The role of grammar in language teaching

This is precisely why grammar should be taught explicitly. The researcher Richard Schmidt kept a diary of his experience learning Portuguese in Brazil. Initially he had enrolled in formal language classes where there was a heavy emphasis on grammar.

When he subsequently left these classes to travel in Brazil his Portuguese made good progress, a fact he attributed to the use he was making of it. However, as he interacted naturally with Brazilians he was aware that certain features of the talk certain grammatical items seemed to catch his attention. It so happened that these items were also items he had studied in his classes. What's more, being more noticeable, these items seemed to stick.

Schmidt concluded that noticing is a prerequisite for acquisition. It had acted as a kind of advance organizer for his later acquisition of the language. First it facilitates the role of the teacher by enabling him to break down the language to little pieces and then provides him with a syllabus to follow with which make the teaching job goes so much smoother. As for learners, grammar provides learners with a sort of criterion by which they could assess and measure the accuracy of what they say and write.

In addition to that, grammar ensures that its learners have the skills and rules necessary to articulate any thought that crosses their minds. With a sufficient diction and a decent mastery of grammar, learners should be capable of carrying out meaningful conversations; the thing that saves them quite a substantial time rather than having to observe and find the rules all by themselves.

Over the last few centuries, the language teaching field has undergone tremendous changes especially in the twentieth century. Unlike the teaching of Maths and Physics which has to a greater or lesser extent remained the same, language teaching discipline has advanced a great deal. Teachers and theorists are insistently coming up with new approaches and methods which will help the learner acquire the target language more easily and quickly. In this part, we shall have a look at some of the distinctive methods and approaches related to the language teaching field.

The direct method is a method posited in the first part of the twentieth century by Charles Berlitz. He asserts that the basic tenet of this method is that second language learning is similar to first language learning. In this respect, there should be lots of oral interactions, spontaneous use of language, no instruction in the native language and little of grammar and syntactic learning. The concepts of this method are conducting the instruction process only in the target language.

This method, as matter of fact came as a counter-method for the grammar translation method which promotes the instruction in the mother tongue. Translation is entirely banished from any classroom activity. The latter are carried out solely in the target language. The direct method put a heavy emphasis on the oral use of the target language.

The importance of grammar in second language teaching and learning | zakaria dalil - www.newyorkethnicfood.com

Speaking is taught first before reading or writing. Students are actively involved in using the language in realistic everyday situations and encouraged to think in the target language. As for the vocabulary, only the everyday vocabulary is taught. Concrete vocabulary is taught through pictures and objects. As regards grammar, the method in question adopts an inductive approach. Namely, letting the learners deduct the rules from adequate linguistic forms in the target language.

Teachers adopting this method rely mostly as classroom activities on reading aloud, question answer exercises, dictation and conversation practice. This method was highly praised by grammar critics and theorists and said to have many advantages. These advantages are presented in its ability to simulate the first language acquisition conditions. In addition to that, Instead of teaching about the language, this method teaches the language itself through demonstration and conversation in context.

Forgot Password?

Pupils, thereby, become able to converse with fluency and felicity in the target language. Notwithstanding, this method is not an all flawless method. Grammar critics argue it is nearly impossible for this method to imitate the first language acquisition process. Students acquire their mother tongue through total immersion in the language and direct contact with native speakers.

At this rate, it is going to take ages for students to acquire a second language without these vital conditions. In grammar-translation classes, students learn grammatical rules and then apply those rules by translating sentences between the target language and their native language. In that era, this method had two main goals: This method focuses on the reading and writing activities as it has developed techniques which facilitates the learning of reading and writing.

Hence, speaking and listening activities are totally overlooked. This method places a heavy emphasis on the instruction of the grammatical rules. The mainstay of classroom materials for the grammar-translation method is the textbooks. This method, however, has been proven to be an impractical way of teaching a second language. Despite the fact that it has been the standard way in which languages were taught from the 17th to the 19th century, and still widely practiced today, yet, the whole point of learning a new language is to be able to communicate in it and interact to it and not only be able to translate or interpret sentences.

