Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.

(TESOL)

The Structural Syllabus and Second Language Acquisition Author(s): Rod Ellis Source: TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 27, No. 1 (Spring, 1993), pp. 91-113 Published by: Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3586953 . Accessed: 28/09/2013 12:16
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Teachers of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc. (TESOL) is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to TESOL Quarterly.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

TESOL QUARTERLY Vol.27, No. 1,Spring 1993

and The Structural Syllabus SecondLanguageAcquisition

ROD ELLIS
University Japan Temple

This paper examinesthe case fora structural syllabusin the light research.It argues thata structural of second language acquisition cannoteasilyserveas a basisfordeveloping syllabus implicit knowledge of a secondlanguagebecause of thelearnability are problem-learners often unabletolearnthestructural are taught because they properties are taught does notcorrespond themannerin whichthey to theway to learnersacquire them.It is possible, however, envisagea role for on based a weak model of L2 acquisition. a structural syllabus interface of intake This role consists (i.e., causing learnersto pay facilitation formal in theinputand tonoticethegap attention to specific features and the ones theytypically betweenthesefeatures use in theirown A can also structural serve as a basis fortheconstrucsyllabus output). tion of problem-solving tasksdesigned to develop learners'explicit of grammatical It is arguedthatthisknowledge knowledge properties. intake.The role proposedfora structural may facilitate subsequent is a substantial one. It is recognized, therefore, however, syllabus, that such a syllabuswill need to be used alongsidesome kind of whichis designedto providelearnerswith syllabus, meaning-based forcommunicating in the second language. opportunities

structuralsyllabus consists of a listof grammatical items, usually in the in order which arranged theyare to be taught. This kind of syllabus is probably still the most common in language teaching today. Yalden (1983) describes it as "traditional"on the grounds that it is the basis of the grammar translationand audiolingual methods. However, it also serves as a basis for more "modern" methods-Total PhysicalResponse (Asher, 1977) and The Silent Way (Gattegno, 1972), for example. The move towards a communicative approach to language pedagogy in the 1970s and 1980s resulted in alternative syllabuses (in particular, the notional-functionalsyllabus (Wilkins, 1976), the task-based or procedural syllabus (Prabhu, 1987), and the process

91

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

continueto attract a lot of syllabus(Breen, 1984). These syllabuses but theyhave nevertotally attention, replacedthestructural syllabus. The problems ofa structural discussed indetailinnumerous syllabus, the 1970s 1980s and (see Krahnke,1987),havenot publications during The principal is that of learnability, the disappeared,however. problem extent towhich itis possibleforlearners tolearnthestructures are they This problemhas always been recognized taught. bylanguageteaching (see Palmer, 1917), but it has been given additional methodologists which hasshown that theacquisition ofspecific byresearch weight grammaticalfeaturesis constrained Corder (1967) sugdevelopmentally. whichregulates when gestedthatlearnerspossessa "built-in syllabus," itis possibleforthemto acquireeach grammatical feature. Subsequent studies ofnaturalistic Clah(see Hatch,1978a;Meisel, languagelearning & sen, Pienemann,1981; Wode, 1980) havegivenempirical supportto this claim.Also,studies whether learners succeed designedtoinvestigate in learningthestructures are taught they (e.g.,Ellis,1984, 1989; Felix, thatoften are unableto in1981; Pienemann,1984, 1989) suggest they ternalize newstructural ina manner that enablesthem touse knowledge it productively in communication unlesstheyare readyto do so. For example, Pienemann(1984) has providedevidence thatlearnersof Germanas a secondlanguageonlyacquirea feature suchas inversion if thatare easierto theyhave previously acquiredwordorderstructures process.In otherwords,in orderto acquire FeatureD, learnersmust therefore, alreadyhave acquired FeaturesA, B, and C. Learnability, a central remains of a problemin syllabus design.How can thecontent and gradedina waythat be selected iscompatible with thelearnsyllabus to learn?This is a problemforanysyllabus, er's ability butit becomes is specified in grammatical acute whenthecontent terms. The main purpose of thispaper is to address thisproblemand to a proposalforhowitmight be overcome. The paper willbegin present with a brief discussion of thedifference between twotypes oflinguistic and explicit This distinction underlies knowledge. knowledge-implicit in therestof thepaper. It willalso considerthe muchof thediscussion There followsa betweenthese two typesof knowledge. relationship in relation to each typeof detaileddiscussionof structural syllabuses knowledge.The main argumentof thispaper is thatthe structural learners' consciousness aboutgramis a validdeviceforraising syllabus mar; thisrole is discussedin the concludingsection.

IMPLICIT AND EXPLICIT KNOWLEDGE OF AN L2

thatthe learnerinternalizes twotypesof It has been hypothesized and explicit As Bialystok (1981) has knowledge. knowledge-implicit
92 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

is commonincognitive pointedout,thisdistinction psychology. Explicit to thatis analyzed(in thesense thatitcan refers knowledge knowledge be describedand classified), abstract (in thesensethatittakestheform of some underlying of behavior),and generalization actual linguistic it the can sense that a (in explanatory provide reasonablyobjective accountof how grammar is used in actual communication). Explicit knowledge is available to the learner as a conscious but it is not the same as "articulated (i.e., representation, knowledge" or written of accounts the A learner have spoken knowledge). may constructed a consciousabstract of a grammatical rule representation on have formulated an idea that -s the end of a noun (e.g., signals morethanone) and yetnotbe able to put thisidea intowords.Often, is developedtogether withmetalinguistic however, explicit knowledge terms such as and this knowledge(e.g., plural), helps the learnerto articulateit. Two kindsof implicit can be identified; formulaic knowlknowledge and rule-based Formulaic of consists edge knowledge. knowledge readymade chunksof language-whole utterances, such as I don't know or utteranceframeswithone or more emptyslots,such as Can I have structures whichhave been internalized. In bothcases,theknowledge is intuitive. Nativespeakersknowa large numberof formulas which have learned as units & (see they unanalyzed Pawley Syder, 1983). They also know rules thatenable themto understandand produce novel sentences without consciouseffort. of rules Implicit knowledge is largelyhidden and we know relatively littleabout how theyare in themind.It is doubtful, whether themanner however, represented of theirrepresentation to the corresponds closely waytheyare representedas explicit one of the reasons knowledge, whypublishedgrammarsgenerally do notclaimthat therulesthey describe havepsychological validity. Because implicit becomesmanifest knowledge onlyin actualperformance (bothcomprehension and production), it is, perhaps,not surto findthatthereis disagreement thenatureof the prising concerning mechanisms for its whererulesare responsible acquisition, particularly involved.Whereassome researchers White, 1987) viewrulesin (e.g., both nativespeaker and learnergrammars as primarily in linguistic nature,others(e.g., Clahsen, 1984; McLaughlin,1978) see themas the same generalmechanisms thatunderlie (i.e., involving cognitive otherkindsof learning). much of the research intodevelopAlthough mental does not which of is involved, sequences specify type knowledge itis clearthatitis implicit that the researchers have in mind. knowledge For example,Wode's (1980) accountofhowGermanchildren progress a seriesofstagesin acquiring through and interrogaEnglish negatives
THE STRUCTURAL SYLLABUS AND SLA 93

