Newsgroup: it.cultura.linguistica.inglese
Titolo: Tests and exercises

I've just picked up a book titled "How English Works" by M. Swan and C. 
Walter. Adam made the first name very famous on this ng.
The book starts with some multiple choice entry questions divided into 
three groups: basic points, intermediate points and advanced points.
As always, I think there are some errors or ambiguities.
For instance, the second question of the basic points is this:
Choose the correct answer(s). One or more answers may be correct.
[..]
2) I like ... small animals.
A) the
B) -- (nothing)
C) every
d) all
Solution: B,D.
My answer: A,B,D.
For instance:
- Look there! All the animals in the contest have been divided into 
three groups according to their size. The big animals to the left look 
magnificent!
- I like the small animals.
Why not?
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:473ae98c$0$36439$4faf...@reader5.news.tin.it...

If I am asked what size animals I like, I might answer "I like small
animals". If I were shown a group of animals and were asked which ones I
liked, I might answer "I like the small animals on the left". If someone
asks what I like about Italy, I might say "I like the narrow streets (in
Italy) and the outdoor cafés (in Italy)". Your example is assuming something
not implied in the original question. If someone asks a very general
question like "What kind of fruit do you like", and the answer is "I like
the apples" or "I like the green apples" instead of "I like apples" or "I
like green apples", the speaker would most likely be a non-native speaker. I
think the authors are trying to make this point. Maybe they go into this in
more detail on the next page?
«To say 'You know which I mean', we put the before a noun.
I've been to the doctor. (You know which one: my doctor.)
Have you fed the dogs? (You know which ones I mean.)»
("Practical English Usage", 62)
Joe from Massachusetts

 Why not?
Because... l'esercizio proponeva una frase isolata, non nel contesto del
tuo esempio.
-- 

 more detail on the next page?
As I said, these are general entry tests. The explanation could be on 
page 130 for what I know. But all this is irrelevant. A test is correct 
or incorrect independently of the intention of the authors.
Kiuhnm

 tuo esempio.
Ok.
"I like the small animals".
This sentence is isolated and equally correct.
In fact you'll find out that is virtually impossible to give a 
definition and connotation of "isolated sentence".
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:473b1608$0$36440$4faf...@reader5.news.tin.it...

Since no particular animal is singled out in the vague and simple statement
"I like...animals", the use of "the" would be ruled out. You are envisioning
a myriad of potential contexts, where no context at all is supplied by the
authors of the test.
Joe from Massachusetts

 authors of the test.
What you're saying is illogical. If no context is given then that 
sentence is meaningless. When you say "in general", you're considering a 
context. Because, as I said, the exercise would be absurd, I've 
interpreted the absence of an explicit context (whatever it means) as an 
invitation to consider all the sentences that are correct in at least a 
context.
Like I said to Enrico, there are neither "isolated sentences" nor 
"general contexts". Those are totally arbitrary concepts.
But we can plausibly say that a(n isolated) sentence is correct iff it 
can occur in some context.
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:473b1d44$0$36452$4faf...@reader5.news.tin.it...

I think you're avoiding the point the testers are trying to make, namely
that inserting "the" in the simple statement "I like ... animals" is a
pitfall which confronts students of English. By using "the" you are
qualifying the statement.
A) the   Points to a specific group of animals, already mentioned, but no
such group has been mentioned
B) -- (nothing)  The phrase stands on its own.
C) every    Mismatched number.
d) all   A simple statement. If it were "all the", it would be wrong (same
as A)
Joe from Massachusetts

 definition and connotation of "isolated sentence".
What really is impossible is trying to apply boolean algebra to a
language like you do.
This is English, not maths.
-- 
pinko(at)
people.it

 such group has been mentioned
I think that when you say "already mentioned" you're oversimplifying the 
matter. It's not difficult to imagine a situation when that sentence (A) 
could stand alone. It's only less probable.
One can't (or at least shouldn't) twist and stretch reality just to make 
a point. One should just try another way (giving some context would be a 
good idea).
Secondly, the text doesn't say that those sentences must stand on their 
own.
Kiuhnm

 This is English, not maths.
You're missing the point, IMHO. If I interpret a text in one way, you 
can't tell me that I'm wrong only because the majority of people thinks 
differently. You were lazy and vague? Your fault.
Kiuhnm

 wrote in message
news:473b8541$0$17941$4faf...@reader1.news.tin.it...

