Laying the Future Tense to rest: with reference to Year 6 South Korean students at Primary Level.

ED7503

Cormac GleesonStudent Number: 139046859Contents

1 Introduction...32 The case for avoiding the term of future tense in the Primary EFL Classroom. 52.1 Time and the tenses used to describe it..52.2 Inaccuracy of will + stem = The Future Tense ....... 62.3 Explaining future-oriented active verb forms...82.4 Future, modality, and conjunctions of time ....92.5 Teaching future-directed language forms ....103 Future-oriented discourse for Year 6 South Korean Students at Primary Level.123.1 6 Educational Series . 123.2 Suggestions for presenting futurity in an engaging and balanced way...........134 Conclusion..15Appendix .16References...17

INTRODUCTIONHudsons (2012) assertion to UK Secondary School Teachers of English that there is no such thing as a future tense seems surprising for people like me accustomed to the concept of a 3rd tense that goes alongside the present and past. Since Primary level I learnt about the forms necessary to create it in English, Irish and German. However, a careful examination of the mandatory verbal structures shows that for the former language at least, this grammatical model is not valid.

In this paper, I will argue that the most effective way to teach the concept of futurity is to do so without recourse to terms that link future to the tense system. Traditional grammars associate the creation of a future tense as being linked with will or shall + infinitive (Huddleston 1995, 174), but Swan (1998) points out that the latter is becoming less commonly used in the UK (Swan 1998, 212). Therefore I will not be referring to it directly in this essay.

Following this analysis, I will compare the implications of my investigation with how South Korean EFL students at Year 6 level receive instruction. I will use 6 [pronounced / j /] (Choi 2011a, Choi 2011b) as a guide for this, and I will also occasionally be drawing on my experience of having worked before with this age group.

This paper does not make the claim of comprehensiveness for how futurity is to be dealt with in Primary Schools, since Teachers will naturally adapt educational materials to suit their personality and interpretation of class needs. Also, 6 (Choi 2011a, Choi 2011b) is just one of several series that are used in South Korea at this level. However, I have used textbooks that were quite similar to this when I worked previously with Year 6, so I believe it should provide a useful insight of how the discourse of the future is taught at this level.

2. THE CASE FOR AVOIDING THE TERM OF FUTURE TENSE IN THE PRIMARY EFL CLASSROOM2.1. Time and the Tenses used to describe itQuirk & Greenbaum (1973) make a clear distinction between time and tense. They point out that although time often is used by linguists and grammars, it is ultimately not a linguistic term. On the other hand, the concern of tense is to create a kind of match up with time and its three divisions of present, past, and future through verbs (Quirk & Greenbaum 1973, 40).

Huddleston (1995) characterises tense as a system of the verb/ VP (verb phrase) with terms differentiated inflectionally or by means of auxiliaries, where the primary semantic contrast has to do with location in time, especially location relative to the time of speaking (Huddleston 1995, 80,81). He explains the two latter clauses by analysing the difference between the past and present simple forms of take the bus, and observes that the past inflection refers to a circumstance that precedes the current, whereas the second form is located in the contemporary (Huddleston 1995, 81).

It is notable that Huddleston (1995) describes tense as a system. Swan (1998) seems to hold a similar view, for he does not describe one tense to account for the present and past time divisions, but several -- delineating two for the former and six for the latter (Swan 1998, 414, 456). His means for distinguishing between them according to the particular time-spans of which they refer is also similar to Huddlestons (1995) explanation.

Sinclair (2012) holds a somewhat different view on the subject, contending that all three time divisions of present, past and future contain tenses within them. He posits eight language forms in all that deal with future events, ranging from the future simple will/ shall + stem, to more elaborate structures like the future perfect continuous will/ shall have been + __ ing (Sinclair 2012, 765-766). Swan (1998) makes no mention of tense when discussing these future-oriented constructions, describing them instead as active affirmative forms (Swan 1998, 6).

2.2 INACCURACY OF WILL + STEM = THE FUTURE TENSEHudson (2012) points out that the concept of a future tense that is similar to its counterparts in the present and past has proven difficult to shift. In South Korea, there are several references to a Future Tense from Korean language teaching books, with several references on how to create it (Kim and Hilts 2008, 33, Seung 2011, 215). Part of the reason for this durability may be that when will is used in the future, there seems to be a tone of finality about it, with no ambiguity in the content of the message itself, unless words of conditionality are involved. This can be seen in forms like People will talk, or You will regret this (Willis and Wright 2004, 59). Huddleston (1995) makes a similar point, asserting that a will oriented towards the present has more of a subjective tone to it than when it is used in the future. (Huddleston 1995, 172).

