论文部分内容阅读
Abstract: Reviewing the history of English language teaching, the phase of the standardization of English should be attached much importance to. Among the pioneering scholars, John Wallis has made great contribution to the fixing of the grammar.
Key Words: English Grammar; English Teaching; Tense
Facing the evolution of grammar teaching, John Wallis was well-known by his unique description of grammar teaching. Firstly, distinguishing from the prevailing traditional grammarians’ ‘Latin-based’ approach and imposing inappropriate categories of description on English, Wallis firmly believed that English was an independent language different from Latin with its own characteristics calling for objective attitude. This ‘anti-Latin’ stance has challenged the domination of Latin grammar and gradually given birth to the descriptive English grammar.
Then, referring to the specific grammatical fields of Wallis, English teachers must be familiar with his perception of the ‘auxiliary’ which provided a reasonable account of the facts of English. It was John Wallis who established the category of ‘auxiliary’ and further subdivided it into ‘complete auxiliaries’ (have and be) and ‘defective auxiliaries’ (do, shall will and the other modals).This subdividing is worth being respected as it is quite meaningful for the definition of the modals still makes both learners and teachers confused today.
So far, the so-called authoritative English grammar by Zhang Daozhen has still defined modals as ‘modals verbs’. But judging from the basic features of modals, should it be time to put forward query? Firstly, modals do not possess the variation for tense or aspect; secondly, only attaching itself to a specific verb can a modal embody a certain modal meaning; thirdly, a modal cannot be the predictive verb in a sentence. In other words, modals can only be defined as ‘modal auxiliaries’ to differentiate real verbs from the three meaningless ‘primary auxiliaries’ —do, be and have.
Another thought- provoking point is that Wallis described the modal auxiliaries in notional terms, pointing out that the modal implication of ‘shall’ and ‘will’ varied with the person of the verb. This may remind us of our own teaching. When explaining the usage of ‘shall’, most English teachers just emphasized that‘shall’ could only collocate with the first person: I or we, without clarifying the reason. Instead, this has long been considered as a convention in English. It is Wallis that noticed ‘I shall’ was actually ‘futurity paradigm’ which merely indicated futurity. And in this paradigm, the word ‘shall’ was an auxiliary rather than a modal auxiliary. While Wallis also admitted the correctness of ‘he shall’ or ‘you shall’. Unlike ‘I shall’, these two paradigms could indicate various modal implications, such as promising, warning, order and determination. Noticeably, this ‘shall’ acted no longer as a common auxiliary but a modal auxiliary. Besides, Wallis’s view on tense needs be mentioned. His identifying only two tenses in English: present and imperfect past was identical to Randolph Quirk in 1970s. In Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Quirk also pointed out that there were only two tenses in English: present and past. Wallis further explained that ‘tense’ was different from ‘time’ and ‘the future time’ was ‘time’ rather than ‘tense’. Now, an embarrassing problem arises—Chinese students have been constantly informed that there are sixteen tenses in English. When can those conservative Chinese grammarians keep pace with the development of language and give learners authentic input?
To sum up, grammar is dynamic with its complexities and indeterminacies making any grammar be no more than ‘a grammar’ rather than ‘the grammar’. What English teachers should always keep in mind is the unceasing absorption new knowledge relating to linguistics and grammar. Only in this way can we get closer to the language and be real educators.
Bibliography
1. Howatt, A.P. R. 1984. A History of English Language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Kemp, J.A. (ed.) 1972. John Wallis’s Grammar of the English Language. Facsimile reprint with an Introduction, based on the sixth edition, 1975. London: Longman.
3. Quirk,R.,S.Greenbaum,G.Leech,andJ.Svartvik.1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
作者简介：卢甜（1985— ），女，四川内江人，四川外语学院研究生部2010级英语语言文学专业硕士研究生，研究方向：英语教学理论与实践。
Key Words: English Grammar; English Teaching; Tense
Facing the evolution of grammar teaching, John Wallis was well-known by his unique description of grammar teaching. Firstly, distinguishing from the prevailing traditional grammarians’ ‘Latin-based’ approach and imposing inappropriate categories of description on English, Wallis firmly believed that English was an independent language different from Latin with its own characteristics calling for objective attitude. This ‘anti-Latin’ stance has challenged the domination of Latin grammar and gradually given birth to the descriptive English grammar.
Then, referring to the specific grammatical fields of Wallis, English teachers must be familiar with his perception of the ‘auxiliary’ which provided a reasonable account of the facts of English. It was John Wallis who established the category of ‘auxiliary’ and further subdivided it into ‘complete auxiliaries’ (have and be) and ‘defective auxiliaries’ (do, shall will and the other modals).This subdividing is worth being respected as it is quite meaningful for the definition of the modals still makes both learners and teachers confused today.
So far, the so-called authoritative English grammar by Zhang Daozhen has still defined modals as ‘modals verbs’. But judging from the basic features of modals, should it be time to put forward query? Firstly, modals do not possess the variation for tense or aspect; secondly, only attaching itself to a specific verb can a modal embody a certain modal meaning; thirdly, a modal cannot be the predictive verb in a sentence. In other words, modals can only be defined as ‘modal auxiliaries’ to differentiate real verbs from the three meaningless ‘primary auxiliaries’ —do, be and have.
Another thought- provoking point is that Wallis described the modal auxiliaries in notional terms, pointing out that the modal implication of ‘shall’ and ‘will’ varied with the person of the verb. This may remind us of our own teaching. When explaining the usage of ‘shall’, most English teachers just emphasized that‘shall’ could only collocate with the first person: I or we, without clarifying the reason. Instead, this has long been considered as a convention in English. It is Wallis that noticed ‘I shall’ was actually ‘futurity paradigm’ which merely indicated futurity. And in this paradigm, the word ‘shall’ was an auxiliary rather than a modal auxiliary. While Wallis also admitted the correctness of ‘he shall’ or ‘you shall’. Unlike ‘I shall’, these two paradigms could indicate various modal implications, such as promising, warning, order and determination. Noticeably, this ‘shall’ acted no longer as a common auxiliary but a modal auxiliary. Besides, Wallis’s view on tense needs be mentioned. His identifying only two tenses in English: present and imperfect past was identical to Randolph Quirk in 1970s. In Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language, Quirk also pointed out that there were only two tenses in English: present and past. Wallis further explained that ‘tense’ was different from ‘time’ and ‘the future time’ was ‘time’ rather than ‘tense’. Now, an embarrassing problem arises—Chinese students have been constantly informed that there are sixteen tenses in English. When can those conservative Chinese grammarians keep pace with the development of language and give learners authentic input?
To sum up, grammar is dynamic with its complexities and indeterminacies making any grammar be no more than ‘a grammar’ rather than ‘the grammar’. What English teachers should always keep in mind is the unceasing absorption new knowledge relating to linguistics and grammar. Only in this way can we get closer to the language and be real educators.
Bibliography
1. Howatt, A.P. R. 1984. A History of English Language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Kemp, J.A. (ed.) 1972. John Wallis’s Grammar of the English Language. Facsimile reprint with an Introduction, based on the sixth edition, 1975. London: Longman.
3. Quirk,R.,S.Greenbaum,G.Leech,andJ.Svartvik.1972. A Grammar of Contemporary English. London: Longman.
作者简介：卢甜（1985— ），女，四川内江人，四川外语学院研究生部2010级英语语言文学专业硕士研究生，研究方向：英语教学理论与实践。