Q re national curriculum - conditional tense English language

lightlights · 2024-02-15T15:34:47+00:00

Any experts on the national curriculum around? I have been looking at various sites and it seems that the conditional tense is not taught in years reception - year 13? By conditional tense I mean the conjugated past and present conditional for verbs, for example would have, could have etc. I have also noticed quite a lot about zero conditional, first conditional, second conditional etc in relation to teaching English as a second language. I was taught formal grammar which I am fairly sure did not include these ways of categorising the conditional tense, we learned the straightforward conjugated past and present conditional for verbs. Are these ways of categorising just taught to people learning English as a second language, and if so why? Thank you very much!

EBearhug · 29/07/2024 09:18

I am always reminded of Laura Ingalls Wilder in... I think it's The Long Winter, but may be another - where she has to parse a sentence.

Technonan · 27/07/2024 16:31

Modal auxiliaries and conditional verbs are more or less the same thing. Conditional structures are part of this system, though they don't always require a modal auxiliary.

The conditional isn't a tense. It is far more complex than that. Aspect is important here - perfect or progressive.

Children are taught the use of these structures, but I'm not sure what terminology is used. I'm not convinced that bunging labels on language that children are using as a matter of course is very useful. It won't solve the 'could of', 'could have' confusion - that requires an understanding of word classes.

SnapCrackleandStop · 27/07/2024 16:28

lightlights · 27/07/2024 16:16

You are spectacularly missing the point about literacy levels.

Show quote history

I think I just have a broader definition of ´grammar’.
I do agree teaching grammar to primary school children is a good idea.
But you can study grammar in many ways.

I could teach an excellent lesson on informal contacted forms, like ´gonna’ and ´wanna’. We could go into what the long forms are and also why the short forms look like they do. That would involve some phonology too. Then we could do some sociolinguistics and look at what in contexts you see ´gonna’ and ´wanna’ and in what contexts you don’t. We could even try and look at some oral language texts and compare ´going to’ and ´want to’ in different spoken texts to see how the level of formality influences pronunciation too. That might be a more helpful approach for many 1st and 2nd language speakers of English, rather than just saying ´gonna’ is incorrect grammar.

Original poster

lightlights · 27/07/2024 16:28

SnapCrackleandStop · 27/07/2024 16:17

It has everything to do with descriptive and prescriptive approaches.
If a teacher moves into an area where the local variety of English has grammatical differences to standard English, it’s helpful to take a descriptive approach and first try to understand what the local kids are saying and what it means, without calling it ´incorrect’ English. And then you can find equivalent standard English expressions and discuss how both the local and standard varieties are formed and talk about suitable situations for using both.
The fact that some linguists have written books about descriptive grammar is a total non issue.

Show quote history

You misunderstood what I wrote again. What you were describing was not related to the debate I was describing.

Perhaps you are seeing things in academic linguistic terms and you aren't aware of the debate which perhaps uses the terms you know differently and to a different end?

It might be because you are based in the US and I am talking about the UK?
Or because you are picking sources without reading them?

I really don't know. I am being quite genuine here.

You aren't understanding what I am writing, for sure, and I am putting it in quite clear, plain English.

OP posts:

SnapCrackleandStop · 27/07/2024 16:17

lightlights · 27/07/2024 15:57

What I have said isn't weird, obviously. I think you may have misunderstood it. What you have described isn't relevant to the "descriptive" and "prescriptive" debate. The "descriptive" camp seek to not include "prescriptive" teaching, and they write books on "descriptive" grammar, to the exclusion of "prescriptive" grammar. So that is quite different from what you have described, which is to do with understanding dialects while also teaching prescriptive, in discrete areas. Again, if you read the books written by your academic source you will see how this debate started.

Edited

Show quote history

It has everything to do with descriptive and prescriptive approaches.
If a teacher moves into an area where the local variety of English has grammatical differences to standard English, it’s helpful to take a descriptive approach and first try to understand what the local kids are saying and what it means, without calling it ´incorrect’ English. And then you can find equivalent standard English expressions and discuss how both the local and standard varieties are formed and talk about suitable situations for using both.
The fact that some linguists have written books about descriptive grammar is a total non issue.

