Subtitle: An
Exploration of Structure and Meaning
Why I Read This Book
I read this
book as part of my ongoing commitment to try and read 10 pages a day of something related to professional development.
The Central Argument
This book
is written for English teachers, and is undoubtedly only of interest to them.
However if
you are an English teacher, I think you’ll find this book very interesting and
informative.
Basically,
Michael Lewis says that we English teachers have been teaching the verb tenses
all wrong.
For one
thing, we teach each tense as if it were a series of uses, each unconnected to
each other, and then a series of exceptions to each of these uses. This has the
effect of just confusing and discouraging our students.
As Michael
Lewis says on page 13:
Most student grammars, and textbook
syllabuses, are based on a catalogue approach to grammar. Different points are
covered one by one in separate paragraphs or units. Each paragraph is
independent of the others. There are two difficulties which result from
this. Firstly, students are given the
impression that they are attempting an impossible task; as soon as they have
finished one paragraph, or one use of a verb form, they are presented with
another, and another, and another… .
Rarely, if ever, do they see the parts they are learning as coming
together to form a coherent whole. Not surprisingly, such a catalogue approach,
giving an impression of impossibility, de-motivates students. The second problem is that each paragraph is,
in a way, an exception to the previous paragraph. Students may, for example,
learn that the present continuous is used for an action going on at the moment
of speaking (this is a dangerous half truth…), and then they learn that the
present continuous can also be used for the future. Nobody take times to
explain that there is a reason for this, and that indeed the two uses are
fundamentally the same….This “catalogue and exceptions” approach must depress
students. Instead of encouraging a feeling of progress as they learn more
language, it gives them a feeling that the task is becoming more and more
impossible.
I’m guilty
of having used the “catalogue and exceptions approach” myself. (Although in my defense I was following the
prompts of the textbook I was teaching out of at the time.) But I have, for example, taught the present
perfect as a catalogue of unconnected rules such as:
1) An action that started in the past and is still
continuing now (“I’ve lived here for 6 years”),
2) An action that finished in the past and has an impact on
the present (“They’ve eaten all the food”), and
3) To describe an experience at an indefinite point in the
past (“I’ve been to Paris.”)
I then, of
course, often have to deal with all the exceptions to these rules, such as why
many sentences which also appear to fit these 3 rules would use the past simple
or present simple.
Secondly, Michael
Lewis argues, we English teachers often tell students there is no real
difference between some verb forms (for example “I have lived here for 6 years”
versus “I have been living here for 6 years”).
And when
students have questions about why this is, English teachers often just reply
that English is an illogical and confusing language.
This, says
Michael Lewis, is all wrong.
For one
thing, difference of form implies difference of meaning. (If “I have lived here for 6 years” meant the
same thing as “I have been living here for 6 years”, then there wouldn’t be 2
different ways of saying it.)
Secondly, verb
tenses, properly understood, should not be a series of rules for separate
uses. Instead, each verb tense has one
single unifying meaning which applies to all its different uses.
English
grammar is not illogical or confusing, but instead perfectly logical once you
start to understand what the unifying characteristics of each verb tense
are.
According
to Lewis, one of the things that people often misunderstand about verb tenses
is that they don’t refer to objective time, but to the speaker’s psychological
perspective of time. So for example “I
have lived here for 6 years” and “I have been living here for 6 years” are both
perfectly correct, but each indicates that the speaker has a different
psychological perspective on the action.
Each verb
tense represents a different subjective view of time, and all of the different
uses of a particular verb tense can be connected back to this same view.
For
example, the present perfect can be used in a number of different situations,
as listed above, but all the usages have a unifying characteristic—each use indicates
that the speaker is looking back at a past event from the perspective of the
present.
Once this
is understood, the series of “rules” which we English teachers give about the present
perfect are not really “rules”, but simply hints to help the student identify
in which situations the present perfect is likely to be used.
My Reaction
As Michael Lewis states, much of
what is in his book is different to the way English teachers traditionally
approach verb tenses, and it was also a different approach to me.
However,
what he said made so much sense to me that I quickly became a convert to his
way of thinking.
(I’m doing
somewhat of an injustice to this book by summarizing it in only a few
paragraphs. It takes Michael Lewis 180
pages to fully develop his argument, so it’s hard to do it justice in a
summary. But if you read through the whole
book and all the examples he gives, then it makes a lot more sense.)
Nevertheless,
since I’m not an expert, I’d like to hear some other opinions on the
matter. Michael Lewis frequently criticizes
the way other grammar books have described verb tenses, which leads me to
believe that there is an area of disagreement between experts, and I’d be
curious to hear what rebuttals the other authors would have. My limited
knowledge is such that I’m not even sure if Michael Lewis represents the
majority view or minority view in the field.
In the Classroom
In the
beginning of the book, Michael Lewis makes clear that his intention is to
educate the English teacher, not the students.
“In the early discussion of
examples the reader must not think My students will never understand this—that is not the intention of the book. The first intention is to ensure that
teachers understand how the main building blocks of the English verb work.”
