Express Publishing ELT » Grammar

COLOURLESS GREEN IDEAS SLEEP FURIOUSLY

admin — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 13:32:41 +0000

A few thoughts on grammar

Is the sentence at the top of the page grammatically correct? Well, it follows the rules about combining words (adjectives + noun + verb + adverb) in the right way, but does it mean anything? Only by a tortuous stretch of the imagination. Something cannot be both colourless and green. It’s hard to imagine sleeping furiously (unless you are violently tossing and turning in the bed). Can an idea sleep? I suppose you could have green ideas if you are thinking of green meaning ecological. The only possible meaningful paraphrase I can think of is something along the lines of: dull ecological ideas don’t result in action, despite all the angry talk. But taken literally, Chomsky’s famous sentence is lacking in the second part of a definition of grammar, which is that the correctly combined words should form acceptable units of meaning within a language. The form must have a function. So, you can be perfectly grammatical but say nothing meaningful.

Have a look at this sentence.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo

How about this: Buffalo buffalo, which Buffalo buffalo buffalo, buffalo Buffalo buffalo

Try saying it aloud in different ways. Can you make it make sense?

I thought not, but… if you know that Buffalo is a town in the U.S.A. and that a buffalo is an animal, and also that there is a verb “to buffalo” meaning to bamboozle, bewilder or trick someone, then it can make some sort of sense: Buffalos from the town of Buffalo, which other buffalos from the same town bamboozle, bamboozle buffalos from Buffalo (I’m glad I’m not a Buffalo buffalo).

So, you can also say something meaningful, though it may not seem so at first.

People often liken grammar to a skeleton – it is rigid and supports the language use (words), much as our bones don’t move, but we can do whatever is physically possible using our muscles. Other common similes for grammar are blueprint, glue and building blocks. They convey the idea of grammar as either a structure or an adhesive.

Well, whatever your preferred simile, here’s a definition: grammar is a communicative device which is functionally motivated. What grammar we use depends on choice and point of view.

E.G.: “The bill hasn’t been paid yet.” vs “I haven’t paid the bill yet.”

Here the passive would be used to shift responsibility. The fact of the unpaid bill is the same in both sentences.

E.G.: “I lived there…” vs “I was living there…”

They both tell you when; the fact is the same, but the attitude different.

Grammar can be seen as expressing distance, which can be:

* Psychological: “The boss says we have to work on Saturdays…” vs “The boss said we have to work on Saturdays.”

What’s the difference? Both sentences are relaying the same information. I met with the boss yesterday and that is what he told me. Why would I use the present simple “the boss says” when it’s about a past conversation? Well, the present simple conveys permanence. (The sun is in the sky.) What was said in the past can be negotiated. So, by using the present simple, I am closer to the boss’s wishes.

* Social: “Would you please pass the water.” vs “Chuck the water over, mate.”

Here, the intention is the same – I’m thirsty, give me the water – but I can choose quite different grammatical structures, depending on my relationship with the person I’m talking to.

* Hypothetical: “I wish I were a millionaire. / If you loved me, you would buy me a diamond ring.”

Why in conditionals or wishes do we use tenses one step back? I want to be a millionaire now, so why use the past tense? It’s because there’s a distance from reality.

* Temporal: “Spain beat Germany.” “Spain are the European champions.”

Obviously here the past is used to describe a particular event which is over and the present to say what is true now.

Now, a few thoughts on teaching grammar. The most common ways are:

* Inductive: Write an example “I am standing.”

Explain the rule

Practice applying the rule

The students are given the rule

* Deductive: Demonstrate meaning with examples

Orally produce forms

Grammar is elicited after practice

The students work out the rule

* Task based: The students pick up regularities intuitively as they did their mother tongue.

What’s your method?

Finally, we like to think there are grammar rules. We read them in books and pass them on to our students. Here are “rules” that teachers give. What do you think?

Rules: are these true or false?

Some does not occur in negative sentences.

Would is the past of will.

Uncountable nouns are singular.

Must is stronger than have to.

Will is the future tense.

Double negatives are wrong.

You can’t use will after if.

We always use the past perfect to talk about something that happened before something else in the past.

I didn’t do it yet is wrong.

It’s a lovely day, isn’t it is a question.

Maybe you agree with most of these statements. Well, none of the rules are true. Check out these sentences and the comments.

