Job Discussion Forums

[Bertrand]

�An army of monkeys strumming on typewriters writ[ing] all the books in the British Museum� (Eddington 1928) is, as noted for example recently by Terrace (2002:64), �a well-known metaphor for an absurdly unlikely event.�

Another "absurdly unlikely event" would, I aver, be a non-speaker of language x understanding language x as a native speaker of language x understands it. Even with an immense vocabulary of the language in question, without knowledge of grammar that is all it will be, a vocabulary, a lifeless, sterile mental lexicon. In English, for example, (1) below is radically different to (2) despite the fact that both clauses employ identical lexical items:

1) The boy kissed the girl.

2) The girl kissed the boy.

So, in fact, we need go no further to prove that grammar is of vital importance to communication and thus to learners and teachers. One can not object that "we know who kissed who because in English the doer of an action always comes first" (in this case, an authentic reply) as this is disproven by the passive construction of (3):

3) The girl was kissed by the boy.

Language, in this sense, may be defined somewhat loosely as a symbolic system of structured communication. The word of importance here, I think, is �structured�. Language possesses structure and it is obviously the job of the language teacher to teach the structure of the language in question at a level that is challenging yet appropriate for the students. (Structure here merely being a homely word for 'grammar'.)

Note, however, that we can already detect the (strong) presupposition that the teacher is AWARE of the structure to be taught. And this is my main point. I really do not know why people criticise the grammatical elements of my posts. I am often asked (usually via PM as many have expressed a wish not to post here openly as they know they will be flamed and dragged off into the jungle of ungermane details) whether I really think students should be taught the aspects of the English language - and language in general - to which I bring the attention of readers. I don't know where this belief comes from; it is not from anything I have ever written.

I am posting messages to (what I thought were) teachers, not students.

I have never suggested that the way I present arguments should be the way these aspects are brought to the attention of the students (if at all)!

No one, at least to the best of my knowledge, is expecting some form of discrete, �saltational� change on the part of the students, rather, just steady incremental improvements.

All I have ever said is that I think TEACHERS should at least be aware of such aspects. Then, they can decide whether they wish to teach such points and, if so, how to do so. To the best of my knowledge there is not one published work for teachers of English that addresses the readers as students! (I have been surprised that I have had to reiterate this point but judging from replies to my post there have been gross misunderstandings.)

Really, how else could it be otherwise? Would you pay to have a teacher of, say, European History that did not know when WWII began and ended? (Whether or not he taught such dates.) When reading the many critiques that my posts engender, just replace the first of the two words in "English Teacher" with another subject and then ask yourself if the point is valid or even coherent. Usually it is not. Most criticisms can be reduced to "I don't know this THEREFORE [by proxy] it can NOT be of any importance", or "I have never come across these data or this point of view before, not in my 3-week TEFL course or in my 6-months of experience, THEREFORE [by proxy] I will get angry, ignore the point of the post and reply in personal terms" (usually some tripe over the identity of my favourite authors, etc.).

Most so-called replies to my posts actually present a somewhat perverse caricature of the original post . There is a term for this tactic (I choose my words carefully, this is a methodology, a strategy): it�s that old chestnut �the strawman� (set up a straw opponent and then demolish with glee an argument that never in fact existed).

People often get angry when someone suggests that they are not the best teacher in the world and that they do not have post-doctorate experience in Applied Linguistics. Why, I really don't know. I can only guess that it is because they secretly love the attention and status of "expert" they get from their students.

Well, let me warn you now, if you are not interested in grammar (either for its own sake as I am or for the sake of your students and personal knowledge) the read no further! This is not for you! For those of you that realise that langauge is just (disguised) grammar and grammar is just (disguised) language, read on!

