1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE TEACHING

OF PEDAGOGICAL ENGLISH GRAMMAR

1.1. Introduction

This dissertation aims at ‘A Study of Pedagogical English Grammar

and its Implications in the Context of Teaching English to the Technical Students
in Chennai’. A sincere and modest attempt is made in this study to give a
comprehensive picture of grammar teaching approaches, influential grammatical
paradigms in Second language teaching, and cognitive theories underlying the
processes of grammar acquisition and their implications in the context of
Teaching English to the Technical Students in Chennai. In addition to this, the
influence of teachers’ belief-systems on grammar teaching is further explored for
it has attracted a number of researchers during recent times.

The results of this intensive study and the information thus gained, it
is hoped, would provide a convincing basis for drawing conclusions and outline
implications for the teaching of English as a second language in general and
grammar teaching in the English classrooms of Technical Colleges in Chennai in
particular. Before going into those details, it may not be out of place to discuss
some of the issues connected to English.

1.2. English Language - Origins and History

Today's English is the continuation of the language of the fifth

century Germanic invaders of Britain. No records exist of pre-invasion forms of
the language. It can be said that English is one of the oldest languages in the
world, starting from almost 5th century onwards with three clear-cut
demarcations such as OLD ENGLISH (or Anglo-Saxon to c.1100); MIDDLE
ENGLISH(to c.1500); and MODERN ENGLISH with each segment having its
own dialectal variations. For example in the Old English period there were four
 2

main dialectal forms, Mercian, Northumbrian, Kentish and West Saxon, of

which West Saxon (vide- Anglo-Saxon Literature) slowly acquired supremacy
thanks to the great King Alfred. During the Middle English period (1100 AD to
1500 AD), the dialects were Kentish, Southern, Northern, East Midland and
West-Midland, of which the West-Midland seemed to have acquired greater
patronage.

When English became again (in 14th century) the language of the
upper class, the capital was London, and the new standard (continued in Modern
Standard English) was a London dialect. Several factors led to the evolution of
‘Standard English,' (vide FT Wood- ‘The History of English Language’) which
gained global popularity though other non-standard dialects such as Cockney,
Dorset and Scottish.

However, now when English acquired an international dimension, its

dialectal variations such as American English, Australian English, New Zealand
English, Indian English and South African English present a global stage for
people to interact, which in fact initiates an inevitable process of learning it with
proper base of grammar.

1.2.1. English Language Learning (ELL)

Learning any new content in an unfamiliar language is very

challenging, so it is important for teachers to make instructional modifications—
some of which are aimed at building English Language Learners’ English
proficiency and some of which are designed to give them greater access to
academic content. A great deal of research is being done to know what
constitutes an appropriate and effective pedagogic method.

Meganathan summarizes the English Language Learning in the Indian

context as follows:
 3

Equipping English language education with the essentials in the

native medium schools would benefit learning in general and
language learning in particular. But converting schools to
become English medium without proper support would be
detrimental and counterproductive. Schools can be developed as
multimedia schools where both the content subjects and the
language are taught and learnt well in a complementary and
supplementary manner. A ‘language across the curriculum’
perspective and a strategy of multilingualism (NCERT 2005)
would be of benefit on many counts… (Meganathan.R, From
Library Language to Language of Empowerment; British
Council, 2007)

There are many effective strategies that English teachers can

follow to support ably the English Language Learners, some of these are
cited below:

1. Continuous and consistent classroom management routines ably assisted

by diagrams, charts, reading schedules etc;
2. Giving extra time for practice for homework and providing information in
pictures, visual cues and also using body language for lesson content and
classroom procedures.
3. Giving greater attention to vocabulary to facilitate comprehension.
4. Creating greater autonomy to ELLs themselves to summarize and
paraphrase;
5. Providing students extra practice in reading words, sentences, and stories
in order to build fluency thereby enhancing autonomy;
6. More opportunities for extended interactions with teacher and peers;
7. Adjusting instruction (teacher vocabulary, rate of speech, sentence
complexity, and expectations);
8. Student language production according to students’ oral English
proficiency; and, targeting both content and English language learning
objectives in every lesson.
 4

Teachers should aim at an effective second language instruction

which should aim at:

a) An explicit teaching that should help students learn the target

language’s key elements such as syntax, grammar, vocabulary,
pronunciation, and norms of social usage and
b) Many opportunities to make a functional use of the second language in
meaningful and motivating situations.

Any successful second language instruction comprises elements of

form and function, use and usage, competence and performance, accuracy and
fluency, etc. What is necessary is an intensive Second language instruction
striking a balance among what is said earlier aiming at shortening the time
required for English Language Learners to gain native or near-native English
proficiency. This brings us to English Language Teaching.

1.2.2. English Language Teaching

English Language Teaching is a vast field which enfolds myriad

strategies and techniques. It is a global exercise aiming at English Language
Acquisition and proficiency. There are many factors that are involved in it such
as:

1. Individual teacher beliefs,

2. Their education and experience of language teaching,
3. The language levels of students.
4. The types of interaction in the classroom that take place between the
teacher and student.
These are all some of the aspects that may contribute to the acquisition and
proficiency in the language. In the words of Richards and Lockhart (1996)
 5

“Teaching is a very personal activity, and it is not surprising that

individual teachers bring to teaching very different beliefs and
assumptions about what constitutes effective teaching” (36).

Language learners

“…actively try to make sense, i.e. to find and construct a

meaning and purpose for what adults say to them and ask them
to do” (Cameron 2001:19).

So also

“…the child is an active learner and thinker, constructing his or

her own knowledge from working with objects or ideas.”
(ibid:4).

In the words of Nunan (2000:189),

“Teacher talk is of crucial importance for the processes of

acquisition because it is probably the major source of
comprehensible target language input a learner is likely to
receive”.

This may provide students with a type of scaffolding, which may help them
reach the goal of being an autonomous learner because

“learning to do things and learning to think are both helped by

interacting with an adult” (Cameron 2002:7).

To supplement this there are many language teaching strategies and techniques
such as vocabulary checks, think-aloud, task-based activities, giving students
thinking time, re-casts [repetition of a student’s utterance making changes to
convert it to a correct phrase or sentence (Lightbrown and Spada 2006)],
followed by several other methods and approaches based on intensive research.
 6

1.2.3 Methodology of Teaching Grammar in English Language Teaching -

The Indian Educational Context

For any effective learning of English, it is necessary to adopt myriad

methods and approaches. In spite of all these activities, it is difficult to say
exactly which method or approach enhances the learning and acquisition of
English. Hence, all the methods and approaches are essential.