Hudson (2012) argument for two tenses rests primarily on his assertion that the verb will, which is often thought of as the creating mechanism for the future tense, is a present tense, auxiliary verb that offers merely one way of speaking about future events. Sinclair (2012) concurs with the view that will is modal but argues that it also has an extra, special function which is to form the future tense. Like Hudson (2012), Huddleston (1995) is robust in his denial of a future tense. In his analysis of the verb will, he views its primary function as modal auxiliary, not tense auxiliary (Huddleston 1995, 133). In propounding the idea that will should be considered first and foremost a modal verb, he cites the past inflections of will and can (would, could) before going on to show that these verbs can be used interchangeably (see appendix) He also points out that the future tense has no unique formulation in the way the present [3rd person singular add s to stem] and past [regular verbs add ed to the stem] have (Huddleston 1995, 133).

Eastwood (2002) similarly observes that the past and present tenses have definitive structures be and was with inflections that are consistently observable -- but proposes that the reason futurity can never possess such a consistent conjugation is because of the inherently uncertain nature of the concept itself (Eastwood 2002, 56). He develops his point on the precariousness of discussing the future by using it as the primary explanation for why there are so many language forms available when considering it, which include common expressions like the present continuous, and going to + stem (Eastwood 2002, 69, 71).

Eastwood (2002) also contends that the will + stem form offers merely one way of discussing the future, and argues that in some instances it is not the correct language expression to use. For example, it is more appropriate to use going to than will when making long term plans (Eastwood 2002, 55).

Swan (1998) also supports Eastwoods (2002) observation on the flexibility of expression dealing with the future, noting that In many, but not all situations, two or more structures are possible with similar meanings ( 1998, 219).

Although future tense is still a very commonly used term, the problems with it when examined more closely bear out the thesis of Hudson (2012) and others like Quirk and Greenbaum (1973), Huddleston (1995) and Eastwood (2002), that it is not a credible linguistic concept like the tenses of the present and past. The most compelling reason seems to be that, in contrast to Sinclairs (2012) view that the primary function of the will + stem is to form a future tense, the grammatical evidence infers that it is a present tense modal auxiliary verb (Hudson 2012). Its past tense form of would also indicates that it should not be differentiated from the other modals, several of which also have irregular inflections (Huddleston 1995, 133). As Eastwood (2002, 55) implies, without the existence of a de facto future tense through the will + stem conjugation, grammatically it is possible only to refer to the future via a tense system that comprises of present and past language expressions.

2.3 EXPLAINING FUTURE-ORIENTED ACTIVE VERB FORMS In this context, Sinclairs (2012) justification for the traditional three tenses appears out-dated, when one considers the near total unanimity of grammars that oppose the usage of the term of a future tense over the past 40 years (Quirk and Greenbaum 1973, Huddleston 1995, Eastwood 2002, Hudson 2012). His verb classification also seems somewhat counterproductive, in that it takes a system that already seems to have a sufficient amount of tenses, and tries to squeeze in eight more. However, if the future is to be tense-less, a reasonable issue to raise would be how should commonly used verb forms like the future simple or more complex constructions be categorised a problem unwittingly broached by Eastwood (2002). Although he dismisses the existence of the future tense it does not stop him, when describing the nature of events to come that have an ongoing nature, from referring to the form used to discuss it as the future continuous (Eastwood 2002, 69). The problem from an EFL learners perspective is that this could easily lead the student to envision such active verb forms (Swan 1998, 6) as a tense, based on its apparent similarity to the present continuous and the past continuous.

Quirk and Greenbaums (1973) account may offer a solution, since they delineate the verb structure described by Eastwood (2002) as will + be + v_ing, with v being an abbreviation of verb. This description is consistent with the authors convictions of a tense-less future. Their explanation would appear to be more useful than Eastwoods (2002), as they do not refer to verb structures that might contradict their earlier argument for an exclusively past and present tense system in any way (Quirk and Greenbaums 1973, 48-50). So as to present a more coherent representation of a future vista that is beyond the system of tense, there would seem to be some merit in categorising constructions like the future continuous and time-related expressions like the perfect or the perfect continuous as future-oriented active verb forms (Swan 1998).