My assertion that language IS grammar may scare some. However, I will attempt to buttress my argument with many linguistic data and, I hope, some not inconsiderable commonsense. (On 'commonsense' I am mildly disturbed to notice that already my signature (due to Russell) has begun to make people fume! I will only say that, if you knew the context of Russell's remark, you would not be offended but, rather, would be pleased (whatever your nationality). Those that know his work will know this; those that don't should not assume they can comment on works they have not even read (or even heard of).)

(On a personal note, I must confess that I find much of the proselytising on this forum quite breathtaking. However, it does at least offer an insight into the mentality of such �contributors� that is as unique as it is candid.)

Besides, there is, in fact, one way to judge that is clearly open to us: we can examine empirical facts.

Natural human languages such as English evince an abundance of certain features, while other (possible) features remain rare or even non-existent. To cite but one example (and to illustrate the point of my thesis as regards TEFL in China) I have often heard TEFLers in China claim that two, or three, or four different words �mean the same�! However, this, invariably, will be nothing more than the intuitions of a layman. A moments research (and introspection) shows that whilst polysemy in the lexicon is common to the languages of the world (true) synonymy is arguably non-existent. Even 'large' and 'big' are used by native speakers i hugely divergent ways (one can not, for example, refer to one's 'large toe' when meaning one's 'big toe'). Even when two lexical items denote or refer to the same state of being, the interpretation is different. For example, 'slim' and 'skinny', though seemingly similar, differ. In this case, they differ in degrees of desirability (many wish to be 'slim', though only those with eating disorders strive to be 'skinny').

First, we need to distinguish between two types of knowledge.

Philosophers and others working within differing cognitive domains have long distinguished between (at least) two different types of knowledge: procedural and declarative.

The former refers to knowledge that is of the �knowing how� type, the latter to �knowing that� type of knowledge. For example, procedural knowledge may be used to account for the child�s �knowing� how to execute some particular motor-based skill (such as riding a bicycle) and declarative knowledge may be used to refer to the child�s �knowing� that certain facts are true (such as knowing that an (adult) elephant is bigger than a (infant) rat).

What is of importance to the language teacher (if you purport to be one) is the understanding and recognition that the child above does not need to �know� (in ANY sense) the natural laws involved and recruited in the riding of a bicycle. In other words, as noted recently by Steels, Kaplan, McIntyre, and Van Looveren (2002:264), ��a child does not need to explicit knowledge of theories of physics to throw a ball but just has to acquire the appropriate behaviours compatible with these laws.�

So, in short, I am not claiming that students need to explicity 'know' the grammatical points that I raise in order to make my point. Again, it should not be that neccesary to continue to repeat this point but the number of misunderstandings over it have been really quite large!

Let us begin now, not with English, but with another of my languages (that, in 'my day' everyone had to learn basic elements of). I hope my point will make itself clear upon reading.

Articles, in the languages that make use of them, are fraught with difficulties for the learner and thus the teacher.

Take, for example, French. French articles and possessives combine several functions. �Les�, for example, not only shows definiteness (as the English �the� often does) and totalisation (in contrast to �des�, the English �some�), but also pluralisation (in stark contrast to �le�/ �la�). A possessive pronoun such as �mes�, though often translated as the English �my� also indicates plurality. More subtly, unless modified in some way, �mes�, like English �my�, refers to ALL the mentioned objects, as in �Give me my books�, or, �Donnez moi mes livres�, where the pronoun COULD NOT refer to only SOME of the �books that are mine�. At the same time, �mes� and �my� denote a particular subclass, so �mes livres� distinguishes �my particular books� from all the books that might be under consideration.

I doubt if I would have ever 'picked this up' from any French-speaking environment; the contrasts needed are simply not present in the input! (It's called the Poverty of the Stimulus Argument and poses tantilising challenges to those engaged in child langauge acquisition.) I needed to be taught these points and only then could I note these distinctions in the input and only then could I begin to employ these (usefull) distinctions in my own interlanguage (in the Krashen sense of an interlanguage).

