Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
All language in use can be analyzed at the following four levels: text, sentence,
word and sound. These are the forms that language takes. Grammar is
partly the study of what forms (or structures) are possible in a
language. Traditionally, grammar has been concerned with analysis at the level
of the sentence. Thus, a grammar is a description of the rules that govern
how a languages sentences are formed. Grammar attempts to explain why
the following sentences are acceptable:
We are not at home right now. / Right now we are not at home.
And why these ones are not:
Not we at right home now are. / We is not at home right now.
The system of rules that cover the order of words in a sentence is called syntax.
Syntax rules disallow sentences such as the first incorrect one. The system of
rules that cover the formation of words is called morphology. Morphology rules
disallow sentences such as the second incorrect one.
Grammar is conventionally seen as the study of the syntax and
morphology of sentences; it is the study of linguistic chains and slots, i.e. of
the way words are chained together in a particular order, and also of what kind
of words can slot into any one link in the chain.
The ability to both recognize and to produce well-formed sentences is an
essential part of learning a second language. There are a number of problems
regarding this, e.g. how this ability is best developed, and what well-formed
really means, given that naturally occurring speech seems to violate
grammatical rules (We aint home vs. We are not home); additionally, focusing
exclusively on sentences, rather than on texts or words, risks under-equipping
the learner for real language use, because there is more to language learning
than the ability to produce well-formed sentences.
There are at least two kinds of meaning and these reflect the two main purposes
of language. The first is to represent the world as we experience it
(representational function) and the second is to influence how things happen
in the world, specifically in our relations with other people (interpersonal
function).
In its representational role, language reflects the way we perceive the world.
Things happen in the world, and these events or processes are conveyed by (or
encoded in) verbs (e.g. The sun set). These events and processes are often
initiated by people or things, typically encoded in nouns, which in turn form the
subject of the verb (The children are playing). These events/processes often
have an effect on other things, also nouns, and the affected thing/person is often
the object of the verb (The dog chased the cat). These events take place in
particular circumstances (in some time, place, manner), which are typically
encoded in adverbials (The children are playing in the garden / The dog chased
the cat playfully). Time can also be conveyed by the use of tense (The children
were playing in the garden). Finally, events and processes can be seen in their
entirety (The sun set) or they can be seen as having stages, as unfolding in time
(The sun was setting). The difference between the last two examples is a
difference of aspect. Tense and aspect can combine to form a wide range of
meanings that, in English at least, are considered important (The sun is
setting/has set/had set...).
The interpersonal role of language is typically reflected in the way we use
grammar to ease the task of getting things done. There is a difference between:
Tickets! / Tickets, please. / Can you show me your tickets? / Would you mind if I
had a look at your tickets?
Please is one way (a lexical way) of softening the force of a command. A similar
affect can be achieved by using modal verbs such as can, may and might.
Modality, then, is a grammatical means by which interpersonal meaning can be
conveyed.
Despite this lack of one-to-one match between form and function, some
grammatical structures have been organized under functional labels such as
Inviting, Making plans, Requesting things, Making comparisons, etc. In the end,
in order to successfully match form and function it is necessary to be able to
read clues from the context to understand the speakers meaning. Teaching
grammar out of context is likely to lead to misunderstandings.
Grammar syllabuses
A syllabus is a pre-planned, itemized account of the school program: it tells the
teacher (and sometimes the students) what is to be covered and in what order. It
is informed by two sets of decisions: selections (what is to be included) and
grading (in what order the selected items are to be dealt with). The criteria for
selecting which items to put in a syllabus are essentially two: usefulness and
frequency. Note that it is not always the case that the most frequently occurring
items are the most useful (the ten most frequent words in the English language
are the, of, and, to, a, in, that, I, it and was). Questions of usefulness will be
dependent on the specific needs of the learner. For example, a group of learners
need English mainly in order to write in English they will need to attend to
features of written grammar such as passives, subordination, reported speech,
etc. If, on the other hand, they need to be able to speak, those features will be
less useful. Nevertheless, it is fair to hypothesize a core grammar that will be
useful to all learners, whatever their needs may be.
Criteria for grading the syllabus, i.e. for putting the selected items in order,
include complexity, learnability, and teachability.
An item is complex if it has a number of elements: the more elements, the more
complex it is. A structure such as the present perfect continuous is more complex
than the present continuous, while the future perfect continuous is more complex
still. Logic suggests that the less complex structures should be taught before the
more complex ones. In terms of the number of operations involved, question
forms in English can be relatively simple, e.g. forming questions by inversion it
would again seem logical to teach simple, one-step operations before more
complex ones.