It is left to the individual teacher concerned to follow an eclectic

approach which is a mixture of many methods, approaches, tasks, activities, etc.
Various Universities in Indian educational system are considered as the role
models, for they all introduced and implemented many ideas for significant
teaching of English in India. Various Educational Commissions too, were
introduced to implement the new innovations of teaching English in Indian
schools and colleges. In 1955, the Kunzru Committee recommended that the
teaching of English literature should be related to the study of Indian literature.
The Committee also gave importance to the use of special methods in English
language teaching. In 1956, the Official Language Commission said that English
should be taught as a language of use and understanding rather than as a literary
language. This would perhaps create in the students the faculty of
comprehending writing in the English language. There are many approaches and
methods to teach English --- such as the Communicative approach, the
Humanistic Approach, the Silent way, Community Language Learning,
Suggestopedia, Total Physical Response, Cognitive Approach to Language
Learning, the Grammar–translation method, the Direct Method, The Eclectic
Method and the Notional – Functional Syllabus --- some of which will be
discussed further.
 7

1.3. Research Outline.

The title as suggested earlier is “A Study of Pedagogical English

Grammar and its Implications in the Context of Teaching English to the
Technical Students in Chennai”. An outline of the proposed work is as
mentioned below:

This study consists of six chapters.

The first chapter introduces the topic, clears the terminology which
will be used throughout the dissertation, defines grammar as understood in this
work, explains the concept of grammar, grammar concepts; types of grammar,
such as Normative Grammar proposed by Gramsci (1967), the Chomskian
(1956) theory of Universal Grammar, Descriptive Grammar, Functional
Grammar by Dik (1997) and Halliday (2003). The chapter describes elaborately
what pedagogical grammar is. It also explains what Communicative Language
Teaching is and explores its assumptions, outlines the research aims and the
procedures.

The second chapter exhaustively entails Literature Review of

grammar teaching with the discussion of the place of grammar in communicative
Language teaching. It presents the theoretical foundation, bearing in mind the
most important theories about Grammar teaching.

The traditional notions of teaching with the notion of correctness that

centered around sentence-level explicit grammatical analysis and instruction
(Brumfit et.al 1996), Language learning theories, such as those of Krashen
(1986) and Communicative Language Teaching movement (Brumfit and
Johnson, (1978) that encourage and promote more meaning –oriented uses of
language which de-emphasize formal grammar instruction (Pect,1998) have
further been elaborated. The chapter also talks about the fall and rise of grammar
teaching with the pendulum swinging to the side of Grammar which is seen as a
 8

tool in language learning, not an aim in itself (Rutherford and Sharwood-Smith,

1988, Celce-Murcia, 1991).

Once the importance of grammar teaching in second language

acquisition has been established, the second part of the chapter explores the
psycholinguistic dimension of grammar learning and teaching by giving a
comprehensive picture of grammar acquisition theories in second language
acquisition. Grammar learning is seen as a complex cognitive skill and a number
of processes are explored which lead to better understanding of how grammar
learning takes place. Therefore, it discusses the overlapping categories of ways
of acquiring knowledge: declarative and procedural; forms of conscious
knowledge: explicit and implicit; and the types of attention used in grammar
instruction. Although there is some confusion in the terminology and
disagreements on the effectiveness of different approaches, researchers agree,
that significant focus on form is necessary for learning to take place.

The third chapter explains the research design, the procedures

followed, the instruments of data such as participant observations, tests, surveys,
interviews, and student’s artifacts, personal journal, data collection, etc. This
research was done with a particular group of students with an emphasis on
‘action research’ in technical and polytechnic colleges of Chennai where the
issues raised above are explored.

In the fourth chapter, an analysis of the data is done, followed by its

interpretation. The fifth chapter deals with the research findings based on the
interpretation done previously including pedagogical implications, suggestions
and recommendations. The final chapter presents the conclusions and future
scope.
 9

1.3.1. The Necessity of Pedagogical Grammar as per the Standard Norms.

English teachers all over the globe are familiar with the debate
between Kachru (1990) and Quirk (1991) over the status of English, particularly
that of standard English. Kachru (1997) proposed three circles (Figure1.1) to
divide English-using world. According to him, the Inner Circle includes the
Native English-speaking countries such as England, USA, Canada, Australia and
New Zealand. The Outer Circle comprises the former British colonies such as
India, Africa and Nigeria and finally the Expanding Circle includes countries
such as China, Japan and Turkey, which are affected by Western thinking and
intervention where English is becoming an important language in business,
science, technology and education. Kachru’s main arguments are more related to
Outer Circle. The following Figure 1.1 shows his concept on World-English:

Figure.1.1 Concentric Circle Model (Adapted from Kachru (1997)

 10

Quirk (1984), in his discussion of English in various contexts especially in the

Outer-Circle countries, advises teachers of English to focus on native norms and
native like performance and stresses the need to uphold one common standard in
the use of English not only in the Inner Circle countries but also in others. He
also points out that a common standard of use for written as well as spoken
English is necessary to regulate the use of English in different contexts.

In response to him, Kachru (1985), on the other hand, claims that such
norms as speech acts and registers are irrelevant to the sociolinguistic reality in
which members of the Outer Circle use English.

Let us look at some examples of English in Outer Circle (Bhatt: 2005. 39-40):

a) You have taken my book, isn’t it?

b) You are soon going home, isn’t it?

In the above said examples, it can be seen that the meaning of tag is
not the meaning of the main proposition, but rather social meaning. These two
examples show how the linguistic form is constrained by cultural constraints of
politeness. These tags (isn’t it) as used in Indian English are governed by
politeness principle of non-imposition. However in standard American or British
English, tag questions are formed by inserting the pronoun after an appropriate
modal auxiliary.

A corrected version is as follows:

a) You have taken my book, haven’t you?

b) You are soon going home, aren’t you?

So also the influence of culture on grammatical rules in Indian English can also
be seen in the use of ‘May’. Look at the following example (Bhatt 41):
 11

These mistakes may please be corrected.

Here, ‘May’ is used to express obligation politely, whereas in Standard English,

it will be used as;

‘These mistakes must be corrected’ or

‘These mistakes are to be corrected’.

These examples from Standard English are rejected by Kachru on the

plea that they are positional in their social context, although for a native speaker
they are definitely not acceptable and or deviations from the standard from. (36).

In Indian context, which variety of English within the circles is viable

for Pedagogical purposes? What does the ESL teacher teach? Is it the English of
‘Norm-providing—inner circle’, or the English of ‘Norm-developing—Outer
circle’, or English of ‘Norm-dependent—expanding circle’?

It is necessary to look at this aspect in academic and social contexts.

In social contexts such deviations appear to be acceptable and some times, even
go unnoticed. However in academic circles, it is the Standard English that holds
the sway. Hence, there is necessity of teaching pedagogical grammar as per the
standard norms.