The audio-lingual method, also called army method is a foreign language teaching method, developed by the renowned linguist Bloomfield and based on the behaviorist theory. This method is to a certain extent similar to the direct method. They both coincide in that students should be taught the language directly without having to resort to the mother tongue to explain some of the words or grammar rules.

Rather, the teacher drilled students in the use of grammar covertly through the memorization of forms. In this method, the teacher presents the students with correct model of a sentence and the students have to repeat it. Thus, the teacher is expecting a certain response and not providing it will result into having a negative feedback.

Everything is simply memorized in form. Grammar critics maintain that this method has very limited benefits in terms of instruction and acquisition. This method lacks the essence of second language teaching which is grammatical rules to enable the students to construct sentences themselves and communication exercises to learn how to apply the rules in conversation.

Having to repeat mere sentences and do rote exercises simply reduces the cognitive capacities of the students and strict their engagement with the target language. The natural approach is a language teaching theory developed by Stephen Crashen and Tracy Terrel in the late and early s. It emphasizes communication between students and use of the target language in everyday life. This approach is somewhat a simulation of the first language acquisition. In this approach, errors are corrected explicitly by the teacher. In the natural approach, language output is not forced, but allowed to emerge spontaneously after students have attended to large amounts of comprehensible language input.

The primary aim of this approach is to develop the communicative skills in the student. Terell highlighted three major principles of this approach: The lack of teaching grammar in this approach has caused the students serious problems in writing and speaking. Their incapacity to produce accurate spoken and written sentences has made critics reconsider this approach. A requisite element in any language is correctness. In addition to that, researches found this first language acquisition is somewhat impossible no matter how much linguistic input you provide to the student, Unless the learner lives in an environment where the target language is solely spoken.

The communicative approach or communicative language teaching is an approach that emerged in the late s and early s. The premise of this approach is the emphasis on interaction as both the means and the ultimate goal of study. This approach appeared as a result of the tremendous demand for learning a second language either for professional or personal reasons, initially in Europe.

However, traditional methods like the grammar translation proved to take a considerable amount of time and not really meant for communication. Thus, theorists came up with a new approach which would assure fluency and immediate pay off.

• ?
• ;
• Gonecity (Portuguese Edition).
• ;

Major characteristics of this approach are: An emphasis on learning to communicate through interaction in the target language. The advantages are represented in being a holistic approach. It places more emphasis on the communicative activities rather than stick to the traditional structural syllabus. Moreover, it creates an atmosphere of vitality and excitement in the classroom where everyone have to participate and contribute.

The role of grammar in language teaching

And finally, the reason why most of new language neophytes prefer this approach is that it capitalizes on the interests and needs of the learner. The deductive approach called also rule-driven learning is the approach where grammar is explicitly presented to the students and followed by exercises applying the rules. This approach is derived from the concept that deductive reasoning works from the general to the specific. That is to say, theories are presented first and then their application. In such an approach, the grammar teacher provides the students with the rule first and then explains it through a set of examples.

Once students understand the rule, they are asked to apply it to various examples of sentences. This way students are expected to be capable of applying the rule in different context without fearing of making mistakes. The advantages of the latter reside in being a straightforward method. It goes directly to the point without any sorts of confusing introductions.

In addition, the aspects of the rules, like the form and its application, can be more simply and clearly explained than elicited from students; hence, preventing students from drawing wrong conclusions. Furthermore, this approach is based on the direct explanation and instant application of the grammatical rules, the thing that makes them stick in the mind of students. And last but not least, The deductive approach respects the intelligence and maturity of many adult learners in particular and acknowledges the role of cognitive processes in language acquisition.

As regards the disadvantages, some theorists argue that beginning a class with a grammar lesson may be off-putting for some learners, especially the younger ones. Moreover, students may find a hard time comprehending the concepts of the rule or understanding all the terminology that is usually accompanied with the rule explanation. More to the point, this approach encourages the attitude that language learning is merely an understanding of the language grammar, which is something a large proportion of learners fall prey to. And lastly, Grammar explanation encourages a teacher-fronted, transmission-style classroom.

