Current Issues In The Teaching Of Grammar: An SLA Perspective
CurrentIssues in theTeachingofGrammar:An SLA PerspectiveROD ELLISUniversityofAucklandAuckland,New ZealandThe studyofhowlearnersacquirea secondlanguage(SLA) has helpedto shape thinkingabout how to teach the grammarof a secondissues.language.There remain,however,a numberof latingto grammarpedagogyin the lightof findingsfromSLA. As such, thisarticlecomplementsCelce-Murcia's(1991) articleon grammarteachingin inissueofQuarterly,saryon a linguisticcurriculumand drewpredominantlya communicativetheoryof grammar.These eightquestionsaddresswhethergrammarshould be taughtand ifso whatgrammar,when,and how.Althoughsolutionsto thesequestions,itservestheSLA does notafforddefinitivethisaspectof languagepedagogy.valuablepurposeof problematisingThis article concludes with a statementof my own beliefsaboutof SLA.grammarteaching,groundedin myownunderstandingarticleidentifiesand discusses a number of keyissues relatingtothe teaching of grammarin a second language (L2) and, bydrawingon theoryand research in SLA, suggestswaysto address these problems.It points to a number of alternativesolutions to each problem, indicatingthatmore oftenthan not there are no clear solutions currentlyavailable.The aim, therefore,is not to identifynew solutions to existingcontroversies, nor even to present new controversies.Rather it addresses withinthe compass of a single articlea whole range of issues related to grammarteaching,problematisesthese issues,and byso doing, providesa counterweight to the advocacy of specific,but also quite limited,proposals forteaching grammarthat have originated in some SLA quarters. However,I conclude witha statementof myown position on these issues.The questions thatwill be addressed are1. Should we teach grammar,or should we simplycreate the conditionsby which learners learn naturally?2. What grammarshould we teach?TESOL QUARTERLY Vol. 40, No. 1, March200683
3. Whenshouldwe teachgrammar?Is it bestto teachgrammarwhenlearnersfirststartto learnan L2 or to waituntillaterwhenlearnershavealreadyacquiredsome linguisticcompetence?4. Should grammarinstructionbe massed (i.e., the availableteachingtimebe concentratedinto a shortperiod) or distributed(i.e., theavailableteachingtimespreadovera longerperiod)?5. Should grammarinstructionbe intensive(e.g., covera singlegramin a singlelesson) or extensive(e.g., covermanymaticalstructurein a singlelesson)?structuresgrammatical6. Is thereanyvalue in teachingexplicitgrammaticalknowledge?7. Is therea bestwayto teachgrammarforimplicitknowledge?8. Should grammarbe taughtin separatelessonsor integratedintocommunicativeactivities?DEFINING GRAMMARTEACHINGTraditionally,grammarteachingis viewedas the presentationandofstructures.Thisis theviewpromulgateddiscretepracticegrammaticalin teacherhandbooks.Ur (1996), for example,in her chaptertitledand explaininggram"TeachingGrammar"has sectionson "presentingin her chaptermar"and mar"similarlyonly "This constitutesan consistgrammarteaching.It is certainlyof the presentationand practiceof grammaticalitems.But, as willbecomeapparent,itneed not.First,somegrammarlessonsmightconsistof presentationbyitself(i.e., tice(i.e., no presentation).Second, grammarteachingcan involvelearnersin discoveringgrammaticalrules for themselvesand no practice).Third,grammarteachingcan be(i.e., no presentationconductedsimplyby exposinglearnersto inputcontrivedto providemultipleexemplarsof the targetstructure.Here, too, there is noand no practice,at leastin thesenseofelicitingproductionpresentationof thestructure.Finally,grammarteachingcan be conductedbymeansofcorrectivefeedbackon learnererrorswhenthesearisein thecontextof performingsome communicativetask.The definitionof rammarteachinginvolves any instructionaltechnique that draws learners'attentionto some specificgrammaticalformin such a waythatit helps themeitherto understand it metalinguisticallyand/or process it in comprehensionand/or production so that theycan internalize it.84TESOL QUARTERLY