1.3.2. The research scholar’s interest in Grammar

The research scholar has been teaching English as a Second Language

for more than two decades. The researcher’s prime interest being Grammar,
many a time she has experimented and tried to teach Grammar communicatively
in all her class-rooms. From 1992 to 2002, the research scholar worked as a Post
Graduate English Teacher and Head of English Department in a Higher
Secondary School and for some time thereafter worked in an Engineering
college in Chennai. The researcher’s main job then was to teach Grammar to all
 12

these students. Grammar component in the English Question Paper for 10th and
12th Classes was and still is quite substantial. So it was necessary for the
researcher to concentrate more on Grammar and prepare students for their exam
by making them do more exercises in Grammar. This has led to a greater
focusing on Grammar component. Every year preparing nearly 500 students for
their school’s final English examination with a greater emphasis on Grammar
exercises made researcher work more and more on Grammar.

Similarly when the researcher moved to Oman in 2002 and worked

until 2011 as a Lecturer in English in a Government Technical College, she
taught English to Technical Students. The English Syllabus of these Technical
and Engineering Courses relied heavily on Grammar. Apart from this, students
in Oman are supposed to do a Foundation Course before they are accepted into
these Technical Courses. As a result, both in Foundation and Post Foundation
Courses, English Grammar played a major role. In addition to this, the teachers
were supposed to prepare the students for an in-house TOEFL Examination in
which Grammar was a major component and this fact made the researcher work
more on grammar. Hence, the researcher developed a greater interest in
Pedagogical Grammar.

So, both in India and in Oman the research scholar’s work as an ESL
teacher was to concentrate more on Grammar component in their syllabuses. In
addition to this, assessing the students’ English Language Competence and
giving preferred learning support, determining the different suitable modes of
language delivery to their needs after assessing and monitoring their progress
etc., further generated much interest in the research scholar in Grammar
teaching. Since, students both in India and in Oman (where the research
scholarworked earlier) had to appear for board and university exams, the
language instruction was aimed more at their clear understanding of grammar
because knowledge of Grammar - explicit or implicit - is necessary for the
 13

mastery of language. This is the main reason that prompted the research scholar
to work further in this field of grammar instruction and its implications in the
context of teaching grammar to students of technical colleges in Chennai.

1.3.3. Research Aims.

Grammar and language teaching are inextricably interlinked in spite

of an internecine fight between ‘form’ and ‘function’ - with ‘function’ getting,
more often than not, an upper-hand in the ‘communicative teaching’. However,
‘Form’, one has to say, is imperceptibly making its ground in the language
teaching. Hence, the argument for pedagogical grammar.

One of the primary aims of this study is to explore the issues in

Pedagogical English Grammar with all its implications in the Context of
Teaching English to the Technical Students in Chennai.

This study further also concentrates on the following.

1. To find out through an empirical researchwhether or not it is necessary to

introduce grammar in the class-room.
2. To find out the effects of ‘strong interface’ and ‘the weak-interface’.
3. To evaluate the role of ‘grammar instruction’ to issues of ‘deductive’ and
‘inductive’ approaches to grammar teaching.
4. Any need for any ‘eclectic’ approach, if so,and how far it can satisfy the
needs of the students. In this context a thorough analysis will be
undertaken simultaneously.

1.3.4.Grammar and Pedagogical Grammar

It may not be out of place to go in detail into the various insights that
are made about grammar in general and pedagogical grammar in particular.
 14

The phrase Pedagogical Grammar comprises two terms: one is

pedagogical and the second one is grammar. Translating grammarian’s
descriptions of language in as simple a way as possible to make it more
understandable to the learner in the class is perhaps one of the primary issues of
the pedagogical grammar. Some time back the very word ‘grammar’ was
shunned by people. But now the pendulum swings to the side of Grammar and as
a result the fortunes of grammar are on the rise. This led recently to various
attempts by many linguists and theorists to explore this field and it is no longer
‘old wine in new bottle’ but it is ‘new wine in new bottle’.

1.3.5. Grammar - Definitions & Explanations

Through the history of language studies the term grammar has been
considered from many different perspectives; most of them, associated with the
explanation of the system of rules of a given language. Though the word
Grammar sounds simple, it has many explanations. Once it was presumed that
knowledge of language means, knowledge of grammar. This knowledge can be
expressed theoretically as rules of language which one sees in a grammar book.
Secondly, a speaker’s internalization of rules of a language is also considered as
Grammar. For example, every person will have some system in his / her mind -
s/he would have internalized the whole system of the language s/he speaks, in his
mind and this is also grammar.

Language and grammar are interlinked- (not withstanding Hymes and

Halliday of course). Grammar no doubt is the mechanism of language. The
concept of Grammar or grammars—(knowledge of language in the mind, or the
rules in the book or what is prescribed by the grammarian, - prescription vs.
description) is not new to the modern linguist.

Ambrose-Grillet (1978) presents a broader view of grammar thus;

 15

In modern linguistics ‘grammar’ has a broader meaning than in

the traditional usage ‘we use it with a systematic ambiguity. On
the one hand, it refers to the explicit theory constructed by the
linguist and proposed as a description of the speaker’s
competence’… it means the speaker’s knowledge of a language
which includes sound, meaning and syntax. (52)

As Leech and Deuchar (1982) say that it is a

“…mechanism according to which language works when it is

used in communication with other people. We cannot see this
mechanism concretely because it is represented rather abstractly
in the human mind. One way of describing the mechanism is a
set of rules which allow us to put words to together in certain
ways, but which do not allow others.” (51)

Larsen-Freeman (1991) claim that: “Grammar as forms were

characterized by its morphology and syntax alone” (1). That means grammar
refers to order or ‘sentence structures’. Several authors have studied the forms
and rules that explain grammatical categories such as pronouns, verbs,
adjectives, adverbs, and so on. This information was gathered together, and as a
consequence teachers have assumed that explanation and practice of those rules
are the most important of their goals.

A different view is further stressed by Celce–Murcia (1991) and

Helbig (1992) who say that grammar interacts with meaning, social function or
discourse and does not stand alone as autonomous system which should be learnt
for its own sake.

As Richards and Platt (1992) say that it is,

A description of the structure of a language and the way in

which linguistic units such as words and phrases are combined
to produce sentences in the grammar language. It usually takes
into account the meanings and functions these sentences have in
 16

the overall system of the language. It may or may not include the
description of the sounds of a language.(161)

David Crystal (1997) talks about ‘types’ of grammar thus:

It is difficult to capture the central role played by grammar in the

structure of language often than by using a metaphor such as
‘framework’ or ‘skeleton’……Two steps can usually be
distinguished in the study of grammar. The first step is to
identify units in the stream of speech (or writing or signing)
units such as ‘word’ and ‘sentence’. The second step is to
analyze the pattern into which these units fall, and the
relationships of meaning that these patterns convey. Depending
upon which units we recognize at the beginning of the study, so
the definition of grammar alters. Most approaches begin by
recognizing the ‘sentence’ and grammar is thus most widely
defined as’ the study of sentence structure.’ A grammar of a
language, from this point of view, is an account of the
language’s possible sentence structures, organized according to
certain general principles. (88)….. Grammar is a central term in
LINGUISTICS, but one which covers a wide range of
phenomena. Several types of grammar can be distinguished…
descriptive grammar… theoretical (formal)… comparative…
traditional… competence grammar… performance and universal
grammar. (174-5)

Jung (1993) expounds that

“Grammar is the linguistic description of the rule system of a

language and the explicit or implicit representation of this rule
system in the learner’s mind.”(111).

