Rod Ellis 1995 Interpretation Tasks for Grammar Teaching TESOL Quarterly

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 29, No. 1, Spring 1995

Interpretation Tasks forGrammar TeachingROD ELLISTemple University

Grammar teaching has traditionally consisted of giving learners op-portunities to produce specific grammatical structures. Such an ap-proach may prove ineffective because it does not take account ofhow learners acquire grammatical structures (e.g., Krashen, 1982).This article examines an alternative approach to grammar teaching—one based on interpreting input. This approach emphasizes helpinglearners to notice grammatical features in the input, comprehendtheir meanings, and compare the forms present in the input withthose occurring in learner output. The rationale for the approachis discussed as are the principles for designing interpretation tasksfor grammar teaching.

A lthough applied linguists now largely agree that L2 classroomacquisition occurs when learners participate in interaction that

affords comprehensible input and output (Krashen, 1985; Long, 1983;Pica, 1992; Swain, 1985), they have also recognized that higher levels ofgrammatical competence require direct intervention in interlanguagedevelopment. A case has been made for supplementing activities de-signed to focus learners’ attention on message conveyance with activi-ties that also require a focus on form (Ellis, 1993a; VanPatten, in press;White, 1987). How, then, should this be done? What kinds of grammarteaching will work best for acquisition?

Traditionally, grammar teaching has been conducted by means ofactivities that give learners opportunities to produce sentences con-taining the targeted structure. These activities can consist of mechani-cal pattern-practice drills of the kind found in the audiolingual methodor situational grammar exercises in which the target structure is contex-tualized in terms of some real or imaginary situation (see Ur, 1988,for examples). The underlying assumption of both types of activity isthat having learners produce the structure correctly and repeatedlyhelps them learn it.

This traditional approach faces a number of problems. First, second

87

language acquisition (SLA) research (e.g., Ellis, 1989; Pienemann,1984) has shown that learners pass through a number of stages onroute to acquiring the ability to produce a target language structure andthat grammar teaching often does not alter this sequence. Teachinglearners to produce a target structure that they are not ready to pro-duce may not work. Second, asking learners to produce grammaticalstructures they find difficult and then correcting them when they makemistakes may increase their anxiety and result in a psychoaffectiveblock to learning anything (Krashen, 1982).

An alternative approach to grammar teaching is to design activitiesthat focus learners’ attention on a targeted structure in the input andthat enable them to identify and comprehend the meaning(s) of thisstructure. This approach emphasizes input processing for comprehen-sion rather than output processing for production and requires theuse of what I have termed interpretation tasks to replace traditionalproduction tasks (Ellis, 1993b).

This article describes and illustrates interpretation tasks for gram-mar teaching. I will begin, however, with a brief examination of thepsycholinguistic rationale for a comprehension-based approach togrammar teaching.

A PSYCHOLINGUISTIC RATIONALE

Figure 1 presents a model of L2 acquisition (see Ellis, 1990, 1993a).This model, designed to address the role of formal instruction in

acquisition, is based on a distinction between implicit and explicit L2knowledge. Implicit knowledge is typically manifest in some form ofnaturally occurring language behavior (e.g., a conversation). It is intu-itive and, therefore, exists in unanalyzed form. It can be abstract andstructured (i.e., rule based) or chunklike (i.e., formulaic). Explicitknowledge typically manifests itself in some form of problem-solvingactivity (e.g., a sentence transformation exercise), but it can also beaccessed in natural language use that allows time for monitoring, asrepresented by A in Figure 1. Explicit knowledge is held consciouslyand is stored in analyzed form. Unlike implicit knowledge, therefore,it is reportable.

The model is a weak-interface model. That is, it hypothesizes thatexplicit knowledge of L2 items and structures may convert directlyinto implicit L2 knowledge (see B in Figure 1) but, as the dotted linesare intended to suggest, usually does not. This position is groundedin research which indicates that learners do not bypass developmentalsequences (which I assume to reflect implicit knowledge) as a result

88 TESOL QUARTERLY

FIGURE 1A Model of L2 Acquisition Incorporating a Weak Interface Position

Key:= primary processes

---------- = secondary processes

of practicing target structures (Ellis, 1989; Pienemann, 1984, 1989;Schumann, 1978).

