Topic 3: Concept and Teaching of Grammar.

Grammar

according to Language Use.

Index

1. Introduction

2. The concept of grammar: different types

3. Various grammar frameworks: their implications in teaching

3.1. Traditional grammar

3.2. Structural grammar

3.3. Transformational-Generative Grammar (TGG)

4. A shift towards language in use: Systemic-Functional grammar

5. The place of grammar in teaching

5.1. The Second language acquisition theory

5.2. Six golden rules to teach grammar

5.3. The traditional model for introducing grammar

5.4. The task-based approach

6. Conclusion

7. Bibliography

6.1. References for this topic

6.2. Legal Framework

6.3. Web resources

1
1. Introduction

It was Albert Einstein who stated “I never teach my pupils, I only attempt to

provide the conditions by which they can learn.” For many years, giving

students endless lists of grammar rules to memorize has played a central role

in Second language learning. Nowadays, in opposition, there are different

views on what learners need to learn and on how best to go about teaching it.

In this essay an attempt to answer the following questions concerning

grammar teaching and learning will be made:

⇒ What is grammar?

⇒ How do people learn grammar?

⇒ How can relevant input be provided for learners?

⇒ What role does grammar play in different teaching methods?

Other questions are still in debate among the academic community:

⇒ Should grammar be taught at all?

⇒ Does it offer the best organizing principle for a language curriculum?

2. The concept of grammar: different types

The word “grammar” is descendent from the Middle English word

“Gram(m)er(e)”, which in turn was borrowed from the Old French

“grammaire”. Until the 16th century this term was used only to refer to the

grammar of Latin; in a now obsolete sense, “grammar” meant simply “the

Latin language”.

2
Today, if we think of the word, different definitions will come up depending on

the approach and the evolution of the concept. Let us consider the definitions

below:

1. The group of rules about sentence formation, tenses, etc. included in a

reference book.

2. Exercises (fill-in-the-gaps, multiple choice…) about grammar tenses.

3. The moment-by-moment structuring of what we say as it is being said or

written.

4. Our internal “database” as to what are possible or impossible sentences.

Definition 1 relates to the term reference grammar

Definition 2 refers to pedagogic grammar. The pedagogic grammarian

Michael Swam suggests four good rules in the design of pedagogic

grammars: simplicity, truth, clarity and relevance.

Definition 3 and 4 match with the most extended idea of what language is. For

example, if someone says “Yesterday afternoon…”, we can predict that the

sentence will be followed by a verb in the past. In the same way, knowing

English grammar means knowing that the sentence “People is happy” is an

impossible sentence. That idea is intimately related to the concept of

grammaticality or ungrammaticality included in Chomsky’s Transformational-

Generative Grammar, analyzed in the upcoming sections.

Another significant distinction is that between prescriptive and descriptive

grammar. According to Crystal (2003) Prescriptivism establishes that one

3
variety of language has an inherently higher value than other and ought to be

the norm for the whole of the speech community. A reaction to this view was

born in the 1960s, when linguists felt that language should be taught as it is,

that is to say as it is actually used by a certain speech community. It is known

as descriptive grammar.

3. Various grammar frameworks: their implications in teaching

Let us not go over different grammar frameworks and their evolution

from the traditional models up to notional-functional grammars.

3.1. Traditional grammar

Kelly’s (1969) informative survey on language teaching over “twenty-five

centuries” revealed that until the middle of the twentieth century, learning

foreign languages was synonymous with learning Latin or Greek. The relevant

teaching method appeared in the middle of the 18th century and was named

the Grammar translation method. Since it was intended to learning classical

languages, reading classical text and translating them were the only activities

in the classroom. Grammar rules were studied and memorized in the mother

tongue. Among its important gaps, we may highlight the following:

⇒ Little or no attention was given neither to speaking nor to present-day

language.

⇒ Morphology has a predominant role, neglecting syntax.

⇒ Mistakes had to be avoided by all means.

4
At the turn of the 19th century, as a reaction to this method, the direct method

was born. It proposed teaching grammar inductively and using the target

language in the classroom.

3.2. Structural grammar

With Ferdinand de Saussure as its leading founder, this school of thought

viewed language no longer as a collection of rules but rather as a list of

structures. Structuralists limited themselves to form, without taking meaning

into consideration.

The teaching method inspired by this grammar view was the audiolingual

method, based not only on structural linguistics but also on behavioral

psychology. Although based on largely discredited theories, audiolingual

techniques and activities continue to have a strong influence in many

classrooms. It aims to form good habits through listening to drills and

repeating them until students can use them spontaneously. Bloomfield’s book

Language (1933) is one of the exponents of audiolingualism and

structuralism.

