گزارش کارگاه اموزشی

 

Mr. Goodarzi gave a lecture on the differences between WEBSITE & WEBLOG. Then he talked about how to update the weblogs, change the format ,make an e- mail. At the end, the activities were checked.

Impossible To Tell

·                                 Seamus Heaney

·                                 Yusef Komunyakaa

·                                 Philip Levine

·                                 Czeslaw Milosz

·                                 Robert Pinsky

·                                 Margaret Walker

·                                 Richard Wilbur

·                                 About the IPA

·                                 Contact the IPA

Impossible To Tell

By Robert Pinsky

Listen

to Robert Hass and in memory of Elliot Gilbert

Slow dulcimer, gavotte and bow, in autumn,
Bash? and his friends go out to view the moon;
In summer, gasoline rainbow in the gutter,

The secret courtesy that courses like ichor
Through the old form of the rude, full-scale joke,
Impossible to tell in writing. "Bash?"

He named himself, "Banana Tree": banana
After the plant some grateful students gave him,
Maybe in appreciation of his guidance

Threading a long night through the rules and channels
Of their collaborative linking-poem
Scored in their teacher's heart: live, rigid, fluid

Like passages etched in a microscopic cicuit.
Elliot had in his memory so many jokes
They seemed to breed like microbes in a culture

Inside his brain, one so much making another
It was impossible to tell them all:
In the court-culture of jokes, a top banana.

Imagine a court of one: the queen a young mother,
Unhappy, alone all day with her firstborn child
And her new baby in a squalid apartment

Of too few rooms, a different race from her neighbors.
She tells the child she's going to kill herself.
She broods, she rages. Hoping to distract her,

The child cuts capers, he sings, he does imitations
Of different people in the building, he jokes,
He feels if he keeps her alive until the father

Gets home from work, they'll be okay till morning.
It's laughter versus the bedroom and the pills.
What is he in his efforts but a courtier?

Impossible to tell his whole delusion.
In the first months when I had moved back East
From California and had to leave a message

On Bob's machine, I used to make a habit
Of telling the tape a joke; and part-way through,
I would pretend that I forgot the punchline,

Or make believe that I was interrupted--
As though he'd be so eager to hear the end
He'd have to call me back. The joke was Elliot's,

More often than not. The doctors made the blunder
That killed him some time later that same year.
One day when I got home I found a message

On my machine from Bob. He had a story
About two rabbis, one of them tall, one short,
One day while walking along the street together

They see the corpse of a Chinese man before them,
And Bob said, sorry, he forgot the rest.
Of course he thought that his joke was a dummy,

Impossible to tell--a dead-end challenge.
But here it is, as Elliot told it to me:
The dead man's widow came to the rabbis weeping,

Begging them, if they could, to resurrect him.
Shocked, the tall rabbi said absolutely not.
But the short rabbi told her to bring the body

Into the study house, and ordered the shutters
Closed so the room was night-dark. Then he prayed
Over the body, chanting a secret blessing

Out of Kabala. "Arise and breathe," he shouted;
But nothing happened. The body lay still. So then
The little rabbi called for hundreds of candles

And danced around the body, chanting and praying
In Hebrew, then Yiddish, then Aramaic. He prayed
In Turkish and Egyptian and Old Galician

For nearly three hours, leaping about the coffin
In the candlelight so that his tiny black shoes
Seemed not to touch the floor. With one last prayer

Sobbed in the Spanish of before the Inquisition
He stopped, exhausted, and looked in the dead man's face.
Panting, he raised both arms in a mystic gesture

And said, "Arise and breathe!" And still the body
Lay as before. Impossible to tell
In words how Elliot's eyebrows flailed and snorted

Like shaggy mammoths as--the Chinese widow
Granting permission--the little rabbi sang
The blessing for performing a circumcision

And removed the dead man's foreskin, chanting blessings
In Finnish and Swahili, and bathed the corpse
From head to foot, and with a final prayer

In Babylonian, gasping with exhaustion,
He seized the dead man's head and kissed the lips
And dropped it again and leaping back commanded,

"Arise and breathe!" The corpse lay still as ever.
At this, as when Bash?'s disciples wind
Along the curving spine that links the renga

Across the different voices, each one adding
A transformation according to the rules
Of stasis and repetition, all in order

And yet impossible to tell beforehand,
Elliot changes for the punchline: the wee
Rabbi, still panting, like a startled boxer,

Looks at the dead one, then up at all those watching,
A kind of Mel Brooks gesture: "Hoo boy!" he says,
"Now that's what I call really dead." O mortal

Powers and princes of earth, and you immortal
Lords of the underground and afterlife,
Jehovah, Raa, Bol-Morah, Hecate, Pluto,

What has a brilliant, living soul to do with
Your harps and fires and boats, your bric-a-brac
And troughs of smoking blood? Provincial stinkers,

Our languages don't touch you, you're like that mother
Whose small child entertained her to beg her life.
Possibly he grew up to be the tall rabbi,

The one who washed his hands of all those capers
Right at the outset. Or maybe he became
The author of these lines, a one-man renga

The one for whom it seems to be impossible
To tell a story straight. It was a routine
Procedure. When it was finished the physicians

Told Sandra and the kids it had succeeded,
But Elliot wouldn't wake up for maybe an hour,
They should go eat. The two of them loved to bicker

In a way that on his side went back to Yiddish,
On Sandra's to some Sicilian dialect.
He used to scold her endlessly for smoking.

When she got back from dinner with their children
The doctors had to tell them about the mistake.
Oh swirling petals, falling leaves! The movement

Of linking renga coursing from moment to moment
Is meaning, Bob says in his Haiku book.
Oh swirling petals, all living things are contingent,

Falling leaves, and transient, and they suffer.
But the Universal is the goal of jokes,
Especially certain ethnic jokes, which taper

Down through the swirling funnel of tongues and gestures
Toward their preposterous Ithaca. There's one
A journalist told me. He heard it while a hero

Of the South African freedom movement was speaking
To elderly Jews. The speaker's own right arm
Had been blown off by right-wing letter-bombers.

He told his listeners they had to cast their ballots
For the ANC--a group the old Jews feared
As "in with the Arabs." But they started weeping

As the old one-armed fighter told them their country
Needed them to vote for what was right, their vote
Could make a country their children could return to

From London and Chicago. The moved old people
Applauded wildly, and the speaker's friend
Whispered to the journalist, "It's the Belgian Army

Joke come to life." I wish I could tell it
To Elliot. In the Belgian Army, the feud
Between the Flemings and Walloons grew vicious,

So out of hand the army could barely function.
Finally one commander assembled his men
In one great room, to deal with things directly.

They stood before him at attention. "All Flemings,"
He ordered, "to the left wall." Half the men
Clustered to the left. "Now all Walloons," he ordered,

"Move to the right." An equal number crowded
Against the right wall. Only one man remained
At attention in the middle: "What are you, soldier?"

Saluting, the man said, "Sir, I am a Belgian."
"Why, that's astonishing, Corporal--what's your name?"
Saluting again, "Rabinowitz," he answered:

A joke that seems at first to be a story
About the Jews. But as the renga describes
Religious meaning by moving in drifting petals

And brittle leaves that touch and die and suffer
The changing winds that riffle the gutter swirl,
So in the joke, just under the raucous music

Of Fleming, Jew, Walloon, a courtly allegiance
Moves to the dulcimer, gavotte and bow,
Over the banana tree the moon in autumn--

Allegiance to a state impossible to tell.

Sponsored by the University of North Carolina Press and the North Carolina Arts Council.

Created and edited by Paul Jones ([e-mail])

with the kind assistance of Dykki Settle, Chris Colomb, Max Leach,Kelly Jo Garner, clark mccabe, David McConville, Donald Sizemore, Marisa Brickman, and Mark McCarthy.

2006 Layout, Design and Audio encoding by TJ Ward and Dan Lucas

Project editor: David Perry, editor for UNC Press.

 

Relative clauses

Home | Contact | Help | About

Free Resources
Teacher Support
Jobs
Lesson Share
Magazine
Forum
Exams
Business & ESP
Grammar & Vocab
Skills
Young Learners
ESOL-ESL

		Grammar reference | Grammar teaching | Vocabulary lesson plans
		ARTICLES > Relative clauses

Grammar Reference for English teachers

Relative clauses

One of the most (in)famous prescriptive grammar rules has always been never end a sentence with a preposition. As a teacher, which of the following sounds better to you? Which form would you teach your students?

There are very few things of which he is afraid.
There are very few things which he is afraid of.

Similarly, when was the last time you used the word whom? What’s the difference between these two sentences? Is one better than the other?

The man whom she married was a notorious drinker.
The man who she married was a notorious drinker.

 

Relative Clauses - Kerry G. Maxwell	Page 1 - Relative clauses in English Page 2 - Relative pronouns as subjects and objects Page 3 - Prepositions in relative clauses Page 4 - Relative clauses with whose Page 5 - Relative clauses with when, where and why Page 6 - Non-defining realtive clauses Page 7 - The form of non-defining relative clauses
Tips and activities for teaching relative clauses - Lindsay Clandfield	Page 1 - Participle relative clauses Page 2 - /hu:z/ Page 3 - The place where and the day when Page 4 - Interpretations Page 5 - Elaborate the sentences

 

Top of Form

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Bottom of Form

Useful Links

Grammar and Vocabulary in Lesson Share

Grammar and Vocabulary in Teacher Support

Grammar and Vocabulary in Free Resources

Grammar and Vocabulary in the Forum

Macmillan English Campus
The e-learning destination for teachers and students

Language Games CDROM Challenging to play, highly motivating and lots of fun!

Uncovering Grammar
For all teachers who have taught grammar that their students have failed to learn

ABC of Common Grammatical Errors
Practical reference book which provides teachers and learners with the information they need to correct their grammatical errors

The Web

Web Grammar

Chomp Chomp

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2005 Macmillan Publishers

 

 

Poetry Of Emily Dickinson

Title:Poetry Of Emily Dickinson
Source:Magill Book Reviews
Abstract:Filled with odd images, eccentric rhyming, and an often playful tone, Dickinson's poetry penetrates into the depths of the human soul and mind with infinite insight.

POETRY OF EMILY DICKINSON

 

Emily Dickinson

1890

Poetry

 

In contrast to many of her contemporaries Dickinson had minimal experience with the world, spending almost every day of her life in a single house in Amherst, Massachusetts. Yet her poetry displays a range of perception and emotion that few poets have matched.

She might be called a miniaturist, since most of her poems have fewer than 30 lines, yet she deals with the profoundest subjects in poetry: death, love, humanity's relations to God and nature.

Her poetry impresses by its constantly amazing freshness and vitality. Not only does she approach her subjects in unique ways, but her use of language itself is highly idiosyncratic. She makes nouns serve as verbs, adjectives as nouns, and abstractions as concrete objects.

Her images startle by their unexpectedness and their supreme rightness as well. For her, death can be courteous ("BECAUSE I COULD NOT STOP FOR DEATH") or terrifying ("I FELT A FUNERAL IN MY BRAIN"): it can be perceived through what the dead person has left undone ("HOW MANY TIMES THESE LOW FEET STAGGERED") or through the trivial details one might focus on while dying ("I HEARD A FLY BUZZ WHEN I DIED"). Nature has its terrors (the snake in "A NARROW FELLOW IN THE GRASS") as well as its glories ("THE DAY CAME SLOW") and sensual delights ("I TASTE A LIQUOR").

Her dramatic monologues, always with herself as persona, convey rich complexities of human emotion--elation and depression, faith and doubt, hope and despair.

Her direct, first-person voice makes much of her poetry easily accessible, yet her unusual word usages and oblique approaches to a subject call for multiple readings and sometimes multiple interpretations. Her density and imaginativeness hark back to the Metaphysical poets of the 17th century, while her play with language and her psychological and philosophical insights, many quite unusual for the largely conservative 19th century, brought her a wide audience only posthumously.

Copyright of Magill Book Reviews is the property of Salem Press and its content may not be copied without the copyright holder's express written permission except for the print or download capabilities of the retrieval software used for access. This content is intended solely for the use of the individual user.


Back to the top

||| Poetry | Edgar Allan Poe | The Browning Poets | Home | Young American Poets | Emily Dickinson Page | Poetry Links | Anonymous Poetry | Children's Poetry | How to talk about a Poem | How to talk about a short story | Links | Joke | JavaScripts | Home | Sign Guestbook | Send comments about this page to [e-mail] ||| Sign Guestbook |||

 

2 Mood and modality

 

Home | Contact | Help | About

Free Resources
Teacher Support
Jobs
Lesson Share
Magazine
Forum
Exams
Business & ESP
Grammar & Vocab
Skills
Young Learners
ESOL-ESL

		Ask the authors | Teacher's tips | Teaching with minimal resources | Methodology | Useful links
		ARTICLES > Mood and modality

Ask the Authors - Grammar

Modality

So what about modality, then?

A basic distinction in our use of language is that we sometimes state facts, like "It's raining", "It hasn't rained for weeks", and we sometimes express personal perceptions, opinions and attitudes, such as "I think it's going to rain", "We could do with a bit of rain", "It must have been raining", "Let it rain - I don't mind getting wet". The term 'modality' includes various types of such personal perceptions and attitudes. A broad categorisation of the main types of modality would be:

1. possibility, including ability and permission
2. necessity, including obligation
3. volition
4. prediction

Another important division, which cuts across these, is that between extrinsic and intrinsic modality. Extrinsic modality refers to our assessment of the possibility, likelihood or necessity of situations and events:

It can be chilly here at night.

You must be Dr. Livingstone.

You might have left your coat at the pub.

Intrinsic modality refers to people's control over, and evaluation of, situations and events - whether these are permitted, desirable, approved of, etc.:

You can't park here.

You must be careful.

This door shouldn't be left open.

One major way in which we express these meanings is by using modal verbs. These are familiar items which tend to be treated quite thoroughly in courses and grammar reference books - with good reason, because they're certainly important, and there's quite a lot to learn about their forms and meanings, and their functional uses in advising, suggesting, directing, asking for and giving permission, etc. The main modal verbs are may, might, can, could, must, will, would, shall and should, and most writers also recognise 'semi-modals' or fringe members of the group, such as have (got) to, ought to, need, and dare, which in terms of form behave in slightly different ways, but express similar types of meaning. Apart from modal verbs, though, there are plenty of other ways of expressing modality:

Be careful!

Maybe you left your coat at the pub

I'm quite capable of looking after myself.

We weren't allowed to leave our luggage at the hotel.

You'd better get a move on.

What do you think they're going to do?

How am I supposed to open this?

We're likely to need some more time.

Would you be willing to help us a bit?

Dr. Livingstone, I presume?

It's essential to give yourself plenty of time.

Looking at mood and modality together

So you could say, for example, that:

This is the oldest building in the town

demonstrates declarative mood and no modality.

I mustn't forget my keys

demonstrates declarative mood and intrinsic modality.

Is it possible to enrol for the next semester yet?

demonstrates interrogative mood and extrinsic modality

But how useful are these terms?

You say that you need to explain the difference between mood and modality, but you don't say who you need to explain them to. I don't think 'mood' is a very useful term for learners of English. For one thing, it's confusing: it's got nothing to do with the more familiar use of the word 'mood'. For another thing, it's very abstract and probably doesn't help learning. It's probably more effective to stick to more familiar terms like 'statement', 'question', and 'imperative'. Personally, I wouldn't use the term 'subjunctive' with reference to English; I'd only use it in teaching learners whose own language has specific subjunctive verb forms, to point out that English doesn't have such forms, but sometimes uses unexpected verb forms to do the same job.

