The Free Dictionary  
mailing list For webmasters
Welcome Guest Forum Search | Active Topics | Members

forceful emotion Options
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 1:17:36 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2016
Posts: 3,362
Neurons: 17,616
An exclamatory sentence is one that expresses a strong or forceful emotion, such as anger, surprise, or joy.
What does "forceful emotion" mean here? I want to learn exclamation to help my son with his SAT exam. Are injections and exclamations the same thing?
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 3:14:49 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 22,252
Neurons: 90,256
I am not entirely sure of the grammar terms (it is ridiculous for young children to be taught the entire grammar terminology - they must spend more time on that than on actually improving their language skills!) - but this is my understanding of it.

A forceful emotion - you can guess at what that means. It is an emotion with force - a strong emotion.

Dislike is not generally a forceful emotion.
I dislike him.

Hatred is a forceful emotion.
I hate you!

Punctuation is not about grammar rules, it is about transcribing what someone says into writing, so you can hear them speak as you read. Hear their tone of voice, their emotional expression.

So a question mark makes your tone rise and your eyebrows rise at the end of the question.

An exclamation mark makes your voice stronger. Your tone rises and falls more. You put more stress on the stressed syllables. Angry, shocked, scared, relieved, ecstatic, whatever the strong emotion is, you can signal it with an exclamation mark. You shout, you thrust your chin forward, you wave your arms - whatever expresses that emotion.

Punctuation is the writer speaking in your ear as you read the words.

I don't like you.
What? Why?
I don't know - I just...
Is it because of what I said? I'm sorry.
"I'm sorry". "I'm sorry"? Is that all you can say?
Yes! I'm sorry, OK? I'm sorry. I'm sorry! How many more times can I apologise?
Ugh! I hate you!

It can change the meaning of the sentence, without changing the words.
Normal tone:
We won
Loud voice, high tone, arms waving in the air:
We won!

Mild emotion:
I'm not happy .

Strong emotion, as your boss or your teenager shouts at you:
I am not happy!

An interjection is a sound or word that does not have meaning except to express emotion.

A goal is scored/ a wicket falls:
Yes! (Stands up, punches air in delight)
No! (Curls body in, clenches fists in frustration)

Since it expresses emotion, it might well have an exclamation mark. But it depends on what it is expressing. The word doesn't control that. The exclamation mark is used by the writer to show you, the reader, the level of emotion or type of emotion they are expressing.

You only use the interjection 'wow' if you are impressed, so it would probably have an exclamation mark.
Wow! That is amazing!

But you could be being sarcastic, so your voice is not raised in strong emotion at all.
Wow, I am impressed. You tidied your room like I asked you to. But I looked under the bed and you have just shoved everything under there. Now go and tidy it properly, and put your things away in the cupboards.
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 3:34:30 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/8/2017
Posts: 2,069
Neurons: 8,079
(it is ridiculous for young children to be taught the entire grammar terminology - they must spend more time on that than on actually improving their language skills!)

Why is it ridiculous?
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 3:50:06 AM
Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/3/2016
Posts: 3,362
Neurons: 17,616
Thanks thar!
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 4:50:03 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 7/8/2010
Posts: 22,252
Neurons: 90,256
Tara2 wrote:
(it is ridiculous for young children to be taught the entire grammar terminology - they must spend more time on that than on actually improving their language skills!)

Why is it ridiculous?

I am talking about the teaching of English in schools in England (the curriculum is different in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland so I am just referring to England).

Schoolchildren used to learn the basics of grammar terminology - nouns, verbs, adverbs, adjectives, participles. Children who spoke English all the time just learnt naturally how sentences are structured and what sounds right. Students studying English language at a more senior level learnt some more technical grammar terminology.

edit- you do need to teach the names of punctuation marks so you can refer to them, so I am not saying teaching that is bad. Just the level of detail that children have been taught grammar has been too much.

But recently the teaching of English has changed so young children are supposed to learn the name of grammatical structures, and the tests for young children include questions where you need to know what it is called. I speak fluent English but there are questions on a test for primary school children I would not be able to answer because I don't know what a 'fronted adverbial' is.

For adult learners maybe that is useful, (though I doubt it) but for young children? It is just another chore to learn complex terms they probably don't understand. They learn by listening and talking and reading and writing.

You don't learn to ride a bike by studying the physics of it - you learn it by riding it - the physics of leaning inwards when you ride round a bend just becomes instinctual.

I think they might have changed the syllabus a bit now because there was such a backlash against the way schools were teaching English.

Pity our children – they’re being turned into grammar robots at school
Gaby Hinsliff

From adverbials to digraphs, the damage done by the government’s imposition of grammatical techniques is now there for all to see
Wed 10 May 2017 07.00 BSTLast modified on Tue 28 Nov 2017 00.31 GMT

‘Writing matters – even for those who will never make a living primarily from it.’

If you have no idea what fronted adverbials or split digraphs mean, beyond thinking that they sound unpleasantly medical, then you almost certainly don’t have a small child. For along with expanded noun phrases and the present perfect, they’re all grammatical terms that children aged 11 and under are required to identify and master as part of a new English curriculum seemingly designed to strangle at birth any love of writing.

