Strikes

[The Riff-Raff Element]

I agree that modern usage needs to be taught. However, I maintain that

it should be preceeded by teaching of the formal. After all, who in

normal speech says "je ne sais pas?" Practically everyone drops "ne"

from most negations in French. And that is fine, provided that one

knows that "ne" should be there in the first place, but it still sounds

slovenly, according to my French teacher, who does it herself, but

never, never in conversations that could be considered formal or

official.

Like it or not, people are judged frequebtly on the way they speak and write.

[Will]

Where's Dick Smith when you need him?

Nothing wrong with teaching colloquial versions of languages of course, as long as it's made clear what is being taught. But to say that words like 'whom' are archaic is so clearly wrong. I'm not saying that the teaching of French in English schools is necessarily any better, or any worse, just that it's not correct to peddle misinformation as fact, in any context.

[Spongebob]

To get this back on topic, (where's Russethouse when you need her?), the situation in France sounds EXACTLY like what's happening in the UK primary sector.

HMG decided that since it couldn't staff the secondary sector with Foreign Language teachers, (Why? That's another post[;-)] ), it would make FL teaching compulsary in the primary sector , but no longer in the secondary. If there was a smiley for rolling eyes now, it'd be here!

Result: Well at least in the less populated North of the UK, there aren't any priamry qualified teachers of FL either.

In a school I know well, one of the lasses teaching it goes on an evening course to learn it, and is one lesson beyond her class! If she's ill one evening, and can't go, then what?

Oh, and in 2002, FL teachers were like gold dust in UK secondary classes too. I know of THREE local schools who had awful probs: one had TWO German classes running for a year, one of them approaching GCSE, the other year 10, without a teacher at all, except supply, and most of those were the "where's me work?" variety.

Spongebob

[nimportequoi]

JonD,

I don't agree. Although people say 'je sais pas' and drop the 'ne', it is ALWAYS written 'Je ne sais pas'. In contrast, it is perfectly acceptable to use the apostrophe and write 'I'm' instead of  'I am' in English. Whatever feelings you personally have about the development of language, if you are teaching it you need to teach what is most commonly used. I think you willl find the the Académie also advocate the teaching of 'I'm' rather than 'I am' if you look at the texts. The problem with the way English used to be taught in French schools is that it focused very much on the grammatical structure and little on the oral. As a result the French speak English very badly. That view is changing now, thank goodness, and more importance is placed on being able to speak English as it is spoken by native English speakers, not on the ability to complete grammar exercises correctly.

[julia]

Well , that was interesting. I started a thread about strikes and just happened to mention I had been asked to help out the teacher with English.

I now feel so confused . I think if I did go and help , that "Help " would be the opperative word !

[Russethouse]

Russethouse is here still thinking about

>>I don't agree, 'May I' does mean the same as 'Can I' (when you are talking about permission)<<

From a middle aged users perspective surely 'Can I' means more along the lines of 'am I able to?' where as 'May I' means 'do I have permission to?', theres a difference.Whether or not the two are confused in common use isn't the point, the difference should be appreciated. Next we'll be saying 'for free' is correct and I'm pretty sure DS said it isn't [;-)][;-)]

Julia, I'm sure your local school would be grateful for your help, after all, I know the expression 'yesterday night' is banned in your house, as it is in ours!

[nimportequoi]

'Can' is a modal verb, which has several meanings, including permission, possibility, probablility and being able to do something. The meaning is fundementally the same if you ay 'may I have a glass of water please?' or 'Can I have a glass of water please?' it is just that the latter is slightly less formal and polite. You can equally say 'could I have a glass of water please?'.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="SusanAH"]

JonD,

I don't agree. Although people say 'je sais pas' and drop the 'ne',

it is ALWAYS written 'Je ne sais pas'. In contrast, it is perfectly

acceptable to use the apostrophe and write 'I'm' instead of  'I

am' in English. Whatever feelings you personally have about the

development of language, if you are teaching it you need to teach what

is most commonly used. I think you willl find the the Académie also

advocate the teaching of 'I'm' rather than 'I am' if you look at the

texts. The problem with the way English used to be taught in

French schools is that it focused very much on the grammatical

structure and little on the oral. As a result the French speak English

very badly. That view is changing now, thank goodness, and more

importance is placed on being able to speak English as it is spoken by

native English speakers, not on the ability to complete grammar

exercises correctly.

[/quote]

Although people say 'je sais pas' and drop the 'ne', it is ALWAYS written 'Je ne sais pas'.

But this is my point - everyone knows the full form. We are not first

taught in school that the abbreviated form is the one used in spoken

French - we are taught the full phrase and then we learn to drop the

"ne" in everyday usage.

Susan - if people are taught solely the contracted forms then what will

they make of the uncontracted forms when they come across them (as they

inevitably will, if they continue to use the language)? You seem to be

advocating not telling them that these forms even exist. I cannot agree

with this approach - surely it is better to show people the full form

and then explain that these are commonally contracted? My lot don't

seem to have had any problems grasping the concept (probably because I

explained it in terms of the contraction of the phrase "je ne sais

pas...." a familar example in their own langauge).

