VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, [2], 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 18:21:15 10/18/05 Tue
Author: Poliana Ramos Netto
Subject: FINAL PAPER FOR EVALUATION

Dear Professor,

Here follows my final essay. It is quite different from my first version and throughout this process of editing it I learned a lot. I had to change my thesis statement and I also noticed my outline was a little bit "full". The result is a long essay. Sorry, I couldnt keep the limit of 750 words but I think I didnt exceed much.I hope you understand.

I thank you for your attention. You are a Professor that really will not be forgotten. I hope to see you again!

Sincerely,
Poliana

Yes, grammar can be meaningful!

In the field of SLA, different methods, approaches and theories have been proposed up to now, attempting to explain the variables which may disrupt the acquisition and/or command of a second language. Although there are really significant findings, on the process of teaching English, grammar remains as one of the main controversial issues. There is a set of beliefs concerning grammar instruction: it is said to be arbitrary, artificial, boring and even unnecessary in some cases (Larsen-Freeman 1995 points out ten myths about grammar). Nevertheless, the undeniable importance of grammar requires from TESL teachers ways of dealing with it meaningfully.

All controversy around grammar derives mainly from a misunderstanding about its concept. Grammar is often defined as a system of rules, a set of forms and language structures. The concept of rules, though, is commonly associated with arbritariness and artificiality. For many teachers, teaching grammar means teaching repeatedly those forms and structures which, most of the time, do not result in a real use of English (the goal of learning process). Seliger (1979) states that rule-learning rarely leads to actual acquisition or performance. Others also claim grammar make any sense for learners: memorising rules does not guarantee them fluency. This “lack of full equivalence between what is taught and what is learnt” (Westney, 1994, p. 88) makes some believe that is even possible to do without grammar in the classroom routine.

Furthermore, the belief in the possibility of a natural acquisition of grammar (inductivism), spread mainly by the “Natural Method” in the nineteenth century, contributed to the view of grammar as something which should be avoided, since learners could induce rules by using the language spontaneously (Richards & Rodgers, 2001). A similar view was proposed by Krashen and Terrel (1983) in the Natural Approach. Based on the idea that the grammar of the first language was acquired without any previous instruction, that is, naturally, the two authors believe that, as communication is the primary function of the language, classroom is not the place for rules presentation. Comprehensible input is what matters and learners´ output (production of language) is evidence of acquisition not grammar knowledge. Richards and Rodgers (2001) commented that “ Krashen and Terrel feel that grammatical structure does not require explicit analysis or attention by the language teacher, by the language learner, or in the language teaching materials.” (Richards & Rodgers, 2001, p. 180).

Audiolingualism also limits grammar instruction. Although in the Audiolingual Method grammar plays an important role and the focus is on the mastery of phonological and grammatical structures, in the classroom, learners shouldn’t be exposed to explicit grammar. (Richards and Rodgers, 2001). Influenced by the behaviourist perspective, audiolingualists argue that drills lead to language proficiency: “It is these basic patterns that constitute the learner’s task. They require drill, drill, and more drill, and only enough vocabulary to make such drills possible (Hockett 1959, in Richards and Rodgers 2001, p. 52). Such ideas reinforced the thought that grammar classes are often boring.

On the other hand, there are theories and approaches which place grammar in a more central position, offering ideas and tools for ESL teachers succeed in the challenging (but possible) task of turning grammar teaching into a meaningful subject. According to Larsen-Freeman (1993) grammar has three dimensions: morphosyntax (form); semantics (meaning) and pragmatics (use), working interdependently. “Grammatical units express meaning, as well as having form and use.” (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p.29). This view implies that to use a language appropriately, a learner has to master all the three dimensions and because of them, grammar is not arbitrary; there are consistent reasons for word choice, for example. Following the same path it is the “Lexical Approach”, which states that grammar explanation is required in the classroom, since “certain grammatical constructions are compatible with certain words and that a given word must often be used in special grammatical constructions.” (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p. 30).

