MA- should a good MA have no linguisitcs/lang analysis?

[fluffyhamster]

You make it sound like there is a huge surplus jelly mountain wobbling unsteadily and putting all in its shadow at risk (an ESL equivalent of Aberfan or something), woody, whereas the truth of the matter is, the jelly satchets we use to feed our classes have about as much flavour and sustenance in them as konnyaku (devil's tongue). I'm not saying that I'm a huge fan of SFL yet, but thank goodness for innovators like Halliday, Sinclair etc because I think I'd go mad if I just had the prospect of peddling e.g. Interchange's syllabus and activities over and over for the rest of my so-called career: some of us are quietly working away at expanding the syllabus and options so we might one day actually be producing better students, faster, and in the process having more interesting or genuinely fun lessons.

I don't have time now to spank you for your "insights" into the passive, but if SJ doesn't come back soon to do it I guess the pleasure will indeed fall to me.

[woodcutter]

Yes, yes, Mr.Hamster, the textbooks are all absolutely awful until you get round to writing one, we know.

I've been scurrying around the greater world of forums a bit more recently (since due to L.Latham's demise this one has died a bit) and I note that when there is a textbook bashing session everyone piles in with bewilderingly different ideas about every different book.

What we can say though is that nearly all the people who write the textbooks are in possession of grand qualifications, and are quite capable of expounding systemic functional linguistics and other nasties.

What some of them lack is a bit of sense.

If Stephen had said that a passive sentence was "more about" the subject rather than "about" I wouldn't demur. Is it worth a fight? Anyway, as a demonstration of why we need special "functional grammar", it is really rather rubbish. Everybody covers that.

[woodcutter]

By the way, on an exotic excursion into the Middle East forum, I noticed Stephen Jones defending the wearing of Arabic dress by western teachers.

So we must all picture him posting thus from now on!

[Stephen Jones]

By the way, on an exotic excursion into the Middle East forum, I noticed Stephen Jones defending the wearing of Arabic dress by western teachers.

I merely suggested that doing so was not necessarily a sign of insanity. Just as I would not have anything against an EFL teacher in Papua New Guinea with a BMI between 18 and 23 wearing nothing else but nose rings and a *beep* gourd.

That vision should keep woodcutter busy for the weekend

[Stephen Jones]

Your attitude, woodcutter, seems to be that you don't understand the terminology so you'll ridicule it and not even bother to understand what others are posting.

Soy yo then, as I suspected, means "it is me" and not "I am me" and the Spanish students are translating word for word. No Asian student has ever come up with "I am me", as I recall, so I don't think that it is the lack of a lecture on "theme" and "focus" that is the problem.

Where did I ever say that not understanding theme and focus causes this problem. Your are the one who is suggesting the L2 learner should be given the metalanguage. It's called setting up a strawman argument.

The ideas of theme and focus are there to help you, the teacher, understand the underlying phenomena. You then chose the terms you want to explain this to your students.

Your statement that Japanese or Korean students don't speak Spanglish is meaningless. Spanish students don't speak Chinglish. Each set of students will however come up with its own mistakes; if the best you can come up with to explain why they are wrong is "they don't say anything" you will rightly be judged a loser, as to the student the constructions do obviously say something.

Subject/verb was lazy, I meant "verb phrase" or "complement".

Still wrong. Look at this sequence.
Where did you go last night?
We went to the cinema.
The focus here is on 'to the cinema'.
Look at this:
I said she was a paediatrician, not a paedophile.
In this case the focus is on 'paediatrician' and the contrastive stress shows this. Contrastive stress is required when the focus is elsewhere than the default. And the everyday meaning of focus chimes in perfectly with the linguistic meaning.

As to the passive, it merely signifies a small shift in focus. The sentence "The Pope was bitten by a cat" is not about the Pope. It is about the pope, a cat, and no less, some biting. That's why "The Pope was bitten" probably means something else.

The theme of the sentence is the Pope; the rheme or focus is 'was bitten by a cat'. What you're saying is meaningless anyway, even allowing for the fact you clearly have no understanding of the technical terms. A small shift in focus" from what. From the active?

Is that something enough to make it worthwhile kicking an MA off with "functional" grammar (another dubious piece of terminology!) though?

The thread was started by someone asking about whether it is a good idea to have an MA course in TEFL or applied linguistics without any modules dealing with descriptive linguistics. You are the one who decided to change that into an attack on Halliday whom you scarcely seem to have read or heard of.

Halliday is a proponent of 'systemic-functional linguistics" not "functional' grammar.