'Modality' is also pretty abstract, but maybe helpful as a reminder that modal meanings are carried not just by modal verbs, but in other ways as well. For learners, it's probably most useful to learn the various meanings and functional uses of modal verbs and modal lexical expressions: making logical deductions, asking for and giving/refusing permission, making requests, talking about ability, offering to do things, making predictions, and so on. And this is the approach usually taken in coursebooks. At a more advanced stage, it might be useful to do some review and extension work on ways of expressing possibility, necessity, volition, etc. in English, possibly drawing comparisons with the learners' L1 if this seems likely to be fruitful.

As always, the priority should be learning to understand and use the language itself. If terminological labels help, so much the better. But there's a lot of unhelpful terminology inherited from grammars of classical Greek and Latin which we could really do without; I think 'mood' is a clear example of this, while 'modality' is more of a borderline case.

Go to page one of this article

---

Back to Ask the authors | Grammar in Ask the authors

Useful Links

Teacher Support in the Forum

Teacher Support in the Magazine

Macmillan English Campus
The e-learning destination for teachers and students

Language Games CDROM Challenging to play, highly motivating and lots of fun!

Learning Teaching
Addresses the most important, challenging and interesting situations of the English classroom

Teaching Practice
An essential reference book for EFL teachers and trainers on pre-service courses

The Web

English Teaching Professional

The British Council

 

Copyright © 2005 Macmillan Publishers

Mood and modality

Home | Contact | Help | About

Free Resources
Teacher Support
Jobs
Lesson Share
Magazine
Forum
Exams
Business & ESP
Grammar & Vocab
Skills
Young Learners
ESOL-ESL

		Ask the authors | Teacher's tips | Teaching with minimal resources | Methodology | Useful links
		ARTICLES > Mood and modality

Ask the Authors - Grammar

Mood and modality

I find I need to be able to explain in simple terms the difference between mood and modality. I would like to explain how it occurs in our everyday language. The text I have consulted speaks in a tongue beyond my understanding. Can you please explain the difference in simple terms. Many thanks

Cassandra Harrison

Reply by Jonathan Marks

---

'Mood' and 'modality' are separate components of grammar, but they're related in origin and to some extent in meaning.

The word 'modal' is, in origin, connected with the mode, manner, or fashion of doing something, rather than the substance. But from the 16th century onwards, it was used in logic and philosophy to refer to propositions involving the affirmation of possibility and impossibility, existence and non-existence, contingency and necessity, and this is the meaning that has been taken into grammar.

'Mood', as used in grammar, is also derived from 'mode', but at some stage the vowel changed by association with the completely different word 'mood', meaning a state of mind (e.g. a good/bad mood).

If we wanted to make a very broad distinction between different kinds of meanings we express in language, we could say that the sentence:

We met at the pub

expresses a straightforward fact objectively, whereas sentences like these:

Meet me at the pub

When did we meet at the pub?

Shall we meet at the pub?

We must have met at the pub

I could meet you at the pub, if you like

If we met at the pub, we could have a chat about things

are basically 'about' the same thing, but show the speaker (or writer, of course) taking different approaches towards it. We find out about the speaker's attitude towards, or perception of, an event which may or may not take place, or have taken place. Mood and modality are both concerned, in their different ways, with this distinction between objective statement and speaker-centredness.

---

Mood

Let's start with mood. Descriptions of English grammar usually recognize up to four 'moods':

1.       declarative (or indicative)

2.       interrogative

3.       imperative

4.       subjunctive

Sometimes 'indicative' is used to include declarative (statements) and interrogative (questions). (Some languages have other 'moods', apart from these three or four.)


Declarative

These sentences would be regarded as examples of the 'declarative mood':

We always meet at the same pub.

I've never met him.

Declarative sentences express statements, but they often have other functions too:

You've left the light on. (This can mean 'Turn it off'.)

Declarative sentences typically have subject + verb word order. But sometimes there's no subject:

Don't know where he is. Probably missed his train.

- and sometimes the subject is after the verb:

Then came the prize-giving.

- or between the auxiliary and main verbs:

Rarely have I seen such incompetence.

Interrogative

These sentences would be regarded as examples of the 'interrogative mood':

When was the last time we met?

Do you want tea or coffee?

Interrogative sentences express questions, but they often have other functions too:

Do you think I'm made of money? (This can mean 'Stop asking me for money.')

What did I tell you? (This can mean 'I told you so.')

And there are other ways of asking questions:

I suppose you'd like something to eat.

I'd like to know the train times for Sunday.

In interrogative sentences, the subject is typically after the verb (if there's only one verb) or between the auxiliary and main verbs. But sometimes the order is subject + verb:

You did what?!

Imperative

These sentences would be regarded as examples of the 'imperative mood':

Mind the step.

Switch the appliance off and remove the plug from the socket.

Don't just stand there!

See chapter 2.

Come round at the weekend.

Imperative sentences express directives, such as orders, instructions, requests, invitations etc. They typically have a verb with no subject and in the infinitive form - except for 'be', this is the same as the non-3rd person singular present simple. 'Don't' can be put before the verb to form negatives. But positive imperatives can also include an auxiliary 'do', and the subject can be included in positives or negatives:

Do be careful.

Don't mention it.

You stay here.

Don't you tell me what to do!

There may also be a 'please' or a question tag appended:

Come over here, please.

Be quiet, will you?

Some languages have specific imperative verb forms, but English doesn't: the form of the verb used in an imperative sentence is the infinitive.

Subjunctive

And these sentences, finally, would be regarded as examples of the 'subjunctive mood':

I demand that this barrier be opened.

They suggested that she wait a little longer.

... as if he were dreaming.

Long live the president!

Subjunctive sentences express uncertainty, unreality, hypotheses, wishes, etc. They often contain verb forms different from those that would be used in equivalent indicative sentences:

I demand that this barrier be opened.	cf. This barrier is opened .....
They suggested that she wait a little longer.	cf. She waits / waited .....
... as if he were dreaming.	cf. He was dreaming.
Long live the president!	cf. The president lives .....

But sometimes the verb forms would be the same in indicative sentences:

I suggest that you wait a little longer.	cf. You wait .....
... as if they were dreaming.	cf. They were dreaming.
Long live the whales!	cf. The whales live .....

Some languages, e.g. German, Spanish, French, Latin, Old English, etc. have some specific subjunctive verb forms, different from indicative forms. For example, look at these third person plural forms of the verb 'be':

	present indicative	present subjunctive	past indicative	past subjunctive
German	sind	seien	waren	wären
Old English	sindon	sīen	wæron	wæren

As you can see from the example sentences above, modern English doesn't have separate indicative and subjunctive forms; the forms which are called 'subjunctive' are:

1.       the infinitive (which also, with the exception of 'be', serves as the non-3rd person singular present simple.)

2.       'were', i.e. the past tense plural form of 'be'

Some fixed phrases with subjunctives, such as If I were you ..., as it were, Long live ..., Be that as it may and So be it are probably best learned as idioms. (Long live ... can also be regarded as a third person imperative.)

The word 'subjunctive' means 'placed underneath, subordinated, added at the end', and derives from a Latin translation from Greek; it was used in classical Greek because in that language the subjunctive mood is used almost exclusively in subordinate clauses, and in English, too, it most often appears in subordinate clauses. But because it doesn't have its own specific verb forms in English, I don't find it a very useful concept in English grammar, except maybe as way of referring to a very broad type of meaning: uncertainty, unreality, hypotheses, wishes, etc.

Go to page two of this article

---

Back to Ask the authors | Grammar in Ask the authors

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Useful Links

Teacher Support in the Forum

Teacher Support in the Magazine

Macmillan English Campus
The e-learning destination for teachers and students

Language Games CDROM Challenging to play, highly motivating and lots of fun!