I don’t like some food.	… for example oysters, but I love fish.
Would you pass the salt?	This has nothing to do with past time.
I’d like two teas.	Meaning cups of tea.
I really must go.	If you used have to, would it make any difference? No.
I’m going to leave now.	There are only two tenses in English. There is no future tense.
I can’t do nothing right.	Double negatives in certain spoken contexts reinforce the power of the utterance. It’s not maths.
If you will, I will.	OK?
I woke up late and got dressed in a hurry.	Not if the order of events is clear or two actions happened close in time to one another.
I haven’t done it yet.	American English is quite happy with the simple past when British English would prefer the present perfect.
You’re John, aren’t you?	Question tags are connected with their intonation. In the example we both know it’s a lovely day. I’m not asking a real question, I want you to affirm me and my opinion. Depending on the way you say it (with a rising or falling intonation), this utterance could be a statement or a question. If I put a question mark, it implies that I’m not sure of the answer.

(youtube: Noam Chomsky on Grammar)

Don’t be so passive

admin — Wed, 10 Aug 2011 09:33:10 +0000

“Never use the passive when the active is possible” – George Orwell

This is being written by me on the computer which was bought by me recently with the money won by me last week. The lottery had been played by me and my number was appeared in the newspaper. At last some luck was had and myself was seen living in luxury for the rest of my life. Such good fortune had been being waited for by me all my life. Unfortunately, it was just 1000 euros, which somehow wasn’t seemed enough to change my life.

I think it can be agreed that the above doesn’t sound quite right, but students are so often asked to do active – passive transformation exercises that they might be forgiven for thinking that these two voices are interchangeable.

The sentence you’ve just read, however, which employs three passive clauses, I hope reads OK.

So, what’s wrong with the first paragraph?

Let’s look at the purpose and use of the passive.
* The passive is used in more formal writing and / or when we don’t know or don’t care who or what the agent of the action is, or when we want to give emphasis to the event rather than the instigator of it. It is commonly used to convey an objective, impersonal style.
* The by phrase is in fact omitted in 80% of passive clauses where it is usually possible, as adding the agent would be stating the obvious. For these reasons the first part of the top paragraph sounds better as:

I’m writing this on the computer which I bought ……….with the money I won last week. I played the lottery…

* Intransitive verbs – those which do not take a direct object – cannot be made passive. You cannot appear, arrive, happen, go or die someone or something. So:

…my number appeared in the newspaper…

* Some verbs with a stative meaning do not normally occur in the passive.

… I had some luck…which somehow didn’t seem enough…

* If the subject and the object have the same meaning (I and myself), the passive is blocked:

…and I saw myself living…

* Though logically possible, perfect continuous is not used in the passive because it sounds silly.

…I had been waiting for such good fortune all my life…

Which of these two sentences sounds clearer?

We have been asked by your home insurers to obtain your written confirmation that all their requirements have been completed by yourself.

Your home insurers have asked us to obtain your written confirmation that you have completed all the documents.

Yes, it is to be hoped that you are agreed with by me.

What is the verb be?

admin — Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:19:32 +0000

It’s interesting that the most common verbs in many languages are irregular. Be, have, do and go often also serve as auxiliaries, combined with other verbs to express tense and other grammatical information, as in He is jogging, He has jogged, He didn’t jog, He is going to jog. Many language scientists believe that the meanings of these verbs – existence, possession, action, motion – are at the core of all verbs, if only metaphorically. For example, the mind treats telling her a story as causing the story to go to her resulting in her having it, and treats dying as going out of existence.

There are reasons for some of the weird irregularities. Let’s take the strangest – be, which has the most forms of any verb in English: be, being, been, am, is, are, were, was. Here’s the history: Old English, spoken from about 400 -1000, had three verbs for be – beon, esan and wesan. They probably differed in meaning, with beon referring to permanent states (I am English) and the other two to temporary states (I am happy). The three bes were used in different parts of England, but in the Middle English period (1100 – 1450) they merged into one verb. As in a corporate merger, in a linguistic merger the workers scramble to fill a smaller number of positions, because a verb generally permits only one form in every slot in its conjugation. Beon supplied the base form be; esan supplied am, is and are; wesan supplied was and were.

We might be able to get by without that knowledge (though I’m grateful to Steven Pinker for enlightening me), but we (and perhaps our students) should be able to distinguish whether be is being used as lexical or auxiliary verb. Here are some film titles with a commentary by Scott Thornbury to follow.

Lexical verbs
It’s a wonderful life.
Tender is the night.
I was a teenage werewolf.
Let there be light.
Chan is missing.
I’m all right Jack.
What’s up, Doc?
Who’s afraid of Virginia Woolf?
I am Sam.

Auxiliary verbs
The whole town’s talking.
How the west was won.
Guess who’s coming to dinner?
A star is born.
The Russians are coming, the Russians are coming.