SHOULD WE TEACH GRAMMAR?This questionwas motivatedby earlyresearchinto naturalisticL2acquisition,whichshowed thatlearnersappeared to followa naturalorderand sequence of acquisition(i.e., theymastereddifferentgramin a relativelyfixedand universalorder and theymaticalstructurespassedthrougha sequenceofstagesofacquisitionon routeto masteringThis led researcherslikeCorder(1967) toeach grammaticalstructure).suggestthatlearnershad theirown built-insyllabusforlearninggrammar.In line withthis,Krashen(1981) arguedthatgrammarinstructionplayed no role in acquisition,a view based on the would automaticallyproceedalong theirbuilt-insyllabusas long as theyhad access to comprehensiblemotivated.Grammarinstructioncould coninputand weresufficientlytributeto learningbut thiswas of limitedvalue because communicativeabilitywasdependenton acquisition.There followeda number of empiricalstudies designed to (a)and naturalisticlearnerscomparethe orderof acquisitionof instructedand naturalistic(e.g.,Pica, 1983), (b) comparethesuccessofinstructedlearners (Long, 1983) and (c) examine whetherattemptsto teachstructuresresultedin theiracquisition(e.g.,White,specificgrammatical& Ranta,1991). These studiesshowedthat,by andSpada, Lightbown,and nstructedtic learners(althoughtherewere some erallyachieved higher levels of grammaticalcompetence than naturalisticlearnersand that instructionwas noguaranteethatlearnerswouldacquirewhattheyhad been taught.Theseresultswere interpretedas showingthatthe acquisitionalprocessesofinstructedand naturalisticlearningwere the same but thatinstructedlearnersprogressedmore rapidlyand achievedhigherlevelsof proficiency.Thus, some researchersconcluded (e.g., Long, 1988) thatwasbeneficialbutthatto be effectiveteachinggrammargrammarhad tobe taughtin a waythatwas compatiblewiththe naturalprocessesofacquisition.Subsequent research,such as Noms and Ortega's (2000) metaofgrammaranalysisof49 studies,has borneout theoveralleffectivenessthereis evidencethat,contraryto Krashen's(1993)teaching.Further,contributesto both acquired knowledgecontinuedclaims,instruction(see Ellis,2002a) as wellas learnedknowledge.There is also increasing1Forexample, Pica (1983) notes that some structures(e.g., plural-s) were used moreaccuratelyby instructedlearnersand some (e.g., Verb-ing) by naturalisticlearners.In otherstructures(e.g., articles)therewas no difference.CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR85
evidencethatnaturalisticlearningin the classroom(as, e.g., in immersionprogrammes)does nottypicallyresultin highlevelsofgrammaticalIncompetence(Genesee,1987). short,thereis nowconvincingindirectand directevidenceto supportthe teachingof grammar.Nevertheless,doubtsremainabout the natureof the researchevidence.Manystudies(includingmost of those reviewedby Norrisand Ortega) measureconstructed(e.g.,fillin theblanks,learningin termsofconstrainedresponsessentencejoining,or sentencetransformation),whichcan be expectedtofavourgrammarteaching.Thereis onlymixedevidencethatinstructionresultsin learningwhen it is measured by means of freeconstructed(e.g., communicativetasks). Also, it remainsthe case thatresponseslearnersdo not alwaysacquirewhattheyhave been taughtand thatforit needs to take account of howto be erlanguages.Aswe willsee, thereis d howinstrucregardingtioncan facilitatethis.WHAT GRAMMAR SHOULDWE hingcan contributedevelopment,the next logical question concernswhat grammarweshould teach. This question can be broken down into two separatequestions:1. Whatkindof grammarshouldwe base teachingon?featuresshouldwe teach?2. Whichgrammaticalmodels to chooseLinguisticsaffordsa broad selectionof tivegrammars(based on eorygrammar)syllabuseshave been based on structuralor llyemphasisedthe teachingofformovergrammeaning(e.g., Lado, 1970). Though the influenceof structuralmarsis stillapparenttoday,modernsyllabusesrightlygivemore attention to the functionsperformedby grammaticalforms.Thus, forexample,lessemphasisis placedon suchaspectsofgrammaras sentencepatternsor tense paradigmsand more on the meaningsconveyedbySome attemptwasoncedifferentformsin communication.grammaticalmade to exploitthe insightsto be gleaned fromgenerativetheoriesofgrammar(see, e.g.,Bright,1965), butin general,syllabusdesignersandto relyteachershave not foundsuch modelsusefuland have preferredon modern descriptivegrammars,such as Celce-Murciaand Larsen86TESOL QUARTERLY