Original poster

lightlights · 27/07/2024 16:16

SnapCrackleandStop · 27/07/2024 16:10

And the prescriptivists ignore the fact that at some point someone described the grammar they have decided is correct?

I know all about prescriptivism and descriptivism. Those terms are usually used in 1st year linguistics courses to explain to undergraduate students that it’s possible to study grammar by looking at real samples of speech and writing and understand how different structures are formed and the meaning that they are used to convey, as well as learning grammar rules for standard versions of written languages. I don’t come across them much in TEFL research.

I actually do think it’s important to teach grammar. I do it all the time, mostly with L2 learners.

I don’t really understand why you think it matters that there isn’t always just one way of describing and teaching English grammatical constructions? Does it matter if I call ´I was walking along’ present continuous or present progressive? Does it matter if I describe present continuous as a combination of present tense and progressive or aspect or as it’s own tense? It’s a bit like teaching kids to multiple numbers by twelve by either multiplying by six then doubling or by multiplying by 10 and multiplying by 2 then adding the two parts together. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, right?

You are spectacularly missing the point about literacy levels.

OP posts:

SnapCrackleandStop · 27/07/2024 16:10

And the prescriptivists ignore the fact that at some point someone described the grammar they have decided is correct?

I know all about prescriptivism and descriptivism. Those terms are usually used in 1st year linguistics courses to explain to undergraduate students that it’s possible to study grammar by looking at real samples of speech and writing and understand how different structures are formed and the meaning that they are used to convey, as well as learning grammar rules for standard versions of written languages. I don’t come across them much in TEFL research.

I actually do think it’s important to teach grammar. I do it all the time, mostly with L2 learners.

I don’t really understand why you think it matters that there isn’t always just one way of describing and teaching English grammatical constructions? Does it matter if I call ´I was walking along’ present continuous or present progressive? Does it matter if I describe present continuous as a combination of present tense and progressive or aspect or as it’s own tense? It’s a bit like teaching kids to multiple numbers by twelve by either multiplying by six then doubling or by multiplying by 10 and multiplying by 2 then adding the two parts together. There’s more than one way to skin a cat, right?

Original poster

lightlights · 27/07/2024 16:09

SnapCrackleandStop · 27/07/2024 15:56

You dislike the way of classifying English verb constructions outlined by Palmer therefore Teaching English as a Foreign Language has ruined literacy rates in the UK where most school children are native speakers? Or have I misunderstood the logic?

Show quote history

You have completely and utterly misunderstood! And you have clearly not read Palmer's books. Honestly, come back after you have read his books, and read the document you linked, and re-read my posts.

OP posts:

Original poster

lightlights · 27/07/2024 15:57

SnapCrackleandStop · 27/07/2024 14:56

Your analysis of prescriptive and descriptive approaches is weird. There are many teaching contexts where ideally you’d want teachers to be doing a bit of both. If you’re an English teacher working in an area with a local dialect that has significant differences to standard English then it’s really helpful to know and understand the grammar behind both the local variety and standard English. That way you can teach the kids the difference. Which doesn’t mean telling them they are wrong to use their local variety. The goal is for them to become bi-dialectal so they can use whichever variety is the best fit for the situation. I’m not based in Scotland but I believe there has been a movement in the past decade or so to integrate Scots into literacy programs in Scotland following exactly this principle.

What I have said isn't weird, obviously. I think you may have misunderstood it. What you have described isn't relevant to the "descriptive" and "prescriptive" debate. The "descriptive" camp seek to not include "prescriptive" teaching, and they write books on "descriptive" grammar, to the exclusion of "prescriptive" grammar. So that is quite different from what you have described, which is to do with understanding dialects while also teaching prescriptive, in discrete areas. Again, if you read the books written by your academic source you will see how this debate started.

OP posts:

SnapCrackleandStop · 27/07/2024 15:56

lightlights · 27/07/2024 15:48

I went through this with you last time. I am correct. Have a look at the books written by the academic source you provided. Have a look at how much TEFL development work he did.

Show quote history

You dislike the way of classifying English verb constructions outlined by Palmer therefore Teaching English as a Foreign Language has ruined literacy rates in the UK where most school children are native speakers? Or have I misunderstood the logic?

