Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Latin syntax wikipedia , lookup
Context-free grammar wikipedia , lookup
Chichewa tenses wikipedia , lookup
Ancient Greek verbs wikipedia , lookup
Probabilistic context-free grammar wikipedia , lookup
Construction grammar wikipedia , lookup
Spanish verbs wikipedia , lookup
Transformational grammar wikipedia , lookup
Chewa language wikipedia , lookup
Pedagogic Grammar essay Title: ‘How long’, ‘for’ and ‘since’ - an exploration of the present perfect tenses with reference to challenges associated with German native speakers. Most learners of English have some kind of concept for past, present and future. The present perfect tenses, however, seem to be somewhere in between the past and the present and may cause difficulties for a great variety of learners, especially due to their rather complex perception and use. This paper examines the perfect tenses and the particular aspect of ‘how long’, ‘for’ and ‘since’ with reference to challenges associated with German native speakers learning English. Firstly I will discuss the term grammar and provide a brief theoretical framework for pedagogical grammar, including the three dimensions of language and some criteria of rules. Secondly, some grammar rules from two well-known grammarians will be presented and analysed for their accuracy and simplicity. The following section aims to explain the difficulties in form, meaning and use which German speakers may encounter when learning this particular grammar point. Finally, I will look at some grammar exercises and evaluate their usefulness for Germans, followed by the conclusion. There seem to be a variety of different concepts of what grammar is, including various terms, such as functional grammar, universal grammar or theoretical grammar (Odlin, 1994). Within the context of foreign language learning and teaching there is descriptive grammar which “describes, in a systematic way, the rules that govern how words are combined and sequenced in order to form sentences” and pedagogical grammar, which explores grammar more from a teaching/learning point of view (Thornbury, 2006:92). Thornbury (op.cit) adds the term mental grammar and describes it as an internalized knowledge about language and part of the learners’ competence. In addition, Larsen-Freeman coined the term ‘grammaring’ which refers to “grammar as a skill or a dynamic process” (2003:24). For the purpose of this paper grammar will be referred to mostly from a pedagogical point of view dealing with a particular grammar point from a teacher’s / foreign language student’s perspective. Westney (in Odlin, 1994) states that formulating rules is the most important task of pedagogic grammar. He defines rules informally as “observed regularities with predictive value” (1994:74). The author distinguishes between rules of formation, low-level rules, and rules of use, higher-level rules. He further points out that these rules need to be evaluated according to certain criteria. Different authors create different criteria, such as Swan (1994:45) who formulates six different criteria for pedagogical rules: truth, demarcation, clarity, simplicity, conceptual parsimony and relevance, admitting certain overlaps between those categories. Westney (op.cit) summarises several criteria from Swan (1980 cited in Westney, 1994) and Hammerly (1982 cited in Westney, 1994) into the two points accuracy and simplicity accounting for most of the criteria named by the other two authors. These two criteria will be discussed later when evaluating some relevant rules within the specific context of present perfect tenses. Language is a complex thing. In order to structure language and make teaching and learning easier, Larsen-Freeman (2003:35) outlines three dimensions of language, which are form, meaning and use. She further establishes subcategories of each unit and points out that they all need to be taken into account when teaching a specific grammar point. Larsen-Freeman (2003) does not organise language according to a hierarchical system as she sees a strong interrelationship between the three dimensions with no part being more important than another. The following chart illustrates this nicely: from Larsen-Freeman (2003:35) To exemplify this with the present perfect continuous the difference between the three dimensions could be differentiated (simplified) as follows: Form: auxiliary have/has/ ‘s/ + been + verb+ing Meaning: something that started in the past and is still continuing or just stopped (Murphy, 1994). The notion of a certain period of time or repeated action is important here. In my opinion, this dimension deals more with the actual concept of the tense while the following one gives guidance for appropriate use in form of functions. Use: several functions are suggested by Aitken (2002:29-30) such as an explanation