BBC Literacy Questionnaire

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by Celsus

In a few slangs and pidgins, it's quite common for people to say "Can you on the lights?" - basically what was initially 'turn on' was shortened to 'on' so that the preposition functions as a verb.

'Turn on' is a phrasal verb, so 'on' is a verb particle here, not a preposition.

And it's not a new construction, either. I think it's used in some of the hillbilly dialects as well, but it's still just an elision of a phrasal verb.

On is a really funny word, and it's funny you use that as an example. It has about a million discrete meanings and functions depending on context. Once, I was looking for something and found an article about the variety of uses of on in a linguistic journal, but it was in some other Germanic language. Dutch maybe? So apparently, its versatility isn't new, and it isn't limited to English.

Down is also not (exclusively) a preposition, nor is like, and neither ever really has been, so maybe that's the disconnect.

Presciptive grammars tend to try to shove language into neat compartments, with little thought to how the language actually works. Unfortunately, some of these rules are very poorly thought out and really have no logic behind them. And one of their biggest shortcomings is the tendency to define words ass-backwards like that. In very many cases, it's not the word itself but the usage that determines its 'part of speech.' And most prescriptive grammars only recognize a tiny subset of the functional parts of speech that natural grammars do.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by lisarea

'Turn on' is a phrasal verb, so 'on' is a verb particle here, not a preposition.

And it's not a new construction, either. I think it's used in some of the hillbilly dialects as well, but it's still just an elision of a phrasal verb.

On is a really funny word, and it's funny you use that as an example. It has about a million discrete meanings and functions depending on context. Once, I was looking for something and found an article about the variety of uses of on in a linguistic journal, but it was in some other Germanic language. Dutch maybe? So apparently, its versatility isn't new, and it isn't limited to English.

Down is also not (exclusively) a preposition, nor is like, and neither ever really has been, so maybe that's the disconnect.

Neither are "out" and "up." They can be prepositions but are frequently adverbs. Prepositions are necessarily at the head of a phrase (though not necessarily first in word order). Phrasal verbs like "turn on" act like separable prefix verbs in German. Some of those prefixes, when considered in isolation, are also prepositions, but in the context of the verb, they are particles. (Well, particle-ish, I'm not sure of the actual linguistic term for them.)

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

... people in the American West interact with Spanish speakers from Mexico very frequently, and Spanish speakers from Spain rarely.

Okay, I got that already. But I'm guessing you think this is the only consideration that an educationalist need consider. Do you know that for sure, because I think you may be relying on unconscious and unreliable assumptions.

Originally Posted by Celsus

Last edited by Celsus; Today at 15:38. Reason: Bah stupid mickthinks beat me to it.

Guys like you have been offed for cracks like that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Okay, I got that already. But I'm guessing you think this is the only consideration that an educationalist need consider. Do you know that for sure, because I think you may be relying on unconscious and unreliable assumptions.

I was only considering that in high school I would liked to have learned the version of the foreign language that might be most practical in my life.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was only considering that in high school I would liked to have learned the version of the foreign language that might be most practical in my life.

Ah yes, you would say that to conceal your dastardly hidden agenda.

[lisarea]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Okay, I got that already. But I'm guessing you think this is the only consideration that an educationalist need consider. Do you know that for sure, because I think you may be relying on unconscious and unreliable assumptions.

I'm honestly trying to think of a valid reason they might do that, and I can't.

Do you have any ideas about what considerations those might be? (I'm not being snarky. I really can't think of any.)

[mickthinks]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was only considering that in high school I would liked to have learned the version of the foreign language that might be most practical in my life.

No, you weren't only doing that, LS. You were denigrating someone's judgement without grounds. I think that is unjust.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by lisarea

I'm honestly trying to think of a valid reason they might do that, and I can't.

Do you have any ideas about what considerations those might be? (I'm not being snarky. I really can't think of any.)

Maybe learning Castillian Spanish for it's own sake? Like learning Latin or Greek or French. Not really useful in Colorado, but still educational and enriching.

It's still dumb, but not 100% pointless. Plus you can get by in Mexico on Spanish Spanish.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Neither are "out" and "up." They can be prepositions but are frequently adverbs. Prepositions are necessarily at the head of a phrase (though not necessarily first in word order). Phrasal verbs like "turn on" act like separable prefix verbs in German. Some of those prefixes, when considered in isolation, are also prepositions, but in the context of the verb, they are particles. (Well, particle-ish, I'm not sure of the actual linguistic term for them.)

