Shouldn’t the introduction of wannas, gonnas, couldas, and shouldas, be based on the age of the student?
Younger students that are not ready for writing can memorize songs and poems and pronunciation patterns along with simple conversational sentences. Once they do get into the written form, a connection can be made by the teacher between what is written down versus what they’ve been singing and reciting.
Older and adult students would probably want to have the safety of theoretical foundation, such as a somewhat firm grasp of strong forms and grammatical structures, before advancing to speech contraction and reduction because they will not be learning the language organically like the young’ns.
Granted this is all just a few random thoughts from someone ignorant in the pedagogy of ESL/EFL.
In my time as an ESL student, I was never taught any of those fancy speech reductions. I connected the dots on my own once I got out into the real world, or in my case, the real classroom. It took years of audio input until I was able to fully map, subconciously, the written form versus the numerous nuances of the verbal form; it took even longer for me to produce those mappings effortlessly by consciously reconciling what I was saying versus what I hear other people were speaking. For the older students, it appears to me that teaching such reductions may aid in listening comprehension, but unless the students are exposed to a wide variety of speakers on a regular basis and have real incentives to actively correct their own pronunciations, such efforts will only produce incremental improvements represented by a handful of stock contractions – "wanna"s and "gonna"s.
[quote=“bob”](BTW - I wish you would come and help me with my stupid stock market story over in learning Chinese. )[/quote]I think you’re doing quite well on your own. Perhaps you should drop a few syllables for the sake of a more authentic sounding dialogue.
I’m no expert either sj but I can say with some confidence that what you said above is true. The unfortunate thing is that we need to teach it at all. Most (I’d say all) of our students are coming from a place where teachers are encouraged to speak unnaturally all the time. The students have literally been taught a form of the language that barely exists, and when they get out in the real world they need to go through a process, on their own, of discovering how the language really works. It “should” be the job of the teacher to help avoid that problem (if the studens are young this could be done) or to overcome that problem (as in the case of older students coming out of the slow and clear programs). There would probably be no other single change to the system here that would effect such a positive change. Our students could listen to native speakers and understand a good deal more of what they say, and because they could do that they could participate more insightfully and learn.
To put it another way, teaching “uh” as an alternate pronunciation of “have” used as an auxilliary, for example, shouldn’t be an issue at all. If native speakers generally say “shoulduh” and not “should have”, then shoulduh is what students should be exposed to “first”. It can take months to convince adult students that shoulduh, coulduh are acceptable pronunciations at all. They just keep whining that native speakers speak too fast and never make any progress on understanding what they say.
It’s absolutely appropriate for people doing adult English exams. Another issue seems to be that your students are in an inapporopriate class. You’ll have to be ‘creative’, either way. I’ll get back to you on the booklist later today.
[quote=“bob”]
If native speakers generally say “shoulduh” and not “should have”, then shoulduh is what students should be exposed to “first”. It can take months to convince adult students that shoulduh, coulduh are acceptable pronunciations at all. They just keep whining that native speakers speak too fast and never make any progress on understanding what they say.[/quote]
Point taken. Bob and Buttercup, you’ve both made some excellent points in what has become a rather enlightening thread; I’ll certainly have to rethink my approach to weak forms.
I will never teach my students to speak poor English. I do teach them however, that native speakers are often poor users of the language and thus, my students shouldn’t be overly embarrassed about making grammatical errors.
CTs and school managers often mistake the drunken solicitations of foreigners trying to pick them up at nightclubs as ‘natural English’ and insist this is taught in class. I tend to separate the two and only use ‘gonna’ and ‘wanna’ when I’m in my non-occupational drunken state. In fact, while most of my so-called ‘friends’ would tolerate it, as soon as I catch myself saying such things as ‘wanna’, ‘gonna’, ‘shoulda’, I know it’s time to get a cab.
Teachers should draw a professional line between students and friends. The teaching of ‘relaxed English’ as it’s called by it’s practitioners, to a class of students who haven’t mastered rudimentary grammar, is a redundant exercise.
[quote=“Charlie Phillips”]I will never teach my students to speak poor English. I do teach them however, that native speakers are often poor users of the language and thus, my students shouldn’t be overly embarrassed about making grammatical errors.
CTs and school managers often mistake the drunken solicitations of foreigners trying to pick them up at nightclubs as ‘natural English’ and insist this is taught in class. I tend to separate the two and only use ‘gonna’ and ‘wanna’ when I’m in my non-occupational drunken state. In fact, while most of my so-called ‘friends’ would tolerate it, as soon as I catch myself saying such things as ‘wanna’, ‘gonna’, ‘shoulda’, I know it’s time to get a cab.
Teachers should draw a professional line between students and friends. The teaching of ‘relaxed English’ as it’s called by it’s practitioners, to a class of students who haven’t mastered rudimentary grammar, is a redundant exercise.[/quote][quote=“Buttercup”]Read the thread. Your post does not address any of it…[/quote]Shhh! He’s trying to be a language maven. Don’t distract him! He’s got better things to do than read through a bunch of liberal claptrap. I’m sure he’s composing an indignant letter to the Daily Mail at this moment.
My apologies for stumbling in here drunk last night and throwing up on the reference books. The OP triggered a post-traumatic flashback to being put in the same position teaching ‘relaxed English’ at Joy.