for the present situation or appearance make an excuse for failure in doing something expected by expressing a period of time now finishing to express new, temporary habits to describe new and developing symptoms with regard to health. However, the Larsen-Freeman (2003) states that some teachers may see overlaps between the dimensions of meaning and use or have difficulty in making a clear distinction. Other authors, such as Ur (1996) focus on the general difference between form and meaning and seem to include use in the latter. For the chosen grammar point I regard it as more practical to deal with meaning and use together, rather than separately in order to establish a better overview of the challenges German speakers may find. Relevant rules taken from Murphy (1994:24) English Grammar in Use Intermediate 1. 2. 3. 4. How long...? + present perfect (as opposed to When...? + past simple) We use both ‘for’ and ‘since’ to say how long something has been happening. We use ‘for’ when we say a period of time. We use ‘since’ when we say the start of a period. Relevant rules taken from Swan & Walter (2003:162) How English works A) Sentences with ‘since’ usually have a perfect tense, but past tenses are possible in the time expression after since. B) Sentences with ‘for’ have a perfect tense when the meaning is ‘time up to now’. C) With ‘since’ a present tense is sometimes used in the main clause to talk about changes. Criteria for pedagogical rules as describes above: The above rules are taken from well-known pedagogic grammars and are designed for a great variety of students and levels. Most language learners and teachers will probably find them useful. Their general validity is not questioned here. They are merely being explored with reference to two criteria categories. Truth The above rules (1-4 & A-C) can be categorized as general rules or rules of thumb since they “concern the need for rules to be a) accurate, b) usable and c) capable of gradual integration” (Westney, 1994:76-77). Due to their simple language they are easily usable by learners and teachers. It can be assumed that learners who are presented with those rules are already familiar with the general concept (including form, meaning and use) of the present perfect. The above rules for ‘how long’, ‘since’ and ‘for’ could be rather seen as an extension which may not be presented immediately when first teaching the present perfect. However, with regard to the present perfect continuous, rules 1, 2, 3 and B might be covered straight away in order to explain the concept of the tense. Although the rules can be considered true for lower levels they seem not entirely accurate. For example, rule 1 would not explain the question ‘How long did you live in Spain?’ (if talking about a finished life experience in the past). Yet if this rule is combined with the second part of rule B it could be regarded as accurate, for example: ‘How long + a present perfect tense if it refers to time up to now’. (How long have you been living in Spain? the speaker still lives in Spain) This rule would permit the extension to ‘How long + past tense if talking about a finished period of time’ (How long did you live in Spain? the speaker lived there in the past but does not anymore). The teacher would have to decide at which point to introduce this extension. Rule 2 may also need to be slightly amended to make it more accurate, for example ‘For and since + present perfect tenses to say how long something has been happening if it refers to time up to now’ Rules 3 and 4 seem accurate as they refer to their specific lexical meaning rather than to the correct use of tenses. I consider rules A, B and C as accurate. Rule A uses the word ‘usually’ which leaves room for the possibility of using other tenses. Rule C is a useful extension which makes learners aware of a different tense use and avoids over-simplification of previously given rules. Rules A-C can be integrated gradually or together yet the teacher may decide to focus on one aspect at a time. Yet rule C could be slightly confusing particularly for German learners due to first language (L1) interference as will be explained in the next section. Simplicity In my opinion, Murphy’s rules (1-4) fulfil the criteria of simplicity because they are expressed in a simple and accessible way which is easy to understand for learners. This is important because “the truth is of no value if it cannot be understood” (Swan, 1994:49). However, as they do not entirely fulfil the criteria of accuracy they could be seen as over-simplified as they do not make learners aware of other possible tenses that could be used with ‘since’ and ‘for’. For lower levels these rules may be acceptable, yet they seem not gradable for later extension, e.g. ‘for’ and ‘since’ for finished time periods. Swan & Walter’s rules (A-C) are slightly