In Batstone’s (1994) observation

“…grammar consists of two fundamental ingredients-syntax and

morphology- and together they help us to identify grammatical
forms which serve to enhance and sharpen the expression of
meaning.” (4).
 17

Westney (in Odlin, 1994) states that ‘formulating rules is the most important task
of pedagogic grammar’. He defines rules informally as “observed regularities
with predictive value” (1994:74). While Brown (1994) is of the opinion that,

“Grammar is a system of rules governing the conventional

arrangement and relationship of words in a sentence.” (347).

A similar thought is expressed by Ur (1996) who states that

“Grammar is a set of rules that define how words are combined

or changed to form acceptable units of meaning within
language.” (87)

On the other hand, Thornbury (1999) declares that,

“Grammar is conventionally seen as the study of the syntax and

morphology of sentences. Put another way, it is the study of
linguistic chains and slots. That is, the study both of the way
words are chained together in a particular order, and also of
what kinds of words can slot into any one link in the chain.” (3)

This concept continues associating grammar teaching with structural

forms but this idea includes syntax studies that continue with the vision in
relation to principles and rules that determining a language related to the form of
the words.(Ibid. 8)

Thornbury (1999) further reinforces that,

“Grammar is partly the study of what forms are possible in a

language. Grammar has been concerned almost exclusively with
analysis at the level of the sentence. Thus a grammar is a
description of the rules that govern how language’s sentences
are formed.” (5).

It however seems a that different conceptualization about

grammar is provided by Brown (2001) when he says that it is a
 18

“…system of rules governing the conventional arrangement and

relationship of words in a sentence. Technically Grammar refers
to sentence-level rules only, and not to rules governing the
relationship among sentences, which refer to discourse rules”.(2)

It is clear Brown (2001) views grammar as forms and rules. These

conceptions enable teachers to believe that teaching grammar is teaching the
rules and teaching rules generally through explanations and exercises does not
promote communication that clearly. Traditionally the methodology used in a
classroom is through instructions related to completion of isolated sentences and
their pronunciation, but there are not many opportunities to practice in
context.(Ibid.9)

In the words of Larsen-Freeman (2003),

“… grammar (ing) is one of the dynamic linguistic processes of

pattern formulation in language which can be used by humans
for making meaning in context-appropriate ways.” (142).

Larsen-Freeman(2003) as seen above, seem to coin the term ‘grammaring’

which refers to “grammar as a skill or a dynamic process” (24).

It is possible to find out that the majority of grammar definitions aim

at the same idea. A great number of grammarians define Grammar as a collection
of rules that refer to the ‘language uses’ in a false context. It is necessary to think
that language use and usage are two different aspects though greater attention is
given to usage by many grammarians. However the rules are grouped and
classified to facilitate the learning process hence now the attention is centered on
the analysis of its real use.

There are several examples to include grammar definitions when they

have been related to sentence order, but now when seen from a pedagogical point
of view as a means to achieve this ‘use’ and not as an end, this presents a
different perspective. When grammar teaching is used as a real way to
 19

communicate, it is viewed as a tool for making meaning, so that it represents the

real world with real people and their influence in the learning process.

From all the above definitions and explanations, the following

observations are perceived:

1. Grammar is morphology and syntax (as seen in the statements of Brown,

Lock and Jung).
2. Grammar is not simply structure but it is in use in particular contexts (as
observed by Crystal, Richards, Platt, Batstone, and Ur).
3. Grammar is best seen involving some relationship among form, meaning and
contextualization (as observed by Larsen-Freeman).

Any discussions about grammar fall within three main areas. In the
words of Byram (2004), Grammar is social, pedagogic and linguistic:

“Social ‘what is to be regarded as standard grammar and what is

the status and role of other varieties, pedagogical ‘how grammar
is learnt and how it should it be taught’, and linguistic ‘what is
grammar and how does it work…’ ” (248).

These definitions take us into the cognitive dimension where grammar is seen
not in terms of its forms but of its underling knowledge system (Leec, Deucher
and Hoogenraad 1982; Larsen–Freeman 2003). This idea further coincides with
the ideas expressed by Evans and Tyler (2004) who said that

“Key insights from Cognitive Linguistics provide an account of

English prepositions that is substantially more accurate and
systematic than traditional accounts…(5)”

while applying the theories of Cognitive Linguistics to Pedagogical Grammar

particularly in teaching the English Prepositions.
 20

1.4. Types of Grammar

To elaborate Crystal’s (1997) view further, one can discuss types of

grammar such as Universal Grammar, Functional grammar, Descriptive
grammar, L1-grammar, L-2 grammar, word-order, structure-dependency come to
our mind. It is a small wonder to find out new terms such as functional grammar,
universal grammar or theoreticalgrammar (Odlin, 1994). The aforesaid
descriptions / definitions of Grammar further lead to the following categorization
of Grammar as shown in the following diagram:

Grammar

Normative grammar, Universal Grammar, Descriptive grammar, Functional

grammar.

Figure-1.2. Types of Grammar

1.4.1. Normative Grammar

Grammar establishes certain norms rather than presupposing them.

As Gramsci (1967) defines normative grammar:

by reciprocal control, teaching, and 'censorship' which combine

to establish a grammatical conformism, i.e. 'norms' and
judgments of correctness and incorrectness, these 'spontaneous'
expressions of grammatical conformism are necessarily
incoherent, interrupted, and limited to social strata, local centers,
and so on. Normative grammar always presupposes a historical
 21

'choice', and thus, norms are always acts of cultural-national

policy: they are not predictions, but declare intentions. (253)

In this way, every grammar appears to be normative for there are

rules to be learnt which are traditional and more prescriptive by nature and their
use is associated with isolated sentences: People when they learn it by heart find
themselves unable to use them when they are supposed to speak. Gramsci (1967)
also relates normative grammar with the organization, codification and
systematization of rules. Gramsci’s (1967) point of view is similar to that of
Saussure and his Structural Grammar; those studies were then the bases for
language teaching. Sentence structure was the most important aspect, and they
conceive that language learning is linear which in reality is not so. However,
such theories provided opportunities to improve the research about grammar
teaching, such as Chomskyan Universal Grammar.

