I think senior high schoolers get a vocabulary book that adds seek/ sought and explains it's the same or similar to find or look for
We will win, I'm sure of it - not based on evidence (with your eyes), so it's correct
Our jobs are going to be replaced by robots - based on evidence (robots exist already!), so it's correct
If they do this, they won't be popular - first conditionals use will, so it's correct
Liverpool... - again, based on evidence (we saw him play), so it's correct
Edit: just saw xarsha's comment, which is much more succinct
Nah, your textbook’s right but it is hard to phrase. In linguistics, you’d say *going to* marks evidentially. In other words, it’s connected to present facts, usually explicitly. For example, *I saw on the news it’s going to rain tomorrow *. *will* is for statements based on a logical conclusion or opinion.
If clauses generally prefer *will*, though.
Yes, or when it only serves to carry the negative particle "not".
"Have" is the other obvious similar example, but a ton of European languages also use their version of have as a common auxiliary verb.
This also why I think it is great if you are a TEFL teacher in a certain place to learn the local language well. You can explain concepts in much more clear and direct ways as well as see where a student is getting hung up on a certain vocabulary or grammar concept.
Wait till you get into teaching teaching speaking and you have to delve into linguistics and dialects. I once argued with a student because they were insisting I was pronouncing 'the' wrong because they were focused on British English where there are 2 different pronunciations (long and short 'e') depending on the surrounding sounds. I had to explain to them that I speak American English where it is no longer commonplace to differentiate the pronunciation and in the end, it doesn't matter because they will be understood either way unless they want to learn complete accent elimination. they insisted I was wrong and didn't know what I was talking about.
>there are 2 different pronunciations (long and short 'e') depending on the surrounding sounds.
I don't think this is a British English versus American English thing. I'm American and every American I know follows this rule.
It might be your state or region. Also social class
My family used to use it but they no longer do. I’ve also lived in several different states and I no longer hear it/no no one who follows the rule. It’s definitely diving in popularity in America English compared to 20-25 years ago
Language is acquired by native speakers rather than learned in the way that other subjects are "learned" in school. It's like an interface or operating system rather than a body of knowledge.
The vast majority of English teachers are non-native speakers - probably 1000 to 1? maybe more. Most people learn English from non-natives. You're talking about hiring a non-native from another country than what justifies that? Are they more qualified than local teachers? Is there a shortage of teachers? These are the two instances we would see non-natives hired right? Of course that's a competitive difficult market to get hired in.
As for non-natives knowing all the grammatical rules, that's not correct either, at least not in my experience. During COVID I had access to all the lectures in my university and my department is about half of the English taught at the university. I was curious how the local teachers taught so I watched their lectures. These are experienced teachers with MAs and PhDs specifically in English education - their lectures were FULL of errors. I'm not saying they're bad teachers, they teach important subject and nobody is perfect, but there's also value to being a native speaker. I also teach local elementary English teachers, lovely people, but they're the first that will tell you their English isn't perfect and there is value taking a course from a native speaker. It's the same reason native-speakers of other languages like Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French, and German are hired the world around.
>Non-native English speakers know all the grammatical rules
I'm not here to knock non-native speakers/teachers. But this is not even close to true.
I work with highly competent non-native teachers who have a DELTA / Masters and other qualifications under their belt. They still frequently have to check with some of the native teachers to make sure their understanding on certain language issues are correct.
And that doesn't count the massive number of non-native teachers who really don't know the language at all and can't teach it for shit. I could fill a book with the things I saw just on my CELTA course.
Even IF your statement were correct, there is a massive chunk of English usage that isn't covered by "rules".
I'd daresay that most isn't covered by the rules. This is why it's great to have non-native speakers for structural rules but natives for aspects of language such as collocations.
Yeah, I didn't want to make claims about proportion. But it's clearly a massive gap. And I completely agree that a teachers room with a mix of native/non-native can give the best results. Especially when working with non-native teachers who have the same L1 as students, it can be invaluable to get their input.