consists of generalized and abstract ? Rule-basedknowledge

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

are slowly is implicit tives assumesthattheknowledge they constructing ratherthan explicit. Another from distinction thatis oftenreferred cognitive psychology to in L2 acquisitionresearchis declarative and procedural knowledge. wereused initially taken These terms byRyle(1949) and subsequently like Anderson (1983) to distinguish up by cognitivepsychologists knowledgeas a set of facts(declarativeknowledge)and knowledge about how to do things(procedural knowledge).An example may code (e.g., make thisclearer.Knowledgeof the rulesof the highway would constitute declarative overtaking) knowledge Always signalbefore whileknowledgeof how to drivea car in accordancewiththeserules classroomL2 learning would be procedural.Andersoncharacterizes of grammatical rules(usually with declarative as beginning knowledge proceduralized, resulting suppliedby the teacher),whichis gradually to use the foreign in the ability thinking. language without distinctions and declarative/procedural The explicit/implicit mayapshows. in but are as be to similar, fact, not, 1 they Figure very pear of the learners label Whereastheterms knowledge type explicit/implicit the terms possess in termsof whetherit is conscious or intuitive, of control over the concern L2 degree knowledge declarative/procedural thatcan be used onlywith the learnerhas, distinguishing knowledge thatcan be used from controlled effort knowledge processing through 1982, also deeffortlessly throughautomaticprocessing.(Bialystok, which shelabels as two continua, intersecting knowledge pictslinguistic The former relatesto the implicit/ +/- analyzedand +/- automatic.
FIGURE 1 Between The Difference Explicit/Implicit and Declarative/Procedural Knowledge
Declarative TypeA Conscious knowledge of L2 items Procedural TypeB Conscious knowledge of learning, production,and communication strategies. The learner can use explicit knowledgeeasily and rapidly. TypeD to employ learning,proAbility duction,and communicationstrategies automatically. The learner can use intuitive knowledgefluently. TESOL QUARTERLY

Explicit

Implicit

TypeC Intuitiveknowledge of L2 items

94

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

tothedeclarative/procedural dimension and thelatter dimenexplicit refer toa knowledge whereas dimension, sion.)Thus,explicit/implicit refer toa process dimension. The keypoint to declarative/procedural wecantalk isthat distinctions about both note thetwo intersect; explicit as existing indeclarative andprocedural andimplicit form. knowledge the between and distinction is explicit implicit knowledge Although thetwois.The main notitself therelationship between controversial, can convert into L2 knowledge explicit pointof debateis whether One of the of traditional L2 knowledge. assumptions language implicit is that methods basedon a structural knowlsyllabus explicit teaching can become to implicit knowledge through practice. According edge

or proceduralize thatis initially thisview,learnersautomatize knowledge In activities. terms of explicitby doing grammar Figure 1, this is to claimingthatpracticeenables learnersto move from tantamount Type A knowledgeto Type D, the goal of mostlanguage programs. or proceduralizing The notionof automatizing so explicitknowledge thatit becomes implicit is a somewhat confusedone. It derivesfrom the failureto clearlydistinguish explicit/implicit knowledgefromdewhereas it is legitimate to talk Thus, clarative/procedural knowledge. of declarative about the proceduralization it is not knowledge, legitimate to equate this with the conversionof explicitinto implicit knowledge. The keyissue-and itis here thatwe runup againstthelearnability wecan manipulate theprocess a learner question-is whether bywhich moves fromType A to Type D knowledge.Two positionscan be
and an interface distinguished-a noninterface position. According to the

former,it is impossibleto lead learnersfromType A to Type D knowledge through practicingdeclarativeexplicit knowledge (as shownin Figure2a). This position sees Type D knowledge as deriving fromproceduralizing C Type knowledge.Practicing explicitknowlin result in this A) edge (Type may greaterfacility using knowledge The (Type B) but willstillinvolveaccessingconsciousL2 knowledge. interface in comes a and a form. weak position strong Accordingto the strongversion, A can be converted intoType D Type knowledge and there are no constraints on thistaking knowledge practice through to the weak version, 2b). (see place Figure According Type A knowlinto C learners are ready edge maydevelop Type knowledge providing to accommodate the new knowledge intotheir systems. interlanguage forformally thenewknowledge or forcomOpportunities practicing in contextsthatcall for its use willbe needed naturally municating beforeType D knowledgedevelops (see Figure2c). Krashen(1981) has argued strongly in favor of a noninterface position.He argues thatexplicitknowledge assist learnersin certain may
kinds of language performance in the form of monitoringbut that it
SYLLABUS AND SLA 95 THE STRUCTURAL

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

FIGURE 2 The Noninterfaceand the Strong and Weak InterfacePositions

(a) THE NONINTERFACE Type A Explicit/ declarative Type C Implicit/ declarative Practice

POSITION - Type B Explicit/ procedural Type D , Implicit/ procedural

. Communicativelanguage use

(b) THE STRONG INTERFACE POSITION Type A Explicit/ declarative Practice Type C Implicit/ declarative P Type D Implicit/ procedural Type B Explicit/ procedural

(c) THE WEAK INTERFACE POSITION Type A Explicit/ declarative Type B Explicit/ procedural

Grammar instruction

Type C Implicit/ declarative

---

Communicative language use/ practice

Type D Implicit/ procedural

Others(e.g.,Gregg, does nothelp themto acquireimplicit knowledge. 1984; McLaughlin, 1978; Sharwood Smith,1981) have opted for a accordingto whichexplicitknowledgecan position, stronginterface into knowledgeas a resultof practice. implicit change thatthe evidenceavailablefromresearchinto It is my contention on L2 learning instruction of grammar theeffects (see Ellis,1990,and is of theliterature) & Long, 1991, forrecentreviews Larsen-Freeman
96 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

This researchsuggests onlywitha weakinterface position. compatible conclusions: the following in faster 1. Grammarinstruction results and in higherlevels learning of L2 grammatical accuracy(see Long, 1983; Pica, 1983). directed at a grammatical 2. Grammarinstruction feature thatlearners are notreadyto acquireas implicit not does succeed knowledge (see Felix, 1981; Pienemann,1984, 1989). directedat a grammatical 3. Grammarinstruction feature thatlearners are ready to acquire as implicit is successful (see knowledge Harley,1989; Pienemann,1984, 1989). The first conclusion cannotbe easilyexplainedbya noninterface thea strong interface All ory.The second conclusioncontradicts theory. threeconclusions are compatible witha weak interface theory. a modelofL2 acquisition thatincorporates a weak Figure3 provides interface The modeldistinguishes and implicit intake, position. input, to thesamplesof theL2 thatthelearneris L2 knowledge. Inputrefers withthelanguagein communication exposed to as a resultof contact Formal instruction can also provide input (i.e., (oral and written). general exposure to the L2), althoughits raison d'etre is to teach
FIGURE 3 A Model of L2 Acquisition Incorporatinga Weak InterfacePosition

Formal instruction

Noticing

--

Noticing

of L2

Explicit knowledge

thegap

Monitoring

Monitoring

Input -

I
-

Intake

t
.Implicit knowledge of L2 (IL' system) I T Output

aIL

interlanguage.