Or, let's pretend we are teaching or learning Turkish. Take, for example, the following example of somewhat complex morphology from Turkish:

Sevildirememek (�not to be able to cause to be loved�) which can be broken down into morphemes as follows:

Sev = 'love'
il = passive marker
dir = Causative marker
e = Ability
me = Negation
mek = Infinitive

In the above example, at least two of the morphemes (passive marker and Infinitive) are clearly grammatical morphemes, rather than lexical (i.e., semantically contentful). One must wonder how, exactly, this would be taught by our 'anti-grammarians'. What aspect of the world or culture would they point to to indicate 'passive marker' ? (!)

As an autapomorphic phenomenon, language displays many apparent oddities. The group of fluctuating pressures in the air (and the arbitrary scribbles on paper, displayed on a monitor, etc.) that is commonly referred to as �English� is no exception. Consider, for example, some of subtle and interesting properties of the present perfect aspect, as demonstrated in �John has lived in Princeton�.

An interesting and rarely noted feature of this aspect is that in such cases it carries the presupposition that the subject is alive" (Chomsky 1972:107)

Thus it is proper for me to say �I have lived in Princeton� but, knowing that Einstein is dead, I would not say �Einstein has lived in Princeton.� Chomsky then asks that we consider active and passive forms with present perfect aspect. �Knowing that John is dead and Bill is alive, I can say �Bill has often been visited by John,� but not �John has often visited Bill:; rather, �John often visited Bill.� I can say �I have been taught physics by Einstein� but not �Einstein has taught me physics�; rather, �Einstein taught me physics.�


If you doubt the importance of grammar in the teaching of English, perhaps you should try the following experiment to test just how unimportant it is. Place a doll on a table and wrap a necktie around its face. Then ask your students (one by one in isolation): �Is the doll hard or easy to see?� If they reply �hard;� and upon asking why they retort �because it is blindfolded� you will know that they have a (gross) problem in comprehension and thus presumably in production (which, incidentally, may NEVER be corrected from peers or feedback stemming from environmental feedback (negative evidence)). Hopefully you will as a teacher will also see the vital importance of grammar. Alternatively, request that they act out the following statement with toys: �The dog bumps into the horse that the cat jumped over�. This may result in processing breakdown. But it is a breakdown resulting from a lack of grammatical knowledge and not a problem that stems from being unable to hold the idea in the mind (it is not the idea that poses the problem but rather the construction in which it is expressed. Compare, for example, �The cat jumped over the horse and the dog bumps into the cat� that is cognitively synonymous).

(I have even come across 'teachers' who did not teach morphophonemic alternations such as that found in electric [k] vs. electric [s] �ity. (!))

Let's take a quick look at the status of verbs in English.

Verbs take arguments. However, these arguments are not � as is often supposed and even taught � �logical� or �representative of the world�.

Take, for example, �steal� and �rob�. Surely a sentence with �rob� always entails a corresponding sentence with �steal�, and vice versa? That is, a robbing event is always a stealing event, and vice versa.

Yet �rob� and �steal� have different lexical subcategorisation. For whereas �Rob� takes an obligatory argument referring to the person from whom something has been illegally taken, this argument is NOT OBLIGATORY with �steal�. Thus,

She stole a loaf of bread from the bakers.
She stole a loaf of bread.

She robbed a loaf of bread from the bakers.
* She robbed a loaf of bread.

If your students learn the construction �to steal something (from someone)�, where parentheses indicate the non-obligatory nature of the argument, and �to rob someone of something� then the problem will simply evaporate.

Such points allow native speakers to make incremental and subtle distinctions. To show this, Pinker (1989:396; fn. 15) notes that in the song by the Beatles �She came in through the bathroom window� (from the fantastic and seminal Abbey Road album [my opinion, not Pinker�s]) it is stated that �She could steal but she could not rob� in order to suggest that �the subject of the song was motivated to obtain objects but not to hurt people.�

Or think of 'dine' and 'eat':

He was eating.
He was dining.