1.4.2. Universal Grammar

Universal Grammar is related to the genetic components of the

language. Chomsky (1956) established a relation between knowledge and the
brain with his concept of Language Acquisition Device (LAD): he pointed out
that knowledge of language does not vary from one person to another because
the human being has a connection with an intricate computational system in the
brain hemispheres to provide specifics results. He thinks that the brain is
biologically programmed to learn a language. Furthermore this human capacity
permits to learn another language because there are many similar characteristics.
One of the main distinctive perceptions is:

“The basic concept is that the language is knowledge stored in

the mind. This knowledge consists of principles that do not vary
from one person to another and parameter setting that vary
according to the particular language that the person knows”
(Odlin, Torence. 1994:3).
 22

Chomsky (1956) states that the human mind cannot build language principles
and parameters; these principles are biologically programmed in all human
brains; for instance a person who knows Hindi and other who knows English
share the same language principles because all languages have structures, verbs,
adjectives, adverbs and many grammatical categories that permit learn it in the
same way. Cook (1990) summaries the implication about Universal Grammar for
language teaching as:

“Universal grammar is a reminder of the cognitive nature of

language: foreign language learning is the creation of language
knowledge in the mind as well as the creation of the ability to
interact with other people.”(3)

A further consequence of these Universal Grammar studies was that

many linguists have explored the arguments against it and new approaches to
teach grammar and understand grammar came into being; one such a new
method is descriptive grammar.

1.4.3. Descriptive Grammar

Within the context of foreign language learning and teaching this

descriptive grammar, in the words of Thornbury (2006),

“describes in a systematic way, the rules that govern how words

are combined and sequenced in order to form sentences…and
pedagogical grammar, which explores grammar more from a
teaching/learning point of view” (92).

He further adds the term ‘mental grammar’ and describes it as an internalized

knowledge about language and part of the learners’ competence.

The old school of thought emphasizes that grammar is associated with

structures, organization, verbs and rules that codify different varieties of
languages. This concept of prescriptive grammar cannot be denied however it is
 23

important to include the development of the knowledge about language and their
use in real contexts; consequently, linguists make an attempt to describe
language use in different contexts.For their description consists of

“accounts of not only syntax and morphology but also phonetics

and phonology, as well as semantics and/or lexis
(vocabulary)…descriptive grammarians often focus on
nonstandard dialects.” (Odlin, Torence. 1994:3)

In fact, descriptive grammar is the base of the communicative approach because

its goal is associated with the language uses and:

Descriptive grammar looks at the way a language is actually

used by its speakers and then attempts to analyze it and
formulate rules about the structure. Descriptive grammar does
not deal with what is good or bad for language use; forms and
structures that might not be used by speakers of Standard
English would be regarded as valid and sometimes included. It
is a grammar based on the way a language actually is and not
how some think it should be. (http://www.english-for-
students.com/Descriptive-and-Prescriptive.html )

Descriptive grammar seems to have some limitation in the sense that

it gives information about an extensive range of structures and uses in a language
but it does not say anything about acquisition, direct access, indirect access,
input, output and the importance of vocabulary.

1.4.4.Functional Grammar

Simon Dik (1997) developed the theory of Functional Grammar that

means the organization of natural language; he proposed two types of paradigms:
formal paradigm linked to grammar as a set of formal rules that could be applied
separately to the meanings and uses.

Dik (1997) proposed that Functional paradigm is connected with

language uses, and stated that
 24

“A language is in the first place conceptualized as an instrument

of social interaction among human beings, used with the
intention of establishing communicative relationships. Within
this paradigm one attempts to reveal the instrumentality of
language with respect to what people do and achieve with it in
social interaction.”(:3)

Praguean Functionalism School (1974) focuses on grammar

associated with the pragmatic position and description of different interactions
with the syntax, voice and intonation. Halliday (2003) described in his theory of
Systemic Grammar that humans have a system of meanings as a part of the use
of language.

A language is a system of meaning, a semiotic system, and

Semiotic means “having to do with meaning”. Human beings
use numerous semiotic systems, some simple and others very
complex. A language is almost certainly the most complicated
semiotic system we have; it is also a very fuzzy one, both in the
sense that its own limits are unclear and in the sense that its
internal organization is full of indeterminacy.(2)

He proposed that ‘semiotic’ is an action form that helps to identify the

context in which the language should be understood; it is a powerful tool to
internalize the communicative process. In human beings, language permits to
recognize different types of signs that can be organized as syntagmatic,
realizational, stratificational and paradigmatic complexities in the brain to
produce verbal interactions (Ibid.2).

According to Campbell (1996),

“Functional grammar emphasizes the ways in which language

functions to assist meaning, but also relies upon knowledge,
understanding and the use of terms of traditional grammar.”
(98).
 25

He considers grammar as a vehicle to use language; the central idea is to employ

grammatical knowledge contextually, pragmatically as at times a speaker may
not stick to conventional grammar.

So, functional grammar opens a new perspective to teaching grammar

in real situations because this proposal argues that language exists in contexts.
Nevertheless, acquiring the grammatical system is important in communicative
act because learners must express their ideas taking into account their
grammatical knowledge, the language use permits that rule will be internalized.
So, clearly it is necessary to introduce a type of ‘teaching grammar’ such as
Pedagogical Grammar aiming at communication.

1.5. The Necessity of Grammar

Is there any necessity to teach Grammar at all? Why should grammar

be taught? If so, how is it to be taught? ---questions, which many teachers may
have asked themselves, can be reformulated by making reference to “the claims
and counterclaims for and against the teaching of grammar” in the history of
language teaching (Thornbury, 1999: 23). According to Greenbaum (1991)
studying grammar has its own practical purposes. He is of the opinion that
learning how to use a dictionary (for the pronunciation of words, for example) is
less difficult for students than to refer to a grammar book. The ability to use a
grammar book requires a certain amount of grammatical knowledge, this is
where grammar instruction comes to help; this instruction includes learning
words, and getting familiarized with grammar rules.

However, Keh (1991) is of the opinion that

“rules-based grammar handbooks and reference books specially

designed to help student writers have been criticized because the
rules in the texts are clear only if known” (17).
 26

Accordingly, if the grammar rules are un-understandable to students, they may

not be able to use them “to gain the grammatical accuracy required of final-
product papers” (Keh, ibid.17).

There is a mixture of beliefs regarding grammar instruction. Some

scholars support the exclusion of grammar learning (e.g. Krashen, 1982, Prabhu,
1987), while other researchers emphasize the need to include grammar teaching
in CLT (e.g. Lightbown & Spada, 1990; Nassaji, 2000; Spada & Lightbown,
1993).

