Martin Parrott 2000 Grammar For English
Martin Parrott 2000 Grammar For English
Martin Parrott 2000 Grammar For English
http://dx.doi.org /10.5785/18-1-9
Martin Parrott. 2000. Grammar for English Language Teachers. Cambridge University Press.
514 pp.
This volume offers prospective and current teachers of English, first or second language,
comprehensive information on English Grammar. The aims reflect the down-to-earth
approach Parrott takes:
A simple example of his desire to give more accurate information can be seen in the
definition of nouns. As he rightly points out, the popular definition of a noun is that it
‘describes a person, place or thing’.
The book is organized and presented in a reader-friendly way. The index, for example is at
the beginning of the book and is entitled Short cut to what you’re looking for. The book itself
is divided into eight parts. Parts A and B deal with basic aspects that teachers that course
books usually give attention to: Part A looks at word classes, and Part B deals with the verb
phrase. Parts C and D deal with ‘more neglected aspects of grammar’. Each Part is carefully
framed, beginning with ‘Key considerations relating to the topic’. The subsequent sections
explore the topic in more detail. A very useful feature is ‘Typical difficulties for learners’.
Further further information on the aspects covered in these parts is provided in Parts F and G.
Another useful section in Parts A to E is the Consolidation Exercises. Unlike many other
grammar books, the texts are authentic. Part H provides possible answers.
E Ridge
In presenting teachers with information on grammar, Parrott was concerned to use terms used
in course books, rather than in academic grammars. This decision means that he opts for the
word ‘tense’ as used in course books. An academic grammar would see English as having
only two tenses (present and past). South African teachers will be unused to the term future
tenses to refer to the different verb forms used to refer to time. A more common practice is to
see the shall/will + bare infinitive as the future tense.
Teachers who want to ‘understand’ grammar will find the explanations generally clear and
detailed. The excerpt below serves to illustrate the way in which ‘Typical difficulties
experienced by learners’ are dealt with in the book:
Questions
Learners may leave out auxiliary verbs which are necessary in questions and/or they
may forget to change the order of the subject and the auxiliary verb.
Learners sometimes need to spend a lot of time noticing and practising these (very
irregular) forms before they are confident in using them correctly. They may over-
generalise the use of do/does/did.
Very usefully, the consolidation exercises allow teachers to apply the insights they have
gained in the various sections. Here is an example relating to ‘over-generalisation’.
The following are spelling mistakes made by learners of English. In each case
speculate about the cause of the mistake:
Spelling
cryed The learner has added ed to the infinitive without changing the y to i.
…
Per Linguam 2002 18(1):57-59 58
doi: 10.5785/18-1-9
E Ridge
In Part B, he offers detailed but accessible explanations of the functions different verb forms
serve. A ‘problem area’ in South Africa is the contrast between the past simple and the
present perfect forms. On page 188 he annotates a text to illustrate the meaning the verb form
offers in a particular context. (Unintentionally here, he illustrates the way in which text needs
to be interpreted in terms of the time it was written. The text used was written when Chris
Barnard was still alive!).
I did find, at times, that his explanations were not entirely satisfactory. On page 156, for
example, he suggests that in running commentaries commentators use the simple present to
‘save time when the action is fast’. I prefer the explanation offered by Svartvik and Leech
(1994: 66) that ‘the event is begun and ended at the very moment of speech’. Another
example is the statement that modal verbs have no past form (p. 121). While there is some
truth to this, it depends on the sense in which a modal is being used. ‘Could’ can be a past
tense form of ‘can’ (He said he could come) as could ‘might’ be a past tense form of ‘may’.
On the whole, however, I found Parrott’s approach both interesting and informative. It could
certainly help teachers (especially those in pre-set courses) to develop their knowledge and
understanding of English grammar. I particularly welcome the emphasis on testing the ‘rules’
against real language.
REFERENCE
E Ridge
Division of English
Faculty of Education
University of Stellenbosch