Lexically Principles and practice Hugh Dellar and ee DELTA TEACHER DEVELOPMeEGB | B DELTA TEACHER DEVELOPMENT SERIES Sories editors Mike Burghall ancl Lindsay Clancfiold Teaching Lexically Principles and practice Hugh Dellar and Andrew Walkley a PUBLISHING aP passed by Etta PUBLISHING ‘Quince Conage Hee Lane esse Surrey GUS9SW England vw delapebliis © Deta Fublshing2016 ISBN 9781-908.782-5 llrightsreserved. Nopart ofthis publ reprocessed in etreval system ce tans in anyon or by any means electron mechanical, photosopring, cording or atherwise, without the prior permision ofthe publishers, Edited by Mike Surghll Designed by Christine Cox Cover photo © Tom Franks/Shuttestoekeom nated by CP Antony Rowe, United Kingdom Acknowledgements iret and Foremot, we would both ik to thank eerjone Dela for believing inthis project fom the ar and fog their hard work and commitment to ensiriagitsesthe light of diy. Secondly. we would ike to thank colleagues pas and present fiom both the teaching and the publishing reales, Without the constant discussions, debate, arguments and interactions over the yours, we would not vee ableto develop our ideas fully 2s we have, Dui tn iniuby f chat leg ‘lenin ved ely ope eet tp Ueasevan tor Tamm Nie ae eee St Lise, Marga Der Deen Ken pi he Nene Dents gyn Grn Nee bh ep Arunachal Cale ron ce Compo wg, il Sarge Ande fash, Dl Sh ind Dna ipo “Thirdly, we are both eternlly grateful o our wives and tien, for induging us during the long hours writing that this project required of us. ‘And finaly, we would like thank Michael Lewis Jimmie Hill for lighting the Name for us back inthe mid- 1990s.and for subsequently encouraging us to kindle Hugh's ‘Thesceds for ths book were p ‘had qualified as a teacher and Indonesia. When [stated ti Indonesian, I was unconscia words’ appraich, memorsing. grammar forms and rales. The the leat! In teokme awhile o ease th nggonggong "the dogisba ‘example of bow the presenteo or was it representative of wt barking In short was sent sett grips with the nguaze, At the same ime, what wae ‘pertoies of rdatively fixed fearing grammaccal struct swasable tse within limited heard ale, and so on. Of ou repetition and practice. When ead The Lexkal appr lewis. found my language le inadvertentybrough me toa and hisbook provided me wit beat this simply ove writer working wi Aexcally-oriented thinking. Tater came t und However hile my ini rex energised me, cao vonfoune Seas about puting this wa 0 ase weren't as developed asth activities suggested often sen mount to athorough recon pedagogy Inthe years that fllowed —th ny wsitiag of dasroom mate vith studens, collegues and cidcas lid out in mate lexical teaching more a = hya a Hugh's story ‘The seeds for this book were planted in the early 1990s. 1 had qualified as a teacher and was living in Jakarta, Indonesia. When | started trying to teach myself Indonesian, Eas unconsciously using a'grammar + swords’ approach, memorising single words and studying grammar forms and rules. The results were: mixed, to say the least! Intook me a while to realise that a sentence like aj mengeomggong~"the dog is barking’ wasn'ta good example of how the present continuous was generally used, nor was it representative of what is said about dogs or barking. In short, it was a sentence I'd learned tor somehow get to grips with the language, yet which had no real utility, ‘At the same time, what was helping me was learning repertoires of relatively fixed questions and answers (often featuring grammatical structures Td not yet studied, but was able to use within limited contexts), common phrases 1 heard alot, and so on, Of course, there was also lots of repetition and practice, When I read The Lexical Approach (1993) by Michael Lewis, | found my language learning experiences had inadvertently brought me toa lexical view of language— and his book provided me with a clearer way of thinking about this. later came to understand that Lewis was simply one writer working within a long tradition of lexically-oriented thinking. rg itu However, while my initial reading of The Lexical Approach energised me, it also confounded me as I felt many of its ideas about putting this way’ of secing language to practical use weren't as developed as they might have been. The activities suggested often seemed tokenistic, and didn't amount to a thorough reconstruction of practical pedagogy. my writing of classroom material, with students, colleagues and other EFL professionats —1 came to the ideas laid out in this book: our attempt to ‘make lexical teaching more accessible and more widespread! Hy From the authors Andrew's story ‘My route toa lexical way of teaching probably started with ny filed attempts to learn French at school. It was only afier | started teaching in Spain that Thad any real success in speaking a foreign language ~ a suecess that stemmed far more from using the language than from studying geammar rules. [started out with no training, but my main approach was to not do to others what my teachers had done to