Researh Paper Three

7/30/2019 Researh Paper Three

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/researh-paper-three 1/13

Grammar in Second or Foreign Language Teaching

What is Grammar?

What is grammar, and what does it embody? Language is a conventional system of com-

munication that encompasses both spoken and written form. Both spoken and written communi-

cation are governed by a system of rules otherwise known as grammar. Grammar is the branch

of linguistics that concerns morphology, syntax, and semantics. Morphology refers to the system

of rules that governs the arrangement of sounds, and serves to formulate words. Syntax refers to

the system of rules that governs the arrangement of words, and serves to formulate sentences that

in turn congregate to formulate and embody a text. Sounds, words, sentences, and texts constitute

language and the form it takes (Thornbury, 1). Therefore, grammar is in part the governing of

form, and in part, a tool of meaning.

Grammar; however, is more than the standard, broad definition stated. Grammar is com-

plex in nature, and indefinite. Linguists argue as to whether grammar is fixed or dynamic. It’s my

sentiment that grammar is dynamic in that its myriad of elaborate and un-elaborate rules are evo-

lutionary, and in a continual state of amendment. In a parallel melee, educational theorists have

argued for and against the incorporation of grammar. Why teach grammar? Might there be pre-

requisites to incorporating grammar in language teaching? If so, what are they? What of gram-

mar aught to be taught, and in what order; how to decide? How should grammar be taught?

These are the pertinent questions I hope to answer in regards to grammar in second or foreign

language teaching.

Nicole St. Jean 1



Why Teach Grammar?

Why teach grammar? “No other issue has so preoccupied theorists, and practitioners as the

grammar debate, and the history of language teaching is essentially the history of the claims and

counterclaims for and against the teaching of grammar” (Thornbury, 14). It is crucial to com-

mence on neutral grounds, and assess the arguments both for and against the teaching of gram-

mar in preparation of establishing a firm position. There are a great deal of arguments that con-

tend both for and against the teaching of grammar, what are they?

Classic arguments that contend for the teaching of grammar are sevenfold, and encompass

“the sentence-machine argument, the fine-tuning argument, the fossilisation argument, the

advance-organiser argument, the discreet item argument, the rule-of-law argument, and the

learner expectations argument(1)” (Thornbury,15-17). The sentence-machine argument contends

that grammar instruction equips the learner with a repertoire of language “regularities, patterns,

and rules” that are crucial to original sentence formation, and “linguistic creativity”(Thornbury,

15). The fine-tuning argument contends that grammar instruction “serves as a corrective against

ambiguity”(Thornbury, 15). The fossilisation argument contends that grammar instruction is cru-

cial in that “learners reach a language plateau beyond which it is very difficult to progress;

hence, their linguistic competence fossilises”(Thornbury, 16). The advance-organiser argument

contends that grammar instruction acts as an advance-organizer that primes the learner to notice

for later acquisition via use (Thornbury, 16). The discrete item argument contends that language

devoid of grammar is prodigious, muddled, and without form. Grammar instruction grants form

to an otherwise formless language ; it disbands and organizes language into discrete, bit-sized

Nicole St. Jean 2



items which results in greater digestibility, and learnability. The rule-of-law argument contends

that grammar instruction is imperative for transmission of rules, order, and discipline amidst a

substantial learner population consisting of unruly, and unmotivated individuals.The learner ex-

pectation contends that numerous learners yield predetermined expectations of efficiency, and

systematic learning for which grammar instruction is suitable.

Classic arguments that contend against the teaching of grammar are sixfold, and encom-

pass “the knowledge-how argument, the communication argument, the acquisition argument, the

natural order argument, the lexical chunks argument, and the learner expectations argu-

ment(2)”(Thornbury, 18-20).The knowledge-how argument centers on the “language-is-skill

point of view”(Thornbury, 18). It contends that grammar is learned not through grammar instruc-

tion of explicit or implicit rules, but rather through experiential learning which stems from “fail-

ure of learners to translate rules to skills” (Thornbury, 18). The communication argument also

centers on the “language-is-skill point of view”(Thornbury, 18). It contends that grammar is

learned not through grammar instruction of explicit or implicit rules, but rather through “experi-

ential learning” via “life-like communication” that results in “virtually unconscious” acquisition

