You are on page 1of 3

Weekly Assignment

Subject Applied Linguistics


Journal Report The Effect of Morphological Strategies Training for
English Language Learners (Q. Deng & G. Trainin : 2014)
Spoken Grammar: Where Are We and Where Are We Going?
(Ronald Carter & Michael McCarthy : 2015)
Name Rendi Afriadi
Registered Number 17178026
Lecturer Prof. Dr. Hermawati Syarif, M.Hum
Prof. Dr. M. Zaim, M.Hum

The element of language morphology is often overlooked in the practice of language


teaching. Many view that it is difficult to expose students to morphology of language due its
complexity that will likely make students difficult to understand it. However, the study from
Hurry et.al in Cook & Guy (2010) suggests that exposure to morphology can help students
gain more understanding of how language works, especially in spelling, considering the
participants of this research is elementary schools students.

Similarly, the importance of morphology in language teaching is also studied by other


researchers. Deng & Trainin (2014) conducted the research on the effect of morphological
strategies training for English language learners. Their research was inspired from the
necessity to master a large number of words for college students in which most of second
language learners lack of. To solve this, morphological awareness training can be provided to
help students recognize how lexical system works in English.

In this research, Deng & Trainin employed 22 students as their participants from an
Intensive English Program designed to serve non-native English students in preparation for
their academic study. In the intervention process, the students were involved in:
morphological training, morphological knowldege Pre- and Post-Test, and Cognitive Load
Measure.

From the research findings, they found that regardless of their language proficiency
level morphological strategies training positively affect the morphological awarenessand
students and reduces the cognitive load for all four types of task. This research is correlated
to that of Hurry et.al. in Cook & Guy (2010) who also found that morphology training is
effective to help students in improving their spelling skill.

Another language aspect that is commonly undermined in language teaching is related


to conversational grammar. According to Thornburry and Slade in Cook & Guy (2010) assert
that most EFL materials present students with only formal grammar, written grammar. Unlike
this type of grammar viewed as more prestigious and acceptable, grammar in conversation is
often considered to be unstructured and chaotic. However, grammar in conversation has its
own complexity that is no less complex than that of the written one. Thornburry and Slade in
Cook & Guy (2010 illustrates the complexity of grammatical element in conversation
involving things like heads and tails, omission, blendin, various use of modality and so forth.

Like Thornburry and Slade in Cook & Guy (2010), Carter & McCarthy (2015) also
highlights the intricate nature of conversational grammar and its implication to language
teaching. First, they suggest that the theoritical understanding of conversation should be
widened as the practice of conversation is not only restricted to day to day life but also
involves in e-communication such as text, internet chat, facebook, twitter etc. Second, they
also proposes that due to the extended use of conversation as that in the internet, the study on
conversational grammar should also cover how the grammar is used in e-communication such
as the practice of shortening the words, the use of emoji and emoticon to replace words,
phrase, or even sentence in expressing something. Moreover, they also proposes that such
study needs to include the understanding of visual symbols is used in e-communication such
as photographs, video clips, textual records, new orthographic symbol and innovative
punctuation. Finally, they also propose an insight on how conversational grammar should
incoporated in the practice of language teaching. Unlike Thornburry and Slade in Cook &
Guy (2010) who claim that the practice of language mainly concern in formal written
grammar, Carter & McCarthy (2015) suggest that there is current shift in the language
teaching practice. There is a growing support in language teaching to provide students with
spoken grammar derived from authentic data. Students should be involved in analysing how
grammar functions in daily life along with its complexity.

The ideas from Carter & McCarthy (2015) are somewhat in line with Thornburry and
Slade in Cook & Guy (2010) in a way all of them are in agreement that grammar in
conversation should not be undermined and considered inferior compared to that in the
written one. They also support the notion that conversational grammar is also complex, and
even more complex that the written grammar seen from its unpredictable nature of
communication. However, Carter & McCarthy (2015) add new insights on conversational
grammar through their idea to include the use of grammar in e-communication, which is also
marked by its own complexity and new linguistic creativity and innovation. In addition, they
also agree that on the necessity to expose students to the nuances of conversational grammar
which is commonly ignored in language learning process, yet in this current practice a
growing attention is now given to such idea.