Book.This resourceis especiallyvaluableFreeman's (1999) Grammarbecause it not onlyprovidesa comprehensive,clear,and pedagogicallyofbutthekindsexploitabledescription Englishgrammar also identifiesoferrorsthatL2 learnersare knownto makewithdifferentgrammaticalis importantbecause it helps to identifySuch informationstructures.which structuresand which aspects of a structurerequire specialBookis also ideal in thatit presentsinformationattention.The Grammarformbutalso aboutthesemanticand nd Rottbyparticularforms.As VanPatten,meaningsformconnectionsbetweenand meaning(2004) emphasise,establishingis a fundamentalaspect of language acquisition.Thus, any referenceconnectionsof thegrammarthatfailsto describethe form-meaningInmustbenecessarily inadequate. general,then,thetargetlanguagechoice ofwhichtypeof grammarto use as a basisforteachingis not agrammarsthatdetailtheformdescriptivemajorsourceof ionshipsto teach isIn contrast,the choice of whichgrammaticalstructuresand variouspositionsTwopolarpositionscan be identifiedcontroversial.in between.At one end of this continuumis Krashen'sminimalistposition.Krashen (1982) argues that grammarteachingshould belimitedto a fewsimpleand portablerulessuchas 3rdperson-jand pasttense- dthatcan be used to monitoroutputfromthe acquiredsystem.He bases hisargumenton theclaimthatmostlearnersare onlycapableof learningsuch simplerules- thatmore complexrulesare generallynotlearnableor,iftheyare,are beyondstudents'abilityto applythroughKrashen'sclaim,however,is not warranted.There is nowmonitoring.thatmanylearnersare capable of masteringa wideevidenceampleofrange explicitgrammarrules.Greenand Hecht (1992), forexample,studentsof Englishin Germanywereable anationsfor85% ofthegrammaticalproduceaskedto explain,whileoverallthelearnersin chool students)managedsatisfactoryof the errors.Macroryand Stone (2000) reportedthatBritishcompreof thehensiveschool studentshad a fairlygood ction,theyknew(e.g., theyperfectthatsome verbsused avoirand some être,theywere d theywereawareof theneedfora finalaccent on the past participle).Hu (2002) rnersof iteof(e.g.,Englishedge prototypicalconstitutedthe prototypicalarticlespecificrule) but were structures(e.g.,genericreference)TeachthewholeofAt the otherpole is the comprehensiveposition:CURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR87
the grammarof the targetlanguage.2This is the positionadopted bymanycourse book writers(e.g., Walter& Swan, 1990) or authorsof1994). Such a also seemunwarrantedbecauselearnersare clearlycapableoflearningasubstantialamountof the L2 grammarwithoutinstructionand eforteachinggrammarso some selectionis needed.What then should selectionbe based on? The answerwould seemobvious- aticaltures.The problemarisesin how to determinethis.To beginwith,it isto distinguishThiscantwodifferentsensesof learningnecessarydifficulty.referto (a) thedifficultya grammaticallearnershavein understandingfeatureand (b) to thedifficultya grammaticaltheyhavein internalisingin communication.Thesefeatureso thattheyare able to use itaccuratelytwosensesrelateto thedistinctionbetweenlearninggrammaras explicitknowledgeand as implicitknowledge,whichis discussedlater.Clearly,whatis difficultto learnas explicitknowledgeand as implicitknowledgein graspingis notthesame.Forexample,mostlearnershaveno canuseitaccurately.internalisingtheyof learningdifficultyhave not alwaysbeen ltthatevenwhenthestatedgoal is thedevelopmentof implicitknowledge,it is the anticipateddifficultystudentswillhave in understandinga featurethatguidesthe selectionand gradingof nacourse.typicallytaughtveryearlyHow then has learning difficultybeen established?Traditionally,in theinputand theirfactorssuchas kedbeenutility(Mackey,1976), but thesefactorswouldseem to have more to do withuse3thanwithinherentcognitiveHere I considertwoapproachesthathavefiguredin attemptsdifficulty.to delineatecognitivedifficulty.1. Teach LI).2. Teach markedratherthanunmarkedforms.2 Of course, it is notpossible to specifythe whole grammarof a language. Though thegrammarof a language maybe determinate,descriptionsof it are certainlynot. The LongmanA GrammarofContemporaryEnglish(Quirk, Greenbaum,Leech, 8c Svartvik,1972) ran to 1081pages (excluding index and bibliography)but doubtlesslydoes not account forall the knownfactsof Englishgrammar.Nevertheless,thereis a recognizedcanon of Englishstructuresthat,in the eyesof syllabusdesignersand textbookwriters,constitutesthe grammarof English.3StructureslikeEnglisharticlesthatare veryfrequentin the inputcan imposeconsiderableStructuressuch as Englishconditionalsmaybe veryusefulto learnersbutarelearningdifficulty.to learn.also difficult88TESOL QUARTERLY
