ESL General English Grammar Questions

Re: Pronouns

Yoong Liat — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 05:24:42 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:

Would I be correct to say that the teacher selected to answer English queries from members of the public via email are qualified enough? I'm not referring to teachers who teach Singaporeans in the classrooms.

Saiing wrote:

I've no idea. I don't know who they choose to perform such activities. One would certainly hope that they have sufficient knowledge of the language to be able to do the job effectively.

Thanks for the clarification. My contention is that the teacher selected to answer queries from the members of the public via email is qualified enough to attend to queries.

I'm not referring to teachers who teach in the classrooms.

Although I believe that the teacher attending to queries is an authority on English, I do not, for a moment, think he or she knows everything.

Re: Pronouns

Saiing — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 04:08:05 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:
Hello Siiang

Hello Loong Yait!

Yoong Liat wrote:
You say "Most of the folks who work for the BC are allowed to be sent abroad to teach in foreign classrooms, but wouldn't be allowed to teach in a high school back home." Why do you say 'most', not 'all'. Are you implying that at least a few of them at the British Council are qualified enough to teach in a high school?

Absolutely... That would be the normal implication you could draw from the word "most".

Yoong Liat wrote:
Would I be correct to say that the teacher selected to answer English queries from members of the public via email are qualified enough? I'm not referring to teachers who teach Singaporeans in the classrooms.

I've no idea. I don't know who they choose to perform such activities. One would certainly hope that they have sufficient knowledge of the language to be able to do the job effectively.

Yoong Liat wrote:
However, Siiang says most (not all) of the BC teachers are not qualified enough. This is certainly news to me.

That's not actually what I said. They're perfectly qualified enough to be BC teachers, because that's what they are. What I disagreed with, was your assertion that BC teachers are an "authority" on the English language, when in fact no such thing exists.

Re: Pronouns

Yoong Liat — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 03:39:06 GMT

Hello Siiang

You say "Most of the folks who work for the BC are allowed to be sent abroad to teach in foreign classrooms, but wouldn't be allowed to teach in a high school back home." Why do you say 'most', not 'all'. Are you implying that at least a few of them at the British Council are qualified enough to teach in a high school? Would I be correct to say that the teacher selected to answer English queries from members of the public via email are qualified enough? I'm not referring to teachers who teach Singaporeans in the classrooms.

I would like you to clarify.

Hello Clive

I agree with you. A person with a degree in English may not have a good command of grammar. I know from personal experience that this is true. But what I wanted to emphasise is that the BC teachers are armed with qualifications which enable them to answer questions on grammar and English usage. However, Siiang says most (not all) of the BC teachers are not qualified enough. This is certainly news to me.

Re: Pronouns

Saiing — Tue, 03 Oct 2006 00:37:14 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:
You seem to know so much about the BC teachers. May I know how you come to the conclusion that they're not the highly qualified academics? Are you saying that they do not have a degree in English? You think they are not so qualified. Have you worked with them before and for how long? And how many BC teachers do you know since you seem to imply you know a lot of them.

Forgive me Yoong Liat. I'm really not that interested in bashing the British Council (especially being a Brit myself). They do a great job, and contribute widely to the education of non-native speakers in the language.

I just find it amusing that you seem to be convinced that BC teachers are almost akin to English demi-gods, striding Goliath-like through the troublesome world of English grammar, crushing everything before them with their towering intellects. The only point I've been making all along is that (and you're just going to have to take my word for it), they are just ordinary teachers, with a relatively minimal amount of training compared to say a properly qualified classroom teacher in a British school. Most of the folks who work for the BC are allowed to be sent abroad to teach in foreign classrooms, but wouldn't be allowed to teach in a high school back home.

Re: Pronouns

Clive — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:55:30 GMT

Hi guys,

I'd like to make a comment about degrees in English.

When I obtained my TESL teaching certificate, it was a post-graduate course. Several of my new classmates were young, recent graduates with degrees in English. The TESL course focussed mainly on the theory and methodology of teaching, but naturally there was a large component that involved grammar.

To my surprise, several of my classmates with English degrees had significant problems with grammar. This suggested to me that many English degrees today concentrate on literary analysis rather than grammar. In my opinion, the problem was compounded by the fact that high schools, at least where I live, no longer teach grammar thoroughly and intensively.

It's certainly not my intention to be disrespectful of the many accomplishments of people who have degrees in English. However, I don't feel that such a degree per se is always proof of expertise in grammar.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Pronouns

Yoong Liat — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:40:06 GMT

You seem to know so much about the BC teachers. May I know how you come to the conclusion that they're not the highly qualified academics? Are you saying that they do not have a degree in English? You think they are not so qualified. Have you worked with them before and for how long? And how many BC teachers do you know since you seem to imply you know a lot of them.

