Dilemmatic Grammar

[Leslie Simonfalvi]

Hello

I know that I’m not in the right place since the topic I want to write about is strictly speaking not Applied Linguistics.

I also know that I’m at the best place since the topic I want to write about is a distant relative of Applied Linguistics, and as far as I know, you are the most active Forum at this site, with a great deal of open criticism I don’t mind, and I do need.

I’m Leslie Simonfalvi, director of the International Teacher Training & Development College in Budapest, Hungary. We teach English for Speakers of Other Languages, teach several subjects in English, and train teachers to do the same.

My main field of interest is teaching the LD Student [Learning Disability – Learning Difficulty – Learning Difference], the Concrete Child, the Asperger [Geek] Syndrome Student, and / or the Semantic – Pragmatic Disorder Student, in lessons of therapeutic value, and most importantly, integrated among the ‘normal’ students.

We also train teachers to do the same.

The ‘difficult’ students learn English, and they also learn how to integrate themselves into a ‘normal’ society.

The ‘normal’ students learn English, and they also learn how to integrate ‘difficult’ mates into their ‘normal’ society.

If you teach a class or two like this, you have to forget all about the Prescriptive Grammar, the sooner the better. All Grammar Dogmata would do a lot of harm, and most definitely more harm than good.

For at least two decades I’ve been searching for a real Pedagogic Grammar that would serve the purposes of such a course but so far in vain. Bits and pieces are there but a coherent course is really hard to find.

Because of this, I have been simply forced to create quite a lot of materials that are tailor-made for this learning community. It belongs to the domain of Ortho-Grammar since the Grammar included is only and only a tool, and by no means an aim of the learning. It is the road rather than the destination.

In this Grammar I hardly state anything after creating the Conceptual Framework. When we have the CF, I simply ask hundreds of questions and the questions help the Students concentrate and focus on the MEANING before the FORM by which we express that meaning. Of course we need them both but in this order.

The title of this programme is Dilemmatic Grammar http://ilsgroup.blogspot.com/ because of the extensive use of questions. Most of it is more for the teacher than for the students, and with the help of the insight we gained through it, we’ve been better able to explain quite a lot of things to serve the Students’ 3D comprehension, i. e. deep and high, and wide, and long.

If you know it less than I do, I’m quite happy to help you learn it.

If you know something better than I do, I will provoke you into writing a better programme, and I will be happy to learn it from you.

It is quite a lot and it may take a year or so to upload it to the InterNet in many steps, but there is enough up there already for a first impression.

Best wishes.

Leslie Simonfalvi

[Stephen Jones]

First
Fix the web site; it's broken
The pictures don't load. If you can see them, then it's because you are not looking at the site from outside. Connect to your site over the internet and you will vast numbers of placeholders where the picture is not loading.

When you have fixed the website and told us here it is fixed, I will go back and have a look.

My first impression based on two presentations however, is that you are setting up a strawman with regard to what you call "the traditional time line". For a start all serious linguists are agreed that there is no such thing as the future tense in English. They are also agreed that there are two types of verb system in English; the tense system and the modal system. From what I can glean of your first two presentations you seem to thing the "traditional time line" ignores this.

[joshua2004]

What you are doing is interesting. It made me realize that there is more than one way to define a language. I agree with many of the things stated on the website. These include:

• 1. The idea that focus on meaning is priority
  2. I really loved the power point presentation "03 the four dilemmas" since it accurately sums the problem with most grammar teaching in language teaching today better than I have been able to verbalize it or understand it.

What I don't understand is if there is to be a focus on meaning and afterwards form, then why create a new way to define the grammar of English? Why would it matter if the key is the meaning? Is the argument that grammar teaching right now is not effective if it is based on inferior definitions?

I focus on meaning when I teach and I have great success. I use grammar as a tool to help clarify the meaning. So instead of grammar being second, it is really used in conjunction with other skills to better comprehension. Is it that you are trying to make a grammar-based approach work inside of a comprehension-based approach? And in doing so, are reworking the grammar aspect to make it more digestible? This could be useful for those of us who find English grammar difficult. I describe somewhat of how I teach in the link below. (I hope I linked it right)
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/teacher/v ... php?t=3290

I really liked reading the site and am glad there are other voices in the grammar/comprehension debate besides the extremes.

[Leslie Simonfalvi]

Hello Joshua2004

Thank you for your comments. I'm very happy about the parts you understand and partly agree with.