Learning Teaching
Addresses the most important, challenging and interesting situations of the English classroom

Teaching Practice
An essential reference book for EFL teachers and trainers on pre-service courses

The Web

English Teaching Professional

The British Council

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2005 Macmillan Publishers

 

 

Modal verbs II

Home | Contact | Help | About

Free Resources
Teacher Support
Jobs
Lesson Share
Magazine
Forum
Exams
Business & ESP
Grammar & Vocab
Skills
Young Learners
ESOL-ESL

		Grammar reference | Grammar teaching | Vocabulary lesson plans
		ARTICLES > Modal verbs II

Grammar & Vocabulary

Modal verbs II
Kerry G. Maxwell and Lindsay Clandfield

Go to tips and activities

---

A quick question: What’s the difference in meaning between the underlined words in these sentences?

The government must do something about crime in the cities.

That’s the doorbell. It must be the postman.

This month’s article is the second of two in which we take a closer look at modal verbs, concentrating on might/may, must/have to and should/ought to. Grammatical syllabuses and descriptions often feature the terms intrinsic and extrinsic in relation to modal verbs, so we begin by explaining what these words mean.

---

1 The meaning of modals – intrinsic and extrinsic

Higher-level descriptions of English modal verbs often distinguish between two main types of meaning, described as intrinsic and extrinsic meanings.

Intrinsic meanings are those which imply some kind of human control over events, so they include meanings which are often described as permission, willingness and necessity.

Extrinsic meanings are those which involve some kind of human judgment about what is or isn’t likely to happen, so include meanings which are often described as prediction or possibility.

All modal verbs have both intrinsic and extrinsic uses. For instance, an intrinsic use of the modal verb can is in talking about permission, e.g.

You can use my phone if you want.

but an extrinsic use is in discussing possibility, e.g.

Paris can be very hot in summer.

Sometimes, the two types of meaning overlap in one particular example. For instance, the modal verb will in

I will see you tomorrow.

could be said to be combining an intrinsic use to express willingness and an extrinsic use to imply a prediction about the future.

In some grammatical descriptions of modals, intrinsic meanings are described as deontic or root, and extrinsic meanings are described as epistemic.

---

2 May and might

a Possibility

Modal verbs may and might are often used to say that something is possibly true, e.g.

That may/might be a better thing to do.

I think Charlotte may/might be pregnant.

There may/might be other problems that we don’t know about.

In informal speech, might is more common than may when talking about what someone will possibly do in the future, e.g.

They might buy the house next door.

I might go to the party on Saturday.

May is more common in more formal descriptions, e.g.

This bird’s young may grow to full size in less than four weeks.

Note that may is not usually used in questions which ask about the possibility of something happening or being true, e.g.

Are you likely to win? (not *May you win?)

Might is sometimes used in this type of question, but sounds rather formal.May/might + have + past participle can be used to talk about a possible event in the past, e.g.

Do you think Amy might have arrived by now?

and can sometimes be used to talk about a possible event occurring before a time in the future, e.g.

It might have been sold by the time we get there.

May/might + be + -ing can be used to talk about a possible event in the present, e.g.

I’m not sure if Helen’s at home. She might be taking the children to school.

and can sometimes be used to talk about a possible event in the future, e.g.

I might be taking my exams next Easter.

May/might + have + been + -ing can be used to talk about possible events in the past that happened over a period of time, e.g.

Jack can’t find his gloves. I think he might have been wearing them at the football match yesterday.

---

b Permission

May (but not might) is sometimes used to talk about permission in formal contexts, e.g.

Only food purchased on the premises may be consumed in the restaurant.

Calculators may not be used in the examination. You may begin.

It is also sometimes used in formal requests for permission, e.g.

May I be excused?

May we come in?

---

3 Must and have (got) to

a Necessity

Must and have to are used to say that it is necessary that something happens or is done, e.g.

The chicken must be cooked thoroughly.

You have to book in advance.

Must is used in stating formal rules and regulations, e.g.

The balance must be paid 28 days before departure.

Visitors must remove all footwear before entering.

and have (got) to is used to describe necessity resulting from a situation and which is not usually the speaker’s decision. Compare, e.g.:

We have to pay the balance a month before we leave.

You’ve got to take off your shoes before you can go in.

Note that have got to is less formal than have to and is more common in spoken English. However, have to is usually used with the past simple, especially for question and negative structures, e.g. We didn’t have to wait long. Why did you have to leave?, and also when another modal verb occurs, e.g. They’ll have to pay the money back eventually. When have is contracted however, have got to must be used, e.g. He’s got to work an extra two hours.

Note that must has no past, perfect, continuous, infinitive or -ing form, and have to is used instead, e.g. Visitors must remove their shoes. Visitors had to remove their shoes.

Must is often used to talk about things which we think will be necessary or enjoyable in the future, e.g.

I must phone Mum and Dad tomorrow.

You really must try to lose weight.

We must have lunch together some time.

Have (got) to is more common than must when asking questions about whether something will be necessary. Must in questions sounds rather formal and old-fashioned, e.g.

Do we have to wear a uniform? or Have we got to wear a uniform? (not usually Must we wear a uniform?)

Don’t have to and haven’t got to can be used to say that something is not necessary, e.g.

She doesn’t have to wear a uniform.

You haven’t got to answer all the questions.

Note however that the negative form mustn’t has a different meaning to don’t have to or haven’t got to. Mustn’t is used to say that someone should definitely not do something. Compare, e.g.

You must/have to wear shoes. (= It is necessary that you wear shoes.)

You don’t have to wear shoes. (= It is not necessary that you wear shoes.)

You mustn’t wear shoes. (= It is necessary that you do not wear shoes.)

---

b Drawing conclusions

Must is sometimes used to draw conclusions about past, present and future events. Must + have + past participle is used to draw a conclusion about something that happened in the past, e.g.

I heard that your dog died. It must have been very upsetting.

Must + be + -ing is used to draw a conclusion about something happening at the time of speaking, e.g.

Helen isn’t in. She must be taking the children to school.

Must + be is used to draw a conclusion about a present situation, e.g.

You didn’t get any sleep? You must be absolutely exhausted.

Must + be going to or must + be + -ing are sometimes used to draw a conclusion about something that is likely to happen in the future, e.g.

There’s a ‘For Sale’ sign outside. They must be going to move.

They’ve sold all their furniture. They must be leaving soon.

Have (got) to is sometimes used when someone feels certain that something is true or will happen, e.g.

There has to be a better way of doing this.

House prices have got to drop at some point.

---

4 Should and ought to

a Obligation

Should and ought to are often used to talk about obligation, saying what is the right thing to do, e.g.

You should/ought to finish your sandwich before you eat a piece of cake.

The children shouldn’t/oughtn’t to drop litter on the floor.

They are also often used to give recommendations, saying what is the best or a good thing to do, e.g.

He should/ought to cycle to work, the exercise would be good for him.

Their cottage is lovely. You should/ought to visit sometime.

Note that should is more usual in questions, e.g. Who should I ask? Should I bring sandwiches? Ought to can be used, but sounds rather formal and old-fashioned, e.g. Who ought I to ask? Ought I to bring sandwiches?

Should is also usually used when talking about the recommendations of some outside authority, e.g. The computer should be restarted after loading the software.

Should/ought to + have + past participle is often used to talk about something that didn’t happen and the speaker feels sorry that it didn’t happen, e.g.

We should/ought to have stood in the other queue, it went down quicker.

and shouldn’t/oughtn’t to + have + past participle is often used to talk about an event or action that happened but which the speaker regrets, e.g.

He shouldn’t /oughtn’t to have bought that car, it’s always breaking down.

---

b Probability

Should and ought to are sometimes used to say that something is probable, indicating that someone expects something to be true or to happen, e.g.

We should/ought to be home by 5 o’clock.

The letter should/ought to arrive by Friday.

He should/ought to be feeling better soon.

Should/Ought to + have + past participle can be used to talk about something that was expected to happen in the past, e.g.

He should/ought to have arrived earlier this morning.

or that is expected to happen in the future, e.g.