Re: Pronouns

Saiing — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 00:38:59 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:
2. I do not know wish to question whether the British Council teachers are authorities on English because although the minimum specified qualification for working as a BC teacher, according to you, is a CELTA,

Not according to me. According to the British Council. (check their website if you want to be sure).

Yoong Liat wrote:
they should have other English qualifications to be selected as a teacher.

You would think so wouldn't you? But, no. With the greatest respect, how many British Council teachers do you know, and how much information do you know about their qualifications? I'm not trying to argue with you about this, but really they're not the highly qualified academics you seem to think they are. I'm not trying to be deliberately insulting to BC teachers. I'm just telling you the truth of the situation.

Yoong Liat wrote:
I think we should respect them for having a vast knowledge of English. Otherwise, they wouldn't be answering questions from the members of the public. When I refer to BC teachers, I was actually referring to the ones selected to answer questions from public members.

All teachers answer questions from the public. That's what teachers do. I'm slightly confused by what you're trying to say. Really, although I think it's an endearing quality, you seem to have an impression of BC teachers which isn't quite in line with the reality of the situation. They're not stupid, but neither are they the pantheon of knowledge you are crediting them with being.

Re: Pronouns

Yoong Liat — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 10:45:20 GMT

I say: Contrary to what you said all the books agree on all the topics except a couple of them.

1. Actually, to be fair, that's what I did say, although I accept that perhaps my wording was a little ambiguous and the meaning was implied rather than explicit. I apologise for not being clearer. Fundamentally, most texts agree on a the basic tenets of the language, but there are enough gaps or controversial areas of disagreement (particularly when it comes to usage) to cause significant headaches; especially at a more advanced level of study.

Now the picture is clearer. We are saying the same thing.

2. I do not know wish to question whether the British Council teachers are authorities on English because although the minimum specified qualification for working as a BC teacher, according to you, is a CELTA, they should have other English qualifications to be selected as a teacher. I think we should respect them for having a vast knowledge of English. Otherwise, they wouldn't be answering questions from the members of the public. When I refer to BC teachers, I was actually referring to the ones selected to answer questions from public members.

I think you should close this chapter and proceed to more meaningful discussions on other subjects.

Re: Pronouns

Saiing — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 00:35:04 GMT

To respond to your specific points:

Are you referring to the teachers at the British Council or the other staff members.

I was referring to both teaching and non-teaching staff working for the British Council. I'm a little confused about what would be news to you, as the only point I was really making was that British Council teachers are human like the rest of us. The minimum specified qualification for working as a BC teacher is a CELTA, and indeed this is what a lot of their teachers have. While the CELTA is an excellent course, and well worth considering, in most cases it constitutes a 4 week programme. If you consider 20 days of teacher training enough to make you an "authority" on the English Language, I'm afraid I would be forced to disagree.

I wonder how many grammar or English usage books you've read[?]

Forgive me. I honestly couldn't give you an accurate figure. But, I can tell you that right now there are about 170 texts on the bookshelf in my office, all of which I have had to review for classroom use at some point in the last few years.

contrary to what you said all the books agree on all the topics except a couple of them.

Actually, to be fair, that's what I did say, although I accept that perhaps my wording was a little ambiguous and the meaning was implied rather than explicit. I apologise for not being clearer. Fundamentally, most texts agree on a the basic tenets of the language, but there are enough gaps or controversial areas of disagreement (particularly when it comes to usage) to cause significant headaches; especially at a more advanced level of study.

If you want a nice little example of just how far disagreement can extend, I'd thoroughly recommend you read up on the life of Robert Burchfield, who died a couple of years ago. The British Daily Telegraph has an interesting obituary.
(See: http://tinyurl.com/36v25) - Sorry. The linking tool doesn't appear to be working for me at the moment.

Re: Pronouns

Yoong Liat — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 15:52:24 GMT

I wouldn't suggest for one moment that I know better than the British Council. However I do know people who have worked for them, and they're human like everyone else.

May I know what you mean by 'people who have worked for them'? Are you referring to the teachers at the British Council or the other staff members. It will be news to me if you are talking about the teachers.

Different grammar texts rarely agree on every topic, so who is right?
I wonder how many grammar or English usage books you've read, but from my experience of reading books on English, I've discovered that contrary to what you said all the books agree on all the topics except a couple of them.

I think you've made a sweeping statement.

Re: Pronouns

Saiing — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 09:49:53 GMT

I wouldn't suggest for one moment that I know better than the British Council. However I do know people who have worked for them, and they're human like everyone else.