THE STRUCTURAL

SYLLABUS AND SLA

97

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

items. Intake to the linguistic in refers specific properties grammatical to. Not all of theseproperties willbe theinputthatthelearnerattends intothelearner's immediately incorporated interlanguage system; only become implicit those featuresthatare finally incorporated knowledge of the L2. in two The model showsthatimplicit can be internalized knowledge is from the A The main intake way byderiving input. secondary ways. fromthe explicitknowledgethatis learned through way is directly fortworeasons; This wayis consideredsecondary formal instruction. in thiswayis of new derived the amount first, grammatical knowledge of the total because a small to be limited only grammatical portion likely learned (see Krashen, propertiesof a language can be consciously intoimcan onlyfeed directly 1982), and second,explicitknowledge to if are learners ready incorporate developmentally plicitknowledge it (hence the dottedline). The model posits a numberof other uses of explicitknowledge, however: 1. Explicitknowledgeis also availableforuse in monitoring (as procan occurbefore an utterance posed byKrashen,1982). Monitoring one source of is produced or after.Monitoredoutputconstitutes it can interact Terrell As (1991) puts "monitoring apparently input. own in their learners withacquisition, output" acquiring resulting (p. 61). in theinput to noticefeatures can help learners 2. Explicit knowledge and also to noticethe meaningsthattheyrealize. For example,if to learnersknowthatpluralnouns have an -s,theyare morelikely noticethe -s on the ends of nouns theyhear or read in inputand also more likelyto associate the -s morphemewiththe meaning more than one. In a sense,then,as Terrell(1991, p. 58) suggests, as a kindof "advance organizer" explicitknowledgecan function the inputand to learner the thathelps comprehendand segment to estabthat enables the learner focuser" a also as "meaning-form lish meaning-form relationships. that features 3. Explicitknowledgemayhelp learnersto incorporate into their intake have become grammars developinginterlanguage the process by whichtheycompare theirexisting by facilitating observed thatactually with feature of a grammatical representation have nouns know that if learners For in the input. plural example, this between the difference to notice are better an -s,they equipped in their own omission and its in the feature output. input are all mentalprocesses and noticing-the-gap noticing, Monitoring, box" in Figure3. Because the and hence are showninsidethe "black
98 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

of relevantexplicitknowledgedoes not guarantee their availability all by dottedlines. operation, threeprocessesare represented A key aspect of this model is the role thatexplicitknowledgeis and noticing-the-gap. to play in noticing Accordingto hypothesized is frequently Schmidt(1990), the process of noticing (and perhaps itoperationally as availability a consciousone. He defines necessarily) of factors can induce learnersto notice for verbal report.A variety in the input-the demands of a task,the high frequency of features an item in the input,the unusual natureof a feature,the inherent thathighlights and interaction a feature. salienceofa feature, Noticingoccurs learners makethe effort & when (Schmidt Frota,1986) the-gap which in whatwaysa newfeature, have heeded in the to establish they from their is different existing interlanguage representation. input, of comparison between whatlearnerstypically This entailssome form do in theiroutput and what is presentin the input. Learners may but notbotherto noticethegap. Neither noticea feature nor noticing that the will new feature be guarantees noticing-the-gap incorporated into the learner'sinterlanguage as in manycases thiswillbe system, constrained by the learner'sstageof development. This model, then,envisagesthat explicitknowledgecan convert intoimplicit under certain, condifairly directly knowledge stringent tionsrelatedto the learner'sstageof development. It also allows for to have an indirect on acquisition effect explicit knowledge byhelping to facilitate ofnoticing theprocesses and noticing-the-gap. It is hypothesized thatlearnerswho knowabout a grammatical featurebecause about it have learned instruction are in a better they through grammar to heed this feature when it occurs in the input position subsequently and also are better able to noticethedifference between theinputand their own production. evidencein support oftheclaimthat (Empirical facilitates is explicit knowledge subsequent noticing providedbyFotos, functions as a kindof "acquisition facilitator" 1992).Explicit knowledge (Seliger, 1979) by providing"hooks" on whichto hang subsequent 1985). acquisition(Lightbown,

THE STRUCTURAL SYLLABUS AND L2 ACQUISITION

A structural definedby syllabus employsa synthetic teaching strategy, Wilkins as in (1976) "one whichthedifferent partsof thelanguageare and step-by-step so thatacquisition is a processof taughtseparately accumulation of the until the of whole thelanguagehas gradual parts been builtup" (p. 2). The executionof thisteaching involves strategy the course designerin makingprincipled decisionsregardingwhich
THE STRUCTURAL SYLLABUS AND SLA 99

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

and whichorderto teach partsof thelanguageto teach(i.e., selection) them in (i.e., grading). However,as Wilkinspointsout, the job of theitems whichhavebeen presented in smallpiecesis left synthesizing to the learner. A structural syllabuscan serve as a basis for the developmentof or In thecase oftheformer, either theaim knowledge. implicit explicit of the syllabus is the development of the kindof intuitive knowledge in the L2. In the case of the latter, thatis required to communicate the aim is knowledgeaboutthe language-some kind of conscious ofthe"rules"that makeup thelanguage.The structural representation in used the methodsare syllabuses audiolingualand oral-situational directed at implicitknowledge,whereas the grammar-translation methodis directedat explicitknowledge.

The Structural Syllabusand ImplicitKnowledge

forimplicit the aim In the case of a structural syllabus knowledge, is to "teach the language, not about the language" (Moulton, 1961). can referto both the comprehension thelanguage The termteaching items. It is possible to teach a and the productionof grammatical but thatemploya for structure only comprehension, in mostmethods to is enable the learners the to aim structural produce the syllabus, it is insistence on that As will this we itemscorrectly. see, production of to solution the difficulties A of the createsmany problems. possible worthwhile for the lesser but still be settle to a structural syllabus might goal of teachinggrammarforcomprehension. is important. When production is the goal, another distinction audiostrict Whereassomestructural syllabuses (e.g.,thoseunderlying will be idea that item each fully lingual courses) are based on the others(e.g., thoseunderbeforeanotheritemis introduced, mastered lyingmore modern approaches to grammarteachingsuch as that occursonlyin the long describedin Ur, 1988) recognizethatmastery be termand thateach itemwillprobably only partially acquiredbefore willbe of structural These twoviews anotheris introduced. syllabuses The and gradualmastery. problemsof to as immediate referred mastery both willnow be examined.