He ate a pizza.
* He dined a pizza.

Or consider the pair �win� and �beat�:

* To win someone (some dialects of English, such as that of the present author, allow expressions such as �I won her a teddy bear at the fairground�, but this is actually a different verb with different lexical properties, i.e., �to win someone something� being used in the sense of �to win something for someone�).

To beat someone (at something)

Again, if your students are at least offered the opportunity to learn this, mistakes such as the following (which are painful to both the ear and eye and WILL prevent them from being accepted as a fluent communicator in English) will evaporate:

* I win/won you
* I beat

As noted by Hurford (2002:325), �The fact that one of these verbs requires an obligatory object, where the other does not, is an arbitrary fact about English verbs and CANNOT BE PREDICTED FROM THE NATURE OF THE EVENT ITSELF� (Stress added).

Syntax is a large element of any language, though especially in English with its rigid word order.

All English verbs take at least one argument, namely the subject but, as we have seen with subcategorisation, they do differ with respect to the objects they take.

For example, �sleep� takes no objects and is thus referred to as INTRANSITIVE, �hit� takes one object argument and thus is MONOTRANSITIVE, and �put� takes two and so is DITRANSITIVE.

Verbs that take whole clauses as their objects (complements) differ radically in the form that they permit such clauses to take. Take, for example, �want� and �hope�; two verbs that can take whole clauses as objects:

I want Mary to come.
* I want that Mary will come.

(To save space, the above two examples can be collapsed into the following form: �I want (* that) Mary to come�, meaning that if items in the brackets are included the result is a ill-formed clause.)

* I hope Mary to come.
I hope Mary will come.

Or consider �hope� and �wish�:

We hope you have a pleasant stay.
* We wish you have a pleasant stay. (In this case, an actual authentic piece of ill-formed English from a hotel).
We hope that you have a pleasant stay.
* We wish that you have a pleasant stay.

Question formation is also of great importance.

Sara heard the news.
What did Sara hear?
What news did Sara hear?

Sara heard the news that everybody likes cats.
What did Sara hear that everybody likes?
* What did Sara hear the news that everybody likes?

Sara asked why everyone likes cats.
Who did Sara ask why everyone likes cats?
* What did Sara ask why everyone likes?


Within the syntax of a language, there are numerous functional elements that perform a grammatical role. Hurford (2002:329) notes that �The prevalence of grammatically functional elements (as opposed to content words) is a hallmark of fully grammatical human language. In most languages, no sentence is grammatically complete without at least one grammatical element, signalling the structure of the sentence. It is hard to make a completely rigid distinction between grammatically functional elements and �pure content� words, because many words (e.g., conjunctions, pronouns, and prepositions) combine grammatical function with conveying some content.�

Hurford goes on to note that, at a rough estimate, grammatically functional elements in English account for around some 40% of a typical text. The following is a list (compiled through corpus linguistics �concordancing� software) of the most frequent word-forms from the 100-million-word British National Corpus (a wonderful research source), accounting for more than 40% of the word-forms in modern English texts (drawn from a wide range of registers):

the, is/was/be/are/�s/were/been/�re/�m/am, of, and, a/an, in/inside (preposition), to (infinitive verb marker), have/has/have/�ve/�s/had/having/�d, he/him/his, it/its, I/me/my, to (preposition), they/them/their, not/n�t/no (interjection), for, you/your, she/her, with, on, that (conjunction), this/these, that (demonstrative)/those, do/did/does/done/doing, we/us/our, by, at, but (conjunction), �s (possessive), from, as, which, or, will/�ll, said/say/says/saying, would, what, there (existential), if, can, all, who/whose, so (adverb/conjunction), go/went/gone/goes, more, other/another, one (numeral).

Hurford (ibid.) refers to such elements as �the major workhorses of English grammar�.