The builders should/ought to have finished the work by the end of this month.

Note that when used in this sense, should and ought to almost always occur with verbs and expressions which express a positive meaning and they are not usually used to indicate that we expect something to go wrong, e.g.

Her team should/ought to win. vs. * Her team should/ought to lose.

Go to tips and activities

 

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Useful Links

 

 

 

Copyright © 2005 Macmillan Publishers

 

 

Grammar contrasts 2

Home | Contact | Help | About

Free Resources
Teacher Support
Jobs
Lesson Share
Magazine
Forum
Exams
Business & ESP
Grammar & Vocab
Skills
Young Learners
ESOL-ESL

		Ask the authors | Teacher's tips | Teaching with minimal resources | Methodology | Useful links
		ARTICLES > Past simple vs present perfect

Ask the Authors - Grammar

Grammar contrasts 2

Old, old chestnuts I know, but.............the most recurrent problems I have with students are (1) present perfect vs past simple and (2) 'going to' vs 'will'. Any hot tips??

John Wright 

---

There are a number of ways of dealing with these tricky grammar distinctions, and a lot will depend on the level and needs of the students, their learning style, your institutional demands (e.g. whether the distinction is to be tested in a forthcoming exam), and finally, your own personal theories of language learning. Here are some ideas of my own:

Will vs. Going to (another page) | Present perfect vs. past simple (below)

---

Past simple vs present perfect

Reply by Scott Thornbury

Essentially, the same options apply as to will vs going to, although the difference between 'zero-perfect' and 'perfect' is perhaps marginally less subtle.

---

Option 1
Ignore. The meaning difference is trivial, and in the US they’ve abandoned the distinction in many uses:  Did you have breakfast yet?

---

Option 2
Teach some 'rules of thumb', of which the soundest, although less easy to apply is:

Rule of thumb 1
You use the perfect if you want to connect a past situation to the present in some way. You use the past simple if you want to separate the past from the present:

Where have you been? 
(= from the time I last saw you to now)

When did Jill phone?
(= she phoned sometime in the past, since when a number of other things have happened)

The problem is that it is difficult to define 'present relevance', that is, a present connection. Why is I’ve been to China once connected to the present, but I’m sorry, what did you say? not?

Rule of thumb 2
Use the past simple for a definite time in the past; the present perfect for an indefinite time:

I went to Brighton last month.

I’ve been to Brighton three or four times.

The problem with this is that, like Rule of thumb 1, it lacks psychological reality. When is something definite or not? Why, for example, is I’ve been to China once indefinite, but this is not?: I went to China when I was twenty, or twenty-one, or maybe twenty-two...can’t remember, actually.

---

Option 3
Introduce both forms in their typical contexts of use, and associate them with specific functions and co-texts. Avoid trying to contrast them, at least initially.

For example, use past tense in narratives, with time sequences (and then, next, after that) or in recounting biographical or historical information, using In 1950, two years later, when he was 16…etc.

Use present perfect in contexts where people are talking about experience (e.g. job interviews) or as fixed expressions with just, already and yet: Would you like some coffee?- No thanks, I’ve just had one.  Have you finished yet? etc.

---

Option 4
Contrast the two forms in a mini-situation:

A: Would you like to see the new Harry Potter film?

B: I’ve seen it.

A: Oh, when?

B: I saw it on the plane.

A: Oh.

Same procedure as above with will and going to.

An alternative approach is to problematize the contrast through a listening or reading activity. That is, present the two forms in a context and then ask questions which will force the learners to “restructure” their internal grammar, in order to accommodate a distinction that they may not have yet noticed. This is called a grammar interpretation task, and you can find examples, contrasting these very two structures, in Uncovering Grammar, pages 39-41.

---

Option 5
The deep-end approach, through a cycle of task-feedback-try again (see Will vs Going to).

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Useful Links

Teacher Support in the Forum

Teacher Support in the Magazine

Macmillan English Campus
The e-learning destination for teachers and students

Language Games CDROM Challenging to play, highly motivating and lots of fun!

Learning Teaching
Addresses the most important, challenging and interesting situations of the English classroom

Teaching Practice
An essential reference book for EFL teachers and trainers on pre-service courses

The Web

English Teaching Professional

The British Council

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2005 Macmillan Publishers

 

 

Modal verbs

Home | Contact | Help | About

Free Resources
Teacher Support
Jobs
Lesson Share
Magazine
Forum
Exams
Business & ESP
Grammar & Vocab
Skills
Young Learners
ESOL-ESL

		Grammar reference | Grammar teaching | Vocabulary lesson plans
		ARTICLES > Modal verbs 1

Grammar & Vocabulary

Modal verbs
Kerry G. Maxwell and Lindsay Clandfield

Go to tips and ideas

---

Student: Can I go to the bathroom sir?

Teacher: I’m sure you can, but you may not.

This old joke plays on different interpretations of can. The student is asking for permission, whereas the teacher is talking about ability. Some people might say that the student’s use of can is incorrect (i.e. the student should say May I go to the bathroom?). This view, however, is based on a very narrow understanding of modality and modal verbs in English.

This month’s article is the first of two in which we take a closer look at modal verbs. We begin by looking at their function in English and exploring basic properties. We then go on to look in more detail at the most common uses of the important modal verbs can, could, will and would. In our next article we’ll complete the story by covering may, might, must, should and ought to.

---

1. Modal verbs in English

As well as making simple statements or asking questions, we may sometimes want to express our intentions and attitudes, talk about necessity and possibility, or make offers, requests, or suggestions. In English these uses of language are usually expressed by a set of verbs called modals. Modals always occur with other verbs, and can be thought of as a special kind of auxiliary verb, e.g.:

I must go to the post office.

Can I borrow your umbrella?

The most commonly used modals in English are:

can could will would may might must ought to should

Modals are mainly used when we want to indicate our attitude to what we are saying, or when we are considering how what we say will affect the person we are communicating with. Compare:

She’s the oldest. vs. She might be the oldest.

(Here the modal shows that the speaker is not absolutely sure that the statement is true.)

Close the door. vs. Could/would/will you close the door?

(Here the modals turn an instruction into a polite request.)

---

1.1 Some basic characteristics of modals

a) Modals are always followed by the base form of the verb, e.g.:

I might play tennis tomorrow.

You ought to tell her.

Sometimes a modal is followed by the base form of auxiliaries have or be, followed by a participle, e.g.:

I might be playing tennis tomorrow.

You ought to have told her.

In passive structures, a modal is followed by be or have been and a past participle, e.g.:

She ought to be disqualified.

The door might have been locked.

b) Modals never inflect, i.e.: they have no –ing or –ed forms, and do not take –s in the third person singular present.

Note: the modal form could is sometimes thought of as the past tense of can when it refers to the ability to do something, e.g.:

Louise can read. = Louise could read when she was three.

and also in reported speech, when the modal form would is also thought of as the past tense of will:

“Jackie can come.” = She said that Jackie could come.

“You will be late.”= I told her that she would be late.

c) Unlike other verbs, modals do not use do and did to form negatives. Negatives are formed by putting not immediately after the modal, except in the case of ought to, where the negative form is ought not to (which is sometimes abbreviated to oughtn’t to). The negative of can is written as one word cannot, more usually shortened to can’t. Shall not and will not are usually abbreviated to shan’t and won’t respectively. Could not and would not usually appear as couldn’t and wouldn’t, e.g.:

I might not play tennis tomorrow.

You ought not to tell her.

She can’t come.

We won’t be ready until five.

d) Modals do not use do and did to form questions. Questions are formed by placing the modal before the subject. In the case of ought to, ought is placed before the subject and to after it, e.g.:

Can she speak Spanish?

Ought you to tell her?

Wouldn’t he help you?

When will and would are used after a pronoun, they are often shortened to the contracted forms ’ll and ’d and joined to the pronoun, e.g.:

I’ll help, if you want.

I’m sure she’ll agree.

It’d be better if you told her yourself.