2.4. FUTURE, MODALITY, AND CONJUNCTIONS OF TIME.Aside from future active verb forms, Eastwood (2002) states that there are a range of expressions that can be generated to explore futurity. Many such communications lack the surety of will and express widely varying degrees of doubt depending on the choice of verb (Eastwood 2002, 65).

This takes us into the domain of mood and more specifically of the other modal auxiliary verbs, independent of will, that can also be used to discuss the future. So can is available if the communicator is unsure of the outcome of something Lets have lunch together. We can go to that new restaurant (Eastwood 2002, 117). May and might are some other modal auxiliaries that can be used to discuss futurity, with the former generally connoting a greater level of confidence that a certain event will take place (Swan 1998, 323). Modals are not normally used to signify incidents that definitely exist or that particular events have definitely happened (Swan 1998, 334). They tend to deal with degrees of likelihood of the verbal action taking, as well as dealing with offers, requests and obligations (Quirk and Greenbaum 1973, 25).

Conjunctions of time offer further variations for discussing futurity. These moderate the degree of ambiguity according to the speakers or writers choice. We will start when we are ready is more open to question than the apparently factual statement We will start (Willis and Wright 2004, 282). Verb phrases like about to, used when the situation is very close to the present (Quirk and Greenbaum 1973, 30), or the past conditional construction used for giving advice If I were you (Willis and Wright 2004, 282) offer further evidence of a phenomenon that is best considered as a destination with many entry points.

2.5. TEACHING FUTURE-DIRECTED LANGUAGE FORMSThis paper has suggested that instead of accepting the traditional notion of a future tense generated by the conjugation of will+ verb stem, teachers would be better served by attempting to get across the essential complexity and diversity of what it means to discuss futurity in English, for the purposes of grammatical accuracy. The exact language construction we choose will vary according to what it is we want to communicate (Eastwood 2002, 65.) Although such an open-ended portrayal of futurity might seem an overly challenging concept for ESL Primary School children to understand, in the Korean context at least, mainstream textbooks with a strongly communicative emphasis are taking a broader perspective for how future discourse can be constructed (Choi 2011a, Choi 2011b)

While this is a welcome development, it would appear to be important not to lose sight of the value of the grammar out of which these forms find expression. So that students could be encouraged to think of a future beyond tense, it might be prudent to avoid using established language forms like the future progressive or perfect, which could encourage learners to think that this time division has tenses in the same way that the present and past do, and instead follow Quirke and Greenbaums (1973) careful description (cf. 2.3) when approaching future active verb forms. Harmer (1991 62) suggests a five-point plan for explicit teaching of these and other grammatical structures. It would also be useful for students to rediscover its importance for themselves by the use of inductively-driven lessons (Hall and Shepheard 2001)

3. Future-oriented discourse for Year 6 South Korean Students at Primary Level3.1. 6 (Choi 2011a, Choi 2011b) Educational Series 6 (Choi 2011a, Choi 2011b) is an educational series that is used at my workplace, and as far as I am aware, it is a popular choice of textbook among Korean Primary schools. Although there is no direct reference to a future tense (Choi 2011b), many expressions for discussing futurity are presented to students. These include will+ stem, going to + stem, and What do you want to be (when you grow up?) (Choi 2011a). Would is also covered, and is placed with will as an interchangeable verb to be used when making an offer or an invitation (Choi 2011a, 181).

This wide repertoire for communicating on future events, coupled with an array of interactive methodologies that get the children using the key expressions, often in scenarios that mimic real-life, suggest that the author has not only an understanding of the complexity of future discourse, but also good insights as to how young students can utilise them effectively in social situations.

Underpinning the activities is a range of different methodologies that encourage a communicative approach. These include CLT, Task Based Learning and The Natural Approach (Choi 2011b, 9-12). Total Physical Response (TPR) activities are also incorporated, the theory being that the children will acquire the forms more readily if they use their bodies as well words to engage with the language forms (Krashen and Tyrell 1983, cited by Richard 2001).

