Coursebooks and supplementary materials use a lot of grammar terminology but I try to be cautious about what I use in the class. For example, my learners get confused by the ‘present simple’ which doesn’t just refer to the present. Some terminology just doesn’t tell my learners anything, such as ‘a type 4 phrasal verb’ or ‘the infinitive’. Some terminology is just over-complicated, such as ‘past perfect passive’. And sometimes my learners use the terminology but I have no idea if they understand what it means, for example when they talk about passives. One of my solutions to this is to ask the class to analyse language and find terms themselves – for example, one of my groups calls the infinitive the dictionary form and another calls the past perfect the ‘before the past’ form.
By Paul kaye
- Login or register to post comments
Printer-friendly version
Log in or register
Follow TeachingEnglish
 |
 |
 |
 |
Comments
Yes, but I did use new terms for the present tense as my students were adults and to say that,' the present tense is used for more than present time' (not as taught in school grammar books), was unsatisfactory, even illogical.
I explained the various uses and then gave them the new term, the Iterative Use, and this was well-received by Post graduate students. I used B.D. Graver's excellent Advanced English Grammar (OUP).
Adult Non-Native speakers need to know rules and terms in addition to the use !
I too have heard of the 'Past beyond the Past' for Past Perfect! Accompanied by time - lines this becomes clear to sts.
Iris (retired teacher)
Hi,
I understand where you are coming from, however, for many students it is necessary to learn grammar terminology and it also should make your life easier as a teacher, on the condition that you explain to the students the whole complexity of rules that apply to various grammar points.
Learning a language is usually a long-term project and learners build their knowledge gradually. If you explain to your students basic rules for the use of present simple tense in their first year of learning, it will be easier for the next teacher to develop this knowledge further in the following years of their study as there is a common language to use. It is especially important when students move on and for example change their teacher or school. They will feel disappointed with you when other students, contrary to them, will be able to follow commonly used terminology and they'll be stuck with terms created by themselves.
Hey Paul
I partially disagree with you even though I think you´ve a point.
Throughout my experience teaching EFL in Colombia I´ve had to cope with classes where you end up thinking, "man!! I should´ve never mentioned all those structure names (object, participial form, etc). Yet, later I found out some Ss better understand by making links between prior knowledge (grammar names) and new one. For instance, when learning the past perfect wouldn´t it be nice to know both forms, the past perfect and present perfect use the verbs in past participle? Probably yes. Besides, keep in mind most CALL uses all this terminology; then, wouldn´t it lack realism to keep learners from learning such names? again my answer is YES.
In sum, I suggest yo don´t disregard terminology from your classes since it can actually help your learners in future lesson. Additionally, make sure to recycle terminology so that Ss can start creating bonds between yesterday´s, today´s and tomorrow´s grammar.
Hi all,
Unfortunately, I too don't agree with you Paul on your tip on how to bring EL grammar terminology closer to students. So yes, we might not need to explain when the to-infinitive is used and its exceptions to elementary learners of the language, but regarding adults who are at a higher level of learning English, I can't say that this tip applies. I teach first-year English majors at the Department of English Language and Literature (in Skopje) and they don't want to be treated as people who are not able to learn a term as it should be learned, so before explaining a new grammar point to them, I first give as many authentic examples as I can find in newspapers and magazines, and then after I see that they have at least the slightest idea of what I am explaining, then I give them the appropriate grammar term, and afterwards explain it using metalanguage. This is the method that has worked for me. I taught English Morphology for two years and noticed quite a difference in their understanding of the terms after using this method.
Best regards from Macedonia,
Aneta.
Hi Paul, Thanks for this critical topic. To me, it depends on both the age and proficiency level of the students. If you are teaching English to the kindergarten or pre-school or at primary level, you mus not teach the terminology,whic have no sense to them. Yet, if you are teaching at high school or university, you must certainly teach through terminalogy so that they can have a common sense of grammar which will let them study by themselves as autonomous pupils. Considering age level, the same can be applicable.
In a nutshell, the terminology can not be isolated with adult learners but can be avoided with YLs.
Best regards from Turkey
CAN GUNER
I've never figured out this blog thing. We've got Paul writing something about terminology in Feb of 2011 and people answering him in 2009. Does anybody else understand how this thing goes without a time machine?
It'd help a lot with my relationship with my computer if a couple dozen things of that nature were to be made clear to me.
Der Fish
Dear Deryl,
I sympathise with you. It's quite easy to understand what happened, though. Paul wrote his entry in 2009 and it has been recycled by an ED - editor - and posted again now.
I'm afraid I also agree with the critics. There's no use inventing new names because you are never going to be the only teacher your students have and there is a danger they will get confused later on.
I would plea for using the accepted, time-honoured terms until they really go out of fashion.
It is also permissible to simplify things a bit, e.g. by saying "ing forms" when it is really not important whether the "ing-form" in question is a gerund or a participle.
Hope you get on better with your computer soon!
Di
LoL Deryl...you've been living in the past, man. Haven't you heard that the BBC has invented the time machine?
acLiltocliMB
Yes, it is true that using too much terminology might confuse students, but frankly I think that using substitute terminology is not the solution. In fact, there must be more problems with it than merits - for example if one of the students has to change class and comes into a new one, where they use standart terms, or came up with different ones - what then? It also comes in handy to be familiar with the usual grammatical expressions, if the students wants to look something up in a handbook or talk about grammar with someone else than the teacher or their classmates.
Also I think there is too much subjectivity involved in terms that people make up themselves. For example, I used to confuse the imperfect and the perfect forms of verbs, because I never quite understood what is so perfect about a tense that needs another verb to help it exist. Some of my classmates, however, never saw the point in it. With this I mean to say that coming up with alternative terminology that suits everyone´s logic seems to be a very tricky business.
"my learners get confused by the ‘present simple’ which doesn’t just refer to the present"
The interesting thing about simplifying terms like the "present simple" to simply the "present" is that the present simple almost never refers to the present. Is that really simplifying it? It refers to the present in the very contrived context of "he shoots, he scores". Other than that, it's used for habitual actions ("I go to through the park on my way to work"), 'states' that are 'always' true ("I hate chocolate") or timetabled regular events ("the train leaves at 9pm"). Why not call it the "regular tense" if you want to make really clear?
Personally, I refer to it as the "present simple" as that's what almost all grammars, coursebooks and reference books do and if they are what the students are going to encounter most, then that's the most useful term for me. I just make sure and explain that it's very rarely actually used to describe the present, when it seems appropriate.
The above being said, I do think that over-use of terminology can be distracting. Just why is "will" ever called "modal auxiliary will", for example, when it could be called "will"? Who even cares about a "perfect infinitive"?