TPRS

Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from TPRS)
Jump to: navigation, search
Teaching Proficiency through Reading and Storytelling , formerly known as Total Physical Response Storytelling, or TPRS for short, is a method for teaching any world language, including Spanish and French. Blaine Ray created this method by combining James Asher's Total Physical Response system with personalized, often funny stories to help students apply the words learned. These stories are complemented with reading from a variety of sources. Blaine Ray is a Spanish teacher whose philosophy is that "Learning is a function of repetition."

TPRS is a movement towards building language proficiency in the use of grammatical structures through reading stories in addition to the oral storytelling for which TPRS is well-known. Originally incorporating seven basic steps, TPRS, according to Ray, has three main steps to the process:

STEP 1: Establish Meaning. This is done primarily by translation from a speakers native language to the target language.
STEP 2: Ask a story. Using a general outline of a story, the instructor asks students to provide specific details. This allows students to make it their own. At the same time a circling technique of asking questions, and repeating phrases results in multiple repetitions of the target structures.
STEP 3: Read and discuss the story, or a different story which contains the grammar structures from STEP 2, but different details.

TPRS is based on the importance of comprehensible input as the key factor in developing fluency in the target language and is supported by Dr. Stephen Krashen's research. Another very important element of TPRS is personalization. Using the language as a means to get to know students and to get them interested in the message is an effective way of delivering input that is both comprehensible and interesting.

Blaine Ray started a second company teaching adults languages through TPRS in 2004 following a successful study at Middle Tennessee State University. Fluency Fast Language Classes, Inc. is a company which offers language immersion classes using the TPRS method. 4 day language immersion classes are available nationwide in Spanish, French, German, Russian, Mandarin Chinese and Arabic. The company is now owned by Karen Rowan, a TPRS teacher from Colorado.

In 1999, a group of Michigan teachers including Michael Kundrat, Kristy Placido, Kathleen Bulger, and Sue Steele were the first members of an online community for TPRS teachers. The group is called moreTPRS and is housed at yahoogroups. The list has grown to over 5000 members worldwide and has been credited with the organic and dynamic nature of TPRS as a teaching method. He has also written a series of books.


[edit] External links
fluencyfast.com
TPRS Publishing
Blaine Ray
Susan Gross
Jason Fritze
Scott Benedict
Dr. Stephen Krashen
Michael Miller

whole language

Whole language describes a literacy instructional philosophy which emphasizes that children should focus on meaning and moderates skill instruction. It can be contrasted with phonics-based methods of teaching reading and writing which emphasize instruction for reading and spelling[1]. It has drawn criticism by those who advocate "back to basics" pedagogy [2].


Whole language is a phenomenon that has been difficult to describe, particularly because many of its advocates have somewhat divergent perspectives about the core content of this instructional approach. Several strands run through most iterations of whole language:

steadfast focus on making meaning in reading and expressing meaning in writing;
constructivist approaches to knowledge creation, emphasizing students' interpretations of text and free expression of ideas in writing (often through daily journal entries).
emphasis on high-quality and culturally-diverse literature;
integrating literacy skills into other areas of the curriculum, especially math, science, and social studies;
frequent reading, (a) with students in small "guided reading" groups, (b) to students with "read alouds", and (c) by students independently;
focus on motivational aspects of literacy, emphasizing the love of books and level-appropriate student materials;
meaning-based phonics, often taught as an "embedded" part of other reading lessons; and
reduced emphasis on other skills, besides phonics, that are usually not linked directly to developing meaning, such as grammar, spelling, capitalization and punctuation.

[edit] Underlying premises of whole language

[edit] Learning theory
The idea of "whole" language has its basis in a range of theories of learning related to the epistemologies called "holism." Holism is based upon the belief that it is not possible to understand learning of any kind by analyzing small chunks of the learning system. Holism was very much a response to behaviorism, which emphasized that the world could be understood by experimenting with stimuli and responses. Holists considered this a reductionist perspective that did not recognize that "the whole is greater than the sum of its parts." Analyzing individual behaviors, holists argued, could never tell us how the entire human mind worked. This is—in simplified terms—the theoretical basis for the term "whole language."