The inductive approach is somewhat the counter-approach of the previous one. The approach in question suggests that the teacher should teach grammar by presenting a wide variety of examples and that students derive the grammatical rule from the examples. Similar to the deductive approach, the inductive approach also offers advantages and disadvantages. The former lies in that learners become accustomed and familiar with the rule discovery , the thing that enhances learning autonomy and self-reliance. In addition, by having to infer the rules all on their own, learners are more active in the learning process rather than being passive recipients and get to train and capitalize more on their cognitive capacities.

And finally, If the problem-solving activity is done collaboratively, learners get an opportunity for extra language practice. As for the disadvantages, The concepts given implicitly may lead the learners to have the wrong concepts of the rule taught. Also, The approach is time and energy-consuming as it leads learners to have the appropriate concept of the rule. Moreover, The approach may frustrate the learners with their personal learning style, or their past learning experience or both would prefer simply to be told the rule.

And lastly, The approach can place emphasis on teachers in planning a lesson which many teachers may find tiring or even unduly. On the one hand, students acquire a good grip of grammar and vocabulary but they lack in applying them in meaningful communication. On the other hand, students begin using the language instantly in order to acquire it but they make so many mistakes as they lack in constructing grammatically accurate sentences.

Nevertheless, more and more practitioners come to realize that these two approaches complete each other and that if combined, they could result in an eclectic approach that combines correctness and fluency. Some of the advantages of such an approach are that it focuses on form with contextualized, communicative practice of the target structure, Students get to learn grammar in a natural way, classroom activities are interactive and most importantly it includes attention to form along side the communicative activities.

Throughout the language teaching history, there have been two main forces constantly clashing trying to prove each other wrong; a force or a stream that advocates the instruction of grammar and another that does not. The premise of this stream is that in order for students to pick up a second language, teachers must expose their students to a considerable amount of authentic input.

Namely, create a native-like environment where the student is forced to communicate and interact in the target language. He proposes the dichotomy of explicit knowledge that can be reported and explained and the implicit knowledge that can be explained only tacitly and intuitively. He maintains that only implicit knowledge is responsible for acquisition and that explicit knowledge can be learnt and taught, but it is only useful for monitoring oral production.

Implicit knowledge cannot be taught, but it can only be acquired through genuine communicative activities. On these grounds, he rejects formal grammar teaching. Despite the fact that this entire research serves as a highlight of the importance of grammar, we shall state some of the arguments that debunks the aforementioned ones. They can facilitate acquisition to help induce hypothesis testing. She compared 3 groups of learners: The instructed group performed -s plurals more accurately than the naturalistic group.

A comparison by Ellis between the results of his study on the sequence of classroom acquisition of German word order rules and that reported for naturalistic learners suggests that there were no differences in the sequence of acquisition. However, this comparison did suggest that the classroom learners appeared to be more successful because they achieved a higher level of acquisition in a shorter period of time.

• .
• Grammar in Language Teaching by Vivian Cook.
• Egypt and U.S. Health Assistance!

Therefore, Ellis concludes, the results suggest that classroom learners may learn more rapidly. Krashen, however, maintained that the findings simply reflect the utility of a classroom as a source of comprehensible input for beginners which is lacking in the natural environment, and not the results of instruction Krashen, When Long mentioned that the studies also involved advanced learners, Krashen simply defended himself by saying that subjects in some of the studies have been wrongly classified as intermediate and advanced. It accelerates the learning process as it improves the accuracy of the student.

Nevertheless, excessive stress on grammar can demotivate students. Grammar instruction must start at a certain age and that each set of rules should be taught to a specific age category. Let us go back to speech as communication. It is a shibboleth of language teaching that language is communication. We use language for a purpose and that purpose is to get something across to someone in a particular situation whether it is buying and selling or any other activity. But how do you communicate an idea to someone else?

