[Grammar] if you would have predicted five years ago

[Tdol]

I am not sure that the ideologically pure descriptivist exists, and probably not the absolute prescriptivist either. I don't think the level of consistency is under any threat from forms like the one we are discussing. Languages are flexible enough to withstand a few differences of view. You cannot have a speech community without making sense to each other. It may be a struggle sometimes with strong dialects, but those are receding somewhat in an age of greater movement and connectivity.

Grammarians have argued all sorts of cases, but I struggle to think of one they have won convincingly. Once native speakers in sufficient numbers have decided to do something, then the momentum is unstoppable. The thing that saves the traditionalists' bacon is the old fallback of saying that one form is preferred or recommended in formal usage. It creates a sort of protective bubble around what bothers them, though this too changes over time- it's been many years since I heard someone arguing that we should say lays-by as the correct plural. We probably benefit from having a brake and an accelerator- they help keep the speech community together.

 

[jutfrank]

I agree this is a very relevant discussion for language teachers. Please allow me to share my thoughts.

I feel that as teachers, we are not asked to be descriptive. In fact, I would go as far as claiming that we have an important responsibility to take a prescriptive role. Language teachers (taking a prescriptive approach) are on one side and dictionary-writers, corpus-builders, and academic linguists (taking a descriptive approach) are on another side. There's a dialectic process going on, in the Hegelian sense, if you get my drift, and there must be a balance.


Applying the biological model of natural selection to language evolution: a genetic mutation (a language error) occurs for whatever reason, and gets copied, again and again until its trait gets selected by the environment (the speech community) and eventually becomes dominant (standard use).

By this model, academics are the scientists, the biologists, geneticists, whose task is to be objective -- to observe and describe this process. Language teachers are the genetic engineers, the farmers, who want to take control and direct this force of evolution for the good of the people. Farmers are interested in feeding people, geneticists are not. We are feeders. We want to provide for our students, who want us to feed them, to empower them, to give them what they can use effectively and productively. The world needs both biologists and farmers.

There are describers and prescribers and they need each other.

(Forgive the simplistic analogy. I just wanted to make my point in very general terms before any elaboration.)

 

[jutfrank]

I agree if we know that our learners are preparing for examinations. If, on the other hand, they are learning the language to make it possible for them to communicate effectively, then I do not agree. To tell them that a particular form is incorrect is not helpful when they hear and see it from native speakers all the time.

But if we explain to them why it is incorrect, I think it is helpful. They don't just want to sound like native speakers, they want to sound like highly competent native speakers.

My feeling is that some forms become errors only when some self-appointed expert decrees that that they are errors. If the 'expert' happens to use the dialect of the ruling/educated class, then his/her prescriptions will enter the teaching system and become generally accepted. This is how the rules about not ending sentences with a preposition or not splitting infinitives came into being. They were not errors until somebody decreed they were.

Yes, this is a good point. I think you raise the question: What is actually meant by 'an error'? I'm still trying to think of a way of answering this. I might hint at an answer by saying that ending sentences with prepositions and splitting infinitives are definitely not, nor have they ever been errors in the sense that I'm suggesting. These are merely formal, stylistic features. I mean, they don't impede communication, they are not unclear, confusing or ambiguous. Surely an error is something that causes, or is likely to cause a problem, like a misunderstanding, a misconstrual, or offence, however slight. It is up to us to judge the magnitude of this.

A large part of my teaching is EAP so I'm often focusing on errors of lexical precision, clarity of expression, and making good sense logically and conceptually. I believe there is a very strong connection between thinking clearly and expressing one's thoughts clearly.

We usually categorise learner errors into various classes. Spelling errors are very common and rarely cause communication problems (if only involving a single letter, for example.) Pronunciation errors may or may not, depending on what they are -- vowel sounds not as much as errors in word stress, for example. Vocabulary errors can be potentially very problematic, and I think grammar errors can be the most significant of all, but again it depends on the nature of the error (whether it's an error of form or syntax, for example) and on the specifics in each case. Again, it is our job as teachers to make judgements based on our expertise. We should not listen to self-appointed experts, the ruling class or any non-teachers at all, in my opinion, but only to our own and to each other's expertise as educators, when making such judgements.

 

[GoesStation]

They are on the way to reinstating the subjunctive in BrE. This is a sample of a question ten-year-old pupils will be expected to answer in the new 'toughened-up' SATS:

4. Which option completes the sentence below so that it uses the subjunctive mood?
I wish I _______ free to come to your party, but I am afraid I will be busy.
Were
Could be
Was
May be

That's an odd question. In AmE, where the subjunctive mood persists in everyday usage, we would be very unlikely to use it there. It's not an assertion contrary to fact.

 

[emsr2d2]

I would use only "were" there but I'd be interested to see what the kids taking the new test say. I imagine the majority of the kids in the UK will put "was".

 

[Roman55]

Same for me, when I see it.

So true.