The learnability of an item was traditionally measured by its complexity: the
more simple, the more learnable. However, according to the natural order of
Grammar rules
A rule is:
1. a principle or order which guides behavior, says how things are to be done,
etc. or
2. the usual way that something happens.
With regard to grammar, the first type of rule is often called a prescriptive rule
and the second a descriptive rule. Grammar instruction is traditionally
associated with the teaching of the first type of rules i.e. prescriptions as to
what should be said or written (e.g. Never use the passive when you can use the
active).
Second and foreign language teaching is primarily concerned with descriptive
rules, i.e. with generalizations about what speakers of the language actually do
say rather than with that they should do. Until recently, most so-called
descriptive rules were based on hunches and intuitions. There is much greater
authority in descriptions of language since the advent of large computer
databases of naturally occurring language, known as corpora. Statistical
evidence provided by corpora indicates that some rules oversimplify certain
issues.
A third category of rule, pedagogical rules, are those that make sense to
learners while at the same time providing them with the means and confidence
to generate language with a reasonable chance of success. Teachers must, in the
end, cater for the learners needs rather than those of the grammarian. With
regard to pedagogic rules, a further distinction may be made between rules of
form and rules of use. The following is a rule of form:
To form the past simple of regular verbs, add ed to the infinitive.
This is a rule of use:
The simple past tense is used to indicate past actions or states.
Rules of form are generally easier to formulate and are less controversial than
rules of use. It is relatively easy to explain exceptions such as carried, loved,
stopped to the above rule of form and to construct sub-rules that will handle
them. But the slippery nature of rules of use can be a cause of irritation for both
learners and teachers alike, and is one of the arguments that support the
teaching of language through examples or by means of context.
3. ITS TESTABLE: a good test can assess your progress in a foreign language.
Tests (appear to) show whether students are learning and whether teachers are
teaching properly; they rank learners; and they can be used to designate
successes and create failures (pass/fail marks). Unfortunately, it is timeconsuming and difficult to design and administer tests which really measure
overall progress and attainment. On the other hand, grammar tests are relatively
simple so we can easily end up testing what can be tested (mostly grammar),
and testing what we have taught (mostly grammar).
4. GRAMMAR AS A SECURITY BLANKET: grammar can be reassuring and
comforting, in that it gives students the feeling that they can understand and
control what is going on when getting to know the convoluted landscape of a
foreign language. However, the security blanket aspect can lead students and
teachers to concentrate on grammar to the detriment of other, less codifiable
but equally important, aspects of the language.
5. IF YOU STRUGGLED TO LEARN IT, IT MUST BE IMPORTANT: many foreign
language teachers spent a good deal of time when younger learning about tense
and aspect, the use of articles, relative clauses and the like; they naturally feel
that these things matter a good deal and must be incorporated in their own
teaching. In this way, the tendency of an earlier generation to overvalue
grammar can be perpetuated.
6. YOU HAVE TO TEACH THE WHOLE SYSTEM: grammar is an accumulation
of different elements, some more systematic than others, some linked together
tightly or loosely, some completely independent and detachable. We teach or
should selected subsystems, asking for each: how much of this do the students
know already from their native language? How much of the rest is important?
How much of that have we got time for? To try to teach the whole system is to
ignore all three of these questions.
7. POWER: some teachers enjoy the power of knowing more than their students,
of being the authority and always being right. Even if you have a native-speaking
student in your class, they will not be able to talk coherently and confidently
about progressive infinitives or the use of articles with uncountable nouns. If you
can, you win.
Societies like grammar: it involves rules, and rules determine correct behavior.
The teaching methods in any society inevitably reflect attitudes to social control
and power relationships. In countries where free speech is valued (up to a point),
language classes are likely to let students talk, move about, and join in the
decision-making (up to a point). In more authoritarian societies, students are
more likely to sit in rows, listen, learn rules, do grammar exercises, make
mistakes and get corrected (thus demonstrating who is in control). Examination
syllabuses over the world also generally include a component which requires
great mental agility, is of doubtful value to most people, and is regarded as a
touchstone of intellectual capacity.
THE RESULTS: where grammar is given too much priority, students do not learn
English they learn grammar, at the expense of other things that matter as
much or more. They know the main rules, can pass tests, and may have the
illusion that they know the language well. However, when it comes to using the
language in practice, they discover that they lack vital elements, typically
vocabulary and fluency. This approach also makes the students nervous of
making mistakes, undermining their confidence and destroying their motivation.
THE OTHER EXTREME: there are bad reasons for not teaching grammar, too.
One of the results of adopting the communicative approach back in the 1970s in
Britain was the appearance of a generation of British teachers many of whom
were ignorant of the structure of the language they were professionally teaching.
Doing too little grammar is as damaging as doing too much.
1. COMPREHENSIBILITY: knowing how to build and use certain structures
makes it possible to communicate common types of meaning successfully.
