I always assert that the most talented linguists are programmers. This is related to their way of thinking or, if you will, some kind of professional deformation.
To illustrate the topic, let me share a few stories from life. Back in the USSR when there was a shortage, and my husband was a small boy, his parents managed to get hold of some sausage and served it on the table for a celebration. After the guests left, the boy looked at the remaining sausage, neatly sliced into rounds, and asked if it was still needed. 'Take it!' his parents said. So, he took it, went outside, and began using the sausage to teach the neighbor's cats to walk on their hind legs. His parents saw this and were outraged at the waste of a scarce product. The boy was confused and even offended. After all, he didnât sneakily steal the sausage; he honestly asked if it was still needed...
There's no need to say that this boy grew up to be a programmer.
By adulthood, this IT specialist had accumulated many such amusing stories. For example, once I asked my husband to buy a chicken. A bigger, whiter one to make it a proper bird. He proudly brought home a gigantic white⊠duck. I asked if he hadnât at least considered the price (a duck costs significantly more), to which he replied: 'Well, you didnât say anything about the price. You just said to choose a bigger and whiter bird. So, I picked the largest and whitest plucked bird from the selection! Task accomplished.' I sighed with relief, thanking the heavens that there wasnât any turkey in the store that day. So, we had duck for dinner.
Well, there are many other situations where an unprepared person might suspect hard trolling and even be offended. Walking on a wonderful southern beach, I dreamily said, 'Ah, I crave something tasty...' He looked around and thoughtfully asked, 'Would you like me to pick some fruit from a cactus?'
I pouted, sarcastically asking if it hadnât crossed his mind to take me to a cozy cafĂ© with pastries, for example. My husband replied that he didnât see any cafĂ©s around, but the prickly pear fruits he noticed in the cactus thicket were quite tasty and could certainly satisfy my craving. Logically.
Should I be offended? Embrace and forgive? Laugh?
This feature of professional thinking, which sometimes leads to amusing situations in daily life, can be harnessed by IT specialists in their challenging task of learning English.
The illustrated way of thinking (not being a psychologist, I dare to conditionally describe it as formal-logical),
a) resonates with some principles of how the human subconscious works;
b) resonates extremely well with certain aspects of English grammatical logic.
Features of subconscious perception of requests
Psychology suggests that the human subconscious takes everything literally and lacks a sense of humor. Just like a computer, which an IT specialist 'interacts' with more than with people. I overheard a metaphor from a practicing psychologist: 'The subconscious is a giant with no eyes, no sense of humor, who understands everything literally. The conscious mind is a sighted Lilliputian sitting on the giant's shoulder and controlling it.'
What command does the giant subconscious register when the Lilliputian conscious says: 'I need to learn English'? The subconscious takes the REQUEST: 'learn English'. The naive 'giant' diligently starts working on the command, delivering a RESPONSE: the learning process. You will learn that English has gerunds, the verb to be, active voice, passive voice, verb tenses, complex objects, and subjunctive mood, and so on.
Have you studied the language? Yes. The 'giant' accomplished the assigned task â you have honestly studied the language. Have you mastered English in practice? Unlikely. The subconscious received no request for mastery.
What is the difference between studying and mastering?
Studying is analysis, breaking down a whole into parts. Mastery is synthesis, assembling parts into a whole. The approaches are, frankly, opposite. The methodologies for studying and practical mastery are different.
If the ultimate goal is to learn to use the language as a tool, then the task should be formulated literally: 'I need to master English.' This will lead to fewer disappointments.
As the request is, so shall the response be.
As mentioned above, English has a certain formality. For instance, a question cannot be answered in any way in English. It can only be responded to in the form in which it was posed. Thus, to the question 'Have you eaten the cake?' one can only reply in the same grammatical form with 'have': 'Yes, I have / No, I havenât.' No 'do' or 'am.' Similarly, to 'Did you eat the cake?' the correct response would be 'Yes, I did / No, I didnât,' and no 'had' or 'was.' The answer matches the question.
Russian speakers often find it puzzling that in English, to agree to something, one must answer negatively, while to refuse, one must answer positively. For example:
- Do you mind my smoking? â Yes, I do. â (You prohibited smoking in your presence.)
- Do you mind my smoking? â No, I donât. â (You allowed smoking.)
After all, the natural instinct of a Russian speaker is to reply 'yes' when allowing and 'no' when prohibiting. So why is it the opposite in English?
Formal logic. When answering a question in English, we respond not so much to the actual situation but rather to the grammar of the sentence we hear. In grammar, our question sounds: 'Do you mind?' â 'Do you object?' Accordingly, by answering 'Yes, I do.', the interlocutor, responding to the grammatical logic, affirms 'Yes, I object,' i.e., prohibits, rather than allows the action, as would be logical for situational logic. The answer matches the question.
A similar clash of situational and grammatical logic is provoked by requests such as 'Could you�' Don't be surprised if in response to your:
- Could you pass me the salt, please?
An Englishman might respond: - Yes, I could.
⊠and calmly continue his meal without passing you the salt. You asked him if he could pass the salt. He replied that he could. You didnât ask him to pass it to you: 'Would youâŠ?' English speakers often joke about this. Perhaps the roots of the famous English humor lie right at the intersection of grammatical and situational logic⊠Just like programmer humor, don't you think?
Thus, when starting to learn English, it makes sense to reconsider how to phrase requests. After all, when we go, for example, to a driving school, we say: 'I need to learn how to drive a car,' not 'I need to study the car.'
Moreover, when working with a teacher, the student engages with their cognitive system. The teacher also has a subconscious that operates like everyone else's on a ârequest-responseâ principle. If the teacher is not experienced enough to âtranslateâ the learner's request into the language of their real needs, the teacher's subconscious may also perceive the student's request as a request to study rather than to master. The teacher will enthusiastically respond and satisfy the request, but the information offered for study will not fulfill the student's true needs.
âBeware of your desiresâ (C)? Are you looking for a telepathic teacher who can translate your requests into the language of your real needs? Formulate your ârequestâ correctly? It's crucial to emphasize this. With the right approach, programmers should master English better than all other learners, due to both their unique worldview and the specific characteristics of the English language itself. The key to success is the right approach.
Source: habr.com
