Journal of Linguistics and Language Teaching
Volume 12 (2021) Issue 2, pp. 147-172
Of the teachers, by the teachers, for the teachers - The 7Cs Framework of (English) Grammar for Practical, Pedagogical Purposes
Deak Kirkham (Leeds, UK) & Milada Walková (Leeds, UK)
Abstract
Despite the existence of a range of grammatical theories, few are designed for, nor are broadly well understood by, the language teaching field. The field itself, moreover, has adopted various approaches to teaching grammar as well as variant terminologies both for grammatical notions (such as subject or agent) and for certain grammatical constructions (such as phrasal verb or compound noun). While recognising the value of this diversity, we propose a seven-point framework for teaching grammar, named the 7Cs. The 7Cs consists of categories, combinations, components, concepts, correlations, connections and contexts. Between them, these 7Cs cover all pedagogically relevant aspects of the grammar from formal considerations through to pragmatic and contextual issues. In addition to offering a standardised terminology and annotational techniques, the 7Cs framework offers sufficient capacity to capture the complexities of various structures. The framework is presented with pedagogical rationales after which it is exemplified in application to the passive voice.
Keywords: 7Cs framework, pedagogy of grammar, the passive construction, application of grammatical theory
1 Overview
Grammar is a topic of contrasts and complexities. It is both ancient and modern: in antiquity, Panini in the east offered a detailed analysis of Sanskrit morphology while Dionysus Thrax in 1st century BC produced the first known grammatical treatise in the West (Ivić et al. 2017, Robins 1997). Yet, grammar is also a key concern in the most contemporary approaches to language cognition and neuroscience (Martin & Doumas 2017, cited in Max Plank Institute 2017). Grammar, moreover, is a domain both highly theoretical and eminently practical: differences between competing theories are highly abstract (Butler 2003). By contrast, grammars in travel and tourism phrasebooks, such as Lonely Planet, often take the form of quick-and-easy explanations of many apparently complex phenomena, which beg a number of questions regarding the nature of the grammar which underlies the phrases presented. Grammar, finally, is a topic both technical and quotidian: explications of the syntax-semantics interface in any contemporary framework rely on complex networks of abstract concepts couched in banks of technical terminology, symbolism and concepts. On the other hand, a layperson often has strong opinions on ‘correct English’ (or any other language).
In the middle of the contrasts and complexities that typify this collision of interests and ideologies sits the teacher of languages. It is for the teacher that this article is written: it is an attempt, as the title’s paraphrase of Abraham Lincoln’s formulation of democracy suggests, to develop an approach to grammar that is teaching-inspired and teaching-compliant. The model presented, the 7Cs (so named as it consists of 7 components each beginning with the letter C), hopes to provide a systematic framework both terminologically and conceptually for approaching the various grammatical constructions to which the teacher of English might turn their attention and that of their class. As we see it, this model differs from the other models in the literature in that the components of the framework emerge out of pedagogical experience and concern, and have application to the language classroom.
To this end, the article begins with an overview of certain contemporary models of theoretical grammar in Section 2, making the claim that none of those which we review is fit for pedagogical purposes, not that any was designed for such purposes. Thereafter, the 7Cs model is presented as what we hope and believe to be a relatively intuitive and technical apparatus-light framework (Section 3). The 7Cs framework is then exemplified by applying it to the English passive (Section 4), demonstrating the applicability and versatility of the model, which, we conclude (Section 5), in conjunction with its intuitiveness, render it a valuable pedagogical resource meriting further attention, development and testing.
2 The Status quo in Grammatical Theory
A number of models of grammar currently compete in the field of language teaching. The most well-known are those inspired by the decades-long contribution of Noam Chomsky (e.g. Chomsky 1957, 1965, 1995). Often termed generativism (Generative Grammar, henceforth GG), this stream of thought consists of a number of different versions (the Standard Theory, the Extended Standard Theory, Government and Binding, and most recently the Minimalist Program). Despite these ongoing reformulations of the theory, GG has maintained its supremacy for decades. In recent years, however, authoritative and robust voices have taken GG to task. Michael Tomasello (2003) thoroughly critiques the central constructs of the Chomskyan legacy and Evans’ (2014) Language Myth offers a robust, usage-based reply to Steven Pinker’s (1994, 2007) Chomsky-inspired presentation of linguistics for the popular reader, The Language Instinct. Despite these criticisms, work in adult second language learning and language pedagogy from a GG perspective continues to be produced (e.g. Gregg 1989, Rothman & Slabakova 2018, White 2003, Whong et al. 2014).
Since the 1980s, the erstwhile generative monopoly of linguistic theorising has yielded to a more balanced spread of competing ideologies (e.g. Butler 2003 for an overview). Generative semantics was an energetic counterpoint to the Chomskyan hegemony throughout the 1960s. It has now found a fuller expression in the parallel architecture / simpler syntax paradigms of Ray Jackendoff and Peter Culicover (Jackendoff 2010, Jackendoff & Culicover 2005).Similarly, if more recently, Van Valin’s (Van Valin & LaPolla 1997, Van Valin 2004) Role and Reference Grammar (henceforth RRG) takes a very different perspective on grammar, with a stronger semantic flavour. However, neither Jackendoff’s parallel architecture nor RRG have enjoyed (or sought) application to adult second language learning.