In addition to this direct relationship between explicit and implicitL2 knowledge, the model hypothesizes an indirect relationship, andit is this that is most important. The model proposes that explicit L2knowledge facilitates implicit L2 knowledge in two principal ways, asshown in C in Figure 1. First, it helps learners notice linguistic proper-ties of the input they otherwise might not notice. Input is processedby means of top-down strategies designed to derive the message con-tent with maximum efficiency by utilizing context cues and also bybottom-up strategies with which the learner attends to and attemptsto decode specific L2 items and structures.

My claim is that bottom-up processing is a necessary condition ofL2 acquisition (i.e., no noticing, no acquisition) and that if learnerspossess explicit knowledge of a specific feature, they are better ableto engage in bottom-up processing. In other words, explicit knowledgehelps learners obtain intake (i.e., to process grammatical informationfor short-term and maybe medium-term memory). This hypothesisowes much to Faerch and Kasper’s (1986) views concerning the impor-tance of bottom-up processing for acquisition and to Schmidt’s (1990,1993) ideas about the role of consciousness in language learning.Faerch and Kasper (1986) suggest that whereas effective listening in-

GRAMMAR INTERPRETATION TASKS 89

volves the use of top-down processes, where learners utilize contextualinformation and existing knowledge to understand what is said, theacquisition of new linguistic forms may require the use of bottom-upprocessing, where learners pay attention to forms that are problematicto them. Schmidt argues that no learning is possible without somedegree of consciousness. He distinguishes between intentionality andattention, arguing that “while the intention to learn is not always crucialto learning, attention (voluntary or involuntary) to the material to belearned is” (Schmidt, 1992, p. 209). Neither Faerch and Kasper norSchmidt are suggesting that learners attend consistently to form whenthey are communicating. Clearly that is not possible if communicationis to proceed smoothly. At certain points, however, their attention maybe directed away from comprehending for meaning to attending toand subjectively noticing specific language forms.

Second, intake is also enhanced when learners carry out a secondoperation-comparing what they have noticed in the input with whatthey currently produce in their own output. This kind of cognitivecomparison1 is hypothesized to help learners identify what it is thatthey still need to learn. It can serve two functions: It can help learners“notice the gap” (Schmidt & Frota, 1986, p. 310) between the inputand their own output, and it can give the learner evidence that anexisting hypothesis regarding a target language structure is the correctone. In other words, cognitive comparisons serve as a mechanism fordisconfirming or confirming hypotheses in implicit knowledge.

This model allows us to identify a number of processes2 involvedin learning and using grammatical features.

• Interpretation

This is the process by which learners endeavor to comprehend input andin so doing pay attention to specific linguistic features and their meanings.It involves noticing and cognitive comparison and results in intake.

• Integration

Integration occurs when learners are able to incorporate intake into theirdeveloping interlanguage systems (i.e., their implicit knowledge). Not allintake is so accommodated, as learners are only able to incorporate features

1The term cognitive comparison replaces the term noticing the gap used in previously publishedversions of this model (see Ellis, 1993a). This is because this term better captures the factthat learners need to notice when their own output is the same as the input as well as whenit is different.

2VanPatten (in press) has identified a very similar set of processes. He refers to themas input processing, accommodation and restructuring, and monitoring, acress, retrieval, speechaccommodation.

90 TESOL QUARTERLY

for which they are ready.3 Integration may also be accompanied by restruc-turing (McLaughlin, 1990). That is, the incorporation of new linguisticmaterial may cause learners to reorganize the information in their existinginterlanguage systems.

• Production

Production typically relies on implicit knowledge (cf. Krashen’s MonitorModel), but this can be supplemented by explicit knowledge through moni-toring (see A in Figure 1). Production does not serve as the primary meansfor acquiring new linguistic knowledge although it may help learners togain mastery over features that have already entered their interlanguage(i.e., it can lead to greater accuracy).

