Oct 202013

I’m continuing on with some responses to some of the great questions that flew by in the chat yesterday. As I mentioned before – it’s almost impossible to frame questions perfectly in webinar conditions so some of these questions could look like they don’t make  much sense if you weren’t there. I’m hoping you’ll be able to get the gist nevertheless.

Question 2. Anne Hodgson (Berlin): How to respond to negative politeness in students (responding in the context of hierarchy)? and Question 11. Anne Hodgson (Berlin): still not sure – So if students say ‘I’m so bad’ you say ‘we’ll work at it?’ or ‘ ‘you’re doing very well?’

I’m not sure if I’m interpreting the question correctly Anne, but if my student came from a culture that favoured negative politeness and they said ‘I’m so bad’, I might want to know if  it was ritual expression of modesty or their real perception of their performance.

And if “I’m so bad’ is their real perception, I’d want to know why they thought they were bad. If they’re right and they can pinpoint their weaknesses and work on them, that’s a good thing, isn’t it? We’d just need to hatch a plan to move them along to a higher level.

If “I’m so bad’ is a ritual sort of statement, I’d want to know what they really thought of their English.  Are they motivated and putting the work in or not?  Any other thoughts folks?

Question 3. @MercedesViola – Uruguay: How do you suggest showing this to our students?

Ah. This is the million dollar question, Mercedes! Some quick ideas:

  • For all sorts of reasons (some of which are good), I think the language models we present tend to show communication going right. However I think we should also present models that show how it can go wrong too. It doesn’t seem sensible to present a world  where people are never indirect or ambiguous in our course materials. So I’d like to see more critical incidents, more examples of ambiguity and more examples of indirectness that we can explore.
  • I think we should avoid equating ‘direct’ with ‘good’ and acknowledge that ambiguity can have relationship benefits too (so, rather like the point above – include shades of grey rather than black and white cases in our course materials) .
  • In addition to the word and sentence level stuff we tend to be focused on, I think we need to look at the structure of the discourse with our students too – pay attention to adjacency pairs and how ideas are structured.
  • I think we need to show more videos in classes because more meaning can get conveyed quickly through context in videos. Plus videos and movies are some of the best sources available to us of natural sounding language.
  •  I think we probably need to take a more overt approach to teaching pragmatics too. You can pick up a lot of pronunciation, grammar and vocabulary by following examples. But when it comes to pragmatics there’s a case to be made for saying – hey look what happened there- that was because…(and EXPLAINING) – how is that similar to/different from what would happen in your culture? – Why?

Question 4. Marjorie Rosenberg, Austria: I’ve also read that men react better to questions with ‘would’ and women with ‘could’? Is that true for both Americans and Brits?

That seems to be such a strange finding and I’m scratching my head over why that might be true. I wonder what is meant by ‘react better’ and how the researchers measured it.  Can you point me at some papers?

Question 5. Rachael Harris – Geneva: I have an American friend who uses “prefer” as “like”

Interesting! I haven’t noticed a semantic difference in how the verbs are used here, but that doesn’t mean to say one doesn’t exist. Corpora should be able to answer this question. I also wonder whether ‘prefer’ might have a higher frequency in AmE.

Question 6. Lynn Nikkanen (Helsinki): Vicki, could you give some more examples of the I don’t care/I don’t mind phrase variety?

Here’s a link to the video we made, and here’s a post about it that I wrote a while ago.

Question 7. Maria Costa (Portugal): Vicki, do you not think that intonation really plays a very important part here, within the context?

Yes, Maria. I think intonation plays a very important role and I think there are British and American differences. I’ve stopped noticing it so much now, but when I first came here I was struck by the sound of American conversation at parties. Folks seemed more excited. And I think intonation might play a slightly different part in mitigating tricky speech acts like requests and criticism as well. There’s a brief post about it here.

Question 8. Liesje – Italy: How do you recommend addressing these differences in the classroom? I’m an American teaching in Europe and my students are generally more familiar with British English.

Do you use British course materials Liesje? I sometimes think that having an American or NNS  teacher using British materials in class could be advantageous for students because you’d be able to point to differences. Hopefully some of the answers to Mercedes question above will apply to yours as well.

Question 9. Craig – Spain: Vicky, do you think the British place more value on (are more proud of) their sense of humour? Maybe that’s why they risk more and don’t use “I’m kidding” so much.

Yes, I think we do take pride in our sense of humour, and as I mentioned I think we might be confusing quantity with quality a bit. 🙂  I think there are different risks involved when we employ sarcasm.

  • 1. Don’t explain the joke and risk that the other person will feel insulted if they don’t get it.
  • 2. Explain the joke and risk insulting the intelligence of the other person by implying they haven’t got it.

I’m guessing option 1 is more attractive if a high value is placed on letting people go about their business without impeding or imposing on them in any way. Choose option 1 and you can appear to avoid making a negative judgement about the other person. But if a higher value is placed on inclusion and affiliation then option 2 will probably look more attractive. You don’t want to risk leaving them out.

I also wonder if we’re reluctant to say ‘I’m just kidding’ so much in the UK because we have a higher tolerance for ambiguity. In the old Hofstede studies the US came out as pretty low context in comparison to the UK, so we could expect a higher degree of explicitness in US communication perhaps?

Question 10. Norman Whitby: i wonder if social media might be making us a bit more american in our humour. is the “lol” on texts and chats a bit like the Amercian “just kidding”?

I’m sure you’re right, Norman. The likelihood of misunderstanding increases when we can’t see the person we’re talking to and the LOLs etc enable us all to make our intentions clearer.  Does that then spill over into face-to-face communication though? Quite possibly. I don’t know. And also, do the two sides of the pond develop a more similar sense of humour/humor as more comedy programmes and movies get shared, I wonder?

Question 12. Nives Torresi_Italy: In Australia we say “whatever ” in place of ‘I don’t mind”

Oh interesting, Nives. Whatever can have all kinds of interesting meanings and I’d like to try to write a post about it one day.

Question 13. Marija Liudvika Drazdauskiene: Thank you very much for the most interesting talk. Would you recommend any topic to a foreigner who has investigated British small talk mostly in fiction?

You’ve been investigating small talk in British fiction, Marija? How interesting! I wonder if folks have any ideas. I think the British use of ‘thank you’  is very interesting. Maybe Lynne Murphy will inspire you? http://www.merican.vickihollett.com/lynne-murphy-on-tedxsussexuniversity/

Question 14. Craig – Spain: Does Jay know what a fish slice is?

Ha! Well I thought he did until I tested him just now. I asked him to get the fish slice and he said ‘What, a slice of fish?’ I was amazed. He has been listening to me call the thing he calls  a ‘spatula’ a ‘fish slice’ for years, and it seems it’s never registered – proof he never listens. 🙂

 Posted by at 5:29 am

  2 Responses to “IATEFL webinar questions (part two)”

 Leave a Reply