There are certainly an awful lot of words with "aan" = on in Dutch (aanraken = touch, aankomen = to arrive (can also mean to touch as well as to gain weight), aanzetten = turn on, aanbevelen = recommend etc, etc). They are sometimes separated from the verb and sometimes connected to it, e.g. ik kom net aan = I am just arriving, ik ben net aangekomen = I have just arrived.

[ChuckF]

I think Castilian is a fairly prestigious dialect, and is considered literary Spanish. It's logical to teach a literary standard.

[Adam]

It's probably easier to avoid being held accountable for the things you say if you're speaking a different dialect than the people with whom you're conversing.

I get the education and enriching thing, but is it more educational and enriching than learning Spanish as it's spoken in Mexico, which has the additional benefit of being more useful in talking to people one might encounter in Colorado?

[LadyShea]

If I was in college, choosing foreign language studies for their own sake, that would be a different issue. In high school, I think practicality should be the priority. Maybe that's just me. Doesn't make it an unjust or invalid opinion. Also, just FYI, my teacher was not a native Spanish speaker. She had chosen to study Spanish in college as her minor and live in Spain for a time.

And yes, one can get by with Castillian here, just as one can get by with standard American English living in Glasgow. But, wouldn't understanding and speaking the most common dialect in any area prove more useful?

[Celsus]

Originally Posted by lisarea

Presciptive grammars tend to try to shove language into neat compartments, with little thought to how the language actually works. Unfortunately, some of these rules are very poorly thought out and really have no logic behind them. And one of their biggest shortcomings is the tendency to define words ass-backwards like that. In very many cases, it's not the word itself but the usage that determines its 'part of speech.' And most prescriptive grammars only recognize a tiny subset of the functional parts of speech that natural grammars do.

Actually I agree, but because in descriptive definitions you get an identity that's too malleable for many words, it's more interesting to use the prescriptive definition as an explanation of how the word departs from a standard use (note, not 'correct' use), which explains how languages evolve.

In my original example, 'like' is taken from its use as a preposition to convert it into something quite different. For 'on', 'down', 'out', 'off', etc. they are very transitional - the question is a matter of historical etymology - what the word originally meant and what it's become since - hence the assertion that the preposition-to-verb conversion happens rarely and the last one was several hundred years ago, which tells you how long 'on', 'down' etc have been used as such.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Neither are "out" and "up." They can be prepositions but are frequently adverbs. Prepositions are necessarily at the head of a phrase (though not necessarily first in word order). Phrasal verbs like "turn on" act like separable prefix verbs in German. Some of those prefixes, when considered in isolation, are also prepositions, but in the context of the verb, they are particles. (Well, particle-ish, I'm not sure of the actual linguistic term for them.)

What you're seeing is the evolutionary history and the question is when do you stop your time machine, as I said above. In every case, for those words' modern, surviving definitions, the earliest use is as prepositions (some like 'on' with PIE roots) that have slowly crept into other parts of speech (that's my assertion, so I'm not disagreeing with either of you, just that I'm actually stating all of these happened several hundred years ago, except for the 'like' example), hence it is correct to state that they're prepositions turned into other forms - but perhaps as you note, with a few other stops along the way that facilitated their transition. I didn't actually google the etymologies to check.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, just FYI, my teacher was not a native Spanish speaker. She had chosen to study Spanish in college as her minor.

That's why she taught Castilian. Language pedagogy focuses on teaching literary standards to learners because there are more materials for them, they contain fewer exceptions to rules, and are generally more consistent over time. It's also easier to study them from afar. I don't know about Spanish teaching methods, but with French, you don't even really study varieties of French other than metropolitan until at least graduate school. You only approach them then if you're in a linguistics-heavy field. I've never had a course dealing with Canadian French, which is just as well, because I have no use for Québec.

[Ensign Steve]

I suppose. To me, it seems equivalent to teaching the Queen's English, accent and all, to ESL students in the US.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

I don't know about Spanish teaching methods, but with French, you don't even really study varieties of French other than metropolitan until at least graduate school. You only approach them then if you're in a linguistics-heavy field. I've never had a course dealing with Canadian French, which is just as well, because I have no use for Québec.

Which form of French would you consider to be the best to teach in Montreal high schools, though?

ETA: Another example. My husband took German in high school. He pronounced ich sorta like ihckh...my coworker from Trier, Germany pronounced it more like eesh. Which is the "literary" form or whatever?

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

That's why she taught Castilian. Language pedagogy focuses on teaching literary standards to learners because there are more materials for them, they contain fewer exceptions to rules, and are generally more consistent over time. It's also easier to study them from afar. I don't know about Spanish teaching methods, but with French, you don't even really study varieties of French other than metropolitan until at least graduate school. You only approach them then if you're in a linguistics-heavy field. I've never had a course dealing with Canadian French, which is just as well, because I have no use for Québec.