One implication of this model for pedagogy is that grammar teachingmight usefully focus on interpretation. As VanPatten (in press) putsit:

Given the important role of input and input processing in second languageacquisition, it is reasonable to wonder whether or not explicit instruction ingrammar that involves a focus on input is more appropriate than traditional

duction.approaches to grammar instructin where learners are engaged in pro-

Although the model also affords other roles for grammar teaching(e.g., consciousness raising to develop learners’ explicit knowledge andproduction practice to help learners use already learned features moreaccurately), it suggests that teachers might profitably try to focus learn-ers’ attention on noticing and understanding specific grammatical fea-tures in input, as it is by this means that the acquisition of new featuresgets started. Before we consider how this might be done, however,we will briefly examine what empirical evidence there is in favor ofinterpretation-based grammar teaching.

SOME EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE

Empirical support for an input-based approach to teaching grammarcan be found in the early studies of the comprehension approach (seeWinitz, 1981). A general finding of these studies was that beginninglearners who were exposed to input they were required to comprehendbut not asked to produce outperformed learners following a moretraditional, production-based program in tests of listening and readingcomprehension (as might be expected) and did as well and often better

3There are various ways of explicating what is meant by readiness. Pienemann and Johnston(1987), for example, suggest that the acquisition of developmental grammatical features isonly possible if learners have developed the prerequisite processing operations.


in tests of speaking and writing. A good example of a comprehension-based approach is Total Physical Response (TPR) (see Asher, 1977).This method follows a structural syllabus but does not involve produc-tion practice, at least in the early stages. Instead learners are asked toperform actions to demonstrate their understanding of commandsthat have been specially contrived to teach the structures. Asher hasconducted a number of studies (e.g., Asher, Kusudo, & de la Torre,1974), involving both children and adults, to evaluate the effectivenessof TPR in comparison to other, production-based methods, in particu-lar, the audiolingual method. The results he reports demonstrate thatTPR leads not only to better comprehension and production but alsoto enhanced motivation and greater persistence in language learning.4

In a review of comprehension-based approaches, Gary ( 1978) identifiesfour main advantages: (a) a cognitive advantage (i.e., better L2 learn-ing), (b) an affective advantage (i.e., the avoidance of the stress andembarrassment that often accompanies trying to produce sentences infront of others), (c) an efficiency advantage (i.e., a comprehension-based approach works equally well with low and high aptitude learn-ers), and (d) a utility advantage (i.e., teaching listening skills helps alearner become functional in using the L2 and also enables a learnerto continue their language study independently of the teacher).

Although evaluation studies of comprehension-based approaches tolanguage teaching demonstrate their effectiveness in promoting over-all L2 proficiency, they do not show (or try to show) that comprehend-ing input enables learners to acquire specific grammatical features. Anumber of recent studies, however, provide evidence of just this.Doughty (1991) investigated the effects of instruction on adult learners’acquisition of relative clauses. The instruction took the form of acomputer-assisted reading lesson, based on a text specially designedto include examples of the target structure. One group received helpin understanding the text by means of expansions or clarifications ofsentences containing relative clauses. A second group received explicitinstruction on relative clauses. A third, control group just read thesentences. Doughty found that the first and second groups improvedin their ability to produce relative clauses to a significantly greaterextent than the control group. She also found that the first groupoutperformed both the second and third groups in a test that measuredoverall comprehension of the passage. In other words, the meaning-oriented instruction directed at making sentences containing the target

4Asher’s studies evaluating TPR should be treated with some caution. They only examinedbeginning learners and typically did not include follow-up tests. It is not certain, therefore,whether TPR is equally effective with more advanced learners or whether the advantagesare long term.

92 TESOL QUARTERLY

structure comprehensible seemed to work best because it led to bothacquisition of the target structure and to better overall comprehension.

VanPatten and Cadierno (1993) compared traditional production-oriented practice with listening practice that required learners to pro-cess ,specially contrived input. The study involved university-levelSpanish learners and focused on object-verb-subject word order andclitic object pronouns in Spanish. They found that the learners whowere asked to process input by means of interpretation-based grammartasks outperformed those taught by means of production-based prac-tice on a test that measured comprehension of the target structuresand, more surprisingly, did just as well on a test that measured abilityto produce the target structures accurately. These results were re-peated in follow-up tests administered 1 month later. VanPatten andCadierno suggest that whereas the production-based instruction onlycontributed to explicit knowledge, the comprehension-based instruc-tion created intake which the learners were able to integrate into theirinterlanguage systems (i.e., it led to implicit knowledge).

