Two disputed grammar items: error versus defective item
A student in Soria sits the grammar section of the mock: five transformation items, one point each, a single answer expected. The disputed answers are these. (1) «Se eu ___ tempo, ia ao Porto», cue ter: the student wrote «teria», the key has «tivesse». (2) «Espero que ele ___ amanhã», cue vir: the student wrote «venha», marked correct. (3) Instruction: «Reescreve a frase substituindo há por atrás: Conheci-a há dois anos.» The student wrote «Conheci-a há dois anos atrás»; the key has «Conheci-a dois anos atrás». (4) «Antes de ___ sair, ele telefonou»: the student wrote «nós sairmos», the key has «sairmos». (5) «O Pedro disse: ___»: the student wrote «obrigada» for Pedro; the key has «obrigado». The student scored 2/5 and asks for a review of items 3 and 4, claiming both versions are «the same thing». The teacher knows the department will reuse this paper and wants a defensible policy on what counts as an error, what counts as a defective item, and what must be taught before the real exam.
1. Rule on items 3 and 4. Which appeal succeeds, and on what principle?
Read the worked answer
Item 4 succeeds; item 3 fails, but for a reason about the instruction, not about the language.
(4) Antes de sairmos and antes de nós sairmos are both grammatical European Portuguese. The personal infinitive licenses an overt subject pronoun, which adds emphasis or contrast. The key has one right answer where the language has two: the item is defective. Accept both, then rewrite it so the context forces a choice - for instance a contrastive frame where the subject must be highlighted - or replace it.
(3) Há dois anos atrás is pleonastic, since há and atrás both encode anteriority, but it is frequent in speech and in journalism and is not ungrammatical. It nevertheless fails the instruction «substituindo há por atrás»: the student kept há, so the transformation was not carried out. Mark it wrong and say why in one sentence; do not tell the student the phrase is impossible.
Policy to adopt: an item is defective when two forms are equally correct; an answer is wrong when it disobeys the instruction, even if the Portuguese is acceptable.
2. Item 1: is «Se eu teria tempo» an error, and what is the underlying confusion? Prepare a two-line explanation for the class.
Read the worked answer
It is an error in the standard norm of both European and Brazilian Portuguese: the conditional (teria) does not appear in the clause introduced by se. Correct patterns are «Se eu tivesse tempo, ia / iria ao Porto» (imperfeito do subjuntivo plus conditional or imperfect indicative) and «Se eu tiver tempo, vou ao Porto» (futuro do subjuntivo plus present). The confusion is not Spanish transfer, since Spanish also rejects the conditional there; it is overgeneralisation. The learner sees a hypothetical sentence, associates it with the conditional, and spreads the conditional to both halves. Explanation for the class: «O se abre sempre o subjuntivo: tivesse para o irreal, tiver para o real. O condicional fica só na outra metade.» Add the minimal pair «Se tivesse tempo, iria» / «Se tiver tempo, vou».
3. Item 5 and the reuse policy: what do you teach in the ten minutes before the exam, and what do you propose to the department?
Read the worked answer
Item 5 (obrigado/obrigada) is a genuine error worth keeping: the form agrees with the speaker, not with the addressee, so Pedro says obrigado whatever the gender of the person he thanks. Ten-minute sequence: three minutes on each disputed item, stating aloud the distinction between erro and item defeituoso, because students who feel cheated stop trusting the key; three minimal pairs on the subjunctive, drilled orally; one minute on obrigado/obrigada/obrigados in chorus, which sticks. Proposal to the department: before reuse, every item must have exactly one defensible answer and an instruction that can be checked literally; keep a running «defective item» log with the reason, so the same flaw is not rebuilt next year. Uphold the appeals on 3 and 4; do not change the marks for 1, 2 and 5.