New language alert

It's hard to remember how a complete newbie feels when they take up a language, so I decided to embark on a journey myself to revisit the joys and frustrations of a new language learner. Since I already knew some Italian, I thought it was unfair to continue it for the experiment. I had just a bit of Hebrew skills, so that was a good option. Lately, I've been entertaining an idea of French, a language I don't speak at all. However, my final choice was a bit of an odd-ball. I gave in to the herd instinct. Impressed by the quality of work done by the volunteers on duolingo.com, I have taken up Irish Gaelic (or Gaeilge, as it is in Irish).

After 10 days I can spell words that sound way shorter than they are written, like buachaill (boy) or Muircheartaigh (Moriarty, though I didn't pick it up in the course). I think I have a bit of an Irish accent when I speak English. I've listened to some podcasts and even watched a soap on TG4. So far so good.

My major concern is pronunciation. Not only sounds change depending on other sounds in the word, also spelling and pronunciation change depending on the sound preceding the word. Grammar is a bit different, like first goes the verb and then the subject and then the adjective, but it's not a big deal.  Pronunciation is, but that's what makes it so much fun. The language is very musical and flows like a song.

On a bit different note, there is absolutely no rhyme or reason in taking up Irish. However, I've always been curious about Ireland and it's a great opportunity to learn about the country, the people, their culture and history. Also, it's going to be the litmus paper for people's reaction to my learning Irish. Like, before, when someone learned that I was studying Hebrew and reacted like, "Why? Everyone speaks Russian in Israel!" I knew that I was dealing with someone a bit ignorant, closed-minded and maybe prejudicial. So, if you look for a practical purpose in language-learning and think that most of the world languages could be substituted by English, we're probably not going to be friends.

Study vs Learn

One of the most discouraging things about studying English, as reported by many students, is low ROI (return on investment). In Russia, many students start taking English classes early in primary (elementary) school. In addition to that, many parents hire tutors for their children. Still, after many years at school and university, most don't master it. Many times I've heard someone say, "I'm not good at languages" or "You just have a talent for languages". I have to call BS on that. Everyone who has mastered their native language is good at languages. Language is an in-built function of a human brain. Why then many can't be fluent in something they've spent decades studying? Because they study it. Language is learnt, it's acquired, it's not studied.

If you study physics, you know the laws, but you don't necessary know how to build a rocket and send it into space or fix a car engine. Those require skills. Studying gives you knowledge. Language is a skill that should be learnt. Most schools employ a grammar/translation approach, which minimizes the contact with the real language. In an average classroom pupils barely have any authentic materials, their reading is adapted, their listening is unnaturally slow and clear, their speaking time is limited. Most of the exercises they do have nothing to do with the language they should be learning. Students believe they're inapt, while in fact they were wasting their time in class.

To make authentic materials work in class the teacher has to be committed to long-term results, spend a lot of time and effort on putting the course together, master new skills and employ technology. Unfortunately, the focus is on passing standard grammar tests, which requires studying the rules, not learning the language. It's also hard to convince parents that they shouldn't measure their children's future language level by grammar test results.

An essential part of learning is trying, which never comes without mistakes and failures. School is an environment that punishes for mistakes with bad grades and students get discouraged to try. Think of a child learning their native language and not making mistakes. What would you do if your toddler spoke their native language with mistakes? Would you punish them or get excited that they are learning?

One of the most overlooked elements of learning is joy. Students who enjoy lessons learn, students who experience any kind of negativity, let it be boredom or fear of punishment, don't. If your student's book barely contains pictures, if your listening exercises do not have any interesting information and are read by monotonous non-native speakers, if your teacher doesn't employ a positive reinforcement approach and doesn't bother to speak the language you're learning, if you don't learn anything new about people, the world and the culture of the country, then you're not going to learn the language. Considering most children don't know why they are learning what they are learning at school, joy is the only thing that can motivate to study.

My believe is that if children were watching appropriate TV shows and movies every lesson, they'd learn more English than they do now. Matching words to images and context is an important part of language acquisition. If your learning is limited to "fill in the blank" and "listen and repeat" type of exercises then there is no wonder that ROI in learning English is so low.

Geek Weekend: You Shall Not Pass

When I was a kid, our English teacher told us that "shall" was no longer used as an alternative for "will" in the first person to express future. Imagine my surprise, when twenty years later my student showed me her homework where "Future Simple" (boy, how I hate it when people make up tenses) was, "I shall, we shall". The following year, though, she reported that her new teacher told them that "shall" was no longer used. I really dislike it when teachers dumb it down for the kids and tell them a ham-fisted truth. For three years, all my attempts to convince a child that "shall" is alive and well, crashed under, "But our teacher told us that is not used anymore!" We had to drill modal verbs (not just shall) for three months, kid you not, for the truth to settle down.