3.2. Suggestions for presenting futurity in an engaging and balanced wayThe book certainly provides a large quantity of comprehensible input, or student exposure to useful vocabulary and language forms, on the future. In this respect it is quite similar to the series I operated from when I worked as an ESL Instructor with grade 6. However, my sense was that even though the expressions were introduced through attractive, child-friendly topics, many of the Korean students had a difficult time with handling all the language forms being presented to them -- a difficulty exacerbated by the fact that the associated grammatical explanation for these language chunks was non-existent. This is particularly significant given that in Korean, it is a relatively uncomplicated matter of adding one of two verbs endings to switch the meaning from present to future (Seung 2011, Kim and Hilts 2008).

When exposing EFL students to unfamiliar language forms, Harmer (1991, 62) suggests a five-point structural format of lead-in, elicitation, explanation, accurate reproduction and immediate creativity. There does not seem to be any reason why this approach could not be adopted towards teaching the going to + infinitive structure, or will + infinitive. For the immediate creativity stage, it would be possible to adapt slightly Harmers (1991, 89) airmail post lesson, so that it enables students to practice instead using the will + stem structure in pairs. Children (assuming they have a fair knowledge of the countries) could possibly create and role-play a simple dialogue and ask at the end When will it get to France, the USA? and so on.

For his elicitation stage, Harmer (1991, 71) suggests that a discovery learning approach can be adopted instead of a Q & A format. Hall and Shepheard (2001) lay great emphasis on this inductive method, asserting that students will be more likely to remember something if they have the opportunity to find out for themselves.

Timelines representing how certain verb forms operate, for instance representing the contrasts between how will + infinitive and present continuous operate in future discourse, would probably help students gain a better understanding of when to use these structures. Answers for filling in the timelines could be elicited from the students. Facilitating a mixture of individual and pair work for activities and error-correction could further engender a process of conscious-raising and discovery learning, as well as promoting automaticity (Hall and Shepheard 2001, 9).

CONCLUSIONIn this paper my main aim has been to propose, in agreement with several grammars on the subject (Hudson 2012, Quirk and Greenbaum 1973, and Huddlestone 1995), that the construction of a future tense through the will + stem conjugation is inaccurate, since its primary task as a modal verb is to fulfil functions of auxilary in keeping with the other verbs of its type. From this position I argued that futurity should be considered as a destination with many entry points. I also suggested that constructions involving language forms like future simple or future continuous be termed as future-oriented active forms (Swan 1998, 6), so as to avoid misleading EFL learners into thinking these are future tenses that are analogous in function to their past and present counterparts. The main section concluded with the proposal that the many conventions and nuances for referring to the future in English were best taught in a structured, inductive way. In the third section, I made some suggestions, based on the perspectives of Harmer (1991) and Hall and Shepheard (2001), for how this could be done.

To conclude, I think Hall and Shepheards (2001) approach potentially offers an innovative means for helping students learn more about how to discuss futurity. A prudent adaptation of some of their ideas for the Korean context could enable an effective methodology for future-orientated communication that is practiced in a systematic, motivating and inductive way.

3283 wordsAppendix

(Huddleston 1995, 133)

REFERENCESChoi, H. G. (2011a) 6 Elementary School English 6. Seoul: YBM Publishing.Choi, H. G. (2011b) 6 Elementary School English 6 Teachers Guide. Seoul: YBM Publishing.Eastwood, J. (2002) Oxford Practice Grammar With Answers. 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Hall, N. and J. Shepheard (2001) The Anti-Grammar Grammar Book. Singapore: Longman.Huddlestone, R. (1995) Introduction to the Grammar of English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Hudson, D. (2012) Basic English Grammar For School Teachers Years 7-9 (KS3), http://www.phon.ucl.ac.uk/home/dick/tta/KS3.htm, [Accessed 06-14-2014].Kim, M. and J. D. Hilts (2008) Lonely Planet Korean Phrasebook. Victoria: Lonely Planet.Quirk, R. and S. Greenbaum (1973) A University Grammar of English, London, Longman.Richards, J. (2001) Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Seung, U. O. (2011) Korean Made Easy For Beginners. Seoul: Darakwon.Sinclair, J. (2012) Collins Cobuild English Usage. Seoul: Harper Collins.Swan, M. (1998) Practical English Usage. 2nd ed., Oxford: Oxford University Press.Tredigo, T. S. (1974) English Tense Usage: A Bulls Eye View ELT Journal, 28:2, 97-107.Willis D. and J. Wright (1986) Collins Cobuild Elementary English Grammar. Seoul: Kyobo.

16