Alex’s embedded comments in my paper are in blue and bold. His answers from the generic answer key are plain old blue. I’m the rest.

Ginna: Your review is actually quite strong, one of the most coherent and insightful I’ve read so far. It is true that you didn’t hold on to tense vs aspect but most of the other answers were not only accurate but showed a deep understand and ability to explain with lots of detail. (e.g. q 3 that many people had no ideas about) So stop “beating yourself up” The brain cells are alive and well. a

Many answers are at the tip of my brain but I can’t access them. I wish I’d known to review before the review, since my mind is the type that needs multiple passes over new (or reintroduced) material. Sorry. This is frustrating.

Terms

1. Descriptive vs prescriptive grammar

Descriptive: Showing how language works (from morphology to discourse), without judgment about “proper” traditional forms. Example: Encouraging student dialog about a topic and letting them talk without interruption or pointing out errors. Focus on fluency more than accuracy.

Prescriptive: Teaching language as “right” versus “wrong” form; in the US, the standard is often the language of the majority. The grammar translation method of the 1960s and 1970s is an example; it emphasized repetition of “proper” syntax and recognized errors not as tools but as something to be corrected. Accuracy was of tantamount importance.

Descriptive grammar is objective observations about how people speak. It does not impose standards or recommendations, it simply systematically reports how people speak and/or write. It is necessarily tied to a specific population in a given context. It most often, then, relates to spoken language

Prescriptive grammar sets forth standards and rules which represent the preferred way of speaking/.writing. It is thus a break on change; it seeks stability and uniformity in the language. It is most often based on the written language. It is imposed by schools, certain grammar books and dictionaries, and print media.

Example: Prescriptive grammar imposed the use of “whom” but in descriptive grammar we recognize that all speakers frequently ignore these rules and use “who.”

2. Teachability vs learnability

Teachability refers to the complexity of a subject from the teacher’s perspective: prior knowledge required, amount of research and preparation needed (ease), and the teaching time itself. Something is teachable if it doesn’t drain those resources (efficient), AND if it builds on or dovetails with students’ existing knowledge so that it can be successfully assimilated (effective).

Learnability may also refer to the complexity of a subject, but from the learner’s perspective. It includes educational factors like context (e.g. level of learners and their prior experience), amount of scaffolding provided, relevance of the topic, and the nature of the subject itself: whether, for example, it is patterned knowledge that the students can grasp with greater facility.

Yes and you might want to consider why sometimes teachability differs sharply from learnability in that the L1 may influence the acquisition (e.g. students from L1’s without articles find them (often) very difficult to pay attention to, even when learned intellectually.

Teachability relates to how complex a structure is and thus how hard or easy it is to explain and teach. Learnability is how difficult the target material is to learn/.acquire from the learner’s perspective. Learnability is influenced not just by perceived complexity of the structure but also by 1) the distance between the native and target language 2) language acquisition phenomena like developmental order in the acquisition of structures For example, third person –s on main verbs is not apparently complex (teachability) but it is a late stage morpheme in the acquisition order. It lacks saliency (it is not semantically important and is structurally isolated—no other pronoun takes –s) and thus poses problems in learnability

3. What is the difference between tense (strict linguistic definition) and time?

I researched this really well for the assignment and wrote two pages about it, as well as attended to the class discussion. Now I’ve forgotten, and I’m mad. I think I have this all wrong but I’ll take a chance.

I think tense is the umbrella term that refers to all three characteristics of verb conjugation. Time is one facet, referring to when the action took place: past, present or future. UP to here you have defined tense correctly but using the everyday version of the term. The strict linguistic definition is about explicit markers on verb forms, i.e. –s and -edI think another is mode, but I don’t know. Is the third aspect? One of these refers to the status of an action that began in the past and is happening or happened over time: the progressive or continuous form. The last is the “perfect” form, which has the verb “to have” in it. All of this is actually about aspects

Tense = markers for time which are on the verb itself Thus English has only two tenses plays played i.e. present and past. Time generally refers to the three time values, whatever linguistic means we use to convey time. These are present, past and future.

4. How many aspects are there in English and what are they?

I don’t remember. All verbs are one of three things: past, present or future. Each of these can be progressive as well. And each can be perfect. And then there can be combinations thereof. Could there be12 forms? Why is the word “pluperfect” coming into my head? I don’t know what it is.

perfect: formed by a form of have (in present, past or future) plus main verb e.g. She’s been here a while is present aspect since “have” is in the present

progressive or continuous formed by the –ing form of the verb following to be

The two aspects may be combined: They have been getting up early this week = present perfect progressive.

Verb forms

Create a sentence that corresponds to each of the following verb forms.

