Who’dathunk you’d be so darn competitive!

I think I mentioned “pseudo-passives” in my previous post. Haven’t checked out that link yet. Does it mention that?

Anyway, I was very happy to read your response, above, when I got in from work this evening… and then I spent the best part of 2 hours (more, I think!) writing a response to your response to my response to your article. [Note to self: Get a life!]

Rather than try to squeeze a 3000 word article into this comments section, though, you’ve inspired me to create a new section on my site titled “Robust Discussion” and I’ve posted my response there:

http://www.eflteachertraining.com/blog/robust-discussion/response-to-nick-jaworski-on-grammar-teaching-being-overrated

Warning! I haven’t really proofread it, though. I had a quick skim over it while eating my pizza, but I’ve also got the new Breaking Benjamin album in the CD player and a cold beer in my other hand… and brainy no worky any more today, I’m afraid. So take it as-is, my friend!

All the best,
Leslie

I’m glad that you agree with the majority of what I wrote. Working in Turkey, everything is so grammar focused I often wonder if it’s like this all over the world. It’s great to see you and all the other commentors and I are on the same page and that we’re not the only ones.

I can’t say I agree with you on all the grammar issues though. I’ll take them one at a time. I’m also not a grammar expert, so I’d love to hear the opinions of any linguists around. I’m a bit unsure of my case for point 2 especially.

1) Are grammar and lexis similar?
Yes. Take for example
You make me sick.
You make me ill.
You make me disgusted.
Which one would you say? While all are grammatically correct and have the same meaning, the first one sounds the best. This is because the grammar is chosen in the same way that lexis is chosen.
Another example. My friend’s roommate is Indian and often says things like “I am going to the store to purchase some milk. Since I am going I was wondering if you would also like me to purchase you something as well?” Well, these are fabulous sentences with flawless grammar, it’s not correct for this context. “Hey man, I’m goin to the store. Do you need anything?” would be much more appropriate.
Last example: We often use when + past simple and while + past continuous. However, I saw your old roommate when I was coming over here the other day is fine. There is no grammatical rule that says we have to use a certain tense with when or while, it’s simply become probabalistic.

2) Passives
Passives are constructed with be + past participle or get + past participle. “Get” implies a process or change while “be” is more static. Compare
I was hit by a car.
I got hit by a car.
I hope he will be sentenced to at least 5 years in prison.
I hope he gets sentenced to at least 5 years in prisons.
We were married by the old man.
We got married by the old man.

With he is married or he is tired the confusion comes from the fact that we use “be” as a copular verb linking the complement to the subject and as an auxiliary verb for passive voice. Compare
They are married.
The priest married them.
He was bored.
The book bored him.

I would agree with you that these words are more descriptive and better seen as adjectives because we wouldn’t say he’s married by someone, so conceiving it as an adjective is a bit more appropriate, but it really goes back to what Adam said that the line between adjectives and passives is quite thin. This issue also becomes very clear in Turkish. To marry is evlendirmek and to be married is evlenmek. To tire is yormak while to be tired is yorulmak. Passives are most often formed with the addition of “n” after vowels or “ul” after consonants. However, it is also possible to use adjectives in a few cases, so tired could be yorgun. To say, “I’m tired” I could either say yorgunum or yoruldum. The meaning is the same, but there is a grammatical distinction between using a verb and an adjective. We don’t notice this grammatical distinction in English because of how we use “be,” but just because we say “he is happy” doesn’t mean “he is tired” is the same grammar construction, as is made much clearer in Turkish. Anyway, you’re right that leaning towards the adjective side is probably better, but I don’t think it makes a difference in the way we should teach it.

In the end, the point is that either construction is simple to understand. The problem is the way we think because of the way grammar syllabuses have been presented. “He is married” is no more difficult to understand than “the book was written”, yet we often think it is. I would argue against that. They are constructed that way for the same reasons and have the same meaning. It’s exactly what I’m talking about. We teach “he is married” without a second thought. We should do the same for everything. “The book was written by her” should be taught in the same way – in context by relating it to the students.

3) “Have got” is definitely a present perfect meaning. Present perfect is very commonly used for an action/state that started in the past with continuing time. “I have got a car” means I acquired a car in the past and the time of my ownership has yet to finish. Compare
Einstein lived in Germany.
I’ve lived in Germany. (I’m not in Germany now, but my life, i.e. my time, continues)
I lived in the Czech for a year. (I no longer live in the Czech. “for a year” is finished time)
I’ve lived in Turkey for a year. (My time in Turkey is not finished. “for a year” is unfinished time)
I’ve played tennis twice this week. (This week continues)
I played tennis twice last week

Again, we’re just using faulty logic when we assume that the meaning is different in this case. Actually present perfect is used here in the same way it is often used. Yet, we don’t explain this nuance in meaning to the students and they pick up the meaning very quickly. The same can be done with present perfect in general. Teach the structure in context and the students will get it. Understanding a grammar concept like when to use present perfect is no different from understanding the concept of how to express possession. We’ve just come to believe it is more difficult because it’s taught at a later stage.

