UM Panabo College

Department of Teacher Education

P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437

Big Picture

Week 1-3: Unit Learning Outcomes (ULO): At the end of the unit, you are expected to

a. Extract important details in the framework for language teacher and the history of applied
linguistics in pedagogical grammar;

Big Picture in Focus: ULOa. Extract important details in the framework for language
teacher and the history of applied linguistics in pedagogical grammar;

Metalanguage

In this section, the most essential terms relevant to the study of literary criticism and to
demonstrate ULOa will be operationally defined to establish a common frame of reference as to how the
texts work in your chosen field or career. You will encounter these terms as we go through the study of
literature. Please refer to these definitions in case you will encounter difficulty in the in understanding
educational concepts.

Please proceed immediately to the ―Essential Knowledge‖ part since the first lesson is also
definition of essential terms.

Grammar – a set of rules that explains how words are used in a language
Pedagogy – method and practice of teaching
Linguistics – a scientific study of language and its structure, including the study of morphology, syntax,
phonetics, and semantics include sociolinguistics and dialectology
Functional Grammar - Functional Grammar (henceforth FG) is a general theory of the grammatical
organization of natural languages that has been developed over the past fifteen years by Simon
Dik and his associates.

Essential Knowledge

To perform the aforesaid big picture (unit learning outcomes) for the first three (3) weeks of the
course, you need to fully understand the following essential knowledge that will be laid down in the
succeeding pages. Please note that you are not limited to exclusively refer to the resources. Thus, you are
expected to utilize other books, research articles and other resources that are available in the university‘s
library e.g. e-library, search.proquest.com etc.

PEDAGOGICAL GRAMMAR: A FRAMEWORK FOR LANGUAGE TEACHERS

PEDAGOGICAL GRAMMAR IN APPLIED LINGUISTICS: A HISTORICAL OVERVIEW
The Concept Of Grammar
The term grammar can be defined in many ways. You have grammar as in ―mental grammar‖, meaning a
person‘s subconscious grammatical system; you have grammar as in a reference book, e.g. A
Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language (Quirk et al. 1985); and you have grammar as in the
―grammar of German‖. It is the latter type which is the usual denotation of the term. Grammar of German
is, however, not unambiguous; there is a ―narrow‖ variant, where one studies morphological and
syntactical rules and principles in a language, commonly called formal grammar,1 and a ―wide‖ one
going under the term functional grammar. Formal grammarians do not pay so much attention to meaning

1
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
and context as they do to form and structures; they subject language to a bottom-up analysis, morphemes
being the smallest language component they operate with, and the sentence the largest, and in between
there are other levels such as word and clause. On the other hand, we have functional grammarians who
deal with language in use. They regard words and sentences not as individual and independent forms, but
as part of a whole, getting meaning from their surroundings (either from the rest of the language –
semantics, or from the context in which they occur – pragmatics). The distinction between formal and
functional aspects is furthermore applicable to the difference between theoretical linguistics2 and applied
linguistics. Another distinction often made within the concept of grammar is descriptive versus
prescriptive grammars. In the former type, grammarians describe language as it is used, whilst in the latter
type they lay down rules for how language should be used. Descriptive grammarians tend, in addition, to
give elaborate descriptions of grammatical features. In this thesis, we will adopt an ―extended‖ definition
of grammar, or what Leech (1994) refers to as communicative grammar, and include aspects of discourse,
semantics, and pragmatics as well as syntax and morphology.
Theoretical Grammars
In the beginning of the twentieth century, there was a change from item-centered to structure-centered
thinking of language. Words and phrases were to be meaningful only in a linguistic system. This was the
start of the period called structuralism, but the name refers both to European structuralism, as represented
by the Copenhagen School and the Prague School, and to the American structuralists of the 1940s and
1950s; the latter is also known as the ―Bloomfieldian‖ period, named after Bloomfield‘s thoughts and
ideas expressed in his book Language (1933). The grammar developed at this time was a result of
grammarians‘ analysis of sentence components into systems. Fries (1952) did this, followed amongst
others by Nida (1966) and Francis (1958). We can say that they ―formalized‖ the grammar by putting it
into a system, hence the name taxonomic grammar.
Functional Grammars
Functional Grammar (henceforth FG) is a general theory of the grammatical organization of natural
languages that has been developed over the past fifteen years by Simon Dik and his associates. For up-to-
date presentations of the theory, see (Dik 1989a) and (Siewierska 1991); and, for a comprehensive
bibliography of FG, now also available in database format, (De Groot 1992). Whereas many other
theories of grammar see language as an essentially arbitrary structure, possibly genetically determined,
FG seeks above all to integrate its findings into a more all-encompassing framework, that of an overall
theory of social interaction. Indeed, FG proposals are evaluated against a metric of pragmatic adequacy,
i.e. the extent to which they are successful in achieving compatibility with just such an account of human
action and interaction. FG is thus a representative of the functionalist paradigm of linguistic research.
Functional grammars look at language in use. The most fully developed theory of functional grammar is
probably Halliday‘s SFG. We will not attempt to, nor is it feasible to, give a complete account of SFG,
but since it is a well-known theory and in addition applicable for many purposes, a brief introduction is in
order. According to Allen and Widdowson (1975), Halliday does not, as opposed to transformational
generativists, distinguish between surface and deep structure; rather, all aspects of language are given
equal importance. Thompson defines the aims of analysis done according to functional grammar in this
way: ―… to uncover … the reasons why the speaker produces a particular wording rather than any other
in a particular context …‖ (1996: 8; my emphasis). Context undoubtedly plays a crucial role in a
functional analysis of texts. Halliday operates with three main functions, or meta-functions, of language,
which are labeled experiential,6 interpersonal and textual.7 The first deals with how we experience or
interpret the world around us; applying it to grammatical analysis, it is concerned with the concept of
transitivity, where processes and participants are interrelated
Grammar Teaching’s First Major Challenge: The Audiolingual Method
Howatt and Widdowson‘s (2004) book on the history of ELT is very comprehensive; they look back at
the history of ELT from medieval times to the present, and offer not only a scientific framework, but also
take into consideration political and institutional aspects that have influenced ELT throughout the years.
Certainly, World War II played a decisive role in the development of the Oral Approach in America,