STRUCTURAL SYLLABUSES FOR IMMEDIATE MASTERY

will directedat immediate a structural mastery syllabus Ultimately are items the in which if the work order taught grammatical only can learnthem.In other thelearners to theorderinwhich corresponds
100 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

thecriterion of learnability. mustsatisfy words,the syllabus Designers havealways and learnability of structural this, acknowledged syllabuses has alwaysfiguredas one of the criteriaof selectionand grading. thatcontributed identified fivefactors to Mackey(1965), forinstance, and between the the native (i.e., target language learnability: similarity and learning load. The notionof brevity, regularity, language),clarity, factors is a rational ratherthan a that underlies these learnability one. It an external reflects accountof (or psycholinguistic empirical) whatought to be learnable. ofitems does theordering derivedfrom theseexterTo whatextent conform withthelearner's"built-in One wayof nal criteria syllabus"? of in sample the order items is to this compare answering question natural order of in with the structural acquisition reported syllabuses studiesof L2 acquisition.If it can be shownthatthe orders do not where theydo. It is match,the solutionis simple-devise a syllabus such a solutionis possible,however.L2 acquisition doubtfulwhether all thefeatures thatthelearnerwillneed researchhas notinvestigated to theacquisition to be taught, so thereis onlyinformation of relating smallnumberof grammatical itemscurrently available.Also, a fairly research thathas investigated the"natuthereis uncertainty regarding For example,a numberof studiesproduced ral order"of acquisition. evidence thatlearnersof different first lanages and withdifferent follow same order of of a set of the acquisition Englishgramguages maticalmorphemes (Krashen,1977), but thisresearchhas been chalitis lenged on a numberof grounds(see Hatch, 1978b). In particular, to maintain theviewthatL2 acquisition difficult involves thesystematic items,as this researchappears to masteryof discretegrammatical assume. Anotherproblemis thatthegrammatical items foundin a structural do not have (1983) has syllabus psycholinguistic validity. Bley-Vroman of that the a from arguedconvincingly categories descriptive grammar, whichthe itemsof a structural are bear no relation derived, syllabus to the mentalcategorieswhichlearnersconstruct in the process of a Learners to construct theirown rules, learning language. appear of which are transitional and hence do not to anyof many correspond the rules found in a reference of the grammar targetlanguage. For the of for German word orderrules(see example, sequence acquisition a stagewhereadverbMeisel,Clahsen,& Pienemann,1981) contains preposingoccurs,as in Example 1. an advance on theprevious which ifused, adverbs, represents stage during occur at theendsofutterances. theadverb-preposing rule However, only inan error results because inthetarget itobligates theapplication language
SYLLABUS AND SLA 101

1. Heute wirgehenins Kino. (Today we go to the cinema.) Such a rule

of a further rule,inversion:
THE STRUCTURAL

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

wir 2. Heute Kino. Thisisa rulewhich ins gehen (Todaygowetothecinema.) thelearner does notyetknow. This example illustrates howacquisition involves theconstruction of rulesnotfound in thetarget (i.e., language without and shows that can actually inversion) adverb-preposing progress result in errors notevident at an earlier stage. A thirdproblemis thatstructural treateach itemas dissyllabuses creteand separate.It has been shown,however, thattheacquisition of a new formcan affect the organization of the learner'sentiremental (see Huebner, 1983). The rulesthatmakeup thisgrammar grammar are interrelated in complexways,so any change mayinvolvenotjust an additionof a new formbut the restructuring of the whole system This not takeplace (McLaughlin,1990). reorganization may necessarily inaccordancewith thewaythetarget is constructed. languagegrammar If the implicitknowledgesystemthat a learnerbuilds is viewed as a form-function network(Ellis, 1985; Rutherford, 1987), then the of a form new leads the learner to acquisition notjust assignita certain functional value but also to reassessthe functional values assignedto formspreviously It follows that the of the formnature acquired. function constructed at one of willbe system any stage development until the learner arrives at the unique finally target languagegrammar. In short, itis difficult to see howa structural directed at the syllabus immediate of items as the to (defined mastery grammatical ability use the itemsaccurately in production)can cope withthese learnability issues.

STRUCTURAL SYLLABUSES FOR GRADUAL MASTERY

A case mightstillbe made forthe use of structural as a syllabuses for in if it can use basis forteaching be implicit knowledge production showntheyare compatiblewitha viewof acquisition as a processof The structural associatedwiththe oralsyllabuses gradual mastery. in on this based viewof L2 acquisition. situation approach were, fact, consciousand subconscious Palmer(1917), forexample,distinguishes as a precursor ofthelatter, at least sees theformer and clearly learning Palmeropposesa purely are concerned. whereadultlearners "natural" methodthatcatersto subconscious learningon the groundsthatit is ofthemicrocosm" He arguesfor"conscious inefficient. study through of linguistic items.He believesit possibleto the graded presentation a seriesofgeneralstages (a) receivinvolving guidethelearnerthrough in and the (b) fixing knowledge memory, (c) developing ingknowledge, as skill. In otherwords, Palmeradheres touse theknowledge theability similar to thatof proponents of a strong to a viewof languagelearning
102 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

trueto say thatviewsclose to thoseof It is probably interface theory. forteaching use ofstructural Palmerunderliethecontinued syllabuses knowledgetoday(see Ur, 1988). implicit reflect the processby whichlearners How can a structural syllabus features? of linguistic achievegradual mastery Clearlya simplelinear cannotdo so. Learnersmaybe able to receivea new feature syllabus that but it is unlikely in memory, and perhapsalso fixthe knowledge to use the willresultin theirdevelopingthe ability a singletreatment be to design as skill.One wayaround thisproblemmight knowledge Howatt (1974) suggeststhatsuch a syllabusaccords a spiralsyllabus. because learnershave their withthenaturalprocessof learning better at thesame itemson severaloccasionsbut in differdirected attention It is possible, different and with entcombinations therefore, meanings. can caterto implicit thata spiralsyllabus knowledge. The key question,however,is whetherit is possibleto guide the knowledgeby processby whichexplicitknowledgebecomesimplicit to items. of grammatical meansof a cyclical According re-presentation shownin Figure3, thisis onlypossibleif the model of L2 acquisition of an itemcoincideswiththe learner'sreadinessto the presentation acquire it. A spiral syllabusmay increase the likelihoodof this ocThe onlywayto guarantee affair. but it is stilla hit-or-miss curring, at implicit directed of a structural theeffectiveness syllabus knowledge internal and withthelearner's is byensuringitis compatible syllabus, this,as we have alreadyseen, is problematic.