[edit] Chomsky and Goodman
The whole language approach to phonics grew out of Noam Chomsky's conception of linguistic development. Chomsky believed that humans have a natural language capacity, that we are built to communicate through words. This idea developed a large following in the 1960s. In 1967, Ken Goodman wrote a widely-cited article calling reading a "psycholinguistic guessing game" and chiding educators for attempting to apply unnecessary orthographic order to a process that relied on holistic examination of words.[3] Goodman posited the existence of three "cuing systems" that regulate literacy development. These cuing systems are the graphophonemic cuing system, the semantic cuing system, and the syntactic cuing system, related to the linguistic domains of phonetics, semantics, and syntax respectively. The "graph" portion of the "graphophonemic" system referred to the graphic input, i.e., the text. According to Goodman, these systems overlap and work in tandem to help readers "guess" appropriately. He emphasized that pronouncing individual words will involve the use of all three systems (letter clues, meaning clues from context, and syntactical structure of the sentence). Part of his rationale was that in his studies of children who read words individually and then the same words in connected text, the children did better when they read the words in connected text. Later replications of the experiment failed to find effects, however, when children did not read the same words in connected text immediately after reading them individually, as they had in Goodman's experiment.[4]


[edit] Application of Goodman's theory
Goodman's argument was compelling to educators as a way of thinking about beginning reading and literacy more broadly. This led to the idea that reading and writing were ideas that should be considered as wholes, learned by experience and exposure more than analysis and didactic instruction. This largely accounts for the focus on time spent reading, especially independent reading. Many classrooms (whole language or otherwise) include silent reading time, sometimes called DEAR ("Drop Everything And Read") time or SSR (sustained silent reading). Some versions of this independent reading time include a structured role for the teacher, especially Reader's Workshop. Despite the popularity of the extension of Chomsky's linguistic ideas to literacy, neurological and experimental research has shown that reading, unlike language, is not a pre-programmed human skill. It must be learned. Dr. Sally Shaywitz, a neurologist at Yale University, is credited with much of the research on the neurological structures of reading.


[edit] Contrasts with phonics
Because of this holistic emphasis, whole language is contrasted with skill-based areas of instruction, especially phonics. Phonics is a commonly-used technique for teaching students to read. Phonics instruction tends to emphasize attention to the individual components of words, for example, the phonemes /k/, /æ/, and /t/ are represented by the graphemes c, a, and t. Because they de-emphasize the individual parts of learning, tending to focus on the larger context, whole language proponents do not favor some types of phonics instruction. Interestingly, some whole language advocates state that they do teach, and believe in, phonics, especially a type of phonics known as embedded phonics. In embedded phonics, letters are taught during other lessons focused on meaning and the phonics component is considered a "minilesson." Instruction in embedded phonics typically emphasizes the consonants and the short vowels, as well as letter combinations called rimes or phonograms. The use of this embedded phonics model is called a "whole-part-whole" approach because, consistent with holistic thinking, students read the text for meaning first (whole), then examine some features of the phonics system (part) and finally use their new knowledge to read stories (whole). Reading Recovery is a program that uses a whole language approach with struggling readers.

The contrast with skills-based approaches to reading also led to an approach to spelling called "invented spelling" or "inventive spelling." This generated considerable controversy in the public domain (see more discussion of controversies in the subsequent section) because parents, as well as some educators, were concerned that their children were not learning to spell well. Many whole language advocates argued that children went through stages of spelling development and that it was important to appreciate students' attempts to make meaning rather than harp on little mistakes. Popularly, invented spelling has been vilified by some, although little research has been done about the consequences of this shift away from spelling.


[edit] Controversy
Whole language remains very popular is some parts of the United States and other countries, but its use has tended to wane over the past few years.


[edit] Rise of Whole Language and skepticism
After its introduction by Goodman, whole language rose in popularity dramatically. It became a major educational paradigm of the late 1980s and the 1990s. Despite its popularity during this period, educators who believed that skill instruction was important for students' learning and some researchers in education were skeptical of whole language claims and said so loudly. Whether it was associated with whole language or not, the 1990s saw statistically-significant declines in student achievement nationwide on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Much of the blame for these declines was pinned on whole language. Throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s, whole language skeptics generated considerable research that cast considerable doubt on features of whole language that de-emphasized skills, especially in phonics.


[edit] Efforts to end the debate
Controversy led to several attempts to catalog research on the efficacy of phonics and whole language. Congress commissioned reading expert Marilyn Jager Adams to write a definitive book on the topic. She determined that phonics was important but suggested that some elements of the whole language approach were helpful.[5] Two large scale efforts, In 1998 by the National Research Council's Commission on Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children[6] and in 2000 by the National Reading Panel,[7] catalogued the most important elements of a reading program. While proponents of whole language find the latter to be controversial, both panels found that phonics instruction of varying kinds, especially analytic and synthetic phonics, contributed positively to students' ability to read. Both panels also found that embedded phonics and no phonics contributed to lower rates of achievement for most populations of students.