2
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
known under the name Audiolingualism, the dominant method from the mid-fifties to approximately
1970. In a sense, the war made the world more global; American soldiers and personnel got to meet
people from new countries face-to-face and thus new languages such as German, Italian, and Japanese.
The Army Specialized Training Program, established in 1942, was to take care of the language training
needed. The program was extremely intensive and did in fact have impressive results. Thus, an oral-based
approach involving intensive drills was to become one of the main pillars of Audiolingualism.
Simultaneously, waves of immigrants coming to America had to learn the target language English.
Language programs and institutions, and specialization and research, were to revolutionize ELT for years
to come.
The American method had a lot in common with the British Oral Approach, but also differed from it in a
substantial way; it had strong links to structural linguistics and applied linguistics. Bloomfield‘s ideas
about putting language into a system expressed in his book Language from 1933 had a strong impact on
the development of structuralism. Nevertheless, Fries (1945, 1952) and Lado (1957, 1964) were the most
prominent proponents of the application of structuralism, and the branch of applied linguistics called
contrastive analysis, to ELT.
The Decline Of Audiolingualism
Audiolingualism met with criticism from several points of view. Firstly, the techniques used were
considered monotonous and hence boring by the learners. In the audiolingual context, learners were more
like parrots than creative and critical language learners. Secondly, learners were not appropriately
prepared for communication outside the classroom. They could follow instructions in the classroom
without difficulties, but when they were faced with real-life situation their language performance was
unsatisfactory. As Eirheim (1983) points out, the Audiolingual Method paid little attention to the field of
semantics; thus drills and imitative repetitions were of little help in authentic communication when their
meaning and their use had been discarded. Finally, developments in both linguistics and psychology led
to the rejection of fundamental audiolingual ideas. Chomsky‘s language theory6 (1957, 1965) and
Corder‘s error analysis, to which we now will turn, help explain the main criticisms that Audiolingualism
met.
New Theories Of Language Competence: The Chomskyan Revolution
Looking for Mr. Goodstructure
In one reading of linguistic history, the Bloomfieldians of the 1950s were biding their time for some
convincingly complete model to displace their picture of language. The "fullest flowering" of
Bloomfieldian grammar-construction was Trager and Smith's Outline of English Structure (Stark,
1972:414). It was at once a reworking and a practical application of Trager's earlier classic (with Bloch),
Outline of Linguistic Analysis. Since the application was to English, it had enormous educational
advantages, and it was a self-conscious exemplar of the program, illustrating by example "a methodology
of analysis and presentation that we believe to be representative of the scientific method as applied to a
social science—linguistics"
Linguistics was changing and expanding in the fifties, showing sporadic dissent over the central tenets,
increased tolerance for other approaches, and some dalliance in the banned domain of psychology. But
measured dissent, pluralism, and exploration, at least in this case, represent the exact opposite of Kuhn's
definition of crisis. They were symptoms of a pronounced sense of professional security. The earlier
hostility toward Europe, and meaning, and mind, and the undue reverence for method, and the chest-
thumping war cries of "I'm a scientist and you're not": these were the signs of insecurity. By the fifties,
paranoid aggressiveness had given way to a quiet satisfaction and optimism (in some quarters, as we have
seen, to an almost gloomy optimism that all the real problems had been solved). The other major
Bloomfieldian codification published in the fifties, off the presses almost in a dead heat with Trager and
Smith, was Zellig Harris's (1951 [1947]) Methods in Structural Linguistics and it was hailed as "epoch-
marking in a double sense: first in that it marks the culmination of a development of linguistic
methodology away from a stage of intuitionism, frequently culture-bound; and second in that it marks the
beginning of a new period, in which the new methods will be applied ever more rigorously to ever

3
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
widening areas" (McQuown, 1952:495). A glorious period of advancement may have been over, but a
new and more glorious one, building on those advances, was just beginning.
Syntactic Structures

For the 1950s, Chomsky was, in the terms of one lapsed Bloomfieldian, "a very aberrant young linguist"
(Gleason, 1988:59). He was something of an outsider, always an advantage for seeing the limitations and
weaknesses of an established program. His exposure to the field came almost entirely through Harris, and
Harris was a card-carrying Bloomfieldian, but in extremis, representing, in many ways, the best and the
worst of the program. He had a fixation on esoteric, if not peripheral, issues, and a preoccupation with
methodology which far outstripped even that of his contemporaries. He, too, had a somewhat unusual
background for a Bloomfieldian—coming not from the rolled-up-sleeves-and-loosened-collar world of
anthropology, but the bookish, intensely logical world of Semitic philology—and, except for Hockett, he
was the only linguist of the period pursuing the natural, but largely ignored, ramifications of the
Saussurean conception of langue as a "rigid system," the only linguist of the period seriously exploring
the mathematics of language. Chomsky's education reflected Harris's interests closely. It involved work in
philosophy, logic, and mathematics well beyond the normal training for a linguist. He read more deeply in
epistemology, an area where speculation about the great Bloomfieldian taboo, mental structure, is not
only legitimate, but inescapable. His honors and master's theses were clever, idiosyncratic grammars of
Hebrew, and— at a time when a Ph.D. thesis in linguistics was almost by definition a grammar of some
indigenous language, fieldwork virtually an initiation rite into the community of linguists—his doctorate
was granted on the basis of a highly abstract discussion of transformational grammar, with data drawn
exclusively from English. When his thesis made the rounds at the Linguistic Institute in the summer of
1955, it looked completely alien, "far more mathematical in its reasoning than anyone there had ever seen
labeled as 'linguistics'," and, predictably, it fell utterly flat:

Science and Generative Grammar

Especially attractive to the Bloomfieldians was the conception of science Chomsky offered in Syntactic
Structures. The first few sentences of the book advance and defend the conception of linguistics as an
activity which builds "precisely constructed models" (1957a:5), and building precisely constructed
models was the mainstay of Bloomfieldian linguistics (though they were happier with the word
description than with model). But Chomsky also made the motives behind such construction much more
explicit than they previously had been. There are two, he says. One motive is negative: giving "obscure
and intuition-bound notions" a strict formulation can quickly ferret out latent difficulties. The other is
positive: "a formalized theory may automatically provide solutions for many problems other than those
for which it was explicitly designed" (1957a:5). In short, the clear and precise formulation of a grammar
has the two most important attributes that recommend one scientific theory over another, greater fragility
and increased scope. If you can break a scientific theory, it's a good one, since that means it has clear and
testable connections to some body of data; if you can break it in principle but not in practice, so much the
better, since not only can it be tested against data, the testing proves it compatible with that data. The law
of gravity you can test by dropping a pen and measuring its descent; if it floats upwards, or zips sideways,
or falls slowly to the ground, then the law is in trouble. But the pen never does (unless you're someplace

4
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
weird, like a space capsule or a centrifugal chamber, when the bets have to change), so gravity is fragile
in principle, resilient in practice. And the more coverage a theory has, the more efficient it is. The law of
gravity is (more or less) equally applicable to falling pens and orbiting planets. Two laws for those
phenomena, rather than one, mess things up, and scientists like to be tidy whenever they can.

