Re:another homework

[kellogg]

Eunshil's data is worth comparing to Jisu's.

On the face of it, both data extracts are mostly concerned with cooperating with foreign teachers. This is not always easy, particularly not when we are trying to teach APPROPRIACY.

Appropriacy is NOT easy to teach. First of all, we know that it's really at the top of the tree: it requires SOUNDING and WORDING and MEANING. 

SOUNDING: "Nice to meet you" involves a LOT of elision. The subject is dropped, and "meetyou" can sound like "meechew".

WORDING: We may need to teach the children that "I'm glad to meet you" and "It's nice to meet you" are grammatically quite different. Also, that "see" and "meet" are not the same. It's not obvious!

MEANING. Teaching this really involves CONCEPTS, like "face", "familiarity", "formality".

Some of these concepts are famliar ones (because they are the same as Korean concepts). But some of them are actually quite different. The idea of using given names to address teachers is one example. And the use of "nice" when you meet someone is another.

Now, we can see that the foreign teachers are NOT terribly interested in appropriacy. They are much more interested in INAPPROPRIACY, perhaps because, rather like children, they get bored.

Eunshil has a very good idea. She wants to study MOTIVATION, and she knows that we can't really study it very well just by asking, because kids are often not very conscious of their own feelings. When they are very young, they often don't know how they feel about "English" or "appropriacy" or whatever, and when they are older, they often don't care; they simply want to find out what the teacher wants, and then either do that or do the opposite!

So Eunshil thinks we can study motivation in another way--by the LENGTH of the exchange! She's right. When children are INTERESTED in a topic, it will go on for a while. But if they are BORED by it, it will stop.

There are TWO problems with this. The first one is that very often the TEACHERS put an end to the exchange rather than the students. The second one is that, as we'll see, a lot of the exchanges are limited to a very simple, Q-A, two part structure, and it's simply not possible for the children to extend it.

Let's have a look:

KT: Everybody Repeat after us

Notice that KT is using "Repeat after us" as an activity name and not as a command.

When you introduce someone, 소개할 때 we use... this is, Everybody repeat,
"this is my english teacher, Gwen"
S1: crazy(???I don't know why he suddenly say this)

Jenny: Who is Gwen?(IU, SV, RR)

KT:(Pointing to FT)Gwen, Gwen.(IU, SV, RR)
Ss: Gwen(IU)
Jenny: quack? (SV)

Good! Now, roughly, here's what happened.

TEACHER INITIATE: Everybody, repeat after us!

TEACHER EXPLANATION: When you introduce someone, we use this is...everybody...repeat!

Look at this:

T: Everybody, repeat after us!

Ss: After us!

T: !!!!

You can see that the children interpret this as:

T: Everybody! Repeat "after us"!

Now, what about this?

T: When you introduce someone, we use this is...everybody...repeat!

Ss: This is everybody!

S1: We use this is everybody!

S2: When you introduce someone, we use this is everybody!

This might work a bit better if we CHANGED it AROUND, like this:

TEACHER EXPLANATION: When you introduce someone, we use this is..

TEACHER INITIATE: Everybody, listen! "This is Gwen!" Repeat!

It's not very easy for the kids to figure out exactly what the teachers want to do here. Perhaps it might be easier if we used INTONATION, and LEXICOGRAMMAR a little more consistently.

Our teacher wants to GET ATTENTION. It's quite normal for teachers to use COMMANDS, with a FALLING INTONATION, to do this. And of course "Repeat!" is a very common command. But our teacher realizes she's going too fast. She needs to GET ATTENTION first. So here's what she does.

KT: Everybody hands on, hands on.(RR)
S3: hands on(IU, RR)
KT: and then do like this.(RR)
S3: do like this(IU,RR)
KT: So, repeat.(NRR) "This is my english teacher, Gwen."
Ss: This is my english teacher, Gwen.(IU, RR)
KT: Good job!(NRR)

You can see that the children are now VERY clear on what to do. This is because the teacher begins by using FOUR TURNS to get perceptual attention. THEN she gives information. And THEN she checks integration. Seven turns.