HOW, THEN., CAN ANYONE EVER SAY THAT GRAMMAR IS NOT IMPORTANT! This can be equated with "40% of the language is not important" (!) Can you imagine what this type of person says when asked in an inteview how they teach grammar? "Oh, I don't teach 40% of the language, I don't think it's of any importance!" (!)

A knowledge of syntax will assist students in resolving ambiguity. Consider the following, all of which are ambiguous as a direct result of syntax (not lexical ambiguity):

A list of teachers broken down by age and sex.
Old men and women.
John or Mary and Bill.

(One reason why formal programming codes and formal logic languages do not have connectives such as 'or', 'and', etc., is because of their inherent ambiguity.)

Possession, too, is important. Basically there are (at least) two types of possession:

Alienable possession, e.g., �John�s book, and inalienable possession, e.g., �John�s heart�.

These are NOT the same. This fact can be broght to light through a consideration of:

�the book that belongs to John� and

* �the heart that belongs to John�.

On many occasions I have been informed by 'teachers' that they don't teach grammar because "grammar is culture" (?) This is basically a strong version of the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis that is very popular with US undergraduates of Anthroplogy (and kids).

The claim (usually unknown to those promoting its validity) has set out in no uncertain terms by the late, great US anthropologist, sociologist, linguist, Edward Sapir:

Sapir (1931:578) wrote �Language actually defines experience for us by reason of its formal completeness and because of our unconscious projection of its implicit expectations into the field of experience � Such categories as number, gender, case, tense are not so much discovered in experience as imposed upon it because of the tyrannical hold that linguistic form has upon our orientation in the world.� (stress added)

Sounds good, doesn't it? Or does it? As a polyglot I can confirm that I do not see the world any differently when speaking Afrikaans or German than when I am speaking, say, English. But let's not just listen to me. Let's, in the interests of accuracy, examine some data. If language influences thought and culture and if culture influences langauge and thought then, as a VERY MINIMUM, we we should expect to see some strong correlations between culture and langauge structure. If not, the 'hypothesis' can be placed back in the dustbin.

Newmeyer (2002:361) comments on the current consensus when he writes that �virtually all linguists today would agree that there is no hope of correlating a language�s gross grammatical properties with sociocultural [sic.] facts about its speakers.� For example, Newmeyer notes that some languages, such as Mandarin, �manifest distinctive phonological tone� whilst others do not. As the examples below illustrate to some not insignificant extent, however, �it would be hard to �link� distinctive tonality to anything external�:

Distinctive Tone

Chinese
Navajo
Kikuyu
Ewe

No distinctive tone

Korean (cf. Chinese!)
Hopi (cf. Navajo!)
Swahili (cf. Kikuyu!)
Wolof (cf. Ewe!)

Not much correlation there!

Languages are often also categorised (or typolgised) in terms of the ordering, perhaps predominant ordering, of the verb (V), the subject (S), and the object (O) within clauses. As further noted by Newmeyer (ibid.), the following example �illustrates the evident lack of sociocultural implications of the choice of word order�:

SVO: English and Zulu
SOV: Japanese and Siouan
VSO: Welsh and Quileute

Again , not much help to the learner of English there!

In order to cement further the case against language influencing culture or culture influencing language, Newmeyer asks that we consider the case of ergative languages.

Roughly speaking, languages can invariably be divided into two classes, nominative-accusative languages (such as English and German) and ergative-absolutive languages (such as Basque and Samoan). In the former, subjects of both intransitive and transitive verbs are assigned identical case marking (nominative), in the latter, subjects of intransitive verbs and OBJECTS of transitive verbs are marked the same, with the subjects of these transitive verbs displaying distinct ergative case marking. Again, there does not appear to be much correlation between culture and language structure:

Nominative-Accusative

Spanish
Armenian
Hawaiian
Mangarayi


Ergative-Absolutive

Basque
Chechen
Samoan
Dyirbal

Again, not much of a correlation there. Now we begin to see the absurdity of TEFLers in China refusing to teach grammar because they "teach culture instead"!

