Why Teach Grammar
Why Teach Grammar
teach
mar?
Attitudes to 1n 1622 a certain Joseph \Vebbc, schoolmaster and textbook 1vriter, wrote:
grammar 'No man c<Ln run speedily to the mark of language that is shackled .. with
grammar precepts.' He maintained that grammar could be picked up
through simply communicating: 'By exercise of reading, writing, and
speaking aU things belonging to Gnunrnar, will without labour, and
whether we ·will or no, thrust themselves upon us.'
Vv'ebbe was one of the earliest educators to question the value of grammar
instruction, but certainly not the last. In fact, no other issue has so
preoccupied theorists and practitioners :l.S the grammar debate, and the
history of language tc<:~ching is essentially the history of the claims and
counterclaims for and against the teaching of grammar. Differences in
attitude to the role of grammar underpin differences between methods)
between teacher~;, and between learners. It is a subject that eyeryone
involved in language teaching and learning has an opinion on. And these
opinions arc often strongly and uncompromisingly stated. Here, for
example, are a number of recent ~taternents on rhc subject:
'There. is no doubt that (l knmdedg;e- itnplici.t or expLicit- of
grammatical rules is essential {or the mastery of a language.'
(Penny Ur, a teacher tntiner, ;u1d author of Gmmmar Pmrtice Acti1.1itie.r)
'The effects of grarmnar teaching ... appear to be per~pheral and fr;1.gile.'
(Stephen Kraehcn, an ini1ucntial, if controversial, applied linguist)
'A sound knowledge of grammar is essential if pupils are going to use
Eng-li~b crc:1tln-h·.'
(1l;m I-·Iutchinsc;n, a courschod:. writer)
'Grammar is not \·cry important: The nujority of langu~>gcs haYe a very
compkx gramm:H. English has little gmmrnar and consequently it is
not n-ry impurt;lnt to understand it.'
(From the publicity of a London bngu:1gc school)
14
2 * 1/Vhy teach grammar?
The case for There are many arguments for putting grammar in tlw foreground in second
grammar language teaching. Here are seven of them:
15
How to Teach Grammar
16
2 " VVhy t12ach grammCJr?
17
How to Teach Grammar
The case Just as arguments lw\'e been marshalled in favmn of grammar teaching,
against likewise several cases have been made against it. Here are the main ones:
grammar
The lmowledge-how argument
I know what is involved in riding a bike: keeping your bahnce, pedalling,
steering by means of the handlebars and so on. This does not mean to say
that I know how to ride a bike. The same analogy applies to language
learning. h can be ·vinved as a body of knowledge - such as vocab1.lhtry
and grammar. Or it can be viewed as a skill (or a complex set of skills). If
you take the language-is-skill point of view1 then it follows that, like bike
riding, you learn it by doing it, not by studying it. Learning-by-doing is
what is called experiential learning. Much of the bad press associated with
intellectual approaches to language learning - through the learning of
copious grammar rules, for example - stems from the failure on the part
of the learner to translate rules into skills. It is a failure that accounts for this
observation by Jerome K. Jerome, writing in Three 1Hrn on tbe Bummcl about
a typicd English schoolboy's French:
I-Ie may be able to tell the time, or make a few guarded obsen'<1tions
concerning the weather. i\io doubt he could repeat a goodly number of
irregular verbs by heart ... [But] when the proud parent takes his son to
Dieppc merely to discover that the lad does not know enough to call a
cab, he abuses not the system but the innocent victim.
Proponents of the 'knowledge-how' view might argue that 1vhat the boy
needed was not so much grammar as classroom experience that simulated
the kind of conditions in which he would eventually use his French.
18
2 " Vv'hy teach sJrarnmar?
19
How to Teilch Grarn1:1ar
excuse rne?
so far so good
what on earth?
have a nice day
be that as it mqy
if you ask me
not on your life
here you are
Acquiring chunks of language not only saves the learner phnning time in
the cut-and-thrust of real interaction, but seems to play a role in language
development too, It has been argued that many of the expressions that
yot~ng children pick up, like all-gone, or gimme (as in gimmc the bail), are
learned as chunks and only later unpacked into their cornponcnt parts.
Once unpacked, new combinations, such as gi'ue bcr t/.Jc ball start to emerge.
It has been argued that this process of analysing previously stored chunks
plays an important rok in first language acquisition.