[edit] The State of the Debate
Despite these results, many whole language advocates continue to argue that their approach, including embedded phonics, has been shown to improve student achievement. Whole language advocates sometimes criticize advocates of skill instruction as "reductionist" and describe the use of phonics as "word calling" because it does not involve the use of meaning. The National Reading Panel is criticized especially harshly by some in the whole language community for failing to include qualitative research designs that showed benefits for embedded phonics (the panel only considered experiments and quasi-experiments).


[edit] Common Ground (Possibly)

[edit] Widely agreed value of some whole language constructs
While rancor continues, much of whole language's emphasis on quality literature, cultural diversity, and reading in groups and to students is widely supported by the educational community. The importance of motivation, long a central focus of whole language approaches, has gained more attention in the broader educational community in the last few years. Prominent critic of whole language Louisa Cook Moats has argued, however, that the foci on quality literature, diversity, reading groups, and motivation are not the sole property of whole language.[8] She, and others, contend these components of instruction are supported by those who favor phonics as well.


[edit] Balanced Literacy
More recently, "balanced literacy" has been suggested as an integrative approach, taking the best elements of both whole language and phonics, something advocated by Adams in 1990. The New York Public School system has adopted balanced literacy as its literacy curriculum. Despite the attempts to find some common ground here, some critics of whole language have suggested that "balanced literacy" is just the disingenuous recasting of the very same whole language with obfuscating new terminology. Equally vociferously, the whole language advocates have railed against the National Reading Panel. Allington went so far as to use the term "big brother" to describe the government's role in the reading debate.[9]

Despite the absence of closure on these issues, emphasis on outcomes arising from No Child Left Behind has brought a resurgence of interest in phonics. Whole language has lost some influence in the 2000s.

Audio-Lingual Method

Audio-Lingual Method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The Audio-Lingual Method, or the Army Method or also the New Key[1], is a style of teaching used in teaching foreign languages. It is based on behaviorist ideology, which professes that certain traits of living things, and in this case humans, could be trained through a system of reinforcement—correct use of a trait would receive positive feedback while incorrect use of that trait would receive negative feedback.

This approach to language learning was similar to another, earlier method called the Direct Method. Like the Direct Method, the Audio-Lingual Method advised that students be taught a language directly, without using the students' native language to explain new words or grammar in the target language. However, unlike the Direct Method, the Audiolingual Method didn’t focus on teaching vocabulary. Rather, the teacher drilled students in the use of grammar.

Applied to language instruction, and often within the context of the language lab, this means that the instructor would present the correct model of a sentence and the students would have to repeat it. The teacher would then continue by presenting new words for the students to sample in the same structure. In audio-lingualism, there is no explicit grammar instruction—everything is simply memorized in form. The idea is for the students to practice the particular construct until they can use it spontaneously. In this manner, the lessons are built on static drills in which the students have little or no control on their own output; the teacher is expecting a particular response and not providing that will result in a student receiving negative feedback. This type of activity, for the foundation of language learning, is in direct opposition with communicative language teaching.

Charles Fries, the director of the English Language Institute at the University of Michigan, the first of its kind in the United States, believed that learning structure, or grammar was the starting point for the student. In other words, it was the students’ job to orally recite the basic sentence patterns and grammatical structures. The students were only given “enough vocabulary to make such drills possible.” (Richards, J.C. et-al. 1986). Fries later included principles for behavioural psychology, as developed by B.F. Skinner, into this method.

Contents [hide]
1 Example
2 Historical Roots
3 In Practice
4 Fall from popularity
5 Today
6 References
7 External links



[edit] Example
“Teacher: There's a cup on the table ... repeat
Students: There's a cup on the table
Teacher: Spoon
Students: There's a spoon on the table
Teacher: Book
Students: There's a book on the table
Teacher: On the chair
Students: There's a book on the chair
etc.”[2]


[edit] Historical Roots
The Audio-lingual method is the product of three historical circumstances. For its views on language, audiolingualism drew on the work of American linguists such as Leonard Bloomfield. The prime concern of American Linguistics at the early decades of the 20th century had been to document all the indigenous languages spoken in the USA. However, because of the dearth of trained native teachers who would provide a theoretical description of the native languages, linguists had to rely on observation. For the same reason, a strong focus on oral language was developed. At the same time, behaviourist psychologists such as B.F. Skinner were forming the belief that all behaviour (including language) was learnt through repetition and positive or negative reinforcement. The third factor that enabled the birth of the Audio-lingual method was the outbreak of World War II, which created the need to post large number of American servicemen all over the world. It was therefore necessary to provide these soldiers with at least basic verbal communication skills. Unsurprisingly, the new method relied on the prevailing scientific methods of the time, observation and repetition, which were also admirably suited to teaching en masse. Because of the influence of the military, early versions of the audio-lingualism came to be known as the “army method.”[1].


