Most English language teachers are probably comfortable using the word ‘grammar’. There is an established grammatical tradition within ELT, and terms such as ‘tense’, ‘conditional form’, or ‘defining relative clause’ are likely to be familiar even to relatively inexperienced teachers. Grammar is often thought of as something reliable and predictable, but although the term is a keyword in the ELT profession, it is somewhat under-examined. A look at the word’s history reveals a perhaps surprising amount of variation and inconsistency.

The word ‘grammar’ comes originally from Ancient Greek grammatike (‘pertaining to letters/written language’). Grammar was one of the ‘liberal arts’ taught in Ancient Greece, and in Rome from around the fifth century BC, although at this time it was a wider area of study than today, including textual and aesthetic criticism and literary history. Its study continued in Europe in medieval times and beyond, with grammar being taught at schools alongside logic and rhetoric in what was known as the ‘trivium’.

The tradition of studying the grammar of English in British schools did not emerge until the 16th century (Howatt with Widdowson 2004: 77) — until then, studying grammar at school meant studying Latin or Ancient Greek, not vernacular languages. Indeed, the first grammar of English, Bullokar’s Pamphlet for Grammar (1586), is said to have been written to demonstrate that the English language was in fact rule-based and could be analysed in the same way as Latin (Linn 2006: 74).

Grammar has lost its status as a distinct subject in the school curriculum but the word has continued (since 1530 according to the Oxford English Dictionary) to be used as a countable noun meaning ‘a book describing the grammar of a language’.

Content extracted and adapted from: https://academic.oup.com/eltj/articleabstract/74/2/198/5805512?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Most English language teachers are probably comfortable using the word ‘grammar’. There is an established grammatical tradition within ELT, and terms such as ‘tense’, ‘conditional form’, or ‘defining relative clause’ are likely to be familiar even to relatively inexperienced teachers. Grammar is often thought of as something reliable and predictable, but although the term is a keyword in the ELT profession, it is somewhat under-examined. A look at the word’s history reveals a perhaps surprising amount of variation and inconsistency.

The word ‘grammar’ comes originally from Ancient Greek grammatike (‘pertaining to letters/written language’). Grammar was one of the ‘liberal arts’ taught in Ancient Greece, and in Rome from around the fifth century BC, although at this time it was a wider area of study than today, including textual and aesthetic criticism and literary history. Its study continued in Europe in medieval times and beyond, with grammar being taught at schools alongside logic and rhetoric in what was known as the ‘trivium’.

The tradition of studying the grammar of English in British schools did not emerge until the 16th century (Howatt with Widdowson 2004: 77) — until then, studying grammar at school meant studying Latin or Ancient Greek, not vernacular languages. Indeed, the first grammar of English, Bullokar’s Pamphlet for Grammar (1586), is said to have been written to demonstrate that the English language was in fact rule-based and could be analysed in the same way as Latin (Linn 2006: 74).

Grammar has lost its status as a distinct subject in the school curriculum but the word has continued (since 1530 according to the Oxford English Dictionary) to be used as a countable noun meaning ‘a book describing the grammar of a language’.

Content extracted and adapted from: https://academic.oup.com/eltj/articleabstract/74/2/198/5805512?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Most English language teachers are probably comfortable using the word ‘grammar’. There is an established grammatical tradition within ELT, and terms such as ‘tense’, ‘conditional form’, or ‘defining relative clause’ are likely to be familiar even to relatively inexperienced teachers. Grammar is often thought of as something reliable and predictable, but although the term is a keyword in the ELT profession, it is somewhat under-examined. A look at the word’s history reveals a perhaps surprising amount of variation and inconsistency.

The word ‘grammar’ comes originally from Ancient Greek grammatike (‘pertaining to letters/written language’). Grammar was one of the ‘liberal arts’ taught in Ancient Greece, and in Rome from around the fifth century BC, although at this time it was a wider area of study than today, including textual and aesthetic criticism and literary history. Its study continued in Europe in medieval times and beyond, with grammar being taught at schools alongside logic and rhetoric in what was known as the ‘trivium’.

