Artificial didactics and natural environment

Any learning process will be effective if a learner aspires not towards quantitative accumulation of words but to the quality in mastering a language which is speech dynamics. This is not a slip of my tongue influenced by such science as aerodynamics.
Speech dynamics or fluency does not depend only on the volume of your vocabulary, it depends on your ability to use a limited number of words adequately and promptly in many situations and your ability to describe your intention.
The greater part of your words which are really worth memorizing should be verbs in several structures rather than names of different objects.
Only verbs can help a learner to acquire this ability in speech dynamics because verbs imply actions and activities which are inherently dynamic.
All speech patterns and interactive models are based on a limited number of verbs which should be learned to perfection in order to be able to use them automatically. As for objects – you can find them in any dictionary in case you really need them. If you have no time to look up the dictionary for the name of an object you can describe it with a limited number of verbs if you learned them perfectly.
During my classes for cabin attendants they often asked me how this or that meal should be named in English but I always tried to explain to them that it is better to describe this meal with the help of verbs like fry – fried, boil – boiled, stew-stewed etc rather than try to find an exact term.
Well, if you do not know how to translate the Russian meal name “teftely” you can explain to passengers that these are “Meat balls stuffed with rice and stewed”, that will be quite understandable for anyone.
If you always have a limited number of verbs at your disposal you will be able to describe any situation. It is always possible to specify an object either by description, or by gestures, or by a drawing or as the last resort by pressing the button in your electronic dictionary (if you have one).
Many electronic dictionaries now even offer you ready phrases from many languages but I do not think that this is a very reliable way for speech exchange because one can never foresee a ready answer and adequate reaction you really need or understand.
Speech exchange depends on verbs because they create and change any situation.

Therefore all my didactic materials are based on a limited number of verbs used in different structures and situational response – question – response exchanges which I call speech patterns and interactive models.
Actually all these are based on a traditional method of SUBSTITUTION lexical drills but the only difference is that they should be tailored to individual groups or individual persons so that they could accept them as real life situation and not only dull drills for didactic purposes.

There’s the rub for any instructor and trainer, it’s a real headache because without didactic methods you will never be able to instruct properly and train efficiently.

On the one hand an instructor should avoid dull and insipid dialogues which are really galore in many modern English file textbooks but on the other hand make all these speech exchanges as instructive and useful as possible in order to develop speech dynamics in your students.

Sometimes you cannot use only one verb in all possible patterns because a language is not mathematics and, for example, if I ask a question like “Have you found your wallet yet?” but my interlocutor is still in search of his wallet he cannot use “find” with ING but should use “look for” in an answer: “I am still looking for it”.

These cases require an additional interpretation from an instructor but any problem can be solved if you foresee it.

Well, anyway, any teaching or instructing process requires some didactics and if it is artificial we should try to make it artful by combining with real life situations and adequate structures with very thoroughly chosen recurrent verbs which are conducive to acquisition of speech dynamics.

I will summarize all this in my article “Speech patterns and interactive models”. I have already published it in Russian.

Instructor/trainer Alexander Khodovets

Specified result

Speech patterns are not exactly mathematical formulas because any grammar phenomenon in any language has some restrictions and implications as far as its usage is concerned.
This does not belittle the significance of logical and grammar structures because one must needs have some ready structures in their minds in order to advance in their making progress in a chosen language. There should be some ready makings in our hands, or I’d better say in our heads ensuring supports and some reference points.
However, I think that will be more fruitful if we combine several structures in some short speech exchanges and oppose these structures against each other in order to show their usage in real life dialogues. May be instead of the term “opposition” I’d better use “juxtaposition” but this hair splitting in terminology does not make any difference. Or does it? Opposition means something aggressive unlike juxtaposition – the latter being more friendly and not obtrusive.
Besides, juxtaposition reminds me of an arbitrary and random creative method so broadly propagated by Skinner in his “scrambled eggs” idea of a learning process – this learning process may be more fruitful for any learner who can creatively follow his own nose and intuitive flair instead of following all those grammar oppositions so widely presented in many cut and dry textbooks.
So we may juxtapose such phenomena as PROGRESS (ING), RESULT (have done) and SPECIFIED RESULT (when, where, how) in real life short speech exchanges like this:

Are you still wrapping our luggage?
No, I am not. I have already wrapped it.
Where did you wrap it?
I wrapped it in that corner over there near the kiosk.