[edit] In Practice
As mentioned, lessons in the classroom focus on the correct imitation of the teacher by the students. Not only are the students expected to produce the correct output, but attention is also paid to correct pronunciation. Although correct grammar is expected in usage, no explicit grammatical instruction is given. Furthermore, the target language is the only language to be used in the classroom.[1] Modern day implementations are more lax on this last requirement.


[edit] Fall from popularity
In the late 1950s, the theoretical underpinnings of the method were questioned by linguists such as Noam Chomsky, who pointed out the limitations of structural linguistics. The relevance of behaviorist psychology to language learning was also questioned, most famously by Chomsky's review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior in 1959. The audio-lingual method was thus deprived of its scientific credibility and it was only a matter of time before the effectiveness of the method itself was questioned.

In 1964, Wilga Rivers released a critique of the method in her book, “The Psychologist and the Foreign Language Teacher.“ Subsequent research by others, inspired by her book, produced results which showed explicit grammatical instruction in the mother language to be more productive.[citation needed] These developments, coupled with the emergence of humanist pedagogy led to a rapid decline in the popularity of audiolingualism.


[edit] Today
Despite being discredited as an effective teaching methodology in the 1960s, audio-lingualism continues to be used today, although it is typically not used as the foundation of a course, but rather, has been relegated to use in individual lessons. As it continues to be used, it also continues to gain criticism, as Jeremy Harmer notes, “Audio-lingual methodology seems to banish all forms of language processing that help students sort out new language information in their own minds.” As this type of lesson is very teacher centered, it is a popular methodology for both teachers and students, perhaps for several reasons but in particular, because the input and output is restricted and both parties know what to expect.

direct method

Direct Method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
The direct method, sometimes also called natural method, is a method for teaching foreign languages that refrains from using the learners' native language and just uses the target language. It was established in Germany and France around 1900. Characteristic features of the direct method are

teaching vocabulary through pantomiming, realia and other visuals
teaching grammar by using an inductive approach (i.e. having learners find out rules through the presentation of adequate linguistic forms in the target language)
centrality of spoken language (including a native-like pronunciation)
focus on question-answer patterns
teacher-centeredness



Contents [hide]
1 Principles
2 Historical Context
3 See also
4 References



[edit] Principles
1) Classroom instructions are conducted exclusively in the target language.
2) Only EVERYDAY VOCABULARY and sentences are taught. (The language is made real.)
3) Oral communication skills are built up in a carefully graded progression organized around question-and-answer exchanges between teachers and students in small, intensive classes.
4) Grammar is taught INDUCTIVELY.
5) New teaching points are introduced orally.
6) Concrete vocabulary is taught through demonstration, objects, and pic­tures; abstract vocabulary is taught by association of ideas.
7) Both SPEECH and LISTENING comprehensions are taught.
8) Correct pronunciation and grammar are emphasized.






[edit] Historical Context
The direct method was an answer to the dissatisfaction with the grammar translation method, which teaches students in grammar and vocabulary through direct translations and thus focusses on the written language.
There was an attempt to set up such conditions that would imitate the mother tongue acquisition. For this reason the beginnings of these attempts were marked as The Natural methods. At the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries Sauveur and Franke wrote psychological rootes regarding the associations made between the word and it's meaning. They proposed that in language teaching we should move within target language system and this was the first stimulus for the rise of The Direct method.
Later on, Sweet recognized the limits of The Direct method and he proposed a substential change in methodology, and for this reason there was an inttroduction of the audio-lingual method.

grammar translation

Grammar translation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
In applied linguistics, the Grammar-Translation method is a foreign language teaching method derived from the classical or sometimes called traditional method of teaching Greek and Latin. The method requires students to translate whole texts word for word and memorize numerous grammatical rules and exceptions as well as enormous vocabulary lists. The goal of this method is to be able to read and translate literary masterpieces and classics.

