+0
Do you use structures such as these in your daily speech?



  1. He won’t be late, I don’t think.



  2. She was an outstanding leader was Mrs Ghandi.



  3. Jill likes rock, myself folk.



  4. That house in Barry St, is that where they live?



  5. That letter wants to go first class.
1 2 3 4
Comments  (Page 3) 
I believe "planned conversation" borders on an oxymoron. I'm differentiating between casual speech and a prepared address that IS planned in advance.

What is the point you wanted to make?
Grammar GeekI believe "planned conversation" borders on an oxymoron. I'm differentiating between casual speech and a prepared address that IS planned in advance.

...

The latter would be written-spoken, and therefore would have to reply somewhat on written grammar.
Students: We have free audio pronunciation exercises.
Grammar Geek
What is the point you wanted to make?

<I don't think so. I consistently say that when people speak casually in conversation, they don't plan out what they will say, so they change their mind or their direction, and you end up with conversations that are not grammatical.>

My point is that even casual conversation has grammar. So, which particular parts of it are ungrammatical? Give us some examples. Surely stops and starts are not ungrammatical.

And, is the sentence the target unit for communication in conversational encounters? If not, should it be? It seems that many teachers would answer in the affirmative there. I can't understand why they would do so.
Milky My point is that even casual conversation has grammar. So, which particular parts of it are ungrammatical? Give us some examples. Surely stops and starts are not ungrammatical.
All speech obviously has grammar, though it may not be the same as written grammar. Speech is only ungrammatical if the speaker does not follow his own rules.
MilkyAnd, is the sentence the target unit for communication in conversational encounters? If not, should it be? It seems that many teachers would answer in the affirmative there. I can't understand why they would do so.
I think that the sentence (if we mean by that a complete utterance) has to be the target unit for learners of a foreign language. Even if you are teaching "conversational" [insert the name of any language you like] you have to teach a structured version of the language. Learners would be confused if they were presented with the rather loose structures of casual conversation.
<Speech is only ungrammatical if the speaker does not follow his own rules.>

What do you mean by "his own rules"?

<Even if you are teaching "conversational" [insert the name of any language you like] you have to teach a structured version of the language>

Again you are suggesting that there is only one structure. Writing has its structures and conversation its own.

<Learners would be confused if they were presented with the rather loose structures of casual conversation.>

Really, but it is already happening in many ESL/EFL classrooms all over the world. And, why do you keep talking about casual conversation? Why not conversation in general? Or are you saying that all conversations apart from casual conversations are carried out in complete sentences? Are you saying that non-casual conversation imitate the written form?
Teachers: We supply a list of EFL job vacancies
Milky<Speech is only ungrammatical if the speaker does not follow his own rules.>

What do you mean by "his own rules"?

I mean that every speaker has internalised rules that he follows. Under stress, those rules may break down.
Milky<Even if you are teaching "conversational" [insert the name of any language you like] you have to teach a structured version of the language>

Again you are suggesting that there is only one structure. Writing has its structures and conversation its own.

I think that for any given language the structures of speech and writing are related, but different.
Milky<Learners would be confused if they were presented with the rather loose structures of casual conversation.>

Really, but it is already happening in many ESL/EFL classrooms all over the world.

I think that such methods are unduly influenced by the extreme view that speech is the only proper manifestation of language.

When I was at school the first year of French was taught according to the audio-visual method. At the end of the year I had a good French accent, but could only utter the sentences I had learned, with a very limited amount of substitution. It was only when I started learning "from a book" that I could put "new" sentences together. The audio-visual method attempts to reproduce the way small children learn language, but forgets that for small children learning a language is a full time job. I do not say that it has no place, but I only see it as a way of supplementing a systematic approach.
MilkyAnd, why do you keep talking about casual conversation? Why not conversation in general? Or are you saying that all conversations apart from casual conversations are carried out in complete sentences? Are you saying that non-casual conversation imitate the written form?
I think there is a continuum. It depends on who is talking to whom about what and where.

<I think that such methods are unduly influenced by the extreme view that speech is the only proper manifestation of language.>

Well. if that were true, which I doubt very much, it would make a change from 250 years of viewing the written as the only proper manifestation.
1,2,3,5 No. 4 Yes.

6. Where did she go shopping at Macy's? (No comma, no pause, with rising intonation at the end as for a yes-no question)

6. No. But I sometimes hear these hybrid questions.

CJ
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
<6. Where did she go shopping at Macy's? (No comma, no pause, with rising intonation at the end as for a yes-no question)>

For me, that has the same function as a falling-intonation tag question. The speaker assumes the answer to be as he she thought - above, "Yes, (you're right,) at Macy's".
Show more