me! Instead, 1 mainly chatted to my students and told them some words when they asked about them, We listened to songs and watched! videos. Grammar finally came back into view when I did my CELTA course. learnt how you could present grammar ‘via dialogues, and how it could be related to real-life ‘communication. l also discovered the Collins Cobuild Fnigish Course (1988), hich based its syabus around frequent words, and. Conversaion Gambits, from the same year, which contained chunks for conversation: ‘These experiences primed me to receive The Lexical Approach when | read it on my Diploma course. However, L ‘was also taking on other (sometimes contradictory!) ideas — such as teaching skill, and teaching grammar through comparing sentences and discussing differences in meaning, ‘Whea | first met Hugh, we were both beginning to wonder about where a lexical approach might gor what would the syllabus be? What should materials and classes be like? We continued to be influenced by other writers, our classroom experience and discussions with colleagues. Getting, involved in weiting and teacher training brought this into focus, because, when you're paid to share materials and practice, you want to be clear about your own beliefs and principles, ‘So for me, this book isan outline of where we have both got to so far in determining our beliefs, how these inform ‘our own practice and how we can ex} practice. L's a lexical approach, rather than the lexical approach teaching, rather than the vwuy of teaching ~ ane! we hope it helps you on your own Aol good waFrom the authors pe ‘Teaching lexically CGhapter One ‘Teaching vocabulary lexically What's the‘word? Choosing words to teach Giving explanations 1 Giving explanations 2 Giving explanations 3 Giving good examples 1 Giving good examples 2 Giving good examples 3 Giving good examples 4 ‘Asking questions about words 1 ‘Asking questions about words 2 Asking questions about words 3 ‘Asking questions about words 4 Asking questions about words 5 Asking questions about words 6 Using vocabulary exereises 1 Using vocabulary exercises 2 Using vocabulary exercises 3 Using vocabulary enercises Single-wond exercises Collocation exercises Whole sent Sentence-matching exercises Memorisstion tasks Grammar exercises Contents Page 3 Page? Page? Page 33 Chapter Twro Teaching grammar lexically When? Why? Who ta? ‘Checking answers to geammar exercises 1 ‘Checking answers to grammar exercises 2 Getting more from exercises 1 Getting more from exercises 2 Getting more from exercises 3 ‘Teaching grammar as lexis Grammar in vocabulary exercises 1 Grammar in vocabulary exercises 2 ‘Translation and grammar Chapter Three ‘Teaching speaking lexically Before students speak Preparation Scaffolding speaking tasks 1 Scaffolding speaking tasks 2 Feedback on speaking 1 Feedback on speaking 2 Feedback on speaking 3 Beyond correction Chat From speaking to materials: ‘Chapter Four ‘Teaching reading lexically Reading lessons Preparing for a reading lesson Before the text 1 etext 2 Before! Aefore the text 3 Reading loud ‘Gomprelvension tasks “Talking about reading texts Retelling texts Mining texts for language Exploiting and expanding on lexis Other kinds of speaking around texts Page 60 Page 61 Page 62 Page 6s Paget Page 6s Page 66 Page 67 Page 6s Page 69 Page 70 Page? Page 72 Page 73 Page 74 Page 73 Page 76 Page 78 Page 79 Page 80 Page 81 Page 82 Page 83 age St age 85 Page 86 page? page 88 Page ® page 9t Page 9? Page 93 Page 4 en OEEncouraging further responses ‘The benefits of extensive reading Appendix Chapter Five ‘Teaching listening lexically Similarities and differences with reading Analysing language Highlighting the stream of speech Generating appropriate language Withholding the correct answer Gapping texts Using scripts Reyond the listening lesson 1 Beyond the listening lesson 2 Beyond the listening lesson 3 Beyond the listening lesson 4 Appendix Chapter Six Teaching writing lexically Issues around writing Assessing written texts Helping students organise written work Linking words and phrases Exploiting model texts Process writing ‘Completing the process Using criteria for feedback Providing language-focused feedback Other reasons for writing Appendix Chapter Seven Recycling and revising Recycling Revisi Revision activity 1 Gapped sentences and dialogues 2 ‘Language-generating questions Revision acti Contents Page 95 Page 96 Page 97 Page 99 Page 100 Page 101 Page 102 Page 103 Page 104 Page 105 Page 106 Page 107 Page 108 Page 109 Page 110 Page 111 Page 113 Page 114 Page 115 Page 116 Page 117 Page 118 Page 119 Page 120 Page 121 Page 122 Page 123 Page 124 Page 125 Page 126 Page 127 Page 128 Page 128 Revision activity 3 Personal questions Revision activity 4 Using translations Revision activity 5 Student-to-student elicitation Revision activity 6 (Choose three expressions Revision activity 7 Tet reconstruction Revision activity 8 Repeat (and extend) activities Revision activity 9 ‘Test and remember Revision activity 10 ‘Team games. EE Choosing, using