Contents [hide]
1 History and philosophy
2 Method
3 Criticism
4 Conclusion
5 References



[edit] History and philosophy
Throughout Europe in the 18th and 19th centuries, the education system was formed primarily around a concept called faculty psychology. In brief, this theory dictated that the body and mind were separate and the mind consisted of three parts: the will, emotion, and intellect. It was believed that if the intellect could be sharpened enough and eventually control the will and the emotions. The way to do this was through learning classical literature of the Greeks and Romans, as well as mathematics. Additionally, an adult with such an educational was considered mentally prepared for the world and its challenges. In the 19th century, modern languages and literatures begin to appear in schools. It was believed that teaching modern languages was not useful for the development of mental discipline and thus were left out of the curriculum. As a result, textbooks were essentially copied for the modern language classroom. In America, the basic foundations of this method were used in most high school and and college foreign language classrooms and was eventually replaced by the audiolingual method among others.


[edit] Method
Classes were conducted in the native language. A chapter in a typical textbook of this method would begin with a massive bilingual vocabulary list. Grammar points would come directly from the texts and be presented deductly in the textbook, to be explained elaborately by the instructor. Grammar thus provided the rules for assembling words. Tedious translation and grammar drills would be used to exercise and strengthen the knowledge without much attention to content. Sentences would be deconstructed and translated, for example. Eventually, entire texts would be translated from the target language into the native language and tests would often ask students to replicate classical texts in the target language. Very little attention was placed on pronunciation or any communicative aspects of the language. The skill exercised was reading, and then only in the context of translation.


[edit] Criticism
The method by definition has a very limited scope of objectives. Because speaking or any kind of spontaneous creative output was missing from the curriculum, students would often fail at speaking or even letter writing in the target language. A noteworthy quote describing the effect of this method comes from Bahlsen, who was a student of Plötz, a major proponent of this method in the 19th century. In commenting about writing letters of speaking he said he would be overcome with "a veritable forest of paragraphs, and and impenetrable thicket of grammatical rules." Later, theorist such as Vietor, Passy, Berlitz, and Jespersen began to talk about what a new kind of foreign language instruction needed, shedding light on what the grammar translation was missing. They supported teaching the language, not about the language. Moreover, teaching in the target language, and that language is not only writing, but speech as well. Students lacked an active role in the classroom, often correcting their own work and regimentedly following the textbook.


[edit] Conclusion
The Grammar-Translation method stayed in schools until the 1960s, when a complete foreign language pedagogy evaluation was taking place. In the meantime, teachers experimented with approaches like the direct method post war and depression classrooms, but without much structure to follow. The trusty Grammar-Translation method set the pace for many classrooms for many decades.

Monty Python made fun of the Grammar-Translation method in their film Life of Brian.

wind in the trees

Wind in the trees
a babbling brook
Creaky knees
a creakier book...

comedy structure

What happens, generally, is the actor makes an offer to the scene. The offer must be fully accepted and define the reality of the scene. Almost immediately the characters, setting, and conflict must become very obvious. It is from there that the improv builds on each other.

There are many rules to improv that give it its structure. Accepting, mentioned above, is probably the most critical. If you're given a scene to play out that has you upset about finding out your girlfriend is cheating on you and the person you're on stage with says, "Let's go hit him with a baseball bat," you can't usually say, "Or we can go shoot him." You're accepting the idea of hurting the guy, but not accepting of the idea of the baseball bat. You have to take the whole thing and learn how to focus it into moving the scene forward. If you don't accept it, it is called "blocking" and it really kills the improv.

Advancing is important. Learning how to keep the scene moving is a critical part of the structure of improv. There are a lot of ways to learn to do this and there are many tools you can learn and practice to get this technique down.

Aside from this, the general structure of comedy is the same. Comedy is built around setting up a tension and the release coming from the punchline - either a twist in the plot, a different way of looking at it, or often times just the truth plainly stated. What you learn from comedy classes, books, and studying comedy is the various ways those set ups and punchlines can be delivered. You learn how to structure the jokes so they're better for a stage presentation (making your friends laugh is a LOT different from making an audience laugh. The jokes often have to be set up a certain way and delivered a certain way).

