Others have clearly given time and thought to this, and have largely cleared up the problem – I think.
One of the underlying problems here is that some writers and teachers attach a great deal of importance to a precise definition of terminology (I am guilty of this myself at times). I think that what we need to ask ourselves as teachers is if this is helping our students. We have had three threads on this topic, and still most of us will stick to our own pet ways of looking at BE.
Poor Jennifer has been lumbered with teaching materials that not only force learners to concentrate on working on the theory of language rather than using it, but also ask them to just use one of several ideas in the belief that it is the
only one.
Many of us have had similar problems with exercises of the type
underline the phrasal verbs in the following sentences … . Fine; except that, to take just one example,
account for is classed as a
phrasal verb by one authority,
prepositional verb by another and
verb + preposition by a third! (see page 13 at
http://www.gramorak.com/Articles/Phrasal.pdf )
There is no simple solution to this problem. I tried to do five things when I taught:
1. Avoid using formal terminology as much as possible with my learners, unless I was convinced that it would help them
use the language.
2. Inform my learners, if I did give them formal terminology, that definitions were not set in concrete; they were merely working tools.
3. Avoid using words such as
always and
never when talking about language usage. It can be embarrassing when a student produces evidence to the contrary. (This is really a re-wording of #2.)
4. Read around as much as possible so that I was at least aware of conflicting advice (it’s time-consuming!).
5. Remember that
Wikipedia is a useful starting point, but can be wrong. The
Wikipedia article you have just read may have been written by the twelve-year-old thug who lives next door.