STRUCTURAL

SYLLABUSES FOR COMPREHENSION

of the structural thatthe problems It is possible,however, syllabus directedat implicitknowledgecan be overcomeif the goal of the is to enable learnersto comprehendratherthan to produce syllabus it. In thiscase, the teachingmaterials based on the the itemswithin to (a) hearsentenwouldprovideactivities that enablelearners syllabus listedin the syllabus ces containing the structures and (b) identify the to functions the features establish form(i.e., by performed specific Forexample,tohelplearners the meaningrelationships). comprehend be of asked to listen to sentences such as -s, they might meaning plural table and He gavehis He putthebooks on the the and to choose friend pen whichpicturesfroma set of pictures correspondto the meaningsof foreach sentence thesentences. The pictures wouldincludedistractors a singlebook on the tableor giving (e.g., one showinga man putting hisfriend twopens)as wellas accuraterepresentations ofthesentences would be directedat helpingthe learner actuallysaid. Such activities
to notice new grammatical features in the input and the grammatical
SYLLABUS AND SLA 103 THE STRUCTURAL

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

realize.Like traditional would materials, they meanings grammar they be specially to focusthelearner's contrived attention on specific items, but theywould differ fromthemin thattheywould not requirethe learnerto produce sentences the items. containing Pienemann's(1985) distinction betweeninput and forcomprehension a for such rationale a Pienemann input forproduction provides syllabus. whichlearnerspass sequence through argues thatthe developmental ofa seriesofprocessing reflects thegradualmastery operations responsible for language production.His own proposal regardingsyllabus design is as follows: a learning 1. Do notdemand which is impossible at a given process stage be in linewith of (i.e. orderofteaching objectives stages acquisition). forms. introduce deviant 2. Butdo not 3. The general structures which werenotintroduced inputmaycontain forproduction. (p. 63) tosuggest howa structural This constitutes a seriousattempt syllabus but it runs up againsta numberof can take account of learnability, objections-our knowledge of developmental sequences remains of the language (i.e., to formalfeatures patchyand relatesprimarily It is build form-function little is knownabout how learners networks). the developmental not clear how teachersare supposed to identify thiscan be learnershave reachedor whether stageswhichindividual it to construct and teachers achieved, teaching requires practically needs of individual tailoredto thepsycholinguistic learners, programs in many as Lightbown which, (1985) has pointedout,maybe unrealistic all arise because Pienemann These situations'. objections teaching viewsthe primary syllabusas thatof providing goal of a structural do not for appear to apply if the syllabusis production.They input Pienemannsuggests for directedat providing comprehension. input in the course of that such input can be allowed to arise naturally thatit might not consider the he does but communication, possibility formal instruction. be contrived through It is possible,however,to envisage an approach where input for to ensurethatthe is carefully plannedand structured comprehension This features. to learneris systematically grammatical exposed specific is no that the in the sense one modest is a longer the goal proposal facilitathe of but the full L2 of only knowledge implicit development
'Currently,Pienemann and his associates are workingon various waysin whicha learner's theyhave developed sophististage of developmentcan be quicklydiagnosed. In particular, cated computer softwareto facilitate diagnosis. It is not clear to me how practicalthiswill teachers'obtainingreliabledata regarding as it necessitates be in manyteachingsituations, learnersare able to performat any one stage of development-a painstaking the structures and time-consuming process. 104 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

this constitutes a substantially reducedgoal for tionof intake. Although still a one. Chaudron it is nevertheless structural significant syllabuses, second status in that intake has "has important (1985) language argued can be adopted withregardto research"(p. 1), and a similar position forlanguage pedagogy, There is a need, as Chaudron itsimportance which factors influence intake. for precisely emphasizes, investigating is throughstudiesof how One way in whichthiscan be undertaken affects learners'ability to noticeand comprehend formalinstruction & Cadierno, 1991, foran items Van Patten (see specific grammatical of such a example study).

SUMMARY
We have consideredtwo viewsof the structural syllabus-one that and the otherthat sees it as a basis forteachingaccurateproduction intakethrough the comprehension sees it as a basis forfacilitating of In the of items. case the the structural former, specific grammatical can serveas a deviceforbringing abouttheimmediate syllabus mastery of grammatical items.We have seen thatsucha viewis notcompatible withwhatis knownabout the waylearnersacquire an L2. It can also serveas a device forensuringthe gradual mastery of items.We have seen thatthisview also runs up againstthe problemof learnability, theitems. In bothcasesthedifficulties evenifthesyllabus arise recycles as a resultof treatingthe structural as an for instrument syllabus to learners items It has been teaching produce grammatical correctly. thatthesedifficulties be overcome ifthegoal becomes suggested might the comprehension ratherthanthe production of grammatical items. In thiscase, the goal of the syllabus is intake rather than the facilitation fulldevelopment of implicit knowledge.

The StructuralSyllabus and Explicit Knowledge

Another theproblem of learnability canbe side-stepped wayinwhich isbymaking thegoal ofa structural rather thanimplicit syllabus explicit the In serves as a for basis knowledge. otherwords, syllabus developing a consciousratherthanintuitive of grammatical rules, understanding and thereis no expectancy thatlearners willbe able to use the knowlhavelearnedinfluent This amounts toa reversal edge they production. of Moulton'sslogan,citedabove-we shouldteachaboutthelanguage, not the language. This proposal restson twoprincipalassumptions: 1. The acquisition of explicitknowledgecontributes to the developmentof L2 proficiency.
THE STRUCTURAL SYLLABUS AND SLA 105