I want to reply to the part you don't understand and / or you don't agree with in more details. I'm going to write in a style that we call 'tandem writing'. It makes it possible to react on the level of individual thoughts as opposed to the global reaction in the letter-to-letter, or post-to-post communication.

What I don't understand is if there is to be a focus on meaning and afterwards form, then why create a new way to define the grammar of English?

The reality of many classrooms is closer to what I summed up in an interesting paradox:

Any approach to the English Grammar that concentrates on the FORM before, i. e. at the expense of, the MEANING is worse than a non-solution to the problems of grammar. The more successfully it can ‘teach the form’, the worse our understanding would be.

Why would it matter if the key is the meaning? Is the argument that grammar teaching right now is not effective if it is based on inferior definitions?

Our task here is not to decide which of the two would be more important. One answer to this problem goes something like this: MEANING and FORM are like twin brothers, and MEANING is the first-born of the twins. They just cannot be delivered together.

I focus on meaning when I teach and I have great success. I use grammar as a tool to help clarify the meaning. So instead of grammar being second, it is really used in conjunction with other skills to better comprehension.

It sounds very similar to the approach I follow with adults. With kiddies and with difficult students I have to use something very different since the traditional grammar-based methods just don't lead anywhere.

Is it that you are trying to make a grammar-based approach work inside of a comprehension-based approach?

I have never used a grammar-based approach. This is not a language course. It is meditation about grammar for my own better understanding. The students will never see most of it.

And in doing so, are reworking the grammar aspect to make it more digestible?

Through my deeper understanding of the grammar, and through the visual aids applied in it, I can explain to students lots of concepts they they were not able to understand / I was not able to explain before.

This could be useful for those of us who find English grammar difficult. I describe somewhat of how I teach in the link below.

Your link has worked and I like your approach.

I really liked reading the site and am glad there are other voices in the grammar/comprehension debate besides the extremes.

Thank you for the thoughts you have shared with me.

Leslie

[Stephen Jones]

I've used Internet Explorer to checkout the two presentations where the pictures don't load in Firefox.

They do load in Internet Explorer. As up to 20% of your users are not going to be using IE you might consider trying to get them to work in Firefox; I think it is a simple question of setting the links for the images correctly.

I must admit, I don't find the two initial presentations that easy to follow. The Power Point Presentations are much clearer but incomplete.

I do feel that you are misunderstanding standard grammar and seeing difficulties where none exist. For others to learn your new system it must have some compelling advantages over the traditional one.

May I make a suggestion. You post here examples where you feel 'traditional grammar' is inadequate and I will attempt to explain them using mainstream explanations. Start off by posting only two or three examples at a time, to allow for space to explain the basics.

I am prepared to stick my neck out and say I can explain the first fifty examples you can throw at me, so let the sport begin!

[Lorikeet]

My Internet Explorer (5.1 for Mac) didn't pick up the pictures either.

[Leslie Simonfalvi]

Hello Lorikeet

Thanks for the feedback. I'll approach our InterNet provider to set it right for Firefox.

Leslie

[Leslie Simonfalvi]

Dear Stephen Jones

Thank you for the possibility for learning about English Grammar.

Our InterNet provider will set it alright for Firefox. For the time being please use IE.

I must admit, I don't find the two initial presentations that easy to follow. The Power Point Presentations are much clearer but incomplete.

Well, actually, as the running numbers show 'the two initial presentations' are the last two that are uploaded so far. In a weblog there is an inverse chronology. As for the incompleteness, these are the first six points on my blog of about 100.

I do feel that you are misunderstanding standard grammar and seeing difficulties where none exist.

There is an element of truth in what you have just said. The real question, however, is not whether I misunderstand it or not. The real question is whether my students understand it or not. They do.

For others to learn your new system it must have some compelling advantages over the traditional one.

I teach special classes with students who don't stand the ghost of a chance through Prescriptive Grammar. I find their advantages compelling enough.

Since they learn as integrated into 'normal' classes, I also have some references about how it works with students who don't show any symptoms of dyslexia, of Concrete Child, Asperger Syndrome, and the rest. I think that they benefit from it even more.

May I make a suggestion. You post here examples where you feel 'traditional grammar' is inadequate and I will attempt to explain them using mainstream explanations. Start off by posting only two or three examples at a time, to allow for space to explain the basics.

I find it a fair proposition and I happily live with this great chance for an intellectual challenge. Thank you.