1. Present progressive: “I am feeling anxious about taking this test, even though it’s called a ‘review.”

2. Past simple: “I didn’t study for it.”

3. Future progressive: “I hope I won’t be kicking myself for not having prepared.”

4. Present perfect: “It’s frustrating to realize how much grammar I have forgotten over the years.”

5. Past perfect: “I had expected that I would remember more, but I guess the sixties took their toll on my brain cells.”

[I didn’t include his answer key stuff here.]

Functions

1. Cheryl Levine (PIM 26) went to law school after graduating from SIT.  She became a successful defense lawyer, fighting against the repressive, classist judicial system. Today, the judge was ill and cancelled Cheryl’s client’s  trial so Cheryl had an unexpected free afternoon.  She went home and decided to spend the afternoon relaxing in her bath, reading and listening to music.

Her immediate family includes her husband, Mitch, and her two children, a boy, Pedro, 13, and a girl, Elana, 9.

At 12: 30 Cheryl, in her bath, hears footsteps approaching:

“Who’s there?” she asks:

“It’s me, Mitch”

“I’m in my bath”  says Cheryl.

Later, Cheryl is back in her bath. It’s 3 pm.

She hears footsteps approaching:

“Who’s there?” she asks.

“It’s me, Pedro”

“I’m in my bath” says Cheryl.

An hour later, Cheryl is still in her bath.

She hears footsteps approaching:

“Who’s there?” she asks

“It’s me, Elana”

“I’m in my bath” says Cheryl.

Cheryl used the same statement form for each of the three family encounters.

But each time, the function intended was different.

What were the three functions?

What were the three functions? Cheryl used the same words “I’m in my bath” to convey each of the three functions, so what did she do help each listener understand what function was intended?

• Mitch: “Who’s there… I’m in my bath” is her letting him know that he not to be startled to see another human in the house. She may also be hoping he’ll come join her, but I don’t want to think about that. Why not? That is the function (invitation) that is suggested by the context and the fact that each encounter represents a different function.
• Pedro: “Who’s there… I’m in my bath” is a way of warning him (an impressionable teenaged boy) not to open the door, thus shocking him to see her butt-naked, though clean. Yes the key is “warning”
• Elana: “Who’s there … I’m in my bath.” Cheryl, very wrinkly now, may be inviting Elana to come on in and talk about her day at school, girl to girl. [invitation]

Modals

1. ESL Teacher: Hector, you must take the TOEFL test today at 3.
Hector: No, I must not. I already took it last month.

What is the error and why is it common?

He doesn’t know that “must not” is not the negative of “must.” It is a common error because the English grammatical form for negation of stative (and other non-active) verbs is (verb + not). But with “must,” it forms a different meaning in the traditional negative form. (That is, it has the connotation of something forbidden.)

The negative of “must” can go in two different directions. First, the negation of “obligation” which is “must not” -meaning: forbidden, prohibited.

Or you can have the absence of “obligation” i.e. it’s not necessary, it’s optional. But “must not” only communicates the first meaning.

In the example above, it is clearly the absence of obligation that is needed, and we need a different verb: I don’t have to take it. I already took it last Friday.

2. ESL student 1. Is it true that we must turn in two papers on books we read for our English class?

ESL student 2: No, we musted do that last semester. This semester we do only one paper.

What is the issue and what is the desired correct form?

S/he knows the past tense ending -ed and is generalizing that knowledge, without knowing that the modal “must” cannot be used in the past tense (or in future and other forms). But s/he thinks it can because its counterpart (have to) does have a past tense form.

Must as a modal does not act like an ordinary verb. It does not possess a past tense. “Have to” is the normal past: No we had to do that last semester. This semester we do only one paper.

3. Do you can play tennis?

What is the source of the problem?

A guess: The speaker knows about the English use of “do” in question transformations for active verbs. Thus, she thinks “Do you…” is how her question should begin. She doesn’t know that “can” doesn’t work with verbs of state and that the interrogatory “do” goes only with an action verbs, not modals.

Again, modals do not act like normal main verbs, here it is the normal question formation which is different, via inversion not do- insertion. Can you play tennis?

4. What are the two meanings of should in the sentences below: What is common and what is distinct?

What is common to both is that “should” implies a positive action or outcome: something to be done or accomplished. But in #1, “should” refers to expectation based on prior knowledge or experience. In #2, “should” has the connotation of obligation or even advice.

Should here relates to obligation, moral obligation. Both sentences relate in some way to probability of occurrence.

Multi-word verbs

1. Consider the following sentences.

• He gets up at 8 am every day.
• He gets along with his roommates very well.
• I got my camera back from the repair shop in time to take pictures at the party.
• She finally got over her big disappointment at not being elected Vice President.