I think it's not a case of trusting books. It's a case of looking at where books can help us, and where they can perhaps mislead. Obviously from a non-native speaker's point of view this is difficult, so to an extent you have to trust what is down on the page in front of you. Why else do 90% of the world's English language students greet each other with the well worn "I'm fine, thank you. And you?" routine, despite the fact that in all the years I've been on this earth, I can't once recall hearing a native speaker utter those words.

Different grammar texts rarely agree on every topic, so who is right? Fowler? Swan? The mighty Liz and John Soars? (God help us!) I've been asked to consider writing a book on a couple of occasions in the past. If I did so, would I suddenly metamorphose into a grammar guru?

Essentially, a book about language (no matter how well researched, or peer reviewed) is still just somone's opinion, or the accumulation of what they have been told. Of course, on the whole texts or reference books are extremely valuable tools, and we owe their authors a great debt of gratitude. But, just because something is on a printed page, doesn't necessarily give it any more gravitas or authority, than any other source.

Re: Pronouns

Yoong Liat — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 08:24:03 GMT

If you go to the extent to say that the British Council is not an authority on English, it seems to imply that you know better than they do. In Singapore, we have the Speak Good English Movement and the Singapore Government has to approach the British Council for help. If you read books on English usage and yet you say you don't trust what they say, then I don't know what you should do to improve your English.

Re: Pronouns

Saiing — Fri, 29 Sep 2006 01:58:59 GMT

Yoong Liat wrote:
If we analyse what the English authority has stated, it does make sense. If it is something positive or nothing negative is involved, put yourself last. This is because it more polite to do so.
If it is negative, put yourself first in the list of persons mentioned. In this case, something bad has happened, and it would not be prudent to put yourself at the end of the list.

All the books on English usage will say the same things but differ once in a while. And every book will give you additional knowledge, which is not provided by the other books. In this way, your knowledge increases as you read more and more such books. What is written in books on English usage can often be found in the dictionaries as well because nowadays a lot of dictionaries not only provide definitions of the words but also explain how the words should be used.

Even the teachers from the British Council, an authority on English, make use of books on English and they encourage me to refer to such books. So why do you condemn these books? I believe you should read such books before you condemn them.

I have to disagree. There's no august body, organisation, book or person who can be considered an 'English authority'. I can assure you that the teachers from the British Council are certainly no such thing. I'm not quite sure why you think I'm condemning books. I use them all the time myself for reference, although I take what they say and balance it against my own perception.

On the subject of putting yourself before others in a sentence describing a negative situation: is this critical to usage? I would argue it's not. If you reverse the order, the grammar is still correct, the semantics are perfectly ok and there's no reason that it should be taught, other than as a side reference, that in some circles it may be considered more polite. I think it's true to say that there is a cultural aspect to all language teaching, but politeness is by definition the result of free choice. Learning a language is just that - knowing what the words mean and roughly in what order to put them to be understood. Being polite is not related to 'correct' or 'incorrect' usage, and that was really the only point I was making. As you said yourself, using certain forms may be prudent, but there's no right or wrong. I can be rude and still speak perfectly good English (it may even be my intention to be so!)

English is a very loosely governed language. There are largely two schools of thought: the 'prescriptivists', who think that books and the preordained "rules" of gramar, punctuation and usage define how we should speak, and the 'descriptivists', who think that grammar and other 'rules' are synthesized from the language that people use every day. Thus, in the latter group's point of view, what gets printed in books changes over time as people change the way they speak. Naturally as a result, textbooks, dictionaries and other supposed "authorities" actually lag behind the reality of contemporary language.

But really this is a debate for a different thread than the current one.

Re: Pronouns

Clive — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 21:53:51 GMT

Hi,

I'd like to offer a suggestion that it would be helpful if quotations from authors could be accompanied by the date of publication.

For example, Rupert of Hentzau by Hope was first published in 1898. The Tenant of Wildfell Hall was published just before Anne Bronte died in 1849.

I think it's possible that some learners of English may assume that everything in such quotations is an example of modern-day English.

I'm not suggesting that such works as these are not well written. I just feel that it would be good to provide a little chronological perspective.

Best wishes, Clive

Re: Pronouns

Marius Hancu — Thu, 28 Sep 2006 17:25:48 GMT

Yoong Liat:

No, I think this conclusion wouldn't be correct.

All I wanted to say is that politeness seems to be much more important with "he and I" than with "they and we." At The NYT:

"he and I"
991 Results
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22he+and+I%22+&srchst=nyt

"I and he"
3 Results
http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?query=%22I+and+he%22+&srchst=nyt