Original poster

lightlights · 27/07/2024 15:48

SnapCrackleandStop · 27/07/2024 14:41

What are you on about? You know there is ongoing research into second language acquisition and second language teaching? It wasn’t just invented in the 60s or 70s and hasn’t changed since.

Show quote history

I went through this with you last time. I am correct. Have a look at the books written by the academic source you provided. Have a look at how much TEFL development work he did.

OP posts:

Abitofalark · 27/07/2024 15:04

I have an old grammar book from 1879 for 'young learners' who've already acquired elementary ideas of grammar from a first grammar book.

From time to time I find it interesting to look up something such as the meaning of parts of speech - but what strikes me is how intricate and nuanced a subject it is when you delve into it. It has a section for exercises and the whole thing looks quite daunting for youngsters. It's also interesting for the inclusion of 'ancient forms', meaning Anglo-Saxon and from the time of Chaucer. Not sure I want to get into the weeds on tenses vs moods but yes, it does cover those.

SnapCrackleandStop · 27/07/2024 14:56

Your analysis of prescriptive and descriptive approaches is weird. There are many teaching contexts where ideally you’d want teachers to be doing a bit of both. If you’re an English teacher working in an area with a local dialect that has significant differences to standard English then it’s really helpful to know and understand the grammar behind both the local variety and standard English. That way you can teach the kids the difference. Which doesn’t mean telling them they are wrong to use their local variety. The goal is for them to become bi-dialectal so they can use whichever variety is the best fit for the situation. I’m not based in Scotland but I believe there has been a movement in the past decade or so to integrate Scots into literacy programs in Scotland following exactly this principle.

SnapCrackleandStop · 27/07/2024 14:41

lightlights · 27/07/2024 14:22

TEFL teaching was developed in the 60s and 70s by the same academics who were pulling apart traditional grammar teaching - with such disastrous results. What makes it worse is that current TEFL teaching is a highly simplified version of the rules made up in the 60s and 70s, simplified to the extent of being completely incorrect. Total nightmare.

Show quote history

What are you on about? You know there is ongoing research into second language acquisition and second language teaching? It wasn’t just invented in the 60s or 70s and hasn’t changed since.

Original poster

lightlights · 27/07/2024 14:24

I forgot to ask in my long post above - does anyone know if the current government is planning to keep the higher grammar level in the national curriculum? I hope so!

OP posts:

Original poster

lightlights · 27/07/2024 14:22

SeeSeeRider · 27/07/2024 14:12

I visit English Language Learners Stack Exchange and it often baffles the questioners that native speakers don't have the faintest idea what 'first, second, and third conditionals' are. Unless they are TESOL types. What I mean is that of course we use them, but we don't have those names for them.

TEFL teaching was developed in the 60s and 70s by the same academics who were pulling apart traditional grammar teaching - with such disastrous results. What makes it worse is that current TEFL teaching is a highly simplified version of the rules made up in the 60s and 70s, simplified to the extent of being completely incorrect. Total nightmare.

OP posts:

SeeSeeRider · 27/07/2024 14:12

I visit English Language Learners Stack Exchange and it often baffles the questioners that native speakers don't have the faintest idea what 'first, second, and third conditionals' are. Unless they are TESOL types. What I mean is that of course we use them, but we don't have those names for them.

notbelieved · 27/07/2024 14:05

GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER · 15/02/2024 19:21

Despite a strong foreign language background, I had zero idea about conditionals until I had to teach them to Arabic speaking students.

They were nearly all young males, so…

If I win the lottery, I will buy a car. (First conditional)
If I won the lottery, I would buy a car. (2nd)
If I had won the lottery, I would have bought a car. (3rd.).

So bloody complicated for the poor things!

Yeah, this is how I would teach it as an MFL teacher.

if it rains, we get wet/will get wet/let’s get wet
if it were to rain, we would get wet
ifmit had rained, we would have got wet.

Q2C4 · 27/07/2024 14:04

GETTINGLIKEMYMOTHER · 15/02/2024 19:21

Despite a strong foreign language background, I had zero idea about conditionals until I had to teach them to Arabic speaking students.