A third theoretical approach to the nature of language which does seem to have pedagogical application is the cluster of theories termed Construction Grammar (CxG). In contrast to GG and RRG, both of which boast a single leadership figure (Noam Chomsky and Robert Van Valin Jr., respectively), CxG has emerged from the work of several scholars (e.g. Goldberg 1995, 2006, Hilpert 2014). Often dated from the publication of Fillmore, Kay & O’Connor (1988), CxG is skeptical of abstract and highly unified grammar structures, preferring instead to view constructions more idiosyncratically, ranging along a cline of particularity to generality. Moreover, it has a strong connection to cognitive linguistics (e.g. Langacker 1991) resulting in the acronym CCxG (Cognitive Construction Grammar) and is open about the role of cognition in meaning construction. It is also associated with usage-based approaches to language learning (Ellis 2019). Pedagogically, CCxG has produced an array of publications (e.g. De Knop et al. 2010, De Knop & De Rycker 2008, De Knop & Gilquin 2016, Holme 2009) as well as an international conference (CALP: Constructionist Approaches to Language Pedagogy) complementing the body of work emerging out of generativism.
This overview of theoretical approaches serves a purpose beyond a mere literature review. As theoretical approaches to language study, whatever the strengths and weaknesses of these various models, it remains the case that none are intentionally constructed for the language teacher or for teaching, or by teachers. In fact, the nature of the models is such that considerable time must be invested to gain an understanding of each. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many teachers, perhaps understandably, may struggle to find the time (and motivation!) to engage with these complex and often abstract approaches towards grammar. Instead, teachers may fall back on more ready-to-hand approaches, often in the form of grammar book explanations. This poses its own challenges as explanations in grammar teaching materials can be cursory and simplistic, sometimes eschewing detail and depth of analysis for presentational usability (e.g. Whong, Gil & Marsden 2013). Moreover, terminology for, and analysis of, a given part of the grammar may differ from textbook to textbook.
These considerations provide the context for the model explicated here which aims to provide a pedagogical framework that is more comprehensive than ‘grammar book teaching’ but not as complex or pedagogically irrelevant or removed as ‘theory’. In doing this, we recognise that second language development specialists have not been silent on this matter. On the contrary, the roll-call of scholars who have tackled the issue of grammar pedagogy is lengthy: DeKeyser (2005), Hinkel (2016), Hinkel & Fotos (2002), Larsen-Freeman (1997, 2003) and Truscott (1996) among many others have written on various aspects of the role of grammar in teaching from an educator’s perspective. The language awareness programme (e.g. Carter 2003) also addresses this area; similarly to Larsen-Freeman's grammaring proposal, it depicts the process of developing expertise in grammar analysis as a skill-based procedure. While we affirm the value of this and other approaches to the thorny question of grammar pedagogy, we are not aware of any attempt at a comprehensive analytical framework created by teachers and the experience of teaching, for teachers and by teachers; this is what we aim to do here.
3 The 7Cs Model
3.1 Overview of the 7Cs
The vision for the 7Cs model may be summarised as follows: the 7Cs is a pedagogical framework for grammar teaching that aims to provide a novel, systematic terminology and architecture which can be applied to any structure implicated in language teaching. In doing so, it draws on a number of concepts in (theoretical) grammar, while at the same time, it de-emphases and indeed abstracts away from issues that may not support the pedagogical focus of the framework. As an English-specific pedagogical tool, it is not a cross-linguistic theoretical framework. As a framework for teaching, therefore, the 7Cs is pragmatic in nature, drawing on theoretical categories, insights and constructs only insofar as these are useful in the sense of applicable to the practical world of grammar teaching, prototypically in the classroom context. It begins and ends with the language classroom. An overview of the 7Cs is given in Table 1, after which each C is discussed further:
-
The 7 C’s
Commentary
0. Constructions
This ‘overall C’ should be understood as a unit of any length which associates form, meaning and use. As such, it draws on CxG and RRG approaches to the relation between form, meaning and use. It differs from the standard connotations for the term structure in that it applies to any form of any length which can be associated with a meaning and a use. It is ‘situated’ in the sense that it is held to emerge from and be used in a particular context.
1. Categories
The first C offers a specification of word classes. It uses both distributional and semantic criteria to define categories of grammar. Examples include quantifiers, relative pronouns and copula verbs.1
2. Combinations
The second C specifies the types of combinations of adjacent lexemes. A tripartite classification is proposed: clauses (e.g. main clauses, coordinate clauses and relative clauses), phrases (e.g. noun phrases, prepositional phrases and verb phrases) and chunks (e.g. collocations).
3. Components
This dimension covers the overall architecture of the sentence. The 7Cs posits the following as macro-level sentence components:
a) Main argument positions: subject, object, indirect object
b) Adverbials of different types
c) The verb
d) Complements to the copular verb
4. Concepts
This C covers two broad semantic areas. Firstly, it is concerned with semantic roles (also called thematic roles), e.g. agentive (or do-er of the action) and locative. It is also concerned with semantic features of particular structures, such as definiteness and specificity for articles, tense, aspect and modality for verbs and countability for nouns.
5. Correlations
This dimension concerns structural and functional analogues of various kinds between different constructions. Examples include nominalisation as an analogue to the clause and the passive as an analogue to the active voice.
6. Connections
The sixth C refers to non-adjacent relationships between different lexical elements in a construction. An example is separable phrasal verbs where the two lexemes of the phrasal verb might not be adjacent.
7. Contexts
This dimension might be seen as aspects of communication beyond syntax itself which is nevertheless relevant to the use of syntax in any given situation. It may include speaker voice and orientation, formality, or aspects of information structure beyond the sentence. This dimension becomes particularly relevant in structures such as the passive, clefts and nominalisations.
Table 1: The 7Cs Model
Although Table 1 presents the Cs as seven discrete elements of the total system, the 7Cs should be thought of as an integrated system. For any given construction, one or more (indeed in principle all seven) of the Cs may be in play. The 7Cs is therefore a network of interacting elements (Figure 1), as opposed to a discrete list:
Figure 1: The 7Cs Model
3.2 The Seven Cs
3.2.1 Categories
The first dimension is concerned with establishing word classes that are relevant to grammar teaching. By word classes, we mean both content words (e.g. nouns, verbs, adjectives) and functional words (e.g. determiners, quantifiers, relative pronouns). Both semantic and distributional criteria are used on two levels, namely to separate one word class from another and to distinguish within a given word class.