Myths about modal verbs.

1. "Must" is just like "have to" but stronger. (There are different sets of rules, refer to a grammar book.)
2. "Could" is a past of "can".  ("Can" and "could" are related but they are two different modal verbs.  Just like "will" and "would", "shall" and "should" they are used in the present for different situations. "Could" and "would" can be used for the past actions but that doesn't mean they are past simple of "can" and "will" respectively. Modal verbs don't change.)
3. "Shall" is "will" for "Future Simple" but it's not used anymore. (Future Simple is a figment of someone's imagination; shall is a totally different modal verb that has absolutely different rules and is alive and kicking.)

So, when do we use "shall" in the twenty-first century?

In questions, asking for suggestions or opinions, and in offers (note the first person).

• Shall we go? 
• What shall we do? 
• Shall I close the door?

In assertive sentences to express determination or obligation. (Note any person you like.)

• They shall win the game tonight. 
• You shall not pass!

One remark on teaching children. Often, teachers tell students something because they don't think children can understand the whole truth. However, children tend to remember nonsense. In my experience, if you tell them how it is the first around, they might actually understand it. In any case, you will have a far better outcome than trying to amend your original statement several years later. 

One of the results of poor teaching is the way Russians use the verb "have". Originally, they are taught that the verb for possession is "have got" as in "I have got a brother" and "I have not got a pony". Then, they are told that "got" could be dropped. Hence they say, "I have a brother" (good!) and "I have not a pony" (not so much). Another inconvenience for the "have got" learners is the past tense. Look up the table of the irregular verbs, "have - had - had", fantastic, "I have got a hamster" turns into "I had got a hamster" (which is wrong, in case you're wondering, and not just because the hamster is probably dead). Why not start with learning "have" and many years later introduce an alternative "have got" instead of creating problems for years to come?

Geek Weekend: How many tenses are there in English?

True or False, there are at least twelve tenses in English language?

After a comprehensive English-learning experience you have probably familiarized yourself with the following:

Present Simple, Present Continuous, Present Perfect, Present Perfect Continuous
Past Simple, Past Continuous, Past Perfect, Past Perfect Continuous
Future Simple, Future Continuous, Future Perfect, Future in the Past

So, true of false, at least twelve tenses exist in English? The answer is lurking after the break.

Geek Weekend: "The" in proper names

Your favorite topic in the whole wide world, I'm sure. Articles. I'm not going to retell your grammar book. Yes, the USA, the UK, the Netherlands, the Pacific Ocean, the Black Sea, the Danube river, the Andes, but America, England, Holland, Rome, Mount Everest.

Here is your pop quiz, though.

1. Think of two countries with singular one-word names that take an article "the". 
2. Name two cities with an article "the". 

As always, the answers are after the break. 

Geek Weekend: God bless America till death do us part? It's time we tackled the subjunctive.

This absolutely weird to a non-native speaker's ears piece of knowledge is so overlooked in English classes that I was genuinely excited when I had an opportunity to learn something so dramatically new.

Have you ever wondered why we say, "God bless America" or "Till death do us part"? Or a trickier one, "It's time I went"?

Let's build up on something more or less well-known. 

Gwen Stefani sings, "If I was a rich man." Beyonce goes, "If I were a boy." Which one knows her English grammar? 

The reason why we say things like "If I were you" or "If only it were true" is because it's subjunctive or hypothetical. In second conditional it's all pretty straightforward, use past simple. When it comes to the verb "be", use "were". 

Funny note, most course books nowadays endorse the usage of "was" in second conditional as a correct option. I don't get it, to be honest. 

We use "were" because it's a subjunctive form in the past. However, conditionals are not the only cases of subjunctive. 

Here is a little grammar puzzle that will bring joy to your inner geek. 

Consider this sentence, "I demand that you apologize immediately." (I apologize for my American English spelling.) The task is to substitute "you" with "he". As you might've guessed by now, it's subjunctive. 

The answer is after the break. 

Has Beckham started talking posh?

A fairly technical look at how some of the most well-known British sound. Proceed if you too have been wondering whether Beckham has started talking posh. Or if you're interested in consonant dropping, vowel changing, grammar irregular dialects, which never sound like your English course listening files.



And he may sound more posh nowadays, but his grammar is still rubbish.