A different way to teach grammar?

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 8:43 pm

The point is that 'remoteness' explains nearly every difference in usage between the 'Present' and the 'Past'. Sure you can't use 'remoteness' to predict usage, but all explanations of the different use of the two tenses is encapsulated within the context.

Remember that tenses, like aspects, do not describe an objective reality but the attitude of the speaker to that reality.

JuanTwoThree · Post by **JuanTwoThree** » Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:50 pm

And it's not exactly quantum physics. I have no trouble with it, nor do reasonably advanced students of English.

Now if Woodcutter had been banging on all this time about the pointlessness of teaching, let alone looking for, any kind of core meaning to modals, especially "should", I'd have been cheering him/her* all the way.

* I'm afraid that unless people are called Stephen or Sally I'm not sure if we are men or women. And even then.......we're just user names.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Oct 23, 2008 3:10 pm

the pointlessness of teaching, let alone looking for, any kind of core meaning to modals, especially "should", I'd have been cheering him/her* all the way.

I agree. Lewis goes overboard on this. I remember having long discussions on the affair with our resident American poster who has deserted us for greener pastures.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 3:18 am

There isn't any point teaching (or seeking) a core meaning to anything. There is a point to teaching a common meaning, and a point to teaching meaningful meanings in particular contexts. Slightly abstract umbrella meanings with no predictive power - no thanks. Teaching any core meaning is teaching students to go on and ask "why do people say "I should like a cake"". Why why why?

Therefore there is no rule to cry "exception" about.

I like Juan's idea that I have some feminine grace though. While he has been "glacially remote" I hope I have remained sweetly polite. Oh wait! The two things are one and the same.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Oct 24, 2008 8:42 pm

The alternative to teaching the core meaning is to teach a long list of disparate usages without any apparent link between them. Larsen-Freeman is the most egregious example of the latter approach, and the comment somebody once made about Swan, "If he's the solution, l'll stick with the problem" applies to both of them.

And if you only teach things that have predictive value, your lessons are going to be pretty short.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Mon Oct 27, 2008 12:28 am

No, the alternative is to teach a common meaning - the one that will be assumed in an unfamiliar context - and any other meanings that are different enough to need explanation, as the need occurs. (And you need to explain "remoteness" in any case). The links between a common meaning and a less common one - bewteen good and a "good distance" etc - are lost in the mists of history - you need not pursue them, students need not enquire about them - it may in fact teach them a false idea about language - and any obvious connection will be fairly obvious to all.

By common meaning I don't mean it must be utterly single context dependent - that would be absurd. It must be a meaning that can be used in a number of similar contexts. However you must let the meaning go if it becomes untenable in a certain context, you mustn't try to put threads through plain different things. It is a fine line, but you certainly see that two meanings are abroad when a sentence can be read in two ways. "It is a good train ride from Boston to Montreal" could refer to distance or quality. "Did you want coffee?", addressed to a tea drinker, could refer to the past or be a polite gambit.

We have our dinner on a table. We put facts and figures in a table. Is a table, a flat rectangular thing? No, because my book isn't a table. If you want to use that explanation as an aid to memory, or a guideline for a few similarities, it can sometimes help. However to promote it as a philosophy is wrong.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 10:26 am

What we end up if we follow your method is a long list of non-common meanings that take up dozens of pages, have to be learnt by heart, and have no apparent logical connection between them.

The concept of 'distance' explains every example of the use of the past over the present that I can think of. To ignore it seems wilful obstinacy. Just to give one simple example, how do you explain when to backshift or not in reported speech if you jettison the idea of subjective distance.

fluffyhamster · Post by **fluffyhamster** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 3:32 pm

Stephen Jones wrote:How do you explain when to backshift or not in reported speech if you jettison the idea of subjective distance.

Can you give us a few examples (for the benefit of newer members - and some new examples would be nice, for the benefit of older members) of what you're on about here (about what exactly backshifts, and why)?