This is particularly crazy if you are studying Arabic. What you learn in school is Standard Arabic (or Fusha as the Arabs call it, pronounced foos-ha), which is not really spoken anywhere. The ordinary Arab speaks some dialect or other at home, never Fusha. The most widely spoken dialect is Egyptian (about a third of Arab speakers are Egyptians), but it is hard to find any course of Egyptian Arab dialect anywhere. The usefulness of Standard Arabic in conversation is pretty limited.

On the other hand, written Arabic is always Fusha.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Celsus

What you're seeing is the evolutionary history and the question is when do you stop your time machine, as I said above. In every case, for those words' modern, surviving definitions, the earliest use is as prepositions (some like 'on' with PIE roots) that have slowly crept into other parts of speech (that's my assertion, so I'm not disagreeing with either of you, just that I'm actually stating all of these happened several hundred years ago, except for the 'like' example), hence it is correct to state that they're prepositions turned into other forms - but perhaps as you note, with a few other stops along the way that facilitated their transition. I didn't actually google the etymologies to check.

Morphology and etymology can be disentangled using syntax. As words evolve their syntactic or semantic content can change, and we can use syntax to mark critical junctures in the lives of words. Preposition-like particles of phrasal verbs ceased to be prepositions when they stopped being heads of prepositional phrases.

To take Watser's example of the Dutch aan- (I will take its German counterpart an- so as not to embarrass myself too badly): Ich bin in der Stadt angekommen - "I arrived in the city." in is the head of the PP. an is part of the VP.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Ensign Steve

I suppose. To me, it seems equivalent to teaching the Queen's English, accent and all, to ESL students in the US.

I have seen two native Spanish speakers (from different countries) switch to English mid conversation because they were having too many miscommunications.

I believe Spanish dialects may be more different from each other than British Standard English vs. American Standard English. I may be wrong.

[Ensign Steve]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have seen two native Spanish speakers (from different countries) switch to English mid conversation because they were having too many miscommunications.

I believe Spanish dialects may be more different from each other than British Standard English vs. American Standard English. I may be wrong.

Oh, so even more pointless then!

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

ETA: Another example. My husband took German in high school. He pronounced ich sorta like ihckh...my coworker from Trier, Germany pronounced it more like eesh. Which is the "literary" form or whatever?

IIRC, that's more of a north/south dialect difference, and I don't think either is considered more "standard." When I took German in high school, the kh/sh pronunciations were generally used interchangeably. I think a lot of Americans prefer the 'sh' pronunciation because it's less "ugly."

[LadyShea]

One was from El Salvador and the other from Mexico. That's why it seems more practical, to me, to teach the Mexican dialect in the Western US.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which form of French would you consider to be the best to teach in Montreal high schools, though?

Personally, I would say international French, which is approximately Metropolitan French. I think that was the norm until the Quebec nationalist movement of the 1960s, but there is now some debate on the issue since Quebec French has become part of the Quebecois identity. "High" Quebec French is not very different from metropolitan French. In fact, some of the best scholarship on French comes out of Quebec. It's very easy for educated French Canadians to switch registers to the international variety of French when speaking with Francophones from other countries. The speakers understand each other easily, as would an Englishman and an American. If they couldn't make that switch, and relied heavily on the local dialect, mutual comprehension would probably be more difficult, though not impossible. Students hear "low" French (slang, profanity, etc.) on the streets and at home and don't need to learn it in school. But I think the main thing for a lot of Quebecois francophones is preserving French as opposed to English, rather than Quebec French as opposed to any other variety.

ETA: Another example. My husband took German in high school. He pronounced ich sorta like ihckh...my coworker from Trier, Germany pronounced it more like eesh. Which is the "literary" form or whatever?

I learned something like the latter, kinda like "iksh," but I have heard a lot of variations. I don't know which is considered standard.

[Watser?]

Originally Posted by Sock Puppet

IIRC, that's more of a north/south dialect difference, and I don't think either is considered more "standard." When I took German in high school, the kh/sh pronunciations were generally used interchangeably. I think a lot of Americans prefer the 'sh' pronunciation because it's less "ugly."

More of an East/West difference in German I think. Western German is closer to eesh. In Berlin they pronounce it like that too, but apparently Berlin was more or less founded by people from Cologne (in the West, close to Trier) at the invitation of the Prussian kings. Standard German is definitely eekh though.

[Adam]

Lookit all the language nerds itt.

FWIW, I'd prefer to be taught the dialect I'm most likely to encounter IRL, regardless of whether or not it's the literary dialect or whatnot.