If you analyze this speech exchange carefully you may observe that there is something natural and artificial at the same time.

What is natural?
This extract represents a real life situation – when my wife and I were in Barcelona airport some three years ago and were about to depart from that airport for Surgut there was a big crowd of people near the single wrapping stand whose people worked very slowly and none of their workers seemed to be in hurry to open another stand. Then some of them guessed that the process should be expedited and they opened another wrapping stand in the farthest corner of the airport. Those passengers who rushed there with their heavy suitcases managed to wrap their suitcases in time because the check-in procedure was already in progress.

What is artificial?
For didactic and instructing purposes I have to use only one verb in different structures – WRAP.
Actually I might have asked “Are you still standing in a line?” or “Are you still waiting?” using different verbs instead of WRAP but the learning process requires that we should use one verb in different structures – ING for progress in Present Continuous, HAVE + ED in Present Perfect for interruption of progress and reaching some significant new result and only ED in Past Simple for specification of different details of the above-mentioned result.

Even this artificial usage of only one verb might be considered natural if we understand that by asking “Are you still wrapping the luggage?” I do not mean that that person himself or herself is doing that job but only the fact that I include that person into my mental picture as someone taking part in that process and that this process probably has not been finished yet. As soon as this progressive process is finished, we quite naturally expect “I have wrapped it” and when we specify this action by WHEN, WHERE and HOW then we do not have to use this new and significantly informative HAVE again because now we focus our attention not on the ACTION itself (we already know the fact) but on some details connected with this action.

These are just peculiar features of English patterns usage because in other languages like French, German or Italian it is quite normal to use Present Perfect for specifying details, for example:
J’ai fait cela hier, Ich habe es getan gestern, I’ho fatto ieri (I have done it yesterday).

The English grammar does not accept such usage. The above-mentioned example just shows that any grammar models or speech patterns of any language are memorized better if learned not separately but in combination and juxtaposition with each other and tailored to real life situations.
Besides, such a juxtaposition may be quite arbitrary and creative for any student and learner.

Instructor/ Trainer Alexander Khodovets

Different usage of similar structures

In my previous article I tried to prove to my readers that they can find in their own mother tongue all possible universal logical-grammar categories which can serve them as a transitional bridge to any other foreign language. The only thing we have to do is to penetrate deeper in the nature of our own native language and reach a deeper insight into the GENERAL GIST of all linguistic facts to be able to change over from GENERAL to PARTICULAR details irrespective of any language you are learning now.

Since any human language represents a very complex and complicated informational system whose functions are designed not only to reflect the actual picture of our world and all the activities taking place in this world of ours but also to express different emotions, feelings and suppositions, we should separate this linguistic area from any exact science areas like mathematics or physics on the one hand but we also should admit that there are many features in a human language which make it mathematically logical and physically tangible, on the other hand.

Just recently I demonstrated the universal nature of GRAMMAR CASE which reflects relations of different objects in space and time by using different means like endings, prepositions, order of words etc. When I say that “the cup is on the tray” I just indicate its location in respect of the tray quite generally and approximately without specification of its position with mathematical precision in degrees or sides (left, right, in the middle) nor specifying any physical features (like weight, capacity, friction, material, temperature, pressure etc) because it is not important for my message now, though it may be important for someone in a different situation under certain conditions.

Since any language is very flexible it will allow you to describe any situation more precisely – all depends on a situation. If you are a seller of special anti-friction trays for aircraft then probably you will use other language means to describe advantages of your commodity from physical point of view (weight, pressure, friction) and mathematical point of view (position in the center, horizontal position etc) especially concerning some contingent conditions of flight (turbulence, air pockets, rapid change of descent rate) which really require a very stable and precise position of a cup with hot coffee on a tray. Any language is possible to change over from GENERAL to PARTICULAR.