more complex compared to Murphy’s ones but they are still simple, understandable and are already graded providing awareness of extensions of use. However, they contain some terminology, e.g. ‘time expression’ or ‘main clause’ which may not be suitable for low-level learners. Truth and simplicity in grammar rules are both important but not always achievable. The author Penny Ur explores difficulties when teaching grammar and points out that “there is often a conflict between ‘simple’ and ‘accurate’” as simplified rules are not necessarily true (1996:81). She advocates finding an ‘appropriate balance’ (Ur, op.cit.) which I feel may be different in every teaching situation and has to be evaluated according to the students’ needs. The main difficulty for German speakers is the different use of the present perfect as such. This tense has a very different concept in German compared to English. Especially when the question ‘how long’ is used as well as the respective answer with ‘since’ and ‘for’, the German native speaker might be tempted to use the present simple which would be perfectly fine in German but obviously not in English. Furthermore, the lack of continuous tenses in German (continuous actions are expressed with signal word or phrases such as ‘right now’ or ‘at the/that moment’) could cause many German learners to avoid this tense entirely due to the unfamiliarity with the concept of the tense. The particular aspect of using ‘since’ and ‘for’ might not be regarded entirely as grammar but may be treated as lexis by some teachers. In combination with the perfect tenses they will be treated as grammar in this paper. I will now discuss the perfect tenses and ‘since’ and ‘for’ separately for the dimensions form and meaning/use. Form Present Perfect: Form: + ? - auxiliary have + past participle have/’ve / has/’s + past participle have not/ haven’t / has not / hasn’t + past participle Have/Has/Haven’t/Hasn’t (+subject) + past participle? In order to form the present perfect in German the equivalent of the auxiliary ‘have’ is used which should therefore be easy to transfer into English. However, certain verbs which refer to movement or a change of state form the present perfect with the auxiliary ‘be’ in German (Schenke & Seago, 2004) which might then be mistranslated into English, e.g. *He is driven the car. (Swan & Smith, 2001:41). As German has different types of participles, strong, weak and mixed verbs (Schenke & Seago, 2004), the German learner of English will, in my opinion, not be surprised by the long list of irregular past participles, yet students might struggle with memorising the irregular verbs and may still create erroneous forms by “guessing the form” or “overgeneralising rules” (Parrot, 2000:192). Furthermore, phonetic issues, such as wrong pronunciation of regular –ed endings may arise. Two words that are often mixed up due to their similarity is the German word ‘hat’ (=has) and ‘had’ especially considering that certain voiced final sounds such as /d/ are rare in German and would be pronounced like their unvoiced equivalent /t/ (Swan & Smith, 2001). The misuse of ‘had’ instead of ‘has’ can lead to confusions and misunderstandings. Another significant difference regarding form, which may interfere with forming accurate sentences in English, is word order. According to the German syntax the auxiliary have (or be) takes the second position in a sentence which sometimes requires inversion of subject and verb (Schenke & Seago, 2004). For example, *Yesterday have I danced. In addition, in German, the past participle goes to the end of the sentence or close (Schenke, op.cit.) which is especially problematic in more complex sentences, e.g. *I have this week three times with James Salsa danced. (I’ve danced Salsa with James three times this week.) Therefore, the German learner will need to get used to the rather fixed syntax in the present perfect in English. Once the student has interiorised that auxiliary and past participle normally go together, they should be able to form sentences according to the English word order. Present Perfect Continuous: Form: + ? - auxiliary have + been + verb+ing have/’ve / has/’s + been + verb+ing have not/ haven’t / has not / hasn’t + been + verb+ing Have/Has/Haven’t/Hasn’t (+subject) + been + verb+ing? The form of the present perfect is rather easy to grasp for German speakers. On the other hand the present perfect continuous might cause more problems as there are no continuous tenses in the German language. It can be assumed rather difficult to understand a tense that does not exist in the learners’ native language. The form of the present perfect continuous is relatively complex and with no existing reference framework it may appear quite a challenge for students to master this tense. The basic rule of formation (as above) might remind