Improv comedy is quite different from stand up. Both require a lot of work and practice to learn how to work in the structure, but stand up comedy is a very planned set of how things are going to go, what jokes are going to be told, and the order of the jokes. It takes hours of writing and compiling to come up with a set that lasts a few minutes. I wake up every morning and I write new material (while playing around online) until it's time to go to work. At the end of the week, I have a few new jokes worth considering. Then I have some new stuff I think will be worth trying at an open mic. Then I have some that work and some that don't. 5 pages of writing - 3...maybe 4 jokes. That's about normal for most comedians if they ramble in their writing as much as I do. With improv, you don't have ANY writing. Writing scipts and ideas is for sketch comedy, but is frowned upon in improv.

Useful Sentences - Grammar

Useful Sentences

1) A sentence is a group of words.
Juzi* Shi you Yi chuN weNZi.
or
YI Ju Hua Shi yoU YI XIE cI suo ZaochenG de*. ["A sentence is composed of a number of words."]
(Both REA (Resident expert approved))

2) Juzi* you baohaN zhucI GEN DongcI
or
mei Ju Hua YINGGAI you zhucI hE DongcI ["Each sentence should have a subject and a verb"]
(Both REA)

3) It expresses a complete idea.
Juzi* biaodA waNquaN de* shangfa
or
YI Ju Hua biaoShi YI ge* waNzheng de Niantou* [A sentence expresses a complete idea]
(REA)

4) In short answers and commands the subject and/or verb may be assumed based on the context.
Zhu3ci2 gen dong4ci2 chang2chang2, GENJu shangXiaweN Bei (TebiE Zai MingLing gen1 duan de* huIdA) jia3she4.

zhucI Huo DongcI kenenG Shi yinXing de*, Bu biaodA CHUlaI. [Subject or verb can be implied, not expressed.]

(NEITHER EXACTLY REA APPROVED - SORRY)

5) YI Ju Hua HouMian Yao Fang JuHao, JING haIShi WenHao. [At the end you must put a period, exclamation mark, or question mark.]

6) A phrase is a group of words.
Pianyu Shi you Yi chuN weNZi.

7) It doesn't have a subject. It doesn't have a verb.
Pianyu meiyoU baohaN zhucI GEN DongcI

8) A phrase functions as one part of speech.
Pianyu GONGnenG Shi Bei Yong laI DANG chenG gEzhongcILei de* qIZHONG zhiYI

9) The short answer to a "who" or "what' question is often a noun phrase.
Shei2 gen1 shen2me5 wen4ti2 de5 duan3 de5 hui2da2 chang2chang2 shi4 yi1 ge5 ming2ci2 pian4yu4.
or
Yao jianduan di* huIdA Wen "sheI" Huo "sheNme*" de YI Ju Hua, pinGchanG Yao Yong minGzi* Pianyu huIdA.

10) 2) The short answer to a "where" or "when" question is often a prepositional phrase.
Zai4 na3li3 gen1 shen2me5 shi2hou5 wen4ti2 de5 duan3 de5 hui2da2 chang2chang2 shi4 yi1 ge5 jie4xi4ci2 de pian4yu3.
or
Yao jianDuan di* huIdA Wen "na li" Huo "sheNme* shIHou" de* YI Ju Hua, pinGchanG Yong JiacI Pianyu （介词片语）．

11) The short answer to a why (for what purpose) question is often an infinitive phrase.
Wei4shen2me5 (shen2me5 mu4di4) wen4ti2 de5 duan3 de5 hui2da2 chang2chang2 shi4 yi1ge5 bu4ding4ci2 de5 pian4yu3.
or
Yao jianDuan di* huIdA Wen "WeisheNme*" (weIhE) de* YI Ju Hua, pinGchanG Yao Yong BuDingcI Pianyu. (动名词片语）．


12)The answer to a "how" (by what means) question is often a by + gerund phrase.
Zen3me5 (yong4 shen2me5 fang1fa2) wen4ti2 de5 duan3 de hui2 da2 chang2chang2 shi4 "by" + dong4ming2ci2.
or
Yao huIdA Wen "rU hE" de* YI Ju Hua, pinGchanG Yong "by" JIA DongminGcI

13) To make yes/no questions you take the first word of the verb phrase and put it at the beginning of the sentence.
Ba3 yi1 ge5 cun2xu4shou1ming2 gai3wei2 yes/no (ma5/shi4 bu2 shi4/ dui4 bu2 dui4/ yao4 bu2 yao4 etc.) de5 yi2wen4ju4 ba3 (cong dong4ci2
pian4yu3) di4-yi1 ge5 zhu3 dong4ci2 fang4 zai4 ju4zi5 qian2mian4.
or
Yao Wen Shifou WentI, zhi Yao ba DongcI Pianyu de* DiYI ge* cI FangZai Na Ju Hua Zui qiaNMian.