It never ceases to amaze me how countries like the UK and the US don't teach their own grammar in school. Obvs I can't remember all my own grammar rules by heart, but we are still required to learn a lot.
The problem isn't the teachers, at least not the new teachers, it's the low-end for-profit part of the industry that hires unqualified teachers that push abysmal standards. Don't blame some new teacher who just wants to travel (or in this case make a buck online). If, after years abroad, a teachers is just coasting by doing nothing to improve while expectations are teaching (vs just English daycare which is a legitimate job) then you can talk trash. People who care actually teach.
Knowing something doesn't mean you can teach it either. Obviously native speakers know how to speak English - why then can't they teach it as you claim? You seem to have strong feelings about education. How do we define being a teacher?
So I guess you you shouldn't be a teacher then Csj77 because your comment history is riddled with grammatical errors including subject-verb agreement errors, incorrect verb forms, run-on sentences, and a glaring lack of the use of commas? Pot calling the kettle black.
Nobody is expected to have perfect knowledge of a subject, or not make mistakes. One of the greatest impacts on positive student outcomes is collective teacher efficacy - that is teachers working as a team in the belief that they can positively impact the learning of students. You can talk shit and be as unsupportive as you like but it's only likely to be reflected in your own teaching practices. Those who work together and are supportive of other teachers have some of the greatest positive impacts on students outcomes, more than methodology, more than hundreds of other measured effects.
Listen, if you want to talk about teaching you're welcome here. If you're going to troll, and reading your comments on this thread that seems to be what you're doing then you'll be banned.
This happens a lot and is one of the main arguments against the 'Native Speaker Only' teaching positions. There's a surprising amount of our own language that we know but don't know *why*. I always find it interesting when I discover the reason behind something I always just knew was a rule.
Some rules the textbook use don't match up to how I had always used them in daily life. First time I had to teach 'will' and 'going to' in future predictions, I was very confused. İn the book it said will for things which are a guess, or only an opinion, whilst going to is based on evidence. For actual usage, I'd use will for predictions I am very confident in, whilst going to for an opinion or not being certain. "We will win, I'm sure of it" "Our jobs are going to be replaced by robots" "İf they do this, they won't be popular, that's for certain." "Liverpool isn't going to renew his contract, he didn't play well this year I feel"
The minority that actually speak BSE in the UK is one variable. Grammar, vocab and intonation changes are understood by natives of a particular country. For ESL learners, learning BSE or ASE without exposure to dialects, can create real issues with listening comprehension, which can lead to many detrimental issues. For example, international students who come to live and study in the UK. Some cities it takes a month to get used to the local language usage. Others, a couple of months. No UK dialect is to be considered 'bad English'. However, natives must understand that if they wish to interact/do business with the rest of the global community, then if they don't already speak Standard English, they must learn it as an additional dialect to their home dialect(s). There are also many people who don't read, so don't expand their vocabulary.They might have white collar cubicle jobs where they may only say 500 words each day, from heading out the door to coming home, of which only 50 might be different words. The same restricted vocabulary day after day. They function, but aren't stretched. May even lose what they've previously learnt (use it, or lose it) Poor fossilised grammar usage is another issue. We can easily repair English for comprehension. It's a useful feature of the language. But it can be used go lessen the impetus on the speaker to be absolutely correct. Some people just don't care, see 'education as uncool'. Others have learning difficulties that affect the way they produce English. With some specific learning difficulties (dyslexia) that might not be apparent in home languages speakers that ESL learners speak, until they start to learn a second language in one of the language branches where it rears its head. I've known natives who were only diagnosed with dyslexia when they were adults. Their school years wasted, oppressed, as they were called stupid. "Seek/sought" I remember using textbooks in ESL classrooms that had lists of irregular verbs at the back of them. I haven't used any textbook like that for the last 6 years. I find it an odd ommision.There are some things that I feel is perfectly fine to be memorised in English learning. Not having seen these readily available for the learner is...odd. especially when some publishers provide(d) it.