Yet even this is not really enough. Look!

Jenny: What? What? What? Gwen?(IU, SV, RR)
KT: (Pointing to FT)Gwen will introduce Santina.(SV, NRR)
Jenny: Gwen?(IU, SV, RR)

Poor Jenny!

Jenny: This is my Korean teacher, Santina.(IU, SV, PV, RR)

DID Gwen introduce Santina? What happened?

KT: So, everybody, hands on.
Mine is a little bit long. Okay, repeat(NRR)
KT,FT,Ss: This is my korean english teacher, Santina.(IU,PV,RR)
KT: One more time.(RR)
Ss: This is my korean english teacher, Santina.(IU,PV)
KT: Very good!

No...The students introduced Santina!

Who can introduce Gwen and Santina?(SV, PV, NRR)
You can choose anybody.(SV, RR) Yes.
Alex: This is, this is my English teacher, Gwen.(IU, PV, RR)
KT: Gwen. Okay, very good.

Good! But is it true? Do the children know Gwen? Or is this a role play?

 Yes, Jaekyeong?(IU)
Jaekyeong: This... is my Korean English teacher, Santina.(IU,PV,RR)
KT: That's right. One point. Very good.(EVAL‎!UATION)

Notice how the Korean teacher focuses on rewards!

s4: This is my English Korean teacher, Santina.(IU,PV,RR)
KT: English Korean teacher?(IU,RR)

And THIS brings us to a KEY grammar problem of this data, namely adjective order before a noun. As we'll see, the teachers are NOT able to present this is a clear and understandable way, although it's a very interesting and teachable point of English.

The way English works, we usually put the most CENTRAL adjective nearest the noun and most PERIPHERAL ones further away. This means that adjectives tend to get MORE CONCRETE as we move near the noun and MORE ABSTRACT as we move further and further away.

That is why we say "a nice old Korean lady" and not "a Korean old nice lady". This rule turns out to have a lot of power.

Look:

This is my beat up old stripey leather handbag for carrying all my brand new educational linguistics books in.

Now, you know that ENGLISH addresses (and English names) go like this:

David Kellogg

Department of English Education

Seoul National University of Education

Seochodong

Seochogu

Seoul

Korea

Asia

The world

The solar system

The Miky Way....

In other words, they go from PARTICULAR to GENERAL. Even the name "David Kellogg" goes this way, because we think of given names as being PARTICULAR and family names as being more GENERAL (which is why they get a kind of determiner, that is, a title).

In Korean, things go JUST the other way around. We start BIG and we go SMALL. Now, think of adjectives before the noun. Do they go from GENERAL to PARTICULAR or from PARTICULAR to GENERAL?

Our teachers have a big problem. They have already begun rather BADLY, by presenting the Korean teacher as being in some way "marked". This is a KOREAN English teacher (as opposed to a normal English teacher).

In this context, the marking really needs to be the other way around: the Korean English teacher is a normal teacher, but the FOREIGN English teacher is actually only a teaching assistant, and this needs to be marked. Unfortunately, that is not what happens.

Ss: ha ha ha
KT: I'm English?(IU,SV,RR) No! Korean english teacher.(SV,PV,RR) okay. Yes.

Notice the use of "no". Poor teacher! She's going to PAY for this!

S5: She is my korean english teacher, santina.(IU,PV,RR)
she is very smart but...(PV,SV,RR)
KT: but what?(SV, RR)
S5: ugly(SV,RR)
KT: (in crying voice)She's very smart but ugly?(IU,PV,RR)
Alex: And crazy.(SV,RR)
KT: And crazy...(IU,RR) (crying) You're crazy.(SV,RR)
Yes, Helen

Oh, dear! Well, imagine we UPTAKE some of this perjorative language and use it as METALANGUAGE. Like this:

KT: S5 is very smart. S5 knows a lot of words! S5 knows words like "crazy". And "ugly". But these are ugly words. And teachers are very strong. Teachers give a LOT of homework. Maybe S5 is not so smart....

