Secondary elements

Based on our understanding of primary elements of PGC, we can use the following more explicit definition for secondary elements:

If a grammatical element does not have all three of the properties of primary elements of pedagogical grammar (i.e. commonality, uniqueness, and importance) then it is a secondary or non-primary element of Chinese pedagogical grammar.

Using this definition, we may consider the following list of grammatical elements secondary or non-primary:

Secondary Elements:

• Parts of speech (e.g., noun, verb, adjective, adverb, etc.)

• Meaning of words

• Fixed expressions (e.g., idioms, proverbs, etc.)

• Sentence structures (e.g., subject + verb + object)

Many teachers like to assign “parts of speech” to words when explaining their meaning, especially teachers in China. They do not only talk about parts of speech, but also ask students questions such as 这是什么词? (Zhèi shì shénme cí? “What is the part of speech of this word?”). Unless a student asks specifically for this clarification, it is, in my view, a waste of students’ time; students do not need to know the part of speech to be able to use the word in context or communication.

Evidence supporting this point of view can be found not only in first language acquisition, but also in foreign/second language acquisition (Dulay and Burt 1974, Eckman and Hastings 1977, Wells 1985, Rutherford 1987, Bialystok 1991, Beck 1998). As a matter of fact, we all know this from our own experience with learning our first language: When children first acquire the use of a word, they do not learn its part of speech. Since part of speech is not commonly mentioned or used in communication, it is not an important or primary element of pedagogical grammar or communicative competence. Furthermore, since parts of speech are used to describe the grammatical property of words and are used in all grammar books and dictionaries of all languages, it is not unique to Chinese either. All these properties lead to the conclusion that the status of parts of speech is secondary in pedagogical grammar of Chinese and possibly across the language continuum.

Another example of a secondary element of PGC is of semantics: the meaning of words. We often hear teachers asking students this question: “这个词 (or 字) 是什么意思? Zhèi ge cí/zì shì shénme yìsi?” (“What does this word mean?” or “What is the meaning of this word?”). Upon hearing this question, one

can envision a few scenarios: (1) Students know the answer and respond to the question in Chinese. (2) Students know the answer and respond to the question in English. (3) Students do not know the answer so the teacher has to explain the meaning of the word in question. Let us examine the three scenarios in more detail. Among these three scenarios, the first one probably pleases the teacher most and the third one the least. However, none of the scenarios indicates that the given question is useful in helping students’ learning. If students know the meaning of the word, then there is no need to spend classroom time explaining it.

If students, especially intermediate and advanced students, do not know the meaning, the teacher’s explanation may not help them remember the meaning of the word faster or better than if they figure it out themselves, because the definition can “go in one ear and out the other.” Even if the teacher’s explanation turns out to be helpful to some students, it may not be wise for teachers to spend a lot of classroom time on it. Therefore, neither the question nor the explanation has significant pedagogical implications. Certainly, this does not mean that students should not learn the meaning of words. There is no doubt that students should learn the meaning of words, because words are the basic units of the language.

The issue is how words can be learned most efficiently and whether the meaning of words should be considered a primary element of pedagogical grammar. I suggest that students gradually acquire the habit of learning word meanings on their own (e.g., by looking them up in dictionaries or textbooks, or figuring them out based on context) and teachers only check to see whether students know how to use those words in context or communication and not by isolated, non-contextual definition. If students cannot use words correctly, teachers should then demonstrate their functions in discourse. Since the meanings of words in Chinese, especially those of concrete words (e.g., those expressing time, place, person, etc.) can be straightforward, the need to explain them either in grammar books or in classrooms becomes less than primary.