Two definitions are crucial for Chomsky to achieve these scientific virtues: a language is "a set (finite or
infinite) of sentences" and a grammar is "a device that generates all of the grammatical sequences of [that
language] and none of the ungrammatical ones" (1957a: 13): a grammar is a formal model that predicts
which strings of words belong in the set of sentences constituting a language and which strings do not
belong.
Syntax and Transformational Grammar

By far the most attractive aspect of Syntactic Structures for the Bloomfieldians was its titular promise to
advance the structuralist program into syntax. Chomsky's first step was to translate Immediate Constituent
analysis into a more testable format. Immediate Constituent analysis was a body of "heterogeneous and
incomplete methods" (Wells, 1947b:81), which had begun hardening into a more systematic theory of
syntactic structure—most attractively in the phonological syntax of Trager and Smith—but was still a
long way from the rigid formalism called for by Chomsky's notion of generative grammar. Out of the
relatively loose group of Immediate Constituent procedures, Chomsky extracted a notation based on
variables and arrows such that a simple rule like X -» Y + Z defined the relations among the variables in
an easily diagrammable way

5
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437

6
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437

7
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437

The Appeal of Meaning

Chomsky's distributional interests—virtually inevitable under the tutelage of Harris—were not the only
elements of his Bloomfieldian heritage. He also had a deep methodological aversion to meaning, and his
work reinforced one of the key elements of the Bloomfieldian policy toward meaning: it had to be
avoided in formal analysis.
The structure of utterances—syntax—has long looked like the way to study meaning. That was the route
taken by the Modistae, for instance, and by most philosophers of language in this century. For good
reason: whatever sounds and words do, however they function in language, it takes syntax to make
assertions and claims about the world, to really mean something. Apple is an orthographic symbol which
stands in for a certain class of fruit, but it doesn't get seriously involved in meaning until it participates in
a structure like "John ate an apple" or "Did John eat an apple?" or "Who ate an apple?"—to borrow some
of Chomsky's examples in Syntactic Structures (1957a:71). In other terms, turning the chair briefly over
to one of the most accomplished syntacticians ever, Otto Jespersen, the Bloomfieldian strongholds of
phonology and morphology look at language from the outside; not syntax. Syntax "looks at grammatical
facts from within, that is to say from the side of their meaning or signification" (Jespersen, 1954.2:1).
Chomsky Agonistes

8
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437

There are myths aplenty in linguistics these days surrounding Chomsky's spectacular rise, celebrating his
brilliance and prescience, his predecessors' obtuseness and dogmatism. We have already seen the
finished-field myth, which, if we take Harris to fill Planck's shoes, puts Chomsky in Einstein's. There is
also that recurrent feature of scientific breakthrough stories, the Eureka Moment, Chomsky's moment
putting a nice twist on the archetypical Archimedes in his more literal tub:
Peeling Off the Mentalist Blinders

The first unmistakable battleground of the Bloomfield-to-Chomsky changing of the guard was mentalism,
though it is unmistakable only in retrospect. The generative challenge to mentalism looms so large in the
rearview mirror that it is difficult to see how the old guard missed it. But they did.
Despite a general expansion of Bloomfieldian interests, mentalism was still taboo. Morris Swadesh, for
instance, published a stinging attack on "the fetish that anything related to the mind must be ruled out of
science" (1948; cited in Hymes and Fought, 1981:159). Swadesh was one of Sapir's most respected
students. He had a formidable reputation in fieldwork and several influential papers, including one of the
earliest distributional discussions of the phoneme (1934). Yet his critique couldn't even make it into a
linguistics journal (it was published way out of the mainstream, in Science and Society), and had
absolutely no impact on the field. Even the increased linguistic interest in psychology that marked the
early-to-midfifties, spawning the term psyche-linguistics, was distinctly behaviorist, psychology without
the mind.
Morris Halle and the Phoneme

Chomsky met Morris Halle in 1951. They "became close friends, and had endless conversations" over the
next several—extremely formative—years (Chomsky, 1979 [1976]: 131). Like Chomsky, Halle was
something of an outsider. Although he came to the U.S. as a teenager and later earned his doctorate from
Harvard, his intellectual heritage—especially what it meant to be a "structuralist"—was much more
European than American. Certainly he never swam, or even waded, in the Bloomfieldian mainstream. His
doctorate was under the great Prague School structuralist, Roman Jakobson, from whom he inherited both
mentalism and a certain friendliness to meaning (Halle's influence on Chomsky in both these areas was
very likely much more substantial than has generally been appreciated, though Chomsky also had a great
deal of direct contact with Jakobson). His thesis was on the sound system of a venerable European
language, Russian; there was no Amerindian imperative, no description-for-the-sake-of-description
compulsion, and it was published (1959a [1958]) under a title that paid deliberate homage to Bloomfield's
partial rival, Sapir. Halle had also studied engineering for a while before entering linguistics, so there

9
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
were mathematico-logical interests in his background, as in Chomsky's, beyond those of most American
linguists.
Enlisting the Grandfathers

Syntactic Structures was no threat to the Bloomfieldian program, so it must have been something of a
surprise at the 1958 Texas conference—a deliberately staged contest of several emerging syntactic
programs—when Chomsky came out battling. He was very active in all of the post-paper discussion
periods, particularly so (and at his sharpest) following Henry Lee Smith's presentation of the only real
competitor to transformational syntax in terms of rigor or prestige, phonological syntax. His own
presentation essentially condensed Syntactic Structures, but put more of an edge on its notions. The paper
argues that transformations are an important advance over Immediate Constituent analysis, and that
generative grammar is an important advance for the field as a science, and that transformational-
generative grammar can make important semantic inroads—all the carrots come out.
But Chomsky also wove in his mentalist concerns (his review of Skinner was written in this period, but
still to be published), introduced some noxious data for certain Bloomfieldian principles, and sketched
Halle's argument against the darling phoneme. He also said that Harris's work on transformations brought
to light "a serious inadequacy of modern linguistic theory"—the inability to explain structural relatives,
like active and passive versions of the same proposition—and that this inadequacy was the result of
ignoring a major "chapter of traditional grammar" (1962a [1958]: 124). These two elements, explanation
and traditional grammar, became the primary themes of his anti-Bloomfieldian rhetoric over the next few
years.
His arguments are wide-ranging, compelling, and extremely well focused. The number of themes
Chomsky smoothly sustains, and the wealth of detail he invokes, are remarkable, but the paper effectively
comes down to:
• traditional grammar was on the right track, especially with regard to uncovering the universal
features shared by all languages;
• Bloomfieldian work, despite some gains, is on completely the wrong track—in fact, has
perverted the course of science—especially in its disregard of psychology and its emphasis
on the diversity among languages;
• the only real trouble with traditional grammar is its lack of precision; • fortunately, in the last
few decades, the technical tools have become available, through work in logic and the
foundations of mathematics;
• transformational-generative grammar, which incorporates these tools, is therefore exactly what
the field has been waiting for, the ideal marriage of modern mathematics and the old mentalist
and universal goals that American structuralists had discarded.
The Rational Chomsky
Chomsky took something else from his Port-Royal grandfathers, their epistemology, and among his main
projects in the few years after his International Congress presentation was championing their views of
knowledge and the mind. Those views, usually bundled up in the word rationalism, had long been in a
serious state of disrepair. Their patron saint is Descartes, and Whitehead had defined the general disregard
for rationalism by saying "We no more retain the physics of the seventeenth century than we do the
Cartesian philosophy of [that] century" (1929:14). It was passe philosophy. Its perennial opponent in the
epistemic sweepstakes was, largely due to the work stemming out of the Vienna Circle, on top.
Empiricism was au courant.