and writing lexical materials Assessing materials ‘Teaching one-to-one ‘Teaching low-level learners ‘Teaching young learners ‘Teaching EAP ‘Teaching exan ‘Teacher training ‘Schools and teacher development Organising courses your own materials classes Bibliography Glossary From the editors From the publisher Page 129 Page 129 Page 130 Page 130 Page 131 Page 131 Page 132 Page 132 Page 133 Page 134 Page 135, Page 136 Page 137 Page 138 Page 139 Page 140 Page 141 Page 142 Page 143 Page 44 Page 145 Page 147 Page 151 Page 152Bibliography We cite other authors and resources throughout the faa and the full relerence can be found in the bibllagraphy on | pages 145-146. | Gicssary onaeguar ens | cehrpeventematas aeeawan Teaching lexically ‘There have been many thousands of pages written about how people learn languages, yet ‘we would suggest they can all be neatly summarised ina very small number of principles. Principles of how people learn Essentially, to lear any given item of language, people need to carry out the following steps 1 Understand the meaning ofthe item. 2 Hear/see an example of the item in context. 8 Approximate the sounds of the item. 4 Pay attention to the item and notice its features 5 Do something with the item — use tin some way. & Repeat these steps over time, when encountering the item again in other contests, Principles of why people learn ‘The second area of principle that we think is uncontroversial, but that is worth spelling why people want ta learn foreign languages. The Council af Europe, which Published the Common European Framework of Reference for languages (CEFR), suggests people learn for the following reasons: © Todeal with the business of everyday life in another country, and to help foreigners, staying in their own country to do s © Toexchange information and ideas with young people and adults who speak a different language, and to communicate thoughts and feclings to them, © To achieve a wider and deeper understanding of the ways of life and forms of thought of other peoples, and of their cultural heritage. One underlyingassumption that the CEFR makesis that students will be taking lasses, as part of ther efforts to learn languages. I is perhaps worth questioning why this might be. Afterall, many people learn languages formal study It seems us that one of the fundamental reasons students take classes is that this allows the set aside some time for study, lot of people have neither the time nor the discipline to study on their own. While it is clearly true that the best language learners do a lot outside of class, we believe that teachers should recognise that, for what is probably the maor of learners, class time i basically all hey may have spare for language study. yout ever participa“That as implications fr the pace of progres and for evel but tao emphases howe that what happens in class ects the main linguistic wants and neds army biel fe Tobe able to do things with their language fe Tobeableto cat others. 1 elearnto understand etber cures better. Teaching and learning choices Mos ofthe principles outlined above ae ratvely undisputed, bat the thousands of ose writen abl si Hite priniplesare estan tthe fc that dbus dp remain. porticulr, ther smc lsagreement about the Following: fThevery nature of language ise What langage to teach, 1S Avther you ca actully teach and learn languages or whether they ae snply scquied. ‘¢ Theoder in which to each the langeage you choos: {Practical waysin whic cach principle of how to learn langage’ realised, f Therdatve importance ofeach principle Debates often tevoleatound the speed of the learning process, and how easly the leaner wri be aleve tae inthe items oflanguage taught and use them elective in the word ‘urs the classroom. There also mach dscusston about how the process canbe made for learnces. sore oro -t0 “The ches aces make wih eto ths sues maybe informed by reeichand Te ccaratoel etd tan abe free utretbheroediend eo err cone be Ar and ache vl nett wee al-fte “iGSincon bec pment epee experi ae ache gage soe Choe ara ily beat npr he product of te attudes adbeast time ad pcr ha each a erg i an eek ttay ae pe bes eactin trata che lr Ror esl oa teste cetaren OSk Renae snd games and he none vans corecton ah ieee (Gsexmplitel nthe rect emerge ofthe Demand High one) asin reat he fee apeing resting coon the 1D and 2008 The trorein angageovhng ards ah prices cou bese ref ote Concenpray ds tht clams tht wt ole want owen orld an ts Ta cons an sedge hist simply to stata as aches tanescd poomecabaerd tna ie eee waren feu when ces to our pple st megnema mons Choke fxr we lbs ee the principles derbi Ass he ae paosot Pat hat ie we wnt he tee or bl and prin Cee eps you cane cy tw ewes apts al i Patol Tec Lncly,‘The section on teaching young leamers.on page 198 stresses further the importance of exposure at lower levels, One view of language ‘Grammar plus words plus skills ‘Traditionally, the most dominant view in English Language Teaching is probably that ‘grammar + words ~ productive