My response to Ron Sheen's set of twenty sentences was to ask "What am I 
looking for? Surface errors, usage or what?" The word "correct" implies 
error, so what  errors can English teachers find in them? As I read them, I 
wanted to know the context for each. Colloquially or informally we hear 
these sentences frequently. In informal contexts is there a rigid set of 
correctness in verb use? For example, " 7.    I was married twice." implies 
that the speaker does not intend to marry again. "I've been married twice" 
implies the person might consider another try. Unless the linguist's 
assumption is that the speaker are not using these past /perfect tense 
expressions consciously. I would teach present perfect as indicating 
continuing or repeated or incomplete action.

The current discussion is fascinating. I wager that many readers of recent 
ATEG posts do not understand the theories underlying the issues between 
systemic functional linguistics and formalism, among others, as approaches 
to grammar study. (I don't entirely either, but . . .) All teaching implies 
theory, yet I doubt most English teachers could clearly explain the theories 
behind their own grammar teaching practice.

It seems to me that this disconnect illustrates the huge gulf between 
language theory and language/grammar teaching that exists in English, a gap 
that this discussion might illustrate.  Given their work loads, most English 
teachers are not able to reduce the gap that their undergraduate study 
failed to address, even if they realize there is one.

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/