In the case of nouns, for example, two common distributional criteria are that:
the noun can occur as the sole element immediately to the right of an article, and that
the noun can be pluralised.
These criteria readily apply to concrete countable nouns, e.g. a cat – cats, but only with restrictions to proper nouns, e.g. *the Barack Obama – the Barack Obama of Chicago, and abstract nouns, e.g. *desires – the desires of the flesh. Various semantic typologies for nouns exist (e.g. Croft 1991/2000). One might be items (e.g. cat, chair), groups (e.g. cats, furniture) and states (e.g. depression, knowledge). Another might be people (e.g. butcher) and other beings (e.g. dragon), objects (e.g. book), concepts (e.g. learning), and places (e.g. street). The complexity of nouns frustrates any such typology, however. For example, fog fails to fit easily any of these typologies.
The pedagogical motivation for categories is as follows. In any approach to teaching grammar, units of a structure under consideration benefit from labelling. Moreover, we find a variety of terms in use across grammar resources. The rationale for Categories is therefore to standardise the terms and annotations in labeling the elements of a sentence.
We do not aim to provide a complete inventory of the categories, although this is an aspiration of the 7Cs in time. However, three areas of English grammar will be covered here:
adjectival categories, specifically comparative adjectives
verbal categories
the verb be
As our first consideration within categories, we turn to adjectives, more specifically to comparison (including the comparative and the superlative). We introduce the category [COMP] for comparative and [SUPER] for superlative. These can either be used to label function words such as than or as which are part of the comparative construction, or following the [ADJ] label, can be used to label the adjective in its inflected form:
(1) This linguist is as tall as that linguist.2
DET N[SG] Be[COP] as-COMP ADJ COMP DET N[SG]
(2) This linguist is taller than that linguist.
DET N[SG] Be[COP] ADJ[COMP] COMP DET N[SG]
(3) This linguist is the tallest (linguist) in the room.
DET N[SG] Be[COP] DET ADJ[SUPER] (N[SG]) PREP DET N[SG]
[COMP] elements can be
modified in English, e.g. much
taller
than; just
as
tall as. Such
lexemes are designated [COMP-MOD] for comparative modifiers.
Turning to verbs, the 7Cs model recognises the following verbal categories. First, lexical verbs labelled as [V], e.g. run, eat. Lexical verbs are labelled for transitivity: swim is [Vintrans]; see is [Vtrans] and give is [Vditrans]. Lexical verbs can be modified by another category, auxiliary verbs, labelled as V[Aux], e.g. be, have and do in their auxiliary uses as carriers of tense and aspect. No distinctions regarding tense and aspect are made within Categories; these are instead covered under concepts. Another verbal category is modal verbs labelled V[Mod] e.g. can, could, shall, should.3 Be will now be considered.
Three forms of the verb be are recognised in the 7Cs categorical framework. The first is copula be, annotated Be[COP], which combines with nominal, adjectival or prepositional predicates as in He is king / She is a businesswoman and She is tall. The second is auxiliary be, Be[COP], which occurs with non-finite forms of a lexical verb as in I am waiting (the continuous forms) and Fish and chips are eaten on Fridays (the passive). The final one is existential be, Be[EXIST], as in There is a cat on the mat.
Clearly, there are many other word classes and subclasses to consider. We hope, however, that the above has illustrated the simple principle of identifying some of the relevant categories in English grammar.
3.2.2 Combinations
The second C considers the combinatorial nature of the units. The pedagogical significance of combinations, like Categories, is to provide a standardised terminology and annotation for breaking structures down into their component parts. The use of the slashes for chunking is of particular importance because of its classroom applicability. On the basis of our own pedagogical practice, the 7Cs model recognises three levels of combination: clauses, phrases and chunks. These are now discussed in turn.
A clause is understood as the grammaticalisation of a predicate-argument structure. Predicates are prototypically verbs but may also be nominal, adjectival, prepositional or locational. Non-verbal predicates in English require the copula verb be, already discussed above. The complex nature of the clause and the various forms in which it is manifested begs a variety of equally complex pedagogical questions including whether or how to teach the clause as a unit in its own right. The 7Cs model recognises the following clause types: independent clause (4), subordinate complement clause (5), subordinate adverbial clause (6), relative clause (7), clausal argument (8), and small clause (9).
(4) The cat sat on the mat.
(5) Plato said that [the cat sat on the mat].
(6) Purring loudly, [the cat sat on the mat]
(7) The cat [which I bought yesterday] sat on the mat.
(8) [That the cat is sitting on the mat] annoys me.
(9) I consider [the cat on the mat]. (in sense of ‘I consider that the cat is on the mat’ as opposed to ‘I am thinking about the cat on the mat’)
Clauses are considered the highest level of grammatically relevant combination within the 7Cs. Clauses of various types are given treatment in a wide variety of textbooks and grammar teaching resources. However, to the best of our knowledge, there is little systematic teaching of the clause per se, either what it is or what kinds of clause type arise. We feel that this is an area for potential reflection in the language teaching field. Concrete proposals for such a pedagogy of the clause are beyond the scope of this article, however.