In the first group, be (and its derived forms) are lexical verbs – that is, the verb to be is the main verb of its clause. It links two ideas: it is therefore classified as a linking verb. (Other linking verbs are seem and appear). Linking verbs link the subject of the clauses with its complement by, for example, identifying a quality of the subject, as in I’m all right or Tender is the night. Because be often identifies a state rather than event (It’s a wonderful life; I am Sam), it is classified as a stative verb. But, less commonly, it can be used, in the continuous form, to identify changing or temporary situations, as in You’re being naughty.

In the second group of film titles above, the verb be (and its derived forms) is not the main verb of its clause, but instead functions as an auxiliary verb. That is, it has an entirely grammatical function. (Only two other verbs – do and have – can be both lexical and auxiliary verbs). As an auxiliary, the forms of be are used to form continuous verb phrases (The whole town’s talking) and passive ones (How the west was won). It is, therefore, a very important grammatical tool, and this in part accounts for its frequency: in every 50 running words of any text you are likely to come across a was or a be or an are at least once or twice.

Actually, the distinction between lexical and grammatical uses of be is less black-and-white than all this may indicate, Chan is missing a case of subject + main verb + complement, or a case of subject + auxiliary verb + main verb? (Probably the former). What about A star is born? (Probably the latter). This blurring at the margins of lexis and grammar may attest to a common “ancestor” – a verb to be that was once purely lexical but has, over time, become grammaticised. Nevertheless, for teaching purposes, the distinction between be’s grammatical and lexical functions is a useful – even necessary – one. It should certainly help our teacher whose students still regard the different forms of be as separate items of vocabulary. One simple exercise might be to give them the film titles above – jumbled up – and ask them to sort them into two groups.

If only!

admin — Fri, 06 Aug 2010 16:21:55 +0000

(Much virtue in “if” – Shakespeare – As you like it)

If I ruled the world, every day would be the first day of spring.
If a picture paints a thousand words, then why can’t I paint you?
If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.
If Cleopatra’s nose had been longer, the whole history of the world would have been different.
If you know your onions, you’ll never be confused.

We’re familiar with our text book categorisations of conditionals into the zero, first, second and third, as exemplified above. We allow the mixed (past condition with present result) – If I’d passed, I would be happy.

Now, how do you feel about these?

Were man but constant, he were perfect.
If thou didst ever hold me in thy heart, absent thee from felicity awhile.
If you have tears, prepare to shed them now.
If you were the devil, you are fair.
I’ll go if you will.
If we should fail, we fail.
I’ll have arrived by ten unless the train’s late.
If I’m being stupid, just tell me!
I’m working should she call.
Promise me you’ll never forget me because if I thought you would, I’d never leave.

Were I a magician, I’d have foreseen it.

The first four are courtesy of Mr. Shakespeare. Apparently, there are 42 possible combinations of structures with conditional meaning. Think of your own language. I bet you’re not confined to “the four conditionals” either.

Here’s a poem. Ifs are for dreaming upon.

Wings

If I had wings
I would touch the fingertips of clouds
And glide on the wind’s breath.

If I had wings
I would listen to the clouds of sheep bleat
That graze on the blue

If I had wings
I would breathe deep and sniff
The scent of raindrops

If I had wings
I would gaze at the people
Who cling to the earth’s crust

If I had wings
I would dream of
Swimming the deserts
And walking the seas.

Pie Corbett

The future ain’t what it used to be.

admin — Thu, 17 Dec 2009 10:00:54 +0000

There’s not much arguing with this sign seen in a farmer’s field. It’s pretty direct. If only the future was always so clear. But it’s not because it doesn’t exist. Tomorrow never comes. We can only speculate about and have an attitude towards it; which is why we have in English so many ways of articulating our thoughts concerning the time ahead of us.

I’ll finish at 10
I’ll be finishing at 10
I shall finish at 10
I’m going to finish at 10
I’m finishing at 10
I’ll have finished by 10
I expect to finish at 10
I finish at 10

It’s not easy to give rules concerning which form to use when. Take will. Have you ever heard a teacher say “Will is the future tense”, or “Would is the past of will.”?
Both of these statements are false. There is no future tense and would only conveys a past meaning in reported speech, and then not always: (I told you I would do it, so I will).
It’s more helpful to think of would as expressing distance in time (past), relationship (Would you pass the salt is more polite than an imperative), or possibility (I would if I could but I can’t).
Back to will, if you will. It is most commonly a modal auxiliary, sharing features with may, can, shall and must. We can use it to predict, offer, promise, threaten and request. But it’s not always about the future (He will keep picking his nose, She won’t speak to me, They will be there by now, That will be John at the door).
How about will as a noun (Where there’s a will, there’s a way / Where there’s a will, there are relations).
Or an adjective (He’s such a willful child).
It’s also a main verb (We’re willing the team to win).