I would ask such a teacher to ask themself the following: What are you giving your students that they could not get from a non-native speaker (or even from a book and CD, alone at home)? Would YOU pay to have YOU as a teacher? If so, what, exactly, would you be paying for? The satisfaction that you are with a native speaker?

On a more general point, there are numerous aspects of linguistics that never fail to amaze non-linguists. Take, for example, the sheer complexity of syntax. In any language in the world syntax is the crowning glory of complexity and this complexity that is displayed in syntactic structures in the various languages of the world has been compared to the DNA code by some researchers:

�The only natural phenomenon proportionately analogous to human syntax is the genetic code. DNA and plenalanguage are unique as discrete combinatorial systems. Syntax allows speakers to produce an infinite diversity of sentence configurations and semantic content, and genetic heredity yields a potentially limitless range of life forms and biological content.� (Poulshock 2000)

Indeed, the evolutionists Maynard Smith and Szathm�ry (1999) treat evolution as a process in which information is passed from generation to generation, with the means of storage and medium of transfer showing huge changes (�major transitions�), of which they consider human language to be the latest. (Some 21 pages of this 170-page work are dedicated to the origins and evolution of language.)

Another 'teacher' once insisted that he did not teach grammar because "it's always b l o o d y changing anyway" (in this case, a DOS at EF).

It's not clear what, exactly, the m o r o n is referring to. But even here, grammatical knowledge can help. As regards language change, consider the case of the English �have� (from the German �haben�) which �has� developed from a full verb expressing physical possession (�to hold in one�s hand�) to an auxiliary-like element expressing simple intention to perform an act to an even further reduced clitic form. Consider also the case of �will� from the German �wollen� (third person singular form, �will�). As noted by Heine and Kuteva (2002:379), this future marker is historically derived from a volition verb though its older features are retained in subordinate clauses, such as �(do) as you will�.

In short, don't believe the outbursts of those who assert that the teaching of grammar is not important (however it is done). Usually, it is simply because they themselves have not ever thought it to be important and do not likebeing told (let alone, shown) that it IS. (Which is why they have to resort to becoming personal; they can't appeal to emprical data as they have none.)


References

Chomsky, N. (1972) Language and mind. (Enl. ed.) New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Eddington, A. S. (1928) The nature of the physical world. Cambridge: CUP.

Heine, B. & Kuteva, T. (2002) �On the evolution of grammatical forms.� In Wray, A. (Ed.) The transition to language. Oxford: OUP: 376-397.

Hurford, J. R. (2002) �The role of expression and representation in language evolution.� In Wray, A. (Ed.) The transition to language. Cambridge. CUP: 311-334.

Maynard Smith, J. & Szathm�ry, E. (1999) The origins of life: From the birth of life to the origin of language. Oxford: OUP.

Newmeyer, F. J. (2002) �Uniformitarian assumptions and language evolution research.� In Wray, A. (Ed.) The transition to language. Oxford: OUP: 359-375.

Pinker, S. (1989) Learnability and cognition: The acquisition of argument structure. Mass.: MIT Press.

Poulshock, J. (2000) Review of Calving and Bickerton, 2000. Journal of Human Evolution, 38.

Sapir, E. (1931) �Conceptual categories in primitive languages (abstract).� Science, 74: 578.

Steels, L., Kaplan, F., McIntyre, A., & Van Looveren, J. (2002) �Crucial factors in the origins of word-meaning.� In Wray, A. (Ed.) The transition to language. Oxford: OUP: 252-271.

Terrace, H. S. (2002) �Serial expertise and the evolution of language.� In Wray, A. (Ed.) The transition to language. Oxford: OUP: pp. 64-90.

[Number 6]

Okay, right. I have a week off next month so I'll read this post then!

