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: 07:03:31 10/16/05 Sun
Author: Poliana Ramos Netto
Subject: Final Draft: Yes, grammar can be meaningful !

Hi peers!

Gente, não sei se vcs notaram, mas minha "thesis statement" mudou bastante em relação à primeira versão da minha essay. Por causa disso, ive que fazer varias alterações e complementar alguns paragrafos que nao estavam bem fundamentados. No entanto, o resultado foi uma essay um tanto longa, que ate ultrapassou o limite de palavras estipulado pelo professor. assim, no feedback de vcs gostaria de pedir ajuda não só em relação a problemas de estrutura e conteudo, mas tb que vcs pudessem ver se tem algo repetitivo ou irrelevante que poderia ser suprimido. Conto com voces! (escrevi em portugues, pois estou meio com pressa..)
Ah, as referencias bibliograficas colocarei na versao final...e mais uma coisa: como faz referencia para trechos tirados de site? alguem poderia me ajudar?
Obg!

Yes, grammar can be meaningful!


Undoubtedly the process of teaching and learning a second language is not simple. Such complexity has been object of recent studies and research in the field of SLA. As a consequence, many different methods, approaches and theories have been proposed up to now, all of them trying to explain or at least show 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: most of the time it is said to be arbitrary, artificial, boring and even unnecessary in some cases (Larsen-Freeman 1997 points out tem myths about grammar). Nevertheless, the undeniable importance of grammar requires from TESL teachers ways of dealing with grammar meaningfully.
All this controversy around grammar derives from a misunderstanding about its concept and functions. Grammar is often defined as a system of rules, a set of forms and structures of a language. In pedagogical terms it can be considered as a synonym of syntax, morphology, phonology and other linguistic features. The concept of rules, though, has been associated with the idea of arbritariness and artificiality. For a great number of teachers and theorists, teaching grammar means teaching repeatedly those numerous forms and structures which, most of the time, do not result in a real use of the language (the goal of the learning process). Seliger (1979), for instance, states that rule-learning almost never leads to actual acquisition or performance. Moreover, others claim grammar can make any sense for learners: memorising rules does not guarantee them fluency in the target language. This “lack of full equivalence between what is taught and what is learnt” (Westney, 1994, p. 88) makes some people 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, had a strong influence to the field of SLA and contributed to the view of grammar as something which could be avoided, since learners could induce rules by using the language spontaneously (Richards & Rodgers, 2002). A similar view of grammar as something that could be unconsciously acquired 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 believed that, as the primary function of the language is communication, classroom is not the place for grammar or rules presentation. Comprehensible input is what matters and teachers can check student’s acquisition when he/she feels ready to speak in the new language: output (production of language) is evidence of acquisition not grammar knowledge. Richards and Rodgers (2002) 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, 2002, p. 180).
Another example of theory that limit explicit grammar instruction is the Audiolingualism. 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, 2002). Based on the behaviourist perspective, in this method it was believed that drills and repetition could led 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 2002, p. 52). Such ideas reinforced the thought that grammar classes are most of the times very boring.
On the other hand, there is also a number of theories and approaches which place grammar in a more central position and offer ideas and tools for TESL teachers being succeeded in the challenging (but possible) task of turning the teaching of grammar into a meaningful subject for their students. Larsen-Freeman (1993) proposes a shift in the view about grammar. According to her, grammar has three dimensions: morphosyntax (form); semantics (meaning) and pragmatics (use), all of them 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 student has to master all the three dimensions and also, because of the three dimensions, the choice about word order, for example, is not arbitrary; there are consistent reasons for that. Following the same path it is the “Lexical Approach”, which states that grammar explanation is required in the classroom, since word choice involves the grammatical properties of each item. “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, when talking about grammar it is inevitable to mention the work of Westney (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 process: syntactic, morphological or phonological features (just to mention some) really impose restrictions to a sentence formulation and can never be ignored. Thus, Westney does not discuss if t is necessary or not to present grammar in the classroom; he is more interested in how to present grammar. 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).
Thus, TESL teachers must have in mind that grammar may be part of an English course syllabus because it is possible to teach English trough grammar instruction and ultimately, grammar classes may be exciting. To achieve this, teachers can begin by enhancing learner’s perception about sentences formation and 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 1992; Larsen-Freeman 1992)” (pp. 1-2). Learners must know that grammar concerns to language regularities (Westney 1994) which means that he/she, as a language learner, has to know grammar in order to produce sentences grammatically acceptable by native speakers of this language.
Bringing it to the daily reality of the classroom, teachers need to provide interesting grammar tasks for the learners and it surely requires teacher to be creative. There are no doubts about the importance of the context and most of teachers know that a clear exposition of grammar rules may not be a good strategy, at least they are “usable and capable of gradual integration into broader patterns which reveal more of the structure of the language." (Westney, 1994. P. 77). Communicative Approach also offers interesting suggestions and it is considered a model that balance grammar with effective use of the language, teaching the grammar necessary to accomplish particular communications tasks. (SITE). Role-plays, group activities and the use of authentic material are some of examples of activities which make use of grammar in real contexts. Concerning to this, Celce-Murcia and Larsen-Freeman (1992) suggest the following:
(...) 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)
In addition to all this, when thinking about grammar it is also important to consider students needs and preferences which are quite diverse too. “The purpose of a language course will vary according to the needs of the students and their particular interests.” (Krashen and Terrell, 1983: 65). Teachers need to remember that many of learners don’t feel they are actually learning if they cannot “see” the grammar because they tend to measure their proficiency based on the quantity of grammar they know. Others just want to communicate well in the target language without having to name all the elements that form a sentence. 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, 1992, p. 1)
As a conclusion we see that in spite of many arguments and claims against grammar, it is undeniable that grammar need to be taught because it is the core of a language, in this case, English. Instead of understanding grammar simply as a set of fixed rules and forms, which really may sound arbitrary, or keeping teaching grammatical rules disassociated from real language contexts, teachers should have a broader view of grammar based on the important function it has in the language and should struggle to find activities that clearly show students how grammar works in English and consequently, become meaningful. 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”. (pp. 1-2).

[ 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.