What is the correct answer to the question?

[FutureGadgetsLab]

A practise English paper for year 6 question. The question was to work out whether something was certain, possible or impossible. So "I may go to Ella's house" is possible, "I am going out" is definite and so on.

The question was "it may rain cats and dogs, if we have a storm"

What would your answer to this question be? I'm convinced the answer book is wrong.

But if the idiom is deliberately irrelevant then why put it in in the first place? Because, in fact, you do need to know what it means in order for it to be ignored.
Unless, of course, the question is phrased in such a way as shown above. If it is specifically asking for you to show what the modal verb is indicating then there isn't a problem. My DS's problem is ambiguity. If he isn't specifically asked to find the modal verb then he will look at the sentence as a whole.

But if the idiom is deliberately irrelevant then why put it in in the first place? Because, in fact, you do need to know what it means in order for it to be ignored.

No you don't. Something I've addressed a few times. Read the thread.

My DS's problem is ambiguity.

The good thing about English language is lack of ambiguity. It can be logically evalutaed.

I've read the thread. Why be so rude? I'm telling you how my DS would understand this question.

I wasn't rude. I said (several times) that as a linguist, I can see exactly what part having the idiom played and how removing it doesn't test the same knowledge.

I'm not going to go back through posts on my phone copying and pasting an answer when you could easily do so yourself.

Do you think year 6 children are linguists? I'm already well aware of your opinions on adjustments being made for SEN children, so to be honest, I try to avoid you where possible.

You don't seem to be able to understand any point of view or way of thinking than the one that you hold. Which is fair enough, it's hard for anybody to put themselves in someone else's shoes. But please stop speaking as if you know what my DS should know. I am telling you, this is how he would see the question. As I pointed out, if the question was phrased in the correct way, which we still aren't sure of, he would understand what he would have to do.

I'm not saying you are wrong, I am saying that even though you understand it that way, some people don't. It's not about the sentence really, it's about the question.

It's confusing not knowing whether the OP test question was a
standard KS2 Sats question intended for National Curriculum Year 6

or,

some private eleven plus type test combining grammar with other elements deliberately. Perhaps to test whether the child knew to ignore the idiom and only look for may=possible. Perhaps assuming literary knowledge of the cats and dogs phrase.

or,

the school wrote the question for their own private test.

On the face of it the OP question does not look like a normal SATs Test KS2 one
for 10 yrs old..

I'm already well aware of your opinions on adjustments being made for SEN children, so to be honest, I try to avoid you where possible

Good for you.

Here is another KS2 modal verb test question that looks more straightforward.

www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/328880/2014_KS2_English_GPS_sample_materials.pdf

I assume you're talking about the thread with the snowflakery of the mother with the violent child.

In this thread when someone asked about adjustments being made, my reply was

"By 'reader' do you mean someone who reads the question to the student? If so, yes that's fine (for this exam) as long as they do nothing besides read the exact question. It's still the students understanding of grammar being tested. The same way a scribe for a student without arms still tests the students English. The same way a lower lab bench for someone in a wheelchair doesn't alter the scientific knowledge being assessed"

They said "fair enough, thanks for answering."

I think it's been an interesting dicussion where people have different opinions but no one's taken offence at them.

KindDogsTail

But not to a child who's having a party, doesn't need new shoes and takes it VERY literally. People have said that the question should mention 'based on the modal verb used..." which sounds like a very good idea but one that hasn't been used in this question.

Yes, I see.herecomethepotatos

I was thinking that it at least eliminates the metaphor that the OP question included. (Though it's irrelevant to gettng the answer, many people felt it would throw their child's understanding of what was being asked of them.)

Anyway, I did not get the answer right!
I thought she could not be absolutely sure she'd get the shoes, but if he said he could come to the party [ i head inferred he had told me], he probably would!

I shall look up lots of grammar in the next few weeks!

Here is the answer to that question.

Anyway, I did not get the answer right!

I'm surprised. No offence.

As I've mentioned, I'm a terrible teacher but, when feeling confused about something like 'can' or 'will' put it into your own natural expressions and think about the meaning in them.