As regards combinations, a level lower than the clause is the phrase. The 7Cs model follows a head-dependent definition of phrase drawn from structural theories of linguistics. For example, a nominal phrase is the modifying material to the left and to the right of a noun:
(10) [All those five amazing bananas which I ate yesterday]
Alongside the combinations of clause and phrase, both of which have a linguistic precedent, the 7Cs model contains a third, explicitly pedagogical combination type: the chunk. This is effectively any string of pedagogical interest which is not a clause and may not be a phrase. One example is the fronted relative clause: in quantifier fronted relative clauses such as I met two businessmen, [both of whom were millionaires], the string Quantifier + of + relative pronoun may be considered a chunk. This is motivated by the authors’ pedagogical practice. A second example is the serial verb string as in about to go; start eating; decide to get going, tell him to leave, which have been analysed in various ways by different grammatical approaches. In the 7Cs model, we see them as chunks.
As the above examples demonstrate, the 7Cs model accepts the fact that certain chunks can have a partially or wholly schematic structure. This is in line with the schema tradition of CCxG which treats constructions as existing along a cline of schematicity. Thus, when using chunking in a classroom context, practical considerations are more to the forefront than theoretical ones. We will revisit this proposal in practical terms after having dealt with the third C below.
Within linguistics, there is considerable debate over the nature of what constitutes a combination. Terms such as constituent, collocation, colligation, and catenna (among others) demonstrate the variety of conceptualisations of the combinatorial dynamics of lexemes. However, as a pedagogically-oriented approach, the 7Cs model consciously distances itself from the various debates as to the nature of lexeme combination.
3.2.3 Components
Thus far, we have considered structural aspects of grammar: what the units are (categories) and how they can combine (combinations). With the third C, we move towards more functional aspects of grammar. Thus, while a given nominal phrase (e.g. every day) is a phrasal combination, it can assume various functions in a sentence:
(11a) [Every day] is a struggle. (subject)
(11b) I have listed [every day] on this sheet. (object)
(11c) I write my diary [every day]. (adverbial)
In approaching the function of a given phrase, the 7Cs model recognises four types of components. The first type concerns the grammatical realisation of the arguments of the verb or other predicate, namely subject (SUBJ), direct object (DIR.OBJ) and indirect object (IND. OBJ):
(12) Plato gave the textbook to Aristotle.
SUBJ DIR.OBJ IND.OBJ
The second category of components is adverbial, which can be realised as a phrase or a clause of different types (time, manner, place):
(13) Having left early, he got the train to Dover at half past ten in the morning.
ADV ADV of time
Another type within this dimension is the verb, either a single lexeme e.g. go, as in (14), or as a chunk (Section 2.3.2 above), as in (15):
(14) I went home.
VERB
(15) I am thinking of considering beginning to go home.
<-------------------- VERB ----------------->
The final category of components is predicates (PRED), which follow the copular verb: nominal (16a), adjectival (16b), prepositional (16c), locational (16d) or other (16e):
(16a) Plato is a man.
PRED
(16b) Plato is happy.
PRED
(16c) Plato is on the bridge.
PRED
(16d) Plato is over there.
PRED
(16e) Plato is on time.
PRED
In addition to identifying the major functional components of the clause, a second pedagogical rationale for components is to allow for the technique of slashing. We exemplify this technique with (17). The slashing in (17b) marks out Components, that of (17c) marks out combinations, discussed above.
(17a) The students from France, all of whom understood the grammar lesson, will pass the test.
(17b) The students from France / all of whom understood the grammar lesson / will pass the test.
(17c) The students // from France / all of whom // understood // the grammar lesson / will pass // the test.
3.2.4 Concepts
The dimension of concepts refers to semantic notions which are relevant to grammar. Some are familiar with grammar teaching traditions; for example, the notion of tense is well represented in teaching materials. By contrast, a related notion, i.e. aspect, is rarely discussed. Concepts are divided into the categories of clausal, e.g. agency and animacy, verbal, e.g. tense and aspect, and nominal, e.g. specificity and definiteness. No attempt at comprehensiveness is made here.
At the clause level, the 7Cs model insists on the distinction between the Component of the subject (Section 3.2.3) and the concept of agency. This distinction is critical in the valency changing alteration known as the passive voice (Section 4). However, in English, there are many instances where the grammatical subject is not an agent. One such case is non-referential it as the subject (18). A second case arises when the semantics of the clause select a non-agentive subject, for example with a stative non-verbal predicate (19a) or with a verb whose semantics are such that there is no agent (19b). A final example is unaccusative verbs (20):
(18) It is raining.
(19a) I am tall.
(19b) I received a gift.
(20) The door shut.
As noted above, aspect, unlike tense, has hitherto enjoyed little currency. Aspect can be distinguished from tense in the following way: under a strictly temporal interpretation of tense, aspect encodes the types of action that English chooses to encode with a given time. These include familiar terms such as progressive, perfect and simple, although we note that these are very rarely given a clear definition in grammar teaching materials. Indeed, such terms are rarely separated from tense-related terms (past, present and future), and the binomial terms (e.g. present continuous) are in any case polysemous: the so called present continuous / progressive can refer to a future punctual event, e.g. (21). We therefore feel that the term aspect needs to be introduced into standard usage, and its subtypes clearly identified. This, of course, is beyond the scope of the present article:
(21) I’m meeting my friend at 3:25 tomorrow afternoon.
Nominal concepts include plurality and countability. These are related in that plurality is a subset of countability and both have a grammatical resonance within the nominal phrase. The concept of countability determines the use of quantifiers such as much, many, a number of, an amount of; that of plurality also has an effect on quantifier and determiner choice, e.g. some and a, this and these, and the verb form.
As noted in Section 3.2.1, semantics is one of two broad domains, the other being morpho-syntactic distribution, which the 7Cs model uses to define its categories. There is therefore a degree of conceptual overlap between categories and concepts. However, pedagogically, the discussion of categories per se and concepts per se can be distinct. For example, relative pronouns (including which, who(m), that, where, when and others) are a single category in the 7Cs; they are differentiated at the level of concepts, with who(m) referencing humans and which referencing animals and non-living entities:
(22a) I know a teacher who lives in Warsaw.