language. In other words, there has long been a belief that language can be reduced to a list of ‘grammar structures that you can drop single words into. You may perhaps have seen this described as something along the lines of ‘grammar providing the order into which you slot words: ‘Thisis a view of language that we disagree with. “There are a number of implications that fallow ftom this more traditional view af Tanguage —some of which may sometimes be explicitly voiced by teachers, and some which may not. Firstly grammar is seen as being the most important area of language. If ‘words are there to slot into the spaces which grammar presents, then it is grammar which must come first,and it is grammar which will help students do all the things that they ‘want to do, It also follows that the examples used to illustrate grammar rules are relatively unimportant. ‘Seen from this perspective, these examples don't necessarily have to represent what is actually said because understanding the rule will enable students to create all the sentences they could ever possibly want ~ in accordance with the rule. Ittherefore doesn't matter if an example used to illustrate a rule could not easly (or ever) be used in daily lif. Similarly, if words are to fit in the slots provided by gremmar, it follows that learning lists ‘of single words i all that is required, and that any word can effectively be used if it fits particular slat. Seen from this paint of view, Dracula did’ edoesn'tfcoulidy u/mnstatwon't live in Bruzil/Spain/dhe UK are all equally possible and grammatically correct. as are in studying Enlist, 'm nos studying English and Am I studying Englisht Naturalness, or the probable usage of vocabulary, is basically regarded as an irrelevance; students just need to grasp core meanings. At the sare time, synonyms® — words that 3s such as murder and assasinase — are seen as being more or less interchangeable and, if on occasion they are not, then this isa choice based purely on subtle shades of difference in meaning rather than anything else. In addition to this, an associated belief has developed: that grammar js acquired ina particular order ~ the so-called ‘building blocks’ appraach that sees students start by attempting to master what are seen as more basic structures, before moving on to more advanced ones, When following this approach, students do not get to see, let alone use, a structure before they have been formally taught it, For this reason, beginner- and -elementary-level coursebooks do not generally have any past or future forms in the frst half of the boak, and may exclude other common tenses and grammatical structures altogether. Finally, over the last thirty years, another layer has been added to this view of learning. This looks to-address skills— speaking, listening, reading and writing. If content is essentially catered for by the presentation of grammar nutes plus words, then where there isa deficit in fluency or writing or reading, the claim is that this may be connested toa lack of appropriate skill ‘These skills are scen as existing independently of language, and a lack of them is thought to result in such problems as not being sufficiently confident, not planning, not making‘he mts of gra ~ 2005090 61 0 ne of eves such a pictures to deduee meaning, nt thinking about the conext ofa Wls0 on ‘Asn eal nary cos llc co wach these skill and you wil pea find Ranebocks with sectins on gtammag sctionson voabulaty, and then sitios led teapeing, inten, writing or teading. The prevailing foemol might then real {grammar + worde + ails = productive language: Alexical view of language From words with words to grammar Insome sectors, the'gramma + words +skils~ productive language view atin fact hee are countries and instttions which organs ther asthe only opto Tangiagesylabues diferent, and ther is aso an alterative view of how language tf For mare en seme! “works thats spportd by research, observation of language and logical anguments. the prbiens caused by toeusing en synonyms = ‘Thisalternative view some we both share andinom to tala har = see page 98 we etum tothe principle tat learners want to beable o do things with ter language and tocommunicate, hen commgnication almos always depends more on wocabulary than on grammarevea if we asame the grammar + wont’ model: For expe, tke the sentence'T ve been wating tse tat film forages Saying wed se lero ikl ‘chieve the intended communicative messae na conversation than only wsig whatean herejarde! asthe grammarand Funston word: Tvebeen -ing to that From ths point of view, we should see words as more valuable. Tis does notentrly cexlude the‘grammar + words’ model, but i doesundermine it. Would the message be lesscearif the onde of those words were changed? Not dramatically: ‘fimsumsce see want fim seefiim yaamt went flesee Actuily the divion between vocabulary and granu is rarely clear-cut: inseait ‘ther fury Grammar i estricted by the words we use, and vie versa In daly fe there _are not infinite variations ofeach and