What are the semantic i.e. meaning issues and challenges in these sentences for learners of English in regard to multi word verbs

The same root verb — to get — has many meanings, and as a phrasal verb, has little if any relation to the standard meaning of the word (as in “to acquire”). Challenges are having to learn new definitions for what seems like a simple, single word, when in fact they need to learn the verb phrase. So the learner has to sever the word “get” from the meaning they know, look at the sentence to see a) what “preposition” is near it and b) the larger context of the sentence, all the while trying to pick up the holistic meaning of the sentence. Beyond semantics, those who have a grounding in grammar will further be confused by the distinction between a preposition and a piece of a phrasal verb. And as discussed in question 3 below, they will also have to learn which phrasal verbs can be divided by a subject Do you mean object? (unless it’s a pronoun) and which can’t even take an object. Finally, phrasal verbs are a huge component of English; it’s not as though a learner can pick up the 20 English phrasal verbs and be done with it.

1 The meaning of multi-word verbs is only occasionally evident from the particle. The multi-word “gets along with,” for example, may or may not be clear in meaning to learners. Students thus need to learn multi-word verbs as a unit and not try to analyze them.

2. Some multi-word verbs have three elements, like b) get along with but still the whole set of words carries a single meaning, is like a single unit. This may not be evident to learners, who try to analyze each word.

2. Phrasal or multi word verbs and syntax

• He walked into the room.
• He looked through the newspaper

These two sentences look similar: a verb plus what appears to be a preposition plus an object of that preposition But only one of the sentences contains a phrasal verb (also called multi-word verb) Which one is it and what is the distinction between the two sentences, i.e why is one a phrasal verb and the other not??

“Walked into” the room is a verb plus preposition because the action — walk — is independent of the direction being walked. That is, walk has the same meaning whether it’s “walked into, under, around, through, past…” The only thing changing is where the walking is being done.

“Looked through,” on the other hand, is a phrasal verb because together they have a specific meaning: peruse. Without the “through,” “looked means something else; with other apparent prepositions, it can mean watched (looked at), babysat (looked after), etc.

These two sentences look similar: a verb plus what appears to be a preposition plus an object of that preposition But only one of the sentences contains a phrasal verb (also called multi-word verb) Which one is it and what is the distinction between the two sentences, i.e why is one a phrasal verb and the other not??

Only “looked through” is a phrasal verb. “Walked into the room” is just a verb plus a preposition with an object. The main difference is that in phrasal or multi-words verbs the particle (adv or prep) is closely linked to the verb. It carries a single meaning and that meaning is most often not predictable by analyzing each word. Phrasal verbs have meanings that must be learned. With “walked into the room” into is connected to “the room”—“walk into” has meaning that is predictable from its two elements.

3. Look at the two sets of sentences below: Sentences with * (asterisk) before them are ungrammatical. What is going on syntactically in these sentences that will pose a problem for most English learners?

• I’ll look up the word in the dictionary.
• I’ll look the word up in the dictionary
• I’ll look it up in the dictionary
• * I’ll look up it in the dictionary

What is going on that poses a problem: “look up” is a separable, transitive phrasal verb. It’s confusing to the speaker because it is possible to put the direct object “book” into the phrasal verb, but we can’t do the same with the pronoun for the object.

• I ran into my teacher last night at the movies.
• *I ran my teacher into last night at the movies.
• I ran into her last night at the movies.
• I ran her into last night at the movies.

What is going on that poses a problem: “ran into” is an inseparable, transitive phrasal verb. In answer F, the speaker is trying to put the object between the verb parts, which is syntactically incorrect. Likewise, in answer H, the speaker is attempting to do the same with the pronoun, which also doesn’t work. With inseparables, nothing can gain entry into the phrasal verb.

Tragically, as I understand it, the solution for these errors is simply practice with the phrasal verbs, to know which is which type.

Multi word verbs may be “movable” or “unmovable’ also called “separable” or “non separable” These terms refer to whether the object (usually a noun or its pronoun replacement) can move to a position between the verb and its following particle or can only appear after the particle.

The first group of sentences show a moveable type phrasal verb. Note that another complication with this type of verb is that if you use a pronoun it must be in the position before the particle.

The second set of sentences show a non-movable type phrasal verb. Not only does this create two categories that act in grammatically different ways, but there is basically no way to determine just from looking at the phrasal verb, or its meaning, which category it belongs to: moveable or non-moveable This means that students either have to memorize the verb plus category (inefficient, difficult, and hard to transfer to real communicative situations) or learn over time through lots of exposure and practice.