3rd conditionals

[Humble]

A strange question - they know everything I teach them.

[Harry Smith]

Are you sure kids study mixed conditionals at school? It's very strange to me.

[Humble]

They don't only study at school.

[Harry Smith]

Originally Posted by Humble

They don't only study at school.

I know very well where kids study English nowadays. I just want to tell you that it isn't important to teach them mixed conditionals. Of course they must know conditionals 1,2,3. I have a lot of students who are from seven to seventy. I always teach mixed conditionals only in case they are applicants for entry.

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by Harry Smith

I know very well where kids study English nowadays. I just want to tell you that it isn't important to teach them mixed conditionals. Of course they must know conditionals 1,2,3. I have a lot of students who are from seven to seventy. I always teach mixed conditionals only in case they are applicants for entry.

What does "applicants for entry" mean, Harry?

I think that you should always teach students, once they reach a certain level, all aspects of English. Mixed conditionals are essential to understanding and functioning in English. We simply CANNOT [I'm not shouting, just emphasizing] stick to conditionals 1, 2, 3 with certain verb choices. To do so creates unnatural English. The whole point of learning a language is to become as natural as possible.

Mr P pointed this out and it is indeed something that ESLs and ESL teachers, both native and non-native should heed.

[Harry Smith]

Originally Posted by riverkid

What does "applicants for entry" mean, Harry?

I think that you should always teach students, once they reach a certain level, all aspects of English. Mixed conditionals are essential to understanding and functioning in English. We simply CANNOT [I'm not shouting, just emphasizing] stick to conditionals 1, 2, 3 with certain verb choices. To do so creates unnatural English. The whole point of learning a language is to become as natural as possible.

Mr P pointed this out and it is indeed something that ESLs and ESL teachers, both native and non-native should heed.

Hi!
Applicants for entry are those students of high school who take exams at the university to became students. Maybe I had to mention the first time I used it so that you don't ask me.
What refers to mixed conditionals( I don't mean conditional 1,2,3) I'm against teaching it at an early age, let's say to kids, as they really don't understand and ask a lot of questions. Native speakers speak English without even making an effort to know what grammatical form they use. Most of them don't even have enough knowledge in grammar. My friend Ray from the States whose English is brilliant doesn't know what present perfect is though he uses it in his speech. It's only you native teachers of English know it and mostly teach English to foreigners.

[Humble]

Harry,
Kids doesn't mean 5 or 6 -year-olds, kids can be 15 or 18. BTW I do not teach little children.
Mixed conditionals are not any more difficult than other grammar topics, and as Riverkid says, you can't do without them, they are very common.
If a native speaker doesn't know grammar terms it's of no importance. But how can you teach ESLs without naming certain structures and patterns? I don't see the point of your argument.

[Harry Smith]

Originally Posted by Humble

Harry,
Kids doesn't mean 5 or 6 -year-olds, kids can be 15 or 18. BTW I do not teach little children.
Mixed conditionals are not any more difficult than other grammar topics, and as Riverkid says, you can't do without them, they are very common.
If a native speaker doesn't know grammar terms it's of no importance. But how can you teach ESLs without naming certain structures and patterns? I don't see the point of your argument.

Hi, Humble!
For me only little children are kids while I'm teaching. Children who are 13-19 are teenagers.Do you want me to tell you how we call people when they grow older and older. Of course we are all kids for our parents. As to naming certain structures and patterns different authors have different names for them. I don't see any point of argument either.

[Casiopea]

Originally Posted by Humble

...ESLs...

Humble, you may or may not be aware of this. The majority of teachers, especially those who teach English as a Second Language (ESL) learners or English as a Foreign language (EFL) learners, refrain from using terms like ESLs and EFLs for the very reason that those terms lack reference to a human being. Here's just one teacher's voice. Tom Peel writes:

A note about terminology: I tend to go back and forth between “nonnative English speakers” and “multilingual students” and “second language writers/learners” as terms for members of the group we’re trying to refer to, (occasionally “ESL students,” too. Problem: most “ESL students” often don’t think of themselves as “ESL,” but rather as students, friends, children of someone, parents of someone, employees, neighbors, etc. At the very least, a term for a human being is good to have in there. That’s why I avoid “ESLs” or “ELLs” as terms. The humanness kind of disappears from an acronym).

[riverkid]

Originally Posted by Harry Smith

Hi!
Applicants for entry are those students of high school who take exams at the university to became students. Maybe I had to mention the first time I used it so that you don't ask me.

Thank you, Harry.


What refers to mixed conditionals( I don't mean conditional 1,2,3) I'm against teaching it at an early age, let's say to kids, as they really don't understand and ask a lot of questions.

I agree, Harry. Finding that point where it's best to introduce the harder aspects of language is sometimes really tough. The best way is to let students know that Conditionals 1, 2, 3 are simply rough guidleines and that language is exceedingly complex because life and the myriad situations that can arise are vast in number.

Tell them to stick to the simple guidelines but be aware that there are complications that they will understand in time by exposure to real language. This is part of their passive language, whcih is the same thing that happens to younger native children; though they don't use all structures in an active speaking sense, they can absorb them in a passive listener sense.

Native speakers speak English without even making an effort to know what grammatical form they use. Most of them don't even have enough knowledge in grammar. My friend Ray from the States whose English is brilliant doesn't know what present perfect is though he uses it in his speech. It's only you native teachers of English know it and mostly teach English to foreigners.

Ray, like every other native speaker of any language knows intuitively the rules of their language. There's no need for any speaker of any language to consciously know how their language works.

That this is so stands as a strong proof of just how ridiculous prescriptive grammar is.

... when a scientist considers all the high-tech mental machinery needed to arrange words into ordinary sentences, prescriptive rules are, at best, inconsequential little decorations. The very fact that they have to be drilled shows that they are alien to the natural workings of the language system.

http://pinker.wjh.harvard.edu/articl...wrepublic.html