every structure, and we dot aezpt syn in alles. For example, may say I've ben muting to ee ha forages but net be {fancyng sein ha forages, Smile may sy it high bung, ut 0 hh ‘man oF tll temperature Furthertnore, weovten make une of phrasesor chunkst of language, which apeat DE store and recalled as whole, ather than constcted from an undedlying kvl ot ‘rammar+ single words opt it another way, we consistently chewse one pati 9 ‘of saying something grannmatical, rather than any ofthe many over postities. In their seminal 1983 aetice “wo pcaes fr linguistic theory: native tke ction and native-ike Huency'~ Paley and Syer cite the way we tel the ime as anenample ofthis AU ofthe flowing ae grammatically posible, yet mest are not chase by Hoe spethers: isis ess wom. Wo think po fe ‘Us forty pat five. Hewes fe by fore. Hsu hind wax Ustenaper haf fe aig yo, alo crane toa fe ‘Most competent wer af Engi 1s oenty tse 1 five ory. Ther are thousands of sma instances, aiFor mate on some of ‘he problerms caused by focusing om EyRnnyT — ‘anc how ta tacks tham = ‘800 page {4 ldheas, wire ethers tat Lael Meinl Lewie tev ever fo Wie Haniel Appponnl (VP) that Lanpanyr orange thay shinny ‘icsic aliens granntvear ha tose Ine rejecteeh the ielen that ore shen cecvtinuve orithew eyfltiris onead cn tacethy stata satu, insteast,aebine ater Slab, natariabe wri teasing, canesens Frown this inet, a ensy of earner ‘ele! anil carrot eng te arma, xparially the input were meciatel In the yueasnce 1 tentiers helping, erate te neice fori and meanings. Mote recently, Michel Hoy has glenn heretical supeart for take nppronch. Fate beh Lexical Pinning (2005), We bev hers onitele vie wom ayryarenny pment ach result and conmseyuence ~ typically function in cite different ways Sentbticaly, ie be mete ‘comanon than the other ir ureet stutieiss atid olen thee diffe venice wre wer rearend The way synonyms are weed differs wet only in tetmne Of ve ember nonce nuriediateby they cullocate wits, ut aloe iu terre thie sorte tht crv rece i the wider surrounding tect, Near synenyers ry aber ence in diferent parted sentence 4 in different yerites*, or ray be follevted ly diferent yprarnnnatical alters. Hoey argues that these tatistical differences must cone about because, hen we fst ‘encaranter thea wena (he calls suche envceiiters"pritninga®’, (our bawine wvariehizar Aaliconsschaly tecord nn tall oF Wis ini vf indbonnatien abvaut thee ara thie wend are used, Our next eniconnter may ceaffires— a possibly contradict = this initial prin as will the neat encenuriter, and the ene after that — and wer rn, AC this were not the cae, then reiald and comseamnre nil he ensally prevalent in alt cases, or one weuild be used more consiatenthy in all eantete, Hevey suzgeata that enacry of what se night Une a8 bong rr grannaneatica cies ave acta eterenione ty thee wore themelves anil hy Our experience of haw they are used and the raters that attach theinselves ta the warns — rather than by any underlying kecened ge of yramaar rules and ‘ay abiity to then slo in yur, Hoy hav ali cited evidence from paycholinguistic studies to support his luirns about saich pices, ane terhelyy explain wy lanyuipe vse ark in this way, One experiment fhe mentions shew hw words ure recogni auicker when they are related in use than when they are nS, far ccunple,ence atest sulject has been wien the wore come, the vols millon jet enight then be vecengniseel mene quickly than, say, the word wisport. In anenther experinvent, unrelated pairs af wares wie w scaler onion were taught. After 3 day during which the est subjects were exposed to 4 lor more language, participarite were them tested nn reugnition af wards based an peornpt weirds. When the prompt word was ‘onfon the yond svarted was recalled snore quickly than ether words, “These experime iy, hat we do indeed remember words in pairhngs and in Agape ad that dln, allow for quicker and more seitate prenessingol the language ‘we hear and want to produce, Quicker, “creative ventenc neceppt thin, hen it's we read anid the eave and sof lanygaape vers bing nner fan be arn too real « Heng lr bvclive that spoken fluency, the speed at acy with which we Listen: may all develop as. renult iar oath geemioags of oe, This certainly seerna to libel source af ceveloprvent than relying on ceinstructing seniterices fron the ig runnin ane ear, Seen like this, prablern connected tr skills essentially cone back te being more abeut ”Tre sections on teaching EAP page 198)00d ‘out clase (rage 140) ‘enprasce new essential w ramgage students not only dont know enough words, but fey aoe Tho words a use or how they might sound ina group of word, Sen ace, sch as Nik El (2013) have agoted hat what allowsanto acqie sea ser encour with wocabulae nvimatl intertwined wih granin Tiger the example ofthe sentence He manu cos th flo, We cn workout aaa might mean, or or less because ee know many her's + verb aay powers ok en he flrs ae er) rc he lr ater vtewue he loo, cral aos the flv, are 30.09) fall hese pout examples,the vast majority