14)Infinitive phrases function as noun or adverb phrases.
Bu4ding4ci2 de5 pian4yu3 gong1neng2 shi4 ming2ci2 pian4yu3 hai2shi2 fu4ci2 pian4yu3.
or
bUDing (cI) Pianyu keyi DANG minGcI Pianyu Huo FuminGcI Pianyu.

phrase

1) The short answer to a "who" or "what' question is often a noun phrase.

Shei2 gen1 shen2me5 wen4ti2 de5 duan3 de5 hui2da2 chang2chang2 shi4 yi1 ge5 ming2ci2 pian4yu4.

2) The short answer to a "where" or "when" question is often a prepositional phrase.

Zai4 na3li3 gen1 shen2me5 shi2hou5 wen4ti2 de5 duan3 de5 hui2da2 chang2chang2 shi4 yi1 ge5 jie4xi4ci2 de pian4yu3.

3) The short answer to a why (for what purpose) question is often an infinitive phrase.

wei4shen2me5 (shen2me5 mu4di4) wen4ti2 de5 duan3 de5 hui2da2 chang2chang2 shi4 yi1ge5 bu4ding4ci2 de5 pian4yu3.

4) The answer to a "how" (by what means) question is often a by + gerund phrase.

Zen3me5 (yong4 shen2me5 fang1fa2) wen4ti2 de5 duan3 de hui2 da2 chang2chang2 shi4 yi1ge5 dong4ming2ci2 de5 pian4yu3.

5) To make yes/no questions you take the first word of the verb phrase and put it at the beginning of the sentence.

Ba3 yi1 ge5 cun2xu4shou1ming2 gai3wei2 yes/no (ma5/shi4 bu2 shi4/ dui4 bu2 dui4/ yao4 bu2 yao4 etc.) de5 yi2wen4ju4 ba3 (cong dong4ci2 pian4yu3) di4-yi1 ge5 zhu3 dong4ci2 fang4 zai4 ju4zi5 qian2mian4.

TPRS

If your four words are:
pai1she4 - film, dao3yan3 - director, guan1zhong4 - audience, jing4tou2 scene
(and this seems feasible, because you have a verb and a couple o' nouns in there), I might go with something like (I'll do it in English):

Famous director Bob wants to film.
Director Bob is filming for a special audience. The audience is all drunken English teachers who think they see elephants.
So Director Bob needs to film a scene with elephants. His audience will love this scene. They will love what Director Bob films, if what Director Bob films has lots of elephants in it.
But Director Bob does not know where to find a scene he can film that will make his audience happy.
Director Bob asks his friends on Forumosa, "Zenme ban?" His friends on Forumosa do not film elephants, but they know where there are many elephants in Taipei.
Director Bob says, "Aha!" He goes to the 7-11 on Heping Road and films for thirty seconds.
Because there are many elephants in the 7-11 on Heping Road, Bob is very happy. He films a wonderful scene. The scene has ...
Director Bob takes the movie that he has filmed and his audience sees the movie. Director Bob's audience of drunken English teachers loves the movie. They love the scene with the elephants in the shower best. They also love the scene where an elephant kisses Bo Derek on the 32nd Floor of Taipei 101.
Director Bob is happier than a drunken English teacher, because the audience loves the elephant scenes in the film he has filmed for them.


Do you see what I mean? The story is really, really, REALLY simple. It's just all the embroidery that keeps it going...and going....and going...and going...and the in-jokes that develop as you work with a student or students over a period of time make it more fun.

di4qiu2

I plan to use di4qiu2 as an example this evening.

Di4 is a word right? It means dirt.

And qiu2 is a word too. It means ball.

But if you put them together you don't get "dirt ball." you get "earth." You don't think the earth is a dirt ball do you? It's "blue" for heaven's sake. Dirt balls aren't blue.

It's sadomasochistic actually. I am the masochist and she is the sadist of course.

Anyway, what I was really looking for is a translation of "phrase" as in grammatical phrase, of which there are four: noun, adjective, adverb and verb.

So far what I have is...

Ci2zu3 de5 gong1neng2 shi4 bei4 yong4 lai2 dang1 chang4 ge4zhong3ci2lei4 de5 qi2zhong1 zhi3 yi1.

Phrase of function is passive marker use come use as become part of speech of among them only one.

Or if that doesn't make sense...

A phrase is a group of words that functions as one part of speech.