He said that he’d walk home.

---

2. Can and could

2.1 Ability

Modal verbs can and could are used to show that someone has the ability to do something. Can is used for the present, and could is used for the past, e.g.:

Tom can play chess.

I can’t pick the box up, it’s too heavy.

Louise could read when she was three.

I stood on a chair, but I still couldn’t see.

---

2.2 Permission

Can and could are also used to express the idea of giving or asking for permission to do something, e.g.:

You can use my phone if you want.

I’m sorry but you can’t bring drinks in here.

Can I borrow your pen, please?

Could Tom sit next to you?

Sometimes can and could are used to talk generally about permission, rather than giving it or asking for it. In this sense, can is used for the present and could is used for the past, e.g.:

There’s a sign saying that you can’t park in front of the station.

I can stay up until nine. Mum said so.

We couldn’t keep pets when we lived in the flat.

There was a time when you could park your car anywhere.

---

2.3 Possibility

a) Can and could are often used to suggest possible future actions.

You can/could go on the train, if you prefer.

Note: can expresses a more definite possibility than could, cf:

If you don’t like it, I can paint it a different colour.

vs

If you don’t like it, I could paint it a different colour.

b) Could is often used to say that something is or was possibly true, e.g.:

He could be working late tonight.

It could be difficult to get there in time.

She could have missed the last bus.

c) Can is sometimes used to say that something is generally possible:

Smoking can seriously damage your health.

Paris can be very hot in summer.

In this sense, can often has the meaning ‘sometimes’, e.g.:

Owning a dog can be expensive. (= ‘Owning a dog is sometimes expensive.’)

d) Can’t and couldn’t are sometimes used to show that something is or was impossible, e.g.:

This can’t be Sam’s coat, it’s far too big.

You couldn’t have seen Simon yesterday, he’s in America.

---

3. Will and Would

3.1 Requests

Will and would are often used when making requests, e.g.:

Will you give me a lift?

Would you pass me the salt?

Note that would is less direct and sounds more polite than will.

---

3.2 Intentions

Will is often used to state an intention to do something, e.g.:

I’ll talk to you later.

We’ll call you when we’re ready.

I won’t ask for any money.

We won’t leave without you.

It can also be used to talk about someone’s willingness to do something, e.g.:

Ask Sarah if she’ll take them.

I’ve asked her, but she won’t come.

Wouldn’t can be used to show that someone was unwilling to do something in the past, e.g.:

I asked her, but she wouldn’t come.

---

3.3 Habits

Will and would are sometimes used to describe habits or characteristic behaviour. Will is used for habits or behaviour in the present, and would is used for habits or behaviour in the past, e.g.:

Every day she’ll come home and immediately turn on the TV.

John is so kind. He’ll always give me a lift if I ask him.

He’d always turn and wave at the end of the street.

In those days people would grow all their own vegetables.

When speaking, will and would in this sense are often stressed in order to criticize someone’s usual behaviour, e.g.:

She will keep talking when I’m trying to concentrate.

He just wouldn’t tidy his room when I asked him.

---

3.4 Certainty

Will can be used to say that something is certainly true, e.g.:

There’s someone coming to the door. – Oh, that’ll be the window cleaner.

Louise will be at home by now.

Matthew won’t want to be disturbed if he’s working.

In this sense, will is often followed by be + -ing to talk about what is certainly happening, or have + past participle to talk about what has certainly happened, e.g.:

Louise will have arrived by now.

He won’t have tidied the house, he never does.

I expect Matthew will be working in the study.

Kelly won’t be helping, I’m sure of that.

---

3.5 Unreal situations

Whereas will is often used to make predictions about a real event in the future, e.g.:

We’re going to have a few days holiday in Scotland. – Oh, that’ll be nice.

would is often used to make a prediction about an unreal event, i.e. an event which may or may not happen, e.g.:

We’re thinking of having a few days holiday in Scotland. – Oh, that would be nice.

In this sense, would often occurs in a sentence with if to talk about what might happen if something else happens, e.g.:

What would you do if you lost your job?

Would also often occurs with verbs such as like, love, etc , to talk about what someone wants to do, e.g.:

I would like to know more.

We’d love to have twins.

She’d prefer to go to Scotland.

Would have + past participle is used to talk about an unreal situation in the past, i.e.: a situation that might have happened, but didn’t, e.g.:

Pete would have helped, if he hadn’t been unwell.

What would you have done if you’d lost your job?

It similarly occurs with verbs such as like, love etc to show what someone wanted to do, but didn’t:

We went to Wales, but Jack would have preferred to go to Scotland.

Go to tips and ideas

---

(top)

 

 

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Useful Links

 

 

 

Copyright © 2005 Macmillan Publishers

 

 

-ing forms and post modification

Home | Contact | Help | About

Free Resources
Teacher Support
Jobs
Lesson Share
Magazine
Forum
Exams
Business & ESP
Grammar & Vocab
Skills
Young Learners
ESOL-ESL

		Ask the authors | Teacher's tips | Teaching with minimal resources | Methodology | Useful links
		ARTICLES > -ing forms and post modification

Ask the Authors - Grammar

-ing forms and post modification

In a coursebook I read the sentence: "The robber gave the teller a note demanding $1000." Can you explain me the function of the -ing form "demanding"? Is it used similar to an adverb as in the sentence: "She walked out of the room smoking." or is it a reduced relative clause ("... a note that wanted $ 1000.")?

Stefan Rathert

---

Reply by Scott Thornbury

About these pesky –ing forms. In your example about the robber and the note, the phrase “demanding $1000” – technically a non-finite clause formed from an –ing participle – provides us with more information about the note. That is, it post-modifies the noun. The complete noun phrase (NP) reads “a note demanding $1000”, note being the head of the NP, the article a being its pre-modification and the –ing clause its post-modification. Together the NP functions as the object of the verb “gave”. The entire sentence instantiates a Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) pattern.

Other common ways we post-modify nouns include preposition phrases (the man on top of the ladder), and relative clauses (the woman who you gave your phone number to). As you correctly observe, the non-finite clause “a note demanding $1000” could be reformulated as a relative clause “a note which demanded $1000”, but, strictly speaking, it is not reduced (or elliptical) because “a note which was demanding $1000” would sound ungrammatical. Another example: “I bought a picture resembling the one you have” can’t be expanded to “I bought a picture which is resembling the one you have”. But “the man sitting in the corner” can, of course, be expanded to “the man who is [or was] sitting in the corner”. The point is that not all non-finite clauses are simply reduced finite ones.

Incidentally, pre-and post-modification of nouns is one of the most problematic areas of grammar for learners, yet you seldom see it dealt with full-on in teaching materials, apart from the (grossly exaggerated) attention given to relative clauses. The use of –ing and –ed forms to post-modify nouns is much more common than using relative clauses: “The train approaching platform 6 is the 10.36 for Beaconsfield…”, “Baggage found unattended will be removed and may be destroyed” etc. The most common ways of post-modifying nouns are preposition phrases, and of-phrases: “the shop on the corner”; “the land of our fathers”, etc.

As for your second sentence “She walked out of the room smoking”: this is clearly not an example of noun post-modification, because it is not the room that was smoking, but the woman. That is to say, “smoking” doesn’t form a syntactic unit with “room”. It is a kind of add-on to the whole clause “she walked out of the room”. It provides extra circumstantial information that could, of course, be reformulated as a finite clause: “She walked out of the room and she was smoking”.

You are almost right in saying that “smoking” is an adverb. In fact, it’s another non-finite clause formed from an –ing participle. But it functions as an adverbial. An adverbial, note, not an adverb. So, the syntactic pattern of your second sentence is SVAA, where two adverbials follow the verb (“out of the room” + “smoking”).