Transformational grammar also teaches us things, but I suggest that it isn't needed on the MA course beyond the very basics.

The point is that the OP was talking about a course where even the basics aren't there. And you seem to be confusing the basics of linguistics with whatever you can remember from your schooldays.

There are also other more obscure grammars out there, such as the one "Prawn" advocated on this forum, and Stephen Jones had no time for.

'Prawn', aka 'Ludwig', aka 'Zero Hero' is a believer in systemic-functional linguistics. Not obscure and although I don't have time for more than a superficial acquaintance that does not mean a lack of respect.

[woodcutter]

And 'theme' and 'focus' are absolutely central concepts. They make explaining the passive easy. Picasso painted 'Guernica' is a sentence about Picasso. 'Guernica' was painted by Picasso is a sentence abut Guernica. Moreover it makes it clear why 'They've cooked dinner' cannot be transformed into *Dinner has been cooked by them.

Moreover they come to the rescue in hidden ways. Plenty of times people explain why we say 'me' in the phrase 'It's me' but it's only when you are teaching a Spanish speaker with a penchant for awkward questions that you are asked why we don't say *'I'm me'.

So, to sort out that problem, you suggested bringing up "theme" and "focus" with the students. Play fair.

I hijacked the thread somewhat. The OP was asking if we should study grammar at MA level, cos he/she found an MA that didn't require it. I said that the MAs often make people study very obscure grammar. Too much so. Keep up.

Not understanding terminology very well should not make us afraid of criticizing things which are too difficult to be useful. The obscure terminology allows some people to get away with murder. If things are difficult for me, they are extrememly difficult for any student. I recently took out a book on "functional grammar". I still fail to see the point. The author cited Halliday as the inspiration, yet I look it up on Wikipedia and there is no mention of him in connection with that name. If systemic functional linguistics has not been something you have found cause to delve into much in your long career, I suggest that no student or normal teacher need bother!

[Stephen Jones]

to sort out that problem, you suggested bringing up "theme" and "focus" with the students. Play fair.

Something seriously wrong with your reading skills. Nowhere in what you quote did I suggest it is necessary to explain the terms to the students. Indeed I believe that a descriptive grammar that satisfies the needs of the teacher cannot satisfy the needs of the student and vice-versa.

But, if you are asked to explain to a student why They've cooked dinner can't be transformed into * Dinner's been cooked by them., you will need to explain that 'by them' is in a position in the sentence where new important information is given, and 'by them' does not actually add anything to the sentence. I'm not all that sure that throwing in the term focus would be inappropriate, particularly as it can be recycled to explain contrastive stress, and why yes/no questions end on a rising tone, and 'wh' questions have a rising and falling tone.

[woodcutter]

You said we needed "theme" and "focus" in order to deal with the students "soy yo" question. That insinuates we will bring these things up. If not, how does your explanation run?

My statements about the passive, that all parts of "the pope was bitten by the cat" provide meaning, that the sentence is "about" all of these, and that a subtraction may alter the sentence, are clearly meaningful.

In most situations we can switch the passive into the active and vice versa, but we will place a little more focus on what you call the "theme"! Thus switching the sentence may make it somewhat unnatural.

The pope is the theme, the biting and the cat are the focus - such statements are meaningless without further convoluted explanation.

It usually doesn't matter who cooked dinner. If we mention who did, then we will tend to focus the sentence on that person. Thus the examples you give are not "wrong", but unnatural sounding.

Your comments regarding the "default" of the sentence and the "focus" origins of rising tones are also pretty meaningless to those outside the loop of this brand of grammar. (though it rings some kind of transformational bell) That includes me. I would like to be illuminated though, if clear illumination is possible, which is not a given.

[Stephen Jones]

Your comments regarding the "default" of the sentence and the "focus" origins of rising tones are also pretty meaningless to those outside the loop of this brand of grammar.

Perhaps it might be an idea then if you got into the loop. It's hardly rocket science.

The focus is the new information. Look at short answers people give.
"Where did you go yesterday?"
"To the cinema."
The whole short answer is new information. Give the answer as a grammatically complete sentence
We went to the cinema.
and the new information or focus is still the same.
In this interchange
"What did you do yesterday?"
"We went to the cinema"
the phrase 'went to the cinema' is the new information,or focus.

Communcation basically depends on something already known and new information about it. It is pointless to communicate something completely known (which is why "I am me" is a pointless phrase) and difficult to communicate something completely new about something unknown, since there is no peg to hang the new informtion on. This simple commonsensical fact is what we mean by theme and focus.

Both ideas are almost certainly part of Universal Grammar. Some languages such as Japanese actually have specific markers for theme.