learners of a complicated mathematical sum and could therefore appear more complicated than it actually is, resulting in loss of motivation and interest which are essential factors for learning a foreign language (Ellis, 1997; Harmer, 2001, Thornbury, 2006). Confusion may arise with this particular tense because of the little similarity to the present perfect as the past participle ‘been’ is fixed and the main verb is used in the continuous form. Aitken states that the passive form could be produced by learners instead, e.g. *’I have been walked’ (2002:31). Furthermore, the contracted ‘s’ for ‘has’ can be mistaken for ‘is’ resulting in erroneous forms such as *He is been writing a letter’ (Aitken, op.cit.). The author identifies another common error regarding phonetics: the contracted auxiliary might be overheard e.g. *I been reading.* In addition, the fact that two auxiliary verbs are needed for this form may also confuse learners as this is not required for any German tense. ‘How long’, ‘since’ and ‘for’ These are individual lexical items and should not cause any major issues with form. With regard to pronunciation some phonetic overlaps occur between German and English that might interfere. This issue is partly related to form (pronunciation) but also to meaning. The word ‘for’ is phonetically identical to the German word ‘vor’ which as a time marker means ‘ago’. Notice the difference: ‘vor drei Wochen’ = three weeks ago ‘seit drei Wochen’ = for three weeks The German learner should therefore be careful and be made aware of the difference in order not to use ‘for’ in the sense of ‘ago’. ‘Since’ might be pronounced as /zins/ instead of /sins/ as the ‘s’ at the beginning of a word is much softer in German compared to English. Meaning/Use Present Perfect “The German form which resembles the present perfect is not used in exactly the same way: it often functions just as a conversational past tense” (Swan & Smith, 1994:42). This means that the present perfect is mainly used to express most past events in spoken German while the past simple is used more for the written form (Schenke & Seago, 2004). It is therefore not surprising that many German speakers struggle with the correct use of this tense which I found when I was teaching Germans myself. Moreover, unlike English, German does not make a clear distinction in use between the past simple and present perfect. The concept of a certain relation to the present or recent action with the present perfect is not given when using the equivalent tense in German as it would be perfectly fine to say in German ‘I have worked a lot today’ and *‘I have worked a lot yesterday’/last week*. Also, the fact that the form of the present perfect exists in German but is used in a different way in English with fixed rules, might not be easy to grasp for students and lead to incorrect use. Besides, the tense is used widely in Britain but less so in American English which may mislead learners and could even result in avoidance of the tense and over-use of the past simple (Aitken, 2002: 32). Present Perfect Continuous As mentioned above there is no continuous form in the German language. The concept of an unfinished period of time that started in the past is mostly expressed with present simple in German which often leads to confusion. This will be discussed in the following section. ‘How long’, ‘since’ and ‘for’ Although there is a literal translation of the question phrase ‘how long’ (wie lange), the concept is more similar to the German equivalent ‘since when’ (‘seit wann’) which might be overused in English. ‘Since when’ is often not appropriate or does not sound natural in English the same way it does in German. With regard to ‘since’ and ‘for’ the German native speaker may find great difficulties in distinguishing both in English as there is only one German word which combines both meanings (‘seit’). For a German learner it is therefore crucial to fully understand Murphy’s rules 3 and 4 above. Nevertheless, the latter might interfere with the general concept of the present perfect tenses as a starting point in the past is normally used with the past simple. Swan & Walter’s rule A is particularly useful to overcome this possible confusion. Yet rule C can confuse learners or could lead to the assumption that ‘since’ can be used with the present simple the same way as in German. The German learner of English may need to rely heavily on rules for the use of tenses in order to reach accuracy. The German tense system is much more flexible with no strict rules. As mentioned above, referring to an unfinished period of time that started in the past is normally expressed with the present simple in German, e.g.