I feel that Taiwan is a sheltered society where too much is taught in the classroom and from text-books. Students should be kicked in the ass and sent out into the real world at some point where they can experience and explore linguistic nuance and variety and develop their own idiosyncrasies. Why should teacher’s have to spoon-feed everybloodylittlething to them?
It’s not the correct articulation of words that makes them sound like robots, it’s the lack of stress-timing in their speech - a critical difference between Chinese and English (L1 interference).
At the level the OP is writing about, the students are not developed enough in more important skills and their cognitive maturity isn’t high enough to navigate the sociolinguistic aspects of relaxed speech. That’s why I’m against teaching ‘gonna’ and ‘wanna’ in their speech. For listening and linguistic awareness it’s probably important though.
Oh, an I’m writing a letter to the editor about the use of ‘got’, ‘gotta’ and ‘gotten’, which should be banned immediately!
[quote]At the level the OP is writing about, the students are not developed enough in more important skills and their cognitive maturity isn’t high enough to navigate the sociolinguistic aspects of relaxed speech. That’s why I’m against teaching ‘gonna’ and ‘wanna’ in their speech. For listening and linguistic awareness it’s probably important though.
[/quote]
The rhythyms of English come from the fact that stressed syllables are spoken louder, a little slower, and with more full vowel sounds, while unstressed syllables are quicker, quieter, with more silent letters and the schwa vowel. The more unstressed syllables there are between stressed syllables the faster and quieter they are pronounced. Stressed syllables tend to occur at regular intervals and the unstressed syllables are squeezed in to accomodate those intervals. That is what the rhythm of English “is”. Not teaching people to pronounce unstressed syllables like unstressed syllables causes them to pronounce every syllable like a stressed syllable. This is completely “off”. It is what causes robo speech and it is deliberately freaking “taught”.
I don’t know of any teacher who is teaching students to pronounce unstressed syllables as stressed syllables; it’s simply unnatural. No one’s telling students to say, “BA-NA-NA” instead of “ba-NA-na.” That would be insane.
However, someone seems to be teaching the locals to say “PERcent” instead of “perCENT”, meaning that “percent” ends up sounding like “person”.
By the way, regarding “gonna” and “wanna”, I believe students should be taught never to write them out unless they absolutely know what they’re doing. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve found these words in formal academic essays.
I don’t know of any teacher who is teaching students to pronounce unstressed syllables as stressed syllables; it’s simply unnatural. No one’s telling students to say, “BA-NA-NA” instead of “ba-NA-na.” That would be insane.[/quote]
I should have said unstressed words. Grammatical words, the ones that are unstressed, are usually one syllable. But yes, if teachers are teaching “could have” and not “coulduh,” and “we would” and not “we’d”, “and” instead of “n,” “or” instead of “r” etc, then teaching unstressed words like they were stressed words is exactly what they are doing. By doing this they “permanently” limit the students listening comprehension. They also prevent him from ever achieving a natural bounce in their English, from ever speaking English easily.
Read this again…
You can’t say that you teach the natural rhythm of English if the rhythm is established by the alternation of stressed and unstressed sysllables (it is) and you don’t teach (or at least consistently provide a model of) what it means to be unstressed. Unstressed is quick, at a lower volume, more likely with silent letters, and the schwa vowel or a short i (“i” as in bit). The mavens out there teaching “proper” English are dooming their students to a future of poor listning ability and robotic, strained pronunciation.
I don’t teach them per se, but for my advanced adult students, I make them aware of certain “hillbilly contractions” such as gonna, wanna, how’dya, and certain other phrases used by the speaking American public such as “fixin’ to” (getting ready to) and other Bush-speak type words. I caution them that these are terms mostly used by “Americans of rural persuasion” (noticed how I used a P.C. term there in keeping with the times) and if nothing else, they should be aware of these terms so they can make out what “Dubya” is saying when he gives speechs. By the way, on a related note, if you’ve staled-out on ideas to teach your advanced students, try this one for a funny change: Bushisms. There’s a million websites devoted to Bushisms, which are actually very instructive on how NOT to speak in public. In these quotes you’ll find a treasure trove of mis-used, and confusing butchery of the English language. Go to google and type “bushisms.” Many of them are hilarious. I taught one session and we were all rolling. :roflmao:
I dunno about “howdy’a” or “fixin’ to”–lol–but you haven’t correctly characterized gonna and wanna. You’ll find these used by all kinds of American speakers, I won’t speak for other regions. I’ve even heard newscasters use them.
[quote=“bob”]Reached a bit of a dead end on this topic apparently. Bit of a block up with the Brits I guess. Anyway, we certainly appreciatechyrbeinround.
tw.youtube.com/watch?v=9ibX3TejlZE[/quote]
What is this about gonna being a “hillbilly” word, or even just one used by Americans? Rubbish. It seems most Brits use “gonna” when it’s grammatically appropriate. The juvenile joesax’s parents tried in vain to stop him using it, in the mistaken belief that it wasn’t “correct”. But in a couple of decades both the verbal and written forms are gonna be as correct as cucumber sandwiches on the lawn and extending your pinky.
)[/quote]I think you’re doing quite well on your own. Perhaps you should drop a few syllables for the sake of a more authentic sounding dialogue. 
Wish you’d joined this thread three pages ago…