The tradition of studying the grammar of English in British schools did not emerge until the 16th century (Howatt with Widdowson 2004: 77) — until then, studying grammar at school meant studying Latin or Ancient Greek, not vernacular languages. Indeed, the first grammar of English, Bullokar’s Pamphlet for Grammar (1586), is said to have been written to demonstrate that the English language was in fact rule-based and could be analysed in the same way as Latin (Linn 2006: 74).

Grammar has lost its status as a distinct subject in the school curriculum but the word has continued (since 1530 according to the Oxford English Dictionary) to be used as a countable noun meaning ‘a book describing the grammar of a language’.

Content extracted and adapted from: https://academic.oup.com/eltj/articleabstract/74/2/198/5805512?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Most English language teachers are probably comfortable using the word ‘grammar’. There is an established grammatical tradition within ELT, and terms such as ‘tense’, ‘conditional form’, or ‘defining relative clause’ are likely to be familiar even to relatively inexperienced teachers. Grammar is often thought of as something reliable and predictable, but although the term is a keyword in the ELT profession, it is somewhat under-examined. A look at the word’s history reveals a perhaps surprising amount of variation and inconsistency.

The word ‘grammar’ comes originally from Ancient Greek grammatike (‘pertaining to letters/written language’). Grammar was one of the ‘liberal arts’ taught in Ancient Greece, and in Rome from around the fifth century BC, although at this time it was a wider area of study than today, including textual and aesthetic criticism and literary history. Its study continued in Europe in medieval times and beyond, with grammar being taught at schools alongside logic and rhetoric in what was known as the ‘trivium’.

The tradition of studying the grammar of English in British schools did not emerge until the 16th century (Howatt with Widdowson 2004: 77) — until then, studying grammar at school meant studying Latin or Ancient Greek, not vernacular languages. Indeed, the first grammar of English, Bullokar’s Pamphlet for Grammar (1586), is said to have been written to demonstrate that the English language was in fact rule-based and could be analysed in the same way as Latin (Linn 2006: 74).

Grammar has lost its status as a distinct subject in the school curriculum but the word has continued (since 1530 according to the Oxford English Dictionary) to be used as a countable noun meaning ‘a book describing the grammar of a language’.

Content extracted and adapted from: https://academic.oup.com/eltj/articleabstract/74/2/198/5805512?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Most English language teachers are probably comfortable using the word ‘grammar’. There is an established grammatical tradition within ELT, and terms such as ‘tense’, ‘conditional form’, or ‘defining relative clause’ are likely to be familiar even to relatively inexperienced teachers. Grammar is often thought of as something reliable and predictable, but although the term is a keyword in the ELT profession, it is somewhat under-examined. A look at the word’s history reveals a perhaps surprising amount of variation and inconsistency.

The word ‘grammar’ comes originally from Ancient Greek grammatike (‘pertaining to letters/written language’). Grammar was one of the ‘liberal arts’ taught in Ancient Greece, and in Rome from around the fifth century BC, although at this time it was a wider area of study than today, including textual and aesthetic criticism and literary history. Its study continued in Europe in medieval times and beyond, with grammar being taught at schools alongside logic and rhetoric in what was known as the ‘trivium’.

The tradition of studying the grammar of English in British schools did not emerge until the 16th century (Howatt with Widdowson 2004: 77) — until then, studying grammar at school meant studying Latin or Ancient Greek, not vernacular languages. Indeed, the first grammar of English, Bullokar’s Pamphlet for Grammar (1586), is said to have been written to demonstrate that the English language was in fact rule-based and could be analysed in the same way as Latin (Linn 2006: 74).

Grammar has lost its status as a distinct subject in the school curriculum but the word has continued (since 1530 according to the Oxford English Dictionary) to be used as a countable noun meaning ‘a book describing the grammar of a language’.