*I live in Brighton for ten years. However, using the present perfect in German for the same sentence (*I have lived in Brighton for ten years) would imply that the period of time is finished, meaning that the speaker lived in Brighton for ten years but does not anymore. The significant change in meaning between both tenses in German renders the correct use of the present perfect tenses in English even more complicated. The listener, on the other hand, exposed to the first erroneous sentence above, might think they simply overheard the final –ed and could assume the speaker does not live there anymore. Yet, depending on the situation the possible misunderstandings can be overcome if the context is clear enough. After having looked at the above rules from Swan & Walter and Murphy and the potential challenges German speakers face when learning this particular grammar point, the following section will look at some examples of grammar exercises and explore them with regard to their usefulness. The meaning and use of the perfect tenses should in my opinion be especially focussed on when teaching these structures to Germans because of the substantial differences as discussed above. “It is no good knowing how to...construct a new tense...if you don’t know exactly what difference it makes to meaning when it is used” (Ur, 1996:76). The first two examples are taken from Murphy (1994:25) – see Appendix one. In exercise 12.1 students are asked to form two questions –one with ‘when?’ and one with ‘how long?’ from a given sentence. The aim seems to be to draw the learners’ attention to the two different tenses used with the particular structures, namely past simple with the first and present perfect with the latter. However, as both questions are formed from the same given sentence the difference in meaning might not be clear enough for students who encounter this structure for the first time as the focus is more on keywords plus a specific tense rather than the difference in use which the learners might ignore. Furthermore, as discussed above, the German language would require using present perfect with ‘when’ and present simple with ‘how long’. Once the student is perfectly clear about relevant rules for those structures and the differences in meaning and use, especially compared to the German language, this form-focussed exercise may be helpful. Yet considering the given rules on page 24 of Murphy’s grammar this might not be the case. Murphy’s task 12.3 is a gap-fill activity to practise ‘for’ and ‘since’. This again is a controlled exercise which aims to help learners practise the difference in meaning and use of both lexical items with regard to the present perfect. As the German language does not make this distinction, I feel this task is useful for Germans to raise their awareness about the existence of two different words and their respective meanings as explained on Murphy’s previous page. Both exercises are rather controlled but I generally see them as a useful practice tool for getting used to the form as well as differentiating differences in meaning. Formfocussed exercises are valuable when studying a new structure because “the learner still depends on a measure of conscious monitoring in order to produce them correctly” (Ur, 1996:83). The main purpose of grammars is self-study without a teacher. The types of exercises are normally limited to form-focussed activities with a given key. Controlled practice is seen as important for interiorising grammatical points as students get the chance to notice the structure in the activities and pay attention to syntax (Hedge, 2000). On the other hand, Ur (1996) suggests providing students with practice tasks that lead them gradually from accuracy to fluency. However, Ellis (1993) argues that during fluency activities with focus on communication students may not pay attention to the correct use of previously practised structures. In my opinion, a self-study grammar such as Murphy’s is not necessarily a good example to explore grammar tasks as it provides mostly form-focussed exercises which do not fit into this grammar discussion. Therefore it will now briefly be examined how a relatively recent coursebook deals with the grammar point ‘since’ and ‘for’ (see Appendix two) and how useful this approach would be for German speakers. The language focus in this coursebook “Move Pre-Intermediate” (Maggs, 2006) is presented inductively which means that “learners themselves generalize the rule from examples before practising” (Thornbury, 2006:61). It is beyond the scope of this paper to discuss if this is an adequate approach as there are many different theories relating to second language acquisition some of which promote this inductive grammar teaching, while others advocate the opposite, namely deductive approach. Although the exercises in this book are presented within a unit specific context/topic, the tasks consist of controlled gap-fills or sentence/questions formation tasks. Only the last one involves