Yet, it is inevitable to mention Westney´s work (1994). According to him, there is a pedagogical grammar, that is, a grammar for learners. When Westney states that, he recognises that grammar indeed has an important role in the language learning process and the point is how to present grammar in the classroom. Rules are supposed to follow some criteria to be considered pedagogical and one of the most important is that rules should clarify and not cause confusion to learners. (Westney, 1994).

ESL teachers, then, must have in mind that grammar may be part of an English course syllabus and ultimately, grammar classes may be exciting. To achieve this, teachers can begin by enhancing learner’s perception about language patterns. “They [teachers] should be able to raise a learner’s consciousness about how the language works. They should be able to focus learner attention on the distinctive features of a particular grammatical form in less time than it would take for the learner to notice them on his or her own. “ (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman 1999, p.1). Learners must know they study grammar in order to speak according to what is grammatically acceptable by native speakers.

Bringing it to the classroom, teachers need to provide interesting tasks where grammar is present, never relegating the context and using creativity. Role-plays, group activities and the use of authentic material are examples of activities which use grammar in real contexts and come from Communicative Approach. This model balances grammar with effective use of the language, teaching the grammar necessary to accomplish particular communications tasks. ( “using nclrs.org”)*. Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1999) give some useful suggestions:
(...) a teacher might highlight properties of the grammatical structures by providing negative evidence—that is, helping students to see what is not possible in English. In this way, learners are encouraged to notice the gap between what they are producing and what the target language requires. Another example of teaching with an implicit focus on grammar is when teachers choose to ‘enhance the input’ of their students by exposing them to language samples in which particular grammatical structures are highlighted or are more prevalent than they might be in ordinary communication. (p. 1-2)

In addition to all this, it is also important to consider students needs and preferences. “The purpose of a language course will vary according to the needs of the students and their particular interests.” (Krashen and Terrell, 1983: 65). Many learners don’t feel they are actually learning if they cannot “see” grammar, tending to measure their proficiency based on the quantity of grammar they know. Others just want to communicate well in the target language regardless of knowing the name of the grammatical units. Again, teachers need to be sensitive enough to notice which strategies work better in each situation and “perhaps a more important issue than whether to emphasize language use or language analysis in language teaching, then, is how to help all learners succeed to the extent they want or need.” (Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman, 1999, p. 1)

Besides all arguments and claims against grammar, teachers should teach it, because it is the core of a language, in this case, English. Instead of understanding grammar simply as a set of fixed rules, which really sounds arbitrary, or even teaching them out of real language contexts, teachers should struggle to find activities that clearly shows learners how grammar works in English. Conscious of that, grammar will become meaningful for them. As Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1992) wisely stated: “Using language grammatically and being able to communicate are not the same, but they are both important goals. Thus, the language teaching field would be well served by finding a way to help learners accomplish both”. (p. 2).

REFERENCES

CELCE-MURCIA, M. & LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. (1999). The grammar book: An ESL/EFL teacher’s course. 2nd ed, Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
KRASHEN, S. D. & TERREL, T.D. (1983). The Natural Approach: Language Acquisition in the Classroom. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. (1993). Grammar dimensions: form, meaning and use. Boston: Heinle & Heinle.
LARSEN-FREEMAN, D. (1995). On the teaching and learning of grammar: Challenging the myths. In F. Eckman et al. (Eds.), Second language acquisition: theory and pedagogy. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
RICHARDS, Jack & RODGERS, Theodore. (2001).Approaches and Methods in Language Teaching. 2nd ed, New York: Cambridge University Press.
SELIGER, Hebert W. (1979). On the nature and function of language rules in language teaching. TESOL Quarterly 13:359-69
WESTNEY, Paul. (1994) Rules and pedagogical grammar. In T. Odlin (ed.) Perspectives on pedagogical grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 72-96.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-8
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.