(22b) I saw an animal which I recognised.
3.2.5 Correlations
The passive, discussed above in relation to concepts, illustrates the fifth C: correlations. A correlation arises when two constructions exhibit a highly systematic relationship with each other that can be expressed in grammatical terms. An example of such a correlation is nominalisation (23) in which a clause with a verbal predicate alternates with a nominalised expression which nevertheless retains the predicate-argument structure of the clausal form:
(23a) The office manager bought a stack of stationary.
(23b) The office manager’s purchase of a stack of stationary...
Another example of a correlation is seen in the unaccusative / causative alternation (24). Here, an intransitive verb whose subject is a patient alternates with a form in which the subject becomes the object and a new, causative subject appears:
(24a) The government raised taxes.
(24b) Taxes rose.
As a final example, the dative alternation (25) instantiates variation between the ordering of the two objects of ditransitive verbs, with one order requiring a preposition:
(25a) I gave the book to Mary.
(25b) I gave Mary the book.
The notion of systematic alternations between two (or more) patterns is well established in theoretical linguistics. Both generativism and CxG, if in different ways, consider patterns like the above as important. Pedagogical grammar also makes some use of them. Our belief is that this could be more widespread and indeed undertaken more explicitly by language teachers.
3.2.6 Connections
The second C, combinations, considered three types of string in grammar: clauses, phrases and chunks. All these combinations consisted of material which was adjacent. The sixth C, connections, considers non-adjacent relationships and introduces a formalism to show connections of semantics and syntax between non-adjacent elements of a sentence. Connections may be seen as the 7Cs pedagogical analogue of several types of phenomena in theoretical linguistics, such as discontinuities (26), ellipsis, where a component has been dropped (27), and referential (28a) or (‘And’ and ‘or’ are not clearly motivated here.) agreement (28b) and government (28c), phenomena, where the grammatical relation holds between units (in the 7Cs terminology, components) which are non-adjacent:
(26a) Plato said something * several times <that no-one expected to hear>.
(26b) <Fish and chips>, I love *.
(27) He’s a man whom I know him
very well.
(28a) <She> loves <herself>.
(28b) The <children> of that guy <were> studying linguistics.
(28c) This policy is used <for improving standards of living people> and <for stimulating the economy>.
In example (26), an asterisk is used to indicate a location to which other material has a connection. In (27), the ellipsis is annotated with a strikethrough. In (28), the angle brackets surround two lexemes which have a referential, agreement or government connection.
Connections may also be used to handle ungrammatical forms produced by learners, e.g:
(29a) The children
of that guy were
was
studying linguistics.
(29b) This policy is used for
improving standards of living
people and to stimluate
for stimulating the
economy.
3.2.7 Contexts
The last C, contexts, is reserved for the pragmatic use of structures as determined by, for instance, information structure and register (formality and style). Information structure enables the speaker or writer to present information as given, e.g. through the use of pronouns (30a), backgrounded, e.g. by the use of relative clauses (30b), or emphasised, e.g. by using topicalisation (30c) and clefting, e.g. (30d):
(30a) You should read this book. It’s really good.
(30b) This book, which you should read, is excellent.
(30c) This book, you should read.
(30d) What you should read is this book.
Register, in turn, might impact the degree of impersonality required and thus the choice of grammatical structures, e.g. the use of anticipatory it in (31a) instead of (31b):
(31a) It is important to note that…
(31b) Readers should note that…
Including register in contexts also reflects the fact that structures tend to appear in some registers more than in others. For instance, relative clauses, are more frequent in written registers than in speech (Biber et al. 1999: 603):
(32) The babysitter, who arrived late, was also incredibly incompetent.
The pedagogical rationale for contexts is for learners to make their language use more coherent and idiomatic, and for teachers to identify grammatical structures that are relevant for their students’ needs. For example, grammatical structures useful for academic writing will include the passive voice and nominalisations but not the future progressive tense, for instance.
4 Application: The Passive Voice
In this section, we illustrate the 7Cs model with the passive voice. We will first discuss learner issues related to the use of the passive voice in Section 4.1 before presenting a systematic description of the passive voice within the 7Cs model in Sections 4.2 - 4.8.
4.1 The Passive Voice as a Learner Issue
The passive voice is typically first introduced to students at a pre-intermediate level (e.g. Soars & Soars 2012), and presents to learners numerous challenges related to form, meaning and use (Parrot 2000). Problems with form include mis-formation of the past participle (33a), and production of non-existing forms (33b):
(33a) *Airplanes are flied by pilots.
(33b) *The movie seen by many people.
Problems related to meaning include the use of the active voice with the intended passive meaning:
(34) *Penicillin discovered in 1938.
Lastly, problems with use include underuse or avoidance of the passive on the one hand and overuse on the other hand. Underuse can be typically seen in texts written by young learners and inexperienced writers (35a), but also in academic texts whose novice authors express themselves personally rather than impersonally (35b) rather than (35c):
(35a) I like the book Harry Potter. J. K. Rowling wrote it.
(35b) I mixed the solution.
(35c) The solution was mixed.
In contrast, overuse of the passive voice – probably a result of stressing the importance of impersonal style in academic writing – results in ambiguity as to the agent of the action described. For instance, example (36) does not make it clear whether the survey was carried out by the very writer or by the scholars referred to in the preceding discourse.
(36) For this survey, the quantitative methods were applied to quantify the value of total scores of all survey participants.