Without these structures, it is difficult to make comprehensible sentences.
Therefore, we must identify these structures and teach them properly. They
would obviously include basic verb forms, interrogative and negative structures,
the use of the main tenses, and modal auxiliaries, etc.
2. ACCEPTABILITY: in some social contexts, a person who speaks badly may
not be taken seriously or may be considered uneducated or stupid by native
speakers. Potential employers and examiners may also require a high level of
grammatical correctness, and if our students English needs to be acceptable to
these authorities, their prejudices must be taken into account.
WHAT TO TEACH: what points of grammar we choose to teach will therefore
depend on our circumstances and our learners aims. Whatever the situation,
though, we must make sure that we are teaching only the points of grammar
that we need to in the light of these factors, and that we are teaching them well.
More often than not, language learners reach a language plateau beyond which it
is very difficult to progress, i.e. their linguistic competence fossilizes. Research
suggests that learners who receive no instruction seem to be at risk of fossilizing
sooner than those who do receive instruction. This doesnt necessarily mean
taking formal lessons the grammar study can be self-directed.
The advance-organizer argument
Noticing is a prerequisite for acquisition. The grammar learning you do, while
insufficient in itself to turn you into a fluent speaker until you make use of it,
primes you to notice what might otherwise go unnoticed, and hence directly
influences your learning. It acts as a kind of advance organizer for your later
acquisition of the language, e.g. when you listen to native speakers converse in
it.
The discrete item argument
Any language seen from outside can seem to be a gigantic, shapeless mass and
an insurmountable challenge for the learner. However, by tidying language up
and organizing it into neat categories (discrete items), grammarians make
language digestible. A discrete item is any unit of the grammar system that is
sufficiently narrowly defined to form the focus of a lesson or an exercise. Other
ways of packaging language for teaching purposes are less easily organized into
a syllabus, because communicative functions, e.g. asking favors, making
requests, etc. are often thought to be too large and unruly for the purposes of
lesson design.
The rule-of-law argument
Since grammar is a system of learnable rules, it lends itself to a view of teaching
and learning known as transmission. A transmission view sees the role of
education as the transfer of a body of knowledge (typically in the form of facts
and rules) from those that have the knowledge to those that do not. The need for
rules, order and discipline is particularly acute in large classes of unruly and
unmotivated teenagers. In this sort of situation, grammar offers the teacher a
structured system that can be taught and tested in methodical steps.
The learner expectations argument (1)
Regardless of the theoretical and ideological arguments for or against grammar
teaching, many learners come to language classes with fairly fixed expectations
of what they will do there, which they may derive from previous classroom
experience of language learning. Therefore, they may expect transmission
teaching as well. On the other hand, their expectation that teaching will be
grammar-focused may stem from frustration experienced at trying to pick up a
second language in a non-classroom setting, e.g. through self-study, or through
immersion in the target language culture. Such students may have enrolled in
language classes to ensure that the learning process is made more efficient and
systematic.
chunks of language. Chunks are larger than words but often less than sentences
(e.g. excuse me? / so far so good / have a nice day / if you ask me...). It has been
argued that many of the expressions that young children pick up (all-gone,
gimme) are learned as chunks and only later unpacked into their component
parts, and that this process of analyzing previously stored chunks plays an
important role in first language acquisition. That is why a lexical approach
(word- and chunk-learning) to learning has been proposed, in contrast to
focusing on sentence grammar.
The learner expectations argument (2)
There are many learners who have already had years of grammar study at school
and are in need of a chance to put their knowledge to work. The learner
expectation argument cuts both ways: some learners demand grammar, others
just want to talk. Its the teachers job to respond sensitively to these
expectations, to provide a balance where possible, and even to negotiate a
compromise.
Grammar now
Grammar teaching can mean different things to different people; it may mean
teaching to a communicative syllabus but dealing with grammar questions that
arise while doing communicative activities (covert grammar teaching), but it
typically means teaching to a grammar syllabus and explicitly presenting the
rules of grammar using grammar terminology (overt grammar teaching).
There is a widespread belief that, with the introduction of CLT, attention to
grammar was eclipsed by an emphasis on experiential learning and purely
communicative goals. A grammar revival has been underlined by the emergence
of two influential theoretical concepts: focus on form and consciousnessraising.
More recently, research suggests that without any attention to form, learners
run the risk of fossilization. A focus on form does not mean a return to drill-andrepeat type methods, nor does it mean the use of an off-the-shelf grammar
syllabus. A focus on form may simply mean correcting a mistake, meaning that a
focus on form is compatible with a task-based approach. Related to this is the
notion of consciousness-raising. Theorists argue that the learners role is
perhaps less passive than what Krashen implies, and that acquisition involves a
conscious process, of which the most fundamental is attention (also related to
noticing). Helping learners attend to language items may help them acquire
them by triggering a train of mental processes that in time will result in accurate
and appropriate production. Consciousness-raising does not necessarily entail
production: it may simply exist at the level of understanding and remembering.