10
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437

Empiricism: all knowledge is acquired through the senses.

Rationalism: no knowledge is acquired through the senses

Empiricism: most knowledge is acquired through the senses.

Rationalism: most knowledge is not acquired through the senses
Burying the Bloomfieldians

In and among these early polemics about behaviorism, the phoneme, and rationalism, Chomsky and Halle
attracted some of the best young minds in the field to the Research Laboratory of Electronics, the eclectic
and very well funded branch of MIT which was the incubator of Chomskyan linguistics. The group—
including Lees, Postal, Katz, Fodor, Edward Klima, and Jay Keyser—quickly formed very close
intellectual ties and began hammering out the details of transformational grammar.
It was also very successful. The group made rapid headway on a number of very thorny issues,
particularly in the Bloomfieldians' weakest areas, syntax and semantics. Success, we all know, is heady,
and the group's most definitive character trait was cockiness: they were young, they were bright, and they
were working on a novel and immensely promising theory in collaboration with one of the finest intellects
of the century. "In a situation like that," Katz notes, "it's quite natural for everyone to think they have
God's Truth, and to be sure that what they're doing will revolutionize the world, and we all thought that."
Developments spread rapidly. Everyone spoke in the hallways, attended the same colloquia, and saw each
other's papers long before they reached publication. They also saw many papers that never reached
publication at all, the notorious samizdat literature that still characterizes work at MIT: arguments and
analyses circulated in a mimeograph (now electronic) underground, never making their way to the formal
light of day but showing up in the notes of important works that did. This situation, quite naturally,
infuriated (and infuriates) anybody trying to follow the theory but failing to hook into the right
distributional network.
Language Competence: More Than Just Grammar?
The Development Of The Notion Communicative Competence
One major arena for constructions of language competence is theoretical advancements in defining and
‗modelling‘ language competence. Underpinning curricula, syllabi and language testing programmes,
these models are crucial for an understanding of and, subsequently, the operationalisation of language
competence. Theoretical debates on how to define language competence have been recurrent in applied
linguistics and educational research. Dominating for the last 40-50 years or so in language teaching and
testing, are models of communicative language ability, and one of the major contributions to this
development is the notion of communicative competence. Originally proposed by the American
anthropologist and sociolinguist Dell Hymes (1967, 1971, 1972a), communicative competence became a
buzzword in applied linguistics in the 1970s. Its diffusion is mainly due to the advent of the
communicative teaching paradigm as a reaction to grammar-based instruction, which took place around

11
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
the same time. Hymes‘ work was in opposition to the dominating notion of competence as proposed by
Chomsky, which contended that linguistic theory should be based on:

Subsequent models targeting language teaching and testing (e.g. Bachman 1990, Bachman & Palmer
1996, Celce-Murcia 2007) have defined communicative competence as a set of subcompetencies. These
multi-componential models, often de-contextualized and general, distinguish between knowledge of form
and structures (e.g. grammatical competence) and knowledge of use (e.g. sociolinguistic competence,
interactional competence) together with strategic competence. Bachman and Palmer‘s model (1996), in
particular, has had an immense influence in the language testing field. Bachman and Palmer‘s
conceptualization of components underlying language use provided a model of both linguistic and non-
linguistic components such as language knowledge, topical knowledge, personal characteristics and
affective schemata. Communicative language ability is in Bachman and Palmers‘ model divided into
organizational competence (grammatical competence and textual competence), pragmatic competence
(sociolinguistic competence and illocutionary competence) and strategic competence (metacognitive
aspects).
Communicative Language Teaching
CLT has dominated ELT since the 1980s. The threshold level (Van Ek), notionalfunctional syllabuses
(Wilkins), and the Council of Europe have furthered practical manifestations of communicative
competence in the classroom. Meaning, authenticity, context, communication, and fluency are some of
the cardinal values of CLT.
According to Richards and Rodgers (1986: 66) ―There is no single text or authority on it [i.e. CLT], nor
any single model that is universally accepted as authoritative‖. Teaching based on communicative goals
has turned out to be very flexible and inclusive in its methodology. One of the main characteristics of
CLT is that it is learner-oriented. The learner‘s ultimate intention in learning the L2 is communicative
competence, and how s/he obtains it is dependent on different parameters like age, aptitude,
communicative need(s) etc. However, this flexibility has come to be a burden in an actual classroom
setting, where it is practically impossible to meet the needs of a heterogeneous group of 20-30 learners. I
believe that another major drawback of CLT, due to its ambiguity as an approach, has been the extreme
focus on communication in the oral skills, which in turn might have partly been responsible for less
teaching of grammar. Keller (1994) asserts that the most serious misunderstanding has been the belief that
communicative competence does not include the teaching of grammar, and reminds us that ―Den
grunnleggende komponenten i begrepet kommunikativ kompetanse er lingvistisk kompetanse‖ (p. 149).
Reconsidering The Role Of Grammar In The L2 Classroom
What is grammar?
A question we rarely ever ask ourselves when we speak our native language. However, when it comes to
learning a second language, it‘s the first thing we are introduced to. When we contemplate this question,
the first answer that comes to our minds is a set of rules that govern a language. Yes, it is true, but there is
more to grammar than that. Grammar is a system composed of many interconnected components that
ensure accuracy and meaning. It is the art of writing and speaking a language correctly. It is ―the mental
system of rules and categories that allows humans to form and interpret the words and sentences of their
language.‖There is no escape from using grammar if we want to improve our English or learn a new
language. Just as the latter, grammar is a living entity that evolves and undergoes a great deal of change
over time. Grammar of the 19th century is by no means the grammar of today. These changes are due to
several factors such as time, culture, literature and so on.
Grammar differs from one language to another and from one person to another. Non-native English
speakers may presume that the English language has less complicated grammar in comparison to French