A somewhat similar study was carried out by Tuz (1992) on Japaneseuniversity students studying general English. In this case the targetstructure was word order with psychological verbs such as like, attract,and disgust (see next section). Both groups made use of a set of picturesdepicting events involving psychological verbs, similar to those foundin Activity 1 of the materials provided in the Appendix. In the caseof the control group, the pictures were used as stimuli for sentenceproduction, whereas in the experimental group, they were used topractice comprehension of sentences containing psychological verbs.The results of this study were even more striking than those of VanPat-ten and Cadierno. Again, the learners receiving the comprehension-based instruction outperformed those receiving the production-basedinstruction on a comprehension test of the structure, but, in addition,they also outperformed them on a production test. The interpretationtasks used in this study enabled the learners to develop the kind ofknowledge needed to both comprehend and produce the target struc-ture and did so to a much greater extent than the production tasks.Unfortunately, the study had no follow-up test, so it is not possible tosay to what extent this advantage was maintained over time.

The research to date, therefore, suggests that comprehension-basedinstruction not only results in greater overall proficiency but is alsomore effective in enabling learners to acquire specific grammaticalstructures. One caveat is in order, however. The tests used in both theearly studies of comprehension-based language teaching and in thelater studies investigating specific grammatical structures were of thekind that allowed for the use of explicit L2 knowledge through moni-toring. VanPatten and Cadierno’s (1993) claim that comprehension-


based instruction results in implicit L2 knowledge is speculative, there-fore. Before we can be sure of this, we need to investigate whetherthe knowledge obtained through comprehension-based instruction canbe used in spontaneous communication, where there is little opportu-nity to employ explicit knowledge through monitoring. VanPatten (inpress) reports that a study currently in progress indicates that it is.

DESIGNING INTERPRETATION TASKS

Interpretation tasks have the following goals.

1. To enable learners to identify the meaning(s) realized by a specificgrammatical feature (i.e., to help them carry out a form-functionmapping). In this case, the goal is grammar comprehension, to bedistinguished from what might be termed message comprehension,which can take place without the learner having to attend to thegrammatical form. For example, on hearing the sentence:

I’d like three bottles please.

a learner may be able to understand that bottles is plural in meaningwithout noticing the -s morpheme or understanding its function.

2. To enhance input (Sharwood Smith, 1993) in such a way that learn-ers are induced to notice a grammatical feature that otherwise theymight ignore. In other words, interpretation tasks are designed tofacilitate noticing.

3. To enable learners to carry out the kind of cognitive comparisonthat has been hypothesized to be important for interlanguage devel-opment. Learners need to be encouraged to notice the gap betweenthe way a particular form works to convey meaning in the inputand how they are using the same form or, alternatively, how theyconvey the meaning realized by the form when they communicate.One way of fostering this is to draw learners’ attention to the kindsof errors that learners typically make.

Interpretation tasks can be devised as sequences of activities thatreflect these three operations. That is, in the first instance, learnersare required to comprehend input that has been specially contrivedto induce learners to attend to the meaning of a specific grammaticalstructure, followed by a task that induces learners to pay careful atten-tion to the important properties of the target feature, and finally bya task that encourages the kind of- cognitive comparison learners willhave to perform ultimately on their own output. This proposal is, infact, not so different from an earlier proposal of Ingram, Nord and

94 TESOL QUARTERLY

Dragt (1975). They suggested that the development of listening fluencyrequired learners to pass through three phases: (a) the Decoding Phase,when learners were invited to respond to stimuli by selecting fromalternative answers, (b) the Auditory-Response Phase, where learnerswere required to anticipate what was going to be said, and (c) the Self-Monitoring Phase, where learners were asked to identify errors orincongruities. (a) and (c) resemble the processes of noticing and error-identification. However, (b) appears to involve the kind of top-downprocessing involved in message comprehension rather than the bot-tom-up processing needed for grammar comprehension.