Fixed expressions, such as idiomatic or habitual expressions, should also be considered secondary in pedagogical grammar. The major reason for this classification is that the use of these expressions is not fundamental in communication; rather it is the icing on the cake (i.e., 锦上添花 jĭnshàng tiān huā). For example, one does not have to use the idiomatic expression 锦上添花 to express the idea of “make things even better by adding something extra.” One can simply say “好上加好 hăo shàng jiā hăo” or “已经很好了, 还可以更好 yĭjīng hĕn hăo le, hái kĕyĭ gèng hăo.” As a result, we rarely see or hear students using idiomatic or fixed expressions, no matter how many they have learned from class or their textbooks. Furthermore, since most fixed expressions have a unique structure and discourse meaning, students normally have to memorize each expression as a new vocabulary item. Naturally, if students know how to express an idea in simple and plain Chinese, they are unlikely to make the extra effort to dig into their memory for a complicated idiomatic expression unless their Chinese has reached a level that permits them to use idiomatic expressions in a native-like way. We know from our teaching experience that even when students’ Chinese

competence reaches the advanced level, they often make funny mistakes (such as those in [2.25)] when using idiomatic expressions).⁴

(2.25) a. 老师, 您真不简单, 您的学生无孔不入。[比较： “桃李满天下”]

lāoshī, nín zhēn bù jiăndān, nín de xuésheng wúkŏngbúrù. [cf. táolĭ măn tiānxià]

“Teacher, you are really something! You have students all over the world.”

(Note: Both 无孔不入 wúkŏngbúrù and 桃李满天下 táolĭ măn tiānxià can mean “students are found everywhere.” However, the first one has negative connotation and the second one does not. )

b. 我们班的同学都是郎才女貌。[比较：”长得都不错”]

wŏmen bān de tóngxué dōu shì lángcáinǚmào. [cf. zhăng de dōu búcuò]

“The guys in our class are all talented and the girls are all beautiful.” (Note: “郎 才女貌”is normally used to describe an ideal couple: the husband has talent and the wife has beauty. )

c. 老师每天都数一数二。 [比较： “点名”]

lăoshī mĕitiān dōu shǔyīshǔér. [cf. diănmíng]

“Our teacher calls students’ names every day.”

(Note: “数一数二” is often used to convey the idea of “top number X” as in

“The University of Michigan is often ranked topic 5 among the state universities in the United States.”

Most grammar books discuss types of sentence structures that exist in Chinese and many Chinese teachers patiently explain various types of constructions by using such terminology as subject, predicate, object, complement, etc., in classroom teaching. I suggest that the explanation of sentence structure, like the categorization of words by part of speech, should be kept to a minimum.

This is partly because the explanation of Chinese sentence structure itself does not help students improve their communicative competence, and partly because the functions of different constructions are more important than the structures of sentences themselves. From the study of both first and foreign/second language acquisition (Schmidt and McCreary 1977, Bley-Vroman 1988, Bialystok 1991), we know that students do not need to know which part is the subject and which is the object when they communicate, nor do they need to know the name of the element after bèi in the so-called passive construction or after lián in the emphatic construction introduced by “lián … dōu/yĕ” (e.g. 他连星期天都上班. Tā lián xīngqī tiān dōu shàngbān. Even on Sunday he has to go to work.). What they need to know, though, is the context and rationale of using the passive construction and the emphatic construction. In the following chapters, discussion will turn to the methodology of teaching various types of primary grammatical elements of PGC.

Since different grammatical elements have different functions in communication or discourse, PGC should emphasize function, not structure. If students only learn

how to change an active construction into the passive mood (e.g., by moving the object into the subject position and moving the subject after bèi before the verb) without knowing when and why passive constructions are used, the learning becomes useless and, in teaching any language, usefulness is a key to achieving communicative competency.

So far, I have discussed both primary and secondary elements of PGC. The distinction between primary and secondary elements is extremely important in teaching Chinese as FL and even more important in defining the role in pedagogical grammar for Chinese. It has been suggested that language practitioners and pedagogy specialists should all make such a distinction to avoid unnecessary work in teaching and learning. It should also be pointed out that the lists of both primary and secondary elements given earlier are not meant to be exhaustive. Using the suggested definitions of those two types of elements, one should be able to evaluate all grammatical elements and determine their primary or secondary importance in PGC and, in turn, use this information to shape, focus and streamline lesson plans.