I can speak French.

I have the ability. I can if I want to. I'm not doing it now though.

Tomorrow will be Saturday.

This one takes no explaining. It will.

Thanks herecomes

He can come to my party today.
So, he is physically able to but whether he will or not is another question? (Possible, but only quite probable)

She will buy some shoes today......the correct answer. More possible, even though still not certain?
I can now see the correct answer is a bit more probable (now I think about it), even though in my mind there is no certainty here either - only intent.

Perhaps I have a glimmer of understanding Herecomes
But I need more help please:

It will be Saturday tomorrow for me is more certain, than She will buy shoes today. The calendar tends to be more predictable than human intention (lireal thinking). Later today something could happen and she will not buy the shoes after all.

Is it just a rule like may=possible?
Is the rule: will is always more probable than can?

kind

Is it just a rule like may=possible?
Is the rule: will is always more probable than can?

Basically, yes.

Another way is to think about what you'd say to a child. "We will have an ice cream after lunch" vs "We might have an ice cream"

I know I always say 'might' to avoid "but you said..." situations.

'Can' is a little more complex and causes the most arguments amongst linguists.

We use the modal can to make general statements about what is possible:

It can be very cold in winter. (= It is sometimes very cold in winter)
You can easily lose your way in the dark. (= People often lose their way in the dark)

We use it to talk about skills or general abilities:

I can drink like a fish.
She can dance beautifully.

We use can to talk about the ability to do something at a given time in the present or future:

You can make a lot of money if you invest wisely.
You can run but you can't hide.

To give permission or to ask for it or to show it's been obtained:

Can I use your loo.
You can use my car.
My Mum said you can stay at our house tonight.

Offers of help:

Can I be of assistance.
I can carry that for you.

//---------------

It will be Saturday tomorrow for me is more certain, than She will buy shoes today. The calendar tends to be more predictable than human intention (lireal literal(?) thinking). Later today something could happen and she will not buy the shoes after all.

That in a nub is the reason I still have a job. Semantics vs pragmatics. Semantics is the meaning of words without context whereas pragmatics looks at the context. A good example of this is "crack the window". It takes on a very different meaning depending on if you're locked out of your house (so smash your way in) or the air con has stopped working (so open the window a little).

Pragmatically you're correct because the shoe shop might be out of stock and that's more likely than Saturday not following Friday. At the same time, the world could end, tomorrow might be the day that 'Saturday' forever becomes 'Sat' etc.

When learning grammar, it's often easier to view it semantically. Look at the syntax and the points of speech (verb, adverb, preposition...) and how they work together, for example will is always more probable than can

The pragmatics bit is much harder to nail down.

Imagine writing the code to get Siri to understand what you're saying. Programming the software to understand perfect English is relatively straight forwards but when you add in idioms, context and other factors, it becomes mind-blowingly difficult.

Potatoes, the only offence I took was to you telling me to 'read the thread', therefore presuming that because I don't agree with you that must mean I haven't seen everything you said.

If you don't know that 'raining cats and dogs' is an idiom and you also don't know that you are looking for modal verbs rather than at the whole sentence then it would be very difficult to ignore it. As I also said, if the question is clear then it is quite simple to know, whether you recognise the metaphor or not, that you are purely looking for the modal verb, nothing else. You said I assume the paper is referring to modal verbs, the crux of the issue, I believe. You assume, my DS wouldn't assume. He would take the question at face value, unless told otherwise.

You have said Someone who can't look beyond the idiom will get the wrong answer this goes back, again, to how the question is phrased. How can a literal thinker they can't just switch it off fyi know to "look beyond" the idiom if there is no indication that that is what they are supposed to do?

My comment was regarding my personal experience and knowledge of how my child's brain works and how he would see the question, not how a university educated linguist would! Which brings me back to my point that you come across as finding it very difficult to open your mind and attempt to understand why the question is ambiguous to some people.

Which brings me back to my point that you come across as finding it very difficult to open your mind and attempt to understand why the question is ambiguous to some people.