Conclusively, if the teacher uses techniques that direct the learners attention to
form, and if the teacher provides activities that promote awareness of grammar,
learning seems to result. The arguments for a focus on form and for
consciousness-raising together comprise the paying-attention-to-form
argument.
To sum everything up: a language is acquired through practice; it is
merely perfected through grammar.
The ease factor recognizes the fact that many teachers lead busy lives and
simply cannot afford to sacrifice valuable time and energy preparing elaborate
classroom materials. Generally speaking, the easier an activity is set up, the
better.
Finally, and most importantly: will it work? That is to say, what is its efficacy?
This factor is the least easy to evaluate, because learning resists measurement.
Tests can provide feedback to the teacher on the efficacy of the
teaching/learning process, though testing is notoriously problematic. The efficacy
of a grammar activity can be measured by the degree of attention it arouses;
attention without understanding, however, is probably a waste of time, so
efficacy will also depend on the amount and quality of contextual information,
explanation and checking. Finally, understanding without memory would seem
ineffective as well, and so the efficacy of a presentation will also depend on how
memorable it is.
None of these factors, however, will be sufficient if there is a lack of motivation.
Tasks and materials that are involving, relevant to the learners needs, have an
element of challenge, etc. are more likely to be motivating than those that do not
have these qualities.
The A-factor: Appropriacy
An activity that works for one group of learners is not necessarily going to work
for another. It may simply not be appropriate. Factors to consider while
determining appropriacy include: the age of the learners, their level, the size of
the group, the constitution of the group (e.g. monolingual or multilingual), the
learners interests, the available materials and resources, the learners previous
learning experiences, cultural factors, the education context (private/state
school, at home or abroad), etc.
Communicative Language Teaching has been a target of criticism because it
values learner-centeredness giving the learners more responsibility and
involvement in the learning process. This is often achieved through discovery
learning activities (letting the learners work out rules themselves) and through
group work as opposed to the traditional teacher-fronted lesson. CLT also has
a relaxed attitude towards accuracy (meaning takes precedence over form).
Finally, CLT has inherited the humanist view that language is an expression of
personal meaning, rather than an expression of a common culture. CLT is an
inappropriate methodology in those cultural contexts where the teacher is
regarded as a fount of wisdom, and where accuracy is valued more highly than
fluency.
gets straight to the point = time-saving; many rules can be more simply
and quickly explained than elicited from examples = allows more time for
practice and application
allows the teacher to deal with language points as they come up, rather
than having to anticipate them and prepare for them in advance.
Many of the pros and cons of this approach hinge on the quality of the actual rule
explanation. This depends on how user-friendly the rule is. What makes a good
rule? Criteria offered by Michael Swan:
Limitation: Rules should show clearly what the limits are on the use of a
given form.
Relevance: A rule should answer only those questions that the student
needs answered. These questions may vary according to the mother
tongue of the learner.
rules that learners discover for themselves are more likely to fit their
existing mental structures than rules they have been presented with
(makes the rules more meaningful, memorable, and serviceable)
the mental effort involved ensures a greater degree of cognitive depth
which ensures greater memorability
students are more actively involved in the learning process, rather than
being passive recipients (they are likely to be more attentive and
motivated)
it favors pattern-recognition and problem-solving abilities (suitable for
learners who like this kind of challenge)
if the problem-solving is done collaboratively, in the target language,
learners get the opportunity for extra language practice
working things out for themselves prepares students for greater selfreliance and is therefore conducive to learner autonomy
the time and energy spent in working out the rules may mislead students
into believing that rules are the objective of language learning, rather than
a means
the time take to work out a rule may be at the expense of time spent in
putting the rule to some sort of productive practice
students may hypothesize the wrong rule, or their version of the rule may
be too broad or too narrow in its application
it can place heavy demands on teachers planning a lesson (selecting and
organizing data carefully so as to guide learners to an accurate
formulation of the rule)
however carefully organized the data is, many language areas such as
aspect and modality resist easy rule formulation
it frustrates the students who would prefer simply to be told the rule
Research findings into the relative benefits of the deductive and inductive
methods have been inconclusive. Short term gains for deductive learning have
been found, and there is some evidence suggesting that some kinds of language
items are better given than discovered. Most learners tend to prefer deductive
presentations of grammar. Nevertheless, once exposed to inductive approaches,
there is often less resistance as the learners see the benefits of solving language
problems themselves. Finally, the autonomy argument cannot be dismissed: it
is an invaluable tool for self-directed learning that might be usefully developed in
the classroom.