These reforms are beginning to look like a recipe for churning out children who can name all the component parts of writing but barely know how to use them, and see vanishingly little pleasure in doing so. This isn’t bringing language to life but dissecting its cold corpse. All of which helps explain why I have read few things more enraging lately than an article in the Guardian analysing just how this indigestible stodge found its way on to the primary school menu.

The panel, assembled by Michael Gove when he was education secretary to advise on his new English curriculum, had little experience of primary education, and was thus “a bit unconfident” about pronouncing on it, according to Dick Hudson, an emeritus professor of linguistics at University College London and a leading panel member. Yet reading this account, one wonders if they were quite unconfident enough. Did Hudson see any evidence that making small children absorb all this grammatical terminology was developmentally appropriate? “No, there was no evidence, and we were guessing.” Just guessing! And while he still believes they guessed right, a groundswell of opinion among teachers, parents and even some of his fellow experts suggests otherwise.

Last week the education select committee concluded that the evidence did not show that teaching specific grammatical techniques improved writing; and it recommended that the new Spag – spelling, punctuation and grammar – tests should no longer be mandatory for older primary schoolchildren.
Geoff Barton, the incoming head of the Association of School and College Leaders and another panel member, has described the tests as woeful. Ask around any school gate, and the adjectives are less polite. Whoever is education secretary after June will face growing pressure to act.

I’m all for spelling tests and timetables, and being taught to put a full stop or apostrophe in the right place is hardly the stuff of educational oppression. Nor is it automatically a cause for alarm if children seem to be learning things that my generation never did, or grappling with the value of pi or the meaning of photosynthesis at a rather earlier age. That’s progress for you.

But as a parent and a writer, my gut feeling is that something is very wrong here. It’s not Sats per se that is the problem – although it obviously makes sense to minimise the stress – or even the inevitable “teaching to the test”. It’s whether what is being tested and taught actually does children any good. For what they are learning right now is that if they cram in the right number of semicolons and manage to write tidily they will get the marks, more or less regardless of what they’re saying; and that telling a story or making the words sing from the page doesn’t really matter by comparison.

This isn’t writing but a box-ticking exercise as frustrating for more able writers as it is torture for those who struggle. One anonymous secondary school English teacher interviewed this week described children breaking down in tears when asked to produce a piece of creative writing because they didn’t know where to start.

One English teacher described children breaking down in tears when asked to produce a piece of creative writing
edit - what school can think this is a good way to teach? Ignore the tests - they don't matter. Care about the children, not your school stats. d'oh!

It’s a rare child who will become a novelist, of course, and so there’s often an unspoken assumption that creative writing doesn’t really matter – or at least not in the way that maths or science does. But if anything, it’s the visible leap forward in maths teaching since I was at school, and the way maths has filtered into popular culture, that makes me sad for what English is becoming.

Numbers were never my thing. But watching Hidden Figures, the recent film about three pioneering black women mathematicians working for Nasa, for once I wished that they had been. It showed me that maths is also a language – one that can be used, just as words can, to describe and push at the limits of the known world.

But that film was based on a book, which in turn needed a scriptwriter to bring it alive for the screen. Scientists will increasingly need ways of explaining themselves to a questioning public while storytelling, creative thinking and communication skills are increasingly important to technology companies. In short, writing matters – even for those who will never make a living primarily from it. Killing children’s enthusiasm for writing is a mistake we will live to regret.

From The Guardian, a respected UK newspaper.
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 5:26:48 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 11/8/2017
Posts: 2,069
Neurons: 8,079
Thank you so much, thar!
I am glade we don't have to learn these Whistle
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 10:33:09 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/19/2011
Posts: 13,927
Neurons: 66,503
This "indigestible stodge" touches on what has been happening increasingly at the college where I work. The instructors are becoming increasingly aggravated at the constant addition of "new and improved" ideas coming from Deans, administrators, and "experts" which add to the work load, but do nothing to increase the knowledge of the students. The real result is to overload the student, making it more difficult to learn the really important material.

But those who sit in the exalted positions only have to dream and imagine results, not actually achieve them. So having fantasized a marvelous outcome, they command the implementation of new systems and programs that those who have to carry them out, find tedious, tiresome, and too often, useless. But they use it to justify their salaries. They somehow feel they must constantly come up with new ideas. What worked in the past is not good enough, even though it brought us fabulous achievements. This is the result of hiring people who have not done the work, but merely are selected because of diplomas, nepotism, or to fill positions such as "education secretary", but who know nothing about how to educate. This has to change.
Posted: Saturday, November 16, 2019 11:10:26 AM

Rank: Advanced Member

Joined: 9/12/2011
Posts: 34,091
Neurons: 222,843
Location: Livingston, Scotland, United Kingdom
The idea of choosing a Professor of Linguistics and his ilk to choose the syllabus for primary school English (rather than a panel of notably successful primary school teachers) astounds me!

I realise we are a long way off the original subject . . . but maybe not. We definitely have some forceful emotions here.

It is reminiscent of another topic I saw recently on another forum - a very well-educated person (from another country) who wouldn't believe that Shakespeare's plays were meant as entertainment - he was certain they were designed as educational exercises in English, because that was the only way they had been introduced at school.
Users browsing this topic

Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.