AAA - Arbeiten aus Anglistik und Amerikanistik Band 35 (2010) Heft 2 Gunter Narr Verlag Tübingen Rezensionen Matthias Hutz and Kathryn Khairi-Taraki, Praktische Grammatik der englischen Sprache. Wilhelmsfeld: Gottfried Egert Verlag, 2008. Katja Giersemehl 1. English ain’t no easy language … Is this the reason why Matthias Hutz and Kathryn Khairi-Taraki published the reference book Praktische Grammatik der englischen Sprache in German? As it is written in German, it unambiguously addresses German-speaking university students of English or pupils at Abitur or Matura level as well as other advanced language learners with a German linguistic background. Indeed, the book could have been written for me, a fourth-year student in teacher training at the University of Freiburg. - Come to think of it: shouldn’t I have said: In fact, the book could have been written for me? It is precisely commonly experienced hesitations like these - familiar to any learner - which I would like to take as a starting point for using and reviewing this book (… or a starting point to use it? ) In the following it will be shown that Hutz and Khairi-Taraki’s comprehensive book answers most of my questions. However, for several reasons which I am going to spell out below this grammar would still not be my first choice as a reference and study book. In their introduction the authors claim to provide a detailed reference on structures and rules of the English language. In 26 chapters they intend to cover the characteristics of the different word-classes as well as the basics of English pronunciation, orthography, word-formation, the tense system, and sentence structure. One chapter focuses on differences between British and American English. Based on the assumption that there is a close connection between grammar and the lexicon, the grammar gives numerous examples of idiomatic expressions, most of which are translated into German. The different chapters all have a similar structure: After giving a general survey of the grammatical phenomenon under study, the relevant linguistic forms and constructions are presented. This is followed by explanations of usage, rules and exceptions. Finally, an index lists the grammatical terms (in German) as well as (English) lexical items. Rezensionen 234 2. Compared to German? Opportunities of the contrastive approach A grammar of English for advanced language learners written in German is news on the bookshelves - so far, most other up-to-date detailed reference grammars have been in English. A contrastive approach that involves the comparison of the target language with the learner’s mother tongue offers many opportunities for language teaching. Its main objective is to work out in which respect the two language systems differ and how such differences might affect learner progress and performance, i.e. Robert Lado’s (1957) contrastive hypothesis in its classic formulation, with its emphasis on transfer and interference between L 1 and L 2 . Since German learners’ needs are likely to differ from those of other learners - let’s say, for example, learners from Russia or Japan - writing a ‘German’ English grammar offers the opportunity to have a clear focus on one particular target group of learners. Being lecturers in higher education (Pädagogische Hochschule Freiburg and University of Gießen), Hutz and Khairi-Taraki will be familiar with German students’ learning difficulties from their own teaching experience. Indeed, Hutz and Khairi-Taraki keep referring to the contrasting aspects of English and German in great detail and clarity. Thus, the book explains English word order and sentence structure as well as thoroughly covering the particularities of the English verb (as a matter of fact, at least eight chapters have a direct focus on verbs). Likewise, the chapters on pronunciation, singular/ plural, and articles are very informative - again in good part because of the contrastive approach. 3. What is a ‘good’ grammar? To answer this question, it is useful to look at the following criteria: According to Michael Swan (1994), truth, demarcation, clarity, simplicity, conceptual parsimony and relevance are characteristics of a ‘good’ grammatical rule in the language classroom. How does the Praktische Grammatik fare if judged against these criteria? Truth and demarcation go hand-in-hand as “truth is rarely pure and never simple: it can be difficult to be sure exactly what the facts are, and to decide how much of the truth to tell” (Swan 1994). Consequently, the aspect of demarcation expresses the idea that “a pedagogic rule [...] is useless unless it demarcates clearly the area within which a given form is appropriate, so that the learner will know when to use the form and when not to” (Swan 1994). Hutz and Khairi-Taraki realize these principles by giving numerous example sentences showing how a distinct structure or form is used in English. Moreover, the grammar contains additional information about frequency, context and register of use, and there are references to differences between German and English. However, truth and demarcation necessarily conflict with simplicity: Swan states that simplicity is one of the things that distinguish pedagogic rules (prescriptive grammar) sharply from descriptive rules: “The truth is of no value if it cannot be understood.” Therefore, he continues, clear and simple rules are psychologically valuable. They make students feel that they can understand and control the complex material they have to cope with. Facing the complexity of languages, the relevance criterion points to the