Sources of texts
There are 2 implications to this text-view of language.
1. If learners are going to make sense of grammar, they will need to be
exposed to it in its contexts of use texts.
2. If learners are to achieve a functional command of an L2, they will need to
be able to understand and produce not just isolated sentences, but whole
texts in that language.
There are at least four possible sources of texts:
the coursebook;
the teacher;
Discovery techniques
Discovery techniques are those where students are given examples of language
and told to find out how they work to discover the grammar rules rather than
be told them. At the most covert level, this means that the students are exposed
to the new language, with no focus or fuss, some time before it is presented. At a
more conscious level, students can be asked to look at some sentences and say
how the meaning is expressed and what the differences are between the
sentences. As students puzzle through the information and solve the problem in
front of them, they find out how grammar is used in a text and are actually
acquiring a grammar rule. The advantages of this approach are clear. By
involving the students reasoning process in the task of grammar acquisition, we
make sure that they are concentrating fully, using their cognitive powers. The
approach is also more student-centered.
These techniques are not suitable for all learners and on all occasions. The
teacher should decide when to use these activities, with what grammar, and with
which students. It has been found that this kind of material is easy to design and
use at intermediate levels where students have more English to talk about
language.
Preview
One rather covert way of allowing students to discover new grammar for
themselves is to preview it at some stage before it is actively learned and taught.
Students are exposed to new language; they do not concentrate on it at this
stage, but having seen the grammar in action will help them deal with it when
they have to study it later. Activities such as reading and listening to texts
expose students to language in this way, because while students are practicing
their reading and listening skills, they can also be absorbing new language.
Matching techniques
A number of grammar exercises ask students to match parts of sentences and
phrases. Often they work in pairs for this and treat the activity rather like a
problem-solving exercise. The point of matching exercises is to get students to
work things out for themselves: they have to make choices about what goes with
what, and the activity of making choices helps them to discover correct facts
about grammar.
Text study
Teachers can get students to discover new grammar by asking them to look at
the way it is used in a text or what kind of language is used in a certain
context. The principle aim here is to get students to recognize the new language.
Problem-solving
As students move from beginner levels of English through intermediate and
beyond, their level allows them to look at grammar areas rather than small
details; one way of getting students to do this is to set up a problem and ask
students to solve it.
Noticing
Learners pick out certain features of the language and pay attention to them,
that is, they notice items of language. In order for the learner to notice, the
language feature has to be noticeable. Dont will occur frequently in directives,
warnings, advice, and expressions such as I dont think and I dont know, often
with the identifiable paralinguistic behavior of head shaking. It therefore fulfills
the criteria of being noticeable: it occurs frequently, it relates the learners
common sense about basic functions of language, and its functions are those to
which a learner would be likely to pay attention. After items have been noticed
and the relationship between the form and meaning interpreted, these items
become part of intake into the learning process. Learners then analyze the
forms in order to reason out how they fit into their existing knowledge of the
language.
no rather than not at the first stage because it transfers from how negation is
formed in Spanish.
Automatizing
Once a learner can achieve regular and consistent responses in conversation to a
certain type of input, then it can be said that the language involved has been
automatized. How is this process of automatization achieved? In producing
language, a learner plans and chooses what to say and how to say it by paying
attention to whether the form communicates a meaning successfully. Through
repeated practice of the successful form its use will ultimately become
automatic, in just the same way as it does with children acquiring their L1. This
process can be observed occurring naturally as learners acquire English outside
the classroom.
The question for the teacher is whether classroom practice can assist. Sharwood
Smith claims that explicit knowledge gained in the classroom can become
implicit and form the basis of automatic production through practice. However,
the notion of a straightforward framework for classroom procedures needs to be
qualified in many ways.
One qualification is that the way in which these processes of noticing, reasoning,
restructuring, and automatizing relate to one another is far from clear.
It has also been noted that premature practice can actually confuse, rather than
facilitate, the intake of grammatical features. Learners follow a developmental
route of acquisition in which structures are acquired in a natural sequence
which may not be replicated by the teacher or textbook. It is a predictable,
unmodifiable sequence which happens regardless of whether the learners are
acquiring language naturally in an L2 environment or in the classroom. This
raises questions about the role of practice. Teachers know that students might
produce a form in focused practice within a lesson, but fail to take it up and
produce it later. Intake and eventual automatization will only occur as and when
the students are ready.