12
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
or Spanish and that grammar, as a concept, to a Spanish speaker, may not be the same to a German or a
Japanese speaker. Nevertheless, grammar, from a linguistic point of view, is the same in terms of
complexity in all languages and they all share the same universal components. Although the grammatical
structure or the arrangement of words would differ, yet its role remains imperative and instrumental in all
languages.
Definitions of grammar vary greatly according to one‘s knowledge and expertise in the realm in question.
A laymen‘s definition of grammar would be much distinct from a grammarian‘s or a linguist‘s. This
distinction is primarily on account of the extent of knowledge one possesses over the field or the
orientation one has chosen to pursue. A laymen‘s definition would only scratch the surface of grammar
while a grammarian‘s definition would delve into 6 more elaborate aspects like word class and part of
speech. As for a linguist, he would tackle the linguistics components of language such as phonology,
semantics and so on. Grammar is a tremendously vast field which could be approached from a myriad of
ways. In this part of the research we shall see how each of the aforementioned persons perceive grammar
and in what ways their views are different?
Laymen’s Definition of Grammar
Laymen‘s definitions of grammar are usually succinct and superficial. They give grammar an over
general definition which makes it lose its significance. An example of these definitions is ―the rules and
structure we use to make sentences, phrases and words logically.‖ Another example is ―The study of how
words and their component parts combine to form sentences.‖ These sorts of definitions don‘t give
grammar its actual worth and limit, in scope, the role grammar plays in governing the usage of language.
Nevertheless, these sort of simplified definitions come in handy when it comes to teaching native children
or new learners of English about the basic concepts of grammar. Namely, it encourages children and
especially the adult learners, who usually quit due to the complexity of the grammatical rules, to embrace
it and learn its rudiments until they reach a level where they could grasp more intricate notions.
Complicating grammar right from the start would only result in developing an aversion for the language
and hence alienate the learners.
Grammarians’ Definition
Grammarians‘ definition of grammar is on a totally different level than the latter. Their perception of
grammar is much more profound and entails more elaborate entities which adds 7 to the multiple usage
grammar can take. They delve into more intricate details and tackle advanced components which would
seem bewildering for the non-specialist. Some of these entities grammarians approach in view of
grammar are like word class, clauses, part of speech etc and how they merge together to form accurate
and meaningful sentences. A grammarian‘s definition would take such a form as ―The science which
treats the principles of language; the study of forms of speech, and their relations to one another.‖ Also
―A normative or prescriptive set of rules setting forth the current standard of usage for pedagogical or
reference purposes‖. Furthermore, grammarians have primarily two or rather three approaches in which
they conceive the role of grammar. The first approach is the descriptive approach. The latter describes
how a language is used. As for the second approach, it is the prescriptive approach. In this approach
Grammar provides rules for correct usage. The last approach is the generative approach. It provides
instructions for the production of an infinite number of sentences in a language.
Linguists’ Definition
As regard the linguistic perspective. Grammar is a branch of the vast field of linguistics. ―It‘s the part of
the study of language which deals with the forms and structures of words (morphology), with their
customary arrangement in phrases and sentences (syntax), along with language sounds (phonology) and
word meaning(semantics).‖ In addition to this, grammar of language should be thought of as ―a device of
some sort for producing the sentences of the language under analysis‖ (Chomsky 1957:13). It‘s a system
of rules implicit in a language, viewed as a mechanism for generating all sentences possible in that
language.
The Role Of Grammar in L2

13
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
Grammar plays a substantial role in governing the use and application of language. It gives the user the
structure to build complete and meaningful sentences. The role of grammar can take many dimensions
and varies according to the situation and context in which it is used. The underlying role of grammar lies
in being the language which enables us to talk about language. It names the words and words groups that
make up sentences as well as the way in which they can be accurately put together. It is true that natives
can subconsciously pick up their languages without any kind of explicit or formal instruction, but they
can‘t talk about it or explain some of its irregularities without having learnt them.
Grammar also plays an important role in the writing and reading processes. One cannot write efficiently
and professionally without this instruction. It would be nearly impossible for the writer to articulate his
thoughts and make them intelligible for the reader. How would he be able to express the future perfect or
doubt without knowing grammatically how? In addition to that, without grammar, one can not even read
without misunderstanding the meaning. If the reader has to go back and re-read a sentence several times
because they are not quite sure what it means, it spoils their reading experience and they are quite likely
to misunderstand the point or even to give up and not read any further. Knowing about grammar also
helps us understand what makes sentences and paragraphs clear and interesting and without it any
language will be totally coarse and ugly to deal with, not to mention that the language would eventually
become completely illegible and nonsense.
Grammar, as Chomsky put it, is a set of finite rules which, if learnt and mastered, can generate an infinite
set of sentences. This is also one of the attributes of grammar. With a sufficient vocabulary, one can give
utterance to any thought that crosses his mind. The only two criteria which would restrain the number of
sentences created are the vocabulary at hand and the user‘s sense of creativity. To exemplify, tourists who
choose to spend their vacation somewhere abroad, they usually buy a small tourist book with all the basic
ready-made sentences needed for communication. However, that book is only usable for 1 or 2 weeks and
there comes a time when the tourists need to say something that is not in the tourist book. In that case, a
little of grammar instruction and some elementary vocabulary would enable them to express what they
want, Not necessarily correctly, but the recipient would most likely receive the meaning.
―Grammar communicates meaning, meaning of a very special kind‖ (article ‗grammar meaning and
pragmatics‘ by Michael swan ). Usually people disregard the usage of grammar to communicate when
there is enough contextual input. Single words or motions would do the job. For instance, at a dinner, the
waiter would come to you and ask you ―coffee?‖ you would understand what the waiter meant by that due
to the context. However, when you are home and you would like to ask your wife to make you some
coffee, you can‘t just go ahead and say ―coffee‖. It would seem inappropriate and rude. This is where
grammar comes in, it serves to make the speaker‘s or writer‘s meaning clear when contextual information
is lacking. Moreover, Grammar also serves as an enabling tool for articulating complex thoughts.
Babytalk is fine to a certain point, but there comes a time when you need to express more complicated
concepts and meanings for which simple words are not enough. To do that, rule of syntax and
morphology must be employed.
And last but not least, grammar is considered to be a prerequisite factor for effective communication. The
role of grammar in communication comes in organizing words, clauses and phrases into meaningful
sentences. The exchange of theses sentences results in a conversation. In this respect, the importance of
grammar here resides in making it possible for each person to say exactly what they want to and be able
to understand the other. It serves as a mechanism against ambiguity and confusion. On the other hand,
however, when grammar is lacking in a conversation, there is a good chance for misunderstanding and
disagreement. Imagine going to a foreign country and using a dictionary of the local language to
communicate. You may pick the right word but the way you put them together can be funny, maybe even
dangerous. The purpose of grammar in communication is to be able to convey your thoughts through
language. If you are not understood, then the whole point of the conversation is lost.
The roles grammar play are multiple and diverse. In this part of the research, however, we will focus on in
what way or rather the extent to which grammar is an enabling skill, how it is a sentence-making machine
and the role it plays in conveying meaning.