4.2 Categories
The passive voice is composed of the following categories: an auxiliary verb and a lexical verb in the form of past participle, e.g. is done in (37). The auxiliary verb is usually be, but sometimes get, as in (38), and it is marked for tense and aspect (39a). It can be preceded by a modal auxiliary verb (39b). The past participle is either formed regularly by adding –ed suffix to a verb base, e.g. discover-ed, or idiosyncratically, e.g. flown, bought, written. Another category, which is an optional part of the passive voice construction, is a by-prepositional phrase:
(37) What’s done is done.
(38) You’ll get hurt.
(39a) The disease will have been eliminated by then.
(39b) The disease could have been eliminated.
There are certain syntactic restrictions as to which verbs can appear in the passive voice. Only transitive lexical verbs can appear in the passive construction, e.g. (40), but not intransitive verbs (41), or copula verbs, e.g. (42). Ditransitive verbs can form two passive constructions (43):4
(40a) The guards rescued [Vtrans] the boys.
(40b) The boys were rescued.
(41a) Something happened [Vtrans].
(41a) *What was happened?
(42a) Mary became [COP] a nurse.
(42a) *A nurse was become.
(43a) I sent [Vtrans] a parcel to John.
(43b) John was sent a parcel.
(43c) A parcel was sent to John.
This C addresses learner issues with the form of the passive voice, such as mis-formation of the past participle and the production of non-existing forms illustrated in example (33), by having the teacher – and indeed, after training, the learners – apply the category labels to examples as in (40 - 43) above.
4.3 Combinations
The passive voice construction allows the following combinations: a noun phrase or a clause functioning as the subject (Section 4.4), a verb phrase composed of auxiliary verb(s) and a lexical verb, a noun phrase or a prepositional phrase functioning as the object (Section 4.4), a prepositional phrase, composed of the preposition by and a noun phrase, and a prepositional phrase or adverb functioning as an adverbial:
(44) This church NP / was dedicated VP / to Saint Mary PP / by the major PP / in 1919 PP.
4.4 Components
The components comprising the passive voice are as follows: subject, verb, and optional object and / or optional adverbial. The verb component is realised as a verb phrase combination, e.g. was dedicated in example (44) above. The subject of the passive voice structure is realised as a noun phrase combination, e.g. this church in (44), or as a clause, e.g. What’s done in (37) above. In the latter case, the subject position is often occupied by anticipatory it to postpone the subject clause, especially if it is long:
(45) It is argued here that postmodernism presents a suitable framework for analysing film.
The object in the passive voice construction can be a direct object, realised as a noun phrase, e.g. a parcel in (43b) above, or an indirect object realised as a prepositional phrase, e.g. to John in (43c) above.
A prepositional phrase with by, as in (46a), is an optional sentence combination functioning as an adverbial component. The passive construction with the by-phrase is called the long passive, in contrast to the short passive without it. Other adverbials can occur in the passive construction (46b). These are syntactically optional, yet their realisation might be required semantically, in an absence of another adverbial (46c):
(46a) Penicillin was discovered by A. G. Fleming.
(46b) Penicillin was discovered in 1928.
(46c) ?Penicillin was discovered.
The 7Cs model allows teachers to demonstrate the interaction between formal phenomena, here categories and combinations, and functional phenomena, here components.
4.5 Concepts
The passive voice is typically associated with two event participants, one realised syntactically as the subject component and the other as a by-prepositional phrase combination. Passive sentences with ditransitive verbs, however, can be associated with three event participants (47a). The event participants can have a number of semantic roles, namely agent (a postman in (47a)), recipient (John in (47a and 47b)), theme, (a parcel in (47a and 47b)), cause (48), patient, (49), and experiencer (50). As can be seen from these examples, while agent and cause are always realised syntactically in a by-prepositional phrase, other semantic roles can be realized as various components. Nevertheless, for pedagogical application, we propose that only two semantic roles be distinguished, namely agent (subsuming both agent and cause) as the doer of the action and non-agent (subsuming patient, experiencer, recipient and theme) as an event participant affected by the action:
(47a) A parcel was delivered to John by a postman.
(47b) John was sent a parcel.
(48) The building use was destroyed by fire.
(49) The injured man was taken to hospital.
(50a) A scream was heard by a neighbour around midnight.
(50b) The child was frightened by the stranger.
A special type of the passive is the causative passive construction (51). This construction allows introducing both the recipient, e.g. I, and the theme, e.g. my hair, with focus on the former, without realising the agent:
(51) I’ve had my hair cut.
Just as there are syntactic restrictions on which verbs can be passivized, there are also semantic restrictions: many stative transitive verbs, e.g. resemble, do not occur in the passive (52), as they are copula verbs followed by a predicate (his father) rather than by a direct object:
(52a) John resembles his father.
(52b) *John’s father is resembled (by John).
This C addresses learner issues with the meaning of the passive voice illustrated in example (34).
4.6 Correlations
An obvious systematic correlation of the passive voice construction is its active counterpart, the active voice construction. The subject of the passive voice corresponds to the direct object of the active voice, and the subject of the active voice corresponds to the optional agent by-phrase (53). The correlation between the active and the passive voice is often utilised in English language teaching to the extent that, as Parrot (2000: 330) argues, it might mislead learners into thinking that the passive voice is a mere syntactic alternative to the active voice. The present framework attempts to prevent this potential misunderstanding by incorporating contexts on the one hand and by pointing out correlations with further structures on the other:
(53a) Noam Chomsky wrote the book “Syntactic Structures”.
(53b) The book “Syntactic Structures” was written by Noam Chomsky.
Another systematic correlation of the passive voice is represented by reduced participle clauses, e.g. a relative clause in (54a), and an adverbial clause in (55a). These are shortened syntactic alternatives to full clauses with the passive voice, as illustrated in (54b) and (55d):
(54a) My favorite book is 1984 written by George Orwell.
(54b) My favorite book is 1984, which was written by George Orwell.