Your distinction between unnatural and wrong is not at all clear. After all if no native speaker will ever produce the utterance naturally in what meaningful sense is the sentence not wrong? Moreover I maintain that there is a grammatical rule saying a dummy subject cannot be transformed into an agent.

[woodcutter]

I was going to say it sounded like universal grammar - Spanish must be the same. Therefore why should "soy yo" be excluded?

So if the new information is the focus, then in....

Who cooked dinner? John cooked dinner.

John is the focus. In such a case, dinner is the theme?

If the theme can be the subject or the agent/object, what help is this?

Wouldn't it be easier to say that if a human being is mentioned in the sentence, then only in exceptional circumstances are they not the active subject?

[fluffyhamster]

Why don't we mention things like 'topic' and 'comment' while we're at it LOL.

I believe I have a reasonable implicit grasp of the function of the passive, but in trying to follow this thread my head is starting to spin like Linda Blair's (Tony's daughter, for those who didn't know), and it's actually not because of anything that SJ has written (his posts are a model of clarity compared to some people's!).

So, SJ obviously knows his stuff, as his most recent post above shows. It is tempting to think that every teacher can come to similar realizations without grappling with the grammar (There is someone or something that we want to say something about, so we mention them/it, and then proceed appropriately: My dad got mugged last night vs. 3 guys - Who?! - mugged my dad last night; It says "Made in China" on the back vs. I wonder how much the worker who made this got paid), but we are then often left with teachers who can't organize their thoughts about the language or plan even halfway-effective lessons, and you have to wonder if such teachers (with an aversion to dicovering more about how languages work) bother even to read the succinct summaries of the kind provided by SJ here; there are many teachers who don't contribute to or even join and stop by Dave's to ponder anything, and some of those who do visit sometimes don't seem to know their *ss from their elbow and can lack even the most rudimentary of grammar reference books (apologies to all sincere newbies who are trying their best).

Teachers have to grapple with and juggle terms of some sort to arrive at progressively more powerful insights and generalizations, and there is quite a difference between making seemingly similar general statements on the basis of possessing, or not actually possessing (as the case may be) some genuine knowledge behind and backing up the pronouncement. If a teacher can make a profound without doing much research, they are either a genius, or are reading the work of a genius, or are a "confidence trickster" (and is there much discernible difference between the last two on a one-off item basis e.g. in discussing "the passive"). I myself often feel out of my depth, and it probably often shows...but the important thing is to keep coming back to it, to whatever is problematic or intriguing (which is almost everything, when you stop and think about it!)

It's of course in some ways unfortunate that there is a proliferation of theories and terminology, not all of which may be of obvious immediate relevance to each individual teacher, and some may lack the explanatory power of others, but at least this all provides a choice, differing approaches and angles, for any teacher prepared to become informed, and it is a bit silly to suggest that having a choice to make, any choice at all, from amoung potentially ever better ideas is an unreasonable state of affairs - what would you prefer, following some "expert" trainer and swallowing everything they say, and only what they say? Widdowson has plenty to say about "common sense" and taking a principled approach exhibiting real understanding.

Very few trainers do the language, their trainees, and ultimately the trainees' future students justice, and nor could they, because it is a seemingly simple yet complex phenomenon, this thing called language. It can be made artificially simple, sure, but it can also be made reasonably (realistically) sophisticated too, and getting the "facts" right and straight in your head is obviously essential if you intend to be more a "sophisticated" sort of teacher (in planning at least); and getting those facts right should involve referring to the literature and past and present theories and explanations (unless you feel like re-inventing the wheel and totally exhausting your own intuitions).

Teachers who reckon it's easy to teach, and that theory is a waste of time are often those very people who seem to burn out after 5 years and quit after 10, claiming the pay never reflects their "experience". I wonder what an employer should be paying them more for, though - a few decks of flashcards and some tatty old photocopied newspaper articles, perhaps?

Wow typing all that whilst looking out at the students practising for their Sports Festival wasted a good hour!

[Stephen Jones]

John is the focus. In such a case, dinner is the theme?

John is the focus, and as a result would have contrastive stress
Who cooked dinner?
John cooked dinner.

You would however normally answer with just 'John' or 'John did'

The theme is in the question. No need to repeat.

If the theme can be the subject or the agent/object, what help is this?

Not with you here at all: you seem to be confused. In a normal active sentence the agent and the subject are the same thing. I fail to see how the agent can be the object.

Wouldn't it be easier to say that if a human being is mentioned in the sentence, then only in exceptional circumstances are they not the active subject?