What’s the difference between an adverb and an adverbial? (I hear you ask). “Adverb” simply describes the word class of words, like “happily” or “well” or “not”. But it doesn’t tell us how the word functions in a clause, in relation to other elements such as subjects and objects. “Adverbial” is the term used to describe the way some words, or groups of words, function, irrespective of their word class, when they add circumstantial information to the clause. Thus, all the following underlined words, phrases, or clauses are adverbials, but each has a different form (which I’ve put in brackets):

She played happily. [adverb]
She played quite well. [adverb phrase]
She played in the park. [preposition phrase]
She played all morning. [noun phrase]
She played, laughing all the time. [non-finite –ing participle clause]
She played, while I watched. [finite clause]

Again, the range of possibilities in selecting an appropriate adverbial in order to extend the meaning of a sentence is seldom if ever dealt with systematically in coursebooks – to my knowledge. Unsurprisingly, though, the section on adverbials is by far the largest in the Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English.

---

Back to Ask the authors | Grammar in Ask the authors

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Useful Links

Teacher Support in the Forum

Teacher Support in the Magazine

Macmillan English Campus
The e-learning destination for teachers and students

Language Games CDROM Challenging to play, highly motivating and lots of fun!

Learning Teaching
Addresses the most important, challenging and interesting situations of the English classroom

Teaching Practice
An essential reference book for EFL teachers and trainers on pre-service courses

The Web

English Teaching Professional

The British Council

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2005 Macmillan Publishers

 

 

<

How to talk about a Short Story

 

Like my how to talk about a poem page, this page will tell you how to talk about a short story. To start--A short story is a brief work of fiction consisting of five parts (listed below.) Although the short story originated much earlier, it has received its greatest recognition as a literary form in this century.

 

• Plot
• Character
• Setting
• Theme
• Style

 

I. PLOT--the action of a story

 

Instead of just retelling the story, give a basic outline of it by telling

 

1.      how it begins

2.      what the conflict is

3.      what the climax is

4.      how it ends and if this ending was consistent and satisfying

Back to the top

II. CHARACTER--tell about the main character or characters (not just a physical descriptions--what kind of people are they?)

How do we find out about them--

 

1.      by what they say

2.      by what they do

3.      by what is said about them

 

Do not fail to mention if you see anything unusual about the type of characters that are used. They could be

 

 

1.      symbolic

2.      satirical

3.      stock

4.      realistic

5.      exaggerated

Back to the top

III. SETTING--time and place

Is the setting important to the plot
How would the story change if the setting where different?
The answers to these questions are indicators of whether or not the setting is important

Back to the top

IV. THEME--the author's purpose in writing
There are many different possible themes; a novel may have more than one them. The possible themes could be:

1.      moralistic--to teach a lesson

2.      for entertainment--just to tell an exciting tale

3.      to make us laugh

4.      to weave a fantasy and let us escape from reality

5.      to explore a certain character

6.      to explore a certain setting and how it affected people or events

 

***In connection with the theme, always consider the title. It will often lead you to an understanding of the theme.

Back to the top

V. STYLE--the way an author writes
This element of the short story is often the most difficult to understand and discuss at first. Here are some possible things to consider, but remember to use your own observations about the way the author writes.

 

1.      Is symbolism important?

2.      Are there any flash backs, or is the story's time element chronological?

3.      What is the point of view? (1st person, 3rd person all-knowing, 3rd person objective)

4.      Was exaggeration used in the story and why?

5.      Was the ending foreshadowed and consistent?

6.      Which of the elements is the most important in the story?

7.      How does the author use dialogue?

8.      Is humor used? How is it used?

9.      Is there anything unusual about the character types?

10.  What else did you observe about the way the story was written?

Back to the top

||| Poetry | Emily Dickinson | Edgar Allan Poe | Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning | Favorite Authors | How To Talk About a Poem | How To Talk About a Short Story | Home | Young American Poets | Poetry Links | Anonymous Poetry | Children's Poetry | Links | Joke | JavaScripts | View and Sign Guestbook||| Send comments about this page to [e-mail] |||

 

نتايج رتبه بندي مسابقه بهترين سؤال زبان انگليسي1 نيمسال اول دبيرستانهاي استان لرستان

گروه آموزشی زبان انگلیسی لرستان

گروه آموزشی زبان انگلیسی سازمان آموزش و پرورش استان لرستان

نتايج رتبه بندي مسابقه بهترين سؤال زبان انگليسي1 نيمسال اول دبيرستانهاي استان لرستان

بسمه تعالی

نتایج مسابقه بهترین سوال امتحانی درس زبان انگلیسی۱ در نیمسا ل اول سال تحصیلي86-85

ردیف	نام و نام خانوادگی	محل خدمت	امتیاز
1	محمد            حیدری چگنی	ناحیه 1 خرم آباد	80
2	عصمت اله     شاهی نژاد	منطقه پاپی	79
3	مظفر            دالوند	منطقه زاغه	78
4	ماریا            حسنوند	الشتر	77
5	ایراندخت      حسینی	ناحیه2خرم آباد	77
6	امیری دهنو	الشتر	77
7	فرود           بهرامی	کوهدشت	77
8	جوادی	چگنی	71
9	دیناری	ززوماهرو	70
10	پشمکار	بروجرد	68
11	فهیمه         خسروی	کوهدشت	65
12	پیرزاد	سیلاخور	62
13	عزت اله       بیرانوند	پلدختر	61
14	صید کریم      جوزایی	معمولان	61
15	علی              امرایی	ناحیه 1 خرم آباد	61
16	مرادی	اشترینان	58
17	حریر             الماسی	ویسیان	57
18	شهناز           رامین	پلدختر	56
19	صدیقه          نجفی	ناحیه2خرم آباد	54
20	غلا محسین     پاپی	ازنا	52
21	شکیبا	دورود	46
22	مصطفی        پاپی	چگنی	45
23	فهیمه          رضایی	نورآباد	44
24	ملک مراد     مرادی	ویسیان	41
25	شرفی	چغلوندی	39
26	عباس          آروانه	زاغه	35

لازم بذکر است که حداکثر امتیاز 80 بوده است.

1-از هر منطقه 2 سوال مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است. (از ناحیه2خرم آباد با نظر سر گروه آن ناحیه  دو نمونه سوال مورد بررسی قرار گرفته است.)

2-اوراقی که مشخصات طراح و اسم منطقه را نداشت مورد بررسی قرارنگرفته است .

 

گروه زبان انگلیسی استان لرستان

+ نوشته شده در  پنجشنبه سی ام فروردین 1386ساعت 0:0  توسط گروه آموزشی زبان انگلیسی   | نظر بدهید

 

  

 

 

Grammar contrasts 1

Home | Contact | Help | About

Free Resources
Teacher Support
Jobs
Lesson Share
Magazine
Forum
Exams
Business & ESP
Grammar & Vocab
Skills
Young Learners
ESOL-ESL

		Ask the authors | Teacher's tips | Teaching with minimal resources | Methodology | Useful links
		ARTICLES > Grammar contrasts 1

Ask the Authors - Grammar

Grammar contrasts 1

Could you explain to me the difference between 'used to' and 'would' describing regular past actions or states which are no longer true. I don't see any, but I've read in Reward Intermediate that there IS some difference. Unfortunately I didn't understand the explanation.

Natalia Busorgina

---

Tim Bowen co-author of Inside Teaching

‘USED TO’ and ‘WOULD’

1.       Both ‘used to’ and ‘would’ can be used to describe repeated actions in the past. They are virtually interchangeable, but from the point of view of style, it could be argued that ‘would’ is slightly more formal, more ‘bookish’ and can convey the idea that the speaker is reminiscing about the past. It is often used in writing to talk about the past in a misty-eyed, sentimental way. For example:

When I was young I used to go fishing.

I used to have a cat.

My grandfather would always smoke his pipe after dinner.

People would get very angry when the tax-collector came to town.

Further examples of ‘would’ used in this way are:

In those days people would draw water from the village well.

When I was a child I would wake up to the sound of birds singing.

2.       Neither ‘used to’ nor ‘would’ can be used to refer to single actions in the past. For example, it would not be possible to use either form in this sentence:

In 1992 I moved from London to Leeds.