(55a) Encouraged by her friend, she applied for the job.
(55b) As she was encouraged by her friend, she applied for the job.
Semantically speaking, we argue that the less evident correlations of the passive voice include nominalisations, inanimate subjects with active verbs and middle constructions. To start with, nominalisations present an informationally dense and syntactically compact correlation of the passive voice which can, in turn, become part of a predicate:
(56a) Penicillin was discovered in 1928. It was a major breakthrough in the history of medicine.
(56b) The discovery of Penicillin was a major breakthrough in the history of medicine.
Another semantic correlation of the passive voice construction is the use of inanimate subjects with active verbs (57). This construction is often found in academic discourse and, besides the passive, presents another impersonal alternative to personal means of expression (57c):
(57a) The results of the analysis are shown in Table 1.
(57b) Table 1 shows the results of the analysis.
(57c) We show the results of the analysis in Table 1.
Lastly, middle constructions (58), allow focus on the patient rather than the agent, as is the case with the passive voice, but stress the generic validity of the predication:
(58a) This bread can be cut easily.
(58b) This bread cuts easily.
In terms of form, the present perfect arguably presents another correlation of the passive voice construction. The reason is their structural similarity (59). It is this very similarity that presents a problem for many learners. Consequently, we believe it is of value to highlight the differences between the two structures in class. Similarly, some past participle forms can function as adjectives (60), attesting to the complexity of the grammar of the passive voice construction.
(59a) John is gone.
(59b) John has gone.
(60) The baby was puzzled by the new toy.
4.7 Systematic Connections
Connections relevant to the passive voice are the subject and verb agreement in person and number (61a and 61b). The grammatical agreement between the subject noun and the verb is sometimes problematic to learners of English, especially if the subject and the verbs are non-adjacent (61c):
(61a) The child was chastised.
(61b) The children were chastised.
(61c) The children who teased the cat *was / were chastised.
In (61c), an additional component has been added, namely the relative clause ‘who teased the cat’, which then has an effect on the subject-verb agreement connection. By recognising such long-distance dependencies, the 7Cs model powerfully bridges issues of form and function.
4.8 Contexts
The passive voice allows focus on the non-agent event participant rather than the agent / cause and, at the same time, enables the non-agent to be presented as the given information of a sentence. Therefore, the passive is used in the following contexts:
It is used to maintain focus on the non-agent event participant and to place new or important information at the end of a sentence (62).
It is used when the agent is unknown (63a), general and nameless (63b), generally understood or not important from the speaker’s point of view (63c), or when the speaker / writer wishes to avoid naming the agent in order to avoid personal responsibility (63d).
The passive is often used to make academic writing more impersonal (64):
(62a) I’ve been promoted.
(62b) The sketch was probably drawn by Michelangelo.
(63a) The universe was formed during the Big Bang.
(63b) The bridge has been repaired.
(63c) The terrorists were caught last night.
(63d) Darling, the dinner got burnt.
(64) The results are presented below.
According to Biber et al. (1999: 937-938), the passive voice is typical of news and academic prose, and rare in conversation. Across registers, the short passive is much more common than the long passive and the verbs make, give, do, take, use, find, see and call are the most frequent main verbs used in the passive.
Passives with get are rare and restricted to conversation (Biber et al. 1999: 938). According to Quirk et al. (1985: 160-162), their meaning is dynamic and often unfavourable, e.g. John got killed. However, Parrot (2000: 333) adds that it can also show an achievement, e.g. I finally got promoted.
This final C addresses learner avoidance, overuse and misuse of the passive voice illustrated in example (35).
5 Conclusion
This article has presented a relatively intuitive, pedagogically directed framework for grammar teaching named the 7Cs which we believe is more easily accessible to and relevant for language teachers than models such as Generative Grammar, Role and Reference Grammar, Cognitive Construction Grammar and Systemic Functional Linguistics These well-established models are ultimately theories of form-function mapping which aspire to be psychologically real; the 7Cs model, on the other hand, takes a different perspective on grammar: it is a tool for teachers, a pragmatic framework that operationalises grammar in a practical and pedagogical manner. The ability of the 7Cs to capture the grammar of English constructions for pedagogical purposes has been demonstrated by a detailed theoretical application of the framework to the passive voice construction.
The 7Cs has a number of benefits. It is a standardised framework for teaching grammar which covers formal, semantic and pragmatic aspects of the constructions of English. As a framework rather than a theory, it is unburdened by the terminological and conceptual density of the raft of theories currently available. For these reasons, we hope it will hold a considerable appeal to language teachers. In addition to its primary in-class application, the 7Cs can possibly also contribute to teacher development with respect to grammar teaching.
Nevertheless, the framework remains at an early stage of development. Therefore, a number of avenues for further research suggest themselves. Clearly, in order to render the framework comprehensive, the 7Cs would benefit from application to additional structures of English (and to other languages), both in the classroom and in published literature. It appears to us that different language constructions will likely necessitate a slightly different application of the 7Cs framework, at least in two senses: the relevance of any individual C and the presentational ordering of the Cs for a particular structure. Alongside this, the 7Cs will benefit from empirical research from a number of perspectives including student impressions, teacher impressions and of course contrastive and quantitative studies of its effectiveness in increasing accuracy, range and complexity in learners. At a more conceptual level, the 7Cs model has not yet fully integrated what is traditionally referred to as morphology. Although this has been noted in passing in the application of the 7Cs to the passive voice construction, i.e. in relation to verb morphology (Section 4), the full range of English affixation (e.g. pre-, -ic, -tion, -ing) and cliticisation (e.g. -’ll, -’d, possessive -’s) has not yet been fully covered.