factual se wil consist very Seer number ef words wth ars He lor and wulk eres the Aor bing he rot poke is ergs that itis repented hearings of he quer onbinatians ta er ish these bave patterns in the rind and that once we have these pies, we are thenabeto understand ad to lt in new words, problems wi experience nwo, but Thisshows how puters canbe generative Ia shows how grammar ca iytaughtin vee noe robe wor cle thatthsisnt the kind of grammar which i gene urchoots Instead, its what we coul eal Yexico- grammatical patterns ‘Now for the sake of cay ets state hatin Keeping with these dens we believe hat: words have more valve than grammar 1 fangunge essen lexically driven, and words gene conected grammar «¢ our own ages determined by ourexperiznce of how languages wed 1 theresa age number of pater that can be gnerativet at east see degree and Uhisinctades the iodtionil graramarpatets taught in ELT). «e the eat majority ofthe examples of any ope patern will be made up of: small parentage fall the posible word that could be used with he pater ae ctloations and pater wil be primed to ge with othe collocatons and puters ia sini ited ways, ly come with thir own A lexical view of teaching ‘Towards a practical lexical pedagogy Setting ou tes principles sbvut langue none thing. There stl remsinsthe iste of “hooregishat to tech, the order things might be taught nad ove we can gue sts throvgh the sx steps necessary for Iearninghat we outlined atthe bgianirg of Part. ‘Over the at thirty years some researchers Who have seen as in the grasa + ‘words aks node! bane angus that wha eamere lexan and the onde they leat t ican only be determined bythe lamers themselves. Tey harealsosuggeset ht the conscious teacng/earning of grammar s useless cr at best f only marginal benefit Stephen Krasben's and Tacyerells The Natura Approwch (1982) ar oe metho fused an exensive reading? have emphasise the heering/scing stage: According RO penpectves tents do not explicitly rn language ater they ae thought 3 the language by seeing hearing things which are comprehensible, but whoa linguistic feature just beyend what they ar eapabeof preucing tense “The ordet in which his acquisition occurs sen as being fairy ied, From this pit ‘of view, nstrction ~partclacyat ower levels hus very litle purposes spt F ‘prove comprehensible input though itis claimed that at ater tages, some iste $c Forrror on wavs at werking with = see page. SEFor more on ways, of working wath spontaneous speech ~see page 80. about rules may help with for errors, icing and may help learners to monitor what they are saying. ‘Thereare other models that slso take the ides that language can’t be pre-taught as such, bot can only be taken on board when students are ready to receive it. These approaches have tended to focus on the stage at which learners use language, when part are also able to learn through hearing other speakers’ language, comprehending it and incorporating it into their own usage. ‘This idea is at the heart of Tack-Based Learning (TL) and Michael Long’s Interaction Hypothesis (1996), which suggests that new language is learnt through interaction with, and input from, othersat the point that communication breaks dowa. Long and other ‘TBL advocates have increasingly recognised that teachers may have a role to play when comes to helping students notice forms as they arise during the process of doing tasks*, provided this isnot based on a pre-set grammar syllabus of the type usually found in coursebooks, More recently, so-called Dogme teachers (see Teaching Unplugged (2009) in the Delta ‘Teacher Development series) have advocated a similar process - with a somewhat stronger teacher role that involves identifying and working with what has been dubbed ‘emergent language’ from student conversations. This may lead to a spontaneous teaching focus ‘on —and practice of - a structure or structures as well as of woeabullary. This approach ‘emphasises conversation over task, but again strongly rejects a pre-set syllabus applied t© a whole class, and is (sometimes vehemently) opposed to coursebook use. All these approaches to the practices of teaching can be seen as responses to observations that all teachers must surely have made at one time of another: @ We teach a structure. ‘© Students practise it, and seem to understand and be able to use it in controlled conditions. ‘© Then, in freer, more meaning-focused communication, the students revert to making mistakes with the very same structure, “These approaches also have roots in influential research that suggested that forcign language students acquire structures in a similar order to native speakers, and that this ‘order can't be changed — so there is no point teaching grammar if students are not ready for it. “This tine of thought was then reinforced by the logical argument that students in any one clays will all be at different states of readiness, so teaching the same thing to everyone, swithout knowing whether they are ready, will not optimise classroom teaching, Finally, there