Job Discussion Forums

[once again]

From Swan"s Practical English Usage ..."Many verbs can be followed by two objects- one indirect and one direct. Usually the indirect object refers to a person and comes first." In the list of "some common verbs which are used like this,"; tell appears.

From Eastwood "Oxford Guide to English Grammar"..."A few verbs of reporting always have an indirect object" His next example is "No one TOLD MEyou were leaving" He actually put "told me" in bold, but I don't know how to put things in bold here. Both seem to suggest that the "me" after told is an indirect object.

[Aramas]

In 'I'm not a pheasant plucker, I'm a pheasant plucker's son, and I'll go on plucking pheasants 'til the pheasant plucking's done', am I an indirect object or just a pedantic tw@t?

[Stephen Jones]

[khmerhit]

You told him, Stephen.

[fat_chris]

[leeroy]

Oddly enough, on this very day I was covering verbs of reporting with my Upper-Int class..

According to Inside Out Upper-Intermediate (Unit , "tell" is followed by (the listener which is) a direct object.

But, "He told me a story" sounds very much like "He told a story to me", where "me" is very much the indirect object. Could it be concluded that there is a certain amount of ambiguity within this area of grammar?

[Stephen Jones]

I think you can conclude that the guy who wrote
Inside Out - Upper Intermediate
doesn't have much idea about English grammar - as indeed the title suggests :)

[Marcoregano]

Well, it so happens that Inside Out Upper Intermediate is the source of my confusion (leeroy...we must be working in synch!). I use this text for my Level 4 adults and it was when I was prepping the lesson that I came across this stuff. I have been working on the assumption that a respected UK-based coursebook can't possibly be wrong on such a point.

I quote messrs Kay and Jones (the authors):

1. "With [reporting] verbs like tell the hearer is the direct object.

eg. Mrs P advised him/ reminded us/ invited them to vote for her."

2. "With [reporting] verbs like say the hearer is NOT the direct object

eg. Mrs P explained/announced/suggested that we should vote for her."

I taught this last night and partially avoided this contentious stuff by simply telling them that "tell" verbs were "usually" immediately followed by a personal pronoun or noun, and that "say" verbs "usually" weren't. Fortunately they seemed to get it all correct and didn't ask any tricky questions.

If indeed tis true that messrs Kay and Jones are completely wrong on this, it's a cock-up of major proportions. Surely they have grammar experts edit the text before printing? I'm still not totally convinced they are wrong until the fat lady tells me.

But look here is Swan, who can't possibly be wrong: Quote:

"Take the dog for a walk; the dog is the direct object"....

So surely, "Tell him he's wrong"...him is the direct object?

I might also point out that a few posters above agree with Kay and Jones...eg. Dr J, Glenski and smooj. I'm getting a headache. At the very least, as Leeroy says, it's contentious.

[arioch36]

So, does all the discussion of rules on this grammar point help in teaching non-native speakers English?

I would be happy if my students said, "He told me a story", or "He told a story to me."

But whenever people try to show how smart they are by writing lots of rules, they can never include everything.

Surely there is a difference between "He told a story ....to the class" (He told the class a story)and "He told the class... to go fly a kite" Perhaps in your authors attempt to classify everything with a term, what's that artificial term they, used...reporting verb? Maybe the first "told" isn't a "reporting" verb? So what is a reporting verb? What is the rule for it to be a reporting verb?

Fortunately, in Henan, we aren't smart enough to know all of these rules. I think those little words like in, to, for are called prepositions. I know that they are mighty useful. So I know that He told the class is not a sentence. (He told the class WHAT?)

But is what follows really true?

[Marcoregano]

arioch 36, I couldn't agree with you more! I detest grammar and think that in all but the most simple of cases, unless you are dealing with very advanced students, teaching labyrinthine grammar rules is counter-productive. However, I'd just like to get to the bottom of this one for my own peace of mind. Plus, you can't deny that it has attracted a lot of attention and debate over what ought to be a straight-forward grammar point. BTW, I also agree that my teaching in last night's class was a gross over-simplification, but it fitted with the particular format of the exercise I was teaching....as you say, keep things simple where possible.

[once again]

Marco..did you seem my previous post..look up tell in the index and then "two objects"..it will direct you to page 583 (practical english usage, students edition) . There he states that tell is one of the verbs that is followed by and indirect object, normally the person.

[Marcoregano]

Yes, once again, I've had a look, but it's not conclusive (I wish it was!). How about when there is only one object? And curiously there are no other of the common reporting verbs in his list.

Interestingly however, (well, not very interesting really) in Swan's section on reporting verbs he makes no special distinction about direct objects following certain reporting verbs (like tell). I'm becoming inclined to believe that the Inside Out Upper Intermediate people are wrong. If they are, what then is the grammatical distinction between reporting verbs like tell and say? Somebody please tell me!!!

[arioch36]

I know what you mean about wanting to know for yourself. I agree, with many of these type questions the answer is so convoluted. Something like "tell" being a reporting verb is a gimmik, and a so so gimmik at that. Tell can be used different ways.

Pains me to admit it, but Jones is usually right, though Slat does a much better job explaining . Glenski usually can make it relevant (or not) to teaching.

One more year of teaching, and you to will be qualified to write a book ( becoming a CELTA trainer requires less overseas experience)

[once again]

Not sure I have the right end of the stick on this point but...as far as I am concerned..without that much thought I may add..so no flames if I am wrong here...say and tell amount to about the same.

Now I can hear the protests already..but wait..
"It was told that in days gone bye that werewolves ruled the earth"
I have made the last sentence up, and have no idea where it came from..must be an old movie or something. It could equally be written "It was told that werewoves ruled the earth. " Or it could be written.."He told that werewovles ruled the earth" To us, in our modern times and usages, it seems odd that told is used without a recipient of the telling..but it seems the meaning of tell remains as it did...at this point I still think the recipient is an indirect object.

The same rule follows for "say" . In the sentence "He said werewolves ruled the earth"..we have no problem. no recipient..but no problem..it sounds ok to us. If we see the sentence.."He said to me that werewolves ruled the earth"...then that would also seem ok..at least to me. Here we have a recipient and a statement.

But the recipient, I hope we will agree, is the indirect object. He did not in fact say "me"..but said.."werewolves ruled the earth." The "me" becomes the person to whom it was said , and the direct object of say is the statement "werewoves rule the earth"


I think this misundersanding with tell comes from the fact that in modern times tell is not often seen without a recipient being included in the sentence.
I may be totaly wrong ..as is probably my spelling ...but no flames about the spelling please..I leaned to spell under systems that have now been so discredited it is hard to believe that they ever made their way into the classroom.

[Marcoregano]

Arioch, as I made clear in my original post, I claim no great skill as a grammarian and will happily defer to anyone who is! But to date I am as confused as I was at the outset. scot 47 saw fit to abuse me (despite my admission of ineptitude in these matters), while Glenski and Stephen Jones are at cross purposes. I sincerely hope that a satisfactory conclusion may yet be arrived at!