The Académie may feel that they can pronounce on matters of English

grammer. Personally I think that they presume a little too much. I

agree that there is little point in attempting to teach English using a

heavy emphasis on grammer, not least because English grammer is not

that widely agreed upon by native speakers, though there are occasions

where this approach is useful (subject an object pronouns was an

example I gave earlier - again my little group didn't have a lot of

difficulty with the concept because they already understood it clearly

in French grammatical terms).

[nimportequoi]

When I taught primary schools, I concentrated mainly on the oral, not so much the written side of English, therefore it was 'I'm' and 'you're' without necessarily explaining the original, especially to CE2.  The whole idea was to get them to be able to use short phrases such as 'I'm Nathalie, live in ....., I like football, it's raining, I'd like an ice cream, it's, blue, I've got brown hair..etc.' When you are teaching at collège or adults, yes, I agree, they are taught the full form - that I am becomes I'm, but then that is it - they are taught to always use the contraction afterwards in written and in spoken English. The only time you use the full auxillary is usually when you want to emphasise something  'I am right in what I say'. I also think your dismissal of what the Académie say on the way English is taught is a little strong - they have a lot of experience in the way English is taught and it made sense to teach the kids like this - they enjoyed learning the language and could say phrases in the same way native English speakers could. What is the point in teaching old fashioned English that is never used, not even on Radio 4 these days? The whole idea of learning a language is to be able to understand the native speakers and to speak in a way that will be understood by them, as well as write correctly.

[The Riff-Raff Element]

[quote user="SusanAH"]

I also think your dismissal of what the

Académie say on the way English is taught is a little strong -

they have a lot of experience in the way English is taught and it made

sense to teach the kids like this -

[/quote]

Sorry - I was being flippant.

I don't present anything written until CE2/CM1, because I don't think

it is helpful. Mostly I am concentrating on pronunciation and building

ever longer exchanges using a set of stock phrases. I only show them

something on paper once they've got it down pat orally. I found that

written English can be very scarey for small children, but when they

discover that they've already learnt it without realising...

One thing I do like teaching them is English idioms - things like "it's

a piece of cake", "the bees knees" (but NOT "the dogs bollocks," even

if that is more current) and "how long is a piece of string?" They

really enjoy those. And a rhyme I wrote all by myself called "Three

Thirsty Thespians" to stop them saying "zee" instead of "the". Works a

treat. Mind you, I'm not sure what the good folk of the Académie would

make of it. I'd probably be deported.

[Mistral]

On the I'm/ I am discussion. Both forms are taught in collège/lycée. At one point (many years ago) pupils only learnt the full form. The obvious problem being that when they actually came face to face with an English speaker, they didn't understand the contracted form. Then the idea swung the other way and only the contracted form was taught. This doesn't work either because the full form is still used in written English and a lot of English speakers tend to use it when they slow down to speak to a foreigner.

Now we teach both. It is important for pupils to understand where the apostrophe comes from and you can't explain that without using the full form. You also need to explain that the contracted form isn't obligatoy (many pupils assume that it is like the apostrophe in "J'ai". You can't say " Je ai" whereas "I am" is a perfectly acceptable form) I tell my pupils that the correct form is always "I am" but for ease English speakers contract it to "I'm" which is usual and acceptable in spoken English and in written English when you are writing speech. (most texts studied in school are dialogues)

[Viv]

I can confirm that my sproglet started collége in September and has been 'taught' I am and I'm in the English lessons and I am learning more about English grammer as a consequence than I ever learnt at school in the UK!

[nimportequoi]

[quote user="Jon D"][quote user="SusanAH"]

I also think your dismissal of what the Académie say on the way English is taught is a little strong - they have a lot of experience in the way English is taught and it made sense to teach the kids like this -

[/quote]

Sorry - I was being flippant.

I don't present anything written until CE2/CM1, because I don't think it is helpful. Mostly I am concentrating on pronunciation and building ever longer exchanges using a set of stock phrases. I only show them something on paper once they've got it down pat orally. I found that written English can be very scarey for small children, but when they discover that they've already learnt it without realising...

One thing I do like teaching them is English idioms - things like "it's a piece of cake", "the bees knees" (but NOT "the dogs bollocks," even if that is more current) and "how long is a piece of string?" They really enjoy those. And a rhyme I wrote all by myself called "Three Thirsty Thespians" to stop them saying "zee" instead of "the". Works a treat. Mind you, I'm not sure what the good folk of the Académie would make of it. I'd probably be deported.
[/quote]

I think it is great to teach them things like idioms - whatever makes the lessons interesting to the children (and adults, come to that!) is the main thing. I used to play games like 'pairs' for them to learn specific vocabulary on certain subjects and they really enjoyed the lesson when I brought in my little girl's cash register and the class role played shopping for the little plastic food with the toy money.

I think on the I am vs I'm subject - I'm only a bit anti 'I am' as I have a lot of adults who learnt English a while back at school in France and don't use contractions at all when they speak - and it sounds very stilted and unnatural!