I completely fail to see what you mean. In the sentence
I love Lucy.
it is possible that Lucy is an inflatable rubber doll, but normally she would be a human being and not the subject.
And plenty of sentences do without human beings altogether.

[woodcutter]

You said that "theme" and "focus" can help us understand when to use the passive.

Swan, in his homespun way, says that "we prefer to start the sentence with something that is already known, and put the new information at the end". (and as we all know, we verbally emphasize new info)

You mean then, I suppose, that all other things being equal, the general "theme" of discourse will be the subject, and the new info, or "focus" will come later. We make a sentence passive in order to maintain this.

"That statue is in quite a state!"
"Yes, it was struck by lightning"

The statue is the theme in the second sentence.

However, there are many exceptions. We would put the new info first if the verb does not like to the passivized. "A crane fell on it". People do not like to be passivized, so we say "Bill Bates kicked it!". Our partner can create a new theme for the discourse - they may say "A car hit it" if they have juicy information about the car. In fact, the pattern is so weak that when writing prose.....

Wilkins is an unhappy tramp. He is often bullied by the police; he is teased by the local children. Dogs often bite him.

....we can break the rule simply to ease the monotony.

Pronouns, always being referred to previously, are likely to be the general theme, they are also likely to be people. They are therefore usually the subject of the sentence.

However..."Ladies and gents, let me introduce tonights special guests, Jamie Oliver, Nigella Lawson and Delia Smith. I'm delighted to announce - tonights dinner has been cooked by them!" Would this be "wrong", as you claim?

In other ways, the "functional linguistics" seems to have led us beyond the truth. You claim that each and every sentence has "theme" and "focus". However, if I charge into the room and say "Turkey has invaded Greece!", then all the information is new, and I will emphasize nothing. I may have no special idea what the "theme" should be - in which case I will go with the easiest structure - the active. If I do have a special idea - if I am talking to Greeks for example - then I may emphasize one, and make the sentence passive.

[fluffyhamster]

In other ways, the "functional linguistics" seems to have led us beyond the truth. You claim that each and every sentence has "theme" and "focus". However, if I charge into the room and say "Turkey has invaded Greece!", then all the information is new, and I will emphasize nothing. I may have no special idea what the "theme" should be - in which case I will go with the easiest structure - the active. If I do have a special idea - if I am talking to Greeks for example - then I may emphasize one, and make the sentence passive.

You may well emphasize your "special idea" by using the passive, but wouldn't it sound a bit odd? (That country you're from, you know, called) Greece has been invaded by Turkey!

Adopting a little amateur "us versus them", "in-group" psychology (and likely being able to follow on from tensions in the region having been reported as building up i.e. say it in the context of an escalating dispute and coming war), I'd probably more say 'The Turks have/Turkey has invaded/attacked!', and leave the Greeks whom I'd be telling to work out the import of that bit of news for them(selves).

'A crane fell on it' - 'fall' is not transitive (i.e. it is intransitive), so it isn't a case of the verb 'not liking to be passivized', it simply cannot be. It got damaged...when a crane fell on it/by a falling crane/a migrating crane flew into it. You sure pick your examples!

'Bill Gates' (said very fast) 'kicked it' - 'Sorry, who? Did you say Bill Gates?!' > Guess who kicked it! Who? BG! I guess fame interferes with the functioning of the passive when it isn't e.g. an old painting by a dead old master that we're talking about, but the very recent statue-kicking rampages of a software tycoon frustrated with innumerable complaints about his new, "improved" product.

I didn't know the virtual inventor of notional syllabuses had sunk so low. Policemen harass him; children attack him; and the dog p-ed over his tent.

Ladies and gents, today's stew has a bewildering variety of ingredients and was created, kept at a low simmer (no boiling!) and stirred by none other than...woodcutter! (Yes, what a surprise! ). The master chef Stephen Jones will now deliver his verdict...

[woodcutter]

Well, cheerleading hamster, I am still waiting, and Stephen has found time to comment on Ryan Air elsewhere.

Let me sum up then, to my own satisfaction, as Larry used to!

We have all seen Stephen Jones display an extremely admirable grasp of ESL issues.

However, journeying into the outer realm of semantics, and under the influence of some grand all-encompassing dogma, even he has made some strange statements on this thread. I suggest, therefore, that if a being such as he cannot quite get things straight, this kind of approach is not very helpful to mortal men. As teachers, we should deal with semantics only as far as necessary, and as part of the usual corpus of grammar. Our intuition will serve us as well as our iron-rule gathering/mongering, and there are more useful things to occupy our time on an MA course.