Content extracted and adapted from: https://academic.oup.com/eltj/articleabstract/74/2/198/5805512?redirectedFrom=fulltext

Native-speakerism is an ideology that upholdsthe idea that so-called “native speakers” are the best models and teachers of English because they represent a “Western culture” from which spring the ideals both of English and of the methodology for teaching it (Holliday, 2005, p. 6). As an ideology, it is a system of ideas that represents a distorted worldview that supports a particular vested interest. The vested interest in the case of nativespeakerism is the promotion by the ELT industry of the so-called “native speaker” brand. The realization that this is an ideologically constructed brand derives from Phillipson’s (1992) linguistic imperialism thesis that the concept of the “native speaker” as a superior model and teacher was explicitly constructed by American and British aid agencies in the 1960s to support their agenda of spreading English as a global product.

Further indication that the “native speaker” brand is an ideological construction is that the native-non-native speaker distinction is not self-evident on technical linguistic or even nationality grounds. It is instead a professionally popularized distinction that has been falsely associated with cultural orientation (Kubota & Lin, 2006). Teachers who are labeled “native speakers” have been falsely idealized as organized and autonomous in fitting with the common yet mistaken description of so-called “individualist cultures” of the West; while teachers who are labeled “non-native speakers” are demonized as deficient in these attributes in fitting with the common yet mistaken description of so-called “collectivist cultures” of the non-West (Holliday, 2005, p. 19, citing Kubota, Kumaravadivelu, Nayar, and Pennycook). The collectivist stereotype is itself considered to be a Western construction of non-Western cultural deficiency. An example of this is a British teacher’s reference to a superior “native speaker” “birthright” at the same time as criticizing, albeit without foundation, not only the linguistic and pedagogic performance, but also the cultural background and proficiency of his “non-native speaker” colleagues (Holliday & Aboshiha, 2009, p. 667).

The Othering of teachers who are labeled “non-native speakers” therefore results in a cultural disbelief—not believing in their ability to teach English within a Western, and indeed superficially constructed “learning group ideal” that is characterized by “active” oral expression, initiation, self-direction, and students working in groups and pairs (Holliday, 2005, p. 44). The association of the “non-native speaker” label with deficiency is also deeply rooted within a wider and equally mistaken Western perception that people from non-Western cultural backgrounds are unable to be critical and self-determined.

Excerpt extracted and adapted from: https://adrianholliday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nativespeakerism-proofs.pdf

Native-speakerism is an ideology that upholdsthe idea that so-called “native speakers” are the best models and teachers of English because they represent a “Western culture” from which spring the ideals both of English and of the methodology for teaching it (Holliday, 2005, p. 6). As an ideology, it is a system of ideas that represents a distorted worldview that supports a particular vested interest. The vested interest in the case of nativespeakerism is the promotion by the ELT industry of the so-called “native speaker” brand. The realization that this is an ideologically constructed brand derives from Phillipson’s (1992) linguistic imperialism thesis that the concept of the “native speaker” as a superior model and teacher was explicitly constructed by American and British aid agencies in the 1960s to support their agenda of spreading English as a global product.

Further indication that the “native speaker” brand is an ideological construction is that the native-non-native speaker distinction is not self-evident on technical linguistic or even nationality grounds. It is instead a professionally popularized distinction that has been falsely associated with cultural orientation (Kubota & Lin, 2006). Teachers who are labeled “native speakers” have been falsely idealized as organized and autonomous in fitting with the common yet mistaken description of so-called “individualist cultures” of the West; while teachers who are labeled “non-native speakers” are demonized as deficient in these attributes in fitting with the common yet mistaken description of so-called “collectivist cultures” of the non-West (Holliday, 2005, p. 19, citing Kubota, Kumaravadivelu, Nayar, and Pennycook). The collectivist stereotype is itself considered to be a Western construction of non-Western cultural deficiency. An example of this is a British teacher’s reference to a superior “native speaker” “birthright” at the same time as criticizing, albeit without foundation, not only the linguistic and pedagogic performance, but also the cultural background and proficiency of his “non-native speaker” colleagues (Holliday & Aboshiha, 2009, p. 667).