Only joking, some good points are made here. Where can I get more information on the THGC Genetic Code and human syntax?

[Minhang Oz]

Bertrand, I usually disagree with you. but not this time. Like any good academic supervisor, I've read your thesis and conclusion, and will do the rest later.
Please keep some sense of perspective though: we're talking about mostly young people communicating in a language extremely unfamiliar to them, with people they've often never had the opportunity to converse with before.
Terrify them to the point where they won't open their mouths for fear of making an "error", then we [yes, you and I], are doing them an enormous injustice.

[Cobra]

Bertrand there are those who refer to you as "he" and other who refer to you as "she." I know that you are capable of clarifying your gender but the trick is - can you do it in less than 1,000 words, without footnotes or citations?

[Minhang Oz]

And Bernadette, you're quick of the mark with a 1000 word plus diatribe, but rarely answer a simple question. Can't or won't?

[Hamish]

[Cobra]

BUSTED - BUSTED - BUSTED - BUSTED - BUSTED - BUSTED

[leeroy]

Bertrand

I'm not sure exactly what you motivation was to go to such lengths. Nevertheless, it is an extremely well-worded post. You argue coherently - in terms of assessing writing you fulfill all criteria except three.

Who is your audience, what is your purpose, and do you think your style/register is appropiate?

You have not included many examples in your text of how this is of direct relevance to teachers, in China, or anywhere else. The argument that "teachers should know grammar" is fair enough. I agree, and I think most do. But your post covers much more scope than that - an intricate understanding of the knowledge of world linguistics that you have displayed is not necessary.

As I'm sure you are aware, often 'real' English teachers are not needed at all. If all students want is a western 'entertainer' (or a cheap babysitter) then even a basic knowledge of verb tenses is already overqualified.

Teachers need to simplify. Large and Big, for the most part, do mean the same. If I am asked during the lesson (and the focus is in fact on something different) then I will quickly answer that yes, large and big are indeed the same. As you (eloquently) pointed out, in fact they are not. But an Elementary student is not interested in the subtle nuances of language that you describe.

[AKA]

No. 6 from Japan?
Smells more like No. 2 from Hong Kong.

[Cobra]

I am not at all convinced that Dr. B and #6 are alter egos or split personalities or one in the same.

I am trying to understand the IP thing and am communicating with Hamish by PM in an honest attemptto do so but I believe that when you have 1,000 computers on a network, there is only one IP for the singular network connection and that when you have a computer lab many people may use the same machine and that does not make them all the same person.

Beyond that, I simply do not believe that Bertrand is smart enough or creative enough to talk with him/her self. This gives far too much credit for intelligence where none is due.

[AKA]

Re the androgynous Bertie No.6:

Anyone in the slightest doubt only need look at No.6's previous postings [to be found via his profile], especially the first one which is the usual anti-EF rant, with his favorite phrases [fast food English, for e.g.], and obvious love of HK, for its "Britishness", I suppose.
It's easy for an experienced English teacher to pick this up - vocab, style, keyboard habits. I notice B. can't apply these simple techniques to the work of others. Who's MW/ESL Guru this time, No.6?

[Gray000]

Quite interesting in a general sort of way. The linguistic examples are sure to delight and amaze the uninitiated. And hopefully this post will change a few minds re: the importance of grammar teaching. Anybody familiar with Side by Side? I did an SBS class for a year. One of the features of that particular series is that Subject-verb agreement instructions appear in boxes when they are first introduces. You know, I do, he does, etc. Dig this - NONE of my students had ever been presented the information in this way before! NONE! Compare the books used in high school english here vs. high school spanish at home and you'll feel even sorrier for these poor buggers than before. They've never been taught grammar in a logical way, claims of 'Chinese student be good at grammar!" aside.