3.3. Transformational-Generative Grammar (TGG)

In the 1950s, Noam Chomsky came up with the idea that conceptualization of

grammar rules was necessary to understand and generate an infinity of

sentences. The notions of universality, creativity and innateness are central to

this paradigm. He also developed the categorization of constructions into

grammatical, ungrammatical and different degrees of grammaticality too.

5
He refined the basis of structural grammar by pointing out the importance of

rules for constructing sentences. There is also a shift from the importance

placed onto teaching towards the study of language. The teaching

implications of this grammar are to be found in cognitive theory (Carroll).

4. A shift towards language in use: Systemic-Functional grammar

SFG was proposed by Halliday (1973) and highlights the role of language as

a resource for making meaning. Language is said to be systemic, that is to

say a semantic system that works within the framework of other different

systems. In addition, it is said to be functional because of the functional nature

of language. This sharply contrasts with Chomsky’s grammar, which is

essentially mentalistic and describes language by using introspection. The

teaching method derived from the SFG is the Communicative approach.

Some characteristics of this method are:

⇒ An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction

⇒ The introduction of authentic texts into the learning situation

⇒ Grammar learning is not the final objective of teaching but the means

by which the student communicates

5. The place of grammar in teaching

If we ask an average English-speaking person about his/her knowledge of

grammar, he or she may admit not having any. The same person can say a

sentence like: “I’d rather dance with him”. Linguists have been investigating

native speaker’s knowledge of grammar for years. The fact that they are able

6
to verbalize this knowledge has led to believe that they do not have a

grammar. However, it seems impossible to construct a sentence without

knowing grammar. Consequently, native speakers do have a grammar, but it

is stored in the mind unconsciously. It is implicit knowledge vs. the explicit

knowledge that allows us to explain the rules of grammar.

That being said, do we expect English learners to have the same kind of

competence? is it acquired by deliberate study or by subconscious absorption

of the language? At this point it is essential to mention the work of the linguist

Stephen Krashen (1981) as a staunch defender of acquisition in second

language learning.

5.1. The Second language acquisition theory

Krashen’s theory of language is based on five hypotheses:

1. The acquisition-learning hypothesis

According to this hypothesis, acquisition is an unconscious process in which

the person is not aware of the grammar or the rules they use. Errors are

accepted as a normal part of the process.

Learning occurs consciously; it is necessary to study the rules which govern a

given language in order to make corrections and change our output.

2. The natural order hypothesis

This hypothesis states that grammatical structures are acquired in a fairly

predictable order in L1 (native language) and L2 (Second language).

Nevertheless, two points can be made against this hypothesis:

7
a) We do not have information about the order of acquisition of every form or

structure in every language.

b) The existence of a natural order of acquisition in L1 does not imply that we

should teach second languages along this order.

3. The monitor hypothesis

The monitor hypothesis explains the relationship between acquisition and

learning. Acquisition is situated in the first place and learning is secondary.

Learning is used as monitor only; In order to use the monitor, three conditions

need to be met:

⇒ Time, what will alter fluency

⇒ Focus on form, that means being aware of grammar structures

⇒ Knowledge of the rules, in order to make corrections

4. The affective filter hypothesis

It deals with the effect of affective variables in L2 acquisition. These include:

anxiety, motivation or self-confidence.

Krashen claims that there is a “language acquisition device” that can be

blocked by the affective filter.

5. The input hypothesis

⇒ We acquire language by understanding input that contains I + 1

“I + 1” means that the input (I) should be only a bit ( + ) beyond the acquirer’s

current level of competence.

8
We understand language that we do not know by making use of the context,

extra-linguistic information and our knowledge of the world.

⇒ We do not teach speaking directly

Fluency emerges on its own over time. Thus, the best way to “teach” speaking

is by providing comprehensive input.

⇒ The best input should not be grammatically sequenced.

Teachers should consider the students´ needs and interests when organizing

contents. Themes should be relevant to learner.

This whole theory of language acquisition contrasts with other lines of thought

that argue that teaching grammar structures and rules are necessary not as

the core of a language curriculum but as an essential part of it. The most

recent and innovative teaching methods regard grammar as a means which

enables language students to express themselves accurately, meaningfully

and appropriately.

Let us now move on to practical guidelines to introduce grammar in the

classroom:

5.1. Six golden rules to teach grammar

The Rule of Context: teach grammar in a meaningful context. E.g. In a filling–

the-gaps activity providing enough information for succeeding is essential.

The Rule of Use: Teach grammar as a means to an end, not as an end itself.

