Professional Documents
Culture Documents
force
Richard Cullen
The liberating
potential of grammar
The Author 2008. Published by Oxford University Press; all rights reserved.
Advance Access publication March 15, 2008
221
we were going to cook for dinner), provided there is enough shared context
between the interlocutorsthe empty plate, the shared knowledge of the
dog, the meat and our plans for dinnerto allow the utterance to be
interpreted correctly. With insufficient contextual information, the
utterance is potentially ambiguous and could convey a range of alternative
meanings, such as:
1 The dog is eating the meat.
2 A dog must have eaten the meat.
3 Dogs eat meat.
Notional and
attitudinal meanings
in grammar
222
Richard Cullen
223
Four task types which exemplify these different elements are discussed
below. At the outset, I should point out that I do not claim any originality
for them, since they all involve classroom activities which have been in use
for many years, particularly as exercises to develop writing skills. Indeed
some, I would suggest, have partially fallen into disuse. What I am aiming
to do here is to show how fairly standard techniques, which have stood the
224
Richard Cullen
2 Lexis to grammar
If grammar liberates the language user by enabling him/her to transcend
the limitations of telegraphic speech (using lexical items alone), there
should be a progression from lexis to grammar both in the way language
and materials are presented to learners, and in the language we expect them
to produce. A grammar production task would typically require the learners
to apply grammar to samples of language in which the grammar has been
reduced or simplified, as typically found in notes of a meeting or
a newspaper headline, where the meaning content is conveyed primarily
through lexical items. Such tasks, where the learners are in effect asked to
map grammar on to lexis, involve a process known variously as
grammaticization (Batstone 1994) or grammaring (Thornbury 2001). By
engaging in this kind of activity, learners experience the process of using
their grammatical resources to develop the meaning potential contained in
the lexical items and express a range of meanings which the words alone
could not convey. Such a process is not dissimilar to the processes involved
in first language acquisition whereby the child moves from communication
through telegraphic utterances involving strings of lexical items to the
gradual deployment of morphemes and function words. It is not, however,
a process promoted in traditional approaches to grammar teaching such as
the presentationpracticeproduction format, where the learners are
typically asked to move in the opposite directionthey begin with
a preselected grammatical structure, and then have to slot lexis into it.
figure 1
Grammaticization task
using newspaper
headlines. (Headlines 1,
3, and 4 from The Times,
London, 31 August 2007;
headline 2 from the
Ashford Express, Kent
Messenger Group, 16
August 2007.)
225
Again it will be seen that the task combines the three elements noted above:
the learners have choice over the grammatical devices they think are needed
to reconstruct the text in the most effective way, drawing on their own
knowledge of the language. They compare their versions with one another
and with the teachers own version and so have the opportunity to expand
their own knowledge. Finally, although the task may not, strictly speaking,
move from lexis to grammar, it certainly moves from a text where the
grammar has been artificially reduced or simplified to one in which it is
more elaborated. The task also develops sensitivity to writing style and what
makes a coherent, fluent narrative.
226
Richard Cullen
figure 2
Synthesis task (adapted
from an idea in Graver
1986)
figure 3
A procedure for a picture
composition task
227
Conclusion
There are two further observations about the task types presented here
which need to be made. Firstly, given the scope of this paper, I have looked
only at types of task which require learners to produce language and have
not discussed receptive grammar tasks designed to raise awareness of the
various notional and attitudinal meanings which can be expressed by
grammar. Such tasks would involve considering the effects created by
changing some of the grammatical features used in a text, or asking learners
to make grammatical choices in a given text, for example, between active
and passive verb forms, and then comparing their choices with the original
text. Such awareness raising activities would also have an important role in
teaching grammar as a liberating force since they emphasize the notion of
learner choice in the use of grammar. Secondly, all the task types presented
have involved the learners in the creation of written texts, and are derived
from fairly standard guided writing tasks. This emphasis on writing is
deliberate: writing is generally done with more care and attention to
grammatical accuracy than speaking, while having a written text to study
and compare with another written text makes it easier to focus on form and
to notice and record features of grammar which might otherwise be
overlooked.
