Teaching Literature or Grammar

I've noticed a lot more often lately that while I know an awful lot about literature, that I seem to have missed out on all the terminology concerning English grammar. Students come for help at the Writing Center saying that their professors have noted problems in compound this or subjective that...and I have to go look it all up, because I haven't heard of it.

Makes me feel inadequate, it does...

I've been trying to catch up on it all, so that if I wind up teaching a class and I'm expected to teach grammar, I'll be able to...but my degree only requires writing, literature, and researching courses...no basic grammar courses. How did I miss this in school? Has anyone else experienced this fluency in literature but lack of knowledge regarding grammar terminology? I'm not saying that I can't spot bad grammar...I'm just saying that I can't put a name to what is wrong somethimes...

a professor of mine once said that there seems to be a battle every 5 years or so, causing schools to focus on grammar, then literature, then grammar, then literature...but, I don't know...did I get caught in a lit cycle? (not that I'm complaining :) )

I've had to brush up on my grammar as of late myself. I did take a "descriptive grammar" course in college which I absolutely hated and felt like I learned nothing from, and needless to say that didn't help me when I had to start teaching the 8 parts of speech to 8th graders a few years ago! Unfortunately, with all of the standardized tests we are expected to prepare students for now, those terms and usage are upon us again. Don't feel inadequate. It's just like a foreign language - use it or lose it! Once you get into the swing of it, it becomes second nature. You'll pick it up quickly and become a pro in no time. Anything in particular you're working with or just all of it? I have to teach gerunds and participals next year to 9th graders so I too, have to brush up again on those!

Yeah...I just need a general knowledge so that when a professor sends in a student saying "go to the Writing Center and have them explain gerunds to you," I know what they hell they are talking about...

God I hope that this turns out to be easy...:p

why not give your students a dose of shakespeare?

i can think of a dozen examples offhand that'll refute standard english grammar as inviolable.

we did lots of grammar in school but i slept through it. my course includes grammer :)
check out the "Longman student grammar of spoken and written English" by Douglas Biber, Susan Conrad and Geoffrey Leech (very famous linguist, Geoffrey Leech I mean). As far as I can tell it's based on the terminology employed by CGEL, one of the most influential descriptive grammars of modern English. So you can't go wrong there :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shannanigan

Yeah...I just need a general knowledge so that when a professor sends in a student saying "go to the Writing Center and have them explain gerunds to you," I know what they hell they are talking about...

God I hope that this turns out to be easy...:p

---

hehe, there is no gerund in English :) if you give me till Thursday (when I have my grammar class) I can explain it in breathtaking, mind-boggling detail :)

if you've got problems of the "I don't think I'd say that, but I'm not sure why"- variety, check the BNC. If you don't know how to use it to this :crash: to SleepyWitch or ask her to explain it :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shannanigan

I've noticed a lot more often lately that while I know an awful lot about literature, that I seem to have missed out on all the terminology concerning English grammar. Students come for help at the Writing Center saying that their professors have noted problems in compound this or subjective that...and I have to go look it all up, because I haven't heard of it.

Makes me feel inadequate, it does...

I've been trying to catch up on it all, so that if I wind up teaching a class and I'm expected to teach grammar, I'll be able to...but my degree only requires writing, literature, and researching courses...no basic grammar courses. How did I miss this in school? Has anyone else experienced this fluency in literature but lack of knowledge regarding grammar terminology? I'm not saying that I can't spot bad grammar...I'm just saying that I can't put a name to what is wrong somethimes...

a professor of mine once said that there seems to be a battle every 5 years or so, causing schools to focus on grammar, then literature, then grammar, then literature...but, I don't know...did I get caught in a lit cycle? (not that I'm complaining :) )

---

Frankly Shan the english classes in the US in elementary and high schools do a terrible job in teaching grammar. When I got to college, I had to learn it on my own. I recommend you get a couple of good grammar books and study them. If you don't know what a gerund is, there are probably all sorts of holes in your understanding of english grammar. I had the same problem at your age. I've googled "grammar" which can help. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=grammar But I think several good books that are always close at hand will help. I also eventually put every grammar term on an index card with examples. This helped too.