The Rule of Economy: Economize on presentation time to provide maximum

practice/production time for students

9
The Rule of Relevance: Teach only what students do not know

The Rule of Nurture: instead of explicitly teach grammar rules, create the

conditions for grammar learning to take place.

The Rule of Appropriacy: bear in mind levels, needs, interests, expectations

and learning styles of students.

5.2. The traditional model for introducing grammar

Traditionally, grammar has been presented following this general model:

Warm-up/Lead-in: context of use and meaning of the new structure should be

understood.

Elicitation: complying with the rule of relevance, at this stage we will decide if

the students can produce the new structure. If they are able to do so, we

should not continue with the explanation stage.

Explanation/Presentation: The teacher shows how the new language is

formed making use of different presentations according to the students

learning styles we find in our class (deductive, inductive, etc.)

Immediate Creativity/Free production: Students try to use the new form to

make sentences of their own.

Revision-Feedback-Evaluation: both controlled practice and a more

spontaneous practice should be encouraged periodically.

This model may still be valid, and indeed many coursebooks still follow a

Presentation-Practice-Production (PPP) model, nonetheless there is another

10
model which is more consistent with the communicative approach philosophy:

The task-based approach. This will be examined in the following section.

5.3. The task-based approach

The Task-based approach views learners as “social agents” who have tasks

(not exclusively language related) to accomplish in a given set of

circumstances, in a specific environment and within a particular field of action.

Grammar is meant to be a mere tool for carrying out everyday tasks.

This learning method differs from the PPP model firstly in the focus of the

tasks. Whereas the former aims at learning how to use a certain language

form, the latter focuses on meaning; and it is only after the task has been

performed that forms are studied. In this way, the production stage is brought

to the front/beginning of the lesson. The following chart shows the typical

sequence of a task-based lesson:

Pre-task: students are presented with a similar task to the one they will later
have to do.

TASK CYCLE

Task: The students Planning: Students Report: The students

complete the task, while prepare a short oral report back to the class
the teacher monitors presentation or a written and receive feedback
and offers report to tell the rest of from the teacher
encouragement. the class about the
outcome of the class

LANGUAGE FOCUS

Analysis: Some structures are Practice: The structures are used in

highlighted to convey the meaning language exercises and
that was required in the task communicative activities

11
It is important to mention that a task-based approach works very well with

mixed-ability groups, very often found in the context of the OLS. This is so

because task achievement does not depend on having a specific level of

language ability.

6. Conclusion

In this essay, different ways of approaching grammar have been examined.

The evolution of second language teaching methods has certainly changed

the importance given to grammar, as well as its presentation in the classroom.

Today, language courses are predominantly based on the communicative

approach and its refined version, the task-based approach. As such is

contemplated in the Common European Framework of Reference for

Languages (CEFRL). The CEFRL contemplates different competences

included in the concept of Communicative competence, being among them

the grammatical competence. Grammatical competence may be defined as

knowledge of, and ability to use the grammatical resources of the language.

A final consideration should be noted with regards to our approach to

grammar in the classroom. Like everything in language teaching, it shall

ultimately depend on our students’ needs and learning styles. Be that as it

may, the chosen approach should always keep the assumption that grammar

is primarily a device to enhance meaning and communication.

7. Bibliography

12
7. 1. References for this topic

AUSTIN, J.L. 1962. How to do things with words. Oxford University Press.

BROWN, H.D. 2000. Principles of Language and Teaching. London: Longman

COUNCIL FOR CULTURAL CO-OPERATION, EDUCATION COMMITTEE,

MODERN LANGUAGES DIVISION. 2002. Common European Framework of

Reference for Languages: learning, teaching, assessment. Cambridge:

Cambridge University press

GREENBAUM, S. and R. QUIRK. 1990. A student’s Grammar of the English

Language. London: Longman.

HALLIDAY, M.A.K. 1973. Explorations in the Functions of Language. London:

Edward Arnold.

SEARLE, J.R. 1971. The philosophy of Language. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

SWAM, M. 1997. Practical English Usage. Oxford University Press.

7. 2. Legal Framework

Royal Decree 1629/2006, 29th December, which regulates Official Language

Schools (OLS) in Spain.

Decree 239/2007, 4th September, which regulates OLS in Andalusia.

Order 18th October 2007, which develops the Official Curriculum for OLS in

Andalusia

7. 3. Web resources

Language Teaching methods

13
www.americanenglish.state.gov

A website for learners of english

www.bbc.co.uk/worldservices/learningenglish

Teaching resources for teachers

www.britishcouncil.org/learningenglish

Teaching resources for teachers

www.teachingenglish.org.uk

Language Portal of Canada

www.noslangues-ourlanguages.gc.ca

14