Helen: This is my english teacher, Gwen.(IU,PV,RR) She's from South Africa.(PV,SV,RR)

So they DO know the teacher? Why doesn't Jenny know her?

KT: Oh very good.(Evauation) South Africa.(IU,RR) Ann?

Ann: They are my English teachers.(IU,PV,SV,RR)

KT: Okay. They are my English teachers.(IU,PV,RR)

Jenny: This is my korean English teacher, Santina.(IU,PV,RR)

KT: Okay. I expected more...(SV,NRR)

How could the teacher SHOW the children how to extend this? Instead of simply EXPECTING it?

Jenny: But she's hair is short.(SV,PV,RR)

VERY interesting mistake. But no uptake.

KT: Okay. Now, who can introduce your friend like this?(PV,SV,NRR) Your best friend.(SV,NRR)

Our teacher DOES use a lot of follow up. But it's not really EXTENDING follow up, is it? How could she EXTEND it?

Go to your friend and introduce.(SV,NRR) Okay. you! Stand up and go to your friend.(SV,NRR)

S6: This is my korean friend.(IU,PV,SV,RR)

KT: Korean friend..haha(IU,RR)

Ss: ha ha

The kids are obviously quite interested in the idea of the adjective in front of the noun. The teacher CORRECTLY does not want them using adjectives like UGLY and STUPID. So she has them introduces "best friends". But then...what would be a good adjective?

Here are some very TEACHABLE adjectives that might work:

able

bold

brave

busy

crazy

dizzy

ditsy

...

strong

stubborn

...

witty

KT: Okay. Can you do?(RR) Yes. Go to your friend.(NRR)
S7: My bad korean friend.(IU,PV,SV,RR)
KT: Who?(SV,RR)) The name. name.(SV,RR) You have to tell the name.(SV,RR)
One more time, one more time. Go! This is...
S8: korean name?(IU,PV,SV,RR)
S7: This is crazy bad friend(PV,SV,RR)

Should it be "crazy bad friend" or "bad crazy friend". Why? What happened to the ARTICLE?

KT: and name?(SV)

You can see the articles are disappearing!

S7: May I speak Korean?(RR)

KT: Okay. This is my bad crazy friend and name.(IU,PV) what's his name?(SV,RR)

Why does the teacher reverse the adjective order? Which is correct?

We can see that there is a spontaneous lesson taking place...a lesson on adjectives and adjective order. It's a very good idea to seize teachable moments like this. But it's rather difficult without some BASIC PRINCIPLES.

Ha-hyun: Korean name?(IU,SV,RR)

Ha-hyun: Ha-hyun. 백하현(SV,RR)

S7: 하현.(IU,RR)

KT: Please say, say one more time.(SV,RR)

S7: This is my crazy bad friend, ha-hyun.(IU,PV,,RR)

Notice that the child does NOT uptake the teacher's form. Which is correct?

I think it's interesting that we ask children to learn INDUCTIVELY in elementary school. This is probably a correct decision. But the problem is that once you make this decision, you really have to provide EXAMPLES that are CLEAR and CORRECT (preferably 100% correct) for them to practice induction upon!

KT: okay, very good. And yes.

S9: This is my friend, 윤지.(PV,RR)

KT: 아~ your friend 윤지.(IU) Nice to meet you.(SV,RR) everybody say, "Nice to meet you."(SV,NRR)

Ss: Nice to meet you.(IU,PV,RR)

KT: Then, you say, Nice to meet you, too.(IU,PV,RR)

S9: Nice to meet you, too(IU,PV,RR)

KT: Okay. Yes, you! You have to go.(SV,NRR)

There are a few places in this data where it would be very useful to teach "NOT nice" or even "NOT nice to meet you".

Remember that for THIS teaching point, we need to teach APPROPRIACY. Interestingly, appropriacy and lexicogrammatical creativity are linkable here.

dk