Two factors are important in selecting target structures—problemat-icity and learnability. Problematicity can be determined by examiningsamples of the learners’ output in order to determine (a) which gram-matical structures are not yet being used (i.e., the forms have not beenacquired) and, also, more crucially, (b) the forms that are being usedbut incorrectly because their target function(s) has not yet been ac-quired. This will call for some kind of error analysis (Corder, 1974).The problems so identified become candidates for instruction, thefinal selection of which will need to take account of learnability. Thisconcerns whether the learner is able to integrate new grammaticalinformation into the interlanguage system. In the case of problemsresulting from lack of knowledge of target forms it will be very difficultto decide when a particular group of learners are ready to acquire aspecific new form. However, if the new learning required is that ofassigning a different function to an already acquired form, learnabilitymay be less of a problem. The best candidates for interpretation tasks,therefore, may be strictures for which the form is known but themeaning(s) realized by the form is not5. Many learners, for example,will be familiar with the simple form of regular verbs (e.g., come/comes)but not yet use this form to express general truths (e.g., Iron rusts ifit gets wet.) or futurity (e.g., I fly to Tokyo next week.).

A good example of a problematic structure for many intermediatelearners is what Burt (1975) has referred to as psychological predicateconstructions. Tuz’s (1992) study demonstrated that Japanese learnersdo have considerable difficulty in both comprehending and producingsentences with such verbs. Burt’s article suggests that this difficultymay be one that learners with other L1s also experience. A psychological

5It may not be necessary to totally exclude problems resulting from ignorance of form,however, if the instructional aim is not to effect a change in the learner’s interlanguage(i.e., long-term L2 mernory) but the lesser one of facilitating intake (i.e. short-term memory).In this case, learnabilty may not be an issue and the choice of target structures can bedetermined solely on the grounds of problematicity. It remains to be seen, however, whetherlearnability is only an issue where integration is concerned (as I suspect) or whether it alsoapplies to noticing and comprehending.


verb (e.g., love, prefer, bore, and worry) is one that refers to some affectivestate. These typically occur in transitive constructions in which onenoun phrase functions as expen’enter and the other as a stimulus. Thefollowing might be considered the unmarked order:6

Experiencer + verb + stimulus(e.g., Mary loves cats.)

whereas the more marked order is:

Stimulus + verb + experience(e.g., Mary worries her mother.)

The learning problem arises in the marked order. Learners overgener-alize the unmarked pattern, thus misunderstanding sentences thattake the marked order. The above sentence, for example, may beunderstood as Mary worries about her mother. It can also result in produc-tion errors, as when a learner says:

* He doesn’t worry the cat.

when intending to say that the cat doesn’t worry him. Burt suggeststhat psychological predicate constructions are an example of globalgrammar in that they affect overall sentence organization and seriouslyinterfere with communication. As such, they are prime candidates forinstruction. To overcome the problem that they pose, learners needto (a) recognize that psychological verbs fall into two classes accordingto the order of the noun phrases that function as experience andstimulus and (b) discover which verbs belong to which class. Giventhat intermediate learners will already have acquired a knowledge oftransitive constructions and will already be using many psychologicalverbs, the problem can be considered to be primarily one of functionrather than form.

An interpretation task for teaching marked psychological verbs isincluded in the Appendix. This begins with an activity designed topractice students’ comprehension of sentences containing a numberof psychological verbs, some common and some not so common. Inthis activity, students are required to assess the truthfulness of a setof sentences in relation to pictures. The input is oral. For example,the students hear a sentence such as:

She loved his hairstyle.

6The grounds for considering experiencer + verb + stimulus unmarked are (a) some ofthe most common psychological verbs in English function in this way (e.g., like, enjoy, want),and (b) these verbs do not easily permit the alternative pattern (e.g., The book was wantedby Mary). However, psychological verbs that permit the stimulus + verb + experiencerpattern also easily permit the alternative pattern (e.g., Mary worries John—John worries aboutMary).

96 TESOL QUARTERLY

and evaluate it in relation to a picture which shows a woman lookingadmiringly at a young man with an exotic hairdo. The sentences arecontrived in such a way that there are pronominal clues as to thecorrect meaning. For example, the pronoun his in the above sentenceindicates that the sentence is about a man’s hairstyle, not a woman’s.In this way, students can arrive at the correct interpretation of senten-ces even if they are not sure of which group a particular verb falls in.Another feature of Activity 1 is that learners are allowed to requestrepetition of sentences. This is to encourage the process of negotiatinginput, which a number of researchers (e.g., Long, 1983) have hypothe-sized is important for comprehension and acquisition. This activity isdesigned to have students grapple initially with meaning while encour-aging them to pay attention to the syntactic relations between words.