Other qualifications are the extent to which any of the processes described
above occur consciously or unconsciously, and the relationship between implicit
and explicit knowledge in the learner. Implicit grammatical knowledge is the
intuitive knowledge of grammar which develops in the same way as it does in
young children acquiring their L1, and it can develop in the developmental
sequence just mentioned. Implicit knowledge develops naturally in the FL
classroom too, as learners work on the input they are exposed to, and the rate of
this development can be increased through exposure to frequently occurring
structures. However, learners also receive explicit grammar knowledge from
teachers and textbooks. Explicit knowledge can help learners appreciate the gap
that exists between the language which they produce and native-speaker forms
as idealized in grammar texts, which can help them monitor and check their
language, as well as be aware of what they need to improve on. Second, knowing
a pedagogical rule can help learners with the structuring process when they are
ready to internalize a grammatical rule. Third, instruction has a selective impact
depending on the complexity of the grammar structure in question it seems to
facilitate in the case of linguistically simple rules, but for others, where the
relationship between structure and function is not so clear, it does not seem to
help.
Presenting grammar
Contextualizing grammar
The contexts in which grammar is embedded need to be generally useful and
appropriate to the needs of the learner group. Contexts can be created through
visuals, through the teacher miming or demonstrating in the classroom, through
a dialogue/text/song/video, or through a situation set up by the teacher. The
particular context chosen will relate to the learners in view.
Order of presentation
Another decision to make in grammar teaching is which forms of the item to
teach and in what order, and which forms to leave for the recycling stages.
Use of terminology
Practicing grammar
A widely prevailing approach to grammar is to present a grammatical structure
to learners, ask them to practice it in controlled activities which focus on
accurate reproduction of the structure, and then set up freer activities in which
students produce the target form. This is known as the Presentation-PracticeProduction (PPP) model. Teacher correction is considered to be of importance
during presentation and practice, though self-correction and peer correction are
encouraged. During production the usual policy is non-intervention during the
attempt to produce, with feedback given afterwards.
The production stage of this model has caused controversy. The problem
inherent in the PPP model is that, while you can design an activity hoping that
learners will produce a certain feature, the reality is that if they do treat is as a
piece of genuine communication, there is a very good chance they will not use
the grammatical feature that you intended them to use. You can devise activities
that make use of a feature natural and useful, but its extremely difficult to make
the use of a feature essential.
For this reason, it has become more usual to provide controlled practice and
then to provide unfocused communicative activities within the wider syllabus.
During such practice, as students produce a form in controlled activities, they
provide further, extensive input for each other and more chances to notice the
structure. Also, practice of this kind obliges students to pay attention to syntax.
Accuracy
To achieve greater accuracy the learner needs to devote some attention to
FORM, i.e. to getting it right. Learners often have only limited attentional
resources, and it is often difficult for them to focus on FORM and MEANING at
the same time. There is inevitably some trade-off between the two.
So, for learners to be able to devote attention to form, it helps if they are not
worrying too much about meaning. Practice activities focused on accuracy
might work best if learners are already familiar with the meaning they are
expressing. Expecting students to be accurate with newly presented grammar is
a tall order. Accuracy practice should come later in the process, when learners
have been thoroughly familiarized with the new material.
Accuracy requires attention, attention needs time. Research suggests that
learners are more accurate the more time they have available. They can use this
time to PLAN, MONITOR and FINE-TUNE their output. Rushing students
through accuracy practice may be counterproductive. Traditional classroom
activities associated with accuracy, such as drilling, may not in fact help with
accuracy that much. Finally, learners need to value accuracy. They need to
understand that, without it, they risk being unintelligible. A practice activity
which is good for improving accuracy will have these characteristics:
1. Attention to form: the practice activity should motivate learners to want to
be accurate, and they should not be so focused on what they are saying that
they have no left-over attention to allocate to how they are saying it.
2. Familiarity: learners need to be familiar with the language they are trying to
get right.
3. Thinking time: monitoring for accuracy is easier and therefore more
successful if there is sufficient time available to think and reflect.
4. Feedback: learners need unambiguous messages as to how accurate they
are this traditionally takes form of correction.
Fluency
Fluency is a skill: it is the ability to process language speedily and easily. Fluency
develops as the learner learns to AUTOMIZE knowledge. One way they do this is
to use pre-assembled CHUNKS of language. They may be picked up as single
units (e.g. common expressions like Whats the matter?) and chunks may also be
acquired when utterances are first assembled according to grammar rules, and
then later automized.
Too much attention to form may jeopardize fluency. Practice activities aimed at
developing fluency need to divert attention away from form. One way of doing
this is to design practice tasks where the focus is primarily on MEANING. By
requiring learners to focus on what they are saying, less attention is available to
dwell on how they are saying it. In this way, the conditions for automization are
created.
