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/