No. I understand perfectly thanks to some very well written explanations in this thread. I just don't see an alternative question. I think that the question discriminates legitimately.

The offence I took was being told you try to avoid me because I have a different opinion to you so it seems we're 1 for 1.

But, again, because you think that the question discriminates legitimately and because you don't see an alternative question, you seem to assume that everybody else should see it that way. I do get what you say about the question being used to distinguish between the children that can "look beyond" the metaphor and look purely at the grammar. I really do. But what I am saying is why is that so important? Surely the knowledge of grammar itself is what is being tested at 10 years old?

The offence I took was being told you try to avoid me because I have a different opinion to you I do not avoid you because you have a different "opinion", I avoid you because your disablist comments, which subsequently got deleted, touched a nerve with me and I choose to avoid such people. However, I have read this thread and taken your comments on board as you genuinely do seem to have interesting points to make. When you then decide to dismiss my comments about my own child because, to you, he should just stop thinking literally, it confirms your view that SEN children should just suck it up.

There's a big difference between not having learned something and literally not being able to. There have been excellent posts about legislation and how adjustments should be made for ASD including literal materials, including exam papers. The question would have been just as effective without the metaphor to test their knowledge of modal verbs. I understand you disagree with this.

As I have said multiple times though, the structure of the question is key here.

Potatoes I'm getting the impression that you think the NT way is the correct way and therefore if people with ASDs are marked down because they process information differently, that's okay?

That's a bit close to "The NT way is better than the way people with ASDs process things".

The question should differentiate between children's knowledge about modal verbs.

It should not discriminate against someone with a medical impairment.

One is a test of English skills, the other is illegal.

A blind child would have the question read to them, a child who can't write would have an amanuensis. A person on the spectrum should have questions which are logical. Writing the question logically should be done for everyone, btw, otherwise it is a poorly phrased question.

Herecomethepotatoes Thank you for answering so fully.

I have been thinking over this new question about the can come to the party/will buy the shoes and feel I personally would always have been likely to to be tripped up by it.

Now, because of what you said, I might have a chance by not thinking about it literally as a real life situation; and by only following the rule that can is less probable than will rule.

That in a nub is the reason I still have a job. Semantics vs pragmatics.
Yes, I think that is what the reason why I could not do this new question:

If in response to an invitation a friend telephoned me and said, I can come to your party I would be extremely surprised if she did not turn up on the day. And I would be far more surprised by her not turning up, than surprised by her not buying the shoes after all.

Also, in real life, I would try very hard to not let someone down if I had said I could come, but not care too much about not getting the shoes in the end.

Hence I thought the can come was more probable than will buy shoes.

If the sentences being asked about were in the middle of a novel in a general exam paper, and the question paper was not specifically labelled grammar and the word modal not specifically used, I think my interpretation of this particular comparison might be 'correct.'

Kind I struggled with the party and shoes as well

I automatically leaned towards the "can" being correct not least because I thought "Well, she might not find any shoes she likes?!" But then a dim memory of a phrase akin to "Just because someone can, doesn't mean they will" then it fell into place that "will" is more certain than "can".

Thanks Shakey15000 thats a very useful phrase to remember for a modal test!

FutureGadgetsLab

Potatoes I'm getting the impression that you think the NT way is the correct way and therefore if people with ASDs are marked down because they process information differently, that's okay?

No and yes.

I've learnt infinitely more about ASD from this thread than I knew previously and assuming people with ASD are more literal thinkers (usually the case?), they're going to do better in tests where literal thinking is absolutely necessary. The point of these exams is less to see what a person knows as it would be for something like a job interview and more to see what they don't know. If a teacher can look through the test and say, "ah, FutureJunior was great at x,y,z questions about modals. Oh, he got 5b. wrong. I'll concentrate on that with them next week."

Using the tests as a tool to see where students are wrong means the teacher can adapt and teach them. Getting a question wrong gives the teacher useful information. If they see that the issue is simply that they were looking too literally then they can use all sort of methods, examples and practice to show the differences.