The second activity is more analytic. It focuses students’ attention onthe experience in sentences containing both unmarked and markedpsychological verbs. In this case the input is written so as to allow timefor students to reflect on the sentences. They are asked to draw arrowsto show who or what experiences the feeling described by the verb.For example if the verb is like the arrow will need to go from thesubject of the sentence to the verb:

Sometimes people like dogs.

whereas if the verb is disgust, the arrow will need to go from the objectof the sentence to the verb:

Sometimes people disgust dogs.

This activity has a consciousness-raising function. That is, it seeksto make students aware of the grammatical difference between psycho-logical verbs such as like and disgust. It can be extended by otherconsciousness-raising activities (see Ellis, 1994). For example, studentsmight be asked to classify the verbs in the sentences they are exposedto into two groups according to whether the experience is the gram-matical subject or object. The teacher might also like to provide anexplicit explanation of the difference between the two verb groups.

The third activity requires attention to both the target form and themeaning of a set of sentences. VanPatten (in press) distinguishes be-tween referential and affective or learner-centered activities. The former callfor an objective interpretation of sentences, whereas the latter ask fora more personalized response. Thus, although Activities 1 and 2 arereferential in nature, Activity 3 is learner centered. The students, forexample, are asked to reveal something about their personal responsesto attributes of women and men. If they read a sentence such as:

Tall women frighten me.


and evaluate it as true, partly true, or not true for them. If time permits,the teacher can use the students’ responses in this activity to carry outa survey of what types of men/women the students feel positive andnegative about.

The final activity—Activity 4—focuses students’ attention on thedifference between the correct way of using marked psychologicalverbs and the incorrect way. This is done by means of a dialogue whichthe students listen to. They hear an imaginary language learner (Koji)attempt to explain his reaction to different types of women to a native-speaking friend. However, he has not yet learned that with markedpsychological verbs the experience is the grammatical object ratherthan the subject. The result is that he produces such sentences as:

* I frighten tall women.

when he means to say:

Tall women frighten me.

His friend helps him by rephrasing the sentences correctly. The stu-dents’ task is to identify the incorrect sentences Koji produces andwork out what he should have said.7

This task illustrates a number of general principles for the designof interpretation tasks in general. These are:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

Learners should be required to process the target structure, notto produce it.

An interpretation activity consists of a stimulus to which learnersmust make some kind of response.

The stimulus can take the form of spoken or written input.

The response can take various forms (e.g., indicate true-false,check a box, select the correct picture, draw a diagram, performan action) but in each case the response will be either completelynonverbal or minimally verbal.

The activities in the task can be sequenced to require first attentionto meaning, then noticing the form and function of the grammati-cal structure, and finally error identification.

As a result of completing the task, the learners should have arrivedat an understanding of how the target form is used to performa particular function or functions in communication (i.e., theymust have undertaken a form-function mapping).

7It can be argued that learners will need subsequent opportunities to try to use psychologicalverbs in communicative production tasks (e.g., information-gap tasks). This is when theyneed to be encouraged to pay close attention to their own output. One way in which thismight be achieved is through focused communication tasks (see Nobuyoshi & Ellis, 1993).

98 TESOL QUARTERLY

7.

8.

9.

10.

Learners can benefit from the opportunity to negotiate the inputthey hear or read.

Interpretation tasks should require learners to make a personalresponse (i.e., relate the input to their own lives) as well as areferential response.

As a result of completing the task, learners should have been madeaware of common learner errors involving the target structure aswell as correct usage.

Interpretation grammar teaching requires the provision of imme-diate and explcit feedback on the correctness of the students’responses.

However, the extent to which each principle is essential in the sensethat it contributes to task-effectivenessremains to be seen.

CONCLUSION

or- affects learning outcomes

A number of applied linguists (e.g., Krashen 1982; Prabhu 1987)have argued in favor of what I term a zero position where grammarteaching is concerned.8 That is, they have proposed that attempts toteach grammar should be abandoned and learners allowed to developtheir interlanguages naturally by engaging in communication in theL2. This position is motivated by research showing that learners prog-ress along a natural sequence of development for grammatical struc-tures, which direct instruction is unable to circumvent. This article hasproposed an approach to grammar teaching that is compatible withhow learners learn grammar. Interlanguage development can be morereadily influenced by manipulating input than output, an approachthat requires interpretation tasks that cause learners to attend to spe-cific grammatical properties in the input, to identify and understandthe meanings they convey, and to compare the form-function map-pings of the target language with those that characterize the interimstages of learners’ own interlanguage development.