The Othering of teachers who are labeled “non-native speakers” therefore results in a cultural disbelief—not believing in their ability to teach English within a Western, and indeed superficially constructed “learning group ideal” that is characterized by “active” oral expression, initiation, self-direction, and students working in groups and pairs (Holliday, 2005, p. 44). The association of the “non-native speaker” label with deficiency is also deeply rooted within a wider and equally mistaken Western perception that people from non-Western cultural backgrounds are unable to be critical and self-determined.

Excerpt extracted and adapted from: https://adrianholliday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nativespeakerism-proofs.pdf

Native-speakerism is an ideology that upholdsthe idea that so-called “native speakers” are the best models and teachers of English because they represent a “Western culture” from which spring the ideals both of English and of the methodology for teaching it (Holliday, 2005, p. 6). As an ideology, it is a system of ideas that represents a distorted worldview that supports a particular vested interest. The vested interest in the case of nativespeakerism is the promotion by the ELT industry of the so-called “native speaker” brand. The realization that this is an ideologically constructed brand derives from Phillipson’s (1992) linguistic imperialism thesis that the concept of the “native speaker” as a superior model and teacher was explicitly constructed by American and British aid agencies in the 1960s to support their agenda of spreading English as a global product.

Further indication that the “native speaker” brand is an ideological construction is that the native-non-native speaker distinction is not self-evident on technical linguistic or even nationality grounds. It is instead a professionally popularized distinction that has been falsely associated with cultural orientation (Kubota & Lin, 2006). Teachers who are labeled “native speakers” have been falsely idealized as organized and autonomous in fitting with the common yet mistaken description of so-called “individualist cultures” of the West; while teachers who are labeled “non-native speakers” are demonized as deficient in these attributes in fitting with the common yet mistaken description of so-called “collectivist cultures” of the non-West (Holliday, 2005, p. 19, citing Kubota, Kumaravadivelu, Nayar, and Pennycook). The collectivist stereotype is itself considered to be a Western construction of non-Western cultural deficiency. An example of this is a British teacher’s reference to a superior “native speaker” “birthright” at the same time as criticizing, albeit without foundation, not only the linguistic and pedagogic performance, but also the cultural background and proficiency of his “non-native speaker” colleagues (Holliday & Aboshiha, 2009, p. 667).

The Othering of teachers who are labeled “non-native speakers” therefore results in a cultural disbelief—not believing in their ability to teach English within a Western, and indeed superficially constructed “learning group ideal” that is characterized by “active” oral expression, initiation, self-direction, and students working in groups and pairs (Holliday, 2005, p. 44). The association of the “non-native speaker” label with deficiency is also deeply rooted within a wider and equally mistaken Western perception that people from non-Western cultural backgrounds are unable to be critical and self-determined.

Excerpt extracted and adapted from: https://adrianholliday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nativespeakerism-proofs.pdf

Native-speakerism is an ideology that upholdsthe idea that so-called “native speakers” are the best models and teachers of English because they represent a “Western culture” from which spring the ideals both of English and of the methodology for teaching it (Holliday, 2005, p. 6). As an ideology, it is a system of ideas that represents a distorted worldview that supports a particular vested interest. The vested interest in the case of nativespeakerism is the promotion by the ELT industry of the so-called “native speaker” brand. The realization that this is an ideologically constructed brand derives from Phillipson’s (1992) linguistic imperialism thesis that the concept of the “native speaker” as a superior model and teacher was explicitly constructed by American and British aid agencies in the 1960s to support their agenda of spreading English as a global product.