Let us suppose that IBM shares are overvalued; you could say that in your mind you have the idea of selling IBM at On the one hand are the ideas we want to express, on the other the sounds that we produce, we have the inner world of ideas in our mind contacting the outer world of other people via the sounds that we produce. In other words the relationship in our minds is: The problem is how we connect the inner world of ideas and meanings with the outer world of sounds; what does the arrow in between stand for?

Or, in reverse, as listeners how we connect the outer world of sounds with the inner world of meanings in our minds. What is the connection between the two? What is the 'computational system' that links them? The answer to linguists is that the bridge between the internal meanings and the external sounds is covered by the set of mental relationships called grammar. The vital link between human thought and human communication is through grammar. To linguists grammar is the mental system which relates sounds and meanings in the mind; it is the vital component in the human mind that allows us to use language for any purpose that we like.

It is not just a static and prescriptive study but the core of what allows human beings to be human beings. Hence the modern interpretation of grammar rejects the earlier notions of prescriptive grammar that told people what to say, of traditional grammar that analysed parts of speech, and of structuralist grammar that looked at substitutions of items within 'structures' and patterns.

Each of these of course has some truth to it but none of them reflect this central concept of the grammar as the core mental system of language. What is grammar then? Since grammar is part of the mind, the object is first to describe things that are common to all human minds and then to look at how they differ.

The grammars of all languages are similar; the differences are not random but represent systematic choices from the alternative ways in which the mind can use language, which are called 'parameters'. Let us take two parameters to show the kind of issue that they deal with. The first is called 'opacity'. In English it is possible to say: However in French the reverse is true in that it is possible to say: In other words, in English the adverb "sometimes" precedes the verb, in French the adverb "quelquefois" follows it.

In English you also say: In French however you get: Furthermore English speakers say: So in English certain grammatical elements must occur before the verb, in French after it. A French-speaking person has set the opacity parameter so that these elements must follow the verb; an English-speaking person has set it so that these elements must precede the verb. The two languages differ in a single overall factor that affects all these constructions - how they set the opacity parameter.

A second parameter is called pro-drop. This reflects whether a language may leave out the subject of the sentence. A study on the Teachability Hypothesis. Learning a new language always implies learning its grammar. In what depth should then teaching grammar be part of the teaching unit and what important aspects of the Second Language Acquisition should be considered by teachers in the classroom?

There is also the question how the students in general acquire grammatical structures. This paper first gives an introduction into the history of language teaching which is followed by an overview of different aspects of the Second Language Acquisition and an example for a study on the Teachability Hypothesis. To show how grammar teaching is understood in the classroom, a summary of the different options in language teaching is given afterwards.

The conclusion at the end not only serves as a summary of the paper but also sums up the answers to the questions asked above and shows the problems behind them. It is followed by a bibliography and an appendix. Grammar is considered to be an important part of a language and is therefore taught in detail using several different teaching methods. In the past Latin had been the most important second language - the lingua franca [1] - also because of its status as a medium of literacy. Therefore, there was not much desire for individuals to learn other languages aside from Latin.

In the eighteenth century the grammar-translation methodology became more and more significant, which meant that languages and their grammar were learned by translation. Rutherford ; 17 Nowadays, Latin is the only language whose teaching is based entirely on translation. There are two types of teaching methods which were developed in the 19th century: Both techniques of teaching have the same basis of idea, but do differ slightly. The Natural Method does not make any distinction between the acquisition of the first and the second language and treats the L2-learner as a L1-learner, whereas the Direct Method regards the second language as a new language which is not to be taught by translation but, for example, by showing different items.

Ellis ; 47 concluding that grammar should not be taught at all to give pupils the opportunity to use the new language naturally and spontaneously. Recently, many different teaching methods are combined to achieve the best results in the classroom because it is very difficult and monotonous to stick with only one methodology throughout the teaching unit. Sharwood Smith ; The main focus in the Second Language Acquisition is the learner, whose language acquisition is influenced by many different factors.

At certain stages pupils produce sentences and questions using grammar structures from their first language or have difficulties acquiring rules in the second language they do not have in their mother tongue. Here, it is believed that the teaching program - which is absolutely necessary for the learner - has a great influence on what the pupil actually learns and therefore on his or her output.