The firstapproach was, of course,the one adopted in manyearlystructuralcoursesbased on a contrastiveanalysisofthelearner'sLI andthe targetlanguage. Althoughthe contrastiveanalysishypothesisasis clearlynottenable(see Ellis,1985,chapter2), SLAformulatedinitiallyat arnerstransferfeaturesof theirLI into the L2. For example,thereis ample evidence(Trahey& White,1993) to yadverb to be positioned between the verb and the direct object.contrastiveNevertheless,analysisdoes not constitutea sound basis forIn manyteachingcontexts,the learnstructures.selectinggrammaticalers come frommixedlanguagebackgroundswhereit wouldbe impossibleto use contrastiveanalysisto tailorgrammarteachingto theentireLis. Also,we simplydo notyethavedifferentlearnersthebecausegroupdoes and does not translateintoknowenough about whendifferencearises evenand in some cases, learningdifficultylearningdifficulty,wherethereis no difference.hasThe second approach,however,is also problematic.Markednessbeen definedin termsof whethera grammaticalstructureis in somesensefrequent,unnatural,and deviantnatural,and basicor infrequent,froma regularpattern(Richards,Platt,& Weber,1985). Thus,theuse ofas in He mademefollowhimcan bewithouttofollowingan infinitivemake,consideredmarkedbecause makeis one the fewverbsin Englishthattakes this kind of complementand because thispatternoccurs onlyThe general idea is that we should teach the markedinfrequently.featuresand leavethelearnersto learntheunmarkedformsnaturallybyThe problemis that,as thedefinitionthemselves.suggests,markednessto applyremainsa somewhatopaque concept,so thatitis oftendifficultto teach.withthe precisionneeded to determinewhichstructuresThe selectionof grammaticalcontent,then,remainsveryproblematic.One solutionto thekindsof problemsI havementionedis to baseselectionon theknownerrorsproducedbylearners.In thisrespect,listsofcommonlearnererrorssuchas thoseavailableinTurtonand Heaton'sErrorsand Swan and Smith's (2001)(1996) LongmanDictionaryofCommonand OtherProblemsareLearnerEnglish: A TeachersGuide to Interferencehelpful.The problemsof selectionprobablyexplain whygrammaticalsyllabusesare so similarand havechangedso littleovertheyears;itis safertofollowwhathas been done before.Of course the selectionof whattoteach will also depend on the learner'sstage of development.Theinvolveare entsections.subsequentCURRENT ISSUES IN THE TEACHING OF GRAMMAR89
WHEN SHOULD WE TEACH GRAMMAR?to theThereare twocompetinganswersto sbesttoemphasiseL2 ginwithandintroducelater,teachinggrammarI willwhenlearnershavealreadybegunto heargumentsbrieflyA keypremiseof behaviouristtheoriesoflanguagelearningis that"errorlikesin needsto be avoidedat all wasone ofthekeypremisesofbeginningcanbe advancedinfavour(Lado,1964).Otherargumentsto teachgrammarto a form-focusedearly.The alternativeapproachas in task-basedlanguageemphasisesmeaningand ausetheylackcannotengagein meaning-centredthe necessaryof the L2 to performtasks.Thus,a formknowledgefocusedapproachis neededinitiallya basisofknowledgeto constructthatlearnerscan thenuse and extendin a meaning-focusedapproach.currenttheoriesof L2 to themacyto implicitlearningprocessesbasedon massivea arlanguage,withN. Ellis(2005) hassuggestedcommencesthatlearningnecessarilyan resentationHe earning.thatfollows.Thisa earningbyprovidingis thatawhichtheycan grabon to. The idea behindthismetaphorof rstandingthekindofprocessingto tence.developingThe argumentagainstteachinggrammarearlyon derivesfromresearchon hatlearnersin suchprogrammesare able to developtheproficiencyin nyformalofL2 Spanishdo notneedto be taughtthatL2. Forexample,learnersfollownounsin thislanguage;theyseemto be able to learnadjectivesthisnaturalisticallyfromexposureto communicativeinput(Hughes,clauseslearnersofL2 SOL QUARTERLY
(e.g., clauseswherethe relativepronounfunctionsas subjectand thetheverb). There is ampleclause is attachedto a noun phrasefollowingevidenceto showthatlearnerscan and do learna g
DEFINING GRAMMAR TEACHING Traditionally, grammar teaching is viewed as the presentation and practice of discrete grammatical structures. This is the view promulgated in teacher handbooks. Ur (1996), for example, in her chapter titled "Teaching Grammar" has sections on "presenting and
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
Le genou de Lucy. Odile Jacob. 1999. Coppens Y. Pré-textes. L’homme préhistorique en morceaux. Eds Odile Jacob. 2011. Costentin J., Delaveau P. Café, thé, chocolat, les bons effets sur le cerveau et pour le corps. Editions Odile Jacob. 2010. 3 Crawford M., Marsh D. The driving force : food in human evolution and the future.