To me it seems clear that the testers are trying to bring to the fore one of
the most common errors of foreigners regarding the use of "the". I have
often been involved in exchanges such as: "I like trees and flowers. How
about you?" "I like the trees and the flowers also."  Even when directly
prompted with the correct form, it is hard for some to drop the article.
Perhaps by this perceived ambiguity, they have gotten your attention, which
was their purpose.
Joe from Massachusetts

 You're missing the point, IMHO.
I don't think so.
-- 
pinko(at)
people.it

 was their purpose.
There is a minor problem though: I could be misled into thinking that 
'A' is always wrong. Other workbooks provide passages and ask the 
student to fill in the blanks. That's a more sensible approach, IMHO.
Kiuhnm

 student to fill in the blanks. That's a more sensible approach, IMHO.
To me it just seems you're being a little stubborn in wanting to find a flaw 
that just isn't there. 8-)
Laz 


Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Kiuhnm

Kiuhnm wrote:

Saranno pure concetti arbitrari, ma sono convenzioni ovvie in un esercizio
di grammatica. Una frase isolata, in un esercizio, sta a indicare una frase
che si regge da sola.
-- 

Kiuhnm wrote:

Naturalmente. Però mi pare che anche in altri thread hai commesso quello
che secondo me è un errore, cioè non valutare il sistema di convenzioni,
abbastanza ovvie, su cui si basano gli esercizi di grammatica.
E' palese che nella realtà qualsiasi frase potrebbe rivendicare un qualche
diritto all'esistenza, persino la frase "Qejk qeik kla juxx spepsk" che mi
sono appena inventato in maniera semi-random. A maggior ragione potrei
esclamare all'improvviso, rompendo il silenzio, "I like the animals!", e
poi tacere per sempre, volendo con ciò sottintendere il mio disprezzo per
gli uomini ai quali preferisco gli animali (non umani)... ;D
In una lingua, però, e nel mondo degli esercizi di grammatica in
particolare, si pongono in essere delle convenzioni, generalmente
comprensibili da chi parla una certa lingua, tali che una certa frase possa
essere catalogata come corretta o non corretta.

 particolare, si pongono in essere delle convenzioni, [..]
I must have been absent the day they were distributing those conventions.
My reasoning is very simple. I considered each possibility one by one 
and ruled out the ones that can never occur. Is A possible? Yes. Is B 
possible? Yes. Is C possible? No. Is D possible? Yes. So my answer is A, 
B, D.
After all, the only thing the authors say is "Choose the correct 
answer(s). One or *more* answers may be correct.".
I believe your reasoning must be something like: let's see... I like ... 
small animals... all small animals... I can't think of anything else, 
then ok, B and D.
Fortunately for you (I mean it), 99% of the people think the same way. 
To me what you call an error of mine seems a failing in your logics or a 
lack of thoroughness. But there's no need to start a war for this, right?
Kiuhnm

 che si regge da sola.
So "a horse" has no color otherwise I would have said "a white horse".
And don't tell me that's a horse of a different color.
If you say "I saw John" then John was alone otherwise you would have 
said "I saw John and many other people".
When I read or examine something I *always* consider the general case 
and then apply the restrictions, if any.
Instead you consider some particular cases and call them "the general case".
Kiuhnm

 Walter. Adam made the first name very famous on this ng.
Non so bene perché, ma questo thread mi ha fatto tornare alla mente un
meraviglioso dialogo sulla lingua di Fry & Laurie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHQ2756cyD8
Qui il testo:
http://www.languagehat.com/archives/002692.php
-- 
Ciao,
Anna

 I must have been absent the day they were distributing those conventions.
Credo che le conosca anche tu, in realtà, ma ti piace sollevare il punto di
principio. Da un punto di vista logico, hai ragione: l'universo degli
esercizi di grammatica ha regole proprie mai esplicitate e prendendoli alla
lettera solo per quello che è scritto si potrebbe arrivare a risultati
paradossali. Da un punto di vista pratico, però, sai anche tu come funziona
il gioco. :)

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHQ2756cyD8
ROTFL!
Ciao,
Enrico il Pentolaio.
-- 
"Solo che filosofare oggi, così ridotti come siamo, è come in una gelida 
giornata d'inverno farsi addosso una pisciatina per sentire un po' di 
teporino..." (Giorgio Gaber) 

 il gioco. :)
One day I'll publish my own logic-proof grammar workbook and I'll kick 
your asses! :)
Kiuhnm

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHQ2756cyD8
We are more and more on the same wavelength... :-) 

 Sono implicite e generalmente comprese dai più.
That's actually Kiuhnm's problem: wanting to study a language as
if he were studying set theory. It doesn't really work like that.. 

 Kiuhnm
LOL :-D
Good luck!
-- 
pinko(at)
people.it

 and I'll kick your asses! :)
Totally!
:-D


 if he were studying set theory. It doesn't really work like that.. 
BTW, any set theory novel anyone?
Kiuhnm

 language like you do.
1 + 1 = 1
Cheers,
Enrico il Pentolaio.
-- 
"Tonight's the night. And it's going to happen again, and again. It has to 
happen; nice night." 

 1 + 1 = 1
The ironic thing is that I was talking of category theory with two 
mathematicians and I said something like this: "Consider the arrows 
between two objects A and B. If [..]". Because every arrow is 
directional, we usually say "arrow from A to B", so they didn't 
understand that with "between" I was referring to both directions, that 
is to the arrows (there can be many) from A to B *and* those from B to 
A. At last they told me: "You cannot apply the rules of English to math!".
Kiuhnm