Why do these two sentences bother me so?

[abufletcher]

"since I heard it for the first time" gives 314 returns when googled.

"since I first heard it" gives 52,000. I would correct the sentence, if it came across my desk, like this second one. The Japanese teacher is asking me "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why?" "Why?!!"

It's a shame that the Japanese teacher (or most native speaker teachers for that matter) can't learn to accept at an answer: "Because it is more frequently occurring." From one perspective grammar is nothing but the result of historical frequency. I think this idea of using Google to get a feel for frequency is a great.

On an intuitive level I also feel that "since I heard it for the first time" is a bit awkward compared to "since I first hear it." I think one reason why the former would probably be favored in EFL materials (here in Japan) is that it is more amenable to dissection and bit by bit translation: (since)(I heard it)(for the first time). The second version can't be dissected as neatly abnd really needs to be learned (and therefore taught) as a semi-fixed lexico-semantic frame ("since I first/last PP it"). And while in theory a huge number of verbs might grammatically fit this frame, I'd bet that 3-4 verbs represent 99% of the actual usage. Ditto on the pronouns.

Frequency IS a reason.

[mesmark]

I didn't write any letters to the editor or ask for books to be changed. I also conceded my arguement to just 2 people. So, I'm not sure that I'm in the minority. I'm in the minority here. But, I understand that there are those who would use this sentence pattern.

I love the native speaker 'quotes' Does it matter if I am or I'm not a native speaker when questioning something? If it requires quotes, it would seem you think it irrelevant. If irrelevant, then why bring it up?

When we're using English to communicate I would agree that meaning is more important than syntax. If the meaning is effectively communicated then that's communication. However, when we're teaching, we should definitely be concerned with sentence structure. Don't you agree?

Going back to the ownership conspiracy, I have no choice but to teach my English. I'm always working to expand my English. In doing so, I try to be open minded and presume, as in this example, that the language is OK but maybe just not what I would say. Then, I check it out. That's why I posted it. Through discussion I found that several people find no fault in the sentence structure or usage and I went away wiser.

[abufletcher]

However, when we're teaching, we should definitely be concerned with sentence structure. Don't you agree?

No.

[fluffyhamster]

Regarding "ownership" of the language, norms/models chosen and presented (then presumably followed and used), and creativity etc, I don't think the specific variants here are an issue, but I do generally favour presenting native-speaker usage (I'm not talking slang here but e.g. determiner usage) for its ability to "reveal" the underlying logic and tendencies of the language: if you can't make it to a native-speaking country, exposure to reasonably authentic material (some editing and simplification may sometimes be necessary) would seem the next best thing.

One also needs to consider the fact that some nationalities (particularly Japanese) can be very insecure in their ability, and it would maybe be doing them more favours in the long run to present language that they will soon realize the utility of (from hearing and reading it frequently in genuine discourse), than "substandard" language (in more than one sense) that won't ever have quite resolved whatever questions they might have started formulating through their studies.

[mesmark]

No.

interesting.
why not? (as long as it's not a big can of worms.)

[abufletcher]

It's about the biggest can of worms imaginable and flies directly in the face of the orthodox EFL worldview. If fact, most teachers today would probably think it's absolute heresy as it involves a fundamental reconsideration of the "language as machine" and "language as tool" metaphors that permiate the world of EFL (and seem particularly strong on this forum). Here's a bit of creative imagery that hints at an alternative:

Language is like a river. 
 
The water is never the same water and the currents and eddies change constantly.  But somehow, we are always able to recognize it as the same river.
 
What flows along the river, indeed the stuff the river is made of, is communication – sometimes muddy and sometimes crystal clear. 
 
Just as a river carves out, over time, a channel for itself through the landscape (we call it the “riverbed”), so too does interaction – through patterns of repeated actions – carve out a path that we might call grammar.
 
Grammar does not create language any more than the riverbed creates the river.  Consequently, studying the riverbed is not the same as studying the river itself.  No more than studying a footprint of an animal can be said to be studying the animal itself. 
 
Language is like a river.

[fluffyhamster]

Continuing with the analogy somewhat, teachers are tour guides leading a group of tourists (students) along a course of (initially at least) charted, reasonably navigable ways.

[mesmark]

tis a can of worms, isn't it? and this thread continues to bleed long after I thought it was dead....

I both agree and disagree equally with the study of river beds. Actually, I agree and agree.

I often have to point out to other teachers that grammar is applied to language and isn't 'the rule' but rather the explanation. While truths are definitely present and can't be ignored, you point out (nice example by the way) that the language is constantly fluxuating.

So, I agree that grammar is a tool we use to understand language usage. I also agree that grammar explains what we know about the present situation.

Much like science (and the river bed example) we teach what we know to be true by the evidence and conculusions we can make from the knowledge we have. Also, those teachings need to be reevaluated in the presence of new evidence or information.

So, I would argue that sentence structure is important in teaching to students but teachers need to be aware of the ever changing current and how that applies to information they relay to their students.

What would be some possibilities for a non-sentence structure method?

[Stephen Jones]

Am I the only person to be amazed at the relative frequencies of the two alternatives.

[fluffyhamster]

What would be some possibilities for a non-sentence structure method?

Non-sentences.

[JuanTwoThree]

Well I got 26,900 hits for "since I heard it for the first time" and 53,400 for "since I first heard it". Which seems about right to me.

Something wrong with the original data then?

[Stephen Jones]

I get the same massive difference for the two forms - one form is about 200 times more common than the other. I have changed 'heard' to 'saw' and gone from Google to Yahoo but the results appear to be the same.

[mesmark]

281:55,300
google.com

194:29,700
with Yahoo just now

[abufletcher]

Am I the only person to be amazed at the relative frequencies of the two alternatives.

I'm also amazed at this, and many other facts of frequency, that have emerged from corpus linguistics. I'm also a little shocked as it demonstrates how little I know about the true structure of language despite all we supposedly know about "grammar" as EFL teachers.

In fact, this is part of the radical reconceptualization I'm talking about. THIS is the sort of "grammar" what EFL teachers should be having questions about -- and should be teaching to students -- not silly stuff about verb tenses.

If there is something important about verb tenses (and I increasingly doubt there is) then it's facts such as the frequent occurrence of the past perfect in "account-giving contexts" and its heavy collocation with words such as "so."

[abufletcher]

I also point out that the highly prized "native speaker" intuition which has been the basis of so much linguistic theorizing is just about useless in considering these sorts of frequency issues.