What’s the difference between will and shall?

Here’s my rule: only use shall in the first person plural for questions inviting compliance (Shall we go? Shall we dance?). Otherwise it sounds pompous or seems to invoke a higher authority (You shall go to the ball, Cinderella. You shall not pass. We shall overcome.) Don’t you want to put an exclamation mark at the end of these sentences?

What’s the difference between will and going to?

It will rain soon. / It’s going to rain soon. Both are predictions. Any difference? Some grammars suggest the latter would be used when there is present evidence of an immediate future event (Look at those big, black clouds coming towards us), whereas the former is more longsighted (Global warming will affect us all). I’m not so sure of the difference here, but we all agree with the usage in this example:

A: I’m going to go to the mini-market. Do you want anything?
B: I’ll come with you. I need a walk.
A speaks having planned, B makes an immediate response. So, going to is about personal plans. What if A had said: I’m going to the mini-market.

Grammars say we use the present continuous for fixed arrangements; the sort of things you would write in your diary. (I’m going to the theatre on Thursday.)

Question: Would other future forms be equally acceptable?
Interviewer: Tell us about your future plans.
A: I’m going to get married. I’m going to have two children.
B: I’m getting married. I’m having two children.
Which doesn’t sound quite right? Why?
So, what’s the difference between the present continuous and going to for the future?

Prepositions

admin — Sun, 05 Jul 2009 04:09:20 +0000

How many prepositions can you find in the dialogue?
You’ve got your simple prepositions – up / down. Then there are complex prepositions containing two – due to, or three words – as far as. The final sentence has three prepositions together out from under. What are we to make of them? What do they do?

They refer to time (At 6 o’clock, since Thursday), space (I went to / into / from the bank), cause (I did it for / out of love), and means (We went by bus). They are wriggly little creatures turning up at the beginning of words (An upstanding chap), or at / after the end (a standup comic / He stood up).

Whether adjective, verb (to outstay one’s welcome) or noun (an outcast), you can’t escape (from) them. As in the previous clause, they may add little to the meaning. But, wait. Is there a difference between He escaped prison and He escaped from prison? Yes. Which would you have preferred to have done?

On to multi-word verbs. (We shall not quibble over which to call phrasal and which prepositional.) We broke up. The party broke up. Our relationship broke down. He broke down. I broke up and cried. What’s going on here? Why all the ups and downs? Why can you break up but not down with someone? Would you prefer to be on a boat that broke down or on one that broke up?

There are several ways to categorize and teach multi-word verbs.

- Root verb – break in / out / off / through
- Preposition – break / take / make / cut off
- Theme – break into / hold up / get away with
- Transitive / intransitive – break up a fight / school breaks up in July
- Splittable / unsplittable – I’ll hand you over to the director / not I’ll hand over you…
- As you find them – students note them as they come up during the course. They may have a section in their notebooks for this.

There are usually synonyms for phrasal verbs – break up = separate, make up = create, but as multi-word verbs have a variety of meanings, they have to be seen in context, which is one reason for grouping them by theme.
You can brainstorm with the students multiword verbs connected with say the theme money and come up with take out (a loan), put in, save up, splash out on, put by (for a rainy day), carry out (a transaction, set up (an account).
Are there any general meanings conveyed by the prepositions? You lock the house at night, but lock it up for the summer if you’re off on holiday. The bank’s closed, but you hope it hasn’t closed down, as you haven’t taken your money out / taken out your money.
Up and down, though seemingly opposites have a similar idea of finality or completeness. Up may convey a positive idea (take up an offer, set up a meeting, make up with someone), down a negative (She let me down, you’re always putting me down, He needs taking down a peg or two).
It’s all too much to take in. Don’t take it out on me. I’ll take you through it step by step. The nerds are taking over! Everything under control? We’re on stand by.

The literal meanings of the prepositions can be discerned in their metaphorical uses.

If we look back at the dialogue at the top of the page, we see that prepositions are often used in idioms – off colour, under the weather, under her thumb – and are characteristic of less formal language – the dialogue could be rewritten without prepositions and though the meanings are the same, it becomes a different type of discourse:
How are you?
I’m rather depressed. I’m slightly unwell. I’m not performing as I should…

Finally, some say you shouldn’t split phrasal verbs. Quite frankly, that is something up with which I will not put!