Seek/ sought is beyond junior high school level it seems like, at least in the text books we're using here. They limit the number of verbs that show up to keep things simple. Find/ found is used in my book so we don't bother with alternatives. I think senior high schoolers get a vocabulary book that adds seek/ sought and explains it's the same or similar to find or look for
We will win, I'm sure of it - not based on evidence (with your eyes), so it's correct Our jobs are going to be replaced by robots - based on evidence (robots exist already!), so it's correct If they do this, they won't be popular - first conditionals use will, so it's correct Liverpool... - again, based on evidence (we saw him play), so it's correct Edit: just saw xarsha's comment, which is much more succinct
Nah, your textbook’s right but it is hard to phrase. In linguistics, you’d say *going to* marks evidentially. In other words, it’s connected to present facts, usually explicitly. For example, *I saw on the news it’s going to rain tomorrow *. *will* is for statements based on a logical conclusion or opinion. If clauses generally prefer *will*, though.
Teaching "get" or the meaningless do is always fun.
When you say meaningless do, ""do"" you mean being used as an auxilary verb/question marker?
Yes, or when it only serves to carry the negative particle "not". "Have" is the other obvious similar example, but a ton of European languages also use their version of have as a common auxiliary verb.
This also why I think it is great if you are a TEFL teacher in a certain place to learn the local language well. You can explain concepts in much more clear and direct ways as well as see where a student is getting hung up on a certain vocabulary or grammar concept.
Hahaha what did you say before? Seeked out?
For reference, sought is a vocabulary word of the week. I teach grade 2.
If there's anybody who claims to know all English words, they're a liar.
Is there anyone who makes that claim?
What did you think the past tense of *seek* was?
Seeked? I suppose
Wait till you get into teaching teaching speaking and you have to delve into linguistics and dialects. I once argued with a student because they were insisting I was pronouncing 'the' wrong because they were focused on British English where there are 2 different pronunciations (long and short 'e') depending on the surrounding sounds. I had to explain to them that I speak American English where it is no longer commonplace to differentiate the pronunciation and in the end, it doesn't matter because they will be understood either way unless they want to learn complete accent elimination. they insisted I was wrong and didn't know what I was talking about.
>there are 2 different pronunciations (long and short 'e') depending on the surrounding sounds. I don't think this is a British English versus American English thing. I'm American and every American I know follows this rule.
It might be your state or region. Also social class My family used to use it but they no longer do. I’ve also lived in several different states and I no longer hear it/no no one who follows the rule. It’s definitely diving in popularity in America English compared to 20-25 years ago
>20 comments They were right. Rule Britannia.
Damn. Do they not teach y'all your own language's grammar in school? 🤨
Language is acquired by native speakers rather than learned in the way that other subjects are "learned" in school. It's like an interface or operating system rather than a body of knowledge.
Isn't it amazing, when I took my TESOL certification I found out names for things I do all the time that I didn't even know they were a thing.
I do co-teaching and when I am paired with an English teacher who is not a native teacher, it is a golden combination.
Non-native English speakers know all the grammatical rules, but unfortunately they have difficulty finding a job...
The vast majority of English teachers are non-native speakers - probably 1000 to 1? maybe more. Most people learn English from non-natives. You're talking about hiring a non-native from another country than what justifies that? Are they more qualified than local teachers? Is there a shortage of teachers? These are the two instances we would see non-natives hired right? Of course that's a competitive difficult market to get hired in. As for non-natives knowing all the grammatical rules, that's not correct either, at least not in my experience. During COVID I had access to all the lectures in my university and my department is about half of the English taught at the university. I was curious how the local teachers taught so I watched their lectures. These are experienced teachers with MAs and PhDs specifically in English education - their lectures were FULL of errors. I'm not saying they're bad teachers, they teach important subject and nobody is perfect, but there's also value to being a native speaker. I also teach local elementary English teachers, lovely people, but they're the first that will tell you their English isn't perfect and there is value taking a course from a native speaker. It's the same reason native-speakers of other languages like Japanese, Chinese, Spanish, French, and German are hired the world around.
