Classroom reflections
Observations and reflections from teaching English in Russia
Last week I noted an interesting misunderstanding about a text I prepared covering various forms of the verb “take.” I used it with a different student recently and found yet another curious issue.
The student had to complete this sentence:
“We’re __________ care of my sister’s dog for a week.”
She wasn’t sure what to put in the blank, but thought that “have been taking” was the best solution.
I’d written the worksheet to say “are taking,” though I had a hunch that she’d opt for the present perfect (continuous) because they love this tense in Russia for some reason.
She was baffled as to how “taking” could fit, and I just had to say “forget your Russian schooling” before moving on.
I thought about it for the next couple of days, however, before I realized what she probably thought was happening in the sentence:
We’re taking care of my sister’s dog (OK, fine, correct — we are in the process of performing this action) for a week (a time marker! this doesn’t make sense — how can you be doing something now for a week?)
English tenses, which for many students in Russia constitute the whole of grammar, are often presented on imposing tables. Each tense has a job in the past, present, or future. The fact that they often share these names doesn’t help anything.
Not using modern or native materials in classes, instructors surely never notice cases where such rules of thumb just don’t apply — and what’s more likely — your Iron Curtain-era materials are incorrect or the living language of billions of people is somehow flawed?
Reflecting on this further, I realized that the two sentences don’t even say the same thing.
“We’re taking care of my sister’s dog for a week” could be about the present (we’re in the middle of a week-long obligation) or the future (the week begins later), while “We have been taking care of my sister’s dog” means that one week of doggy-care has already passed; it says nothing about how long the obligation is supposed to last.
I eagerly explained all of this to her during our next session (along with my insistence that she forget what her Russian schooling taught her).
The genuine article
During an in-person class, a student told an interesting story about a project she had in high school.
I’ll paraphrase to the best of my recollection:
The teacher put us in two groups. One group had to argue that getting free internet was bad and another group had to argue about the positive side. I was in a group talking about the bad side.
When she was finished, I thanked her and offered some corrections.
She should have said “One group had to argue about the negative side and the other group…” since we know there are only two groups. She’s already defined the first, so there is only one left.
She was in “the” group arguing for the downsides of free internet because, again, there is only one, something established by the co-text of her statement.
Someone taught you badly
A typical problem for Russian students is using “someone” rather than “some.” I hear this all the time:
Someone likes math while someone likes literature.
Someone cares about the environment while someone wants to drive an SUV.
Maybe I should just put this on the wall and ask students what they think it means:
How many people are we referring to? Not one but several. How do we know? Look at the verb: “like” not “likes.”
Compare:
How many people are watching Lauren Hutton? Someone is. One.
One real person, known or not, compared to many people, unknown or not of our concern.
Maybe you’d like to share this post with someone?