I am prepared to stick my neck out and say I can explain the first fifty examples you can throw at me, so let the sport begin!

I'll be back shortly with the first pack.

Leslie

[Leslie Simonfalvi]

Stephen Jones wrote:

May I make a suggestion. You post here examples where you feel 'traditional grammar' is inadequate and I will attempt to explain them using mainstream explanations. Start off by posting only two or three examples at a time, to allow for space to explain the basics.

Hello Mr [Professor?] Stephen Jones.

I’m Esther, a student of English from Budapest, Hungary. I’m a Concrete Child and as such I have problems in understanding abstract ideas.

I have a question about English Grammar. There is a short dialogue:

A ‘Why are you in a hurry?’
B ‘My train leaves at 6:20.’

Why does Speaker B use the Present Simple Tense for Future? Could you possibly show it to me on a Timeline? You know, I’m a Concrete Child. Thank you in advance.

[Posted by Leslie Simonfalvi]

[Andrew Patterson]

I once had a student with who was very good at rote learning but almost completely incapable of analysis. In the end I decided to concentrate on rote learning because that way she at least learnt something.

[woodcutter]

Personally, I hate to be asked to explain things to people pretending to be less gifted students. Each person on this earth has different talents. As a teacher, we must discover the key to reaching each person . I do not believe in "concrete children". I certainly do not believe I can accurately pretend to be one.

Andy's example is a good example of roads we may be forced to go down (and of why CLT is not carved in marble as the best way to go).

With grammar, I think there are two options. Explain it or don't explain it. We have a natural ability to pick it up without explanation. The trouble is, it takes a long time, and the grammar we already have gets in the way, just as the phonetic system we already have does. If a student has special difficulties, then they are not likely to be a fast learner in any case. Not everybody can be one. I would advocate simply teaching without worrying about such present-simple-as-timetable dilemmas.

[revel]

Good morning.

Trains tend to leave at specified hours which are printed up on time-tables. Such regularity of action usually demands the present simple in English. Using any other verb-construct would not be quite accurate. If you changed the subject of the sentence to the person in a hurry, you might well say:

"I'm catching a train at 6.30." using the present continuous for a near-future. You certainly would not use "I will catch a train" as you are in a hurry because you have already made plans to catch that train and before answering the question you have informed yourself as to what time the train parts from the station. You might, then, use "I'm going to catch a train at 6.30", though I myself would not consider the catching of a train to be the main plan, but rather the journey involved, for example, "I'm going to spend the weekend in Barcelona and my train leaves at 6.30 and I still have to pack my bags."

peace,
revel.

[Leslie Simonfalvi]

Stephen Jones wrote:

May I make a suggestion. You post here examples where you feel 'traditional grammar' is inadequate and I will attempt to explain them using mainstream explanations. Start off by posting only two or three examples at a time, to allow for space to explain the basics.

Hello Mr Stephen Jones

I’m Adam, a student from Budapest, Hungary. My mother told me that I’m a Semantic - Pragmatic child. I think it means that in one subject I’m very clever but in another lesson the teacher thinks I’m dumb and calls me an Outist.

Please help me in a problem about English Grammar. Why do we use the Present Continuous Tense for Future in this sentence:

‘John is marrying June next Saturday.’

Please show it to me on a Timeline if possible because I'm a Semantic - Pragmatic child and as such I'm clever enough not to take in anything like 'You know, it is one of those irregular uses of tenses.' I need a better reasoning than that.

Thank you.

[Posted by Leslie Simonfalvi]

[Tara B]

Leslie--

What ages are the EFL students & teachers at your school?

How do you diagnose your students as LD? Do you differentiate between different kinds of disabilities and adjust instruction to each child?

[fluffyhamster]

Please help me in a problem about English Grammar. Why do we use the Present Continuous Tense for Future in this sentence:

‘John is marrying June next Saturday.’

Please show it to me on a Timeline if possible because I'm a Semantic - Pragmatic child and as such I'm clever enough not to take in anything like 'You know, it is one of those irregular uses of tenses.' I need a better reasoning than that.

A handful of choices don't amount to a totally unmanageable mass of "irregular uses", and asking why each and every sentence one meets (especially genuine ones!) isn't expressed in another way could prevent one from seeing just how many are building up in definable sets according to systematic links between context, meaning and form (that is, noticing and inferring might be better than following one's own train of thought and straying too far from the concrete).