However, under normal everyday life conditions we do not need any mathematical precision, we need only GENERAL notions which allow us to develop our SPEECH DYNAMICS in any language based on general linguistic categories. SPEECH DYNAMICS is really something practical like AERODYNAMICS because it is founded not only on science but also on some TANGIBLE assets like money or power.

How can we instruct anyone to acquire these tangible assets? I always avoid the word “teach” because a real teacher is accepted by his students not because they pay him money and expect him to deliver them some kind of commodity worth of their money but because they either recognize him of their free will and accord ideologically (which is a rare case) or because they obey him within the given frames of education in an official establishment. As for commercial education I prefer the terms “instruct” and “train”, they are closer to the professional truth.

This professional truth induces me to assert that the best way is to use familiar notions and structures adapting them to particular usage in another language.

Last time I showed the universal nature of GRAMMAR CASE (Relation of objects), now I can show an example for reflecting RESULT in your speech patterns.

The GENERAL category of RESULT can be manifested in different ways – in Chinese they use the final particles like “le”, “qilai,”, “xialai” etc to show the final result or change from one sate to another state, in Japanese they use the combination “shimatta”, in Russian there is a combination of the agglutinated prefix “s” before the verb root followed by the ending of past time “l” and so on, but in many European languages this final result is usually manifested via PERFECT forms.

They are the same in French, Italian, Spanish and even German but the English language has some restriction in these formulas, namely:

1) It does not separate “be” and “have” in combinations with verbs of motion and usual actions verbs;
2) It restricts this result only to Present and does not allow to use it with the word “yesterday”, for example

These divergences can be sometimes considered a rude blunder but sometimes only a mistake in usage, that’s all.

All this proves once more that any language does not follow strictly some mathematical formula rules but that they are also dependent on some local usage restrictions – customary restrictions.

Anyway, this way or other, the general linguistic notions play a very significant role in any learning process if we arrange it on a conscientious and systematic basis.

As for differences in usage and mistakes, I will write about them in my next article.

Instructor/Trainer Alexander Khodovets

Similar features

It is quite natural for any beginner to look for something common between his mother tongue and the target language. Universal logical-grammar categories yield a very wide choice of structures which include also your native language structures.

Well, for instance, my students often referred to some textbooks that asserted that there were no grammar cases in the English language which really seemed very strange to me because GRAMMAR CASE shows relations between different objects in space and in time quite objectively and these facts are reflected this way or other in any language.

These relations between different objects (nouns) can be expressed either by the order of words, or by special case endings in a noun, or by prepositions, or by some special particles, or by some semantic features of certain verbs because this universal category of grammar case must be manifested by all means – otherwise we will not understand each other in any language.

For example, if we want to show a relation between some initial point and final point in space by such a phrase as “from Russia to Vietnam” – this phrase will find its reflection in any language with the help of prepositions, or particles (whatever you call them), or by some other means. In Japanese it will sound like “Rusia kara Vietnam made”, in Chinese like “cong Eluosi dao Vietnam”, in Russian like “ot Rossii do Vietnama” and so on.

In some languages like the Russian language these relations can be expressed without any prepositions at all, only with the help of endings, or sometimes in combination with a preposition and a change of an ending, or sometimes only with a preposition without any change of noun endings. A famous example of Anton Chekhov (Russian writer) shows these relations very clearly: “Golova golove golovu probyot y budesh bez golovy” where three cases in the word “golova” which means “head” consecutively expressed only by grammar endings (Nominative – Dative – Accusative) and only the last ending in this row shows the Genitive case in combination with preposition “bez” (without). The previous example “ot Rossii do Vietnama” also shows this combination of prepositions with the change of endings in the words Rossia (Nominative case) and Vietnam (Nominative case).

The English language nouns have no grammar endings except those of plurality (“s”). Two heads are better than a head – this examples shows that more than one head is better than a head (one head). So we can show a singular or a plural form by these means but we cannot show the case relations.

Case relations in English are expressed either by prepositions, or by the order of words or by some semantic features of a verb. So for Genitive they often use “of”, for Dative “to”, for Instrumental “by” or “with” etc. There are no special prepositions for Nominative and Accusative – so to avoid ambiguity the fixed order of words is obligatory (The cat ate the bat? The bat ate the cat? ).

Sometimes the ambivalent features of a verb may confuse you but the semantic situation based on common sense helps you to understand in what case this or that nouns is used, for instance: Send this man a letter. We understand that “this man” is in Dative case, “a letter” in Accusative. If we say: Send this man on an errand, then we understand that “this man” is in accusative.
The same about “Lend this man some money” and “Lend this man to me” (The latter phrase might be used in the age of Slavery).

So what am I driving at? All grammatical and logical categories including the CATEGORY OF CASE are universal and common for all languages – the difference will be only in forms of expressions, the gist will remain the same.

This logical approach based on COMMON SENSE is really more efficient and more conducive to acquisition of any foreign language than routine repetition and cramming.

Instructor/Trainer Alexander Khodovets

English for Vietnamese 5

So whatever language you choose it’s better to rely on general notions like PROCESS, RESULT, HABITUAL ACTION, PURPOSE, PROMISE, CONDITION, INTENTION, PLANNING and other notions rather than grammar notions with its strange 16 tenses (in English) and sophisticated terminology.

If you understand a basic meaning of this or that structure then you need only some minimum of these grammar terms. Cramming and learning grammar terms by rote without understanding had proven many times to be useless for our pilots during our English classes as well as for any pilots all over the world irrespective of their native language either Chinese or Vietnamese, it does not matter. It might be that this grammar terminology, especially English terminology is clear for some European pilots somewhere in Germany, France or Italy because their languages have something in common being influenced by the Latin language but not in Asian countries.

Even though many of our Russian grammar terms have been derived from Latin thanks to Michail Lomonosov, they are not quite clear sometimes to our students, I can judge about that from my experience after delivering more than 10 000 linguistic hours for our pilots, to say nothing of Latin/English terms.

I have come across this situation many times during my classes while explaining some rules and giving examples of some English grammar phenomena – very often some wise pilot would enthusiastically exclaim that he identified this or that structure – “ah, this is gerund” (for example) but after I asked that enthusiastic student to give me examples in practical usage of this “gerund”, there would be no reaction and no understanding. Even if I tried to explain its meaning by using another term like “substantivated verb” that explanation would not clarify anything because that would be nothing but another term. The only way out for me was to explain that you can make a noun out of a verb and use that new derivative in a noun position or that you can make something tangible out of an action but that was also difficult.

The same with mythological sixteen grammar tenses so widely exploited and even abused by modern teachers – they often assess their students knowledge by their ability to use these 16 tenses, their ability to identify them and to memorize these tenses by their terminological names which really does not make any sense at all.

I always try to explain to my students that actually there are only two tenses in which we exist – past and present, and in an indicative mood we express it either by “something happened”, or ”something is happening,” “or something happens”, and that’s all, because even “something will happen” cannot be included into an indicative mood because it is not tangible, it is only a supposition.

If I say that “I will do it”, there’s no real tangible action, this is only my promise or my intention, there is only my attitude towards this action which cannot be defined as “indicative” but rather ”modal’ equally with “I can do it”, “I may do it” or “I must do it”.

Only such expressions as “I do it, I am doing it, I have done it, I did it and I was doing it ” can be included into indicative mood and it is much better to memorize general notions like PROMISE, PROCESS, RESULT, ABILITY, PERMISSION etc instead of all these future indefinite, present continuous, present perfect and all that stuff.

Anyway, if it is impossible to avoid all these grammar terminology, then it is advisable to find some reasonable compromise between academic grammar and artful interpretation of these rules by giving practical examples of their usage.

Vietnamese pilots and cabin attendants can also find such good interpretations in many modern English textbooks.

I have used many interpretation techniques during my classes for pilots but their description is so far in Russian on my site.

I will try to summarize everything in English later.

Instructor/Trainer Alexander Khodovets