• Sklep

  Prenumerata, książki metodyczne, promocje

• Blog

  Świeże pomysły, inspirujące idee

• TV

  Doskonal swój warsztat metodyczny

• Czytelnia

  Metodyka nauczania języka angielskiego

• Aktualności

  Z nami będziesz na bieżąco

Interview with Raymond Murphy

Jack Scholes: First of all, could you please tell us a little bit about your background and how and why you fi rst started writing?

Raymond Murphy: My fi rst job as a teacher of English was at a language school in Hamburg, Germany in 1971. I was interested in languages and in travel, and I was happy to get a teaching job that combined both. I had no plans to make a career out of teaching, but that’s what I ended up doing. After three years in Germany, I returned to the UK and taught at the Swan School of English, a language school in Oxford. I started writing the fi rst edition of English Grammar in Use in 1981...

RM: It had its origins in a series of self-access worksheets I wrote for students at the Swan School. I wanted to have a way to deal with their questions about grammar – this wasn’t something that could be done effi ciently in the classroom where there were more important things to do. And anyway, students came from a wide range of nationalities and language backgrounds and therefore did not necessarily experience the same problems with grammar. So I started writing these self-study grammar worksheets. Each one covered a grammar topic and consisted of three pages: information, exercises and key. Th e aim was to address the grammar problems that learners encounter, and explain things in a simple, concise style. Th at’s where the book came from. I’m not specially interested in grammar itself. What interests and challenges me is the communication of information to learners in a clear, simple, practical and non-academic way.

JS: Do you believe there is only one correct grammar or if, in fact, we can say there are many grammars of English?

RM: Th ere are many varieties of English and therefore variations in grammar, but I don’t think that is of great signifi cance for a learner. I think and one of the existing standards is as good (and as neutral) as anything else. Having said that, it makes sense to be as inclusive and fl exible as possible. We need to be aware of diversity and allow for it where that is appropriate.

JS: Since language is an ever-changing system, when can the actual language (the structures that people use in real life) – when it diff ers from the normative rules – be accepted by a grammar book? What makes a change in language grammatically acceptable?

RM: Once a language pattern becomes widespread in the standard version of the language, there’s no reason to exclude it (at least not on grounds of ‘grammatical acceptability’). When I wrote the first edition of English Grammar in Use (1981- 1985), I didn’t acknowledge the use of like as a conjunction as in it looks like it’s going to rain. Over the years this use of like (as an alternative to as if ) has become more and more common and accepted in standard British English and I have therefore included it in more recent editions of my books.

JS: With the phenomenal rise of English as an international medium of communication what are some of the implications with regard to the teaching of grammar? Does English as an International Language have core features needed for mutual intelligibility? Should the grammatical models be the same or diff erent from the ‘standard’ English models already available?

RM: As far as grammar is concerned, I see no advantage in moving away from existing standard models. If you don’t work from these standards, you have to establish new ones, which would be a little crazy, and it’s diffi cult to see how it would benefi t anyone. Of course, if such a thing as a standard ‘world English’ should naturally evolve, then grammarians will study its grammar and new learning materials refl ecting this new standard would evolve. Right now I’d be more keen to see a coming together (in a grammar book) of the two main native speaker standards, North American and British. Th e grammatical diff erences are few, and I think it would be useful to produce a grammar book that both North American and British native speakers were comfortable with. My own books have North American versions, but this is more because of the diff erences in vocabulary and idiom than grammatical diff erences.

JS: In a globalised world with non-native speakers of English representing the majority, are grammatical rules less important than clear communication?

RM: Clear communication is of course more important than adherence to standard grammatical patterns. If someone says ‘I no work yesterday’, then the meaning will be clear to the listener. So, if basic communication is all you want and need, you only need to conform to the most basic patterns. But you may want more than this. You may want to express something complicated, you may want to impress somebody with the quality of your English, or you may just like the idea of speaking ‘correctly’. In that case, you’ll probably want to aim at being reasonably competent in using the main grammatical patterns of the standard version of the language.

JS: Although grammar is important, most teachers teach too much grammar and also give it too much priority, with the result that students don’t learn English; they learn grammar. Why do you think this is so and what, in your opinion are some good reasons for teaching grammar?

RM: I agree that many teachers and students are obsessed with formal grammar. In schools, languages are part of the general educational curriculum and are taught as academic subjects. Th ere is often too much emphasis on formal rules and an indulgence in grammatical terminology. Too much emphasis on knowledge, and too little on practice. Perhaps this situation is partly the result of the fact that grammatical knowledge is also more easily assessable than the ability to use language. I prefer to see language learning as more like learning to drive or learning to dance (though it’s usually a more complicated and lengthy process than either of these). Learning a language means acquiring the ability to perform, and successful performance demands lots of practice. When learning a foreign language, people want to be able to use the basic patterns and want to speak reasonably correctly and fl uently so that they make themselves understood. Th ey need plenty of practice in the classroom to enable them to achieve this as well as they can. What they don’t need is lectures on the grammar of the language. I would also say that we should see grammar as something positive and enabling, rather than negative and restrictive. As much as possible, we should try and emphasize what we can generate through grammar, rather than the restrictions it imposes.

JS: Many learners, especially adults, insist on being given the grammar rules, but there is a lot of evidence to show that many are unable to transfer formal knowledge to eff ective use. How can we deal with this problem?

RM: Lots of practice, mainly. But inevitably some people will fi nd it more diffi cult than others. We’re not all natural language learners, and often people are learning in the most unfavourable circumstances – just a few class hours a week, little practice time in class, no time to practice and no-one to practice with out of class, no strong motivation etc.

JS: Is it likely that any grammar we teach will take hold simply doing exercises or do learners also need frequent opportunities for putting it into practice in creative interactions?

RM: Most learners will need much more than conventional exercises. Th ese are fi ne for helping learners to understand the point of grammar and how it works, but they don’t and can’t provide the extensive natural practice that most of us need before we feel we have mastered an aspect of language. Real practice in using the structure in question will involve much more than the structure itself. It will involve spontaneous speech, saying what you want to say, speaking intelligibly, use of appropriate vocabulary, fl uency, interacting with the listener and so on. ‘Learning grammar’ takes place in the context of practising all these other things.

JS: Do you think we can make a clear distinction between grammar and lexis or is there an interdependence of two interlocking and complementary areas? Can we say that words are single items and grammar tells us how these items combine, or do the grammatical structures depend on the words that make up the structures? Is language lexis-driven or syntax-driven?

RM: Conceptually they’re pretty distinct, but they’re also interdependent and complementary. Th ey have to be, don’t they? Lexis always comes with its associated grammar, and grammar with its attendant lexis. Language is driven by the need for people to communicate; it’s not ‘lexis-driven’ or ‘syntax-driven’.

JS: In his book The Lexical Approach (page 135), Michael Lewis says, “There are serious questions to be raised about the use of decontextualized sentences for grammatical practice. If sentences are to function as utterances, part of extended discourse, then all practice materials which claim to attend to the meaning of sentences must use only sentences which occur with co-text.” Do you agree?

RM: No. I believe decontextualised sentences (by which I mean those not forming part of an extended discourse) are fi ne in exercises intended to help the learner understand a point of grammar. I think it can be helpful to strip away the distractions and focus on the point in question (as long as there is enough context, supplied or implied, for the item to be meaningful). However, I’m referring here only to exercises aimed at helping students understand how the language works; I’m not referring to more general language practice, which is the real vehicle of learning.

JS: How do you view the recent tendency to suggest that lexical approaches are superior to the teaching of grammar? Do you think that lexis should be one of the central organizing principles of the syllabus, where currently grammar still rules?

RM: I doubt that good learning and good teaching are determined by these issues, and I also have an instinctive dislike of the polarization of ideas promoted by this discussion. If grammar is often a strong factor in the organization of the syllabus, that’s probably because it is systematic, generative and finite. That makes sense, but it can also be fine if someone wants to organize and present things differently. What matters for me is not so much how the syllabus is organized, but how and to what extent things are practised.

by Jack Scholes for New Routes Magazine – Disal, 2009

Komentarze

Ten temat nie został jeszcze skomentowany