(p. 8)
This
message is reiterated at the end of the book:
“I have attacked many traditional classroom
explanations in this book. I can think of nothing more unsatisfactory than that
teachers should now take the explanations offered in this book and present them
to their students!
I believe it is essential for
teachers to have a clear and deep understanding of the central structures of
the English language they are teaching. I do not, however, believe that
explanation has anything other than a very small part to play in the normal
school classroom. I beg the reader not to impose the rather abstract
explanations of this book on their unsuspecting students.” (p. 180)
On the
other hand, some sections of the book, like chapters 2 and 21, are clearly
marked to consider the classroom implications.
So some
parts of the book are clearly marked for the classroom, and some parts of the
book are for the benefit of the teacher’s knowledge only.
Despite
these clear demarcations at certain points, much of the middle of the book was
a grey area for me where I was unsure if the information was intended for the
classroom or not.
As I’m
writing these words, I’m unsure how much of the information in this book I’m
going to try to take into the classroom.
Among other
practical considerations, many of the textbooks that are currently assigned to
my students favor the “catalogue and exceptions” approach that Michael Lewis
criticizes, and when the students have an assigned text it is often easier to
just follow the explanations used in the textbook rather than spending the
whole course trying to fight the textbook.
Another
practical consideration is that most of my classes are low level students with
whom I do not share a common L1, and I’m not sure how I would explain complex
concepts such as psychological time across the language barrier.
(Actually
Michael Lewis believes that teachers shouldn’t worry about explaining, since
teachers should do as little explaining as possible. Students should simply be given example
sentences and should be encouraged to work out the rules for themselves through
activities such as sorting exercises. So
this is one option I may be trying out in the future.)
At any
rate, I’m glad I read this book for my own benefit. Whether I’ll find ways to integrate this
knowledge into my own teaching in the future remains to be seen.
Also, after
having read this book, I am now feeling a little self-conscious about many of
the TESOL worksheets I’ve posted on this blog. (And, since I’m still currently working
through my backlog of worksheets, this also applies to several worksheets that I
haven’t yet posted, but that will be posted in the next few months.) I worry that a few of the worksheets I’ve
designed use the “catalogues and exceptions approach” such as this sheet here.
I’m not
going to take these worksheets down, but it is definitely something I’m going
to be taking into consideration when I design worksheets in the future.
Other Notes
* Michael Lewis
advises teachers to stop using a lot of the traditional grammar terminology for
verb forms, because these terms are not accurate. The present simple has nothing to do with the
present (it can be used to describe events in the past or future as well), and
the past participle has nothing to do with the past (it is used to form the
present passive). Instead Michael Lewis advises using names like first form,
second form, and third form for what has been traditionally called the present
simple, the past simple, and the past participle.
This is
another reason Michael Lewis might disapprove of many of the grammar sheets I’ve
posted on this blog. For example, I’ve
used the term “past participle” in a number of grammar sheets, (such as here, here , here , here , and here .)
However, recently
I have begun changing over to V1, V2, and V3.
I started this change even before I read this book—mainly because my
younger students are unfamiliar with traditional English grammatical terms.
* As an example of how simplified grammatical rules can
often mislead ESL students, Michael Lewis gives the example of “some” and “any”. ESL students are usually taught that “some”
is used in positive sentences, and “any” is used in negatives or questions. But, Michael Lewis says, this is not true,
and teaching this to students can lead to confusion when they encounter
examples that don’t fit the pattern.
While I was
reading this book, I had the opportunity of using this information in
class. During a reading exercise, a
student asked me why the word “any” was used in a positive sentence, and I was
able to borrow Michael Lewis’s analysis to explain to that student that the
rule he had originally learned was flawed.
* I’m not going to mention any names, but the textbook
currently assigned to intermediate students at my school makes a real mess of
explaining the difference between “will” future and “going to” future. It’s such a complicated “catalogues and
exceptions” list that it confuses us teachers just as much as the
students. (In the past, I’ve even
resorted to making up a handy reference cheat-sheet of all the different uses
of “will” and “going to”. I kept this
cheat-sheet near me during class so I was prepared for all the students’
questions.)
I was
therefore attracted to Michael Lewis’s much simpler description of the main
differences between “will” and “going to”. (“Will” emphasizes the speaker’s
judgment at the moment of speaking, and a connection between the present state
of affairs, and a future that the speaker sees as inevitable given the current
state of affairs. “Going to” makes use
of evidence leading up to and pre-dating the moment of speaking.)
* Michael Lewis argues that there’s no such thing as a
present tense or a simple past tense in English. Rather, what is usually called the present
simple is used to describe timeless facts that the speaker sees as
immediate. This is why people will often
switch into the present tense when telling a dramatic story—because those
events seem psychologically immediate to them.
In a previous book review, I questioned whether a task requiring students to describe pictures was a suitable way to elicit the past tense. If Michael Lewis is correct about
this, then I feel even more strongly about my criticism. If the speaker is
looking at the pictures they are describing, then those events might seem
immediate to them, and it would be natural to revert back to the present tense—even
given a prompt about past time.
Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky - Current Problems in the Study of Language and Mind
Update: July 18, 2017
Video Review HERE
Link of the Day
Noam Chomsky - Current Problems in the Study of Language and Mind
Update: July 18, 2017
Video Review HERE
8 comments:
Thanks for posting this review. I haven't read Michael Lewis's book, but some of what he said reminds me of David Willis's "Lexical Syllabus" approach which also sees the "Grammar Syllabus" as arranged around artificial distinctions. As I am studying TEFL at Birmingham, Willis and the COBUILD system is very popular there. His book is out of print but Birmingham University have put it up on their website to download for free:
http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/schools/edacs/departments/english/research/resources/lexical-syllabus.aspx
Sadly, Willis died last year.
Interesting. Michael Lewis also has a book called the "Lexical Approach", which I've not read yet, but perhaps he is operating from a similar idea as Willis.
I've never heard of David Willis before, but thanks for the heads up. My reading list is a bit backed up at the moment because I'm trying to get a lot of books read for the DELTA, but I'll try and get around to Willis at some point.
According to this Wikipedia article, Willis and Lewis are the two pioneers of the theory of the lexical approach:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lexical_approach
One of the driving forces of this methodology seems to be corpus linguistics which is something I am studying now, as it happens. I didn't realize how Lewis's views tied in to this until now. Maybe I should get myself a copy of The Lexical Approach. They look a bit pricey on Amazon, though.
I also found this Guardian article which looks interesting:
http://www.theguardian.com/education/2013/mar/26/leixical-approach-revolution
What has sometimes bugged me about some grammatical syllabuses is the teaching of regular past tenses before irregular. They encourage students to think that all past tenses end in -ed, before then teaching irregular past tenses, yet as we know, irregular past tense verbs tend to be far more frequent than regular past tenses. I think Pinker comes up with some figures for this from corpora analysis that shows just how much more frequent irregular past tense words tend to be.
Yet in some books, particularly the audiolingual-based grammar syllabuses, like Streamline, simpler words like "said" are replaced with "shouted", "asked", "answered" etc...
Most texts still tend to be grammar-based, and don't teach some common expressions until late on because it is believed to have a more complicated grammar structure. The passive voice usually comes in very late, and yet some expressions such as "I was born in 1977", which I think is technically a passive construction, or "This tie was made in China" seem to me to be useful early on.
So are you taking the DELTA because you want to teach CELTA?
I think Pinker comes up with some figures for this from corpora analysis that shows just how much more frequent irregular past tense words tend to be.
In this case, I am referring to his book Words and Rules, which is pretty much a whole book about irregular verbs but in which he assesses the relative merits of Chomskyan vs. connectionist theories of language acquisition. Pinker thinks that both theories have merit, but of course, there are other linguists who think that both of them are wrong.
That is an interesting article. I had seen "The Lexical Approach" around, but didn't know it had had such a big impact. I'll have to move it forward in my reading list. That Pinker book sounds interesting as well.
As for the DELTA, the short answer is because I think it will be a useful qualification to have. I've heard from various people that a DELTA and a Masters degree will open some doors that a Masters degree alone might not, and I'd like to open up as many options as possible
Well, looking through some of my TEFL books I notice that I have a piece written by Michael Lewis called "Implications of a Lexical view of language", which can be found in Jane and David Lewis's Challenge and Change in Language Teaching (1996).
He argues that a lot more of language is organized around socially-agreed upon "chunks" of language than most textbooks appreciate, and that students can learn much more language that is really spoken by being exposed to these kinds of chunks, instead of given the rules of grammar and expected to produce sentences from these. In particular, he focuses on collocations at the phrase-level and "institutionalized utterances" and "fixed expressions" (I'll see what I can do; It's not the sort of thing you expect to happen to you; by the way; on the other hand) and as for PPP, he says it is "wholly unsatisfactory", "the element of the language which may be susceptible to PPP teaching is not more than a tiny and peripheral part of the language needed for communicative language use." and "the PPP paradigm was a travesty, for philosophical, psychological, ideological and methodological reasons."
However, I think most of the time when I plan lessons I tend to think in terms of PPP because it is a useful way of organizing activities. I don't usually follow the lesson in the standard PPP way, though. Usually I see what happens in the classroom.
My own philosophy (although not always followed) is that I try and use grammar lessons for clarifying points of grammar. Ideally (although again not always followed) the students have already been exposed to the grammar before and may even have been using it in their production, but find it useful to have some points about the grammar cleared up. And I do generally use PPP myself, but only to draw attention to the grammar point, not to introduce it for the first time. Used in this context, I have no problem with PPP. Although II suppose I'll have to read and absorb Michael Lewis's arguments first before I dismiss them out of hand.
The English Verb Revisited:
http://joelswagman.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-english-verb-by-michael-lewis.html
Post a Comment