INFORMATION GAP tasks focus on meaning. Real communication is motivated
by the need to bridge gaps. In information gap tasks the production of language
is motivated by communicative PURPOSE, rather than by the need to display
grammar knowledge for its own sake. It follows that the exchange is a
RECIPROCAL one there is as much a need to listen as there is to speak. This
means that the speakers have to be mutually intelligible. Furthermore, there is
an element of the UNPREDICTABLE involved (what if you dont have the
answers...).
PURPOSEFULNESS,
RECIPROCITY,
MUTUAL,
INTELLIGIBILITY,
and
UNPREDICTABILITY are features of real-life communication. Tasks that
incorporate these features are known as COMMUNICATIVE TASKS and help
prepare students for the cut-and-thrust of real communication. They are
message-focused and they shift the learners attention away from a concern for
form, and in this way they develop fluency. Practice activities should have these
characteristics:
1. Attention to meaning: the practice activity should encourage students to
pay less attention to the form of what they are saying and more to the meaning.
2. Authenticity: the activity should attempt to simulate the psychological
conditions of real-life language use. That is, the learner should be producing and
interpreting language under real-time constraints, and with a measure of
unpredictability.
Restructuring
Restructuring involves integrating new information into old. Traditionally, this
was meant to happen at the PRESENTATION STAGE. That is, learners were
expected to learn a new rule, and straightaway incorporate it into their mental
grammar. There is a growing belief that restructuring can occur during
PRACTICE activities. One school of thought argues that communicative activities
provide a fertile site for restructuring. This is because such activities
PROBLEMATIZE learning (What if you dont understand my question?). This
communication forces the learner to take stock and re-think. In turn it offers the
potential for NEGOTIATION. Negotiation of meaning is thought to trigger
restructuring.
Restructuring is sometimes experienced by learners as a kind of flash of
understanding, but more often, it is the dawning realization that they have
moved up another notch in terms of their command of the language. Practice
activities designed to aid restructuring might have these characteristics:
1. Problematizing: having to deal with a problem often seems to trigger
restructuring. Moreover, the input they get as they negotiate the meaning of
what they are trying to convey may also help reorganize the state of their mental
grammar.
2. Push: the activity should push learners to outperform their competence that
is, to produce or understand language that is a notch more complex than they
would normally produce or understand.
3. Scaffolding: there should be sufficient support to provide the security
(SCAFFOLDING) to take risks with the language. This means that the practice
activity should try to balance the new with the familiar. Teachers often provide
students with scaffolding in the way they interact with them, repeating,
rephrasing or expanding what they are saying in order to carry on a
conversation.
Few tasks, whether their objective is accuracy, fluency, or restructuring, are
likely to meet all of the criteria. On the other hand, some tasks may incorporate
features that suit them to more than one objective, e.g. both fluency and
accuracy. Not all learners will respond in the same way to the same activity:
differences in ability, learning style, and motivation will affect the degree
to which they engage with the task.
Current research tends to support the view that ignoring student mistakes might
put at risk the learners linguistic competence. Not to ignore mistakes often
means having to make a number of on-the-spot decisions. New ways of saying
things are being constantly invented. This is a case when the teacher has to use
considerable discretion.
Questions for identifying errors: Is there an error here? What kind of an error
is it? What caused it? What should I do about it? When an error has been
identified, the next step is to classify it.
Categories of errors:
1. LEXICAL ERRORS. These errors include mistakes in the way words are
combined. At the word level, learners make mistakes either because they have
chosen the wrong word for the meaning they are trying to express, or they have
chosen the wrong form of the word.
2. GRAMMAR ERRORS, on the other hand, cover such things as mistakes in
verb form and tense, and in sentence structure (e.g. subject ommittance).
3. DISCOURSE ERRORS relate to the way sentences are organized and linked in
order to make whole texts (e.g. eventually > at last).
4. PRONUNCIATION ERRORS (in case of spoken language) can also be
identified.
TRANSFER implies instances of L1 influence on L2 production (e.g. lack of
indefinite article for Spanish speakers). They do not necessarily result in errors
there is such thing as POSITIVE TRANSFER (it was once called L1
INTERFERENCE). Errors such as speaked derive from OVER-APPLYING (or
OVERGENERALISING) an L2 rule. This is evidence that a process of
hypothesis formation and testing is underway.
These DEVELOPMENTAL ERRORS are not dissimilar to the kind of errors
children make when they are acquiring L1. TRANSFER & DEVELOPMENTAL
errors account for the bulk of the errors learners make. These SYSTEMATIC
ERRORS (e.g. my brother was stopping, he was having a long hair), rather
than random ones, respond BEST to correction.
One way of testing whether an error is the product of random processes, or the
product of a developing but inexact system is SELF-CORRECTION.
Criteria for error prioritization:
1. IRRITATION DISTRACTION. Some errors are likely to distract or even
irritate the listener.
