Job Discussion Forums

[Stephen Jones]

The problem with Swan, Murphy and Azar is that they are confused about the targets. Students or teachers?

There's a massive difference between what a teacher needs to know and what a student does, and a massive difference between what is needed for a native speaker teacher and an English-is-my-second-language-teacher.

[johnslat]

Dear fluffyhamster,
Maybe it's just I - probably it's just I - but to be quite honest, your commenst on grammar are, well, in my opinion (quite mistakenly, likely) more suitable to a forum that attracts those immersed in the theory of linguistics, rather than those looking for something like "Hey, what can I use in this classroom?"
You are immensely knowledgeable about linguistics - far more than I am. To be quite honest, I'm amazed at how much time and study you have obviously put into this area. There is no way in heaven or hell that I wold ever dare to dispute you on theoretical matters.
But at least in my experience (which could be quite wrong). most posters here are interested in what works out there in the field rather than in academia.
Funnily enough, i don't seem to recall you to have been quite so "academic" in the past. Moreover, i seem to remember that you had a pretty good sense of humor, which seems (at least to me) to be AWOL recently.
Regards,
John

[fluffyhamster]

Indeed (and I've posted reservations about Azar elsewhere, refrained from wholeheartedly plumping for Swan for years, and pointed out the limited nature of Murphy's books on this and other threads), SJ! But is it at all surprising that grammars that divorce themselves more or less completely from pedagogy will generally be perceived as less relevant? Granted, bigger books will be able to answer more questions, and there are many bad language courses that beg a lot of questions and therefore leave one with no choice but to consult weighty reference tomes, but a good language course isn't ultimately supposed to be an endless series of questions/problems and theories posing as answers and always casting doubt ( - or IS IT? People like metal56 seemed to think so!), and one that is might be trying to be too ambitious or something (some diversions can be interesting, but too many and ones loses the thread and perhaps becomes a little too obsessive about things - I'm talking about those foreign learners who seem to take their eye off the ball somewhat e.g. the infamous Shuntang on the Teacher AL forum. Most foreign learners of a language have no particular need or desire to study grammar in any more depth than is strictly necessary, and those native teachers who "specialize" in it in order to fill any gaps can tread a fine line between saying enough and saying "too much" for some students, IMHO (I mean, nobody can know everything, so a lot of what anyone says at any one time is often more theory that needs to be tested - by whom? Might be best to leave "it" to natural exposure and inference, on the basis of reasonable exemplars and generalities - than cold hard fact. But ultimately I am of course interested in establishing what the facts actually are, even for something as fluid as langauge, and agree that native teachers (often "teachers") especially could do with boning up on things a "bit" more - if everybody did that, then maybe coursebooks especially would generally improve. Anyway, it'd be interesting to see Professors like Huddleton and Pullum teaching an EFL class (I'm assuming they haven't, or haven't done much, yet) - I'd hope we could learn more than from the average CELTA trainer, certainly!).

[santi84]

I use The Grammar Book by Larsen-Freeman and Celce-Murcia. It is expensive but very clear. I also have George Yule's Explaining English Grammar for more theoretical points.

[fluffyhamster]

[Stephen Jones]

The basic problem, John, is that we can't recommend a grammar book until we know what the speakers prior knowledge of English grammar is.

And the second problem is the way mistakes develop a life of their own. Look at the prevalence of the nonsense about first, second and third conditionals, a gross and misleading characterization.

[Peter Wales]

[Justin Trullinger]

[Peter Wales]

Some good points there, Justin. I had my DELTA tutors pulling their hair out when I asked them whether the following clause was a conditional, and, if so, 'which' one it was: 'If you get hungry, then there's some chicken in the fridge'/'There's some chicken in the fridge if you get hungry'.

[Stephen Jones]

The most important point about conditionals is that you need to focus on whether the 'if part' or 'protasis' to give it its technical name, is a real possibility or not.

Thus
If he left at six this morning, he'll be here soon.
is a correct sentence whilst
*If he travelled faster than the speed of light, he'll be here soon.
isn't.

The unreal protases will always have a past tense since that is the tense used when things are distant in truth to use Lewis's excellent terminology, but the past tense per se doesn't mean the condition is unreal. as the first of my examples makes clear.

Now I've nothing against teaching zero, first and second conditionals as the most common uses of the construction but giving a number to them is positively confusing (and third conditionals are a horror to teach, and not worth the effort).

[dreadnought v.2]

You might also want to try 'Grammar For English Language Teachers' by Martin Parrott: http://www.cambridge.org/elt/gelt/

An accessible book designed specifically to help ESL teachers increase their understanding of English grammar. Oh, and I would also second Swan as a decent reference book.

[El Macho]

Two I like:

Practically Painless English by Sally Foster Wallace (mother of David Foster Wallace)

Understanding English Grammar by Martha Kolln (my undergrad grammar text)

PPE is aimed at beginners ("Pronoun: A word that can take the place of a noun"), while UEG is aimed at the sophisticates ("pronouns are words that...stand for any construction that functions as a nominal in the sentence.")

I'm waiting to see what's on my graduate program's reading list before purchasing any more grammars.

[word_to_the_wise]

Go with Raymond Murphy - he saved me in the early days.

It's a bit on the prescriptive side though.

[scot47]

I am recommending Raymond Murphy for the Nobel Prize for Literature. He probably needs the money.

[rusmeister]

I think Justin said some smart things regarding how WE ought to see grammar. It is our job to understand the broad spectrum of grammar, while being able to break it down for our charges (pupils and students).

However, we are teaching mortals who don't know what we know. You can't just throw the book at them. They really do need a safe starting point, and as such, "1st, 2nd and 3rd" conditional forms work just fine. It might be smart, particularly with intermediate/advanced students, to explain the fact that those concepts ARE merely bases or starting points, and don't cover everything.

I disagree on Murphy, though. The great disadvantage, corrected in Virginia Evans' works (Round-Up and a new one called "Grammarway", is that a hundred concepts are presented in isolation - look at the TOCs - literally 110 units or something like that. It makes for exercises students can do, but mostly mechanically, whereas Evans' books, for all their imperfections, provide an average of 15 units that interconnect concepts more (and avoid, to some extent, the mere mindless, "Fill in the blanks with the correct form of the present continuous" - to some extent they do it, too, but only as a necessary step early on). Some things she still does as badly as everyone else - articles and the perfect tenses, but on the whole, as a starting point it generally outclasses Murphy on all sides. Especially more comprehensive (although again, imperfect) tables. Round-Up can literally be used with all ages capable of studying grammar; Grammarway (which I haven't used on the battlefield yet) is aimed at adults and lacks the advanced grammar level that Round-Up has.

(I think she may have originally been Eastern European, and in the old editions you can find her name listed as Plachou or something like that, leading me to speculate that she emigrated early on to England and married an Englishman.)