is the belief that we learn best from experience and from our own mistakes. ‘However, there is also an irony here. These theories have emerged from a questioning of the traditional grammar syllabus, but the validity of the new theories is effectively based ‘on how successfully grammar is arnt! This is then generalised out toll language, I is We weren't having ant argureat. We were just hurving a fave © Word form ‘As we saw in the last example, we may also use different forms of a word within in texts, For example: 21wee, Wetter owweraton a ens Cagnelaguruen, Sanuetlnes,dilleren rad ‘erie famiene rot wo lee ferent meaning. and et lg, mein dts ieee seer MOReaip eee ee Preset an a Incl, you might ash the students > 4 Mat ema me dt ai fot »Ot ‘nce hey ne rove he AMET 08 MH Ten ako Wa eee gM antaseur ques abot cilocation hatte connected othe es because thes lla be wed difereiy ¢ Pragmatic meanings Sortie ngs ase shy The he dl in te UK easing meaning oa tea sear imagine» pregmcra me Sr ean anvinen than for present an apument Fo example ne cnas someone wating susie when ante eson apes a sho age “The mating perso ayes Theyre haingan arent ‘lay this ope espn Pragmatialy spain it an tne ny they ar wating and advice to theo erson not to knock So we ma aes respon sich Ohrigh Tanks Peon ck ltr En mostpeople thes laprof undertandingare cer. and we doo ray omdwaat «FORE such aspect ofthe languge, twee thee Rae some somone soon Sere stant indasbr aligns eee RRL SHM sa Necks | TSS ST Theme” USE item eonsstothesitenen whe mentee | hie ‘A They having arunent 2B: What abou? A They ving an argument Why Pabeonbape dad A Theyre having toeiee whet pt Athan ae tara hae ania tons of Atheism gone language, wow page 97, ™ 1 an bk ae © Synonyme aly, nay Kr Wot Lance OPA oF wo Tsun hems at my tou 1 Att case ery Fa, sony ‘hae arsonist, en vie oy mony a ay bg meaning Hae 8 AE et ty at via ech se Rae INCENSE yun We igh see ta nw a At taco "Hee argument. A¥ eae inh A ANEFor mone on concept checking, ee the tasks on page 62 ~ and thase (on page 63 for more on explanation, fan argument, row may share some collocations, but nat others, so someone is much more Tikely to be atthe centre ofa growing row than at the cenie of a growing argument. Row may also be more common with certain genres, such as political journalism. It is also used by native speakers far ess frequently than argument, and so, in class with students ‘who havea limited amount of time, rather than asking ‘What's another way of saying hhave an airgumem?” — a question which might generate words with similar (but slightly different) meanings, we wauld probably be better off teaching something different and more frequent - oF else simply exploring the word they have just earnt in more detail, Grammar: a lexical view A broader, more nuanced perspective One of the most common misconceptions about teaching grammar from a lexical perspective is that it somchow means a ban on the us¢ ¢f grammar terms such as noun, ‘verb, preposition, the present continuaus, and s0 on —or, worse, that it means no explicit focus on grammar whatsoever. Certainly, there are plenty of people who have acquired a second language without having learned this kind of meta-languaget, but we believe that if students are familiar with these terms, it makes it easier for teachers to draw attention to language and to encourage the students to notice salient features, We have already scen one small example of this earlier, when we looked at how we might expand an students’ knowledge of words of the same word family. (tare park ‘We have also seen that a central partof the process of larning has to be notising, and many theorists ~ even those like Krashen and Long, who emphasise a more natural’ kind of acquisition that mirrors the way children acquire their own first language ~ suggest that ‘some knowledge of rules may contribute to the learning process. ‘We very firmly believe that the kind of basics that you riight have learned om initial training courses, such as explaining rules and checking concepts with questions, ate good things ta have in your repertoire. ‘However, as we have already seen, taking a lexical view of language means realising that what can be described as'grammar’ is much broader than traditional ELT coursebooks suggest: © Atraditional coursebook will typically have between 20-30 grammar points, many of which will be repeated and expanded upon at different levels, This means probably no more than about a hundred iterns altogether, © In contrast, a lexical view of language might reveal, and make exp! several hundred patterns if not thousands, o learners, ‘At the same time, though, having a lexical view of language also means seeing the restrictions on creativity and the limitations on variations that occur within patterns, because, as mentioned earlier, sinall number of possible words tend to dominate in any given pattern, When tackling the meaning of verb tenses (which still wand to dominate courses), a lexical teacher might not want