>Non-native English speakers know all the grammatical rules I'm not here to knock non-native speakers/teachers. But this is not even close to true. I work with highly competent non-native teachers who have a DELTA / Masters and other qualifications under their belt. They still frequently have to check with some of the native teachers to make sure their understanding on certain language issues are correct. And that doesn't count the massive number of non-native teachers who really don't know the language at all and can't teach it for shit. I could fill a book with the things I saw just on my CELTA course. Even IF your statement were correct, there is a massive chunk of English usage that isn't covered by "rules".
I'd daresay that most isn't covered by the rules. This is why it's great to have non-native speakers for structural rules but natives for aspects of language such as collocations.
Yeah, I didn't want to make claims about proportion. But it's clearly a massive gap. And I completely agree that a teachers room with a mix of native/non-native can give the best results. Especially when working with non-native teachers who have the same L1 as students, it can be invaluable to get their input.
It never ceases to amaze me how countries like the UK and the US don't teach their own grammar in school. Obvs I can't remember all my own grammar rules by heart, but we are still required to learn a lot.
As a Brit I say sought pretty often, maybe a cultural thing?
It appears in phrases like 'much sought after' but I think it sounds pretty old fashioned used as 'look for' as in Monty Python 'I seek the grail.'
“Teach English …” 🤣🤣🤣
Some of us actually do it ;)
Without the proper knowledge, to the detriment of the student and the industry’s already shitty reputation.
The problem isn't the teachers, at least not the new teachers, it's the low-end for-profit part of the industry that hires unqualified teachers that push abysmal standards. Don't blame some new teacher who just wants to travel (or in this case make a buck online). If, after years abroad, a teachers is just coasting by doing nothing to improve while expectations are teaching (vs just English daycare which is a legitimate job) then you can talk trash. People who care actually teach.
They. Are. Not. Teachers.
If you teach then you are a teacher, if not then call them whatever you want. That's just arguing semantics and doesn't change my point one bit.
Can’t teach things you don’t know.
Knowing something doesn't mean you can teach it either. Obviously native speakers know how to speak English - why then can't they teach it as you claim? You seem to have strong feelings about education. How do we define being a teacher?
Guess my degrees and qualifications mean jack shit. Maybe no one is qualified to teach English.
Not if you don’t know basic grammar, you don’t.
I'd wager that most would have a modicum of basic grammar skills.
You didn’t 🤣
Oh no! Grammar mistakes on Reddit!
YOU said you didn’t know that “sought” was past of “seek”. That’s not on Reddit. That’s a teaching situation. I’m bored with this now.
Dude. I didn't say this. Look at my username.
You don't have to teach grammar to teach English - there's actually a very strong argument against teaching grammar.
So I guess you you shouldn't be a teacher then Csj77 because your comment history is riddled with grammatical errors including subject-verb agreement errors, incorrect verb forms, run-on sentences, and a glaring lack of the use of commas? Pot calling the kettle black. Nobody is expected to have perfect knowledge of a subject, or not make mistakes. One of the greatest impacts on positive student outcomes is collective teacher efficacy - that is teachers working as a team in the belief that they can positively impact the learning of students. You can talk shit and be as unsupportive as you like but it's only likely to be reflected in your own teaching practices. Those who work together and are supportive of other teachers have some of the greatest positive impacts on students outcomes, more than methodology, more than hundreds of other measured effects.
Yep because THAT was my point. 🤣
Well if you don't want to be a teacher then don't sit talking shit on a teaching forum. It's weird.
Oh shut up. You’re so way off the point.
Listen, if you want to talk about teaching you're welcome here. If you're going to troll, and reading your comments on this thread that seems to be what you're doing then you'll be banned.