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

2. The acquisition ofexplicit can takeplaceas an accumulaknowledge tionof discreteentities. Assumption1 derivesfromand is supportedbythe weak-interface model discussedearlier.Assumption 2 isjustified ifitis acceptedthat consists of a of conscious explicitknowledge body knowledgeabout isolatedgrammatical items and rules,a viewadoptedbymanylearners, as thisquotationfromMoore (1989) illustrates: Asa learner I havetwo toovercome-accumulating a large problems major number ofpartial whether be lexical entities, items, rules, they grammatical or whatever; to try out combinations of secondly, finding opportunities inboth structured andunstructured situations. OnceI have them, acquired, twothousand I ambetter than entities, say, partial placedtocommunicate ifI haveacquired a hundred. only (p. 157) As Moore recognizes, the "facts of language"is not the accumulating but it can help to get the learnerstarted. whole of acquisition, There are educationalas wellas psycholinguistic in favor arguments of teaching facts. Breen addresses the (1985) grammatical questionof forthe social situation of the classroomand argues whatis authentic thatbecause theraisond'etreof thissituation is languagelearning, the contentof the teachingprogramshould be drawnfromthe "culture and social of the classroom."Breen's idea is thatthe communicative serve of should content for work. as One language aspects learning and pragmatic of source of such contentis the linguistic systems the that formal A isolates various and functional fealanguage. syllabus activities thesethetopicsoflearning tureswith a viewto making might a of manylearners. Grammar constitutes accordwiththeexpectations content. seriousand intellectually challenging of?On whatbasis forexplicit consist Whatwilla syllabus knowledge content and gradingof thegrammatical shouldtheselection proceed? of a number We willconsidersomewhat briefly possibilities. which Perhaps the mostobviousone is to make use of the criteria two identifies used. Widdowson have been traditionally (1968) general have drawnon: (a) relative thatsyllabus difficulty designers principles and theclassroom and (b) usefulness (i.e.,thecoveragevalueofan item value of the item). However, as Widdowsonpoints out, these two as whatis usefulis oftennot relatively are oftenin conflict principles can be applied in to whatextent not It is therefore, clear, they simple. and Strevens mannerand Halliday,McIntosh, a systematic (1964) are that it is that in teaching experience" "practical right claiming probably rather this and grading, oftenservesas a basis forselection although thereis consists of. Certainly, begs thequestionas to whatthisactually
106 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

to teach (at considerableagreementregardingboth whatstructures shouldbe taught(see leastin generalcourses)and in whatorderthey Yalden, 1983). criteria be sharpenedis by One wayin whichthesetraditional might obtainedfromthe studyof linguistic in markedness' usingthe insights the second possibility. This constitutes The notion languagelearning. is notitself of markedness new-adherentsof structural gradinghave with much current a similarnotionto thatunderlying long worked of "regulardiscussion of the concept(see Mackey's, 1965,discussion forexample),but recentstudiesdo givegreaterprecisionto the ity," after dativeverbssuch as concept.For example,the NP + PP pattern toIsabelcan be consideredless give in sentenceslike Bob gave a gift afterthe same verbsin sentences markedthan the NP + NP pattern likeBobgaveIsabela gift on a numberof grounds.The latter sentence is more transparent, of the verband thedirectobjectis the integrity maintained,and it is more regular (i.e., just about all dative verbs but only some permitthe NP + NP permitthe NP + PP pattern, can be used to make decisions pattern).This kind of information whichlinguistic featureto introduce regarding earlyand whichlate. But it is not yet clear how this information should be used. It can be argued thatlearnersgenerally findit easier to handle unmarked so theseshouldbe introduced but it has also been sugfeatures, first, of marked gestedthatlearnerswillbe able to projecttheirknowledge featuresto associatedunmarkedfeatures (see Eckman,1985), which constitutes an argumentin favorof focusingattention on marked features.Also, unmarkedfeaturesmaybe learned by mostlearners do notrequireexplicit In contrast, attention. and, therefore, naturally markedfeatures are often notacquired(see Bardovi-Harlig & Bofman, is directed 1989; Long, 1988) unlessthe learners'consciousattention at them. On balance, the argumentsfavorthe selectionof marked ratherthan unmarkedfeatures in a syllabus forexplicitknowledge. A third alternative fororganizing thecontent ofa structural syllabus is derived fromanother old idea-that of remedial teaching.The contentof a remediallanguage programis established throughthe identification and description of learners' errors. It rests on thesimple idea thatformal willbe moreefficient ifitconcenlanguageteaching
2Markedness is not an altogetherclear notionas it has been definedin different ways.In one definitiona feature is considered marked if it can be shown to be less common in the world'slanguages thansome other,relatedfeature(i.e., typological markedness).In another a feature is considered marked if its use is in some way more restricted definition, than another related feature(e.g., an is more markedthan a because it occurs onlybeforenouns and adjectivesthatbegin witha vowel). UniversalGrammarsupplies yetanotherdefinition of markedness.The concept of markednessis perhaps bestconsidered at thispointin time as of potentialratherthan realized value to the designer of a structural course.

THE STRUCTURAL SYLLABUS AND SLA

107

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

on whatthelearnerhas notlearnedrather trates thanon teaching the whole grammar.However,as Corder (1981) has noted, thereis no reasonwhy remedialteaching shouldwork thaninitial teachanybetter causes of errors are takenintoaccount. ingunlessthe psycholinguistic Once again,then, we seemtocomeup against thelearnability problem. In thecase ofa structural syllabus designedtoteachexplicit knowledge, thisproblemis side-stepped, however, if,as we have argued, it only ariseswhereimplicit is involved. A remedialsyllabus knowledge might of a listof structures consist whichhave been shownto be problematic to eitherlearnersin generalor, better to the particular still, group of learnersforwhomthe syllabus is intended.This constitutes a record of thepotential and serves, deviations as a checklist. Armed therefore, withthislist,the teacherwould need to observethelearners' errorsin order to establishwhetherthe potentialdeviationsactuallyoccur in their productionand, if so, when. The teacherwould then devise to draw the learners'attention to errorsand help themcomactivities pare the errorsto the correcttargetlanguage forms. forexplicit To sum up, theaim of a structural is syllabus knowledge about how the targetlanguage gramto raise learners'consciousness As Larsen-Freeman willinvolve marworks. out,this (1991) has pointed to howgrammatical forms are formed, attention (a) drawing (b) develof how particular formssignal grammatical oping an understanding and (c) helpinglearners realizewhat meanings, grammatical particular in context. The rationalefor constitutes appropriateuse of the forms thisuse of a structural syllabusis thatexplicitknowledgemay help learners to notice featuresin the input that they mightotherwise ignore and also to notice the gap betweenthe input and theirown The contentof such a syllabusmightbe productions. interlanguage criteriafor the selectionand determinedon the basis of traditional the principledselectionof of structures, by grammatical grading or remedially, markedlinguistic features, by identifying gaps in the erroranalysis. learners'implicit knowledgethrough