3.       ‘Used to’ can also be used to describe past states, with verbs such as ‘be’, ‘have’ and ‘live’. For example:

I used to live in France.

He used to have a beard.

This building used to be a hotel.

4.       ‘Would’ cannot normally be used in such sentences, unless the state is repeated and qualified by an adverb such as ‘often’. For example:

When I was a student, I would often have a beard.

This suggests that the state was repeated several times over a period of years, but it is a highly restricted use of ‘would’.

5.       ‘Used to’ cannot be used to refer to specific restricted periods in the past. For example:

In September 1991 I used to live in Paris

This sentence is incorrect and the past simple should be used.

Perhaps the best practical advice to the questioner is that ‘used to’ is generally correct when referring to repeated actions in the past and to past states, whereas ‘would’ is often inappropriate. ‘Would’ in this sense is possibly best left to the written language.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Useful Links

Teacher Support in the Forum

Teacher Support in the Magazine

Macmillan English Campus
The e-learning destination for teachers and students

Language Games CDROM Challenging to play, highly motivating and lots of fun!

Learning Teaching
Addresses the most important, challenging and interesting situations of the English classroom

Teaching Practice
An essential reference book for EFL teachers and trainers on pre-service courses

The Web

English Teaching Professional

The British Council

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2005 Macmillan Publishers

 

 

Grammar contrasts 1

Home | Contact | Help | About

Free Resources
Teacher Support
Jobs
Lesson Share
Magazine
Forum
Exams
Business & ESP
Grammar & Vocab
Skills
Young Learners
ESOL-ESL

		Ask the authors | Teacher's tips | Teaching with minimal resources | Methodology | Useful links
		ARTICLES > Grammar contrasts 1

Ask the Authors - Grammar

Grammar contrasts 1

Could you explain to me the difference between 'used to' and 'would' describing regular past actions or states which are no longer true. I don't see any, but I've read in Reward Intermediate that there IS some difference. Unfortunately I didn't understand the explanation.

Natalia Busorgina

---

Tim Bowen co-author of Inside Teaching

‘USED TO’ and ‘WOULD’

1.       Both ‘used to’ and ‘would’ can be used to describe repeated actions in the past. They are virtually interchangeable, but from the point of view of style, it could be argued that ‘would’ is slightly more formal, more ‘bookish’ and can convey the idea that the speaker is reminiscing about the past. It is often used in writing to talk about the past in a misty-eyed, sentimental way. For example:

When I was young I used to go fishing.

I used to have a cat.

My grandfather would always smoke his pipe after dinner.

People would get very angry when the tax-collector came to town.

Further examples of ‘would’ used in this way are:

In those days people would draw water from the village well.

When I was a child I would wake up to the sound of birds singing.

2.       Neither ‘used to’ nor ‘would’ can be used to refer to single actions in the past. For example, it would not be possible to use either form in this sentence:

In 1992 I moved from London to Leeds.

3.       ‘Used to’ can also be used to describe past states, with verbs such as ‘be’, ‘have’ and ‘live’. For example:

I used to live in France.

He used to have a beard.

This building used to be a hotel.

4.       ‘Would’ cannot normally be used in such sentences, unless the state is repeated and qualified by an adverb such as ‘often’. For example:

When I was a student, I would often have a beard.

This suggests that the state was repeated several times over a period of years, but it is a highly restricted use of ‘would’.

5.       ‘Used to’ cannot be used to refer to specific restricted periods in the past. For example:

In September 1991 I used to live in Paris

This sentence is incorrect and the past simple should be used.

Perhaps the best practical advice to the questioner is that ‘used to’ is generally correct when referring to repeated actions in the past and to past states, whereas ‘would’ is often inappropriate. ‘Would’ in this sense is possibly best left to the written language.

Top of Form

Bottom of Form

Useful Links

Teacher Support in the Forum

Teacher Support in the Magazine

Macmillan English Campus
The e-learning destination for teachers and students

Language Games CDROM Challenging to play, highly motivating and lots of fun!

Learning Teaching
Addresses the most important, challenging and interesting situations of the English classroom

Teaching Practice
An essential reference book for EFL teachers and trainers on pre-service courses

The Web

English Teaching Professional

The British Council

 

 

 

 

Copyright © 2005 Macmillan Publishers

 

 

How to talk about a poem

 

Learning how to talk about poetry and being able to interpret what poems mean is not the easiest thing in the world to do. To help you get better at it, I have developed this page. When discussing a poem two areas must be considered: meaning and mechanics.

 

·                                       Meaning

·                                       Mechanics

First, consider the meaning of the poem.

 

1.                                                            Paraphrase all the portions of the poem.

2.                                                            Precis the poem--either line by line or stanza by stanza.

3.                                                            Is there symbolism used in the poem? (If there is symbolism, understanding it is the key to understanding the poem.)

4.                                                            Is the poem lyric or narrative?

 

To paraphrase the poem:

5.                                                            Look at the title. What significance does the title have in connection with the meaning of the poem?

6.                                                            Read the poem as a whole.

7.                                                            Read the poem stanza by stanza (if appropriate.)

8.                                                            Paraphrase the poem line by line.

9.                                                            Break the lines down word by word if necessary. Substitue familiar words with ones you use every day.

 

Helpful Hints!

10.                                                        Consider punctuation--a period signals the end of a thought, no matter where it is located in a line.

11.                                                        Rewrite sentences in the usual word order if the sentences are arranged in an unfamiliar word order.

Back to the top

Second, consider the mechanics of the poem.

 

12.                                                        Is the poem traditional with rhyme and rhythm? Or is the poem free verse with no set rhythm pattern or rhyme scheme?

13.                                                        How is the poem organized? Does the shape of the poem have anything to do with the meaning?

14.                                                        What poetic devices are used?
(These listed are most common.)
Simile A figure of speech that compares two unlike things, using the words like or as. Metaphor A figure of speech that compares two unlike things directly, without the use of an intervening word. Alliteration The repitition of consonant sounds at the beginning of words. Assonance The repition of vowel sounds in stressed syllables. Personification The assigning of human qualities to nonhuman things. Onomatopoeia The use of words to initiate sounds. Ex--WHIZZ ConsonanceThe repetition of consonant sounds in stressed syllables. ApostropheThe poet directly address an absent person or object or idea.

15.                                                        What is the tone of the author?

16.                                                        What mood does the poem create?

Back to the top

Definitions

o                                                              Paraphrase Restatement in different/other words. Back

o                                                              Precis Concise Summary. Back

o                                                              Symbolism The use of an object to represent an idea. Back

o                                                              Lyric Poems with a song like quality that are usually short. Poet expresses his personal reaction to things. Back

o                                                              Narrative Poems that tell a story and are usually long. An example would be an epic or a ballad. Back

o                                                              Mood The overall feeling a poem awakens in the reader. Back

o                                                              Tone The writer's attitude torwards his/her work. Back

Back to the top

||| Poetry | Emily Dickinson | Edgar Allan Poe | Elizabeth Barrett and Robert Browning | Favorite Authors | How To Talk About a Poem | How To Talk About a Short Story | Home | Young American Poets | Poetry Links | Anonymous Poetry | Children's Poetry | Links | Joke | JavaScripts | View and Sign Guestbook||| Send comments about this page to [e-mail] |||

 

Demonstrative

Home | Contact | Help | About

Free Resources
Teacher Support
Jobs
Lesson Share
Magazine
Forum
Exams
Business & ESP
Grammar & Vocab
Skills
Young Learners
ESOL-ESL

		Grammar reference | Grammar teaching | Vocabulary lesson plans
		ARTICLES > Demonstratives

Grammar & Vocabulary

Demonstratives
Kerry G. Maxwell and Lindsay Clandfield  

Go to tips and activities

The phrase “What’s this?” has a certain infamy in language teaching (see tips below). But what is this? And what is that, these and those