They were nearly all young males, so…

If I win the lottery, I will buy a car. (First conditional)
If I won the lottery, I would buy a car. (2nd)
If I had won the lottery, I would have bought a car. (3rd.).

So bloody complicated for the poor things!

Shouldn't the second example be "if I were to win the lottery"?

Original poster

lightlights · 27/07/2024 13:57

I started this thread to try to fact find and wanted to update it, in case anyone else is interested. It started with just a question about one particular tense, but for me it led to questions about literacy and the effect of grammar and language teaching on that. I am not an expert about any of this, and so if anyone has more knowledge please do comment!

After the last post I started looking more at grammar teaching and it seems that since the 1960s in the UK (situation in UK is quite different from our friends on the continent) there have been two schools of thought about how grammar should be taught, prescriptive (formal/traditional rules) and descriptive (books saying how language is currently used and not saying what is correct or not correct, and this still seems to be a trend in the UK and it appears to have had a disastrous effect on literacy).

An OECD report of 2019 said that levels of literacy in the UK in 55-65 years group is significantly higher than school leavers. Formal grammar stopped being taught to all children at the time 55-65 year olds were at school, and since then teaching has been sparodic until national curriculum changes came in in 2016. Literacy levels in the generation before 55-65 year olds are higher still according to information available - ie this was time when all primary school children were being taught formal/traditional grammar. It therefore seems to me that there is a link between formal grammar teaching and high levels of literacy. And that "prescriptive" rules based teaching is better for literacy than "descriptive" (or "progressive") grammar

The most recent PIRLS report about literacy levels for 9 and 10 year olds has the UK coming in 4th, with only HK, Russia and Singapore (I think) coming ahead of the UK. This is a pretty fantastic result, especially given that in the 2006 PIRLS report, the UK came in at 19th. The national curriculum introduced far more grammar into primary school teaching in 2016. It therefore looks like this has been significant, and reinforces the idea that prescriptive/formal/traditional grammar and language teaching leads to significantly higher levels of literacy?

Questions remain over how well language is being taught in senior schools and also what could be done about the generations which have less high levels of literacy. Many senior schools do not seem to be following the new, more rules based, national curriculum successfully.

There are also academic disputes about the use of phonics, about the fact that where phonics is used exclusively over presciptive teaching of grammar or to too great an extent there appear to be lower levels of literacy, eg in the states, according to some articles I have seen. Phonics as a basic start to reading is helpful, but there is so much irregularity in English, having phonics as the only teaching method is going to cause problems.

This is just my thinking on the subject, after having read the answers to my original question and then looked into it a bit more. If anyone has more knowledge or expertise over the link between formal grammar and literacy I would be really interested to know.

OP posts:

Original poster

lightlights · 12/03/2024 14:22

@SnapCrackleandStop PS if you read both comments upthread about "I would have helped" I am not disagreeing with what you have said, I was disagreeing with what another poster had said. Just in case you didn't understand what I wrote about Palmer if you read his books you will see that he clearly distinguishes between traditional grammar ie taught in the UK before 60s/70s and his revisions to that - so you suggested I dig around for more but in fact it is all pretty clear but you'd need to both read his books and also read the grammar books from the 50s to understand.

DC are watching Yes Minster at the moment, and Sir Humphrey in that series displays an advanced knowledge of what Palmer called traditional grammar. In one episode - the one where Sir H realises that his mistake from years earlier had been discovered, Sir H uses traditional grammar to avoid saying "me" in a long convoluted sentence but no one understands and so he finally says "It is I" (instead of It is me) - Palmer refers to the grammar rule relating to It is I instead of It is me in one of his books as an example of something erudite, based on Latin rules. He accepted some rules and threw some out, with his radical hat on, but to someone brought up on traditional grammar his views would probably appear arbitrary.

As you say, if you are into language it is all interesting stuff.

Genuinely interested to know what your these is about?

OP posts:

Original poster

lightlights · 12/03/2024 14:11

DwightDFlysenhower · 02/03/2024 13:00

Using phonetic spellings would cause even more confusion given that so many of our words sound the same in spoken language.

Getting rid of it as you suggest and getting rid of the formal teaching would be taking us back to stone age levels of communication.