Krashen’s (1982, 1985) hypothesis of acquisition versus learning has

had an influence on the notion that focusing solely on meaning is sufficient for
SLA. In his hypothesis, Krashen claims that there is a distinction between
acquisition and learning. He believes that acquisition happens naturally,
provided that learners receive sufficient comprehensible input, and that only
acquired knowledge can lead to fluent communication. Also, Krashen’s Monitor
Hypothesis proposes that explicit form of teaching only serves as a tool for
monitoring learners’ language. That is, learners learn grammatical rules only to
monitor the correctness of their language use, which is in addition to what has
been acquired. However, the advocates of explicit grammar instruction argue
that it is inadequate to acquire a L2, if meaning is the only focus. (Wong.
2012:63)

When one thinks of Grammar in any ELT-context, one’s attention is

drawn to different dichotomies as Lock (1997:267) mentions such as form vs.
function, form vs. meaning, fluency vs. accuracy, meaning-based instruction vs.
form-based instruction, and the one which most emphasizes the denial of
grammar teaching: communication vs. grammar. In the history of ELT, these
dichotomies have their own place. In the traditional grammar teaching, in
Communicative Language Teaching (CLT) and in Post-communicative
approaches there is always a shift of focus from one to the other.
 27

Traditional grammar teaching was based on a formal notion of

improving linguistic competence which is viewed as the Structuralistic view of
language based on the analysis of form (phonology, morphology and syntax)
over meaning (semantics), to which it did not pay any attention. The main aim of
this is to improve the underlying knowledge of concepts and rules stored in the
minds of speakers which equated grammar with syntax and morphology,

The set of grammar practices associated with this approach are

‘presentation-practice-production’ type exercises which is a kind of a cycle,
where the teacher presents a new grammatical item with the rule and the
explanation of form and meaning. Then students are taken through some
controlled exercise an intensive practice / drilling to consolidate the rule, and
finally it is supposed to end in production. Thereby grammatical competence is
viewed as conscious, explicit knowledge of rules.

CLT (Communicative Language Teaching) was introduced with the

efforts of people like Hymes, Halliday, Widdowson, Canale and Swan, Bachman
etc., who extended the barriers of Linguistic competence to accommodate some
other competencies with a notional / functional view of language. There is a
widespread belief that Communicative Language Teaching does not include any
grammar. However, Spada (2007) argues that the thought that “Communicative
Language Teaching means an exclusive focus on meaning” is a myth or a
misconception (Spada, 2007:275). Any Communicative syllabus does have a
strong grammar basis. (Thornbury, 1999:23), that is to say, the functions into
which CLT syllabuses are organized are connected with their correspondent
grammatical points.(180). Thornbury (1999) talks about two types of approach in
CLT (1999 as follows:

The shallow-end approach to Communicative Language

Teaching is based on the thought that in order to make the
learner use language in a communicative situation it is necessary
 28

first to learn the grammatical rules and then apply them in that
communicative situation; on the other hand, the deep-end
approach to CLT is based on the belief that grammar is acquired
unconsciously during the performance on those communicative
situations, so it would be useless to teach grammar previously
and explicitly (Thornbury, 1999:18-19).

In general communicative competence advocates a broader view in

which socio-cultural, pragmatic and discourse issues are combined. Thus
grammar-teaching seems to have been redefined to include a more real
language corpus-based approach in which socio-cultural matters are taken into
account as they appear to play a major role in day to day communication. In the
words of Barrea-Marlys and Wong (2012):

There are various methods for teaching communicatively, for

example, immersion, task-based instruction, structured input,
and The Natural Approach (Krashen & Terrell, 1983). One
controversial aspect of CLT is the role of grammar instruction.
Krashen’s (1982, 1985) Monitor Theory suggests that grammar
instruction is unnecessary and has a very minimal effect on
second language acquisition (SLA). Since the revised version of
the Interaction Hypothesis (Long, 1996), CLT scholars have
become interested in integrating form-focused instruction with
communicative activities (Spada & Lightbown, 2009). Pica
(2000) argues that communicative teaching that focuses mainly
on meaning with very little attention to forms are not adequate to
prepare learners for attaining native-like proficiency. As such,
the role of grammar in CLT needs to be justified. Instructors’
pedagogical practices and their decisions regarding teaching
methods are heavily influenced by their teacher beliefs (61-2).

The fundamental goal of CLT is to develop learners’ communicative

competence in L2 through communication and interaction with others (Brown,
2002; Canale & Swain, 1980; Mochida, 2002). An important aspect of
communicative competence is related to effectiveness and appropriateness of
 29

speech during the process of communication, as described by Rickheit and

Strohner (2008). They state that

“whereas effectiveness describes the outcome of communicative

competence, appropriateness connects it with the situational
conditions of the actual social interaction” (16).

Communicative competence comprises four types of competence such

as linguistic, sociolinguistic, discourse, and strategic competence (Canale, 1983;
Canale & Swain, 1980; Swain, 1985). According to Canale and Swain (1980)
and Canale (1983) linguistic competence, aka grammatical competence,
concerns learners’ use of lexis, syntax, and structures. Sociolinguistic
competence refers to learners’ appropriate use of language in different situations
and settings. Discourse competence aims at the speakers’ ability to form oral and
written language appropriately and meaningfully. As suggested by the term
itself, strategic competence relates to the use of strategies that can be used to
make up for the inadequate abilities in other aspects of competence.( Wong.
2012:62)

Post-CLT method is more to do with the applied approaches such as

task-based teaching, ‘focus- on- form teaching’ and content-based instruction,
(Newby, 2006). There are two versions of Task-Based Language Teaching
(TBLT) such as strong and a weak version of TBLT. The strong version does not
deal with grammar teaching at all but the weak or focused-on-form version does
include explicit grammar teaching (Nunan, 2007:93). This distinction is similar
to the one about the shallow and deep-end versions of Communicative Language
Teaching mentioned discussed earlier. In the words of Harmer (1997)

“at this stage, it is enough to say that grammar teaching –of

both the overt and covert kind- has a real and important place in
the classroom”.(7)
 30

The preceding discussion on grammar, its types and the approaches

and methods used to teach it, further lead to the central concept pedagogical
grammar and a concise description of Pedagogical grammar is as follows:

1.5.1. Pedagogical Grammar-Descriptions & Definitions

Before going into the details, let us see the following Figure 1.3
which emphasizes some of the concepts put forward by linguists while
explaining Pedagogic Grammar.

Pedagogic Grammar.

Grammar exercises, Sentence examples for analysis, Teaching functions,

Discourse, Induction exercises

Learner-centred, Descriptions and explanations, Hypothesis-testing exercises

Figure 1.3 Pedagogic Grammar

For Allen and Corder the term ‘pedagogic grammar’ includes the
actual ‘grammar exercises’ that the teacher uses in the class-room. In contrast
Candlin (1973) seems to be turning to functions; he seems to be making a case
for organizing ‘pedagogic grammars’ not by structures but by functions.

Pit Corder[1973] thinks of four functions of pedagogical grammar;

1. Presenting the data and examples for analysis.

2. Providing descriptions and explanations.
 31

3. Induction exercises.
4. Hypothesis-testing exercises.

Candlin’s (1973) view is that pedagogic grammars are different from

the linguistic grammars. Pedagogic grammar needs to take into account
discourse rather than sentences. Because of the communicative needs of the
learners, and the need for fostering communicative competence, he suggests
organizing a pedagogic grammar according to functions.

Odlin (2006) states pedagogical grammar

“usually denotes the types of grammatical analysis and

instruction designed for the needs of second language students”
(p. 1).