(Thornbury, 19). The acquisition argument centers on the distinction between learning and acqui-

sition, and Krashen’s acquisition/learning hypothesis. Language learning refers to formal instruc-

tion; grammar instruction. Acquisition refers to the natural process by which we successfully ac-

quired our primary language. It contends that language acquisition is a more successful means

than that of language learning. The natural order argument spawned from Krashen’s acquisition/

learning hypothesis. It centers on the notion that “there is a natural order of acquisition of gram-

matical items, irrespective of the order in which they are taught”(Thornbury, 19). It contends that

Nicole St. Jean 3



“attempts to subvert the natural order by heeding to traditional textbook grammars, syllabuses,

and instruction are foredoomed, and inevitably fail to convert to a mental grammar”(Thornbury,

19). The lexical chunks argument is a component of item learning. It centers on the notion that

language is learned first via lexical chunks, and later “unpacked into their component

parts”(Thornbury, 20). It contends that a lexical approach to teaching is superior to traditional

grammar instruction in that it is more concrete than its abstract counterpart. The learner expecta-

tions argument (2) is the opposing argument to the learner expectations argument (1). It contends

that while some learners enter the classroom with predetermined expectations of efficiency and

systematic learning that centers on grammar instruction; others with prior grammar instruction

and proficiency enter the classroom with predetermined expectations of putting their knowledge

to use via conversation. Hence, grammar instruction is not suitable within this context.

The arguments both for and against the incorporation of grammar in language teaching

are equally defensible. However; I find the argument in favor of the incorporation of grammar in

language teaching most compelling and it is there that I establish a firm position. However; the

questions remains, might there be pre-requisites to incorporating grammar in language teaching?

If so, what are they?

Might There be Pre-requisites to Incorporating Grammar in Language Teaching?

If So, What Are They?

Might there be pre-requisites to incorporating grammar in language teaching? If so, what

are they? It is important for teachers to understand the learning process of second language

Nicole St. Jean 4



learners and/or “how students naturally develop their ability to interpret and produce grammati-

cal utterances” prior to constructing a syllabus, and lesson plan (Larsen-Freeman, 255). Larsen-

Freeman explains some helpful insights regarding the learning process below ( 255).

Insights Regarding the Learning Process:

1. Learners do not learn structures one at a time nor do they accumulate

structure entities. Learning is a gradual process involving the mapping of

form, meaning, and use; structures do not spring forth in leaners’ inter-

language fully developed, and error free.

2. Even when learners appear to have mastered a particular structure, it is

not uncommon to find backsliding occuring with the introduction of new

forms to learners’ interlanguage. Well-formedness is usually restored

once the new additions have been incorporated and the system self-

organizes or restructures.

3. Second language learners rely on the knowledge and the experience

they have. If they are beginners, they will rely on their L1 as a source of

hypotheses about how the L2 works; when they are more advanced they

will rely more increasingly on the L2.

Nicole St. Jean 5



4. Different learning processes are responsible for different aspects of

language.

How Learners Learn

Scrivener explains that learners learn through noticing, understanding, practicing, and use

(2). Learners require frequent and explicit exposure to grammar in order to identify and recog-

nize. The more exposure, explanation, and examples, the greater the understanding. Learners also

learn through practice in and outside the classroom. However; grammar is delayed, and is not

fully comprehended nor retained until put into further use. Preceding the accommodation of pre-

requisites one is well on their way to incorporating grammar in language teaching. The question

is now, what of grammar aught to be taught, and in what order; how to decide?

What of Grammar Aught to be Taught, and in What Order; How to Decide?

The Syllabus

What of grammar aught to be taught; how to decide? A general criteria for selecting the in-

gredients for the make-up of the syllabus are fundamentally three: “frequency, usefulness, and

appropriateness”(Thornbury 8-9, 26). Frequency information is based on human observation, and

supposition of grammar regularities. However; frequency is not invariably linked to usefulness.

What is frequent is not always useful. Usefulness refers to what is practical in use. Appropriate-

Nicole St. Jean 6



ness refers to what is suitable to the learners. Hence, usefulness and appropriateness are bed-

mates; both are dependent on learner and situational/instructional variables. Learner variables

equate to “age, level of proficiency, educational background, size of the group, and constitution

of the group”(culture, ethnicity, linguistics) etc(Thornbury, 27). Situational/instructional vari-

ables regard the subject of instruction, “the educational context, and the materials and re-

sources”(Thornbury, 27). Learner and situational variables shape “learners needs, interests,

goals/motivations, beliefs, values, and attitudes”(Thornbury, 26). All in all, the syllabus should

be fashioned around what is most “frequent, useful, and appropriate” in light of the situational/

instructional variables, and learner variables (Thornbury 8-9, 26). “Nevertheless, it is fair to hy-

potheses a core grammar that will be useful to all the learners, whatever their needs” (Thornbury,

9).