Further indication that the “native speaker” brand is an ideological construction is that the native-non-native speaker distinction is not self-evident on technical linguistic or even nationality grounds. It is instead a professionally popularized distinction that has been falsely associated with cultural orientation (Kubota & Lin, 2006). Teachers who are labeled “native speakers” have been falsely idealized as organized and autonomous in fitting with the common yet mistaken description of so-called “individualist cultures” of the West; while teachers who are labeled “non-native speakers” are demonized as deficient in these attributes in fitting with the common yet mistaken description of so-called “collectivist cultures” of the non-West (Holliday, 2005, p. 19, citing Kubota, Kumaravadivelu, Nayar, and Pennycook). The collectivist stereotype is itself considered to be a Western construction of non-Western cultural deficiency. An example of this is a British teacher’s reference to a superior “native speaker” “birthright” at the same time as criticizing, albeit without foundation, not only the linguistic and pedagogic performance, but also the cultural background and proficiency of his “non-native speaker” colleagues (Holliday & Aboshiha, 2009, p. 667).

The Othering of teachers who are labeled “non-native speakers” therefore results in a cultural disbelief—not believing in their ability to teach English within a Western, and indeed superficially constructed “learning group ideal” that is characterized by “active” oral expression, initiation, self-direction, and students working in groups and pairs (Holliday, 2005, p. 44). The association of the “non-native speaker” label with deficiency is also deeply rooted within a wider and equally mistaken Western perception that people from non-Western cultural backgrounds are unable to be critical and self-determined.

Excerpt extracted and adapted from: https://adrianholliday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nativespeakerism-proofs.pdf

Native-speakerism is an ideology that upholdsthe idea that so-called “native speakers” are the best models and teachers of English because they represent a “Western culture” from which spring the ideals both of English and of the methodology for teaching it (Holliday, 2005, p. 6). As an ideology, it is a system of ideas that represents a distorted worldview that supports a particular vested interest. The vested interest in the case of nativespeakerism is the promotion by the ELT industry of the so-called “native speaker” brand. The realization that this is an ideologically constructed brand derives from Phillipson’s (1992) linguistic imperialism thesis that the concept of the “native speaker” as a superior model and teacher was explicitly constructed by American and British aid agencies in the 1960s to support their agenda of spreading English as a global product.

Further indication that the “native speaker” brand is an ideological construction is that the native-non-native speaker distinction is not self-evident on technical linguistic or even nationality grounds. It is instead a professionally popularized distinction that has been falsely associated with cultural orientation (Kubota & Lin, 2006). Teachers who are labeled “native speakers” have been falsely idealized as organized and autonomous in fitting with the common yet mistaken description of so-called “individualist cultures” of the West; while teachers who are labeled “non-native speakers” are demonized as deficient in these attributes in fitting with the common yet mistaken description of so-called “collectivist cultures” of the non-West (Holliday, 2005, p. 19, citing Kubota, Kumaravadivelu, Nayar, and Pennycook). The collectivist stereotype is itself considered to be a Western construction of non-Western cultural deficiency. An example of this is a British teacher’s reference to a superior “native speaker” “birthright” at the same time as criticizing, albeit without foundation, not only the linguistic and pedagogic performance, but also the cultural background and proficiency of his “non-native speaker” colleagues (Holliday & Aboshiha, 2009, p. 667).

The Othering of teachers who are labeled “non-native speakers” therefore results in a cultural disbelief—not believing in their ability to teach English within a Western, and indeed superficially constructed “learning group ideal” that is characterized by “active” oral expression, initiation, self-direction, and students working in groups and pairs (Holliday, 2005, p. 44). The association of the “non-native speaker” label with deficiency is also deeply rooted within a wider and equally mistaken Western perception that people from non-Western cultural backgrounds are unable to be critical and self-determined.

Excerpt extracted and adapted from: https://adrianholliday.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nativespeakerism-proofs.pdf