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.
Oppression is painful, and not being able to express it increases the pain 10-fold. This level of pain is something that Uighurs, Tibetans and Mongolians understand all too well. A question often posed to Uighurs in the international arena is: “You say you are facing genocide, but why don’t we see corpses, like in Rwanda and in Bosnia?” If you were a Uighur, what would you say? What if you replied: “The source of the problem is your lack of vision. It’s an indication of your weakness and China’s strength, and it is not a matter of our sincerity.” Such a harsh response would
President Tsai Ing-wen’s (蔡英文) Double Ten National Day address has attracted a great deal of analysis and many different interpretations. One core question is why Tsai chose this occasion to discuss Taiwan’s national status. What was her main motive and what effect did she intend to have? These are issues that clearly need further clarification. The section of Tsai’s speech that attracted the most attention internationally was, not surprisingly, the part where she laid out “four commitments” that she said should serve as common ground for all Taiwanese, regardless of political affiliation. The commitments were to liberal democracy and constitutional government; that the
Double Ten Day, Oct. 10 every year, is an important day for Taiwan, as it marks the Republic of China’s (ROC) National Day. Major holidays are usually a time for celebration and commemorative activities, but among all the clamor and excitement, Double Ten reflects one essential fact: that Taiwan is still not a normalized society. As usual, there was a large parade in front of the Presidential Office Building, displaying to the world Taiwan’s social diversity and its soft and hard power, and President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) gave an address, relaying her message to the nation and to the world, while the
Ever since former Kaohsiung mayor Han Kuo-yu (韓國瑜) of the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) was recalled last year, “Han fans,” as well as the KMT hierarchy, have made pro-Taiwan lawmakers their enemy No. 1, and Taiwan Statebuilding Party Legislator Chen Po-wei (陳柏惟) has been on top of that list (“Recall part of ‘generational war’: expert,” Oct. 19, page 3). Chen has always been one of Han’s harshest critics, and Han fans have vowed revenge. Former legislators Yen Kuan-hen (顏寬恆) and Yen Ching-piao (顏清標), being such sore losers, were not amused about losing to Chen democratically and have amassed significant resources backed by