In this case they were processing the information wrongly. It's okay to mark them down because the teacher can focus on how to change that in the future. If the result is simply a differentiated lesson plan or particular changes to the way it's all explained to the child then how is it a bad thing? If the teacher and school are good at their jobs then by the time it matters (GCSE, IB etc) the child will hopefully adapt their thinking and answer correctly.

Whether examinations are the correct way of a teacher assessing pupils is for another thread where I suspect we'd actually agree

//--------------

That's a bit close to "The NT way is better than the way people with ASDs process things"

Not better. Simply different. A condition which makes you worse at one aspect of a subject can mean you excel in another. Many of the people I work with are almost without doubt on the spectrum. It's their lack of NT-ness that enables some of them earn twice my salary. "Over-paid IT geek" - the sign on one of their doors, not my description!

//-------------

I do get what you say about the question being used to distinguish between the children that can "look beyond" the metaphor and look purely at the grammar. I really do. But what I am saying is why is that so important? Surely the knowledge of grammar itself is what is being tested at 10 years old?

It's important because it's a more advanced aspect of their learning and being able to see which children are there already and which ones aren't is important.

Learning language can be seen in a very similar light to the way people are taught maths. The simplified steps (with many missing):

recognise numbers -> one-to-one correspondence -> manipulation -> abstraction.

The abstraction roughly begins with 3 stars = 9. 4 stars = [the answer's 12]

That's what's happening here and why you do need to know / test / why it's important.

As I replied to future, if the ASD child is made to stand in the corner while the teacher yells at them for mis-understanding the question then there's something wrong. If the teacher uses the information - which questions a child got right and perhaps more importantly, the ones she got wrong - to enable that child to maximise their potential then it's a great thing.

I avoid you because your disablist comments, which subsequently got deleted, touched a nerve with me and I choose to avoid such people.

Nothing I wrote was deleted.

[In your opinion] he should just stop thinking literally, it confirms your view that SEN children should just suck it up

'suck it up' is an emotive phrase that certainly isn't the point I've been trying to make. I'm not saying he can or should stop thinking literally but try to learn / be taught, how to think differently about a question. If they can't then yes, I guess they accept that they're not cut out for that subject.

To me, this comes down to a similar situation as employing someone with a disability of any type. If they're the best person for the job then they should get it. The job shouldn't be altered so that they then become the best person for it.

//------------

KindDogsTail: Herecomethepotatoes Thank you for answering so fully.

You're welcome. Perhaps I'd enjoy teaching more than I imagine!

Now, because of what you said, I might have a chance by not thinking about it literally as a real life situation; and by only following the rule that can is less probable than will rule.

Yep. Think about it as rules and you can't go wrong.

^If in response to an invitation a friend telephoned me and said, I can come to your party I would be extremely surprised if she did not turn up on the day. And I would be far more surprised by her not turning up, than surprised by her not buying the shoes after all.

Also, in real life, I would try very hard to not let someone down if I had said I could come, but not care too much about not getting the shoes in the end. ^

That's because you're thinking about the pragmatics. If someone says to you, "Yes, I can come" you expect them to. They might have been saying 'my parents said I can' or 'yes, I have the ability' or many others.

The fact you've swapped 'will' for 'would' and 'can' for 'could' suggests that you know more grammar than you realise

That phrase from shakey

Just because someone can, doesn't mean they will is a good way to remember. I also had an arse for a history teacher who if you asked "Can I go to the loo" would reply "I'm sure you can. I think most of us can. It's an easy skill".

//------------

kickassangel The question should differentiate between children's knowledge about modal verbs.

But part of that knowledge is picking it out from the idiom. No, you don't need to understand the idiom. It's called abstraction. It's a more difficult aspect of grammar but they need those more difficult questions to test the very best students. Of course by 'best', I mean best at this aspect of this subject.

I'm in the "possible" camp but can see the arguments for "impossible" depending whether you are taking the question as literal (although I could probably post a video of it raining cats from our sun shade when the biscuits come out - in fact it was actually an expression used this morning thanks to Whiskas. Thankfully not dogs though). But raining cats and dogs is definitely a well known colloquial term in the UK for it pissing down.