I've been concerned about this very thing lately. I feel like I missed something in my earlier education. It seems to me that I understand how to do things that I have no name for, and therefore cannot explain. I did well in the small grammar sections of my first year composition course in college, but it was supposed to be review, so I felt like I didn't learn all that much. I hate finding that I've skipped the learning and gone straight to review. It worries me most, as Shannanigan pointed out, to think of being in a position to teach grammar and not having a firm grasp on how to explain it, or even what terminology to use. I try to think that surely teachers are getting this indepth acquaintance with grammar in some college grammar series, but then, I can't recall ever seeing such a series in a university catalogue.

These are good suggestions. Thanks, Sleepy and Virgil. I was coming to a similar plan of becoming familiar with my grammar books on my own, and you make it seem that easy. I wonder if anyone knows of a generally offered university course that would treat grammar directly. I was thinking that perhaps linguistic classes would do so, but I doubt it.

How are you feeling about this now, Shannanigan? Have you had time to gain confidence since July?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste

These are good suggestions. Thanks, Sleepy and Virgil. I was coming to a similar plan of becoming familiar with my grammar books on my own, and you make it seem that easy. I wonder if anyone knows of a generally offered university course that would treat grammar directly. I was thinking that perhaps linguistic classes would do so, but I doubt it.

---

I do not know of any grammar specific college classes. You are supposed to know grammar as an entry student. What also helped me was a foreign language translation class. I don't mean a typical class in a foreign language, but a class devoted to taking a text in that language and translating it to english. Now that I think of it, that was in Grad school, not undergrad.

Jean, linguistics is more like "meta-grammar".. it's more concerned with "how to best anaylse and describe grammar" if you know what I mean? the study of linguistics can and does result in grammar books, but they are too academic(?)/too detailed for your purposes...
E.g. CGEL (Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, by Randolph Quirk, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech and Ian Svartvik ;) I know this by heart, the title and author's not the whole book ;)) is about 1500 pages!!! CG (Cambridge Grammar of English) is about the same length.

So I'd really recommend either
- the Longman Student's Grammar wich uses the same terminonlogy as CGEL or
- A student's grammar of the English language, by Randolph Quirk and Sidney Greenbaum
- A university grammar of English, by Randolph Quirk
- A reference grammar for students of English by R.A. Close

most school text books are based either on Latin grammar (BAAAAAD! explain about it later if anyone's interested :)) or on CGEL. I think all of the books I listed are based on the CGEL framework.

Virgil, there is no gerund in English :) If you talk about a gerund again, I'll put you in detention! ;)
I'll explain about it on Thurday :) we happen to be doing the non-existent gerund in our grammar course :)

Hey, Virgil, that is a great idea. :idea: I'll have to keep my eyes open for such a class as an undergrad. I can really see how that would be beneficial.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

You are supposed to know grammar as an entry student.

---

Yes, I scored very well on my entrance exams, but I don't believe it's nearly enough. I'm sure that part of the responsibility is mine, and not entirely the education system. Perhaps I thought that grammar was easy, and didn't pay enough attention to the details in school. I think I could say that I've learned more about grammar and usage from reading novels than actually being taught the specifics in school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

Virgil, there is no gerund in English :) If you talk about a gerund again, I'll put you in detention! ;)
I'll explain about it on Thurday :) we happen to be doing the non-existent gerund in our grammar course :)

---

:eek2: What? Where did that come from? :confused:

Here: http://www.chompchomp.com/terms/gerund.htm

Quote:

---

The Gerund

Recognize a gerund when you see one.

Every gerund, without exception, ends in -ing. Gerunds are not, however, all that easy to pick out. The problem is that all present participles also end in -ing. What is the difference?
Gerunds function as nouns. Thus, gerunds will be subjects, subject complements, direct objects, indirect objects, and objects of prepositions. Present participles, on the other hand, complete progressive verbs or act as modifiers. Read these examples:

Since Francisco was five years old, swimming has been his passion.
Swimming = subject of the verb has been

Francisco's first love is swimming.

Swimming = subject complement of the verb is

Francisco enjoys swimming more than spending time with his girlfriend Diana.