I still remember a trivial incident that occurred some 35 years ago when a particularly irritating co-worker 'corrected' me when I said 'could've'. She thought I'd said 'could of', (something of which I have never been guilty BTW).

 

[ChinaDan]

I agree if we know that our learners are preparing for examinations. We must enable them to learn the forms required to obtain the best possible marks. If, on the other hand, they are learning the language to make it possible for them to communicate effectively, then I do not agree. To tell them that a particular form is incorrect is not helpful when they hear and see it from native speakers all the time.
I don't. My feeling is that some forms become errors only when some self-appointed expert decrees that that they are errors. If the 'expert' happens to use the dialect of the ruling/educated class, then his/her prescriptions will enter the teaching system and become generally accepted. This is how the rules about not ending sentences with a preposition or not splitting infinitives came into being. They were not errors until somebody decreed they were.

99%. You have pretty much described Communicative Language Teaching (CLT); a form of teaching which I believe is the most efficient way to teach language - not grammar or vocabulary - but actual fluent usage.

You included the caveat, but I would emphasise it more strongly than you have. Certain forms of writing are, by their very nature, highly prescribed. These are valid forms, and I don't think they should be overlooked.

When a student of mine uses a form "incorrectly" (but according to common usage), I ensure they understand what they are doing. I know some teachers actually teach kids what they consider "real English", including the use of "wanna, gonna, yep" and so on. I do not teach that, and I make sure my students know it is not "proper" English, but I acknowledge that I use those terms myself at times. I don't tell them it is wrong, but I tell them not to use it in papers they turn in to me (unless it's narrative usage), and advise them not to use it with other teachers; saving, of course, the situation where a teacher encourages such usage.

My point is, I think I agree with you on the core purpose of a language teacher; teach the kids to use the language the same way we do. However, more prescriptive/formal forms of writing are very important to master if the student hopes to do any communication other than casual discourse. All academic, business, and other formal situations will benefit from using language considered "proper". The students will make a better impression at interviews. It is just the way the world is.

 

[Tdol]

They are on the way to reinstating the subjunctive in BrE. This is a sample of a question ten-year-old pupils will be expected to answer in the new 'toughened-up' SATS:

4. Which option completes the sentence below so that it uses the subjunctive mood?

I didn't know that, but at least they stress that they want the subjunctive instead of just insisting that was is wrong. It rather smacks of death-by-committee than any great way to raise standards, though.

 

[ChinaDan]

I don't understand this. If they are prescribed, they are hardly valid.

My choice of words could perhaps use some more careful consideration. I had in mind something like a Master's Thesis. A common demand of an institution might be that the student adheres to APA formatting. This is highly prescriptive.

I agree to an extent, though I would say the language of (semi-) formal) writing and formal speech rather than proper English. The forms you mention are fine in normal speech and fairly informal writing - private emails and texts, for example.

Agreed.

Then we need to make them aware that the casual forms you do not teach are common and natural in some contexts.

For me, I am content to allow them to discover the lower forms for themselves. I would not, for humorous example, ever teach Expletives 101.

I would be more impressed with a candidates's oral skills if they said /aɪm gəʊn(t)ə kɒnsentreɪt .../ rather than /aɪ æm gəʊɪnŋ tuː kɒnsentreɪt ... / during an interview, though the latter would be more appropriate in a formal presentation.

I take your point. A highly subjective issue, I would say.

We also need to remember that most fourteen-year-old learners are not going to be writing academic papers in English at any time in their lives. I got the impression (I may be wrong) that the language you teach young learners is formal English.

I teach university-age (or did - I'm in administration now), and my focus would always be on "normal" usage. By this, I mean language that sits between formal usage at one extreme, and "street-talk" at the other. I would acknowledge slang, but discouraged its use - it's surprisingly seductive, however. The kids have no trouble picking it up if they have more than a basic command of English. I do not think teaching it is necessary, nor a good use of classroom time.

As for formal English, I only taught that specifically as an elective. Slang, grammar, formal usage; these are topics I address ad hoc, but rarely if ever specifically include in a lesson. I might keep some grammar tricks on hand as a mini-lesson should a class complete early, but my focus (and philosophy) is clarity. I seek from my students pronunciation that is good enough to make them easily understood; I care not a whit about accent. I prefer to teach them correct usage, but permit a drift into common usage. At the same time, as I've said, I make them aware that this is a requirement I set for my class, and that other more relaxed usage is not necessarily wrong. The underlying philosophy is to master the right way first, then experiment. This is far more dynamic a relationship than my words indicate.

One last point - intent and practice are not always the same thing. My experience with ESL in China is that any given class will vary wildly in English ability, even though you might expect in theory that they'd be reasonably consistent. I might "want" to teach in a particular way, and a particular set of material, but the lesson plan often does not survive meeting the class...

 

[GoesStation]

It's not an assertion, but it is a wish for a state that is contrary to fact - the speaker is not , or will not, be free to come to the party. I am very surprised that AmE uses the indicative here. Would you say I wish I was dead?

Yes.