2. INTELLIGIBILITY. To what extent does the error interfere with or distort, the
speakers message?
Responding to errors
The choice of feedback will depend of such factors as:
1. The type of error: Does it have a major effect on communication? Is it one
that the learner could probably self-repair?
2. The type of activity: Is the focus of the activity more on form or on
meaning? If the latter, it is probably best to correct without interfering too much
with the flow of communication.
3. The type of learner: Will the learner be discouraged or humiliated by
correction? Alternatively, will the learner feel short-changed if there is no
correction?
He has a long hair. Possible responses that the teacher might consider:
1. No. Clearly NEGATIVE FEEDBACK. Offers no clue to what was wrong. The
teacher assumes that the student has made a slip under pressure, and that this
does not represent a lack of knowledge of the rule. The learner should be able to
SELF-CORRECT.
2. He has long hair. A correction in the strictest sense of the word. The
teachers repairs the utterance, reminding the learner not to focus only on
meaning at the expense of form.
3. No article. The teacher pinpoints the kind of the error the student has made in
order to prompt self-correction, or, if that fails, PEER-CORRECTION. This is
where METALANGUAGE comes in handy.
4. No. Anyone? AMBIGUOUS FEEDBACK signal plus an invitation for PEERCORRECTION. However, the teacher risks humiliating the student.
5. He has? In other words, the teacher is replaying the students utterance up
to the point where the error occurred, with a view to isolating the error as a clue
for SELF-CORRECTION.
6. He has a long hair? ECHO the mistake but with a quizzical intonation. This is
less threatening than saying No, but often learners fail to interpret this as an
invitation to self-correct.
7. Im sorry. I didnt understand. Sorry? He what? Excuse me? Etc. These are
known as CLARIFICATION REQUESTS, and occur frequently in real
conversation. They signal to the student that the meaning of their message is
unclear (distorted due to some problem of form). When learners RE-CAST their
message it usually tends to improve.
8. Just one? Like this? [Draws bald man with one long hair]. The teacher
pretended to interpret the students utterance literally, in order to show the
unintended effect of the error.
9. A long hair is just one single hair, like you find in your soup. For the hair on
your head you wouldnt use an article. He has long hair. Uses the error to make
an impromptu teaching point. This is called REACTIVE teaching.
10. Oh, he has long hair, has he? This technique, REFORMULATION, is an
example of covert feedback, disguised as a conversational aside. This is how
parents correct their kids, by offering an expanded version of the utterance.
These reformulations help provide a temporary SCAFFOLD for the developing
language competence, but they may simply not recognize the intention nor
notice the difference between their utterance and the reformulation.
11. Good. Feedback in activities where the focus is more on meaning than on
form. This acknowledges students contribution, irrespective of either its
accuracy or meaning. But, if construed as positive feedback, it may lull learners
into a false sense of security.
12. The teacher says nothing but jots down errors for future reference so as not
to disrupt the flow of talk. However, it is believed that the most effective
feedback is that which occurs in what are called REAL OPERATING
CONDITIONS, when the learner is using language communicatively.
Conclusions
1. Not all errors are caused by L1 interference. A lot of errors are developmental
occur in the normal course of language acquisition, irrespective of the learners
mother tongue.
2. Not all errors are grammar errors, and not all grammar errors are simple tense
mistakes.
3. Not all errors matter equally, nor do they all respond to the same kind of
treatment.
4. Correction is not the only form of feedback that teachers can provide. Other
options include positive feedback, clarification requests, and reformulations.
5. Failure to provide negative feedback may have a damaging effect on the
learners language development in the long run; on the other hand, providing
only negative feedback may be ultimately demotivating.
6. Learners errors offer a rich source of material for language focus and
consciousness-raising.
All language lessons used to follow the pattern: grammar explanation followed
by exercises. This came to be known as PRESENTATION and PRACTICE. The
practice stage was aimed at achieving ACCURACY. When it was recognized that
accuracy is not sufficient to achieve mastery of a second language, a third
element was added PRODUCTION, the aim of which was fluency.
PRESENTATION PRACTICE PRODUCTION.
The PPP model was criticized because of some assumptions it makes about
language acquisition. It assumes that language is best learned in incremental
steps, one bit of grammar at a time, and that the teacher, by choosing what bit
of grammar to focus on, can influence the process.
Research suggests that language acquisition is more complex, less linear, and
less amenable to teacher intervention. The model also assumes that accuracy
precedes fluency. As in first language learning, accuracy seems to be relatively
late-acquired a kind of fine-tuning system which is already up-and-running.
Delaying communication until accuracy is achieved may be counterproductive.
Rather than as preparation for communication, it seems that it is by means of
communication that the learners language system establishes itself and
develops.