Swimming = direct object of the verb enjoys

Francisco gives swimming all of his energy and time.

Swimming = indirect object of the verb gives

When Franciso wore dive fins to class, everyone knew that he was devoted to swimming.

Swimming = object of the preposition to

One day last summer, Francisco and his coach were swimming at Daytona Beach.

Swimming = present participle completing the past progressive verb were swimming

A great white shark ate Franciso's swimming coach.

Swimming = present participle modifying coach

Now Francisco practices his sport in safe swimming pools.

Swimming = present participle modifying pools

---

A gerund is quite powerful. It takes a verb and makes it a noun. But it's almost like an active noun.


Hey this was my 7000th post!!!:banana: :banana: :banana: :banana:

cool examples :) will explain about it on Thursday when I've got all the details :)
for a start it's enough to say that there is a mix-up of form and function here:

Quote:

---

Every gerund, without exception, ends in -ing. Gerunds are not, however, all that easy to pick out. The problem is that all present participles also end in -ing. What is the difference?

---

in terms of form, the difference is nil, which makes the term 'gerund' redundant where it refers to a formal category (i.e. the way the word looks).
in Latin, the gerund and the participle actually differ in form (puer loquens - the speaking boy, ars loquendi - the art of public speaking, don't ask me which is which :)), but in English they look the same.
I'll tell you more about the function side of the problem after that class :)

Quote:

---

It takes a verb and makes it a noun.

---

But how do a make a noun, like say "kitten," into a verb? "The poor sot was kittened to death." :lol:

Congratulation on 7,000!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste

But how do a make a noun, like say "kitten," into a verb? "The poor sot was kittened to death." :lol:

Congratulation on 7,000!

---

Well, kittened hasn't gained a verb meaning. But dog has.

The poor sot was dogged to death. :D

Shannanigan--You're certainly not alone. I also got pretty much no formal instruction in English grammar and punctuation. My elementary and middle schools literally threw out the grammar text books a few years before my class came through and instructed the teachers to let us "feel" our way through writing when we were starting out. As a result, though I had an ear for good grammar, almost all the technical grammar terminology I learned (apart from really basic stuff like parts of speech) came initially from my foreign language study. This was sufficient for me to apply to my own writing, but toward the end of my undergraduate years it occured to me, as it has to you, that if I was going into teaching my students might not necessarily appreciate critiques of their papers littered with the odd French and Latin phrases in reference to their grammatical faults, so I got a few books to study and set myself straight about the particulars of English grammar. The most helpful book in my opinion was the one called The Grammar Bible, which pretty much tells you everything you want to know with good examples and explanations. I'm afraid the only way to remedy this is probably to teach yourself.

Quote:

---

In terms of form, the difference is nil, which makes the term 'gerund' redundant where it refers to a formal category (i.e. the way the word looks).
in Latin, the gerund and the participle actually differ in form (puer loquens - the speaking boy, ars loquendi - the art of public speaking, don't ask me which is which ), but in English they look the same.
I'll tell you more about the function side of the problem after that class

---

Sleepy--While you're right that there isn't necessarily a distinct gerund form in English, that doesn't mean the gerund doesn't exist. English also doesn't form declensions like some languages, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as the accusative in English. Last time I checked gerunds were alive and well in English. Are you sure you're not thinking of the gerundive? They are either non-existent or practically non-existent in English to the best of my knowledge.

Edit: Since you didn't seem certain, in your latin examples, "puer loquens" is the participle form, and "ars loquendi" would be the gerund form.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

most school text books are based either on Latin grammar (BAAAAAD! explain about it later if anyone's interested :))

---

Sure, I'd be interested.

Thanks for all the suggested reading, Sleepy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

...instructed the teachers to let us "feel" our way through writing when we were starting out.

---

:lol: That sounds awful!

Thanks for your recommendation of The Grammar Bible, PL. You've described my plight very well.

Take a look here. It will let you practice and give you some help.

http://www.dailygrammar.com/archive.shtml

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Petrarch's Love

Sleepy--While you're right that there isn't necessarily a distinct gerund form in English, that doesn't mean the gerund doesn't exist. English also doesn't form declensions like some languages, but that doesn't mean there's no such thing as the accusative in English. Last time I checked gerunds were alive and well in English. Are you sure you're not thinking of the gerundive? They are either non-existent or practically non-existent in English to the best of my knowledge.

Edit: Since you didn't seem certain, in your latin examples, "puer loquens" is the participle form, and "ars loquendi" would be the gerund form.

---

accusative?:eek2: do you mean case grammar/deep case/semantic roles?

of course I'm being provocative :) yep, some linguists say there's a gerund in English and some say there isn't, I'll get an update on all the pros and cons in my grammar class on Thursday.

Oh this is such a sore spot with me. I teach English and am amazed how unprepared the tudents are who step into my AP class. Teachers shy away from grammar because its "boring" and complicated - but a knowledge of it helps you "diagnose" the problems in your own writing. As well, when kids don't know grammar, it's very difficult to communicate to them what kind of writing errors they are commiting. I spent a lot of time in HS diagramming sentences, but it wasn't until I started teaching grammar that it began to make clear sense to me. Once you learn grammar, it's like learning the basic mathematical formulas or musical scales - you suddenly see the "logic" of language - how it works and how it can be constructed/manipulated for maximum effect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Oh this is such a sore spot with me. I teach English and am amazed how unprepared the tudents are who step into my AP class. Teachers shy away from grammar because its "boring" and complicated - but a knowledge of it helps you "diagnose" the problems in your own writing. As well, when kids don't know grammar, it's very difficult to communicate to them what kind of writing errors they are commiting. I spent a lot of time in HS diagramming sentences, but it wasn't until I started teaching grammar that it began to make clear sense to me. Once you learn grammar, it's like learning the basic mathematical formulas or musical scales - you suddenly see the "logic" of language - how it works and how it can be constructed/manipulated for maximum effect.

---

Red Zep, could it be that many if not most teachers at the pre-college level don't really know the finer points of grammar themseves?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Red Zep, could it be that many if not most teachers at the pre-college level don't really know the finer points of grammar themseves?

---

That is probably a fair statement to make. I only began to grasp how language linked together grammatically once I'd spent a few years teaching it. The way public education is going, and the way written communication is morphing (e.g. text messaging, email and what not), grammar will probably become obsolete as a HS curricular subject - which is too bad, because the ability to manipulate language effectively is very, very important. Personally, at the risk of bugging all the elementary and middle school teachers out there, I believe that the first 6-7 years of school should be spent learning grammar so that from 8th grade on we can concentrate on writing/thinking strategies - rather than my having to spend precious time teaching basic grammatical concepts to 11-12 graders. How can you teach a student the difficult skill of the persuasive/argumentative essay when he lacks the grammatical skill to write effective, strong sentences? The form and content must work together!

But to circle back to your point - I think a lot of teachers avoid grammar because they don't feel confident about teaching it. But I didn't feel confident either at first! I think precision of written expression matters, so I toughed it out and eventually got to where it makes sense to me (which it must if it is to make sense to your students).

Wow! Thanks everybody! (Funny how I'm gone for a couple weeks and suddenly my months-old post sparks discussion, lol).

I've been trying to brush up on the terms with grammar books in our writing center. It's really mind-numbing because I already KNOW all the rules...it's now just a matter of MEMORIZING the names of all the darned things. Ugh.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste

How are you feeling about this now, Shannanigan? Have you had time to gain confidence since July?

---

I do plan to get a couple of books now for when I start teaching, and I want to address this lack of grammar knowledge in our local public schools...it's ridiculous!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shannanigan

I do plan to get a couple of books now for when I start teaching, and I want to address this lack of grammar knowledge in our local public schools...it's ridiculous!

---

Oh you are so right. Here's the good part - at the end of each of my courses, I have students evaluate the course, and of course they all vote that they wish grammar would go; but, they all do admit that they found it helpful and that they learned a lot. You'll do them great favors by teaching them how their own language works - don't give up! Writing is powerful, and although you can be a powerful writer without a precise knowledge of grammar, think how good you could be with that knowledge.

I am not a teacher but I do take learning seriously. My thoughts about teaching grammar?

Play around with the topic.

1. Have your class write for ten minutes. Then have them go back and place a period after every sixth word. Then have them read their writing outloud.

2. Do the same exercise with question marks, exclamation points...

3. Ask them to come up with different words for the terms in traditional grammar...maybe instead of quotation marks the term could be speak marks, talk marks...or perhaps in some different culture the quotation marks would look different depending on what follows...like yell marks, sad marks, demand marks...

4. Have them play around with the difference between a transitive verb and an intransitive verb. It is actually an exciting distinction since the difference between an action that is done to something vs an act that does not have a direct object at the receiving end...it always opens up my understanding of the world and of language. Oh...I just thought of something....was reading a book called Philosphy Of The Mind...the author stated in the introduction that Linguistics and other studies of Language have been seen as the most important concern for the past few decades. How does language work? Are we born with the ability? How does one language present a different reality then another language? And he does not say that these are unimportant questions.

He does, though, offer the interesting premise that before we can really dig into questions of language it seems rational to investigate ideas, assumptions, philosophies, premises that are more fundamental then language, words, communication. How do we know anything at all? How can I prove that I have a mind? If I know I have a mind because I can think then how can I actually know that the other people I meet have similar minds and thus similar mental states? This may be of no help to you regarding the nuts and bolts of teaching grammar but I found it to be a very interesting argument and it actually solved a question that had been bugging me. Why do I keep on getting books on grammar, writing, logic and rhetoric but then find them very dry. Perhaps one reason could be that these deeper questions are actually something I need to spend some time with first.


4. Have the class do a homework assignment where they speak into a tape recorder for 5,10 minutes about any topic they want...or just have them speak strem of thought. Then have them bring the tapes to school and play them back. Maybe have a few students transcribe their tapes and seek if they would know how to use the correct grammar in the written form. This might help them see the reason why grammar is so important in writing...because we actually have a very real grammar of the spoken word, inflection, how loud or quietly we speak, how fast or slow, pauses, gestures...the understanding of grammar simply enables people to use the written word with as much, or even more, flexibility and power as speach.

I just finished reading a book called The Power Of Mindful Learning by Ellen L Langer. To sum up the basic premise: A bunch of studies that she conducted with a whoe variety of student groups seem to indicate that the topic itself is rarely the real reason for learning difficulties. Instead, it is the mind frame of how it is taught, the mind frame of the teacher, and, ofcourse, the mindframe of the students. She makes some brilliant points:

1. Memorizing just for memory sake is not nearly as effective as remembering for a definite and practical reason. By practical I simply mean that the items needing to be remembered are understood to be of real benefit to the students and not just something they are told to learn simply because it is considered, by an authority figure, to be important. Another point she makes is that nobody really has thought about what we mean when we ask people, students in particular, to pay "attention".

Usually it means, or at least strongly implies, give me your unfocused concentration...think of nothing else but what I am saying. This leads to, at best, a kind of begrudging concentration. And by asking someone to think of nothing else they will feel that any ideas, questions, and associations with what is being said are 95% of the time inappropriate, not relevant and thus the topic remains ireleavan

But imagine if attention meant listen to what I am saying but have your attention be open...think about what I am saying, question it, think about what it means for you, what associations does it bring up, what other ideas, thoughts does it remind you of?

In one part of the book she says something like "hey, if someone is daydreaming or seems clearly preoccupied then instead of just saying, hey, stop that, snap out of it there are other ways of handling it." The person is actually paying a great deal of attention to something, but it is not what is being taught. So there is no problem with the individuals ability, capacity, to attend to something. The question is why are they paying attention to X when the class is about Y. Maybe X is more exciting, more visual, full of color and action (thinking about a video game, or a movie, or making out, or a fight they had, or saw...) and in that case the idea would be to think if the class topic could become more exciting, more colorful, more engaging so that there was not such a huge gap between X and Y.

I know that your day to day life as a teacher presents a whole universe of very real difficulties (class size, teaching requirements, mandatory lesson topics, administrators,...) and many of these ideas may just be impossible, not helpful, helpful but not right for your class in particular...I offer them with that awareness in my mind.

sincerely,
Ghideon;)

As a student I can not help jumping into this conversation especially when this thing, English Grammar, is my weakest point.

My reasons for being a jerk in this Grammar thing is that I don't even know what these terms mean. For instance, I did not even know what the hell was meant by adjective about half a year ago even though I could use them quite well.

I think that this is because I studied English from novels, not from grammar books, keeping in mind that in our previous school, the English was just a little more than "A B C".

Once our teacher told the whole class rules regarding tenses, like using "ing" and other things, I did not get a single word of it. But in my creative writing, I hardly make mistakes in tenses. Once she was asking us a question and I answered it. She asked me thatn why was the answer the "answer". I was very surprised, I just stood there like a fool. Then another girl answered it because the "answer was the answer" due to some stupid grammar rule.

I have girls in my class who usually have noses in grammar books, but when it comes to writing something, they can't write too well. So I personally feel that grammar is not that much help. Grammar just messes up the whole English language for me. :sick:

I am glad you added your thoughts and feelings Pensive. If you have not read my post above I would love you to check it out and give me your take on it. Do my ideas make any sense?

I also feel like your experience is exactly the type of experience that I had in my mind when I wrote my post.

G

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pensive

As a student I can not help jumping into this conversation especially when this thing, English Grammar, is my weakest point.

My reasons for being a jerk in this Grammar thing is that I don't even know what these terms mean. For instance, I did not even know what the hell was meant by adjective about half a year ago even though I could use themadjectives quite well.

I think that this is because I studied English from novels, not from grammar books, keeping in mind that in our previous school, the English was just a little more than "A B C".

Once our teacher told the whole class rules regarding tenses, like using "ing" and other things, I did not get a single word of it. But in my creative writing, I hardly make mistakes in tenses. Once she was asking us a question and I answered it. She asked me thatn why was the answer the "answer". I was very surprised, I just stood there like a fool. Then another girl answered it because the "answer was the answer" due to some stupid grammar rule.

I have girls in my class who usually have noses in grammar books, but when it comes to writing something, they can't write too well. So I personally feel that grammar is not that much help. Grammar just messes up the whole English language for me. :sick:

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ghideon

I am glad you added your thoughts and feelings Pensive. If you have not read my post above I would love you to check it out and give me your take on it. Do my ideas make any sense?

I also feel like your experience is exactly the type of experience that I had in my mind when I wrote my post.

G

---

ghideon,

Thank you for sharing it with us. Yours ideas seem good. These can make the grammar lesson which is thought to be quite boring really interesting.

I will like to hear teachers' comments as well about the points you have mentioned. I wonder if they think that following these methods in the classroom can prove to be an improving way for the students. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shannanigan

Wow! Thanks everybody! (Funny how I'm gone for a couple weeks and suddenly my months-old post sparks discussion, lol).

I've been trying to brush up on the terms with grammar books in our writing center. It's really mind-numbing because I already KNOW all the rules...it's now just a matter of MEMORIZING the names of all the darned things. Ugh.



I do plan to get a couple of books now for when I start teaching, and I want to address this lack of grammar knowledge in our local public schools...it's ridiculous!

---

Welcome back, Shannanigan! I"m glad to hear of your plan to fix the grammar situation. I'm developing a similar plan myself. Thanks for starting this thread so many months ago; it has helped me a great deal. Sorry that it lay dormant for so long.

Ghideon: These are interesting exercises that you suggest.

What an excellent topic. I have a student teacher at this time who is working on his English teaching certification, but he absolutely knows no grammar. I find myself having to teach him just as I do my high school students. I didn't know much grammar or grammar terminology either when I started teaching, but I was determined to teach it to my students. By teaching it, I have learned it. One thing for sure, you learn by teaching.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SleepyWitch

accusative?:eek2: do you mean case grammar/deep case/semantic roles?

of course I'm being provocative :) yep, some linguists say there's a gerund in English and some say there isn't, I'll get an update on all the pros and cons in my grammar class on Thursday.

---

I don't mean to being up an old argument, but technically there is no accusative or dative in modern English, rather there is an oblique case used for pronouns. Techincally an accusative has a set function most commonly as the direct object of a verb, where as the oblique case is simple the object of a verb/preposition. Additionally it may also be said that English has one additional case, the genitive.

There is certainly a gerund in English. Just because the gerund form shares its expression with another tense does not necesarily cease to mean it is an independant grammatical function. A. example fo this is the third person singular persent and the genetive 's.' They both share the same termination (and the genitive only came to be written with an apostrophe a few hundred years ago), but they are grammatically distinct. The act of making a verb a noun in an indo-european language nornally qualifies it for gerund status. In fact, in English there are two ways to make it a gerund, but that does not remove its gerund status.

That being said, Sleepy was right about 90% of English grammar books being fundamentally useless. They are normally based in Latin grammar which normally, but not in this case, misrepresent English grammar by saying things like "Thous shalt not split thine infinitives" which is based on the Latin understanding of the infinitive grafted onto English. Same thing goes ending sentances with prespositions. Those rules are all made up and unatural to the English language.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shannanigan

I've noticed a lot more often lately that while I know an awful lot about literature, that I seem to have missed out on all the terminology concerning English grammar. Students come for help at the Writing Center saying that their professors have noted problems in compound this or subjective that...and I have to go look it all up, because I haven't heard of it.

Makes me feel inadequate, it does...

I've been trying to catch up on it all, so that if I wind up teaching a class and I'm expected to teach grammar, I'll be able to...but my degree only requires writing, literature, and researching courses...no basic grammar courses. How did I miss this in school? Has anyone else experienced this fluency in literature but lack of knowledge regarding grammar terminology? I'm not saying that I can't spot bad grammar...I'm just saying that I can't put a name to what is wrong somethimes...

a professor of mine once said that there seems to be a battle every 5 years or so, causing schools to focus on grammar, then literature, then grammar, then literature...but, I don't know...did I get caught in a lit cycle? (not that I'm complaining :) )

---

you missed being taught grammar simply because the American education system sucks. ugh. i'm curious what lit books you were required to read in that writing, literature, and research program.

Read Shoots, Eats and Leaves. It reviews grammar rules while sending you into hysterics! For more formal review, try the book by Shrunk and White - a classic!

All that we non native writers in English feel with regard to English grammar is to apply articles and prepositions correctly and suitably. More often than not most writers make mistakes about the use of articles and a few about the use of prepositions. Or else our English is OK. We are not running short of vocabulary. It is now a problem, but the main problem is with grammar.

Another problem facing me is to bring naturalism or coherence on my use of English. In these I lack and call for more and more exercise.

Hi Shan,
as a teacher of English for foreign learners in Germany I often use the grammar book "Practical English Usage" by Michael Swan. It's basically written for foreigh learners and their teachers but it gives clear and reliable advice and it helps you to find things quickly and easy. So it might be a fast help for you as a native speaker, too. There are a lot of examples and the book also covers the main exceptions to the rules.
Maybe you have a try?!
Ella

I was educated in England in the 70s, and so received no lessons in grammer what-so-ever. It was also unfashionable to correct a student's spelling, for fear of discourageing his/her imaginative effort. It was a progressive comprehensive school, taking kids from 12 up to 18.

I still struggle to write correctly and to spell correctly, I have no confidence in using full stops and commas, let alone anything else. Everything I manage in this regard has come from my reading in later life.

I notice on British message boards there is a very poor standard of English and English grammer. By comparison, the standard on this board is frighteningly high, especially from American contributors.

So don't be too quick to dis the American education system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Valerie Bogues

What an excellent topic. I have a student teacher at this time who is working on his English teaching certification, but he absolutely knows no grammar. I find myself having to teach him just as I do my high school students. I didn't know much grammar or grammar terminology either when I started teaching, but I was determined to teach it to my students. By teaching it, I have learned it. One thing for sure, you learn by teaching.

---

I learned very little about grammar terminology and rules in elementary and high school. In my college teaching program, I had a class in teaching grammar, but I got very little out of it. I learned about grammar by teaching it. Now, I only teach literature as I teach at at the college prep level and my students have few grammar problems, but when they do, I can deal easily with them because of years and years of teaching courses and students where I needed to talk about and teach grammar. Consequently, I think the best way to learn it, as with many other things, is to teach it.