4) Will students try to express complex ideas at low levels?

Yes, you’re right that they will try. It’s just my position that they don’t have the linguistic resources to get there in English. Since they don’t have the resources, they can’t begin to formulate it and you don’t have anything to build on to help them. This is where knowing the student’s L1 is so valuable. You know that if they break into L1 it’s because they are being lazy or it’s because they don’t have the resources to express what they want. If it’s the former, I’ll make the student repeat it in English and help them construct the sentences if they are unsure. If it’s the latter you just have to let it go. I strongly agree with you that this is where your professional judgment comes into play. Teaching is all about making choices after all.

That’s all I’ve got. Again, I think you really brought a lot to the discussion. I’m glad to meet someone that hates Murphy’s books or explicit grammar teaching as much as I do. I’ll see you back for part 2

Nice blog. I found it through some random rabbit-holing around the Net and I’m glad I did. I’ll be back!

Extremely good post, too! There are a LOT of things that I agree with very strongly, and some things (or inferences) that I don’t.

I started writing a simple response, but it has just snowballed out of control!

And as if this comment itself isn’t freakin’ long enough, one innocuous side-comment I made when typing this response ended up swallowing a big chunk of my weekend! It’s Monday after work now and I’m at 10 pages and counting (on the sidepoint, that is!), without any clear end in sight just yet.

I very much look forward to Part II of this article and I’ll let you know when I’ve finished what this post inspired; you may like it. Anyway, on with the show…

———————

* I positively HATE structural syllabuses (I know it’s “syllabi,” but saying it makes me feel too pretentious, frankly. Kind of like saying “The data are…” as pedantic professors love to bully their students into writing. So… back to the point!). I’ve railed against them for years – to no avail as of yet! LOL! (They won’t be going anywhere any time soon, I’m afraid. Even the most *ahem* “cutting edge” books, focusing on “natural English” are still straight-jacketed by structural syllabuses.)

And I’ve been telling my students and trainees for as long as I’ve been hating on structural syllabuses the exact same thing one of your other readers, Karenne, says: “Language is not mathematics!”

Boy, it makes me crazy… all that chopping the language up into tiiiiiiny little pieces, EXPLAINING it using esoteric “rules” and presentations lacking any kind of context, and then expecting students to magically reassemble it into a working system. Pffftt!

Those Raymond Murphy books, for example? I LOATHE THEM. Total shite which reinforce most of what I hate about the majority of grammar “teaching.”

Regarding your question as to whether we should teach what are considered more “complex” structures to lower levels, I MOSTLY agree that you should teach it when they need it. What we should be doing at lower levels is giving students MASSIVE vocab-pattern input along with the opportunities to apply it, ideally in a personalised way.

Now, this will, of course, require more complex structures at times, but I think we need to be discerning in our judgement as to whether or not to “push” a particular structure just because a student appears to need it at that time. Sometimes, the structural complexity might actually hinder the communication and/or getting the student to apply the vocab in a personalised way.

Having said that, your example with Memhet and the house he’d buy if he were rich is a good one. And there was a terrific (albeit easy to miss) comment in the post somewhere (that I 100% agree with!) suggesting that teachers patronise their learners when they “refuse” to teach more complex STRUCTURES simply because the syllabus dictates that the students are “not yet ready for it.” People who, as you point out, may be quite capable of running large organisations; who manage hundreds of people; and who make all sorts of complicated calculations and tough decisions all day, every day.

Generally, it’s not a problem with CONCEPTS so I agree with what it appears you’re advocating: simply providing the correct structural component at a perfect time for the learner to contextualise and personalise its usage. Your rain/umbrella example illustrates this very succinctly. I’d just reitterate the point about trying to maintain the balancing act between servicing this good learning opportunity whilst not patronising the learners, and being judicious; “choosing your battles,” or “choosing the time to strike,” if you will.

Again, I second your advice to perhaps not spend too much time on it and to not worry if they don’t remember it right away (they probably won’t). I agree that something quick and easy like this can go a long way to helping students NOTICE the language at a later date. And we all know the critical importance of “noticing.”