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Thu Oct 30, 2008 11:43 pm

Yes, I'd like to see exactly what you mean as well. Anyway, four uses don't make an endless list. Got any more? "He said he liked apples" does not generally refer to the past liking of apples, or politeness, or future dreams, so once again a general application of any old remoteness is not going to help. We have to look at the context. But yes, the vague blanket that explains nothing probably has it covered.

I'm not suggesting you need jettison the ideas we've seen up to now, I'm saying that if the "past forms" carry that meaning of personal distance in certain contexts, it does not mean that we have to find a link between that and different contexts, where mere past time or imagined reality is implied.

What I thought you were going to say, Stephen, is that my examples don't matter because the tenses are different. If you accept that my examples are valid, then what I am suggesting is of course exactly what everybody does. We teach the common meaning of table - a thing with legs to have yer dinner on - (well, maybe we just point at one) and teach other forms later, as they arise. We don't worry about the philosophical ultra-table. The later meanings will probably have some quality or other that reminds us of our dinner table. All the better, as long as we don't fret about it.

Since you don't like Lewisian central meanings, I can't understand your position.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:38 am

I ignored the vocabulary examples because I don't think they're remotely relevant.

With regard to backshifting in reported speech just take this one example.

There is a famine and some relief workers drive past a man who flags them down. One speaks to him, and when he gets back in the cars the other asks what he says.

There are three possible replies, all grammatical, and all referring to exactly the same exterior circumstances.
He says he's starving.
He said he's starving.
He said he was starving.

Now the only explanation for when you use each one is distance (in this case probably emotional distance, which suggests the guy is most likely to get fed if the speaker used the first version, and least likely if he used the third). This applies to every case of backshifting in reported speech. The direct speech is only backshifted if there is a wish by the speaker to make a distance from the exact words said, whether because the distancing is more appropriate to a formal register, or because he doesn't feel that involved, or whatever. There will be the occasional example where backshifting occurs because the action spoken about is in the past, but that is the exception. In most cases you can choose to backshift or not, and the only explanation for the choice is distancing.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:45 am

Why aren't vocabulary examples relevant? (and do you agree therefore?) Why aren't there central meanings in modals? Why is it only tense markers that must philosophically link all uses?

Anyway, something in the past is gone, and something in the present is not. Reported speech makes both choices logical (unless something is well in the past, in which case you must use the past) and the implications are natural enough. Whatever, it is one more very well defined context, and Lewisians and the rest of us teachers all have to teach it.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:08 am

Anyway, something in the past is gone, and something in the present is not. Reported speech makes both choices logical (unless something is well in the past, in which case you must use the past) and the implications are natural enough. Whatever, it is one more very well defined context, and Lewisians and the rest of us teachers all have to teach it.

I've no idea what you're talking about here. Far from being 'very well defined' it's terminally confused.

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 2:58 am

The context of reporting speech isn't hard to spot, I mean. You are either reporting speech or you aren't.

Stephen Jones · Post by **Stephen Jones** » Fri Oct 31, 2008 12:57 pm

The context of reporting speech isn't hard to spot, I mean. You are either reporting speech or you aren't

That's clear. But we're talking about the use of backshifting in reported speech. How do you explain that?

woodcutter · Post by **woodcutter** » Mon Nov 03, 2008 12:22 am

Well, for example, If a response is expected, then

He says he is starving, because the force of the statement still holds as if it was currently being said.

He said he is starving.

Neutral. He said it past, but he is starving, present.

He said he was starving. Now this is really a mistake if the guy is still right there at the open window pointing tummywards. Maybe a Nazi joke. You can't just decide whether the situation is still true or not based on your feelings - you have to use chronological fact as well. Since we often don't really know though, we have a lot of leeway to insert our emotions into it.

Since remoteness can be one or the other, there is no way for a Lewisian to look carefully into the matter.