I don't think this is true. Look at Pitman shorthand for example. It was specifically engineered to massively increase speed of writing, but is still completely understandable. I'll concede you'll have more homonyms, but with context it isn't an issue.

I think you're separating language and speech far more than they actually are in real life.

I am sorry I don't think I answered your question when I replied the other day. You were suggesting that Pitman's shorthand could be used to replace English as we know it today - or something similar. PSH could be legible, my example was of problems when written in a rush so I missed the point as I was in a rush, sorry.

So going back to your suggestion - to try to introduce something like PSH to replace English - were you thinking you could teach children in school, instead of English? And presumably if so you'd need to teach their parents, and also teach professionals and academics, and all other adults in fact, including judges, engineers, psychologists, doctors, lawyers, bankers. Also replace all official and legal and medical and engineering and academic and all other written works. And translate all historical written works from bibles to literature to history.

I think my question (and most people's question) would be - why would you do that?!

Yes I think it would be confusing and I also think it would have serious human cost, in practice, in reality.

OP posts:

Original poster

lightlights · 12/03/2024 14:00

SnapCrackleandStop · 09/03/2024 14:22

A linguist friend of mine who specializes in Latin and the evolution of Romance languages told me this week that the Romans only had a concept of grammar for talking about or teaching Greek, and didn’t apply it to Latin at all. They were apparently also very worried about language degrading.

I think looking up ´universal grammar’ should be your next stop OP. You’re still clinging to the idea that ´traditional grammar’ fits all languages and is the simplest way of learning. But you’ve now rejected your own reference (Palmer) for being too radical. So where does your idea of ´traditional grammar’ actually come from? I have a thesis to write, but do let me know if you manage to dig into this further. I think it’s a genuinely interesting question.

In the phrase ´I would have helped’ ´help’ is the ONLY lexical verb. Yes, ´have’ can have a lexical meaning in other sentences but in that phrase it’s fulfilling a grammatical function and not providing lexical meaning. It doesn’t mean ´to own/possess’ in ´I would have helped’. It’s probably called the present perfect conditional or something (I’d have to check) and the auxiliary ´have’ is part of the present perfect construction.

It is Palmer who talked about traditional grammar. I usually refer to formal grammar, Palmer called it traditional grammar - it is the grammar I was taught because I went to an academic school and the grammar I was expected to know in my professional role in the UK. I haven't rejected Palmer's ideas in full at all - as you will see if you read my long post again a bit more carefully!

What is universal grammar? I am not going to look it up.... if you are referring to what I said upthread, one of the posters gave a rule and I asked if that were universally accepted - you might be referring to that? If so I was simply asking if she thought that her rule was the only rule which applied. Hope that makes sense now.

A source for "stripped language" would be wonderful, I think you were going to provide that. Otherwise, good luck with your thesis! What is it about?

OP posts:

SerendipityJane · 09/03/2024 14:46

A linguist friend of mine who specializes in Latin and the evolution of Romance languages told me this week that the Romans only had a concept of grammar for talking about or teaching Greek, and didn’t apply it to Latin at all. They were apparently also very worried about language degrading.

Real Romans spoke Greek 😀

Fair play to big Julius - he wasn't ashamed to have some Latin standards.

SnapCrackleandStop · 09/03/2024 14:22

A linguist friend of mine who specializes in Latin and the evolution of Romance languages told me this week that the Romans only had a concept of grammar for talking about or teaching Greek, and didn’t apply it to Latin at all. They were apparently also very worried about language degrading.

I think looking up ´universal grammar’ should be your next stop OP. You’re still clinging to the idea that ´traditional grammar’ fits all languages and is the simplest way of learning. But you’ve now rejected your own reference (Palmer) for being too radical. So where does your idea of ´traditional grammar’ actually come from? I have a thesis to write, but do let me know if you manage to dig into this further. I think it’s a genuinely interesting question.

In the phrase ´I would have helped’ ´help’ is the ONLY lexical verb. Yes, ´have’ can have a lexical meaning in other sentences but in that phrase it’s fulfilling a grammatical function and not providing lexical meaning. It doesn’t mean ´to own/possess’ in ´I would have helped’. It’s probably called the present perfect conditional or something (I’d have to check) and the auxiliary ´have’ is part of the present perfect construction.