So far I think we have done pretty well. I am kidding about the sadomasochistic thing. I'll try looking at it from her point of view. I won't admit that a character is a "word" in either language however. Some "words" are two, three or four characters. Is there such a thing as a five character "word" I wonder?

I plan to use di4qiu2 as an example this evening.

Di4 is a word right? It means dirt.

And qiu2 is a word too. It means ball.

But if you put them together you don't get "dirt ball." you get "earth." You don't think the earth is a dirt ball do you? It's "blue" for heaven's sake. Dirt balls aren't blue.

It's sadomasochistic actually. I am the masochist and she is the sadist of course.

Anyway, what I was really looking for is a translation of "phrase" as in grammatical phrase, of which there are four: noun, adjective, adverb and verb.

So far what I have is...

Ci2zu3 de5 gong1neng2 shi4 bei4 yong4 lai2 dang1 chang4 ge4zhong3ci2lei4 de5 qi2zhong1 zhi3 yi1.

Phrase of function is passive marker use come use as become part of speech of among them only one.

Or if that doesn't make sense...

A phrase is a group of words that functions as one part of speech.

So far I think we have done pretty well. I am kidding about the sadomasochistic thing. I'll try looking at it from her point of view. I won't admit that a character is a "word" in either language however. Some "words" are two, three or four characters. Is there such a thing as a five character "word" I wonder?

nostromo

"A victim of the disillusioned weariness which is the retribution meted out to intellectual audacity, the brilliant Don Martin Decoud, weighted by the bars of San Tome silver, disappeared without a trace, swallowed up in the immense indifference of things." Nostromo, Joseph Conrad

ci2zu3

I can never remember the ci2zu3 in wen2fa3 de ci2zu3 (grammar phrase) and thinking that maybe I couldn't remember because I never analyzed the thing I just asked my wife whether the ci2 in ci2zu3 was the same ci2 as in "word."

She said that "ci2" meant "phrase."

I said no it didn't mean "phrase" it meant a two character word.

She said "A character is a word," so I said "How do you say "what" in Chinese?" She said "shen2me5."

Is that one word or two?

Two.

But it is not two words in the sense that say "Wo3 hao3 le5" is three words?

Huh?

Shen2me5 is one word.

It is two characters.

A word is not a character. Lots of words in Chinese are more than one character. Some words are one character, some are two, three or four.

If you say this you will drive Chinese crazy.

Etc.

Fox - And a lot of non Chinese I would expect.

bob - That's true. After that I begged her not to become hysterical but rather to try to look at it "logically". Shen2me5 translates to one word in English. You could look it up in a dictionary. Shen2me5 is what you might call a "concept." Isn't that right dear? I realize that the character system has not evolved sufficiently as to put a space between words but there is hope, right? Logic is a from of torture to the Chinese mind generally and so it goes badly. She sleeps now and looks cute while sleeping, for this I remain thankful.

Linking Verbs

So linking words behave grammatically like action verbs (with one exception) except that they are always followed by "like" or "as if" and a noun. Or they are followed by an adjective functioning as an adverb (called an adverb because it describes the verb as much as the subject) (this of course doesn't happen with action verbs, it's the exception). Their meanings can be something similar to "be" as a main verb but it would be easy to find exceptions to this as well. This "feels like" a road, but it "is" actually a sidewalk

I can never remember the ci2zu3 in wen2fa3 de ci2zu3 (grammar phrase) and thinking that maybe I couldn't remember because I never analyzed the thing I just asked my wife whether the ci2 in ci2zu3 was the same ci2 as in "word."

She said that "ci2" meant "phrase."

I said no it didn't mean "phrase" it meant a two character word.

She said "A character is a word," so I said "How do you say "what" in Chinese?" She said "shen2me5."

Is that one word or two?

Two.

But it is not two words in the sense that say "Wo3 hao3 le5" is three words?

Huh?

Shen2me5 is one word.

It is two characters.

A word is not a character. Lots of words in Chinese are more than one character. Some words are one character, some are two, three or four.

If you say this you will drive Chinese crazy.

Etc.

Fox - And a lot of non Chinese I would expect.

bob - That's true. After that I begged her not to become hysterical but rather to try to look at it "logically". Shen2me5 translates to one word in English. You could look it up in a dictionary. Shen2me5 is what you might call a "concept." Isn't that right dear? I realize that the character system has not evolved sufficiently as to put a space between words but there is hope, right? Logic is a from of torture to the Chinese mind generally and so it goes badly. She sleeps now and looks cute while sleeping, for this I remain thankful.