14
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
Making Input Comprehensible: The Role Of Interaction
Input, Interaction and Output
The role of the three closely relevant factors, namely input, interaction and output has gradually been
acknowledged in second language (L2) learning. It is now widely recognized that input is essential for
language acquisition. In addition to input, it is also accepted that interaction plays a crucial role in the
process of learning L2. Output--an automatic output, to be exact--is one pedagogical goal in learning L2.
So, input, interaction and output are three essential compositing elements in L2 acquisition. But for years
there has been a debate about their role.
Input
In language learning, input is the language data which the learner is exposed to. It is commonly
acknowledged that for second language acquisition to take place there must be two prerequisites: L2 input
available to the learners and a set of internal mechanism to account for how L2 data are processed (Ellis,
1985). Towards the issue of input there are generally three views: behaviorist, mentalist and interactionist
view, each holding a different emphasis in explaining SLA. A behaviorist view treats language learning
as environmentally determined, controlled from outside by the stimuli learners are exposed to and the
reinforcement they receive. In contrast, mentalist theories emphasize the importance of the learner‘s
‗black box‘. They maintain that learners‘ brains are especially equipped to learn language and all that is
needed is minimal exposure to input in order to trigger acquisition (Ellis, 1997). Interactionist theories
acknowledge the importance of both input and internal language processing, emphasizing the joint
contribution of linguistic environment and the learners‘ inner mechanism in interaction activities,.
Krashen was an important figure whose input hypothesis once exercised powerful influence on SLA.
According to his input hypothesis, SLA takes place when the learner understands input that contains
grammatical forms that are at ‗i+1‘ (i.e. are a little more advanced than the current state of the learner‘s
interlanguage). He suggests that the right level of input is attained automatically when interlocutors
succeed in making themselves understood in communication (Krashen, 1985:2). In his view, the Input
Hypothesis is central to all of acquisition, i.e. L2 acquisition depends on comprehensible input. In the
classroom, then, the teacher‘s main role is to ensure that learners receive comprehensible input by
providing them with listening and reading materials. However, a great many researches later challenge his
hypothesis by supplying abundant evidence indicating that though necessary, comprehensible input alone
is insufficient for L2 acquisition (Swain 1981,1991; Harley & Hart, 1997; Harley & Swain, 1984, etc.).
They argue that processing of comprehension is different from processing of production. And the ability
to understand meaning conveyed by sentences differs from the ability to use linguistic system to express
meaning (Swain, 1985, 1988; Sharwood Smith, 1986; Crookes, 1991). When input is negotiated and
learners produce output in interaction, they selectively ―take in‖ portions of comprehensible input and
choose correct linguistic form to express themselves. This process makes it possible for the learners to
internalize what they have learnt and experienced.
Corder‘s distinction between input and intake should be mentioned here. He defines input as what is
available to the learner, whereas intake refers to what is actually internalized by the learner (Corder,
1967).This distinction is justified by huge amount of evidence in foreign language learning practice. It is
convincingly argued that L2 acquisition will not occur even if with input at the right quantity and quality
but without being internalized by the learners and becoming part of their interlanguage system.
On the whole, input is absolutely necessary and there is no theory or approach to SLA that does not
recognize the importance of input. In Schwartz‘s view (1993), the input feeds or nurtures an innate system
to aid its growth. But input alone cannot facilitate second language learning. It will not function to the full
in SLA until it gets involved in interaction.
Interaction
Interaction refers to exchanges in which there is some indication that an utterance has not been entirely
understood and participants need to interrupt the flow of the conversation in order for both parties to
understand what the conversation is about (Gass & Selinker, 2001). In conversations involving NNSs,
negotiations are frequent. Long(1980) was the first to point out that conversations involving NNSs

15
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
exhibited forms that did not appear to any significant degree when only NSs were involved. For example,
confirmation checks, comprehension checks and clarification requests are prepared throughout
conversations in which there is a nonproficient NNS participant. In his updated version of the interaction
Hypothesis, Long(1996) suggests that ―negotiation for meaning, and especially negotiation work that
triggers interaction adjustments by the NS or more competent interlocutor, facilitates acquisition because
it connects input, internal learner capacities, particularly selective attention, and output in productive
ways‖ (pp.451-452). Thus , through negotiation, a learner‘s attentional resources may be oriented to (a) a
particular discrepancy between what he or she knows about the L2 and what the L2 really is or (b)an area
of the L2 about which the learner has little or no information(Gass & Torres, 2005). Interaction is said to
be an attention-drawing device, which means that interaction serves to draw attention to an unknown part
of language (Gass, 1977). Learning may take place during the interaction.
Allwright (1984:156)regards interaction as the ―fundamental fact of classroom pedagogy‖ because
―everything happening in the classroom happens through a process of live person-to-person interaction‖.
During such kind of interaction learners make efforts to generate comprehensible output, which turns to
be sources of input for other interlocutors. Misunderstandings occur frequently in interaction due to
different factors, which can be, on different occasions, phonological, syntactic, vocabulary, contextual or
cultural, to name only a few. To get meaning through, or seek correct interpretation, or make up for
communication breakdown, the learners resort to all sorts of strategies. The feedback the learners get
from their teachers and peers drives them to ―test their hypotheses and refine their development
knowledge of the language system‖ (Hedge, 2000); hence functions as a facilitator of language
development.
Other SLA theorists regard interaction as the bedrock of acquisition based on the theories of L. S.
Vygotsky, a Russian psychologist, who argues that children learn through interpersonal activity, such as
play with adults, who provides ‗scaffolding‘, whereby they form concepts that would be beyond them if
they were acting alone. In this respect, the notion of the zones of proximal development is important,
which are created through interaction with more knowledgeable others. As a result of interaction, the
child learns how to control a concept without the assistance of others (Ellis 1997).
Output
Output is the language a learner produces. Swain, the most influential figure for Output Hypothesis, has
argued that comprehensible output also plays a part in L2 acquisition. She pointed out early in 1985 that
only when learners are ―obliged‖ to produce comprehensible output otherwise comprehensible input alone
is insufficient to L2 learning process. According to her there is no better way to test the extent of one‘s
knowledge (linguistic or otherwise) than to have to use that knowledge in some productive way—whether
it is explaining a concept to someone (i.e. teaching) or writing a computer program, or in the case of
language learning, getting even a simple idea across, and in doing so, he might modify a previous
utterance or he might try out form that he had not used before. However, prior to her important paper in
1985, output was traditionally viewed as a way of producing what had previously been learned and the
idea that output could be part of the learning mechanism itself was not seriously contemplated(Gass &
Selinker 2001). Then in 1995, she stated that output might stimulate learners to move from the semantic,
open-ended, nondeterministic, strategic processing prevalent in comprehension to the complete
grammatical processing needed for accurate production. Output, thus, would seem to have a potentially
significant role in the development of syntax and morphology.
Gass (2001) summarizes the four functions of output in L2 learning based on Swain‘s ideas: testing
hypothesis about the structures and meanings of L2; receiving crucial feedback for the verification of
these hypotheses; forcing a shift from more meaning-based processing of the second language to a more
syntactic mode; and developing fluency and automaticity in interlanguage production.
The last significant function of output is to create greater automaticity, which is one pedagogical goal in
SLA. Little effort is required to execute an automatic process( involved when the learner carries out the
task without awareness or attention) as it has become routinized and automatized just as the steps
involved in walking towards a bike, getting out the key, unlocking it, pushing it, getting on it and riding