Interpretation tasks offer teachers the chance to intervene directlyin interlanguage development. But they do not guarantee that theirintervention will be successful because intake may not become part ofimplicit L2 knowledge. Nor is it the case that all grammar teachingshould be comprehension based. There may be a role for other forms

8Krashen (1982) does allow for some grammar teaching—for what he terms subject matter.This, however, has a very limited place and is only for students who “are interested in thestudy of language per se” (p. 119).

GRAMMAR INTERPRETATION TASKS 9 9

of grammar teaching, such as consciousness-raising (Ellis, 1994) andperhaps, also, traditional production-based instruction as a way ofimproving learners’ accuracy in the use of target language grammaticalforms they have already acquired. Interpretation tasks are proposedas just one—albeit a highly promising one—of several ways of tacklinggrammar instruction.

Finally, the emphasis this article has placed on grammar teachingis not meant to suggest that there is no room for tasks that invitelearners to make a free selection from whatever current linguisticresources are available to them (e.g., information-gap tasks). A com-plete language program will include a variety of tasks that invite botha focus on form and a focus on message conveyance.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This article was first presented at the 28th Annual TESOL Convention, Baltimore,March 1994. I would like to thank two anonymous TESOL Quarterly reviewers fortheir helpful comments.

AUTHOR

Rod Ellis is Professor of TESOL in the Department of Curriculum, Instruction,and Technology in Education, College of Education, Temple University. He haspublished widely in the general area of second language acquisition and, moreparticularly, in the application of research and theory to language teaching.

References

Asher, J. (1977). Learning another language through actions: The complete teacher’sguidebook. Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks Publications.

Asher, J., Kusudo, J., & de la Torre, R. (1974). Learning a second language throughcommands: The second field test. Modern Language Journal, 58, 24–32.

Burt, M. (1975). Error analysis in the adult EFL classroom. TESOL Quarterly, 9,53–63.

Corder, S. (1974). Error analysis. In J. Allen & S. Corder (Eds.), The Edinburghcourse in applied linguistics, Vol. 3 (pp. 122–154). London: Oxford UniversityPress.

Doughty, C. (1991). Second language instruction does make a difference: Evidencefrom an empirical study on SL relativization. Studies in Second Language Acquisi-tion, 13, 431–469.

Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisition the same? A study ofthe classroom acquisition of German word order rules. Studies in Second LanguageAcquisition, 11, 305–328.

100 TESOL QUARTERLY

Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed second language acquisition. Oxford: Blackwell.Ellis, R. (1993a). Second language acquisition and the structural syllabus. TESOL

Quarterly, 27, 91-113.Ellis, R. (1993b). Interpretation-based grammar teaching. System, 21, 69–78.Ellis, R. (1994, March). Metalinguistic knowledge and second language pedagogy. Paper

presented at the Annual Conference of the American Association of AppliedLinguistics, Baltimore.

Faerch, C., & Kasper, G. (1986). The role of comprehension in second languageacquisition. Applied Linguistics, 7, 257–274.

Gary, J. (1978). Why speak if you don’t need to? The case for a listening approachto beginning foreign language learning. In W. Ritchie (Ed.), Second languageacquisition research (pp. 185–199). New York: Academic.

Ingram F., Nord, J., & Dragt, D. (1975). A program for listening comprehension.Slavic and East European Journal, 19, 1–10 .

Krashen, S. (1982). Principles and practice in second language acquisition. Oxford:Pergamon.

Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis. London: Longman.Long, M. (1983). Native speaker/non-native speaker conversation and the negotia-

tion of comprehensible input. Applied Linguistics, 4, 126–141.McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Applied Linguistics, 11, 113–128.Nobuyoshi, J., & Ellis, R. (1993). Focused communication tasks. English Language

Teaching Journal, 47, 203–210.Pica, T. (1992). The textual outcomes of native speaker-nonnative speaker negotia-

tion: What do they reveal about second language learning. In C. Kramsch & S.McConnell-Ginet (Eds.), Text and context: Cross-disciplinary perspectives on languagestudy (pp. 198–237). Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological constraints on the teachability of languages.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 6, 186–214.

Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experiments andhypotheses. Applied Linguistics, 10, 52–79.

Pienemann, M., & Johnston, M. (1987). Factors influencing the development oflanguage proficiency. In D. Nunan (Ed.), Applying second language acquisitionresearch (pp. 45–141). Adelaide, Australia: Adult Migrant Education Program/National Curriculum Resource Center.

Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Second language pedagogy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Schmidt, R. ( 1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied

Linguistics, 11, 129–158.Schmidt, R. (1992). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review

Schmidt, E., & Frota, S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability in a secondlanguage: A case-study of an adult learner. In R. Day (Ed.), Talking to learn:Conversation in second language research (pp. 237-326). Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

Schumann, J. ( 1978). The pidginization process: A model for second language acquisition.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

Sharwood Smith, M. (1993). Input enhancement in instructed SLA: Theoreticalbases. Studies in Second Language Acqusiition, 15, 165–179.

Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensibleinput and comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden(Eds.), Input in second language acquisition (pp. 235-252). Rowley, MA: NewburyHouse.

Tuz, L. (1992). Comparison of two grammar teaching options: Comprehension-based

of Applied Linguistics, 13, 206-226.


instruction vs. production-based instruction. Unpublished manuscript, Temple Uni-versity Japan.

Ur, P. (1988), Grammar practice activities: A practical guide for teachers. Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.

VanPatten, B. (in press). Grammar teaching for the acquisition-rich classroom.Foreign Language Annals.

VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing.Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 15, 225–259.

White, L. (1987). Against comprehensible input: The input hypothesis and thedevelopment of second language competence. Applied Linguistics, 8, 95–110.

Winitz, H. (Ed.). (1981). The comprehension approach to foreign language instruction.Rowley, MA: Newbury House.

102 TESOL QUARTERLY

AppendixActivity 1: ComprehendingListen to the sentences and decide whether they describe the pictures below. If you thinkthey describe the picture put a check in the blank next to the picture. If you think they donot, put a cross. If you like you can ask the teacher to repeat a sentence.

1. She appreciated his singing.

2. His present offended her.

——


3. Her driving impressed him.

4. He deplored her laziness.

104 TESOL QUARTERLY

Activity 2: Paying AttentionDraw arrows to show who or what experiences the feeling described by the verb in thesesentences. Use a dictionary to check the meanings of any verbs you do not know.

Examples: Sometimes people like dogs.

Sometimes people disgust dogs.1. Mary worries her mother.2. Cats bother Mary.3. John prefers dogs.4. Few politicians impress people.5. Jane loves smart men.6. Poor people envy rich people.7. Sometimes teachers amuse their students.8. Rabbits like children.9. Sometimes men disappoint women.

10. Dolores mourns her father.Activity 3: Responding PersonallyRespond to each of these sentences with:

TruePartly trueNot true

1. Tall women frighten me.2. Women who can cook impress me.3. Smartly dressed women impress me.4. Very clever women overwhelm me.5. Quiet women interest me.6. Talkative women bore me.7. Argumentative women confuse me.8. Women with a sense of humor charm me.Activity 4: What’s the Difference?Listen to Randy talk to his Japanese friend Koji. Can you work out what Koji should havesaid?Listening text:Randy: You know something. I don’t really like tall women. I get a bit scared by them.Koji: Yeah, I am the same. I frighten tall women.Randy: Sorry?Koji: I frighten tall women.Randy: Oh, you mean you get frightened by tall women.Koji: Yeah. And clever women too. I overwhelm clever women.Randy: I know what you mean. They overwhelm me too.Koji: But the worst are argumentative women. I confuse them.Randy: They confuse you?Koji: Uh? I mean I get confused by them.Randy: They don’t worry me. I like a good argument.Koji: And the next worst is talkative women. I bore them.Randy: You bore them. Or they bore you. I think you mean they bore you.Koji: Yeah, they bore me.


Documents

Rod Ellis 1995 Interpretation Tasks for Grammar Teaching TESOL Quarterly