CONCLUSION: CONSCIOUSNESS-RAISING AND THE STRUCTURAL SYLLABUS

This paper has soughtto presenta new rationaleforthe structural thatthe syllabus.The need for thishas arisen fromthe recognition whichderivesfrombehaviorist traditional rationale, learningtheory, solutionto the is inadequate because it cannotprovidea satisfactory learnability problem.The new rationalerestson theclaimthatgramratherthan mar teachingshould be directedat consciousness-raising to a delibrefers (see Fotos& Ellis,1991). Consciousness-raising practice
108 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

on the partof the teacherto make the learners'aware erate attempt to instill an underof the L2; it entailsan attempt of specific features formal and functional of these features of the properties standing of a the learners representation them. develop cognitive by helping to supplythe learner involves an on the other hand, Practice, attempt in constructures for withplentiful targeted opportunities producing trolledand freelanguageuse in orderto developfully proceduralized thatpractice to suggest It is notintended, however, knowledge. implicit still be Practice has no role at all in languageteaching. may important overformulaic as a meansof helpinglearnersgaincontrol knowledge, of pronunciation. also has some place in the teaching and it probably role it has played in What is being challengedhere is the traditional items. the teachingof grammatical twokindsofconsciousthepreceding In accordancewith discussion, In the case of identified. can be consciousness-raising for ness-raising attention on the meanthe aim is to focusthe learners' comprehension, It has been sugby specific properties. grammatical ing(s) performed to the to intake-a learner that this is tantamount helping gested for of not internalization the featureas sufficient) (but step necessary of will be This achieved type consciousness-raising knowledge. implicit and that induce a learner to notice of activities understand means by thatrequire receptionrather the featurein the input (i.e., activities in theL2). In thecase ofconsciousness-raising thanproduction forexplicit a particular theaim is to help thelearnerlearnabout knowledge, grammatical featureby developingan explicitrepresentation of how it worksin the target language.In manycases,thiswillinvolveteaching needed to talkabout grammatical thelearnerthemetalanguage rules. It has been hypothesized thatexplicit also aids the knowledge process and noticing-the-gap. of intakeformation This byfacilitating noticing can be of achieved means of traditional by type consciousness-raising grammarexplanationof the kind found in the grammar-translation method.Anotherway,however,is to make use of problem-solving tasksthatsupplythe learnerswiththe data theyneed to discoverthe An example of such a taskis providedin Fotos rule forthemselves. and Ellis (1991). If such tasksare carriedout in the targetlanguage, learners consciousness about theyservethe double purposeof raising a specific while item for commugrammatical providing opportunities in the targetlanguage-the learnerswillbe communicating nicating about grammar. a structural Traditionally, syllabushas been used as the basis for a designing completelanguage course.This was possiblebecause the whichunderliesthe actual goal was proceduralimplicit knowledge, to in use the L2 communication. However,if the goal of a ability
structuralsyllabus is the lesser one of consciousness-raising,it can no
SYLLABUS AND SLA THE STRUCTURAL 109

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

course,as theultimate goal of mostcourses longerserveas a complete willcontinueto be the ability to use the L2 in production. It follows can of thatthe structural a course. It will syllabus only providepart kinds of other need to be complemented that are based by syllabuses on.the provisionof inputof the kind thathas been hypothesized to functional or a task-based for syllabus, implicit knowledge-a promote between example(see Long & Crookes,1991).The preciserelationship and other of an these overall the structural components component In the case for a to be decided. structural remains restating syllabus itsreducedvalue. The we have also acknowledged therefore, syllabus, will rather serve as a facilitator thanas a prime new structural syllabus moverof L2 acquisition. Finally,it needs to be acknowledgedthat many of the claims of shownin Figure3 and thepedagogical boththemodelofL2 acquisition from it limited on have based only support existing empirical arguments to that thevariousclaims there is a need demonstrate research. Clearly, are valid. Howthathave been made regarding consciousness-raising it to that is advance here I am ever, legitimate pedagogical assuming tobe colforthenecessary empirical support waiting proposalswithout L2 studiesprovideonlyone wayofvalidating lected.Indeed, empirical is the such proposals.The other,whichmaywellbe moreimportant, and using themout in theclassroom methodof trying well-established them. or refining as a basisforrejecting, accepting, experience practical theseclaims are compatible can be saidisthat thebestthat Atthemoment, withthe L2 researchthathas been carriedout to date. The essential as a thestructural to dismiss syllabus pointsare (a) thatitis premature oftherole modification considerable and (b) that basisforL2 acquisition to be needed. is likely traditionally givento sucha syllabus

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
readers,whose constructive I would like to thanktwoanonymousTESOL Quarterly commentshelped me greatlyto sharpen my arguments.

THE AUTHOR
at Temple University of Applied Linguistics Professor Rod Ellis is currently Japan, where he works in the graduate programs in TESOL. Previouslyhe worked in Spain, Zambia, and the United Kingdom. He has published several books on of SLA is the utilization his main interest second language acquisition.Currently, theoryand research in grammarteaching.
110 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REFERENCES
Anderson,J. (1983). Thearchitecture ofcognition. Cambridge,MA: Harvard UniversityPress. actions:The complete teachers' Asher, J. (1977). Learninganother language through Los Gatos, CA: Sky Oaks. guidebook. of syntactic and morphoBardovi-Hardlig,K., & Bofman,T. (1989). Attainment inSecond LanguageAcquilogicalaccuracybyadvanced language learners.Studies sition, 11, 17-34. Bialystock,E. (1981). The role of linguisticknowledge in second language use. Studiesin SecondLanguageAcquisition, 4, 31-45. Bialystok,E. (1982). On the relationshipbetween knowingand using linguistic forms.Applied 3, 181-206. Linguistics, Bley-Vroman,R. (1983). The comparativefallacyin interlanguagestudies: The case of systematicity. 33, 1-17. LanguageLearning, Breen, M. (1984). Process in syllabusdesign and classroomlanguage learning. In C. M. Brumfit(Ed.), General design(ELT Documents No. 118, Englishsyllabus pp. 47-60). Oxford: Pergamon Press. in the language classroom.Applied Breen, M. (1985). Authenticity 6, Linguistics, 60-70. Chaudron, C. (1985). Intake: On models and methods for discoveringlearners' in SecondLanguageAcquisition, 7, 1-14. processingof input. Studies case forcognitive Clahsen, H. (1984). The acquisitionof Germanwordorder: A test A crossapproaches to L2 development.In R. Andersen (Ed.), Secondlanguages: linguistic (pp. 219-242). Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse. approach errors. Corder, S. P. (1967). Thesignificance IRAL, 5, 161-169. oflearners' Corder, S. P. (1981). Error analysisand remedial teaching.In S. P. Corder (Ed.), and interlanguage Erroranalysis Press. (pp. 45-55). Oxford: Oxford University Eckman, F. (1985). Some theoretical and pedagogical implications of the markedness differential 7, hypothesis.Studiesin SecondLanguage Acquisition, 289-308. of formalinstruction Ellis,R. (1984). Can syntaxbe taught?A studyof the effects on the acquisition of WH questions by children.AppliedLinguistics, 5, 138155. in interlanguage. Ellis, R. (1985). Sources of variability 6, 118Applied Linguistics, 131. Ellis, R. (1989). Are classroom and naturalistic acquisitionthe same? A studyof theclassroomacquisitionof Germanwordorder rules.Studies inSecond Language 11, 305-328. Acquisition, second Oxford: Blackwell. Ellis, R. (1990). Instructed languageacquisition. of formalinstruction on second language acquisition. Felix, S. (1981). The effect 31, 87-112. Language Learning, tasks: while Fotos,S. (1992). Grammar consciousness-raising Negotiating meaning focussingonform.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Temple University Japan. Fotos, S., & Ellis, R. (1991). Communicatingabout grammar: A task-basedap25(4), 605-628. proach. TESOL Quarterly, inschools: Thesilent Gattegno,C. (1972). Teaching foreign languages way.New York: Educational Solutions. 5, 79Gregg, K. (1984). Krashen's monitorand Occam's razor.Applied Linguistics, 100. P. (1964). Thelinguistic and language sciences Halliday, M., McIntosh,A., & Strevens, London: Longman. teaching. THE STRUCTURAL SYLLABUS AND SLA 111