to-spend much more time on the a comparable number of words. For example, the mearing of present tenses is essentially now / the fusure~ the present simple signifies one of the following: habit / ae a part moment / timetabled | fact f always; while the present continuous form simply means temporary | in progness | iacomplete ot einphuasis, than they would on teaching,Fer tiem on exotoring aura usage, S00 ts aks on page 66 Se 1 spend hour after hou eabing and reseching Nong would cea Oe on hour of precious clssfO0M time going ge, spend how is, unfortunateyal that we are realy ryctures, that raunene ome thse rules ads mobing 9 20 tudeny 8 ‘ver the mean inthe sense that ore fucntl communicate more fucntl then, about teaching a Breer NaFity OF patterns ang a ways Limited, But not Himitng, BECAUSE the ether lexical view is that we payattention to set, out usage beyond the sentence lve, “Teaching gramme tex exploring ther in ote i hing about thing rama Fam 8 sp a nea ining OE ‘@ Chunks as grammar and in discourse Z aa eae inpancla ay wel be Best 0 restrict SWEENEY CPOE aay ra etures Sngle phrases —or chunks, if you prefer — Such as Have yu gr. Renee canbe presented and learbel as individual items, rather than being cas hen hast be taughe in its eatirty —with examples of positive sentences, negative aj ‘question formal illed witha wide range of diferent verbs, H's worth pointing out here that Fave you ever been 10 + place” isa geiratve pater, just as‘have-+ subject + past participle is, I-may be les ‘creative and limited, but itisake rounded in common usage. Furthermore, when looking at such a pattern, the lexical teacher might focus mere on exploring language that might be used alongside it~ andiag ‘om the many different possible ways thatthe structure itself could be lexiealised. froma al uo ‘We might be less concerned, for example, with using auxiliaries in short answess (Yés, Thave / No, I haven't} and more concerned with what follows a particular structure in every conversation. This might means considering the range of possible respons the question above: oe oN © Nonever Hime yo? 1 Nosmerer, al ove. © Ye quite few times actually © Nob hiking of go ng there this swoumer, actual ee ng there this summer, ataally: In other words, we would: the grammar in one go focus mote on discourse than on trying to cover allaspe At higher levels, we would an be lexicilsed (Haye te), but we would “viously expandon the range of diffrent ways 2st il nt eit Have you ver red | Have you eve fa dnd contin oe LAs more on the most common verbs used within explored, "Kat how discourse around examples ofthe strvctre students to 8 is that, in asking student to gues, isspent on infrequent language te used to explere something more weft the problem with tl roma lexical point of ve paradovically MOF unusual words time and ene a pay never hea again— en te be ing words to meanings which has the adn Ihe combinations that werds age often used nw the words sounded in context, when (2013) has called their‘sound sap This vaso often the case with mate problem of not deasengatention 1 cient time might be spent of No ‘Richard Cauldwell therefore, more concerned with requ ks and thesounds of words in canis Finally, insu rapid spesch might chang Lexical teaching tasks that fo vrords and hows they work in contests FeUsH se what tus on language ars, ble chu © Post-text talk as view of reading or istening may actully Tad to Ite ener between anaes bene the lesson is seen to be aber reaing oF sting ‘Where there is a speaking lak, it wil often be bout the reading, OF simply seme kind of forther comprehension check. sare talked about which ng about how tex hat the students could use to talk abou he students to talk about thet ‘esc view of texts would vole thin ied encourage teaching of nguag one Sgt hat tens shouldbe ved to encourlge tincanetcn lng and to understand more abou ute However, becauise the use of texts in the classroom is also about learning language W one ents odo satin with tht langage In sass tmighbe2g0 aaa petadnts odo some post-tet speaking, based an some of he NB fromm the text that may already have been focused om, Speaking ‘The ‘grammar + words view as tended to view speaking in ass swords and gromma, but ha so le othe creation of a stinet nd Functional tsk, which might allow forthe teaching of soe chuns eh help particular things ~advise, complain, request, and so on, ‘Added to this, the skis view of Speaking hs tended to distinguish beticen accuracy and fhuncy activities ssa chance 0 pratt arate css of leanne oe focused on geting students to produce particular language = Ws errands eyo the pirical in terso¥ © soo mst ‘© With fluency, the Wea isto focus cus on meaning. or ona taskyand not to woe" intertupt or correct ude? bout mistakes. As suc, teachers are encouraged not during fuency-oriented activities, ™ ert leo sua With the exception of wun Me e sia roleplays, it has often been the case that th nthe tasks done in class and the kinds of conversations He For mn agian for pee and 73