16
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
it, requiring little thought and less time. Mclaughlin (1987:134) claimed that automatization involves ―a
learned response that has been built up through the consistent mapping of the same input to the same
pattern of activation over many trials.‖ Here this notion is extended to output, meaning that consistent and
successful mapping or practice of grammar to output results in automatic processing (Loschky & Bley-
Vroman, 1993).
Researching The Effectiveness Of Communicative Classrooms
A Historical and Theoretical Background of CLT
Communicative Competence
Scholars and linguists hold different viewpoints as to what acquiring a language majorly entails. Among
various perspectives, Chomskyan and Hymesian notion of competence have exerted substantial influence
in the area of ELT. In the view of Chomsky, competence in language involves ―the speaker-hearer‘s
knowledge of his language in an idealized language community, under idealized psychological conditions
and under idealized personal conditions of the language user‖ (1965, cited in Kohli, 1989). By and large,
Chomsky‘s perspective of competence is predicated on the separation of linguistic knowledge from socio-
cultural factors and psycholinguistic base. As Richards and Rodgers (2001) claim, the concentration of
Chomskyan linguistic theory majorly falls upon ―abstract abilities‖ of speakers enabling them to construct
grammatically valid sentences in a language. In other words, the Chomskyan notion of competence
predominantly attaches importance to linguistic competence.
The narrowness of Chomskyan description of competence has engendered numerous criticisms from
linguists and scholars. Among a considerable objection towards Chomskyan perspective of competence,
Habermas and Dell Hymes are influential figures who have direct bearing on the creation of the
conception of communicative competence. Habermas (1970, cited in Kohli, 1989) points out that
Chomskyan notion of competence suffers from inadequacy in the sense that it is ―a monological capacity‖
and ―elementaristic‖. As a supplement to Chomsky‘s linguistic competence, he proposes a notion of
communicative competence which ―should be related to the system of rules generating an ideal speech
situation, not regarding linguistic codes that link language and universal pragmatics with actual role
systems‖ (Kohli, 1989).
Although Habermas suggests the conception of communicative competence prior to Hymes, the creation
of the term ―communicative competence‖ generally is attributed to Hymes. In his paper ‗Competence and
Performance in Linguistic Theory‘ published in 1971, he coined this term ―communicative competence‖
(Zhou & Yin, 2005). In contrast with Chomsky‘s theory of competence, Hymes considers linguistic
ability is just part of language learners‘ communicative competence and he calls on attention for
situations where ―cultural knowledge is required for the interpretation of the illocutionary force of an
utterance‖ (Kohli,1989). Her (2008) summarizes that Hymes incorporates ―formal possibility‖,
―implementational feasibility‖, ―contextual appropriacy‖ and ―the performative role of utterances‖ into
his definition of communicative competence.
Employment of Communicative Competence-CLT
When the notion of communicative competence is put into pedagogical application, CLT came into being.
The origins of CLT can be traced back to British language teaching in the late 1960s when the theoretical
assumptions of its precedent teaching method—Situational Language Teaching began to be questioned
(Richards & Rodgers 2001). Since its inception in Britain, CLT subsequently gained rapid adoption and
dissemination on a global scale. As Bjorning-Gyde, Doogan and East (2008) indicate that ―CLT is the
dominant model for teaching English as a foreign language (EFL)‖ and has enjoyed an axiomatic status.
Richards and Rodgers (2001) maintain that CLT is best regarded as an approach rather than a method.
That is to say, CLT is not a method per se, but it is based on a wide range of principles that reflect a
communicative view of language and language acquisition. Different scholars approach CLT from
different perspectives. One of the best known definitions of communicative language teaching is provided
by Nunan (1991, cited in Her, 2008) who suggests that CLT attaches importance to communication in the
target language through introducing authentic texts into learning situation, providing opportunities for
learners to focus on the learning process itself and making attempt to combine classroom language

17
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
learning with language activities outside of classroom. Garton and Grave (2017) define CLT as an
teaching approach with meaningful communication as its ultimate goal while Barrot (2018) considers
CLT as a way of teaching in which the utilization of ―communicative activities and target language aims
to develop learners‘ competence of understanding and exchanging different ideas, behavioral modes,
values, beliefs and cultures.‖. Although the definitions provided by scholars vary, it appears that they all
stress the essence of CLT as genuine communication rather than simply learning such linguistic
knowledge as vocabulary, grammar and structure of a language. In Yim‘s words (2016), the aim of CLT
is to foster the capacity of individuals to create and construct utterances (spoken and written) which have
the desirable social value or purpose.
The Discrepancy Between Teaching Realities And CLT
Because of the various barriers in the particular contexts of China, the prevalent English teaching practice
is still dominated by grammar, lexical and syntactic centered approach of teaching although the
authoritative body of State Education Development Commission (SEDC) stipulated the purpose of the
English education to foster students‘ communicative competence early in the 1990s. Arguably, a
communicative teaching classroom is supposed to be made up of listening, speaking, reading and writing.
However, the English teaching practice in China paints a drastically different picture. By and large,
English education at the college level in China is characterized by intensive reading drill which comprises
the following contents the passage itself, the new words and expressions listed bilingually, and the
exercises measuring the students‘ comprehension of the text as well as their grasp of such language points
as key words and sentence patterns‖ (HZ. Wang, 2003). H.Z. Wang‘s assertion is corroborated by another
scholar H. Wang (2008) who maintains that the majority of EFL students concentrate on reading
comprehension. Among the four indispensable components of a language—listening, speaking, reading
and writing, reading is considered to be in a primary or even exclusive position in the English instruction
in China with speaking and writing quite often neglected.
Focus On Form In The Second Language Classroom
Choice Of Linguistic Form
Four different sets of either linguistically or psychologically developed criteria for the

determination of which linguistic form to choose to focus on seem to be discussed most in this

volume. These criteria are: 1) learners’ developmental readiness; 2) relevance of typological

universal; 3) inherent difficulty of rules; and 4) reliability and scope of rules. For any sort of FonF

intervention to be effective, however, the explicit claim is made that whatever criterion is taken

into account, when one form is in focus others must not be (Doughty & Varela, chapter 6;

Doughty & Williams, chapter 10).

To begin with, learners‘ developmental readiness, which has to do with the staged acquisition of a system
(e.g., English negation), can be one of the crucial criteria for the choice of form to focus on. DeKeyser
(chapter 3), Doughty and Williams (chapter 10), Lightbown (chapter 9), Long and Robinson (chapter 2),
and Williams and Evance (chapter 7) address this issue, drawing on Pienemann‘s (1989) teachability
hypothesis which states that, within developmental sequences, it is not possible for learners to acquire,
and therefore, it is not possible to teach, structures that are far beyond the learners‘ current stage of
development. Doughty and Williams, at least, regard Pienemann‘s accounts as appealing in the sense that
they provide an independent explanation of learner data, from which predictions of learner performance
can be made. Long‘s advocacy for Pienemann‘s hypothesis is stronger; he insists that teachers should not