communication but still does not require free discourse and therefore does not promote fluency of the form as suggested by Ur (1996). Task 5 promotes noticing as the correct form is given and the learner is asked to fill in the appropriate time references rather than the correct form. This is useful for German speakers (and probably any other nationalities) as a whole context is given which can then be easily transferred to the students’ own life, which seems to be the aim of tasks 6-8. Furthermore by providing students with grammar in texts learners are taken from a “sentence level... to a broader perspective... [where students] begin to see patterns in texts” (Larsen-Freeman, 2003:67). The tasks in “Move” are just one example and do not permit generalisations about how coursebooks deal with grammar practice. As mentioned above there are different approaches to grammar teaching based on various theories. “It is very often the meanings of the structures which create difficulties for foreign learners” (Ur, 1996:76). Therefore I agree with Ur to find the right balance between form-focussed and meaning-focussed grammar practice activities designed and adapted specifically for the particular learners’ needs. Furthermore, the teachers’ language awareness as well as awareness of differences between L1 and L2 can be regarded as crucial when it comes to grammar teaching (Andrews, 2007) especially for the grammar point discussed in this paper. The debate about the best possible way of teaching grammar has been going on for decades with many different theories promoting various ways of teaching. Yet when it comes to teaching there are so many things to take into account and “there will never be enough time to do all that could be/ should be done” (Larsen-Freeman, 2003:78). This paper examined pedagogical grammar issues from various perspectives by means of a particular grammar point with reference to German native speakers. First a brief theoretical framework for grammar was established. Then specific rules for the use of ‘how long’, ‘for’ and ‘since’ with perfect tenses were presented and evaluated for the criteria truth and simplicity, finding that it may be difficult to achieve both. The following section examined the chosen grammar point from the three dimensions form, meaning and use with particular focus on potential problems for Germans. Great differences between English and German were found especially with regard to meaning and use. The present perfect is used widely, almost exclusively, in spoken German while past tenses mainly appear in written German. Furthermore the German language requires the present simple with the use of ‘how long’, ‘for’ and ‘since’ while making no distinction between the last two. In addition, the lack of continuous forms in German renders the perfect continuous tense particularly difficult. The last section contained a brief discussion about grammar teaching contrasting examples taken from a pedagogical grammar and a coursebook. Despite “the close family relationship between English and German... [and the] many similarities between the two languages” (Swan & Smith, 2001:37), the chosen grammar point discussed in this paper is an example of an extensive linguistic diversification which requires extra attention from both, students and teachers. Aitken, R. (2002) Teaching Tenses Brighton: ELB Publishing Andrews, S. (2007) Teacher Language Awareness Cambridge: CUP Ellis, R. (1993) ‘Talking shop: second language acquisition research’ ELT Journal 47/1, pp. 3-11 Ellis, R. (1997) Second Language Acquisition Oxford: OUP Harmer, J. (2001) The Practice of English Language Teaching (3rd ed.) Harlow: Longman. Hedge, T. (2000) Teaching and Learning in the Language Classroom Oxford: OUP Larsen-Freeman, D. (2003) Teaching Language - From Grammar to Grammaring Boston: Heinle Maggs, P. (2006) Move Pre-Intermediate Oxford: Macmillan Education Murphy, R. (1994) English Grammar in Use Intermediate Cambridge: CUP Odlin, T. (ed.) 1994 Perspectives in Pedagogical Grammar Cambridge: CUP Parrot, M. (2000) Grammar for English Language Teachers Cambridge: CUP Schenke, H. A& K. Seago (2004) Basic German – A Grammar and Workbook London: Routledge Swan, M. (1994) “Design criteria for pedagogic grammar rules” in Bygate M., Tonkyn, A. & Williams, E. (eds.) “Grammar and the Language Teacher” Longman: 45-55 Swan, M. & Walter (2003) How English Works, Oxford: OUP Swan, M. & Smith, B. (2001) Learner English (2nd. ed.) Cambridge: CUP Thornbury, S. (2006) An A-Z of ELT Oxford: Macmillan Education Ur, P. (1996) A Course in Language Teaching – Practice and Theory, Cambridge: CUP Westney, P. (1994) Rules and Pedagogical Grammar in Odlin, T. (ed.) 1994:72-96 from Murphy, R. (1994:25) English Grammar in Use Intermediate Cambridge, CUP Maggs, P. (2006:68) Move Pre-Intermediate Oxford, Macmillan Education