The content has been selected in light of the criteria discussed above. The question is now, in

what order should the content be taught? The criteria for ordering the selected content within the

syllabus is fundamentally three: “complexity, learnability, and teachability”(Thornbury, 9-10). In

terms of complexity, less complex structures should be ordered before more complex structures.

In terms of learnability, It would only seem logical that the less complex structures would be the

most learnable due to ease. “However, traditional notions of learnability have been called into

questions recently, in light of research into what is called the natural order of language acquisi-

tion”(Thornbury, 10). The natural order of language acquisition explains that “all learners ac-

quire grammatical items in a fairly predictable order, and this happens irrespective of either their

mother tongue or the order in which they are actually taught these structures”(Thornbury, 10). In

terms of the natural order of language acquisition, structures should be ordered in the order for

Nicole St. Jean 7



which they are naturally acquired.In terms of teachability, structures that are easier to teach

should be ordered before structures that are more difficult to teach.

Lessons/Activities

We revisit the question, What of grammar aught to be taught; how to decide? A general crite-

ria for selecting the ingredients for the make-up of the lessons/activities are fundamentally three:

“efficiency, usefulness, and appropriateness”(Thornbury 25-26, 8). Efficiency encompasses

“economy, ease, and efficacy”(Thornbury, 25). Economy regards the time efficiency of the

lesson/activity. Ease regards the level of difficulty of the lesson/activity and ease of set-up. Effi-

cacy asks the question, “is it consistent with good learning principles”(Thornbury, 26)? Does it

grab the learners’ attention? Is it memorable? Is it comprehensible? These questions are based on

good learning principles. As discussed above usefulness refers to what is practical in use. Appro-

priateness refers to what is suitable to the learners. Again, usefulness and appropriateness are

bedmates; both are dependent on learner and situational/instructional variables. Learner variables

equate to “age, level of proficiency, educational background, size of the group, and constitution

of the group”(culture, ethnicity, linguistics) etc(Thornbury, 27). Situational/instructional vari-

ables regard the subject of instruction, “the educational context, and the materials and re-

sources”(Thornbury, 27). Learner and situational variables shape learners “needs, interests,

goals/motivations, beliefs, values, and attitudes”(Thornbury, 26). All in all, lessons/activities

should be fashioned around what is most “efficient, useful, and appropriate” in light of the

situational/instructional variables, and learner variables (Thornbury, 25-26,8). It should evidently

Nicole St. Jean 8



meet the course objectives set forth in the syllabus. Once the syllabus, and lessons/activities are

fully realised, the questions is then: how should grammar be taught?

How Should Grammar be Taught?

Principles and Methods of Grammar Teaching

How should grammar be taught? There are two scholarships of grammar: written grammar,

and spoken grammar. It’s important that grammar in second language teaching be taught in two

parts: written and spoken grammar. It should be taught “without a strong bias to the written or

spoken mode”(Thornbury, 8). It should be taught equally, simultaneously, and in context. It

should be taught with the knowledge of the distinct differences between written grammar, and

spoken grammar. Nevertheless, a neutral English is more suitable for beginners.

Teaching methods center on the answers to two general questions. First, “should the method

adhere to a grammar syllabi”(Thornbury, 21)? Second, should grammar be taught covertly or

overtly? The answers to such questions distinguish one method from the next. The nine most

noted twentieth century methods are “the grammar-translation method, the direct method, the

reading method, the audiolingualism method, the oral-situational method, the cognitive method,

the affective-humanistic method, the comprehension-based method, and the communicative

method”(Celce-Murcia, 5-8). These methods fall under two general categories: 1) the inductive

approach, and 2) the deductive approach. The inductive approach “requires learners to study ex-

amples and work the rules out for themselves”(Thornbury, 22). The deductive approach requires

that the teacher “ present the rules to the learners, and requires that they then apply them through

Nicole St. Jean 9



study, and manipulation of examples”(Thornbury, 22). I prefer the coupling of both the inductive,

and deductive approach as both are advantageous. However; discretion of use of either is de-

pendent on learner, and situational/instructional variables.