18
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
intend any instructional intervention which is too far beyond the developmental stage of the learners.
Lightbown, however, warns against being obsequious to Pienemann‘s claim in the classroom context. She
proposes several convincing arguments against teaching only to the next phase of any developmental
sequence. First of all, such applications are impractical in most classrooms, given the wide range of
learner abilities. Second, learners do internalize advanced language, and this can eventually become auto-
input for restructuring it in their ILs in some future. Third, learners, in the main, acquire some knowledge
of any feature first and then gain control over that knowledge. Finally, she argues that focus on form
causes later noticing in the input that facilitates the internalization of the input. In accordance with these
Ligtbown‘s claims, Doughty and Williams also cite studies (Spada & Lightbown, 1993; Weinert, 1994;
Zobl, 1983) that show counterevidence against Pienemann‘s teachability hypothesis. Lightbown‘s
suggestion, then, is that a pedagogical focus on advanced forms can have some long-term, if not
immediately noticeable effects. Equally notable as these arguments, the inventory of documented
developmental sequences remains small and insufficient for designing effective pedagogical strategies
(Lightbown, chapter 9; Williams & Evance, chapter 7).
Optimal Degree Of Explicitness Of Focus On Form
Some of the contributors (Doughty & Varela, chapter 6; Harley, chapter 8; Williams and Evans, chapter
7; J. White, chapter 5) have carried out empirical studies on the effects of FonF intervention with varying
degrees of explicitness. Some others (DeKeyser, chapter 3; Doughty and Williams chapter 10; Swain,
chapter 4) review FonF tasks/techniques from the most implicit to the most explicit in terms of their
effectiveness.
At the most unobtrusive, implicit end of the continuum of the degree of FonF intervention obtrusiveness
are input flooding (see J. White, chapter 5, for detail) and task-essentialness (see p. 209 for detail). For
the former, the results of J. White‘s study show that input flooding alone may not be particularly effective
first of all. For the latter, Doughty and Williams, citing Loschky and Bley-Vroman (1993), point out that,
even though task-essentialness would be most useful for the purposes of focus on form in that the
communicative task cannot be successfully completed without the target structure being used, such a task
is difficult to conceive of, first of all, and certainly cannot be devised for linguistic features that are
optional. A little less unobtrusive FonF techniques are those of input enhancement (visual versions such
as highlighting, color-coding, and font manipulation, and auditory versions such as intonational focus on
learner errors). However, as Sharwood Smith (1991, 1993, cited by Doughty & Williams, chapter 10) has
cautioned, it is inappropriate to assume that external manipulation of the input is the only mechanism that
will increase learners‘ attention. He also alleges that artificially induced noticing might not result in the
target forms being analyzed and incorporated into the developing IL. In his words, ―forms may be noticed
perceptually, but not linguistically‖ (p. 237). Notwithstanding, from J. White‘s study that failed to elicit
the expected advantage by those children who had received input enhancement, and the study by
Jourdenais et al. (1995) that does indicate such advantage by enhanced adult learners, Doughty and
Williams suggest that input enhancement can be an effective implicit FonF technique for adult learners,
not to say for children, whose attentional capacity may be overloaded by such enhancement (see also
Harley, chapter 8, for a related discussion about children).
Appropriate Timing Of Focus On Form
In the discussion of the timing of focus on form, this volume addresses two significant issues; whether to
take a reactive or proactive stance, and whether to intervene sequentially or integratively. To begin with,
as to the preference between reactive versus proactive stances, Long and Robinson (chapter 2) view the
reactive stance as most congruent with the general aims of communicative language teaching (see note 1).
Doughty and Williams (chapter 10) also point out the slightly reduced burden of choosing which form to
focus on as one of the additional advantages to adopting the reactive stance. The main concern of the
teacher who takes a reactive stance, then, is to resist the temptation of attending to errors that may not be
amenable to focus on form (Long & Robinson, chapter 2). That is, in the reactive stance, the choice of
form to focus on should be restricted to those classroom learner errors that are ―pervasive,‖ ―systematic,‖
and and known to be ―remediable‖ for learners at this stage of development (although, again, see

19
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
Lightbown‘s claim against clinging too much onto developmental readiness in 2. Choice of linguistic
form).
However, as Doughty and Williams (chapter 10) illustrate, reactive focus on form may be difficult in
practice. For, first of all, reactive focus on form, by its very ―on-demand‖ nature, places considerable
requirements on the teacher‘s ―on-line‖ capacity to notice and assess the need for the intervention, and
instantly to devise consistent FonF interventions for learner errors, while he or she also has to attend to
other pedagogical problems, with the result being that the teacher must be highly experienced. Even if
this demand is met, a reactive stance would be still inappropriate when there are learners of different L1s,
of differing abilities, or of such high ability that errors proceed unnoticed by the teacher or other learners,
since the message is successfully delivered. Finally, a testament to the difficulty of an entirely reactive
focus on form is perhaps the very fact that there are few classroom studies that have investigated the
effectiveness of such a completely unplanned instructional intervention.
DeKeyser’s (chapter 3) recommendation of the FormS-then-FonF instructional sequence, which

echoes the proposals of Lightbown, seems practically valid as well. Based on cognitive skill

acquisition theory, DeKeyser argues for the sequential roles of explicit teaching of linguistic

features (leading to declarative knowledge) first, then controlled practice (proceduralizing), and

finally frequent opportunities to apply declarative knowledge during communicative activities (for

automatization). The cognitive aim of this approach is to convert conscious, declarative

knowledge into more automatically accessible knowledge. DeKeyser explains that this is not a

new approach to instruction; however, he makes it clear that it has not been adequately

implemented in the classroom. Based on the cognitive research to date, then, he suggests that

rules that are easy to learn (declaratively) but hard to acquire (without instruction) are prime

candidates for the declarative-to-procedural-to-automatic sequencing. Finally, as an interesting

note, DeKeyser speculates that the degree of the acquisition of declarative knowledge and that

of its proceduralization interact with the learners’ ability level, and that, accordingly, as learners

advance, it should be possible to increase the difficulty of the declarative knowledge and the

target behaviors.

However, Doughty and Williams (chapter 10) caution that, because of the absolute separation between
explicit provision of rules and communicative use, DeKeyser‘s model diverges in key ways from the
proposal of focus on form (see note 1). They also point out that the research basis for these claims
involves the learning of miniature artificial grammars and thus such findings cannot yet be generalized to
the actual language classroom setting; his model awaits classroom testing. Nevertheless, given the above-
mentioned task constraints that are required if simultaneous integration is to be ensured, the optimal level
of focus on form suggested by Doughty and Williams may not always be practical. If sequential attention

20
 UM Panabo College
Department of Teacher Education
P.N. Arguelles St., San Francisco, Panabo City
Telefax # (084) 628-6437
to form and meaning is all that is possible, Doughty and Williams maintain, determining the optimal
duration of the time interval between attention to form, meaning, and function becomes an urgent issue.
In any event, however, ―the crossover limit must be borne in mind‖ (Doughty & Williams, chapter 10, p.
250)

Self-Help: You can also refer to the sources below to help you further understand
the lesson:
Online references:
*Retrieved from: http://www.cs.columbia.edu/~sbenus/Teaching/TheorLx/Harris_
Linguistic_wars_Ch3.pdf
*Retrieved from: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/30854479.pdf
*Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED507438.pdf
*Retrieved from: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/EJ1083691.pdf
*Retrieved from: https://su.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1236239/FULLTEXT01.pdf
*Retrieved from: https://www.academia.edu/12284393/The_importance_of_grammar_in_
second_language_teaching_and_learning
*Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271908330_ What_is_Functional_Grammar
*Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/330098448_The_Research_on_
Effectiveness_of_Communicative_Language_Teaching_in_China

21