HcnN much of second Ltng-uage acquisition involves item-learning a:>
opposed to rule-learning is still an open question. ~evcrthcless, in recent
years there has been a growing recognition of the importance of word- and
dJUnk-Jc:lfnlng, such that some writersllave proposed a lex.ical approach ro
tc<tching, in contmst to the traditional emphasis on sentence grammar.
Among other things, a lexicaJ approach promotes the learning of fiec1uently
used and fairly formulaic expressions (Ha·ve JOII C'i.H!r been"' ? Would)'oU !ike
il. f) rather than the study of rather abstract grammatical categories such
as the present perfect or conditionals.
20
2 ~ Why teach grarmnaf'
Grammar and In the last century the architects of language teaching methods have been
methods preoccupied with two basic design decisions concerning gramrnar:
• Should the method adhere to a grammM syllabus?
• Should the rules of grammar be made explicit?
The various \vays they answered these questions help distinguish the
different methods ±i-om each other. \Vhat fOllow~ is a potted history of
methods in the light of their approach to these issues.
21
How :o Teach Grammar
22
2 ~ Why teach grammar?
t
Natural Approach
t
Audiolingualism
t
Shallow-end
t
Grammar-
Deep-end CLT Direct Method CI:f Translation
::irammar now VVhat, then, is the status of grammar now? \Vhat is common practice with
regard to the teaching of grammar, and what directions for future practice
are suggested by recent and current research?
Firstly, it is important to establish the fact that 'grammar teaching' can
mean different things to ditTerent people. It may mean simply teaching to
a grammar syllabus but otherwise not making :my refCrence to grammar
in the classroom at all (as was the case with A.udiolingualism). On the
other hand it may mean teaching to a communicative syllabus (e.g. of
functions or of tasks) but dealing with grammar questions that arise in the
course of doing communicative activities. This is sometimes called covert
grarnmar teaching. .iviore typically, grammar teaching means teaching to a
grammar syllabus and explicitly presenting the rules of grammar, using
grammar terminology. This is known as overt grammar teaching.
Lately, a good deal has been written about a grammar revivaL There is a
\Videspread belief that, with the introduction of Communicative Language
Teaching, attention to grammar was eclipsed by an emphasis on experiential
learning and purely communicative goals. This is only partly true: syllabuses
did appear in the 1970s that appeared to marginalise grammar in favour of
functions. But, as \Vas pointed out in the previous section, a closer look at k·\
these syllabuses shows that they often had a strong grap1mar basis. And a
glance at so-called communicativ~! coursebooks confirms that grammar
explanations are much more conspicuous now than they were, say, in the
heyday of either the Direct .I\'lcthod or Audiolingualism.
The view that CLT deposed grammar may also stem from a tendency to
equate grammar with accuracy. It is true that, in comparison with
Audiolingualism, CIT has tended to place more weight on being intelligible.
than on being correct. Such an emphasis need not be at the expense of
attention to the rules of grammar, howcwr.. Relaxing on accuracy simply
acknowledges the fact that the rules of grammar take a long time to establi~h '"
themselves, and that, in the meantime, the lertrners' wish to communicHl'
should not be needlessly frustrated.
It is also true that the deep-end version of Cl.T, as promoted by Prahhu
(see page 22), was hostile to explicit grammar teaching. But this was
relatively short-lived, and, while of enormous interest fwm a theoretical
perspective, lt seems to have had little or no infltiencc on global ch~oro(~m
pra.cticc. If grammar cn·r went away. it was only very briefly and Illlt \u:· far.
23
Hov.,, to leacr1 Grarnrmr
24
2 ~ Why teach gra1nrnart
Basic principles \Ve hn\·e looked at the arguments for and against incorporating grammar
for grammar into language teaching, and concluded that, on balance, there is a convincing
teaching case fOr a role for grammar. The remainder of the book will explore hmv this
role can be realised in the classroom. It will be usd\.d at this stage to draw
up some basic rules of thumb for gmmmar teaching-.. rules of tht!mb which
Yvill scr\'c as the criteria f(lr evaluating the practical approaches that follO\v.
25
How to Teach Grammar
26
2 & Why teach grammar?
27
Ilow to T'"ach Gramrn,Jr
Looking ahead The two chapters that follow look at contrasting ways that grammar
can be presented. The first of these is concerned with deductive
approaches, where the starting point is the grammar rule. The second
looks at inductive approaches, where the starting point is language
data.
28