Some methods are overt in their teaching of grammar while others are covert. Overt grammar

teaching is “teaching to a grammar syllabi, and explicitly presenting the rules of gram-

mar”(Thornbury, 23). Covert grammar teaching does not teach to a grammar syllabi nor explic-

itly present the rules of grammar, but rather teaches, and addresses grammar as it occurs and/or

as “questions arise in the course of doing activities”(Thornbury, 23). Covert grammar is centered

on habit formation, and the process of natural language acquisition. Overt grammar is centered

on rule formation, and the idea that language is learned rather than acquired.

I don’t particularly believe in the ‘one handed clap’; hence, I’m keen on a mixed method that

is comprised of the three C’s: 1) the cognitive method, 2) the comprehension-based method, and

3) the communicative method which support the lot of what I’ve learned thus far as well as the

theories I’ve concocted based on such. Grammar in second language teaching is a significant

piece of the pie. However; it should not inundate the course, should be brief, and “should be

thoughtfully integrated with other phases of the writing and editing process”(Ferris & Hedgcock,

273).

Conclusion: The Questions and Their Answers

The questions addressed in regards to grammar in second or foreign language teaching

were plentiful. The first of these asked the question, why teach grammar? The answer: grammar

instruction equips learners with a repertoire of “language regularities, patterns, and rules” essen-

Nicole St. Jean 10



tial to mass “original sentence creation”, and “linguistic creativity”(Thornbury, 15). It is “correc-

tive against ambiguity”(Thornury,16). Grammar instruction is crucial in that linguistic compe-

tence in due course fossilises in learners. It acts as an advance-organiser that primes the learner

to notice for later acquisition via use. Grammar instruction grants form to an otherwise formless

language; it disbands and organizes language into discrete, bit-sized items which result in greater

digestibility, and learnability. It is suitable for the transmission of rules, order, and discipline

amidst a substantial leaner population consisting of unruly, and unmotivated individuals. Lastly,

grammar instruction meets the predetermined expectations of numerous learners whom expect

efficiency, and systematic learner or in other words grammar instruction.

The next question asked, might there be pre-requisites to incorporating grammar in lan-

guage teaching? If so, what are they? The answer: there are pre-requisites. The pre-requisites to

incorporating grammar into language teaching center on being aware of learner insights on the

learning process, and how learners learn.

The preceding inquiry asked, what of grammar aught to be taught, and in what order; how

to decide? The deciding criteria for construction of a syllabus consisted of “frequency, useful-

ness, and appropriateness”(Thornbury 8-9, 26). The deciding criteria for the construction of

lessons/activities consisted of “efficiency, usefulness, and appropriateness” (Thornbury, 25-26,

8).

The last of these questions focused on how to fully realise grammar instruction in lan-

guage teaching. Hence it asked the question, how should grammar be taught? It is my sentiment

that grammar aught to be taught in two parts: written and spoken grammar “without a strong bias

to the written or spoken mode”(Thornbury, 8). It should be taught equally, simultaneously, and in

Nicole St. Jean 11



context with the knowledge of the distinct differences between written and spoken grammar. The

teaching methods should be both inductive, and deductive, both covert, and overt. Methods aught

to be combined for optimal effectiveness and from my perspective aught to comprise the three

C’s: 1) the cognitive method, 2) the comprehension-based method, and 3) the communicative

method. Grammar aught not inundate the course, should be brief, and “should be thoughtfully

integrated with other phases of the writing and editing process” (Ferris & Hedgcock, 273).

Nicole St. Jean 12



References:

Thornbury, Scott. How to Teach Grammar. Essex, Eng: Pearson/Longman, 1999. Print.

Scrivenger, Jim. Teaching Grammar. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press, 2003. Print.

Nunan, Dadvid. Practical English Language Teaching: Grammar. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

ESL/ELT, 2005. Print.

Larsen-Freeman, Diane. “Teaching Grammar.” Teaching English as a Second or Foreign

Language 3rd ed. Ed. Celce-Murcia, Marianne. Boston, Ma: Heinle & Heinle, 2001. 255-266.Print.

Celce-Murcia, Marianne. “Language Teaching Approaches: An Overview.” Teaching English as

a Second or Foreign Language: 3rd ed. Ed Celce-Murcia, Marianne. Boston, Ma: Heinle &

Heinle, 2001. 5-8. Print.

Ferris, Dana, and John Hedgcock. “Improving Accuracy in Student Writing: Error Treatment in

the Composition Class.” Teaching ESL Composition: Purpose, Process, and Practice: 2nd ed.

New York, Ny: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, 2005. 273. Print.

Nicole St. Jean 13

Documents

Researh Paper Three