HOWEVER

The glorious PRC is not ready to admit that they are involved in such an easily correctable waste of pulic resources on such a vast scale. The problem with CHinese students is that they don't like to talk. That's where you come in. Your job description most likely does NOT include the teaching of grammar points, the students don't want that from you, they won't believe what you tell them if it contradicts previous experience, and your Chinese colleagues will probably not work with you to help you effectively coordinate your classes so that you can reinforce the grammar they are teaching. And you will cause waves if you tell them 'your other teacher is wrong.' Big ones. Most of us TEFL bottom feeders have only responsibilities, not power. How many of us can say to our students 'I am your English teacher. I am your only English teacher and I control my curriculum and teach whatever I like. You have been assessed in such a way that I know you all belong here. I can kick you out without losing my job.'

Teaching grammar is actually not so hard if you're well equipped. A PhD in Ling is not needed, nor is a bachelors. A good, clear book with a teacher's edition is enough. It also helps if your situation is such that you can be a real teacher, as we'd understand it in the west.

You probably won't get any of these.

[No Moss]

Gee, Bertrand, I'm not sure why think you are the only one who knows grammar, or why you feel the need to post a tedious argument in academic-speak. There are good arguments for not teaching grammar, but I think you have demonstrated the best one--it's unspeakably boring.

[dduck]

First of all, I scanned Bertrand's post in about 20 seconds. How many teaching hours would it take to lecture this stuff? Many, I imagine. However, I want to learn, and their's probably a lot of useful stuff in there (I've studied German grammar and liked it... eventually!). So, I'm likely to sit and wade my way through it. However, I personally think it's be better on a website and sectioned into managable chunks. Bertrand should remember that (some of) us teachers are students ourselves - don't overload us!

[Roger]

Bertrand,
an eloquent contribution that I welcome and found both entertaining and illuminating. You should submit it to the organisers of the Shanghai Conference on English Teaching in China.
Although I still feel you take your licence to criticise fellow teachers a bit too far, becoming on occasion polemical, I fully endorse this contribution. It accurately reflects my mind about the teaching scene in China, which is characterised by plundering amateurism by both local and overseas teachers. Witness the Li Yang phenomenon and how it is being sponsored by officialdom!
I can only guess as to why teachers from certain countries rather than from others are so vehemently opposed to teaching grammar! May generation be a criterion? There was a certain rebellion in certain western countries, which quickly grew into a revolution. I am, of course, referring to the 1968 revolt against the "establishment", with their buzzwords being "anti-authoritarianism" and what not.
Let's ignore the more deleterious after-effects of that rebellion (such as drug abuse, for example), and focus on long-term changes that have occurred since.
One that I can see is that young people no longer want to learn the hard way. Languages have to be taught in a "student-centrered and fun way". No pain, yet still a promise of gain! Grammar was immediately thrown overboard. It reflects old-fashioned rule-based and meekly obedient thinking.
Not everywhere in the world did people go to such outlandish excesses. That becomes very obvious when teachers from a country where teaching has undergone a radical "modernisation drive" rub shoulders with teachers from a place where changes have taken place at a less brutal speed. I guess, Bertrand hails from a country of the second category, as do I.
But in China, there clearly is a preference for teachers from the first kind. The Chinese reserve for themselves the duty of teaching grammar. As is easy enough to discover, most Chinese English teachers are not up to this job.
Expats are percveived as language partners too intellectually challenged to teach a "substantive" subject, yet 'expert' enough to act as psychotherapists whose job it is to sympathise with young learners whose self-confidence has been destroyed by our Chinese colleagues.

There is no need to go to scientific lengths in order to vindicate the instruction of grammar in a TEFL setting: Grammar is essential, without it communications break down. It is like the traffic rules: You know them, you act according to rules that everybody submits to both consciously and subconsciously, then there are hardly any accidents.
But if you ignore the rules all the time because you only learnt them by heart (consciously) but never practise them (subconsciously), then you are a dangerous driver.
Or user of a language that you cannot communicate in effectively.