Swan (1994), is concerned how to present the rules of pedagogic grammar

“effective grammar teaching then focuses on the specific

problems (real and potential) of specific learners”.(53).

It’s the learner who is more important and not the rigid grammar rule.

Westney (1994) identifies a number of issues in grammar pedagogy. It

appears that he doesn’t seem to be advocating for the presentation of grammar
rules in the classroom. The situation now is like the one in the story “The Lady
or the Tiger”. The answer for grammar in the class-room can be either way. The
most recent studies about teaching grammar present a “Pedagogical Grammar”
that does not follow a particular grammatical theory because it uses the main
characteristics of all them to help teachers improve the teaching process.

Morrissey (1983) says that pedagogic grammar is “a special type

of people grammar, namely one adapted to the needs of a
particular group of people (learners)” (196).
 32

It is intended for teaching purposes (Odlin 1994, Willis 1996). Talking about the
Pedagogical rules Westney (1994) and Willis (1996) are of the same opinion as
they consider the rules are broad formulations characterized by simplicity and
generality, and sometimes carrying exceptions.

Greenbaum (1988) considers pedagogic grammars as prescriptive by nature,

because their aim is “to tell students what to say or write” (34). Seliger (1979)
feels that Pedagogic grammar tries to provide the learners:

“the knowledge that native speakers unconsciously have in their

mind… and the rules act as catalyst in other words as
facilitators for language learning, for manipulating that language
effectively, i.e., nearly how language is really used, and for
helping the learner to avoid “inefficient testing of false
hypotheses” (360).

In the words of Greenbaum (1996) pedagogical rules

“are mostly not in dispute, such as the general rules for subject-
verb concord or for cases of pronouns” (34).

As Thornbury (1999) feels, these rules are formulated to be

comprehensive for the learners and to give them “the means and confidence to
generate language with a reasonable chance of success” (12). Several researchers
like Celce-Murcia 1991b, Ellis 1993, Odlin 1994, and Bygate, Tonkyn, and
Williams 1994 (cited in Lock 1996) contributed to “a noticeable revival of
interest in grammar teaching”. As a result, grammar teaching has received more
and more support from researchers and has come back into favour due to the
discarding of some practices (ibid.: 265).

In order to keep an important place in language teaching, in the words of Lock

(1996), the grammar instruction,

“needs to be informed by descriptions of grammar which

accurately reflect authentic language and show how grammar is
a resource for making and exchanging meanings in
 33

context….grammar should be seen as facilitating

communication in all modes, not as an isolated area of study
exemplified by ‘the grammar lesson’ ” (266-7).

Neman (1995) suggests also that the teachers should explain to the learners how
grammar allows the language user to express his ideas and to link them together
in diverse ways. For example, the teachers can explain that

“the first and second major classes of words (nouns, verbs)

express the ideas; the third and fourth major classes (adjectives
and adverbs) describe these ideas; and the fifth class (various
conjunctions, including prepositions) joins everything together”
(249).

According to Nunan (1991)

“Pedagogical approach derived from functional model of

linguistics also seeks to show learners how language differs
according to the context in which it is produced, the purposes for
which it is produced, and the audience to which it is addressed”
(152).

Thus, any pedagogical grammar is a description of a language made

simple for teaching and learning purposes and works as an aid in learning that
language, to facilitate the development of grammatical competence and the skill
of using grammar. In this aspect one has to take notice of Krashen’s (1981) view
of conscious learning as opposed to natural acquisition (cf Krashen 1981, 1982,
etc). It is an area of pedagogy which is sometimes referred to by applied
linguistics as ‘form-focused instruction’, a term which, however, is quite
inadequate since by its very definition it excludes semantic aspects of grammar
which, as will emerge in the course of discussions, are at the essence of the
cognitive plus communicative view of pedagogy proposed in this study.
Considerable attention has been given to supposed differences between
‘linguistic’ grammars, also termed ‘descriptive’, ‘theoretical’ or ‘scientific’ and
pedagogical grammars (Chalker 1994, Dirven 1990).
 34

There are other factors that influence ‘grammar’ learning. A teacher

with his knowledge of grammar also should use the psycholinguistic process that
takes place in grammar acquisition—implementation of theoretical principles
with the help of PG apart from other influencing factors such as traditions,
personal experiences as learners, cultural and educational context and
methodological orthodoxy. (Mitchell, 1994:91). Folse (2006) argues for balance
between theory and rule, practical and theoretical knowledge. Folse advocates a
pedagogical approach of grammar that makes our students and teachers as well
keenly competent not only in memorizing rules, but also in knowing the
functions of these rules and at least the basic knowledge of theories of grammar.
Furthermore, F. & J Aarts (1982) state that pedagogical grammar

“…enable foreign students to learn the language rather than to

provide insight into questions of a theoretical nature… supply
information about the facts without offering detailed
explanations of why these facts are as they are” (1).

They add

“pedagogical grammars play an important part in the student’s

linguistic education”, (ibid).

Such a thing however, is entirely different from what has been mentioned by
Folse who introduced pedagogical grammar as a balanced approach between
theoretical knowledge and practical and effective learning of language.

Warschauer and Kern (2006) advocate a net-work-based teaching

with three perspectives:

1. Structural (Bloomfield),
2. Cognitive (Chomskyan grammar) and
3. Socio-cognitive (Halliday).
 35

Teaching and learning grammar is a cyclical process, and teachers

need to innovate, design new materials suited to students’ needs and necessities,
create contexts that could promote communication and motivate students to learn
English and its grammar. Pedagogic grammar allows developing creativity in the
sense that students can interact according to the situations that the teacher
designs for improving the knowledge to communicate. So, to work with
pedagogical grammar in the teaching process makes the difference between
classical method and teaching tendencies.

It appears that a large number of the linguists, teachers, grammarians

and researchers raise issues connected to pedagogical grammar teaching: the
pros and cons of those issues raised by theorists will form a basis of the
following discussion.

1.5.2. The issues involved or raised by theorists in Pedagogical English

Grammar

Twentieth century is characterized by the rise of experimental theories

of language learning and development. Krashen’s theories of language learning
(1988) and the Communicative movement (Hymes, Halliday, Woddowson,
Canale & Swain, Bachman Brumfit and Johnson) encouraged more meaning
oriented use of foreign language which de-emphasized formal grammar
instruction. In language teaching there has been a shift of focus from teaching to
learning during the last 50 years, Ellis (1984) assumes that there is a strong
connection between what teachers teach and students learn. Rivers describes
teaching as “the teacher’s contribution to language learning.” (1983:2). Another
argument against the teaching of grammar emerged from Krashen’s Input
Hypothesis (1985). The hypothesis maintains that language learning progresses
as a result of learners being exposed to samples of the target language which are
a bit beyond the learner’s current competence. That is the input is
comprehensible, but contains elements of the target language, that are new to the
 36

learners. In this way the new items become part of the learner’s subconscious
grammar naturally and effortlessly.