These are extensions which will require more time and further work to develop. We warmly invite others to join us in undertaking this work in the hope of enhancing what has been begun here as a pedagogical framework for grammar teaching that comes from teachers and is ‘of’ teaching’, is created by teachers and is most certainly for language teachers and their students.
References
Baker, Mark (1988). Incorporation: A theory of grammatical function changing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Biber, Douglas, Stig Johansson, Geoffrey Leech, Susan Conrad, & Edward Finegan (1999). Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson.
Butler, Chris (2003). Structure and Function: A guide to three major structural-functional theories. Part 1: Approaches to the simplex clause. Part 2: From clause to discourse and beyond. Amsterdam and Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Chomsky, Noam (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Chomsky, Noam (1957). Syntactic Structures. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Chomsky, Noam (1994). The Minimalist Program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Culicover, Peter & Ray Jackendoff (2005). Simpler Syntax. Oxford: OUP.
DeKeyser, Robert (2005). What makes learning second-language grammar difficult: A review of issues. Language Learning, 55(S1), 1-25.
De Knop, Sabine, Frank Boers & Antoon De Rycker (2010). Fostering Language Teaching Efficiency through Cognitive Linguistics. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
De Knop, Sabine & Antoon De Rycker (2008). Cognitive Approaches to Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
De Knop, Sabine & Gaëtanelle Gilquin, (2016). Applied Construction Grammar. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Ellis, Nick (2019). Usage-based theories of Construction Grammar: Triangulating Corpus Linguistics and Psycholinguistics. In: Jesse Egbert & Paul Baker (Eds.), Using Corpus Methods to Triangulate Linguistic Analysis (pp. 239-267). New York & London: Routledge.
Evans, Vyvyan (2014). The Language Myth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Fillmore, Charles, Paul Kay & Mary O’Connor (1988). Regularity and idiomaticity in grammatical constructions: The case of let alone. Language 64(3), 501-538.
Goldberg, Adele (1995). Constructions: A construction grammar approach to argument structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Goldberg, Adele (2006). Constructions at Work: The nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gregg, Kevin (1989). Second language acquisition theory: The case for a generative perspective. In Susan Gass & Jacquelyn Schachter (Eds.), Linguistic Perspectives on Second Language Acquisition (pp. 15-40). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hilpert, Martin (2014). Construction Grammar and its Application to English. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Hinkel, Eli (Ed.) (2016). Teaching English Grammar to Speakers of Other Languages. London: Routledge.
Hinkel, Eli & Sandra Fotos (Eds.) (2002). New Perspectives on Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms. London: Routledge.
Holme, Randal (2009). Cognitive Linguistics and Language Teaching. London: Palgrave Macmillan
Ivić, Pavle & John Lyons (2017). Linguistics. In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/science/linguistics/Greek-and-Roman-antiquity.
Jackendoff, Ray (2010). Meaning and the Lexicon: The parallel architecture 1975–2010. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald (1991). Concept, Image, and Symbol: The cognitive basis of grammar. New York: Mouton De Gruyter.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane (1997). Chaos/complexity science and second language acquisition. Applied Linguistics 18(2), 141-165.
Larsen-Freeman, Diane (2003). Teaching Language: From grammar to grammaring. Boston: Heinle Cengage Learning.
Marsden, Heather, Melinda Whong & Kook-hee Gil (2018). What’s in the textbook and what’s in the mind: polarity item “any” in learner English. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(1), 91-118.
Max Plank Institute for Psycholinguistics (2017, March 6). Retrieved from http://maxplanckneuroscience.org/brainwaves-encode-the-grammar-of-human-language/
Parrot, Martin (2000). Grammar for English Language Teachers. (2nd ed.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pinker, Steven (1994/2007). The Language Instinct. New York, NY: Harper Perennial Modern Classics.
Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik (1985). A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.
Robins, Robert (1967). A Short History of Linguistics. London: Routledge.
Rothman, Jason, & Roumyana Slabakova, (2018). The generative approach to SLA and its place in modern second language studies. Studies in Second Language Acquisition 40(2), 417-442.
Soars, John & Liz Soars (2012). New Headway: Pre-intermediate. (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tesnière, Louis (1959). Éléments de syntaxe structurale. Paris: Klincksieck.
Tomasello, Michael (2003). Constructing a Language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Truscott, John (1996). The case against grammar correction in L2 writing classes. Language Learning 46(2), 327-369.
Van Valin, Robert & Randy LaPolla (1997). Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, Robert (2004). Exploring the Syntax-Semantics Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
White, Lydia (2003). Second Language Acquisition and Universal Grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Whong, Melinda, Kook-hee Gil & Heather Marsden (Eds.). (2013). Universal Grammar and the Second Language Classroom (Vol. 16). London: Springer.
Authors:
Deak Kirkham
Lecturer in English for Academic Purposes
The Language Centre
University of Leeds
Woodhouse Lane
Leeds
LS2 9JT
UK
Email: d.e.a.kirkham@leeds.ac.uk
Dr Milada Walková, FHEA
Lecturer in English for Academic Purposes
The Language Centre
University of Leeds
Woodhouse Lane
Leeds
LS2 9JT
UK
Email: m.walkova@leeds.ac.uk
____________________________
1 The order of the Cs presented in this paper, and the use of terms first, second, etc., is simply presentational. Within the framework, all Cs contribute equally.
2 Examples throughout the article are constructed by the authors. This includes the ‘learner-produced language examples in Section 4 which have been constructed based on our teaching experience.
3 We leave aside here the issue of semi-modals such as need and dare and suggest they be treated as modal verbs V[Mod] for pedagogical purposes.
4 Semantic restrictions apply to the formation of two passive constructions with ditransitive verbs. Namely, only themes and recipients but not locatives can occur in the subject position of a passive sentence, e.g. A parcel was sent to Paris. / *Paris was sent a parcel.