need for choices and selections to be made. Thus, “a good pedagogic rule does not present a neutral analysis of a set of linguistic data; [but] it Rezensionen 235 answers a question [...] that is asked by the learner, or that is generated by his or her interlanguage” (Swan 1994). Consequently, as a contrastive German-English grammar Die praktische Grammatik der Englischen Sprache could score well on simplicity and relevance. For several reasons I feel that Hutz and Khairi-Taraki could have done better since overall it is clarity which is sometimes missing in their exposition. First, clarity is sometimes obscured due to the authors’ attempt to provide the reader with too many details. Explications are lengthy and rather stodgy at times, making it difficult to distinguish the very important aspects from those that are less commonly used. In this respect, the layout is not a big help either since the book lacks any visualisation: printed in plain black and white, no pictures, no graphs, no charts. Hutz and Khairi- Taraki neither summarise key-points nor do they provide exercises which could be used by learners to check their comprehension. Important information or differences between English and German are not highlighted at all. On the contrary, very often the most important aspects are ‘hidden’ in the small print of the Anmerkungen. Secondly, the numerous examples given in the grammar suggest an exhaustiveness which is not and cannot be achieved by a grammar book. It is true, grammar is strongly linked to the lexicon and therefore there are good reasons why Hutz and Khairi-Taraki use extensive vocabulary lists to get their ideas across. Still, I fear that I might not be the only reader who tends to get lost in the jungle of examples. Therefore, for the sake of clarity, they could have restricted themselves to those examples that are really telling - whereas everything else is better relegated to a learners’ dictionary. Finally, clarity suffers because of insufficient and unclear referencing. For example, you can find the expression to be on the wrong track > auf dem Holzweg sein listed in chapter 21 “Die Präpositionen”, § 248 on/ upon. I am, however, wondering how the reader will know where to search for the translation of auf dem Holzweg sein? It is like looking for a needle in a haystack. Unless the learner studies the whole book from cover to cover, there is no possibility of searching systematically for the expression in question. The annex lists only the English morphemes but not their German translations. Conceptual parsimony, the need to use clear and familiar terminology, is the last aspect Swan mentions as a measure for ‘good’ grammatical rules. In this light, the fact that the grammar is written in German may cause more than minor problems. These days, university students and students at Abitur or Matura level are used to monolingual teaching. As a consequence, the intended target group of the grammar will have picked up a fair amount of English terminology, and using (predominantly) German terms in the accompanying reference grammar is unnecessarily confusing. The table of contents as well as the annex just list the German terms. English terminology is only given (in brackets) within the single chapters. Moreover, as many English structures do not have German equivalents, the contrastive approach is fraught with problems. Therefore, it might be easier for students to ‘just’ understand how the foreign language works instead of trying to compare it to their mother tongue. For example, giving one-to-one translations of the different English verb forms implies an equivalence in meaning and usage - which is hardly ever the case. Rezensionen 236 4. A practical grammar I would argue that the main strengths of this grammar are that it covers a wide array of useful grammatical constructions, that it richly illustrates their usage and usually offers relatively accessible and formally correct explanations. Nevertheless, from a pedagogical point of view the Praktische Grammatik der englischen Sprache definitely needs improvement. Pedagogical grammars aim to be a help for teachers and learners “who need [...] clear and easily digestible summaries of what is and what is not correct” (Harmer 2001: 15). Describing ‘everything there is’ is not their aim (Harmer 2001: 15). This job is done by comprehensive descriptive reference grammars, which typically are more extensive and far longer. In my opinion, Hutz and Khairi-Taraki attempt to reconcile two contradicting principles: completeness of coverage and pedagogical accessibility. However, as demonstrated above, truth can never be ‘simple’. Whilst the fact that the grammar is written in German could be helpful for some students, the general ‘digestibility’ is hampered by the lack of visualisation, emphasis, summaries and exercises. This makes reading unnecessarily difficult and is likely to put present-day students off. In my opinion, the Praktische Grammatik der englischen Sprache might be ‘practical’ for language teachers being in need of a rule, definition or an example - but not so much for foreign language learners who need a practical - pedagogical - grammar to improve their English. References Harmer, Jeremy (2001). The Practice of English Language Teaching. Harlow: Longman. Lado, Robert (1957). Linguistics across Cultures. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. Swan, Michael (1994). Design criteria for pedagogical language rules. http: / / www. mikeswan.co.uk/ elt-applied-linguistics/ design-criteria.htm (September 20, 2009). Katja Giersemehl Freiburg