From 1970s on there have been a number of teaching methods that

excluded grammar teaching, for example the Natural Approach (Krashen and
Terrell, 1983), Suggestopedia (Lozanov, 1978) and Immersion Programmes
(Baker, 1993). However, the strong point of natural approaches is that they
promote communicative competence, but they do not appear to encourage
grammatical accuracy.

All these new approaches emphasized communicative approach, in

order for learning to take place, with a greater emphasis on activities that involve
real communication and promote learning, tasks or activities that carry out
meaningful tasks that support learning process with more meaningful and
authentic contexts.

1.6. From Theory to Practice

As said earlier pedagogic grammar should take into account the

communicative needs of thelearner to a question ‘does formal instruction work?’
Ellis’ (1990); the obvious answer is ‘yes’. He feels that instructed learners
outperform naturalistic learners. Ellis also feels that instruction helps in the
acquisition of formulas. If there are simple rules and the form-function
relationship is not complex, rule instruction will have an immediate effect.

Another pedagogical issue which stares at the teachers always is

correcting errors - errors are not corrected at all - even if corrected, it is more for
facilitating learning. The concept of ‘repair’ and the ‘a process-centered
approach to error’ are the attempts that show the importance of error
‘manipulation’. Another important factor is evaluation. This is more of a help to
the teacher to evaluate what he taught is correct or not.
 37

1.6.1. Modifications and Theoretical Base

It is always the need of the students which is remembered whenever

materials are modified. And modified materials should have theoretical base.
While making choices a teacher always thinks of age, proficiency level,
educational background, rules, learners’ ability, etc. Pedagogic grammar is
aimed at the language learner and it is the user’s need that is held important
rather than any theoretical criteria. So, explanatory adequacy in a pedagogic
setting is essential for student’s use.

Pedagogic grammar faces greater challenges. Since language teaching

is concerned with teaching communicative acts, language teaching materials
need to be systemized and reorientated towards this goal. That is to say
Pedagogic grammar needs to take into account discourse rather than sentences
because of the communicative needs of the learner and the need for fostering
communicative competence. There are many ideological points raised by many
theorists but what is important is to find a pragmatic way and formulate it for
teaching purposes.

1.6.2. Practice

Several researchers like Celce-Murcia 1991b, Ellis 1993, Odlin 1994,

and Bygate, Tonkyn, and Williams 1994 (cited in Lock 1996: 265) contributed to
“a noticeable revival of interest in grammar teaching”. As a result, grammar
teaching has received more and more support from researchers and has come
back into favour due to the discarding of some practices (Lock ibid.: 265).

In order to keep an important place in language teaching, grammar

instruction

“needs to be informed by descriptions of grammar which

accurately reflect authentic language and show how grammar is
 38

a resource for making and exchanging meanings in context”

(Lock ibid: 276).

He also recommends to binding grammar teaching to the other skills like writing.
In other words,

“grammar should be seen as facilitating communication in all

modes, not as an isolated area of study exemplified by ‘the
grammar lesson’” (ibid.: 277).

Neman (1995) suggests also that the teachers should explain to the learners how
grammar allows the language user to express his ideas and to link them together
in diverse ways. For example, the teachers can explain that

“the first and second major classes of words (nouns, verbs)

express the ideas; the third and fourth major classes (adjectives
and adverbs) describe these ideas; and the fifth class (various
conjunctions, including prepositions) joins everything together”
(Neman ibid: 249).

1.7. Limitations of this study

Since the primary objective of this study is to investigate Pedagogical

English grammar and its implications in the context of teaching English to the
technical students in Chennai, this does come with certain limitations. The study
does not aim to cover all aspects of Grammar teaching. It is limited to
Pedagogical aspect of English grammar only. Moreover, the research has been
conducted by only keeping the students of Chennai’s technical colleges as
reference points. Therefore only situations and circumstances related to
Chennai’s students have been taken into consideration. Even though the research
is exhaustive, intensive and action oriented, with combined approaches of
qualitative and quantitative undertaken, but the findings and recommendations
may not stand as appropriately valid for the students belonging to any other
milieu as those belonging to Chennai.
 39

1.8. Data

1.8.1. Methodology

In order to address the research questions for this study, the

quantitative as well as the qualitativeparadigm was chosen to investigate a
phenomenon with details about how the teachers conducted their teaching
through classroom observations (Preissle, 2006). A qualitative approach further
allows us to hear the teachers’ voices regarding how they viewed grammar
instruction in Communicative Language Teaching through individual interviews.
Additionally, a case study design was also chosen, because it was necessary to
look into the various experiences, insights, and voices of a particular group of
second language teachers.

1.8.2. Data Collection

The interviews and surveys focus on the participants’ past experiences

regarding L2 teaching and learning. Data collection was done by conducting
non-participant observations and interviews, and by collecting a variety of
documents and records. Six to Ten classroom observations were conducted for
each participant in order to capture in detail how and if any of the participants
carry out grammar instruction in their CLT classrooms. The researcher also took
field notes with thick descriptions which offered details and rich data of these
observations. The field notes included what happened in the class, the teachers’
behaviors, the students’ responses, as well as questions and thoughts that came
up during the observations.

The individual interviews focused on the participants’ current

teaching experience in detail. While some interviews were also conducted by
the researcher to understand why they did what is observed in their class-rooms.
All the interviews were tape-recorded for transcribing. Accordingly open-ended
 40

questions were prepared and given to all participants for survey. This was in
addition to the interviews.

For the purpose of this study, syllabi, copies of textbooks used during
the observations, and handouts from each participant were collected because the
documents and records often contain information that requires accountability.
All of the participants use the textbook (give the particulars of the text books-
authors, publishers etc)). The syllabi listed class goals and objectives which
reflect the values of the instructors or the department about L2 teaching. This
source of information was analyzed and compared with the participants’ actual
teaching from the observations and responses from the interviews.

1.9. Data analysis

The collected data was analyzed systematically. In addition, categorical

analysis was employed in order to sort and code data into assigned categories.
The data was used to form bar graphs and pie charts, which interpreted the
results of different categories through distinct color codes.

1.9.1.Findings

From the preliminary data analysis, some major themes that could emerge are:

1. How they learned second languages,

2. Perceptions of grammar instruction in CLT,
3. And teaching practices.

1.9.2. Conclusion from findings

The students came up with a mixed response as far as approaches of pedagogical

grammar instructions were concerned. The teachers also felt that the success of
certain pedagogical approaches with respect to Chennai’s technical students
depended upon their educational background, mental caliber,personal interest
 41

and cultural environment at their homes. Pedagogical implications of teaching

English grammar to these students brought into focus that students progressed in
their confidence level and expression skills. The fact that they looked forward to
teachingmore innovative and learner-empowering approaches that could suit
their areas of interest as well as make them grasp English simply and correctly
was the most important result of the entire data analysis.