Finally, although I have argued in this paper that a process-oriented
approach to teaching grammar is more consistent with the notion of
grammar as a liberating force than a product-oriented approach, I am not
claiming that such an approach is inherently superior, and preferable at all
times and for all levels of student. There are many circumstances where it
may be necessary and desirable to pre-select language items for attention
prior to setting learners loose on a task, particularly for lower-level students,
and as a general policy a balanced combination of the two approaches is
likely to be the most effective teaching strategy to adopt. However, if we are
serious about emphasizing the notion of grammar as a liberating force in
our teaching, we need at least to provide opportunities for our learners to
experience its liberating potential through the kind of process-oriented
grammar tasks described here.
Final revised version received October 2007
228
Richard Cullen
In this paper I have identified three elements which I see as being central to
an approach to teaching grammar which emphasizes its role as a liberating
force (as defined in Widdowsons essay), and have gone on to show how
these elements can be incorporated into the design of grammar production
activities in the E F L classroom. As has been pointed out, the approach
which these activities exemplify is task-based in design, in that the focus on
form comes after a freer activity in which the learners use whatever
language resources they can muster: the teaching progression is thus from
fluency to accuracy rather than vice versa. The activities also follow a process
approach to teaching grammar, in which grammatical items are not selected
and presented in advance for learners to use, but rather grammar is treated
as a resource which language users exploit as they navigate their way
through discourse (Batstone 1994: 224). Gaps in their knowledge are
noticed later through the process of matching and comparing so that work
can begin on trying to fill them.
Appendix
1 Dictogloss text
Students are given the first sentence of the text. They have to recover the
rest by taking notes as it is read aloud to them (twice) and then
reconstructing the text from their notes.
The Hubble Space Telescope is a telescope in orbit around the Earth. It is
named after astronomer Edwin Hubble, famous for his discovery of galaxies
outside the Milky Way and his creation of Hubbles Law, which calculates
the rate at which the universe is expanding. The telescopes position outside
the Earths atmosphere allows it to take sharp optical images of very faint
objects, and since its launch in 1990, it has become one of the most
important instruments in the history of astronomy. It has been responsible
for many ground-breaking observations and has helped astronomers
achieve a better understanding of many fundamental problems in
astrophysics. Hubbles Ultra Deep Field is the deepest (most sensitive)
astronomical optical image ever taken.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
229
References
Batstone, R. 1994. Product and process: grammar
in the second language classroom in M. Bygate,
A. Tonkyn, and E. Williams (eds.). Grammar and the
Second Language Teacher. Hemel Hempstead:
Prentice Hall International.
Batstone, R. 1995. Grammar in discourse: attitude
and deniability in G. Cook and B. Seidlhofer (eds.).
Principle and Practice in Applied Linguistics. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Doughty, C. and J. Williams. 1998. Pedagogic
choices in focus on form in C. Doughty and
J. Williams (eds.). Focus on Form in Classroom Second
Language Acquisition. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ellis, R. 2005. Principles of instructed second
language learning. System 33/2: 20924.
Graver, B. 1986. Advanced English Practice (third
edition). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Larsen-Freeman, D. 2002. The Grammar of choice
in E. Hinkel and S. Fotos (eds.). New Perspectives on
Grammar Teaching in Second Language Classrooms.
Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbawm Associates.
Long, M. 2001. Focus on form: a design feature
in language teaching methodology in C. Candlin
and N. Mercer (eds.). English Language Teaching in its
Social Context. London: Routledge.
Skehan, P. 2002. Task-based instruction: theory,
research and practice in A. Pulverness (ed.). IATEF L
2002: York Conference Selections. Whitstable: I AT E F L.
.
230
Richard Cullen
2 Picture
composition
material