Further down you advise against hitting up the learner who can hardly get out “I live in Istanbul” with something, by comparison, more structurally complex as “If I get a new job, I’ll move.” I don’t agree with what you say next, though: That learners who aren’t capable of the simpler sentence won’t attempt to communicate ideas such as the one about the job. They will. And this is where you have to apply your professional judgement. Just letting it slide might actually be the best thing under the circumstances. A simple response that indicates you’ve understood the intended meaning might be enough before focusing on what the student ACTUALLY needs more right now.

I also agree with your initial comment that a lot of what are billed as communicative activities are “simply grammar instruction with a speaking component.” I’ve been using a particular expression for this for some time now: “Grammar activities masquerading as speaking activities”!

I also strongly agree with you when you say “a very common mistake is to focus on grammar as form rather than grammar as meaning.” Hallelujah, brother! Amen to that. Have I mentioned Murphy yet? And how much I hate those books? The overwhelming majority of grammar “teaching” starts with form. It’s ghastly. How on Earth are students ever to learn this stuff if we start there? Another long-standing rant of mine that one. Sheesh! Don’t get me started! Ha ha!

I don’t agree with you regarding your example of “three passive structures,” however. Nor “[H]ave you got some more time?” as an example of Present Perfect. I can, of course, see where you’re going with it: You’re making a parallel with the FORM and I agree that – in terms of syntax and morphology – lower level learners can handle this kind of thing no problem at all!

But the MEANING is not the same and, as I think we agree, we have to always start with Meaning before Form. I see the relationship with a kind of “passive-concept” in these two examples (“I’m married” and “Is he tired?”), but I don’t think that it’s useful to try and treat this as “the Passive Voice.” It’s not clear to me whether you’re saying these ARE examples of the Passive Voice or you’re just making a parallel with what are described in some grammars as “pseudo-passives.” And I don’t agree that “He gets dressed…” is passive in any way. That’s just straight-up lexis as far as I can see.

Regarding the first two examples (“I’m married”/”I’m tired”), I think it’s truer to the pragmatic meaning to see them as descriptors of the person’s state, i.e. as adjectives. Sure, it could be argued that “I’m engaged,” “I’m married, “I’m divorced” are all passive-type ideas because they require some official decree (from some external and unimportant-to-specify external person and/or body) which changes one’s status and [blah blah blah explanation here]. But what about “I’m single”?

That’s why I think “married” carries more of a descriptive function here. Same goes for “tired”; it’s describing someone’s state. Yeah, something TIRES that person, sure. But there is no verb “to happy” in English –> “I’m happy.” And there IS a verb “to sleep” in English, but in “I’m sleepy,” nothing “SLEEPS” me — like that thing which got Bill Murray good in Ghostbusters!

As for the “Have you got some more time…” example, the meaning here is NOT that which is conveyed by the “have done” structure in any way. It is simply a variant of “have s/t” which students need to learn. I know you know that, Nick. And you pose the question at the end “Is it any different?” Well, yes, it is. The MEANING is different even though the FORM isn’t. And Meaning, in my opinion, trumps Form. “Have you got time?” and “Have you done time?” have wildly different meanings. Just like homographs.

On that note, in the comments you say that you don’t see any difference between grammar and lexis. I do. I’m a BIG, BIG, BIG advocate of teaching lexis over grammar, but they ARE different things. In fact, what I’ve been wrestling with this weekend (the 10 page + monster I mentioned earlier) is in reply to Adam’s question. Separating what is TRULY grammar from what’s lexical patterns, collocations, phrases, etc. didn’t prove super-difficult, but laying out my argument in a cogent way is. I agree with the “probabalistic collocation” bit regarding Form, but Grammar is part of the system of Meaning and is more than simply collocations of structural (and other) elements. [More on that when I've finished it.]

———————–

Dude, OMG! Sorry about this MAMMOTH reply! Holy smokes! I do love this stuff, though, and I tend to get a bit carried away at times!

Thanks for such a thought-provoking post, one which has already generated some excellent discussion. As I said at the outset, I eagerly await the arrival of Part II.

Best regards,
Leslie

P.S. @Benet… AWESOME reply! The best blog comment I’ve read in a long time. I must look up what Willis says about the passive/adjectival notions once again. And, yes, the key thing that’s sorely lacking from the usual “teaching” of the Passive Voice is a consideration of Topicality and Coherence within a TEXT. Thanks for the reference to Rutherford, too; I’ll be on that like a rat up a drainpipe!

Well, even if we don’t explicitly teach grammar seems we can’t get away from it. We still blog about it or write course books What ever shall we do?