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

Harley,B. (1989). Functionalgrammarin Frenchimmersion:A classroomexperiment.Applied 10, 331-359. Linguistics, Hatch, E. (1978a). Secondlanguageacquisition. Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse. in a second language. In J. Richards(Ed.), Hatch, E. (1978b). Acquisitionof syntax secondandforeign Understanding languagelearning (pp. 401-435). Rowley,MA: Newbury House. Howatt,T. (1974). The background to course design. In P. Allen & S. P. Corder coursein applied linguistics: Vol 3. Techniques in applied (Eds.), The Edinburgh Press. linguistics (pp. 1-23). Oxford: Oxford University Huebner, T. (1983). A longitudinal analysis oftheacquisition ofEnglish.Ann Arbor, MI: Karoma. second Hyltenstam,K., & Pienemann, M. (Eds.). (1985). Modellingand assessing Clevedon, England: MultilingualMatters. languageacquisition. tosyllabus Krahnke,K. (1987). Approaches design for foreign languageteaching. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall. Krashen, S. (1977). Some issues relatingto the monitor model. In H. Brown,' and learning C. Yorio, & R. Crymes.(Eds.). On TESOL '77: Teaching as a English and practice secondlanguage: Trendsin research (pp. 144-158). WashingtonDC: TESOL. and second Oxford: Krashen,S. (1981). Secondlanguageacquisition language learning. Pergamon Press. and practice in secondlanguageacquisition. Oxford: Krashen, S. (1982). Principles Pergamon Press. Larsen-Freeman,D. (1991). Teaching grammar.In M. Celce-Murcia(Ed.), Teaching MA: NewburyHouse. language (pp. 279-295). Rowley, Englishasasecondorforeign tosecond Larsen-Freeman,D., & Long, M. H.( 1991). An introduction language acquisiLondon: Longman. tionresearch. Lightbown, P. (1985). Can language acquisition be altered by instruction.In and assessing secondlanguage K. Hyltenstam& M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modelling acquisition (pp. 101-112). Clevedon, England: MultilingualMatters. A review make a difference? Long, M. H. (1983). Does second language instruction of the research. TESOL Quarterly, 17(3), 359-382. Long, M. H. (1988). Instructedinterlanguagedevelopment. In L. Beebe (Ed.), Issuesin secondlanguageacquisition: Multiple perspectives (pp. 113-141). Rowley, MA: Newbury House. Long, M. H., & Crookes, G. (1991). Three approaches to task-based syllabus 26(1), 27-56. design. TESOL Quarterly, London: Longman. analysis. Mackey,W. (1965). Language teaching considerations. McLaughlin,B. (1978). The monitormodel: Some methodological 309-332. 23, Learning, Language 11, 113-128. Applied Linguistics, McLaughlin, B. (1990). Restructuring. Meisel,J., Clahsen, H., & Pienemann, M. (1981). On determining developmental in Second LanguageAcquisistagesin naturalsecond language acquisition.Studies tion, 3, 109-135. Moore, A. (1989). [Review of Secondlanguagegrammar: Learningand teaching]. 155-157. 43, Teaching Journal, EnglishLanguage and language teachingin the United States,1940Moulton,W. (1961). Linguistics in Euro& J. Whatmough(Eds.), Trends 1960. In C. Mohrman,A. Sommerfelt, 1930-1960 (pp. 82-109). Utrecht,Netherlands: linguistics, pean and American Spectrum. and teaching Palmer, H. (1917). The scientific study oflanguages.London: Harrap. theory:NativelikeselecPawley,A., & Syder,F. (1983). Two puzzles forlinguistic 112 TESOL QUARTERLY

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

tion and nativelikefluency.In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (pp. 191-225). London: Longman. Pica, T. (1983). Adult acquisitionof Englishas a second language under different conditionsof exposure. LanguageLearning, 33, 465-497. on the teachability constraints of languages. Pienemann, M. (1984). Psychological in SecondLanguageAcquisition, Studies 6, 186-214. and syllabusconstruction. In K. Hylstenstam Pienemann, M. (1985). Learnability & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modellingand assessingsecond language aquisition (pp. 23-75). Clevedon, England: MultilingualMatters. Pienemann, M. (1989). Is language teachable? Psycholinguistic experimentsand 10, 52-79. hypotheses.Applied Linguistics, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Prabhu, N. S. (1987). Secondlanguagepedagogy. W. (1987). Secondlanguagegrammar: and teaching. London: Rutherford, Learning Longman. Ryle,G. (1949). The concept ofmind.London: Hutchinson. Schmidt,R. (1990). The role of consciousnessin second language learning.Applied 11, 17-46. Linguistics, in a second Schmidt,R., & Frota,S. (1986). Developing basic conversational ability language: A case studyof an adult learner. In R. Day (Ed.), Talkingto learn (pp. 237-326). Rowley,MA: NewburyHouse. Seliger, H. (1979). On the nature and functionof language rules in language 13(3), 359-369. teaching. TESOL Quarterly, Sharwood Smith, M. (1981). Consciousness-raisingand the second-language learner. Applied 2, 159-169. Linguistics, in a communicativeapTerrell, T. D. (1991). The role of grammarinstruction proach. ModernLanguageJournal,75, 52-63. activities. Press. Ur, P. (1988). Grammar practice Cambridge: Cambridge University Van Patten,B., & Cadierno, T. (1991). SLA as input A role processing: forinstruction. Unpublished manuscript. White, L. (1987). Against comprehensibleinput: The input hypothesisand the 8, 95-110. development of second language competence.Applied Linguistics, Widdowson, H. (1968). The teaching of English through science. In J. Dakin, B. Tiffen,& H. Widdowson (Eds.), Language in education (pp. 115-175). London: Oxford University Press. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wilkins,D. (1976). Notional syllabuses. a second An integrated view Wode, H. (1980). Learning language: oflanguage acquisition. Tiibingen, Germany: Gunter Narr. Yalden, J. (1983). The communicative Evolution, syllabus: designand implementation. Oxford: Pergamon Press.

THE STRUCTURAL SYLLABUS AND SLA

113

This content downloaded from 81.102.155.33 on Sat, 28 Sep 2013 12:16:33 PM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions