Despite the many advances in English language teaching, spawned primarily by the Chomskyan theory of generative grammar, (prescriptive) grammar rules remain largely unchanged in Taiwanese schools. These rules, which are considered the gospel truth by teachers and learners alike, contain flaws that would make the people who pay allegiance to this system shudder if it [the system] was placed under a semantic microscope.
Many English-language teachers have readily available answers to the many troublesome questions regarding English grammar. This confidence about the credibility of the prescribed rules stems from the fact that these rules were engraved in stone by the language scholars of the late 19th century. The grammar textbook is akin to a holy book and therefore cannot and should not be challenged.
Prescribed grammar rules do have some merit, but they can be misleading and confusing, not because they are complex or complicated, but because they are structure-derived rather than semantic-generated. In fact, when we teach language, devising rules often puts us in a quagmire rather than on a straight path to language acquisition.
This allegiance to the grammar textbook and the flaws it harbors is further exacerbated by the fact that these rules are taught in the mother language, which detaches language from what is supposed to be.
Allowing formal schemata (linguistic knowledge) in general to dictate content schemata (semantic knowledge) can seriously hinder the learning of the target language and teaching grammar rules that are not generated by real-life situations is like providing a builder with so many bricks, but not enough cement and tools to put the bricks together. Of course, departing from a system that has been working and yielding” satisfactory” results for decades would be met by resistance.
Further, it would be inconceivable to try and reverse the tide of grammar textbooks that flood the market, but we should invest time to dissect them and rethink how we teach grammar to our students, whom we expect to understand and properly use the target language when they are faced with the real life situations.
The trend to turn language into a pure commodity is something nobody can stem, but if we rethink how grammar is taught, we can do that language and its learners a great favor by re-appraising the evaluation system, especially at the college level, where teachers have academic freedom. Helping students put archaic English grammar rules under a magnifying glass should be one of the tasks entrusted to us as educators.
Mo Reddad is a lecturer at I-Shou University’s department of applied English.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS